TPMDC Sunday Roundup
Obama On Death Panel Smear: "I Just Lost My Grandmother Last Year"
At his town hall meeting on health insurance reform yesterday, President Obama fired back at the "death panel" smear. "I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it's like to watch somebody you love, who's aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that," Obama said, attacking those who would put forward "the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma."
Sebelius: Death Panel Scare Attack Is "Horrific"
Appearing on This Week, of Sec. of Health and Human Services fired back at the "death panel" attack, -- but also conceded that end-of-life counseling is likely to be taken out of the bill. "And I think it's really horrific that some opponents of the health reform bill have used this painful, personal moment to try and scare people about what is in the bill," said Sebeilus.
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama and the First Lady will arrive at Grand Canyon National Park at 1 p.m. ET, and will tour the park at 1:20 p.m. ET. They will depart from the park at 8 p.m. ET, arriving back in Phoenix, Arizona, at 8:45 p.m. ET.
Specter: Town Halls "Not Representative Of America," Shouldn't Dominate Policy
Appearing on This Week, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) said the recent town halls have been organized deliberately to stop health care reform. "But I think we have to bear in mind that, although those people need to be heard and have a right to be heard, that they're not really representative of America, in -- in my opinion," said Specter. "We have to be careful here not to let those town meetings dominate the scheme and influence what we do on health policy."
Conrad: Pursing Public Option "Just A Wasted Effort"
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) gave a realpolitik explanation of his fight for the co-op plan instead of a public option: "Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort."
Sebelius: Public Option "Not An Essential Element"
Appearing on State of the Union, Sec. of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius downplayed the importance of a public option, speaking in favor of competition in the private sector. "We need some choices, we need some competition," said Sebelius, who also said that a public option "is not an essential element."
Coburn: Anger In Health Care Debate A Sign Of Government Losing Trust
Appearing on Meet The Press, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said the current emotional debate over health care is really a symptom, with the underlying cause being a loss of faith in the government. "We have, we have raised the question of whether or not we're legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests. And that's the question," said Coburn. "The, the mail volume of all the senators didn't go up based on the healthcare debate, the mail volume went up when we started spending away our future indiscriminately. And that's not Republican or Democrat, that has been a problem for years."
Gibbs: Obama Wasn't Saying We Would Create Postal Service Of Health Care
Appearing on Face The Nation, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs clarified President Obama having used the post office as an example of government and the private sector co-existing -- after host Harry Smith pointed out that the post office loses billions every year. "Well, look, I don't think he was saying that what we were going to do is create the postal service for health care," said Gibbs. "What he was doing was addressing those that are concerned that if a government entity is involved in any way, that it kills anything in the private market."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The public option is an essential element to me. Without it, I will not support Barrack Obama or any Democrat who votes for the bill. This is the last straw. This is the very most important domestic issue there is. A sell-out on this issue cannot be balanced by anything else.
August 16, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I've defended Obama from his critics on the left ad nauseum. But I hear of yet another concession to people who represent the exact opposite of progressive values (not to mention good, sensible policy), and I really do start to wonder why.
Also, why keep offering up what you will and won't accept in the bill, when it's obvious you'll be backtracking the next day and accepting whatever Kent Conrad and Charles Grassley tell him he'll accept.
August 16, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they are reframing John Paul Jones. "I have not yet begun to surrender!" This will not be the last concession. By the time it's finished, Grassley will have written the bill.
August 16, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
YAWN.
You left when he made Hillary SOS. You left when Warren gave the invocation. You left when he didn't prosecute Bush/Cheney. You left when . . . oh, who knows!
Maybe if you didn't post the "I'm really leaving this time" crap every day, you might be taken seriously.
August 16, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, you supported Obama and the Dems? That's news to me.
August 16, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd never know it since every one of her posts is how awful Obama is and how she hates he's in the WH.
August 16, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/health/policy/17talkshows.html?_r=1&hp
That is not lookin' good... not good at all. The public option is already a compromise vis-a-vis single payer, and anything less is a defeat.
August 16, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I am not liking the looks of this at all. I really don't understand how obama is letting the message on this getting usurped by the criminal insurance industry. There needs to be a public option or all of this will be a waste and more handouts to republican campaign contributors, the criminal insurance and big pharma interests. It is getting out of control.
August 16, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the liberal activists have locked up their own senators and representatives for public option, how can it fail?
August 16, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key is that, even assuming that politicians in the mainstream of the Democratic Party really wanted to serve public desires and interest, the powers that pee in our society don't want that, and those who get anywhere near serious power have to have long since internalized that notion but good. Kiss up to the powers that pee and crap on the mass public, and remember the fax of life -- justifying the lying, and "democracy" means only the phony kind.
Now, that means that if 70% or more of the public, including of the voting public, want either single payer or at least vibrant and meaningful public option (my own position, STRONGLY favoring single payer) that doesn't mean shit. Indeed, its just a political condition to maneuver around -- that's the name of the game, as in my own case (which also involves fundamental rights). It's the issue with torture. As the Afghanistan war gets ever more unpopular, same deal. And as for the squeeze of the middle class? Hey, that's the name of the game!
One thing progressives should do is unify a set of demands rather than just commenting here and there, as on Geithneromics. In health care, the progressive press (and a large portion of the progressive public) are gaga over what is after all nothing more than a pro forma vote about single payer in the House. In reality, AFTER an utterly eviscerated health bill passes in the Senate, then there should be a demand to have BOTH Houses vote on the Kucinich Amendment -- the federalist idea of allowing STATES to opt, without prejudice, for single payer systems; it should also allow groups of states to combine their plans, so that, eg, NY and MA and CA and other states could not only have statewide single payer systems, but a health care system valid in all the other states reciprocally. This idea should be voted on and those DEMOCRATS, especially from blue states or regions like Gillibrand, Lieberman, Feinstein, Specter, Menendez and so forth who are apt to waffle should never hear the end of it. The progressives -- with SUBSTANCE, unlike the yahoos of the right -- should be no less militant (though more intelligently presented) than the RW at specific political targets.
Note how conservatives have been successful at getting their way -- far beyond their numbers (with HUGE built-in one-sidedness of the system including swarms of counterfeit 'red headed league' type pseudoprogressives privileged from even effective criticism) by being insistent. Authentic progressives need to learn how to be insistent, including on authenticity.
August 16, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to fund people in Democratic primaries who vow to continue the fight for real change in health care.
August 16, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Co-ops won't work to keep costs low because insurance companies will still be in control.
Instead of purchasing insurance from the government, co-ops will allow people to purchase insurance in a group from Aetna and Blue Cross. Businesses have been doing that and premiums have still doubled every decade.
Insurance companies are going to make out like a bandit with this "reform." They'll get 46 million new customers (with federal subsidies) and still charge us "bend over" rates. It's enough to make your hurl.
August 16, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree 1000 percent. No public option and it's just more corporate welfare. What makes me want to hurl as well is that these fools would rather have insurance company bureaucrats between their doctors and them than nobody. Ask anybody on medicare and the government is not between them and their doctors. It is f'n unbelievable how the dem message has gotten so out of whack. Pathetic.
August 16, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both coops and the public option are part of the Exchange, which is a regulated individual health care market for people who cant get coverage another way.
My view is that single payer or not, you can get to good health care solely on regulation if it is done right. Germany doesnt have single payer but they have excellent care. Why? Heavy regulation. This exchange will be more or less regulated.
Public option is more intended to control costs, which will definitely be a problem if nothing is done to cap prices. But that is a secondary problem.
If HCR solves our primary problem -- regulating the heck out of a thuggish business -- and leaves cost control til later, well, that's too bad but it won't be ignored for ever, if only because we will soon be confronted with the bill.
In some ways, worrying about costs is a trap for progressives. When we want big reforms, the GOP and MSM suddenly because enamored with fiscal austerity. I guess they want us to scale back our ambitions.
August 16, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This explains some of the basics:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401669.html
August 16, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not worrying about the cost of HCR to the Federal Budget. We're worried about the cost of premiums. I'm self employed and can't stand to pay much more. Right now I basically have catastrophic insurance and it costs me a bloody fortune!
August 16, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. But the overall costs are what the GOP are clammoring about. ie. That's why we cant do it and thats what we should focus on
August 16, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an awfully big "if". As of yet, we have absolutely no evidence that Obama and the Dems will be able, or willing, to stand up to the insurance companies if they stamp their collective feet and say "no" to real regulation.
I'd be more than happy to be wrong on this, I'm just afraid that Im not.
August 16, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yglesias pointed the things which are in fact in the bills: banning of preexisting condition exclusions, ending recission, basically refusing to cover sick people, and so forth.
August 16, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read that and I am aware that they are there. But, it's one thing to have them another to be able to afford them. No, I'm not talking about the Federal budget, but say someone is diagnosed with something not necessarily immediately fatal, just long-term and costly, e.g. AIDS. Now, the insurance company won't be able to refuse coverage or drop you, but will the insurance be affordable?
Look, my first choice is single-payer, I make no bones about it, but my first priority is to put an end to people having to choose between paying for food or for medicine. That is to say that in this case I'm more results- than process-oriented. If the resultant bill can make sure that doesn't happen, I'll listen.
But, unfortunately this Administration doesn't have a great record of standing up for principles. Like the joke says, Obama wanted regular Bud at the Beers Summit, but the Blue Dogs made him water it down.
August 16, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, cost control is part of the reforms. In the past, they might not be able to drop you, but they just jacked the rates. So you quit. We need to make sure all of the reforms survive and are as strong as possible.
August 16, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a friendly reminder that the public option idea is a relatively new one. If a bill passes that has everything else: no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, no dropping people because they are sick, no lifetime limits or yearly limits of coverage, the beginning of cost controls that will all mean significant PROGRESS (as also found in the word "progressive" - get it?) Perfect? No. Less than what is needed? Yes. Better than the status quo? Absolutely!!!!
The truth remains that progressives are still a minority and currently, a silent minority. While it is great that you can post comments on websites you aren't doing anything to actually move public opinion unless you are organizing to do just that.
The corporate interests have a lot of power. We've all witnessed first hand how they can get people to believe absolute lies through quantity and loudness of their message. To get something in this environment is way better than getting nothing.
And, it gives progressives the opportunity to push for more through building a broader coalition.
Also, our political leaders need to learn the lessons of this campaign to reform health care insurance (and every other progressive issue for that matter) and do better next time. Keep the goal front and center at all times, counter lies immediately but keep coming back to the truth and the goal.
August 16, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those who say the public option is dead, do you now agree with Rahm that it was counterproductive (I cleaned that up)to attack the Blue Dogs? Do you now agree with Obama that you should have been focused on framing the debate?
I personally think that this issue was a great opportunity to further grind the Republicans into dust. Demonize them so badly (and it would all be true) that almost anyone seen working with them is pretty much an obstructionist. We need more "party of no" type ads to push back against the GOP.
August 16, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand and sympathize with everyone who says without a public option, there's no real reform. I myself believe that a public option is the best way to keep the insurance companies honest over the long-term - otherwise, we're going to find ourselves playing regulatory whack-a-mole. Nevertheless, I have three very important reason I would accept reform that provided universal coverage and no pre-existing conditions even if it didn't include a public option. Those reasons are:
* My wife - she has uterine fibroids. I'm a small business owner, she's on my individual policy (my company does not qualify for a group policy under GA regulations and couldn't afford it if we did) and the fibroids are a pre-existing condition. Every time she goes to the doctor, it's a crap shoot as to what will be covered and what we'll pay out of pocket. She worries about that, and that's one worry I wish she didn't have.
* My mother - she lost her job around 2 years ago, and her COBRA has run out. She can't get coverage, and given that she was a banker who made loans to small businesses, she's likely not getting a job with benefits any time soon.
* My mother-in-law - she divorced her husband about 3 years ago, and during that time, she was covered by his COBRA at a premium of over $700 per month. That's going to run out, and we're not at all sure she'll be able to find coverage to cover the gap between expiration of current coverage and when she's eligible for Medicare in a little over a year. She's developed a thyroid condition which we don't think is serious, but treating it has been expensive. Without coverage, it will be impossible.
Like many of you, I got deeply involved in the Obama campaign and donated time and energy to effect real change. If the change doesn't include health care reform with a strong public option, I will be disappointed, but even reform short of that will make a world of difference to those closest to me.
August 16, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I desperately want a public option. But just knowing that I can't be dropped from my private insurance if I get sick and that pre-exisiting conditions won't rule you out will mean a lot.
August 16, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I worry about, in the absence of any mechanism (like a robust public option) to instill cost discipline, is whether you'll be able to afford the premiums. A guarantee that they have to offer you coverage is cold comfort if you can't afford it. And that situation would also be a political disaster.
The sad thing is that, as Ion says below. it's entirely possible for a bad bill actually to be worse in significant (and politically inflammatory) ways than the status quo. I hope Obama's advisers are really thinking carefully about this.
August 16, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. If I can't afford the premium I'm still screwed.
August 17, 2009 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They aren't finished making concessions. You don't know their definition of affordable or essential services yet. Your relatives may be no better off at all. There's only one thing clear so far. Congress isn't willing to take on either Big Pharma or Big Insurance. They will order you to buy a policy. Whether it is worth more than their empty campaign promises remains to be seen.
August 16, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Rally HIS Base on Health Reform, Obama Channels the Woodstock Spirit
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=8275
August 16, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama or the Dems think that dropping the public plan will soften Republican opposition and quiet down the tea baggers, then they're hopelessly naive...possibly the worst sin a president or any politician can commit. When will the Dems wake up? Is it all because they're in the pockets of the wealth[sic] insurance cartel or do they just have a chronic spinal deficiency? If Dems don't start acting like a political party that wants to get something good accomplished, I'm officially becoming "independent." They won't get two pins out of me in that case.
August 16, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
single payer is the solution.
public option was the compromise.
co-ops are the compromise to the compromise.
and the public option won't be only thing 'compromised out' of the bill.
and still the republicans will vote against it.
now THAT is political capital well spent!
great job!
August 16, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to liberal media: Stop declaring defeat prematurely! If I see another "we're doomed" headline in screaming 100 pt type because of what some jackass bluedog said, I'm gonna scream.
Note to liberals: don't quit! Regardless of what blue dogs tell you or the fortune tellers claim to know, nothing is over until it is over.
We're in the 5th inning. We will be battling this thing til November.
August 16, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Gibbs: Obama Wasn't Saying We Would Create Postal Service Of Health Care"
Holy shit, are the WH reporters this fucking stupid?
It's a fucking analogy!!!!
Look it up: ANALOGY!!!!
Every time Obama uses an analogy, you take him LITERALLY and ask asinine questions like a five year old.
August 16, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it the WH reporters that work for news organizations subsidized by big pharma and insurance agencies that are dumb or the Democratic party for failing to refute effectively their lies and deceit?
August 16, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill is a gift to the GOP and the insurance industry.
Far better to have no bill at all than one that punishes people for refusing to buy into a program that they cannot afford to begin with and does nothing to contain costs.
The GOP will label any Democratic policy as "big government," after they're through canvassing the US for sob stories to fill their campaign ads, they'll actually be able to point to a real policy that backs that contention up.
This bill is a recipe for Democratic minority status for the foreseeable future and does precious little to bring health care to people that need it and nothing to contain costs.
James Carville, of all people, got it right when he said the Dems should worry about passing a good bill first and foremost, and if the GOP defeats it, label them as the Party of No and tie them to the corporations that control them.
It amazes me that the Obama administration is so stupid as to allow their legislation to be defined by MSM's decision foreground "deathers" as a real constituency, thereby serving the insurance and prescription drug industries that buy so much time on their stupid broadcasts.
August 16, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well this sucks. I didn't know that he signed the law allowing guns in national parks. WTF. Did anybody see any press on this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_national_parks
This sucks big time. Now I have to worry about getting freaking shot when I go to a national park. Priceless.
August 16, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he's oh so above the fray - don't you just love postpartisan politics. It means that the people who fight for what they believe - i.e. the GOP - dictates the legislative agenda and its contents. Simply pathetic.
August 16, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to get a little pissed. There was absolutely no reason to sign this. None. He will never get any love from cockburn, so why do this??????? Also, the NRA type won't vote for him anyway. As long as he doesn't take their "guns" they won't mobilize against him, but there is abso - freaking - lutely no reason to throw them any bones whatsoever. This really pisses me off. Guns in National Parks? They are Federal Property and you can't hunt in them so why bring a gun other than to kill people. NO GUNS!
I am getting sick of this gun shit as well. We live in the 21st century in an allegedly industrialized country. There is no reason to own a gun, let alone bring it strapped to your thigh to a presidential event, let alone into a national park. This is absurd.
August 16, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bill passed the senate with a veto proof majority. Blame the senate for not fighting Coburn when he stuck it in. They decided not to raise a fuss.
Totally lame.
August 16, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info. The senate should have fought it, but there was no press or anything on this that I recall. I remember hearing it being discussed, but I never thought that it would get passed. I do blame the senate and no press bringing this to light to put pressure on them not to allow this. I still can't believe it to be quite frank. There was no reason for this at all. Especially concerning cockburn. He is flaming the president and dems on healthcare. F*ck him. He should get frozen out, not thrown freaking bones.
August 16, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The firearm amendment was attached to another bill that was veto proof. But you don't have to fear in the National Parks. People have to abide by the laws of the State the park is in which means they have passed a background check, have no crimminal record and have passed a course on the law and ethics of carrying a firearm. The number of people ever hamred by a licensed firearm owner is miniscule. And we have a much smaller rate of criminal behavior than the population in general. And most important, we have a right to carry a firearm responsibly for personal protection regardless of how it makes you feel. For every illegal use of a firearm by a licensed holder there are 10 crimes, home invasions, arned robbery or armed assaults prevented by a resonsible citizen who is armed. People who have firearms should be checked and trained but I do believe that an armed society is a polite society. And I am a liberal Democrat, Obama Volunteer who just happens to disagree on this issue.
August 16, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?? Are you on drugs?
I have dealt with weapons over the years. I have fired everything from shot guns to M-16's. There is zero reason for anyone to have a weapon in a National Park.
Throw on that the leading cause of death of children is firearms and you clearly are on drugs.
Yes. I have everything to fear and there is no legitimate reason for anyone to carry a weapon into a National Park, ever.
And, I was a republican until basically 2000. I am a conservative democrat, because the republican party is completely out to lunch, like you.
We do not have a right to carry weapons that kill people. Only Militia do, in defense of the country. Are you such a pu**y that you have to ratify your manlyhood by carrying a weapon?
August 17, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Agree completely.
August 17, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
ad hominem attacks (on drugs, pu**y)? check.
red herring (you've fired guns before)? check.
fabricated statistics (firearms as leading cause of death in children)? check.
demonstration of total unfamiliarity with 2d amendment and its associated jurisprudence (no right to carry weapons that kill people, only militia do in defense of country)? check.
dude, i hate guns -- i'm with you on that. i would also love nothing more than for guns to be outlawed for the non-military, non-police among us. but the LAST person i want advocating for that cause is you ... at least not the way you just tried to do it.
August 17, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Per peer-reviewed article in the the Journal of Trauma: "...for children aged 5 to 14 in the United States, death from firearms is the third leading cause of mortality, following only motor vehicle crashes and cancer."
August 17, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's quite a bit different from this:
"Throw on that the leading cause of death of children is firearms and you clearly are on drugs."
it would be like me saying that john mccain was the leading vote getter in the 2008 presidential election.
August 17, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way to truly make healthcare manageable is a single payer. A public option barely makes reform palatable. Without at least this, reform should go down; it is a major shift of wealth to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Sebelius should be replaced.
Start a draft Dean for President movement now for 2012.
August 17, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink