Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nine ways Obama didn’t fight for the robust public option he once promised us.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:22 PM
Original message
Nine ways Obama didn’t fight for the robust public option he once promised us.
While the debate continues over whether our support should or should not be given to HCR in its current guise, I can't ignore the path or paths not taken. The consequences of the choices that Obama made on the road to getting us where we are today are simply too important to gloss over. The rejected options that I list below for the most part were not stand alone and mutually exclusive choices. Many of them could have been coupled in different combinations to increase their individual potency. I start with Obama's campaign platform that called for offering Americans a widely available and robust public option as an alternative to individuals purchasing private for profit health care insurance, and explore how that promise could have been made good. I recognize that in some instances an argument can be made that at some point Obama tried to go down one or the other of the paths I list below. In those rare instances I argue that it was a case of an effort either too little and/or too late for those efforts to sufficiently matter.

We can and probably will argue about the likelihood that each of the means to fight for a Public Option that I outline below could have made a critical difference, or even if they all would have been desirable to pursue. But it isn’t a short list, and the cumulative effect of all of them being virtually if not completely ignored as a strategy to win a robust public option as part of Health Care Reform, I believe calls into question whether that was ever really a serious Obama Administration goal. In no particular order here they are:

1) The Truncated Choices: Single Payer was never on the table even as a chip to be retired during negotiations. Obama could have framed the Health Care Debate as an honest exploration of the full spectrum of choices facing the U.S. going forward. Single Payer has a significant chorus of backers, many sitting in Congress, so it could not be dismissed as a concept only advanced by the fringe, especially since other major western industrialized nations embraced Single Payer as their solution to the health care problems America faces today. A robust debate that detailed many of the advantages that Single Payer offers might have been something some Centrist Senators would have been willing to cut a stronger Public Option deal in order to avoid. We will never really know because Single Payer is a chip that never hit the negotiating table.

2) Refusal to invoke Medicare as a positive example of a government run program: Alarm bells were ringing for me when a Democratic President chose NOT to emphasize praise for the positive difference government run Medicare has made helping the lives of senior citizens who as a group have the most challenging health care issues of any large segment of our society. Even older Tea Party protesters by and large are loyal to their Medicare coverage. The Public Option could have been linked literally or figuratively to a popular Medicare program but it wasn’t. Republicans were given a largely free hand defining a government run health insurance as a Socialist takeover that would pull the plug on Granny. The reservoir of positive feelings most Americans have for Medicare was seldom if ever tapped into to build support for the Public Option.

3) No line drawn in the sand for a Public Option: Neither in public, nor if a number of Democrats in Congress are to believed, in private either did Obama emphatically demand that a Public Option be included in any Health Care Reform package that passed through Congress. Had Obama, riding high in public approval ratings, invested more of the prestige of his Presidency on insisting on a strong Public Option as part of any final deal, the hand of supporters of that Public Option in Congress would have been strengthened greatly. I am not even describing an explicit veto threat, quarries on that specific point could have been answered with diplomatic ambiguity as in “I don’t expect we will reach that point but it certainly is an option open to me that I would very seriously have to consider”.

4) The Bi-Partisan Fetish: Who doesn’t love one big happy family, but if it’s clear that it’s not going to happen someone has to get the blame while you concentrate on taking care of the people’s business even without that broad consensus. Rather than harshly calling out the National Republican Party for a clear and obviously premeditated obstructionist stance that 90% of the sentient beings in the Universe had already seen clear through, Obama insisted on singing the praises for obtaining bi-partisan agreement on reforming our Health Care system well into late Fall. Let’s give him one and say that Olympia Snowe actually negotiated with Democrats in good faith; close call but let’s just say that’s true. One Republican in Congress does not a bi-partisan approach make. The charade of an unaccountable to the public, let alone other Senators, cabal pulled together by Max Baucus behind closed doors to negotiate a bi-partisan approach to Health Care Reform added many long weeks if not months to the legislative timetable reform efforts followed. During that time the Obama Administration largely held its fire on Republicans so as not to upset “delicate negotiations” while the Republican Party used every gun in it’s arsenal to train sustained heavy fire on all of Obama’s efforts. The quest for elusive Republican support contributed further to compromises, and kept the Obama Administration on the defensive instead of on offense.

5) Failure to evoke the then fresh Corporate driven near complete economic melt down: If there was ever a time in recent American history when “Privatization” should have been a four letter word it was when Barack Obama took office and the 8 months that immediately followed. If there ever was a private sector of the economy viewed less favorably than the fat cat Wall Street bankers who thoroughly gamed our economy, it is private health insurance providers who thoroughly gamed our lives, the clever immoral inventors of the “pre-existing condition” concept who keep experiencing record profits while increasing numbers of Americans die through their malign neglect. Under that dramatic set of circumstances, a government mandated expansion of the reach such a discredited private sector industry has into all of our lives, an industry that millions of Americans can personally recite vivid horror stories about, should not even have been on the table without an at least equally large expansion of the public sector also. Yet Republicans and some blue dog Democrats were repeatedly able to cite their concern for protecting the health of that industry’s profits as an argument against creating a robust public option, without facing strong counter arguments from the White House, at least not until late in the game..

6) Refusal to threaten a turning of the screws against early non Republican resisters: Dramatic major national policy initiatives are seldom if ever moved through Congress without at least the credible threat of some serious Presidential arm twisting and/or future repercussions to erstwhile allies for failing to fall into line. It’s hard to detect even a whiff of that pressure having been applied to opponents/skeptics of the Public Option, and there is no one who denies the truth of that observation. When the White House has put pressure on Democrats to fall in line, it has been for the compromises that at first badly weakened and then finally eliminated the Public Option.

7) Failure to exhort his base to pressure Congress to deliver a robust Public Option: First on display during the 2008 Democratic primaries and later during the Presidential race, there has never been a national Democratic Party leader more skilled at attracting and harnessing the energies of a vast grassroots base of followers than Barack Obama. Early in his administration Obama went to great pains to institutionalize mechanisms for retaining that direct connection with his grassroots base of supporters, which is exactly what he promised to do during his Presidential campaign, as a way to over ride institutional inertia and deliver on his campaign pledges to America. At no point did Obama issue a call to that carefully assembled and maintained base of supporters to specifically lobby Congress for the preservation of a robust Public Option in his overall Health Care Reform proposals.

8) Refusal to openly brandish the Senate Reconciliation Process as a back up option: Reconciliation has always been an arrow available in the Democrat’s Senate quiver for dealing with a minority of determined willful obstructionists to real health care reform. The use of it has the potential to instantly transform someone like Joe Lieberman from a king pin into a has been. While it is not applicable to many matters of regulatory reform, it could be used to pursue the significant budgetary savings that an expansion of Medicare and/or the creation of a robust Public Option can be claimed to offer. And since it only takes 50 Senators plus Vice President Biden to get a bill through the Senate with reconciliation, using this route could bypass the need to even consider most of the watered down compromises of a robust Public Option that were made while looking for votes on the way to the Senate killing it off completely in their final legislation. While reconciliation was never completely ruled out by Democratic leadership, it never was openly used as leverage against obstructionists blocking progress in the Senate either. Even a plausible serious threat to enact a very robust Public Option via reconciliation might have convinced one or two Republicans, centrist Democrats, and/or Lieberman to at least allow for cloture on debate of a conventional Senate bill with a less robust Public Option contained in that instead. And the threat of reconciliation need not have been only an idle one.

9) Decision not to threaten the end of the Filibuster; the so-called Nuclear Option: Republicans went to great efforts to educate the public of this option back when they still controlled the White House. The filibuster as a Senate option can be wiped away at any time by a bare majority of Senators willing to be party to killing it for all time. Without a filibuster to contend with, Health Care Reform or any other issue on the Democrat’s agenda can pass through the Senate with a simple majority vote and there would be little or nothing Republicans could now do to prevent it with their current depleted numbers in that chamber. It would dramatically change the way the Senate has conducted business in recent years, some say for the better, some say for the worse, but without the threat of a filibuster Obama could easily have passed virtually any Health Care Reform that he wanted through the U.S. Senate. The thing about the nuclear option though is that it is so sweeping in its long term consequences that simply threatening to trigger it off can be a potent negotiating tool in itself. Republicans were generally pleased with the result such a threat had on Democrats behavior in the Senate after the Republican leadership seemed poised to go that route. Obviously triggering the nuclear option would have swept away resistance in the Senate to a real public option and an expanded Medicare buy in, but just the threat to do so might have worked a minor miracle. A few Senate Republicans with little to fear from a conservative backlash against them (and there are at least 3 at least somewhat moderate Republican Senators who fit that bill) could have joined most Democrats in voting for cloture on Health Care Reform in return for a promise to bury the nuclear option again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FarLeftFist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. I know he's horrible right.
We all want Bush back.....Riiiiiight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Busted. That's it exactly, how did you know?
I'm sure my pizza is about to be delivered any second now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
33. Thank you, Tom, for a very thoughtful, smart indictment of the charade we have just
witnessed. IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.

No real EFFORT was made for REAL REFORM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Histrionics is hardly conducive to discussion of where things went wrong.
Invoking Bush to excuse some very real failings on the part of our current leadership is sort of like saying "Well, I guess you thought Saddam Hussein was great man!" to justify the Iraq war.

It evokes an emotional reaction and offers false choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarLeftFist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I was hoping sarcasm would evoke emotional reactions.
I guess I forgot to hit the sarcasm button on my keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. And sadly, people use the "I guess you'd prefer McCain" very often
when others criticize President Obama's moves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
51. So then you admit to being manipulative?
How is that any better? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
22. because the only possible choice is between bush & the corporate dems...riiiiiiiight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. Don't you ever get tired of that shit.
That false dichotomy has only been posted half a dozen times this evening. "Either love Obama, or you're a republican."

Do you really lack imagination that you can only see those two choices? You really can't imagine that any other options that would have been better than Obama's dismal failure?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
52. It's not false
Don't vote Democratic and you will get a Republican in office. That is, assuming the numbers are so great that they will have an effect.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. You still ignore the idea of improving the party from within
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 08:21 PM by ThomCat
and making better choices that Obama has made, which, of course, is nearly impossible with people like you in the party who are perfectly happy with the status quo. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
griffi94 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. it's funny when you think about it
we're supposed to stay in the party and change it from within, but we're supposed to shut up never criticize and follow the party line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. You're absolutely right about the catch-22.
Oh yes, I'm sure they laugh quite a lot about how funny they make it for progressives. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Then present Democrats, not infiltrators
from the right. Surely you don't think that just having a D after your name makes you a Democrat? I certainly will never support the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party. How did happen? We have a party that has been overtaken by people who are not Democrats. If someone invaded your home, would welcome them just because they got in and call them part of your family?

Voting for DLCers gets us Republican rule. We just saw it happen with this HCR debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Self delete
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 03:26 PM by ljm2002
I should have read the thread before responding.

Although you might consider using the sarcasm tag. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
50. *What* is the difference? What has Obama done? He has basically carried
on every policy Bush had at the end of his second term.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-25-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
63. self-delete
Edited on Fri Dec-25-09 09:16 PM by ima_sinnic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ted Kennedy took Single payer off the table. So, the table was tilted right from the very start. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. A good point to be made if true and I have no reason to doubt you
Much as I generally liked Ted and as sure as I am that health care reform was a passion of his life, that doesn't mean he was always right about tactics and I don't consider him a Saint. Bottom line though is we elected Obama and the buck does stop with the President - though I can understand why he might have listened to Kennedy closely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. I was surprised because I inherently trust him. I think he felt that he could
negotiate a good deal for us, then, he died and that left Baucus in charge.

The loss of Ted Kennedy is a huge one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. of course, Ted's not here to back up that statement
timing is everything, yes? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. It's not a slam against Ted, whom I admire greatly, especially on this issue, but it was
taken off the table while he was chair. As explained to me, he felt that he had the means to negotiate a good deal on HCR, and he probably did, but he died and that left that creep Baucus in charge.

The rolling eyes don't contribute to this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. His loss when we lost him was a severe blow
I think you are correct that he was the irreplacable player who could have steered this all through to a better outcome. Your speculation seems quite plausible to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
48. Not so fast. This DailyKos blog tells a different story. Single-Payer may be alive....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds like he was crossing his fingers behind his back anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. Very solid argument.
Of course, the question is "why"? Two possible answers, neither of which is satisfying. 1) Obama is weak, ineffectual, etc. 2) Obama is a corporate pawn and got exactly the bill he wanted by "failing" as described above.

I see no other options.

Kill the bill.


Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarLeftFist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Could be b/c the HC system donated $18 million to his campaign too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. That would be my answer #2, above.
Yes. That is a possibility.

Kill the bill.


Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. For the purpose of this OP I decided to stay away from the matter of motives
Except of course to question the extent Obama cared if a robust public option made it into the final product. Why he may or may not have cared is a different but obviously interesting and probably controversial topic also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. I choose door #2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-27-09 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
65. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. Like you say, those are the choices we have
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 03:49 PM by truedelphi
in terms of whom this man is.

He ran as a statesman, and some people (including folks at this household) considered him a visionary.

But was that a ploy to get elected? Or did the Powers that Be squeeze him into a different persona once in office? What kool aid was he given? And why did he accommodate them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-25-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
64. #2. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. That damn Obama, can't do anything right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
34. EPIC FLAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R. Thoughtful post, by and large.
(Though I'm not at all fond of #9, Nuclear Option.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-22-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I have some mixed feelings about that one also
But I never even heard any serious grumblings about possibly needing to use it, and even the threat can be potent. Truth is though, at the rate dysfunction in the Senate keeps growing, barring some change sooner or later that trigger will be pulled
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. All true.
...even the threat can be potent. Truth is though, at the rate dysfunction in the Senate keeps growing, barring some change sooner or later that trigger will be pulled.


:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
21. Obama is pragmatic. He assesses the landscape for what it is, not
what he wants it to be. He made his arguments for the PO. We all heard him. All the while knowing that certain Democratic senators were on RECORD as saying they could not support it. So to say he didn't fight for it is just not true. So, what is he supposed to do once he counts the votes during the summer and realizes that PO is almost for a certainty off the table? Should he not go with plan B? Should he demand of entrenched senators, that it be plan A or nothing. That seems to be what most DUers would prefer. I'm glad that Obama is pragmatic. Because for decades, plan A has been off the table. It was time to go with plan B.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. yes, you know his secret heart. when certain senators spoke, he was powerless.
the pres = rubber stamp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
38. Is 'pragmatic' the word, or wimpy?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. "Pragmatic" does not mean stacking the deck with insurance executives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
24. Well written, Rinaldo!
I don't think our President made a good faith effort to engage the public and involve us, our thoughts, about what we need and what options are possible.

Instead for the first 3 months of this year he met with big heath care corporate representatives and talked with THEM.

Baxk in June and July of 2008 Obama talked about public option. This year he dropped it. What most of us wanted was single payer. We got screwed instead and the health insurance industry will get even richer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
25. They should have used reconciliation when they had the public option in their version
Then they would have been heroes, now they're zeroes.

All of the votes have been strictly down the party lines for the last 2 days.
The Republicans were never going to let Snowe or any of the other Republican Senators vote for it.

Ever.
Never.

It was stupid to waste so much time thinking they would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piratefish08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
27. Pres. Obama has clearly stated he did NOT campaign on a Public Option. Can't we all just revise
history and move on??

It worked so well in the Bush years.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Good idea. Revolution? What Revolution?
God save the Queen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #27
47. Obama promised a public option (July 17, 2009). Sign the petition at...Yes, We Still Can
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
29. Kick since this is now a top recommended Kos Diary
Even though it was first posted here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
30. That just about covers it
And watching this process (and being old enough to remember how the old pols worked) makes me ask, "Is Obama really this inept or is he compromised?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
31. "Refusal to threaten a turning of the screws against early non Republican resisters"
Exactly right.

Good post..recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
32. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
36. K & R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
40. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
42. I hope Obama continues to reject these calls to employ the 'bull in a china shop' approach
to governing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Time Pagan Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Me too because his handing everything over to the top 2%,
the corporatocracy, and the military-industrial complex is working so well for the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
43. Well done. K+R This was not defensible nor should it be yet
some have made it clear that anything can be done and they will applaud. People should be placed over politics but sadly for many that is not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
44. k&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
46. knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
49. This reads like the D of I's list of charges against the King. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
54. Maybe
1) The Truncated Choices: Single Payer was never on the table even as a chip to be retired during negotiations.

If there was no chance to get the votes then it would have been stupid to start here. If you are settling a court case and you demand a million dollars on a case worth $4000, you lose credibility and get laughed out of the room and go through a jury trial and get a verdict for less than you could have settled for. People have this oversimplistic view of negotiations. Demanding that he start at single payer only works if there is some threat that single payer could be passed.

2) Refusal to invoke Medicare as a positive example of a government run program:

Possibly. Fraught with peril as of course the M$M would then have found Medicare Fail stories.

3) No line drawn in the sand for a Public Option:

Presumes it is possible to convince Lieberman of the public option. Even if the public is all the way behind it, that includes the whole public and does not account for the Senate having two per state no matter how low the population of the state is. And the Republicans sticking together like glue and filibustering everything is just a fact - the people are not proportionately represented. The public option went through the House. Nobody gives Obama credit for that.

4) The Bi-Partisan Fetish:

You can call out the Republicans all day. They will still stand firm. They don't care. And they are the ones that would want you to be sold out to your corporate masters and without health care unless you can afford it.

5) Failure to evoke the then fresh Corporate driven near complete economic melt down:

Americans aren't like this. They want a job, if that means corporations, fine. They don't care enough about this stuff.


6) Refusal to threaten a turning of the screws against early non Republican resisters:

The President has to deal with this Senate for the next three years. Way to make sure they never support him ever.


7) Failure to exhort his base to pressure Congress to deliver a robust Public Option:

The Progressives claiming to be the base are blaming the President that they didn't pressure Congress? The House did do a public option. I've tried pressuring a Blue Dog and other states that have them, and Connecticutians should be responsible for that.


8) Refusal to openly brandish the Senate Reconciliation Process as a back up option:

Again, threats that could backfire on other issues.

9) Decision not to threaten the end of the Filibuster; the so-called Nuclear Option:

This is up to the Senate.



I don't think you would know how to do it better than the President, or that it could have been done if your strategy had only been followed. You probably don't have the experience.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. You really skew things in your approach to Number Three
You say;
3) No line drawn in the sand for a Public Option:

Presumes it is possible to convince Lieberman of the public option. Even if the public is all the way behind it, that includes the whole public and does not account for the Senate having two per state no matter how low the population of the state is. And the Republicans sticking together like glue and filibustering everything is just a fact - the people are not proportionately represented. The public option went through the House. Nobody gives Obama credit for that.

No that is not the point. the point is that once obama was in office, he never made much of a public stand for the public option.

When asked about it over the summer by a Univ of Colorado, Boulder student, Obama replied, "Well, um the public option is just one of several tools, and we don't even know if the public option will be in the final bill."

If LBJ had behaved like Obama did during his summer of initiating the Civil Rights Act, LBJ would have paid more attention to segregationists than to the liberals, and would have seen to it that only the black people who could buy some Civil Rights could have them. SPerhaps LBJ might ahve come up wihth the following -- that any blacks willing to play a premium each month to the KKK could have all the Civil Rights they wanted, and those blacks who couldn't afford the premiums could face penalties. With some cash in a campaign coffer from those receiving the monies, if LBJ got this "premium" idea of Civil Rights out there.

Face it, Obama sold us out. Someone who could have been a statesman was just a plain old politician, though one with a really pretty and smart wife and two great kids.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Obama is dealing with a lot of issues and not just this
Everyone is to be insured under this plan, not just those who can afford it on their own. Your analogy is crazy. Obama did not listen to Republicans or he would be doing nothing and would veto the bill because it interferes with the free market. Sold us out is hyperbole. How could people afford even the public option if they didn't get help? The only issue here is private insurance rather than public insurance. Either way, the person is covered even if they can't afford it on their own. Some Americans distrust the government, other distrust insurance companies. Either way, someone is going to complain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. Everyone could have been insured under a really good plan, and not this
Edited on Thu Dec-24-09 03:52 AM by truedelphi
Insurance Giveaway. The premiums that we will be paying for with our sweat and blood will probably end up paying for the re-design of the Corproate Headquarters of the Big Insurers. While they collect their bonuses, and while there are cutbacks on our care. That is what you get from a Sold Out Congress and a Sold Out Prez.

Read this and weep -
MSNBC Countdown w/ LAWRENCE O'DONNELL - 22 December 2009:

In an interview with CIGNA whistleblower Wendell Potter, O'Donnell discusses the medical loss ratio - the "amount of money insurance companies must spend on actual health care" - included in the Senate bill and in the overall health care reform.

O'DONNELL: "It's called medical loss ratio, the amount of money insurers must spend on actual health care... It is in the Senate bill and insurance companies are already trying to manipulate it. The bill will impose a medical loss ration of 80-85%. Sen. Jay Rockefeller had pushed for a 90 percent ration, and he tells Time Magazine that customers have a right to know how much of their premiums are spent on administrative costs and advertising. But, as Smart Money reports, the insurance companies already see a silver lining in the new MLR regulations.

Karl McDonald, a health care analyst for the investment bank Oppenheimer & Co. wrote in a memo to clients that:


"the number was 'workable' for insurers, especially if they can label certain items that count as corporate expenses for accounting purposes as health care for purposes of meeting the spending minimum."

Earlier this year, the Senate Commerce Committee investigated medical loss ratios, resulting in Aetna admitting that it had misreported its revenues that overstated its MLR in the small group market. Aetna then amended its filings to reflect the actual numbers.

- snip -

O'DONNELL: "Now, what are the insurance companies thinking about how they're going to approach this new regulation on medical loss ratios?"

WENDELL POTTER: "Well, just like they did two years ago in California when that state tried to reform its health care system, there was general agreement among the insurance companies that they could live with an 85 percent medical loss ration because they knew they could manipulate the numbers and they could define the terms, in other words, they could make them work for them by being able to categorize expenses in certain areas."

O'DONNELL: "This is first of all designed to cut into their profit margins. Will it do that?"

POTTER: "It can if there is significant regulation and we have enough transparency..."

- snip -

O'DONNELL: "Is there anyone currently employed in the U.S. government - at the IRS, or in the HHS - who knows how to enforce this; how to go into an insurance company and figure out what their real medical loss ratio is?"

POTTER: "No, I don't think so. At least I haven't come across them. One of the things I have learned over the last six months is that there is very, very little understanding in Washington about how commercial health insurance companies work, including on Capitol Hill. The exceptions are Sen. Rockefeller and his team..."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-24-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
61. In 1968 at the age of 14 I had my first argument about single payer systems

I grew up in a house where "socialized medicine" was ranked 3 steps below "Hitler's ovens".


Over the 41 years since I had that first argument I have been in hundreds of those discussions.


In those 41 years significant health care reform never got to first base.


I remember in College taking a course on existentialism and ethics, and there was a project on "the most important lesson from Detrich Bonehoffer". The professor had an instersting test in class, everyone would have a chance and explaine what they thought the most important lesson from DB was and the first one to get it would get an "A" and everyone else would get a "B". The longer you waited the more wrong answers you could exclude but if you waited too long somebody else would get the "A".

After the 7th very intelligent student got up and gave another breathtaking explanation of the existential value of suffering for Grace I got up and simply said "he failed to kill Hitler". The structure of the test reflected DB's own dillema, act for certain or act to play for a potential result.

After 60 years of efforts the President's tactics succeeded. To argue that other tactics would have been more successful you would have to establish that they would have changed Joe Lieberman's position. That is a high burden of proof because Lieberman is not tied to anything rational. He knows that he is not going to get reelected and he has even moved because he is no longer welcomed socially in his old neighborhood. So who can tell what would move Lieberman.


I agree that single payer was taken off too early. That was a tactical mistake. I don't believe that it would have made any difference but still the first compromise was taken too early, especially since a state single payer option could have been kept on the table.


For many months Senator Conrad has been saying to anyone who would listen "we don't have the votes for a Public Option". At the time it absolutely drove me crazy. He wouldn't say that he was against it, just that the votes weren't there. It would appear that Lieberman had made his vote clear from the begining. All of the tactics would not change that - unless the could get Snowe on board.

So if you know as a fact that Lieberman was going to filibuster anything that had a public option the tactics which you criticize now make sense, they were trying to get the Public Option included by going through Snowe.


Final observation, as an African American the President doesn't have to appear bipartisan he has to appear twice as bipartisan as other presidents. Even when it is totally futile he has to make the effort and always come back with a congenial temper. If you don't understand this basic fact that he faces then you have not accepted that atleast half of the people in the country don't share the same sensibilities that you and I have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-25-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. There a lot of things that we don't know
Some because the people who do know aren't telling us, others because they are essentially unknowable because some choices ultimately were made and others not. I tried to be careful with my list to at least only list options that IMO we have good reasons to believe weren't really tried. That's as close as I can get to making a definitive case that things could have turned out differently.

We do not know if Lieberman knew all along that he planned to filibuster any Public Option for example - or a Medicare buy in either. I suspect that he wasn't always that firm. I remember when he made a public comment fairly late in the game that he would be disinclined to block HCR over a procedural vote - since he usually didn't embrace that tactic, though his vote on the bill itself was a different matter. There were about 5 days I remember when the buzz coming from Capital Hill was optimistic that the entire Democratic Caucus might be persuaded to vote for cloture and then vote their conscience on the bill itself.

While I believe that Lieberman enjoyed throwing a finger at progressives, I think his interest in protecting a special interest that he and his wife are close to, i.e. the private insurance lobby, was foremost in his mind. I think he always planned to get the best deal possible for them, but if some of the scenarios that I listed had been implemented, his read on what the best deal possible was could well have changed. No doubt he never would have allowed a robust public option under standard Senate rules, but had this been played out differently he might have backed something much weaker to prevent something closer to what Obama called for as a candidate. And at least two of the options I listed included at least making a plausible threat to take away Lieberman's ability to filibuster to prevent a public option from being included. I believe Lieberman kept reading Obama's resolove and calibrated his obstructionism accordingly.

I don't put too much weight on Conrad's comments, because he may have been correct, but correct only because Obama was not using some of the options I listed. After Tea Bag Summer the P.O. was virtually dead and I don't doubt the votes were lacking for it until activists and progressives refused to give up on it. And I don't think Conrad ever was really behind the P.O. anyway, which would also give him a vested interest in undercutting expectations that it was possible to pass.

As to the matter of racism and how that effected Obama - yes of course. But even within that context I think he went further in pursuing bipartisanship than was advisable for him under the circumstances. Of course that is a subjective read also. Had HCR been the first shot out of the box rather than the stimulus bill, I may have agreed with you, but the script has already been played out to conclusion once before, I don't think he had to read from it again for as long as he did on HCR.

I hope this holiday season is good to you grantcart, and to all who may be reading this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC