[Updated x2] Placations from the WH are not having the same effect

Fiasco? Yes. Intense tone deafness? Yes. Complete lack of leadership? Yes.

Even yesterday, much like snake-oil salesman, the President went on tv to sell this crap heap as a way of saving money. Give me a break!! You wanna save tax payer money Mr. President, stop giving billions in tax breaks to undeserving banks (see Charles' diary and the excellent analysis he has linked to). Today the progressives have started laying the blame of the fiasco where it partially belongs, at 1600 Pennsylvania where they had abdicated all leadership.

Here's Howard Dean explaining why claiming this bill saves money is akin to selling snake oil:

From Huffington Post:


John Conyer:

"The president keeps listening to Rahm Emanuel. He doesn't listen to the Congressional Black Caucus."
"No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God! The insurance lobby is taking over."

David Obey:

"It's ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That's nonsense."

Anthony Weiner:

"Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman? Who left these people in charge? It's time for the president to get his hands dirty. Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares. We must stop letting the tail wag the dog of this debate."

Russ Feingold:

"This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don't think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

Sam Stein also reports that labor movements have called for an emergency meeting, where they will either decide to vocally oppose the current bill, or say nothing but sit out 2010.

"What is really frustrating folks here is that it's impossible to make and implement plans to pressure senators when the White House and Reid keep undermining the efforts no one from the outside can put any credible pressure on Senators because they know the White House will back that Senator up whatever they do. If the White House is going to cave to a Senator who spent the entire election campaigning with McCain and calling Obama a traitor how are we supposed to have any leverage over anyone?

"If Lieberman -- who has done so many horrible things directly to Obama -- can get away with this on Obama's signature issue it makes it infinitely harder for us to pressure senators, on issues in the future, because there is no fear of retribution or coercion from the White House. They only pressure progressives, not anyone in the middle."

It is time the WH took some ownership for their lack of leadership that led to the fiasco.

Update [2009-12-16 16:7:46 by tarheel74]:

Now the WH is attacking Howard Dean. But that's not unusual, they would rather vilify progressives than take on moderates and conservatives....spineless people. Here's what the nitwit Robert Gibbs said:

"I don't know what piece of legislation he is reading," said Gibbs.

"How better do you address those who don't have insurance... passing a bill that will cover 30 million uninsured or killing a bill?" he added. "I don't think any rational person would say killing a bill makes any sense at this point."

Asked if Dean was acting irrationally, Gibbs replied: "I can't tell what his motives are, to be honest with you."

Update [2009-12-16 22:17:18 by tarheel74]:

Wendell Potter, the insurance industry whistle-blower and insurance reform advocate weighs in.

Tags: Healthcare, obama, Public Option (all tags)

Comments

43 Comments

Pulling a Lieberman

A few things -

Republicans are now asking that a 767-page amendment be read aloud in its entirety in an effort to slow down this bill.

Sherrod Brown, no centrist, supports the bill.

Mary Landrieu, centrist, supports the bill.

In the Washingtonpost today, Ramesh Ponnuru (noted crazy person) and Matthew Dowd (Bush's 2004 Campaign Chair) have both written that passing this bill will damage the Democrats.

May I pull a Lieberman here and say that based on these reactions, it seems that the Democrats are much further ahead passing this bill?

As I said the other night (after a few rounds), we could use this moment to eat our own successes, but then we'd have to face the fallout.  Anything else that may have been important to you as a Progressive or a Democrat will become impossible.  And once again, we will be in the position of supporting the filibuster because it's the only way we would be able to slow down the Conservative (re)capture of this country.

by the mollusk 2009-12-16 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Pulling a Lieberman

Never doubt a democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

by vecky 2009-12-16 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Pulling a Lieberman

Just asking, but are you a partisan/ideological Democrat?  or are you just a fan of the President?

Every Dem and liberals I know and talk to hate this bill and agree with Dean.  

Everytime I read your posts, it's one excuse after another for Obama.  Health care reform is bigger than the President.  It will effect generations of American.  If we don't fight for it now -- real reform and not just lipstick on a pig -- there is no victory for the American people.

by FilbertSF 2009-12-16 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Pulling a Lieberman

I am a Democrat yes. I supported Clinton during the Clinton years even when it was not popular (bombing of Kosovo comes to mind). I supported both Gore & Kerry. I did not support conserva-dems, especially those who voted against Clinton, worked against Kerry (Ziller comes to mind) or campaigned against obama (like Lieberman).

I'm at a loss to explain what netroot liberals game plan is. None have explained it to me beyond "we must take a stand now - against our own side." When I point out it is not our side standing in the way, I don't get an answer. But I have seen the left self-destruct itself many a time and result in worse outcomes, so I choose to stand with unity even if I have to hold my nose. This does not apply solely to the US ofocurse, the left around the world is no different.

by vecky 2009-12-16 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Pulling a Lieberman

it is a horrible bill.  It hurts the American people and stands in the way of getting a good bill later.  The Obama admin wants to pass anything no matter how bad it is for me and you because they want to declare victory.

Obama doesn't give a sh*t about you no matter how much goofy grape you slug down.  

( by "you" I mean people in general)

by TeresaInPa 2009-12-16 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

This bill simply gives the Insurance Industry even more power to victimize the American People.

over and over, conservatives have stripped the good parts out of this thing, and over and over, a bevy of progressives cry out "well, this is the best we can get".

after what we saw last year, the refusal of so many progressives to stand up and fight for something decent is deeply depressing.

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

as you can see, there are still people here who do not see the outrage. People who would call passing this shit sandwich a "victory". It is a victory in a way, a victory for insurance companies.

by tarheel74 2009-12-16 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

amen

by TeresaInPa 2009-12-16 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

so what's to be done at this point?  waterboard joe lieberman?  shred the whole thing and start over?  is that really what you're suggesting?  do you know what a bill done through the reconcilliation process would look like?  was the last remnant of public option really worth fighting for?  remember, the "robust" public option didn't make it out of max baucus' committee after five democrats voted against it.  this is what we've accomplished.  you don't like it, i don't like it, but this is where we are.  you can go home and bite your pillow or you can keep fighting.  the choice is yours.

by the mollusk 2009-12-16 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

we haven't accomplished anything with this bill.

The problem is that when you give people who don't want reform everything they want, you get what we just got, no reform.

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

but listen even to Dean is saying -

(paraphrasing)
pass a strip-down bill with exchanges, subsidies, and money for community clinics and then start laying the tracks for a public option (or something that mimics a public option) through reconcillation next year.  i think that's an entirely reasonable position and it doesn't require you to turn in your voter id card.

by the mollusk 2009-12-16 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

If you get rid of the mandate, then I'm more neutral on this bill, and I would want it to pass so it doesn't damage the Democrats any more.

I actually WANT mandates if we could get some sort of real price control (like a real PO).

So I guess I basically agree with Dean.

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

Is there an explanation for how the public option gets passed through reconciliation next year when it seems to be a total non-starter this year?

by Steve M 2009-12-16 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

Well, after the Clinton health care plan was killed, Wofford and others ran on a health care platform and were elected.  Of course, Wofford then lost to crazy Santorum.  I think the health care issue is more pressing and many people's appetites are now whetted from thinking for the past few months that they were going to get health care.  I would hope that this may lead to revisiting the issue if we don't get anything now.

by orestes 2009-12-16 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

No one is getting elected between now and next year.

by Steve M 2009-12-16 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

I don't get your point.

by orestes 2009-12-16 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

Dean said we pass something stripped-down now and then use reconciliation to pass the public option next year.  I don't understand how that is supposed to magically happen.

by Steve M 2009-12-16 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

You mean because it needs to pass out of Finance Committee?  Is that where it gets hung up?  Because on the floor it seems to have 50 votes pretty easily.  Then again, a Medicare buy-in could probably pass the Finance Committee and would have 50 votes on the floor.  It also seems like that would be more straightforwardly a budgetary issue.

by the mollusk 2009-12-17 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

But since we're not getting it right now, what makes it easier next year than it is right now?

by Steve M 2009-12-17 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

Because you could have a separate effort which is focused solely on, say, getting people aged 55-64 access to Medicare.  My impression is that reconcilliation is no walk in the park and there's no telling what, exactly, will pop out the other end once you start the process.  So, trying to have exchanges, limits on insurance company practices, the excise tax, limits on insurance company profits, some shenanigans with abortion rights, money for community centers, mandates, subsidies for low-income earners, and a Medicare buy-in in one bill done through reconciliation seems like a recipe for disaster.

Now, don't get me wrong, if history is any guide, any effort to do this through reconciliation simply will not happen.  But, there are a few elements working in its favor.  Not the least of which is that 2010 becomes the year of incumbency protection for the Democratic party.  The Medicare buy-in will probably be popular enough that if people see the Dems fighting for it, it will be a bonus for them.  Same with banking reform and maybe some tinkering around the edges with energy policy.

by the mollusk 2009-12-17 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

Ah.  I was not thinking it would happen next year.  My point is that the public may be more passionate about health care reform today because they thought they were going to get it (thus they have thought about the effect it would have on their lives- eg, my former assistant was excited because she thought she could retire early w/Medicaid +55; she's now 58- and are disappointed and perhaps angry that they are not going to get decent health care) and won't want to let it go.  The last go-round, we did not get past the political sideshow stage.  Of course, I am speculating.

by orestes 2009-12-17 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

 shred the whole thing and start over?  

YES.

by TeresaInPa 2009-12-16 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Placations from the WH are not having the same

lets see what this Bill doesn't do.
__

It doesn't provided meaningful competition for the insurance monopolies.

It doesn't do anything to keep down the price of premiums

It doesn't keep the Insurance monopolies from putting on caps that limit coverage for very sick people

It doesn't keep the Insurance monopolies from claiming fraud or using other tactics to keep from covering your illnesses

It doesn't keeps the Insurance companies from rejecting people for preexisting conditions (they will just price them out with sky-high premiums)

It doesn't ensure that the poor will be able to afford coverage (the Insurance monopolies can just raise premiums to pocket the extra money from the subsidies)

The bill doesn't even lay a decent foundation for future change (like a weak PO might have, or like expanding Medicare might have)

__

However, the bill DOES give more power (including a legal decree that people must buy insurance)and money to the insurance monopolies.

by jeopardy 2009-12-16 10:16AM | 0 recs
Often times I don't agree with the President...

But I do not like "snake-oil" and "President" being used in the same sentence.

by Ravi Verma 2009-12-16 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Often times I don't agree with the President..

Until this week, I might have agreed, but frankly when he got upt here saying that the bill has cost containment measures according to most economists, he was flat out lying.  Until then, I had grown accustomed to the branding in which he would say one thing, but  do little behind the scene. WHile bad, it was politics. However, to make an assertion that is beyond not being credible about cost savings it lying to the american people. That is snake oil salemanship.

by bruh3 2009-12-16 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Often times I .....

why not when it is appropriate.  In America we do not worship our servants.

by TeresaInPa 2009-12-16 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Often times I .....

There is a slight difference between not worshipping someone and calling someone a snake oil salesman.  

by Ravi Verma 2009-12-16 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Often times I .....

You avoid the point about him lying to respond to word choice. I find that telling. It is about how i make syou feel rather than what he has actually done? How do you explain his lie about cost containment other than trying to con the public? Why else would he tell the lie?

by bruh3 2009-12-16 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Often times I .....

I will cite Sen. Kerry here ~ he refrained from using the L-word even when talking about President Bush.

Nothing gets accomplished by hurling invectives!!

by Ravi Verma 2009-12-16 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Often times I .....

Bad choice of examples. The example you site illustrates the importance of saying what you mean. The result of doing the opposite of that is losing.

by bruh3 2009-12-16 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Often times I .....

By the way- lying is lying. Claim something is an invective when the president is clearly acting in the manner described is just covering up the lying.

by bruh3 2009-12-16 01:49PM | 0 recs
but I hate the willful misrepresentation of facts

I understand what you said, but I really hate it when the President and his organizing staff willfully misrepresent the facts, insult our intelligence and take our support for granted. Here is the text of an email I received today:

If we don't pass health reform, millions of Americans will be trapped in a broken status quo, unable to pay their bills or see a doctor when they need one.

More and more employers will drop coverage for employees. And Medicare and Medicaid will blow a hole through our budget.

There's too much at stake to not get this done. That's why OFA supporters have made 849,856 calls to Congress in support of health reform since August.

by tarheel74 2009-12-16 12:41PM | 0 recs
And thank you

 for editing out that line in your diary.

by Ravi Verma 2009-12-16 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Gibbs and team Obama started lying

dammit...the hide rate button looks so attractive right now !!

by Ravi Verma 2009-12-16 03:32PM | 0 recs
it's just a metaphor...

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

by JJE 2009-12-16 02:19PM | 0 recs
by which I mean simile

not metaphor.

by JJE 2009-12-16 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated] Placations from the WH are not havin

If the unions sit out 2010- Reid is toast.

by bruh3 2009-12-16 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: hows about the WHs blogger boys

Some of the worst threats I get from Obama fans is that if we do not support him and stop all the criticisms, we'll be saying hello to President Palin and Vice President Beck.

When someone talks like that, there's really no rationalizing.

by FilbertSF 2009-12-16 04:21PM | 0 recs
Par-tay!

It's a(nother) PUMA reunion, folks!  Let me whip up some jello pudding...

by TexasDarling 2009-12-16 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Par-tay!

You're a tad bit too old for text speak.

LOL

by FilbertSF 2009-12-16 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: cant you save your kossack jokes

I haven't been to dkos in months, or posted there in years.  Can you let me know what part of my post was a "kossack joke," so I can avoid scaring the wildlife in the MyDD PUMA preserve?

by TexasDarling 2009-12-18 04:16PM | 0 recs
it's factually accurate

and consistent with Joe's long and shameful history of putting his enormous self-regard ahead of the lives of other people.

by JJE 2009-12-17 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: hows about the WHs blogger boys

shark jumped.

by the mollusk 2009-12-17 05:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads