Obama: I Didn't Campaign On A Public Option; Progressives: Excuse Me?!

think progress notes more as well:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/22/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/

It's amazing that anyone is bother to defend Obama on this. It's an obvious whopper. He touted his proposed public plan as far back as 2007, referred to it numerous times to thunderous applause over the course of the campaign, specified it's inclusion in his Exchange program in the positions papers posted on his 'revolutionary' website which 'changed the way candidates integrate the web into the political operations' and continually asked people to go to his website when he didn't have enough time to expound on his proposals, and asked people to read up there on what he wanted. And what was written there was that there would be a "new public program" which would be a choice, along side "approved private plans". And yes, this was during the campaign, and yes, he referred to it many, many times. Truly sad that some of his worshipers are starting to look more and more like that tenacious 28% or so who just couldn't let go of their love for Bush. Not that Obama has reached that level, but his blind followers, unfortunately, have.

Well, he did try (technically at least) to push a public option, before he got mugged by Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Snowe, etc., etc. Ideas and promises evolve based on political realities.

What about that harsh reality do the so-called "progressives" not understand?

I guess they wanted Obama to go after all the aforementioned "moderates" with a billy club to get their precious public option.

Incidentally, for all the whining about the mandate to have insurance (something the Prez. said time and time again this year), did the "progressives" think that a public option was going to be free? You'd end up paying for it in the form of higher taxes. Six of one, half dozen of the other. At least those big, bad insurance companies can't drop or deny you coverage under this bill.

Guys, guys... Look, we all knew Obama was supporting a public plan or option or whatever political synonym you prefer during his campaign. The realists among us all knew the final plan would be different than what Obama imagined during the campaign. Congress does that to policy.

So, none of us should be all that surprised that it's this different from the original concept. Disappointed, sure, but not surprised.

What is undeniable is that it was a very poor decision on Obama's part to say he never campaigned on it. That may technically be true in that the public option specifically was never THE issue of his campaign, but any good politician should know the public doesn't hear things that way. The public will basically hear it as "it was never a big part of my campaign". But it was, and it's easily verifiable.

This means that anyone who doesn't automatically attempt to justify or sugar-coat whatever Obama says will see it as a lie. His conduct during the campaign and after indicates that he should know this. The Internet's ability to record every public statement a politician makes and play it back when they contradict themselves later is part of what helped him defeat Clinton and McCain. He seemed to actively be using the Internet's powers in this regard. So, he should have known better. He succeeded partly because his opponents got caught in lies like this. They were not technically false, but were made false because of the general meaning behind the words. He of all people should have known this would happen.

All he had to do was say that he had changed his mind on the public option and that it was now less important to him. Instead he effectively said it was never a big deal to him. Any critical thinker will read that and reflexively say BS. Changing your mind is not a weakness, it implies that you're learning and gaining experience, an especially good thing for Obama since a major criticism during the campaign was his lack of experience. The biggest problem with Bush is that he almost never changed his mind no matter how much evidence stacked up to prove him wrong.

I'm not saying I suddenly hate Obama or am going independent or anything, I'm just saying that for better or worse, this was an incredibly stupid thing for him to say, regardless of his intentions. Tomorrow and for the next several months you can expect to hear about this in tea-party sponsored ads, and it will appear again in 2012.

I think the Obama apologists need to start thinking critically and realize that the President is cabable of making mistakes and is capable of being wrong, perhaps even often, and consider giving him input when that's the case in an effort to steer him back to what he needs to do. That may be somewhat naive, but less so than their belief that he's infallible.

Equally puzzling is the number of Obama voters looking for any excuse to renounce their votes and go independent or republican. Guys, you should be glad that a politician can't get everything he wanted while campaigning once he gets into office. Imagine what those 8 years (or, perhaps, 9 and counting) would have been like if Bush had no opposition? Granted, there wasn't much, but his disdain for the constitution is on record, so let's be happy we still have that. And yes, Obama's claim here was stupid and outrageous, but considering his predecessor, he's got several years of leeway left. All things considered I think he's doing well. Not perfect, and not the way I would do things, but I'm not sure I'd be able to do better myself.

Basically I'm just appealing for a little less crazy from both sides here. The Tea Party is generating plenty and we don't need any more. If we're going to prevail here we need to stay rational.

Prez Barack Humana....

Silly progressives! Why, of course Obama never campaigned on a public option! He would never do such a thing!

He just managed to dupe a whole lotta people -- y'know, reporters 'n' stuff -- into thinking he was campaigning on a public option.

Like the New York Times, which reported on 30 May 2007:

IOWA CITY, May 29 — Senator Barack Obama proposed a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system on Tuesday, aimed at covering the nearly 45 million uninsured Americans and reducing premium costs for everyone else.

In the biggest domestic policy proposal so far of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama, the Illinois Democrat, said he would rely on a combination of the existing employer-based system and a new government program to make health insurance accessible to everyone....

Mr. Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage through their employers or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Children would be required to have health insurance. Subsidies would be available for those who need help with the cost of coverage.

He would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange, a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans intended to give individuals other, more affordable options for coverage. The public plan would compete in that Insurance Exchange, advisers said.

Robin Toner, "Obama Calls for Wider and Less Costly Health Care Coverage" New York Times, 29 May 2007, www dot nytimes dot com slash 2007 slash 05 slash 30 slash us slash politics slash 30obama dot html?_r=1

The NYT essentially repeats this in its backgrounder on the subject

Updated: Dec. 14, 2009 Mr. Obama's Position

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said a public plan would compete with private insurers on the price and quality of care, thus benefiting consumers. And he spoke strongly in favor of the idea during the early phases of the health care debate.

In a 2008 book, one of Mr. Obama's top advisers, former Senator Tom Daschle, said consumers should have the option of enrolling in "a government-run insurance program modeled after Medicare, a proven and popular program."

Mr. Obama and many Democrats deny that they want to drive private insurers from the market. But members of the party's liberal wing have embraced the ultimate goal of "Medicare for all."

As conservative opposition to the idea mounted, Mr. Obama sought to play down its significance, calling it only one of many ways of accomplishing the goal of increasing competition.

www dot nytimes dot com slash info slash public-health-insurance-option slash ?inline=nyt-classifier

Like CNN, whose ElectionCenter2008 reported:

Health care
Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls propose solutions to deal with one of the most critical issues facing millions of Americans. Read the stances of the presidential candidates below. The views of the vice presidential candidates are shown where available.
DEMOCRATS
Barack Obama
Would create a national health insurance program for individuals who do not have employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Does not mandate individual coverage for all Americans, but requires coverage for all children. Allows individuals below age 25 to be covered through their parents' plans.

Allows individuals to choose between the new public insurance program and private insurance plans that meet certain coverage standards.

www dot cnn dot com slash ELECTION slash 2008 slash issues slash issues.healthcare.html

Apparently the WaPo was still operating under the magical delusional Obama kool-aid pixie dust in February 2008:

There is a growing political consensus among Democrats that universal health care can be achieved by subsidizing coverage for low-income people, establishing new purchasing pools to help others buy affordable insurance, and requiring most businesses to offer health plans to their workers or pay a fee. Both the Obama and Clinton proposals contain these elements, as well as the option to buy into a public plan. Their most striking difference is on whether to require everyone to get a policy.

Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, 2008-02-24, www dot washingtonpost dot com slash wp-dyn slash content slash article slash 2008 slash 02 slash 23 slash AR2008022302026.html

And in October 2008 the ChiTrib was still breathing the pixie dust:

Barack Obama and John McCain disagree sharply about how to fix the nation’s health-care system. Obama wants the government to be more involved in lowering medical costs and extending insurance coverage. McCain favors market-driven solutions and wants consumers to take more responsibility for health-care choices.

ALTERNATIVES

Obama: Would require private insurers to accept all applicants. Creates a new public plan as another option. Gives subsidies to low-income citizens who buy insurance. Requires businesses to cover employees or pay into a fund; small businesses get refundable tax credit. Estimated 10-year cost: $1.6 trillion.

Judith Graham, "The candidates John McCain and Barack Obama: Talking about health", Chicago Tribune, 2008-10-17, archives dot chicagotribune dot com slash 2008 slash oct slash 17 slash health slash chi-issues-healthoct17

(slightly off topic: The Trib piece also contains the following little gem: "COST CONTROL: Obama: Invests heavily in health information technology. Encourages better management of chronic illnesses. Lets Medicare negotiate prices with drug companies and eliminate subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans." Ibid., paragraph breaks omitted. Ah well, easy come, easy go, eh?)

Jonathan Chait at TNR was still equally delusional (or duped) as of November 19:

Joe Lieberman Is Hallucinating The Connecticut Senator says that President Obama didn't favor a public plan when he ran for president:

It’s classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, presidential, you can’t find a mention of public option,” Lieberman said. “It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform — insurance market reforms, cover people, cover people who are not covered.

Wow, that's quite an important detail! Wonder why you haven't heard it before? Because it's totally untrue. I could cite any number of sources, but how about the New York Times guide to the candidates' platforms:

Mr. Obama would strive for universal coverage by establishing a new federal health plan for the uninsured, providing benefits comparable to those offered to federal employees. .... Mr. Obama also would establish a government exchange that would allow individuals to shop for the new public plan and approved private plans.

www dot tnr dot com slash blog slash the-plank slash joe-liebeman-hallucinating

Jonathan Cohn, also at TNR, the guy who wrote one of the classic books on the health "care" industry (Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis, and the People who Pay the Price (HarperCollins 2007)) was similarly delusional -- in the same blog post no less:

Update, by other Jonathan (Cohn): Jonathan (Chait) is absolutely right about this. In fact, Obama proposed a public insurance option in May, 2007, on the day he first introduced his health care proposal during a speech in Iowa. From the New York Times account:

Mr. Obama would create a new public plan open to individuals who cannot get group coverage through work or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program.

Second Update, by original Jonathan (Chait): Politico, to its credit, has updated its story to note that Lieberman's claim is untrue.

Which leads us to Politico's retraction:

In fact, the 2008 Democratic Party Platform referred to the need for a “public plan,” and candidate Barack Obama referred more than once to the idea of providing people who can’t get private insurance with government-backed insurance similar to that which members of Congress get.

OK, so it's a typical Politico non-retraction retraction, since they don't append this as an "update" or a "correction", but it's now there in the story, as Cohn notes.

Mark Schmitt at the TAPPED blog of The American Prospect reported on 18 August 2009:

The public option was part of a carefully thought out and deliberately funded effort to put all the pieces in place for health reform before the 2008 election... One key player was Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future. Hickey took UC Berkley health care expert Jacob Hacker's idea for "a new public insurance pool modeled after Medicare" and went around to the community of single-payer advocates, making the case that this limited "public option" was the best they could hope for. [Hickey proceeded to sell the idea to Democratic presidential candidates and progressive groups] ... The rest is history. Following Edwards' lead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton picked up on the public option compromise.... It had a very positive political effect: It got all the candidates except Kucinich onto basically the same health reform structure, unlike in 1992, when every Democrat had his or her own gimmick.

www dot prospect dot org slash csnc slash blogs slash tapped_archive?month=08&year=2009&base_name=the_history_of_the_public_opti

(Note that Schmitt's piece is among those claming that the PO is not strictly necessary for true HCR. That may or may not be the case; that's a separate thread. But it does show that even those who aren't ardent PO advocates admit that Obama campaigned on it.)

Ezra Klein, also hardly a "gotta have the PO" guy:

The argument behind the public plan -- the argument Dean is using now -- is that it competes with private insurance companies and transforms the entire insurance market. But this is, as Mark Schmitt says, a very new idea. Credit for it goes, as far as I know, to Berkeley's Jacob Hacker, who was the first to persuasively articulate it; to the Economic Policy Institute, which fleshed out the specifics; and to the Campaign for America's Future, which took the lead in selling it to advocacy groups and the presidential campaigns. John Edwards picked it up and made it central to his proposal, and the other candidates followed suit to protect their left flanks.

Anybody here want to claim that Senator Barack Obama was not among "the other candidates"?

Steve Benen

Which is why it's all the more important to note that Lieberman doesn't know what he's talking about. The Obama plan always featured a public option, since the day he unveiled his proposal in May 2007. In fairness, the measure didn't generate a lot of attention -- Republicans were too wrapped up in talking about preachers and flag pins -- but it was there the whole time.

www dot washingtonmonthly dot com slash archives slash individual slash 2009_11 slash 021117.php

And finally, there's the Obama campaign's master health care document, available on the website -- the document people were always referred to when Obama's campaign speeches were criticized for being too vague. It's too long to post here -- I may post it separately (I've done so before) but it describes the public plan in detail, mentioning it no less than nine times in the context of the overall plan description. (Needless to say, it's no longer on the website.)

So, to recap: The NYT, CNN, WaPo and ChiTrib all reported contemporaneously, during the campaign, from May 2007 to October 2008, that the Obama health care proposal included a public option/public plan. Jonathan Chait and Jonathan Cohn at TNR (the latter having written one of the main and best-respected books on the subject) both report that it was there, as do Ezra Klein, Mark Schmitt at The American Prospect, and Steve Benen. Politico was forced to revise its story about Lieberman's public option denialism to reflect the known facts. And we have archived copies of Obama's own highly detailed campaign documents.

This is in addition to what Beutler notes in the OP -- his appointment of Jacob Hacker, the originator of the PO idea, to his health care advisory committee, and the rest of it.

But of course, Obama never campaigned on a public option.

And if you believe that, Ben Nelson has some Pacific beachfront property next to his home in Nebraska that he'd love to sell you.