Healthcare FAIL: " Obama has now exempted himself from achieving historical greatness."

[chimpymustgo]

The title of this OP is taken from a reader's comment to Charles Blow's NYT op-ed. Sadly, President Obama has squandered the support and trust of millions of his supporters - and, possibly "historical greatness." I think there's still a chance for a last minute hail-Mary - but it really doesn't seem to be the way things are going. Please read the link and the letters (ordered by "Readers' Recommendations").

Loss of trust seems to be the recurring theme in the letters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/opinion/05blow.html

The Prince of Dispassion

By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: September 4, 2009

The president is huddled with his harried team, prepping for his big health care speech on Wednesday.

Let’s hope someone among these Ivy League oracles will convince the president to come down from his cloud and speak to the Costco constituency. As we witnessed during his presidential campaign, he can have a hard time speaking to everyday people in everyday language.

His opponents don’t have that problem. Death panels. Death books. Taxpayer dollars for abortion. Kill Grandma. Take away choice. Is some of this rhetoric blatantly silly? Yes. But, also brilliantly simple.

Conservatives speak in bumper stickers. Obama speaks in thesis statements. In fact, he sometimes seems constitutionally incapable of concision.

-edit-

Furthermore, the president’s lack of leadership and passion for his plan has translated into a lack of passion among his base. Epic fail, Team Obama.

-edit-

Let’s hope the president doesn’t deliver yet another speech for the history books — soaring, but ultimately unsatisfying.

Then again, it may not really matter what he says since he appears to be taking a tattered page from an old political playbook: when you’re losing, simply change the definition of winning.The public option has gone from imperative to, well, optional.

************************************************************************


http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/opinion/05blow.html?sort=recommended

10.
Mark
California
September 5th, 2009
6:30 am
Absolutely no one I know trusts him now. Isn't that a strange situation for the man who peddled hope?
Recommend Recommended by 22 Readers
1.
B. Mull
Orange County, CA
September 5th, 2009
6:30 am
It's time for progressives to oppose this health care reform. The compromise which the administration is seeking is unacceptable. It will force millions to buy corporate health insurance. This is like forcing a vegetarian to eat meat. Moreover we will be forced to sacrifice other things we enjoy to pay for it. It is hard to imagine such a mandate could be Constitutional. In other countries without a public plan individuals have been allowed to seek conscientious objector status and put the premium in a health spending account instead. At this point, I'm sorry to say, that would be my choice.
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
9.
r. thaler
vt
September 5th, 2009
6:30 am
President Obama's problem is not lack of emotion Charles. His problem is lack of principle. He stands for nothing. He can't decide if he's serving George W. Bush's third term, or not.

When the President made promises during the campaign, we actually believed him. Right now, I would be happy if he would just start with " transparency " . We can come back to the health insurance debate after the President earns some credibility
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers

-edit-

PLEASE, tell us what you want and what you intend to fight for, President Obama!
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers
11.
Jay
NY, NY
September 5th, 2009
7:04 am
Hi Mr. Blow
-edit-

Obama and Baucus really missed the boat by putting single payer "off the table". They skewed the debate way over to the right. They needed us, but alienated us completely. We are loud for our size, and profoundly committed, and we aren't going away. We have good sense on our side, and our ranks are growing. The more people learn about single payer, the more they support it.

Obama has now exempted himself from achieving historical greatness. He could have done so much for so many, instead he has lost our trust.
Recommended Recommended by 16 Readers

[Buzz Clik]

1. Then, again, talking about the future in the past tense is, well, stupid.

[chimpymustgo]

2. True, it ain't over till it's over. But we have already seen this massive trust squandered,

and opportunity after opportunity by-passed for real reforms and CHANGE. Healthcare is just the latest, but the most important, so far. Obama has shown a pattern of caution of compromise to corporate interests and the status quo.

I pray for him to find some inner strength and light to push for the things we elected him to do. Yes, the road is long. But so far, the record is a bitter pill.

[Buzz Clik]

7. I completely disagree. I can't what he could have done to make this different than it is today.

The GOP would still be acting out in an insane fashion, the Blue Dogs would be holding the rest of the part for ransom, some would be screaming for single payer, etc etc etc.

[RedCloud]

27. His supporters needed to be placated, not the GOP crazies.

We were told he would run the lobbyists out of DC. Now we have to donate to fight insurance company propaganda just to get our ideas reaffirmed and the insurance moguls pass on the cost to the hapless consumers.

[Buzz Clik]

31. He never said he would run the lobbyists out of DC. jesus.

Why is it completely impossible to have a reasonable conversation on this subject.

