Did Obama ever support Universal Single Payer?

[Toucano]

I don't recall every detail of the primaries, but I seem to recall Obama and Clinton both being rather vague and unspecific when it came to the issue of health care reform.

Am I mistaken?

[Oregone]

1. He said something about if we did all from scratch, thats the system he would use.

The reality is that the bloated and bubbled private health insurance sector that is manifesting itself by creating a sick, dying and indebted society is too valuable to eliminate (too large of a part of the economy--which I would think is an indication they need to be removed). But after all, they contribute to campaigns.

[Toucano]

10. Funny thing, that.

They see it as too valuable no eliminate, but the reality is that it is too costly NOT to eliminate.

The money transferred from every other sector of the economy to the Medical Industrial Complex undermines every other sector, making it FAR more difficult for the other sectors to compete globally.

Self-interest of those sectors (agriculture, manufacturing, telecommunications, etc.) should dictate that THEY demand Universal Single Payer.

They are myopic. It is the same short-term profit thinking that created the mortgage meltdown.

[Laelth]

37. +1 Well said. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tesha]

2. No, we all knew he was corporatist.

He was just the best we could manage to do.

Tesha

[polichick]

8. Is pragmatism the same as corporatism?? nt

[Oregone]

11. Is pragmatism often used to hide corporatism?? nt

[polichick]

13. That's what I suspect - just curious about the other poster's take. nt

[Tesha]

45. Out of the eight people running, Obama was number seven on my list.

Once it was clear he would be the candidate, I supported him enthusiastically
but I knew that he would be working *AGAINST* many things I hold dear.

And he's lived down to my expectations.

Tesha

[Toucano]

12. Not at all.

There is nothing pragmatic about supporting the needs of a handful of corporations over the needs of the larger society.

[polichick]

16. I agree, but you can use "pragmatism" to cover a multitude of sins. nt

[Capn Sunshine]

20. and yet, it's a very important quality in a politician

so by all means, let's find a negative aspect to it.

[Toucano]

24. These weak as water reforms are the OPPOSITE of pragmatism.

Capital will continue to be diverted to one small group of corporations at great cost to all the others.

What I think this thread is teaching me is that the public financing of elections is the number one priority for the hope of democracy in the United States.


I am not faulting Obama individually. He did not promise Universal Single Payer, and that's what I was unclear about.

[Capn Sunshine]

38. see? That didn't take long

:clap:

[polichick]

25. Pragmatism is an interesting idea - makes you think of...

...idealism vs realism, but also provides good cover.

[sabrina 1]

33. Pragmatism alone, without a balance of

firmly held ideals, in anyone, politician or otherwise, is as bad as any other 'ism'. Americans often do not understand the meaning of Pragmatism, which originated in Europe and bears no resemblance to what is often tossed out here as a desirable 'quality' in a politician. It's become nothing but a catch phrase which is meaningless.

[emulatorloo]

35. Is Obama a Corporatist (Some DU'ers) or a Socialist (Hannity Beck et al)?

Just my very humble opinion so don't bother attacking me -- but I don't find either label convincing.

[Tesha]

46. His actions make it clear that he is a corporatist. (NT)

[HughMoran]

50. Aww gee

That's a terribly simple-minded way of dismissing our president.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. Yes, he did.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14576/obama-vs-obama-on-single-payer
Obama vs. Obama on Single Payer
by: David Sirota
Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:15

I think President Obama is doing a pretty good job pushing a pretty good health care message. But I just want to point out that he doesn't help himself when he makes verifiably dishonest statements without any explanation whatsoever. Specifically, I'm talking about this from his New Hampshire town hall meeting:
"I have not said I am a single payer supporter." - Barack Obama, 8/11/09
As I noted in a column a few months back, Obama in 2003 explicitly said he supported single payer health care - and that the only obstacle to its enactment was Democrats taking back the White House and the Congress (which, of course, they've subsequently done).

Obama has never really offered up an explanation for his about face on single payer, other than implying that it's not politically realistic now - even though, again, back in 2003, he said it would be politically realistic when Democrats obtained the presidency and Congress.

Let me repeat: I'm really supportive of Obama's health care efforts right now. But I'll never - ever - be supportive of any president lying and/or not at least explaining their broken promises.

[Toucano]

15. Individual contributions in 2004 cycle were 91% of money raised.

In 2008 cycle, it dropped to 43%.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Again.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. Exactly.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Back when he was a IL state senator he said he would like it...

Don't know if he ever tried to get legislation going on it or not.

EDIT: Even today he acknowledges it as the best solution. He simply recognizes that rebuilding your ship *while sailing on it* is a very different thing that rebuilding your ship while it's in drydock.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. No. He was in favor of "optional universal" coverage.

Well presented gibberish often passes for vague.

[Toucano]

19. +1

I like "well presented gibberish". I'll remember that one!

[Syrinx]

6. he used to favor single-payer

At least before he was elected to the US Senate.

[MineralMan]

7. Single payer is simply not an attainable goal right now.

I hope it will be someday, but it is not at this time.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[TransitJohn]

23. Sorry, not buying that at all.

The Democratic Party is in control of the House and Senate, and holds the Presidency so the plan they pass is **OURS**. For good. And it sucks, because not only are we not getting any reform whatsoever, we're all going under threat of sanction if we don't give our money to for-profit corporations; straight up government extortion. All this is going to do is exacerbate the crushing debt that not being well entails in this country...I suspect that 75% of medical bill-induced bankruptcies will STILL go to those WITH FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE. The public option to hold costs has gone away. I have no choice to leave my employer's shitty health insurance plan to buy in to the "public" option. This plan is the worst of all possible compromises, it will only get worse for the country's fiscal solvency and for that of individuals....well, for natural born individuals, anyway. Our corporate individuals are represented very well in Congress, and will get everything they want.

[Toucano]

28. I agree. The wants or needs of the public are irrelevant.

They are easily manipulated and are not a factor.

It is a straight-up battle against corporatism.

The Medical Industrial Complex has a great deal of influence in the media with their ad buys, but it does not surpass the influence of every other economic sector combined.

When those other sectors take off their blinders and realize that they will have greater profit under a publicly financed plan, then THEIR media influence will be felt.

[MineralMan]

40. When I say it is not possible, I mean that the current Congress

would simply refuse to vote for a single payer system. It's not Obama's fault. It would be impossible to get enough votes in this Congress to pass single payer.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[sabrina 1]

42. Agree.

Our corporate individuals are represented very well in Congress, and will get everything they want.

But we had to give Democrats the chance to prove (or disprove) their long-held claim, see Obama on this also, that the only way we could get anything done in DC was to hold a majority in all three branches of government.

Sadly, now, there are new excuses, but far less likely to persuade people, than the old ones. We've don that, given them everything they said they needed, and the excuse has shifted to 'we'll never get universal care in this country, just can't do it so take what we can get and the one I love most 'politics is the art of the possible'! What does mean? Take whatever crumbs they give you, because that's all that is possible? What a defeatist attitude if that's the case.

So, in the past we had no choice but to support them, while waiting for the majority. That's no longer the case. People are now free to vote their consciences.

As for going after the Blue Dogs, Rahm doesn't want us to do that. He has forbidden it. So, with so many people unable to wait until whatever the next excuse is comes to pass, what is the plan? I don't know how many people died while we waited for this moment to arrive. But, apparently that isn't a concern of either party.

[Laelth]

39. Single Payer is unatainable ONLY BECAUSE you and Democrats like you say so.

That's not good enough. Our Congress could pass it if they wanted to. They just don't want to. Why not? Perhaps because they have been bought out? I don't know.

But it's still possible.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

41. Not so. My goal is a single-payer, single-pool system.

When I say that is impossible at this time, I'm simply reflecting the current Congress. How do you suppose single payer could be jammed through this Congress when even a public option may not get through it.

You're blaming the messenger. We will not get single-payer until we can replace those in Congress who oppose such a thing. Today? Not a chance. Eventually...perhaps.

Don't start with the "Democrats like you." You know nothing of my political beliefs. I'm simply saying that it's impossible in the current situation. That does not in any way imply that I do not want single payer. I want a completely nationalized health care system, from top to bottom.

[Laelth]

43. I agree that it's not possible, at this time, in the current Congress.

I admit to blaming the messenger, but only to the extent that the message invites those of us who care and who want single payer to give up on it.

It is possible, just not in this Congress, at this time.

That means we wait until we can get it and keep the pressure on.

It also means we reject the bail-out of the health insurance industry that's being foisted on us now. Hacker designed this plan to forestall a single-payer system. That's what it is designed to do, and that's what it will do.

Therefore, I reject it, and if you really would prefer a single-payer system (as you say), then you should reject the President's alleged "reform" too.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

47. Sorry, I can't do that. Even though I'll be on Medicare next

year, my wife's eleven years younger, and as self-employed people, the cost of health insurance is killing us. We still have it, but it could become impossible to afford any time now.

The current plan isn't much, but it's something. I'll keep militating for single-payer, even though I'll be in a single-payer system soon. But, too many people are dying right now to reject anything that will help, even if it's not enough.

We can't get single-payer now. Very, very many people can't wait for something, someday. They simply can't. They have to be realists. I know many people who have no health care at all. I knew people who didn't, either, but it's too late for them. They're dead.

[Laelth]

49. Tell you what.

I certainly want a law that gives us all those reforms you need (end of pre-existing condition exclusions, end of rescission, end of lifetime caps). If you can find a way to get those reforms without throwing 40+ million uninsured Americans (like me and my wife) under the bus, we'll hop right on board.

Until then, our interests conflict. Single-payer is the only way I see for our interests not to conflict.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Posteritatis]

9. I doubt any US president can seriously support it anytime soon

The US is still too deep in the Cold War for the population to tolerate it.

[avaistheone1]

14. Only when he was a Senator trying to build his career, then he forgot conveniently forgot about it.

Typical politician~


Full quote from Obama in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.



VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[slipslidingaway]

32. Thanks for the full quote, video and date. n/t

[WeDidIt]

17. Nope during the campaign. n/t

[earth mom]

21. Nah-Obama just gave Universal Single Payer Health Care lip service as corporatist politicians do.

:argh:

[Hansel]

27. Link to quotes. nt

[earth mom]

29. Do your own fucking homework. And you can start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

:puke:

[slipslidingaway]

34. Link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6524246&mesg_id=6524417

Full quote from Obama in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Yes. And, then he met the real bosses....who make the campaign contributions. .

[slipslidingaway]

31. !!!!! n/t

[Hansel]

26. No. nt

[sabrina 1]

30. He spoke his position after

he was accused of not being in favor of it:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/21/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php

Rhetoric: "Today, he opposes single payer health care, and attacks Sen. Clinton for proposing a plan that covers everyone"

Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System, But Now We Need To Build On The System We Have


If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. Obama said, "Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered...I don't want to wait for that perfect system...The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who's gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?...I believe I've got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together." <http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/Ames>

'Both Independents and Republicans'. Many polls have shown that a majority of Americans support a universal healthcare system, or did. The Health Insurance Cos spent millions of dollars to scare them out of that support. Dems did nothing to fight this effort.

The conclusion anyone has to come to is that the Party was never going to do it, even if they got control (a reason given for why it couldn't be done, until they got it) of all three branches. They fully intended to not come out too strongly against during the primaries as they needed progressives working for them. Once they won, the only people not ivited to the table, were the very people who got them there.

Talk about being used and then discarded. Jane Hamsher has pretty much exposed how Rahm Emmanuel silenced liberal groups from 'going after Blue Dogs'. Not a good feeling to realize how deceived we were.

[Laelth]

36. At one time he did.

He was in favor of a PO during the primaries, but he opposed the individual mandate. Here's the ad he ran against Hillary:



Obviously, he has changed his mind a couple of times. Of course, when he did change his mind, it would have been nice if he had changed it to the left (single-payer) and not to the right (mandates).

Many of us chose Obama over Hillary for his opposition to mandates. We feel quite betrayed now.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Toucano]

44. That was a detail I did not know. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

48. Yes, Hillary lost supporters over the mandates.