White House slammed after declaring ‘not enough support’ for public option

[Donnachaidh]

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/white-house-not-support-public-option/

Progressive bloggers and activists are up in arms about White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' assertion Tuesday that "there isn't enough political support" to pass a public option for health care through Congress.

Asked why President Obama's health reform proposal, unveiled Monday, didn't include a public option, Gibbs said, “There are some that are supportive of this," evidently referring to the 23 US senators who have signed a letter urging the public option to be passed through the reconciliation process.

But "there isn’t enough political support in the majority to get this through,” Gibbs said.

That assertion drew harsh criticism from some corners of the progressive community. AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay declared: "The leader of the free world can't wrangle up 50 votes in the Senate for a provision that polls much better than the president's own health care plan? Doesn't anyone at the White House know how to corral votes on the Hill?"


more at the link above --

[nc4bo]

1. Maybe Gibbs just meant that there wasn't enough support (from the (R) side) to get this through?

(R) as in (R)epublican.

Ya know - little slip up.

:puke:

Edit to clarify. Need coffee.

[harun]

29. We don't have enough support from the R side to pass the butter.

[nc4bo]

31. Bipartisanship going to the next level. Eventually the line will blur between the D's & R's

Oh wait......

[harun]

32. We have no alternative to the Corporate Party's.

[bvar22]

38. The Republicans are irrelevant.

The American voters made them irrelevant in 2008 when they gave the Democrats:
*The White House
*A LARGE Majority in The House
*A Filibuster-proof majority in the Senate
*(Most Importantly) A HUGE MANDATE for "CHANGE".


"Obstructionist Republicans" only serve as a rather poor and transparent excuse for Democrats who refuse to represent their constituents.

[salguine]

55. Irrelevant my ass. They'll come roaring back in November—mark my words—because

over the past year the Democrats have royally fucked up everything they put their hands on. These people couldn't hit water of they fell out of a goddamned boat. They were handed the most sweeping mandate for change in living memory, and more than a year later, with the exception of a few minor non-issues, they have accomplished absolutely SHIT.

74% favor a public option for health care, and the Democrat's WON'T do it. Don't tell me that they can't do it. If they were really on our side they could shove this up the Republicans' asses with a candle on it. With the exception of maybe six Democrats out of both Houses of Congress, the rest are all either as hopelessly corrupt as the most craven Republican douchebag, or they're so spineless they can be classified as a liquid.

"Republicans are irrelevant". Yeah, in your dreams. It's always the cocksure that fall the hardest. The way the Democrats are running things, they're going to lose Congress in November, and I would bet that they lose the White House in 2012. And you know what? If this is the best they can do, fuck 'em. I have no use for them any more. They abandoned me a long time ago, so I really don't give a shit if the Republicans win. Nothing ever changes.

[OHdem10]

2. Translated that means the Right are much louder and more intensive

against Health Care than the Left is for it. They therefore
listen to the Right more than left.

[nc4bo]

6. Sometimes it makes me wonder how in the world Barack Obama became POTUS

I mean it seems like there's more catering to the R's in Congress than the majority of voters who believed there would be change.

There's something very wrong with that picture.

[damyank913]

3. I'm not convinced that the public option is a done deal.

[lonestarnot]

4. Fucking betrayals! Fucking liars! I'm sick of them.

[Bluebear]

52. you n me both my friend

[Captain Hilts]

5. Public support just doesn't matter I guess! Oh well...I thought we elected a leader...nt

[flyarm]

11. our wallets are not stuffed enough ..like perhaps the insurance big boys and big Pharma?

we can't promise Obama enough..like the big boys can..and obviously did in those secret meetings ..

[flyarm]

7. perhaps our pres is afraid of the big bad wolf? eom

[nc4bo]

9. So it's better to run from it rather than take out a big stick and whoop it over the head?

Man - same old, same old.

[flyarm]

12. I'd have taken on the wolf..but then again..I would not have done secret deals with the wolf.

I would have dared him to blow my house down !! And i would have scared the wolf shitless first!

