Obama Asks Liberals How Far They're Willing to Compromise on Public Option

September 4, 2009 6:04 PM

The White House will love Grijalva running to the press - is Grijalva more concerned with getting his name in the papers or getting reform passed?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 4, 2009 7:02 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

Is Obama more concerned with getting people health care, stopping health care related bankruptcies, stopping the cripplingly expensive increases, to business and individuals, in insurance premiums, increasing our competitive edge in the world economy and doing what is right for this country or his more concerned with getting re-elected and retaining power by keeping insurance company profits in place and the campaign cash flowing. The compromise that progressives made in not pushing for single payer was the Public Option. Obama himself said its the best way to reduce costs, but he can't sway a couple senators who represent a tiny portion of the country? Yes we can, my ass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

September 4, 2009 7:31 PM in reply to henk

Last I heard he was too busy hypnotizing school children using a videotaped speech and maybe fluoride in the water.

Let's put at least some long odds on the chance that getting health care to Americans has crossed this president's mind at least once or twice in the last few years.

Let's also assume that the failure to get complete skunks like Joe Lieberman, southern polecats like Landrieu, Lincoln, and Pryor, or conservadems like Baucus and Conrad on board takes a little more than a warm smile. Can we also concede that it's easier to sway one than five?

And then maybe we can cut the guy some slack and wait to see what comes out next Wednesday. Deal?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

September 4, 2009 11:07 PM in reply to fbacon2

No Deal. He's folded too often on too many different things.

One way to put pressure on the Blue Dogs other than his warm smile is to include the data showing that the public supports the public option in your press releases. Give the Blue Dogs at least a fighting chance to see if their voters can be convinced.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

September 5, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to AJM

I don't recall bringing up his length in office. But now that you mention it, the swiftness with which our supposed friends on the left started calling him a corporate shill did a lot more to undermine their credibility than Obama's. And the more time I was talking about was actually defined as next Wednesday, when he is scheduled to speak--hardly a Friedman Unit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

September 5, 2009 4:58 PM in reply to fbacon2

This was actually supposed to be a reply to kovie below. My apologies.

But while I'm here, Obama's pollster including the PO numbers in a memo isn't going to be the silver bullet for the Blue Dogs. And remember, we had enough Blue Dogs voting in the House to pass the Energy and Commerce Committee. Our problem, once more, lies in the US Senate. That's where this thing lives or dies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

September 5, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to AJM

Same goes for recalcitrant Senators. People find it persuasive if they know that other people approve of what they approve. Showing that the Public Option is wanted by a majority of the people is and should be persuasive. See Condorcet's theorem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:25 PM in reply to fbacon2

Ah, yes, the "He's only been in office X months and let's give him some more time to telegraph his intentions" defense. How original. Are we now granting Obama Friedman Units?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SleepinJeezus

September 5, 2009 12:18 AM in reply to kovie

We are giving Obama Friedman Units. I mean, have you seen the latest on Afghanistan?

Obama Afghan policy: "Just give us six months, and we'll have the situation under control." (Repeat as needed)"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masher

September 6, 2009 6:02 PM in reply to SleepinJeezus

lol, What was it that Bush kept saying "stay the course." Or was it "we are winning"?

Obama is doing the same thing. Can't explain why we are there but we are going to win it!

I expect Obama on the economy to start saying "our economy is strong" and repeat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tim

September 7, 2009 6:18 AM in reply to masher

One big difference: Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11.

Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt invaded Chile, and then after not winning that war, just let Japan go scot-free?

Iraq was the ultimate idiots mistake. After 9/11 Bush should have called for a draft and invaded Afghanistan and Pakistan with everything we've got.

To make everything worse, we're fighting wars with mercenaries that earn six digits.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Heretic

September 7, 2009 8:38 AM in reply to Tim

Actually, a bunch of stateless former Saudi Arabians attacked us on 9/11.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 5, 2009 8:02 AM in reply to fbacon2

I'll be happy to wait, again, if you can also get all the other groups who are pressuring Barrack and Rahm to go the other way to wait as well. If the armies of Insurance Industry lobbiests spending millions a week, stop wait, if the Teabagger sit idly and wait, if Republicans sit idly by and wait, I will gladly do the same? Deal, can you do that for me?

But that's the problem with all you "Obama will do the right thing in the end" people, you seem clueless to the forces at work here. There is immense pressure coming from the Insurance lobby, day in and day out, of course Obama would like to do the right thing, but if pressure eases from our side we will be run over by those who are pushing on the other side.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

September 5, 2009 5:15 PM in reply to henk

Ignoring the quick caricatures you made referencing any "you people," clueless or otherwise, I don't mean to suggest for an instant that anyone drop the pressure on any elected officials, including our supposed allies. What I have little patience for is expressing this pressure in the form of ad hominem attacks on the president or somehow imputing malicious motives to tactical decisions from the White House. The failures of Democrats in the Senate and the ability for Republicans to hold the filibuster have somehow been translated into blame for Obama, when in fact he's playing his hand the best he can with the Congress he's been given.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

September 5, 2009 9:57 PM in reply to fbacon2

It seems some who complain about Republicans shredding the Constitution haven't themselves read it even the first time.

1. The Constitution stipulates that Congress "shall make the laws". All the Executive branch can do is wiat for a bill to either sign or veto.

2. There are FIVE - 5 - FIVE proposed bills in the House, and one in the Senate.

3. Until those FIVE are boiled down to ONE proposed bill, there isn't and won't be "A bill," the contents of which to then critically evaluate.

4. And then it will have to be reconciled with the Senate bill.

All of which is, of course, the Executive branch's -- Obama's -- fault.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

September 6, 2009 12:58 AM in reply to JNagarya

All the Executive branch can do is wiat for a bill to either sign or veto

Why, of course. The President is a completely, utterly helpless spectator in the legislative process. I don't understand why a President even bothers to have a legislative agenda. It's not like they can influence members of Congress or anything.

You've posted a hell of a lot of steaming crocks of shit here, JN, but this one may well take the cake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

September 6, 2009 2:45 AM in reply to gharlane

Is the president REQUIRED to "participate" in the legislative process?

No, he is not.

And yet again: blaming the president for the in/actions of Congress is horseshit malevolence based upon whiney-assed ignorance of and disregard for how the gov't is to function.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

September 6, 2009 4:50 PM in reply to JNagarya

And yet again: you just can't help yourself, can you?

You begin by transparently lying about your own argument, which is right above for all to see, in a pathetic attempt to salvage it by moving the goalposts. How stupid do you think we are, or how stupid are you? Do you really think nobody will read what you've already written? You wrote, and I quote again, "All the Executive branch CAN DO is wiat [sic] for a bill to either sign or veto." Caught in that whopper, you now backpedal, hoping nobody will notice, and bleat that the President isn't "REQUIRED" to "participate" in the legislative process. But that ain't gonna save you. You didn't write "All the Executive branch is REQUIRED to do", or even "All the Executive branch SHOULD" do. You wrote, "All the Executive branch CAN do."

Of course the President isn't "REQUIRED" to "participate" in the legislative process. Nobody claimed that he was (we can now add strawmen to your pathetic attempts to salvage your claim). It's merely a matter of willingness to act, i.e., how badly a President wants to get things done. Like LBJ did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like FDR did with the Social Security Act. Like Presidents have done THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY when they actually wanted to get something done. It's not a matter of "blaming" the President (strawman #2). It's merely a set of data points providing evidence as to whether, and how badly, he wants to get a particular thing done, that he promised he would do.

Your bogus "constitutional argument" doesn't help you either. Nowhere does the Constitution does it state that the President is prohibited from participating in the legislative process. Or are you claiming that the Clinton admin violated the Constitution by drafting a health care bill, or that the Obama admin is now violating the Constitution by reportedly doing the same thing? It ain't us that need to go back and re-read the Constitution, bub.

You can't even be honest about what you said in a comment right here in this thread, when fact-checking "what you said" vs. "what you said you said" is trivial. If you can't be honest about that, there's no reason to believe you can be honest about anything else. (To be honest, I'm not sure if you're transparently dishonest or laughably delusional -- but either way, the result is the same.) Your pathetic, demonstrably false bleats about "horseshit malevolence" and "whiney-assed ignorance" are completely irrelevant. You are ignorant of the Constitution. You are ignorant of the history of this country. Your intellectual dishonesty is transparent, and your frantic scrabbling for "any excuse for Obama" equally so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tim

September 7, 2009 6:48 AM in reply to JNagarya

Is he required to exercise leadership?

Actually no. But that's what people expect from a President: Leadership.

A leader has to bear the standard, in the middle of the battlefield, for the entire battle.

Allowing political vacuums to emerge, letting the opposition fill them, only to show up at the last minute in the 11th hour might be a successful tactic, but it's not leadership.

Just ask Neville Chamberlain how that last minute piece of paper promising peace in our time that he got from appeasing his political opposition worked for him.

It's not leadership.

Roosevelt introduced his legislation for, say, Social Security, to the house, under the guise of a proposal. Congress debated it and passed it at about 95% of what he asked for.

That's called leadership.

No one was left wondering where Roosevelt stood on the issue. They knew the entire time.

Public Option was his campaign idea, his call, and democrats accepted it as a pre-emptive compromise on single payer. Here we are several months into the debate, and his own press secretary doesn't know where he stands on it - only that we'll all know after the speech. Which means he still doesn't know.

For chripes sakes, that's not leadership.

That's an abdication of his presidency.

Bush spent most of his time on vacation, but when there was a battle to be fault, for chripes sakes, he showed up.

This guy is a complete and utter disaster.

Give me some frickin leadership in the presidency.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

September 7, 2009 7:06 PM in reply to Tim

Watch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Zeus

September 4, 2009 7:55 PM in reply to henk

Well and succinctly put. The Republicans have publicly declared, "We don't care what you put up, we will be against it because we are 1) corporate lackeys, and 2) believe the only way we can win is to en masse, completely, and consistently oppose anything and everything you do."

So what does Obama do but give them more time and attention and credence than the people who got him elected. Why are the so-called (corporate) liberals always going for this mythical beast of "centrism" (i.e. compromising by giving the store away to people who have nothing but contempt for them and who will give them nothing) and neglecting and insulting the people who have given them everything.

Progressives like me are feeling like the "wife" who spent her productive years working two jobs to put her husband through medical school, only to have him shack up with some ethically challenged, breast-implanted floozy when he finally got his plum job.

There is a great injustice here and not just politically and morally. Obama is starting to have a decency problem. He's not treating the people who got him elected and loved him and his stated principles with any decency. He's always seem quick with a reassuring speech, but name one REALLY politically tough progressive policy he has championed.

He only goes for the easy so-called progressive issues that no one can really be against. "I'm pro alternative energy." (Who isn't. Even oil companies are trying to climb on that bandwagon.) But gay people in the military, accountability and transparency for banks, exit plan and de-escalation in Afghanistan, even torture disclosure and investigation, all solidly Republican policy actions. If I wanted Clinton's third term, I would have supported Hillary. Jeesh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cindy Lugo

September 4, 2009 9:45 PM in reply to Zeus

It appears that President Obama has completely "sold out." His approval rating plummeted, not because of republicans, but because of the people who elected him and provided a majority in congress are beyond upset. We do not approve of what he is are doing. Single-payer should have been used as a bargaining chip. To compromise both is to trade our health, financial stability and our nation's solvency in exchange for Blue Dog votes.

The fact that Nancy-Ann DeParle and United Health Group are involved in “negotiating” reform is appalling. She made her living advising health care investors, sits on the board of for-profit firms that make billions from Medicare and Medicaid. United Health Group is the most egregious, corrupt and disgusting Insurance Company in the entire industry. This is a direct affront, and duplicitous act, against the very people who put him in office.

United Health Group and Nancy-Ann DeParle will not recommend anything viable. Their "Asymmetric Analysis" is ludicrous and misleading at best. The Insurance Industry will protect its profit margin at all costs. They stand to make outrageous profits and by no means will they help lower the cost curve.

United Health Group and others will run successful non-profits, writing off billions in advertising, exorbitant salaries and lobbyists. We will be forced to subsidize the massive increase in their profits without "triggering" a government run public option for years, if ever. This will increase in % of GDP spent on health care, heavily subsidize the Insurance Industry; destroy our citizens’ financial stability and our nation’s solvency.

Republicans need money in order to take back congress and win the presidency. They need the public option to fail. They are out for blood, and it will be this way until his Presidency is defeated. Stop the "bipartisanship:" It only works if both parties are honestly working together. The republicans are not, and they will not. They are literally out to destroy him, and the Blue Dogs are cooperating.

These Members of Congress are more concerned about elections/re-election than our health and well-being. They are complicit in lies and dis/misinformation in order to deceive the public for political gain that will compromise our health, financial stability, and our nation's solvency.

The fact that 45-53% believe all these lies is their responsibility and it is unconscionable. Members of Congress who lie, or constituents who believe and propagate those lies, must never be allowed to dominate.
_______________________________________________________________

"No one should die, go blind, or be crippled because they can't afford health care. No one should go broke because they get sick. No one should be unable to change jobs because of a "pre-existing condition."
~ unknown

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cindy Lugo

September 4, 2009 9:49 PM in reply to Cindy Lugo

dang - i submited instead of previewed - pls excuse the first paragraph.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 5, 2009 8:10 AM in reply to Cindy Lugo

This is an excelent example of the forces pressuring Obama. These are the things that the wait and see crowd don't seem to understand. All we can do is write our puny letters, make our useless phone calls, contibute a buck or two to add campaigns and hope like hell someone is listening. THEY sit on boards, they have direct contact and they have a ton of money. What have we got again? Wait til Wednesday? Ha!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:28 PM in reply to Zeus

The GOP and teabaggers, whether by design or not, serve mostly as "bad cops" to Obama's "good cop", making it easier for him to appear reasonable and sell his watered-down plan as real reform. Yeah, he's "brilliant", just not in the way and towards the ends that his botlike supporters claim.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tim

September 7, 2009 6:35 AM in reply to Zeus

He reminds me of Neville Chamberlain.

He's gone from

Barrack Hussein Obama to...

Barrack Richard Wright Obama to...

Barrack Stalin Obama to...

Barrack Hitler Obama to...

Barrack Hitler-Stalin Obama to...

Barrack Hoover Obama to... (per Harper's)

Barrack Neville Chamberlain Obama.

My guess is that last one is where his reputation will stay unless he pulls off a miracle.

Chamberlain earned the contempt of both those that supported him and those that opposed him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hotch

September 4, 2009 9:43 PM in reply to henk

wow. the cannibalistic nature of liberals rings true in yours and many in this forum's post. i dont mean to be patronizing (ok maybe i do) but some of you "he betrayed us" folk need to pop a prescription valium and just chill.

take a moment, think how far this discussion and process has come in 8 quick months. think of the riled up right-wing anathema that part and parcel is shifting the opinion of the middle. also, recognize that the Democratic party itself has a very nuanced group of representatives and constituents. to confuse the words liberal and Democrat is a mistake. lot of conservative Dems in the South and midwest, like Specter, whose positions can feasibly float both ways on party tickets. the Democrats aren't like the Republicans, they dont all share one brain. some have souls, some have partial souls, some have no souls.

consider also the cult of neo-conservatism and Reaganism (i.e. free market-ism) that has pervaded right, middle and left over the past 30 years. the fact that we have outspoken liberals likes Weiner who are getting solid MSM airtime to pitch single-payer and not getting shouted down and marginalized is another sign of how far we've come.

the fact that the public option will be retained in some form, because of the strong stand House party leaders like Speaker Pelosi have made, is also pretty stunning. the trigger or something like it sounds like itll hold muster. something thatll allow the progressives to save face and the conservative Dems to wave around a victory. of course that means that this fight has a part 2 in 2010, making sure Republicans/Insurance lobby (one in the same, no?) dont creep in and undo the good work. but politics has always been a two steps forward one step back kinda dance.

look, at the end of the day the President knows he's gotta make this happen with both houses of Congress. sure he's made missteps, but considering he's ghosting this process through other legislators (heeding the lessons of the Clintons in 93/94 whose dominating role in reform resulted in not just pushback but failure) and that he needs a number of conservative and private-interest infected Senators to be onboard to get the vote, I think he's doing a helluva job.

he's not being a stubborn child persisting on a utopia that wont happen. he's doing what we elected him to do, making change. if he walks away from this with a bill that gets stopped in its tracks because trying to do what's high-minded instead of what's effective, the backlash from the middle and the left will show this cannibalistic liberal nature where it counts, in 2010 and 2012.

lot of people have delusions about this president on the right and on the left. Obama during the campaign was a centrist and a pragmatist with a conscience. and i think he's delivering in a big way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

greenthumb345

September 4, 2009 10:46 PM in reply to hotch

good job on this! who wouldve thought there were so few people with a brain on this site.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 5, 2009 8:20 AM in reply to greenthumb345

Can you comment on someting I said that makes me brainless? Personally I think that sitting waiting trusting is kind of brainless. We've been waiting for 40 years. How long did Ted Kennedy fight for this? Yes by all means Trust and Wait. I choose not to and if that makes me brainless so bit it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

September 5, 2009 7:46 PM in reply to henk

Yeah, this seems to me not too different from the argument the Obama apologists made when he caved on FISA. I said then, and I say it now: Obama is not the progressive he is made out to be. He's just another DLC-style Democrat. Better a Democrat than a Republican, but not the new broom that was marketed to the electorate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

expatjourno2

September 4, 2009 11:09 PM in reply to hotch

Bullshit. What we are seeing now isn't cannibalism, it's self-defense.

Obama spent ALL of his political capital with me and more with the FISA bill and his lies about telecom immunity, the bank bailout with its lack of curbs on executive pay, Rick Fucking Warren, failure to lift a finger for cramdown, failure to lift a finger to repeal DOMA and DADT, inaction on climate change, inaction on mountain top removal, refusal to comply with the treaty against torture that even Reagan signed, expansion of Bush's state secrets claims, expansion of Bush's preventive detention claims and more.

And now, having licked the asses of conservatives since before he even got elected, the conservatives are treating him with contempt on health care. Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a goddamn river.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mike2

September 4, 2009 11:50 PM in reply to expatjourno2

I find myself nodding in agreement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Progressive Party

September 5, 2009 12:17 AM in reply to Mike2

Full agreement

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

farnsworth

September 5, 2009 1:16 AM in reply to Progressive Party

For all those people who are complaining about those of us who are expressing our disgust with Obama's pathetic and cowardly failures:

Maybe you are right. Maybe these many months of appeasement and mishandling of this issue are not how it is going to end up. Maybe he has a miracle up his sleeve. Maybe all that has come before is just a smoke screen, and something worth having is going to happen next week.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, either.

He blew it. From day one, he blew it. I have been to rallies and vigils. The people who oppose this are NEVER going to cooperate, never going to cut him any slack. By continuing to cede ground, all he is doing is reinforcing the failure. He needed to ram this through. He needed to start from an uncompromising position of strength. But he started from a weak position, and has been giving ground steadily from there.

It is pathetic. It is embarrassing. It is disgusting. Pardon me for thinking that he will continue what he has done since FISA and cave to the Republicans and corporations. What evidence is there that anything else is going to happen? None.

If I am wrong, I will GLADLY admit it. But those of you who expect more are really betting that that million dollar check really is in the mail. Good luck with that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

myshadow

September 5, 2009 8:39 PM in reply to farnsworth

I have to agree. I had been thinking the President had been playing 3D chess but to quote."Obama spent ALL of his political capital with me and more with the FISA bill and his lies about telecom immunity, the bank bailout with its lack of curbs on executive pay, Rick Fucking Warren, failure to lift a finger for cramdown, failure to lift a finger to repeal DOMA and DADT, inaction on climate change, inaction on mountain top removal, refusal to comply with the treaty against torture that even Reagan signed, expansion of Bush's state secrets claims, expansion of Bush's preventive detention claims and more." Syllable for syllable for me too. I had been thinking he was just keepin it cool and would start kicking ass in October.
I am 4 days from the point to loose faith that banksters or war criminals will be held accountable for their crimes. Now the words of Frank Rich a couple of weeks ago. We might have been 'punked'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

nellieh

September 5, 2009 8:49 PM in reply to farnsworth

The Democrats lost control of the issue from the get go. Prior to starting they should have known, or if they did, of the congressmen and women and Senators who are financed by the insurance, prarmaceutical, hospitals and laboratory companies and stripped them of any committees rendering decisions on healthcare reform. They are bought and paid for by them. Why aren't the progressives in congress screaming public option is the compromise from single payer and NO MORE COMPROMISE? The watered down bullshit they are talking about now is no reform whatsoever. Until the insurers are either brought to their knees or eliminated all together, those without healthcare will still be f'd. The Obama and Democrats I voted for in November seem to have morphed into Republican lites. If there is blame, it should go to Obama and Emanuel. That little asshole is more concerned about his Illinois House seat than getting real health care reform. He'll need the industry's donations too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

career fed

September 5, 2009 8:47 AM in reply to expatjourno2

Oh, let's not forget that GUNS are now allowed in ALL the National Parks! Just what I want to encounter when I'm enjoying a nature trail, someone packing heat approaching me that isn't wearing a uniform...

I'm sorry, I worked my ass off to help get him elected - I ate peanut butter sandwiches for 8 months so I could send his campaign extra money - I expected a little more decisiveness, a little more spine on the controversial issues.

He was "saving up" his political capital?? He let it dribble off with FISA and GITMO and torture and all the other things he's asked us to swallow in the name of bi-partisan compromise. ENOUGH! This is my line in the sand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theone718

September 5, 2009 10:23 AM in reply to expatjourno2

Stop bitching. You probably didn't even vote for Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

September 4, 2009 11:18 PM in reply to hotch

The people who Obama has offended to the point of canabalism are the people who worked to get him elected. Practical politics would suggest that he needs to pay more attention.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

William Holt

September 6, 2009 1:51 AM in reply to AJM

I'm afraid we are taken for granted. You can imagine Rahm Emanuel laughing when someone suggests that the left has to be given some recognition.

It would be like, "What? You expect me to believe the liberals are going to vote for Romney, Palin, or Gingrich? Gimme a break!"

Therefore, we are ignored. As far as Rahm goes, it's much more important to keep that drug and health insurance money coming in for the Democrats to use in the next elections.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TX Unmuzzled

September 6, 2009 1:57 PM in reply to William Holt

Exactly. Hey Rahm: What the hell good is a majority if it's totally ineffective at doing ANYTHING??

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:42 PM in reply to hotch

It's all about his strategy and approach. From day one, he approached reform from a position of weakness, not strength, with a spirit of compromise, not negotiation. He went out of his way to embrace and include industry, and diss and exclude progressive voices, in those White House "panels", and to praise and refuse to criticize those who were clearly opposed to real reform, on the right and in industry. He took single payer off the table at the outset, even as an initial bargaining stance from which he could negotiate down, and has now made the public option also negotiable. He cut deals with insurers and PhRMA, and made sure to kiss up to Repubs every step of the way.

I'd say that even if he was sincere about serious reform, he's gone about it in an increadibly weak and stupid manner. He gave up much more than he needed to, way earlier than he needed to, with little if anything in return. I realize that even with large majorities in congress he was facing a strong headwind. He just made it even harder with his ineptness and weakness.

Sorry, I realize that real reform was going to be tough, and we weren't going to get everything, but I just don't buy the excuse that his approach was anywhere near the right one, i.e. the one most likely to bring about the best possible plan. Not even close. Whether due to ineptness and spinelessness, or to just being a sellout, he's screwed this pooch but bad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Conrads Ghost

September 5, 2009 12:00 PM in reply to hotch

hatch, very well put. It's absolutely necessary to keep the pressure on (has everyone here emailed and called their Reps and Senators every week this August? in particular, has everyone here gathered a group of folks - the more the better - and VISITED their Reps' and Senators' home offices this summer? has everyone here emailed and called the White House every week?), but your crucial perspective has been lost in the s***storm. I, for one, can strongly advocate for a bill with a public option sans conditions even as I keep in mind the social and cultural realities you describe. (I also highly recommend that everyone read Ezra Klein's recent posts on what he sees as the structural necessities of an effective bill.) I WILL fight for what's right no matter what the political, social, or cultural realities; and more importantly I WILL NOT let these same realities enervate my willingness or ability to fight again tomorrow, regardless of how this 'debate' pans out.

I mean, if you don't shoot you can't score, so yeah, swing for the fences. (Excuse thee mixed metaphor.) But if you don't hit a home run in the first inning (or second, or third) whaddaya gonna do, take your ball and go home? I think the real point for the left to focus on here is that if Team Dem institutes individual mandates w/o some kind of cost reduction and control, then this thing will indeed be the monster that ate itself - and any hope for this country to join the civilized world. So for me, while the public option remains the focus, my line in the sand is individual cost reduction and control. By whatever means necessary.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

September 5, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to hotch

The discussion as deteriorated in 8 months. It's gone from robust reform to weak tea. If there's a spine in the White House, they are hiding it deftly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

September 5, 2009 10:07 PM in reply to hotch

Well said!

The neophytes, of course, wanting not only pie-in-the-sky but also the whole pie will whine and gripe and make accusations based upon their preference for theory over reality, their hatred for gov't (We the people are the gov't), and their paranoias about the gov't.

So be it: they will either learn, or they will continue to snipe and take pot-shots from the sidelines, and thus ensure their own whiny irrelevance will continue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Zeus

September 5, 2009 10:16 AM in reply to henk

In all this debate, has anyone done the math? Reconciliation, which they will need to get this bill through requires 51 votes to pass. Why not let the worst blue dogs and all the Republicans vote against it, if they want to save face. We still have 9 Democratic votes to sacrifice to we not. If they are all worried about their districts, let them "save face" and simply oppose the public option and pass it with the remaining votes? The only other nuanced strategy is to pretend you're are supporting a watered-down bill to get it out of certain committees, rewrite it strongly, and let people "up-or-down" vote it as a majority proposition.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smooth Jazz

September 5, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to Zeus

Senate reconciliation is dead. Lawrence O'Donnell revealed on Hardball tonight that the 50 + 1 votes for reconciliation only counts for the FINAL vote on the bill in the Senate. It does not include that an infinite number of amendments may be raised about the bill and each one may be filibustered.

"Reconciliation requires 50 votes plus the Vice President for final passage only. During the process of reconciliation on the Senate floor there are countless votes that require 60 votes because it requires you to waive the rules of reconciliation - that's done constantly in every single reconciliation process that goes to the Senate floor. They can't think about going to the Senate floor without 60 votes whether they're doing it in reconciliation or outside of reconciliation."

- Lawrence O'Donnell
Former Democratic Chief of Staff of the Senate Committee on Finance and blogger at the Huffington Post

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32696599

Time Index on Video 3:30

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NR

September 6, 2009 2:12 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz

Bullshit. Bush managed to pass his tax cuts with only 50 votes using reconciliation, so obviously, it can be done. The only question is whether or not the Democrats WANT to do it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smooth Jazz

September 6, 2009 7:42 PM in reply to NR

Not bullshit: stupidity on your part. You're saying that YOU know more about the parliamentary procedures in the senate than the former chief of staff to the Senate Finance Committee Lawrence O'Donnell? Bullshit indeed. Secondly, reconciliation was designed for budget matters, not creating new legislation. Bush didn't create any new programs or new policy when he used reconciliation, so he only needed 50 votes and Cheney.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

September 5, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to henk

Correct.

A so-called reform bill that does nothing but require people to buy health insurance (what the insurance industry wants) is worse than no bill at all.

Unless competition is created where there really isn't any now, this will be like Medicare Part D -- a giveaway to the worst of the worst, our for-profit illness insurance industry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smooth Jazz

September 5, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to henk

Only 45 Senators support the public option. Reconciliation is also a dead option as reported by Lawrence O'Donnell (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32696599)

So Obama wouldn't need to persuade "a few", but 15 senators. You've got it wrong. Among them are two Democratic senators from Arkansas, one of whom has less than 30% approval rating and 60% of the people in Arkansas disapprove of the public option. At some point there is no persuading. If you are about to get thrown out of office for doing what you are being asked to do, you will say no and there's nothing worse that Obama can do to some of these Democratic Senators than their constituents will do to them for supporting a public option.

Liberals are part of a COALITION of liberals, left-leaners and independents. You confuse your failure to see that all Democrats and their constituents are not liberals with Obama's inability to make some Senators sacrifice their own seats so they can do what you want (which no one can do anyway).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NR

September 6, 2009 2:20 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz

You want to talk about COALITIONS? Well, the way you keep a COALITION together is by giving everyone something important that they want, and asking them to sacrifice something less important so that other members of the coalition can get what they want. You don't ask ALL the sacrifices to come from the same group of people ALL the time. That's just idiotic - and yet, it's what Obama and Rahm have done the entire time for the last eight months. The Blue Dogs never have to sacrifice anything - it's ALWAYS the progressives who have to sacrifice, and if they don't want to, they get threatened and bullied into it by Obama and Rahm like with the war supplemental.

And to top it off, the people that Obama and Rahm are favoring are the least fucking loyal members of the party, and the people they're screwing over are the most loyal!

Fuck that shit. It's time for the Blue Dogs to sacrifice something so that us progressives can get what WE want. If they're not willing to, and Obama and Rahm aren't willing to make them, then progressives and Blue Dogs aren't part of a COALITION after all - rather, progressives are just slaves and whipping boys to Blue Dog masters. And trust me, we aren't willing to stay whipping boys much longer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smooth Jazz

September 6, 2009 8:00 PM in reply to NR

You want to talk about COALITIONS? Well, the way you keep a COALITION together is by giving everyone something important that they want, and asking them to sacrifice something less important so that other members of the coalition can get what they want. You don't ask ALL the sacrifices to come from the same group of people ALL the time.
That's just idiotic - and yet, it's what Obama and Rahm have done the entire time for the last eight months. The Blue Dogs never have to sacrifice anything - it's ALWAYS the progressives who have to sacrifice, and if they don't want to, they get threatened and bullied into it by Obama and Rahm like with the war supplemental.

And to top it off, the people that Obama and Rahm are favoring are the least fucking loyal members of the party, and the people they're screwing over are the most loyal!

(1) How do you know that the reforms already being outlined minus the public option are not a sacrifice on behalf of the Blue Dogs? How do you know that the Blue Dogs are not sacrificing already to support subsidies for the poor and an employer mandate and a public option trigger? These are people in CONSERVATIVE states. I went to a townhall a week ago and talked with some conservatives there. It's hard as fuck to reason with those people. That's what those blue dogs have to work with. It's a miracle that they can even get as far as the President is talking given the places that they're coming from like Arkansas where half the people don't know if the President was born here and 60% oppose the public option.

(2) Even if the Blue Dogs did compromise less than progressives, a good partner in a coalition looks out for his weaker partners. The Blue Dogs are necessarily weaker in what they can do than liberals. For starters, liberals represent safe districts. Is a conservative going to take Pelosi's seat, or Ellison's seat, or Weiner's seat? I don't think so. The Blue Dogs are in the area of the swing vote, the front line where they are the first one to be hit by anger over unemployment and government debt, not the liberals who scream the loudest. Being in a coalition or a team, means that you give cover to the part of the team that is taking the most hits. Not only is that the moral thing to do, but it's the only intelligent thing to do. Those Blue Dogs are what make the difference between being in the majority and being in the minority. Sacrificing the Blue Dogs is no different than sacrificing part of your front line, letting the enemy flood in through that area and surround you.

Fuck that shit. It's time for the Blue Dogs to sacrifice something so that us progressives can get what WE want. If they're not willing to, and Obama and Rahm aren't willing to make them, then progressives and Blue Dogs aren't part of a COALITION after all - rather, progressives are just slaves and whipping boys to Blue Dog masters. And trust me, we aren't willing to stay whipping boys much longer.

Again, you don't know that they're not sacrificing by coming as far as they have. Secondly, I would say that with regards to at least one blue dog (Blanche Lincoln) she's got a net -8% approval rating with 60% of her state opposing what you're proposing. How do you sacrifice when you are already 8 points in the hole? Sacrifice her seat? Good luck. I'd like to see one big city liberal actually do anything to put their seat on the line. Show me one big city liberal who has sacrificed their seat for anyone else.

Third, you consider liberals to be "whipping boys" and you're not going to take it anymore. Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. Well OK then, you don't take it anymore. I'll see you in 4 years when Sarah Palin is President, we're invading Iran, rolling back protections for unions and reducing Medicaid. Cheers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

September 11, 2009 1:19 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz

Third, you consider liberals to be "whipping boys" and you're not going to take it anymore. Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. Well OK then, you don't take it anymore. I'll see you in 4 years when Sarah Palin is President, we're invading Iran, rolling back protections for unions and reducing Medicaid. Cheers.

This, from someone who actually said, right here on the TPM boards, that given the chance, he would vote Republican in 2010 against a progressive Democrat who didn't vote the way he wanted on health care. Seriously. Yes, Smooth Jazz actually wrote that, and now has the chutzpah to play the Nader card, and lecture others about losing elections for Democrats. Hi-fucking-larious: you've put yourself completely out of reach of all other possible contenders for the TPM Hypocrisy Award.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smooth Jazz

September 11, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to gharlane

Ah, poor gharlane, like a beaten little runt, he runs behind me with his eternal grudge. I pity you. I believe you there are other threads where you still have not replied to my comments. No doubt because you know you are wrong and can only demonstrate the cowardice to dodge this.

In any case, I am not supporting a Ralph Nader strategy, so my comment is not hypocritical. If by chance a Republican did happen to win in a liberal district, he would have to have very liberal policies and he would actually act like a rank and file Democrat. There's a Republican in my district who supports gay marriage. If a Republican could actually win in a very liberal district, he would probably vote for a health care compromise, rather than against it, which is a very Ralph Nader thing to do.

You could admit that you are wrong, but again, I doubt your cowardly instincts will permit this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

September 18, 2009 2:22 AM in reply to Smooth Jazz

Looks like poor Smooth Jazz is a little starved for attention....

It takes a special kind of inflated ego, or perhaps a special kind of desperation, or perhaps delusion, to assume that a non-reply to a nonsense thread comment (two, actually) is anything more than the dismissal it deserves. Now that I know you're really really dying to get a reply, I may get round to it, so be sure to keep checking back. Meanwhile, it's kind of fun watching you dig yourself in deeper and deeper.... you're doing a heckuva job, keep it up! And be sure in the meantime to keep working for those Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smooth Jazz

September 22, 2009 4:33 AM in reply to gharlane

It's always sad to see idiocy and hypocrisy melded into one, but that's how it is when talking to gharlane. It's interesting that you say that I am "starved for attention", yet who is it who is the third party here, intruding on a conversation between two other people? Oh yes, that would be you. I was talking to NR and you jumped in it, so how is that me being "starved for attention" and not you being "starved for attention?" I mean really gharlane, it's obvious that you talk out of the wrong end, do you have the stones to admit it? Unlikely.

Secondly, good job completely avoiding my debunking of your comments about Ralph Nader. You couldn't be more obvious that you do not understand political issues and that you're just a hurt pansy.

Lastly, oh yes, I was so dying to hear back from that I'm replying 4 days after you replied. That really shows how badly I want your attention. Disregard that fact as well, as you continue to lash out like the rejected child you are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

abek

September 6, 2009 12:06 AM in reply to henk

So within 6 months Obama has now become the whipping boy for the left. Here is a man who chose to bring up Health Care Reform within the first 4 months into his first term. The man gets 300 death threats a day, is compared to Hitler, and now the his base will abandon him on call him a coward because he cannot convince 15 Blue Dogs to vote for the public Option. Maybe Republicans were right, Liberals thought Barack was the Magic Negro and could turn water into wine. The votes are not there in the Senate. I don't trust reconciliation. I think by the time the public option goes thru reconciliation it will be so picked apart that it will be meaningless. What Liberals fail to realize is that the PO was the best way to bring down costs but it was not the only way. The inflexability of Democrats is why after 70 yrs we still don't have universal healthcare. If dems were a little flexible taking what we could get when we could get it it - we might have had single payer by now. But this all or nothing attitude is not only dangerous it is stupid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dustbunny44

September 6, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to henk

Thanks for reminding me that the public option already was a compromise. That's important and appears to have been forgotten.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tim

September 7, 2009 6:13 AM in reply to henk

From "Yes, We Can!" to "No, We Can't" in only 9 months.

That's change we can believe in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Printzton54

September 7, 2009 10:42 AM in reply to henk

PLEASE ENCOURAGE everyone TO LET CONGRESS and PRESIDENT OBAMA KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. ONE EASY WAY THEY CAN DO THIS IS BY USING THE PDF FORM AT GOOGLE DOCUMENTS THAT I CREATED USING THE HOUSE RESOLUTION 3200 OFFICIAL SUMMARY, AS WELL AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LIST OF WHAT HE WANT IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. THIS IS AN EASY CHECKLIST OF FEWER THAN 50 ITEMS. We, the government, of the people, by the people, and for the people must stand up and SPEAK! DO IT TODAY....BE VIRILE...OR VIRAL....BUT USE THE FORM AND SPEAK YOUR MIND. We CAN, we MUST, we WILL!

http://tiny.cc/YH7UH

Thank you.

--
DonnaMarieEllington
http://healthyrickets.blogspot.com
donnamellington@gmail.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ray reynolds

September 5, 2009 5:58 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

RE-ELECTION IS WHAT WORRIES THEM?

How about some leadership and stopping insurance company death panels that cost over 20,000 lives every year.

Who cares if someone else gets elected next year. People die defending their country, you can get another job if you lose but I doubt you will.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 4, 2009 6:09 PM

someone needed to ask Obama why he was against mandates when Clinton proposed them

To remind Obama that without meaningful cost reductions, like the Public Option brings

the mandates without better subsidies and a robust public option

Obama is throwing regular people under the bus in order to score a victory.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 4, 2009 6:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Even with subsidies (which in committee are being lowered), a family can be on the hook for $100 a month. That may not seem like much to the President or to Congress, but I can guarantee you that to people who can not afford insurance now, to force them to pay $100 a month can be catastrophic.

and that is with subsidies. The families caught outside of the subsidies, well...

The democratic party should not throw these people under the bus because they refuse to argue for a strong Public Option and strong subsidies when there is no good argument against it!

There is no good argument against it!

Besides Socialism, and govt takeover. Both ridiculous, but Dems can't even seem to win that argument, but are willing to win on the backs of middle America.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lolis

September 4, 2009 7:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro

$100/month to cover a family is incredibly cheap by any standards. I have a young, health friend that pays $87 as his share of a subsidized plan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

happycozy

September 4, 2009 8:18 PM in reply to Lolis

Yeah--$100/family is very cheap. Hell--I'd be willing to pay $100/person at this point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

September 4, 2009 11:15 PM in reply to Lolis

By any standards if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. If the health care money comes out of your gas money and the money to feed the children, it's not cheap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

September 5, 2009 1:39 PM in reply to AJM

Are they planning to get rid of Medicaid? The poor already get public health care. The rich have no problem paying. As usual, it is the people in the middle, especially those just ABOVE the poverty line, who are getting the raw deal.

Stop means testing government-supplied health care. Single payer treats EVERYONE equally, and the rich can still get their face lifts and sheep placenta injections, or whatever they're willing to pay for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

September 5, 2009 6:24 PM in reply to Cal Gal

Agreed. I intended short hand for point that whether or not something is expensive depends on what you have. I'd have to know the income levels that the cost being discussed was applied to and no one has mentioned that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 1:25 AM in reply to Lolis

again, perhaps you don't understand what these mandates, without a robust public option and better subsidies is gonna look like to middle class americans.

Maybe you don't live paycheck to paycheck, nor your friend. Many do, and this bill is gonna cripple many people.

The President should be fighting for stronger subsidies and a robust public option to counter this ill affect.

This bill, if won, is gonna kill the democratic party. When the rubber meets the road, and those who can't afford insurance are told, do it anyway, there will be hell to pay!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

September 5, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Nailed.

THIS is the ReThuglican "reform" plan.

A twofer, it shovels more money into the corporate coffers AND by bankrupting the middle class (ie Democratic or independent voters) it returns the ReThugs to power.

Genius.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cwnidog

September 5, 2009 9:44 AM in reply to Lolis

I pay a great deal more than that just for myself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 4, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Last I checked Obama is still against personal mandates-- because they are a terrible idea. He's just not willing to kill the bill over it. If you look at the letter where he told Congressional democrats he was willing to go forward on personal mandates he never says he actually supports them, he just says he is "open to your ideas" but requests that Congress water the mandate down by providing something like waivers (something which did make it in to at least the house version of the bill).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 6:56 PM in reply to mcc

No, he's just will to cut the cost of the bill so that there is no subsidy worth a plugged nickel for those who can't afford insurance policies that aren't worth the paper they're printed on (If you can get one printed at all.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 4, 2009 6:58 PM in reply to bluebell

Is this even a sentence?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:05 PM in reply to mcc

Is this even a healthcare bill?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

September 4, 2009 7:21 PM in reply to bluebell

Are you even human???

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tlees2

September 4, 2009 7:58 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Yes, he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

September 5, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to tlees2

And it WAS a sentence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Zeus

September 4, 2009 7:59 PM in reply to mcc

Please, let's stop this parsing. Saying you "support" something is useless. It's all about whether you will fight for it. I support clean air. I support families, apple pie, and mom. Who doesn't. However, do I show it by my actions?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 4, 2009 8:53 PM in reply to Zeus

Okay, but if we look at things that way then Indie Pro's question becomes "why did Obama oppose mandates in the primaries, then fail to fight against them when the bill came up?" and the answer is because picking a fight with Ted Kennedy is a bad idea.

Seriously, do you think Obama should have gone to the mat and fought the liberal wing of his own party (because remember, until about two weeks ago liberals were for the mandate and Obama was seen as having taken the less-liberal position by opposing them) on the personal mandate, rather than only negotiating to limit its damage? Do you think doing this would have served even the goals of someone who opposes the personal mandate?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 1:29 AM in reply to mcc

my point was not, why didn't he fight against them?"

my point is remind him why he is against them!!

and take those reasons into consideration as he negotiates away the public option.

Plus, the democrats need to start fighting for stronger subsidies as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 5, 2009 1:58 AM in reply to Indie Pro

Because they're a regressive handout to corporations that warps markets and punishes the very people health care reform is supposed to be designed to help

Or that would be my reason to oppose it. Obama's objection was as I remember something more milquetoast like "it places a burden on working families". You can still find most of this stuff on Google if you look.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SqueakyRat

September 5, 2009 4:28 AM in reply to mcc

The rationale for mandates seems to have been forgotten: if you subsidize health insurance for people, you simply cannot let them opt out until they get sick and need medical resources. That simply can't work. Help poor people to participate, by all means, but don't leave the door open to free-riding, because that will wreck the whole system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 5, 2009 10:06 AM in reply to SqueakyRat

the rationale for mandates hasn't been forgotten.

the point here is that the rationale for mandates becomes inoperative if there isn't a public option to drive down costs. the public option isn't an extraneous component that can be removed without radically altering all of the other components that were built around it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 11:18 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0

you absolutely get it.

that is the point!!

These things are tied together.

if there is No robust public option with strong subsidies
then there should be no mandates

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

September 5, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to SqueakyRat

That's why single payer is so important.

No opting in. No opting out. Comes out of your income taxes, so payment is progressive and minimal for the working poor (free for those who pay no income taxes).

Just go to the doctor. Just go to the dentist. Don't worry about paying.

If premiums were equated with taxes, we would not even be having this discussion. Of course that assumes people would act rationally in their own self interest, and we've certainly seen THAT's not true with tea baggers as Exhibit One.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:49 PM in reply to Zeus

And Obama was "against" telcom immunity until he was for it.

Like you, I judge by actions and results, not "intentions".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Hechicera

September 4, 2009 9:05 PM in reply to mcc

I would be OK with no public option, as long as both the personal and employer mandates disappeared with it. To get mandates, there has to be a real public option.

I doubt the corporate block would pass that either tho.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 1:30 AM in reply to Hechicera

here, here!!

the personal mandates must go!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TX Unmuzzled

September 6, 2009 2:04 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Mandates are required to control costs, because insuring *everyone* is how to control overall costs.

But without A PUBLIC OPTION, those mandates are nothing but a fascist system where the government forces its citizens to buy something in the private market... period. You won't have a choice.

So without a PUBLIC OPTION and with personal mandates, this bill is a catastrophe and will prove as much. We could lose another generation of progress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 6, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to TX Unmuzzled

I'm with ya.

As it stands, the mandates will be insufficient to help many families, meaning they'll be forced to pay a new bill to the insurance industry.

According to studies linked from TPM (Not far down the list) some families cold end up paying $250 a month, even after subsidies.

Not every family can afford this NEW bill in their lives.

Without strong subsidies, and a solid public option to help lower costs of premiums, the mandates must go.

Without a Good Public Option and Better Subsidies, the "incrementalization" needs to be smaller.

No mandates. Get the insurance reform you can, the modernization of of records and so forth. Drop the mandates. They are tied to the public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 6, 2009 2:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro

crap, that should be:

As it stands, the subsidies will be insufficient to help many families, meaning they'll be forced to pay a new bill to the insurance industry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

September 4, 2009 11:20 PM in reply to mcc

So we better read the fine print with Obama just like with the insurance companies, but I am beginnng to fear that I repeat myself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 5, 2009 2:52 AM in reply to AJM

This isn't really "fine print". It isn't even complicated. Obama had a goal in opposing the public option, this goal just turned out to be less important than another goal. Sometimes you can't get everything you want and you have to prioritize. This should be a familiar concept to progressives, since again the progressive blogosphere either paid no attention to or actively pushed back against any attempt to point to the individual mandate as problematic until about two weeks ago. Progressives were willing to overlook problems with the individual mandate in order to achieve the more important (to us) goal of passing a public option. So was Obama. Now we're finding that Obama is also willing to give up the public option in order to pass the more important (to him) goal of passing health care reform. Disappointing, but not complicated. What we need to do is use the progressive leverage in Congress to make sure that Obama can't get his goal unless we also get what we want.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

September 5, 2009 8:13 PM in reply to mcc

You certainly have my thinking all wrong, so I have no confidence you have any great insight into Obama's thinking, either.

Willing to overlook problems with mandates in order to get the public option? Where on earth did you get that idea???? It doesn't even make sense.

The public option was a means to an end, and was itself a compromise replacement for single payer.

Mandates are also a means to an end.

The end is insurance from which nobody is excluded and for which everyone pays the same (affordable) premium. I for one don't see how you can accomplish community rating if everyone in the community doesn't participate. Hence mandates. If you're going to have mandates, you need some check on the private insurance companies to keep them from gouging people. Hence the public option. They are all interconnected.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:47 PM in reply to mcc

What he is "for" or "against" is utterly irrelevant to the question of what he's willing to accept and not accept, and fight for and let fall by the wayside. I'm for luxury cruises for all, and against male pattern baldness. I'm not about to fight for the first and against the second.

So, with all due respect to Obama's supposedly good intentions, we are not impressed by his outcomes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 2:20 AM in reply to mcc

Matt Yglesias argues, “it’s not that a mandate is such a terrible thing, but its primary purpose is to keep insurance companies in business once progressive stuff like community rating and guaranteed issue policies are put in place. If I were in congress, I’d write a bill that has community rating and guaranteed issue. Let the insurance companies fight for the mandate! Make them deliver some votes for a “compromise” featuring all three. But there’s no particular reason that this favor to insurance firms should be defined as constitutive of the progressive health care agenda.”

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

September 4, 2009 7:19 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Cut the whining. I am sick to death of it. Wait until Wednesday until you hear it from him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 4, 2009 7:58 PM in reply to lousgirl84

on wednesday obama will part the waters, turn them into wine, and show everyone how his magic cape helps him to fly.

or...

on wednesday obama will put his stamp of approval on some more empty talking points, half-measures, and capitulations that he will call 'real healthcare reform' that you, the faithful, can take to heart and arm yourselves with against the truth-mongering leftist hordes here at tpm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gharlane

September 6, 2009 1:16 AM in reply to lousgirl84

And lousgirl continues to write as if her constant, whiny "cut the whining" posts matter to anyone but her.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

3star2nr

September 4, 2009 9:55 PM in reply to Indie Pro

exactylu what the fuck does he think is going to happen? you force insurance companies to take on more people, with no cost contrls OF COURSE they are going to raise prices.

a trigger wont work either, all they will fdo is keep costs below the set limits until the trigger periood expires then triple costs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Economides

September 5, 2009 12:50 AM in reply to 3star2nr

So a trigger works to change behavior, but, in your imagination, because the trigger expires it's impact expires? But what if the trigger does not expire. What if it triggers whenever the agreed upon conditions are not met?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kevin Sutton

September 4, 2009 6:19 PM

This sounds like those unilateral compromises being bandied about by pundits.

You can't get a deal by negotiating with the people who were on board already. You start with the other side and then come back. If there is no specific offer to the progressives then that means there wasn't a commitment from the holdouts. Progressives should demand to see what the other guys are willing to commit to first.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

nerox3

September 5, 2009 5:27 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton

yes. That was my reaction. What is Obama doing negotiating with the progressives as if he is a blue dog dem. These guys should be his allies in getting as strong a bill passed as possible. The are not the problem. I was particularly disgusted with his attitude that the progressives could only advocate for a public option because they had safe seats. If this bill caves to the insurance lobby it is going to become a vote killer for all democrats as voters will (rightly) blame this bill for raising their personal health insurance costs. From a political perspective the democrats in vulnerable seats should be the ones pushing the hardest for a bill that strongly contains insurance costs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theone718

September 5, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to nerox3

They don't get it. That beltway fog is too thick. They pass a bill w/o a PO and it is over. I got into Politics watchiing O vs Hill and I will get out just as quickly because I was LIED to. This isn't what I voted for whatsoever. I voted for REAL change not tinkering around the edges. That is exactly what he said he WASN'T going to do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bearlegdairy

September 4, 2009 6:21 PM

Don't budge an inch. I'm tired of liberals compromising. It's time the people who lost the last election gave something up.

On a side note, have any of you spent time on the Politico forums? Those people are nuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 4, 2009 7:06 PM in reply to Bearlegdairy

Yes they are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hewhohasnoname

September 4, 2009 7:17 PM in reply to Bearlegdairy

Politico, which was founded by a Republican, is unbearable. It seems to be gaining a larger and larger role in the Republican attacks. They often run articles on virtually every grievance -- real or imagined -- from Republicans, and they seem to have a special affinity for the more outlandish right-wing nonsense. Sometimes I think they are part of the Republican attack echo chamber: Something crazy happens on Fox News, and Politico runs a prominent "article" [often nothing more than a "he said, she said" type with little or no fact-checking and usually with a Republican slant], and they get a prominent link from the Drudge Report, and the crazy takes off. [The parties involved operate in a different sequence, but the same parties are usually involved.]

Thus, Politico has driven countless nonsensical articles into the mainstream that way, because political pundits on MSNBC, CNN, ABC News (Political Punch) and others usually pick up articles from them.

Case in point, Beck, pretty much because he's pissed at Color of Change's success in getting advertisers to drop him, makes noise about Van Jones, a cofounder of the org.; Fox News digs up video from FEBRUARY with Jones calling Republicans "assholes;" Drudge and Politico start pushing the story, and others have subsequently picked it up. [Politico actually even has a front-pager about Jones now.] Similar things happened with attacks on Michele Obama.

This all probably sounds kinda "tin-foil-hat", but when you see these attacks evolve, Politico's Republican genesis doesn't seem to be without some influence on the type of coverage Politico pursues and how they cover what they pursue. Politico seems to have a crucial role in pushing the Republican nonsense into the national bloodstream.

As such, it's now overrun with far-right-wing commenters. Reading the comments is like having front-row seat at a Tea Party or birther convention.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 4, 2009 7:31 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

It doesn't sound tin foil hat at all. It sounds like the truth. I take what I read there with a grain of salt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JJNelson

September 4, 2009 7:42 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

One look at the results of Politico's daily opinion polls, and it's pretty clear which demographic that site's catering to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cwnidog

September 4, 2009 8:22 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

But, I don't see the controversy. They *are* assholes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ricky

September 6, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to Bearlegdairy

I do not even post on politico, thats a crazed board..

but what i do know.. I am sick of this bullshyte Obama is pulling.. if he don't think the progressives, independents and republicans that voted for him because they WANTED REAL CHANGE IN THIS HEALTH CARE, not some bullshyte compromise with the GOP who does not want anything whatsoever..

Obama said the LOBBIEST AND SPECIAL INTEREST would not run his white house.. but thats exactly who's running the damn thing.. I am so disappointed. I thought I would never say this, but I think Hillary would have had more BALLS to stand up to the right tell them to sit the F-ck down and shut the f-ck up

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 6:22 PM

Here's my suggestion for compromise: remove public option from the bill and replace it with single-payer. Progressives already compromised and if they want to throw us under the bus then let's support a totally different bill.

And while you are at it progressives, tell him you won't fund one more cent for war in Afghanistan. Tell him you've decided to compromise with Republicans and adopt the George Will plan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 4, 2009 6:23 PM in reply to bluebell

here, here!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 4, 2009 6:32 PM in reply to bluebell

In other words, what we really need is a bill that will get 50 votes in the House and 2 in the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 6:53 PM in reply to mcc

What we really need is Obama waving a great big white flag in front of Congress so they all can get exactly what they want healthcare for themselves plus a a trillion dollars for the insurance lobby.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Philv

September 4, 2009 7:03 PM in reply to bluebell

You didn't address his issue, if all you want to do is grandstand, that isn't going to help anyone, do you think a single-payer bill can pass the House and Senate? If not, then flipping everyone off and sulking in the corner won't change a thing, except ensure we won't see any health care reform for a long time. The individuals in the House and Senate are who they are, the media is what it is, the wingnuts are what they are, the uneducated and ill-informed public is what it is. Can we please have a discussion about things that are in the realm of possibility of passing out of Congress in September 2009?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:08 PM in reply to Philv

I don't believe the bill is healthcare reform. I'm not pretending it is going to do diddly for the working poor. It's going to conscript them into buying policies they cannot afford to buy insurance that does not provide them adequate healthcare. It's a big lie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Philv

September 4, 2009 7:09 PM in reply to bluebell

Again, not addressing the issue: do you think a single-payer bill can be passed out of Congress?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 4, 2009 7:29 PM in reply to Philv

No, but Medicare for all could. Its a matter of will and framing. John Edwards talked about it during the primary. Everyone who has Medicare likes it, a good portion or the teabaggers are on it,(remember the wing nut screeching "Keep your Government hands of my Medicare."), they would be on the defensive, why should they have it while denying it to others? It wouldn't happen all at once, but be phased in by allowing those 55 and over to buy into it. Still is would be saddling Medicare with the oldest most expensive clients so a case could be made for allowing the young healthy low income uninsured to buy in, thus spreading risk and reducing costs, others would start asking why not them and eventually it'd be medicare for all.

But of course that might make the Insurance companies angry and the will of politicians to get it done would waver.

So let me ask you a question: What is best for the country, to continue on as we are with a Private Insurance industry as we have it, or would we be better off with some sort of system similar but not the same as the rest of the industrialized world? What is best for this country?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

El Puerco

September 4, 2009 9:58 PM in reply to henk

"No, but Medicare for all could. Its a matter of will and framing. John Edwards talked about it during the primary."

Medicare for all is basically single payer.

By the way, Edwards plan is basically the same as the bills put forward by the three House committees and the Senate HELP committee.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 5, 2009 8:26 AM in reply to El Puerco

Yes its the same, that's the framing part. Do I need to explain framing?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:46 PM in reply to Philv

Lawrence O'Donnell has made a great point about the mistake Democrats made after they failed the last time. He said they should have spent the last 15 years fighting for Medicare for all and they might well have made the sale by now.

Since they've totally botched it again, they might as well start that sales pitch now. Better to sell a good bill and fail then continue to enable the Republicans to enact their corporate welfare agenda even when they are out of office.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 4, 2009 7:13 PM in reply to Philv

So in your view people's minds can't be changed? Public opinion doesn't matter? If that's the case why do we even bother?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Philv

September 4, 2009 7:18 PM in reply to henk

Of course people's minds can be changed, I take it you think that we can pass a single-payer bill now then? I just want everyone to stop pretending that all we have to do is waive a magic wand: lay out a plan for getting all of those Senators who won't even vote for a public option to vote for single-payer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 4, 2009 7:38 PM in reply to Philv

I replied to your question above, Medicare for all, now you answer mind. What is best for the country?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stephen Daugherty

September 4, 2009 8:41 PM in reply to henk

What's best for the country?

Obama getting the best possible agreement. Who and what does he compromise with? Who and what does he stand with? Who or what does he kick to the curb? These are the questions he seems to be asking.

This report reassures me somewhat, because it means he's listening, he's asking questions. He's not simply walling himself up behind his advisers. He's asking them. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henk

September 5, 2009 8:40 AM in reply to Stephen Daugherty

I was hoping Philv would answer my question. He's been badgering everyone about answering his single payer question. I did and now he's not answering mine. Funny how that works.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Philv

September 23, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to henk

Sorry, I didn't see your comment until now (ensuring that you probably will never see mine). You actually didn't answer my question, but that's OK (a plan is not a one-line platitude, you need to tell me how you are going to overcome the Blue Dogs in the House and a filibuster in the Senate).

What do I think would be best if I was a dictator and could do whatever I wanted? Private doctors, hospitals etc. with government funded insurance (basically single payer, medicare for all, whatever you want to call it) competing with true non-profits in a federal structure.

The problem is that neither I, nor you, nor Obama is a dictator. The difference between us is that you think sacrificing the end of the previous conditions, lifetime benefits, etc. shenanigans (in addition to some other benefits like real competition and some sort of start at trying to drive down some of the waste and overheated cost in the system) is OK if we can't get single payer. I think people are dying and that the history of this country shows that no massive reform like what we want is enacted in one step.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Hechicera

September 4, 2009 9:07 PM in reply to Philv

I'd still like to see who could win re-election after voting against a well-written bill titled "Medicare for All".

Do that a few election cycles, and I bet it would pass just fine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

September 4, 2009 7:22 PM in reply to bluebell

You are a fricking troll!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:48 PM in reply to lousgirl84

No, but I am an endangered species: a liberal

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 4, 2009 8:45 PM in reply to bluebell

liberal? what's that??

some people are just FANS. and obama is just a celebrity that they have chosen to fawn over/root for.

they just want obama to win the pennant. or the teen choice award.

it isn't obama's policies that they care about, it's his popularity. and how he uses or squanders that popularity doesn't concern them because that's just 'haters hating' (if i might ineptly use a bit of contemporary vernacular). and good public policy is whatever obama says it is. because, i mean, isn't he just the coolest?

and while i might dismissively ridicule these people, i happen to think that they are as much to blame as republicans and bluedogs and all the other insurance industry lapdogs for the dimness of real healthcare reform's chances. they don't know policy because they don't care about policy. they just 'care' and know they care about obama. but in a policy debate they are useless. they have no convictions. they are a rudderless fanclub. at least the teabaggers have the sense to have puppetmasters. and dick armey knows how to mobilize his useful idiots. but these folks' only impulse is to defend obama against his critics. regardless of what the criticisms are or where they are coming from.

they helped him win, but they can't help him govern. useless. just useless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 4, 2009 8:46 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0

sorry 'bout that. i thought today was tyrade tuesday.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 8:53 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0

Yeah, these are the ones who actually believed that politics could be "postpartisan" and that we could all just get along because we don't have anything we care passionately enough about to fight for it. Well, we've seen this summer where the passion is. One thing you can say about Republicans -- they know they've got something important enough to fight over and they never stop fighting for it. I figure a lot of Americans have a hunch that if you aren't willing to fight for what you believe in, whatever it is you believe in isn't worth a damn.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 1:45 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0

people who follow politics like football fans (my team right or wrong) are odd to me.

The republican party seems to have fallen so far to the right, they are a useless caricature of a real party, these days.

The democratic party is now the center right party, and they have a center right president in place. He was center right before the election, he is center right after. I had no illusions. It was all discussed here on TPM. I remember.

So here in America, we have a Center Right party and a Hard Right party. Our two parties are served to us by a corporate media, mainly.

That is why we have the healthcare bills we have.

That is why we have the healthcare debate we're having.

The working poor and the middle class are going to be the big losers in this reform. The insurance industry is gonna make out like bandits, unless

- someone stands up for a robust public option, that'll offer competition to bring down costs.

- someone stands up for stronger subsidies.

or

- someone stands up and says, lose the public option and strong subsidies then LOSE THE MANDATES!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tlees2

September 4, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to bluebell

Exactly, right for the same reason that brokerage houses wanted Social Security privatized. People are forced to join, and they reap the profits. Medicare for all is clearly the best thing to do, but Obama negotiated that away with himself before actual negotiations started. Let's screw up health care and Afghanistan so that moronic Republicans like Sarah Palin can be put in power. Obama needs to be a fighter. I don't see it so far.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FreeRider

September 4, 2009 6:58 PM in reply to mcc

Co-sign! Fuck the whole healthcare reform. That'll teach 'em to throw us under the bus. We'll throw ourselves under the bus!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:04 PM in reply to FreeRider

It isn't healthcare reform. It's insurance welfare. Kill the bill!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 4, 2009 7:06 PM in reply to bluebell

This is nonsense. We don't even have a bill yet. How do you know you want to kill it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

September 4, 2009 7:24 PM in reply to mcc

You can't talk sense to these whiners. They are all worked up about something that hasn't even happened. How stupid is that????

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:49 PM in reply to mcc

Because the Republican intimidation tactics have totally intimidated the Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stephen Daugherty

September 4, 2009 8:43 PM in reply to bluebell

Exactly. The Tea Party Folks have too many of us fearing that the representatives will run scared. Doesn't help that the Blue Dogs regularly talk about impossible votes.

We may have let this past brouhaha get to us too much.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

oleeb

September 4, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to bluebell

I'm with ya 100% bluebell!

After all, it isn't as though 2/3 of the public want single payer or anything right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

elf

September 4, 2009 7:56 PM in reply to oleeb

I don't see any point to the public option. sounds like a duplication of Medicare to me. Why set up a duplicate beaurocracy when we already have a perfectly good one.

Let those under 65 buy into Medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bruce Webb

September 4, 2009 10:06 PM in reply to elf

Excellent idea!

Unless you know the first thing about Medicare financing at which it becomes
moronic. Medicare Part B (Physicians) and Part D (Drugs) are partially funded by premiums. But only partially, in order for people to 'buy in' you would need to find a way to pay the difference. Medicare Part A is even worse, it is funded by a lifetime of FICA contributions, you trade maybe 40 years of dollars in for 10 to 30 years out. To 'buy in' would take a one-time pay in of about 3% of your salary to date plus another 3% annually.

Everything in life is simple if you ignore the complexities.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 5, 2009 12:13 AM in reply to Bruce Webb

While in need of financing and other reform, the idea behind Medicare is the right one, in the sense of removing the expense of private insurer profit and other unnecessary overhead in a sector in which prices are already too high. Obviously, if Medicare were to be extended to everyone, they'd have to pay regular premiums, either directly or through supplemental FICA withdrawals, with subsidies to low-income people. But between that, fraud reduction, negotiated drug rates and other cost controls, I think this could be done. Not that it's on the table, of course, so this is a moot point for now.

Every time I hear hospitals and provider groups complain that Medicare pays at 20% below cost, I have to ask myself how these "costs" are calculated--especially with many of the providers who work for them are earning in the high six figures and lots of unnecessary procedures being ordered that don't really promote health and wellness. Translation: I think that they're lying and they know it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

emjayay

September 4, 2009 6:49 PM in reply to bluebell

Or maybe remove the public option and require all insurance companies to be not-for-profit. And end fee-for-service. And forbid doctors from owning any part of any testing, radiology, dialysis, equipment rental, etc. company that they can refer patients to. Plus all the no denial of coverage, no age based rates, etc. rules that I hope are in any bill.
What the heck, throw in some kind of tort reform/damages limitation element, if that is even legal on the federal level. Copy whatever some states have done in that regard, even though it doesn't make the huge cost difference right wingers seem to think it does. Why not give them one less issue to shout about? Anyone know about the constitutionality of that sort of thing on the federal level?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ion

September 4, 2009 6:34 PM

Someone should remind Obama that a robust an effective public option enjoys a broad base of support - it's not only wildly popular in so-called "safe districts."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FebM

September 4, 2009 6:43 PM in reply to Ion

And robust public option is the fundamental way to bring down costs, because health insurance companies are there to make money, thats the only reason they are in business, and its good. But peoples health should not be in line just so that someone can make max profits.

Public option will make those insurance companies who cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

impik

September 4, 2009 6:55 PM in reply to Ion

He knows that, but it can't pass the senate. What can you do?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

prouddem

September 4, 2009 7:53 PM in reply to impik

Democrats from conservative states (Ben Nelson, the North Dakota pair of Dorgan and Conrad), the Montanans, Bayh from Indiana, Lincoln from Arkansas, Landrieu from Louisiana) -- we can complain about them, but without them Dems lose the majority. Pure and simple. Let's see what Obama presents and hope the House can finesse a better bill than that which originates in the Senate. But we cannot pretend that electoral politics can have no bearing on the outcome.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 4, 2009 8:55 PM in reply to prouddem

wrong.

check the record.

most of their conservatism is NOT based on their constituency.

most of their conservatism is based on their CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS in spite of the views of their constituents.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hotch

September 4, 2009 10:25 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0

actually it's a mixture of both, but the fact remains that the majority tent of Democrats hold conservatives too, regardless of their personal motives. they are big players in this debate.

pro-reformers oughta be angry at/actively persuading those individual Dems who are holding up the agenda, not Obama who's been trying to play this hand best he can with the cards he's dealt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 5, 2009 1:22 AM in reply to hotch

pro-reformers oughta be angry at/actively persuading those individual Dems who are holding up the agenda, not Obama who's been trying to play this hand best he can with the cards he's dealt.

oh, poor obama and the cards he was dealt.

bull.SHIT.

obama has been totally outplayed. he had the stronger hand and a bigger pile of chips. and HE blew it. this isn't a case of unlucky cards, this is just shitty card playing.

but i do think it's funny that you imagine the 'pro-reformers' (you say it as if you aren't convinced you would put yourself in that category) ought to be persuading senate dems. the president? the leader of the party? no, he's just an unfortunate victim in all this trying to figure out how he's going to turn a full house into a winning hand. how is he going to persuade his former senate colleagues of anything??

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hotch

September 5, 2009 4:29 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0

i dont get this arrogance on the part of liberals such as yourself. the cusses are a bit much too. but your tone is most upsetting, and its not just yours in this forum.

its strikingly similar to the blame-obama-for everything right-wing pundits that litter the airwaves. you might as well have called it the reform "obamacare." and the problem i have with your post and that word is it oversimplifies and misrepresents the many factors at play.

and while i am in no way suggesting that you should be boohooing or waa-waaing or whatever condescending thing you would say, out of pity for the president, i do think that it sounds like you and a lot of others on this forum want him to fail. so eager to call this bet cause you know what everyone else is holding (booya! the poker metaphors continue)

the process isn't over. he and the Dems have somehow managed to hold onto the public option this long. that says a ton. you want to play it cynical so it doesnt hurt so much if this fails, that's fine. but at least recognize that's what you're doing. you and noone else has a crystal ball here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 5, 2009 9:50 AM in reply to hotch

i dont get this arrogance on the part of liberals such as yourself. the cusses are a bit much too. but your tone is most upsetting, and its not just yours in this forum.

the thing about these internets is that people end up coming into contact with real people who talk like real people talk in the real world. and any covnersation about politics that doesn't include someone calling 'bullshit' is not real.

i'm upset about the millions of americans who can't afford health insurance.
i'm upset about the millions of americans who have heatlh insurance but still can't afford to get health care with it.
i'm upset about all of the americans with health insurance who have to claim bankruptcy because os medical bills.
i'm upset about all of the americans who have to live in constant fear of their family falling victim to the status quo of the predatory dysfunctional for-profit health insurance system in this country.

but you go ahead and find my tone and rough language upsetting. and you can keep on apologizing for the meek and mild-mannered maintainers of the status quo.

i do think that it sounds like you and a lot of others on this forum want him to fail.
again, bull.SHIT.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 8:58 PM in reply to prouddem

Gee, and this majority is good for exactly what? Maybe if this majority ever delivered on anything I'd believe it was worth worrying about preserving. I've yet to figure out why we need a majority to surrender to Chuck Grassley.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bruce Webb

September 4, 2009 10:27 PM in reply to prouddem

60-6=54 which is less than a majority of 100. Who knew?

Senate Rules allow for a bypass of Senate Finance. In particular Senate Rule 14 would allow Reid to bring a blended version of Kennedy's HELP Bill and the House Tri-Committee bill right to the Snate floor leaving Baucus exactly two chances to pull a power play, each of which could be portrayed as a sraight out vote to kill Health Care outright.

Reid and Obama are letting this farce which presents the Gang of Six as having some official lockhold for reasons of their own. If they decided to steam roll Baucus they have established Rules that would allow them to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:53 PM in reply to prouddem

No Democratic senator will lose reelection by supporting robust health care reform. The numbers just don't support that assertion. In the house, maybe, but not enough to lose control of it. Hell, even if a few senators would lose their seats due to this, Dems would still control the senate. And really, what's the difference between 57 and 60 Dems when you can never get those 60 to vote together?

If Dems keep watering down bills to keep their powder dry, they will lose their majority eventually--and deserve to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 1:51 AM in reply to kovie

I agree with your comment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NR

September 4, 2009 8:09 PM in reply to impik

If a good public option can't pass the Senate when there are 60 Democratic Senators and it only needs 50 votes for reconciliation, then what that tells me is that the Democratic party is worthless and it's time to abandon them and start looking for a real progressive alternative to the Republicans.

The old excuses won't fly anymore. If a strong public option doesn't pass, the ONLY reason is because the Democratic party didn't want it to pass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 9:01 PM in reply to NR

That's right. If you've only got a few Blue Dogs holding out what prevents the rest of the Congress from locking them in a room until they see the light? The Blue Dogs are the excuse that enables the rest of them to do nothing but fill their pockets and enjoy their healthcare benefits.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

unabogie

September 4, 2009 9:38 PM in reply to NR

I swear, are liberals and Birthers all drinking the same koolaid? The one that makes you forget the last eight years?

Are we really going back to the "no difference between the parties" after eight years of Dick Cheney?

Really?

Morons.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NR

September 4, 2009 10:34 PM in reply to unabogie

Nice strawman, but nobody said there was no difference between the parties.

Back during the torture debate, the Republicans justified the use of torture by saying that what we were doing to prisoners wasn't as bad as what the terrorists do to their prisoners. We weren't the same as the terrorists, so therefore we were just fine. Some very smart people responded by saying that the question wasn't whether we were the same as the terrorists, the question was, are we different enough?

The question isn't are the Democrats the same as the Republicans. Everyone knows the answer to that question is no. The question is, are they different enough?

The outcome of this health care debate will give us the answer to that question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

unabogie

September 4, 2009 11:18 PM in reply to NR

When anyone suggests turning tail and abandoning the country to the Wingnuts, they deserve nothing but contempt.

"It's time to leave and form our new Unicorn Party" is the same as saying it's time for President Palin to have a whack at it.

Lunacy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NR

September 4, 2009 11:26 PM in reply to unabogie

No, lunacy is deciding that you're fine with politicians selling out the country to the highest corporate bidder so long as they have a D after their name rather than an R.

You can stay on that course if you want to, but lots of us have had enough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cwnidog

September 4, 2009 8:28 PM in reply to impik

He can put the metaphorical balls of those reluctant Senators into a vise and start closing its jaws. They all want things that only he can give.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lestatdelc

September 6, 2009 8:00 PM in reply to cwnidog

How?

Explain to me how he can put Nelson's balls in a vice please.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

oleeb

September 4, 2009 6:40 PM

I hope they told him they aren't willing to budge one single inch! What kind of a wimp is he? There seems to be no end to his willingness to toady to Republicans and DINOs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

prouddem

September 4, 2009 7:54 PM in reply to oleeb

The party needs the DINOS. See above.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

oleeb

September 5, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to prouddem

But it doesn't need to put them in the driver's seat. They need the others far more than the other need them, but for too too long they have been allowed to slow progress and hold back the Democratic agenda. It's time to have the dog start wagging the tail instead of vice versa.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CranialRectalLoopback

September 4, 2009 6:52 PM

What Snowbama fails to understand is that the Public Option was the STOPPING point in the Progressive debate, not the STARTING point. We wanted to START with single payer, with a compromised END-GAME of a strong public option. In other words, WE'VE BUDGED AS FAR AS WE ARE WILLING TO BUDGE. The fact that Snowbama was too busy playing infinite dimensional chess and decided to START AT THE END of compromise is well, too bad for him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:00 PM

And progressives, don't forget to bring up EFCA. How are we doing on that progressive labor legislation?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Radhika

September 4, 2009 7:02 PM

So do I read it correctly? Obama's willing to prod liberals of his own party to compromise the nation's wellbeing even further. But he accepts the conservative Repug's no-reform, no-way, no-respect-you-commie-fascist-scum position without blinking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

matyra

September 4, 2009 7:15 PM in reply to Radhika

That's how I read it too. Um, who has the majority?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Philv

September 4, 2009 7:06 PM

I think we should just stop trying to pass legislation all together and instead just send up bills for a vote that are the way we want them. Sure they'll all fail, but we'll have made our point!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NR

September 4, 2009 8:05 PM in reply to Philv

Right, progressives should just shut up and vote for whatever piece of shit bill that the right wing wants. That's a great way to make things better. And while we're at it, let's have another bailout for Wall Street and another war in the Middle East, since obviously the most important thing is to find stuff that the right wing will support.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DRK

September 4, 2009 7:06 PM

"NBC reports that Obama reminded the group that they enjoy the security of representing safely Democratic districts."

Because it's all about getting re-elected, not passing meaningful refor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lousgirl84

September 4, 2009 7:20 PM in reply to DRK

Like I believe NBC Reports.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 4, 2009 7:54 PM in reply to DRK

Those safe districts are what win swing states for Democrats like Obama. Maybe he'd prefer the liberals in MN-5 stay home in 2012 so that the voters in Michele Bachman's MN-6 make the difference?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mrtoad47

September 4, 2009 7:06 PM

Does anyone know what the actual response was on the conf call? Whether the house progressives held firm or showed wiggle room on triggers, etc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Maritza

September 4, 2009 7:08 PM

There just is NOT the votes in the Senate to pass a bill with a public option.

The House will pass a bill with a public option. Thus in conference because they HAVE to have a health care bill, the most likely result will be a trigger for the public option.

Arms will have to be twisted in order to get this done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NR

September 4, 2009 8:02 PM in reply to Maritza

If arms have to be twisted, let Obama and Rahm twist some Blue Dogs' arms for a change. Progressives have already compromised by giving up single-payer; the fact that Obama and Rahm now want us to compromise even more, rather than trying to get the Blue Dogs to compromise even once, is very telling.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Indie Pro

September 5, 2009 1:58 AM in reply to Maritza

if there is No Public Option

there should be No Mandates!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

matyra

September 4, 2009 7:14 PM

How much of this would be moot if corporations (like insurance companies) were not allowed to give to campaigns?

It's just a question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DRK

September 4, 2009 7:17 PM in reply to matyra

And it's a GREAT question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DRK

September 4, 2009 7:18 PM

I wonder if the Blue Dogs were asked how far they're willing to compromise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ru4862

September 4, 2009 7:21 PM

Mr President,

Good lord....What is a win worth? Safe districts? So..its about the numbers?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

prouddem

September 4, 2009 7:58 PM in reply to ru4862

Of course numbers are important. The House of Reps are elected every two years and one cannot pretend that one size fits all. When you take that approach, you end up like the GOP with a regional party (South, parts of the Mountain States). Is that what the Dems want? Not this one. I ardently support the public option (prefer single-payer, actually), but there are many issues and the majority must be maintained. Just next year it looks like there will be another Supreme Court appointment. And there is much work to do on energy, environment, and education. Numbers matter very much.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rj

September 4, 2009 9:21 PM in reply to prouddem

Numbers do matter -- but those numbers have to yield actual results, or what's the point, other than saving us from wacko-right control (and it looks increasingly like they're calling the shots anyway; who's driven the debate for months?). Single payer needed to be on the table from the start, even just for political reasons to define the public option as the compromise position. Dems needed to be selling the public option to the swing-staters as the CENTRIST option (choice plus cost control), and the media needed to be doing actual journalism. But given where we are now, at least Obama's realizing he's got to listen to progressives.

I do wonder what happened to cloture in all this -- that'd be preferable to reconciliation, which is a very imperfect vehicle to get a complete plan through (and would likely have it sunset to boot). Surely Dems (and maybe New England Republicans) could be persuaded at least not to block a vote on, say, the HELP bill -- the final culmination of Ted Kennedy's efforts to get universal health care. "Honor Teddy: vote for cloture."

