Harkin: 'There's Enough Good In This Bill' Without Medicare Buy-In

[chill_wind]

Source: TPMDC Evan McMorris-Santoro

Harkin: 'There's Enough Good In This Bill' Without Medicare Buy-In

Evan McMorris-Santoro | December 14, 2009, 6:06PM

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) just walked walked into the Democrats all-important caucus meeting tonight sounding defeatest about the chance that a Medicare buy-in or public option trigger will survive Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) decision to block the compromises this weekend.

Asked by a reporter if the Medicare buy-in will be pulled out, Harkin said "looks that way," before praising a Democratic health care bill without the two public option compromises.

"There's enough good in this bill that even without those two, we gotta move," he said. "All the insurance reforms, all the stuff we wrote so hard for prevention and wellness in there, the workforce development issues that we have in there, the reimbursement based on quality not on quantity -- there's good stuff in this bill. It's a giant step forward, changing the paradigm of health care in America."

With that, Harkin turned and walked into the caucus meeting. Shortly after him came Lieberman, dashing into the room and taking no questions from the reporters swarmed around him.


Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/harkin-theres-enough-good-in-this-bill-without-medicare-buy-in-trigger.php

---

Medicare Buy-in dead?

[jsamuel]

1. Looks like the Politico story about the WH telling Reid to drop the Medicare Buy-In was correct

after all.

[placton]

22. but but but

the White House denied the story, and my fellow DUers said to trust them?

[Blasphemer]

40. We were also supposed to trust them when they denied being trigger-happy

i.e. having a preference for the trigger.

[cui bono]

49. Just like they denied the Pharma deal. Oh okay then, np. eom

[roguevalley]

110. the bill should get defeated. Serves the shit heads right. Harkin is

just trying to put a good face on but this bill needs to die. Would show Obama/Rahm that they can't appease assholes, not FIGHT like dogs and give up the farm without a penalty. I pray to God that this bill dies. I would loathe the hurt for uninsured people but this is shit. A lot of needy people wouldn't be able to afford it and the companies? I hope they all die. Slowly.

[Hardrada]

2. We don't "gotta move," wealthy traitor senators.

[Unvanguard]

3. Yes, that's true: the problem is that Lieberman is not an honest negotiator.

He can always humiliate them again and reject whatever arrangement they think they've reached, forcing them to compromise further and further. They need to eject him from the caucus and strip him of his chairmanship: they can try for Snowe for the sixtieth vote instead, or just call the Republicans' bluff and make them filibuster the thing forever.

[placton]

23. but but but

Mr. Obama supported him for those chairmanships - that would make Mr. Obama look like a total douche wouldn't it?

[Unvanguard]

30. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but actions have consequences.

It is not inconsistent or hypocritical to support someone for a post and then remove him for poor behavior.

[Hannah Bell]

99. so when's it going to happen, do you think?

[JerseygirlCT]

115. He can, and he will

He's a petty, petulant, selfish egomaniac. He'll do anything to spoil this chance and to stick it to those Democrats who tossed him out in 2006. He's got a major martyr complex that's complemented nicely by his total dedication to himself.

What a jerk.

[bluestateguy]

4. Can't you do a PO through reconcilliation

and do the rest in a regular bill?

If Lieberman and the Blue Dogs and Republicans want to vote agaibst stand alone legislation barring insurance cos. from denying pre-existing conditions, then we should force them to pony up on that. They will write the 30 second attack ads for us if they do.

[DJ13]

5. Translation: "this is all you're going to get, sit down and shut up"

[tularetom]

6. I don't want to see this happen to Obama

but I can predict what's gonna go down.

The Dems will water this thing down until it is worse than what we now have. No repubs will vote for it anyway. Obama will sign a POS bill amid much fanfare. After which the repbs will spend 3 years between now and 2012 reminding us what a crappy bill it was and beat Obama over the head with it in the campaign.

And he will basically have done it to himself.

[Unvanguard]

7. Do NOT blame Obama for this.

The responsibility for this disaster lies entirely with the idiotic filibuster rule in the US Senate, and the tiny handful of "Democratic" Senators who have exploited it for their own craven ends.

In Lieberman's case, at least, blaming Obama may be exactly what he's after.

