If Obama really wanted a public option, there would be one

[Stuart G]

It just isn't that important to him. You gotta believe that something means more to you than anything to go to war on something. Obama decided that Afghanistan was worth all the political and emotional strife that it would cause him, so he has taken it on.

In the same vein, Obama has decided that getting a mild form of public option, for example, allowing 60 year olds to enroll in medicare, or perhaps 58 year olds, and gradually enlarging the number is not worth the effort. Not worth the effort, or not as important as Afghanistan

I am saying that to win, one must give it everything he has. To fight and never give up.

On the public option, I don't believe that Obama gave it every single bit of effort that he could give. Did he pressure all that could be pressured in every way?

He certainly did give that effort to get elected, but I don't think he has given that effort on this issue. And this issue is a life or death issue. I welcome comments.

[still_one]

1. unfortunately, I agree /nt

[TheWraith]

47. You are both completely wrong.

No matter how much time Obama dedicates to it, we still have the same Senators.

[Yurovsky]

62. Well how did Ronnie Raygun get things done?

He didn't even have a majority in the House, and the GOP senate majority NEVER approached 60 votes (and the Democrats controlled the Senate his last 2 years in office).

If BHO went to the mattresses, we'd have a single payer RIGHT NOW.

[TheWraith]

72. Please explain how. In detail.

I know I'm going to get crickets in response to this, because nobody who thinks what you do has a more coherent explanation of how than "just do it." Nobody wants to admit that the level of unified opposition Obama is getting is unprecedented, or that the math simply doesn't allow for some things. There aren't even 30 votes in the Senate for single-payer, no matter who's the President.

[DrDan]

2. my comment - - - - FULLY AGREE

[dkf]

3. Exactly.

If he wanted it, it would be in there. But he makes squishy noises about it and the Senators get that he would rather it not be in there.

They aren't clueless.

[paulk]

4. I think that it was clear during the primaries

that Obama's position on healthcare reform was not as thought out as the other major candidates.

He has always been willing to let the thing play out however it would, without much in the way of guidance from his end.

If a public option was part of the deal that Congress passed, he would be for it, if not - then no big deal.

All he really wants is to sign his name to something....

[zipplewrath]

12. Community organizer

His experience as a community organizer, in combination with Rahm's background as a deal maker, is failing him in his new role as leader. He is trying to be an aggregator. He is trying to be the guy that finds the common ground and moves ideas forward. It is a variation on the "art of the possible" approach. Find out what the community is willing/able to do and try to facilitate that by being the guy ready to impliment others ideas. He sees his current community as Washington/congress/DoD.

In that community, there was support for Iraq and Iran, as well as continuing Gitmo, so that's where he went.

There wasn't sufficient interest in the Public Option, so that's where he went.

There was a desire to have a mandatory requirement for having insurance, so that's where he went.

There wasn't support in the CIA or Congress for prosecutions of torturers, so that's where he went.

We elected a guy to try to CREATE the common ground. We elected a guy to CREATE the ideas. We elected a guy to move ideas forward by LEADING. Instead, we got a guy bragging that his health "care" reform is a bunch of GOP ideas from 15 years ago.

[paulk]

25. it's his greatest failing

and why I didn't support him in the primaries...

I keep "hoping" that he will get a clue.

[zipplewrath]

30. Neither Hillary nor Obama

I wasn't big on either one. Hillary had more executive branch experience, and I wasn't particularly thrilled with hers. I'm partial to govenors, or former cabinet members.

[paulk]

34. they never really give us much to choose from

it always seems to be a decision based on who can do the least damage, rather than the most good...

[leeroysphitz]

46. +1

[Javaman]

71. His greatest short coming is...

his lack of what Harry Truman once stated, "sometimes as President, you have to be bastard", Obama doesn't have it in him to be bastard, therefore, we will never have real health care reform.

I just don't believe Obama has the moxie to be a bastard.

The repukes do, but in a grossly wrong manner.

[izquierdista]

31. Which "community" is that?

If he's trying to aggregate Wall Street, health insurers, defense contractors, lobbyists, and corporatists, he's finding a lot of common ground to move their ideas forward. Ordinary working class Americans, not so much.

[flyarm]

39. I have to say ..no...Obama never had private secret meetings with we the people..

he refused to see many of the doctors that wanted to meet with him..but he had no problem having numerous private "secret meetings" with Big Pharma Ceo's and big Insurance Ceo's and the huge hospital conglomerates.

This was and is a deliberate selling out of the American people on their "HEALTH CARE"..and a huge give away to the corporate health care industry!..at the cost of our Health and care!

[truedelphi]

78. So very true, and so very tragic for those of us

Who must live with these crap decisions of his.

And I guess that includes most Americans, except for those who get their insurance through their stint as Senators, House members, or as President.

[Lorien]

68. He said that he was for Universal Single Payer during the primaries

he lied. He's for maintaining the status quo, and he's no leader-he's just a puppet.

[Autumn]

5. I think you pretty well covered it.

What is so sad are the priorities he has shown.

[msongs]

6. yeah, but he waited a YEAR to submit any health proposal of his own. that counts for something nt

[closeupready]

7. I completely agree with all your points. Also, there was a disincentive

in terms of future lost campaign finance dollars.

[Stuart G]

8. As I look back over the discussion, the public option never has

been his top priority.
Even though the public option is of course the cheapest, most effective way to provide health care.

The focus has been to somehow include with the insurance companies in the mix, not using the public option . It appears that has always been the focus.

If the focus had been..public option and the insurance companies ..(as it was for just a few days) we would have the public option. At first, a small one, but a start.

If the President has given up on this, we may never see it again.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Nope. The Senate is and has been the problem all along.

As far as I can tell the proposal to add back in the house's meager public insurance option back into the bill was supported by no more than 23 Senators. That is 28 short and that is why it is going down. The corporatist majority in the Senate is the problem. Yes of course the votes for More War were there - so these issues are comparable only to consider that pro-kleptocracy proposals sail through the Senate with 'bipartisan' (what a joke) support, while progressive anti-kleptocracy issues like health care reform are confronted with endless obstruction from both sides of the alleged aisle.

[Stuart G]

11. If only 23 Senators supported the PO, could

Obama's very strong support and push changed that number?
If he had pulled out all the stops, and pushed like hell would that have made a difference? If you are correct, (and I am not sure of this)
then this country is in far worse shape than we suspect or even imagine.

[piratefish08]

15. I guess we'll never know if he isn't even willing to try.........

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Sure. So from the other 35 lets say he pulls in 20.

The proposal still goes down in flames plus Obama gets to pay up for whatever bribes he had to offer to twist those 20 votes out. So it is a lose-lose situation for the White House.

This is the reality that every Democratic president has faced in my lifetime with two exceptions. It was only the extraordinary circumstances of LBJ's '64 victory after Kennedy's assassination, and the post Watergate congress of the mid 70s that allowed for any advancement of progressive legislation through the senate. Brief moments of sunlight surrounded by smog. Blue dogs, dixiecrats, whatever. Same as it ever was.

[DrDan]

13. the "corporatist majority in the Senate" and the corporatist WH

[Warren Stupidity]

63. that may be, but it is certain about the former, the latter is a matter of speculation

I am rejecting the theory, expressed in the OP, that if the White House pushed for a public option or for single payer or for any progressive legislation it would sail through the senate. It may be the case the the WH doesn't care, it is certainly the case that the Senate won't comply.

[treestar]

14. Exactly. Very strange how suddenly the left seems to want and

believe in an all-powerful President. I guess they did not oppose that part of Bush - just who it was who had the power.

[still_one]

20. The point was that the President gave up the fight before it had started on the public option /nt

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I think the WH gives up when it does a head count and comes up way short.

What exactly would be the point of putting this to a vote and losing by an embarrassing margin?

[Stuart G]

22. If the Senate is that bad, as you suggest, what

can be done? The corporate whores have more than 75 votes. Is that what is being said here?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. That is my opinion of the reality of the situation.

A solid majority blocks any progressive initiative.

[Stuart G]

28. It is as if the corporatons pay a small amount of money...

(that is relatively small amount compared to profits) to completely control the political agenda and results.
While it appears that we have a chance to get change,
there never was a chance, if you are correct.

It was just a matter of time before we lost, not a question of if or when we might win.
While this may be a dark outlook, it may indeed be the truth. I really need to consider this one..

[still_one]

33. The PO was on the back burner from the beginning, 10 months ago. Deals were already

made with Pharmacy and others. There was no real discussion on the public option from the White House

and it isn't just the public option, the administrations most helpful proposals, such as denial of pre-existing conditions, and others things won't even take effect for 4 years.

As far as "losing by an embarrassing margin", I think the administration demonstrated that they are not on top of things as shown by the Massachusetts election, and that Tim Kaine still remains on the job.

[rhett o rick]

77. I dont care that the Senate is the problem. They will always be the problem.

But our President that we elected for change has not shown the slightest interest in HCR. He seems to be completely ambivalence about HCR. Maybe he cant influence the Senate. But at least he can show us that he is on OUR SIDE. But no, that is too much to ask.

[Enthusiast]

10. I don't fully agree.

You say:

"On the public option, I don't believe that Obama gave it every single bit of effort that he could give."

I say:

He didn't give ANY effort at all because he did not want the public option to begin with. And he knows perfectly well how much damage this will do to the Democratic Party in 2010. I can come to no other conclusion than this is all part of the plan. As with Clinton before him, Obama will have to go along with the corporate mandate if there is a Republican majority. Mission accomplished (after 2010).

[Stuart G]

16. My gut agrees with this point of view.

I don't think he gave it the kind of effort one would give if they beieved in something deeply. We would have heard more, seen more, and felt more. And honestly, here in the DU, we would have felt that fire in him to get it done.

It is that fire within him to get a PO done, that I never saw or felt. Dr. Howard Dean had it, and many others had it. Obama didn't

[Echo In Light]

19. People need to realize how absurd/silly the idea of a 'prez' for 300,000,000 people is

Ours is a system of governance based soly on propaganda, illusion, shaping empire-friendly views and selling them as 'common knowledge,' aka as manufacturing consent.

[flyarm]

43. +1 I agree with you 100%! eom

[Echo In Light]

17. No way. Vested interests determine "electable" candidates. Phony rep democracy/phony elections =

Corporate power/police state always wins. US presidents don't create US policy based on personal whims. Just doesn't happen that way at all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. In a weird alternative universe where Ronald Reagan wanted single payer health care

we would get single payer health care.

First, he would have one of his pet Congresscritters introduce a bill.

Then he would sweet-talk people from both parties into sponsoring it.

Then he would go on TV and explain the bill in simple language, ending with a plea for viewers to deluge their own Congresscritters with phone calls, letters, and telegrams. (Pre-Internet era, remember?)

Then he would dispatch his pet Congresscritters and staffers and "journalists" out to all the TV and radio talk shows to push single-payer. He even would have gotten someone from the other party to be a major public advocate for it (the Dan Rostenkowski role).

That's how he got his big tax "reform," the one that started the IRS screwing of the middle class.

[EFerrari]

50. Yep.

[Orsino]

26. Um, no.

There might be more he could do, or appear to do, but I think that very little can possibly move this Congress. Americans still seem to be mostly fine with doing nothing.

[Enthusiast]

29. The American people

might seem mostly fine with doing nothing to you. But this American, like millions of others, is deeply disappointed when we did not see a REAL effort to achieve the public option.

[Echo In Light]

32. The majority of those same twits will go & vote for similar do-nothing Reps next round

Same old same old, yet bitch that they're not getting what they were told by professional liars/actors/figureheads. Bizarrely humorous to behold this phenomenon, actually.

[Orsino]

36. I'm not sure that a "real" effort from this president would look much different. n/t

[Enthusiast]

74. I think a real effort

would look 100% different. We've seen a false effort already.

[lonestarnot]

27. No shit!

[laughingliberal]

35. K & R nt

[DevonRex]

37. So if Obama wants something it will automatically happen? nt

[Stuart G]

38. I don't think that this is the question. The question was, "Did Obama

really want a Public Option and how hard did he fight for it?

Also, if I read these posts correctly, there is also the question as to whether or not he really had a chance to get a public option at all. It has also been raised that he may never have really wanted a public option.

[DevonRex]

42. The statement was: "If Obama really wanted a public option, there would be one"

That's an unambiguous statement. One that I think ignores reality.

Arguing over how hard he fought or didn't fight is absolutely fair game. But those arguments are based simply on opinion since nobody here has access to the people involved in the process.

[EFerrari]

57. That is the best evidence: we don't have access. The industry lobbyists did. n/t

[EFerrari]

51. You don't have to have magic powers to lead.

[ecstatic]

54. Maybe he just wants to be a realist and not an actor

Anyone can put on a dramatic show (see Kucinich or Gravel). Some of you would be perfectly content with acting that yields zero results. The rest of us want real results.

[EFerrari]

56. In reality, the public wants the public option. The rest of YOU are out of touch.

[ecstatic]

61. I would like the PO, but what I want is not always possible and

it's also not always what other people want.

In case you haven't noticed, one dem senate seat has already gone to a republican and more seats are in trouble. Repubs would never support a public option or single payer, so what gives?

[EFerrari]

65. Then the conclusion we have to come to is that our elected officials

are not representing a public that does want a public option.

They are representing corporate interests, not ours. At very least, we should know what we're defending when we makes excuses for Obama or for the party.

[bvar22]

70. The reason it is not possible...

...is people like you who are willing to accept FAR LESS than the rest of the Civilized World takes for granted simply because a politician tells you to bend over and smile.

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

[Vidar]

40. K&R.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. I don't think he has led - really been a bona fide LEADER - on anything

[Echo In Light]

49. US presidents are figureheads who don't actually determine much on their own.

And realistically, when one walks the basic premise through, just how absurd is the notion of a "president" for a country of 300,000,000?


Nutty, eh?

[zipplewrath]

64. Foreign policy

Probably his initial diplomatic efforts were an attempt to lead. Started off well, I think the situation in Iran, and his continued committment to 2 wars has undermined that greatly.

He's tried to "lead by example" on the issue of "changing the tone", but hasn't gotten very far with that. And probably half of that was dealing with his own missteps, resulting in "beer summits".

But no, overall I don't think he has lead much at all. He is coming off as a manager. Someone trying to control a process to advance other peoples ideas.

[freddie mertz]

44. K & R. You are correct, my friend.

And no matter what anyone says or posts, we all surely know this to be true.

[freddie mertz]

45. Dupe(d). (As were we all!)

And no matter what anyone says or posts, we all surely know this to be true.

[ecstatic]

48. He's magical! Series!1

[EFerrari]

52. Well, he must have left his wand in Chicago.

[samsingh]

53. agreed

[FLAprogressive]

55. Stroll on over to GD:P and they will tell you that it is ALL YOUR FAULT

[amborin]

58. he obviously doesn't want a PO

[4lbs]

59. If Obama really pushed for a public option, then that nearly 70% support for it would drop

to around 50% or less.

Did you not see that Newsweek poll where the majority of people (59% to 70%) were for most of the components of Obama's health reform plan, but when told they were in Obama's health reform plan, the same people were mostly against that plan (45% yes, 49% no)?

Stupid American (most of the country): "I support the public option!"

Reporter/Media/Pollster: "So does President Obama, he wants to put it in his health care reform bill."

Same Stupid American: "Well..... then I don't like it!"

:crazy:


It might be better to just let Congress, especially those Democratic Senators that add their name to that list supporting the public option, do it, and keep Obama's name out of it. Because the American people are really that stupid that they can't see the forest for the trees.

[ctaylors6]

60. I agree. I'll never understand why he started from such a weak position

Why didn't he start from the strongest, best possible position? And why has he been so unclear? He seems to have violated every rule of negotiating I ever learned in business school and law school.

He started from a watered down position. Let's see what Congress wants to do. It wasn't really clear most of the time what he wanted. Public option? No public option? I feel like I've read 100 posts on DU alone about Gibbs' clarifying whether Obama was for the PO or not or whether he'd sign a bill without it.

Big legislation gets passed when it's clear to voters. He should have done what the republicans do with tax cuts. State the same simple sentence over and over and over. People don't support bills they don't understand.

It's driven me crazy. I won't pretend to understand why he and his administration handled it like this. Maybe someone inside will write a book someday. Lack of conviction, lack of effort, ineffectiveness - who knows. I feel pretty certain however that IF something passes it won't be nearly as good as it would have been if he'd been strong and clear from the start.

Edited to add: The dems in congress have disappointed me immensely on this for very similar reasons. Not hard to understand why their approval ratings stink. I'm starting to think their goal is to make sure no one's happy with what they're doing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. For a political message board...

it strikes me as odd just how many people don't understand how politics works.

[Bobbie Jo]

73. +1

boggles the mind, no?

[bvar22]

67. Obama's 4 BIG "Priorities":

1) Deliver $One Trillion Dollars of "Public Money" to his Wall Street Friends and Backers, no strings/no regulation....Mission Accomplished

2)Increase the money flow to the MIC and War Profiteers......Mission Accomplished

3)Deliver $One Trillion Dollars to the Health Insurance Industry (Wall Street's Incestuous 1st Cousin), permanently enshrine THEM as the Gateway to Health Care. Destroy ANY possibility of REAL reforms like the rest of the Civilized World has done...."A Uniquely American Solution"...indeed.
Mission ALMOST Accomplished.

4)Give Social Security and Medicare to Wall Street.
The seeds for this have been planted in the HCR (-$500Billion).
Not accomplished yet, but well underway.



So far, Obama and his DLC Administration has been extremely Successful.
"By their works, you will know them."

[Lorien]

69. +1.

Sadly.

[donheld]

75. Damn right

[slipslidingaway]

76. If he wanted one, it certainly was not evident, it was just a sliver

of HC reform anyway.

[Kickin_Donkey]

79. Of course ...

as president, he has the bully pulpit. But he doesn't want to use it.