Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: By Ditching the Public Option, Obama Gave His Enemies a Path to the Supreme Court [View all]slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)47. White House as helpless victim on healthcare - Dec 2009
http://www.salon.com/2009/12/16/white_house_5/
"Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferous email backlash easily was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obamas occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obamas campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldnt pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party rather than the GOP will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.
As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional centrists. Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:
... Indeed, weve seen before what the White House can do and does do when they actually care about pressuring members of Congress to support something they genuinely want passed. When FDL and other liberal blogs led an effort to defeat Obamas war funding bill back in June, the White House became desperate for votes, and here is what they apparently did (though they deny it):
The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they wont get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. Were not going to help you. Youll never hear from us again, Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.
Thats what the White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want. Why didnt they do any of that to the centrists who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care?
..."
"Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferous email backlash easily was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obamas occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obamas campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldnt pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party rather than the GOP will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.
As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional centrists. Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:
... Indeed, weve seen before what the White House can do and does do when they actually care about pressuring members of Congress to support something they genuinely want passed. When FDL and other liberal blogs led an effort to defeat Obamas war funding bill back in June, the White House became desperate for votes, and here is what they apparently did (though they deny it):
The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they wont get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. Were not going to help you. Youll never hear from us again, Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.
Thats what the White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want. Why didnt they do any of that to the centrists who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care?
..."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
By Ditching the Public Option, Obama Gave His Enemies a Path to the Supreme Court [View all]
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
OP
President Obama opposed a public option so how could he pass something he was against?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#13
Explain how you get Lieberman to vote yes ... I'll spot you all the other blue dogs ... Go!!
JoePhilly
Mar 2012
#34
Who knows what his reason would be, maybe we needed to first build support or until ...
slipslidingaway
Mar 2012
#71
Do you read any links or just say Joe is all powerful and the president is powerless. n/t
slipslidingaway
Mar 2012
#135
The "study" that found 2/3rds of the country for single payer is not all that impressive
karynnj
Mar 2012
#98
No, not really, the Dec. 2007 AP-Yahoo Poll had 65/54% depending on how ...
slipslidingaway
Mar 2012
#133
Threaten his seniority and committee-chairs he was gifted despite not being an elected Democrat.
Chan790
Mar 2012
#79
I love your idea! The disgust I feel for this man is so great that I get sick just thinking about
CTyankee
Mar 2012
#125
Please list all Republican Senators that would have voted for the plan you suggest
karynnj
Mar 2012
#94
The Bully Pulpit is the Tee Vee, and it Only Works for the Repigs Because They Own All the Networks
AndyTiedye
Mar 2012
#85
Obama wasn't on board with Single Payer or Public Option when he was a candidate.
LiberalFighter
Mar 2012
#42
and how were you going to get LIEberman, nelson, lincoln, byah, and others to go for it? /nt
still_one
Mar 2012
#4
Twist their arms: Tell them that if they want any DNC money, they'd better toe the line
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2012
#107
+1. Sadly, so many blind supporters are okay with his lack of fight on the public option.
SmellyFeet
Mar 2012
#114
The only thing they should have done is say it was a tax, which probably would have prevented the
still_one
Mar 2012
#7
Agree. And the Congressional compromise enabled the expansion of Medicaid as well
pinto
Mar 2012
#10
Do you believe that President Obama wanted Medicare for All or a strong public option?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#20
Easier to win any Senator's vote than it is to get a SCOTUS decison reversed.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2012
#82
Tell him that you'll have the DNC flood his media market (Connecticut)
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2012
#109
This is the truth. The mandate probably is unconstitutional without a public option.
Maven
Mar 2012
#23
Yep Snowe, and all of the other 59 Senators needed to pass it all wanted it but Obama said
grantcart
Mar 2012
#40
News flash! It only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, not 60.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#46
A simple majority of Senate votes have always been required to pass legislation, 51 today, not 60.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#64
Invoking cloture to end debate requires 60 votes. Passing legislation requires 51 votes.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#97
Obama did NOT ditch the public option. He would have been happy to sign any public option
pnwmom
Mar 2012
#48
We DID NOT Have the Votes, We DO NOT Have the Votes, We WILL NOT Have the Votes Any Time Soon
AndyTiedye
Mar 2012
#57
Obama did not have 51 votes to pass legislation he opposed, a health care public option.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#69
As I recall, it was Loser Lieberman who wouldn't agree to let a Medicare buy-in
NC_Nurse
Mar 2012
#74
that's your own hypothetical... why two million? Why not use a trillion as an example
fascisthunter
Mar 2012
#106
i chose 2 mill since that was a good equalent value in my mind when it comes to the likelyhood of
Bodhi BloodWave
Mar 2012
#121
The difference would have been that public option would have been more popular than mandate.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#88
50 Senate votes with the President of the Senate, Joe Biden, casting the tie breaker can pass it.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#95
It is true that at before the 110th Congress started, the rules could have been changed - but they
karynnj
Mar 2012
#101
Actually fake Republican procedural "filibusters" can be ended at anytime as can Senate rules.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#120
I agree that single payer is a far better alternative, but it is NOT the for profit motive that led
karynnj
Mar 2012
#119
The people who can get "health care" could care less about others in society
just1voice
Mar 2012
#117