If we don’t look, it isn’t there
There is going to have to be a point where many of us realize that this is total horseshit and there isn’t really any change. The only change is the name of the Party. I for one don’t know what I was thinking was going to actually change, because when something as big as reforming healthcare gets put on the table we now get to see where campaign promises become utter bullshit. This is the point where blind partisanship makes you a total hypocrite. I would call Bush out on it and I’m calling Obama out on it. The special interests are winning and the back room deals with big Pharma are disgusting. Anyone remember Cheney meeting with the Energy Companies his first 6 months? Such a crock of shit and I’m not defending it. I am saddened and sickened at myself for actually thinking that things were going to be different in any way.
WASHINGTON — The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.
The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.
So awesome! I’m sure I’m going to be told it’s raining when in actuality AZeneca is peeing down my leg. God forbid we impact their profit stream. They need all that money for R&D. I can’t think of where a $150,000,000.00 could be spent more wisely, but what do I know. Making billion dollar drugs that get rushed through the FDA without being properly researched is hard work. It takes millions and millions of campaign and lobbyist dollars. You can’t just raise that out of thin air. We have to pay our researchers tens of thousands of dollars and our lobbyists hundreds of thousands! You just don’t understand you pathetic, pond sucking, neophyte aka joe six pack. Trust us. If we say it is expensive to make a drug and our CEO is making 45,000,000.00 a year, well that’s because of all the R and D!!! Sure we give tens of millions to lobbyists and another truckload of money each year to Politicians, but the R and D! The R and D, that is expensive.
If I’m feeling it, and then I turn to Rich on Sunday and he is feeling it, then I know I’m not crazy. (too crazy)
But this mood isn’t just about the banks, Public Enemy No. 1. What the Great Recession has crystallized is a larger syndrome that Obama tapped into during the campaign. It’s the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged — that, as the president typically put it a month after his inauguration, the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.” He promised to smite them.
We really are stupid humans for buying into this crap. We should know by now. What’s even better is that the GOP can’t do shit about it either. What are they going to say? How are they going to attack Obama with there normal gusto when the people normally doing the attacking are the special interests? It should be amusing to watch them try to attack Obama. I would love for them to do it. But they won’t. They can’t.
But the Democratic members of Congress those hecklers assailed can hardly claim the moral high ground. Their ties to health care interests are merely more discreet and insidious. As Congressional Quarterly reported last week, industry groups contributed almost $1.8 million in the first six months of 2009 alone to the 18 House members of both parties supervising health care reform, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer among them.
And we all lose because of it. Team America, Fuck Yeah!
Excellent stuff here, DV. You’ve done a great job of illustrating how I feel.
Sweety, auditory Prozac can only do so much. Like –get your vote. The only change you’ll be seeing is the pocket change you are left with, after all these “reforms and overhauls” take place.
This is compromise and politics. That is the way it is played. Period.
Let’s look at what you have above:
Big Pharma is now on the side of healthcare reform. This is a big money interest with lots of powerful ad dollars that won’t only stop advertising against it, but will start advertising FOR it.
It is now August and we have learned what came out of the negotiations with Big Pharma. Please tell me what agreements were reached by Dick Cheney’s energy group. Anyone?
Republicans can’t say anything about it. This is big, as it took an arrow out of their quiver.
I don’t like it, but that is how the game is played. How has playing the game in the old way worked out so far?
Big Pharma is now on the side of healthcare reform.
No they are not. They have simply found a new way to oppose it. Real health care reform when it comes will include some type of controls on the costs of drugs. The excess money going to drugco profits will water down what we are able to deliver in the final package.
But I do agree, it is a compromise we may have to live with. At some point the drug profits will stand out starkly as a drag on the system and at that point it may be more fixable.
Plus, it is good politics to split the opposition. Pitting big pharma against big insurance companies over healthcare is a fight I welcome. If I have to choose which side gets to continue gouging us, I have to choose pharma.
Health care companies came to the table to support something (we don’t know exactly what yet) to get some certainty out of the deal. And whatever else they could get too, but there is no doubt that if you are running a company you want to see whatever regulatory regime you have to live with be a stable one. I don’t much like the deal that Obama made with Big Pharma, but I get why they did it. And a big reason has to do with Pharma providing givebacks or subsidies of some type that won’t come from taxpayers.
The other — somewhat more hopeful — part of this tale is that the House has ignored this deal and included provisions for negotiating prices and the ability to buy drugs from Canada in one of their bills (the Waxman one, I think). So the House (even tho plenty of them are getting lots of dollars from the industry) is making its own rules. But then, so is the Baucus group — who are ignoring Obama’s endorsement of a public option.
Frank Rich’s article is really worth the read (as always)and makes a much better point — that it certainly looks like the usual special interests and money are calling the shots at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of long-term good policy. That perhaps there might be no way to change it:
And this, I get. You can see it up close and personal with the actions of our own Congressional delegation who frequently cast votes that are quite disconnected from the communities who voted for them but certainly more aligned with the people who fund them. Unfortunately, the major fixes for this are not viable — too many people have bought into the CW that he or she with the most money should win.
I don’t like it, but that is how the game is played. How has playing the game in the old way worked out so far?
sigh
I don’t like it either which is why I’m pointing it out. It’s bullshit. Period. No but. That’s crap answer LG in my opinion of course. Obama said he was going to change it. And he hasn’t. I’m not making excuses. He lied. He flip-flopped and allowed them to get their way, just like they did under Bush.
“the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.”
So I believed him totally. If you didn’t believe him, then I guess I can understand your answer more so.
It is a matter of degrees. If there is a healthcare bill that covers all Americans, regardless of a pre-existing condition or job loss, that is change and progress, no matter if Big Pharma still pays their CEO $45M.
So you are ok with corporate lobbyists behind closed doors talking about what they are willing to do instead of on C-span like promised and instead of them not being there, as promised?
Me, I’m not ok with varying degrees of corporate corruption and influence in something that there only interests is protecting thier profits.
You have expressed my concerns.
Obama has developed a credibility problem with some of his supporters, like me, because he is behaving as President significantly differently from the way he did as a Presidential candidate.
And it is not just on health insurance reform; I am very disturbed by his escalation in Afghanistan, with too many aspects of it all too familiar with the failed war policies we got from Bush which I opposed.
Add to that the continuation of the secret meetings, the rendition policy, the indeterminate holding of detainees without charge, that is without habeas corpus implementation, and the overall lack of transparency.
It might make a difference to me if Obama explained these divergences from his campaign rhetoric. If this is the only way we can play the game to make progress, then out with it, from the mouth of Barack Obama himself!
In this health insurance reform effort, we have learned pointedly how the special interest money and influence flow freely into the coffers of both parties. When will some party step up to represent the needs of the American people? Didn’t Obama promise to represent us?
I can well understand the need for compromise to make progress, but let us do so in the open, with all the players visable. Why all this secrecy???
The answer is Yes Perry he did promise. And when he is seen canoodling with the people that got us in this mess I for one am not going to place my faith blindly in him. We get what we pay for I guess.
Yes, the Money Party remained in power after Januaray 20, 2009.
The joke is on the American citizens- unless you are wealthy enough to move your money off-shore.
The American Revolution has been reversed. The Founding Fathers wasted their time.
Sigh.
Maybe I’ll feel better about this if we can get organized and do something.
Sigh, indeed. But anyone that expected that the battleship that is the Federal Government was going to be moved in any way other than incremental ways is/was deluding themselves. The difference is that the course that has been set is much different than the one of the former administration.
I am not happy about many of the policies, and have said so. It is distasteful that rendition has not been outlawed. It is disappointing that DADT has not been repealed. It would be better to have these discussions in open hearings, but does anyone remember how that worked out with Hillary?
Giving up is not the answer. Yes, we know the game is rigged and yes we want to change it. Changing it means working very, very hard because it’s always easier to stay with status quo, even when it sucks. Change is scary to a lot of people.
Compromise is a part of politics and it always will be. Obama tried to get everyone to go along with this plans. This is a huge change and it’s going to be difficult because with a change there’s always winners and losers. The winners under the current system don’t want to be losers and they also employ a lot of people. I see nothing wrong with trying to balance the interests of a whole lot of groups.
Do I wish Obama was more progressive – hell yes! But I think getting health care reform passed in some form is important. I think we’ll get something, but probably not quite a true public option unless the Blue Dogs and conservadems cave in a bit (they are corporate-owned). Some of the changes that will occur – subsidizing more people for insurance and getting rid of recission and pre-existing exclusions are big, big changes and ones that are long overdue.
It’s not enough to say we elected a guy and then sit back and complain. We have to keep working. It’s frustrating that we have to work so hard to get politicians to do the right thing but that’s the system we’ve got right now.
Your dejected sorrow and disillusionment are the greatest gift I could ask for. Thank you.
If McCain and Palin had won, you actually would have stood like a political Ron Jeremy….wielding your manhood in a rage against the machine, plugging every vulnerable cavity at whim. You might have been the god you think you are.
Instead, you chose the pretty wrapper, only to find rotten insides, and now your blogging libido falls limply to the keyboard.
Priceless….priceless….PRICELESS!
Who is this Ambrosia character stirring the pot? Methinks Ambrosia needs to go back to where he or she belongs…the picnic table next to the deviled eggs!
Why has Obama not had a real cabinet meeting? He seems to only pick and choose who he wants to talk too and has them come to the White House. Why is that? Makes you wonder just what is being said and who is there when it is said. If I am wrong please enlighten me with a link to make me feel somewhat better. I don’t like things that affect us being done behind closed doors. Does Congress really have a say anymore or is it just Obama.
Did anyone else notice how the loons seemed to disappear from the blogs for a few hours yesterday? I wonder where they may have been…
I’m not making excuses for Obama LG and the rest of you guys. It’s bullshit, it’s the same and i’m not going to say it’s different when it isn’t.
Mr Viti, we appreciate the honesty.
The irony of statement is bowel cleansing.
The problem is, you all bought into the Obama craze for too easily during the primary and without enough (any) real thought. How could you have. Obama’s slim record was overshadowed by his almost mezmorizing rhetoric. It was easy. Obama played the left like a fiddle (just like Markell) and just enough to win a difficult primary. The left, desperate for a chance to see some of their policies seriously debated in American politics, jumped on board. It was often brought up on this blog and was quickly countered by accusations of “trolling.” Either way, you should not be surprised by how their actions in office don’t jive with their promises during the campaign. That would suggest even greater naïveté than was already apparent.
I would also add, my Lord, anything is better than another republican in the White House and a no-brainer when compared to a McCain-Palin White House.
The job of governing is far different than campaigning. Both Obama and Clinton made health care reform a central platform in their campaigns and Obama is clearly trying to accomplish one of his top legislative priorities this year. There’s a political reality in that effort, but that is another topic.
The debate over reform is long overdue. No plan is perfect and there will be winners and losers. There has always been, and will always be, financial interests that will play a role in how legislation is crafted. The question is, are we better off as a nation if this bill passes. I believe the answer is yes. Could it be better, sure. But as it stands now, this plan accomplishes two major objectives: inclusion of roughly 42 million Americans and competition by offering a public option. Fot the most part, doctors, hospitals and drug companies are for the bill because it will put 42 million people into coverage. Thus, 42 million people will now be paying their providers when they receive coverage. The insurance companies are against it because it brings competition into the market, addresses price fixing, mandates coverage that is regularly denied and takes away their monopoly. On that level, it’s really pretty easy to understand why certain groups are for or against the bill. I should add many in the medical profession feel there is a moral element here and believe a country as great as this one should at least provide basic medical assistance to its people. In other words, it’s the right and moral thing to do.
Perry. The Administration is right to reverse Bush policy, get out of Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan. The destruction of poppy fields (I can’t believe the Bush admin didn’t do this) is having a major impact on Al Qaedi’s money supply. A few very well targeted drone hits (we are getting better intel) is having a real impact on taking out Al Qaedi leaders in Pakistan. Had Bush kept his eye on the real threat, this admin would not be forced to continue action in Afghanistan. But like it or not, keeping Al Qaedi on the run has to be one of the top priorities of any admin. Doing otherwise would be irresponsible.
As for your other points, see paragraph 1.
There was no superior candidate to Obama in the race. Imagine the conservative rage we’d be seeing today if Hillary had become president.
“The problem is, you all bought into the Obama craze for too easily during the primary and without enough (any) real thought.”
Wrong. I NEVER bought the craze. I just figured he was the lesser of two evils, an assertion I still stand by considering my only other option was that moron Sarah Palin. I don’t regret voting for BO because the alternative was even worse.
here we have a post about how I’m calling Obama out…and what is anonie do…piles on. classy.
There were not alot of people who just bought into a “craze”. You get that from the wingnuts who still can’t come to grips with why they’ve utterly squandered their seat at the table.
The funny thing is that Obama himself didn’t run as much more than a fairly middle of the road guy. There were alot of promises — but if you were honestly paying attention to what he said along the road, he is not so far from it. His biggest problem at this point is that the people who voted for him thought that their voices would matter more and apparently they don’t have the weight that we thought — as Frank Rich points out.
And this is bullshit on its own:
I’m not making excuses for Obama LG and the rest of you guys. It’s bullshit, it’s the same and i’m not going to say it’s different when it isn’t.
There is a difference between making excuses and paying attention to how work actually gets done. Thinking that Obama would be able to sit in the Oval Office and demand that every bit of his agenda (or yours, for that matter) gets taken care of is particularly naive. BushCo being able to operate that way was definitely a one-off, and a reflection of how Rs work — they quite utterly fall in line with whoever is at the top of the heap. Ds don’t work that way and nor should they, really.
