Obama has only himself to blame if the AHCA goes down.

[edhopper]

He had the votes for the Public Option, (maybe even Medicare for all) which would have made the mandate irrelevant, it would put those uninsured into a public program. But in the pursuit of meaningless bipartisanship, which translated to a single Republican vote (which he did not even get) he threw away the chance at real healthcare reform for a political gain.
Now it looks to all become unraveled when the SCOTUS rules against it. I think it will be a decade before Congress will seriously tackle Healthcare again in a meaningful, realistic way. That is unless we get a Republican Pres and Congress again, in which case they will make things worse.

In other words, thanks to Obama's timidity and prioritizing politics over practical progression, we are fucked.

[JoePhilly]

1. Obama bad Obama bad Obama bad.

[edhopper]

3. Well reasoned

counter argument to my OP.

Thank you for such an intelligent contribution.

[WI_DEM]

26. look below and you'll see that your post is shit because he didn't have the votes

for the public option and you are trying to rewrite history.

[groundloop]

40. Joe Lie-berman, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, .........

If the OP would think back, he'd recall that the Senate was like a damned 5 ring circus during the healthcare fight. Once an "agreement" had been reached one of these clowns would step in and fuck it up. We NEVER had 60 votes for the public option (though we should have if the Democratic Party had been in lockstep like the repubs). The current law was the best that could be salvaged, at least it's several steps in the right direction, and I'd hate like hell to loose what progress we've made.

[Better Believe It]

55. "We NEVER had 60 votes for the public option" You never needed 60 votes, just 51 to pass laws.

Who told you 60 votes are needed to pass legislation?

60 votes are allegedly needed to end fake Republican procedural "filibusters" according to some.

But, Senate Democratic leaders can end such pretend filibusters whenever they wish as has been documented and pointed out many times on DU.

[TheWraith]

66. Yet more attempts to rewrite reality.

You've consistently proven that you have NO idea how filibusters actually work in the real world, as opposed to some kind of Hollywoodized reality which lacks any kind of civics courses, where it's only a filibuster if Jimmy Stewart is on the floor reading the phone book. Those kinds of filibusters don't exist. If cloture doesn't pass, that's a filibuster, period. Your attempts to excuse the Republicans and blame the Democrats don't change that. Particularly when it's in support of ridiculous crap like the OP, claiming that Obama could have just magically passed Medicare for all even though no less than Bernie Sanders admits that there weren't even TEN votes for it in the Senate, much less sixty.

[BklnDem75]

70. +1

That's exactly the mindset. If someone isn't spending the day reading a phone book, it's not an official filibuster.

[SidDithers]

9. +1...nt

Sid

[asjr]

2. And if Eve had just left that apple

on the tree instead of eating it things would be different.

[edhopper]

4. So revisiting why

things get fucked up, to somehow avoid them in the future is useless?

[asjr]

8. No, revisiting is not useless. I just don't see

blaming Obama for everything.

[edhopper]

20. I am blaming Obama

for something he specifically did. This was talked about during the HC debate, with these exact consequences to this line of legislation.
Not blaming Obama for anything he did wrong is illogical.

[demosincebirth]

5. If the dog hadn't stopped to shit, he'da caught the rabbit. If, if, if...

[Richardo]

6. You're high

[Enrique]

7. he needed to drop the public option to get Olympia Snowe's vote

and then after he dropped it she voted against it anyway. And now she's complaining that Obama never calls her.

[Yo_Mama]

10. Why is Obama always blamed?

Where do you get the idea that he ever had the votes for the public option?

That doesn't accord with my recollection.

Presidents can only sign the legislation they are sent, and while a sitting president with party majority in both houses generally has a share in Congressional negotiations, that by convention only, and presidents retain such influence by not pushing Congress too far.

What next - will we blame Obama for sunspots?

[ProSense]

11. Do you

"He had the votes for the Public Option"

...have a source for that?

Here's one you should watch: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002490841

It basically states that the bill's passage depended on getting the votes of Democratic Senators who sided with the insurance companies. From the clip:

They killed the public option to appease Lieberman and others (not mentioned is that Blanche Lincoln voted against both versions of the public option in committee).

They lowered proposed taxes for medical device makers to appease Evan Bayh.

They expanded Medicaid to appease Ben Nelson.

What's fascinating is that those three Democratic Senators (and others) voted to pass the Senate bill after the public option was dropped.

Then once Democrats lost the 60th vote, they still had to rely on reconciliation to pass the Conference Report. Three Democrats bailed: Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and, surprise, Ben Nelson.

[zipplewrath]

12. Starting with the GOP plan

You can trace it all back to STARTING with the GOP plan. He started so far right, it only had one way to go, further right. The GOP was going to oppose ANTHING. If they had started with something much further to the left, and then moved right, we'd probably have a public option, and no mandate. Pursuing GOP votes was a loser, and enabled the blue doggish dems to leverage the GOP opposition. Force them to dig in their heals much further left and we wouldn't have most of these problems. Heck, at the very least it could have allowed them to "throw in the towel" and offer Lieberman expanded medicare eligibility. Instead, by the time they offered him that, it was already a move BACK left.

[ProSense]

14. Wait

"You can trace it all back to STARTING with the GOP plan. He started so far right, it only had one way to go, further right."

...starting with a health care bill that included a public option was "STARTING with the GOP plan" and "so far right, it only had one way to go, further right"?

I understand the practice of saying anything, but that's absoluetly absurd.

[edhopper]

22. The Public Option

was pushed to be included by progressive Senators, Not Obama. He did start with the Heritage Foundation blueprint.

[ProSense]

27. You need

"The Public Option was pushed to be included by progressive Senators, Not Obama. He did start with the Heritage Foundation blueprint."

...to get the facts straight. Obama campaigned on a public option. From a June 2009 letter he sent to Baucus and Kennedy:

<...>

The plans you are discussing embody my core belief that Americans should have better choices for health insurance, building on the principle that if they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it, while seeing their costs lowered as our reforms take hold. But for those who don't have such options, I agree that we should create a health insurance exchange -- a market where Americans can one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose the plan that's best for them, in the same way that Members of Congress and their families can. None of these plans should deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition, and all of these plans should include an affordable basic benefit package that includes prevention, and protection against catastrophic costs. I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.

- more -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Letter-from-President-Obama-to-Chairmen-Edward-M-Kennedy-and-Max-Baucus

[zipplewrath]

28. Obama claims he did

He explained several times that the plan "wasn't all that much different" than the GOP plan of '95. So yeah, that's starting with their plan. By the time he was sitting down with the GOP in the spring, the PO was LONG gone. Heck, it was procedurally gone by July of the previous year. They had already begun backing away from it by that time, even Daschel was suggesting that it was the "understanding" by then. Remember, this is BEFORE anything came out of the congress. The House didn't even pass health insurance reform until November, and it still included the public option, but the White House was already backing away from it. "to keep the stakeholders in the room". On the other hand, single payer was drive FROM the room. So yeah, they started out WAY to the right, and kept moving that way.

DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders’ active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay. Now, it’s debatable about whether all of these assertions and promises are accurate, but that was the calculation. I think there is probably a good deal of truth to it. You look at past efforts and the doctors and the hospitals, and the insurance companies all opposed health care reform. This time, in various degrees of enthusiasm, they supported it. And if I had to point out some of the key differences between then and now, it would be the most important examples of the difference.

[ProSense]

37. No

"Obama claims he did"

...he didn't: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=515732

The fact is that if Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor and others had supported a public option, it would be in the bill today.

There were only 30 Senators publicly pushing for a strong public option, and another 14 who wanted the weaker version.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002485467

That's 16 short of the 60 votes required to pass the bill.

[zipplewrath]

47. At what point in the process?

Negotiations occured at various points over the better part of 15 months. Starting with the GOP plan and excluding the single payer put the negotations well to the right. From that point, it just went FURTHER right. The PO was gone, single payer was never there, and the mandate survived the whole process. If they had started further LEFT, the late offer to expand medicare eligibility would have been a move to the RIGHT. From where they were, when they offered it to Leiberman, it was a move to the LEFT.

[ProSense]

57. Please

At what point in the process?

Negotiations occured at various points over the better part of 15 months. Starting with the GOP plan and excluding the single payer put the negotations well to the right. From that point, it just went FURTHER right. The PO was gone, single payer was never there, and the mandate survived the whole process. If they had started further LEFT, the late offer to expand medicare eligibility would have been a move to the RIGHT. From where they were, when they offered it to Leiberman, it was a move to the LEFT.

...continue to ignore the facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=515778

[zipplewrath]

58. Please point to the line

Please, in pointing to one of your previous posts, please point to where those votes were declared unavailable when the PO was being abandoned in July to "keep the stake holders at the table" or in February when single payer was being "kept out of the room".

You know, a FACT.

[lamp_shade]

13. You should pay better attention.

[Skinner]

15. The inclusion of the public option would not have made the mandate irrelevant.

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

The mandate would have still existed, even if there were a public option. And removing the mandate -- even if there were a public option -- would still greatly undermine the law. In fact, the existence of the public option would have had no effect.

The public option was a health insurance policy provided by the federal government, provided as an alternative to private health insurance. Yes, it would have been a good thing to do. But it would not have had any effect on the mandate. Lacking the mandate, many healthy people would still choose not to purchase insurance -- from the government or from a private insurer.

[ProSense]

18. Excellent points, and

I would add: Republicans would still challenge the mandate even if the law included a public option.

[zipplewrath]

35. different legal standard

The point of the public option, with respect to the mandate and the legality is because it would establish the basis for people to obtain insurance, without having to enter into a contract with a private company.

The mandate was not THE only way to make this work. It was the GOP/Heritage way to make it work and was used as a political ploy, at the risk of the legal aspects. Without the mandate to PURCHASE, the PO could have been used in a very similar means to obligate the public to have some insurance. If you don't have a policy, the government would "tax" you for a PO base policy. They could have put "fines" into the system where if you don't buy insurance, there are additional costs when you first start showing up for care. These could have been higher deductibles, higher premiums, or additional taxes on the cost of care. Part D does something like this now. You don't have to buy it right away, but the longer you wait, the more expensive it gets.

The administration made a political decision to do this the "GOP" way, and now they are paying the price if the mandate takes the whole thing down. You just watch, if the mandate gets struck down, and nothing else, there is no way that Obama will some how cancel the reforms. This will work, with or without THIS mandate.

[ProSense]

39. This

"The point of the public option, with respect to the mandate and the legality is because it would establish the basis for people to obtain insurance, without having to enter into a contract with a private company."

...makes no sense. The mandate would have applied to everyone, and not everyone was eligible to participate in the public plan. Critics of the public option made that case often.

The fact is that a mandate would have been needed to ensure the success of the public plan, but it would have had to apply to everyone.

[zipplewrath]

44. Some form

THIS mandate wasn't needed by any stretch of anyones imagination. There were many ways to address the fiscal concerns that removing the pre-existing condition clause would cause.

[treestar]

53. Thank you!

FCOL some people! I've already tried to make that point - no success.

[Walk away]

16. I believe if we had the votes for a public option then we would have one. nt

[earthside]

17. Not just Pres. Obama -- Harry Reid!

I think if things go awry for this legislation much blame also must be portioned out to the worst Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate in decades: Harry Reid.

Democrats in the Senate had seen from the early Bush years that Senate Repuglicans had embarked upon a course of perverting the filibuster rule into an instrument of obstruction. Reid and the Democratic majority had to have known that without changing that rule, they were in for big trouble.

Yet, Reid never made an effort to change the filibuster rule and we ended up with effectively the need for a 60-vote super majority to do anything in the Senate -- and legislative governance has been broken ever since.

The positive development from discussions like this ought to be that a promise should be extracted from every Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate that they will vote to change the filibuster rule in January 2013 when the new Congress takes office. Because even if Pres. Obama is reelected, if the Democrats take back the House and the Democrats keep the Senate, if the rule isn't change, the Senate Repuglicans will undercut and obstruct everything ... and we will be stuck like we have been for the past four years.

And have no doubt, if the Repuglicans manage to take control of the Senate in this year's election, they won't have any compunction whatsoever in changing to the rule.

[zipplewrath]

49. Yup

I can be easily convinced that Reid had more to do with the failure than Obama. It is hard to sort out who was leading and who was following. But there is no doubt that SOMEONE poorly managed the issue in the senate.

[Arkana]

19. He didn't have the votes for either. Your assertion is based on a false premise.

[FarLeftFist]

21. NO, HE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES FOR PUBLIC OPTION! Max Baucus & Joe Lieberman were a NO!

[WI_DEM]

24. and Ben Nelson! for Gods sake. This is a typical drivel post from somebody

who doesn't know what they are talking about.

[WI_DEM]

23. He did not have the votes for the public option

he had people like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman & other conservadems who said NO. And to make up for the conservadems where were Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe--were they going to vote for a public option? NO! Why don't you do some research?

[xiamiam]

25. impossible to have a discussion re any mis steps of our president..at least here

much better if you would post something fluffy like what a great smile and look what michelle is wearing

what he did have was millions and millions of americans behind the public option..actually the majority of us...he could have done something with that..but he didnt

[WI_DEM]

31. Why you can't correct somebody from making a faulty assertion

Obama didn't have the votes as the OP claims. He never did. Not enough Dems and certainly no GOP. So how do you get the public option? I'm sure if you were president you would have waved a wand and gotten it somehow.

[ProSense]

33. Appears

impossible to have a discussion re any mis steps of our president..at least here

much better if you would post something fluffy like what a great smile and look what michelle is wearing

...there's an ensuing discussion, but you decided to insult everyone involved (and the Michelle Obama) by introducing a completely irrelevant point.

[zipplewrath]

36. Bingo

You can try anything from soft critque to full on outrage and it will all be met with such a response. But never criticize any OVER statement about him, or his wife, or his puppies. That's sacrosanct.

[ProSense]

38. WTF? n/t

[zipplewrath]

43. Do you have something to say?

This is a discussion forum after all.

[ProSense]

59. Yes

WTF?

Did you miss it?

[zipplewrath]

61. That's a question

Do you have anything to ADD. It is a discussion forum afterall.

[ProSense]

62. Can you

That's a question

...ask a question without saying it?


"Do you have anything to ADD. It is a discussion forum afterall."

Are you trying to be coy? Please refer back to some of your comments in this discussion and you'll find what I have to "ADD."

The bizarre thing is that you think that this...

You can try anything from soft critque to full on outrage and it will all be met with such a response. But never criticize any OVER statement about him, or his wife, or his puppies. That's sacrosanct.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=515767

...added something to the discussion. It's a condescending, irrelevant and nonsensical statement that has nothing to do with the OP topic.

[zipplewrath]

67. Actually I was adding

That was a response to the previous post. I added to the observations that the previous poster had made. Sometimes that's how discussions go. You can expand on a point, contridict a point, or merely try to provide additional or alternate context.

WTF? doesn't qualify in any of those contexts.

[treestar]

54. completely uncalled for

Merely because something is a criticism does not mean it is valid.

[AtomicKitten]

60. TPM: "13 Dem Senators Who Oppose Public Option."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/who-are-the-13-senate-democrats-holding-out-on-the-public-option.php

Supporting or not supporting the president has nothing to do with the factual evidence that the president didn't have anywhere near enough votes to pass the public option. Nothing "fluffy" about the truth and lobbing that accusation is indicative of someone who can't argue their POV with facts.

[think]

29. America is the only industrialized nation without some form of universal healthcare

for its citizens. Why isn't this being made crystal clear to the American people? It's almost embarrassing how clueless America has become.

BTW. The individual mandate idea sucks and it is no surprise no one likes it. SINGLE PAYER!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/medicare-for-all_b_1400712.html

[cliffordu]

30. I'm thinking your claim that he had the votes for a public option

or Mediare for all is a bit spurious.

Do you have any proof that is the truth???

[WI_DEM]

32. Of course he doesn't.

[BklnDem75]

34. Wishing doesn't make it so

Do you have a source for these supposed votes? I won't hold my breath.

[joeybee12]

41. Agree...a better argument for the mandate is made if a public

option was included...

[ProSense]

46. You know

"Agree...a better argument for the mandate is made if a public option was included..."

...that would make little difference to those challenging the mandate. In fact, it would likely have strengthened their resolve. You can see the it in the current challenge to the expansion of Medicaid. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496395

[joeybee12]

50. I should have clarified, I meant before the courts...

Repukes were going to fight it no matter what, sure.

[just1voice]

42. Everything the majority of Americans want is "off the table"

There's plenty of blame to go around in the entire corrupt political system.

[Sheepshank]

48. And a majority of Americans want Congress out of the Birth control issue......

..... not sure where you think the majority of Americans can get Congress to vote in any particular direction. And somehow this is Obama's fault?

[Sheepshank]

45. Not one cite and you expect everyone to buy your version of "re-write"? fail n/t

[treestar]

51. He did not have the votes for the public option

Try reality.

[indykatie1955]

52. Obama NEVER Had the Votes for a Public Option and Most, If not the Poster, Know it

While I like most liberals would have liked to see a public option passed we should not allow those on our side to rewrite history just to generate more anti-Obama sentiment. Obama will face enough lies from the other side, let's not help them.

[Better Believe It]

56. President Obama didn't want the votes for a Public Option! Isn't that right?

It's really hard to get votes for something you're against!

President Obama opposed Medicare for All and a public option prefering the Republican inspired health insurance industry mandatory insurance proposal.

Don't you remember that and backdoor deal he worked out with insurance company and big pharma lobbyists?

[JoePhilly]

68. Obama hates us.

[turn off your mind]

63. Amen! Medicare for all!

And this isn't the only issue the Democrats could have tackled in the first two years. How about raising taxes? And yet look at all the 'bots on here cheering him anyhow!

[bornskeptic]

64. If there were a public option, it would not affect the constitutionality of the ACA.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Government has the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS. Legally, that has absolutely nothing to do with who the vendors of the insurance are. At least in theory it should have no effect on the Court's decision, but in practice, considering the free market preferences of the majority of the Justices, they might be more inclined to strike the law down if the public option had been included.

[edhopper]

65. The constitutional question

hinges on compelling people to purchase PRIVATE insurance. Medicare shows that they can be compelled to pay for public insurance. Medicare has not been challenged constitutionally.

[TheKentuckian]

69. The PO wouldn't make a difference with the mandate.

Or arguably the entire bill considering how most Americans are excluded from the exchanges and it was heading toward being a dumping ground for those the insurance cartel finds undesirable to cover.

The whole effort went way off the tracks, apparently we don't have votes for anything but enslavement to the insurance cartel, too big to fail for the cartel, profit protection for Pharma, "shrink the pig" insanity by giving the crooked cartel a key to our treasury, and a few pay to play features to help the "medicine" go down in a delightful for profits way.