Finally, as somebody who's written, called, emailed, signed petitions about the public option relentlessly but really is worried that there won't be the votes in the Senate, I've got a question for a better policy wonk than I: I've recently wondered whether the one conceivable type of "trigger" that MIGHT (only might) work could be one that: 1) is forever -- ie, the threat never goes away for the insurers; 2) is simply a buy-in to Medicare -- making real the ability to pull the trigger instantaneously rather than build an entity from scratch (with a higher payout to providers than for seniors, to address that issue); and 3) is closer to a hair-trigger than has been discussed -- ie, insurers must show real progress within, say, 3 months, with targets every quarter culminating in some definition of optimum within a year. Really tough, with firm goals that would truly match what reform is meant to achieve.

I still don't like it, mostly because it's hard to see how the regulations could be made sufficiently firm and leakproof that they couldn't be gamed, especially in a future (FSM forbid) GOP administration. But if anybody has actual substantive thoughts on this, I'd be curious to hear them...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

annieratna

September 4, 2009 8:10 PM

this is a good fight. im glad obama is trying to compromise what everyone wants. this is good. we are engaged in discussion about the bill rather than health care forum wackos. these are the discussions we weren't able to have as a nation this entire summer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ctal

September 4, 2009 8:22 PM

This query by Obama kinda begs the question : With WHOM are progressives being asked to compromise with??

Obama? The rethugs? The Insurance companies???

Hell of a way to go into a fight, and so typically Democratic (DNC) : Lets publicly state we are already ready to "compromise" our position.

How about this as a compromise : N-O. No compromise. At. All.

Maybe that would be a better place to START then to give up before heading in.

God, I do not understand Obama. ????????????????????
...this has Rahm's stink all over it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

willia451

September 4, 2009 8:33 PM

Individual mandates without a viable public option is unacceptable. Period. No triggers. No compromise. It is what it is. What is a democratic president, 257 democrats in the house, and 59 democrats in the senate worth? Not much it seems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Andreams

September 5, 2009 9:07 AM in reply to willia451

Amen to that one!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

September 5, 2009 2:41 PM in reply to Andreams

Amen from me, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dan K

September 4, 2009 8:46 PM

At this point Obama and the progressive majority of the Democratic Party need to realize that a principled and dignified defeat might be even better for the long term prospects of progressive change than a victory, so they should roll the dice on the robust progressive plan. Let the Blue Dogs make good on their threat to vote against it, if they dare. Let it go down. Then let Nelson, Bayh, Conrad, Lincoln and Landrieu spend a year out in the cold and under the media microscope as the friendless Democratic traitors who killed health reform in America. Let them have to deal with the the massive influx of out-of-state money and national partisan activism on behalf of their new primary challengers. Let us keep a list of every uninsured kid who dies from inadequate care, and call them the Blue Dogged Kids. Let us make up bumper stickers and tee shirts for uninsured, inadequately insured and exorbitantly insured Americans that say "Bark, if your livin' in the Blue Dog house."

It's time to get serious about party discipline. These Blue Dog Dems have way more bark than bite. Obama has to realize that he has a winning hand here, if only he calls the bluff!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Libertine

September 4, 2009 11:06 PM in reply to Dan K

I fully agree Dan. No public option and the bill should be killed, let the country know who stood in the way of health care reform and have them have to deal with the consequences. Then make them explain on a weekly basis why corporate profits were more important than the American people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

stereolabb

September 5, 2009 5:31 AM in reply to Dan K

Agree agree!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jyrinx

September 4, 2009 8:57 PM

I love the backwards logic. The Progressive Caucus represents a lot of safe seats. WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE THE LEVERAGE. The CPC can tell the DCCC to go pound sand, and they'll still get re-elected. You want progressive votes? You deal with us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

September 4, 2009 9:00 PM

There is only one right answer to the title question. NOT AT ALL.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Noonan

September 4, 2009 9:03 PM

Let's not sacrifice what could be a very solid foundation for future reform because we want it all right now. Progressives have been pushing for universal health care for the last 80 years. Keep that in mind.

http://www.pufferfishblog.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

September 4, 2009 9:10 PM in reply to Noonan

Bull. Shit. The Blue Dog / Snowe garbage will make things WORSE. It is not a "foundation" for anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Noonan

September 4, 2009 9:22 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Uh, we don't know that yet. Details are important.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

September 4, 2009 9:34 PM in reply to Noonan

There's plenty (all of it bad) that we alreay know. Such as, that the total cost and therefore the subsidies will be inadequate.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/04/health-insurance-affordability-rau.aspx

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_money_problem.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stroszek

September 4, 2009 9:57 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

So you now oppose every incarnation of HCR, including the house bill? Why have you ranting about the public option for weeks if you were just going to oppose the bill anyway?

Maybe you're in the wrong party?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steve LaBonne

September 4, 2009 10:17 PM in reply to Stroszek

Being a complete ignoramus, all you can do is troll. Actually understanding anything is beyond you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smooth Jazz

September 5, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Tell people who cannot get coverage due to pre-existing that allowing them to get coverage will be "worse."

Tell people who are too poor to get coverage that giving them thousands of dollars in subsidies to get coverage will be "worse."

Tell people who are paying thousands in co-pays that reducing their co-pays will be "worse."

If you truly believe that, then go and tell the sick and the poor that covering them would be "worse" to their face.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dan K

September 4, 2009 9:27 PM in reply to Noonan

And now is the perfect opportunity to go for the progressive change we have been working for. I believe its a mistake to think that if the reform bill fails this year that will sacrifice the chance for reform in the future. Reform is overwhelmingly popular. If it loses, the blame will fall heavily on those who killed it. The bills will come right back again next year, if not sooner, maybe even more strongly progressive ones. And the obstructionists will have spent months going through the wringer, and will then be begging to vote for it.

For Obama's sake, he needs to get on the right side of this, with vigor and fighting spirit, so that win or lose this session he is seen as the people's champion of progress and not part of the Washington problem.

The very worst thing he can do is communicate that he is desperate for a bill. His message to the centrists should instead be, "Make my day."

This is one of those defining moments for him, the kind of moment we all face. He needs to choose a side, cast the die, and then throw his heart into the cause he has chosen. The tumblers are all lined up. He only needs to throw open the door. He needs to go to Congress next week, throw off the gloom of this recession-ridden and compromise-riddled first year, and seize the leadership of a new era of dramatic progressive change. If he does that, he will find a powerful army behind him, one that is just waiting for its leader to arrive.

He might ask himself: what would his mother have wanted him to do?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:58 PM in reply to Noonan

Ah, the old "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" argument. The thing is, no one's expecting anything perfect, and who decides what "good" is? You always push for the best possible deal that you can get, and only then is this bromide trumped out to defend it, not before. And I don't see Obama pushing for such a deal. I have not heard a single Dem senator unequivocally say that they will under no circumstances vote for a public option, nor every last Repub. Assuming that Kennedy is replaced soon, that's 61 potential votes. Tough, sure, but not impossible. And there's always reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

PhnxHusseinRising

September 4, 2009 9:13 PM

I'd happily pay 100/person. I'd pay 250/person if that came with the 15/25 copays, $100 outpatient, $150/day first 5 days policy that I had last year.

As it stands, my employer can no longer afford to pay in full for the Deluxe HMO that we've had for years after Aetna raised the rates 60% this year.

Last year, he paid my premium in full and I paid 586/month for my partner. For the same policy this year, the rates are 85/month as my contribution and 825.00/month for my partner. Since he has heart disease, and we already know he'll need health care, I've opted to decrease coverage to the next lower level, which will save me 85/month but increases my copays to 25/40.

And what happens next year? I'm fortunate that I can cover this and it won't break my budget, but I can't afford another increase like this. And what if I lose my job, or the boss has to drop health care as an option?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

patmcgrowen

September 4, 2009 9:23 PM

While a few things that President Obama has done or rather hasn't done has bothered me, I can't help but think it's way better than the last eight years. And I get physically sick to think about one of these crazy teabaggers being President in four years. Even though we may disagree, I think it's important that we try to maintain our party unity. (Not to bring up past election mottos) If 2/3 of this country want public option, we MUST get out and show it. We must be on every news cast. It would be hard to compete with the frightwingers to get a few seconds on the tabloid news but we need to figure out a way to show our numbers. Show the politicians if you honor your constituents voice, we will fund your campaigns, don't worry about industry money.

I've been thinking lately that maybe it would be better to have two different bills. A health insurance reform bill and then have health care reform. I would like to see all of the current "government-run health care" plans combined into one consistent policy. I like the name AmeriCare. It would be available to any one who wants to buy in, (possibly exclude people who have employee-sponsored insurance at first, so to not drown the system). Based on income, premiums would vary from free on up. I think some efficiency savings could come from having one plan instead of Medicaid, Medicare, so on. I've worked in the medical field and it's alot of paper work, there needs to be some streamlining to our current public plans. Since the Republicans have suddenly fell in love with Medicare, let's make them walk their talk, by getting to real reform with saving benefits and reducing costs. If Republicans flip on Medicare, it will be political suicide. So that could be a win/win. I love trying to figure out a way to checkmate those phony obstructionists. Know your enemy, they are on the right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

3star2nr

September 4, 2009 9:52 PM

Fuck you obama we wont budge, man the fuck up or lose the bill completely when it gets to the floor

What part of no public option no vote do you not understand

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CommunityOrganizer

September 4, 2009 10:06 PM in reply to 3star2nr

Yeah, I'm with all y'all. Obama is just a pansy. That's the problem. He needs to get in there and knock some heads. Show people whose boss, get in people's faces. Do some arm twistin' - Brazilian jujitsu style. A good kick to the groin of Chuck Grassley, possibly an eye gouge or two of Max Baucus, a drop kick of Ben Nelson will definitely solve the problem.

I say, bring 'em on! Let's go down in a blaze of glory!

Power to the People!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

xargaw

September 4, 2009 10:04 PM

I hope the progressives told Obama that the Public Option IS THE COMPROMISE. If they water it down anymore removing the public option, then I hope every single DEM votes not just the progressives. We worked our tails off for him. Now he needs to work for us. He is giving away the store and we are getting nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Marquis de SeaToShiningSea

September 4, 2009 10:10 PM

Let's see, how far to compromise? I think it is about time to start collecting money to primary against all those "safe" progressive democrats, they need a little more motivation. But I am willing to wait until Oct 15 before I start developing the paperwork for the PAC. If Obama wants to make it easy for Republican-lite DINOs, then perhaps he should be a onetermer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CommunityOrganizer

September 4, 2009 10:14 PM in reply to Marquis de SeaToShiningSea

Yeah, let's return to the 1980s. Our tent is too big. We need to make it smaller.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

September 4, 2009 11:21 PM in reply to CommunityOrganizer

Obama is giving that a good try by chopping off his left wing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ru4862

September 4, 2009 11:11 PM

I was never under the impression Barack Obama was going to radically change policy. But good lord man, he has shown no inclination to fight for what he believes in. It saddens me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kovie

September 4, 2009 11:25 PM

Ah, yes, the "He's only been in office X months and let's give him some more time to telegraph his intentions" defense. How original. Are we now granting Obama Friedman Units?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

WorkingClassDemocrat

September 4, 2009 11:31 PM

Brian

You kind of forgot to tell us what the Progressives told Obama. Seems to me that's the most important part.

Also, I think Tuesday's meeting is more crucial to Obama than the Progressives. After all, he pointed out that their re-election if pretty secure, but his is looking more doubtful by the day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CommunityOrganizer

September 5, 2009 12:22 AM in reply to WorkingClassDemocrat

Yeah! Let's elect someone who'll really get something done, like John Edwards.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

musgrove

September 5, 2009 12:02 AM

Wow, sure is a lot of freaking out going on over nothing.
Obama ask how far one side will go, iam sure he asked the other sides how far they will go as well. What is wrong about getting the positions of both sides before working out a deal? I swear i like TPM normally but every once in a while there just this spam of people freaking out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jmnyc

September 5, 2009 12:32 AM

I am a veteran of the last health reform effort as a Hill health staffer and a member of the Clinton Health Reform Task Force. I am torn on what to do on the public option. I think it is an important part of any health reform (my first choice is single payer) but I also know opportunities to get to universal coverage are fleeting. If it doesn't pass this year we won't get around to addressing this issue again for another 15 yrs or so.

I also know the public option is only available to a select number of people - those without insurance, those covered by individual insurance or those whose employer chooses it. If you don't like your coverage and your employer doesn't choose the public option, you are shit out of luck. You can't just opt of your employer coverage and choose the public option.

So the real question is - do you scuttle covering 46 million people and enacting tough, national regulatory measures (current law is a patchwork of state regulation) for insurers over an already limited public option? I don't know. It is a really tough dilema.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Economides

September 5, 2009 1:04 AM in reply to jmnyc

What fraction of health care is currently paid for by the Federal government and what share is projected to be covered by the public option? What share of the growth in health care costs is caused by the rapaciousness of private insurers who pay for 37% of spending and what share by the amount of oversupply of ineffective care of by doctors hospitals, drug and device makers who provider 100 per cent of the care?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

September 5, 2009 3:23 AM in reply to jmnyc

It is relatively easy to expand accessibility of the public option later, compared to the difficulty of enacting a public option later ex nihilo.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jmnyc

September 6, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to mcc

Actually I disagree. The Republicans and anti-health reformers are playing on people's fear of the unknown with death panels, death books and Eurpoean socialism. I think it will be easier to add a public option once people realize that their world is not going to be turned upside down by health reform.

It is not as though programs don't change once enacted. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have all been expanded and enhanced over the years. I think the same will be true with any health reform which is passed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hotch

September 5, 2009 4:49 AM in reply to jmnyc

What are your thoughts on the trigger, jmnyc? Is there a way you can set that up you think that doesnt allow Republicans\Insurance lobbyists to maneuver out of or scuttle that?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jmnyc

September 6, 2009 1:28 PM in reply to hotch

It's an imperfect solution at best but it is much better than no mention of a public option at all. It will definitely have some sentinal effect but a true public option would be the best solution.

Frankly, I think Obama is making a mistake trying to pre-negotiate this. Pelosi and other House leaders seem confident they have the votes for the public option so they should pass a bill with it. If the Senate doesn't, they should pass their bill. That is why there are Conference Committees. They should haggle out the details there not before.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hotch

September 7, 2009 12:53 AM in reply to jmnyc

As I understood it, the House was pussyfooting around putting together their unified bill, waiting to see where the Senate was gonna go with the public option. Possible the strategy from Dems POV is to come out in the final stretch all holding hands down the finish line? It makes me wonder, there must be some kind of (at least perceived) political loss by the Obama administration and House Reps if they are bill-blocked by a dozen or so Senate Dems. But it seems unfounded. I may be flat wrong, but if the public option gets killed by the no-balled blue dogs in the Senate, the backlash from their base, partisan Dems, will be on them not Obama.?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

stereolabb

September 5, 2009 5:37 AM in reply to jmnyc

Simple answer. You're only half right. Yes, it will cover millions who still, however, represent a minority of those covered. But just as importantly, a Public Option will FORCE insurance companies to actually compete and not gouge, monopolize and otherwise ripp-off consumers.
That, as much as anything, is why the Public Option is so important.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jmnyc

September 6, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to stereolabb

Don't disagree which is why I support a public option (again single payer is my ideal). However, if it comes down to a bill which covers 46 million AND has a very strong regulatory component but no public option I'd probably take it. One of the reasons is I have 2 family members whose COBRA will run out shortly and will be uninsured. Coverage in a well regulated private insurance is a lot better for them than being uninsured. My guess is they are not alone.

This is not my first choice by any stretch of the imagination but I also have a practical side to me.

What I'd like to see is the House pass a bill with a public option, let the Senate pass what it wants in and resolve it in conference. The mistake I think Obama is making is trying to pre-negotiate a deal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 5, 2009 8:40 AM in reply to jmnyc

I guess that depends on whether you still believe in any of it. I figure the public option cave is just the NEXT sell-out. It is not the LAST sell-out (after all the Republicans already know there is absolutely nothing the party stands for and absolutely no one it will fight for - labor? gays? peace? civil liberties?) so I absolutely and totally do not believe that the bill will insure 46 million nor do I believe it will include tough regulatory reform. I believe it is a total fraud offered by a party that does not give a damn.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jmnyc

September 6, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to bluebell

If the bill doesn't have a strong regulatory component AND does not cover the 46 million uninsured I'd have to oppose it. Those are my breaking points.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cheesenstein

September 5, 2009 1:48 AM

I'd rather leave the horrible system in place than alleviate the pain Americans are just starting to be aware of.

If there's not sufficient dissatisfaction with the system, there will not be sufficient motivation to change.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

trittydi

September 5, 2009 4:19 AM

It's not congress Obama should be worrying about - it's the voters.
*

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

stereolabb

September 5, 2009 5:38 AM

Obama forgets who brung him to the dance at his own peril.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

September 5, 2009 8:08 AM

"Obama Asks Liberals How Far They're Willing to Compromise on Public Option"

Not an inch. The public option IS the compromise for progressives. Discussion of single payer was banned by agreement. Expanding Medicare was taken off the table. That's when the compromises were made. The public option is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM for a meaningful bill. Obama himself said countless times that the public option was necessary to make costs come down. He was correct and nothing has changed that. The only viable alternative is a system of government regulation so intense that it would be rejected by all those opposing a public option.

It is no surprise that the health care industrial complex refuses to leave the trough voluntarily; they must be pushed away. That's what the Democrats were elected to do. Now DO IT!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slinkypomo

September 5, 2009 8:15 AM

LOL, only thing Obama is going to to is do what he does best. Throw a speech at it! LOL! He is starting to remind me of a Pit Bull with no teeth, all bark and no bite!

RT
www.privacy-web.pl.tc

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

politicjock

September 5, 2009 9:34 AM

Obama has it all backwards.

Instead of asking progressives to bend over so that he can deliver a bad bill that will cost Democrats as a whole, he should ask blue dogs to put their re-election on the line so that he can deliver a good bill that will rewards Democrats as a whole.

I guess Noam Chomsky had it right: hegemony trumps survival.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Zeus

September 5, 2009 10:06 AM

Horse hockey. Leadership means educating and bringing people forward. Progressing. We are up against the wall. We spend 400 billion dollars a year unnecessarily padding the profits of an insurance industry whose sole purpose is to advantage its investors over its customers (and can get away with it because it has a virtual monopoly). It does this by denying coverage to those who need it and increasing charges to those who can't afford it. What other business could thrive on charging more for providing less AS AN OPERATING RULE?

There will be no "trigger" because the industry itself is structured already to be inimical to actual health care. Get rid of them with simple choice: A public option whose focus is on providing care instead of denying care and eliminating costs instead of doubling and tripling costs. This so-called business model is a cancer not only on the country but the whole nature of competitive free enterprise.

Every so-called Republican should be in favor of something that increases competition and ensures that the so-called "free" market works. But instead they are interested in this strange new brand of capitalism-- guaranteed, extortionist profits on the back of citizens (while the Dems seem to be Republican-lite on this issue). What happened to all the house parties? You can't tell me that the people themselves sufficiently organized could not educate each other and organize for change in this area.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

September 5, 2009 10:37 AM

Obama during the campaign was a centrist and a pragmatist with a conscience. and i think he's delivering in a big way.

three cheers for the pragmatic centrist maintaining of the status quo! hip hip!

republican's know how to play you silly centrists: they just move to the right and move the center - and all you centrists along with it - to the right.

it is one thing to be a moderate. and one thing to have a fetish for incrementalism. but being a centrist isn't really soemthing you wear as a badge of honor. it means riding the tide whichever way it turns instead of having someplace you want to go and rowing towards it.

the centrists have let health care reform become adrift at sea. the right would like nothing more than to sink it to the bottom of the ocean. the left wants to get it on to dry land in good shape. and the centrists, standing on centrist 'principles' refuse to put an oar in. so while the left struggles to row healthcare reform to shore, the right works to get it to take on as much water as possible. and the centrists look on with great pride, hoping/convinced that healthcare reform can be beached on a sandbar just offshore and maybe everyone can just swim to the beach. and a half-sunken boat makes a nice habitat for marine life. and sharks need to eat, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

willia451

September 5, 2009 10:37 AM

To all those counseling calm, I would urge you to consider:

Do you want to be forced to carry health insurance, without the security of knowing there is a viable public option there for you?

Think about the true implications of that for a couple of minutes.

Let that flow over you. And understand.

No reform without a viable public option!! Or we will be put at the mercy of the health insurance industry.

Much, much worse than we are, even today.

That can't happen! Its wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Noonan

September 5, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to willia451

Great point. I would still counsel calm until we hear exactly what Obama wants. But there has to be a mechanism to lower costs if we're going to force everyone to buy health insurance.

http://www.pufferfishblog.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ctal

September 5, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to Noonan

Well, Obama has made a deal with big Pharm : How will that lower costs?

Worst yet, this so called "public option" still includes the blood merchants, the "Health Care" Insurance corporations, giving them a front row seat at the table.

As as they are there, this will fail. They will work and chew at it with their bought and paid for congress till it fails.

Do yourselves a big favor and check out this edition of the Bill Moyers show:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/profile.html

It will make you weep, but you will understand that so-called health care "reform" has already been betrayed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TJ1

September 5, 2009 11:11 AM

The liberals are being played for chumps. What kind of negotiation is this when Obama asks the liberals what their next offer is! Liberals should demand position from Obama before they give up the ship. In other words, at some point Obama has to make a commitment on what he's going to fight for. Up to now Obama has just been in the role of a mediator rather than a fighter for a position. Liberals have to take a hard line forcing Obama position.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EastWest

September 5, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to TJ1

Of course he's playing the liberals for chumps. He got what he wanted - the White House - now he can safely stick his thumb in their eye. Now it's all about pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kmac

September 5, 2009 12:15 PM

No Health Care Reform at this time will be better than cowtowing to the Republicans with a lesser and mostly corporate based bill. Obama needs to stick to his promise that he will not consider signing any bill that does not include a PUBLIC OPTION. If Obama bends to the Republicans on this one he has lost faith with all who believed his promise for HOPE AND CHANGE and any possibility for a second term. This definitely puts him at the crossroads of his career ....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jessetrojan

September 5, 2009 12:23 PM

Because they refuse to give us single payer, the public option is the compromise!

the health care lobbyist are writing the reform bill and they really do not want that public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ctal

September 5, 2009 1:36 PM in reply to jessetrojan

Wait, what? Who won't give us the single-payer option??

Supposedly "We" have the white house, the House of Representatives and 60 seats in the Senate. Huh??

Want to try that one again? WHO won't give us the Single-payer system?? Our own "progressive" party, thats who : Bought and paid for by our masters in Big Pharma and Health Insurance corporations.

Disgusting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

atticus1104

September 5, 2009 12:34 PM

Republicans will stop at nothing to make themselves out to be the good guys in this health care debate. Even give credit to Bush for SCHIP. This video is unbelievable.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2795

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bill

September 5, 2009 12:53 PM

Single Payer: Achieves all stated goals: Cuts costs, increases coverage, focuses most health care dollars on providing health care. 'Compromised Away'
Real Public Option: Achieves some stated goals. 'Compromised Away'
Psuedo Public Option: Achieves nothing. A 'Political Option', but does not achieve cost reduction, increases coverage into the existing system; thereby, increasing the % of GNP devoted to health insurers and big pharma profits. Under active consideration.
Coops: Achieves nothing. A 'Political Option', but does not achieve cost reduction, increases coverage into the existing system; thereby, increasing the % of GNP devoted to health insurers and big pharma profits. Under active consideration.
Trigger: Allow a prolonged period for the Republican noise machine to manufacture lies and prey on people's fears. Under active consideration.
Now that all options which would result in achieving the goals of cost cutting, increased access and improved efficiencies no longer under consideration, which option will the great negotiator choose?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

h1000

September 5, 2009 1:35 PM

It's all very depressing. If Obama caves then it won't be long before Hillary people start whispering: "I told you so..." And, frankly, they would be absolutely right, there is no way all this town-hall crap would have gone unanswered if Hillary was in the White House. She would have know she was in a knife fight from the get go. Someone is going to bring up Hillary on MSNBC very very soon, from where it will hit Drudge and HuffPo and then it will take hold and all those passionate Hillary people will start agitating for her to resign and challenge in 2012. And they will be absolutely justified. American politics is warfare and Obama had better grow a pair fast or he will be finished, absolutely finished. I voted for him enthusiastically, but so far he has been a colossal disappointment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ctal

September 5, 2009 1:40 PM

Please check out this link to the Bill Moyers show:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/profile.html

If you want to get past Bill's rather exhaustive setup explanation, go to the 6:00 minute mark.

This link shows it all. Compromise?? Obama wants MORE compromise????

Health care reform has already been "compromised" off the table folks. Do yourselves a HUGE favor, and look over that awesome show with two real experts. It will make you weep.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

intimperate

September 5, 2009 2:03 PM

i am not sure obama is in this to change anything but his likeability score.

on every issue he has caved in; telecom, gitmo, torture, executive compensation, public option as he blithey yaps about bi-partisanship. hell he was mouthing those platitudes after Grassely repeatedly stabbed him in the back.

i never understood the right's freakout about obama's vanity and ego and cool, but am begining too.

he's not stupid. emaunuel is a street fighter. and he had all the experienced left overs from the clinton administration to tell him how to get it done. he should of noted and understood r's recalcitrance from day one.

no i think he is motivated by his poll numbers and his legacy of uniter ,not divider, and now has his ass in a crack.

there is no way to bring around blue dogs with one speech. you can't get a bill thru reconciliation because you need 60 votes to move a bill along in reconcilation till a final vote.

he let an entire month go by before he awoke (or panicked...does this remind you of the swift boat episode?).this is not smart politics. there will be no redemption wednesday nite.

the public option is dead. obama negotiated it away(with himself)
nancy can't back down. she drew her line.

i think obama may very well have let his idea of himself get between him and the change we actually voted for.

health care reform, in any meaningful sense, is dead. obama killed it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cay

September 5, 2009 2:09 PM

I'll wait until Wednesday as well, but I don't think we're going to get much from Obama (or congress) until we fix our broken democracy. No matter how well-intentioned, charismatic and brilliant our elected representatives are, they are paid for by monied interests.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theWalrus

September 5, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to Cay

Campaign finance/lobby reform.
Regulation of corporations/monopolies.

Until then, nothing of substance will happen.

tW

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

darter22

September 5, 2009 3:22 PM

I am willing to crush them like bugs with overwhelming might. To hear the wails of their children and the lamentations of their women. Screw them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theWalrus

September 5, 2009 3:22 PM

Not matter what's in the final bill, the fact that is doesn't fully kick in for FIVE years and even then includes an additional 5-year grace period means that MANY people will be suffering, physically and financially for many years to come.

At this point, I'm disgusted with the whole thing.

-theWalrus

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rlfast

September 5, 2009 4:21 PM

If the trigger can't go off for five years, then we want something in exchange. We want the outline of a national plan to be started immediately, so that it is ready when the first triggers go off. We want the triggers to operate statewide, so that states with especially failing insurance options will trigger first. We want any retired person over fifty-five to be allowed to buy into Medicare right now. I don't know what else we want, but my point is that bargaining over the terms of a trigger is not necessarily a bad idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ray reynolds

September 5, 2009 5:57 PM

RE-ELECTION IS WHAT WORRIES THEM?

How about some leadership and stopping insurance company death panels that cost over 20,000 lives every year.

Who cares if someone else gets elected next year. People die defending their country, you can get another job if you lose but I doubt you will.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chicagobama

September 5, 2009 6:14 PM

I think the President is doing nothing more than gathering information. He needs to know the parameters from all sides of the issue so he can conduct meaningful negotiations.

We're in the midst of sausage-making. Sometimes it's best to step away from micro-managing the President's moves and wait until there is an actual product before we begin opposing it. Some of the behavior on this thread reminds me of the Republicans - too many people have decided that whatever the President does is a failure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theWalrus

September 5, 2009 6:51 PM in reply to chicagobama

Word is he's going to reach out to Republicans in his speech to Congress. Reach out to those who want him to fail? Who call him a marxist, a socialist, a communist, a baby-killer, a tyrant, a racist? Who have clearly stated they would never go along with any of his policies?

A Democrat President, House & Congress: the Dream Team -

keep dreaming if you think they will accomplish anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ru4862

September 5, 2009 6:46 PM

The Huffintongpost is reporting that Obama's speech to congress will reach out to republicans.

President Obama,

What don't you freaking understand? Republicans HATE YOU. Health care reform is about life or death not scoring political points.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

September 5, 2009 8:47 PM in reply to ru4862

Maybe after Republicans finally manage to cut off both of his arms, he'll understand that reaching out is futile.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

darter22

September 5, 2009 7:16 PM

Reaching out? Mr President, they hate you so bad that they want you dead. Reach out with an iron fist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dhs

September 5, 2009 7:52 PM

The President has, unfortunately, given away too much to the Republicans in his misguided attempt to seek a bi-partisan health care reform bill. Perhaps it was worth trying, but it has long been apparent that the Republicans do not negotiate in good faith. They take their marching orders from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Moreover, they openly declare that they are out to block the President's health care initiatives, in order to defeat him and render him powerless.

If a weak health care reform bill is passed, the Republicans will vote against it and declare themselves winners. Will such a victory satisfy them? Of course not! They will then proceed to attack the President on other grounds, including his legitimacy as president.

Having bargained away any meaningful reform measures in his quest for bi-partisan support, Obama is now turning to the Progressive Caucus to ask them to abandon their principles and join him in groveling to the Republicans.

Elections are supposed to have consequences. If the Progressives do not maintain their stand, this means that the Republicans, having lost the election, and being the minority party in both houses of Congress, still control the agenda. They will not stop with their victory in blocking health care reform. They will probably go back to attacking Social Security and Medicare.

Appeasing the opposition never works; we were told that incessantly by the Viet Nam war hawks in the 1960's. At some point, the Progressives will be forced to take a stand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

myshadow

September 5, 2009 9:56 PM

This is from 'politico' so consider the source...
"2)He will not confront or scold the left. “This is a case for bold action, not a stick in the eye to our supporters,” said an official involved in speech preparation"
Why SHOULD the 'left' be confronted or scolded?

5) Obama will try to reassure the left about his commitment to a public option, or government insurance plan. Aides said they are rethinking what he will say about this. He wants to thread the needle of voicing support for a public option, without promising to kill health reform to get it.

Why he thinks he SHOULD reach out to a party that has shown absolutely no inclination to care about the proposal is mystifying. They want the President to 'fail'. The republicans are a malignant one celled evil organism, their 'thought process' is a monorail. They will not cast a single vote in favor of ANY proposal from this President.

I really underestimated the bile level in the opposition. I pretty much wrote off a good 25% of the voters who simply have a feral loathing for the President. I have come to think that is quite a bit higher than that.
Another hurtle is the media, they have conistantly been throwing 'the left' under the bus about this issue, banksters, and war crimes.
I had been thinking the President has been playing 3D chess, but if this leak is any indication, um, not so much.
A speech isn't going to change a single mind in the chamber.
If this thing is a giveaway to the insurance companies, shoot it down. If he wants to be a one term president he is doing it with out conviction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tonyhcoconut

September 5, 2009 10:36 PM

They right is going to try and unseat the Blue Dogs no matter how they vote on health care. Even if they vote no they will find a reason to unseat them so they don't have to worry about them going into the 2012 election cycle. They were elected to change things and that is why they are in Congress. No public option will be the Waterloo the Repubs want. The Obama Rope-a-Dope is working, do not give up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

September 6, 2009 2:00 AM in reply to tonyhcoconut

Exactly -- that's what happened in 2002 after the Iraq War vote. Voting for war gave no one immunity from being attacked as weak on security that November.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chigger

September 6, 2009 12:29 AM

Went to Iowa's Representative, Dave Loebsack's town hall meeting this morning. Someone asked him about the trigger and whether he would "draw a line in the sand" against compromise. He said no line in the sand for him. Asshole.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gdunn45

September 6, 2009 6:59 AM

I am still waiting to hear and see the details of any plan. I may be disappointed, but I may not--who knows until we see details. Anyway, IMO, we are a lot better off with President Obama instead of President McCain and VP Palin. Can you imagine healthcare reform with those two?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

intimperate

September 6, 2009 10:11 AM

i don't know anything about van jones...but obama couldn't stand up to glenn beck?????

axlerod and gibbs talked around public plan all morning long...

maxine water says it will not pass the house w/o PO

i think you will see obama fold, spindle and mutilate real HC reform to get a win.

President Clinton 2012 anyone?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluebell

September 6, 2009 10:32 AM in reply to intimperate

That's not even the worst of it. Axelrod was such a total surrender monkey ths morning that now they've got Guiliani on there pushing for a Republican "reform" bill. The Democrats have so totally screwed this up that while they are surrending everything, the Republicans are on the offensive selling THEIR bill which has nothing at all to do with healthcare just more dismantling of the few regulations there are now. Now, the "compromise" is being framed to the right of the Blue Cross Dogs somewhere over in wingnut land.

How about President Dean in 2012. At least he gives a damn. Hillary is going to busy with Obama's war in Iran...Afghanistan...Iraq.... did I leave any wars out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ricky

September 6, 2009 10:58 AM

I didnt' vote for this crap .. I didn't vote to GIVE MORE POWER AND CONTROL to the insurance industry .. Obama is showing true weakness and not able to lead, especially his own party.. the sad part about all this is that in 2012 , the GOP still will not have a strong enough candidate w/ good ideas to FIX ALL THE MAJOR problems the US have. Even if Howard Dean challenges Obama in 2012, Obama will still win the nomination, but the democratic party will be so split and severly wonded that the GOP will get right back in power..

The democrats are so self destructing its ridiculous.. I do admire the republicans because they can close ranks on ANYTHING it can be the worse idea ever , but those mofo's will be unified in standing behind the bullshyte

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TX Unmuzzled

September 6, 2009 1:50 PM

"Safe districts"?? Yeah, because that's where A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVE. This is how the rural rules America.

Obama suffers the Rahm delusion that political battles must be fought on the fringes of fickle rural politics.

But Democrats have shown that having a large majority is worthless if you CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE. Hell, Republicans have shown you can block as much as you want even in an extreme minority. Minority rules! (When Republicans are in the minority, that is.)

LET THE FICKLE DISTRICTS GO BACK AND FORTH.

And when the "magic moment" comes to do the right thing and secure a big policy win for the nation -- RAM IT THROUGH.

Why should we all suffer the lack of progress -- the blue states, the net tax payers (unlike red state recipients), the states and districts where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE -- fight for America. And most of America live in blue districts, *especially* those luxurious "safe" ones.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tyler W

September 6, 2009 2:24 PM

I feel the President isn't being as strong of a leader as we all hoped for during the campaign. He needs to buckle down and really prove his leadership in the coming months or he will spend the remainder of his term rebuilding the support he lost as a result of this Health Care failure. The time for bi-partisanship is over, the republicans are never going to support Obama on the PO so unless this country wants to see real change we need to pressure him to be man up on his commitments.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

drwu

September 6, 2009 2:35 PM

Obama has the backbone of a chocolate eclair, as T Roosevelt used to say. He has the bark of a Paris Hilton miniature dog. There no fight to the man or maybe he's just a very center-right politician who gets tons of money from BigHealth and BigWallStreet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rstephen

September 6, 2009 3:06 PM

Instead of asking progressives how much they will cave in on basic principals, Obama ought to be asking himself why he chose to run as a Democrat.

This is a president who has effectively been punked by the opposition. He seems to think that the best way to deal with the constant barrage of irrational attacks from the right is to prove to them that he is ready to compromise. He doesn't seem to understand that the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. Until he does, it will only get worse. It doesn't matter how much ground he gives because they will only want more. His weakness is their incentive to keep demanding more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masher

September 6, 2009 6:06 PM in reply to rstephen

Exactly. But there are some smart ones (like a fox) around him that know how to use this. Take Tim Geithner. This guy is able to get Obama to go along with crazy stuff. The transfers of wealth to the rich under Obama would make Bush blush. But Obama is weak that Geithner is getting away with everything Wall Street wants.

So when Geithner leaves and heads back to Wall Street I'm sure he will be received as a hero. And rightly so. Good for Geithner and bad for us. Change fail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

puarau

September 6, 2009 3:26 PM

I am a small business democrat. When you own a small business, and someone does not show up, it is usually the owner or a family member who picks up the slack. So good health insurance availability is valued and affordable health insurance means you can afford more employees. In Hawaii, health insurance is mandatory for all employees working over 19 hours/week, and one should compare it's cost compared to the mainland. Those who call for deregulation, so that health insurance can be sold across state lines should check out what goes for health insurance in Texas (which has the largest % of uninsured in the nation) and think how you would like it if a "Texas style policy" was sold to the company you work at. Individual Mandate - Public Option = Corporate Welfare, just
like the Bush "Pharma Bill", and you pay for it in taxes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

masher

September 6, 2009 5:58 PM

Bush didn't compromise because he was doing exactly what global corporations wanted.
The only reason you can say Obama is compromising is that his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. But look carefully. The whole Obama team sees caving in as natural and the only mature course of action. Its a fait accompli.

This is why Obama is failing. The right hears his rhetoric and is turned off and the left sees his actions and is disgusted.

Obama needs to fire just about every single advisor he has. He needs real progressives who are willing to lose rather than compromise. Obama appears to be a coward.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rstephen

September 7, 2009 2:57 AM in reply to masher

"Roosevelt and LBJ compromised when they had to."

That's BS. The Republicans fought Roosevelt every step of the way on the New Deal and fought LBJ every step of the way on Medicare and the Great Society programs. BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY. THAT'S CALLED LEADERSHIP.
`
"And they had a much bigger majority in both houses of Congress than Obama does."

Wrong again. Roosevelt had 59 democrats in the Senate and the Republicans 33 when he passed most of the new deal legislation. Not too much different from Congress today. But he vastly increased the Democratic majorities in Congress by showing strong leadership - not by compromising with Republicans who fought him every step of the way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bob5540

September 6, 2009 7:25 PM

A little advice to Obama: No guts, no glory.
http://55-40.blogspot.com/2009/09/hope.html
(Passt. Pass it on.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lestatdelc

September 6, 2009 7:49 PM

Who knows how much the so-called "liberal" Congressional members will budge, but this liberal will not budge one inch in further watering down or scrapping a robust public option. That we are not talking single-payer is already a massive compromise from what should be done from a liberal/progressive position.

No trigger, no watering down or shove any reform bill up their collective ass. Mandating coverage without a full-throated public option is not just spectacularly fucked up policy, but political suicide.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CommunityOrganizer

September 6, 2009 8:26 PM

A lot of the posts in this blog recently seem to be a mirror image of the ultra-conservatives' "We lost the election because we weren't conservative enough. We compromised too much. If only we were a little more hard-core, we would have won."

The reality is that Obama has to compromise to some degree--there's no way around that. Sure, it would have been nice if the Obama team had been wiser to the GOP's strategy of pursuing a scorched-earth policy. Some of that was knowable, some of it wasn't. After all, three GOP senators came on board to support the stimulus.

The hard-core liberals hated Clinton, and now they seem to be turning on Obama. They hated Carter, they hated LBJ, they hated Truman. Many of them hated Roosevelt. And in the most recent election, most of them supported John Edwards in the primary.

Roosevelt and LBJ compromised when they had to. And they had a much bigger majority in both houses of Congress than Obama does. The master legislator Ted Kennedy was willing to compromise, and I believe if he were alive today, he would bargain hard, but he would be willing to compromise, and he wouldn't be threatening to deep-six the whole process.

I'm tired of angry librerals claiming that they put Obama in office and so now he has to do what they want. Two problems with that:

1) Political reality dictates what Obama can do. Politics is the art of the possible. "Getting tough," being John Wayne is not going to make the resistance automatically melt away. There are many shapes this bill could take, and I find it hard to believe that a trigger or the lack of a public option automatically makes any bill worthless.

2) The left wing of the party was a significant force in Obama's election, but they are not the only ones who got him into office. Obama won red states not won by a Democrat since LBJ. Discussion and debate is important, but Democrats talking about throwing Obama out of office is hysterical. Do people think that it would be better to go back to a GOP whitehouse? If so, you're crazy. Let the GOP remain the small-tent party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

myshadow

September 7, 2009 1:40 AM in reply to CommunityOrganizer

I tend to agree with part of this statement...
'The reality is that Obama has to compromise to some degree--there's no way around that.
check

'Sure, it would have been nice if the Obama team had been wiser to the GOP's strategy of pursuing a scorched-earth policy.
check
'Some of that was knowable, some of it wasn't.'
uh, no. with zero votes on every proposal you should have known.
' After all, three GOP senators came on board to support the stimulus.'

Three moles who were totally dedicated to obstructing the whole thing, and three blue dog democrats who are owned by the insurance lobby.

The President spent the whole month of August ropeadoping, while the right wing was accusing him of kidnapping the Lindberg baby, inventing Cholera, killing grandmothers, convening death panels and secretlt aborting white cracker babies.
Then two days ago he starts making phone calls to the 84 member progressive caucus to 'find out how much they'll give'.
After all they were in safe districts and we all need to help the 13 bluefucking dogs.

Sorry the math is a little fuzzy.

Then to throw Van Jones under glenn becks rabid teabagging bus is blink at murdoch. And they know it.

So yes, there is some genuine real anger. The President is at 2.89 strikes with me. He has till Wednesday, at that speech barry better bring Barak. He has to say ENOUGH. Death panels are LIES, That school thing was STUPID, free insurance for illegals, LIES, abortions, LIES, killing grand mothers, LIES.

...also everything Larue196 pointed out has to be dealt with.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

September 7, 2009 10:02 AM in reply to CommunityOrganizer

Why don't you stop blaming Progressives? It is entirely possible -- likely, I think -- that the Democratic party's Republican-lite approach during the Carter and Clinton years is what has caused them such grief. While that posture was at least defensible during those ultra-Conservative years, things have changed. Democrats need to wake up and do the right thing. People will not vote for Democrats simply because they aren't Republicans. Health care is the signature issue for the Democratic party; if they can't enact meaningful reform with a Democratic president backed by substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, then one must question the value of the party. None of that is the fault of Progressives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Larue1963

September 6, 2009 11:41 PM

1. Stacking Treasury with executives from Goldman-Sachs and Citigroup.
2. Shutting out advice from anyone other than a disgraced Ivy League university president who had been paid millions by a hedge fund.
3. Failing to ensure bankruptcy judges protect victims of home foreclosures.
4. Continuing to expect financial corporations to "volunteer" to assist distressed homeowners, instead of compelling them to do so, resulting in the failure of the program (235K granted loan modifications, while 1.5 million homes foreclosed since Jan 09).
5. By July 09, claiming that the admin could not have assessed the full scope of the recession, when a host of eminent economists (Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini et al) were vocal in demonstrating the need for more stimulus and the ineffectiveness of making 40% of the stimulus tax cuts.
6. Dragging feet on EFCA, sending a signal to Congress that delay in passage was not a priority.
16. Continuing to foist John Brennan on the body politic. Intimately connected with CIA torture, Brennan--derided first CIA top pick--elevated to head up White House super interrogation squad.
17. Continuing rendition of terrorist suspects for interrogation and detention in third countries, assuming we will "trust" no "abuse" will happen.

1. Failing to meet with lawyers representing Federal employees whose spouses are being denied protections and benefits as a result of DOMA.
2. Allowing the Inauguration to be overshadowed by differing treatment of Rev. Warren and Bishop Robinson.
3. Confessing to Catholic media that he "wrestled" with reconciling his "faith" with "solicitude" for LGBT concerns, the only minority group which he feels it is acceptable to play out a personal psychodrama in putatively "spiritual" terms.
4. Failing to take the leadership role in overturning DADT, cocktail reception speeches notwithstanding, and watery declarations from SecDef about possibly making it "more humane."
5. Refusing to publicly recognize marriage rights for all citizens in four additional states since January 2009 (and DC's recognition of marriages performed by other states).
6. Allowing a Bush hold-over in the DoJ to write and file an egregiously homophobic defense of DOMA as "reasonable" and "constitutional." And then failing to publicly repudiate it.
7. Pressuring Rep. Alcee Hastings to withdraw an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill preventing funding of DADT investigations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rstephen

September 7, 2009 3:11 AM

Part of the problem is that the media lies just as easily as the health care industry. The bogus narrative in the media is that Obama's numbers are slipping because his plan is too 'radical' and he hasn't been willing to compromise. The reality is just the opposite. 80% of the public supports a public option, and if his numbers are slipping it's because people like me are fed up with his weak leadership and doodling around about it. But the overall corruption of Washington is such that they tend to want to believe and act upon the lie, because that's where all the money is and it's much easier to go along with all the lies than it is to confront them and really lead the nation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Printzton54

September 7, 2009 10:47 AM

PLEASE ENCOURAGE everyone TO LET CONGRESS and PRESIDENT OBAMA KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. ONE EASY WAY THEY CAN DO THIS IS BY USING THE PDF FORM AT GOOGLE DOCUMENTS THAT I CREATED USING THE HOUSE RESOLUTION 3200 OFFICIAL SUMMARY, AS WELL AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LIST OF WHAT HE WANT IN HEALTH CARE REFORM. THIS IS AN EASY CHECKLIST OF FEWER THAN 50 ITEMS. We, the government, of the people, by the people, and for the people must stand up and SPEAK! DO IT TODAY....BE VIRILE...OR VIRAL....BUT USE THE FORM AND SPEAK YOUR MIND. We CAN, we MUST, we WILL!

http://tiny.cc/YH7UH

Thank you.

--
DonnaMarieEllington
http://healthyrickets.blogspot.com
donnamellington@gmail.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TPMDC

Obama Asks Liberals How Far They're Willing to Compromise on Public Option

Brian Beutler | September 4, 2009, 5:58PM

Read More

Share

Send to a friend!

Comments (292) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (5)

Leave a comment

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Top News

TPMDC

Obama Asks Liberals How Far They're Willing to Compromise on Public Option

Brian Beutler | September 4, 2009, 5:58PM

Read More

Share

Send to a friend!

Comments (292) | Join the Conversation!

h2.commentshed a { color:#990000; } Recommend Recommend (5)

Leave a comment

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Top News

Recommend Recommend (5)