[Hestia]

39. What could he have done? Not get everyone slavering when he said that Health Care

Reform would be done before August recess; he could have shut down the town hall lunatics pronto, instead of making US, his base what him be denegrated, night after night, show after show, including Keith and Rachel's; he/they waited for two months before they had Organizing for America start the meet ups regarding reform, instead of at the very beginning so we could know exactly what it is we are fighting for.

Waiting until Sept. to start of all this would have been better, kids are in school, schedules are being reestablished after Summer hiatus, it would have been easier to get us all on page instead of just spewing on an internet forum, we could have been engaging this whole discussion on our terms, instead of theirs.

But that's all woulda-coulda-shoulda now isn't it? Now we are exactly back where we all started 9 years ago, when our former dictator ascended the throne - being called names, you know the ol' communist, socialist, and dirty liberal - and, gee, now these fellow neighbors and co-workers get to bear arms while they call us these names and pretty much spit on each and everything we stand for. Why was that even allowed to be broadcast with a gleam in their eye?

This war is on us, on a personal level, those who dont play 100% by "the rules" or just follow along quietly. This war against us is on a cellular level, it's a deep abiding hatred of everything *we* stand for. *We* are the problem, and right now, I feel that the WH is helping these feelings along. We are expendible. That little meme was proven when "an inside source at the WH (Rahm?) said that it's okay to piss off the liberal base. We really don't care what they think or feel."

[joeycola]

3. "Obama and Baucus really missed the boat by putting single payer "off the table"..........

Yes, it was a defeatist attitude from the start (the mantra of we do not have the votes)--and put them in a weak bargaining position from the start.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Why can't people see that single payer was "off the table" because hardly anybody actually wants it

Single payer wasn't discussed by the likes of Baucus and others not because they didn't think it could pass, but because they personally don't think it's a good idea. Until we overcome that, it's not going to happen.

[rurallib]

9. That sounds like something Hannity would say.

Single payer was off the table because thge insurance companies didn't want it. Period.
ETA - I recall Obama saying 'all options are on the table" - then single payer got disappeared by Baucus.
I do not know what SP polled early on, but it was substantial.
Medicare for all was a very popular idea and that is single payer.

[ipaint]

11. Not true and naive. It was taken off the table per ins. industry orders.

“Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% of Americans say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.” — bolding was added.

The Question. “Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise?”

Poll results:
32% Private enterprise
59% Government
9% Don’t know

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf

Nearly two-thirds of voters polled said the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program "in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers." Fewer, but still a majority at 54 percent, said they supported a single-payer system whereby all Americans would get their health insurance through a taxpayer-financed government plan.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-voter-worries



CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"

Yes No Unsure
%64 %35 %2

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

[joeycola]

23. You need to read some real information instead of repeating mantra's

from the WH and fickle Dems.

[rockymountaindem]

28. You can all keep saying things like that, and demonstrate that the public is for it

(even though a lot of people who say yes in those polls probably don't know what such a plan would entail), but that doesn't change the fact that out of all the Dems in the House, not even a simple majority of them have signed on to HR 676. In the Senate, you need to ask yourself whether even 25 Senators believe, in their *own minds*, that single payer is the way to go.

I'd be a fool to argue that big health care lobbying efforts and contributions don't make an impact, but the fact remains that people like Baucus just don't embrace single payer as an idea.

[IndianaGreen]

34. It was off the table because Baucus and Obama have gotten money from health industry

Obama got over $2 million from health industry while Senator.

[jefferson_dem]

5. That was a non-starter from the beginning.

Obama said during the campaign that he was not for single payer. And Baucus is...Baucus. I guess what's most interesting is that he has a "D" next to his name.

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. Nevermind the fact that

Obama was for single payer before he was against it. Why did he change his mind? I'm guessing it probably had a lot to do with personal ambition and the need for $$$ to finance his campaign and either retain or advance his position. Position and power can alter perspective and priorities.

[jefferson_dem]

14. So are we back to debating the nomination and campaign now?

Ugh. No need to go there.

My point was that single payer was taken off the table long ago not once the health care reform debate got started.

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. And my point is

that the President seems to lack either the political will, the political skill or the intestional fortitude to make a principled fight for single payer - and healthcare reform in general.

He may be able to sell hope to the general electorate but he seems to be lacking in the ability to sell a legislative agenda to a Congress which his own party controls.

He may be more interested in protecting his own position and power than in serving the very real needs of the folks who elected him.

