Honest real Health care reform was doomed from the start and I place the responsibility for that

[IsItJustMe]

squarely on Obama's shoulders.

Does that mean I don't like Obama, that I would rather have a Republican as President, or that I wish Obama would fail; not at all.

But let's face the facts. A President is suppose to lead. A President to me is the captain of the ship and is responsible for stirring the ship and giving it direction.

Obama has been shifty, vague and ambiguous about this entire process and I don't see how in the world any true reform can come about with a directionless president on this subject matter.

I just don't really know if Obama's heart is in this fight, and if it is, then he really didn't have a clue about the leadership that would be required to get this done.

As it stands now, Obama can have his trigers because from what I can see from the legislation that will likely come out of this broken process, it stinks to high heaven.

I know this post won't win me any friends here, but I am completely frustrated right now with this cluster f'ck situation.

[joeycola]

1. Technically, there is already about a 4 year trigger, since it

does not start until 2013

[bvar22]

20. That is no mistake.

Only a complete idiot would believe that it would take 4 years to get a restricted Public Option Up and Running.
LBJ got Medicare Up and Running in less than a year.

Delaying for 4 years conveniently moves implementation PAST the 2012 elections.
The Centrist Democrats (Obama) KNOWS that many Americans are going to be very disappointed when they open their new Health Care Package in 2013 and find a HUGE Bill from the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.....but by 2013, it will be too late to do anything about it!
Hahahahahahahahaha.

The appearance of power is scheduled to rotate back to the Republicans in 2016 anyway.
(MUST keep up the illusion of two parties.)

The Democrats will have achieved something the Republican Party could NEVER have done...
Each and every American will be FORCED to BUY a bad product from a For Profit Corporation.



Watch Out!
Next on the DLC Hit List:
Social Security Reform
("Entitlement Reform" as the DLC/Centrists call it.)

[T Wolf]

2. The only stances he has been "Strong" on have been the compromises of liberal positions to the

enemy across the aisle (and on our side as well).

He stood strong to keep bigots in his campaign.

He stood strong to bail out Wall Street and the banksters.

He stood tall in escalating the wars against the Middle East.

It is only on issues that "the base" support where he has shown weakness.

[bvar22]

21. Obama was VERY STRONG...

...when it came to getting his supplemental WAR appropriation.

He turned loose his Winged Monkeys on the Progressive Caucus, and used LBJ tactics to "convince" Progressive House members to "vote YES on more money for WAR."
Many of these House members had campaigned on "No more WAR money" in their Liberal districts.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/17-5

[AndyA]

3. I'm not 100% thrilled with Obama either, but we don't really know at this point

what is going on behind the scenes. We've had reports from an anonymous source that this or that is happening, but nothing that can be verified. For all we know, Obama may have sat down with Reid and Pelosi months ago and established a plan of action for health care reform.

If we wind up with some watered down plan, I'll agree with you that Obama should have taken a firmer stance early on; but if we end up with something good after it looked like we'd get nothing, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Obama knows this is important to the Democrats, and if we're not happy with the outcome, our unhappiness will be reflected in the election results, barely a year away.

He's worked pretty hard to get where he is, I can't see him giving it all up now.

[IsItJustMe]

6. I pray that there is some master plan that I am not seeing here. I really do.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Of course 'behind the scences' was exactly what Obama said

would not happen again under his watch. Transparency, open government, remember all of that? He said he'd be open with the process.

[Windy]

4. You somehow think that with this congress, we had a shot at single payer?

On what FACTS do you base your assessment?

The dems don't have the votes for its passage, period! A little reality!

We have Conrad, Lincoln, Landrieu, Bayh, Pryor, Nelson who have made no bones about the fact that they don't feel confortable with a public option. Then we throw Lieberman in the mix and add the fact the Byrd is ill.

If we get it through with opt out, we'll be lucky. Single Payer had NO CHANCE AT ALL and would have been a wasted exercise just like Clinton's past effort failed.

Who's fault is it that we have to deal with Blue Dogs? Try the constituents of their states that elect them!

Its too damn easy to blame Obama!

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Then the tactic should have been for Obama to publicly argue for

single-payer. Let us spend months fighting and arguing about the merits of single-payer and then, when it all falls apart, settle for a compromise with a STRONG PUBLIC OPTION, giving the repubs their 'victory'.

Doesn't ANYBODY know how to negotiate any more?

[Bluenorthwest]

16. So the new slogan is 'No We Can't'?

I mean, I heard for a year that Obama could never, ever be elected, not in 'reality'. And yet he was elected, in reality. So those who shout for facts while also pretending the ability to prognosticate the future seem a tad confused to me.
Even if it had no chance, which we will never know in reality, negotiations always need to start with the highest objectives, not with an attempt to figure out what will placate the other side and use that at the opening round. The first round of good negotiations end with the other side yelling 'are you insane?' Not with the other side seeing the weakness and smelling blood in the water due to the compromised and fear based opening salvo. When one holds all the cards, one does not open with 'please, sir, may I have some more?'

[islandmkl]

5. "Herding Cats into a Burlap Bag"....

please explain the 'leadership' that would make this happen...apparently, the battles being waged in the House the more power-entrenched Senate are because neither will follow the President's 'lead'...

as if that is how it works...

the forces to be controlled are beyond the President's mere 'leadership'...and the arm-twisting, deal-making, blackmail-if-necessary methods to enact massive 'change' legislation are never quickly harvested...

perhaps a lesson in 'all politics is local' would be appropriate here...or, at least, an understanding of the simple math involved, especially in the Senate...

[IsItJustMe]

10. Obama campaigned on a public option. Now he seems to say that the final bill does not neccearily

have to have a public option. Is that leadership. I am not sure anymore what he is advocating, except for the fact that he wants a bill that has health care reform in it.

To me anyway, the goal seems to be to pass a bill for its own sake.

You need a clearly stated goal, a plan, and a direction to get there. I have just not seen that when it comes to this issue in the Obama administration.

I have this horrible picture in my mind of Obama looking over at Ried saying' "Whatcha wanta do?" and Ried looking back at Obama saying, "I don't know, whatcha you want to do?".

You know, I can be completely wrong about this, but that is my impression, and if I have that impression, I am sure there may be a few others out there that see it the same.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. He campaigned on 'No Mandated Purchase'

Now he supports mandates. So what he campaigned on is moot, really. It sure is not what he is doing in office. No mandates, a transparent and open negotiation....

[HughMoran]

19. Nice deflection from the public option lie I responded to

"Obama said: "We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.... It's become clear that some of these companies are dramatically overcharging Americans for what they offer.... We're not going to get change unless we can overcome the resistance the drug companies, the insurance companies, the HMOs, those who are making a major profit from the system currently. Now I think all these industries have a roll to play.... We want to listen to what they have to say. They should have a seat at the table, but they can't buy every chair.""

[flyarm]

7. I don't think he is directionless..do remember he had secret private meetings with Big Pharma,

the Health Insurance CEO's and the Hospital Conglomerate Big boys..directionless???..oh no no no no no..Obama did exactly what they wanted him to do..and in return???, he will get their big bucks..instead of the republicans getting the big bucks..it is all about selling out the American Public..and the cost to the guys who decide if you live or die or get medical care???..Obama gets re-elected along with the democrats that pander to these killers!

Enjoy your fucking and your mandates, or still your lack of medical care reform! You are now the proud owner of a royal fucking!

[madrchsod]

8. he did`t start with a strong negotiating position

he was`t clear what his goals were and he ended up looking like he did`t know what he wanted. his advisor's let the media dictate every move and they reacted instead of being proactive.
lbj had the power to pass medicare and have the program paying out benefits in 11 months.obama`s plan will take years to implement and will be sliced and diced by the republicans/insurance companies.

[flyarm]

22. yeah he did , he gave it all away when he had secret meetings with Big Pharma and the hospitals and

the Insurance CEO's!

He sold it all down the river when he did that.

[ecstatic]

9. You haven't been paying attention nt

[fasttense]

11. Obama, Congress and the dancing supremes don't run this country.

The 300 fat white men who do run this country, wont allow the gubermint to help the middle class. They see any aid to the middle class as a threat against themselves.

Can you blame Obama? Well, he hasn't done anything to unseat the 300 fat white men. In fact by re-appointing Bernanke and Giethner, who are merely handmaidens of the 300 fat white men, he has consolidated their power in the gubermint.

He might have been able to create change, in the beginning, but the idiots he put on his team will do nothing to make sure change happens. I think he has wasted the best chance he had at unseating our overlords.

It's all going to be pretty awful for the next ten years.

[kentuck]

14. Given up, already?

Have we?

[flyarm]

25. its those in our government that gave up..they gave up any real chance of real health care reform

when they sold us out to Big Pharma, Arthur Anderson pigs, and Goldman Sachs..they gave up any real chance of real reform when Obama had secret meetings with the big boys that are poised to fuck us all!

Contra-ire ..i don't see real Americans giving up..it is our very own Dems that gave it up on us..the same Dem's that we have busted our asses for , donated to , and pounded the pavement for that have given up..they gave up our real chance for good health care and cost reductions and affordable health care!..stop blaming the people who are working hard to save any semblance of health care for all!

[Nikki Stone1]

17. You will be called an Obama hater; just get ready for it.

But I agree with you that the legislation completely stinks.

[flyarm]

23. Making Public Option Less Robust Is A Double Slap In The Face To Working Class Americans

Making Public Option Less Robust Is A Double Slap In The Face To Working Class Americans
By: Jon Walker
Wednesday October 28, 2009 8:02 am

snip:

As I’ve pointed out countless times before, a robust public option would have premiums roughly 10%-11% less (according to the CBO and CMS) than typical private insurance. That would be around a $1,400 reduction in premiums for the average family that could choose the robust public option. Forcing Americans to pay roughly $1,400 more a year on health insurance premiums, by denying them the choice of a robust public option, is the first slap in the face.

The second big slap in the face is that robust public option would save the government $85 billion more than a weaker public option (with negotiated rates instead of those based on Medicare). Since Obama set an absurd $900 billion ceiling on the cost of health care reform, most of that $85 billion will need to be made up by reducing affordability tax credits to low- and middle-income families. As Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports:

The public option tied to Medicare rates saves $110 billion over ten years. Requiring it to negotiate rates only saves $25 billion.

If leadership goes with the negotiated-rate plan, that $85 billion difference will have to come from somewhere to meet President Obama’s ten-year, $900 billion price ceiling. The fattest target is the subsidies to help people afford insurance.

Going with negotiated rates instead of a robust public option will deny American families a choice that would save them roughly $1,400 a year on their health care premiums. But making the public option less robust might also cause the government to reduce the amount of tax credits it can give to low-income and middle-income Americans to help them afford health insurance by roughly 20%. So, not only will American families be denied a much cheaper insurance option, but they will also be given less financial assistance to help them afford health insurance from a selection of more expensive options.

Making the public option less robust will end up costing working class families thousands more each year on health care. That is what the 47 Democrats who are “Nays” on the robust public option are desperately fighting for. They are fighting for a position that they know will make health care dramatically more expensive for millions of Americans.



http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/28/making-publ... /

[flyarm]

24. The Health Insurers Have Already Won

do read this whole article..Daschle is one of the biggest whores and he is working in an unoffical capacity to this White House!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b414...

Cover Story August 6, 2009, 5:00PM EST text size: TT

The Health Insurers Have Already Won
How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit

Snip:

In 2006, McGuire lost his job after getting caught up in the manipulation, or "backdating," of company stock options. UnitedHealth was forced to restate earnings over a 12-year period to reflect the extra compensation it had granted McGuire and other executives. McGuire's chief lieutenant, Stephen Hemsley, took over as CEO in December 2006. Two independent inquiries concluded that Hemsley wasn't involved with the backdating. Nevertheless he forfeited $190 million in past stock compensation and unrealized gains to resolve the matter.

Hemsley, a former chief financial officer of the now-defunct Arthur Andersen accounting firm, generally shuns the spotlight. But when health reform became a central issue in the runup to the last Presidential election, company executives say they realized UnitedHealth needed to go on the offensive. Hemsley met with White House officials on May 15 and May 22 to promote his company's prescription for cutting federal health spending.

In August 2007, the company hired Sommer, who previously headed global lobbying for Goldman Sachs (GS). He quickly built a new Washington team of former congressional aides and other K Street operatives. One key acquisition: Cory Alexander, former chief of staff for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), an influential moderate Democrat. Alexander had been lobbying for the huge mortgage financier Fannie Mae (FNM). Today, Sommer directs a team of nearly 50 people from UnitedHealth's spacious Washington office on Pennsylvania Avenue, equidistant between the Capitol and White House. The company spent more than $3.4 million on in-house and outside lobbying in the first half of 2009.

Sommer has retained such influential outsiders as Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Leader who now works for the large law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird. Daschle, a liberal from South Dakota, dropped out of the running to be Obama's Secretary of Health & Human Services after disclosures that he failed to pay taxes on perks given to him by a private client. He advised UnitedHealth in 2007 and 2008 and resumed that role this year. Daschle personally advocates a government-run competitor to private insurers. But he sells his expertise to UnitedHealth, which opposes any such public insurance plan. Among the services Daschle offers are tips on the personalities and policy proclivities of members of Congress he has known for decades.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

do remember Arthur Anderson was involved with the Enron crooks..

so many in our congress and Senate are all the same damn kind of crooks! Doesn't matter what party is in charge.

[inna]

26. I hear you. KR nt

[slipslidingaway]

27. knr - I've said the same thing...policy is set from the top, and that includes silencing..

not for profit advocates and allowing the for profits representatives more seats at the table.

[Cleita]

28. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now because he really

hasn't played his hand yet. However, considering what's been leaking out of the White House, I don't have any real hope that he will turn into FDR overnight.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Negotiate drug prices for everyone on Medicare and the PO open to any

American as per the Obama/Biden HC campaign plan.

That would be nice start :)