[KharmaTrain]

8. If There Were 15 to 20 More Names On The Bennett Letter

That's the support they're looking at. If there was a sure 51 votes for Public Option, it'd be hard for the administration to dismiss it. From my last count, there were only 23 signers on the Bennett Letter...not even a majority in the Democratic caucus. The Senators who haven't signed or are sitting on the fence are the ones who need to hear from "the people" or "the blogosphere" or whatever they listen to.

[flyarm]

17. nonsense..you have folks in the senate playing good cop- bad cop..

like Rockefeller..and Schumer..and many of the others..it is a cat and mouse game ..there never was any intention of us getting Health "CARE" REFORM..this was all an insurance protection plan from the get go..and the payola was going to those in the senate who cooperated!..and the White House of course.

The rest has been a kabukki dance to make you think they were dong something for you and me and the American people..it is all a big damn joke on all of us..that is why they had paid shills here at DU and many other dem web sites..to muddy the water and then to try to intimidate those of us who didn't go along with their bullshit!

It is the same MO bush used online before the start of his illegal war..only this time it is being done by our own side..but exact same MO..

[bbgrunt]

46. very clear and cogent analysis. thank you flyarm for saying it so well.

[asdjrocky]

10. The people don't count.

See, when they talk about support, they mean their rich friends and the repugs.

[Echo In Light]

22. When will enough Americans realize they haven't any representation, & their "elections" rigged?

The mind boggles

[flyarm]

25. ding ding ding..we have a winner!!! all winners meet on deck #5 ..

prizes will be awarded on a first come basis!!

[dkf]

13. Because the Senators opinions (and those of the lobbyists) are more important

Than those of the people

:puke:

I am disgusted beyond belief. Major FAIL.

[RainDog]

14. those democrats who would not vote for the p.o.

need to be targeted at election time so that they can know that democrats expect Democratic reps to vote for Democratic principles or else change parties.

[dkf]

15. Maybe we need to show the white house how much support there is since they seem to think it is non

Existent.

[nc4bo]

18. The popularity of the campaign rhetoric wasn't enough, the General Election results were not enough,

the numerous public opinion polls are not enough, all the phone calls, letters, emails and editorials aren't enough.

My question to this Administration and to Congress would be: IF none of that is enough than what in the hell is their idea of enough?!

[many a good man]

16. Nate Silver on the politics of the Public Option

...
But frankly, I think the White House is right on the politics of this. Yes, as public option proponents are fond of pointing out, the measure polls well in the isolate. But that's true of a lot of the individual components of the bill -- and the public option is not one of the most popular components, nor one of the ones that ordinary voters consider to be the most "important". The overall package fares poorly not because of concerns about the presence or absence of certain individual measures, but because people are exhausted and turned off by the process and have vague and ill-informed concerns about what the bill would do.

Does the public option, for instance, make it easier for opponents of the bill to perpetuate the perception that the bill represents a "government takeover" -- which certainly does weigh down its polling? Probably at the margins, but that in and of itself almost certainly wouldn't be a reason to reject a sound and popular piece of policy. On the other hand, in the post-Massachusetts environment, inserting a public option would smack of partisanship and backroom dealing -- and trigger a nasty floor fight about its germaneness under reconciliation rules. Voters may not care as much as they claim to about bipartisanship, but they do care about broken promises -- and if the Democrats insert a public option after Obama has gone through all of this rigmarole to demonstrate that he's soliciting Republican input, it's going to look like a flip-flop. I suspect the near-term politics of including a public option in a reconciliation bill are a net negative, although it's hard to know for sure.

