WP: Obama never secretly killed the public option. It’s a myth

[dennis4868]

I know we are supposed to blame Obama for everything at this website but sometimes facts are important. Below is an article from the Washington Post website:

Did Obama secretly kill the public option?

The question is still an important one for many liberals. The claim lives on to this day, and is still seen as perhaps the clearest evidence from Obama’s first term that liberals ultimately can’t trust him on their core priorities, and won’t be able to trust him going forward.

But did he? A close look suggests there’s no evidence that he did.

The latest version of this assertion comes today in a Drew Westen Op ed. He claims as outright fact that even as pundits endlessly debated the public option, in reality “the president had cut a deal with health care industry executives to block it the year before.”

Westin links to what appears to be confirmation for this story, and it’s been repeated by others. However, if you follow the links the story starts to dissolve — after a couple levels of assertions that this “deal” has been proven, it turns out to be built on some very murky stuff.

Foe those still interested in facts here is the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-never-secretly-killed-the-public-option-its-a-myth/2011/11/17/gIQAZQt0UN_blog.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

2. When people want to believe something, facts aren't a requirement. Recommend. nt

[young but wise]

3. ...

[boppers]

20. Faith trumps logic.

In a nutshell, every tragic crime we have inflicted upon the world is found in those three little words.

[young but wise]

4. K&R.

[Historic NY]

5. Make the Senate sell the PO as an alternative....

multiple Senate Democrats talked openly about being constrained by the reimportation and hospital costs deals at the time, even as they continued to publicly support the public option. In other words, these Senators confirmed that a deal had been made, and acted accordingly — but they did not act as if the public option had been nixed. There were no signs that any of these Dems thought the deal contained any provision killing the public option. Only when the votes weren’t there for it in the full Senate was the public option finally pulled.

[CTyankee]

102. I agree with your assessment. Looking back, I wonder how it was that

ALL of the Democrats running in the presidential primary had a public option which they talked about confidently. Something happened after Obama was elected. These were people who had been in the Senate, such as Hillary and John Edwards. Surely they wouldn't have talked so assuredly in the primaries if they knew it was impossible. My guess it was the nefarious workings of Joe Lieberman, but I may be giving him too much credit...Ijust don't know but something doesn't add up and Joe looks like the Joker in the deck...

[BlueCaliDem]

6. I knew this was never the case

because Congress, not the President, drafts and passes laws. Using that fundamental, constitutional FACT, and having watched the wrangling during the height of the TeaBagger Party orchestrated "demonstrations", the Democrats in Congress, as well as their "friends on the other side of the aisle" Republicans, were working 24/7 to push the blame on Obama.

I was, therefore, astonished when I saw self-professed Liberals all over the media denouncing Obama, and thought to myself, why in the HELL are they doing that?!?

[vaberella]

19. This is what is forgotten by Dems...I find. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

127. I find that same conclusion, vaberella. eom

[BlancheSplanchnik]

77. +a jillion

I wish people would read all the posts in this thread...could learn a lot about how bill-passing works in real life.

I know DU certainly is educational for me...It's easy to refuse to consider facts because they conflict with one's anger.

[BlueCaliDem]

128. Thanks, BlancheSplanchnik. And you're so right.

I wish more people would come to this thread to actually read the posts instead of simply voting them down when they see anything remotely positive about President Obama.

[Kennah]

7. 219 and 60

Those were the number of Ayes in the House and Senate, respectively. If one doesn't know, bills require 218 Aye votes to pass the House. It was by the slimmest of margins that we got what we got, which improved a lot of things for a lot of people.

[ellisonz]

14. +535

[dennis4868]

15. +1000000000000000000000000000

[MjolnirTime]

60. We never ever had the 60.

[BklnDem75]

68. Kennah's referring to the final bill that did pass

We were lucky to get even that.

[TheWraith]

107. And it took how many MONTHS of pounding, massaging, deal-making, pressure, etcetera...

To get that many votes?

People SEVERELY underestimate how hard it is to actually get things done. That includes legislation as well as electing the people to pass the legislation. I for one am glad we got what we did accomplished.

[blueclown]

8. The public option was killed by Evan Bayn and Ben Nelson.

I think where progressives get mad at President Obama (not me, though) is in their narrative that the President didn't "fight hard enough" for the public option. I'm not sure there was more he could do. The public option passed through the House, but it ran through a roadblock in the Senate, thanks to the two conservadems. The President rightfully believed that he would rather see the bill pass than fail, since it contained many reforms that progressives have been fighting for for years, such as guarenteed issue and an individual mandate.

[robinlynne]

9. He could have let the single-payer reps into the room. That's how you get a public option.

for example.

[blueclown]

10. Agreed that there should have been single-payer representatives at the hearings.

However, I disagree with your assertion that the mere presence of these single-payer spokespeople would have led to the passing of the public option. It's a very faulty assumption. There are two completely seperate ideas.

[vaberella]

17. I'm sorry to say your statement is laughable. If the PO had no chance; how would single payer?

In any event, he did. Actually Whitehouse who was a rep was there and about two other people were pushing single payer. I watched the summit. Did you? But it had no chance. Not in hell. So Obama tried to get something close to it w/ the PO...they weren't having it.

