TPMDC
White House Trying to Pave the Way for Triggers with Outside Groups
President Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
A post at the website Open Left by Mike Lux tells a troubling story for progressives.
"Some senior White House staffers are now beginning to try to sell this trigger to progressive groups as the compromise version of a public option, saying the White House doesn't want to have a floor fight in the Senate, and that they can always fix it in conference committee," Lux writes.
That way they can pick up Snowe, satisfy that desperate urge for being officially bipartisan (even though Snowe can't bring a single other Republican with her), and not have to worry about procedural hassles in the Senate.
Lux is a former staffer for President Bill Clinton, and worked for the Obama transition team--not necessarily the first person you'd imagine warning of "an ugly fight within the Democratic Party, further erosion of Obama's standing with his base, the specter of more primary fights."
Off the record interviews and emails with reform leaders resulted in no denials, and two confirmations that Lux's account is correct.
And Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future told Greg Sargent that, more generally, "[i]t appears to me that the White House is not trying for any other strategy accept [sic] to satisfy Snowe with her version of the trigger."
Progressives on Capitol Hill thus far tell a different story. They say they haven't been approached by the White House in this way (at least not yet) and they remain committed to the proposition that Snowe's trigger proposal will not win their votes.
This isn't the first time that the White House has approached progressive groups to seek their acquiescence on triggers. But the timing of this gambit is pretty interesting. The process is much farther along, and Snowe's vote--first in committee, and then on the Senate floor--are approaching quickly. But so is the arrival of the 60th member of the Democratic caucus, and that should, in theory, diminish the importance of winning Snowe, and endorsing triggers.
I've been warned, as is common, that the situation is very fluid and could change, so I'll report back if and when I hear more.
Comments (69) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 23, 2009 5:24 PM
Greg took a more measured approach at his site, but I'll say here what I said there. My suspicion--and it's only that--is that what's really driving this is the observation that the middle ground between a bill with a triggered public option and a "robust" public option is a lot better than the middle ground between a robust public option and a bill with nada, zippo, bupkis.
That's a calculation that comes in to play both when the Senate leadership starts the process of blending the Finance and HELP bills and in the House-Senate conference.
Okay, the Sellout Rage light is on now. Feel free to rant about the cabin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
September 23, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Can we get a trigger with criminal penalties for rescission, denial-of-coverage, that sort of thing? Y'know, stringent and invasive audits and investigations, aggressive and widespread prosecutions, penalties with big, nasty teeth ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
September 23, 2009 6:13 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I trust Lux enough to believe that there is some real outreach from the administration on the trigger. That said, everything else I read conforms with what you'd expect at this stage, namely that they are laying the framework for several different courses of action all at once, keeping their options open. That's why we're hearing talk of reconciliation and whipping the Democrats for a cloture vote. The fact that the WH is willing to entertain Snowe is not the same as doing whatever the hell she wants, because she is just one option to get the bill passed. Lux and others are interpreting a bit too much to say the goal is fake bipartisanship.
They will pass the best bill they think can pass the Senate. Period. They'd prefer to use cloture as their procedural avenue, but reconciliation is very much on the table, as is the fix in conference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
September 23, 2009 11:42 PM in reply to fbacon2
Sure hope you're right. Sounds reasonable.
But I didn't think that cutting a sweetheart deal with big pharma or taking single payer off the table from the get-go from day one were all that reasonable. Problem is, progressives have no cause for any optimism re pushing through any part of the liberal agenda - other than "HOPE".
That was fine as a campaign slogan; the reality is that Obama just wants a bill passed that he can "point to with pride."
Like the stimulus package. About half the size it needed to be and 40% of that was dedicated to almost useless (in terms of stimulative effect) tax cuts.
I could go on for pages in a similar vein. Optimism is fine if justified by any real cause. What cause do you have to be optimistic, pray tell?
I really want to know and I really hope that you are right and I am wrong, but unless a couple of million of us surround congress and demand real reform, I'll bet we get more tinkering around the edges that will make some improvement (easily undone when the Republicans resume power) and create plenty of new problems for Republicans to attack.
Just sayin...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 24, 2009 12:28 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You are nothing but a defeatist and a defeatist apologist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
September 24, 2009 1:36 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
No reason to rant or rage. Just don't vote for the bill and give the healthcare system we have now a few more years(4-6) to do what is does so well. Then we can take another crack at it. By then, maybe 80-90% of the people will want single payer or a real public option and maybe, just maybe, that will be enough for our "leaders".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cdub
September 23, 2009 5:29 PM
No reason to get worked up... did you guys read it. Basically they want to pass a bill in the senate so they can:
"and that they can always fix it in conference committee," Lux writes. "
They want to get a version of the bill out of the Senate with the triggered Public Option and get a version out of the House with a Public Option - then in conference comittee they'll fix it and make it a public option... and then the senate will vote on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
September 23, 2009 5:41 PM in reply to cdub
Keep in mind that the bill that emerges from the conference committee can't be filibustered.
Also, a lot depends on just what the triggers are. If they put in triggers that almost certainly will be tripped, they get the robust public option and Snowe and her ilk get the political cover they want. This is better than a weaker public option with no trigger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 23, 2009 7:59 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
If you believe in "triggers that will almost certainly be tripped", let me tell you about the unicorn in my back yard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
September 23, 2009 11:51 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Remember importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada?
That bill had a trigger too; when Canadian drugs are certified safe, we can import them. That's all.
Problem is, you see, somebody has to actually pull that trigger. "Triggers" are an "inside Washington" joke that we aren't supposed to be in on. It means "fuggeddaboutit."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Realist
September 24, 2009 8:31 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Wrong. Trigger is just a way of kicking the can down the road. Five times in recent years "triggers" have been voted in. In none of the cases did the trigger ever get pulled, even though in 4 of the 5 cases requirements for triggering were met and then some.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
September 24, 2009 9:26 AM in reply to Realist
Any more information than this? What was the specific legislation? What were the circumstances to pull a trigger? You seem certain of the results without providing any of the details.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obey
September 24, 2009 10:20 AM in reply to Jason Miller
On the history of failed triggers -
http://www.slate.com/id/2227795/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 24, 2009 10:23 AM in reply to Obey
great link, thanks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 24, 2009 11:30 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Reid traveled to five countries that deliver health care for all – UK, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan – to learn about how they do it.
Reid found that the one thing these five countries had in common – none allowed for-profit health insurance companies to sell basic medical coverage.
Frontline then said to Reid – okay, we want you to go around the United States and make a companion documentary titled Sick Around the America.
So, Reid traveled around America, interviewing patients, doctors, and health insurance executives.
The documentary that resulted – Sick Around America – aired Monday night on PBS.
But even though Reid did the reporting for the film, he was cut out of the film when it aired this week.
And the film didn't present Reid's bottom line for health care reform – don't let health insurance companies profit from selling basic health insurance.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber04022009.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
September 24, 2009 1:42 PM in reply to Obey
That's a good run-down. The War Powers Act not being followed to the letter has been especially damaging to how we conduct ourselves overseas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 23, 2009 6:28 PM in reply to cdub
That's the checker version for dummies. The probable chess version?
"Fix it in conference" is going to amount to A)oops, we can't get enough "Republican" votes for it (the Bipartisanship Plan) or B) oops, we can't seem to get the conservative Democrats to vote for it so, OF COURSE, you progressives will go along -- after all, you just did.
If any one can present any evidence of Obama putting pressure on specific politicians FOR the public option preferred by the majority of the American People, let me know.
Otherwise, I spell this sell out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
September 23, 2009 7:12 PM in reply to AJM
That would be what always happens, so I put my money on it. The White House and other Dems still appear to have no idea of the tidal wave of rage coming their way if they don't pass a decent public option - without triggers. At this point, it's almost laughable that they don't understand how much this means to us.
My guess - Obama signs a trigger bill and the Dems get their asses handed to them in the next election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
September 24, 2009 12:44 AM in reply to DA in LA
Jimmy Carter said (approximately):
"One thing I have learned. You can't get elected as a Democrat without the left wing of the party."
Those are wise words. Obama, I fear, will learn the truth of them very soon.
Myself, I am just about ready to make another pointless gesture - like I did when I voted Anderson in 1980. It would be wrenching; I swore I'd never be that stupid again. We wound up with Reagan, after all.
Guess I just ain't very smart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 23, 2009 8:21 PM in reply to AJM
Or maybe its the 3-D chess version where in, yet another, stunning display of the Genius Of Obama (GOO), Obama deftly leaks word that the public option is on the block in order to whip the liberal base into a frenzy thereby "forcing" him to do what he really wanted to do all along but couldn't afford to actually commit to for fear of losing his bipartisan cred; pass a bill with a strong public option! Or maybe this is super GOO and he'll manipulate us into pushing him so hard he'll wind up with his true desire: Single Payer!
C'mon folks! What indication has this man ever given - at least since winning the nomination - that he is anything like a progressive? Hold TeleComms Liable for Unlawful Spying? Nationalize TBTF Banks? Serious Financial System Reforms? Effective Stimulus Package? Curb Excessive Executive Power? Government Secrecy? Due Process? Unlawful (Electronic) Searches? Can you say "Oh Fer"?
Face it, if you're liberal, you're NOT "his base."
We now return you to your regularly scheduled personality cult ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
September 24, 2009 12:10 AM in reply to cawleybo
But...but...but I voted for him (which I actually did) because I had HOPE for CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN!
What finally did it for me is when he actually parroted Bush and Cheney, blaming torture on "a few bad apples".
Any faith that Obama will push this bill left is simply delusional. I think his worst nightmare would be to have a truly progressive bill land on his desk. I actually think he might veto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 23, 2009 8:24 PM in reply to AJM
Republicans don't get to sit in on the conference negotiations if none of them vote for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
September 24, 2009 12:15 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Who sez?
Not arguing, I just really want to know.
Hate to sound cynical, but I can see Reid finding a way to include em anyway - "to guarantee a fair and bipartisan solution."
Just sayin...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 23, 2009 8:05 PM in reply to cdub
Thank goodness all you cool-headed adults are in the room. Otherwise I'd be in a state of paranoid panic worrying that this is just another step closer to the point where they sell out the public option.
I'll be interested to see what you folks have to say when the final bill comes to the floor for a vote and there's no public option. My guess? Some variation of, "well, it really wasn't that important anyway. (Hey, at least we got the mandate and subsidies so everyone has to pay the insurance companies!)"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 23, 2009 8:32 PM in reply to cawleybo
Well, the truth is that it's not as important as some of you have made it out to be in your own minds. It's long since turned into just the latest in a never-ending series of tests that self-proclaimed "Progressives" have created that he must pass if he is to show that he really, really loves them. It's like they think his whole purpose for becomeing president was to tend to the bottomless pit of their emotional needs to feel appreciated and validated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 23, 2009 11:46 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
A majority of Americans want the public option. The percentage who want it rises much higher in those who actually know what it is. Glad to know that there are so many Progressive whiners in the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
September 24, 2009 9:32 AM in reply to AJM
Too bad democrats positioned the "public option" so poorly in the first place. Now it is seen as a Trojan Horse to single payer by many of the 42% who don't want it or aren't sure.
I know that we have come to consider any poll with a fifty percent margin or more as a "vast majority" but that really isn't the case with regards to health insurance reform.
There are a lot of people, certainly a decent percentage, who don't want to lose what health care they currently have and the "public option" has become a lightning rod for those fears.
Not saying they are right, just pointing it out from a perspective that may be hard to see from your vantage point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
September 24, 2009 9:52 AM in reply to Jason Miller
Just what silly games are you playing with the statistics now? We are denying the public option because of the "42% who don't want it or aren't sure?"
You pretend to know that this minority is opposed or unsure of a public option because they think it's a trojan horse. Guess what? It really shouldn't matter if they think it's a trojan rubber, fer chrissakes. The 58% who WANT the public option is an overwhelming majority - especially when you consider how much money and effort has been spent to disavow them of this notion.
Your intense desire and effort to invent and promote such flimsy reasons to support the insurance industry position in opposition to the public's desire is quite remarkable. I can understand Obama and the other pols desire in this regard, for they obviously feel compelled to do their owners' bidding. But why you? What is in it for you? Are you under contract to the insurance industry?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
September 24, 2009 10:10 AM in reply to SleepinJeezus
I am looking at the numbers objectively instead of twisting them to suit whatever point I am trying to make. 58% is not an overwhelming majority by any standard definition, though perhaps that means the Iraq war was really a good idea because an overwhelming majority of the public supported it.
That you would also twist my words into some sort of cheer-leading for the insurance industry is hardly surprising. I am still waiting for the quote where I don't support the public option as something we need as a component of health reform. I have repeatedly said I don't think the "public option" being offered is the right one since we already have a public insurance plan that needs to be reformed to remain viable.
That you continue to paint any objection to hyperbolic statements as shilling for the insurance industry is as good a reason as I can find for the president's falling numbers with regards to this effort. You argue around a mouth full of ideological marbles and then complain that no one understands what you are saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 24, 2009 12:30 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yes, and you have convinced yourself that you are smarter than everybody who thinks otherwise. Maybe -- just maybe -- you are wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
September 24, 2009 12:57 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Obama played on that very need to get hundreds of millions in online donations. How deep do you think his liberal ex-base will be willing to dig next time?
He played us like a fiddle, promising real change and giving us hope that he would deliver.
What he offers is temporary around-the-edges change - easily undone by the next Republican administration. Nothing fundamental. The illusion of change, in other words.
It took seventy years to undo much of what FDR accomplished - and we still have Social Security. What fundamental change do you see Obama initiating?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
September 24, 2009 3:31 AM in reply to uneasyone
It is time to riot in the streets.
Complete civil unrest is necessary.
Or civil war.
I am up for both.
This country is lost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
September 24, 2009 1:48 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
"It's like they think his whole purpose for becomeing president was to tend to the bottomless pit of their emotional needs to feel appreciated and validated."
Or maybe, just maybe, NCS, we're fired up about it because we think it is important. Maybe many of us have lost our healthcare because we lost our job and even COBRA costs too much.
I'm sure you're a great person but that last comment came across as a bit callous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 24, 2009 10:21 AM in reply to trblmkr
hear, hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 23, 2009 11:05 PM in reply to cdub
And when it somehow doesn't get fixed in conference where are we? They are not trustworthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
September 24, 2009 9:35 AM in reply to oleeb
Whaddaya mean, not trustworthy? Ply them with enough money, such as the insurance industry has done, and you can get them to do just about anything for you. Sounds pretty trustworthy to me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Connor
September 23, 2009 5:30 PM
Spoke with a guy who works for a union. One possible "theory" is that they're trying to get Snowe on-board so that it will for sure go to the floor, then vote to limit debate, then--somehow--add an amendment with a strong public option.
Not sure if this is legal. But makes a lot more sense than telling Snowe, straight-up, "No triggers. You're either with us or against us." Bring her in, then push to the left when it's somewhat 'too late' to backout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 23, 2009 5:51 PM in reply to Connor
More likely they'll con the left into believing this then the real push will be to the right and they'll figure that no matter how wretched they make the bill they won't lose any votes on the left side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 23, 2009 11:48 PM in reply to bluebell
Just political contributions, enthusiasm, turn-out and organizers. Just how well would Obama have done last time if he hadn't had those things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Connor
September 23, 2009 5:37 PM
You know, if I was a completely anti-ideological, apolitical corporate adviser brought in to help the Obama administration, I would tell them, "Get that public option." Not because it's the only way towards "real" reform (I'm sure a strong national exchange, ban on rescission, and out-of-pocket caps would go a long way towards helping people), but because none of this goes into effect until, what, 2013?
So lets say a strong bill, but without a public option, passes and somehow goes into effect Jan 2010. Well, those who might feel that Obama "let them down" are, pretty quickly, gonna start liking all the new reforms. They will think "wow, that WAS a great bill!" But that's not going to happen with a 2-3 year delay.
To pass the time, people will need to be able to forsee something tangible coming down the pike--a "product." A card that says AmeriCare, KennedyCare, etc. A public option. That is the only way to sustain a sense of Obama-victory through the 'grace' period. Also, because of the for-sure rising unemployment during that grace period, Obama will need the media to write the bill up as an unambiguous legislative homerun. That's the only thing that can sustain him through 10-12% unemployment.
Like I said, I would think that this would be the anti-ideological political analysis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 23, 2009 8:25 PM in reply to Connor
The political anlysis: Get Corporate Money!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
September 23, 2009 5:54 PM
President Obama and his WH cronies need to realize that the Democratic base did not elect Olympia Snowe. As far as we are concerned if there is no strong public option, health care has failed and so have the DEMs. We have already compromised. The public option IS the compromise. Anything less, and we are gone. I know Obama has only been the Prez for 9 months, but there has been way too much caving already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
September 24, 2009 10:01 AM in reply to xargaw
Single payer was never even a remote possibility in America, so giving it up wasn't a compromise.
The public option was trying to be a compromise position, but the legislation is so muddled that it is hard to explain. The best compromise is one where both sides feel like they have won and that currently isn't the case.
A better compromise position would have been using Medicare reform as the means to achieve a public option without creating an entirely new program that would garner predictable criticisms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EdA
September 23, 2009 5:56 PM
The "trigger" came for me when I started having to charge my health insurance against my home equity line of credit. (It went up by $300 a month, after the state of Maryland cut the severance package for a former Carefirst BlueCross CEO in half -- to "only" $8 million.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
September 23, 2009 5:56 PM
So why would Sen. Snowe play along with this ruse? She gives the ConservaDems cover and President Obama his bipartisan bill and get exactly what out of it - other than being ostracized from the Republican caucus and a lot of headaches?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
September 23, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
For one, Snowe gets to support legislation that is popular with her constituents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 23, 2009 11:52 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Public option is popular with her constituents. No idea what they think of triggers.
Even Grassley is losing support back home for his shenanigans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
September 23, 2009 5:59 PM
more proof obama will sell out reform.
remember the dems dont need any republicans, they have the votes.
and remember the people are totally behind the public option.
so what you see here is an excuse by the white house to pass a bill without a real public option.
anyone thinking otherwise is a fool.
why make deals at all?
anyone dumb enough to still believe republicans want reform??
so what the hells the point??
the point is obama has made his deals with drug and insurance companies and needs a way out of this!
repulsive stuff............
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drwu
September 23, 2009 6:20 PM
Despicable! Obama is now in the "hopeless" category.
Ever notice that politicians don't really say anything? Lofty ideas--peace in the middle east, reform in health care, regulate wall street, turn Afghanistan around--mean little. Obama speaks well but I'm afraid he is not a lot different from George Bush-- he's good cop to Bush's bad cop, but untimely-- a big hat; no cattle kind of guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
September 23, 2009 6:26 PM in reply to drwu
Let's see: Stimulus plan, stem cell research, cash for clunkers, environmental laws based on science rather than theology...just for starters.
Yeah, Obama really is not a lot different than Bush and is a "big hat, no cattle kind of guy". DEFINITELY NOT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
September 23, 2009 6:35 PM in reply to dswx
You know I am happy about all of those things you listed but we are both intelligent to know that those minor issues are done to appease the base while other things are done that the base are not behind.
Such as this bullshit.
Didin't read all those books written about how Bush used stupid minor policy shit like removing funding for humanitarian groups that promoted the use of contraception, so his ignorant crazy right wing base would be appeased and then do a whole shit load of stuff that his base would never support?
The difference here dswx is that Obama's base is intellegient and can think on their own.
So he may throw us a few bones, when it comes to health Insurance reform we are not fooled about what a "trigger" means.
Historically the Senate/house use triggers on many bills. A study showed that not a single one has ever been triggered, or if it has been triggered, never acted upon, since 1932
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uneasyone
September 24, 2009 12:28 AM in reply to rbeats
Yup.
Tinker around the edges - but don't make any change so fundamental that it can't be easily and quickly undone by the next Republican administration.
If Americans ever saw a real national health system here - like in France - for even a year, there'd be a revolution if any part were undone. It would quickly become an even bigger "third rail" than Social Security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
September 24, 2009 2:51 AM in reply to uneasyone
As someone who has toured the world and been to 48 of the 50 states and just turned thirty, I am ready to revolt.
I know Washington despises people like me.
That is why I have an application to be admitted to Canada on their worker citizenship program.
I have given up on America.
It is a joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 23, 2009 6:34 PM
the public option on Snowe's trigger is a public option as weak as a coop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
September 24, 2009 1:56 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Time to send Trigger to the glue factory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
des
September 23, 2009 6:49 PM
Once again anonymous White House "staffers" managed to trigger (sorry, couldn't resist) the Pavlovian response: Sell Out!
Right now there are several ways for this legislation to proceed and get passed into law. The posts by fbacon2 and The Commentator Formerly known as NC Steve effectively sum up what this is all about. This is not to say that there aren't some on the White House staff who wouldn't hesitate to sell out the public option, but rather, this isn't it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 23, 2009 11:59 PM in reply to des
Ever hear of a trial balloon? Ever note that a number of similar ones have been floated on this precise issue? Ever note that they seem to run into a buzz saw of opposition from the base? Ever note that they then get retracted?
Ever note that Obama did not publicize the poll results showing that public option was popular?
Ever wonder why?
Getting public option would be a knock-down drag-out fight but Obama hasn't made the effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
September 23, 2009 8:04 PM
I hope this isn't true but it sure sounds like some of the folks in the White House forgot the basic rule of politics of dancing with the one that brung ya. Obama wasn't elected by Republicans in Congress and their definition of bipartisan is doing it their way. A lot of us are more worried about seeing a snow job than a Snowe job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
September 23, 2009 8:44 PM
This was DENIED by the White House. I am not sure why Lux started this rumor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
September 23, 2009 9:59 PM in reply to Maritza
DIdn't Lux work for the White House during the transition?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Connor
September 23, 2009 9:20 PM
Chillthefuckoutdudes. Bernie Sanders is on the case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/dems-ramp-up-push-for-col_n_296421.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
September 23, 2009 10:53 PM
Lux has a post up on Open Left saying basically "I was wrong on this and am happy to admit it." For God's sake ... can we take a breath once in a while??? And as for the many Naderite Obama-Is-Bush trolls, can you take a hike for a long while???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
impik
September 24, 2009 2:42 AM in reply to Weeferdog
Oh, stop confusing the Obama-Is-Bush crowd with all kinds of "facts". It's ridiculpus. After all, bashing Obama is so much more fun.
Sigh. And i always thought that this was the adults forum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 24, 2009 7:55 AM in reply to impik
Thanks for the straw man. It always works when you can't refute the facts.
I haven't seen anyone say Obama is Bush. What I am saying is, on the most important matters, he has not been different enough. (Did someone say something about "Change"?)
Whether it is because he is far too deferential to republicans or because this is what he really wants (I suspect its mostly because he thinks his best chance of getting re-elected is to pull in as much corporate money as he can), I don't care. The results - torture, financial reform/bank bailout, spying, executive power, gov't secrecy, watered down stimulus, etc. - have been unacceptable. And, now there is every indication we are adding healthcare to that list.
He's not Bush. But, based on his track record to date, he's not progressive, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 23, 2009 11:03 PM
If the best the DLC White House can do is to suck up to Olympia Snowe in order to sell out the entire nation then kill the bill. A trigger means nothing will happen over and above everyone in the nation being forced to buy insurance that sucks. The trigger will never kick in. It is nothing but a lie. And that's change we can believe in? Fuck that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
September 24, 2009 12:16 AM
I have no idea what kind of crap these are playing but lemme get something straight with President Obama. You better be working real hard on getting David Patterson out of the NY race and better be praying real hard that you get a Dem gov. because you are going to need all the extra votes in the house you can get because a lot of the base and hell, even indies are going to be telling to kiss your ass goodbye if you don't pass a good health care bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KQuark
September 24, 2009 4:21 AM
People have to remember there is the big picture and just getting a bill out of the finance committee. A trigger would not make the Baucus bill any worse than it is and I doubt it will get get out of his committee with a public option anyway. The white house is focused on getting the bill out of the last committee right now.
Then there is the fight to debate and amend the bill on the Senate floor. There is a chance to add the public option there and the Senate is working to avoid Dems entering a Repub filibuster.
And even after that if it does not have a public option the House bill will and the bills need to be reconciled. The fail safe are the progressive Dems in the House that will kill a bill without the public option.
So remove panties from crack and understand that the process is different from what is in the final bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 24, 2009 7:44 AM in reply to KQuark
KQuark,
We may not all be as brilliant and level headed as you. Problem is, we've seen this play before ... too many times. As dumb and hysterical as we are, we can figure out the ending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CareyInLA
September 24, 2009 2:11 PM
To all and sundry who regard a trigger as "better than nothing" consider this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/washington/08drug.html
We are all free to import cheaper Canadian pharmaceuticals just as soon as the HHS Secretary (currently Kathleen Sebelius) certifies they are safe. Since Health Canada, the Canadian FDA, already reviews and establishes the safety of all drugs, this is merely a matter of setting up a liaison with the FDA, right? Right?
Where are cheap Canadian drugs?
Nowhere.
It is scandalous (but predictable) that Bush's Mike Leavitt would not lift a finger to fulfill his duty, but how about Obama's Kathleen Sibelius?
Oh wait, I know!
She is going to wait until the day after health care reform passes, and Pharma lobbying is no longer in play, and announce that the legally enforced monopoly market will be thrown open to competition.
And of course all of the free market advocates on the Right will cheer their approval.
(The last two paragraphs are intended to be irony, if the fantasy of the Right cheering anything helping consumers did not tip you off.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?