Obama Creating Bush-Style Healthcare, Stockholm Syndrome?

So let me get this straight.  Obama is going to mandate people (disproportionately young and healthy) buy private insurance from the very companies that have been raising premiums, copays and out of pocket expenses every year?

He has cut a deal with drug companies not to negotiate drug prices (see Medicare part D)...

Does he really think the GOPers are going to support him no matter what he does?  

Sometimes I think Obama has Stockholm syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_s yndrome

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed.

 He will not get a single republican vote in the house and may get two votes from the Maine Senators in the senate...

No Democrat with a brain should support a final bill that mandates we fork over high priced premiums to the same folks that got us in this mess without a public option.

Obama campaigned for two years on a public option.   That and NOT having mandates was the key difference in his health plan compared to Hillary.  Not only will this piss off many many young people under 40 but there will be no drop in premiums.  This is not only bad policy but a political loser as well. We all know that once the public option is dropped Freedom Works, the GOP and all the others will move on and jump on "mandating" healthy young people buy insurance as infringing on individual liberty to protect private health insurance companies..

I can't believe people like Bernie Sanders or Feingold will go for this steaming pile.  Krugman has been right way too often...
The stimulus was watered down and included one-third tax cuts yet no GOP credit nor mainstream media attention was given to this.


Tags: Bush, obama (all tags)



how long until

the media finally turns to "mandates" and all the Town hallers go apeshit over that?

by TarHeel 2009-08-16 12:14PM | 0 recs
No fingerprints = No accountability

The "Stockholm Sydrome" analogy has a kernel of truth to it, as this whole turn of events has a surreal feel. I hope the take-away for team Obama is that they realize you have to take ownership of major initiatives if they are going to be successful. The approach of chucking something to the Congress with the directive, "handle it" worked for the Stimulus Package; but let's face it, it's no great challenge to get the Congress to spend money. Something this complex---which obviously will be challenged by entrenched interest groups---needs a true leader who will lay his future on the line.

For me, the surreal component to this mess was listening to spokespeople--e.g, Sebelius--occasionally correcting the media, admonishing them that  "there is no Obama bill". The idea of not having the President's fingerprints on a bill was a timid approach, meant to avoid any accountability should the measure fail. Somehow, I don't think this defeat will work out that way: Obama has lost standing with his supporters, as well as with his political opponents. People respect the coach who goes down with the team.

The other lesson has to be to treat future major initiatives as true sales efforts, with effective and persuasive point people out front. While I'm sure that Mrs. Sebelius is a lovely person, I doubt she could sell the i-phone if it was free.....she is a grim and dull person. Selling is a worthy profession, the Obama folks need to treat is as such. Someone with the winning smile, personality, and standing of a Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton needs to get out front for the President next time and do some of the serious blocking and tackling.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-08-16 12:52PM | 0 recs
who exactl
did he put the tax cuts in for?  it wasn't pelosi.
it didn't get a single house GOP vote..
by TarHeel 2009-08-16 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me get this straight:

Let me get this straight: Tarheel and Bruh3, who pretend to be the defenders of civility and fair discussion here... would consider the title and premise of this 'diary' as constituting a valid 'argument'. You are ruining this place even more.

by QTG 2009-08-16 01:52PM | 0 recs
question for you

every liberal economist said that the stimulus was too small and the tax cuts were to small to be noticed.

I presume obama put the tax cuts in to appease republicans.  I also assume he made the stimulus smaller than ideal because some centrist senator did not want to hit 1 trillion.

did obama get any GOP votes in the house?  why negotiate with yourself and make a bill bad to appease republicans who won't vote for it

by TarHeel 2009-08-16 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: question for you

 The answer is obvious. You're inability to get it is far beyond my abilities (or anyone's abilities) to explain it enough to where you would get it. You'll just have to suffer unmerciful agony for another seven plus years. I will pity you all the way.

by QTG 2009-08-16 05:04PM | 0 recs
Can we get Nancy K back?

This place used to be at least interesting.

Now, it's 2-3 diarists posting a different version of the same fact free, link to a few editorials "See, I told you so" diatribe over and over and over and over.....

by WashStateBlue 2009-08-17 09:48AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads