Obama campaigned AGAINST two major provisions in this health care bill

[thesquanderer]

As David Zephyr pointed out in this thread, the current heath care bill has a provision allowing people to buy insurance across state lines (as described in the LA Times article http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insure17-2009dec17,0,2204157.story">here). The problem is that, once insurance can be sold across state lines, insurance companies will gravitate to the states that most favor them and least favor the consumer.

In fact, before the election, this is exactly what McCain wanted, and Obama opposed.

From the second Obama-McCain debate ( transcript here):

MCCAIN:
Don't we go across state lines when we purchase other things in America? Of course it's OK to go across state lines because in Arizona they may offer a better plan that suits you best than it does here in Tennessee.

Obama's response?

OBAMA:
And the reason that it's a problem to go shopping state by state, you know what insurance companies will do? They will find a state -- maybe Arizona, maybe another state -- where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there.

That's how in banking it works. Everybody goes to Delaware, because they've got very -- pretty loose laws when it comes to things like credit cards.

And in that situation, what happens is, is that the protections you have, the consumer protections that you need, you're not going to have available to you.

That is a fundamental difference that I have with Sen. McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That's what we've been going through for the last eight years. It hasn't worked, and we need fundamental change.

(As an aside... it was kind of funny that he kind of stumbled in the middle of the Delaware credit card analogy, apt as it may have been, probably because he knew to instantly water down the criticism there lest it backfire on his VP candidate!)

Anyway, this point was also made more recently by administration spokesman David Axelrod, seen in this CNN video, where Wolf Blitzer argues for insurance across state lines, and Axelrod says that's not what the administration wants.

And of course, earlier in the campaign, Obama debated Hillary Clinton, who wanted a mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance. Obama's response then?

OBAMA:
Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it's not a mandate on government to provide health insurance, it's a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works. Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they have concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty,

(full transcript here)

Yeah, everyone's talked about change we can believe in, but the real question is, what does Obama really believe in? I realize no president is going to get everything he wants in a bill, but he hasn't even raised a note of concern about these things which he thought were so important last year. It seems like when Obama talked about the importance of change, he meant that he'd keep changing to what his opponents wanted, giving up so easily. Then there's the Afghan surge, no change in Iraq... and don't get me started on civil liberties and presidential authority... wiretapping, etc.... A little McCain, a little Hillary, a little Bush... Where's last year's Obama?

[leftstreet]

1. Big K&R

Thank you for doing this!

(I was hoping you would)

:thumbsup:

[thesquanderer]

12. It might have been worth it, if we'd gotten something in return.

Thanks!

The thing is, these "compromises" wouldn't really bug me if we had actually gotten something in return.

The argument against the marketing of interstate insurance is the "race to the bottom" through consolidation of companies into the "worst" states. But if there were a viable public option to counterbalance that, there would at least still be a strong force pulling in the other direction.

Likewise, mandating that everyone have insurance would be more palatable if that insurance could be a non-profit option. Having the government mandate that everyone buy something that a private company profits on is, in the most traditional sense of the word, fascism.

If Obama had to give on these things to get a true, non-profit, widely available public option, I'd have said it was an acceptable compromise. But we got nothing of the sort, and Obama hasn't said boo.

[suffragette]

52. That's key, isn't it?

Compromise is generally a two-way street of give and take, but this process has all been one-sided.
And there have been a few things that we should have had in exchange.
The public option is one. I would count the ability of states to go ahead with Single Payer if they chose as another.

K&R

[salib]

36. I think Obama knows quite well that any budget item he wants is to be placed on the chopping block

Without new income from somewhere. This is an easy place:
$800 billion of deficit spending and new taxes on the middle + $billions in penalties for not getting insurance and no cost until 2014 or later.

Never mind how we get it. If the Senate were willing to raise taxes on the wealthy, that would have been good too.

They just do not care about us.

[debbierlus]

2. KICK

[FLAprogressive]

3. the facts just continue to get in the way

[girl gone mad]

4. kick for facts. n/t

[xchrom]

5. Big fuckin recommend

[Mimosa]

6. I remember words like "affordable health care for all."

I remember when I thought Obama would lead and even some Republicans voted for him because they anticipated some real hope and change.

[inna]

7. thank you for posting this.

it's critically important.

[rollingrock]

8. Obama's challengers are going to have a field day with this

in the 2012 election.

I can picture the 2012 presidential debates now...and those negative campaign ads.

[sendero]

19. Obama has..

... no chance in 2012 just based on the economy, much less health care. I wouldnt' worry too much about it, he doesn't seem to be concerned with pleasing anyone but his corporate puppetmasters.

[highplainsdem]

9. K & R. Thanks for posting this!

[slipslidingaway]

10. knr nt

[mistertrickster]

11. It's one thing to not follow through on campaign promises.

It's something else again to just effing lie.

Unfortunately, I don't see how these comments aren't lies given his current support for the Senate bill.

[inna]

42. These old comments were not lies, his current statements are.

We've been sold out by Obama, that much is clear at this point.

[mistertrickster]

71. Right, that's what I was trying to say too, but it was ambiguous. I agree with you. nt

[emilyg]

13. k/r

[grahamhgreen]

14. He also said an insurance madate was like mandating homeless people buy houses, if they had the $,

They'd already have a house!

[BzaDem]

15. The bill will NOT allow insurance companies to sell across state lines unless the states pass a bill

that allows that.

There is a huge difference. Vermont is not going to pass a bill that allows Texas to sell to Vermont, because Texas has few regulations. But Vermont might allow New York to sell to Vermont, since both states have many regulations.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. And to allow them to do so is an idea promoted by Repulicans

such as McCain, and Palin and hotly opposed by Obama during the campaign. Pointedly and correctly opposed.
The only people I hear pushing this huge error are in fact Republicans and or those who make profit on the Insurance Middle Man scheme.
Most of the Congress people I respect are very much opposed to this aspect of the Bill, but then again the Congress members I respect are Democrats.

[thesquanderer]

28. Good info, but doesn't really solve the problem

That's a good clarification, absent from the LA Times article, thanks.

However, the problem effectively remains. Imagine you're in a high-regulation state like VT, and people find they could buy much cheaper insurance if they were allowed to buy in Texas. So the Texas insurance lobby pours money into the campaign of a candidate who runs on the platform that, if elected, he will fight to allow Vermont residents to buy their insurance from Texas, on the argument "hey, if you want to buy cheaper insurance even knowing it's less well regulated, well that should be your choice, especially since the federal government is forcing you to buy insurance whether you want to or not." And that candidate wins, and the law gets passed... there you are.

Now, if everyone in every state had the option of alternatively buying into a national public non-profit system, there would be a good strong counter to that. But we know where that went.

[geckosfeet]

16. What do you mean? He should have come out against those provisions.

He appears to have been consistent on that point.

As far as mandating people to buy health insurance, the current bill does not mandate (as far as I know) in the way the Mass. law does. It provides options to buy. In other words a gift to the insurance companies.

I don't know how anyone can pin this all on Obama. It is congress and the senate who are fucking things up. Obama can poke and prod but he can't write law. Now on the other hand, when he gets a bill to sign that has been passed without a veto proof majority he refuse to sign it or kick it back and ask for changes. There are always the infamous signing statements as well.

This still has some ways to go but I don't hold Obama entirely responsible for the bill. It is congress and the senate.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. It is not a binary choice.

The responsibility lies with both the Congress and with the executive branch. Both are fucking things up. No need to pick one. Plenty of shame to go around on this one.

[thesquanderer]

29. Of course it's not all Obama's fault, but

re: "I don't know how anyone can pin this all on Obama. It is congress and the senate who are fucking things up. Obama can poke and prod but he can't write law"

Sure. But how much poking and prodding have you seen Obama do, to stand up for the same positions he advocated while campaigning? All I heard was the crickets on the White House lawn.

[Chulanowa]

60. You don't know how?

A pretty notable segment of the DU population is rather young, and has had their outlook of the presidency formed by the Bush years. To these kids, the president might as well be some sort of godking, he says something, and congress makes it so - and if they don't, he'll just write it in anyway.

Another sizable portion of the DU population is left-wing version of a libertarian. These are the folks who demand that change be immediate, radical, and perfect. If they can't get all three (and of course, none of them agree on "perfect") then they'll stomp and scream and have a petulant hissy fit.

And then there are the people who thought Obama as president would be just like all those movies where Morgan Freeman is president, and are disappointed that it turns out he's an imperfect human being presiding over an imperfect government elected imperfectly by imperfect people.

Basically it all coems down to lots of people having nothing resembling realistic expectations. They were expecting a 100% perfect negative image of Bush - Perfect in all the places Bush was awful, uninterested in all the things Bush was good at - and never, ever considered that maybe Obama would just be Obama, and not the anti-Bush.

[jonestonesusa]

65. As is customary with the HCR defenders

you say nothing about the substance of the bill, which is the point of the opposition from the left. Instead, you go all red herring on us, bringing up the age of the DU population (which I don't think neither of us know, as if it matters), or the straw people who expected Obama to be Morgan Freeman (let's throw a racial reference in too, why not). It comes down to this: what are the merits of a $900 billion dollar plan, with mandates that require all Americans to purchase insurance, without significant cost controls, with no public option, no option to buy prescription drugs abroad, brand new restrictions on a woman's right to choose, and a total of $200 billion in subsidies to lower income Americans - which is pretty much the main way that coverage is being expanded. What's the extra $700 billion for?

Before you accuse others of lacking substance, bring some substance to the discussion. President Obama supporters who worked hard to get him elected would like their voice to be heard, as it should be. If he makes campaign promises and breaks them, promises bite back - just like Bush and his humble foreign policy that supposedly included no nation building. Democrats had a field day with Bush flip flops - and the Republicans will have their way with Obama. At least Democrats are trying to raise attention to the promises to bring some public pressure that might end up in better policy. What about you? Why are you defending the current bill?

[Chulanowa]

69. I'm a HCR defender?

I don't recall signing anything. I can't find a membership... OOOOOOH. You're one of those dumbfucks who think anyone who disagrees with you about anything takes the diametrically opposite position from yourself. Sort of like how over in the Guns forum, if you don't think a heavily armed populace is the best idea, you're communist gun-grabbing constitution hater, and like how over in the I/P forums, if you think the Palestinians deserve consideration, you're an antisemitic holocaust denier.

Hate to break it to you, but I'm fully with Howard Dean on the problems of the current health care "reforms".

I just also happen to think all you squealing shit-eating Palinites who are blaming everything from this bill to your dog's prolapsed rectum on Obama, against anything resembling logic or reason, are severely deluded.

Of course, being the generic-brand crayon in a box of crayolas that you are, you seem to have equated "It's not actually Obama's fault" with "I GOSH-DARNED SUPPORT THIS BILL YEEHAW!"

Shaddap.

[jonestonesusa]

70. I'm too awed by your intelligence and wit to respond in detail.

Just go on with your life and enjoy being yourself.

:hi:

[geckosfeet]

68. I was 8 when Kennedy was assassinated. My expectations for Obama

are still high. At this time I am disappointed in his fruitless attempts at being even handed with the republicans and blue dogs alike.

On the other hand I am happy about many of the things he has done. But I am disappointed in the escalation in Afghanistan and his weak leadership on health care.

Also extremely disappointed in the way he has let the financial industry back away from the shitstorm that they have created without demanding real reform.

I don't expect or want a gunslinging shoot from the hip Obama, but I do expect decisive action on certain major issues. So far nothing has been decisive - except escalation Afghanistan.

That said it has been not quite a year since he took over a sinking and badly floundering ship. Things have come a long way.

[DMNinFL]

17. Since you asked......

"Where's last year's Obama?"

I would say that in many ways........he never really existed.

[Unvanguard]

21. He was wrong about the mandate then, and he is right now.

He was probably right about the crossing state lines business, but if that's a serious problem it has a good chance of being changed in conference now that Democrats are concerned about it. Also, I don't think that's a "major" provision: the version the Republicans wanted was blocked.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. But during the campaign he said not only that his opposition

to mandates was workable, but also that no one disputes that it would work. So what he said was that he'd heard all arguments, and there was no dispute about it at all. He did not say his typical 'there are many points of view' he said there is no dispute. He did not say he was still in process he said it was settled. He said his rival was wrong to support mandates. So he took that position in the positive, and in the negative. He took it, held it, and defended it as the only reasonable position.
If he really did 'change his mind' then he really did indulge in some reckless language around that issue. There was no reason for him to so strongly say that she was so wrong, he was so right and also that there were no arguments in favor that he felt had merit of any kind.
Sorry, but he stated his opinion, and said it was well considered, alternatives had been listened to and rejected.

[Unvanguard]

37. He said lots of things to beat Clinton. That's beside the point.

He was a politician in a close battle: thus, he was dishonest.

[defendandprotect]

54. But the VOTERS pay the price for Obama's "dishonesty" . . . not Obama ...

THAT'S the catch -- !!!

[pundaint]

59. Don't worry, he agreed to take responsibility for it.

So If things don't work out in 2014, Obama is willing to be accountable.

[defendandprotect]

66. How could Obama possibly be "accountable" . . . ????

Will Obama restore our lost opportunity for national health care?

Can he bring back the dead soldiers in wars he's keeping going and excalating?

How about our Treasury . . . Can Obama replace the costs of war bankrupting our Treasury?

Can Obama be accountable to those new victims of wiretapping?

Or take "responsibility" for the lives lost for lack of health care from here to 2014?

If $600 Billion/$800 Billion for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies isn't

corporatism/fascism then up is down!

[rhett o rick]

64. Exactly. That's why we are trying to hold him accountable. Being dishonest isnt acceptable, just bec

ause he is a politician. Stick a fork in him, he is done. Gonzo, bye bye.

[Zodiak]

23. The provision (the state lines) is in both bills

Which means it will not come out of the final bill in reconciliation. There has to be a disparity between the two bills for it to be removed.

[billymayshere]

24. K&R

This is what bothers me the most about him, the fact that he has shown little or no leadership concerning the issues that are important to me.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bette Noir]

25. He has been a disappointment.

I really hate to say it-- I was a huge supporter-- but the Right may have been right. He was too young, naive, and inexperienced to lead.

I'm especially unimpressed with his bargaining skills. He hasn't compromised; he's given the store away.

He could still beat a wacko like Palin in '12, but not a strong moderate. Thank God there's no such thing as a moderate Republican any more.

[DMNinFL]

26. The real danger will be...............

if the Dems have to move to the center to win.

If Mr. Obama has to "campaign" in the center to win in 2012, then a moderate Repuke will have a great chance to take him down. If Mr. Obama's "staff" and those around him don't get a better grip on what's happening in this country, then he will go the way of Jimmy Carter.

This man and the people around him are making many Dems frown right now.

[L0oniX]

27. Bait and switch ...a con. Good luck on a second term for this president.

Kucinich 2012

[Laelth]

30. k&r for the truth, however depressing. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[realFedUp]

32. I agree with Dean

Look, every issue in this country that one side
has loved, like slavery, didn't want change to
happen. They wanted their own lifestyles
to override the civil rights of others.

Health reform is an issue that is necessary to
get right the first time, even if it takes more
time in the Congress and some real leadership
to use all the tools in their Constitutional
bag while doing so. Every other democratic
country on this planet has a health care plan
that covers all who reside in their countries.

We are backwards on this issue, corporately
owned and managed to our detriment.

I don't care if that anonymous 30 million
and who the hell are they, are suddenly
covered by this stinker of a plan.
We'll all pay for it in the end, if we don't
get it right, right now.

Christmas is an artificial deadline, only
satisfying to those lawmakers who will
enjoy the insurance companies largesse:
expensive gifts and parties to toast
their success in ramming this through.

Bah humbug. Coal in their stockings
and a boot in their seats.

[Brickbat]

33. I have to say for as inspiring as he was during the campaign, the total lack of leadership he shows

now is disheartening.

[defendandprotect]

56. AND, what about the Democratic Party itself . . . single payer a taboo subject...!!!

Public Option taken off in the dark of night and mugged . . . ???

Do none of you ask yourselves where the party has been in calling out voters

to demonstrate for single payer or pubic option????

Evidently, the only people inspired to come out to demonstrate were those "teabaggers" AGAINST

universal health care??? Do we imagine that might have pleased the GOP???

Where were the UNIONS to call Americans out to demonstrate for single payer, Medicare for

All or Public Option??

Where were the women's groups who never tire of being betrayed by the Democratic Party????

Does no one notice all of this????



And where were the buttons which would have announced that large majority of voters

who supported single payer, public option, government run health care?

Voters continue to be lied to also in that regard while more than 70% of voters want

a government run health care plan.

We did see a Papal Bull being passed thru Congress, compliments of Speaker Nancy Pelosi

and the Catholic Bishops and Rome ..... yet 70%++ Catholics favor a government run plan

and coverage for CONTRACEPTION and ABORTION !!!!

And does anyone see our corporate/CIA press calling the Catholic Bishops out on this??

Think for yourselves --

Connect the dots ---

And lower your BS meters - !!!

[wackywaggin]

34. Mandate all Senators and Congress people into health plan!!

If this plan is so great for the average American then it is plenty good enough for every Federal, state and local public emloyee in America.

[Raineyb]

35. K&R

Kicking to make sure this stays up top. Those who think this bill should be passed as is need to see this. It's the beginning of a colossal cluster fuck if this provision is passed.

Just think of what happened to credit card rates when the supreme court allowed banks to go national and override the usury laws of the states by going to state (Delaware and North Dakota) that had none.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

38. K&R

[Jakes Progress]

39. They do this and then get mad

when the commie netroots show their lies. Any Panglossians want to argue with this OP? I notice a dearth of the usual suspects replying.

Good Post. K&R.

[dana_b]

40. great research

and memory! k&r

[Techn0Girl]

41. Where's Lat Year's Obama indeed ....

Can this man be so insulated from his base that he doesn;t know what is going to happen to him next election. I sincerely hope the '10 elections provide a wake up call but i iagine the excuse that year will be "Oh, we no longer have a filibuster breaking majority!".

Right... fool me once ...

What a sad way for this potentially historic Presidency to end.
So much potential wasted.

[Sunnyshine]

43. Where in the world is Candidate Barack Obama?

K&R - and thanks for digging in.

[Divine Discontent]

44. CHIRP, CHIRP, CHIRP.....

(notice how some cannot dare say word ONE!)

[David Zephyr]

45. Honored and proud to be Rec #102!

Great work and OP, thesquanderer!

[laughingliberal]

46. You believed that??? Yeah, I did and it hurts like hell, now. nt

[peace frog]

47. We WANTED to believe

so we swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Fish in a barrel. Yes it hurts.

[Starry Messenger]

48. kicking up

[defendandprotect]

49. What we do know is Obama doesn't believe in what 70%+ of the public believes in . . .

and we also know that he was heavily financed by corporation s--

the exact percentage for the health care industry, I'm sure about.

I think only Hillary Clinton exceeded his haul with them?

[liberation]

50. That is why "pragmatism" is actually not a good thing in politics...

... at a deep level political processes depend on things like ideology. Without ideology there is no reference frame, nor actual accountability because we simply can't hold these "pragmatist" politicians to any sort of compass since they will (and do) change their position on an hourly basis. So which one of those positions is the real one? Which one is the one he or she believes in and support? Which one can be used as the benchmark against which success is defined? Etc.

Those people who were waxing poetic about Obama being a "pragmatist" and thus a "breath of fresh air" were too stupid to even know what that term meant. Because I started to get the feeling that they were equating "pragmatism" with "getting things done" which is and was hog wash. Without any ideological compass, the "getting things done" meme is meaningless... because what things get done, and who they benefit may surprise all of us expecting a progressive agenda to be made of those things.

Lauding a politician for being a "pragmatist" is like cheering for a pope because he is an "agnostic." We need to understand that what works in private industry does not necessarily apply (or even remotely works when applied) to government, and vice versa. Under this view of "pragmatism" now Mr. Obama makes all sorts of sense to me: He is getting plenty of things done, and to get them done Obama is simply not concerned with whether or not those things he is "getting done" are necessarily what the majority of us want or are likely to benefit. He and the rest of the DLC toadies are making the calculation that interfering with corporate interests is somehow more damaging for their electoral prospects, than supporting their liberal base. And thus under a pragmatic cost analysis... the current actions by the corporate Dems make perfect sense.

Be warned of politicians not willing to be framed under a specific ideology, it points at their lack of willingness to be held accountable by the people when their political triangulations lead them to betray those who elected them.


I am a progressive, interested in seeing this country move forward. I am tired of having to chose between a bat sh*t crazy reactionary, and a corporate tool giving great speeches. I am interested in actions, not words. If Mr. Obama and most of his fellow Dems can't be bothered to be held to a specific ideological standard, then I am not interested in wasting my time voting for him and his toadies.

[katandmoon]

51. The only campaign promise he's kept is to destroy Afghanistan

[AusDem]

62. that's a tad unfair i think

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

i think its a bit more than what you suggest.

[defendandprotect]

53. We need some interim measures to help us -- how about PLEDGES????

Meanwhile, we can't stop corporate $ in campaigns,

overturn the two-party corporate lock on third partiesd --

get IRV voting --

Get rid of the computers -- and NOT only the individual voting computers, but

also the large ones used by our corporate press.

These large computers began to come in in the mid-1960's and gave the corporations

tremendous new power -- whereby they could not only simply REPORT vote totals as

they became available -- but they could PREDICT which candidates would win -- and

PREDICT Electoral Votes. NOT ONLY THAT ... but they could CALL elections for candidates--

and CALL states ---

AND I'M SURE WE ALL NOTICED IN 2000, that they went one step further . . .

they RECALLED Florida from Gore . . . . and then shortly later, RECALLED it for Bush!!!

That's a genie that should be put back in the bottle!!



Clearly we don't have the power nor leverage -- nor do the Democrats seem at

all inclined to help us out with these things ....

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

55. Just a comment on a "mandate to buy" . . . what we need is a government mandate to COVER . . .

and that's what universal health care should be about --

not expensive loop holes that guarantee business for corporates.

[debunkthelies]

57. POD PERSON ???

I feel like we're in the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", I want to ask the President, "Who are you, and what have you done with Barack Obama?":tinfoilhat:

[davidwparker]

58. "hasn't even raised a note of concern" - I think we heard more about

getting a dog than we've heard about his position during this HCR debacle.

[Wardoc]

61. Best part was your last line.

Where IS last year's Obama? I concur.

[juno jones]

63. K&R! n/t

[earcandle]

67. Obama is making excuses for the crime economy? Like we cannot deal with our own police and justice?