[DJ13]

8. If Obama signs it, he owns it

He has the authority to refuse to sign any bills passed by Congress.

[Unvanguard]

10. His veto power is negative: if he vetoes it, we get nothing.

And don't believe for a second that such a threat is going to bring someone like Lieberman into line. He'd happily sink health care reform entirely.

[DJ13]

14. Read the conditions tularetom's post made again

If its so bad that the GOP can use it as a weapon against Obama for the next 3 years it IS his fault if he signs it.

[Unvanguard]

28. It will be better than nothing even if the GOP can use it as a weapon.

They certainly will whatever the final contents of the bill. Without the public option, it will probably be less popular (and less effective), but it will still be a good thing.

[Tansy_Gold]

53. IT WILL ***NOT*** BE A GOOD THING. . ...

for the millions of Americans who have nothing in the way of health CARE now and will have nothing when this piece of crap becomes law.

The only people it will be "good" for are the insurance company execs who sucked Lieberman's dick before they let Obama have sloppy seconds.

Where the fuck is Alan Grayson? Has the media given him all the attention they thought he deserved when he was a novelty and now, when they see he's going down in glorious defeat to the corporate monster, they couldn't give a shit less?


TG

[Unvanguard]

55. Making health care more affordable for millions of people is a good thing.

Denying insurance companies the free reign to discriminate is a good thing. The exchanges, and the opportunities they present for lowering premiums, are a good thing. The subsidies to Americans who can't now afford health insurance are a good thing.

The bill is not the best thing. But we are not going to get Medicare for all. I wish we were. But we won't. And it's only counterproductive to sabotage what we can get because it isn't all of what we want.

[Tansy_Gold]

65. No.

It will do a little good for a few uninsured or underinsured, but it will do so at a cost. It will do little or nothing for most of the uninsured or underinsured.

The premiums -- what a lovely word, like a prize or something really really special :sarcasm: -- will be beyond the reach of many. They will be hit with fines and penalties which they can't afford either.

The worst of this is that it hits the segment of the population that has already been hit the worst by all the other catastrophes of the Bush/Obama administration. The poor have Medicaid, the elderly have Medicare, and the young have Schip. But the working poor, the former middle class, those who have lost jobs through offshoring and outsourcing and downsizing and bankruptcy, get little to nothing.

The other group that makes out like fucking bandits are the insurance companies, their executives and their stockholders, and they are the very entities that have contributed the most to the health care crisis --- and along the way, they've contributed heavily to the campaigns of those same senators who are blocking real reform.

I haven't get read Barbara Ehrenreich's new book on the negative power of positive thinking, but I think we're seeing a very good example of it right here, right here on DU, right here in this thread. Be positive, it could be worse, look on the bright side. BULL SHIT. BULL. SHIT.

We should not be settling for "this is just the first step." We should not be comforting each other with "Social security wasn't perfect when it started out either." We should not be making excuses for the man at whose desk every single blessed buck stops.

We should be madder than billy hell. We should be screaming at Barack Obama to get some spine, some gumption, some intestinal fortitude, some BALLS for goddess' sake, and quit groveling before the likes of a little traitorous worm like Joe Lieberman.

If this so-called health care reform bill doesn't address the fundamental problems regarding the way health care is paid for in this country, then it's not reform at all. And one of the most basic, most fundamental problems of all is that the system of health care delivery in this country can't afford to give 30% of our health care dollars to the parasitic insurance companies, who add no value to health care and take away much.

If there is no fundamental change in that system of parasitism, then the bill is a failure. If it maintains the system, it is a failure. If it prolongs the life of the vampire, it is a failure.




Tansy Gold

[Unvanguard]

67. You can scream all you want. But your screaming will not make any difference.

Because the political reality is that after seventy years or so of trying, this is the closest we've ever come, and if it passes, it will do so just barely. And that's this bill, not the bill you (or I) would like. That's not Obama's fault, that's not the Democratic leadership's fault: that's this country's fault, the fault of our dysfunctional political system and of a public far too closely wedded to delusional mythologies of rugged individualism and fear of so-called "big government."

I'm not asking you to be happy about it. I'm certainly not happy about it. But there is a difference between one course of action, recognizing that there remain serious problems that have not been addressed, and another course of action, joining our political enemies in obstructing that which can be done.

[Tansy_Gold]

76. I do not have to meekly accept that this is the best we/they can do

I can lie down and sweetly say, in my best Monty Python drag voice, "Oh, yes, I won't get any benefit out of this nasty bill, but it's a step in the right direction and maybe my grandchildren, if they live long enough, will see some real progress."

-OR-

I can scream my fool head off that this is a piece of shit bill.

Now, if you wanta sit back and say well, okay, this is a good beginning, then you go right ahead. I don't intend to do that. Okay wit' you?



Tansy Gold, who is not asking your permission

[Unvanguard]

77. Obviously you can do whatever you please.

But some courses of action make more sense than others.

[Iowa]

94. Pathetic... It's wimpy reactions like this that enable the bastards to get by with it. n/t

[regnaD kciN]

106. Yes, I WILL "scream" about a bill that does nothing but vacuum out my pockets...

If this bill passes, we're likely going to have to give up our house -- can't afford both it and the legally-mandated insurance premiums. I'll gladly "obstruct" that -- and if it means joining our political enemies, so be it. My political friends have given me no reason to stand by, or even trust, them.

[sendero]

84. There is zero evidence...

... this bill does any of those things. I think you are being a bit optimistic.

[regnaD kciN]

105. This bill will do NOTHING to lower, or even contain, premiums...

...but it will make it mandatory to pay them. That, in essence, is all.

[Garam_Masala]

112. What good is forebidding denial when they can charge whatever

high premiums they need to make huge profits?

[PSzymeczek]

70. Grayson is in the House of

Representatives. He can't control what the Senate does.

[Unvanguard]

72. And he voted for the House bill, and will probably vote for the conference report.

It may well turn out that Grayson knows the difference between principled criticism and counterproductive obstructionism better than many on DU.

[regnaD kciN]

107. There won't be any "conference report"...

...because there won't be any conference. The Senate POS bill will be "ping-ponged" to the House, and Obama/Emmanuel will put massive pressure on his party to go along unquestionably...just like the spineless Rockefeller, Brown, and Harkin went along today.

:-(

[Tansy_Gold]

74. I know full well Grayson is in the house and not the senate

I meant where was he in terms of the media. I personally don't have time to watch tv any more, but I figured there would be clips of Grayson on DU if he had been getting any coverage.


TG

[ldf]

91. .....

The only people it will be "good" for are the insurance company execs who sucked Lieberman's dick before they let Obama have sloppy seconds..

:mad:

you can kiss my ass, you piece of shit.

at list they aren't fucking clit lickers... :sarcasm:

:grr:

take your homophobic bullshit elsewhere.

[Tansy_Gold]

92. Hardly

those insurance execs could be female. I didn't specify gender.

It's a metaphor for one-sided sexual gratification.

and if Lieberman were female, I'd be using your metaphor instead.


TG

[quakerboy]

90. That is extreemely shortsighted

Yes, they will use it as a weapon, no matter whats in the bill. And no matter whats in the bill, it will be seen as bad by 23% on the right, and some percentage on the left. But as it sits, it will also be seen as bad by a much greater number.

A bill that offers nothing, but mandates me IS NOT A GOOD THING. A victory that hurts people is not better than nothing.

[MilesColtrane]

95. Sorry, no.

This thing has reached negative critical mass for me.

If the Senate Democrats pass a bill without the early MC buy-in, whatever support they had from the center is history.

[New Dawn]

101. Forcing people to buy a service from private companies is fascist economics.

That is 10000% worse than the current system.

http://www.counterpunch.org/redmond12082009.html

[regnaD kciN]

104. Mandates with NO cost control are NOT "better than nothing"...

They're worse than nothing.

Can you imagine how we'd be reacting if the Republicans had put through this turd of a bill during the Bush administration? We'd be denouncing it as highway robbery, and laughing our asses off at anyone claiming it was "better than nothing."

:argh:

[newspeak]

120. yeah, the gop can use it as a weapon

while patting themselves on the back for the bill being such a "repuke" bill--one that they could have readily gotten behind if * had decreed it. If it's weak on regulation for the industry and forces people to buy corporate shite, the repugs would have voted for it hands down!!! It really is their kind of bill since they love privatization.

[Lorien]

16. What do we get as an alternative? Another corporate givaway?

The poor will be forced by law to purchase "health insurance" from a private for profit company or face jail time. Would that insurance actually cover them when they needed it? I'm self employed and have the best insurance I can afford, and it pays for next to nothing. What regulations does this bill place on the insurance companies that caused the mess in the first place?

[Unvanguard]

29. People who don't buy insurance will not face jail time. This is a right-wing lie.

People who don't buy insurance will pay a penalty. People who don't pay the penalty--just like anyone else who refuses to pay taxes--may face more severe criminal penalties. That's how laws work.

And, yes, the bill makes a serious effort to regulate private insurance.

[Kermitt Gribble]

48. Did you even read what you typed?

So, poor people, who won't be able to buy insurance, will have to pay a penalty, which they can't afford. In your own words, "just like anyone else who refuses to pay taxes--may face more severe criminal penalties" - like jail time???

[Unvanguard]

51. In other words, just like now, people who willfully refuse to pay taxes will be punished.

It is not even the genuinely poor who are going to be penalized by this: between programs that already exist like Medicaid and the subsidies provided by the health care bill, they stand to gain more than they stand to lose. The real issue, and the target of the provision, is people of very low risk whose absence from the system would raise costs for everyone else. You can't effectively prohibit discrimination without an individual mandate.

[Kermitt Gribble]

62. Except now, people are not

being punished for not having health insurance. This is a brand-spankin new way to 'punish' us.

[inna]

69. "And, yes, the bill makes a serious effort to regulate private insurance."

False.

But keep cheerleading for a rotten piece of legislation. :shrug:

[regnaD kciN]

108. In other words, if they can't afford the premiums or the penalties...they'll get jail time

Sorry, but you can polish a turd all you want, and it's still a turd (even if you scream that calling it a turd is "a right-wing lie").

[DebbieCDC]

93. Better nothing than this piece of shit we're getting

Then Obama can spend all the time in the world bashing the 'pukes for killing health care reform.

[Hannah Bell]

100. he said he'd veto any bill without a strong public option. "nothing" is better

than mandated insurance at inflated prices.

[SnakeEyes]

9. Filibuster

That idiotic filibuster saved us from some really bad Republican ideas and confirmations over the last 8 years.

[Unvanguard]

11. And it was just as dumb then as it is now.

The fact that it worked to our advantage doesn't mean that a majority isn't something to be respected.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

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

[tularetom]

15. He's not getting off the hook that easily

He has caused a lot of the problem due to:

1. HIs insistence on "bipartisanship" even after it became apparent nobody else gave a rats ass about it,
2. His failure to propose a single payer or strong public option from the gitgo.
3. His signals to Reid to let Loserman back into the Dem caucus when everybody knew what a snake the little bastard was.

And perhaps worst of all:

4. His appointment of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. The guy is nothing but a closet (and not even so much closet) republican.

[Unvanguard]

31. He has caused absolutely none of this particular problem.

His rhetoric of "bipartisanship" was left behind a long time ago when it came to the health care bill. Proposing a stronger government insurance plan would not have stopped Lieberman and conservative Democrats from threatening to filibuster such a plan. Nor would have denying Lieberman a place in the Democratic caucus--if anything, it would have made him even less tractable. (Since it is obvious now that he is not willing to play honestly, he should be ejected, but that was not obvious from the start--hell, he wasn't clearly opposed even to the public option until recently.) And you may have any number of problems with Rahm Emanuel, but he is not a US Senator and what a handful of US Senators have chosen to do is not his fault either.

We need to abandon this gross but popular misconception that a president is primarily responsible for everything that goes wrong under his administration. With a Congress as independent as ours, it is simply not true.

[tularetom]

56. He may not have any constitutional or statutory authority

but he is the titular head of his party and if he called Harry Reid into the White House and told him to strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanships and boot his ass out of the Democratic caucus, Joe would be gone in the morning.

I don't buy blaming this on the stupid Senate rules. Obama and Emanuel knew those rules from day one. THe only thing I fault Obama for is trusting a couple of snakes but hey, hey knew (or should have known) that they were snakes in the first place.

[Unvanguard]

63. That wouldn't solve the problem, though. The Democrats need sixty votes.

Whichever caucus Lieberman belongs to, unless the Democrats can bring in some Republicans, they still need his vote.

(I think they should boot him out and try for Snowe. But that would not save the public option, or the Medicare expansion either in all probability.)

[laughingliberal]

36. That would be easier to sell if President Obama had been as forceful about a public option

as he was about not adding a penny to the deficit. Whatever the truth is the White House has appeared to be running from the public option since August. If he had vigorously lobbied for it and it failed he would have gotten credit for that and the Senate would have gotten the blame for this boondoggle. The fact is the White House (Rahm) were more interested in the 2012 campaign contributions from the industry than they were about our lives.

[Unvanguard]

37. You have the causal relation reversed.

Obama backed away from the public option because of the opposition in the Senate. The opposition in the Senate was not because Obama backed away. The Administration made a judgment call that it was better to back away than to fight it out and lose: there is perhaps merit to both alternatives on that question, but since the public option would have been blocked anyway it makes little substantive difference.

Obama has no magic power to bring Lieberman, Nelson, etc. in line. I wish he did. He probably wishes he did, too. But he doesn't. Lieberman especially clearly has no shame about grandstanding in opposition to the Democrats.

[laughingliberal]

44. He didn't have any magical power to force the House to pay for the bill, either but it

didn't stop him from threatening a veto of the bill if it added to the deficit. Please tell me when the last time he spoke with any conviction about the public option was. I'm thinking during the campaign.

[Unvanguard]

46. That's right. He could have said "public option or veto".

The difference is that the public option restriction would probably have killed the bill (do you see Lieberman and the others caring if they sabotaged health care reform?), while the deficit-neutral requirement did not.

I can't decide for you whether or not you think Obama's words have conviction or not.

[laughingliberal]

61. I'm not sure I even needed to hear a veto threat about it. Maybe just a vigorous defense of it

The insults coming from his CofS toward those who wanted a public option didn't help. I agreed with almost every position Obama campaigned on and was willing to live with the few I did not agree with. Problem is we got the ones I was willing to suck it up on and haven't gotten the ones I actually based my vote on.

[cui bono]

52. Why not? He ruined the negotiations when he didn't allow single payer to the table.

He cut a back room deal with Pharma then tried to deny it.

He has had little to no voice and little to no leadership on this issue.

The WH told progressives to shut up while caving into the whacko right wing's unsubstantiated complaints. (death panels, abortion, etc...)

The WH told Reid to take out the medicare amendment.


Obama's action on health care reform show that he is on the side of the insurance companies since this bill is a gift to them. He has failed if they pass this POS bill.

[Unvanguard]

54. They needed sixty votes in the Senate. They weren't going to get them by moving leftward.

That's the reality. All the rhetoric in the world about Obama's betrayal won't change that.

[cui bono]

75. But you don't negotiate by starting off conceding that.

You start off asking for more than you'll settle for. Obama and the Dem leadership blew it plain and simple. Yes, Obama is to blame, just not solely.

[Unvanguard]

78. That's only true when bargaining power is roughly equal, which is not the case here.

Lieberman etc. don't need anyone else's cooperation: if they don't get what they want, they can filibuster the bill and block health care reform, and by all indication they have no problem doing that. Obama and the rest of the Democrats, however, need every last vote of the Democratic caucus Senators. So the handful on the right end of the Democratic caucus dictate the terms.

[cui bono]

119. What difference does that make? In fact that makes it even MORE important to start off strong.

Sorry, that's just an excuse.

The Dems have blown it so far. Hopefully it's not too late to turn it around, but I'm pretty sure it's too late to get anything really good.

[Techn0Girl]

59. Who DO we balme ... Bush?

Bull crap!
Obama was supposed to provide the leadership.
Obama was supposed to be looking out for us.
Obama was supposed to be on our side.

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED!
He laid down on this deal like a cheap rug. He let us twist in the wind. Where were the eloquent and impassioned speeches to the people and Congress about our need for Health care ?

Did you hear them because I damn well didn't because it NEVER HAPPENED!

So yeah, I blame Obama amongst others.
When it came to health care He lied - and now thousands will die.
Ditto about this new war.