He simply has not been proactive in putting forth his own plan. He laid out some broad general principles but not a detailed plan. And the fact that those broad principles have changed over time is an indication that his support for any given helathcare reform plan is not a matter of principle. There are others who have consistently and repeatedly put forth detailed healthcare reform plans.

It is unspeakably cruel to require a malnourished person to accompany you to a fine resturant, have them watch you eat the best food while they do not partake of even a small morsel and then require them to pick up your fucking tab. That is exactly what our elected officials do to the uninsured/underinsured in this nation. Now we have a fellow in office who told folks that he would bring positive change. And what is he doing? He's trading away all the food in hopes of keeping maybe a small crumb.

It's time for Dems - including their party leader - to put up some real meaningful positive changes. If they can't/don't then I'm done with 'em. No need to suppoprt folks who do not advance my needs and interests.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. The campaign!?!?! You mean the era when Obama claimed to

oppose Mandated purchase? When Hillary supported Mandates, and Obama said if you oppose them, vote for me? He's now all about the Mandates. Favors them. So frankly, what he said during the campaign is moot, unless he actually follows all of it. If his mandate position can flip 180, then it is just silly to attempt to argue that his campaign positions are somehow set in stone. He changes them as he sees fit, without explanation.
A few years ago, Obama claimed he was in favor of equality for all Americans. Now he says he is not because of God. So, gee, how do we tell when he's saying something that means something, and when he's simply speaking today's mantra, to be followed by the opposite when it fits his objectives? He's been for and against equal rights for minorities. He's been for and against Mandated purchase. For and against many things, over and over again.
So unless all he said on the trail is still a functioning policy, then this argument is hollow and without meaning.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Chillax.

You present one supposed policy flip-flop - mandates. He's always been for universal coverage. If after arguing against mandates during the campaign, he now sees them as a vehicle to realize universal coverage, I guess that does qualify as a flip-flop. Does that mean all the positions he took during campaign are out the window? No. Have we ever had a president who did not adjust at least some of his campaign positions once elected? No.

My point was that to flip-flop on something as massive as single-payer would be totally untenable, politically-speaking.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. One? I cited two. The two most important to me.

I did not present one 'supposed policy flip-flop' I presented two of them. He was once in favor of equal rights for all, now he is opposed to equal rights for all.
And the point, sir, is that you are claiming that what he campaigned on and did not campaign on define what is possible now. And that does not hold water if we accept other changes in policy. If he said X then and Y now on one issue, he can do so on other issues, and if he can not, the reason is not because he said x on the trail. You declared that his campaign positions are what his positions must remain, ie no campaign for single payer means there can be no discussion of single payer. But his campaign stance on forcing people to buy products, that one can change. And the marriage thing can go 180 over a few short years.
People voted for him and against Hillary over the Mandates, one of the very few actual differences between them. They both made it out to be a big deal. He had detailed explanations of why he was right and she was wrong. Now he's switched, and that means he can switch on anything.
My critique here is not so much of him, but of the argument that his campaign words define is current policies, which they really do not. And if they don't, they just don't. You can not go 180 on some things and still claim that your campaign words define you. Not without being called on it. Cake and eat it too, that is called. We can change our minds, but also we can not change our minds. Cake, and eat.

[Buzz Clik]

8. It was a realist's attitude. This country is not ready for single payer.

[joeycola]

12. With that defeatist attitude, we never will be.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Yeah. Thanks for the hysteria. It helps a lot.

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. The early polls showed

substantial support for making Medicare - a single payer system - available to everyone. The popular support for a single payer system was there.

What wasn't there was the support of the monied, the powerbrokers and the healthcare and insurance industries - all of which combined to make single payer unworthy of consideration by the fuckers who depend on corporate contributions to finance their re-election efforts.

Also lacking was a sense of national community. Americans may pretend to care about other folks but for the most part all we really want is to win, to dominate and advance our own interests. Everybody can fend for themselves - even those who do not have the means to do so.

[jefferson_dem]

16. True.

Single payer was/is a non-starter.

If Obama had come out for single payer during the campaign, we would very well be arguing about President McCain's agenda. Perhaps that would be suitable to those who fall on their ideological purity swords daily. Not me.

[Crabitha]

25. But the public option could lead to it and that's why we need it.

Well one of the reasons we need it. This whole debate is ridiculous, We are supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world and yet we let people die because they don't have access to health care. Why is anybody against health care for everyone?

[chimpymustgo]

29. Thank God this crowd wasn't around for Civil Rights legislation. LEADERS DO THE RIGHT THING.

[dgibby]

30. Sure. Just like we weren't ready for medicare. nt

[espiral]

38. When will it be? When how many more are dead of neglect?

[Donkeykick]

6. Barack Obama my A$$

This falls on our Democratic Congress. If this does not go through I'm changing my registration to Independent. The Democrats are in power now! Quit this bipartisanship nonsense and move on this. (Thinking: Blue Dog Democrats my A$$! More like DINOS!)

[OHdem10]

15. When you have Blue Dogs trying to figure out how to skip the President'd

speech because they fear their constituents might see them in
the same room with the President--this tells me the President
is between a rock and a hard place.

Friday, Hardball: Charley Cook, Political Analyst and pollster
was explaining to Chris Matthews the problem with Blue Dogs:
Today a Blue Dog told me he simply is not going to be back
in time for speeches.

I can understand the points the points the article is making.
There is an authoritarian strand which permeates our culture.
Take charge, tough guys are preferred. Take time and watch
media personalities--even they are swayed by the more passionate
tough guy. Getting your party lined up behind you (Members of
House and Senate) is the test. The Media do not concern themselves
with Issues, which person is the best in political leadership.
In other words, the merits of the issue do not matter. It is
who wins the fight. Who is the toughest? Who gets their
party in line???

Those Blue Dogs are a piece of work.

[global1]

19. They Can Run But They Cannot Hide Or Is It.....

they can hide but will get beat when the run.

Though the President will be making a speech that over 50 million Americans will hear - in reality - he will only be addressing those Dems that are not on board with the rest of the Dems. He'll be talking to those Blue Dogs and Senators that are pulling the other way.

It is interesting to note that the President created a monster in us - the electorate. He fired us up and we rewarded him and the Dems with the White House, the Senate and the House. We learned that we had power to take on the establishment (BushCo) and send them packing - and in a very substantial way. Power to the people - huh!!!!

Well now that we know that we have that power - that the President himself gave us the confidence to have - we now know that if he and the Dems don't come through for us - that we can use that power again - this time against them to find someone else that will come through for the people.

I only hope that if the President and the Dems cave on HCR - and I say 'if' because I still believe that the President will come through for us - that the effect of a sell out will not mean that the electorate will revert back into its shell - never to trust another candidate again. It could very well be that a sell out will turn off whole generations of new voters - the young voters that got so fired up in '08 - that they wind up withdrawing from the political scene altogether.

That would be a terrible legacy for President Obama to live with.

My advice for him over this Labor Day weekend is for him to listen to his own campaign speeches and really hear what he told us and realize how bad he will hurt the electorate and himself if he caves on this issue.

[Laelth]

20. He has lost some credibility.

You can't run this ad. and then fail to object loudly to a plan with the individual mandate.



Is it any wonder that the left is suspicious?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--original image was too large.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. This was in fact the deciding issue for me

and his opposition to mandates that people will not be able to afford in the end outweighed some of his rather atavistic attitudes about my community. I crossed a big line to vote for him, and mandates were the largest part of that. Because although I am insured, I know many who are not and the reason is they can not afford it. Also because many people I know only want catastrophic coverage, because the bulk of their health care is alternative and not covered by plans anyway, and or they need dental work far worse than they need a physical, and are afraid they will wind up toothless to pay for a policy that is of little use to them at all anyway. Many others just hate insurance companies for killing their parents or denying a medications and do not wish to help them profit.

[Laelth]

33. I hear you.

Neither my wife nor I have insurance at the moment. If we could afford it, we would have bought it already. This was a big deal for us, and a major reason why we supported Obama over Clinton.

:dem:

-Laelth.

[MasonJar]

32. Obama is apparently without strong ideals. He is no fighter since he has no

certain ideals of his own to battle for. He is a compromiser, but it is the right wing that gets the compromise, not the progressives. Obama is the foil of the Rahm Emmanuels; he was too new in politics to wage so many crucial wars. Healthcare, war, torture, the many etcs.; you know them. This is just not the time for Obama. 2016 would have probably been better. He chose the wrong advisors and obviously listens to them religiously. Look how he allowed Howard Dean to be treated. I was appalled.

[Skittles]

35. these folk need to listen to Obama's campaign speeches again

only this time REALLY LISTEN - or better yet, read them.....the man looked great, sounded great but there was never any "concision".....none of this is any surprise to those of us who were actually paying attention

[chimpymustgo]

36. Oh Skttles, once again, you go right to the heart. It was ALL THERE.

[Skittles]

37. watch this next speech

I WANT PUBLIC OPTION BUT IF I DON'T GET IT, WELL, THAT'S OK TOO