I'm For the Obama Health Plan, Are Anonymous White House Staffers?

by: Mike Lux

Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 13:57


Barack Obama put together the outlines of a really solid health insurance reform plan in his 2008 campaign, and sent a similar package of ideas to Congress earlier this year. While not everything I would have wanted, I have strongly supported him in getting those basic ideas passed, as have three House committees and one Senate committee, and the overwhelming number of Democratic activists and voters. He has said he would remain flexible about specifics, but that to him, health care reform needed to achieve certain goals, including dramatically expanded coverage of the uninsured, serious cost containment, and providing enough choice and competition to keep health insurers honest. I agree 100%.

My question now is why are certain anonymous White House officials trying to undermine the President? I ask this question in all seriousness, because this is exactly what happened in the Clinton fight for health care reform. We would do these terrific, thoughtful, complex policy meetings where we go over various options on the health care bill but make no firm decisions. The next day in the New York Times or The Washington Post, some particularly controversial aspect of the bill would be headlined as in "High-ranking administration officials say Clinton is considering X." It was without question one of the things that eventually killed health care reform.

What I discovered when I worked in the White House was that there were plenty of people who work in that building whose primary loyalty is not to the President but to themselves. They leak things to reporters to cultivate them and make sure they write puff job articles about them. They help certain lobbyists because they might want a job in their firm someday. They empower certain powerful Senators or members of Congress because they are personally close to them, and/or because they might want to get paid big money to lobby them someday soon. Maybe they want to run for office themselves one day, and so they cultivate certain donors.

So while it is possible that all the back-tracking on the President's bill from anonymous staffers is all a carefully laid-out strategy, since it's a strategy that is really not working, I think it is also quite possible it is just classic disloyalty from self-interested staffers. In part I say this because what kind of brain-dead strategy would it be for an anonymous staffer to say on the front page of The Washington Post "I don't understand why the left of the left has decided this (the public option, a core part of Obama's health care plan) is their Waterloo." I mean, why would you undermine and attack the people who are actually fighting for the President's plan? Talk about a dumb strategic move. And the Obama people are smart, so I have to assume that his is just pure disloyalty, perhaps someone trying to suck up to Max Baucus, for example.

I am going to keep fighting for the President's plan and goals. I will not give in until the fight is done. I just hope all the anonymous White House staffers will keep fighting with me.
Mike Lux :: I'm For the Obama Health Plan, Are Anonymous White House Staffers?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I'm For the Obama Health Plan, Are Anonymous White House Staffers? | 58 comments
Hmm, undermining him? Well, what IS the president's stand? (4.00 / 1)
Is there evidence that what they say ISN'T what he wants? With all honest respect, Mike, but if you think you have solved the riddle of what Obama wants, pls tell us. And also tell us how you did it.
Not that hard (4.00 / 2)
Barack Obama put together the outlines of a really solid health insurance reform plan in his 2008 campaign, and sent a similar package of ideas to Congress earlier this year. ... He has said he would remain flexible about specifics, but that to him, health care reform needed to achieve certain goals, including dramatically expanded coverage of the uninsured, serious cost containment, and providing enough choice and competition to keep health insurers honest.

While I know it is in vogue to say people who support Obama believe in 11 dimensional chess and magic ponies, I find it is the critics who constantly try to read the tea leaves.

Obama ran with a specific plan.  Obama submitted basically that plan to congress.  As Obama promised on the campaign trail, he is open to other ideas as long as certain goals are met.

It is often called naive to take things at face value.  But I've found that not taking things at face value is highly overrated.  The simplest answer usually is the best.

I think the problem is the public option really truly isn't that important for meeting the stated objectives.  But many on the left think it is, thus, the disconnect.

And that actually makes some sense.  Perhaps the #1 reason for the public option is the immorality of requiring people to buy health insurance from companies that practice murder by spreadsheet.  (Note that murder by spreadsheet will largely become illegal after this passes, but that isn't really the point.)  But that moral issue is not one of Obama's stated objectives.

[ Parent ]
"Obama submitted basically that plan to congress." No, he didn't! (0.00 / 0)
That's what Clinton did, submitting a plan to congress. Obama totally avoided that (probably deliberately), and simply let lawmakers and Senators work something out. That's why there are now, what?, five?, different plans. And that's why peopel wonder now if Obama really stands behind everything he said during his campaign. And his obvious backpeddaling recently, when he suddenly called the public option a small "slice" of healthcare instead of a vital component, feeds the concerns.
[ Parent ]
"plan" (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps "plan" sounds more detailed then Mike's "package of ideas".  I didn't mean it to be.  That doesn't change the fact that the public option was sent to congress as a starting point.
[ Parent ]
Yup, I understood plan as something detailed (0.00 / 0)
And not simply as the idea "public option" would be nice to have. And my poitn is, of course, it's about time the prez starts to talkn more to the point. There are lots of bills that somehow have to be merged, and his determined preference sure would influence the lawmakers.
[ Parent ]
The three House Plans are not that different (4.00 / 2)
Though it is hard to tell for sure because as far as I know there are no combiled versions of the Committee markups available. Not the last time I checked the Committee website. And while I haven't revisited the HELP bill since it was first released back in early July I don't remember it being that much different than the Tri-Committee Bill. So really there are only two plans in play the HELP/Tri-Committee plan which more or less gave Obama what he asked for, and this work in never ending 'progress' that near as I can see is simply designed to gut as much of the HELP Bill as possible.

The orginal Tri-Committee Bill was the consensus of the same three Chairmen who will be called upon to reconcile the slightly different versions that came out of their three committees, it would not surprise me if the concessions extorted by the Blue Dogs on Energy and Commerce are  backed out by Waxman and Dingel in the bill that goes to the floor.

[ Parent ]
Thx, Bruce! This makes this procedure ahead more clear (0.00 / 0)
And, btw, I've read your comment at Ezra Klein's blog recently. Very impressive! Can't you make a diary out of it? Imho it was an important point.

Hmm, do or did you work in Senate, by any coincidence?

[ Parent ]
Well I have made a number (0.00 / 0)
of comments at Ezra's place so am not sure which one you are referring to. Certainly I could convert one to a diary. On the other hand I am doing a lot of HR3200 stuff on the front page at Angry Bear. If you have the time come pay us a visit.
[ Parent ]
I meant the one about Rule 14 (0.00 / 0)
You wrote there's a story at AngryBear, but I can't find it. May be a good idea to repost it here, this issue could become important.
[ Parent ]
the difference between submitting a plan and a bill (0.00 / 0)
In the Clinton White House, we submitted a 1300 page bill, and then each committee went to work on making their own version of a bill. This WH did not do that, but did a very clear set of policy ideas that they supported, and a set of over-arching goals for what Obama wanted to come out of the process with.
[ Parent ]
You mean, they submitted a written list of ideas? (0.00 / 0)
Was the public option part of that? If this is so, what was Conrad doing, deliberately avoiding this? And what is Baucus doing at all? Following the plan???
[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 2)
the public option was part of that, the three committees in the House came up with bills that work around those ideas, so did HELP...but Baucus pretty much said the PO is a no go...so the President said "fine, show me something else that works the same"

That's where we are now.  

[ Parent ]
and Rep. Pallone (for example) talked about it (4.00 / 1)
The guys on Blue Jersey radio asked him about single-payer, and he said the House bill was crafted around Obama's ideas and single payers wasn't one of them. So I think there's good evidence that the House was working with Obama's ideas.

The problem is that it is hard to trust Obama on this -- really those of us who do don't have any evidence to convince those that don't -- and even worse it is nearly impossible to have faith in Harry Reid.  Is it really possible they will just ignore whatever the finance committee comes up with? I doubt it, and so I worry like the Obama-distrusters.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, would you pls tell us why and how you know that? (4.00 / 1)
I mean, Mike Lux sure has good sources to know that, but where do you got that from?  
[ Parent ]
Staffers and media on the Hill (0.00 / 0)
who I used to work with.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, we can only take this at face value, but... (4.00 / 1)
..we don't know your face, right? See the problem? With Mike it's something different. He is a founding father of OpenLeft, and it's a well reported fact that he worked with both the Clinton and the Obama administration, and has lots of contacts.

I think you should better be citing other sources for such informations. And, don't forget, most employers are a bit picky about staffers spreading informations they got at their workplace...

[ Parent ]
Mike, btw, do you know that guy, DTOzone? (0.00 / 0)
He doesn't work at Progressive Strategies, no?
[ Parent ]
Funny, that's how democracy is supposed to work (0.00 / 0)
Medicare came out of three different plans that languished in committees for three months.  
[ Parent ]
I don't think there 's only a single way for democracy to work (0.00 / 0)
If healthcare wasn't such a controversial issue, the Clinton approach could have worked, too. And I understand there are laws that were created in a single committee, right?
[ Parent ]
Nothing this massive (0.00 / 0)
and even in the case of laws that go through a single committee, there are very often multiple laws going through the committee at once.

When you're dealing with something like that, there are mutliple fronts. First, you have a law that is changing the healthcare system, which falls under the jurisdiction of HELP in the Senate and Education and Labor in the House, then you're creating a new way of financing it, which falls under Ways and Means in the House and Finance in the Senate, and because the whole bill effects an industry and deals with the public's health, it falls under the jurisdiction of House E&C.

The underlying problem with this fight is that this may be the largest piece of public welfare legislation we've had to deal with since Clinton's healthcare plan, and as such, it's very complicated and very confusing. Nothing could have avoided that.

[ Parent ]
It is worth noting that all of those are conventions (4.00 / 3)
Senate Rule 14 allows any Senator to bypass the entire committee system and put a complete bill directly on the Senate Calender. It mostly isn't done for big bills because it steps on too many, err, toes, plus most bills need the kind of airing you would get through the hearing and markup process. But this bill has been thoroughly aired by this point.

Bypassing Senate Finance would be difficult, and it would maybe poison the well for years to come. On the other hand Baucus can be replaced as Chair in the next Congress. Evoking Rule 14 is almost as big a deal as revoking the filbuster, but it is a tool in Reid's tool-box should he get frustrated enough to use it.

(BTW the motion to bring the bill from the Calender to the Floor is subject to debate and so a filibuster. As is the bill on Final. But there are simple ways to kill amendments coming in between that only require simple majorities.)

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
it is worth noting that...the problem is, we don't have a complete bill...should the House pass something first, that would be a complete bill.

LBJ (well Mike Mansfield) tried this with Civil Rights and it failed...he was forced to accept a compromise bill with Republicans to overcome the Democratic filibuster...but some would argue that the compromise bill was better than any bill the Senate would have came up with through the Judiciary Committee.  

[ Parent ]
The problem is, will Reid ever be "frustrated enough"? (0.00 / 0)
All of the Dem options totally depend on Reid. And it's disturbing that the Senate leader isn't really known for his determined stance in enacting liberal laws...
[ Parent ]
Btw, Obama himself sucks up to Max Baucus! (4.00 / 1)
It was in the Quickhits recently: A governor held an introducing speech for Obama, and at the same time advocated for single payer. The prez responded that he shares the views of Senator Baucus on that. Now, pls tell me, how can you interprete this as steadfast support for the public option? It's well known that Baucus committee is heavy with rethuglicans, and that nothing meaningful has come out of it et. And Baucus himself is everything but a fan of the public option.
Just looked it up: It was a QH by lambert, a good find. (4.00 / 1)
Here's what he linked to:  
Schweitzer told the crowd that Canadians recently selected former Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas - the "father" of Canada's single-payer health care system - as the greatest Canadian. "He had a single proposition ... that we will cover every single person in Saskatchewan and elsewhere," Schweitzer said to another round of cheers.

The introduction had Obama spending the first few minutes of his presentation clarifying his opposition to Canadian health care:

   "I'm not in favor of a Canadian system, I'm not in favor of a British system, I'm not in favor of a French system," he said. "What we've said is let's find a uniquely American system." Obama said the majority of people in America get health insurance through their employers, and "we want to build on that." "For us to completely change that, it would be too disruptive," he said. "Max (Baucus) and I agree, that's not the right way to go."


http://www.correntewire.com/mt...
[ Parent ]
Well, one of the commonalities between the clinton crew and the obama crew ... (4.00 / 1)
.. is rahm emanuel.  Did you say that maybe the motivation of these disloyal staffers is to find a big payday and/or public office once they leave the administration?  Well, emanuel made over $16M in 2 1/2 years on wall street and then went from there to become a representative for big business in the house of representatives.

Z

Rahm showed his colors (4.00 / 5)
When he helicoptered Tammy Duckworth in over the head of Chris Cegalis for that House seat in Illinois. Cegalis was a good progessive who had almost knocked off Henry Hyde in 2004 and had an excellent shot at the open seat in 2006.

But she was backed by the Netroots and DFA which made her roadkill in the eyes of Rahm and the DCCC. Nothing against Duckworth, but this was just the first open move by Rahm against progressives generally and is right in line with comments from 'Anonymous WH official' that have his or his deputy Messina's prints all over them.

Rahm's working principle seems to be "If it pisses off Howard Dean, why not?"

[ Parent ]
At lot of that was Dean too (4.00 / 1)
sorry, but I covered the DCCC in 2006, Dean wanted Duckworth too. He thought her veteran credentials would get her elected, and it nearly did.

She was hamstrung by a better than excepted performance of a Republican running a Cook County race which limited her numbers in Cook County.

The whole Rahm vs. Dean business is way overblown on the blogs. The only thing they argued about was money. Rahm wanted to focus on open seats and seats in blue districts, Dean wanted to pour money into hard to win districts.

[ Parent ]
You can say the same thing about bad marriages (0.00 / 0)
"Oh no we were so happy! We just couldn't stop arguing about money" Okay!

It is interesting that Dean expressed support for Duckworth, that got you a Rec but it doesn't alter the dynamic as I saw it. The struggle for money was equally a struggle for power and Rahm clearly wanted that to be where it always had been that is in the direct or indirect control of DC based leadership whether exercised through the Party Committees or various Leadership PACs. Losing control of the money meant losing control period. I agree with this commenter at DU that Dean's lifting Wellstone's line "I am here to represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" was meant as a direct challenge to the machine/DLC/Whitman/Rahm people whose 'Third Way' seemed to run right from and to the corporate boardroom door.

"Paul Wellstone invited us to dream, but he was not a dreamer. He urged people - particularly young people - to get involved. He fought ceaselessly about the direction of his party and the country. When Paul considered running for president in 2000, he traveled to Iowa, announcing that he was the candidate of the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party'. He was in open revolt against the money wing, warning that the party could not thrive compromised by the same entrenched interests that fund Republicans. He was a small 'd' democrat, a warrior for democracy. He pushed to get big money out of politics, to limit the ability of lobbyists to curry favor with gifts and trips."
Whatever Dean's actual position Cegalis was clearly a favorite of the netroots who were collectively feeding a lot of money through the DNC and directly to the candidates. I for one saw the Duckworth helicoptering as a deliberate and arrogrant kick by Rahm into the teeth to the upstarts that thought that small d democratic action from the roots up had a place in the Democratic Party.
[ Parent ]
But that flies in the face (0.00 / 0)
of the fact that Dean was the driving force behind many of the Blue Dogs who won...Rahm gets the blame, but Dean was the one who implored the 50 state strategy, and he admitted the Democrats elected in some of the states would be moderates and conservatives.

Whatever problems the netroots had with Rahm, they ignored the amount of influence Dean had over the whole process. He wanted many of these Blue Dogs. Dean wasn't challenging the Third Way, his 50 State Strategy endorsed it wholeheartedly.

[ Parent ]
In my experience (4.00 / 5)
which is not close to as senior level as yours, the primary motivation for most people in Washington is personal ambition.
Thanks for this Mike. (0.00 / 0)
In terms of how many lives and limbs will be saved in the first few years, the prohibition of 'pre-existing' illness as a way to stop payments, will probably come out on top. Even more than the numbers that start getting coverage who never had it before because they couldn't afford it. More families will be helped financially in the first years with the cap on yearly payments reform, many many fewer will face bankruptcies than the numbers being covered by the public option, until the millions sign up and public option is begins to be widely available.

That these are that important cant be denied. These alone is real reform. But obviously its not enough. People who can't afford insurance or can only afford bad insurance, which is really no different from a savings account that pays low interest, are the people that will be helped by the subsidies and public option.

The public option will also start driving down the costs that are driving families mad with worry, destroying small businesses trying to give coverage to their employees. And it will begin the process of America recognizing its right to healthcare, that all have and is not being met, that will be met as it is demanded more and more.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

No annual limits (4.00 / 2)
No lifetime limits. Caps on cost sharing. These are just a few of the really important reforms in this bill even if the public option was stripped out.

Progressives should push for the public option to the end, but killing the bill outright just means that many more people pushed into medical bankruptcy or forced to make end of life decisions based on cost reasons alone. (Sure we could save Gramma and even give her years more of productive life, but heck you hit your limit for this year, maybe she can hold out to Jan 1)

Right now insurance companies have the ability to pull the plug on anyone who doesn't have a few million spare bucks in the bank just by putting limits in the policy. And do.

I want the public option, in large part because I think it will ultimately evolve towards single payer. But I need access to health insurance now. In fact I needed it last Halloween when I found myself in the hospital with a life-threatening condition. I managed to extract myself from that financial hole but don't expect to do so well if it happens again.

No the world doesn't revolve around me. On the other hands there are millions like me out there for whom the option of no reform until we get what we want in its entirety could well be a recipe for bankruptcy or death.

The patient protections built into this bill are both very strong and very important, most of the fears that people express about being just handed over to the tender mercies of the insurance companies have been addressed. So go ahead and push as hard as we can to get the public option this year, but scrapping the whole effort with a 'better luck in 2011' attitude doesn't cut it.

[ Parent ]
DO NOT think I would support the Bill without the Public Option (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
At the end of the day (0.00 / 0)
That is an evil position to take.  That position will kill people if enacted.
[ Parent ]
I will not support a bill without the minimum demanded by the Heroes of the Congress. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Mark, you have written many good things, and support the dialogue. (4.00 / 1)
But if it means that only the wealthy, or wealthier, get the help we all so desperately need then its not good enough.

I will not leave the poor behind, the working poor behind, the members of our coalition behind. I won't l;et the debate continue to be who can afford healthcare, and whether the profit of the incredibly rich is worth denying care. I am sorry if this seems like its hard. It is. It is hard.

Its like trying to justify storming Normandy beach.

Its not evil Mark, its hard, and hatefully necessary work.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Very histrionic (0.00 / 0)
But leaving 50 million people uninsured leaves the working poor behind. It is leaving me behind, even if the bill passes I may not make it to Jan 1, 2013. To me your stance simply smacks of the Heighten the Contradictions message that generally comfortable Vanguard Revolutionaries urge on their followers.

This bill if passed without the public option will still give millions and millions of the poor and the working poor (and the working not so poor that happen to be over 50 and looking for jobs with pre-existing conditions access to health care insurance). For example the expansion of Medicaid in this bill will give a bunch of people single-payer, and the subsidies allow people in the next level up coverage costing as little as 1.5% of their income which is in effect  also single-payer.

I don't think you are quite rising to the same level of Tribune of the People that you think you are. You need to take a hard look at the table in Sec 145 on page 137 of the bill and do some math on behalf of the poor people you are supposedly championing here.
http://edlabor.house.gov/docum...

[ Parent ]
Without the public option (4.00 / 1)
nothing really changes.

Do you really believe the administration that gave the Wall Street banksters a blank check, with no strings attached, can be trusted to "regulate" the insurance industry into good behavior?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I see your (very personal) point, Bruce... (0.00 / 0)
..but you sure will admit that this isn't an argument against the progressives at least trying to oush the public option through, right? After all, why prematurely settle for the thrid best if you have a solid chance to get at least second best?

I understand your advocating a weak bill is better as no bill, in oposition to those here who say "public option or bust". Ok. But, at this point, this isn't the issue yet. If all goes well, this decision doesn't have to be made at all. Why struggle about this now?

[ Parent ]
Public Option != Helping Poor (0.00 / 0)
As Bruce says above, the public option has nothing to do with helping the poor -- at least not directly.  The expansion of Medicaid, the coverage and subsidizing of the poor, etc., have nothing to do with the public option.
[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
Evil?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
What do you call someone who defeats universal health care (0.00 / 0)
and lets lots of people die?

Sure, "evil" is over the top but said for good reason.

I think of this like the old nuclear MAD setup.  In order to prevent nuclear war you had to have a credible threat of retaliation.  I die, you die.

Credible means a true willingness to go through with the threat.  That is the Block.

But at the very end and those missiles are coming, do you really launch the strike back?  Do you really kill millions, perhaps the whole species, for a reason that no longer exists?

What is the good thing to do and what is evil?

[ Parent ]
The good thing is to fight tooth and nail for the public option. (0.00 / 0)
The insurance companies are already killing 22 million of us a year. The missiles are already falling.

Giving those people more power, i.e. letting them have mandates without a public option, is what is evil. And I don't buy any of this, "well, if we give them more stuff then from now on they'll be good, they promise" business.

It makes no sense.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I disagree. (4.00 / 2)
The one who shoots the hostage is responsible for shooting the hostage.

If the Blue Cross Dems kill the public option, they are responsible for the aftermath, not the ones who tried to fight them.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
price (4.00 / 4)
The problem with just dealing with pre-existing conditions, as it was with the reforms in Kennedy-Kassebaum, is that if you don't deal with price, or have any competition for private insurers, people will still end up not being able to afford the coverage.
[ Parent ]
There are price controls in the bill (0.00 / 0)
Or at least profit controls which in the end result in price controls. See Sec 116 (a). The authors of the bill were not so foolish as to label them 'profit controls' but that is how they will work in practice.
[ Parent ]
And if those price controls are ignored . . . (0.00 / 0)
what are we going to do, put them in a corner with a dunce cap on? Maybe Obama will write them a letter saying he is very, very disappointed and expects them to do better going forward?

Why on earth do you trust these people? What have they ever done to deserve it?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
To answer your question more directly (4.00 / 1)
the answer is simple: because they want to excuse themselves from responsibility when it fails.

I have seen this shit on campaigns for years.  A campaign starts to go badly, and the f&&ing high priced consultants start leaking to the press about the strategic mistakes the candidate is making.  The key objective for them is to protect their reputations.  Never mind that this actually damages the candidate that hired them, and never mind the impact on the volunteers.

I am not nearly as active as I once was, but I have seen this over and over again in the nearly 30 years that I have been in politics.    

Sounds realistic. Happens in business, too. (0.00 / 0)
Those concern trolls who go on record with all the reasons why something would fail. Just to be able to say afterwards "I told you so". Only in case of failure, of course. If there's a success, they conveniently forget all they said and make it look as if they always supported the initiative.

Horrible folks! If you have too many of them on your team, you're doomed.

[ Parent ]
No drama Obama ended (4.00 / 2)
when Rahm came aboard.

So did "yes, we can!"

So did grassrooots.

Now, backroom deals prevail.

Your point makes sense, Mike.

I think there is a battle inside the WH, with finger pointing beginning for posisble failure.

I had a strange thought today, an instinct, intuition:

What if we are wrong blaming Rahm? What if Rahm is more partisan and others are not?  Maybe rahm ants to fight, but there is a drive to "bipartisan" by Obama (or Jarett)?  

It's easy to blame Rahm.  I did above.  But he does work for Obama.  

I just don't know, but the messaging from the WH the last month has been terrible.  
 

"I want a public Option", is not terrible, and has never left his lips. (4.00 / 1)
Thje fulkl reform bill with a public option and enabling for state by state single payer is gold.

Apparently there arent enough votes for Rep Weiner's and Snaders Mnedicare for all, or HR:676

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Looks like we are seeing the beginning of the post-game (4.00 / 1)
Rahm realizing that his shitty deal with Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma, to kill off the public option in return for them not pouring money into the GOP, is running into unexpected opposition from the Democratic left.  Who knew that they might have a tipping point?

I assume Maxine Waters' singling out of Rahm for sticking the party with so many Blue Dogs was a pre-emptive pushback against his scapegoating.

Rahm has so fucked up healthcare reform, with his 90s playbook.  At this point, even if there was a good case for bargaining away the public option to get passage in the Senate, how can the progressives agree, after all the buses they've been thrown under?  How can they agree, and retain any credibility?

I am opposed to: (4.00 / 1)
Criminalizing single-payer attempts by the states.
Cutting Medicare and Medicaid.
Further subsidization of the crimes of the for-profiteers (mandates, drug price negotiation limits, etc).
If Big Pharma, the insurance peddler AARP, Harry&Louise are for it, I'm likely to oppose it.

There is ZERO chance of me voting for anyone who supports these things.

HR 676 -- socializing only the insurance -- is as big a compromise as I'm willing to make, since my values call for fully socialized medicine (education, research, pharmaceuticals, equipment, hospitals, caregivers, etc).

Ideas for healthcare slogans (0.00 / 0)
Unselfish Seniors For Universal Health Care:  We have it and we want our children and grandchildren to have it as well

Universal Health Care:  To Save Lives and Livelihoods

Z

If only the Czar knew! (0.00 / 0)
Who hired these staffers, anyhow? It's incredible!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
Washington Post made it up? (0.00 / 0)
It is also possible, since this article is filled with anonymous sources, that the Washington Post just made it all up and created all the sources out of thin air. How do we know these are honest quotes if they won't reveal their sources? And why should we trust the Washington Post? During the Bush administration, they often printed gossip and right-wing talking points as "news."
Insurance Reform or Health Care Reform? (4.00 / 1)
Barack Obama put together the outlines of a really solid health insurance reform plan in his 2008 campaign, and sent a similar package of ideas to Congress earlier this year. While not everything I would have wanted, I have strongly supported him in getting those basic ideas passed, as have three House committees and one Senate committee, and the overwhelming number of Democratic activists and voters. He has said he would remain flexible about specifics, but that to him, health care reform needed to achieve certain goals, including dramatically expanded coverage of the uninsured, serious cost containment, and providing enough choice and competition to keep health insurers honest.

You say two different things here. I know Rahm is out there calling this Health Insurance Reform, but I am pretty sure that I heard Health Care Reform all through the campaign. There is a difference. The way we deliver health care in this country needs to change, we spend twice as much per capita as Canada the next biggest spender, $7200 to  $3600 or something like that, and we get much less. We are less healthy, have a higher infant mortality rate and so on. Is this an insurance issue or is the system fundamentally flawed? Personally I think its the system.

The change in language signals a dialing back. Its much easier to tinker around the edges of insurance then it is to change a system. It also lends some credence to that White House making a deal with big Pharma rumor. Changing Health Care would effect them, because their high prices are one of the driving factors in our high costs, but changing Insurance really doesn't hurt them, does it.

Creating a public option that would compete with Insurance Companies, would reduce costs by negotiating with drug companies, would reduce costs by negotiating with doctors and hospitals, maybe use a Medicare pricing model and that would insure more people would be more in line with Health Care Reform. Is that the reason for the change in language? And maybe why they don't want a public option?  


I'm For the Obama Health Plan, Are Anonymous White House Staffers? | 58 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox