In Case You Missed This... Confirmation On What Many Of Us Believed Re: The Publc Option Fight

[WillyT]

It wasn't a "belief"...It was a bargaining chip...

Key Reform Ally Dishes On ‘Weak-Kneed’ White House Health Care Push
BRIAN BEUTLER - TPMDC
JANUARY 18, 2012, 5:25 AM

<snip>

In an encyclopedic new book that sheds fresh light on the defining fight of President Obama’s first term, one of the administration’s key health care reform allies recalls a thin-skinned, “weak-kneed” White House, strategically unwilling and temperamentally unable to face criticism from progressive reformers, whose toughest tactics were reserved for its natural allies.

Many of the revelations will be unsurprising to those who followed the year-long fight over health care reform closely. But they serve as a thorough reminder of the administration’s uneven strategy during the debate, including its horsetrading with private industry, and private dealing with supporters on the left — particularly those, like the author, who fought a bruising fight for a public health insurance option and lost.

The book is Fighting For Our Health, by Richard Kirsch, who directed the advocacy group Health Care for America Now during the push for reform. HCAN is a well financed umbrella group backed by scores of liberal groups, unions, and other reformers — making Kirsch a close witness to the entire saga. He confirms that the White House treated the public option like a bargaining chip with powerful industry players, and believes that when his group became most critical of the bill mid-way through the fight, that top White House aides sought to have him canned.

“The White House had negotiated a number of deals with the health industry, designed to win their support for reform, including agreeing to oppose a robust public option, which would have the greatest clout to control how much providers got paid,” writes Kirsch, largely confirming what has become an open secret in Washington.

Kirsch singles out Obama’s then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, who now manages Obama’s re-election campaign. After HCAN criticized an early version of the health care law, drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Kirsch writes, “I got a call from a member of the HCAN Steering Committee. The message was brief: Someone at the White House had called <the Service Employees International Union> and asked that I be fired.” Kirsch suggests in the book that it was Messina who tried to have him fired, but was never was able to directly confirm this. Still, Kirsch describes a tense relationship with Messina, and between Messina and other reform advocates.

Messina did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.

<snip>

More: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/key-reform-ally-dishes-on-weak-kneed-white-house-health-care-pushes-on-weak-kneed-reform.php?ref=fpb

BTW - Didn't Messina work for Max Baucus before coming to work for Obama?

[TheWraith]

1. And THIS guy's whiny temper tantrum is more valid than the last thousand?

Particularly given that he's repeating the same crap "conventional wisdom" which has long since been proven false, except to the faith-based knowledge of people who want to whine about Obama.

[WillyT]

8. Maybe You Missed This Part ???

...by Richard Kirsch, who directed the advocacy group Health Care for America Now during the push for reform. HCAN is a well financed umbrella group backed by scores of liberal groups, unions, and other reformers — making Kirsch a close witness to the entire saga.

Plus... he was cited quite a bit here at DU back during the Health Care fight...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=Richard+Kirsch&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search%21&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

[MannyGoldstein]

11. He's an admitted Liberal, and thus a liar

who eats baby brains for breakfast. Even worse, he's just not practical.

[WillyT]

12. LOL !!!

[spanone]

28. maybe you missed this....

richard kirsch...The Miracle That Is the Affordable Care Act


With all the continued controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act, it's easy to forget that its very passage was something of a miracle. A year later, the notion that Congress could enact comprehensive legislation on anything -- let alone a major expansion of the role of government in providing economic security to Americans -- is laughable. But the Act's passage was not just a remarkable achievement at this moment in our history; it defied a century of defeat by the same forces that are working to repeal it now. On its first birthday, it's important to appreciate the miracle in itself and as a reminder that things again could change very fast in these volatile times.

For some 100 years, the American political system failed to do what every other developed nation had done: make affordable health care a publicly guaranteed right. Our uniqueness was not a glitch; it was emblematic of a society that remains dominated by an individual ethos as opposed to an ethic of collective good, of caring for each other. And it was evidence of what every political scientist knows and every lobbyist counts on: our system is designed to kill major reforms. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson summarized in "Winner-Take-All Politics", "In America, it is hard to get things done and easy to block them. With its multiple branches and hurdles, the institutional structure of American government allows organized and intense interests -- even quite narrow ones -- to create gridlock and stalemate."

The mountain that President Obama sought to climb was every bit as steep as the slopes that defeated presidents from Roosevelt to Truman to Nixon and Clinton in their quests to make health care a right. The nation's biggest lobbying group in 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pulled out all stops to kill the bill, fueled by at least $86 million laundered from the health insurance industry. An army of other lobbyists stood in the way: the health insurance industry alone employed 2,049, almost four for every member of Congress. An angry, right-wing, grassroots rebellion aimed its ire at the most vulnerable Democrats in the nation, funded by corporate front groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity and fueled by the largest and most sophisticated propaganda machine in our history, Fox News. The reactionary forces made politics as partisan as we have ever seen, requiring agreement from every Democrat in the Senate -- no matter how deep their reliance and allegiance to corporate power.

Yet somehow, this baby was born. How? What was different? As hard as it is remember now, the time was right. The revulsion at the excesses of the Bush administration created the opportunity for the election of a president who campaigned on the promises of "hope" and "change." But only if he gave it his all. And on health care, President Obama did. On the night of his election, Obama told himself that the biggest single thing he could do to help average Americans was fulfill his campaign promise to "provide affordable, accessible health insurance for every American." And at at least three crucial times during the first thirteen months of his presidency, Obama refused the entreaties of his senior staff to abandon the quest and insisted on pushing for comprehensive reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-kirsch/the-miracle-man-and-woman_b_839472.html

[WillyT]

30. And Both Things Can Be True...

He can promote the Affordable Care Act... which was HIS JOB.

(BTW... article is from March of this year.)

And... he can inform us of the rot that lies underneath the pretty frosting on the cake we are supposed to be grateful for.

[spanone]

32. yes it is from this year. great praise of mr Obama and the healthcare reform.

so he just discovered all of this since march?

pffft.

[WillyT]

34. Many Eyes Have Opened, Many Hearts Have Changed, Since March Of This Year...

With the Arab Spring, OccupyWallStreet, SOPA/PIPA, NDAA... among a myriad of other things...

Many of us do not care to play nice with the Status Quo/Establishment any longer.

Maybe... just maybe... Mr. Kirsch is one of those people who cares enough about his nation to actually pull back the curtain on how things really work in this country.

I for one applaud him... sunshine IS the best disinfectant.

[spanone]

36. you give mr kirsch the benefit of the doubt...i give it to the President.

[WillyT]

37. As Is Your Right

[spanone]

38. and yours...

[Fuddnik]

68. I'm reading the same thing in Ron Suskind's "Confidence Men".

And he interviewed everyone involved, including Obama.

[progressoid]

76. Not unlike Gore promoting NAFTA

And later regretting it.

[eridani]

80. Thus institutionalizing mass murderers as intermediaries between us and out providers

The "affordable" insurance is the shitty Bronze Level garbage, which empties the bank accounts of older sick people so they have no money left to meet the deductibles for actual health CARE. MA reform gives us a preview of 2014, and if you're healthy (among the 85% of the population accounting for 15% of health care costs) will be happy, as they will very likely not ever have to find out how shitty the Bronze plans are. As for sick people, before MA reform, 59% of bankruptcies were due to health care costs. After reform 50% are. Dr. Pangloss just wants to say "9% lower! Wow! Isn't that just WONDERFUL??"

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. What a pile of horse manure.

"to do what every other developed nation had done: make affordable health care a publicly guaranteed right."

HCR DID NOTHING OF THE SORT. THESE "DEMOCRATIC" INSURICARE PROPONENTS NEED TO STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

HCR made the purchase of private health INSURANCE an OBLIGATION, not a right.

The opposite of a right.

[elehhhhna]

156. Yep. Insurance is NOT healthcare

it is often the opposite

[SwampG8r]

75. he refuses to act pragmaticly

[DiverDave]

53. Man, ever heard of tiny URL?

it helps with those long URL's
www.tinyurl.com

[Better Believe It]

43. Throw him under the bus to join the other progressives who don't stick to the party line.

[Sheepshank]

155. So you are upto divisinve rhetoric several times a day now?

feeling pressured because of the crappy Rep debates or what?

[rhett o rick]

72. Looks like you dropped a turd and ran. Why dont you stay and discuss? nm

[ClassWarrior]

110. Why waste time discussing when one's goal is to divide?

NGU.

[rhett o rick]

135. Maybe trying to bait progressives into getting TS'd. Purely speculation.

In another thread, a follower was bragging on how many victims he allegedly has.

[hootinholler]

158. I would like to see that

Seriously, I would indeed. There is way too much binary thinking around here these days.

[SwampG8r]

2. now they will have to have

a 2 minute hate about this
hope there isnt too much blowback
killing the messenger seems to be the preferred defense

[theaocp]

3. Confirms this for those of us who thought it was true at the time

and will be panned by those who are willfully ignorant and/or terrified of Republicans. Fucking sad. But don't forget, Republicans are worse, so where are you gonna go?

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Well, the President was getting "well-intentioned" and "well-informed" advice from Rahm

Emanuel at the time, wasn't he . . . . ?

[Autumn]

5. Didn't someone else come out with a book or

something about this? Seems like I remember someone saying this quite a while back.

[BlueCheese]

46. Yes

As I remember, Tom Daschle wrote a congratulatory book about how the health insurance bill passed, in which he said (almost bragged) that giving up the public option was a key tactic:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2010/10/05/171689/daschle-interview/?mobile=nc

Of course, he quickly claimed he was being misinterpreted, but a written book is a lot harder to take back that a spoken statement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I would like to read that book.

I am one of those who reached that conclusion a long time ago. By the way, that doesn't mean I don't support Obama's reelection although his behavior during that battle bothers me still. I still support Obama. The alternative to him is dangerous, and I hold out hope, with some circumstantial evidence supporting my hope, that Obama has learned on the job and become tougher in office, and a better fighter for core Democratic values. Part of that I believe is a resuilt of a recognition by his Administration that an active grassroots progressive movement helps him in his job more than it complicates his job. Thank Occupy Wall Street for that.

[TransitJohn]

7. Fuck Ron Paul

Thanks for posting, K&R.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I believe the NY Times reported that Obama began by

Secretly trading away the public option to insurers and providers, then negotiated down from that starting position.

[WillyT]

10. True... But That Report Was Dismissed Out Of Hand By Many Of Our Friends...

This seems to confirm all that.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. But other than multiple independent corroborating sources

the Firebaggers got nothin'. Except jail time, cracked skulls and pepper spray for the uppity ones.

[nashville_brook]

27. :)

[girl gone mad]

67. Yes, because it wasn't reported on in-depth..

therefore, it never happened.

Of course, if someone had made an effort to report the full details in-depth, we would have been subjected to endless posts on what an uneducated, POS, lying, racist, Ron Paul supporter the journalist was.

[Occulus]

13. Su-prise, su-prise, su-prise.

Color me not in the least bit shocked.

[gateley]

14. It REALLY disturbs me that the WH tries to remove people like Kirsch --

"asked that I be fired".

Although I'm not absolving Obama, the buck stops there, I wonder if he's aware of these going-ons or if people (read: Rahm) took it upon themselves to make such a move.

I'm glad he didn't lose his job.

And again, I have to just shake my head in disappointment and incredulity at some of the people Obama chooses as advisors.

But I still strongly support him, even though at times it's tough.

[gulliver]

16. It really doesn't matter if the votes weren't there.

You can't get a public option if the votes aren't there. Obama lead on healthcare and we got what could be gotten. I remember it being a completely dead issue. But then Obama took it to the Republicans at their retreat and reduced them babbling helplessness. I think a public option is possible now, and I'll bet it comes up in a second Obama administration. But it will only happen if we give him a good Congress and the people are with him.

If Obama had not gone to that retreat and smacked down the Republicans there would be no healthcare law right now. The public option and single payer prospects (along with all of the benefits of the current law) would have been postponed for another decade or two.

[2banon]

22. What exactly did "WE" get?

I have a job with no medical benefits, and I don't qualify for medical. I can barely make rent each month. I scrape it through from pay check to pay check and certainly cannot afford the $$$ of Health Insurance each month. It's 2012 I have not seen a single benefit from this so called "reform".

The entire thing was bizarre to put it mildly, a complete boondoggle for insurance companies, and bigpharma, but absolutely NO ACTUAL BENEFIT for me, or anyone I know personally.

I heard all the sound bites on what this Health bill was going to accomplish but nothing real was ever mentioned, except if you're a young adult you can stay on your parents health insurance until you're 26.

Wow. And whiat if a young adult's parents don't even HAVE health Insurance?!

Talk about Bizarro World.

[derby378]

55. Same here, AND...

...the health insurance companies still get to raise their prices as much as they want. And in a couple of years, it will be illegal to tell them "No."

[Fearless]

73. Ditto on all counts.

[Hawkowl]

58. Votes don't exist in a vacuum

Votes are created. You collect votes. You manufacture votes. You arm twist, bribe, threaten and fight for votes.

Mr. Obama didn't do jack shit to create votes for a public option. He gave it away as his first move. The grand chess master sacrificed his queen on the first goddamned move.

Epic weakness.

[loyalsister]

59. Is that how it worked when you were in congress?

your state leg or city council?
Votes are counted and they are traded. One can only leverage votes if they have something of value to trade. Without earmarks, what did this administration have? Approving ugly republican bills that they didn't really want his signature on in the first place?

[Hawkowl]

65. I've been a staffer

Though not for congress. And yes, that is how it worked.

[Carolina]

94. Exactly, Hawkowl

Well said.

[EFerrari]

74. Yes, it does matter that the government engages in thuggery, whether it be in this case

or in their thuggery against the Spanish judge investigating Bush for torture or against the Haitian government when it tried to raise the minimum wage. And it also matters that Obama was telling his base he would fight for the public option while he was telling the industry he wouldn't.

All of those things matter.

And health care was not a dead issue or Obama wouldn't have run on it.

[xchrom]

17. Du rec. Nt

[FarLeftFist]

18. Wow, Obama really IS just like FDR. Especially on HC reform. Yet, Obama passed reform

FDR walked away empty-handed.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. All FDR got was Social Security, which Obama tried to cut, and

health care costs were a small fraction of what they are today (as compared to wages). And they were usually paid for by employers, who needed to negotiate with workers because FDR Democrats backed strong unions instead of attacking them.

[FarLeftFist]

21. You don't see the parallels? FDR backed down from health care reform because...

Roosevelt so feared attacks by the American Medical Association that he dropped health coverage completely from his New Deal agenda. And here's Obama fearing losing the American Medical Associations endorsement. Also, Max Baucus (D-MT) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) killed any chances of the public option. Baucus, the chairman of the Senate committee that drafted the law, received a $1.5 million “donation” from the health insurance lobby from 2007-2008, and another cool $1.5 million in previous years. Lieberman was the deciding vote at the time between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and he vehemently and explicitly said he would vote against any health reform bill with the public option. Another strange similarity? FDR invited a group of physicians and private interests to work with his other appointees on a proposal to add health care to the Social Security Act. The invited special interest group, called the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, worked mostly in secret, isolated from public input and debate. The committee ultimately recommended a watered-down proposal of giving federal subsidies to states for health care programs. Obama’s plan covers 32 million previously uninsured Americans. Obama also invited industry to the bargaining table, but unlike FDR, Truman, and Clinton, Obama didn’t walk away empty-handed.

Personally I would love to see single-payer.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. FDR picked his battles. But he unequivocally won some big battles.

Social Security was a far bigger issue at the time than was health care - IIRC health care cost only 3% of a person's paycheck back in the 1930s, vs. 17% today. Here's an interesting chart that shows the trend:



But Social Security was a huge, huge deal - 50% of senior Americans lived in poverty before Social Security, vs less than 10% today. And that was in addition to getting the banks under real control, the WPA, and a blizzard of other huge programs that quickly lifted America out of the abyss. Obama hasn't won anything nearly that important - nor has he seriously tried to. In fact, he's actually tried strenuously to push back FDR's advances.

[FarLeftFist]

45. Of course FDR had 377 House seats and 73 Senate seats. Obama goes for wins he knows

may even stand a chance instead of fighting battles that are lost causes. This way when election season rolls around he can point to the numerous legislative victories he's accomplished in order to counter all of the BS from the RW about him "not doing anything". If he was handed a public option bill and our voices spoke up and demanded I can definitely see him signing it. Incremental change and progress IS progress nonetheless and with an actual bill to be able to attach a future public option to it makes it that much easier, Obama has laid the groundwork for a public option to even become a reality one day.

Which means, the existing bill can be improved upon. FDRs Social Security bill had built-in exclusions that exempted nearly half of the working population from benefits, namely two-thirds of African Americans and about half of women. Furthermore, FDR’s New Deal employment programs discriminated against blacks and he was too scared of political backlash to support either an anti-lynching bill or a bill to abolish the poll tax, despite urging from First Lady Eleanor. So in terms of Civil Rights, Obama beats FDR in a landslide.

Edit: That bill too was obviously improved upon as well.

[loyalsister]

60. You're absolutely correct

Improvements on SS law have been ongoing

People with disabilities were completely left out until it was amended in 1956. It was not until much later that people with disabilities could earn income without losing benefits.

People with disabilities were left out of WPA and SS law the first time - by a president who had a disability. People with disabilities were understandably extremely angry at the time.

But, that in no way negates the good that the first law did when it established a framework that provided for subsequent improvements.

[FarLeftFist]

63. Exactly my point. Just laying the groundwork itself is a MAJOR accomplishment.

[Leopolds Ghost]

108. Laying the groundwork for what?

According to the authors of HCR, when the Insurance Industry sat down with a few Center-right Democrats and Republicans and wrote the bill and did the math back in 2005 or so,

(Oh, you thought it was more recent than that? You thought this was Obama's bill?)

The whole idea behind the legislation was to save private insurance industry from single payer by creating a law that would force everyone to buy private health insurance instead -- with a public option means-tested, paid for by fines on the uninsured.

[eridani]

81. I guess all of us just don't realize how Social Security got started

FDR got legislation passed that forced everyone to invest in the stock market for retirement security, with no government option, correct? Oh, wait......

[loyalsister]

86. Those pesky details

It takes a lot of effort to twist them into a reasonable analogy sometimes. The similarity in content between those laws ends with the fact that they are domestic human interest policies.
If you want to believe that SS law started out perfect go ahead. Don't bother yourself with the fact that it has been amended repeatedly. Better yet, why not advocate for a return to the good old days before it was connected to Medicare.

[eridani]

89. It didn't start out as a perfect program, but it did start out as a GOVERNMENT progam

Health care reform did not. It forces us to accept private for profit mass murderers as intermediaries between us and our health care providers.

[loyalsister]

146. We all know that difference

Suspicion of private markets was much more extreme then. I have talked to many people who have been personally satisfied with their insurance and overlook the systemic pathology. Not everyone sees the big picture. There was not any kind of public impetus for a public option. Even people who favored health reform were not invested enough to rally. There was, however a strong, vocal public opposition.

Expectations that everyone would be included in SS were unrealistically high.

This willingness to overlook the effect of political limits that existed then and now in order to demonize president Obama comes across as an exercise in negativity for fun.

[eridani]

147. So doctors getting arrested in the Senate = "not invested enough"?

There were many universal health care rallies which the MSM chose to avoid covering. A tea party convention in Nashville with 600 people was hailed as a major movement, while the progressive meeting in Detroit attended by 15,000 was ignored. The strength of the opposition was a media creation, period. Outrage over Ryan's Medicare privatization was not nearly so well publicized.

Every single traditional Democratic constituency was in favor of a public option--the only ones against it were people who insisted on single payer instead.

Of course people like their insurance--85% of them don't get expensively sick. Their opinions about how good their insurance is are worthless, just like their opinions on how good their fire extinguishers are.

Obama and Dems like him have CREATED the political limits characteristic of the last 30 years by being gutless in advocating for the interests of the 99%. Conservatives have been spouting crazy bullshit over that same time period, constantly repeating it to the point where the MSM now treats extreme nonsense as serious policy discussion. Had Obama used the presidential bully pulpit to advocate for single payer as the only moral option, we might have gotten a public option as a compromise.

[loyalsister]

148. Since you have all the answers

and, like every surrogate know exactly what "the American people want," I hope you are holding office serving as a consultant, or something. That condescending phrase telling me and my family friends\neighbors what I want is annoying whether it comes from the right or the left. The opinions of people you identified as worthless, do influence policy because they vote in numbers. A lot of people voted for W.

The numbers on the ground do not support the assertion that there was overwhelming vocal public support for a public option. People may have supported it but there was not a significant number who cared enough to speak out and get active. It is easy to blame the media or politicians, but the truth is the numbers of activists willing to skip work, and show up to yell and scream about a public option at town halls were not there. The koch bros. provided the organized framework for the tea party. No one took the initiative on our side. If the investment were as you say someone would have.

If you are or have been an executive office holder or had to negotiate for votes with people who hated your guts you might have credibility. As it stands, these outside evaluations of how this could have been handled better are simply amateur analyses conducted by people with a grudge.

[eridani]

149. Single payer has been passed in CA 2 1/2 times, going on a third

How is that possible without public support?

Numbers on the ground apparently mean nothing as long as the MSM doesn't report vocal demonstrations. Civil disobedience in Seattle over health care got no attention whatsoever, unlike tehadist whackjobs.

[loyalsister]

154. "Public support" in CA does not translate into public support nationwide.

In MO they passed the "Health Care Freedom Act" which bars a federal requirement for HC coverage.

[eridani]

157. Because single payer advocates weren't interested in promoting public health care

--as an alternative? Lots of people hate mandatory private insurance and like the idea of "a program for all like Medicare." In very red districts, Republican representatives caught holy hell after they voted to privatize GOVERNMENT Medicare. What does that tell you?

[loyalsister]

159. No

Because CA is one state that is hardly representative of the entire country. People in MO who have been most active on this issue do not want any government involvement in health care. In the purple district where I live (in a county that went for Obama but the Dem lost the congressional election) the republican did not catch hell over the Ryan plan.

[CakeGrrl]

82. FDR did NOT get SS in it's current form.

It was implemented incrementally.

And Obama isn't trying to cut it. But keep on spreading misinformation to those who believe it.

[eridani]

90. He got it established as a GOVERNMENT program

No requirements for dealing with private parasitic entities at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

91. It was substantially in its current form

It covered most retirees from the start.

[DeathToTheOil]

19. I didn't miss it

There was a thread about it on GD yesterday or the day before.

[woo me with science]

24. We knew this all along. Occupy.

Get the damned money out of politics.

We don't have representation anymore.

[Zorra]

71. +1 Get the money out of politics.

☮ccupy

[theaocp]

29. STFU?

No.

[WillyT]

31. Um... You Forgot The Sarcasm Thingy...

[tibbiit]

42. no i didnt forget sarcasm

I dont care about anything that props up gringrich and romney to the percentage of americans who need to vote for obama. To keep from living in a gingrich and romney world, people need to quit handing amo to the repulsive pukes. I'm going to care a whole lot more about living in a gingrich romeny country then nits of policy infamy (which I too hate) that are past history now. After we take back congress and get obama reelected, then we can hold ALL their feet to the fire across the board.
tib

[FarLeftFist]

39. True, I can't AFFORD to live in a Gingrich or Romney led country.

[Carolina]

95. We already live in a Gingrich and Romney run country

(the 1%) it's just that neither of them are the current titular head.

[woo me with science]

41. This is parody, right?

Because whether it's meant to be or not, it's spot on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=196994

[Autumn]

50. So I kind of get the impression you don't want to

to live in a gingrich or romney led country!

[WillyT]

51. LOL !!!

[Autumn]

54. What can I say? I'm fucking psychic

it's a gift, I live with it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Don't worry he'll veto any health reform bill that doesn't contain the Public Option...oh, wait.

[loyalsister]

61. Do you think he would veto one that does?

n\t

[frylock]

33. knr

[T S Justly]

35. K&R (nt)

[Edweird]

40. I saw him on The Young Turks a few days ago. It confirms what I already knew.

[ProSense]

47. Richard Kirsch

and HCAN were amazing during the battle to pass health care reform. He has written some excellent comments on it.

Health Care and the Winds of History

by Richard Kirsch

The President and Congress didn’t make health care reform happen — the progressive grassroots did.

<...>

It wasn’t only Speaker Pelosi who was energized by the historical import of making health care “a right, not a privilege,” in a phrase she made fully hers. It’s no accident that in countless health care speeches President Obama mentioned that presidents back to Teddy Roosevelt have tried and failed to win health care. Obama pledged to be the last president to make such a quest in an address to a joint session of Congress.

<...>

It wasn’t just the President or Congressional leadership who felt that they were making history. Many rank and file Democratic members felt the passage in historic terms, including some of the members who most risked reelection by voting for health care, which really was very unpopular in their districts.

But as students of the New Deal or other progressive eras in the United States know, presidents and congresses didn’t stand up to powerful forces opposing change on their own. It was organized people’s movements that created the political momentum that fanned the favorable historic winds.

The same is true for the passage of health care reform. If President Obama and the Democratic Congress were delivering the health care baby, it was the organized progressive forces that were the midwives to history. And like any good midwife, what we did was convince the mother, through our grassroots organizing around the country, that it was worth the pain and that the baby would come out right and make the mom and dad proud.

- more -

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/07/01/health-care-and-the-winds-of-history-13361/

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Rove’s Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Rove’s ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a “government takeover of health care.” Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldn’t make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/08/why-republicans-are-so-intent-on-killing-health-care-reform-26298/

[Cherchez la Femme]

48. I JUST ordered this!

I, for one, would really like to know the whole story behind that historical episode!

[bvar22]

49. ...but he sings Al Green,

...and is better than Gingrinch~!

What the hell do you want?
Representation for the American people?
Only 72% of Americans favored a Public Option!

[Autumn]

56. Well the needs of the one

percent out weigh the needs of the ninety nine percent.

[girl gone mad]

77. Well, that's true.

Gingrich would never even bother pretending to support the public option.

[CakeGrrl]

83. He IS dreamy, isn't he?

[raouldukelives]

52. K&R

[JackRiddler]

57. Surprising? K&R

[fadedrose]

62. Gees, I wish my memory were better - Dem. bill failed...

There was a proposal that a Dem. senator came up with - can't recall if it was to allow Americans to buy Canadian drugs, or maybe it was to make legal the bargaining of drug costs in the Health Care Plaln, same as in Medicare.... anyone remember?

It was brought out that the White House did not want the bill passed, and most of us felt like we were hit on the head with a brick when that came out....and the bill was not passed.

The Senator who proposed it said he would not run for reelection.

My point now is, finally, that if this was true, then the book you speak of written by Kirsch, that the public option was a bargaining chip, never even considered for inclusion in the bill, is true.

If anyone agrees that there's a lot of funny stuff that went on, then I think I have to hit the alert button on Wriath, Post #1, because he is maligning Willy T by saying he is a "whiner" and insulting Willy T.

Wraith said: Particularly given that he's repeating the same crap "conventional wisdom" which has long since been proven false, except to the faith-based knowledge of people who want to whine about Obama.

When was this "crap" been proven false? Very poor assessment of Willy T.'s post.

I don't whine about Obama, I like him as much as I always did. He still brings tears to my eyes when he makes a really good speech. I think we were lucky to get the health care bill we did considering the ugly Republican battles that occurred.

But none of what I think excuses what the Wraith said about Willy T.

I think I'm gonna do it....alert, I mean. After my coffee....

Oh, I think that wonderful Senator was from the Northwest, don't believe it was IL's Durbin....another favorite.

[Moosepoop]

64. You're going to alert because

you think that TheWraith "insulted" WillyT by critiquing the article in the OP?

Read it again.

TheWraith said:

And THIS guy's whiny temper tantrum is more valid than the last thousand?

Particularly given that he's repeating the same crap "conventional wisdom" which has long since been proven false, except to the faith-based knowledge of people who want to whine about Obama.

These comments were in regard to the content of the article and the author of the book in question.

"THIS guy" = Richard Kirsch, the author of the book written about in the article.
The "whiny temper tantrum" is referring, again, to Mr. Kirsch.
All of it is about Richard Kirsch, not WillyT.

I hope you haven't finished your coffee...

[fadedrose]

66. You are correct..

Trouble is, I believe the book. But I think the WH had no choice but to leave public option off the table or the opposition would not even have come to the table. And that would have meant NO health care bill. I think it's only a beginning - it may not come in my lifetime, but it will come. Surely Kirsch knew this when we all seemed to realize it. But Willly is being honest in his assessment and does not in any way wish to have us believe "crap" that has not been proven false.

I resent Waith's saying that only people who want to whine about Obama would believe that about the public option. The way he put it he insults me...I hate people who whine about Obama, I think I love him....

The mistakes he's made there was no way to avoid...

The same is true with that Senator whose name I can't remember. If they'd one through with that drug bill, no health bill would have been passed. Damned miracle they got what they got..

Waith or whatever his name is has no finessee, and he could have educated rather than insulted or misled...(crap proven false)...

Senator Byron Dorgan, ND, I think..

[Ron Green]

69. Obama should have never allowed the public option to be

characterized as "on the left." That's where Single Payer is. Public Option is strictly middle-of-the-road, and therefore not a bargaining chip.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. OBAMA BAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!!!

[girl gone mad]

78. Obama perfect.

[CakeGrrl]

79. Go find some proof.

I can find plenty of stuff to support the assertion you're snarking about. Can you do the same?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

142. Yep! GOBAMA 2012!!!!!!!

[joshcryer]

84. Obama's health care stance was always weak.

The fact that he had to have his arms twisted over mandates, for instance.

And before anyone tries to spread the false, dishonest meme that Republicans wanted the mandates, read "Empowering Patients First Act" which at the core was anti-mandate legislation. Mandates were pushed by House Democrats. Senate Republicans killed the public option, leaving the mandates in there. If we had mandates and the public option, we would've had Hillary's proposal, which Krugman fought for (and which was only a few steps away from single payer).

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. Mandates were designed to kill single payer, according to Washington Monthly when they interviewed

the think-tankers (including Edwards, Hillary, and a bunch of Insurance insiders) who wrote the damn bill.

Mandates were first proposed by Romney and Gingrich back when they were in political office.

[joshcryer]

92. No, they were designed as an alternative.

They wanted to keep the insurance industry in business, but without mandates costs skyrocket and the insurance industry cannot cope, so that's why they chose mandates. In the end their enemy is the public option (which one state, Vermont, has adopted, and another, Oregon, will likely adopt). The public option kills the insurance industry (except for of course niche industry groups). They tried to put legislation in there to kill states adopting a public option, but that was shot down quickly. The lack of a federal public option was a compromise to get it to pass the senate. It probably could've been kept in there if there was a fight for it, but as I said, Obama was weak on health care.

Just because Romney got mandates and Gingrich advocated them as late as May of last year, that doesn't mean that they're bad ideas. Obama campaigned against mandates (remember Harry and Louise?) but he always said he'd be open to them. Paul Krugman and many other liberal economists liked Hillary's plan more because it had the mandate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. The mandates go against the principles on which the country was founded, oppos. to Mercantilism.

And I read all about this in Washington Monthly and other local publications years before it went national, thank you very much...

I'll take the words of the people who crafted the bill,

over some political statements you heard from self admitted liars (politicians repeatedly reversing their pretend stance on the issue) 4 years later, after Bush left office.

BTW, Masscare is ROMNEYCARE.

NOBODY was talking about this issue when I first posted my concerns about this matter years ago... in 2005 when EDWARDS was endorsing it... I was opposed to it then and for the very sound reason that the PUBLIC OPTION was designed to be PAID FOR BY FINES on people avoiding the MANDATE in order to ENSURE that it did not become a fall-back.

[joshcryer]

99. Single payer is a mandate, so I am just going to take what you're saying here...

...with a grain of salt, unless you're going to provide actual links. You've become repetitive, for me to know what you're trying to argue I need supporting evidence.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. Single payer is a mandate to purchase private health insurance with private income? Do tell.

[font size="1"]CALLS MANDATED PRIVATE INSURANCE A FORM OF SINGLE PAYER[/font]

[font size="1"]I SURE HOPE YOU PONIES DON'T DO THAT.[/font]

[joshcryer]

102. No, single payer is a mandate that all pay into a group pool of individuals for health care.

Private health insurance is only mandated by the law in 48 states as of this post.

As it stands now 1 state has a public provider, another is going to have it by the time the meat of the legislation goes into effect (and I suspect others will follow suit), therefore the law does not "mandate to purchase private health insurance with private income." It mandates that all pay into a group pool of individuals, implementation details left up to the states. No, really.

All it takes is a public option and then all your complaints go away.

Move to Vermont (or Oregon), or petition your state senators to do the right thing and implement a public option in your state.

Or better yet, elect representatives to amend the law to get a federal public option approved, as there is no chance in hell that it will be approved with the Republicans we currently have in office.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. Or, you know, we will continue to boycott any insurance provider that attempts to market a private

product to us under penalty of fine. But I am sure you, being already insured, fail to understand that.

[joshcryer]

109. I'm not insured.

I'm a young, healthy, white, straight male, with no conditions.

I am also going with the yearly fine. Not sure how it works, I've accepted it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

134. Look, I think we've done this issue to death...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

One thing I will say, if Obama hadn't sided with Hillary on the mandate, there wouldn't have been the huge backlash we saw in '10.

[joshcryer]

136. I remember those debates well.

I was on the side of mandates because I was convinced they'd lead to the end of the insurance industry.

Many of Obama's no-mandate supporters were right wingers, for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4381549&mesg_id=4403267

It only pushed me further toward mandates.

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. A federal public option would be paid for by fines on the uninsured. That was the whole IDEA.

[jannyk]

85. K&R!

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. The Public Option was a show pony from day one.

Obama pledged that individual mandates are wrong for the same reason
we don't mandate homeless people to buy a house -- OOOHHH, SHINY!



BTW, does anyone remember reading in the Washington Monthly about how HCR was structured
back when it was first proposed, in, oh, 2005 or so? No? I do...

The idea was always to pay for the public option through fines on public-option ineligible uninsured, i.e. the working poor.

To encourage as many people as possible NOT to use the public option, since the entire goal of the HCR plan was
to strengthen the rolls of the private insurance companies bay adding additional healthy people to the mix,

thereby preventing a call for single payer health care. As Edwards and others said at the time, they reassured
Insurance that this would prevent single-payer by saving private Insurance from the costs of the Baby Boom.

It's all there in the Harpers and Washington Monthly articles on the subject from way back in 2004-2007, you can look it up.

[joshcryer]

93. He campaigned against mandates because it was the moderate thing to do.

Remember the Harry and Louise ads he ran? He wanted to crush the idea of the mandate because independents are stupid and don't think about society as a whole.

Paul Krugman predicted the outcome of the health care debacle so far out it makes him a prophet: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

What Paul Krugman didn't predict was that liberals would be the enemies "using it against him": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Finally, it's clear that the mandate is necessary, and progressive: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/healthcare-numbers/

[JoeyT]

96. Which means he lied and knew he was lying in advance.

When you say you won't do something and you know full well you're going to do it, lying is what it's called. It's not pragmatism or playing the game. It's lying, full stop.

Stupid liberals, getting pissy when a politician lies through their teeth to ensure their vote, then turns around and flat out refuses abide by his promises.

[joshcryer]

98. No, I doubt he knew he was going to do it.

I think it was far too naive to understand that 1) the House Democrats would make sure it was in their form of the legislation and 2) that the Republicans wouldn't vote for it without scrapping the public option. He was a naive junior senator from Illinois. And he said during his campaign that he'd be open to mandates some time down the line.

He just campaigned against it because frankly he had to distinguish himself from Hillary somehow, since their agendas were practically the same. And DU, for the first time ever, threw Krugman under the bus because he supported the mandate. Liberals should be happy for the mandate, since it brings us one step closer to single payer.

They shouldn't 1) buy the dishonest meme that Republicans like mandates (they voted overwhelmingly against HCR), and 2) that mandates are not progressive.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. Buck Krugman. He supported the mandate. We're supposed to side with him on every issue why?

Because the wealthy technocratic 53%ers over on Huffingtonpost worship everything he says?

Krugman has all sorts of eccentric opinions.

THE MANDATE WAS A GINGRICH IDEA IN THE 90s, along with Salvage Logging and Welfare Reform
-- two concepts that your liberal townships and liberal representatives have likely endorsed --also--
since then.

The concept of the mandate is to MANDATE THAT PEOPLE BUY INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE PROVIDERS
in order to PROTECT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY FROM LOSSES that would come from agreeing to
insure people with pre-existing conditions -- NO MENTION of affordability or universal access -- indeed
the Public Option is there to prevent the need for private insurance to have to cover everyone. It's not
meant to be an option for everyone, only for THOSE WHO CAN AVOID A FINE. The idea was to fine
5% or 10% of the public (for not having insurance -- or not willing to be scammed in order to get
insurance) to cover the remaining 5%, and force everyone else to buy private insurance.

THAT was the MATH advanced by the EXPERTS THEMSELVES who wrote the bill.

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. The Public Option was to have been paid for by fines on the uninsured. Nuff said.

[joshcryer]

107. Where is this coming from? Mandates are to stop freeloaders from rising costs...

...for everyone else.

[Leopolds Ghost]

111. Again you use Hillary Clinton's 53%er rhetoric "freeloaders" to refer to the uninsured.

Most of whom are unemployed, underemployed, self-employed or working poor.

Let's not forget that most advocates of Romneycare / Obama HCR have access to health care through their employer.

[joshcryer]

115. Edwards and Hillary both funded those people. They didn't *fine* them.

They went after only those who did work, and chose not to be insured.

Those people were not the "freeloaders" that Hillary went after.

[Leopolds Ghost]

116. I.e. the working poor.

You think the 20% of Americans who are uninsured are uninsured by choice?

[joshcryer]

118. So single payer wouldn't make "the working poor" as you call them, pay into it?

Is that what you're really saying here? This is a very Libertarian complaint, about paying into society.

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. I'm a civil libertarian, yes. Private insurance cos. != society. != common payer.

And paying private insurance cos. != universal health care.

What you're talking about is drastically different as you'd know from basic Economics class.

You're talking about turning an industry into a private utility and making it a mandated private good.

With variable private cost set by what the market will bear under mandate conditions.

And no guarantee of payout.

The opposite of both liberalism and civil libertarianism.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear if you supported the Kelo decision?

Of course, you probably dislike the left + libertarianism in the abstract
(not right-libertarianism) so would be especially angered by a left-libertarians perspective...

[joshcryer]

131. I'm talking about putting people into one large group pool...

...across all insurance providers (as is the expected outcome), rendering "private insurance" a misnomer, because the MLR as mandated by HHS will not allow them to continue profiting as they have done so in the past. Eventually they will dissolve away as a public option gets adopted because for-profit companies cannot handle the low margins that an efficient government institution or non-profit can and investors will jump ship.

As far as left-libertarianism, I suppose you don't recognize my avatar. I personally want the insurance companies to die, and I recognize the mandate as a very strong tool for doing so.

[joshcryer]

122. 38% of Americans uninsured make more than $50k a year.

[Leopolds Ghost]

113. Also, the concept that freeloaders are responsible for rising costs is a Republicrat meme

The same meme that causes Blue Dogs in urban areas to shut down and privatize public hospitals because they "encourage poor people to rely on free emergency care."

[joshcryer]

117. The same people paying into a mandated program would have to pay into single payer.

The very same people. I do not call unemployed, underemployed, self-employed or working poor "freeloaders" by any stretch of the imagination. I call freeloaders those who are capable but chose not to pay into the system freeloaders, that's the fucking concept of a freeloader.

You and me, we're freeloaders, because we can chose to go with the low fines (that progressive economists said wouldn't work) and laugh our way to the bank.

[Leopolds Ghost]

125. So the low fines "are working" by forcing people who couldn't afford ins. to buy ins?

And I dunno about you but I'm (*currently) unemployed (I run a small arts organization). I can't afford
the insurance needed to get an operation, nor can I afford the fines. A great many of us who are working poor
will simply file for loopholes under the new law and flip the bird at it entirely, rather than pay the extortionist
rates the insurance cos. are demanding. As for the operation, I will probably have to go on temporary Medicaid.
What has the new law gotten me so far? On a dozen Insurance industry spam lists, thanks to the shark feeding
on the Internet designed to exploit anyone who signs up with any insurance website asking for a quote online.
They sell your info to all the other insurance providers. And why not? You're a captive market. Unlike all
those people who have health insurance with their job. I imagine you don't?

I can certainly claim religious objection to the law since my faith is basically Mennonite
and hence in opposition to the gov't forcing me to participate in the corporate economy.
Feel free to laugh at that if you want.

Single payer is radically different from universal mandated private purchase, I don't
think I have to explain why. Unless you believe there's no difference between a
universal gas tax and requiring everyone to buy gas.

[joshcryer]

127. You don't ... get fined if you make no money.

What the hell.

It feels like primaries 2008 all over again.

[Leopolds Ghost]

129. No, only if you're employed. The minute I get a job, I have to explain to them

Why I refuse to pay said fine.

For one thing, this new law prevents me from obtaining the affordable health care (that actually pays out) for self-employed and low-wage workers that I have been trying to find. It does so by twisting the market in favor of insurance cos. I have actually gotten calls from insurance companies telling them to take their deal now, before I am required to purchase from them, or someone like them (whereupon their prices will go up).

If anything, there should be a tax revolt against said fine since it is a Stamp Tax to benefit the corporate Insurance industry.

It's not the same as a universal common carrier with a fixed means-tested price.

Hell, as I said long ago, I'd be willing to see a "Federal Reserve / Mortgage Reinsurance system" for Health Care in which there is a universal purchasing pool and you get to choose your provider.

That, of course, would be the opposite of what we have now.

[joshcryer]

132. Obama's original no-mandate proposal included fines!

What the hell! You're complaining about the fines now!? Shit I thought this was about the mandates!

[Leopolds Ghost]

133. How can it be no-mandate if you fine people for not having insurance?

There is no obligation to purchase private goods in the constitution.

You can't fine someone for not having a house, but you can tax them to support building a house.

Of course, the past three administrations have basically defunded public housing even further.

[joshcryer]

137. The fines were for parents with children.

But he also said he'd be amiable to fines if wealthy healthy people did not get insurance, later on down the line.

[joshcryer]

138. I really don't see a distinction. You're "paying the man" either way.

If you had single payer as soon as you got a job, you'd have to pay the single payer tax (which would be progressive, but it'd still exist).

The "universal gas tax" and "requiring everyone to buy gas" analogy is silly, assuming that "gas is health care." Insurance companies do not provide health care, they group pool healthy and sick people, and the healthy people pay for when the sick people get sick. Single payer would act just as insurance would, without the for profit motive. The for-profit motive is highly limited by HHS medical loss ratios, and thus HCR will eventually lead to the death of the insurance companies as they are unable to stay profitable or as citizens demand a non-profit option through the states or through the government inacting it.

Social Security was shit when it was enacted. We can complain about the crappy aspects of HCR and push for it to be improved. But as it stands now it isn't going away, and one of the strongest tools it has is the mandate, which can be convincingly turned into single payer relatively easy. (Private group pools get put into public group pools which then gets put into a progressive single payer pools, each time incrementally simplifying the overall system, and moving around employees to do all the paperwork and whatnot.)

If "gas" is "a group pool of individuals who pay into a system of health care" then, no, there's no real difference between a "universal gas tax and requiring everyone to buy gas."

[ClassWarrior]

114. So he did it because it was the weakest Democratic position to take?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

139. .

[ClassWarrior]

140. .

[ClassWarrior]

141. .

[Leopolds Ghost]

119. As Obama said, mandates are bad idea for the same reason that mandated private housing is a bad idea

We could always use that as a "stepping stone to universal access to shelter" by providing shelters as an option for those who do not wish to receive a fine. Most municipalities already do that.

Naturally there is a "New Democrat" trend to pass legislation to make the pie higher by mandate that everyone behave as they do, whether they can afford to or not. It's the whole culture of the Homeowners Association mentality. Why provide services when you can arrange for everyone to buy their own at "market" rates? (artificially inflated by mandate, using basic principles of price fixing a utility commodity)

California got rid of its vagrancy law mandating that everypony have $5 in their pocket. Perhaps we could replace it with a federal one?

[joshcryer]

120. LOL, I am amazed to see Obama's moderate policies being trumpeted here.

Absolutely, amazed.

[ClassWarrior]

121. You mean Obama's weakest Democratic policies.

Why use weasel words like "moderate?"

NGU.

[joshcryer]

124. Moderate policies are not the same as weak actions.

His moderate policy of a public option without mandates (right of a public option with mandates) could've passed, but moderates aren't known to be strong on issues, so the public option was weakly compromised away, for the most part (states can still implement a public option).

[ClassWarrior]

126. No, moderate policies are the same as weak policies.

Who said anything about "actions?"



NGU.

[joshcryer]

128. Leopolds Ghost at least appears to back Obama's moderate policy.

And I do not consider them "weak" since they're at least trying to have a constructive discussion.

[ClassWarrior]

130. So? That doesn't shove "moderate" any closer to the strong Democratic end of the values spectrum.

NGU.

[Schema Thing]

143. Well, Obama DID say during the campaign that he didn't believe S/payer could get passed.

So I'm pretty happy that he got the groundwork for single payer enacted.

[JoePhilly]

144. Obama hates us.

That's what it is.

[dionysus]

151. hates us he does... he wants to steal the precioussssss...

[2banon]

145. Shoulda gone after the Banksters and Wall Street Thugs in his first year, deal with HC "Reform"

after cleaning out "financial services" corruption and fraud.

sigh..

[dionysus]

150. keep trying.

[WillyT]

153. Try Reading...

[Cleita]

152. ...

:kick: & rec.