[Unvanguard]

64. No. Lieberman, Nelson, and the other "moderates" in the Senate.

They are the ones responsible. They are the ones who should be blamed. All the "leadership" in the world from Obama couldn't have forced them to change their positions. The President is not a dictator.

[Techn0Girl]

71. He is not a dictator , no. ... but I was hoping for a Leader

[Unvanguard]

73. If what you expect from leaders is for them to do the impossible, you will be disappointed. n/t

[cui bono]

80. Can you please point out where he provided any sort of leadership at all

on this issue? Leadership in steering this in the direction of what's good for the people that is.

[Unvanguard]

83. I don't know what "leadership" is, the way it gets used in these discussions.

It seems to be a vague catch-all term for "presidential conduct that will solve our problems." What specifically do you have in mind?

[Techn0Girl]

89. He and his administration led the charge to give Big Pharma a nice payout ....

by refusing to allow less expensive drugs to be imported from other countries. Now THAT'S leadership.

And according to reports today Rahm Emmanual led the charge to get Reid to cave into Liberman's demands.

So Obama's been leading all right ... he;s been leading me around by the nose

[Tansy_Gold]

82. No, I just expect them to LEAD.

Obama hasn't led. Not on anything.

He has been the tool of too many of the special interests that controlled the previous administration and he has not stood up to a single one of them.

As another poster wrote upthread, Obama has always had the power of his own special gift -- speechifying. Had he chosen, in the early months of his administration, to give the American people as well as the congress a few of his campaign-style impassioned speeches on various issues, I have a feeling there might have been some action. Maybe he wouldn't have swayed a Ben Nelson or that piece of pond scum from Connecticut, but he might have aroused enough popular sentiment in certain states to push some of the moderate pukes into some real bipartisanship.

He didn't do that. He didn't do squat.

It's nice of you to try to let him off the hook for the Senate's failure on this health care reform bill, but the buck always stops at the president's desk. Always. On every single issue. He inherited the disaster from boooosh, yes, but he knew that going in. Nobody held a gun to his head and "made" him run for the office. He took this on willingly. And it's unfair to him for his supporters, yay, verily even his cheerleaders, to whine it's not his fault. When he put his hand up and got sworn into office, ALL of it became his. And ALL of it includes all the failures.


This is a failure, and it's his. ALL his.



Tansy Gold

[Unvanguard]

86. Your post is an excellent example of exactly what's wrong with blaming Obama.

There's this notion floating in public opinion that the President is the be-all and end-all of the federal government: as you say, "When he put his up and got sworn into office, ALL of it became his."

But this is very clearly wrong. The president has very limited legislative authority: the only substantive legislative power he has is the veto threat, and this is only a negative, defensive power. It does Obama no good when it comes to health care reform, because, effectively, if he vetoes it it's dead, and he rightly prefers something to nothing. Even if he didn't, even if he were willing to kill health care reform, that would hardly be much of an accomplishment, for it would leave the intolerable status quo in place. Those are his options; he doesn't sit in the Senate anymore, he can't give the public option extra votes, all he can do is take or reject what Congress sends him.

The best those inclined to blame Obama can do is speculate: if only he had speechified better, if only he had supported single-payer at the beginning, if only he had spoken out more strongly about the public option, and so forth. The hypotheticals can be tossed out forever, but we can't know if it would have made any difference, and there's no clear and compelling reason to believe it would have. What is clear is that certain Senators are obstructing progress in the Senate: that certain Senators already managed to block the public option and now are managing to block the Medicare expansion. Obama didn't made them do it; Obama would undoubtedly be quite happier if they hadn't. Let's blame them. Not him.

[Techn0Girl]

87. and yours is an excellent example of a "see-no-evil" apologist...

We ALL know what Obama can do.
We know that he had the ability, the charisma, the rhetorical and oratorical skills to get the first Black President elected in America. So we know what he is capable of - when he wants to.

And we're all very familiar with the legislative process. Frankly that's a red herring issue you're waving about.

What Obama CAN do if he WANTS to do is motivate people towards a goal.
He didn't. He gave away the economy to the bankers , he gave away health care to Big Pharma and Insurance, he gave away job money in order to make war. That's what he did.

I'm not going to contribute to letting him do it again next election.

[Tansy_Gold]

88. I can't speak for anyone else, but MY point is that

because Obama did not put forth visible effort, because he didn't even TRY to get meaningful health care reform passed, then it is his fault. And yes, I will blame him.

And yes, I know perfectly well that he isn't the one casting the votes for or against any particular bill or amendment. I'm not that stupid.

But beginning with his appointment of Tim Geithner, Obama signaled to me that he was not even going to try to maintain an illusion of being on the side of the people who elected him.

He didn't even try.

Had he tried, I would not blame him. I blame him not for failing, but for not trying.

Baucus and Lincoln, Lieberman and Snowe, none of them voted against Obama's making an effort. They didn't force him to compromise from the very beginning. They didn't prevent him from taking his case to the American people.

As Bill Furlong, long ago sportswriter for the Chicago Daily News, once said, "'Tis better to be honest and hated than corrupt and despised." Obama is well on his way to becoming the latter, at least in the opinion of




Tansy Gold

[mvd]

98. Obama has been a leader in the way he wants healh care passed and quickly

It's his ability to stand for a better bill that I don't like. He's acting too much like a mediator when a President should take some initiative. It's not all about compromise to get "something."

[MilesColtrane]

96. "he (Obama) rightly prefers something to nothing."

Not so righteous when the "something", in balance, does nothing to advance your agenda, or actually advances the wishes of those against you.

[Garam_Masala]

113. The president needs to cut down on his world wide jetting around

and spend more time on "leadership" at home.

[cui bono]

81. +1

[regnaD kciN]

103. But I do blame Obama for this...

I didn't up until today, when I thought he was trying to get a decent deal through Congress. But, now, I blame him.

I blame him for falling for Emmanuel's notion that "any bill" is better than none.

I blame him for promising, during that campaign, to make health care affordable, and only then to think about making it mandatory -- and, in the end, rushing through a law that makes it mandatory, but not affordable.

I blame him for revealing himself, in the end, to be a naive newcomer easily swayed by the cynical snakes who will continue to screw over the average guy in favor of the corporate state.

[Lorien]

17. I don't want to see it happen to the rest of us either

people are dying. Most of us can't even get basic care. This isn't just about politics, and they're acting as if it is.

[KansDem]

25. And the Repubs will have their "Waterloo" nt

[Soylent Brice]

35. i'm afraid you may be a bit too accurate for some folks comfort.

[cui bono]

50. Happen TO Obama? He's part of the problem!

Where is his leadership on this? When has he ever strongly said what he will need? Why did the WH kill the medicare amendment today?

[msongs]

13. President Lieberman shows the white house who's really top dog nt

[COLGATE4]

18. Senator Harkin: "There's got to be a pony in here somewhere"...

[Diane R]

19. This is devastating. I really had my hopes up for some relief...guess it's not coming.

[FarLeftFist]

20. They can always add more amendments to the bill...

once it's passed.

[harkadog]

33. No, amendments are made before final passage of a bill.

[placton]

21. This is a perfect example

of why NO Dems will get my vote in '10 and '12 - they ALL either blue dogs, or enablers - no Goopers either of course

[chill_wind]

24. And now Lieberman can say he voted for health care "reform".

Republicans still aren't going to vote for it no matter what.

What a deal!

[Tansy_Gold]

97. And the best part is. . . .

the pukes will get exactly what they want and they won't even have to vote for it! Such a deal! They can actually have their cake and stuff it down our throats too!

[regnaD kciN]

109. You're right -- I can hardly wait until we see G.O.P ads about the "Democrat Health-Care Tax"...

You know they're coming -- and I really can't find anything to argue against them. :-(

[BlueIdaho]

26. Fiddlesticks.

I guess its impossible to beat the corruption and grandstanding in DC. Congress has become the circumlocution office.

[dysfunctional press]

27. harkin to america: "now be good little proles and SHUT THE FUCK UP!"

[chill_wind]

32. Whatever we end up with, his willing rationalizing here is.......sickening.

eom

[chill_wind]

34. TPM update 7:46 pm : After the meeting - "Medicare Buy-in on life support at best."

Are Pro-Public Option Senators Mourning The Loss Of The Medicare Buy In?
Brian Beutler | December 14, 2009, 7:46PM

Joe Lieberman is the man of the hour. But though he's threatening to filibuster the Democrats' health care bill, he did not speak at an impromptu caucus meeting on the legislation this evening. Perhaps that's because he appears to have won this round: The Medicare buy-in--the key feature of a public option compromise reached tentatively last week--is now being discussed in the past tense by some of its most ardent proponents.

One member who did speak, according to a source briefed on the meeting, was Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who offered an impassioned plea. "Don't let these obstructionists win," Specter reportedly said. "I came to this caucus to be your 60th vote." His words were met with a loud applause, which was audible through the doors of the LBJ room, and down the hall toward the Senate chamber.

But that applause may belie the reality--that the chief items on the Democrats' wish list appear to be dead or dying. The public option is gone from the Senate bill. The Medicare buy-in, which was supposed to take its place, is on life support at best.

(...)

more

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/rockefeller-its-still-real-reform-without-medicare-buy-in.php?ref=mp

[BR_Parkway]

38. I "hope" they're wrong, but it looks like it got "changed" again

See, we're getting what we voted for -

We have to be able to replace these Congressional whores before anything happens. Somehow, some way - whatever it takes

[TacticalPeek]

39. Fuck. That. Shit.

:grr:

[hollowdweller]

41. Can somebody tell me what good is left??

[Garam_Masala]

114. Yes...No UN-insureds left around to smash into national

health care revenue for private insurers.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

42. with Democrats like these

who needs Republicans?

[EFerrari]

43. America's crazy uncles strike again!

[chill_wind]

45. CNN.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x57076

[defendandprotect]

47. So when the GOP isn't running the Dem Party . . . Lieberman is -- !!!

This is amazing -- !!!

Shockingly insane --- !!!

And would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad for so many Americans -- !!!

:puke:

[Techn0Girl]

57. In Other News: Choco-rations Increased 25% !

[IndianaGreen]

60. LMAO

We are certainly living in an Orwellian universe!

[unkachuck]

58. "There's enough good in this bill..."

....Tom, I love you like a brother, but I just don't buy that....we'd be better off with nothing, showing up at the emergency room door begging for medical help, than to be indentured forever to the scummy health insurance industry and the crooked wall street casinos....

....these slimy corporate bastards are going to steal our money and then re-give us the same shitty healthcare system we now have....who's going stop them?....the useless Congress?....the worthless Administration?

[dflprincess]

66. Senator Harkin needs to go back and read the eulogy he gave at Wellstone's memorial

and take his own advice "Stand up! Keep fighting!"

No where in that did he suggest we just roll over.

[dgibby]

68. Anyone heard anything about the "loophole"?

Is it in or out? I haven't heard a word about it since Fri. If that stays in we are even more screwn.

[AzDar]

79. Fuck. This. Shit.

(Corporate SELL-OUT causes eloquence to escape me)


:grr:

[roamer65]

85. DC is full of corporate whores.

[SoCalDemGrrl]

102. BULLSHIT!!!

[NuttyFluffers]

111. if there's enough good, why don't we keep just that and throw out the rest?

what, you can't edit a little bill and play some real politics? the only politics Democrats know how to play is bending over a barrel? just who is making who foolish?

don't piss on my back and tell me its raining... and that i should be thankful for any rain at all. i can find people who can serve my needs -- do we need to start massive representative replacements to prove we too know how to play politics?

[JerseygirlCT]

116. The ought to insist that no buy-in equals no

mandated coverage.

[dpbrown]

117. Wrong. It's all wrapped up in a hand-out to the vultures of death who keep our nation sick

It's time to put a spike in the Senate bill. It's worse than crap.

[4dsc]

118. Harkin will never get my support again

Harkin is another example of WEAK Democratic party leadership.

[newspeak]

121. everytime I here that congress is worried about the deficit, it makes me cringe

Over eight long years of the american people paying for war. Billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq (remember the plane load of cash?). We get to send family members to get wounded and die--and we get to foot the bill (I believe, no matter what they feed us, that these wars are corporate grabs)--but when it comes to something to aid the american people, many that have lost any decent paying job with benefits--THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEFICIT. When it comes to something that will aid the people, they're worried about the deficit. But, have a trillion missing from the pentagon or billions missing in Iraq, that's okay--just don't give any of those plebes a "handout." Even if we pay for it, they still think it's some kind of give away.