Umm, didn't Obama promise to veto any legislation that did not include universal coverage?

[branders seine]

Or did he word that in some weasely way so it wasn't really a promise?

With so many mixed messages from him and his team, it's hard to keep track of any commitment he makes.

[Neecy]

1. Oh, it'll have 'universal coverage', alright

Meaning, fill the pockets of Blue Cross executives with our mandate or the IRS will be all over your ass.

[dflprincess]

6. "Coverage for more, not health care for all"

that's what we're most apt to get.

[timeforpeace]

19. The use of the words Obama and promise, together, is now known as an oxymoron.

[salguine]

33. Awww, SNAP!

[FrenchieCat]

2. Why are you working overtime with your outrage?

Why don't you find the quote,
then you can say he said it,
instead of simply asking with an inference that it must be true.

[BeatleBoot]

12. I agree with you.

Don't get me wrong, I am outraged by the Senate right now.

Hopefully this goes to reconciliation. Because it's a big pile of shit right now.

A big pile of shit.

But I agree that the OP should provide a link, because I don't remember him saying that.


on edit: Oh wait, further down the thread they have him documented as saying "by the end of my first term". So we have 3 years to wait for Universal Coverage. I sure hope 2010 goes well.

[NYC_SKP]

3. No, don't think he said, "veto any legislation that did not include universal coverage? "

There was something, IIRC, about vetoing and such, but not that exactly.

And I'm not in a position right now to go dig up what he did say.

Someone else probably will.

[Bluebear]

4. "I will sign a bill including universal coverage in my first term" is all I remember.

Fingers crossed!

[Horse with no Name]

5. Silly bear...he was POLITICKING

and campaigning. He didn't mean all that hope and change nonsense!

[NYC_SKP]

15. Not to argue, but Google reveals no such phrase, at least not that phrase exactly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=0&num=100&newwindow=1&q=%22I+will+sign+a+bill+including+universal+coverage+in+my+first+term%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I remember something about vetoing, something similar to what you wrote, but it had to be something different.

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

23. this is the one I think I remembered:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/433/sign-a-universal-health-care-bill/

[NYC_SKP]

25. Thank you. Here's more of it and the original source and link:

...snip...

"...Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology - it's a moral commitment...."


http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/23/a_politics_of_conscience_1.php

That's an ambitious goal, and a kind of difficult promise to make given our three-branch system.

I doubt that he's forgotten this statement, and I think he'd love to make it happen.

Also, he said "by the end of my first term as president".

Maybe, just maybe, what we get this year is just a start.

Who knows, but thank you for finding the quote.

:patriot:

[Orsino]

29. He should not have pledged such a thing...

...since Congress will never let it reach his desk.

However, the lack of universal coverage will be Congress' fault, and not the fault of the president's optimism.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I think he said public option

[DRoseDARs]

8. "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president..." 2007

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/433/sign-a-universal-health-care-bill/

"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

Sources: Speech, "A Politics of Conscience," June 23, 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/23/a_politics_of_conscience_1.php

"Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology - it's a moral commitment."

[chill_wind]

9. Thank you. n/t

[WyldRogue]

10. Looks like...

... that 'idea' was put into the trash once the 'game' was in the bag. What we ARE going to get is a never-ending bailout to the IC just to keep our families healthy until THEY decide to drop us.

Not another dime to any of the Dems in office. I'll donate to other democratic candidates and help them get into office and sit back and watch them screw myself and my family over for the status-quo that reigns in the DC Killing Fields.

[EFerrari]

14. Thank you.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Thanks for finding this, but how can he do it without Congress? It's not a dictatorship.

:shrug:

[WyldRogue]

21. He should have stepped up....

... and made damn sure that We the People (or is it We the Sheeple) were able to shrug off heavy handed health insurance costs so that it does not take away the American dream just to keep yourself and loved ones healthy. Costs 20 times more when you have an ill\handicapped loved one to care of....

But I guess any old HCR bill should work out for us tho right? What's more important? Passing a bill comprised of nothing but a patchwork of compromises that truly does not benefit the American taxpayer or a robust health-care option that gives you the ability to take care of your loved ones while living the American dream?

People, there are Tent Cities... while our 'representatives' haggle over which tid-bits they think to throw our way (giving the fog a bone)as far as HCR is concerned, we have fellow Americans suffering mainly through no fault of their own... where's the empathy?

[flowomo]

11. Not that I can find... in fact, he (well, Axelrod) refused to say that:

from Sept. 6 MSNBC report:

"White House political adviser David Axelrod said Obama is "not walking away" from a public plan. But asked if the president would veto a bill that came to him without the option, Axelrod declined to answer.

The president "believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that's our position," Axelrod told The Associated Press.

Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: "I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. ... He believes it's important."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32714404/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

[branders seine]

35. Axelrod was weaseling as hard as anyone I ever saw.

They were all too clever to utter the word "veto."

They all were too weasely to say anything that an un-rec cheerleader couldn't interpret however they need to to continue denying reality.

[FBaggins]

13. He plays for the right team... but he's still a politician.

There's always a way to get around it as long as the conflicting statements aren't as blatant as "read my lips".

[QC]

17. It depends on what the meaning of 'universal' is. n/t

[kestrel91316]

18. Did I miss something? He signed a healthcare bill already??

NO.

And BTW, he promised to veto legislation that didn't have a PUBLIC OPTION if I remember correctly.

Aren't you supposed to be somewhere ranting about emails and British climatologists or something? Or can't you handle more than one subject a night?

[t0dd]

20. Obama only keeps promises that involve escalating wars.

:)

[tsuki]

22. ObamaRahma will sign anything so he can slap himself on the back. nt

[Karmadillo]

24. Mission Accomplished! Therefore, no veto needed.

nt

[Divine Discontent]

26. how BAD is it to say you've made a SOLEMN PLEDGE to do something, then cave in once the teabaggers

throw a fit about it?


Just asking...


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promis... /
Sources: Speech, "A Politics of Conscience," June 23, 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/23/a_politics_of_con...

[ima_sinnic]

27. hey, he has certainly not discouraged "coverage" of everybody, but is that what we want?

aren't those just weasel words for "everybody will have to buy insurance"?

[Vidar]

28. Campaign is over. All promises are null & void.

[salguine]

30. I haven't noticed that Obama has any qualms about breaking promises.

[Echo In Light]

31. The joke's on you

[branders seine]

34. your post makes no sense.

[branders seine]

32. Here's what Obama said in his joint-session health care summit

I should have known he is too skilled a politician to threaten a veto. He never commits to anything that strongly. My bad. But he used pretty strong language. Is it weasely enough to let him off the hook? I know the DU cheerleader-unrec squad will gladly devour any shit he dumps and call it "a fudge brownie, just as he promised, I don't know why you're surprised," but will real people buy him supporting less than universal coverage after making statements like those below?

From his address to the joint session of Congress, September 9, 2009:

"Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. (Applause.) If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage."

What if you lose your job and you're not 55 (or whatever age)? I guess it depends
on the meanings of "quality," "affordable," and "able to get."

"There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage..."

And most tellingly,

"To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. ... But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."

He didn't use the word "veto," but "I won't back down" sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

[laughingliberal]

38. Yes, the meaning of the words "affodable" and "quality" are debatable and mean vastly

different things inside the beltway. A quick look at Federal Poverty Levels will reveal that in no time.

"able to get," is quite weasly enough. I see that as, "we stopped the insurance companies from turning anyone down." Never mind they can still charge what the fuck ever they want.

"There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage." Translation here: You still won't have any coverage but, if you prove your hardship, we'll let you off without the fine.

As to this: "To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. ... But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice." That goes back to the definition of 'affordable.'

[The Straight Story]

36. Here is why it is all so confusing: What he has said/done

It's a difficult query to answer, because Obama is a healthcare mystery, struggling to muster consistent positions on the issue.

Listening to a 2003 Obama speech, it's hard to believe he has become such an enigma. Back then, he declared himself "a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program" -- that is, one eliminating private insurers and their overhead costs by having government finance healthcare. Obama’s position was as controversial then as it is today -- which is to say, controversial among political elites, but not among the general public. ABC's 2003 poll showed almost two-thirds of Americans desiring a single-payer system "run by the government and financed by taxpayers," just as CBS's 2009 poll shows roughly the same percentage today.

In that speech six years ago, Obama said the only reason single-payer proponents should tolerate delay is "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."

That might explain why, when Illinois contemplated a 2004 healthcare proposal raising insurance lobbyists' "fears that it would result in a single-payer system," those lobbyists "found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended (read: gutted) the bill more to their liking," according to the Boston Globe. Maybe Obama didn't think single-payer healthcare was achievable without a Democratic Washington. And when in a 2006 interview he told me he was "not convinced that is the best way to achieve universal healthcare," perhaps he was following the same rationale, considering his insistence that he must "take into account what is possible."

Of course, even as a senator aiming for the "possible" in a Republican Congress, Obama promised to never "shy away from a debate about single payer." And after the 2008 election fulfilled his precondition of Democratic dominance, it was only logical to expect him to initiate that debate.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/05/16/sirota/index.html

[laughingliberal]

37. The only veto promise I heard was to veto any health care legislation which "added 1 penny to the

deficit."