TPMDC

Feingold: Thank Obama For The #Publicoptionfail

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!


Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

That's gotta hurt.

Sen. Russel Feingold (D-WI) has come out in support of the Senate health care bill--but not before placing one of its major failings at the feet of the White House. "[T]he lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle," reads a statement from Feingold. "Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included."

On the one hand, it's hard to imagine Robert Gibbs taking the criticism sanguinely--the White House has insisted, to an incredulous community of activists, that President Obama did everything in his power to secure a public option. But on the other, this is criticism the White House might secretly be glad to accept in exchange for one of Congress' leading progressives saying he supports the controversial reform bill.

You can read the entire statement after the jump.

I've been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down. I continued that fight during recent negotiations, and I refused to sign onto a deal to drop the public option from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included.

But while the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform, and the cost of inaction is simply too high. This bill significantly expands coverage and helps protect Wisconsinites from high costs and insurance company abuses, such as denying or restricting coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The bill also improves a flawed Medicare formula that denies Wisconsin fair reimbursement rates, encourages the kind of low-cost, high-value care practiced in our state, increases access to home and community-based long-term care, and reduces federal budget deficits by $132 billion over the next decade.

Comments (103) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

December 20, 2009 7:48 PM   

He might have mentioned the Admin's preemptive dismissal of single payer as a viable option, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:29 PM    in reply to Tanjaoui

Bs- thank the corporate shills in the Senate...This is not a time like LBJ--when there were STATESMEN who were for the people...This is the time when Congress is owned by the corporations and lobbyists.

SHameless , horrid, deregulated by repub Congress and bclinton...Please let the PEOPLE KNOW!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:46 PM    in reply to Docb

".This is not a time like LBJ--when there were STATESMEN who were for the people...This is the time when Congress is owned by the corporations and lobbyists."

LBJ gave up on national health care. He didn't think he could get it done with 68 votes in the Senate. The result was a "watered down" idea called Medicare.

Sorry, Obama can't WILL some more votes in the Senate. The make up of the Senate is just not something that Feingold or Obama can do anything about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:06 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Obama may not be able to WILL anything, but he didn't even try. He ceded ground on absolutely everything that wasn't a sop to the insurance companies or Big Pharma. Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

Obama wants credit for a victory he didn't fight for, and as a result America loses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:08 PM    in reply to Rooktoven

Obama could have down cartwheels down Pennsylvania Avenue. There were never 60 votes for a public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:22 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Spell much? Next week's spelling word is done. What grade are you in? 1st?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:35 PM    in reply to Michael A

Dictionary much? I didn't misspell. I used the wrong word which I spelled correctly.

Don't get angry with me because you can't keep 30 million people from getting health insurance, asswipe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:32 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Sixty votes were never needed! Fifty-one votes were needed, and that number was never in doubt. Saying we needed sixty votes is de facto planning on failure.

What was needed, but was sorely lacking, was leadership. This was Obama's plan, and its failure - er, I mean "its roaring success!" can be laid directly at his feet. He's the captain, this is his sinking ship, he gets the blame.

If we're in for four years of this kind of "chump change" we can believe in, 2010 is going to be a very good year for the repugs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:39 PM    in reply to EastWest

Blah, blah, blah. Last week, even Bernie Sanders said that reconciliation would not work for what they were trying to do.

Leadership isn't multiplication. I'm waiting on one of you back-seat drivers to tell how Obama could have forced Lieberman, Landrieu and Lincoln to vote for a public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:51 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Blah, blah, blah. Your hero sold out, and by God you're going to stick with him. What do you expect Sanders and the rest to do? Filibuster? Puh-leaze....


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:56 PM    in reply to EastWest

Filibuster? Who mentioned filibuster? You say it could have been done through reconciliation. Sanders says it could not have been done through reconciliation. Are you calling Sanders a lie?

Still waiting for you to tell me how Obama could have gotten Landrieu, Lincoln and Lieberman to vote for a public option.

Hint: saying things like "Obama sold out" doesn't answer the question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 11:35 PM    in reply to FreeRider

There's a rock-solid moral argument for creating a public option through reconciliation. Namely, that a public option is a demonstrably better structure (for the citizens of the country) through which to reform health care than the corporatist give-away the senate bill represents. According to the polls it's what the citizens would prefer (yes, even in Arkansas and Connecticut) and it's a crime against representative democracy that a group of senators (who represent a third of the population of the country) are able to keep it from happening. Create a strong public option through reconciliation, and build insurance regulation (outlawing recission, lifetime payment caps, etc.) into a senate bill that must go through the normal senate channels. Make the Republicans and conservative Democrats vote against the most popular insurance reforms if they dare. It is an election year, after all. Let them all go home and proudly declare they voted to allow insurance companies to continue denying paying customers access to cancer treatments because they failed to disclose acne treatment years ago.

The administration can choose to come down on the side of what's best for the citizens of this country, or they can choose to champion the interests of corporations and try to brand it as fundamental change. In the long run (maybe even the short run... we'll see how the 2010 elections turn out) the surest path to consolidating their political power would be to enact policies that do the most good for the citizens they're supposed to represent

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 9:18 AM    in reply to EastWest

You are just fucking jealous that the dems passed health reform. The envy is dripping from your every word.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

December 21, 2009 12:46 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Full court press with the facts in their home states. The one time he praised the public option its popularity shot up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 9:16 AM    in reply to EastWest

Spoken like a true troll. Trying to convince yourself of a 2010 win by the thugs. Keep trying because no one is buying the bullshit. The thugs will be in the wilderness for 20 more years with their candidate Sarah Palin and her cohorts. Keep dreaming

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:09 PM    in reply to Rooktoven

So not getting what you want is now equivalent to not even trying?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

slb

user-pic

December 20, 2009 11:36 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

No; deciding in advance that something is not possible and so giving it only lip service is not trying.

Look, I realize it would have been a tough thing, and maybe every effort in the world really wouldn't have ever made it possible, but I would feel a lot better about losing it if I felt that Obama had really done everything in his power to do to try to keep it. Instead, he conceded the point almost from the start. The guy is a poker player, but I wonder how much he actually wins? He may not lose much, but I'm guessing he doesn't win a whole lot, either.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 9:13 AM    in reply to Rooktoven

Peddle that stupid bullshit somewhere else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:06 PM    in reply to Docb

Don't forget that LBJ also had liberal Republicans in the Senate, 13 of whom voted for Medicare.

Even LBJ couldn't get those knuckle-dragging southern Democrats to do what he wanted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tim

user-pic

December 20, 2009 10:50 PM    in reply to Docb

Are you implying that the president is not owned by the same?

How terribly naive, if your are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 2:18 AM    in reply to Tanjaoui

Obama didn't run on a single payer healthcare plan, it was one of a handful of things that differentiated him from Clinton in the primary. He did run on a government option- a buy in to the US employee type healthcare with heavy reform on insurance companies. When someone declares their support for something so early on, it's understandable when they face criticism after abandoning that position. Additionally, it's been mentioned that Emmanuel started undermining that previous position on that early 2009.

While the perfect can't become the enemy of the good, it would be heartening to see Congress continue to push meaningful healthcare towards popular policy after they pass this baby step towards a functional system. Maybe even towards that single payer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 12:55 PM    in reply to Denizen12

Clinton didn't run on single-payer either. The main difference in the Clinton and Obama health care plans was the individual mandate, which Obama opposed at that time. He's obviously not going to veto the bill over the individual mandate, so even that difference has been removed. Indeed, the main difference between the Clinton and Obama health care plans is that, unlike Bill Clinton, Obama is going to have a reform bill to sign even if it is not exactly what he wanted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 7:50 PM   

I truly believe Rahm Emanuel is a cancer on the Obama White House, and unless Obama gets rid of him, his presidency is going to be very, very mediocre.

Watch Bill Moyer's show this past week. It tells you all you need to know about this White Houses' incestuous relationships with corporate special interests .

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/profile.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:24 PM    in reply to rosebowl

If only Obama kneeeeeeew! Rahm Emanuel is even bombing Yemen, handing out trillions of dollars to Wall Street, and covering up Bush war crimes; all that behind the back of my idol Barack!

And if US troops stay in Iraq after 2010, it will be Emanuel's fault too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:41 PM    in reply to Why oh why

I'm not saying Obama is an innocent bystander-- far from it. What I think is happening is Obama has surrounded himself with unwise counsel, advisers who are more in tune with big corporate interests over the people. The president can't be everywhere at once, this is why he delegates his trusted advisers to handle some issues. This makes for a dicey combo if the president is not paying attention. So we get Rahm Emanuel actually advocating for a weaker financial reform bill in the House. How is this possible?

The kind of team you surround yourself with matters a lot. And at this moment, Pres Obama has chosen to make his bed with folks who are hurting his presidency. It didn't take long but Obama is already living in a bubble.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:13 PM    in reply to rosebowl

Obama should have people like you for advisors, right? LOL! If so, we'd have single payer! He should have followed Clinton's example--laid out a concrete plan and promised to veto any bill that didn't get exactly what he wanted. That worked sooooooo well.

Obama has succeeded where 7 presidents have failed, yet people like you think he doesn't know what he's doing.

Obama has known Rahm Emmanuel for nearly 20 years. Let go of your ridiculous notion that Rahm isn't doing what Obama wants, i.e, winning!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:27 PM    in reply to FreeRider

They're winning all the way to the bank.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:42 PM    in reply to FreeRider

"Obama has succeeded where 7 presidents have failed..."

Wow, when did this happen? A bill has been signed and its not spashed all over cable?

What do you call this, pre-emptive adulation?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

December 21, 2009 12:50 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Obama has lousy judgment about people: this is clear from the praise he gave Lieberman in the primary. Enough right there to vote against Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 12:56 PM    in reply to AJM

Yes, because good leaders trash all their enemies and suck up to their friends...your signpost to greatness! @@

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

December 21, 2009 12:51 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Obama has lousy judgment about people: this is clear from the praise he gave Lieberman in the primary. Enough right there to vote against Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 9:49 AM    in reply to AJM

YAWN.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 1:28 AM    in reply to rosebowl

I saw the Moyers piece yesterday for the first time and have been posting the link as many places as I can. Eye-opener. Big time.
Kudos for stating the problem so clearly. Yes, who you surround yourself with...makes all the difference in the world.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:32 PM    in reply to rosebowl

rahm does obama's bidding. not the other way 'round.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 7:51 PM   

If he votes for it then he is a whore for the insurance lobby like the rest. no respect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 7:53 PM   

He might carry more weight if he's spoke up sooner! This is the same man who held CZAR hearings. Sorry Russ, but you are just as responsible as Obama is. Maybe even more. After all, it's the House and Senate that hasn't got their act together. They knew Obama campaigned for the public option but, did nothing to stop Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu. Tell me Russ, do these clowns share the blame or are they totally to blame? And what stand did you take? Did you threaten not to vote for the bill without the public option? After all, the President doesn't write legislation. You do! He signs it into law. Do us a favor Russ and save your tough talk for the people sitting at the table on your side of the aisle! The rest is just bluster!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

December 21, 2009 12:53 AM    in reply to roxsteady

Or he chooses to veto it. There is also such a thing as a veto threat as a means to remove bad provisions.

So currently he owns all of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:01 PM   

When they continue to try and talk up what they perceiveas good things in the bill what they're really doing is telling the Nelsons, Liebermans, Lincolns, and Landrieu that they're willing to settle while those guys are not. That's it Russ! Until you draw your line in the sand they'll just keep taking things away from you. You're duplicitous colleagues know that you and the rest of the Liberals and Progressives will always back down. Hell, even the president knows it now!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:01 PM   

Where were you last month, Russ? Bernie?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:38 PM    in reply to AllanCook

both were out front speaking up for the public option.

anyone paying even the smallest bit of attention knows this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:07 PM    in reply to fkaZk0sm0

So what were they doing behind the scenes? We had public support for the PO, what were they doing to get their colleagues on board.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 1:09 PM    in reply to fkaZk0sm0

"Speaking out" doesn't get votes. Feingold has influence over other Senators....maybe more influence than someone from another co-equal branch of government has, given the internal politics and jockeying for position. Whose votes did he help secure?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:05 PM   

So, apparently, he received the email from PCCC.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 10:55 PM    in reply to geofu54

Constituency politics at its best. Good observation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:06 PM   

Exactly! I love Bernie but, I was actually embarrassed watching him trying to put this bill in a good light. It's a bad bill and Bernie, Rockefeller, who I also love, along with Harkin, and even Weiner all failed in their attempts to spin this bill. Hopefully they can fix it and stick to their guns. Let these trolls on either side filibuster. Just how long will the people of this country put up with that nonsense before calling for all their head. We could start with states that already have recall laws! They'd better fix this or they're dead!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:10 PM   

I'm thinking maybe at this point, they should chop the process up and start with heavy regulations of the insurance industry. Regulate the shit out of them so they get out of the business because it is not profitable. Then medicare for all. However, if they regulate them heavily and get rid of preexisting conditions, they can call it health insurance reform and a win. Bottom line, no mandate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:14 PM    in reply to Michael A

yes, i'm sure they'd get 60 votes for draconian regulation of the insurance industry. i'm sure lieberman would be the first one to sign on for that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:26 PM    in reply to nova voter

Good point, but the regs aren't passed by congress.

Maybe just deal with what they can deal with in congress, like getting rid of preexisting conditions and other issues concerning the industry. I have no idea what they can get accomplished, but this mandate crap has got to go. I just do not see how this bill is beneficial in its current form in the senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:54 PM    in reply to Michael A

rules and regulations can only be passed under authority delegated to an agency by congress.

which agency and what authority?

if you try to enact legislation that enables a federal agency to promulgate rules and regulations that are as restrictive and burdensome as you suggest, you're going to run into what we have now -- a delicate 60-40 issue. part of the reason we currently have such a delicate issue is because this legislation, in fact (as i understand it, that is), codifies and delegates some of the very authority you are suggesting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:18 PM    in reply to nova voter

Don't know on who's going to do the regs. Currently the states regulate the industry.

Again, I really don't know what could be accomplished piece meal. That is the way to go at this point as far as I can tell. Control costs and regulate the industry. Don't give the industry a huge handout of 30 million new suckers paying them for insurance that they will never see, except if the customers sue the carriers.

This is nuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:44 PM    in reply to nova voter

They don't need 60 votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 10:05 PM    in reply to EastWest

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

s9

user-pic

December 20, 2009 10:27 PM    in reply to FreeRider

I believe "the nuclear option" is the phrase the GOP once coined for how to deal with the cloture rule if it gets in your way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 10:29 PM    in reply to s9

Trying to emulate the GOP will make you go blind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 11:20 PM    in reply to FreeRider

I thought it was that other thing...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:13 PM   

if feingold thinks any amount of pressure from the white house was going to stop lieberman from being a dick, or landrieu/nelson/lincoln from being republicans, he's naive, and i know he's not naive. he's just frustrated ... this is a tantrum.

my 6 year old does the same thing when he slams his finger in the door -- he blames the door.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:28 PM    in reply to nova voter

Pie-in-the-sky Feingold is probably the most naive senator on the hill. He thinks shit should turn to gold because it's "the right thing to do". Get a clue about the real world, Russy-boy!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:47 PM    in reply to nova voter

Exactly. No amount of pressure from Obama would have convinced Lieberman to support the public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:58 PM    in reply to Maritza

Maybe so, but hell I would sure like to see some.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:03 PM    in reply to dustbunny44

i'm guessing that you will see that pressure. in fact, i'm guessing that you already have seen the fruits of quite a bit of pressure emanating from the white house. it's just not hit-you-over-the-head evident.

remember, it was the LAST guy who liked to read about pet goats. THIS guy's a bit more sophisticated.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 1:11 PM    in reply to dustbunny44

You have no idea what transpired between Obama and Lieberman behind closed doors. Yes, I would have greatly enjoyed seeing Obama give Lieberman a good public thrashing, but that would not have accomplished anything other than making those of us who think Lieberman is a tool feel good, and that is not effective leadership....that's just pandering.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tim

user-pic

December 20, 2009 10:56 PM    in reply to nova voter

Another reason to lament the demise of the mob and it's ties to the labor movement, and indirectly to liberalism.

The date of the mobs demise in the 1960s is also the beginning of the ascendency of movement conservativism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:15 PM   

Don't let the good be the enemy of garbage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:16 PM   

Exactly Michael A! Turning over 30 million new customers to the very people who have proven they have no interest in anything but profits is just wrong. If the industry is so great, competition is just what they need. We'll see who does it better. Instead of trying to negotiate them into compliance, just expand Medicare. Medicare would actually make money because they've already proven they can deliver a better product. With new buying customers, Medicare will bring in money. The cheaper and better product will win the most customers. They could just do that and leave the industry just the way it is. Shitty and expensive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:18 PM   

Northwestern Mutual and many large insurance companies are based in Wisconsin. Feingold is a insurance company house slave like so many others. The democratic party deserves losses that will follow the passage of this most ridiculous insurance company give away.

The current democratic party is a fucking fraud and a bunch of Uncle Toms for wealth. At least the repubs do not pretend otherwise.

I predict a major revolt when the government starts trying to force people to pay insurance comapnies. Blodd will flow rest assured, figuratively speaking at a minimum of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

PSG

user-pic

December 20, 2009 9:31 PM    in reply to tbhull

If you want a reason why the left gets dismissed in this country as a bunch of dirty fucking hippies, then you might have just provided it. To say Russ or Bernie is an insurance shill is insanity, and proves how utterly ignorant you are. Even the greatest liberal legislative achievements were compromises. Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, all compromises that were progressively built on. This bill represents the largest expansion of the security net since LBJ, and you want to throw it out because Obama didn't fight and threaten vetos for a program that would cover 3-5 million and have relatively little impact on the cost and scope of the bill.

The fact is presidents have very little power in writing and convincing congressman to vote for their bill. The Clinton fight proved that, and if you are feeling particularly scholarly about it, read George Edward's "Strategic Presidency"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 12:28 AM    in reply to PSG

Agreed, Presidents have less influence than Senators like feingold, and both failed with Feingold's once well obtained credibility taking a shot.

The bill represents the greatest government support of a corrupt industry's profits ever, on par with privatizing social security, the latter of which failed.

And yes your boy Feingold sold out and is a fraud on this issue and you are ignorant to argue otherwise. If you do not like the truth then tough shit!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

PSG

user-pic

December 21, 2009 4:54 AM    in reply to tbhull

Politics is the art of the possible, if you don't like it tough shit yourself. If Nelson, Lieberman et al wouldn't budge then there is absolutely nothing a president can do short of a veto threat, and we all know Obama is not going to go down that Clinton path. All that does is get us nowhere. If 30 million poor Americans get coverage and access to health care at the expense of keeping or slightly growing a 3.4% profit margin for the evil insurance industry then that is a shit sandwich I'm willing to eat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:23 PM   

They have got to change the majority rule back to where it's mathematically correct at 51. This is something we should all call and email them about. They are not going to get anything done unless they change this rule. The Senate is not a functioning body. I hope Harking brings it up again. He'd like each filibuster to result in a reduction of votes needed for passage on anything. For example, let's say they put a a bill for passage and somone on either side want to filibuster it. They'll be allowed a certain amout of time to do so but, in return, the final vote for cloture will dry from 60 to 57. We could even have some from our side filibuster again just to decrease that number by 3 again this time to 54. This would be a great way to stop all of this nonsense. A clear majority is what should be required for any vote and since you can only have 100% of anything, 51 tips to the majority!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

slb

user-pic

December 20, 2009 11:53 PM    in reply to roxsteady

Doing something to restrict the use of the filibuster would help, certainly. Up until recently, I firmly believed the filibuster was a necessary evil to prevent a narrow majority from running roughshod over a sizeable minority, but after the abuses of the last couple of years, I have changed my mind. You can't have 40 senators representing a very tiny segment of the total electorate blockading everything that comes up for a vote, and you cannot have situations where any senator can hold any vital bill hostage for whatever concessions he/she can wring from the rest.

One other thing we need to do with the Senate is to change the formulation to give high population states some additional representation to bring the ratio highest to lowest constituents per senator for each state more into line with what it was in 1789.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:27 PM   

The Dems will get crushed if this bill passes and they don't make changes because we'll start getting taxed next year while not seeing any of the benefits until it begins in 2014. Obama could be gone by then and the Republicans have already said they'd repeal the law. Let's just see how hard Progressives fight for and win changes. If they don't, I won't go out and vote for them!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:30 PM    in reply to roxsteady

God damned Republican troll quoting talking points directly from the RNC. Take your bullshit elsewhere.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:30 PM   

I'm conflicted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:45 PM   

Of course the buck stops with the President but I just can't imagine Lieberman supporting the public option NO MATTER what Obama did. Lieberman just wants to give a big fat FUCK YOU to the Democratic party and would have been very glad to join the Republican filibuster in blocking health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 8:49 PM    in reply to Maritza

Was it only Lieberman? Were Nelson and the 3-4 others for the PO that came out of the House?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:01 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

Lieberman is the worst, although the others are bad.

But Lieberman LIES to people. He apparently claimed he would support the medicare buyin, and flipflopped.

This also gave cover to others like Conrad to balk at parts they didn't like.

Worst part about Lieberman is that he is from a blue state. No excuse for being conservative, unlike some from deep red states.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:00 PM    in reply to Maritza

There's little here other than grandstanding and sulking. The WH knew what they were dealing with, apparently better than anyone in the Senate. Remember that the WH originally wanted to work with Snowe and her lame trigger idea. Reid rolled the dice with Lieberman. He predictably stabbed us in the back, and we get NO PO.

Blaming Obama for the makeup of the Senate? Obama didn't pick Lieberman, Conrad, etc. And it all came down to them. No amount of finesse or brilliance can make an asshole like Lieberman be less of a traitor. It's one of those situations. That's life. I can't stand to see people throwing tantrums and trash talk. A little stoicism is in order.

Converse put it best: "Why didn't you come up with two more votes in the Senate if you're so damn good?"


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:09 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

I agree that if Reid had brought Snowe along perhaps we would have gotten the trigger because we would have dumped Lieberman.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:18 PM   

I am starting to get the pattern here. When in charge repubs kill thousands abroad, grow government and give trillions away to bankers and war pigs and dems then get elected, kill thousands abroad, grow government and give away billions to insurance companies and bankers.

DC needs to be destroyed and built anew.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:53 PM   

Lieberman thanks Feingold for shifting the blame. Wooh! Now the two of them can hold more Czar Hearings.

Feingold has made it very clear for a long time that he doesn't like the President.

I believe the WH wanted Reid to go for the trigger PO and get Snowe - so we could have told Lieberman to take a hike. Snowe would have provided cover for Lincoln, Landrieu and Nelson. Instead we had to deal with Lieberman.

But, of course, it isn't Lieberman's fault. It's President Obama's.

You know, Russ, if the f#$king Senate had 60 votes for it, then it would be in there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:57 PM   

All this year I've been hearing how Obama was playing chess not checkers. He was ten moves ahead, blah blah blah, now all of the sudden he is totally impotent, there was nothing he could. Rahm was the guy who used profanity and got stuff done in the House, he was the hard ass arm twister. But the Public Option beat him; it was too difficult even for Rahm and his F-Bomb.

So all this was either Bullshit or these two really didn't want a public option. I think it’s the later.

Honestly, I thought that it was obvious that these guys didn't really want the public option and didn't work too hard to get it, so I am a little surprised at all the anger directed a Mr. Feingold for pointing out the obvious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 1:07 PM    in reply to henk

This IS the best Obama could do under the circumstances. I imagine it took a hell of a lot of "chess playing" to arrive at ANY bill that could clear a ridiculous 60-vote threshhold.

Democratic Sentaors from cough*racist*cough states where Obama is unpopular (Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson) care more about pandering to their constituents to keep their jobs than about doing the right thing if said "right thing" would tie them to Obama in any way. They care more about re-election than effective governing, and there is nothing Obama or anyone else could do to change that. Hell, Obama doesn't even have the leverage of the "good old days" where presidents could threaten to expose skeletons in the closet to get the votes...with the internet, the skeletons are already out there.

Some reform is better than no reform, and if this effort succeeds in addressing just a few health care issues, it will have been worth it....and it may serve as a pathway to better things in the future.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 10:33 PM   

The cons are angry.

The libs are angry.

Looks like the President Clinton era.

Well, he will get health care passed and this is how the dems govern.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

December 20, 2009 10:46 PM   

Sir: You are no Sen. Nelson.

The progressives will continue to get rolled as long as they continue to back down the way Sen. Feingold did. Obama kept approaching him to see what he would settle for -- not to see what he had to get to get him.

Lieberman and etc. have Obama's number and Feingold is clueless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

bdn

user-pic

December 20, 2009 10:57 PM    in reply to AJM

The reason he needs to see what Feingold will settle for is that he has about 40 Senators to the right of Feingold that need to sign on to the legislation. It is not a defect of character that drives the compromise. It's the fact that Obama or anyone else who wants to pass meaningful reform needs to count to 60.

Grow up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 10:55 PM   

"In August 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002, and exempted small businesses. However, "even with Mitchell’s bill, there were not enough Democratic Senators behind a single proposal to pass a bill, let alone stop a filibuster."

A few weeks later, Mitchell announced that his compromise plan was dead, and that health care reform would have to wait at least until the next Congress."

This is the next Congress that does have the votes.

This is how the dems will govern. The only power the libs have is a vote and President Clinton still was reelected.

History repeating itself again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 11:24 PM   

I've been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down. I continued that fight during recent negotiations

Did he? He was awfully quiet about it. I heard Tom Harkin, Chris Dodd, Al Franken, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whithouse, Sherrod Brown and even Arlen Specter fight for it. My damn near Blue Dog Senators at least spoke up about it. I didn't anything from Russ until it was too late and it was time point fingers. Which strikes me as pretty typical from this prima donna.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 11:35 PM   

Shut up, Russ. You are a giant, Democrat-bashing phony. All we've heard from you for six months was a freaking 'czars' hearing. Go rub McCain's gnarled feet.

Weeferdog

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 11:36 PM   

** BS **

Feingold couldn't even keep his own caucaus from voting against cloture with the public option. Seems awfully child-like to point the finger at the president when you can't even convince your own fellow caucaus members to vote for it.

Obama stepped in to do what he could do to move it to an up or vote before the whole thing collapsed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 1:31 AM   

"The White House has insisted, to an incredulous community of activists,that President Obama did everything in his power to secure a public option."

Right. Is this the same "everything in his power" Obama used to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Epic FAIL.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 1:18 PM    in reply to Len_RI

Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn't the White House working with Barney Frank to address DADT legislatively after the first of the year? Again, if I am not mistaken, DADT began as an executive thing but was eventually codified, thus requiring Congressional action to change it.

In either case, legislatively reversing DADT will be far more effective than an easily changed executive order, and in terms of timing, DADT is one of those things that could have derailed healthcare as well as other stuff, knowing how Republicans like to go nuts on gay issues as a distraction and to rally their base (which worked beautifully in many states in 2004). I know everyone wants his or her core issue addressed at the first possible moment, but there have been bigger fires to put out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 5:03 PM    in reply to Len_RI

Congress hasn't even introduced legislation to repeal DADT. You can criticize Obama fairly for not yet pushing for it. But blaming Obama for Congress' inaction shows that either you simply do not like the president, or that you do not understand how these things work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 10:01 AM   

I’m usually in agreement with Senator Feingold and I share his deep disappointment with the lack of a public option in the plan the Senate just passed (hell, I’m disappointed they didn’t pass single payer!), but he is talking out of his senatorial backside when he tries to lay the blame at Obama’s feet. There were never 60 votes in play for a public option. Not a single one of the 59 Republicans was ever going to vote for anything but to block reform and there was no way Lieberman (R – Hartford), whose wife is a lobbyist for the insurance industry was going to vote for anything that would increase competition and decrease profits for the insurance companies.

The things for which Obama and the Dems need to be blamed isn’t lack of support for a doomed measure, but the fact that they didn’t first attack the peculiarities of Senate rules that allowed a minority to kill it.

The filibuster needs to be abolished or significantly reformed as proposed by Tom Harkin. The Republicans were willing to “go nuclear” if they weren’t allowed an up or down vote on judicial nominations. The Dems are so spineless that they won’t do the same to save 45,000 lives per year – (that’s fifteen 9/11’s to Rudy Giulianni). The public option is supported by a strong majority of the American people, a Nobel laureate president elected in a landslide 13 months ago, and a majority of the Senate, but was never seriously in play due to the abuse of arcane Senate rules. Until filibuster reform is enacted, no part of the progressive agenda stands a serious chance of passage.

Second, Congress needs to adopt ethics reforms that provide for the recusal of members who face conflicts of interest. No federal or state judge would be allowed to preside over a case if the judges wife were a paid lobbyist for one of the parties to the case, yet Joe Lieberman was able to kill the public option?

Serious structural reform needs to precede efforts to add things like the public option and revocation of the insurance anti-trust exemption.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 12:06 PM    in reply to Chesire111

Excellent points. Right now we have a system that permits minority rule via obstruction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 10:28 AM   

So after all that we basically got the Baucus bill.

"If you like the insurance plan you have, you'll be able to keep it. If you don't, you'll be able to choose from the same options that members of Congress have."

Right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 12:03 PM   

Tsk, tsk, if only Russ Feingold were president! I'm SURE he would have been able to make Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson (et al.) support the public option. Hell, he'd have made them support sngle payer! Yes, the only reason we don't have single payer OR the public option is because *Obama* didn't want it badly enough! Or try hard enough! I mean, every other president who has tried to push health care reform has gotten exactly what he wanted, right? Right?

Oh.

Jesus, people. Feingold is just posturing for the benefit of his base, same as everyone else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 21, 2009 12:04 PM   

Tsk, tsk, if only Russ Feingold were president! I'm SURE he would have been able to make Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson (et al.) support the public option. Hell, he'd have made them support sngle payer! Yes, the only reason we don't have single payer OR the public option is because *Obama* didn't want it badly enough! Or try hard enough! I mean, every other president who has tried to push health care reform has gotten exactly what he wanted, right? Right?

Oh.

Jesus, people. Feingold is just posturing for the benefit of his base, same as everyone else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on