“This is compromise and politics. That is the way it is played.”
Sure thing. Refresh my memory. What was it called during the last administration?
Good post, DV.
WTF did I just write??
Obama ran as a centrist, to the point that progressives were a little uncomfortable with him, but got behind him because he could win. It was Republicans that tagged Obama as an uber-liberal.
I’m speaking for me and all I’m saying is if I’m going to get pissed that lobbyists making millions of dollars spent by the corporations paying them to do their bidding, then when I see them making back room deals that THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD NOT ALLOW TO HAPPEN AND WOULD PUT ON CSPAN. I get upset b/c I want to be the kind of opinionated person that calls bullshit bullshit.
You guys can feel it is different because of whatever reason you want to use. That’s fine. I disagree and the fact that health care hasn’t been passed, we aren’t getting single payer and that the Price Negotiations are off the table all prove that things are shaping up to be no different. Just not as out in the open.
“THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD NOT ALLOW TO HAPPEN AND WOULD PUT ON CSPAN.”
I agree with the first part. Obama did make this a campaign pledge. But I hadn’t heard the C-SPAN part. The problem with Obama is he made too many generalized promises like the one DV just mentioned above, knowing full well they’d likely be impossible to follow-through. Aren’t there like 4 lobbyists for every DC resident? Sorry, Mr. President, you’re definitely full of shit in claiming you’ll make yours the most ethical, least-lobbyist-dependent administration in history.
This is an example of the problem right here — single payer was never on the table to begin with. Obama’s plan when he was campaigning is not too different than that being wrangled out now. And apparently there is some question about promises actually made to Big Pharma. And the people who should be passing health care are currently on vacation ( you do know that it is Congress who passes legislation, right?)– so I am not sure why Obama should be held wholly accountable for the fact that Congress (the Senate, really) can’t get its act together. Just keep in mind that if he had been pushing harder or even presenting his own bill, everyone would think he was usurping Congress’ role. He did say that negotiations would be on CSPAN and they haven’t been. He should have followed through on that or explained why not.
You can call bullshit on whatever you want, but don’t be surprised to be reminded that the man is President — Not King of the US. Trying to hold him accountable for stuff he never said or for stuff that is currently in other people’s courts isn’t even reasonable.
Sorry, Mr. President, you’re definitely full of shit in claiming you’ll make yours the most ethical, least-lobbyist-dependent administration in history.
Is the bar really that high, Mike? Please name the least-lobby-dependent President in the 20th century.
Cass,
You are correct about single payer, he never mentioned it…The public option wont happen either. They are walking back from that one too.
DV – Great post!
LG said –
Big Pharma is now on the side of healthcare reform. This is a big money interest with lots of powerful ad dollars that won’t only stop advertising against it, but will start advertising FOR it.
Well, when you put it that way it must be a great deal for them! Does make me curious about how good a deal it is for us…
‘It is a matter of degrees. If there is a healthcare bill that covers all Americans, regardless of a pre-existing condition or job loss, that is change and progress, no matter if Big Pharma still pays their CEO $45M.’
Even if the skyrocketing costs mean they are taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy via a government mandate not to negociate price with them? Even if there are no codified benchmarks or obligations for thier supposed cost concessions? Even if there is no way to verify that anything was saved by giving Big Pharma what they want most – their biggest customer (US Government) not to negotiate prices? A back room handshake deal is cool?
How is this different from no-bid contracts and the energy task force? How is this in any way ‘change’? This was the same thing that made Bush’s medicare bill a complete financial train wreck. This provision will cost trillions over the coming decade.
It is one thing to be against socialized health care on principal, it is a whole other thing to be for it for all of the wrong reasons. If we get it and it is a big funnel to carry money to special interests and it is not sustainable then we lose.
Part of the reason we need this bill and universal coverage is that businesses can no longer afford to provide benefits to many employees and stay competitive. The cost of health care here is putting the US competitive disadvantage. We pay too much across the board – but one of the big contributors here in the US is prescription drug costs. So rather than address it we are really just going to change who is paying the bills?
This is a scam. We are being robbed already and the real negotiating has not started yet… wonder what the other special interests will buy for themselves in the bill?
We should not be subsidizing an industry that currently spends 40% of gross sales on marketing. They spend less than 20% on R&D. A lot of this money is spent to market reformulations of already available drugs (that generally do nothing to improve treatment and are marketed in order to keep sales from going to a generic). This is not solving the health issues in this country. They are buying the opportunity to continue a business model that makes no sense and will do more to drive up health care costs than any other item.
There will be no health care for people in the future or all of us will pay entirely too much if we are going to sell out to Big Pharma. The objective here should be to get the program to cover the most people possible to meet their basic health care demand as efficiently as possible. It is not to structure the rules so that the drug companies can put their products on NASCAR cars to advertise therapeutically unnecessary reformulations to people receiving government funded prescription coverage.
It is mind numbing to me that Obama gets a pass on this from anyone. How does anyone expect anything to change if we expect more of the same and do not turn a critical eye to awful policy.
I do not understand how it is that different from the energy task force with Cheney.
I am learning why I am not a ‘liberal’ (at least per Jason):
I think theft, corruption, favoritism and bad policy are wrong. Whether you like Obama or not, you have to hold him to a high standard.
A proper ‘liberal’ thinks all of these are bad except when they are buried underneath something that they really want by people who they agree with.
This is nonsense. To give him a pass as this being politics as usual means you gave up.
People gave me a hard time about voting for Nader last cycle – the reason I did not vote for Obama was because I knew that the promises were hollow and that it was going to be machine politics as usual. Unfortunately it is all coming true.
I am not saying that we should bend over for big pharma. I am saying that if the first round of reform excludes big pharma I am not going to march on the White House. If you thought that Obama was going to be able to accomplish anything without patting Tom Carpers leash-holders on the head and saying that things will be fine for them, you were duped. I didn’t know who was going to get the better deal, big pharma, insurance or someone else, but if there is a deal to be made that moves us forward on covering all Americans, I understand.
Funny you should mention Nader, because it is the people like Nader that are unwilling to deal that have gotten absolutely nothing accomplished. I may very well want to end up in the exact same place as Nader on the other side of the mountain, but if I can find a few switchbacks and passes to get me there, I’ll happily take them as Nader and others try to bushwhack their way through the straight line on a map. This is not a 2D world. The topography of this and every issue has to pass through politics.
And as to the difference between this and Cheney’s task force I reissue my request of what deals were struck. We still don’t know who was negotiating or what they were offered. We already know more about this negotiation that we ever knew of Cheney and Enron, et al.
Real progressives are not buying any of these plans put out by Congress and the Senate. They are all corporate friendly keeping the middle man the huge insurance conglomerate from doing anything to reel in their 31.5% administration costs. Medicare is 1.5% to administer and there is no “death group” who tells you what doctor you can choose or even the hospital you want. No matter what idiotic plan these degerates owned lock stock and barrel by big pharma and the greedy insurance companies do, we can only hope the provision proposed by Dennis Kucinch to permit the States to do it stays in the bill. California will enact single payer, as will Maine, NH and Vermont in the very near future. When the rest of the states see “its not the evil bullshit put out by the neo con repukes and dems”, other states will go for it. It is the only system that is proven effective, controls drug costs, covers everything not just medical. It covers dental, mental, vision, long term, nursing home, aids, prisoners…literally everything and wont cost one more red cent to enact. The problem is that the insurance company beancounters and paper pushers will have to find new employment. A provision in HR 676 delivers the money necessary to retrain every worker who looses their beancounter job and allows them to seek education in any field of their choice. The same thing is happening to out of work GM and Chrysler workers. They are being retrained for other jobs right now, and no one is bitching about that.
I live in the real world and I know that you have to compromise to get things done. I wish we didn’t have to compromise with people like Baucus but we do. What we get will be a huge step forward and it will be because of Obama. I think Obama definitely made some mistakes – like “pre-compromising” by taking single payer off the table to begin with. I’m really sorry the Republican party has become insane but the Democrats are going to have to deal with people like Nelson, Bayh, Specter and Lieberman in their own caucus to get stuff done because of the ridiculous filibuster supermajority thing we have going on now.
I read that it took 10 years to get Social Security to cover everyone. I think it will be the same for the health care bill. We’ll get something, hopefully the best bill possible and have to tinker around the get all the benefits and savings.
Single payer has been on the TABLE for years. Its HR 676 and 90 progressives are already signed on it. Its easy to understand and very adaptable in every state. Obama did support single payer when a State senator as has been discussed by his very own doctor of 20 years. What changed? He ran for President and needed the financing of big insurance, big pharma to win. Now that he has won, you would think he would want to leave a real legacy of his presiduncy and do the right thing? Will he…not unless he is pushed to do so and the REAL progressives are doing that right now.
Yes, we need to push him but we also have to push members of Congress. Even Republicans. HR 676 is getting a vote in the House once the recess is over.
I’ll happily take them as Nader and others try to bushwhack their way through the straight line on a map. This is not a 2D world. The topography of this and every issue has to pass through politics.
Yup… as long as we throw support behind them for fucking us, that is what we will get.
I do not in the least understand how a bad compromise can be looked at as a good thing. These ‘politics’ you refer to (and state as though I am some rube who does not understand the ‘topography’ as well as a scolar such as yourself) are theater for our public benefit. Your continued acquiescence and acceptance make the theft larger and less abhorrent over time. Have we no gotten to the point where the lies and cronyism can be 100% out in the open and we are willing to not only stomach it, but defend it as a acceptable part of the process?
And as to the difference between this and Cheney’s task force I reissue my request of what deals were struck. We still don’t know who was negotiating or what they were offered. We already know more about this negotiation that we ever knew of Cheney and Enron, et al.
Very interesting line of reasoning here… You want to know who was negotiating and what was negotiated (because none of it is publicly available and the White Hose will confirm it happened but provide no details)… but we know more about this than the energy task force?
Explain to me the informational difference there? Wouldn’t it be necessary to know those things for it to be more transparent than the taskforce?
I will nominate that for the stupidest point made on the thread thus far (though I have a feeling DV will yet come up with something to top it).
It is mind numbing to me that Obama gets a pass on this from anyone.
It is just as mind numbing to find that with everything people have written in this thread that you could characterize positions taken here this way.
I point out Obama was better than any of the other candidates and certainly better than McCain Palin. I also point out the health care plan is a decent compromise, even if it is not single payer and is influenced by special interests. What did you expect? My problem comes from people whining he is not what he promised or who believed he would be able to eliminate special interests with the wave of his hand. Thus, the naive line.
Oh. And Obama most certainly did not run as a centrist, though he certainly moved to the center AFTER he won the primary. That claim is one of the best on this thread.
Well, from where you sit, John “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” McCain is a centrist… so no wonder you think Obama isn’t one.
I also point out the health care plan is a decent compromise, even if it is not single payer and is influenced by special interests. What did you expect? My problem comes from people whining he is not what he promised or who believed he would be able to eliminate special interests with the wave of his hand. Thus, the naive line.
I do not care what he promised.
I care whether the bill that is being crated will be good for the people who need health care and whether we are being robbed in the process. Whether it will be designed and implemented in a way that gets people health care they need in a appropriate way still remains to be seen. We already know we are getting robbed. That is my point.
They dangle health care in front of us and you just want to see it pass. I don’t understand how you do not expect more and how you do not get angry about it. It is astounding to me that we have come to this point in the political realm.
I am sick of people excusing terrible policy and a very public sell-out to special interests as a ‘compromise’.
How is unqualified support for this any less rational than the unqualified opposition on the right?
Call me an idealist, call me naive… use whatever condescension you like to replace a rational argument. I believe public servants should not be selling us out. Sorry, I obviously did not get the memo that said it is OK if the Dems are doing it.
As for the ‘whining’ I have done, all I will say is that I am not parroting whatever some asshole you watched on Meet the Press said about compromise and how the system works, and I feel like there is a lot of that round here.
It is just as mind numbing to find that with everything people have written in this thread that you could characterize positions taken here this way.
Hey Cass – why don’t you find me the nugget of criticism of the plan above? I see apologist excuses, I see rationalizations, I see ‘liberals’ saying it is OK to grant billions of dollars to an industry that has given millions in just the past couple months to everyone in the Democratic party with any positions on the committees involved and will now be putting on a $150MM advertising campaign to back it. That does not sound fucking crazy to you?
I don’t see anyone taking them to task for this – it is just the cost of doing business… right? Well, that is fucked up. Call me an idealist if you want, but I really have relatively low expectations. But this is a ton of money. We are talking bigger scale than the TARP. We are talking about a program that will be coming into its own as the boomers start drawing their Social Security checks. We are talking about a country that really can not afford it if not done correctly.
Call me an idealist, call me naive… use whatever condescension you like to replace a rational argument
I’m not going to call you a retard if that is what you are getting at! No way!
I’m with Not Brian 100% on this. There seems to be a lot of relativistic rationalization on behalf of the Dems leading things right now. I totally understand where he’s coming from.
I do see alot of people who are pretty clear that they are not going to let the perfect get in the way of the good. I also see people who think that the horserace news of the day is also the news of the final state of whatever the bill is rather than a document of really tough negotiations. I’ve already said that capitulating to Big Pharma on the price and importation of drugs is not desirable — but apparently understanding how this could be included makes me crazy. Besides, I don’t think that the folks dissing the Pharma contribution to the package actually know how that would work. Besides, Nancy Pelosi and Waxman are on record as saying that they are not bound by that deal — and none of the House bills include it.
No one here thinks that what is going on is perfect or will be perfect — we do expect that it will be better than the status quo. Then we get to make whatever we get better. The Art of the Possible — it is way more fucked up to hold out for something perfect when it is possible to make a couple of steps towards better than what we have now. You play on the board you have now — not on the one you wish you had.
Oy vey. I guess I could be screaming right now that Obamacare is wrong for the country like the loons, but I would open myself up to being counted by Rasmussen as someone against the Presidents plan. I am with Cassandra, this is not a monarchy. It is politics and we finally have an administration that is pushing in the right direction on a lot of things. If you would be satisfied with a President that refuses to negotiate with stakeholders to remain morally pure by your definition thereof, great. I hope you like the system right now. Because that is the one we will keep.
I don’t like Big Pharma and don’t really have much of a dog in the fight (I take no medications right now) but if Obama can turn them around on support for national healthcare, I am in favor.
I’ll happily fight them in the next round.
If you think I was condescending, I’m sorry. I am trying to tell you that politics ain’t a straight line in a democracy.
And my point is that we know absolutely nothing about the Energy Task Force. If we are starting to hear about this negotiation now, then it has already been more transparent. NB, I know that you are not naive. You have an MBA. Almost no negotiations take place in public. Not union negotiations, not salary negotiations, not negotiations with a dealership to buy a car. It is the nature of the beast. What I want out of negotiations is what was decided. How they got there is less important to me than to see who-got-what at the end. If the result of these negotiations with Big Pharma is that nothing changes for them in this bill and in exchange they will help get everyone covered, sign me up.
No…all I’m saying is that Bill Maher has it right on this. Several weeks ago Maher did a whole New Rule on how President Obama needs to be a little more like George Bush in telling people to just “fuck off.” He said Obama’s got the brains, which Bush didn’t, but he needs some of the certitude and balls that Bush had. Here’s the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/14/bill-maher-takes-on-obama_n_215338.html
Bill Clinton was a freaking genius compared to Bush, and he didn’t get healthcare done? Why?
I find myself agreeing with both Mike Matthews (which is surely a sign of the END TIMES), Not Brian and LiberalGeek. I am most assuredly not a purist. I do not require the politicians that I support adhere to all of my beliefs and opinions lest they lose my support. I am a realist and a pragmatist in the end, despite my ideal opinions on how the country should be.
At the same time, I do have a growing list of things that I disagree with my President on. Mostly, it is tactical and procedural things rather than substance and policy. I agree with Maher, the President and the Dems in Congress do need to say “Fuck the Republicans,” no matter how much they campaigned on bringing a new tone to Washington. Bipartisanship is nice when you have two willing parties. But the Republicans are the Party of No and have demonstrated that in each and every vote and policy debate over the last six months, from the stimulus and the budget to healthcare. You cannot come to a compromise with someone who is not willing to compromise. So fuck bipartisanship. The President and the Democrats in Congress were elected to do a job (i.e. the voters wanted to see the Democratic platform enacted). I would much rather see us enact that platform without a single vote from a Republican and have the voters judge us on that rather than compromise everything, including the whole of our agenda, and then have the voters judge us on some ugly red-headed stepchild of a policy that results from this delusional pursuit of bipartisanship.
To echo Maher and Matthews, get some balls, Mr. President (with apologies to UI).
Here’s a question. If Obama did exactly as we wish and enacted all of this without any input from the Republicans (although that may very well be impossible with people like Carper around). Would you be willing pay for it with a lost majority in the House and Senate?
And don’t dismiss that as some sort of crazy statement. If we enact a comprehensive plan by the time Election Day 2010 rolls around, we will just be getting the program rolling. We will have incurred the start-up costs, have a budget for the next 10 years of the program and not a single benefit paid yet.
I lived through 6 years of Clinton being thwarted at every turn and investigated for his uncontrolled balls. Now try to imagine 6 years of birth certificate investigations.
LG…. we lost Congress in 1994 not because we tried to reform healtcare. We lost Congress in 1994 due to way we tried to reform healthcare (bill written in secret with no congressional input whatsoever, and then Bill Clinton saying enact this bill completely or I will veto) and the resultant failure at any reform, and because of the way DADT was handled, and because of the backlash against NAFTA.
Answer the question. Would you make that trade?
No, I wouldn’t. But I also don’t want a bad bill that the voters will either blame us for anyway or that will depress Democratic turnout, which another thing that happened in 1994.
on how President Obama needs to be a little more like George Bush in telling people to just “fuck off.”
And does anybody remember how much we all hated this? It was probably subject to multiple New Rules by Bill Maher too. As satisfactory as it would be for Obama to just start busting heads, it is true that Congress gets to write laws and they have a co-equal role. It is a Democratic majority, after all, and falling in line is not what they’ll do. No matter how much Obama may tell them to fuck off.
Yes, I’m trying not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It’s either this bill that comes out or nothing. Do I wish Obama would tell the Republicans to go screw themselves but Obama needs to be seen trying to negotiate with them. So far Obama has shown himself to have good political instincts.
I think he has to get something now or he’ll lose the opportunity for a big change. It’s better to get something in place that can be improved than to get nothing at all.
Cassandra is spot on: “He should have followed through on that or explained why not.”
Obama’s campaign set high expectations which he has not met so far, on a lot of important issues, health insurance reform being only one.
This is what MM, NB and LG are saying. I don’t think they any of them expect the ‘perfect’ solution.
I for one would be happy to hear Obama explain why he cannot presently meet expectations.
We are seeing one more time an example of how influential wealthy special interests are on the operations of our government.
Wouldn’t it also be refreshing to have Obama put campaign finance reform and lobbying reform up at the top of his agenda?
We simply have to break their power over us, otherwise reform of any kind is going to be seriously compromised forever!
Here’s a question. If Obama did exactly as we wish and enacted all of this without any input from the Republicans (although that may very well be impossible with people like Carper around). Would you be willing pay for it with a lost majority in the House and Senate?
If we got universal health care that was going to last after the election that was sustainable and not just a big special interest giveaway?
Hell yes.
Why would you ask? Is it even possible that losing seats in the next election would not be worth it?
How would you compare the realization of a good universal health care with there being a few less people with a ‘D’ by their name? Isn’t this why you vote for them? If they never plan on doing it (or if they will only do it after hundreds of billions given away to special interests) then why would you vote for them?
Or is this really blog fodder and a talking point, and at the end of the day whatever shitty plan we get (and fails within a decade) is worth it if some duchebags can keep their seat in the house and keep taking $$ to help special interests get whatever they want.
NB, where we are right now with this, universal health care is not in the cards. However, we need the bill anyway, as an effort to approach it.
Obama has initiated a public support effort to get his objectives met in a bill that passes. Here are the guarantees:
1. No discrimination for pre-existing conditions.
2. No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays.
3. No cost-sharing for preventive care.
4. No dropping of coverage for seriously ill.
5. No gender discrimination.
6. No annual or lifetime caps on coverage.
7. Extended coverage for young adults.
8. Guaranteed insurance renewal.
It is weak, but it is a start, so I wholeheartedly support it.
Obama is asking supporters to sign up to get a grass roots effort going in support of these guarantees.
I am suggesting that the election will happen before any benefits are realized. Is it me or did everyone write off the stimulus package as a failure before we had even started spending it?
Now imagine a Congress that changes from Democrat to Republican and refuses to fund the program. It could happen. Before we see a single benefit.
However, if we get a plan that works to meet some of our goals (primarily covering everyone), we can fix problems like big pharma when they are the biggest problem left.
I’m not happy about caving to any special interest, and the nature of the compromise isn’t fully known. But I want something good now and perfect later.
Perry,
I don’t actually agree that there is no gender discrimination in the bill. It won’t cover abortions, even though that is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the country. But that has been the law for many years (the Hyde Amendment).
Good point UI!
Although Obama is on record in opposition to the Hyde Amendment, he is not truthful in his guarantee “No gender discrimination”.
If he called it a goal, that’s OK, but it certainly is not a guarantee.
That is disturbing, although political reality being what it is on the abortion issue, the country would go up in flames if abortion surgery were covered in the bill. Obama should remove that guarantee from his list!
LG: “…good now, perfect later”
That’s probably the best we can do, because of the Blue Dogs!
I am suggesting that the election will happen before any benefits are realized.
I think that none of the plans actually start delivering on benefits until 2013.
And as for a lost majority, I think that will definitely happen if Dems fail to deliver on this health insurance reform.
“We lost Congress in 1994 due to way we tried to reform healthcare”
I have 3 words for you. Assault Weapons Ban. That’s why the Dems lost Congress.
“It should be amusing to watch them try to attack Obama. I would love for them to do it. But they won’t. They can’t.”
That’s all part of the game. The GOP’s best strategy right now is not to attack, but to talk loud and put up token resistance while letting Obama and his uber-liberal pals in Congress have everything they want that the Democrats can manage to agree on amongst themselves.
That should virtually guarantee that the GOP will take back Congress next November (if the economy hasn’t collapsed so completely by then that elections are canceled for the duration of the emergency). Then for the next two years, both branches of the incumbent party can get back to business as usual of blaming “the other party” for their failure to accomplish anything.
me luvs dem “uber” liberals that still allow torture, war, rendition, being held with a trial, indefinite detentions
u iz so rite Tom…dem Uber’s controlz everding