The Catch-22
This is a lonnnnnnnnng post. This is three weeks worth of frustration and rants on the misconception seen in the Great Blogosphere Civil War of 2009 and political realities.
First, I just want to point out a few misconceptions by some independents and some our my purist liberal friends who have become bill killers of late due to the dropping of a weakened public option and a medicare buy in compromise. The complaint I heard most often was that Democrats should and must be more like Republicans with respect to their sterling and seemingly unchallenged ability to get their legislative priorities passed. It is as if, to them, President Bush and the Republican majorities from 2001 to 2007 got everything they ever wanted. Really?
Yes, I forgot that they privatized Social Security in 2005 (which was then subsequently destroyed in the Collapse of 2008). I forgot that Bush’s immigration reform was rammed through. I forgot about the drilling in ANWR. I forgot about the Federal Hate Amendment being added to the Constitution. I forgot about that Flag Burning Amendment too.
Yeah, Bush and his allies in Congress did not get everything they wanted. The four big pieces of legislation that got passed and which leave the impression that Bush and the Republican Congress got what they wanted were 1) the 2001 tax cuts; 2) the No Child Left Behind bill; 3) the Iraq War Resolution; and 4) the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit.
The reason why they got those bills passed was not because the GOP are more skillful legislators who can ram their agenda down the throats of the opposition, but because the opposition (then the Democrats) helped them pass each and every one. Sure, these four bills were not all unanimously backed by the opposition Democrats, but each got, in today’s reality, significant opposition support. Indeed, NCLB passed the Senate 87-10. The 2001 Tax Cuts got 62 votes in the Senate. You can argue that the Democrats of this period worked with the majority Republicans because Democrats have always been the more responsible party in terms of governance, and thus sought to compromise so that legislation could be passed. You can also argue that it is hard to filibuster or vote against tax cuts or war, and that the other two pieces of legislation involved healthcare and education, issues Democrats are very interested in and thus would rather be at the table seeking to shape policy rather than obstructing it.
At the time, a lot of rank and file Democrats and liberal bloggers, including myself, declared such participation in government by the opposition Democrats to be weak and spineless. We chastised our Democratic leaders for working with those evil Bush Republicans with our calls for a loyal opposition opposed to everything that that illegitimate stealer of an election pResident proposed. It is ironic, then, that what we wanted then is what the GOP is doing now. The GOP has decided that their idea of loyal opposition is outright obstruction of everything and anything, including funding our troops in a time of war. The only time you can say the Democrats obstructed anything was during the 2005 Social Security battle. Otherwise, they behaved like a responsible loyal opposition, balancing between being an active participant in government, seeking compromise with the majority where possible, while steadfastly opposing that you find too abhorrent to your principles or too bad for the country. I have kinda digressed here, but the point is the reason why the GOP got some things they wanted passed is because the Democrats didn’t obstruct them.
The GOP is obstructing us now, using every procedural delaying tactic in the books and inventing every lie they can think of, which a willing and compliant conservative corporate media is willing to pass on, and still we are about to pass a universal healthcare bill.
That is a stunning achievement that is unmatched by a President or the Congress since 1965 at least, when Medicare and the Civil Rights Act were passed, and I would argue that such a feat is still the greatest progressive accomplishment since the creation of Social Security in 1933.
Does this bill have everything I want? Of course not. It lacks a robust public option. Even the House version of the bill lacks a robust public option. So for bill killers like anonone and Markos Moulitisas, your cries now are disingenuous since you were not crying when the House passed the bill with a watered down public option. And if you think back to when the House passed HCR with a public option but also with that Stupak Anti-Choice Anti-Woman amendment, we all knew the PO was going to be very difficult if not impossible if not impossible to pass the Senate.
Indeed, our hopes were for the Senate to pass the bill without the PO, so that we could amend it in conference and then pass the PO in reconciliation if need be. That political reality remains unchanged. I think the tactical mistake the netroots and supporters of the PO made was the lobbying push for the PO. We went all out for it to be included in the base Senate bill, especially after Baucus kept it out of his Finance Committee Bill. And we won the small victory when Reid merged the HELP committee’s bill and the Finance Committee’s bill: the PO lived! Even though it wasn’t a real robust public option. The netroots became identified with the PO and vice versa, and thus Lieberman and other conservative Democrats took much glee in opposing and defeating the PO, because they were defeating their tormentors, the netroots. Yes, they are that small minded.
I also believe, in retrospect, Harry Reid made a mistake in giving the netroots that small victory of including the PO in the base bill. In hindsight, he should have cut a deal with Snowe for her support of the base bill with a triggered public option. With her vote secured, he wouldn’t have had to make so many concessions to Nelson and Lieberman, and we’d have a triggered public option going into conference. We may have had to deal with Lieberman’s ego anyway, and may have had to drop the PO as a result, but with Snowe onboard, Lieberman’s vote becomes less crucial. The less important Lieberman is, the less Lieberman feels the need to fuck things up.
So really, after months of lobbying and activism, nothing much really changed from the House vote to now.
So, why was there a left wing blogger revolt? I think President Obama was right recently when he said the Public Option took on more symbolism than it deserved. It did. The Public Option, and its subsequent demise, became the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Democratic and liberal left has had to put up with a lot of disappointments over the last year. No war crimes or torture investigation and punishment of Bush Administration wrongdoing, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and the Wall Street friendly bailouts were tough pills to swallow. Some on the left just decided, out of pure anger than anything else, that enough was enough. And the frustration and anger are understandable. You work for years, decades even, on a host of liberal issues, and work for a candidate that you think best represents those issues and can do the best to move those issues forward, and then that candidate wins, and you expect immediate payoff on your wish list.
The problem is a wish list is not a reality list. The problem is that many liberal activists do not understand politics, and even when you explain it to them, they push you aside as a defender of the status quo.
Given Republican obstruction and their intent to filibuster everything and anything in the Senate, the political reality is President Obama can’t pass anything that doesn’t have the unanimous support of all 58 Democrats (which includes at least five conservative Democrats in Lincoln, Bayh, Pryor, Nelson and Landrieu), one bitter bastard from Connecticut, and one real Socialist from Vermont. This forces him to govern to the center and make all his compromises with conservative Democrats and/or the two Republican women from Maine. This gives veto power to every single Senator, but most importantly to people like Lieberman and Nelson who like to use the veto power to garner attention. And if a liberal Senator uses his veto power, then Obama has to move the whole legislation to the right to garner what votes can be had out of Snowe, Voinovich and Collins.
The left is immensely frustrated with this political reality, so much so that they are ready to use their own nuclear option in eliminating the filibuster. But, really, what can you do? Liberal activists, and especially the netroots, do not help the situation by insulting the centrists, since in our political reality, the centrists hold all the power. But that is what we know. We see right wing anger at politicians intimidate Senators and Representatives of both parties into voting for what the right wing wants. So when the netroots and the blogosphere started, it was the tactic we used. It is not working any more, if it ever worked. And the proof of that is that Lieberman switched positions on the Medicare Buyin compromise (which he had supported one month prior) only because he heard that a progressive Congressman liked it. What replaces insults and bullying and threats? My only idea is denial of fundraising to the recalcitrant and primarying them, but really, aren’t those threats in and of themselves? The real and best answer is an answer not likely to soothe those who are already upset by the speed of progress: over time we must simply elect more of ourselves. More progressives, rather than centrists or moderates.
Which leads me to another political reality: politicians are practical and pragmatic by their very nature, and thus are willing to make centrist compromises. Thus, it is very rare to have a liberal and pure activist get elected, for too much compromise is always involved.
Catch-22.
When you take all of this big picture into consideration, the political realities of the moment, and how far we have come with a health care reform bill given these realities and obstacles, you would have to be absolutefuckinglutely insane to now say you want the bill killed because it lacks a public option. A public option is the next step we will take forward. It is not forgotten. It is not defeated forever. Yet, because of a minor setback, you would throw a whole lotta good overboard. Yeah, screw that. You bill killers (which includes such progressive illuminati like Markos and Howard Dean) need to sober up. Or read this post again.
In the end, you pass the bill, and work to fix it next year and the year after that and so on if need be. If the bill does not pass now, it will not be passed in 2010, an election year. It will not be passed in 2011 due to expected Republican gains in Congress or 2012 as it is another election year. Like I said, screw that. I understand that we all have our roles to play, and Markos and Dean are likely flipping out strategically to preserve progressive gains in the bill that remain. But you pass this bill.
The only time you can say the Democrats obstructed anything was during the 2005 Social Security battle.
It had 40% public support, unlike the public option with 55%. Actually Repubs had the numbers, but Repub dissidents provided the obstruction. GOP leadership had the good sense to pull the bill – their dissidents did not give in, and they got their way over the White House.
Now here we are with our own privatization scheme and our own dissidents.
The real Dem obstruction on Social Security privatization came after 2006, when Pelosi killed all efforts by Dems to introduce any Social Security legislation. I believe she did this because with the weak Dem majorities, any bill on the floor would become corrupted by mischevious GOP amendments, probably including even privatization, and it would pass. She knows her people well.
you would have to be absolutefuckinglutely insane to now say you want the bill killed because it lacks a public option
I don’t want the bill killed because it lacks a public option. I want it killed because it contains an individual mandate. The PO and the IM are symbiotic pair. One should not exist without the other. Either both, or neither.
That said, I am learning to live with the bill. I am getting out my turd polish and my lemonade recipes.
I agree 100% (128% if we’re on FOX). This is by no means a great or perfect bill. What it is, though, is a hell of a lot better than the alternative, which is what we have now. Anyone who thinks we could start over and get something more Progressive is either naive, delusional, or both. Realistically, you’re right. Congress is likely to get a bit more Conservative over the next few elections. Not a landslide or a mandate, just the natural pendulum swing. I hope and I’m glad that there will be people trying to elect more Progressive politicians, and I wish them luck. But if this bill fails, it surely ain’t gonna happen.
still we are about to pass a universal healthcare bill.
Except that it is not “universal healthcare” at all, and your whole post is flawed if that’s what you believe.
It is a universal pay-for-private-company-profits-or-else bill. Once you have been extorted to pay the profits of insurance companies, there is no promise that you can get healthcare if you then can’t then ALSO afford the co-pays (up to $11,900 per year). So there is no universal healthcare in this bill. In fact, the little money that an uninsured family might have for a doctor’s visit now is taken by the insurance companies first, leaving them worse off than they were before.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the fundamental affront to freedom and liberty in this bill: using the power of the federal government to force its citizens to pay for the profits of private companies. That is money that families could be using to pay for food, shelter, transportation, heat, and education for their children. If it was collected as a public tax instead, it could go toward actually providing for the general welfare of our country such as actual healthcare or medical research or educational grants.
In other words, it is money that the government is taking from all of us, not for the public benefit, but for the enrichment of a few. The government is forcing its citizens to pay 15-20% of their healthcare dollars for private non-health care profits. That is not a “minor setback.” It is a huge and unnecessary government intrusion into our lives that is unprecedented in the history of our country.
To read so-called liberals promoting the government extorting the wealth from its citizens to put in the private pockets of the few shows what an Orwellian “Animal Farm” this country has truly become.
To read so-called liberals promoting the government extorting the wealth from its citizens
anonone is a bit grating but he is correct. While we are debating the health care benefits , we have forgotten about the economic benefits that would accrue from public health care. For-profit health care is one of the mighty engines by which wealth is distributed upward.
anon, I’m all for single-payer. I’d love to see the private, for-profit health insurance industry go away. If you have an idea for how to pass it tomorrow, I’m all ears. If not, as DD is saying, let’s work in the real world and get the best deal now that we can. After that, time is on our side to keep picking around the edges to make it better. Hell, most of the big stuff doesn’t even start for a few years anyway.
And as for the individual mandate, I just honestly don’t think the thing works without it. That’s how insurance works. The healthy subsidize the sick. The young subsidize the old. If people can game the system by waiting to buy insurance only when they need it, the pyramid scheme of insurance falls apart. I think there are enough safeguards in there (subsidies, expansion of Medicaid, catastrophic plans, exemptions) that it should not be an undue burden on anyone. Just the simple fact that it gives the hated insurance companies more customers is not a reason to kill it.
Del Dem wrote: “I think President Obama was right recently when he said the Public Option took on more symbolism than it deserved. It did.”
Obomba is flat-out lying to you and you’re being foolish to believe him:
“Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours”
“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition…”
See the evidence for yourself:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/22/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/
He’s lying.
A long time ago, this exercise became about passing a bill, no matter what the contents. Selling out progressives, paying off moderates, whatever it takes. This is not reform. It fills the coffers of insurers and does nothing to bring down costs. Disgusting and indefensible by anyone with a conscience.
After that, time is on our side to keep picking around the edges to make it better.
When I hear that, I hear my son saying he will do his homework “later,” after he goes outside to play and watches TV for a while.
And as for the individual mandate, I just honestly don’t think the thing works without it.
Agreed. And the individual mandate doesn’t work without the public option.
Good post, DD. I’m trying to think strategically and in the way that makes progressive legislation more likely to pass and not less likely. Like it or not, we have the most progressive Congress we’re likely to have in a while. In 2010 we’re likely to see some Republican gains, and they’ve gone to insane teabaggers so there won’t be any help there.
If we want progessive legislation we’re going to have to work with the 58 + 2 we’ve got now. As much as it would satisfy me to kick out Lieberman it won’t help us pass legislation. Neither will punishing Nelson.
I think we need to take a look at Senate rules – I’d like to see the Democratic caucus crack the whip a bit more. By that I mean a rule that people who caucus with Democrats can’t vote with Republicans on a filibuster. I’m very hesitant to weaken the filibuster. After all, we might need it if we’re in the minority.
I have a question for all (Personally I’m 60/40 on the “kill the bill” side). With No Child Left Behind, was the bad bill worth it?
anone writes “Obomba is flat-out lying to you and you’re being foolish to believe him:
“Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours”
“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition…”
See the evidence for yourself:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/22/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/
He’s lying.”
If you actually look at the link that you provided as evidence, you find that all but one listed entry is from after the election This is hardly ‘campaigning on’ the public option. The only pre-election item is from the Obama-Biden plan, which calls for a national insurance exchange, making private policies available in an affordable manner. Note, the use of the phrase ‘private health insurance’, on page 5.
During the primaries, I took heat from supporters of Hillary, who rightly noted that Hillary (and Edwards) supported universal healthcare, while Obama did not. I pointed out that Obama didn’t not support universal healthcare, he was unwilling to promise it, as he seemed to feel/judge that it was unachievable in his first four years. If you felt that Obama campaigned on the public option, then you weren’t paying attention.
I don’t feel that Obama misled us during the campaign.
Obama did indicate throughout this year that he sought a public option, or a well-regulated exchange of affordable private health insurance policy choices, in any bill that he signs. Of course, this is a lose-lose. If he didn’t say it, the one camp would say that he didn’t push it enough. Yet now the other camp is saying that he promised it and lied, as he will likely sign an eventual bill, which seems to under-deliver. I view his statements as providing the vision of the reform he sought, for Congress to consider in developing the legislation (which is their responsibility).
Bottom line–I suspect that if you are royally disappointed in the current legislation, then you had a very inaccurate understanding of the legislative process, and a very inaccurate, inflated view of the power of the presidency at this time, as it relates to the legislative process. Keep in mind, Obama has a few other issues on his plate (economy, climate change, education, wars/occupations, …).
I’m reminded of a colleague, who jokes that he offers to clients advice that is good, cheap, and fast, but you are only allowed to choose two of the three factors.
NCLB was passed by getting Ted Kennedy and others to join in. I’d like to think that they were duped (rather than complicit). I believe that the goals were laudable, but somehow the legislators missed the point that the mandates were unfunded, which turned the law into a total screw-up (which is, after all, the Republican ideology–make govt screw up so we can eliminate it and cut taxes–for evidence, look to FEMA and Katrina).
Paul, I’m not seeing the difference between the two bills in that respect. Both bills had/have good intentions, but some of the details may make things worse.
which turned the law into a total screw-up
Put it on our list of “things we passed and need to fix later.”
With more respect that this post shows to some of us, I believe that the intention of this post is to make anyone who thinks this bill is a piece of crap sound irresponsible, childish, and obstructionist.
I’m not irresponsible, childish or an obstructionist.
And I don’t object to this bill because Democrats didn’t act like Republicans.
I object to it because Democrats didn’t act like Democrats, and because it’s going to exacerbate the health care cost problem AND there’s no political will or interest in “fixing it.”
In fact, I’m still waiting for someone to tell me where the political will or interest in fixing it is going to come from. Reid — who is already taking bows? The new Democratic congresspeople who voted for the congressional version — who see clearly that Obama is not going to save their asses? The Blue Dogs — who see clearly that Obama has bent over on the big one, so he should be expected to on the small ones? The Republicans — who expect to kill most of these provisions before they become effective?
Or is the impetus to fix it supposed to come from the grass roots liberals, who are being told shut up and sit down?
But I don’t want to “rant.” Because “The problem is a wish list is not a reality list. The problem is that many liberal activists do not understand politics, and even when you explain it to them, they push you aside as a defender of the status quo.”
Heaven forbid that I stand in the way of people who DO understand politics.
(Progressive Mom is moving back into her cave, where she can contemplate how she has just been called “absofuckinglutely insane” because she doesn’t like this bill. PM has never been big into namecalling, with or without the cute adjectives. And she isn’t insane, with or without the fuck. And, currently, she is sober, but thanks for inquiring.)
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002
Obama lies while reform dies.
This debate has spiraled into dangerous territory, with both sides feeling personally attacked. Nobody fighting for health care, on either side, is an idiot. All are sincere in their views, and neither side has a crystal ball to predict what will happen in the future if this bill lives or dies.
Let’s try and ease off the name calling. We are backing ourselves into a corner, and, in the end, we ultimately need each if we hope to get anything done.
To paraphrase a comment made earlier this week, perhaps by Pandora, it’s become Gore v. Nader.
It has, John M. And what lovely consequences did that fight bring? It is the age old Purist v. Pragmatist argument, and while it may sound disrespectful to Progressive Mom, Purists really just do not understand politics. PM wants Democrats to act like Democrats. Ok, I suppose that means she wants a more progressive bill, like Single Payer, passed.
Tell me, how is that accomplished? How?
You have this one window for reform to pass, and while it is an imperfect bill it does a fucking lot of good for hundreds of millions of people. And because it is not perfect and pure, the bill must be killed, no matter the consequences to those millions and no matter the fact that this is the last time healthcare reform has a chance of passing in the next decade. Seriously, this is it. So you have a choice between nothing at all for that decade, or this bill. That is your choice. There is no option C. There is no time to start over. There is no more progressive bill out there that can be passed in this Congress, and this Congress is the most progressive you are going to see in a while. .
For those who are against the individual mandate, you have no understanding of social entitlement programs then, for such programs require EVERYONE being required to participate. You are mandated to pay into Social Security and Medicare. There is no choice in the matter. And without that mandate, the program collapses. The same is true with healthcare reform. To lower premiums, you have to expand the pool of consumers. And while a single payer program is the gold option, and a public option a good substitute if we are sticking with private insurance, it is not healthcare reform without that mandate.
And to Anonone…. you are the one who is lying here, with all due respect. Paul B. just showed you the evidence that Obama never campaigned on the public option. In fact, he campaigned on national exchanges, which is what he is delivering in this bill. Yes, he became supportive of the public option after he was elected as a means to an end, and you can blame him for not getting that done or not being as supportive as he could have been of it, but it is an outright lie to say he campaigned on it. Please, stop being a right winger here. Stop lying.
I agree, Pandora. And I do apologize if Progressive Mom thinks me saying it is absolutefuckinglutely insane to kill the bill is disrespectful, and to you if you think that is name calling. But it is, because it is either this bill or nothing for a decade or more. I mean, I am going crazy sitting here thinking how anyone ever could think killing the bill in that circumstance is a good idea, or even a principled one.
I won’t apologize to Anonone, for he is lying about Obama campaigning on the public option.
As far as see the choice has come down to this:
pass this bill or get nothing for a while
There’s no guarantee that we’ll get fixes to the current bill soon so don’t count on that. Look at the bill how it is now. Perhaps we’ll get changes if we keep pushing but there’s absolutely no guarantee.
Then the question becomes is this bill worse than the status quo? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
“I am going crazy sitting here thinking how anyone ever could think killing the bill in that circumstance is a good idea, or even a principled one.”
Well, I am going crazy sitting here thinking how anyone could ever have such fucked up principles to think that any of this Cash for Cloture bullshit could be acceptable over what could have been. So hell yes, you tell those bastards to do it over.
Hey annony, where was your criticism of the Rethugs over their cash for Prescription Drugs deal? Oh, right, you gave no criticism, because they were Republicans. Hypocrite.
And UI, Pandora posted that chart to show the difference between the status quo and the HCR bill now. It is a no brainer.
There is no reason – none – to believe those bastards will do it over, unless… you can show me how this do-over happens I am reluctantly supporting this bill.
And, DD, I just see a BIG difference in where PM is coming from compared to others. Her comments have been thoughtful, and I really don’t think you were directing your post towards her. But that’s the problem with battle lines – collateral damage.
DD,
I posted a chart earlier today and one yesterday. I also put a link to Jane Hamsher’s criticism of the bill. I want to be fair & balanced.
You are mandated to pay into Social Security and Medicare. There is no choice in the matter. And without that mandate, the program collapses.
But Social Security doesn’t force me to prove I have an account with JP Morgan, Merrill, Goldman Sachs, etc. It is true social insurance, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, with rules determined by our elected representatives rather than a for-profit board of directors.
And Medicare funded by a tax that is at least flat. But the individual mandate is steeply regressive.
I’m actually hoping that employers will start cancelling health plans, forcing voters to reconsider public health care. Health care shouldn’t be tied to your employer anyway.
It is true Obama didn’t campaign on the public option (although fleeting examples are turning up). But when it was on the table and just a few votes away from reality, he turned his back.
So now we have a field goal attempt instead of a touchdown.
anon–I’m counting on a safety for the win.
First of all, Del Dem, you are the one who is lying, not me. This is not universal health care at all. That is patently untrue. I explained to you why, but you ignored it.
Taxes and entitlement revenues such as for medicare and social security are collected and administered by the not-for-profit government for the welfare of all people, not by for-profit rip-off insurance companies, so there is NO comparison there. Never in the history of this country has the government forced citizens to give their hard-earned money to fund private sector profits. If you can’t see the difference, then you are either in-denial, totally ignorant, or blind.
In regards to Obomba lying, PBaumbach doesn’t know what he is talking about. There were two references in the linked article to Obomba saying he supported the public option while he was campaigning:
1: “In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]”
2 “In response to a questionnaire from the Washington Post, then-candidate Obama said, “My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage.”
You can actually read them yourself. Plus his campaign documents included this:
“establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees”
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/files/30/files//2009/09/5996811583d82a33cd_6muomvq5x.pdf
Not to mention his NUMEROUS lies about it after he was elected, all documented in my original linked article.
So don’t go and accuse me of lying when you don’t have the facts to back it up and I do. Obama is a liar and a sell-out. Everybody who writes posts on Delaware Liberal doesn’t want to admit it, but the facts are facts.
The truth is HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
Actually, you are right, Anonone, and I apologize to you. It is not as clear cut to say that Obama is lying, but I would ask that you read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/did-obama-campaign-on-the_n_401204.html to see why I say that. But a public plan was part of his campaign platform. You are right, and I apologize for calling you a liar.
Ok, now that we have established that, we are left with the same choice as before. Scuttle the entire bill and see any possible reform die for at least a decade, or pass this bill and lobby for changes in the coming years. If you choose the former, people will die as a result. And that is the difference between HCR 2009 and WMD 2002. WMD 2002 killed hundreds of thousands of Americans soliders and Iraqi citizens. HCR 2009 will save that many. So keep saying your neat little slogan, but know you are on the death side this time, A1. Sleep well at night.
By the way, UI and A1, Jane Hamsher is dead to me. She appeared on Fox News today after years of attacking Democrats for appearing on Fox News, and allied herself and FDL with the Teabaggers to defeat reform. She is now a teabagger. Are you, A1?
Apparently the Cash for Cloture Crew got the AMA to walk the plank, but they didn’t get to the nurses in time.
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/december/nation-s-largest-rn-organization-says-healthcare-bill-cedes-too-much-to-insurance-industry.html
I’ve decided to go selfish on this one. I wont have my verdict on this bill until it helps, or doesnt help me. Im mid 20’s pre existing conditions, and dont have employer provided health care. I’m a perfect example of someone who needs this reform. I wanted the public option, or the medicare buy in, but Nelson, LIEberman and Carper killed those options for me so they could get more money from their insurance pimps.
it’s a shame, because we have a moral obligation to keep each other healthy. One day, i think we will have a single payer universal health care plan. hopefully sooner tan 50 more years, but it will happen. If this first step helps ME, i assume people like me will also be helped. If that happens, as much as i dont like what this bill has becomes, it has done it’s job.
I just love Anonny stirring the pot here, when we all know he loves the status quo and believes, like Rush Limbaugh, that only the rich should have access to health care. He is fine with lifetime caps, denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and rescission. He loves it.
OK, Del Dem, thanks for the apology. I do try to back-up everything I write with facts.
There is no basis in actual fact for your speculation that “Scuttle the entire bill and see any possible reform die for at least a decade.” None. And this bill is not even real reform.
The reason that I can equate WMD with HCR is exactly this “rush to get it done or we’re all gonna die” mentality. As I pointed out in my previous post, this bill is not universal healthcare as you have claimed, and many people will still not be able to afford healthcare after paying out their government-mandated payment to insurance company profits. You may think it is OK to give away the basic freedom that this country used to stand for to become indentured servants corporate boards, but I think that is too high a price to pay. Furthermore, people will lose their homes, transportation, jobs, etc. because the government has place insurance company profits or IRS fines at the top of family budgets.
I have been writing on Delaware Liberal for a long time. You can call me a Teabagger all you want, as ridiculous as we both know that is. I am not going to have a double standard – one for Bush and repubs and one for Obama and the Dems. Obama is selling out America to the corporations and flat-out lying about it. Saying that HCR without a public option is good because it is 95% complete is like saying that a car that has no brakes is good because it also is 95% complete. Such a car should not be driven and such a bill should not be passed.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
There is a basis. The last time reform was scuttled we waited 15 years. Explain to me how a more progressive bill than this one is passed in 2010, an election year? Explain to me how a more progressive bill is passed in 2011, a year with a new Congress that will be more conservative even if it is still under Democratic control? Explain to me how a more progressive bill gets passed in 2012, another election year? That is four years right there. And with no HCR bill, and with the purists going all Naderite again, no reelection for Obama.
But good luck with lobbying President Palin. And there is your decade.
You see, that is the political reality I have been talking about all along and that you conveniently ignore. Kill the bill? Ok. But you are insane if you think killing the bill will result in a more progressive bill with a public option. What, is LIEberman going to be visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve and change his mind? Is Nelson? Is Landrieu? Does Snowe magically become a liberal like Specter?
The one question that all of you purists have yet to answer is how does this bill get better? Until you answer it within our current political reality, your mantra of kill the bill is assine.
1) This bill is neither progressive nor reform. It is a profit guarantee for insurance companies. It is worse than doing nothing, and I hope that its Constitutionality is immediately challenged in court.
2) The way a real HCR bill gets passed is for the progressive Dems and Obama to get serious about it and for exercise some real political muscle. There are lots of Federal purse strings that he could pull to change votes. He could have been campaigning across the country to build support for it.
This bill is HCR in name only. It will do far more damage to the country than it will good. If you want to see a President Palin, then passing this bill is a good start down that road. The American people overwhelmingly want a public option and they want a President that will at least fight for it. Obama has sold us out.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
So your answer is more cash for cloture, even though we already did that just to get Nelson and others to vote for this bill. How progressive of you, by the way. At least you are presenting an answer that has some semblance of rationality given the political reality. Yes, I suppose we can buy them off to support a more progressive bill, because considering it took $100 million to get Nelson’s vote this time, I don’t think it is likely that well will be visited again, nor will Nelson go for it again.
As for campaigning for it all over again, my God, what has the last year been about? You want another year of campaigning, with more teabagger townhalls?
You can criticize Obama all you want for not fighting hard enough for the PO or for selling us out on the PO, hell, I half agree with you. But I want results. I don’t want the consolation prize of having a President that agrees with me 100% and fights for me 100% but yet gets nothing done on HCR. That is what you want, while I want this bill passed now.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. The bill being 95% of what we want is good enough for me for now. Since you are a purist, you being against the bill is understandable since 95% is not 100%, since at least purists can add (but not when it comes to adding up to 60).
The bill being 95% of what we want
“95% of what we want” is a talking point that just showed up today. It isn’t true.
We wanted competition. The public option alone was 60-70% of what would have made the bill worthwhile.
The individual mandate without the public option makes us all look like a bunch of damn fools. Republicans will savage us for it. Before the bill even takes effect, there will be campaign ads with Harry and Louise being led away in handcuffs for not having insurance.
For me, the Senate bill contains about 15% of what I want, and about 400% of what I don’t want. Now I am being asked to support it for that 15%.
“I did not have campaign relations with that public option!”
Kossacks now have a mountain of evidence and are still collecting more.
Del Dem,
You don’t put political pressure on just by “cash for cloture.” There are many many other ways such as actually getting out of the WHite House and physically campaigning in Senators’ states to build support, withholding discretionary funds for pet projects, denying party money for campaigns or PACs, withholding support to someone being primaried, and on and on. Obomba did NONE of the these. He went AWOL over the summer and surrendered the stage to the Teabaggers. Now LIEberman has shown Obomba to be a weak and vacillating person who failed to lead.
People such as myself will give a person credit for at least putting up a good fight and telling the truth. Obomba did neither. So instead, he looks weak and dishonest.
Because of this, now we get so-called “HCR” which isn’t real HCR at all in a process dominated by the insurance lobby. We get a bill that will make the situation in this country far worse than the status quo because it is a bill that puts government mandated profits of private corporations over the health, welfare, and freedom of all citizens, while making actual healthcare less affordable to those who can’t afford to pay for both insurance and actual healthcare.
You and your DL colleagues either can’t or don’t want to see what a farce and a tragedy the Senate bill really is. As I said, a car without brakes is still 95% complete but it shouldn’t be driven. And this bill shouldn’t be passed.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
By the way, if this bill passes, watch what happens when the press starts running stories of people losing their houses and jobs because of their mandated health insurance bills. Wait until the stories start to appear of people who paid the health insurance profits but now can’t afford the co-pays or the costs of drugs. And then watch for the stories of hard working parents being thrown in jail because they can’t or won’t contribute to the multi-million dollar bonuses being paid for by taxpayers or can’t afford to be indentured servants to the insurance companies.
Then tell me how “reformed” the system is.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
That comment right there tells me you have no understanding of what else is in the bill, and concerning the limitations of the mandate. If a premium is more than 8% of your income, it does not apply. Further, there will also be subsidies available for those premiums to those in the lower income brackets. Finally, 90% of all revenue received by insurance companies must go to actual health care rather than to salaries, advertising or bonuses.
No Child Left Behind — to use a minimalist example — was passed in 2001. It’s still a huge unfunded mandate and has never been “fixed”. There’s no indication it will be: no need, no political will.
I still don’t hear anyone explaining where the will to fix this bill will come from.
This bill will pass, I predict, right after the conference committee strips a few more items out of it, including some significant health benefits. DD is right that currently the premium can only be 8% of your income; but the premium won’t cover all your costs. Your health care costs can/may skyrocket because you won’t have a full benefit set. That’s what’s happening right now to many middle class families.
DD said, in response to my first post: “PM wants Democrats to act like Democrats. Ok, I suppose that means she wants a more progressive bill, like Single Payer, passed.”
I don’t want single payer, never wanted single payer and don’t believe single payer will ever work in America. I tried to play nicely, but we can’t have a conversation if you talk for both of us.
If a premium is more than 8% of your income, it does not apply.
You’re naive if you don’t think insurance companies will make sure that they can offer anybody a crappy policy with high deductibles that comes under 8% of income. What “income” by the way? Last years? Adjusted gross? Based on quarters?
Further, there will also be subsidies available for those premiums…
Yes, taxpayers directly subsidizing the guaranteed profits and multi-million dolaar bonuses paid by monopolistic insurance companies. And you think that is good?
Finally, 90% of all revenue received by insurance companies must go to actual health care rather than to salaries, advertising or bonuses.
Sorry, but your wrong about that. I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
<i.Finally, 90% of all revenue received by insurance companies must go to actual health care rather than to salaries, advertising or bonuses.
DD, check out the latest… that got dropped to 85%, and can be waived by an appointee anyway. That is part of what makes the loss of the public option so painful.
Oh, and remember Obomba’s campaign ads eviscerating McInsane’s proposal to tax health care benefits? But what is in this bill? Taxing health care benefits.
Well, another lie.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
If a premium is more than 8% of your income, it does not apply.
Income during which month? Americans don’t have stable income anymore.
I’ve had years where I would qualify for the Cadillac tax, and the 8% subsidy, depending on when you asked me.
Somehow I don’t think that if you lose you job, your private insurance company is going to drop your premium to “8% of zero” until you get back on your feet.
No, you will be dropped like a poison toad and have to go apply for a whole new subsidy-eligible plan with whole new family doctors. And then when you get a new job you get to repeat the enrollment process all over again with new doctors for your family.
If I am laid off I will not be impressed by my right to buy subsidized insurance with no paychecks coming in.
Serious question. If you are not covered by your employer and buy your own individual health insurance out of your paycheck aren’t you paying for it with taxed money? When we had individual insurance the money we paid wasn’t pulled out (not to be taxed) ahead of time.
PM wrote: ‘I object to it because Democrats didn’t act like Democrats, and because it’s going to exacerbate the health care cost problem AND there’s no political will or interest in “fixing it.”’
You are 100% correct that the Senate Democrats didn’t act like Democrats. This is exactly the point that DD and others are making. The Senate Democrats are NOT purists. Heck, there are many that are hardly Democratic. If there were 60 Al Frankens in this year’s Senate, we could get HCR that every (non-troll) here could love.
BUT THAT ISN’T THE CASE. THAT ISN’T ANYWHERE NEAR THE CASE.
Politically, this is the best year for HCR that we’ve seen in a generation, and likely will be the best year we will see for another generation. This bill is unfortunately the best that this Congress is able to do.
I have my own insurance, that I started around 13 years ago. I cannot get another policy, as my body mass index is over 30. There is no real competition out there, for the companies have built-in collusion. This bill will end that. That is far more than 15% progress towards desired reform.
I pay over 10% of my family’s gross income for health care. I would be overjoyed to be mandated to pay 8% for healthcare for my family, knowing that in so doing my family gets healthcare and so do families who are less fortunate. That is far more than 15% progress towards desired reform.
“But Social Security doesn’t force me to prove I have an account with JP Morgan, Merrill, Goldman Sachs, etc. It is true social insurance, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, with rules determined by our elected representatives rather than a for-profit board of directors.”
Malarky. Medicare premiums are now means-tested (requiring proof of your accounts with JP Morgan, etc), as is taxation on Social Security. Social safety-net programs are most progressive when they are means tested.
On anonone’s ‘Obama lies’ reference, his initial reference included five links. All but the first one were from June 2009 or later. The only one from Obama campaigning was the Obama-Biden health care plan (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf). The fact that it includes Biden makes clear that it was from after the primary. It is 9 pages long, over 5,000 words long, including 45 footnotes. The word public is found throughout, most often next to the word health. Details of a National Exchange are provided. There are NO details of a public option. ‘Public plan’ is mentioned eight times, most often in a list along with Medicare, SCHIP, FEHBP, and others. I infer that the references to public plan in the campaign literature dealt with the publicly regulated National Insurance Exchange.
The following paragraph illustrates how the plan is laid out in the campaign link provided:
The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.
So, anonone, please provide to us details from the article or its five links, where President Obama, while campaigning, promoted a public option, the term that currently means a public program different from the National Exchange program, which IS in the current legislation.
If you are not covered by your employer and buy your own individual health insurance out of your paycheck aren’t you paying for it with taxed money? When we had individual insurance the money we paid wasn’t pulled out (not to be taxed) ahead of time.
Heath insurance premiums you pay individually are medical expenses and are deductible at the end of the year. If you didn’t deduct them, maybe you can file an amended return.
We probably did deduct them. Mr. Pandora has always been tax savvy, so I’ll check with him.
I can relate to what Paul is saying. When we were buying our own insurance I would have killed to pay only 8% of our income, and I hesitate to think how rabid I’d be now, concerning this bill, if I was still in that position.
For a trip down my memory lane with individual insurance, read here.
Pandora asked “Serious question. If you are not covered by your employer and buy your own individual health insurance out of your paycheck aren’t you paying for it with taxed money? When we had individual insurance the money we paid wasn’t pulled out (not to be taxed) ahead of time.”
there is an ‘above-the-line’ deduction for self-employed health insurance premium deduction on the front of form 1040. Out of pocket goes to Schedule A (subject to 7.5% AGI floor), but the premiums can be paid in pre-tax dollars.
Here you go, Mr. PBaumbach:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/22/818186/-UPDATED:-Candidate-Obama-DID-Campaign-On-The-Public-Option!
Have fun!
anonone, Earlier you wrote “See the evidence for yourself:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/22/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/
He’s lying.”
you are now changing your references. Let me know when the music stops and you have settled on one.
The dailykos entry notes a 2007 speech in which he states “But, essentially, what we are doing is to say that we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services.”
The HCR debate over the past months has noted that ‘public plan’ has covered a wide range of ideas. So again I ask, how does what Obama is quoted above as describing different from the national exchange that is in the bill? The exchange is available to you, and overseen/regulated by the government. It is a public plan.
Note that later in that speech (which your dailykos entry referenced), Obama states “But, in the meantime, what I’ve said is that I believe we can have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president’s first term. By the end of my first term as president [applause] of the United States of America. But that’s five years away and in the interim there are just some basic things we can do.”
Now I don’t interpret that last paragraph as saying that Obama promised to deliver universal health care (which the current HCR legislation is clearly NOT), but that at the 2007 time of the speech he felt that it is in reach. To use that speech as evidence that Obama lied about being able to deliver a public plan in 2009 (as opposed to a national exchange) is disingenuous (assuming that you actually read the posts, and the references from the posts, that you use as backup to your own posts).
I am adding links, not changing anything. Oh, and wait wait, there’s more such as
“My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage. Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program, and provide subsides to afford care for those who need them.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/12/obama-now-says-he-didnt-campaign-on.html
Tell you what, Mr. PBaumbach, find me a credible source that says Obomba did not campaign on the public option, which was also called the “public plan,” or where he said that a offering a new public insurance program was NOT part of his plan. Otherwise you can argue with yourself about whether or not a “public insurance program” means mandates to pay for-profit private insurance companies.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
remind me again how one can prove a negative.
In their campaign website’s layout of the Obama-Biden health care plan (which your first link links to), they note “The Obama-Biden plan both builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. Under the Obama-Biden
plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage, have access to new affordable options, and see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.”
In my mind, “builds on and improves our current insurance system” means that additional revenues to private insurance companies is consistent, as long as the profits are reasonable.
In fact, earlier in that plan, they note “Barack Obama and Joe Biden will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. In markets where the insurance business is not competitive, their plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s new National Health Insurance Exchange will also help increase competition by insurers.”
Now, if you want to ‘expose a lie’, you can note that they called for importation of drugs (from Canada, etc). However, again I feel that a presidential candidate’s plans layout what they are seeking, but the constitution directs the responsibility of actual legislation to be in the hands of congress. I don’t think that not having imported drugs in the bill that Obama signs means that Obama lied. I expect that you do. We disagree. So be it.
“But Social Security doesn’t force me to prove I have an account with JP Morgan, Merrill, Goldman Sachs, etc. It is true social insurance, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, with rules determined by our elected representatives rather than a for-profit board of directors.”
Malarky. Medicare premiums are now means-tested (requiring proof of your accounts with JP Morgan, etc), as is taxation on Social Security.
You completely miss the point. The point was that Social Security pension benefits are not channelled through private pension providers.
Medicare benefits *are* channeled through private medical providers, but there is price control regimen in place. The Senate HCR bill has neither of these things. It is not social insurance.
Means testing would be great, if we ever got around to it. John McCain collects $2000 in Social Security benefits each month. Medicare benefits are available for everyone, even the well-off.
There is no means-testing on Medicare Part A (hospital benefits). Most people pay zero premium regardless of means.
For Medicare Part B (medical coverage), most pensioners pay the minimum premium of about $100/month. The premium does go up with income, but not that much. Premiums max out at $308.
Medicare Part D is an extra $30 or so in premiums alone and is not means tested.
I am waiting to see how this 8% premium cap plays out in reality. I haven’t read the text of it yet.
it appears that we are wrestling with semantics, public plan, social insurance. By my definition, if insurance is available to all, it is social insurance. It can be made available through a nationalized insurance plan, but can also be available through a regulated and subsidized web of private plans, or a combination. You can argue that by my definition auto insurance is social insurance. I think that it largely is. It is in society’s best interest to have all auto drivers to be insured, so we mandate it. We haven’t yet found the need to overly regulate it (but that day could come). You can argue that the HCR plan does not cover everyone, but neither does social security, but each comes close.
the rules of the HCR plan are being made by duly-elected representatives (and their lobbying buddies, of course). These rules include limits on profitability on such insurance policies, and on subsidies to ensure affordability.
remind me again how one can prove a negative.
President Obama lied when told the Washington Post “I didn’t campaign on the public option.”
You can’t prove a negative definitively, but all the evidence shows that he repeatedly campaigned on for a public option in 2008, which he called “a new public insurance program” among other things.
Furthermore, despite repeated opportunities, he never said that a public insurance program was NOT part of his plan.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
Stop it with the auto insurance analogy, OK? They are totally different types of insurance. If you can’t at least understand that, then there is no point continuing this discussion.
Medicare and social security are not run by for-profit companies; they are run by the government. Money mandated for those programs goes to the people who paid into the programs, NOT to multi-million dollar bonuses for private executives. Get it?
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
Money mandated for those programs goes to the people who paid into the programs, NOT to multi-million dollar bonuses for private
Apparently you haven’t heard of Medicare Advantage.
please provide the quote from the campaign where he notes a promise to deliver “a new public insurance program”.
anonone notes “Stop it with the auto insurance analogy, OK?”
I didn’t know that you own the blog. What else is off limits?
it appears that we are wrestling with semantics, public plan, social insurance.
I think that this is right, but largely because we apparently have folks who thought they were getting queued up to get the French single payer plan and we are apparently on our way to the Swiss one — still based on individual insurance policies, but the insurers are regulated.
please provide the quote from the campaign where he notes a promise to deliver “a new public insurance program”
See Comment by anonone on 23 December 2009 at 10:21 am
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
A1, you are being awfully naive to think that all campaign promises are honored.
Also, WTF. Seriously, on what planet would a public option pass both the House and Senate.
Clinging to your ideals doesn’t make you idealistic, just unreasonable.
cassandra_m
Apparently you don’t know that “Medicare Advantage” is optional.
And you might want to study the Swiss model a bit more. Unlike the Senate bill, the Swiss insurance companies are highly highly regulated.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
Nemski, funny how LIEberman gets his way but progressives don’t. Funny how I’m being “unreasonable,” but those of you supporting the LIEberman/Insurance Company bill are not.
Funny how much better and less expensive healthcare is in most other developed countries, but I am being “unreasonable” to expect and demand more than crumbs in the U.S.
Funny how you think health care isn’t a right, but something only to be had by paying insurance execs multi-million dollar bonuses just to get in line.
Hysterical.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
Public option is Promise #518 on the Obameter. The article points out that mention of the public option was low key, but undeniable. The article also reminds us that Obama DID campaign against the individual mandate during the primaries, criticizing Hillary and Edwards for requiring the mandate, while Obama did not.
Your third link, with its sublink (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/), notes Obama telling the Washington Post “My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage. Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program, and provide subsides to afford care for those who need them.”
Isn’t a government run and regulated national exchange of private insurance plans a new public insurance program, a new public health plan? In each case he notes that the new plan is only available to those without insurance. As such, he is NOT saying that he proposed a plan available to all of the public, which is what most liberals view to be a cornerstone of a ‘public plan’. Again, I feel that semantics is an issue here.
Anon notes “Public option is Promise #518 on the Obameter. The article points out that mention of the public option was low key, but undeniable.”
The link provided notes “But make no mistake: The public option was rarely debated or even mentioned on the campaign trail.”
Isn’t a government run and regulated national exchange of private insurance plans a new public insurance program, a new public health plan?
No.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
“Public Option” In his own words: “But, I can tell you, as I’ve been very clear about before, I continue to believe a robust public option is the best way to go.”
President Barack Obama, July 20, 2009
As he’d “been very clear about before.”
http://www.americablog.com/2009/12/as-president-obama-campaigned-for.html
Had enough?
Had enough? Not even close. Everyone here (except the trolls) believes that a robust public option is the best way to go. Wanting that is different from promising it.
You have been relentlessly saying that Obama has lied. Signing a bill without a robust public option (that involves no private companies) does not constitute a lie, at least not one based on a statement that Obama would have liked to sign a different bill, with other features.
Had enough?
“Public Option” In his own words: “But, I can tell you, as I’ve been very clear about before, I continue to believe a robust public option is the best way to go.”
I remember that statement very clearly. I greeted it with a sense of relief, since Obama was otherwise being pretty Sphinx-like during the teabagger summer.
Now I see that statement as a ruse to keep progressives on board so the bill could keep going until it was too late to change.
Clearly, PBaumbach, you must have enjoyed the way the Bush and the repubs constantly revised and lied about the history of the Iraq invasion because you’re trying to do the same thing regarding Obomba.
It was and is clear to everybody who can understand English and watched his campaign that he promised a public option in his HCR plan. But since that appears to be outside your ability to comprehend, for whatever reason, there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
Funny how you think health care isn’t a right, but something only to be had by paying insurance execs multi-million dollar bonuses just to get in line.
you must have enjoyed the way the Bush and the repubs constantly revised and lied about the history of the Iraq invasion because you’re trying to do the same thing regarding Obomba.
Can we please stop these leaps? Pretty please?
anonone states “It was and is clear to everybody who can understand English and watched his campaign that he promised a public option in his HCR plan.”
any yet your own link (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/518/create-public-option-health-plan-new-national-heal/) noted “But make no mistake: The public option was rarely debated or even mentioned on the campaign trail.”
The reason that DL requests bloggers to provide links is that we can clearly see shenanigans when they occur.
That wasn’t my link.
Can we please stop these leaps? Pretty please?
I’m just in the holiday spirit with “ten lords a leaping.”
“That wasn’t my link.”
sorry–i confused anon with anonone
my bad
Mediamatters.org has a large article with many citations on the public option during Obama’s campaign. You can also find a summary on Americablog.com
I can’t help but think that arguing about whether or not Obama campaigned on a “robust public option” is a deck-chairs-on-the-Titantic kind of discussion.
Three members of Congress are coming out against the Senate bill including the House Rules Committee Chair.
There is hope on the horizon.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Apparently you don’t know that “Medicare Advantage” is optional.
And apparently you are running away from your original contention that federal money wasn’t going to insurance companies to pay multi-million dollar salaries. Medicare advantage is yet another version of medicare, one that is highly subsidized and not from the usual payroll taxes.
And you might also be interested in the fact that a whole lot of your mandated tax money goes to pay inflated salaries and prop up profits of a whole lot of businesses. Pretending that this is a problem — for an industry that now has more regulations than it ever has before is definitely delusional.
No, cassandra_m, I don’t care what people do with their own money VOLUNTARILY. And taxes are levied and collected by the government and spent by the government for the general welfare.
If you can’t see the difference between taxes that are paid directly to the Federal government and people being forced by the government to buy products to line the pockets of millionaire insurance executives than you’re beyond hope.
My original contentions stands: Having the Federal government FORCE people under penalty of law to purchase products from private for-profit companies is wrong and unprecedented in our history. And, fortunately, I heard today that people will challenge the Constitutionality of the mandates in court if they become Federal law.
HCR 2009 = WMD 2002. Obama lies while reform dies.
“And you might also be interested in the fact that a whole lot of your mandated tax money goes to pay inflated salaries and prop up profits of a whole lot of businesses…”
Agree, also replace the word “businesses” with “government”
people being forced by the government to buy products to line the pockets of millionaire insurance executives than you’re beyond hope.
This is just so much bullshit.
My government spends massive amounts of money that I am mandated to give to them for bombs, battleships and fighter jets that I certainly do not want this government to buy. Or at least to buy way less of. And you should check into the exec salaries of the folks who run Lockheed Martin, say. Their profit margins are awfully good too.
So once again, this government spends plenty of money that we are all mandated to give it on plenty of stuff that lots of us would rather they didn’t. Alot of it gets spent on very high margin businesses, too. It is a question of priorities.
So how is it that Tom S has no idea that the government of the US is not a profit-making enterprise?
Another repub genius with no idea how his government works.
No worries about future military spending except for Miranda rights training for the soldiers.
And if you think the govt is not profit making, then you don’t know how govt works…ask Al Gore and his new business…what’s his worth now, like $100Million? Or Haliburton, or Lyndon Johnson’s shipping company. It’s all about profit making.
And I’m not a republican…they’re just as bad.
cassandra_m,
That money is spent for services purchased for the American people by our elected representatives. They aren’t collecting it for their own profit.
This country was founded on the principle of “no taxation without representation.” Tell me, who represents you in Aetna’s board room? Or is “no taxation without representation” just a quaint phrase that means nothing to you?
It amazes me what a cheerleader you are for this fundamental encroachment on our basic freedoms. You truly are a dream subject for a corporate state.
Truly amazing.
No one represents me in Lockheed Martin’s board room, either. And the monies I send to the government are routinely funneled off to firms that provide little of value and are good at getting more to line their own pockets. And those same representatives are on the verge of voting in a huge expansion of coverage including expansions of medicaid and the provisions of subsidies for lots of people who could not otherwise afford insurance. They are also voting in (we hope) a regulatory scheme that is a first of its kind here — and one that can be built on.
There’s no encroachment on “freedom” here — no more so than the requirement to have insurance in order to operate a vehicle. Or any more so than the river of money that gets sent to defense companies that is quite unnecessary.
The difference here is that insurance will at least do people some good. It isn’t perfect — but then, my life isn’t organized to wait for the perfect, either.
Americans die every day because they do not have insurance coverage. Americans are harmed everyday because they do not have insurance coverage. It amazes me what a cheerleader you are for the continued unnecessary deaths and harms of your fellow Americans just because they can’t get insurance.
But then again, I shouldn’t be. Much like the neocons who badly wanted the sacrifice of American lives to further their dreams of empire, here you are delighted to sacrifice American lives because you think single payer is just around the corner.
Still despicable.
Dear Cassandra_m,
Actually, the government represents you in Lockheed Martin’s board room. Lockheed Martin’s legally-binding contracts are with the government and ultimately its elected representatives who budget the money.
If you don’t like how your tax dollars are collected and spent, then you can work to elect somebody else. You can’t do that for Aetna or any other private insurance company unless you own stock. So you are being forced to give your money to a monopolistic for-profit company without any representation on how it is spent, such as for corporate jets and million-dollar bonuses. You are being forced to spend your money to buy services and line the pockets of fat-cats, whether you want to or not.
Your ignorance about how taxes are levied and spent is truly astounding. If you can’t see that having the government force its citizens to buy services from private for-profit corporations is an encroachment of our basic freedom of commerce and representative government, then you are beyond hope. I hope that you enjoy the month or more that the government forces you to be an indentured servant for Aetna and help pay for their executives’ million dollar bonuses. And are you going to enjoy watching people lose their home, jobs and healthcare because the government is forcing them to buy insurance that they can’t afford so fat-cat insurance executives can have their jets and bonuses?
Millions of Americans have died defending the freedom that you want to blithely give away for nothing. If you think that I am “despicable” for trying to preserve a fundamental freedom from encroachment by corporate-state cheerleaders like yourself, then I wear that label proudly.
Thank you very much.
The government doesn’t pay Lockheed if it provides shoddy work. You have to pay your premium.
The government can change suppliers if Lockheed isn’t to its satisfaction (there are at least 2 others); most of us won’t have three insurance players in our market.
The government can negotiate price and payment schedules; you can’t.
The government can negotiate deadlines, cost over-run refusals; and exact specifications; you can’t.
The government can insist on other quality improvement and job related issues, such as outside testing on an item for safety purposes, require affirmative action hiring on the project, etc, thus ensuring that other governmental/societal goals are met; you can’t.
The list goes on. And it includes …. the government gets a guaranteed price and that price is full and complete: you don’t. You get price increases annually, more if you get sick; you get deducibles and copays that can be raised annually, and to which there is no ceiling.
It’s not necessarily the governance of the company that’s the issue; it’s the contract. And we, the people, don’t have any control over the contract we will be forced by law to sign with a private insurer … and neither does the government.
As I’ve said before: the bill will pass, after certain consumer protections and benefits are stripped out in conference. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me where the political effort will come from to fix it.
The list goes on. And it includes …. the government gets a guaranteed price and that price is full and complete: you don’t. You get price increases annually, more if you get sick; you get deducibles and copays that can be raised annually, and to which there is no ceiling.
PM, government contracting is what I do during the day (not for weapons or IT though) and I choose Lockheed Martin for a reason. You can also pick KBR or Halliburton or even Blackwater. Every last one of these firms have recently and legendarily done shoddy work, overcharged the government, exceeded their contract prices, rewritten their own SOWs and they still survive as government contractors, they still skim off serious amounts of taxpayer funds with the OK from government Contracting Officers who continue to give them more contracts and more money.
when Halliburton and KBR were putting soldiers at risk for their shoddy work, we all understood that this government was not working as a good custodian of taxpayer dollars. And now, suddenly, the government can do no wrong in negotiating contracts and representing taxpayers.
Enjoy that kool-aid.
cassandra_m wrote: And now, suddenly, the government can do no wrong in negotiating contracts and representing taxpayers.
You’re totally missing the point. Nobody said “the government can do no wrong.” The point is that we have a voice and a vote in our government that we don’t have in private corporations.
A voice and a vote in a government that persistently does stuff that many of us don’t much like.
A voice and a vote in a government where special interests were able to buy off enough votes to derail portions of this bill.
A voice and a vote in a government where special interests persistently are able to get legislation that suits them.
But hey, I’ll will stipulate that the world is much easier to deal with when you can just criticize its lack of perfection.
A “voice and a vote” are more than you have with the insurance companies.
“A voice and a vote in a government where special interests persistently are able to get legislation that suits them.”
No disagreement there. Special interests prove that over and over again.
“But hey, I’ll will stipulate that the world is much easier to deal with when you can just criticize its lack of perfection.”
Isn’t that what you just did? You just criticized the government for its lack of perfection in two successive posts. Why can’t anybody else?
That, in a nutshell, is what has driven me crazy about this entire discussion (for about the 50th time): it seems that anyone who disagrees with THE BILL suddenly is THE ENEMY and must be destroyed. Not their ideas destroyed, but them. Which is exactly how the original read — at least to me — and is where I came in.
And — 100 comments later — where I’m going out. Here’s toasting you and the season with my kool aid!
You just criticized the government for its lack of perfection in two successive posts.
I have not criticized ANYONE for coming down on the government. My criticism has everything to do with waiting for your government to be perfect or in waiting for your government to come up with some perfect solution before endorsing a health insurance scheme.
And this, in a nutshell, has driven me crazy about this discussion. The people demanding all of this perfection haven’t heard a word of what people who will take this bill and work at making it better have had to say. Otherwise, you would not be accusing us (me specifically) of making THE ENEMY out of anybody. Speaking for myself — I’m not one of those having on about the perfection of anything.