[cui bono]

22. Laughable? Then you didn't understand the point, or maybe negotiating.

Single payer is the more difficult of the two to achieve. Therefore you begin asking for that and entertaining it seriously, then you SETTLE for the public option.

And I beg to differ when you say Obama tried to get the public option. He didn't try at all. He caved almost immediately on that and that's what a lot of people complained about. He didn't use tried and true negotiating tactics. He gives in before the negotiating even starts.

[BklnDem75]

70. Caved almost immediately?

It was one of the final things keeping the overall bill from passing besides the abortion language. Were you actually paying attention?

[TheWraith]

124. You're under the mistaken belief that negotiation automatically means meeting in the middle.

It doesn't. Negotiation means finding what's acceptable to the minimum number of parties. If I'm negotiating a salary with my employer, and they propose $30,000, me proposing $1 million doesn't mean we "compromise" at $515,000.

[treestar]

145. +1

This silly idea is everywhere. And in this case, it was very complex. Not just one item of negotiation but hundreds.

[One of the 99]

151. Good point! nt

[One of the 99]

150. Not laughable but unrealistic.

Going for single payer would have just killed the whole reform process from the outset.

[vaberella]

16. He fought. I never saw someone going to bat for the Public Option so much.

95% of Dems did not even in the House and Senate of community meetings really talked or pushed the PO. This wasn't only Obama's obligation. It was Congress' as well and they failed miserably.

But it wasn't just the men who were against it... We had people like Lincoln and Landrieu who stated publicly they would kill the bill if there was a public option.

[cui bono]

62. When did he fight? Can you provide some evidence of that?

I don't recall nary a peep from him fighting for it. As I recall he pretty much gave it up as soon as the TP started whining about it.

[BklnDem75]

64. I don't recall your version of events at all

All fights aren't done out in the open, but during the back and forth that lead to the final bill, Obama was out almost everyday trying to sell his vision and keeping it intact.

[flpoljunkie]

30. Don't forget Joe Lieberman. He publicly opposed the public option, as well.

[young but wise]

132. +1

[Mojorabbit]

130. Progressives had been fighting for an individual mandate for years? nt

[FrenchieCat]

11. Same thing as the lie that Pres. Obama called Americans "Lazy".....

When he was talking about the Government being lazy.

Folks believe what they want to believe, and although most know it isn't the truth...
if it helps their case, they will grow the lie. Its called intellectual dishonesty.

It is sadder still that more than just Republicans and the media does this.

At the end of the day, folks will get what they deserve though....
that is something I strongly believe...although sometimes it takes longer
than it should at seeing it happen.

[slay]

12. No, it was single-payer that he avoided like the plague - wouldn't even talk about it

what a great leader!!1! :eyes:



Insurance Companies, Hospitals Get A Last-Minute Gift In The Health Care Bill

WASHINGTON (BY ALAN FRAM, AP) - Tucked into President Barack Obama's health care bill are several 11th-hour changes that help major insurance companies

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/21/health-care-bill-insuranc_n_507506.html

[vaberella]

18. Actually. The health care debate was being derailed before it started.

Politicians were against it---most of them were just appeasing Obama it seemed. Until they realized Obama really wanted to fight this.

Single Payer never had a chance with Congress and you know this as well as I do. Why waste our time on the implausible when we can focus on something that can be done. Obama thought the PO would have worked. But the republicans were able to convince enough people that even that is the work of Satan.

I think to engage of this discussion of "why not single payer" is absurd. I think Congress from Johnson would have voted single payer down. Congress for all intents and purposes and no matter how many democrats there are----if they are not liberal democrats in mass amounts in both House and Congress. Your hope for single payer would never happen. And obviously neither would the public option.

[slay]

21. Only because congress is completely corrupt - they don't give a shit about us

and i don't think Obama does either.

[Enthusiast]

24. Bingo

[The Doctor.]

99. Bwhaahaha... "Bingo" is when someone actually makes a valid point.

Unsupported opinions qualify for praise the way Michelle Bachmann qualifies for high office.

I also notice your hammer seems to have failed and given up.

[treestar]

146. Oh BS

Congress is made up of people elected from 535 districts. Some of those districts have a majority who disagree with you on various issues.

[MjolnirTime]

61. Single Payer was never an option because out would immediately wipe out the Insurance industry

That has to happen over time to not be completely detrimental to the economy.
Not in one fell swoop.

[The Doctor.]

100. No, it can happen all at once without causing any lasting harm.

Sure, there would be massive layoffs at first. Many would be in call centers in India and Brazil. The Americans that would be put out of work by the death of the insurance industry would find jobs fairly quick in the newly booming economy Single-Payer would spark.

[MjolnirTime]

143. The Insurance Industry is 18% of the economy. It would most certainly be harmful to cut its throat.

It has to be strangled slowly over time.

And it will be.

[treestar]

147. Those assertions require a lot more proof

[stevenleser]

153. I think it much more likely we will end up with a dual tier system like France where...

everyone is guaranteed medical care but you can buy supplemental private insurance that enhances speed and other factors of care. It makes their system the best in the world and that is what I want to have.

[Number23]

13. Everyone already knows all of this

I honestly believe that the folks still screaming about the "public option" and single payer knowing damn well neither had any chance of passing Congress do it solely for effect.

"A much more logical explanation is that there was no deal on the public option, and that it died because there just were not 60 Democrats willing to support it."

Everyone knows this. And if you don't know it by now then you probably have much bigger issues to worry about since you can't see, read or hear what's right damn in front of you.

[Enrique]

39. this rewriting history makes me very cynical

When people started questioning whether we'd see the public option, I kept reading on DU, "wait for the big Obama speech, he WILL call for the public option."

And then after the public option is gone, now we're told "everybody knew the public option never had a chance".

[mistertrickster]

72. Amen, my brother. Even when he massively fails, "it's not his fault."nt

[Number23]

94. This is not hard, people!

I can't tell if you are deliberately missing my point as well as that of the article's or if all of this is just confusing for you.

He pushed for the public option. When it was obvious that he did not have the votes then the PO died on the vine and something else (the current HCR bill) had to be put in its place.

The screams of "why didn't he push for the public option?" are absurd. He DID push for it. But how hard should someone push even after they realize that something has NO CHANCE of passing? Only an idiot would continue to demand something that simply will not come to fruition.

[stevenleser]

155. If you want to seem to be the cool outside revolutionary that gets it. Then it is hard to accept

anything that upsets that narrative. Those kinds of folks will not let little things like the truth get in the way.

[stevenleser]

154. Then don't rewrite history to suit what you would like to believe. nt

[shellgame26]

65. +1

[mistertrickster]

71. If it had no chance of passing, why did the President demand that it MUST pass?

You know more about what can pass than President Obama?

If he promises something that he knows can't pass, he's a liar. If he promises something that he thinks can pass, but doesn't, he's a failure.

Take your pick . . .

[Number23]

95. What is it that you are not understanding?

If it had no chance of passing, why did the President demand that it MUST pass?

Perhaps, because he WANTED it to pass?? When he realized that it was not GOING to pass, another option was created. Exactly WHAT is it that you are not understanding?

If he promises something that he knows can't pass, he's a liar. If he promises something that he thinks can pass, but doesn't, he's a failure.

That is probably the most pitiful thing I think I've seen on DU. So because the president shot for the moon and was denied it because of the Senate, he is a "failure?" I am so very thankful that the vast majority of people (not just in America, the WORLD) do not see things in such simplistic, small-minded ways. If we all thought like you, heroes, prophets and poets all over the world throughout history would be considered "failures" because they didn't enact sweeping legislative change but only changed the way people THINK about things.

Most people appreciate what the president tried to do and rightfully cast their ire at Congress where it belongs.

[boppers]

23. "Any bill I sign must include an insurance exchange..."

The "..." is where simple folks are confused.

edit: fix punctuation

[eomer]

27. Clarifying that the full quote included a public option.

Here is the video of the President's weekly address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=83FvLjsUOJg#!

And here is a transcription of that quote, which starts at 4:20:

"That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what's best for your family.

[boppers]

28. He's not tracking records enough!

""That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what's best for your family."

See how selective bolding works?

[eomer]

29. The point of the OP is Obama's position (at that time) on the public option.

So I highlighted the part of that quote where he does say that he won't sign a bill unless it includes a public option.

Do you have a point? I haven't yet figured out what it is so maybe you'd like to state it directly.

[boppers]

136. The point is selectively claiming that a later clause has the same weight as a primary requirement.

The bill must include an insurance exchange.

It did.

He never said "Any bill I sign must include a public option". That's a slice and dice fabrication, a trick of editing.

If he said:
"(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - which must include a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."

...it would then be honest to say he won't sign a bill unless it includes a public option, but that's not what was said.

[BklnDem75]

67. boppers got it right

The public option wasn't the focus of his proclamation, it was the insurance exchange.

[mistertrickster]

73. What about the other five times he's on record demanding a public option?

See post #73.

Also this link has several more in addition: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obam... /

[BklnDem75]

75. Never said he didn't want a public option

Just not pretending it was his focus when he made his proclamation. The quote that's been tossed about endlessly is misleading.

[mistertrickster]

76. Who claimed it was the "focus"? Just because "public option"

was in the context of insurance exchanges doesn't make it unimportant or meaningless, especially given the past history in which the "public option" was a key provision.

Here's the actual, unedited quote from 17 July 2009:

That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a
one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the
benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a
public option to increase competition and keep insurance
companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17458981/President-Obamas-Weekly-Address-July-18-2009-Transcript-and-Video-Link

If the public option wasn't an important component of the insurance exchange provision -- which Obama wouldn't sign a bill without -- why would he include it (public option) then?

[BklnDem75]

79. Why wouldn't he?

Why wouldn't he try to sell 100% of his plan knowing full well about 85% would end up being in the final bill?

You mean the 'quote' is not the focus? Then why is it constantly misquoted and sold as some sort of failure?

[Davis_X_Machina]

25. "Shibboleth" is the Hebrew word for 'public option'. n/t

[eomer]

26. Those "facts" are not totally factual. And, besides, they miss the main point.

Among the "facts" alleged by the OP, by way of the Washington Post blogger:

However, Kirkpatrick, as I read it, only confirmed that there was a deal (on costs) with the hospitals, not that it included the public option. He wrote in the original story that there was a belief that a public option would not wind up in the bill. But that was more an assessment of where the votes were going to fall than part of any agreement. There was nothing there to confirm a deal on the public option.

I guess the WAPO blogger didn't click on "Page 2" of the Kirkpatrick article, which includes this:

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

So Kirkpatrick does say that the deal included the public option.

And, besides, let's be clear that what we're dickering over is only which Democrats are to blame for not passing a public option, not whether Democrats are to blame. I blame them all -- the Democrats in the House and Senate and the Democrat in the White House. Except, of course, for a few who did truly fight for the public option like Senator Bernie Sanders.

[JoePhilly]

31. Joe Lieberman was never going to vote for it, period.

Whenever this debate comes up I ask a very simple question.

How was Obama supposed to get Lieberman to vote YES? The answer is, that there simply was no way to get Lieberman to vote yes.

1) Lieberman is known as the "Senator from Aetna".

2) Lieberman actively campaign for John McCain in 2008, so its clear that he'd be more than happy to oppose Obama on any subsequent issue.

3) Lieberman had already indicated that he did not plan to run for another term, which makes a threat of running others against him meaningless.

There can be all kinds of hyper-speculation around this, but the bottom line is that the PO never had a chance, Lieberman was not going to support it under any circumstances.

And the insurance industry will be more than happy to look out for Joe and his family in the future.

[eomer]

35. Obama did not need Lieberman's vote. He needed 49 Democratic Senators plus Independent Sen. Sanders

Why are you still posting this 60 vote crap? You know already that 60 votes weren't required.

[emulatorloo]

44. It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster before the Senate can vote on a bill

Yes you only need a simple majority to pass a bill.

However you need 60 votes to end debate on a bill before it can voted on.

[eomer]

53. A budget reconciliation bill cannot be filibustered and thus requires only 50 Senators, plus the VP.

The final health care reform bill was a budget reconciliation bill. It did not require (and didn't have) a vote to end debate. It passed by a vote of 56 to 43. One Republican did not vote and the other 43 voted against. The Republicans certainly would have used those 43 votes to filibuster and kill the bill if they could have but could not under the rules since it was a reconciliation bill.

[JoePhilly]

96. Ah ... I've heard this arguement before. So let's review ...

The original Bill passed the House, H.R.3590 in Sept 2009. No PO.

The Senate passed HR 3590 with 60 votes in Dec 2009, with Amendments ... which means the House has to deal with those amendments.

Bottom line ... If there was a PO in HR 3590, Lieberman would not have allowed a cloture vote in the Senate. And it does not pass. There would be no need to discuss reconciliation because it would not have been possible.

So the House begins to deal with the Amendments to their original bill.

They introduced H.R. 4872 by John Spratt (D-SC) on March 17, 2010

House agreed to Senate amendment to HR 3590 on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
HR 4872 Passed the House on March 21, 2010 (243-173)

HR 4872 - Passed the Senate on March 25, 2010 (56–43) with (minor) amendment
HR 4872 - House agreed to Senate amendment on March 25, 2010

4872 is Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 30, 2010, which also carries the ACA into law.

Now, the key dates in the time line above are Dec 24th 2009, and March 21st. In Dec 2009, Lieberman could block cloture and there is no bill to "reconcile".

My bet is that you think the House Dems could have slipped the PO into HR 4872, and the Dems in the Senate would only need a simple majority.

But, if you look at the votes of March 21st, you can see that the House barely passes 3590, and the Senate barely passes 4872 ... why?

Because the Nancy and Harry had already counted the votes regarding what else the could push into 4872. If 4872 had the PO in it, the House blue dogs were not going to pass the amended version of 3590. And similarly, senate blue dogs were not going to pass 4872, if a major addition like the PO was added in a back door maneuver.

But again, most of this is moot. The Senate does not pass any version of HR 3590 with a PO in Dec 2009, Lieberman would have joined the GOP and blocked a vote. And of course, at that time, Ted Kennedy has died, there is a dem replacement in his seat, but the special election is about to occur.

[eomer]

108. Well, yes, they could have "slipped" it into 4872 and it would have needed just a simple majority.

But why do you say "slipped" it in? A large majority of American voters wanted it. They would have added it to the bill by way of an amendment that they would have voted for in public, with the language of the amendment and the vote of each elected representative disclosed publicly. How does this constitute "slipping it in"? Isn't this the primary job of legislators and the routine process by which that job is done?

Aside from that quibble about your language, you're agreeing with my main point. They could have put the public option into 4872 and it required just a simple majority vote. It didn't require Lieberman's vote and the Republicans couldn't filibuster it. Democrats held a majority in both houses so it was up to just Democrats to do it or now do it.

And we don't really know whether there were enough Democrats who would vote for it. There was never an arm-twisting and negotiating process to see how many votes they could really get if they used all the carrots and sticks at their disposal. The Congressional leadership did not fight for it and the President did not fight for it. I personally think it would have been a pretty close vote if they had really tried. We'll never know because they didn't really pursue it.

