PBS Frontline: "Obama's Deal" (FULL VIDEO - 60 mins HD)

[denimgirly]

My apologies if this has already been posted.
This is the full 60-mins in HD.
Talks about Washington and the deal making needed to get Healthcare done. It's an unfortunate reminder that Corporations (and the rich) own America, not you, and Obama for the most part has no choice but to do its bidding.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=toparea&utm_source=toparea

Enjoy

[msongs]

1. he has absolute choice to not do their bidding if he chooses to nt

[Captain Hilts]

2. He often gets the benefit of the doubt. Beats me why. The secret meetings with PhRMA, etc. lost me

[FrenchieCat]

8. He gets the benefit of the doubt because he has earned it.

He didn't lose you. He never had you. Big difference.

[boston bean]

15. There is no doubt, he met with Phrma and the hospital lobby and cut deals.

[Captain Hilts]

20. And I understand that happens. But the secrecy of it is a problem. nt

[ClarkUSA]

27. If it's so secret, then how come everyone knows about it? Hmmm??? n/t

[Captain Hilts]

33. We found out months later.

[ClarkUSA]

34. If it was really so "secret" then you wouldn't have found out at all. n/t

[hulka38]

56. The political calculation is that only a small minority will find out about it,

spend a few minutes of their day to understand it, believe it, and then draw the correct conclusions about it while in the midst of a 24/7 whirling cloud of spin.

[ClarkUSA]

Uh huh. And what are the "correct conclusions" according to you? n/t

[hulka38]

82. Watch the investigative report from Frontline.

[Mithreal]

66. Knowing of an event and knowing the details. Is there a difference?

Or do we prefer to dumb it down?

[laughingliberal]

69. By that way of thinking, Nixon wasn't doing anything 'secretive' because we found out about it?

Faulty logic, there. AIR, the intent was for the deals to remain secret. Tauzin blew the lid off the PhRMA deal when it looked as if one of the terms of it would be changed in the Senate bill (asking PhRMA to give back $100 billion over 10 years instead of $80 billion over 10 years). He (arrogantly, imo) then demanded the President confirm his deal with them and the President did.

The big winners from killing the PO were the hospital corps who wanted the mandate (essentially no more uncompensated care in the future) and no PO which would have ratcheted down their reimbursement rates.

[ClarkUSA]

72. Apples and oranges. The deal was not "secret". There were no gag orders from the White House.

Thus, Tauzin was free to speak and he did. Afterwards, the White House was upfront about it:

The deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.

“The president encouraged this approach,” Mr. Messina wrote. “He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform.”

<snip>

“To their credit, the pharmaceutical companies have already agreed to put up $80 billion” in pledged cost reductions, Mr. Obama reminded his listeners at a recent town-hall-style meeting in Bristol, Va... unlike the drug companies, the insurers have not pledged specific cost cuts. And insurers have also steadfastly vowed to block Mr. Obama’s proposed government-sponsored insurance plan — the biggest sticking point in the Congressional negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

No crime was committed, HCR was passed and the American people will benefit from the cost cuts. End of story. If you want to spin history, go ahead, but nothing heinous was done.

[laughingliberal]

76. Here's a quote from the article:

"In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement."

Elsewhere in the article it becomes clear that the White House was trying to keep the deal a secret. The Congressional committees who were working to write legislation were not made aware of it:

In an interview on Wednesday, Representative Raul M. Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who is co-chairman of the House progressive caucus, called Mr. Tauzin’s comments “disturbing.”

“We have all been focused on the debate in Congress, but perhaps the deal has already been cut,” Mr. Grijalva said. “That would put us in the untenable position of trying to scuttle it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1

It is unsavory to me that Congress who was working on the bill was not privy to the negotiations. I never claimed any crimes were committed but we were sold out cheap at $80 billion dollars over 10 years considering what the savings could be if Medicare were allowed to negotiate prices for drugs as every other nation does. The announcement the White House made, initially, was that the industry had agreed to 'put $80 billion' in savings over 10 years on the table. They failed to mention that they (the WH) agreed they would keep it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices and would make sure reimportation did not pass. It was only after Tauzin started throwing a fit that the details were revealed. Yes, it's perfectly within the law for them to make this deal but it does not mean it was the best they could have done by us.

As for 'spin,' all the 'spin' around here by the supporters of the bill was we had to pass it so we could start building and improving on it. Since passage, however, all that talk of improvement has quieted in favor of vigorous defense of it.

[ClarkUSA]

77. So what? Reporters are always trying to stir up shit. The WH never asked anyone to keep quiet...

... about it, so the deal was never meant to be a secret.

<<It is unsavory to me that Congress who was working on the bill was not privy to the negotiations.>>

How so? I don't think the WH should get Congress in on every negotiation they make. The executive branch and legislative branch are co-equal but separate branches of government. We had an administration for eight years who ignored that and Americans got a Congress that rubber-stamped everything that came out of the BushCo WH. There's nothing "unsavory" about what the Obama WH did. Constitutionally, the WH doesn't require Congressional approval for their ideas and vice versa. That's a good thing.

<<I never claimed any crimes were committed but we were sold out cheap at $80 billion dollars over 10 years considering what the savings could be if Medicare were allowed to negotiate prices for drugs as every other nation does.>>

True, but such an idea would never have gotten the votes in the Senate and HCR would've died there. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

<<As for 'spin,' all the 'spin' around here by the supporters of the bill was we had to pass it so we could start building and improving on it. Since passage, however, all that talk of improvement has quieted in favor of vigorous defense of it.>>

You can't really expect Congress to address improvements now, do you, immediately after passage of said bill has tied up Congress for over a year? Next year and every year thereafter, yes. Right now, no. There are other pressing issues that President Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are focused on now, such as passing a financial reform bill that addresses the credit default swaps as well as the lack of regulation and oversight that played a large part in the 2008 meltdown.

[laughingliberal]

86. This, from your post, makes no sense

"I don't think the WH should get Congress in on every negotiation they make. The executive branch and legislative branch are co-equal but separate branches of government."

It was Congress who was writing the bill. Why would they have not been told of the 'deal?' They obviously meant to keep any chance of negotiating drug prices out of the legislation-that was the promise they made PhRMA. And then they didn't let the people (except Baucus) in on it? I think they did mean to keep it secret and maneuver behind the scenes with Baucus' gang in the Senate to kill any provisions that did not jive with the 'deal.' I think they wanted to keep their fingerprints off it and let the Senate take the blame for not getting more concessions from the drug companies. Still, not illegal but unsavory, IMO. The only reason we know now is Tauzin blew his lid and got impatient when the House started working on a provision to let Medicare negotiate drug prices and forced the White House to admit to the deal. Again, it's not illegal but it is not the kind of transparency I would like. Not with us and not with our Representatives, apparently.

As for the not improving the bill now, I am referring more to the supporters of the bill here than our legislators at this point. I hear no talk here since it passed about 'fixing' the bill. I just hear the same vigorous defense of it and the same attacks on anyone who criticizes it and I worry there are many who are perfectly happy with it as is and there will not be a push to get some improvement to it.

[ClarkUSA]

97. It makes perfect sense to folks who understand the Constitution.

<<It was Congress who was writing the bill. Why would they have not been told of the 'deal?'>>

Congress writes a lot of bills, but that doesn't mean the WH cannot take the initiative to push the agenda forward. Congressional committee heads spent much of their time spinning their wheels, which is a big reason why HCR took much longer than expected. And one more time... the deal was not "secret" because no party involved was asked to keep their mouths shut. Of course, this most savvy of all WH knew that at some point, news of this meeting would come out. What's the big deal? President Obama always said that everyone had a seat at the table, but no one could buy all the seats at the table. It's sad but predictable how often and easily some here latch onto MSM whore speculation.

<<I hear no talk here since it passed about 'fixing' the bill... I worry there are many who are perfectly happy with it as is and there will not be a push to get some improvement to it.>>

Chill out. Many of us who are "supporters of the bill" have always said that later Congresses would have chances to amend the law, which doesn't even take effect until Jan. 1.

[laughingliberal]

106. I understand the constitution

And it makes no sense that the president promised PhRMA there would be no negotiating of drug prices in the bill and neglected to mention that to the people who would write the bill. Okay, it wasn't a secret (I really think it still qualifies as a secret even if no one was told to keep their mouth shut but we'll use your criteria for the sake of argument). It was just a fact that was not revealed to them as they worked on the bill about which he made a promise. It's a big deal to me. I was embarrassed for our legislators who started in good faith to write a bill which would have included the right for Medicare to negotiate prices. How was letting them work on this without telling them he had made this deal not part of the spinning of their wheels? If it was all so up and up, why would he even let them go there without telling them? I remember clearly when they started working on that part of it and I was very happy about being able to reverse that horrible boondoggle that was put in the Republican's Medicare part D bill. Next thing you know, Billy Tauzin :puke: is calling out our President in the national media and demanding he reveal the deal. I'm of the opinion this is the precise reason Tauzin finds himself unemployed now. At least that was one positive that came out of it. As for 'everyone having a seat at the table,' I guess that depends on a limited definition of 'everyone.' The single payer advocates never got a seat at the table. They got arrested. Whether single payer was possible or not, having it visible would have provided a powerful negotiating tool. But they did not 'have a seat at the table.'

<<It's sad but predictable how often and easily some here latch onto MSM whore speculation.>>

How is this whore media speculation? We already established the deal with PhRMA was made. The White House confirmed it. Isn't that what we are talking about? I remember well when reports of the deal were first being suggested in the 'whore media.' Many here were screaming there was no evidence, blah, blah, blah...But the reports were true. I don't take the media's word for things. But I do look at what they say and watch the behaviors of those involved. What the 'whore media' was reporting did turn out to be true. Then the spin here became, "He said everyone would have a seat at the table..." or whatever else. Message Discipline seems to be a 2 pronged strategy. First, attack the story as a lie. If the truth comes out, then attack the messengers. Never acknowledge the original error of calling the report a 'lie;' just move on to attacking the critics of the policy (now confirmed) which was originally being denied. It's constant.

I love your point about how the White House can take the initiative to push the agenda forward. I agree and it was the precise reason many of us here were angry with the President's lackluster advocacy of the public option. Of course, when we talked about that the answer from many here was, "CONGRESS writes the bills. He's letting them do their job!!!! How is the President going to MAKE the Senate...blah, blah, blah." I think, at the time, we said support from him for it would help. Really, a great example of trying to have it both ways. When he makes a deal with PhRMA cutting Congress out he's pushing the agenda forward. When we're asking him to fight for a Public Option, he's helpless in the face of Congress and respecting the separation of powers.

[ClarkUSA]

112. It doesn't appear that you understand the part about separate but co-equal branches of government..

To reiterate:

Congress writes a lot of bills, but that doesn't mean the WH cannot take the initiative to push the agenda forward. Congressional committee heads spent much of their time spinning their wheels, which is a big reason why HCR took much longer than expected. And one more time... the deal was not "secret" because no party involved was asked to keep their mouths shut. Of course, this most savvy of all WH knew that at some point, news of this meeting would come out. What's the big deal? President Obama always said that everyone had a seat at the table, but no one could buy all the seats at the table. It's sad but predictable how often and easily some here latch onto MSM whore speculation.

<<How is this whore media speculation? We already established the deal with PhRMA was made.>>

Nice try but no, "we" didn't. The MSM whore claim that it was a secret deal is patently false because the WH never asked any of the parties involved to keep things quiet.

<<I love your point about how the White House can take the initiative to push the agenda forward. I agree and it was the precise reason many of us here were angry with the President's lackluster advocacy of the public option.>>

The public option never had the votes, period. You still can't point to one incidence where Harry Reid or the President said otherwise. Unlike some here, the President acknowledges political reality.

[laughingliberal]

142. I understand your position is the President making a deal on the legislation

was within his perogative.

Your point is ridiculous. My quote that you referenced above said, "We already established the deal with PhRMA was made." I don't see where I said, "secret deal." The deal was made. It's not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Congress was not made aware of it until they started working on a provision to let Medicare negotiate rates. Billy Tauzin then demanded that the President acknowledge the deal which he then did. I don't get, at all, why the President did not let Congress in on it before they started working on it. I know whatever he does is fine with you. But I do have some issues with it. Who the hell is supposed to know he promised to keep certain things out of the legislation if not the very people who were writing it? If he promised PhRMA there would be no negotiating of drug prices in the bill, why would he not have told those who had to write the bill? Why did that snake in the grass Billy Tauzin get to call our President out in the media and 'demand' that he acknowledge his deal? I found it embarrassing and I think the Congressional committee that got pwned by Tauzin on this did, too. The people writing the bill had a right to the information. What the President did in not informing Congress of the constraints he already placed on them would be like telling me to make sure the patient gets all their medication and not giving me a list of the medications they take. I don't like the deal he made and I don't like it that Congress was left in the dark about it until much later.


Yes. He said everyone would have a seat at the table but they did not. 'Everyone' was not given a seat at the table. The single payer advocates not only did not have a seat, they weren't even allowed in the room. I think, looking back, he meant all the lobbyists would have a seat at the table.

You can't point to any proof there aren't 50 votes in the Senate for the public option. No one ever suggested there were not 50 votes. There was never a question of whether the Senate had 50. The whole problem, until the MA Senate election had been getting to 60. There have always been over 50 votes in the Senate for it and there still are. Reid knows it. Sanders knows it. Durbin knows it. And Obama knows it. You can't point to a single place where Reid or Durbin has said they don't have 50 votes for a public option. When Reid couldn't get 60 votes for the option he put in his blended bill for the public option with an opt out for the states (that had the support of well over 50 but not 60), he went with the Medicare expansion which Lieberman was on record supporting in September. When Lieberman went on FOX on a Sunday morning and said he'd filibuster any public option, Rahm Emanuel showed up in Reid's office that night and demanded Reid cave to Lieberman on it. Reid was pissed off as hell about it and said so. Russ Feingold, on Monday morning said people shouldn't be so hard on 'Joe,' that this (the Senate bill without the PO) was the bill the President wanted all along. I trust Feingold's statement on that. Feingold has given me no reason to believe he would say that if it were not true. I believe the President killed the PO in a deal he made with the hospital lobby and I believe we would have it today if it were not for him. I have my opinion on who is credible about this and you have yours. My opinion that the President sold out the public option is based on reports which were in the news from the beginning of the debate together with statements by people I have found credible based on their records like Russ Feingold and watching the behavior of the White House throughout the process in addition to the fact he tried to come out later and say he never campaigned on the public option. Your opinion is based on believing those you find credible. It is a gulf which will not be briefed.

I very well remember the report in the New York Times in July quoting a hospital lobbyist as saying they had a deal with the White House to keep the public option out. At the time we were still being told by some here that the President was playing chess and, at that time, I still believed that. I expected at the right time, the President would stand up to all these lobbyists who thought they were getting their way and we would see him fight for the PO. I did. I believed it and I fought people who said otherwise. As the whole thing unfolded, though, it became harder to believe. And the story changed from 'chess' where the President was just letting the lobbyists think they were winning to he's a pragmatist who is doing what he has to do to get a bill. Here's an article where a columnist talks about that story from NYT in July:

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals," he wrote, "said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan ." Kirkpatrick went on to quote one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, who said: "We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/did-obama-kill-the-public_1_b_503975.html


I don't know anyone who had given up on getting the votes for a PO in JULY! It was not the time to decide we didn't have the votes and sell us out on it. Before the first committees had done any work to speak of on the bill. I don't like the way the President handled health care reform and you are. Fine. It's your right to think he handled it brilliantly and this bill is the best thing since sliced bread. I see it differently and I intend to keep working in every way I can to get a public option. And there are a few Senators (and mine is one of them) who are still prepared to keep fighting for it. I am grateful for them and intend to keep letting them know I support them in this.

[ClarkUSA]

154. Good.

<<I don't like the deal he made and I don't like it that Congress was left in the dark about it until much later.>>

Okay. I get that.

<<No one ever suggested there were not 50 votes.>>

Actually, President Obama said there were not enough votes for it in a townhall Q&A after HCR was passed. Even if the hospital lobbyists' claims are true re: PO (and there is nothing to really prove that they are) that is not inconsistent with not having the votes. If the WH and the Democratic Senate leadership knew they would not have the votes to pass the PO due to opposition from all the Republicans, Joe Lieberman, Blue Dog Democrats like Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, etc. then it would've have been smart to bluff those who feared the possibility of PO but who didn't know there weren't the votes. Remember, President Obama is a poker player with a poker face.

<<I don't know anyone who had given up on getting the votes for a PO in JULY!>>

Maybe you don't, but there is every likelihood that President Obama and Harry Reid did.

<<It's your right to think he handled it brilliantly and this bill is the best thing since sliced bread.>>

I have made it clear - repeatedly - that I have every expectation that this bill will be improved every year with every Congress tweaking it in perpetuity as they did with Social Security and Medicare. The early forms of both SS and Medicare barely resembles what we know now. Thus, I firmly believe that the passage of HCR into law is the first step to a public option in the future. I'll keep the faith on your behalf. And I will fight for it when the time is politically optimal. Maybe when the odds are better, perhaps after President Obama wins re-election in a landslide and sweeps Democrats into the Senate on his coattails, because it sure looks as if we're going to lose a good number of Senators in November.

I gotta go. Here's another :hug:

Just because.

[ClarkUSA]

28. So what? The "deals" obviously weren't that good because they still spent billion$ opposing HCR. n/t

[laughingliberal]

67. The hospital corporations made out big time from their deal and, in return, they spent

$155 million running ads to support health care reform. The one thing they wanted was to make sure no public option tied to Medicare rates made it into the bill. They got it and they did not spend billion$ opposing HCR.

[ClarkUSA]

78. Do you have proof that "hospital corporations made out big time from their deal"?

The public option didn't have the votes, period, so if your claims are true, the "hospital corporations" wasted their money and the WH got $155M in ads.

[laughingliberal]

90. Yes, I do

They are facing a future of virtually NO uncompensated care as everyone will be mandated to have insurance. The reason they always give for their outrageous rates is that they have to cover all the unpaid care they give. With no unpaid care in their future and no public option which would have negotiated based on Medicare rates, they have made out like bandits. I don't think I need a source for that. It's pretty plain.

The public option had over 50 votes in the Senate. Once we went reconciliation the only reason it was left out was to honor the 'deal.' There was never a doubt the PO could have passed with a majority in the Senate. The need for 60 was, initially, given as the reason we couldn't have it. Harry Reid has promised Bernie Sanders he would get a public option to the floor under reconciliation as soon as he can manage it. There are 50 votes there and, as Reid is my Senator, I intend to be letting him know regularly I am still waiting to see this happen.

[ClarkUSA]

99. That's not proof, that's polemic. Yes, I do need a source. HCR doesn't take effect until Jan. 1...

... so you really have no idea how the many cost-cutting measures will affect "hospital corporations"' bottom line.

<<The public option had over 50 votes in the Senate.>>

Do you have a statement from Harry Reid that backs up your claim that the PO had over 50 votes in the Senate at the time of the reconciliation vote?

[laughingliberal]

104. Well, I believe the fact that is not in dispute is once the mandate kicks in

hospitals will face almost no uncompensated care. Having worked for the vulturous industry for over 2 decades and hearing the excuse for their outrageous rates as 'non-paying patients,' it is a matter of simple economics. Almost no non paying patients mean a big increase in revenue for them. In 1991, the odious HCA cut their nurses' benefits to the bone and ratcheted down our raises because, "If Clinton is elected he will reform health care." Three months later a story on the nation's top ten paid CEO's appeared in the Houston Chronicle and our CEO, Thomas Frist, Jr (Bill's dad) was on the list with a compensation package of over $129,000,000 that year. They didn't reform health care but HCA never restored the previous benefits or compensation levels to the employees. The President, as many others did during the debate, cited uncompensated care as one of the major factors driving up health care costs. Remember? They would say hospitals have to raise their rates on those who have coverage because of this and the average insured patient was paying an extra $1000 per year to cover that. It was said by him and others many times. It would have been hard to miss that. It was one of the primary reasons given for needing the mandate. Reason would tell me and anyone who is thinking about it that eliminating almost all uncompensated care (due to the mandate in 2014) that they have made out like bandits. Hospitals, although they do provide more value than insurance companies, are as villanous in the issue of rising health care costs as any the insurance industry. Nothing in the bill, so far, forces any changes out of them. I hope your statement indicates you are working to pressure legislators to correct this. The public option would have been the most effective way to get hospital costs down but I'd go with the proposals, at this point, that require them to eat it if patients are re-hospitalized within a certain period of time. That would certainly discourage the current practice of shoving people out the door as soon as they can say they're 'stable,' and I hope to see Medicare adopt these rules. It will improve patient care, I'm sure. But it won't rein costs in as much as a PO would have.

As for the 50 votes, the liberal groups who were working to whip the vote in the Senate always had it well over 50. In fact, for the Medicare expansion, it was widely thought we had at least 58 and, possibly, 59. I'm also pretty sure Reid would not have promised Sanders he would work on getting it in a bill to bring to the floor if he had not thought the votes were there. And he did promise him that. I do remember back in Aug/Sept we (those of us working for a PO) were pressuring the Senate to do the PO under reconciliation. No one, at that point, ever suggested there weren't 50 votes. The excuse in those days was still the 'needing a bipartisan' bill. It was only after they were forced to drop the 'bipartisan' excuse that anyone ever suggested there might not be 50 votes. My count has it at between 53 and 56 right now. I'm glad we had this discussion. I need to remember to call Harry's office to remind him I expect his promise to Sanders to be honored. He said he would try to get in done 'in the next few months.' It's been a few weeks, now. He could use a reminder. Maybe you could call him, too. I mean, if you are a supporter of the Public Option that would be something to try.

[ClarkUSA]

105. You keep making unsubstantiated claims. Obviously you have no proof for any of them. n/t

[laughingliberal]

107. "Uncompensated care" has been the rationale for high hospital costs for 20 years or more.

I don't think I need a 'link' to prove that has been their excuse for their high prices all along. It was, also, cited by the President as the reason we are all paying more. Remember? Did you not pay attention to the debate? Remember? The President and many others kept saying how the insured were spending an average of $1000 a year extra in premiums to cover the uncompensated care. If you missed all the speeches where that was mentioned, I can't help you. I am certain most of us here heard them. With the problem of uncompensated care being solved by the mandate, it is impossible that the hospitals corps will not see big increases in profits. It's not rocket science. Lots of free care to those without insurance goes to almost no free care by 2014 and it only follows they get more money. And with no PO to negotiate lower prices with them it is smooth sailing unless we see some further measures enacted which are not part of the law now.


And, I'm assuming your response indicates you won't be calling Reid or anyone else to help get the PO introduced so the American people get a better deal out of HCR?

[ClarkUSA]

111. You claimed that "hospital corporations made out big time from their deal". Prove it. n/t

[laughingliberal]

115. It's not rocket science. If you go from providing a bunch of free care

to providing almost no free care, you will increase your profits. There's no PO to negotiate lower rates for hospital care. My husband and I are in business. This is pretty simple to figure out. If we've been providing a lot of services for free that we are now paid for, our profits go up. And they did spend $155 million on ads to support health care reform. Why would they do that unless this was a good deal for them?

Why are you defending the hospital corps? We had a mostly not for profit hospital system in this country until the 80's when the Republicans sold us down the river on the idea of "market forces will increase competition and lower costs and improve quality." Since that time the for profits took over the hospital industry and costs have skyrocketed stratospherically and quality has declined. I'm having trouble figuring out a reason why any progressive would defend the very organizations who, even more than the insurance companies, are responsible for the system we have now. Hospital costs are probably the number one reason for our out of control medical costs in this country. Why would anyone defend them?

edited punctuation

[ClarkUSA]

117. Then why don't you point out the pertinent part of the HCR law that proves your polemic? n/t

[laughingliberal]

120. How would the current bill not increase hospital profits?

I don't think it's necessary for me to 'prove' there's a mandate for all Americans to obtain health insurance. I don't think it's necessary to prove there's no public option in this bill. I would think both of those facts are well know to everyone here. If you missed that I can't help you. With the hospitals facing almost no uncompensated care after the mandate kicks in and no public option to tie reimbursement to Medicare rates, it would be really odd if they didn't see their profits skyrocket. It really isn't rocket science.

Again, if my husband has been doing a lot of work for free and he will now be paid money for that work, our profits will go up. Same with the hospitals.

[ClarkUSA]

123. I never made that claim. However, you made a claim that you obviously cannot prove.

For example, you're assuming that compensated care will at the same rates of payment as before HCR. Do you have proof of this assumption?

Also, you have yet to offer definitive proof that "hospital corporations made out big time from their deal". Your polemic is not proof.

[laughingliberal]

127. There is nothing in the bill that changes reimbursement rates

I'm not sure how to prove that except for you to read the whole bill and find nothing there to limit their reimbursement rates. They will not be providing free care for millions which they have had to provide in the past. They will now be paid for it. I can't prove a negative-there was no reduction in reimbursement rates for hospital care. If there is I guess you could show me where that is.

They did make out big time and there is nothing to dispute that. They got a mandate. They got no Public Option. And reimbursement rates are not lowered. If they don't make out big time, something's wrong with their accounting.

[ClarkUSA]

129. Hospitals should get paid for the uninsured patients they treat rather than going bankrupt.

Under the HCR law, hospitals will lose $155B in federal funding over 10 years. A new independent commission would have broad authority over Medicare spending, which will cut down on fraud and waste. Furthermore, under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals” will ban new doctor-owned hospitals and blocks expansion of existing ones.

All in all, I don't have a problem with hospitals getting paid by the federal government under the HCR law for the undocumented workers and uninsured Americans they treat rather than face bankruptcy like St Vincent's in New York's Greenwich Village. Not sure why you think there's something wrong with that.

[laughingliberal]

133. That money is the subsidies they previously got to cover uncompensated care

Cute, huh? They were getting subsidies and they add a little to everyone's bill, too. The subsidies for uncompensated care are ending as they are not expected to have very much uncompensated care. It will be a net gain. So, title VI, section 6001? I see nothing there that limits the hospital corporations' profits.

I don't think anyone has a problem with hospitals getting paid. I do have a problem with the fact that care has suffered and rates have skyrocketed since the for profits took over the industry in the 80's. I was a nurse before our health care system was for profit. There is no denying the damage this Republicanization of our health care system did. Medical errors keep increasing as they cut staffing to increase profits and costs keep going up. For what? They're not providing better care or increased staffing. Here's a link to a story about the hospital lobbyists deal with the White House. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. Keeping the public option out benefited the hospital corps.

<snip>"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals," he wrote, "said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan ." Kirkpatrick went on to quote one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, who said: "We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference."

I don't remember that New York Times article, which no traditional media ever picked up on. Like most liberal bloggers, I was in Pittsburgh on August 13th for Netroots Nation. As happens at those four-day conferences, we were too overwhelmed to be reading the news -- but White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was there to assure us the president is on our side.

On March 15th, Ed Shultz of MSNBC had the Times' David Kirkpatrick on his show - who confirmed that Obama's backroom deal with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries last July included an agreement to kill the public option.<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/did-obama-kill-the-public_1_b_503975.html

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying it did not benefit the hospital corps to keep the public option out? Are you saying they have not been gouging the public for 20 years for the purpose of outrageous executive compensation and shareholder dividends to the detriment of patient care? Why would anyone defend the practices of the hospital corps of the past 20 years? How could anyone who cares about health care defend their practices?

[ClarkUSA]

140. Nevertheless, HCR law is cutting them out, to taxpayers' benefit.

<<The subsidies for uncompensated care are ending as they are not expected to have very much uncompensated care. It will be a net gain.>>

According to estimates I've read, hospitals stand to make $170B but that's only a net gain of $15B. As I said before, I don't have a problem with hospitals getting paid for the uninsured patients they treat rather than going bankrupt. They need to meet payroll, buy equipment, etc.

<<So, title VI, section 6001? I see nothing there that limits the hospital corporations' profits.>>

I never said it did. Here's what I said:

"Furthermore, under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals” will ban new doctor-owned hospitals and blocks expansion of existing ones."

This, HCR law is is a death knell for certain hospitals.

<<Are you saying it did not benefit the hospital corps to keep the public option out? Are you saying they have not been gouging the public for 20 years for the purpose of outrageous executive compensation and shareholder dividends to the detriment of patient care? Why would anyone defend the practices of the hospital corps of the past 20 years? How could anyone who cares about health care defend their practices?>>

I said none of these things. I simply asked you for proof of your claims. As I said before, I don't have a problem with hospitals getting paid by the federal government under the HCR law for the undocumented workers and uninsured Americans they treat rather than face bankruptcy like St Vincent's in New York's Greenwich Village.

[laughingliberal]

143. HCR is not a death knell for certain hospitals

It bans new doctor owned hospitals and blocks expansion of existing ones. This means no new doctor owned hospitals. Hard to kill something which does not yet exist. And the existing ones can't expand. There are plenty of hospitals which have done just fine without expanding for many years. Frankly, I'd be more than happy if it was a death knell for doctor owned hospitals as the potential for abuse there is high. But it is not a death knell for them.

I have a problem with us giving hospitals any further subsidies for uncompensated care after the mandate kicks in. They are still realizing a net gain of $15 billion, as you point out. I realize that barely covers the CEO compensation but in the real world it's a lot of money. It's $5 billion more than we asked back from the drug companies per year in return for allowing their price gouging of the American people to continue. The hospitals got a great deal. They get to keep charging their outrageous rates-there was no reduction in reimbursement rates. I would have preferred to see the increased reimbursement for Medicaid patients (Medicaid rates are too low and Medicaid patients are shoved out as fast as they can shove them out) that was in the House bill but any hospital that can't make it on the rates for Medicare might want to look at their priorities. Executive compensation and shareholder dividends should not be their first priority. I still want a public option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates and I still intend to keep letting my legislators know that. Once the hospitals are forced to reduce their rates, the insurance companies lose one of their big excuses for their outrageous premiums. If we have to go back to a not for profit hospital system in this country, so be it. I see no reason why we would be paying a hospital corp CEO $129,000,000 per year or handing our money to their shareholders. The system was better before the people had this free market health care system foisted on them in the 80's. Costs were lower, care was better, and medical errors were not as prevalent.

[ClarkUSA]

146. You're splitting hairs. Many of these "new" hospitals have been on the planning books for years.

Obviously, this HCR law was not friendly to hospitals across the board.

Anyway, enough. I have a suggestion: why don't you run for office in your state and aim at eventually changing the things you "have a problem" with? I'm serious. HCR law is going to be amended as years go by (see Social Security and Medicare) and you'd be a good advocate for CHANGE.

[laughingliberal]

147. Across the board or not, I have no doubt the for profit hospital corps are going to be doing just

dandy. If these were doctor owned hospitals, I will not be losing sleep over them not coming into existence. The ability of doctors to profit off the hospitals and centers to which they refer patients is a major cause of the runaway health care costs that always get blamed on lawsuits. Proponents of tort reform are always saying the doctors have to order too many tests and treatments out of fear of lawsuits. In states where tort reform passed and the costs did not come down it was looked into and the problem with overuse of diagnostic testing and treatments was always found to be that the ordering physicians were invested in the facilities and profiting off their behavior. Doctor owned hospitals are a horrible idea and I've not seen one that did not open the door wide for a lot of abuse. And I have worked for a couple of them so have seen it firsthand.

My health is much too poor to run for office or hold any type of full time job anymore. I participate in our caucuses, work with our party at the local level, and work for my chosen candidates during campaign seasons when my health allows. If my health ever improves to the point I can do more, I would like to work with NNU helping to get nurses unionized. Other than that, I try to educate my acquaintances on the issues in order for them to make informed choices. And I bug our elected officials. That's about the extent of my contribution to society these days.

[ClarkUSA]

148. I was merely making a point. I am fine with hospitals making a profit under HCR...

... given that there is going to be Medicare payment oversight which will cut an estimated $500B in waste and fraud. $15B in estimated profits for hospitals over the next decade given their overhead and payroll doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Sorry to hear about your health. I hope it improves to a point where you can work with NNU. Keep up the good work!

[laughingliberal]

151. The last big push to clear out waste and fraud in Medicare was a joke

The hospital lobbies had enough power to keep the heat off them and Medicare nickled and dimed the home health industry just about into oblivion. Home health has shown, in one study after another, that they save the system money by preventing hospitalizations and rehospitalizations. This does not make the hospitals happy. So, we saw home health agencies closing at the rate of 4 and 5 per day in San Antonio when Clinton decided to go after waste, fraud, and abuse. During those same years, HCA was found to have committed the largest Medicare fraud in history. But they got away with it for a long time because the focus was on home health that was too poor to lobby Congress. They spent far more terrorizing the home health industry than they ever saved from any waste, fraud, and abuse they found in that industry and the paperwork demands on home health nurses quadrupled, leaving less time for patients.

If they had really been serious about all routing out waste, fraud, and abuse the new regulations would have have fallen heavily on hospital corps and more money would have been allocated for sectors like home health and hospice who have always been shown to save Medicare money. But, once again, the wealthy and powerful industries got a pass and we keep paying through the nose.

I'm sorry to be as negative about this as I am and I wish there was more good news in the HCR bill. But I have worked within these systems for years and the corruption is massive and the results are heartbreaking. I had more hope for our current President's ability to see it and fight it and get some real change. I guess I can't say he's any worse than any other politician we've seen in this area. He just didn't turn out to be any better at fighting it, either. Perhaps if I had not had the hope I did for him, I would not be as disappointed as I am.

[ClarkUSA]

152. Perhaps your expectations were too high, given the Congress we have in the election year they have.

<<I had more hope for our current President's ability to see it and fight it and get some real change.>>

I respectfully disagree. I consider creating near-universal healthcare after 100 years of presidents trying to do it "some real change".

<<I'm sorry to be as negative about this as I am... Perhaps if I had not had the hope I did for him, I would not be as disappointed as I am."

I understand. Here's something for you...

:hug:

I guess I'm just a liberal born and bred New Yorker with a politically pragmatic bent.

[laughingliberal]

155. Thanks for the hug. We won't agree, obviously

I do think he had more sway over the Senate than you think he did. But it matters not, now. Now we are stuck with having to keep fighting for something better down the road. Too late it will come for me, but I trust there will be some to hold our future politicians to account.


:hi:

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Political Heretic]

131. They spent "billions" supporting health care reform too.

(It was millions, not "billions" technically - but either way we can agree it was a lot.)

Corporations like to play both sides of the game.

If they kill any reform, they win.

If they control the crafting process and ensure that any reform that does happen is a near carbon copy of a bill the insurance industry wrote themselves as a proposal a decade ago - they also win.

Why bank everyone on one outcome when you can buy out the entire game.

Which is what they did.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Au contraire. I campaigned for him and have helped OFA. He's not a progressive.

And neither was Hillary, by the way.

Went to the inauguration also. No mean feat.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Sure ya did. And President Obama is a liberal but he's also a pragmatist who gets things done.

Just a few facts:

:redbox: FDR had 329 House and 69 Senate Democrats in Congress. It took FDR 29 months to pass Social Security after being inaugurated for the first time.

:bluebox: LBJ had 295 House and 68 Senate Democrats in Congress. It took LBJ 20 months to pass Medicare after being inaugurated.

:redbox: President Barack Obama had 258 House & 57 Senate Democrats (plus 1 Socialist and 1 Independent who usually caucus w/Democrats) in Congress. It took President Obama 14 months to pass HCR after being inaugurated.


<<And neither was Hillary, by the way.>>

Unlike Hillary, he's never been a member of the DLC (Bill is a DLC founder and former chairman) and didn't choose being a Wal-Mart director for six years over community organizing.

[elleng]

50. I love and appreciate the distinction, clarkie,

and appreciate that you've stepped in here. Some of my fave DUers disagreeing (AGREEABLY!), and I'm glad I have the opportunity to watch!

[ClarkUSA]

58. Happy to do it, elleng, if only to earn your rare praise.

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

68. He may not ever have been a DLC member but he did state he is a "New Democrat"

I believe they are a coalition of business friendly, centrist Democrats who appear to be using the same old Third Way approach to legislation that the DLC used. He also seems to have an inordinate number of DLC members in the circle of close advisers.

[ClarkUSA]

79. That's false. Barack Obama has rejected membership in the DLC since 2003 for good reason.

A June 26, 2003 Black Commentator cover story noted that the DLC included Barack Obama in their “New Democrat” directory “without my knowledge. . . . Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

If you're referring to unnamed sources spouting hearsay in a story by a GOP-owned Politico media whore, then don't bother. The DLC has repeatedly tried to claim Barack Obama as their own to bask in his reflected glory but the facts speak for themselves: there is no firsthand public record of Barack Obama ever saying he was a New Democrat, much less from a named source in a credible publication.

[laughingliberal]

89. Now, where did I say he was a DLC member?

I said he said he is a "New Democrat." Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference in their philosophy but it is true he calls himself a New Democrat.


<snip> The same afternoon, he brought members of the House New Democrat Coalition to the White House and told them, "I am a New Democrat." According to Politico, Obama went on to describe himself as a fiscally responsible, pro-growth Democrat who supports free and fair trade and opposes protectionism. <snip>

http://www.slate.com/id/2213474/

President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

Obama made his comment in discussing his budget priorities and broader goals, also calling himself a “pro-growth Democrat” during the course of conversation. <snip>

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html#ixzz0lEdBrLf5

My other statement was that there he has surrounded himself with a lot of DLCers in the administration and I don't think that is in dispute.

edited punctuation

[ClarkUSA]

98. A dubious quote from unnamed sources by a Politico media whore is no substitute for the truth.

Your cherrypicking reveals your bias, as you obviously chose to ignore what I said in my previous reply, so I'll repeat it:

The DLC has repeatedly tried to claim Barack Obama as their own to bask in his reflected glory but the facts speak for themselves: there is no firsthand public record of Barack Obama ever saying he was a New Democrat.

[laughingliberal]

108. I provided 2 sources where President Obama was quoted as saying he is a New Democrat

and you keep going back to some quote about the DLC. I said he is not a member of the DLC. I said he is part of the "New Democrat's" coalition who are, IMO, about the same. Your arguments are disingenuous and a distraction.

[ClarkUSA]

110. You're being disingenous. The Slate piece quoted the Politico piece which quoted unnamed "sources".

Can't you do better than that? There are articles which quote unnamed sources who say Hillary is a lesbian, but that doesn't mean it's true.

<<you keep going back to some quote about the DLC>>

That quote is from a letter by Barack Obama to Black Commentator in 2003 rejecting DLC membership and nothing he has said since has indicated he has changed his position.

It's revealing you keep pushing unnamed sources from a piece from GOP-owned Politico. Your claim lacks any credibility, especially since a President who has DLC sympathies would never be pushing financial reform that featured more regulation (see Bill Clinton repealing Glass-Steagall as a comparison for what a true DLC president would do) or have his SEC finger Goldman-Sachs for fraud. Keep pushing that false meme and I'll keep pushing back.

[laughingliberal]

113. It doesn't matter what your source is. You are trying to disprove a claim I didn't make.

I did not say, again, he is DLC but you keep arguing against the charge I did not make.

If you choose to ignore the reports of him saying he is a "New Democrat" it's your right. My opinion that he is part of the "New Democrat" coalition is based on reports I've seen and his support for much of their agenda.

I have no doubt if Politico or any other publication ran a story favorable to your position you would choose to believe it. I also have never heard the President or anyone at the White House dispute this report.

It's revealing you keep providing proof the President is not DLC when that was never the charge. It was that he is a "New Democrat." I think he is.

[ClarkUSA]

116. Not at all. Are you aware that "New Democrat" is a synonym for DLC membership?

"They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).... the label "New Democrat"... became more widely associated with the policies of the Democratic Leadership Council, who in 1990 renamed their bi-monthly magazine from The Mainstream Democrat to The New Democrat."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

[laughingliberal]

118. I am aware many distanced themselves from the DLC as they were revealed more for what they were

and they were quite unpopular with rank and file Democrats who, correctly, saw them as more Republican than Democrat. And there are many of the same people now calling themselves "New Democrats," to obscure their connections to the DLC policies.

I also do believe the report that the President called himself a "New Democrat" at the meeting with 'moderate' Democrats. and I have heard no one from the administration dispute it. You use a quote from 2003 during his Senate campaign to prove he isn't part of the DLC. I use a quote from a meeting in the past year where he is said to have called himself a "New Democrat" at a meeting. His policies on many issues are consistent with the "New Democrat" coalition's goals. It does not 'prove' he is a "New Democrat" but the report together with his advocacy of their policies do lend some credence to it, for me.

We see many here rebuking those of us who have some criticism for these policies with, "He's a centrist!!! Get over it!!!" I'm not sure what distinction there is between 'centrist' and DLC or New Democrat but if that works for you, then good for you. I do prefer a more progressive agenda.
'

[ClarkUSA]

119. Here's what facts look like: "Obama defends 'liberal' label - First Read - msnbc.com" Feb. 28, 2008

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan

AUSTIN, Texas -- In the shadow of the state capitol that provided the United States with one of the most conservative presidents in recent history, Obama last night railed against the charge that being "liberal" was a bad thing.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/23/694036.aspx

Why would Obama defend being a liberal if he was a "New Democrat"? Hmm? FYI, he was in front of 20,000 in Austin, TX so unlike your "unnamed sources", this is a verifiable fact.

But you go ahead and cling to that completely unsubstantiated piece from GOP-owned Politico media whores' "unnamed sources" even though no Democrat who's got a shred of intellectual honesty would ever use "unnamed sources" allegedly quoted by a Republican-owned and operated website to support allegations against a Democratic President.

[laughingliberal]

124. That's from 2008? Anything more recent? Cause he was on FOX a few weeks ago bragging about

about beating back proposals from the left. And I think that reached a bigger audience than a rally in Austin.

[ClarkUSA]

125. You're being disingenous again. Full transcript, hmmm? Video link? Nice try at spin, though.

Funny, you mocked me for not having anything more recent than 2003 and I gave it to you. Then you moved the goalpost...

Now, you're spinning an appearance he made without offering a shred of proof. So offer us a full transcript of the exchange and a video link. I am very sure he did nothing of the kind and viewing the video and reading the full transcript will illustrate that truth.

[laughingliberal]

128. If you missed all the links to his interview on FOX, then you did. Most here saw it

and know it happened. But you can carry on denying this, if you like.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html


OBAMA: — the only thing I want to say, just to close up, is that when you talk about one-sixth of the economy, this is one-sixth of the economy that right now is a huge drag on the economy. Now, we can fix this in a way that is sensible, that is centrist. I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are — you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system.

[ClarkUSA]

134. Just as I thought. Your "bragging" spin is disingenuous at worst and highly subjective at best.

<< Now, we can fix this in a way that is sensible, that is centrist.>>

President Obama is a liberal but he's also a pragmatist that can figure out political calculus. A "centrist" approach to passing HCR is the most politically "sensible" since Blue Dog Democratic Senators refused to vote for anything that was anything less. Of course, one person's "centrist" is another's "socialist".

<<I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are — you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system.>>

This is a statement of fact, not "bragging". I am a liberal but as a political pragmatist I agree with what he's saying. I rest assured in knowing that large majority of liberals approve of his job performance, but there's a very small minority who'll criticize him no matter what he says or does.

[laughingliberal]

136. I don't think anyone had any doubt you agree with the President's approach

to pretty much everything. There were provisions the left was adamant about and they were the ones that would have reined in the costs and provided more help for people. I don't find it a bit cute to brag about knocking down provisions that would have saved people money and provided them with better health care. I don't think the President is a liberal except in the sense that 'liberal' now seems to have moved a whole lot further right since the days of Reagan.

I don't criticize the President "no matter what he says or does." I have posted support for several of his policies on here. It's usually ignored when I do because it messes up the 'meme' that all those who offered criticism of some policies were just haters who won't like anything and didn't get their pony. I'm cautiously encouraged by his tone with Wall Street the past few days but will wait to see what actually shakes out in the reforms. But I give him credit for the correct tone lately. But, no, I don't approve of his handling of the health care reform debate and I don't approve of the deals he made with the lobbyists. And I don't like him going on FOX news and touting his 'centrist' cred by bragging about rejecting a whole bunch of provisions the left wanted. No, I don't like that one bit. If you're OK with that, good. I'm not and I don't think there's a damned thing wrong with saying that.

edited punctuation

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

138. It's so good to see you, Freddie! Are you back from Venice?

:hi:

[freddie mertz]

156. Still stuck in the airport.

And my post went away here too!

USA USA USA!!!!

I want to get home.

[ClarkUSA]

141. I am a pragmatic liberal like the President so I don't see the perfect as the enemy of the good. n/t

[laughingliberal]

144. However you want to see it.

There was never a 'perfect' on the table and what we got was far from good. I don't care for the 'pragmatic' meme. Every time I see it, it tends to be someone defending the Democrats for passing Republican legislation.

I refuse to apologize for wanting to see Democratic principles in the legislation the Democrats we elected are writing. President Obama did not campaign on anything resembling, in any way, the bill we got. And it does not contain any of the health care reform principles outlined in the 2008 party platform. Compromises are one thing. This was a sellout.

Again, I find all that talk about the 'first step' was just more spin. All the same cast of characters are still here trying to sell this bill as a great 'win.'

[ClarkUSA]

145. That's the way I see it, alright. It's easy to criticize from behind a keyboard for days on end...

.... it's alot more difficult getting historic and incredibly complex legislation during these highly partisan times. Just ask Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Here's why President Obama's singular accomplishment in passing HCR has so many historians describing him as having the best first year in history:

:redbox: FDR had 329 House and 69 Senate Democrats in Congress. It took FDR 29 months to pass Social Security after being inaugurated for the first time.

:bluebox: LBJ had 295 House and 68 Senate Democrats in Congress. It took LBJ 20 months to pass Medicare after being inaugurated.

:redbox: President Barack Obama had 258 House & 57 Senate Democrats (plus 1 Socialist and 1 Independent who usually caucus w/Democrats) in Congress. It took President Obama 14 months to pass HCR after being inaugurated.

So many folks at DU and elsewhere on the internet act like they could do better. In reality, no one has done better at passing landmark healthcare legislation than President Obama in their first year. With HCR ready to become law on Jan. 1, he has achieved what no other president could do: create near universal healthcare in the U.S. I'm sure you'll minimize that achievement, but tens of millions of uninsured Americans are not.

[laughingliberal]

149. I will always believe we could have done better

And the fact is that because the President made the deals he did early on, we will, neither of us, ever know what could have happened. Our strongest positions were the threat of single payer and the public option. To not even let the SP advocates in the room was a mistake. Their very presence there could have been a powerful message to the blood suckers. To not even hold the public option out as a threat to get more concessions was not chess and it was bad poker.

My husband and I are sick and uninsured so I assume we are among those millions who you believe should be happy, now. But we are not. We are looking at some percentage of our income going to a health insurance company (depending on what sort of income we might have by the time this kicks in) for a policy which will leave us a $2000 deductible before any care is covered and $11,900 out of pocket maximums. May sound great to you but since our business tanked in '06 and I lost my job in '07, we have spent some weeks worrying about money for food. A $2000 deductible to get care might as well be a million at this point. If our income has not recovered by the time the bill kicks in, we will still have nothing (our state does not cover adults without children who are not disabled on Medicaid). Yes, I know people are heartened to think of all us uninsured Americans who will be helped by this. But, as I tried to point out during the debate, it is not as much help as the supporters seem to think it is. It sounds good and the talking points, at face value, sound wonderful. Delving into the details however, reveals a seriously flawed system that has shifted huge costs onto the working, middle class, and borderline poor in our country without demanding much from the profiteers who created the horrible system we already have. And I doubt the bill will change enough to help us before we need the help. We are in exactly the same position we were in without it-hoping we live long enough without serious illness to qualify for Medicare. My husband has a good chance. He's 62 and we're doing what we can to keep him alive for 3 more years. Me? I'm 55 and not holding out much hope. I spent the productive years of my life working to take care of the sickest and poorest in our country. The demands for more and more work for less and less benefit due to the demands for bigger and bigger profits in our health care system has left me unable to work at 55 and too poor to survive. And facing an end with no way to get the care I provided to so many for 27 years of my life. Yeah, I think we could have done better and I think what people like us needed should have been more important than playing nice with the lobbyists.

[ClarkUSA]

150. Under HCR, families who make < $40K will pay ~ $2000 for HC that costs over $11K...

... via over $8000 in federal subsidies.

It doesn't sound like you know this fact about the HCR law. This is according to Linda Douglass, WH spokesperson. I saw her repeat this twice during an interview with MSNBC days after HCR became law. Sounds like you and your husband fall into this category. That's doing "better" than most Americans who make <$40K can do today. I know folks with pre-existing conditions who are in this category, many of them collecting UI, who are looking forward to Jan. 1.

And no, I do not believe "we could have done better" with the Congress we have during this highly-charged election year. I think over a year of wrangling with recalcitrant Blue Dog House and Senate Democrats and 100% obstructionist Republicans proved that.

[laughingliberal]

153. I believe the figure you quote is for the premium

And, it looks as if that is a family of 4. Yes, there is a subsidy to help with the premium. It does not address what the deductible is and the co-pays. The subsidies are to provide people with a bronze level policy that has an actuarial value of 60%. The worst policy I ever had while working had an actuarial value of 80% and even at a decent income level (I made around $60,000) it was a hit the year my husband had 2 vascular surgeries. I have seen one table that showed some income levels would have their out of pocket expenses limited to 30% of their income (that is on top of the premium). So, take a family of 2 making, let's say $58,000 (that is just below 4005 of FPL for a 2 person family). Their premium will be limited to $5684 for the year as they qualify for a subsidy which will limit their premium to $5684 (9.8% of their income). With a bronze policy their out of pocket maximum will be $11,900. It is not clear if the deductible will apply to out of pocket expenses but the past few, very good policies I had at work, it did not. So, if this couple has a couple of hospitalizations during the year, they are looking at over $19,000 out of their pockets for premiums, deductible, and out of pocket expenses. That's quite a hit for a couple with $58,000 a year. It's more than a mortgage. I don't know many at that income level who could afford a second home. It really needs a lot of work. These figures are for people at the upper end where they will qualify for a subsidy. I have seen the cap on out of pocket expenses is capped at 30% of income. Who has 30% of their income hanging around? I suppose a case could be made for it being better than having no care at all but it still throws people into bankruptcy. This is the reason many of us said a lot of those 30 million people will have insurance policies they can't afford to use. It is the dilemma of many people in MA now under Romneycare. We need to do better. Sick people need us to do better.

I understand you don't believe we could have done better. But I will always believe we could have. Once we went reconciliation, we could have passed a public option in the Senate. I still think we can. If Reid loses his election here, the chance will, likely, be lost hence, my desire to see him get it to the floor, soon. I am not sure of whoever takes over from him having the commitment to it that he does. I get it you think we got the best bill we could have. And I don't. And I don't think we will agree. But I think we both know it needs work. I don't expect to still be around when this goes from being a good first step to something better. I do hope there are those who will continue the fight.

[freddie mertz]

157. How original. nt.

[Dr Morbius]

30. He's not a progressive?

Well, maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but he's making progress.

You you want progressives or do you want progress?

[Raine1967]

35. +1

[elleng]

51. These labels confound me!

I've always thought of myself as progressive AND liberal AND moderate, and will continue to do so!

Prez O certainly IS making progress, and will continue to do so whatever we 'call' him, imo.

[Political Heretic]

130. Progress to where?

Certainly not the same direction as FDR; certainly not the direction of "old" democrats; certainly not the direction I want for my country for my family.

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

132. They only thing that matters is record. Pretty simple.

Obama's record is not that of a "liberal."

It is of course that of a Moderate. Something which he's sad about himself time and time again.

Now that's Obama's political self-description. Personally I'd call him something else.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Yeah, sure. You never "found" him. And if they're so "secret" then how do you know about it? n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

114. Yeah, right...

Obama could just sit at his desk and play solitaire for 4 years and go home!

[DJ13]

3. He always has a choice

He can either be a corporate tool with a great chance at two terms, or a great President who does whats best for average Americans that might not win a second term.

But I bet if he chose the second option he would likely have an even better chance at a second term.

[skeptical cynic]

4. We live in interesting times

Obama is a reflection of what the Democratic Party has become.

I can't even use labels like "left" or "right" or "liberal" or "conservative" or "Republican" or "Democrat" anymore without wondering what they even mean. All I see is the Haves in charge, and the Have-nots cleaning up the dog poop in their yards. I feel more affinity with a peasant in Venezuela or Honduras or Ecuador than with those who "represent" me in state and federal capitals. Hell, I'm beginning to feel more affinity with the people we're killing in Central Asia than I have with our "leaders."

Obama is making deals at the expense of peasants, foreign and domestic. The future will be ugly when one too many deals has been made.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Obama made deals in order that we get something to build on......

and that's exactly what we got.

If it were anyone else, we wouldn't have gotten shit, just like all of those years
in the past. If it was so fucking easy, it would have been done long ago.

You don't like politics? Don't run for office.

[skeptical cynic]

10. "You don't like politics? Don't run for office."

I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit rhetoric.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[PurityOfEssence]

57. It gets awfully tiresome to constantly be goaded into betting heavily on an inside straight

The whole theory is that he's lying to "them", and will turn on a dime and betray them if we only hope and believe a little harder.

Certainly, this bill is better than nothing, but the presumption that it's the best that could be had is probably as baseless as my old blown dormroom speakers.

[laughingliberal]

70. That's what we kept hearing. However, I notice all we still hear is defense of the really inadequate

bill and no talk of 'building' on it.

[freddie mertz]

73. There are other ways to act politically than to "run for office."

There is a logical fallacy in your statement.

[pundaint]

158. We didn't get anything new to build upon. Insurance companies already were in charge, now they are

just in charge for 30 million additional victims. The drain of funds from the system to support some financial aristocracy who assert ownership rights to our healthcare while actually contributing nothing to the health outcome whatsoever, cannot be defended. This bill expanded that. It was at best inept, at worst criminal.

[Hutzpa]

42. delete - wrong reply

[elleng]

52. Labels don't mean anything,

and we shouldn't HAVE to use them in order to evaluate others.

[madamesilverspurs]

5. Made Baucus look like a piece of shit.

Which he is.


-

[Captain Hilts]

22. And the president trusted him to set the HCR debate for Dems. I don't know why unless the President

agreed with what he was doing.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Pres. Obama wanted Congress to do it because the Clintons screwed up HCR by writing HCR w/o Congress

And when Baucus fumbled the effort, Reid and Pelosi took over with Pres. Obama's blessing and valuable assists with convincing "No" votes to vote "Aye" (e.g., Dennis Kucinich).

[freddie mertz]

74. It was a very ugly and dispiriting process nonetheless.

And while some good things either survived or made it into the bill on reconciliation, there is a lot that we probably could have had, PO for example, if the WH had really insisted on it.

In any case, there sure are a bunch of Dem representatives and senators who have lost my support permanently for their shenanigans on this bill.

The list is long.

[Sebastian Doyle]

75. I'm not a fan of either Baucus or Daschle but

I really didn't realize that it was Baucus who was behind all that bullshit to derail the Daschle nomination for HHS. Not that I wanted Daschle in that position anyway, but in retrospect, its clear that Baucus was out to derail any attempts at REAL health care reform from day one, and unfortunately, the fucking bastard got away with it.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Odd how Frontline chose to cut out the part where Obama went to the GOP retreat.....

that was actually the turning point with the public debate.
Guess Frontline ain't into those kind of "details".
Cece Connelly gives her "opinion"? OK.

Wonder if there was a documentary on how Medicare Part D passed?

Naw.....Most likely not.

[Raine1967]

36. We thought it was off at first as well, however

the retreat covered many more issues aside from the HCR bill. I think perhaps they were keeping a tight focus on HCR.

[lordcommander]

9. After i saw this....I cannot blame the President

He had been dealt with a horrendous hand (having to deal with Baucus) and bad breaks (Teddy not being there)

[Peace_Sells]

11. Disappointment.

I was highly disappointed with this documentary. I expected so much better from pbs. It was pretty much a hit piece. Everything was slanted toward the Obama is a corporate tool meme and in favor of republicans. It treated the tea baggers as reasonable rather than the nuts they actually are and exaggerated their numbers. On top of that it had interviews from republican congressmen but not democrats. It also tried to push the corporate meme talking about the backroom deals. The documentary fails to mention all the good the bill would do. The bill that would not have gotten passed without these deals. Obama is a brilliant politician and he is getting things done. Documentaries 30 or 40 years down the road will likely have a much better tone when talking about the insurance bill.

[davidpdx]

12. That figures

I saw the article posted about it and pretty much guessed that's what it was going to be. The haters are latching on to it pretty hard. Seem they still haven't gotten over it. I'm glad to know before even watching it. A waste of time.

[FrenchieCat]

13. They interviewed Ms. Insurance Blond lying Gal herself......

I forgot her name, but not her face. The one that came on the Daily Show and lied her ass off.
They gave her serious face time, as though she was something other than a liar.

Yep...it was a hit piece.

Guess PBS still has some delousing to do after 8 years.

[davidpdx]

14. delousing indeed

Love the signature picture...

[elleng]

53. Ignani.

Like her name just because its Italian! That's about it! (But she did mention her handicap, and she's a successful woman in what's been a man's world.)

[jbnow]

16. I didn't think they were too unfair to Obama but I agreethe completely missed

telling the true story about the opposition. I know it was a one hour show but the misleading/lies the republicans told and the lies about the bills that the "public" (teabaggers) was so angry about are a key part of this story. Should have made it 2 hour show then. Leaving that out made it look like we were ignoring the informed will of the public.
Hell Grassley (?) said they were informed, read right from the bill. Maybe they did but since they didn't show it I am thinking it was thos e-,ails that the person was reading from... that "quote" sections of the bill turning them into complete lies. There are so many of those and they do make the bill sound horrible. "Quoting" the bill makes it seem all official like and it is bunk.
They showed Grassley saying he wouldn't vote for Pelosi's bill but not how on that stage he also told the town hall he was only pretending to cooperate to delay the bill, didn't show him spouting off about the death panels.
I wish they had also pointed out that the Medicare D bill that CBO said was "the worst ever" was a bush bill... and noted what the CBO says about this bill.

This just made for such an incomplete story.
But even Obama wasn't thrilled with the deals he made. At some presser, maybe even when deal was announced, he responded to some question saying that 80 billion wasn't so much for industry to give up since not having the deal could cost them at least twice as much... and he said it in a snarky tone, not usual for him. He wasn't making it much of a secret!

But I don't think it was wrong, I think it was a pragmatic step necessary for a better future. Once the bill is passed what can they do about if if Congress decides to negotiate drug prices or import drugs. (Really the latter is an issue. Just the Americans buying drugs from Canada on their own brought letters from drug companies to those Canadian pharmacies threatening to cut them off from their drugs. Can a bill outlaw that?)

You are also right that it didn't tell any of the good of the bill. Showed people saying it was a giveaway to insurance companies but never ended up telling how weak that mandate became in that final fix.
And honestly it does all the things he kept saying he wanted in campaign, well depending on how well the exchanges work out and the price controls/regulations. (and there are many) (And he really didn't talk about the public option during the campaign)
If they are calling this Obama's choice...well the choice was to come through on what he had campaigned on.

This bill needs many improvements, I have dozen of complaints...but this show was horribly incomplete.

[tishaLA]

41. To be fair, I doubt it's possible to tell this story in an hour

I thought the doc was too soft on Hatch and Grassley, but they agreed to sit down for it and I don't know that any Democrats did. I wish we would have heard from Pelosi or Rahm or Ann Douglass, but I guess they thought it wasn't worth doing for whatever reason. And let's face it: there WERE backroom deals. They were probably necessary, but they happened, and, more importantly, Gergen made the correct point: that backroom deals are how Washington works. Anyone who is surprised by them doesn't know much about the history of politics in this country.

[elleng]

55. They were probably just so damn tired of talking about it!

[jefferson_dem]

17. Hey, thanks for the link.

I'll check it out. Looks like an interesting (albeit loaded) presentation by Frontline.

Your comments regarding "KKKORPORATIONS!!1!" are funny though.

[Mass]

18. I saw part of it and thought it was a huge disappointment.

The perceived need to be seen as impartial made this show absolutely useless. I had to stop after a while because there was no point watching if they could not even be bothered saying that the people who were worried were ill-informed and why.

[Moochy]

39. agreed saw the last 30 minutes of it..

Impartiality as defined by NPR is to 8 republicans and one moderate centrist the same question and edit it down for Brooks and Shields to comment on with unsurprising dogmatism.

That show was typical for Frontline lately, totally useless and one sided, letting republican lies go unchallenged complete with the narrator reading his critical, skeptical copy of democratic actions.

And I'm critical of the pharma deal that was struck etc. but yeah Frontline documentaries have sucked recently, and PBS's deterioration into a polite, libertarian fox outlet continues unabated.

[cornermouse]

23. The mental gymnastics to justify Obama's actions in the Pharma.

HCR? Fascinating.

[ClarkUSA]

37. "The mental gymnastics to" demonize "Obama's actions in the Pharma." are what's really "fascinating"

Pres. Obama did what was necessary to move HCR forward. It wasn't such a great "secret" nor was it a great "deal" because "the Corporations" still spent billion$ trying to defeat HCR. In reality, Team Obama got the better of "the Corporations" because the Chamber of Commerce was squealing like a stuck pig about HCR until the bitter end (for them, not for the American people).

[laughingliberal]

71. Hospital corporations spent $155 million on ads promoting the HCR bill

They got their promise of no PO and their end of the deal was the ad buy.

[Bobbie Jo]

80. No big mystery here, they want to get paid rather than

stuck with the bill. Nice try, though.

[laughingliberal]

88. The deal was to make sure there was no public option

It's not about getting 'stuck with the bill.' There was always going to be a mandate. With virtually no uncompensated care in their future, they could have survived nicely even if reimbursements per patient had been cut a little. After all, isn't uncompensated care the reason they always give for their outrageous rates? Why, yes, it is.

Nice try, though.

[Bobbie Jo]

96. Link?

[laughingliberal]

121. You need a link to prove there's a mandate and no public option in the bill??? nt

[Bobbie Jo]

139. Just a link to back up your assertions.

Obviously.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Yeah, that's why insurance companies & the Chamber of Commerce spent billion$ trying to defeat HCR

And that's why Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce is doing their best to kill financial reform. I must've missed when "the Corporations" supported the following Obama Administration decisions:

"EPA Sharply Limits Mountaintop Mining"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x257998

"Obama administration has issued tough gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks hitting dealerships in the future...
President Obama suckered the GOP into showing that they are so obstructionist they would oppose their own agenda, if only it were proposed by the President. They were all watching one hand, which he was waving around to attract all the attention. Meanwhile, his other hand was doing something else entirely.

"This is the biggest step the federal government will have ever taken to save oil, cut greenhouse emissions and save consumers money," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8067959

And just wait until President Obama tackles the immigration reform bill next year! Oooh, that'll make "the Corporations" happy!

:sarcasm:

24/7 Obama critics who push tired old memes have yet to explain why, if President Obama "has no choice but to do its bidding" these reforms have engendered so much resistance from "the Corporations".

[cornermouse]

29. (sigh) Hospitals are not happy. Doctors are not happy.

The Chamber of Commerce is happy because they've been told to be happy by important constituents.

Contrary to what you keep saying, the people who are ecstatic about passage are the insurance companies.

[robinblue]

32. Obama had choices. He made the

wrong ones--opposite of what he said over and over on the stump. He choose to be in bed with the lobbyists, simple as that.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Prove that Pres. Obama did the "opposite of what he said over and over on the stump."

President Obama said he'd pass HCR and he did. He also said there's a seat for everyone at the table but special interests couldn't buy all the seats at the table. He delivered.

<<He choose to be in bed with the lobbyists, simple as that.>>

Yeah, that's why corporate lobbyists and the Chamber of Commerce spent billion$ and joined Republicans in trying to defeat the passage of HCR.

:sarcasm:

[robinblue]

44. His refrain was for lobby reform in DC yet it ruled HCR.

[ClarkUSA]

45. I said prove it. Your one-liners are mere polemic without proof. n/t

[robinblue]

47. You can look it up as well as I can but lets not waste time as

we both know it to be true.

[ClarkUSA]

48. lol! You're busted. Don't "waste time" making further baseless remarks because it's obvious...

... you have no proof of anything you're spouting.

[robinblue]

81. You already know the evidence (the truth) but are unwilling to take your

head out of the sand and admit it is the truth.

[ClarkUSA]

83. How would I "know the evidence" when you consistently refuse to offer any for your polemic? n/t

[joe black]

84. Everyone at the table....

Except for the P.O. people that got arrested.

[joe black]

85. Everyone at the table....

Except for the P.O. people that got arrested.

[laughingliberal]

109. "He also said there's a seat for everyone at the table"

There was no seat at the table for single payer advocates. So, "everyone" must have meant 'everyone' according to him.

[Phx_Dem]

40. That was great! I was riveted.

I have a new-found respect for Rahm. I have never been a Rahm hater, but I like him even more now. If not for him and the President, strategizing and working his ass off, we would not have any kind of health care reform. Were deals made? You betcha, and as a result, the door that has been shut tight for all of our lives is now open. Our foot is wedged in that door and it cannot be closed again. In the coming years, we’ll amend the current health care bill and wedge that door open further until it stands wide open.

I loved it when the health care industry changed their mind about supporting the reform and started fighting it. The President fought back hard, and won. He beat the monstrous health care industry! Ha!

He’s a fighter and he’s a winner and I could not be more proud. So to all the media and liberal bloggers (Arianna and Jane among others) who whined the entire time that Obama was not leading, not engaged, and not kissing their asses . . . hahahahahahah. :*

Baucus and Nelson looked really bad. I loved that too.

[Hutzpa]

43. This is an attempt to discredit the President

and I believe the same assholes who are on that clip commenting are the same ones
here spitting the same thrash.

Here is an header.....HEALTH CARE IS OVER AND HAS BECOME LAW SO GET THE PUCK OVER IT.

Small people have finally won, I don't give a fuck how he won it as long as he won it
for smaller people this time.

Sick and tired of the rich defining what is good for the middle class and poor.

Hey rich republicans (insurance companies) you lose get the fuck over it.

Character assassination much????

[ClarkUSA]

46. Well-said!

:applause:

[Nikki Stone1]

49. So people are unrec'ing Frontline now?

The last decent news program out there and you're ignoring it?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[ClarkUSA]

54. I wasn't aware that Frontline enjoyed saintly status among MSM whoredom.

As I recall, BushCo stacked PBS with GOP-friendly leadership:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bush+pbs+appointments&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

It shows.

[Nikki Stone1]

61. Frontline is the last line of defense

After that, you're on your own, kiddo.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Um, no. It's stacked with BushCo-appointed pro-GOP leadership, as this programming illustrates.

BushCo's deliberate attempt to influence PBS content doesn't seem to bother you, however:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bush+pbs+appointments&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Gee, I wonder why? :eyes:

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[robinblue]

94. thanks for the info.

[ClarkUSA]

101. Kirk is a convenient means to an end. His bio gives BushCo PBS leadership plausible cover.

And it won't be the first time someone sells out. A producer still has to answer to the PBS leadership in order to get their show approved and funded.

Kirk pushes a conspiracy theory against Obama but he neglected to uncover the corporate RNC leaders that are behind the Tea Party movement.
Coincidence?

He also left out further important pieces of the HCR puzzle that would have made Republicans look bad. Obama's trip to the GOP lion's dean and there was no mention of the avalanche of Republican lies that were told to get the public via Faux News and GOP leadership that succeeded in stoking teabagger outrage during Congress' summer recess. Another coincidence?

I don't think so.

BTW, what's a "real Democrat" to you? Is their a litmus test now? :eyes:

[Robeson]

60. No doubt.

[Bobbie Jo]

64. Who cares about "unrec'ing?"

Oh yeah...it's you. Nevermind.

[Dinger]

102. Kinda Like Sheep, Isn't It? (nt)

[Robeson]

59. That was an excellent show. It's pretty sad that some just can't watch it...

...without having diarrhea of the mouth. It didn't make me think less of Obama. He's just involved in politics as usual.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

65. That was a show that was content-approved by PBS' BushCo-appointed leadership.

It's pretty sad that some don't seem to care about that obvious fact, which is proved by this link to many sources via Google Search:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bush+pbs+appointments&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[coti]

93. Again, see the ACTUAL information provided about the producer himself above. nt

[ClarkUSA]

100. The BushCo PBS leadership is smart enough to find plausible cover for their agenda.

Kirk is a means to an end. And it won't be the first time someone sells out. A producer still has to answer to the PBS leadership in order to get their show approved and funded.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

87. Overall, it was a good doc. However, I was upset that they didn't uncover the corporate

powers behind the Town Hall "protests".

[tomm2thumbs]

thanks for posting - saving

[tomm2thumbs]

92. thanks for posting - saving

[Egnever]

95. A decent watch

Shows how hard it was to get anything passed and many of the barriers in the way. It omitted some things (obamas trip to the lion den , and no mention of the lies that were told to get the public so outraged in august) but I enjoyed watching it over all. Thanks for the heads up.

[awoke_in_2003]

103. "Obama's Deal"

well, we know Joe didn't write that title :rofl:

[craigmatic]

122. Yes he cut deals with pharma and insurance lobbies but the thing that pisses me off is

that he didn't get more concessions from them for the deal. In the 1940's, the UK's Atlee government cut deals with their medical lobby too but they got universal care for their deal. All we got for Obama's deal is a mandate and expanded medicaid which most of us won't qualify for.

[laughingliberal]

135. +1000

We were sold out for a pittance.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

159. This is just about midterms everyone knows what happened. The main iit reduces costs and ...

prescriptions. When people see that they'll understand he was on their side. Considering all the good things happening and still further to happen it's well worth turing out for midterms. It had to start down the road or it could of in limbo forever and that would of been not the best idea too.