Perhaps the White House could have taken a different approach after Massachusetts and embraced populism rather than bipartisanship. In that case, the framing would have been that they were soliciting input from all parties on the health care bill, and the bill that they'd endorse might include quite a few changes from the House and Senate versions -- not just a public option, but also things like drug re-importation and tort reform, which also poll well and also had been taken off the table before. This is a fairly seductive idea -- although bear in mind, again, that the reason for the bill's unpopularity have nothing to do with its individual components. Instead, rather, it polls as considerably less than the sum of its parts -- and it's not clear that changing the parts would have made all that much difference.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/few-final-thoughts-on-ublicpay.html

[flyarm]

19. Nate ..that sounds like a steaming pile of excuses..the real reason is we have a pres who has a

secret deal with the big boys of Insrance and big Pharma and the Hospital conglomerates..he never intended for us to have a public option or Real "Care" reform for that matter..because if he did he would have told the American people the options..He would have done one of the soooooooo many interviews and press talks..and explained a program to the American people..instead he has ducked and run away from having the discussion with the American people..

Nate Nate Nate..you know what it is ..it is a damn Kabukki dance and you know it ..to cover his ass and the ass of those in the senate who want the big $$$$$$$$ from the big boys in the health industry..nothing more..and the kabukki dance is covering their asses!

[tomp]

57. i agree, that is one steaming pile.

it barely conforms to general principles of logic, let alone be persuasive in any way.

i've said it before, if schumer is behind this "public option", watch out!

[bvar22]

39. Bullshit:

"...and the public option is not one of the most popular components, nor one of the ones that ordinary voters consider to be the most "important".

Total bullshit.

The Public Option IS the Single Most Identified component of HCR.
"Without a Public Option, there IS no reform."

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

[many a good man]

47. Most polls show more ambiguity

It usually comes down to the way the question is asked. Normally a lot more support is expressed for elements concerning recission or employer mandates. See the latest CNN poll shown below (from http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/24/rel4ha.pdf).

I think Nate is right that Obama (really Rahm) painted himself in a corner by paying more attention to the public's cries for bipartisanship over the appeal to populism. I agree strongly with him on that point.


Requiring all Americans who do not have health insurance to get it
February 12-15, 2010 45% 53% 1%
November 13-15, 2009* 49% 49% 1%
Requiring all large and mid-sized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees
February 12-15, 2010 72% 27% 1%
November 13-15, 2009* 73% 25% 2%
Preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become seriously ill
February 12-15, 2010 62% 38% *
November 13-15, 2009* 60% 39% *
Preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions
February 12-15, 2010 58% 42% 1%
November 13-15, 2009* 60% 40% 1%
Limiting the amount of money that patients can get if they win a medical malpractice lawsuit
February 12-15, 2010 66% 33% 2%
Creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private companies
February 12-15, 2010 51% 48% 1%

Of course, why let facts stand in the way of a good rant and righteous opinion.

[bvar22]

49. You are attempting to create ambiguity where none exists,

and not doing a very good job.

The Public Opinion is very clear, and demonstrated in numerous polls.

LESS than 35% of ALL Americans support Mandates without a Public Option like Medicare.

It IS that simple.
What is NOT simple is the administration's attempts to distort that fact in order to hide their betrayal of the American Working Class.

"Without a Public Option, there is NO reform."

[many a good man]

50. You deny ambiguity

And you do an even less convincing job than I! You can't just cherry pick the polls you like. You should look at the whole range of polls, even the ones worded in ways that preordain the outcomes we don't want to see because that is what politicians are looking at. I agree they are probably looking at any excuse to justify siding with the big corporate contributors.

It is clear in most polls that there are elements the public prefers over public option. It's more important to people to stop getting screwed so much (recission) and that they get a CHOICE in health care coverage. PO provides more choices.

Like you I am far to the left of public opinion. The difference is I realize it's not that simple. I disagree with Silver in that I think Obama should just go populist and push for the public option and disregard attempts to paint it as hypocrisy. There is enough support for PO to include it in reconciliation. I think it more an issue of political timidity that outright corruption.

[Urban Prairie]

20. Very. Very Disappointing!!

What do we have to do?????

Form our own version of the Tea Party and call it the Public Option Party?!?

[nc4bo]

21. If we're going to do that than we should actually go for Single Payer

and aim BIG.

[proudohioan]

42. Now you're talking!!!!

[Orsino]

23. The White House was soundly spanked last time around...

...and is probably still smarting. Or sulking. Or trembling.

[RainDog]

24. so Gibbs is saying Obama is a weak and ineffective leader of the party?

since those who voted for democrats voted with the expectation that the party supports HEALTH CARE not insurance co. coddling?

and since the majority wants a public option and since a public option POLLS BETTER IN BATTLEGROUND STATES THAN THE SENATE OPTION?

Sudbay was referring to a recent series of polls from Research 2000 showing the public option to be far more popular, in key battleground states, than the Senate bill, which does not include the public option and is very similar to the health reform proposal the president unveiled this week.
Story continues below...

In bellwether Iowa, for example, 35 percent support the Senate bill, while 62 percent support the public option. In Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faces re-election this year, 34 percent support the Senate bill, while 62 percent support the public option.

[NuttyFluffers]

26. my (flaccid) hero!

more WH testing the waters, seeing what it can get away with.
:puffpiece: <- i really like this emoticon!

[leeroysphitz]

27. If this increasingly asinine administration wanted a fucking P.O. there would be a fucking P.O.

End of story. I am so sick and tired of the god damned rope-a-dope bullshit with the Public Option!

It's in, it's out, it's in again, it's out again.

NEWSFLASH: People want a god damned public option! The polls say so. Senators are saying so, the congress said so.

Who, aside, from his corporate paymasters, is the omission of a P.O. designed to appease? Repukes? They aren't voting for this god damned plan no matter WHAT it includes or does not include.

Mr. Obama please get healthcare reform done right or go the fuck home in 2012 and take the rest of these "centrist" assholes in the senate with you.

[mod mom]

28. count me in that slamming!

[lwcon]

30. Let me get this straight (directing this to DU community overall, not necessarily the OP)

We're supposed to be outraged when someone says there aren't enough votes for the meaningless "public-option" agenda.

But we're supposed to be grown-up and serious and properly capitulating when someone says there aren't enough votes for single-payer, which would actually solve our healthcare-access and cost problems.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Without leadership, there is no such thing as enough support

And Obama, who ran loudly opposed to mandates and in favor of a public option also claimed constantly on the trail that he was going to provide that leadership, fill that void.
He has not lead on any issue. His bluster during the campaign was all hot air and mendacity.

[Dinger]

34. Key Words: "political support", Who Gives a Shit ABout PUBLIC Support?

Real fucking nice Gibbs.

[Tailormyst]

35. So the Pres will only ask for what he is sure he can get passed

Instead of standing up for what is right and letting people follow him?

Why the FUCK do we even have a president then? I feel completely shafted by the entire Democratic party right now. Either they are liars or they are spineless cowards. It's one or the other.

[Blue Owl]

36. Sure seems like they're more interested

in appeasing Repukes than the actual Democrats who got them there, that's for sure.

[freddie mertz]

37. Maybe they need to take a hit where it matters.

In the ballot box, in 2012.

[Jefferson23]

40. It is so painfully obvious about Obama on this subject, and it hurts something awful.

[liberal_at_heart]

41. yeah well we'll see how much support the democrats get in November

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. The "Virtual March on Washington" for Real Health Care Reform...

just hit 3/4 of a million faxes! Join it and have fun watching the numbers fly across your screen. It's growing by over 50 people per second!

http://pol.moveon.org/virtualmarch10/action.html?rc=p_hcan

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. To those DUers who are perpetually bad at math...

23 < 60.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Get your numbers right

The target now is 50.

[rhett o rick]

56. And your point is???????????????

[Canuckistanian]

48. I remember the days when PRESIDENTS created "political support"

They didn't just gaze out on the political landscape, shrug their shoulders and say "Gee, I better not do this".

Where's the goddamned leadership?

[amborin]

51. K&R such hypocrisy! they have no shame!

[AlinPA]

53. With only 24/58 Senators in the Democratic Caucus signing on to a P.O., he is correct. If

there were support we would be at 51 by now.

[BrklynLiberal]

54. K&R!