Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech

by: David Sirota

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 23:17


Not to be too much of a downer, but I found Obama's speech tonight a big O-bummer. Really, other than his very important reminder that "we're all in this together," it was disappointing (although that's probably not the right word, because it implies I expected something more). And remember, while I have at times been critical of Obama, I've been very supportive of him on health care...up until tonight. Here's a list of my basic problems:
David Sirota :: Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech
- Why do Republican presidents and politicians never bash "The Right," but President Obama uses a joint session speech to bash/call out "The Left?"

- Obama felt the need to tell the country that he's devoted to making sure the wildly unpopular private insurance industry at the heart of the health care meltdown remains profitable. He also made sure to forget that Americans love Medicare and hate private insurance when he went out of his way to reiterate his support for "market" economics (shocker - this was the line both parties stood up and gave a thundering round of applause). Awesome.

- Completely unclear why Obama promised to "call out lies," and then proceeded to embrace the Right's most dishonest narrative about tort reform being a major vehicle to fix health care (not surprisingly, the "don't negotiate with legislative terrorists" lesson was reinforced when the GOP response called Obama's bluff and pushed to work with him on tort reform).

- The wavering on the public option would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Really - his insistence that he supports it but might also support removing it reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit parodying wavering and waffling Democrats. Obviously he just had to listen to pundits insisting he must abandon the public option, when a huge majority of Americans continue to support it, and he has a huge legislative majority in Congress. He obviosuly just HAS to compromise on it because...well...just because - and he certainly can't use reconciliation like President Bush did because...well, again, just because. And, of course, those of us who don't expect him to compromise away an already compromised yet still wildly popular public option are obviously on the radical fringe regardless of polling data. Obviously!

- Though he didn't draw a direct equivalence, he implied there was one between the progressive push for single payer and the ultra-conservative push to destroy the entire health care system. Sick.

In sum, when you couple this with the speech's fawning praise for lunatics like John McCain and Chuck Grassley and add to it the news that the White House is holding closed-door compromise meetings with corporate Democrats tomorrow, I felt like I was listening to a parsed screed by President Rahm Emanuel, not a call to arms from the Barack Obama who actually ran for president. There was lots of passionate talk about the problem, and little courage to demand a serious solution.

I mean, I seem to remember an election just a few months ago that resulted in a Democratic president, and huge Democratic majorities in Congress - and I seem to remember there was a Barack Obama who only a short while ago said geting those electoral results was the only obstacle to a full-on single payer health care system, much less a weakened public option. But again, I guess it's just too bad that after that election, President Emanuel now rules America.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech | 174 comments
The President proposes a very watered down public option (4.00 / 15)
and then says even that doesn't need to be in the final bill.  Like Rep. Weiner says, progressives are trying to advance and take the hill (the prize) but Obama isn't on the hill with them.

He could have said that the whole scheme of regulation, including an individual mandate, requires a public option.  I should never have hoped that he would.  It's up to the public to make Congress do it, Obama won't.

David and you nail it. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Meant to add (0.00 / 0)
that all the signs were there before the speech; that doesn't make it any easier to swallow however.  
[ Parent ]
I didn't expect much, policy-wise (4.00 / 1)
but him emphasizing the importance of universal participation while pooh-poohing the public option, that sucked pretty bad.

Which was too bad, cuz tone-wise, I thought it sounded pretty good, what with the decrying of the demagoguery. I guess I'm fairly numb to Democratic criticism of the left these days.  

[ Parent ]
Well, the speech wasn't directed at you, David... (4.00 / 3)
It was directed at independents and seniors.  Instant polling shows that he hit a home run with those demographics....  So, that is very good, 'cos those are the people that we need to be onboard to get any reform.

We often forget that Obama always campaigned as a moderate...  He is a liberal at heart, but this is a campaign right now, and he's got to get the people he needs onboard... and, right now, he needs independents and seniors...


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

He campaigned as a liberal to liberal audiences (4.00 / 6)
Many of them bought it.  But he's a moderate at heart...as much in terms of temperment, attitude and aggressiveness as policy and ideology.

He campaigned as a moderate to moderate sudiences...many of them bought it.....at least they are getting the guy they voted for.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
This was a liberal address given by a liberal (4.00 / 4)
President with a liberal philosophy,

Liberalism was well represented this evening.

[ Parent ]
Quote "to my liberal friends, the public option is only a means to an end." (4.00 / 8)
No what a asserrtive liberal would have said is "The public option is the only means to that end."

Or single payer is the only means to the end...

but not make it as something that could be compromised away.  It is the essential element.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
He's the most liberal president... (4.00 / 3)
...we've had in almost 50 years...

You'd have a hard time arguing otherwise...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I agree, but (4.00 / 1)
more than being a liberal, he is a pragmatist, I think.  

I would love nothing more than to have a progressive, transformational President.  But, failing that, I will take one who I think has the interests of the disadvantaged in mind and who works like a pragmatist to achieve the possible.

Sadly, we're not going to get a Dean-like person in the White House.

[ Parent ]
What do think LBJ was? Chopped Liver? (4.00 / 12)
LBJ passed Medicare and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills.

LBJ created affirnative action and college funding bill.

LBJ didn't just let Congress decide among various mushy and even counter productive proposals; he got into the mud, twisted arms, took to the bully pulpit and the back room to vigorously do the right thing. that's what liberal presidents do.

Medicaid and the EPA was signed into law by Richard ( I am not a crook) Nixon!!!

And really liberal presidents don't elevate Henry Hyde's  vicous amendment, denying poor women the right to control their bodies and make better lives for themselves, they don't elevate that into some sacred part of federal policy.



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
I meant to include LBJ... (4.00 / 1)
My math was off... I should have said 40 years...

He was the last liberal president... and yet, the liberals of his time hated him 'cos of Vietnam which ended up destroying his presidency.

Ironic... or foreshadowing?

And for all the swipes at Obama, name me another president since LBJ who has been more liberal?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
We had Carter who was a moderate who helped to start the dismantlement (4.00 / 6)
of a liberal agenda, consensus and rationale.  I wouldn't vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976 because I knew even then he was too conservative.  He bought into the right's early agenda especially to undermine one of the  major accomplishments of liberalism...decent regulations of industries and policies.

The only other Democrat was Bill Clinton who had to govern in a much more conservative era than either LBJ or even Carter. He was governing at the height of the Right Wing Reaction and with a nearly non existent progressive infrastructure.  That is not the case now.

I think in his heart,  Bill Clinton was once more liberal than Barack Obama is, in his heart,  even now.  But Clinton didn't govern that way.  He learned his lessen too well when he lost the Ark. governorship.  What he thought he learned was that one governs by coopting Republican ideas.

But pushing Van Jones out the door is far too much like one of Bill Clinton's worst traits.

Now Richard Nixon is an anomaly. He governed during a period of Democratic political control... a Democratic ideological era.  And he not only signed liberal lagislation, but even promoted some of it himself.

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama has huge majorites and a progressive infrastructure guarding his back....He has no need to be a Don Quixote who tilts at windmills.  He shouldand be a warrior for a very achievable progressive agenda.  

Seize the day. Demand it and it will happen. Beg and it won't.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
There are only certain times in history (4.00 / 7)
when transformational change is possible....the 1930's, the 1960's and now was supposed to be one of those eras.

We all went into this election cycle knowing that now was one of those times.

And yes we need someone like FDR or LBJ...that's not just a high standard, it is the essential standard.

We need an active, aggressive, assertive proud liberal.

Great moments demand great leaders.

Great moments can make great leaders...but they have to seize the moment.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
The last moderately liberal prez was Nixon (0.00 / 0)
It was the times and the balance of political power, he had to be somewhat liberal. Heck, he thought he needed labor votes to win what he thought would be a tough re-election fight in 1972. EPA, Medicaid, wage-and-price controls, detente, and getting us out of Vietnam.

Now both parties' political universe is utterly dominated by corporate money. That ain't liberal.

[ Parent ]
Judging from his speeches, yes (4.00 / 6)
judging from his actions, no.

But our main fight is not with him, it is with the Senate Dems.

[ Parent ]
Exactly.... (0.00 / 0)
The president is an independent branch of government...  Hoe only has so much sway over the other branches, if any...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Our main fight (4.00 / 1)
is with the corporate special interests that have bought the votes of the large majority of our elected officials, including the key members of Congress writing health care reform legislation, and Obama himself.

Until voters get control of government in the U.S., they will be ruled by a plutocracy that will pass legislation that boosts the profits of the private sector and harms Americans -- whether by transferring trillions of dollars of public funds to private bankers, or by denying American citizens the single payer health care that is enjoyed by the citizens of most advanced industrialized countries.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.
               

[ Parent ]
If he's so "liberal," (4.00 / 1)
WHY is he allowing us to be SPIED upon, wiretapped, etc.  WHY has he left the FISA thing in place?  WHY is all of Bush's right-wing agenda still in place?  It is a downright LIE that he is a LIBERAL. He is a good ACTOR/SOCIOPATH.  One speech does not a LIBERAL make!  He has much to prove to me before I trust him again.

[ Parent ]
Yes? Really? Imho much to early to say that. (0.00 / 0)
I don't see him being more liberal than Clinton or Carter yet. Actions speak louder than words. And where are those liberal actions???
[ Parent ]
Like hell it was! (1.67 / 12)
It was a right-wing address given by a right-wing dictator who spent more time bashing liberals and reiterating right-wing talking points than anything else.  Yes, he got mad because the GOP are fighting him tooth and nail on implementing a scam they can't take credit for and they're lying as always to accomplish their typical obstruction.  But that's all it was.  Obama effectively told the left to shut the f*** up and stop whining about a public option because he isn't going to push for one - it's not a priority for him.

Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, but he lied himself in what he called the dictator a liar about.  No illegal immigrants will be given health coverage.  But neither will anyone else, except perhaps by junk coverage mandated by law.


[ Parent ]
I used to think you were just stupid (2.86 / 7)
But now I see that you are truly insane.

Please, for your own sake, seek professional help. Now.

[ Parent ]
Look, I agree that nothing about your comments warrants a troll rating. (4.00 / 3)
But Obama is not a dictator. Right-wing in many of his policies and his statements, but not a dictator.  
[ Parent ]
Isn't he a dictator? (4.00 / 2)
What do you call someone who infringes on civil liberties by warrantless surveillance, continues torture policies and protects the architects thereof from any and all prosecution, declares himself immune from his obligations to enforce laws, continues waging wars on people half a world away started by dictators that came before him, continues the policy of illegal renditions to countries that torture, and any other action he's committed that in any other country would rightly earn the perpetrator the label of dictator?  If it looks, sounds, acts, and is genetically the same as a duck, it's a duck.  


[ Parent ]
Those are policies that are furthered by the powerful interests and institutions (4.00 / 3)
of our govt and society. They always have been. Obama's fault is that he continues them out of apathy, selfishness, or fear. These policies do not come from Obama the dictator. They come from the CIA, the military, Wall Street, etc. I am objecting to your post on technical grounds.
[ Parent ]
But why doesn't that make him, or Bush and Cheney for that matter, a dictator. (0.00 / 0)
Again, if any other nation's leader did the things these clowns have done, and continue to do, we would rightly call that leader a dictator.  So why shy away from applying the word when it's applicable to our own executives?  Fear of being labeled radical or extreme should not and must not prevent us from acknowledging and telling the truth.


[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that the President actually has much sway over the long term actions of the military/industrial complex and the pentagon. Sure, when their goals are intertwined, ala Cheney, then the generals and CEOs allow more direct interaction. But, when someone that they don't trust, ala Obama or Carter, get to sit in the Oval Office and be called "Commander in Chief" the military folks compartmentalize and wait them out.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
When any executive feels free to ignore, break, and usurpe the law for his own ends... (0.00 / 0)
...he ceases to be anything but a dictator.


[ Parent ]
That's the thing (0.00 / 0)
I don't think Obama is "free" to do these things. There may be a "dictator" involved, but they don't sit in the oval office or stand for election.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Of course he's free to do them. (0.00 / 0)
Who's doing anything to stop him?


[ Parent ]
The folks that run the military (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
And why would the miltary stop him? (0.00 / 0)
They do as he says, not the other way around.


[ Parent ]
That's where we disagree (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
And why would the military stop him? (0.00 / 0)
It didn't stop Bush, and it sure as hell isn't stopping Obama.


[ Parent ]
I'm not being clear? (0.00 / 0)
I may be paranoid and watch too many poltical intrigue films, but it seems to me that any military organization worthy of maintaining an empire based on the projection of military power is not going to let a "commander in chief" that changes every decade or so and is subject to the whims of the people actually have enough real power to influence how the military operates and where they choose to place their strategic bases.

I'm saying, perhaps, one of the reasons that the laundry list of things that Obama has not accomplished in this regard (nor all of them)is that he lacks the power to do so.

Bush/Cheny, OTOH, had a vision that meshed with some elements within this compartmentalized military junta and so the neo-con/imperialist forces were able to move forward on a plan fomented in cold war days. Read about Project of a New American Century and you'll get a hint. Some of things Obama has promised fly in the face of that initiative and, to my way of thinking, will not be allowed to proceed. We will still have US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan when Obama leaves office. I have no doubt about it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
You're not answering the question. (0.00 / 0)
You've provided no evidence that the dictator answers to the military, rather than the other way around.  And it still doesn't change the fact that what was once the office of the U.S. presidency is now nothing more than a dictatorship that changes hands every four to eight years.


[ Parent ]
CNN (4.00 / 6)
says that the speech caused a double digit swing in support of health care reform.

But of course, it sucked.

[ Parent ]
In which Open Left (2.00 / 4)
and David Sirota discovered how irrelevant they are.  
[ Parent ]
That would be proof of the worth of the speech (4.00 / 1)
if the only consideration was whether a bill was going to pass the poll numbers temporarily shifted.

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  
[ Parent ]
That would be proof of the worth of the speech (0.00 / 0)
if the only consideration was whether a bill was going to pass the poll numbers temporarily shifted.

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  
[ Parent ]
As a senior, (0.00 / 0)
I agree with David!
[ Parent ]
Excellent article, David.. (4.00 / 4)
I think your take on Obama's speech is right on...
OH OH (0.00 / 0)
Wait a minute, if Gloughlin liked it...
[ Parent ]
David plays Tom Bombadil (4.00 / 3)
to Mike Lux's Old Man Willow.

We need more Tom Bombadils.

Bombadil ftw. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I agree with your points (4.00 / 4)
especially about the duplicitous sop to the GOP on tort reform.

But I also agree that if you were disappointed, your expectations were way, way too high. Did you seriously think he was going to call for the abolition of for-profit health insurance?

Obama had no intention of having to discuss a public option at this late date, and we made him take it more seriously than he ever has tonight.  This is to our credit, and it shows that we have the power to determine the final shape of the bill if we hold firm.

I'll be far more interested to see what he says on the stump.  I tend to think that after the lunacy of this past month, Obama did well in discrediting his critics.  The pledge to call out lies will shape the coverage of this speech - especially in light of the GOP implosion during and after it -  far more than the false equivalencies that he used to make some of his points.  

Reviewing David Sirota's Cynicism (4.00 / 6)
* Is this really bashing the left:
"There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's."
Explain that to me. Why is that "bashing the left"? And when he said that Republican "leaders" were spreading "lies" about his health care proposals that is NOT bashing the right.
* Is this really expressive of a devotion to health care profitability:
"Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
Explain that to me.
* Did he really "embrace" tort reform? Explain that to me. Based on what he actually said.
* And if you think that was "fawning praise for lunatics like John McCain and Chuck Grassley" then you have a terrible ability to read people's facial expressions when they are being addressed. John McCain was clearly squirming in his seat.
Frankly David, I'm expecting better leadership from you than these off-the-cuff cynical comments.
Calling single payer (4.00 / 8)
the equivalent of sink-or-swim free market ideology is bashing the left.

And he saved tort reform for last for an effective GOP applause line.  Tort reform = decreased accountability, and it is not responsible for runaway health care costs.

But I tend to agree that the larger takeaway is that Obama provided a popular platform that helped to further legitimize the public option.  Sherrod Brown handled the post-speech interview perfectly, and his response should be emulated by everyone that goes before the MSM.  

[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 2)
Please give me the exact quote where Obama equated "single payer with sink-or-swim free market ideology". And although I agree with you that tort issues are not responsible for runaway health care costs, his reference to it was related to "experimental" projects being carried out by states.  
[ Parent ]
Sirota said he did (4.00 / 1)
Isn't that good enough?

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.

See the bashing?

And, see how he said a single payer was the same as buying insurance on your own?  See?

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
I don't call that bashing (4.00 / 1)
I call that an argument. And a contrast is not the same thing as a comparison. It's true that shifting the whole system to single payer would "disrupt" one-sixth of our economy. And although I hope we eventually achieve a system like Canada's, what he proposed tonight is a potential pathway toward that.
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
It's also completely untrue (0.00 / 0)
that we would "build an entirely new system from scratch" with a single payer program.  We would expand Medicare.  All that would mean is changing who compensates doctors, hospitals and drug companies.  
[ Parent ]
You, like David, misread Obama's strategy here. Obama's mentioning (4.00 / 6)
of tort reform is triangulation. Triangulation in rhetoric is still better than triangulation in policy, even if the former often leads to the latter. I agree with you and David that Obama compromises far too much, and I am am very ambivalent about his administration. Nevertheless, let's get the character of this speech right: it was very aggressive. To say to the Congress that those who lie will be called out is one of the most politically aggressive statements I've seen by a President in front of Congress.

And that bit about Ted Kennedy: effective, but oh so manipulative.

[ Parent ]
The only reason that this hasn't been (0.00 / 0)
triangulation in policy (yet) on tort reform limiting people's rights to bring lawsuits when they are injured is because the Republicans don't have anything they want to trade.  

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  
[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 4)
I swore I almost thought that was William Jennings Bryan up there railing about the Blue Cross of Gold. Or was it Teddy Roosevelt, condemning the "underwriters of great wealth"?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
David seems to understand quite well what is happening. (4.00 / 9)
But I have a bone to pick with Obama and you since you are an unabashed Obamapologist.

He said: "Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable."

To me that is one of the most disgusting statements I have ever heard from a President without the middle initial W.  I think that to most people, at least working people, making a profit from killing people, and that's what denying coverage does, is wrong.  Bad if you will.


"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Yes, but misses the point (4.00 / 7)
While I agree that murder by spreadsheet is really bad (obviously), I think Obama's point is much more important.  The thing is, amoral corporations will always do what is best for the bottom line.  That is their job.  To blame them in a personal way is to miss the point.  The problem isn't that they are bad, the problem is the system is broken.

Corporations that choose not to be evil have a competitive disadvantage.  Eventually, they will loose out, replaced by evil ones.  This is why it is so important for the government to set rules that makes being evil illegal.

When you blame the CEOs personally, you give the impression there are only a few bad apples, that the problem is personal, not institutional.  Not only is that wrong, it is a harmful way to think.

[ Parent ]
I can only judge Obama on what he said. (4.00 / 2)
And of course, that judgement is only opinion and is judgemental.  I suspect that if Obama had wanted, he could have said what your just said, but he didn't.  So I'll leave my opinion to be based upon what he actually said.  

I thank you for your interpretation of his remarks and what your opinion of right and wrong is.  That is why I come here.  First I appreciate David and secondly I want to be exposed to the thoughts of those who follow David.  Sometimes I feel as though I come away with new perspectives.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Except (0.00 / 0)
Obama wasn't addressing whether insurance executives are good people or bad people, he was making a statement about why they do what they do.  He is saying they do what they do because it is profitable.  In other words, it is not out of sadism or some other kind of 'badness'.

Your argument is that insurance executives are bad people because what they do is bad.  

Fine, then you should appreciate that Obama supports policies that would prevent those executives from being able to do that stuff.

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
How dare you (0.00 / 0)
call me an "Obamapologist". Have you bothered to review my diaries and comments on OpenLeft?
And his statement that "Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable." has to be viewed in the context that he really is proposing a plan that would undoubtedly reduce their profits.
[ Parent ]
How dare me? (4.00 / 3)
The how is just by saying it because I believe your comment put you well within the boundaries of such labeling.  However, I do recognize that anytime one is labeled, there is a natural tendency to resist it.  I certainly would.  So let me clarify.  As I said, your comment appears to me as a criticism of David because you perceive that he was "cynical" toward the speech.  Indeed, you criticized the quality of David's work.  

Now I don't know in which university you instruct a journalistic writing course, nor have I read any of your other blog posts or comments.  So, in no way was I inferring that your purpose in life was to carry water for the prez.  My comments were only about your remarks in one comment and I'll stand by them.


"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 3)
I admire the skill with which David reshapes available texts into more dramatic language.  Comparisons become 'implied' equivalences.  An ideological tag becomes a bashing. Presidents become rulers of America.  He has a real gift for drawing out the hidden hyperboles that would be otherwise impossible to discover.

USA: 1950 to 2010
[ Parent ]
This is familiar (4.00 / 4)
territory on blogs, and has been for years.

Arguments rarely address substance, they most frequently resort to name calling.  My favorite through the years is "repeating right wing frames", but there are others.  For David anyone who defends Obama on anything is automatically a sycophant.

[ Parent ]
You're right (0.00 / 0)
Arguments to the person are all too common. (Oops, showing my "university" background there.)
[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
That was one of the low points. I'd rather he turned the "death panel" rhetoric back on the insurers. He provided clear examples of at least two people who were hurt by decisions made by health insurance companies. Perfect time to sum up with, "We have to end these corparate-run Death Panels".  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I agree that David misreads the intent of mentioning McCain and Grassley. (4.00 / 5)
Methinks Obama pointing to them is a gesture of aggression, not appeasement. This is what all Presidents do. This is what Bush did: go along with me, or you will seem like a bad person. It is strongarming.

Let's give it up for Barbara Lee (at least I think it was her). She refused to applaud with the crowd when Obama was disparaging single-payer and minimizing the importance of the public option.

[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 4)
I read about the speech before I got a chance to watch it on my own.  I liked what I read but loved what I watched.  I was very pleased.
LOL (1.33 / 3)
Oh wait this isn't snark?  

Hmm.....

Nah, the LOL still holds.

Civility (4.00 / 9)
What in God's name was Obama doing ending his speech (at least the text presented here on Open Left) with a call to civility and ending gridlock?  Why did he remind us that insurance company execs with a single minded emphasis on profits are "not bad people"?  Well, many aren't but many really are bad people.  Denying paid for care or delaying it is evil.  And yes, some of the people who do it are murderers for profits. There is a difference between Enron (and the brown outs they deliberately caused in California) and Exxon Mobil.  Some insurance types are the Enrons who game the system to "earn" personal bonusses.

While we are at it, what was the need to attack welfare?  

The need to  repeat tired and ineffective Republican propaganda.

Look, over 40 years ago, Democrats delivered health care for elderly, poor, and disabled Americans.  It is past time to deliver health care (not reform, health care) to the remainder of America.  What's so hard.  What's so difficult?  Hey. if you want to toss a bone to Republicans they also contributed to the effort by signing the legislation for SSI.  That Nixon would be a raging liberal today.

Yep...and he seems to believe that (4.00 / 4)
"the first president in 40 years to deliver health care "reform" will be the path to re-election...and he might be correct.  Then again, individual mandates without a real public option and absent any demonstrated appetite to strenuously regulate the corporations who stand to benefit could indeed prove politically and socially ruinous.  David K.,  you remind me here that electric industry changes that allowed Enron and others to so disastrously game the system in California also was hailed at the time as historic bipartisan reform that ended years of ugly partisan gridlock.

This is all a damn shame.

[ Parent ]
Maybe he called for civility and a lack of gridlock (4.00 / 2)
because the discourse through August was famously uncivil and because the legislation didn't come out before August recess?

And see my comment above re: "bad people".  He wasn't judging the execs good or bad, he was saying they were motivated by profit, profit that he repeatedly pointed out as excessive.  The policies he advocates would prevent denial of care.  I was moved by the tragic descriptions denied care he offered.  I think you and he see eye to eye on that.

Was there an attack on welfare?  I don't remember it.

& has there ever been a presidential speech that didn't have an excess of tired propaganda?  Really: ever?

Unfortunately, America is full of Americans and a lot of them are used to hearing that weary, "bootstrapy" hero rhetoric.  It's all they've heard from their President dudes since their grand-parent's time.  It makes Americans feel cozy or something.  I don't expect we will ever see it end.

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
Welfare (4.00 / 3)
Was there an attack on welfare?  I don't remember it.

Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans.

Yes, he has to convince a majority that they too have a huge stake in health care reform, but why differentiate "people on welfare" rather than "the poor" from middle class Americans, other than to pander to a middle class disdain for welfare recipients?

[ Parent ]
Pander. (0.00 / 0)
I can see your point.  Thank you.

But still seems pretty mild to be identified as an 'attack on welfare'.

There is plenty to criticize and worry over in the Administration's methods and policy.  But aren't constructive, powerful, long-term community-building actions from Progressives better served by plain and solid readings of texts like Presidential speeches rather than hyperbolic inflation of perceived slights?

Maybe a better answer would be that the entire market premise of health insurance reform, the entire thrust of the legislation, is an attack on the tradition of welfare and the qualities of 'large-heartedness' Obama cited in his closing remarks about liberalism in the American tradition.

That raises more questions about what could or could not have happened this year under our political system.  Could the US restore "The Great Society" or even a more radical structural egalitarianism after 40 years of neo-liberalism?

I just really want to see change happen.  I see a lot of smarts here in this community and I just wish more energy was going to clarity and construction rather than frustration and rage.

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
Anyone who kills people for money (4.00 / 7)
is BAD. Anyone who can't see that has a questionable moral compass.  

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
The time has come to put and end to the Corporate Death Panels (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
But that is not what the line was about. (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't about whether people (execs.) are good or bad, it was about why do they do what they do.  

Being bad is not their motivation.  Their motivation is profit.  

Obama agreed with you and powerfully illustrated the cruelty and immorality in the present system.  

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
So, Nazi bureaucracy wasn't inherently bad either! (0.00 / 0)
Ok, I know this point is over the top. But I just want to make it clear that every system consists of people, and that you can't simply excuse unethical behaviour away. Humans have an ethical responsibility, no matter if they receive orders or are just a minor component in a big engine. Pls read "the Banality of Evil", Rich!
[ Parent ]
Please take a breath (0.00 / 0)
Your point is correct in terms of an ethical analysis.  Evil is evil.  Killing for money is evil.  Banal evil is evil.  Yes.  I've read several of Hannah Arendt's books.

My point is that that is not what that part of the speech was about.  It is a misreading of that line to say that it was excusing "murder by spreadsheet."

First, do you really think Obama would excuse murder by spreadsheet?   Really?

Second, if that was his position why would he say this?

Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

When he said this:

Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable.  

He is not excusing executives from the behavior that he flatly declared was "wrong", instead he is addressing the question, "Why do they do this?"  

Do insurance executives deny coverage BECAUSE they are bad people?  The answer is "No."  They do this because it is profitable.

Now several readers want to infer that only bad people would be insurance executives.  That's fine.  I can see how you would go there.  But that has nothing to do with the point Obama was making about WHY people would do the "wrong" that insurance executives do.

Citing this line of the speech as a justification for becoming enraged or disgusted because "Obama went out of his way to say that insurance executives are not bad people."  is just a mistake.

Rage and disgust can be a constructive part of the Progressive psychic matrix, but not when grounded in error.


USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
I see your point, but my interpretation is different (0.00 / 0)
"First, do you really think Obama would excuse murder by spreadsheet?" No, not that he excuses murder, but that the excuses the murders. The second quote you cite clearly shows  that he isn't very determined to expose the offenders. Putting the blame on "the system" shifts attention away from the responsible managers, who failed as human beings by putting monetary interests above the clear and present danger to the lifes of their customers. Imho it's not too unfair to call this murder. When you intentionally prevent someone who has been badly injured from getting help, that's murder, too.

Don't forget the story in the news recently about the healthcare manager who changed sides because these ethical concerns robbed him of his sleep. The managers know what they are doing, at least subconsciously, they know people are dying, and they have the means, motive, and opportunity. This fits the definition of murders, even though extenuating circumstances may apply. But the excuses shouldn't go so far as saying they are not responsible.

So, regarding Obama's obvious desire to get along with everybody, even the most outstanding aggressors, it's not unreasonable to conclude that shying away from pointing fingers is intentional! Remember, he also spoke about lies, but not about the liers! He's deliberately keeping this abstract. And imho that's questionable ethics.

[ Parent ]
One more point (0.00 / 0)
For Eichman, the people he sent to the concentration camps were only numbers on a spreadsheet, too. You've read Arendt, you know that she tried to understand this way of thinking, but in no way excused it. And Obama was no Arendt in this speech, quite to the contrary. He could have at least appellated to the healthcare CEOs to think of their ethical responsibility, and not to stand in the way of reforms that intent to change this system. Come to think about this, this would have been a very good move, a way to apply more pressure on the insurers. But probably this would have been much too confrontational for nice guy Obama.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for your diligence. (0.00 / 0)
I get where you are coming from and I understand the disappointment people feel with Obama and the general moral indignation that any ethical, modern person should feel in response to the liberal capitalist ideological ground of so many of our vital institutions.

In a way, Obama represents a more insidious erosion of the state than the Republicans.  At least Grover Norquist and Dick Cheney told you exactly what they were up to.  

USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
Have to disagree on this one, David (4.00 / 8)
I respect your analytical capabilities.  But, as one who politically "came of age" during the Reagan '80s, when our Campus Dems group at a major public university in a liberal bastion (Boulder) could fill all of a small dorm room, I have a very different take on this speech.

First, let me note that (a) Obama was not my initial favorite candidate among available Democrats; and (b) on the political compass measurements, I am in the far lower left quadrant.  But, 42 years on this planet have instilled in me a certain pragmatism, as well.  It is my experience during the Reagan '80s, coupled with that pragmatism, that causes me to appreciate the speech tonight.

First, I have to agree with Lord_Mike that this speech was not targetted at us.  For significant and beneficial health care reform to pass, Obama does not need to assuage us lefties.  That is so because, for health care reform to be significant and beneficial, it must include a public option.  No, he meant this speech for the 75%+ of the electorate that pays sporadic attention to any political issue.  To capture this market, he had to find and capture the moral and emotional center of the issue.  I think he accomplished that with this speech.  I also think he utilized the Overton Window concept well--"I'm at the center, which is the public option"--and I am convinced that he is smart and informed enough to know about this concept.

Rev. Wright encapsulated it. (4.00 / 5)
He will say what politicians say.

Isn't that about what you're trying to tell us?  That he's employing the same tactics as the righties.  Lie to the dumb ones.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Kucinich is so much more effective, right? (4.00 / 6)
I've supported "far-left" progressives in every Dem primary since 1976.  But, over time, I have figured out that most people don't agree with me and Kucinich.  So, I go for the next best thing--an Obama-like candidate who can capture the emotional center and achieve incremental progress on important issues.

We are a nation of idiots.  This is intentional--school curricula are designed to keep us so.  Given this, I want an intelligent politician who can appeal to the idiots.  Hence, Obama.

[ Parent ]
As much as I hate it, you're probably right. n/t (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
Yes, he is. (4.00 / 1)
Which is why he gets re-elected with solid majority mandates repeatedly, and a key reason why single-payer is even favored by a majority of Americans.  Settling for politicians you know aren't up to the task merely helps to perpetuate the broken system.  "Electable" must be decided by the electorate, not by the powerful interests ruining this country.


[ Parent ]
Obama's Speech... (4.00 / 2)
...is the most liberal (relatively speaking) speech from a current US President I have ever seen (granted, my experience only goes back to late Reagan/Bush I era).  Baby steps?

I'm in Washington State (I'm under the impression our state insurance regulations are not horrible), I know a lot of people relatively happy with their employer-based insurance.  I'm one of them.  And the majority of them are Democrats.
A lot of people don't want to lose their private insurance.

Maybe my expectations are low for BO?  David, I feel your frustration for BO's ditching of single-payer, but I guess I never expected it to happen.

His speeches are just hollow words. (0.00 / 0)
Where are the actions? Bush made some liberal points in his stomp speeches, too, making it look as if he really cared for the people. Does that make him a liberal?
[ Parent ]
I just got done arguing with a lady via instant message about this speech. (1.14 / 7)
Like the rest of the mainstream media, she's too busy fawning over the Most Holy Obamassiah's glorious speechifying to take a step back and realize she's been lied to again.  As you pointed out, Mr. Sirota, Obama disappointed yet again.  He used the same right-wing talking points he's been using, and effectively buried the public option by refusing to even mention yet alone come out in support of it.  He wants a do-nothing bill he can sign before year's end so he can stand up and lie about having made some huge change when in fact it was all just another sham.  What he got upset about was that the GOP isn't playing ball the way he wants it to.


I must disagree (4.00 / 4)
I say this as someone who is profoundly disappointed in all kinds of things continued or left untouched by the Obama Admin.  As I said above, he wasn't my candidate in the primaries.  But, what has been missing from the Democratic narrative about this issue is the moral and emotional appeal on the issue.  As Lakoff has pointed out, for the vast majority of the electorate, the term "public option," if it resonates at all, resonates negatively ("government takeover," "government bureaucrat," etc.)  Most people out there ain't like US--because I think I am about in the same political quadrant as you are.  I will give you that Obama ain't US either--but, he's our best and only chance of passing significant, beneficial health care reform for the next 20 years.  Really.

Look, I'm pissed off.  I don't understand why the dumbasses in this country cant understand why we'd all be better off with a single payer system, which is what I want.  Actually, I do understand that--we've been intentionally misinformed and left in the dark.  But, the best strategy available when the term "public option" has been intentionally misconstrued and savaged and demonized, is to avoid using the TERM, "public option."  For fuck's sake, let us call it something else!  I think this speech partially accomplished what needed to be done--and that is to get the non-politicoes on board.

[ Parent ]
oh! (0.00 / 0)
Is that what Michael meant?  Did Obama not specifically say the words "public option", together, in that order?  I hadn't noticed.

Yes, you are correct that the phrase "public option" is not particularly good.  Definitely a strange complaint to make.

[ Parent ]
Right, (0.00 / 0)
he did use the term.  I do think it would be better to call it "America's Plan" or something (see:  USA PATRIOT Act).  
[ Parent ]
My point was this: (4.00 / 3)
With Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans having permanently removed single-payer from the table (along with such radical concepts as peace, impeachment for criminals, justice for the victims thereof, environmental protection, civil liberties, and a host of other things), the public option was the only matter worth discussing.  He made it clear yet again that there won't even be that.  I'm not keen on the so-called public option either, knowing it for the fraud it really is, but when getting on the bully pulpit expected to take a stand on it, and he didn't even bother talking about it except to say how willing he is to drop it altogether, that is wholly unacceptable.  No lines in the sand drawn, as always, with this political coward.


[ Parent ]
In a minimally rational world (4.00 / 2)
the components of a "strong public option" would be the insurance companies' position. Assuming we were considering a health care system like those of any of the rest of the advanced countries (either single payer or highly-regulated, non-profit insurance for most basic health care) that would put them out of business, the for-profit, private insurers would be screaming "Let us compete! Please!"-they would be the ones begging to be permitted to operate for profit alongside a government-administered plan.

The fact that progressives have to fight for even that-and not even a strong "public option, really-shows how inverted the frame is.

[ Parent ]
Not talking about the public option (4.00 / 7)
Here is Obama not even talking about the public option:

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight.

And yes, he then opened the possibility to other ideas, but that was an awful lot of text to say "he didn't even bother talking about it".

[ Parent ]
Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)
I was wrong about him not mentioning the public option.  He did mention it.  But he also made clear his willingness to abandon it at the earliest opportunity, which he already has.


[ Parent ]
The words he did not utter were "tort reform" (4.00 / 1)
Studiously avoided them.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
As I see it, this is a harsh attack on Obama, but not... (0.00 / 0)
...a personal attack on any user here. And even if I disagree regularly with Mike, it's obvious he's trying to make a serious point, even if you don't have to like his choice of words. Imho not a trollish comment.  
[ Parent ]
Please exlain (4.00 / 4)
effectively buried the public option by refusing to even mention yet alone come out in support of it

I realize that English isn't your first language, so I understand why this is hard to read, but what do you mean by "refusing to even mention ... it"?  It sounds like you are claiming Obama didn't even mention the public option, but obviously that is incorrect.  He spent several minutes defending the public option.

Yes, he said he was open to other ideas, but it is completely false to claim he didn't mention the public option.

[ Parent ]
There's reasonable criticism (3.00 / 4)
like what David posted (though I disagree with him and think he's seeing everything in the most negative light), and then there's this.

Not a welcome addition to OpenLeft, IMO.

[ Parent ]
No, you're not a welcome addition. (0.00 / 0)
You don't like the truth.  Fine.  But don't abuse the rating system.  There was absolutely nothing in my comment that warranted it being hidden, and you know that for a fact.


[ Parent ]
Mr. Michael Kwiatkowski PLease stop troll rating people that disagree with you (2.67 / 3)
or that you disagree with,
or that don't like your 'contributions'

I am tired of your 'participation'

[ Parent ]
To be fair, I think others started unfairly troll rating him first. (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
I have been troll rated by Mr. Kwiatkowski several times. (4.00 / 3)
I do not find his mock anger, and pretend radicalism and opportunistic attacks pleasant or helpful, but I have never troll rated him or hidden his comments.

I have warned that if he troll rates me again, I will ask that he be banned.

[ Parent ]
OK. Fair enough. It's been a while since I've posted here. At least we don't have (4.00 / 2)
to suffer unevenly applied censorship like those poor Huffpo slobs! I read Huffpo, but won't comment for that reason. I really like the system here, and I think it works well.
[ Parent ]
well (0.00 / 0)
He did call Obama "Most Holy Obamassiah", which is pretty clearly trolling.  I'm pretty sensitive to troll rating people I simply disagree with -- I'll just reply instead -- but I call trolling how I see it, and his post and choice of words definitely felt like he was trolling to me.
[ Parent ]
That's ridiculing Obama, not trolling. (0.00 / 0)
Afaik Obama doesn't comment here, so this is not a personal attack. DKos rules of TRing anybody just because you don't like his opinions don't apply here.
[ Parent ]
Then tell your bussies to stop abusing the rating system. (0.00 / 0)
You fellows troll-rate me for no reason other than you don't like the truth, so watch your very trollish comments get troll-rated.  You're harping about dust in my eye while there are forests' worth of planks sticking in yours.


[ Parent ]
"Buddies," not "bussies." (0.00 / 0)
Typo.


[ Parent ]
I am asking for this poster to be banned. (1.33 / 3)

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I thought that was ridiculous that they hid your comment (0.00 / 0)
They did it to one of my earlier comments too, but I used the f-word ...

Z

[ Parent ]
He. Just. Can't. Help. Himself. (4.00 / 12)
He just can't. Hypercaution, smoothing things over, denying unpleasant reality, accomodation with the enemy, bashing his own side, negotiating with himself, telling sweet lies--these are the political characteristics of a man who's never fought a real fight in his entire life, of the political and I'm betting physical kind. His instinct will ALWAYS be to avert a real fight, because it's just not in him. So tonight we got yet again more sweet talking points and pseudo-fighting words, amounting to little more than what we've been hearing all along--a watered-down approximation of "health care reform" along centrist, industry-friendly lines, prettied up to seem more progressive than it actually is.

It's really pathological with him, this inability to just accept the world as it actually is and always has been, and stop telling sweet little fables to make the ouch go away. I always feel like I'm being patronized by someone who thinks that I'm mildly retarded when Obama speaks. It's inspiring, sure, but it lacks a certain sincerity and gravitas and depth, a certain earned authenticity that can only come from someone who speaks with authority, rather than empty aspiration and clever rhetorical tricks. He comes across as a bit of a teacher's pet making the class valedictory, intended to appeal to the staff and parents, who he knows adore him, just before sneaking off to have a smoke with the wild crowd.

Well, anyway, it wasn't a terrible speech. In fact, as speeches go, it was pretty good. Just not nearly as good as it could and should have been, on a more than stylistic level. But he's the president we've got and we've got to figure out how to make him be as progressive as possible, using all the tools at our disposal. It's just that we really can't afford to go through the political and moral education of Barack Obama right now.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

His theory (4.00 / 6)
Hypercaution, smoothing things over, denying unpleasant reality, accomodation with the enemy, bashing his own side, negotiating with himself, telling sweet lies
His theory of the world and how it works isn't right (assuming he's presenting himself honestly).

Not everything can be resolved by meeting in the middle. Not everything is "a constructive idea worth exploring." Dropping people who are sick from insurance policies is profitable and means the execs are bad people. (Profitability doesn't necessarily imply "badness" but it doesn't exclude or absolve it, either.)

Ascribing value to ideas that aren't valuable or good faith to people who aren't acting in good faith shows a kind of faulty psychology about how the world works. It's not canny or shrewd (again, assuming he's portraying his true assessments)-it's a bit of a short-circuit.

[ Parent ]
I'm not entirely convinced that he buys this stuff either (4.00 / 3)
I think that it's something that he tells others to seem cooperative and unthreatening, but which he also tells himself to justify his aversion to and really fear of confrontation. It's a rationalizing, and I think dishonest (not to mention reality-deprived) belief system, of the sort that people adopt in order to justify certain aspects of their behavior that they'd otherwise be ashamed of. I've seen this in people myself. We've all seen it, really. And it's nearly impossible to talk down because the person holding it has either convinced themselves of its legitimacy, or else knows that it's BS but needs to continue to pretend to believe in it to save face.

And at this point, so associated has Obama become with this post-partisan silliness, that he can't easily abandon it without opening himself up to accusations of going back on his word from the GOP, which would give them an opportunity to engage in misdirection, and which they've already done on several occasions. He's boxed himself in, and it's going to be hard for him to get out of this. Me, I'd rather he just get in that phone booth and drop the Clark Kent nonsense.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Post Partisan == Post Racial (4.00 / 4)
In the election, post-partisanship was always a roundabout way of selling himself as post-racial.  This is a generic strategy Obama developed as a young man, I think.

This is how Obama managed to get accepted into the world of power, but always being hyper-reasonable; by being more reasonable than is reasonable.

It is annoying to us partisans.  However, I'm not convinced, still, that it doesn't work.  People on the left keep claiming that it gives the Republicans power they wouldn't otherwise have, but I certainly didn't see that tonight.  I didn't see satisfied faces on the Republican side.

I'm a strong believer that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and it is more important to go with what you are, what got you there, then to go with any specific strategy.  Being an unnatural phony never works.

I honestly think Obama is going to get basically the strongest, most liberal bill out of this congress as is possible.  All the commentary to the contrary tends to rely on wishful thinking.

[ Parent ]
This is both unfortunate and true. (0.00 / 0)
I honestly think Obama is going to get basically the strongest, most liberal bill out of this congress as is possible.  All the commentary to the contrary tends to rely on wishful thinking.

[ Parent ]
I willfully admit (4.00 / 5)
that this particular interpersonal style is quite alien and irritating to me. Whenever I've had to work with or for people like this, it drove me crazy and made it hard for me to respect that person or take them seriously. It's like the Tim Robbins character in High Fidelity, or the hippie teacher in South Park. On the one hand I question their toughness, and on the other hand I question their sincerity. I just don't deal well with people who are natural bullshitters. It's like nailing jello to the wall. My background ill-prepared me for dealing with such people (born in Israel, grew up in NYC, both no-nonsense sorts of places where you tell people what you think of them to their faces). It's a passive-aggressive style of interaction that I just can't relate to.

On the other hand, perhaps you're right, and it is effective in dealing with Repubs and difficult Dems, or at least will be in the long run. But only if he's doing this on purpose, and in his heart, and with his closest associates, realizes that it's bullshit, a velvet glove covering an iron fist. But we've yet to see that iron fist, so I'm not fully convinced that there is one. However wrapped and presented, no politician can get far without that iron fist. And if Obama has one, and intends to use it, he'd better do so soon, because bipartisanship, even as a feint, has about run its course. He needs to start hitting, and hard.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Iron fist (4.00 / 6)
Actually, we saw the iron fist tonight.  You were just so focused on the parts you didn't like you missed it.  :-)

Here, let me cherry pick for you:

Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.


[ Parent ]
We'll see (4.00 / 7)
Given his performance over the past year and change (going back to FISA and some other actions during the campaign), I remain to be convinced that Obama is sincere about living up to his stronger rhetoric and promises. So we'll just have to see.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
See, I read that (4.00 / 4)
and what I hear is "I will not waste time one those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it." And I think he is talking to the progressive block.

He talks in a mushmouth way so that everyone thinks he is saying what they want to hear, and no one can say what he really means.

Time will tell.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Time will tell (4.00 / 1)
I agree with this!
[ Parent ]
Here we disagree (0.00 / 0)
This:

I will not waste time one those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.

Is not directed at progressives or even those pushing for a single payer system because progressives do not talk of "killing" the bill for political reasons (by and large) they talk of killing it because of policy reasons, i.e. its too weak to be effective. Unlike the right wing disruptors and tea-baggers the intention of the progressives is to improve the bill, not to ensure the continuance of the status quo.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
That's the beauty of mushmouth. (4.00 / 1)
You can read whatever you want to into it. You think he is talking about your enemies, but the insurance companies think he is talking about us.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Just because one can twist words (0.00 / 0)
does not mean the speaker is "mush-mouthed".  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Sort of (4.00 / 3)
I'm saying the explicit theory that he's presenting-for lack of a better word, the "kumbaya" theory-essentially ascribing good faith and constructiveness all over is faulty. It's a mismatch with reality (and he has a screw loose). I think that actually is the theory he holds, to some degree.

Now you're right, he might have that theory for any number of reasons-fear of confrontation, for example, or maybe it's just have worked for him somewhat in the past. You do get something but it's sort of a suboptimized result. It's hard to try a different strategy for a better result because you're getting kind of rewarded, albeit suboptimally, by what you're doing.

I'm not sure I agree with it not being easy to for him abandon that postpartisan stance in a political sense (although it might be hard for him, if not impossible, in a psychological sense). The GOP will engage in misdirection, no matter what. (I think we spend too much time worrying about what Republicans might do. History shows we can't anticipate or even imagine what they might do, anyway.) A different Obama might, in fact, throw them off balance.

[ Parent ]
It would be hard (4.00 / 1)
in the sense of having to endure and deal with the inevitable and distracting "He's a liar! He just pretended to be bipartisan!" nonsense, and the media's hand-wringing over the disappearance of their precious bipartisan hero. There will be a process to go through that will last a while. But it wouldn't be impossible, let alone fatal. It would just be a challenging transformative period for him, well worth enduring. The question is whether he wants to do this, and is willing to go through that. He's gotten so used to being this way, and it has admitedly gotten him this far, and old habits are hard to kick. We'll see.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I've lost all hope, so this wasn't as bad as expected. (4.00 / 3)
Really, this could have been so much worse. I agree totally with David about him bashing the left, but he wants to be loved by all, apparently. However, I may have to re-think my boycott of  the White House website comments section, because SOMETHING moved him a little tiny bit to the left (and it was not I.)
Hope is for suckers. (4.00 / 3)
I gave up on hope a long time ago for the fraud it is.  Hope implies that we have no control over our lives, and in certain instances, that's true.  We can hope the airplane we board doesn't crash, or that that next lottery ticket we purchase is the winning one.  But these are things reliant on the machinations of others, and therefore exist beyond our immediate spheres of influence.  In politics, however, we have a lot of control over how things progress, stagnate, or decline.  We maintain some measure of control, some ability to influence.  Hoping that people without any inclination to do the right thing will suddenly do a 180° turn and become the representatives we need is foolish.  We must push them to do what's right, simultaneously working to elect people we don't have to push.


[ Parent ]
I'm with you (4.00 / 1)
I'm hoping I'm still around to vote next time, because I'm sure going to CHANGE the way I've voted in the past.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
To what most helpful poster, to what? (0.00 / 0)
Baited breath.

Waiting.

[ Parent ]
Waiting. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You mistake a head fake to the left and.... (4.00 / 4)
A drive down the middle as movement to the left.  

David woke me up to this man shortly before the Inauguration.  David, along with Paul Krugman was among the first to be savvy enough to see where this was going when Obama started making his appointments.  As Frank Rich pointed out, the Left has been punked.  Chicago style.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Yeah, Paul Krugman, Hillary supporter. Not exactly a left-wing warrior. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
When did Krugman support Clinton? (0.00 / 0)
To my knowledge, calling out lies by Obama when his campaign flat out lied about Clinton's health care plan is not a declaration of support for Clinton.


[ Parent ]
Krugman supported Hillary (0.00 / 0)
I don't think he ever said so explicitly, but it was utterly clear from reading his columns.  He loved Bill, but has moved substantially to the left since then.  I like Krugman.  Possibly Hillary would have been better than Obama, I would guess not.
[ Parent ]
On this issue, she would have been. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Why would you assume that? Her earlier plan was very (0.00 / 0)
insurance company friendly.
[ Parent ]
There simply is no evidence to suugest that's true. (0.00 / 0)
At no point did he ever come out and endorse Clinton.  His point of passion was health care reform.  He favors single-payer, but like far too many on the left, has accepted the lie that we can't get it.  With that out of the way, his options were Edwards', Clinton's, and Obama's plans.  He favored Edwards' health care plan.  Once Edwards dropped out, it was down to Clinton's health care plan versus Obama's, neither of which he liked very much, but he saw Clinton's as being more effective.  He called Obama's campaign out for deliberately lying about Clinton's health care plan.  That does not mean, however, that such criticism translated into support for Clinton over Obama.  He continued to criticize both throughout the primary campaign.


[ Parent ]
LOL (2.00 / 2)
no no really. This is children-lying-in-the-gutter good writing.
[ Parent ]
On the other hand (4.00 / 2)
With an opposition like this...



"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

four good things about the speech (4.00 / 4)
There will be reform, this year, with a public option
The republicans were called out as, then exposed as mean spirited louts
Obama pwned the house
Obama TOOK the middle, owns the center and his numbers shot up in instant polling
and he defended the historical role of liberalism as the authors of America's progress

He warned the opposition that further "mere noise" would be ignored at least, and would need rebuke

OK six things

[ Parent ]
None of which will amount to anything (4.00 / 1)
if he doesn't come through with a good bill.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
You mean, if you want to be correct (0.00 / 0)
"That if congress can come through with a good bill. "

I wonder if Mr. Kwittokeski will troll rate me for it. I am hoping he will be banned soon.

[ Parent ]
Defensive Medicine (4.00 / 3)
Does anyone have a case study to show me that defensive medicine isn't a problem?  The only studies I've seen looked at how much money goes into law suits, which completely misses the point.

My only problem with Obama bring it up now is I'd like to keep this on hold.  One of the things lacking in this plan is a good way to keep down costs.  There is a start and some needed structure, but much more will be needed in the future.

At some point I'd like to make a bargain, to hold down costs 1) stop paying doctors for service and require they get paid salaries in exchange for 2) medical tort reform.  Personally, I think both would help.

The problem with studying (4.00 / 3)
whether defensive medicine exists and what it costs is that you would have to assume what tests and procedures doctors would have used in the absence of the threat of lawsuits. That is pretty much impossible.  The fact that they get paid for these things even when they are unnecessary seems to me a far more likely source of costs than defensive medicine.

The other problem is that it mistakes the way that the threat of lawsuits work.  Making it more difficult to bring lawsuits is what "tort reform" is all about - but that means all suits for medical malpractice, not just unjustified ones. That means that people with legitimate claims face the same barriers as those who don't.  In addition, states that have enacted these reforms have seen no decrease in insurance premiums.  Tort reform may be supported by doctors but it cannot impact their ability to get insurance at a reasonable cost.  

There are reforms that can make it easier to differentiate between legitimate and non-legitimate lawsuits, and that would make insurance more widely available for doctors, but they do not involve putting barriers in the way of plaintiffs.

Strengthen Social Security...Don't Cut it  

[ Parent ]
I would imagine that medical specialties (4.00 / 1)
regularly conduct (or should conduct) studies to determine what kinds of test should be ordered and procedures performed whenever certain symptoms, and constellations of symptoms, present. And whoever reimburses a provider for their services, whether insurance companies or a government program, would periodically compare the tests that they actually ordered and procedures that they performed for the symptoms presented with these guidelines, and if they sufficiently and frequently enough deviated from them, call on them to explain themselves. And there would be review and arbitration boards and so on for providers to justify non-standard and indicated tests and procedures and so on. This could not only cut down on unnecessary defensive tests and procedures, but also improve medical care, provide competent good faith providers with support in lawsuits, and compel providers to provide tests and procedures that they should offer, but might otherwise not.

And from what I understand, all of these bills call for such studies and boards, ostensibly to improve medical care and decrease costs, but which could also cut down on unmeritorious lawsuits and genuinely excessive awards and settlements. But arbitrarily limiting patients' right to sue is, to me, anathema, and contrary to the spirit of the constitution and our legal system. No one should be artificially restricted from seeking legal recourse. This would leave that in place, but make it less necessary and justified, and harder to persue if not meritorious.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Tort reform (4.00 / 6)
is aimed at winning over doctors, who conservatives have always are a critical group to win in a health care argument.

Here is one study that suggests that defensive medicine actually does increase costs substantially:
http://advance.uconn.edu/2009/...

There are other studies.  However, an article in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons says:
"Defensive medicine is defined as providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices. The quality of the literature on the true costs of defensive medicine and its impact on healthcare costs is poor; few good studies exist, and cost estimates vary widely. "

As a lawyer who has spent more than a little time deposing doctors (although NOT in a malpractice setting) I know doctors hate lawyers with a passion.  The reason: we are the only ones who ever seriously question their decisions.

[ Parent ]
That arrogance is why they get into trouble. (4.00 / 2)
The largest percentage of pilots who crash, overwhelmingly, is Doctors in private planes. Ask a flight controller.
[ Parent ]
I'm actually no fan of doctors (4.00 / 3)
Thanks, that was interesting.

I tend to be pretty down on the medical profession in general.  They are treated like Gods and the masters of scientific reason, but they tend to wing it more then they admit and go along with all those pamphlets the drug companies send them.  So I kind of like the idea of questioning their judgment quite a lot.

But anytime you see X happens and see an obvious motivation for X, it takes an awful lot of evidence that the motivation plays no role.  I think both fear of lawsuits and increased income (pay by procedure instead of salaried) play a role.

[ Parent ]
What I don't understand (4.00 / 1)
is why state medical boards and insurance company medical directors don't question their testing and treatment decisions as well, especially when they deviate from accepted and recommended standards for a given set of symptoms and conditions. I realize that providers can lie about these to cover themselves, but with electronic health records (and even paper-based ones), that would require patients to describe their symptoms, or an intake nurse who wouldn't even know how to lie on the form, perhaps this could be harder to do.

I understand and accept that providers must have some leeway in how they choose to test and treat their patients, but surely there can be some useful and practicable way of defining some reasonable outer boundary of acceptable testing and treatment, and then holding providers to them--and taking action against them if they cross these lines excessively--that would both limit unnecessary tests and treatment, yet not unduly restrict providers.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Read (4.00 / 3)
Read the book The Medical Malpractice Myth.
[ Parent ]
I like your "bargain" (4.00 / 1)
Another possibility is to hold institutions accountable rather than individual practitioners. People still get to sue for malpractice but the costs get spread out over more people. Eventually, the institutions have to weed out the bad practitioners to hold down their costs.
[ Parent ]
This speech was all about tenderizing the trigger ... (4.00 / 3)
... to make it more palatable to the public when they have it shoved down their throats even though 3/4s of the country wants a public option.  It seems 2 B working with a lot of people ...

Z


The fight is not over yet, but if this board is representative of progressives ... (4.00 / 3)
... then it is a bad sign that so many progressives have been placated by obama's words, once again, becoz those words have meant little or nothing on the most important decisions of his presidency which have all gone heavily in favor of big business and other powerful interests.  And you can be sure that rahm is working behind the scenes to make sure that a bill does not arrive at obama's desk with a public option on it.  

The progressives are going to have to push much, much harder on progressive members of congress to hold the line ... at least to have their best shot of influencing the bill.  Progressives in congress need to know that words are not enough.

Z  

[ Parent ]
Hey! I agree completely! (4.00 / 3)
I come at it from not making people think their losing, incorrectly, but hey we all have to have our own style.

This speech was a win. We are winning. Pressure needs to increase now. Not decrease.

Obama said, we are passing this sucker, the progrerssives say, not with out a Public Option, Obama says 'well ok' and thats the Bill!

Thats the Bill.

WE are passing the Bill, the Pledge caucus says not without a PO, that means we win. Its not single payer, yet, but lets put that in the Bill for each state.

This is the time, my oh did you say we are winning friends, for full on full court press.

This is the time to take it down court.

Call yopur representative, everyone is out caliong reps to ni9ght and tommorow and the nextr day. Get people over to the hopuse, call, write email PO or NO. Pass the Bill!

This is the time for more pressure.

Do NOT Listen to people taking you out of the game!!

[ Parent ]
asdf (4.00 / 1)
Just because I thought his speech was good and more than adequate as an address to the entire country, doesn't mean I'm under the illusion that HCR will not (or isn't) going south via PO triggers or no PO with a national mandate etc.. because of this speech.

There is so much more that needs to done and all this speech does is set the tone and narrative for the public at large.

[ Parent ]
Basically, I don't see why anyone would be encouraged by this speech .... (4.00 / 5)
... when he's already broke his word on so much he's said in the past; when he's given these eloquent, substance-less speeches in the past and they were not representative of what he effectuated later on ... when it really mattered.  Especially, when there is so much evidence that he's already sold out on a major part of health care reform to pharmas for what will very likely be large campaign contributions.

There was nothing to that speech but words ... obama's specialty ... and none of those words said anything but what he had previously said:  he is "in favor" of the public option, but willing to listen opponents ideas ... hence rahm's centrist/corporate sell-out trigger tricks.  now rahm's job ... and he has had a long time to work on it ... is to make sure that a bill with a public option never hits obama's desk.  That way obama's pretty words will still ring in people's heads and they can tell themselves that he "meant it" even though in the end they don't have it ... and the dlc dem's dynamic duo of deceit, obama (who is dlc in everything but name) and rahm, have done a hell of a lot to try to make sure that we won't get it.

Z  

because it wasnt a protest (4.00 / 4)
Obama doesnt do protest. Obama is doing power. Power to do. The pledge block is doing. Thats power.

A lot of people talk about power politics being the people that can take votes away, as in lets primary, which is good. But it its also the power to bring votes, the power to deliver support. If you have organized, if you can deliver, you get6 respect. because just pretend for a moment, some peopole actually want to get shit done. And if you can deliver the votes, you are an ally.

Deliver, and take away. Get better at the job of doing shit in a democracy.

The pledge block delivers. Listen to this wisdom.

[ Parent ]
You said it, David! (4.00 / 3)
And who said Emmauel and Obama aren't and haven't been since the Inauguration (and probably before) on the same page?

I admit the end of his speech was eloquent and stirring, but it was generalizations about our oneness as a nation and caring for each other.  The points you made/pointed out contradicted that noble sentiment by its caving in to big insurance.

It was what I expected, unfortunately, a corporatist neoliberal DLC speech.  The right's hysteria is hilarious, because he is no threat to them, by a long shot, even given their inane, reactionary fears of "communist" takeover or even big government.

He is a threat (4.00 / 1)
to campaign money from the insurance syndicate. That's why they're mad.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
At the end of the day, I feel that. . . (0.00 / 0)
. . .this speech blew enough smoke up my ass to cause rectal cancer.
Effect matters, not intent (4.00 / 1)
We (myself included) spend way too much time worrying and arguing about what Obama and other politicians "really think."  He's a good/bad guy, will/will not sell us out.  It's understandable, since we're relatively powerless, but a waste of time.  Knowing what's in Obama's heart may sometimes affect strategy, but that's it.  We may or may not ever find out.  We need to do whatever we can to make him and Congress do the right thing -- that's what matters.

As for the speech, I think it will help us pass good reform, including a public option, regardless of whether or not Obama even wants it (fwiw, I think he does).  I think it was an effective speech, for reasons others have already stated quite well.  It's not quite the one I would have given, but to me the key thing is that it conceded nothing to the Right (unless you consider any endorsement of markets right-wing), while promoting fundamental progressive values and ideas.

Michael Harrington compared left-wing activism to long distance running, and he was sadly right.  It's frustrating and painful as hell much of the time, and sometimes you want to puke, but the only thing to do is try to stay calm and keep slogging.  We will win some.

I disagree David (4.00 / 1)
I thought it was a very good speech. Yes there were things that could have been better. Yes he did his usual conciliatory "lets all work together" and "everybody's got great ideas" routine but that is just standard pablum and nothing new.

Also, he made it clear that while malpractice was something to look at it he did not think it was a "silver bullet." He made it clear that the real solutions were elsewhere.

Lastly, when was the last time a Democratic Leader called the Republicans liars to their faces on national television?

It was a very good, strong speech. Much better than I expected.

Peace,

Andrew

Looks like someone shares your sentiments David... (0.00 / 0)
in a diary at seminal.firedoglake:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com...

Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech | 174 comments




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox