AMERICAblog: Taegan: Obama Willing to Stake Presidency on Health Care Reform
Drew
· 4 months ago
The subtext of Obama's "I don't care if I lose, I will do what is right" is "I am a person of principle, above political concerns, while my opponents are opportunistic partisans."
It's a transparent effort to reinforce Obama's post-partisan image, not an indication of his willingness to compromise.
gloughlin42
· 4 months ago
I think you're right, John regarding your quote:
"but I do worry that the White House political folks (read: Rahm) would be willing to put lipstick on any pig so long as he can call it "reform" and use it for re-election.
Having said that, IF Obama implemented all his power and shoved "single payer" down the throats of these assholes regardless of the outcome in 2012 then I might begin to respect him. In other words, if he does the right thing for this country regardless if it sinks him in 2012, which I don't think it will by any means, but if it does, at least he knows he did the right thing for the American people....
Õ¿Õ
· 4 months ago
Obama, do the right thing. End DADT RIGHT NOW!
PeteWa
· 4 months ago
This really is (at best) just another example of how terrible the Democrats are at framing the debate.
Had Taegan stated (obviously best if this came from the head down, and everyone was on the same page):
"The Republicans are staking their future on making Health Care reform fail. They know that this will be too good for the citizens of America, too big of a win for the Democrats, for them to allow it to succeed. That's why they are fighting against it so much. That's why they aren't offering other plans, they don't want one, they just want failure.
The needed reform has enormous support nation wide, and that is why we see the Republican base so angry, why we see the incredible amount of misinformation being spread around by the insurance industry.
Had the Republicans gotten on board and worked with us from the beginning, we would already have a bill that would benefit everyone. And it would have been a win for both sides.
Instead, they chose the path of obstruction, and chose to threaten the welfare of every American, in order to score some cheap political points. And that's shameful."
it's so simple: attack, don't defend.
Zach Gates
· 4 months ago
I don't think it's "desperation" so much as committment to the issue. Means he won't back down and concede defeat even in the face of a political firestorm from the right.
Although pender makes a good point. I'm torn, myself.
RainbowPhoenix
· 4 months ago
I really hope you're right.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 4 months ago
The pig that gets made as a result of the very messy sausage-making (there is a lot of guts and blood splattered all over the walls and floor):
- Not single payer - No public option - No co-ops unless funded by insurance companies for profit - No negotiation for lowering drugs bought in bulk - No importation of drugs - No funding for end-of-life/advance directives consultations - Nothing to end monopoly power of insurance companies - Nothing to stop excessive medical testing - Little to no emphasis on preventive care - Nothing to bring doctor salaries in line with Western nations - Nothing to control skyrocketing pharma and insurance company profits - Nothing to control excessive hospital charges
The pig will treat the insurance companies like Afghan warlords and Sunni tribal chiefs: Pay insurance companies to add a few million more uninsured people (people who have "pre-existing conditions") to their books, which will then carry on business as usual by denying more and more claims.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
He's so inexperienced. This is an example of his inexperience and lack of political savvy.
Plus health care reform to Obama means giveaways to drug companies and not taking insurance companies out of the picture, so it probably doesn't matter because we'll get screwed by it anyway.
I just can't imagine that this administration/Congress is going to do anything in health care reform that is better than what we have now. Their "reform" should be a 1-page pdf that anybody can download and understand. (Single payer would be just that.) Instead we have 1,400 pages of mishmash that sounds a lot like it's intended to make it more difficult to obtain health care - like No Child Left Behind is actually intended to derail public education. Obamascare will be about making it difficult to obtain care without going bankrupt.
Indigo
· 4 months ago
Maybe. I visualize the pending collapse of health care legislation as an opportunity. Who has to take the ugly stick and leave the island? The cheerleader. Who was the cheerleader? Rahm.
As the saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining. It's a high price to pay to be rid of Rahm but . . . to resort to ironic phrasing, we'd be rid of Rahm.
An_American_Karol
· 4 months ago
Indigo, you beat me to it. I was going to say, "this is all Rahm".
popebuck1
· 4 months ago
but I do worry that the White House political folks (read: Rahm) would be willing to put lipstick on any pig so long as he can call it "reform" and use it for re-election.
I hope he realizes that passing some monstrosity that rewards the insurance companies and provides no public option would be the OPPOSITE of a recommendation for re-election. This is a situation where "no bill" would definitely be preferable to the wrong bill.
caphillprof
· 4 months ago
I apologize for repeating myself, but I am awestruck that Obama created a campaign organization to get him the nomination and the election, but then he has not created a governing organization to get his alleged programs implemented into law.
There is simply something wrong with this picture.
If health care is his thing, then where in the hell is his organization and why haven't we heard from them?
PeteWa
· 4 months ago
Indeed, and it should have been in place and ahead of the debate... not stumbling to play catch up with a pick-up-group.
LynnDee
· 4 months ago
I'm reading this differently. I'm reading it as a commitment to health care reform and a willingness to fight for a good bill rather than any old bill to the point of getting no bill -- and if he ends up going down because of that, the blue dog dems. might want to consider whether they'll end up going down with him.
purpleday
· 4 months ago
That's not how I read it, John. Obama is saying he's willing to go to the mat to get health care reform legislation passed in his first term.
This isn't about telegraphing any weakness or an inclination to pass a weak bill. In fact, it's admirable that's he's sticking to his guns.
gaynumbers
· 4 months ago
It reads as desperation because of context. Rather than parsing the statement from what else President Obama has said and done, you must keep it in the context of still supporting negotiating with Senator Grassley for example despite the Senator's claims of a death panel. You also have to add to that the waxing back and forth between the comments of Rahm, amongst others, and some of the online chatter such as by Ezra Klein. All of this, along with this statement, makes President Obama look weak. Strenght would say "I will veto any bill that does not do X" because X is what he's willing to stake his Presidency on. Instead, he is giving a blank check and saying please take my money because I desperate for a win on this.
Butch1
· 4 months ago
I wish he were so sure on staking his presidency upon DADT, DOMA, and ENDA. (silence . . . crickets . . .)
kugelschreiber
· 4 months ago
Well, LGBT people need a good health care system, too.
Butch1
· 4 months ago
Of course, we do. I don't think a citizen's equal rights should have to wait until it is convienent for the majority to attend to it, it ever. If the shoe were on the other foot, one would see a lot of howling and angry people demanding their rights. We are no different and we have been too patient, in my opinion.
Obama said he could "multi-task." I say, prove it.
kugelschreiber
· 4 months ago
You are right.
Õ¿Õ
· 4 months ago
Hey, 'ain't none of mine." I have fine coverage and all. But even though I was thrown under the bus with my gay bros and bras, I still want the right thing for everybody.
pender
· 4 months ago
There's nothing to be gained by taking nothing over something, even if the something is only slightly better than the status quo. If all you can get is a pig, might as well slap some lipstick on it and take it home with you.
I liked Begala's op-ed the other day. When FDR first created social security, all he could pass was a cramped, stingy, partial and quasi-racist version of what we have today. But it's a good thing he was willing to take what he could get.
gaynumbers
· 4 months ago
There is everything to be gained from the illusion whether true or not that you are willing to walk away. You may not really be willing to walk away, but that'st he value of understanding how to bluff to get what you want. If you are not willing to walk away from the table, or at least have the other side perceive that you are, then you ceed the better bargaining position.
gaynumbers
· 4 months ago
re Begala he get's it wrong. The problem is not that people are not willing to not have a watered down Social Security. It is that they are unwilling to have a bill that has no social security at all, but instead has a private investment accoun the equivalent of how the GOP tried to privatize social security. That's what Begala misses.
PeteWa
· 4 months ago
lol... you would think the 'genius' Rahm would be smart enough to realize that the GOP is staking their future on making health care reform fail.
I'm tired of people saying we should walk away without a public option. There is a lot -- a lot -- more to the bill that is critical than the public option. I think it would be a huge mistake and capitulation to leave out the public option, esp because it will not get us any more meaningful numbers, but the legislation is more important than that one piece.
Pre-existing conditions will be eliminated, same with rescission. Subsidies up to 400% of poverty will be provide. Competitive exchanges will be created. And it will be a START. We need to a start.
Please remember that when social security was passed, it covered FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of the citizens of this country. I'm sure the progressives at the time were outraged, but it was an important beginning.
Solitary
· 4 months ago
The first rule of haggling/bargaining is to always be willing to walk away. Letting the other person spur you on to spending more money than you want or settling for less than you need is a loose for your side, even if you walk away with whatever it was you were bidding on.
Heh, stands me in good stead on Ebay, but I learned it first at the local farmer's market. Doesn't matter if those are the only apples available, they are still full of worms.
Õ¿Õ
· 4 months ago
That's the way. Do the right thing Obama and come back with single payer.
unrepentant_expat
· 4 months ago
"I don't think it's ever good to telegraph to the other side that you're desperate to win"
au contraire
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
It's time we let the right-wing nuts know that "desperate"times demand "desperate" measures, and that we will never go down with just a whimper.
Õ¿Õ
· 4 months ago
The stupid things believe because they have the guns, like that matters and they can intimidate us... We have the numbers.
unrepentant_expat
· 4 months ago
The old get old, and the young get stronger. May take a week, and it may take longer. They got the guns, but we got the numbers. Gonna win yeah, we're taking over. Come on!
The Doors
Õ¿Õ
· 4 months ago
OK, back to viewing the triple feature 3-DVD of Alien, Aliens and Alien 3 with Sgourney Weaver.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
Even China has socialized medicine now. :-(
davimarconi
· 4 months ago
its funny the last two days this dateline molly or whoever what an idiot, a typical follower left wingerthey all walk like zombies the real deal is yes you fearless change leader is an idiott too
mamazboy
· 4 months ago
Agreed, John. I'm increasingly thinking that Obama is naive. This kind of Politics 101 blunder is unworthy of a "visionary" - which he's continuously proving he's not.
happycozy
· 4 months ago
After reading some of the comments on this post and the comments regarding Bill Clinton's defense of DADT and DOMA (http://www.americablog.com/2009/08/bill-clinton...), I realized there are a lot of PUMAs here. I didn't know they still existed, but they're obviously here. Bill Clinton outright blamed the LGBT community for DADT, and people here said he was brilliant and should still be president.
Meanwhile, Obama says he's willing to put his re-election on the line to get health care reform passed, and people are saying he's inexperienced. When Obama angered cops, during the Gates/Crowley dustup, he admitted he mispoke and tried to make amends for it.
When did Bill Clinton ever say he was willing to put his presidency on the line? When did Bill Clinton ever take responsibility for anything?
It's obvious there's pathological, irrational hate for Obama from some readers here. At least I know why the teabaggers are angry, I'm not sure why PUMAs are still pissed. This is unfuckingbelievable. Just when I think it's safe to return to Americablog, I read this kind of shit.
All Comments
It's a transparent effort to reinforce Obama's post-partisan image, not an indication of his willingness to compromise.
"but I do worry that the White House political folks (read: Rahm) would be willing to put lipstick on any pig so long as he can call it "reform" and use it for re-election.
Having said that, IF Obama implemented all his power and shoved "single payer" down the throats of these assholes regardless of the outcome in 2012 then I might begin to respect him. In other words, if he does the right thing for this country regardless if it sinks him in 2012, which I don't think it will by any means, but if it does, at least he knows he did the right thing for the American people....
Had Taegan stated (obviously best if this came from the head down, and everyone was on the same page):
"The Republicans are staking their future on making Health Care reform fail.
They know that this will be too good for the citizens of America, too big of a win for the Democrats, for them to allow it to succeed.
That's why they are fighting against it so much. That's why they aren't offering other plans, they don't want one, they just want failure.
The needed reform has enormous support nation wide, and that is why we see the Republican base so angry, why we see the incredible amount of misinformation being spread around by the insurance industry.
Had the Republicans gotten on board and worked with us from the beginning, we would already have a bill that would benefit everyone. And it would have been a win for both sides.
Instead, they chose the path of obstruction, and chose to threaten the welfare of every American, in order to score some cheap political points. And that's shameful."
it's so simple: attack, don't defend.
Although pender makes a good point. I'm torn, myself.
- Not single payer
- No public option
- No co-ops unless funded by insurance companies for profit
- No negotiation for lowering drugs bought in bulk
- No importation of drugs
- No funding for end-of-life/advance directives consultations
- Nothing to end monopoly power of insurance companies
- Nothing to stop excessive medical testing
- Little to no emphasis on preventive care
- Nothing to bring doctor salaries in line with Western nations
- Nothing to control skyrocketing pharma and insurance company profits
- Nothing to control excessive hospital charges
The pig will treat the insurance companies like Afghan warlords and Sunni tribal chiefs: Pay insurance companies to add a few million more uninsured people (people who have "pre-existing conditions") to their books, which will then carry on business as usual by denying more and more claims.
Plus health care reform to Obama means giveaways to drug companies and not taking insurance companies out of the picture, so it probably doesn't matter because we'll get screwed by it anyway.
I just can't imagine that this administration/Congress is going to do anything in health care reform that is better than what we have now. Their "reform" should be a 1-page pdf that anybody can download and understand. (Single payer would be just that.) Instead we have 1,400 pages of mishmash that sounds a lot like it's intended to make it more difficult to obtain health care - like No Child Left Behind is actually intended to derail public education. Obamascare will be about making it difficult to obtain care without going bankrupt.
As the saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining. It's a high price to pay to be rid of Rahm but . . . to resort to ironic phrasing, we'd be rid of Rahm.
I hope he realizes that passing some monstrosity that rewards the insurance companies and provides no public option would be the OPPOSITE of a recommendation for re-election. This is a situation where "no bill" would definitely be preferable to the wrong bill.
There is simply something wrong with this picture.
If health care is his thing, then where in the hell is his organization and why haven't we heard from them?
not stumbling to play catch up with a pick-up-group.
This isn't about telegraphing any weakness or an inclination to pass a weak bill. In fact, it's admirable that's he's sticking to his guns.
Obama said he could "multi-task." I say, prove it.
I liked Begala's op-ed the other day. When FDR first created social security, all he could pass was a cramped, stingy, partial and quasi-racist version of what we have today. But it's a good thing he was willing to take what he could get.
he get's it wrong. The problem is not that people are not willing to not have a watered down Social Security. It is that they are unwilling to have a bill that has no social security at all, but instead has a private investment accoun the equivalent of how the GOP tried to privatize social security. That's what Begala misses.
you would think the 'genius' Rahm would be smart enough to realize that the GOP is staking their future on making health care reform fail.
Beautifully done video here. Only 2 minutes.
Pre-existing conditions will be eliminated, same with rescission. Subsidies up to 400% of poverty will be provide. Competitive exchanges will be created. And it will be a START. We need to a start.
Please remember that when social security was passed, it covered FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of the citizens of this country. I'm sure the progressives at the time were outraged, but it was an important beginning.
Heh, stands me in good stead on Ebay, but I learned it first at the local farmer's market. Doesn't matter if those are the only apples available, they are still full of worms.
au contraire
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
It's time we let the right-wing nuts know that "desperate"times demand "desperate" measures, and that we will never go down with just a whimper.
May take a week, and it may take longer.
They got the guns, but we got the numbers.
Gonna win yeah, we're taking over.
Come on!
The Doors
Meanwhile, Obama says he's willing to put his re-election on the line to get health care reform passed, and people are saying he's inexperienced. When Obama angered cops, during the Gates/Crowley dustup, he admitted he mispoke and tried to make amends for it.
When did Bill Clinton ever say he was willing to put his presidency on the line? When did Bill Clinton ever take responsibility for anything?
It's obvious there's pathological, irrational hate for Obama from some readers here. At least I know why the teabaggers are angry, I'm not sure why PUMAs are still pissed. This is unfuckingbelievable. Just when I think it's safe to return to Americablog, I read this kind of shit.