[JoePhilly]

110. You seem to not understand my use of the phrase "slipped in" ...

The only reason there was a reconciliation approach to debate was that a bill with no PO had passed in the Senate. As I said, Liberman was never going to allow that to happen.

On March 21st, 3 months later, the House passed HR 3590 219 to 212. Why was this vote so close?

Because there was already an agreement that 4872 would not have the PO. If the PO had been added, 4872 would have failed. House Blue dogs might have let a PO get through under other circumstances ... but not under reconciliation. That is why HR 3590, with Senate Amendments, passes with such a small majority.

The passage of these two bills was a dance. The Dems were using reconciliation to get as much as they could given the opposition they faced.

Many of the Senate Dems might have been bought off ... feel free to investigate what was called the Corn Husker kick back used to get Ben nelson to play ball.

Most of the other Senate dems could also have been "worked".

But not Lieberman.

If Lieberman is willing to vote Yes on a PO, all the rest becomes moot. The original House bill 3590 would have had a PO, and the administration could work the other blue dogs in the Senate ... and Nancy would be able to gather sufficient support in the House.

But with Lieberman holding out in the Senate, House and Senate blue dogs had more cover. And they used it.

[eomer]

137. Lieberman was never going to allow that to happen in a bill under regular process.

But that's irrelevant because once the Democrats invoked the budget reconciliation process then Lieberman's vote was no longer needed. Democrats invoked the budget reconciliation process by a simple majority vote. That vote didn't need Lieberman in order to pass and it didn't depend on whether the public option or anything else was in 3590, or on whether 3590 had passed or not in either house, or on whether 3590 even existed. The budget reconciliation process was always within the Democrats' power to use by the mere fact of having a simple majority in both houses. The only had to hold a vote to invoke it and win that vote by a simple majority, which is what they did. And once it was invoked then they could pass anything they wanted in it, so long as they followed its rules.

So Democrats had it in their power to pass anything they wanted so long as they followed the budget reconciliation rules. There was nothing that Lieberman or Republicans could do to stop them since Democrats held a simple majority in both houses.

And, yes, I'm familiar with the deal that Ben Nelson got, the controversy that arose over it, and so on. But the fact that I'm trying to expose is that Ben Nelson's vote, Lieberman's vote, or any Republican Senator's vote was never needed to get the public option or anything else into the reform bill. Nelson, Lieberman, and those one or two Republican Senators who were talked about were all out at the 60 vote margin. With 58 Democratic Senators (counting Sanders who caucuses with the Democrats) they had 8 Democratic votes to give away in the Senate. So they actually needed to work deals not with Nelson or Lieberman but with those Senators who were at the 50 vote margin rather than the 60 vote margin. And, of course, they needed to work deals in the House at the simple majority margin.

There has been a lot of misinformation (and I suspect some of it is intentional disinformation) claiming that Lieberman blocked the public option, or that a Republican filibuster blocked the public option, or that the last one or two Democratic Senators out at the 60 vote margin blocked the public option. None of this is true. Democrats always needed only a simple majority vote in both houses to do the public option if they merely used the procedures allowed them under the rules.

[Enrique]

42. and Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman

and Obama chose Joe Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate.

[emulatorloo]

48. And Liebermann betrayed him by campaigning for McCain and killing the Public Option

Get your time line and your facts straight. Additionally, research the Senate mentoring system.

[eomer]

54. Lieberman did not kill the public option, Democrats did.

I agree, let's get the facts straight. Here they are.

The final health care reform bill was a budget reconciliation bill so it could not be filibustered and it required only 50 votes in the Senate. There were 57 Democratic Senators at the time and they only needed 49 of them to vote for a public option since Independent Sen. Sanders was going to vote for it. Lieberman had no ability to kill this bill if 49 Democrats in the Senate and a majority of Democrats in the House had voted for it.

The final bill passed by a vote of 56 to 43. It did not get and did not require 60 votes.

[BklnDem75]

74. Because reconciliation votes don't require 60

The part you conveniently forget:

As the NYT observes, since no Republican is voting for this bill, each of the 60 Democrats has veto power. So with a Senate vote and another vote after the House and Senate bills are reconciled, there is still room for a conservative Democrat to make a fuss over health care to get special treatment from the bill. The NYT reported that: "Mr. Nelson issued a pointed warning that he would vote against the measure if any changes were not to his liking." So now it appears that Nelson, not Joe Lieberman, is the senatorial fellow who sees himself as the keystone in the precarious archway.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/democrats-get-their-60-votes-for-health-care-now-what/32374/

[eomer]

82. You've got it mixed up. Reconciliation bills require only 50 votes. They don't need 60 Democrats.

The article you linked conveniently forgets that a reconciliation bill requires only 50 votes. There was in reality no need to count to 60. The magic number was 50.

There were 57 Democratic Senators at the time, plus Independent Senator Sanders who was in favor of the public option. So they needed a yes vote from 49 Democratic Senators out of 57, plus Sanders. They could have lost 8 Democratic Senators in all and still passed the bill with 50 votes.

There has been a very deliberate ploy of forgetting that the reconciliation process exists. This is what the corporate media does when Democrats are in the majority. They pretend that it takes 60 votes to do anything. What is more surprising is that Obama and other Democrats also keep putting out this lie, hoping that no one will know they could have actually done this and many other things with just 50 votes in the Senate.

[BklnDem75]

90. Sanders tried, they didn't have 50

You assume every Democrat supported the PO. If they did, it would've passed. There's far more than 8 blue dogs at that time. Quite sure there's far more right now.

[eomer]

93. I don't assume that. Quite the opposite, I said I blame those Democrats for not supporting the PO.

Read my posts again. I said the Democrats are to blame. Between the 57 Democrats in the Senate, the Democratic majority in the House, and the Democrat in the White House they could have passed the public option.

Here are the lies I am refuting:

• That they needed Lieberman.
  
• That they were blocked by a Republican filibuster.
  
• That they needed 60 votes.

I do not assume that every Democrat supported it. My point and my complaint is that they did not support it even though a large majority of American voters did. And in addition to that fact, another fact is that Obama did not fight for it. Another fact is that the Democratic leadership of Congress did not fight for it. So it is the Democratic majority in Congress and the President who are to blame for not doing it. Lieberman and the Republicans had no power to stop it if Democrats had wanted to get it done.

My complaint is that rather than represent the American voters who wanted a public option, the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic President, who had it in their power to do it, instead sold themselves to the highest bidder. They instead sold out and did what their corporate owners wanted.

[BklnDem75]

97. Considering repukes didn't have 41 votes until Walker,

it's a foregone conclusion that blue dogs represented the only hurdle to Progressive legislation. You're free to blame who you want, but you're not using facts, just pure emotion in your blame game. Congresspeople represent their constituents, not polls asking what Americans as a whole want. You don't even know who wanted and didn't want the PO, so how can you narrow it down to the corporations?We barely had the votes to get what we have. Saying they didn't fight for it makes your argument less credible and unrealistic. If enough people supported it, it would've passed. It's as simple as that. Blaming everyone won't change that.

[eomer]

109. Enough people did support it. Enough corporations didn't.

A large majority of the American people wanted it. But our elected representatives only pretend to represent the people. In reality they represent the interests of the corporations who buy them.

The President claimed to be in favor of it. The Democratic leadership claimed to be in favor of it. But that was just empty rhetoric. Between the President and the Congressional leadership there is a lot they can do to persuade members of their own party to get on board a particular proposal. They did not go through that effort.

And an even higher percentage of Democratic voters wanted it than was true of the population at large. So it is especially true of Democrats in Congress that they did not represent the people who elected them. Instead they sold out to the corporations. Not just the Blue Dog Democrats. The other Democrats could have mounted a campaign to push it through and shamed the Blue Dogs into going along (as well as pressuring them with carrots and sticks). I believe it could have been done if the leadership of the Democratic Party had wanted it. The sad truth (the facts of the matter) are that the leadership of the Democratic Party did not want it, even though the American people did.

[BklnDem75]

113. You saying enough did doesn't make it so

Bernie saw it wasn't going anywhere and wisely let it drop for the time being. You have absolutely nothing to back your claims. Blaming corporations for every evil in the world is not actual evidence.

[frylock]

80. timelines aside, it still speaks to obama's poor judgement

[BklnDem75]

84. Poor judgement would be propping your colleague's opponent

while that colleague still has an entire year left in office. When one senator makes the difference between Dems leading the senate, and a 50/50 split with Cheney as the deciding vote, you probably want to pretend you're supporting that person even if you aren't. Poor judgment belongs to the voters who reelected him.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. another bit of reality that people ignore:

Obama did nothing to push a PO. TO the contrary, he sat back and handed over leadership on the whole health care plan to Baucus and other Democrats. He even refused to respond to manufactured lies (death panels). One thing he did say was, "I want a plan by the August recess." Then he sat back and did nothing to help create one.

I don't care if some claim that was proper, because he is the executive, not a legislator. Bullshit. The Executive gives direction, leadership, and molds the basic form, the legislators are to fill out and support. He did none of that. Even Obama admitted this was a failure on his part. His admitting his mistake took out most of the sting from my dismay. It suggested and suggests that Obama was big and mature enough to admit to a mistake, then take steps not to repeat it.

I am just sorry it took him so long. The whole "aiming for compromise" approach was doomed from the start with this congress and senate. THAT lesson he also learned.

[eomer]

55. Do you have a link for his admission? Not challenging your assertion, I'd just like to read it.

Was this pretty recent? Because he continued with the same approach for quite a while after the health care bill.

_{Edit: typo}

[ChairmanAgnostic]

66. I believe it was last February, and I do have it stored

someplace. I will search it out.

[BzaDem]

149. A public option "paying Medicare rates" couldn't even get 200 votes in the House.

Of course there was not going to be a public option paying Medicare rates. The best even the House could do was pass a public option paying negotiated rates.

[Scuba]

32. He certainly didn't give it mouth-to-ear resuscitation. n/t

[ejbr]

112. +1 n/t

[BklnDem75]

33. Huge surprise there

The supposedly informed Left drank that unsourced swill like it was nectar from the gods. With all the bs we had to sift through during the Bush years, you'd think we'd be less susceptible than the uninformed masses. Sad...

[SidDithers]

34. K&R. Facts are good...nt

Sid

[zipplewrath]

38. yeah, so read post 29

The original article seems to overlook ALL of what Kilpatrick reported. He did report specifically that the PO was dumped in negotiations.

The truth is, the assertion has always been that what was being said publicly, by the president, didn't align with the secret negotiations that were going on simultaneously. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the the hospitals were working under the presumption that the White House had agreed to dumping the public option, long before the White House "gave up". It probably was a fine line between "agreeing to do" and "acknowledging the poltical realities". Everyone in Washington, on both sides of the secret negotiations, probably were already beginning to decide that it wasn't going to pass, long before they agreed not to try.

[Laelth]

36. No proof that it happened does not mean it did not happen.

The evidence strongly suggests (even if it may not prove) that Obama cut a deal with the "stakeholders" on this issue (i.e. NOT the American People, but the 1% who profit from our health care non-delivery system).

I would love for this to be untrue, but too many arms in Congress got twisted for me to believe that Obama didn't orchestrate the exact details of this law from top to bottom.

-Laelth

[emulatorloo]

49. Sounds like a very religious explanation - see post 22

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Enrique]

37. the White House admitted the deal

and of course like everything else, they also denied it. The classic Obama walk-back, the people that like the deal can think he did the deal, the people that don't like it can say it was a myth.

[zipplewrath]

40. And it is buried in the definitions

At some point, in negotiations, it becomes clear to both parties that something isn't going to happen. However, it is not uncommon for at least one side to withhold acknowledging that until all the negotiations are over. We frequently negotiate subcontracts with "conditions" we know will never be agreed to. However, we use them as a basis for getting other conditions we want. "Well, if you won't meet the total volume requirement, we're going to reduce the allowable weight budget". We knew they'd never meet the volume requirement. We set it so that they would have to agree to reduce the allowable weight budget below industry standards.

I can believe that the hospitals decided that they had succeeded in killing the public option during negotiations, long before the White House acknowledged it. Furthermore, I can believe that the White House made public statements about the PO as a way of maintaining the position that it was still "on the table" in their negotiations. The critical factor was what the folks "at the table" were presuming (on both sides) about the public option. To a great extent, we'll never know. What we DO know is that there were people involved that were operating on the presumption that it was dead, long before it was announced.

[BklnDem75]

46. Got a link?

[court jester]

52. It's all here and more... pbs.org

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal


"In Obama's Deal, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk (Bush's War, Dreams of Obama) takes viewers behind the headlines to reveal the political maneuvering behind Barack Obama's effort to remake the American health system and transform the way Washington works. Through interviews with administration officials, senators and Washington lobbyists, Obama's Deal reveals the dramatic details of how an idealistic president pursued the health care fight -- despite the warnings of many of his closest advisers -- and how he ended up making deals with many of the powerful special interests he had campaigned against...

...But the deals were often controversial. FRONTLINE investigates how, near the start of the health care reform process, Baucus and the White House negotiated a secret $80 billion deal with Billy Tauzin, the former Louisiana congressman who had become the pharmaceutical industry's top lobbyist.

"People who thought that the pharmaceutical industry was still reaping profits that were excessive were unhappy with that deal and were particularly unhappy that it got cut behind closed doors," says the co-chair of Obama's transition team, John Podesta..."

much much MORE-- plus the full program online...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal

[BklnDem75]

57. That looks like a drug cost deal

I'm talking about the deal to kill the Public Option. Can I get a link to that?

[emulatorloo]

50. Link?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[unapatriciated]

41. .

[pmorlan1]

43. Washington Post?

Ah yes, the Washington Post. Now there is a paper that we can all trust. lol

[ChairmanAgnostic]

47. LOL. There is that.

[emulatorloo]

51. Please cite instances of where Greg Sargent's Plumline blog has published false information

[BklnDem75]

58. It's used to smear this President all the time

Why is it unreliable now?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[The Doctor.]

101. I'm fascinated by this ever more popular tactic. "Source-bias" is quite the tool of tools.

If you can dismiss the source, you can dismiss any information from that source. It's a favorite tactic among ignorant wingnuts. It allows them to disbelieve anything.

It's interesting to see it used here.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. K & R

:kick:

[MjolnirTime]

59. Only those who wanted an excuse to jump ship bought into this.

[mistertrickster]

69. Facts are stubborn things . . . especially when they're in print and on videotape:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in new public plan.” (2008)

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” (6/15/09)

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include . . . a public option.” (7/17/09)

– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” (7/20/09)

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this (health care bill),” while rebuking claims that the plan was 'dead'.” (9/20/09)

Maybe he didn't deliberately kill it, but at the very least he compromised it away. And one hasn't heard a peep about it since either . . .

[BklnDem75]

103. You posted that before...

I don't think it says what you think it says. It certainly has nothing to do with the OP.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[BklnDem75]

144. Good luck

As long as the actual quote is out there, feel free to post whatever variation you want. We're educated people. :)

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[frylock]

85. religion?! take the plank out of your own eye, buddy

[mistertrickster]

86. I neither know nor care whether Obama directly killed the public option himself.

The result is the same--he didn't deliver what he said he would deliver, what he claimed would be best for the American people.

Simple failure, a back-room deal, or pre-planned duplicity . . . it makes no difference. The American people are still at the mercy of big corporate insurance, and we have absolutely no alternative while we live in the US.

[BklnDem75]

104. Only the dark side deals in absolutes...

No bill gets through Congress 100% intact. The bill passed. The only failure is the obvious attempt to turn this good into a bad.

[mistertrickster]

138. When you can't win on the merits of the argument, go for the motives of the poster.

Nice.

[BklnDem75]

141. Lighten up Francis...

It's only a Star Wars quote. :eyes:

[mistertrickster]

140. BTW, Brooklyn Dem, have you gotten out from behind your keyboard

long enough to check in with the Occupy Wall Street folks?

Just wondering . . .

[BklnDem75]

142. I don't work near Zuccotti Park... yet

Why do you ask?

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[Cowpunk]

81. That's the problem with secret deals: They're made in secret.

Sorry, I find this article a lot more convincing.

[BklnDem75]

105. Entertainment attorney... um... yeah...

[Donnachaidh]

83. a veritable wind tunnel of spin!

:rofl: :rofl:

[flamingdem]

88. K&R

[great white snark]

91. Thanks but it won't make any difference.

President Obama killing the P.O. is the sacred cow of Obama disdain.

Any questioning is just spin and unreliable sources.

[Skittles]

92. I've never even heard that

I just know he never fought for it

[BklnDem75]

106. That's a myth too

[Skittles]

114. BULLSHIT

[BklnDem75]

116. Sad but true...

It's hard to take all this in, I know... Give it time. :)

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[BklnDem75]

122. Um... no. I won't do your job

If you have information, you're more than welcome to share it.

[The Doctor.]

98. No surprise at all.

The deeper we dig into the facts, the more apparent it is that Obama is on the people's side.

[femrap]

111. I saw Obama being

interviewed on TV and he was asked by the reporter if he was going to work for Public Option.

He looked straight at the reporter and said, 'After coming to Washington, I have changed my mind about this option.' I sat there on the sofa with my mouth hanging open. He said it like it was the most commonsense decision to make. In fact, he looked rather snooty while he said it.

So don't tell me he didn't say it. I saw it with my own eyes.

[BklnDem75]

115. LOL sure...

News source? Reporter? Channel? In this day and age, do you honestly think a quote like that would go unnoticed? I'll simply say I don't believe this at all.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[BklnDem75]

135. Does that mean you have nothing to back your claim?

:(

[woo me with science]

117. Not only did he make a backroom deal, he lied to the American people and claimed

that he had never campaigned on a public option after the deal had been made, just as he lied to Americans that he would not support a mandate.

The whole deal and all the "negotiations" were a scam from the start. Both parties wanted this, because they both work for the corporations and the banks.

They managed to MANDATE that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN purchase a for-profit, overpriced corporate product. What an achievement.

There is no way in hell that they ever would have been able to sell what was passed to the American people had they gone about it honestly. Not to Democrats, because of opposition to the corporate model, and not to Republicans, because of the government mandate. But fire up one side with the promise of universal coverage, and fire up the other side with the threat of government health care, and you can pass a COMPROMISE that nobody wants....except the corporations that will rake in the dough. The mandate on the corporate product was the goal all along.

I remember, just before this passed, watching some pundit on TV discussing polls showing that Democrats hated the plan, and Republicans hated the plan. His conclusion was (I am not making this up), "This must mean they are charting a good middle course."

We have a problem, and it is our purchased government. We do not have representatives. We are being ruled.

Support OWS.

[BklnDem75]

118. I'm gonna side with the OP on this one

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

126. Ah, a response!

Such as it is. :rofl:

[rug]

125. "There were certainly two significant deals that the White House made with interest groups.

One was with the drug companies, to leave re-importation out of health care reform. The second, with the hospitals, limited how much ACA would cost them."

Great defense.

[UrbScotty]

129. "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan

[kath]

131. "I know we are supposed to blame Obama for everything at this website"

What fucking horseshit. Any post that starts that way deserves an automatic unrec.

[Major Hogwash]

133. Not only are you right, Dennis, but if the Democrats lose in the Supreme Court,

in the cases filed concerning the mandatory mandate, they are going to push for the public option next year to make it the overriding KEY issue of the 2012 campaign.

This will expose all of the GOP millionaire tea party coalition members in the House of Representatives for only supporting the health care industry, and the 1% of the wealthiest Americans in this country.

Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

Yet, even if we win this battle coming up in the Supreme Court, we're still going to push for the public option after we take back Congress next year.
The public option was "the best case scenario" for national health care, so the Democrats decided to play this version of national health care first, so if they are defeated, they can come back next year and claim that "they were forced to use the public option" instead.

Either way, the public option will be "the play of the day" in 2013.

[MNBrewer]

152. Obama only secretly kills people.