Obama Tries To Reassure Reformers In Wake Of Rahm Flap
In the wake of this morning's flap over the public option, President Obama has released a statement reaffirming his support for the policy. "I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest," Obama said. "I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals. "
An earlier Wall Street Journal reported that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had suggested that the administration might be willing to accept a number of alternatives. Between the two, the campaign Health Care for American Now is lining up behind Obama.
"Today, President Obama unequivocally reaffirmed his commitment to a public health insurance option as part of comprehensive health care reform this year," noted HCAN's National Campaign Manager Richard Kirsch.
We believe too that a national robust public health insurance plan that is ready on day one is central to lowering costs, injecting competition into the health insurance market, ensuring access to care in every corner of the country, and keeping the insurance companies honest. We look forward to working with the President and Congressional leadership to accomplish these goals.
Reformers acknowledge that Obama's statement doesn't necessarily contradict Emanuel's, but they note that, whatever the explanation for Emanuel's statement, the President has taken the same position on the public option all along.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
This hyperventilating comes from people looking for proof that Obama has or will betray us.
Rahm's statement was nothing different from what they've been saying all along. But the headlines read: Obama Caving on Public Option.
He has to send out a statement from Russia to calm the nervous nellies.
July 7, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You bet. Remember Obama's tough stand on telecom immunity? Errr, I mean uhh......
Obama and the rest of the Dems will eventually capitulate on Single Payer.
There is no hope with either the Democrat or Republican parties. Both are bought and paid for.
Anybody that thinks otherwise should pull their head out of their ass and deal with reality.
July 7, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Capitulate on single payer???? LOL. Dude, single payer has been dead and burried so long ago!!
Next time you trot out your faux populist rage, it would help if you could demonstrate that you've been paying attention.
July 7, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's simply restating what he believes: that the public option is the best way to go.
He's not stating that he won't accept anything else.
There's not much there, there.
July 7, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
There wasn't much there there to Rahm's statement either but that didn't stop folks from having a cow.
The WH has always said they were "open to alternatives" as long as those alternatives achieved a certain set of goals. They always add that they believe the public option is the way to achieve that.
That's exactly what Rahm said in WSJ interview yet everybody is acting like he was advocating for tax credits or something.
July 7, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he didn't even say that. The message he sent out from Russia was pretty well crafted Washingtonese ... the quote highlighted here skips the last sentence.
He articulated a very narrow general objective that the public option exists to achieve ("keep the insurance companies honest"). And then commits himself to the OBJECTIVE ... which when stripped down to this level is meaningless.
I'd like to hear him insist on the solution of a public option from day one as the specific means for meeting his (semantically meaningless) "objective".
July 7, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? No one has said anything new or controversial. Same nonsense, different news outlet, different day and the same overreaction.
Step 1: Dissect statement to fit narrative
Step 2: Post article claiming Obama caves to lobbyist, betrays Left - Again.
Step 3: Hyperventilate into brown bag, rip Obama sticker from car, promise to never be sucked in again.
Step 4: White House issues statement saying the exact same thing they've said before or as the press calls it "walks back".
Step 5: Rinse and Repeat.
July 7, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-fucking-sign!
July 7, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn if I didn't say much the same thing on the other thread.
Except, of course, I did it with my characteristic disregard for the virtues of concission and avoiding convoluted run-on sentences.
July 7, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with that! The WH has made it clear that they won't be drawing any lines in the sand (at least not in public) for a while.
Honestly, I don't understand why people care so much about Obama "talking tough." A CQ report found that he has gotten more of what he wants than any other president so far . . . all without talking like John Wayne.
With Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy throwing all their weight behind this (and the House plan), I'm confident we'll get a strong public option.
July 7, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's kind of what the dogmatists don't get. For ideologues (whether left or right), ideology dictates specific policy perscriptions
and any outcome that results from the implemenation of that policy is, by definition, deemed good and desirable. Loyalty and trustworthiness for them is defined not by one's expressed goals but, rather, in solely through consistent expressions of loyalty to the politically orthodox policy perscriptions.
Pragmatists, however, think ideology defines the policy maker's desired outcomes, not the policies themselves. Good policy for them is the policy that gets you to the desired outcome with a minimum of unintended adverse consequences. If experience shows that the unintended adverse consquences outweigh the good sought, then either change in policy has to occur or the desirability of the outcome has to be reconsidered.
Because ideologues are bound to particular policies, however, they can only percieve talk of desired outcomes and expressions of willingness to try different policies if there is reasonable likelihood that they'll achieve that outcome as code for "sellout." And, indeed, no matter how good the outcome, if it's achieved by means other than the policies dictated by their ideology, it is ipso facto the tainted result of a weak and corrupt bargain with the forces of evil.
July 7, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and this is the quintessential pragmatic issue. Obama knows (well, everybody knows, really) that once coverage-for-all is established the rest will work itself out. It seems pretty obvious that the public option -- and eventually single-payer -- are inevitable once the question shifts from WHETHER there should be universal coverage to how to do it most cost-effectively.
The bomb-throwers can take credit if they want; I couldn't care less as long as it happens.
July 7, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. He's supporting the objective. He's been entirely consistent on that, and has been entirely consistent on mentioning a public option as the best way to achieve that objective. That's different than saying that he'll only support that particular means.
He's being consistent, nothing more or less. But people are interpreting his words to mean that he unequivocably supports the public option. I don't think that is what they mean, and I also don't think he's "walked back" anything at all, nor do I think his statement is inconsistent with Emmanuel's.
July 7, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he insists on a public option and no alternative, he's "inflexible". It's easy for R's to insist on an alternative if you don't have to spell it out, and being inflexible just absolves them of any need to do so. Much better to hit the ball back into their court. If you want an alternative, let's see the details. Show us how it meets the objective.
July 7, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Obama is 2 steps ahead nearly all the time. Pretty amazing, really.
July 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very excellent point. I still think the "objective" is somewhat too generic to be meaningful.
July 7, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG. It's clear you have no idea what best friend is saying!
July 7, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, that this isn't a "walk back" of Rham's statements ... in fact that was my major point. Obama is just far better at Washington-speak than Rham the dickhead. "One of the best ways" and "The best way" simply don't mean the same thing.
I can tell you this: if we're going to get a public option, it will occur *in spite* of folks like freerider and Viva-the-shampooist. The real supporters of the progressive agenda like Hamsher and others who are exacting a political price from politicians who waffle (including Obama) are the ones making this happen.
July 7, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamsher exacting a political price? Wait until I stop laughing!!
You people are pathetic. You think that your ranting and raving on Internet blogs actually matters. I guess that explains why John Edwards is president.
July 7, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pressure is important. Kay Hagan certainly changed her tune. I'm not sure that your original point was understood--you weren't criticizing, merely pointing out that the "controversy" really isn't one at all--because what both said was consistent (whether you like it or not is a separate issue).
July 7, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they're actually looking to keep the anxiety on the left in high gear in order to maintain the pressure on Congress to support the public option. Or am I just being optimistically paranoid?
Its more likely, of course, that they mean what they've said and are willing to compromise on the public option in order to get something passed. Obama is generally fairly straightforward in his public statements.But Rahm seems like the kind of guy that would go out of his way to piss people off and make them anxious if it helped to get the job done.
July 7, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been consistent that's for sure. He has consistently been noncommittal about protecting the interests of the common people and he has been very consistent in protecting the interests of the parasites who have profited obscenely from the current rotten system we have. God forbid any of the health insurance companies should "suffer" by no longer allowing them to grow rich denying healthcare to those who need it.
July 7, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, flare ups like these are not all bad. It rallies those that are demanding a strong public option and gets them to keep the pressure on Obama and the DEMs. It keeps us from getting complacent on a daily basis. With millions being spent by the healthcare industry and insider lobbyists being hired by the stadium load, we need to keep our activists fired up and firing up the rest of us.
July 7, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's 2:30 p.m. Eastern time and if Rahm Emanuel has anything further to say, there's still the 6:00 p.m. news.
Otherwise, the Democrats have caved in again.
Anything new, lately?
July 7, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink