So if there NEVER was to be a Public Option

[G_j]

how much time, money and energy did good people expend spinning their wheels for one?
For beginners, if the story below is true, Obama owes us an apology for the deception.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7930459&mesg_id=7930459

[Skinner]

1. Perhaps, before Obama apologizes for the "deception"...

...you would expend some energy explaining how you came to the conclusion that he never intended to include the public option.

[joeybee12]

5. Plenty of threads about the NY Times article here today...n/t

[Skinner]

6. Humor me.

What did the New York Times say?

[G_j]

8. that he cut a deal in secret

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7930459&mesg_id=7930459

[Skinner]

11. That's the Huffington Post.

Could you humor me and give me the text from the New York Times that shows Obama never intended for there to be a Public Option? Thanks.

[G_j]

14. sorry, I misspoke

it was Ed Shultz interviewing NYT Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick.

[Skinner]

15. Do you have the details of this deal that Mr. Kirkpatrick is talking about?

I suspect a New York Times reporter would have written something about it, if he's talking about it on the Ed Schultz show.

[G_j]

23. no more than

is included in this story.

It also goes on to say, "Kirkpatrick also acknowledged that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina had confirmed the existence of the deal to him."

Aside from the original "if" in the subject line, I edited to include an "if" in the body also.

[Kalun D]

24. The original article

Here's the original article that was linked from the Huff post

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html

[Skinner]

27. Thanks.

Here's the relevant quote, from page 2:

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

So, it would seem that the deal was that the legislation would not include a public option that pays Medicare rates or is controlled by the secretary of HHS. That does not rule out the possibility of a public option that pays prevailing rates.

The article does not not support the claim that Obama never intended for there to be a public option, or the claim that he cut a deal to leave out the public option entirely.

[Kalun D]

31. Adamant

Obama was adamant about $700 billion for the bankers, he's not near as enthusiastic about real health care reform.

He "never intended" by default.

As usual the issue is confused by the lawyer weasel-speak so in the future Obama can claim plausible dependability. Clinton was a master at this but Obama is king.

[Skinner]

35. Bankers. Clinton. Weasel-speak. Whatever.

My point is this: The facts that have been presented so far do not support the claim that Obama never intended for there to be a public option.

[Kalun D]

43. That may be true

I'm inferring from what Obama has DONE so far, not what he says he's going to do, that he's going to side with the corporations any time their profits are involved.

Combine that and what these articles infer and you arrive at what's been obvious for a while.

All you have to do is look at his campaign donors to see which way he's going to go. Well more specifically, his corporate campaign donors, cuz he's more or less ignoring his constituency donors.

[Political Heretic]

55. Getting the record accurate is important. But I do think there's a bigger point here.

A lot of people are personalizing this again, and making health care primarily about Obama the man and what he did or did not want.

What I wish we would do as a community is, rather than focus on Obama specifically, conduct a sort of "post-mortem" on the entire Democratic party and its actions on health care reform.

Could the case be made that it appears no one in leadership positions in the House, Senate or White House had any serious interest in a public plan?

Could we go back and trace the history of the public option discussion specifically, and make a timeline of all the statements made by Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, the Office of the President or President Obama directly - and if we did kind of picture would it paint?

Would it paint a picture of a party passionately fighting for the will of the people (with a near super majority 65% in favor of a public component to health care reform) but after herculean, passionate effort losing the fight?

Or would it paint of picture of a party never sincerely engaged on any sort of public component and even at times actively quashing or undermining efforts to create one?

What would our answer to those questions tell us about the health of our Party, if anything?

These seem like excellent and constructive questions that we ought to be carefully asking.

[Kalun D]

65. ^^^^+++++1,000,000

DING DING DING

We have a winner, true democracy is on life support

what we really have is corporatocracy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. They (facts) most certainly do.

Reflect on the last year's rhetoric from the White House.

It was portrayed as not critical...just a smidgen of reform...early in the process. Not exactly the tact one would take as an advocate.

[laughingliberal]

68. "Never" may be inaccurate. Since August would seem to be the answer.

I do remember in August being alarmed at the lack of encouragement I heard from the White House for the work of the 4 committees who passed their bills in time for the recess. If, in fact,the sticking point was Medicare rates I see no reason why he could not have worked with the committees to see if there was a compromise like Medicare rates +5% or 10%. One of the glaring deficiencies of this health care package is the failure to address the out of control hospital costs in our system. Really, that is where the problems with the current system began. As odious as the insurance companies are, rising hospital costs were the first dominoes to fall.

On edit: Okay. It's inaccurate to say the President never intended a public option. It is accurate to say that since August he did not intend to have a public option tied to Medicare rates and, subsequent to that, he never let the public in on that or, for that matter, 4 of the committees working on health care reform.

[ProSense]

28. The article is from last August

it's about the PharMa deal. It offers nothing new.

It's simply an attempt by kill the bill advocates to use old news to drum up opposition.

[Kalun D]

32. NO kidding

that shows you that it was buried so successfully, that no one picked up on it and talked about it.

[Kalun D]

33. NO it's not

it's about hospital lobbyists.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. Old news.

Old, bad news.

:think:

[Political Heretic]

53. I steered clear of this one because I'm not sure what I think of the article

but since you are weighing in.....

:popcorn:

:D

[joeybee12]

2. absolutely...he needed to be honest up front, of course, that

would have meant he actually meant he wanted input about ways to put forth a decent bill without a PO.

[izzybeans]

13. Skinner is right. The NYtimes didn't publish this.

It's a second hand quote that one of their reporters through out on TV that some entertainment lawyer lucky enough to have a huffpost blog pushed out virally on the web.

It's a twisted web, so understandably its hard to keep up.

On edit: wrong place.

[emulatorloo]

21. additionally apparently the only source is a health industry lobbyiest

Not a particularly trust worthy source if you ask me.

[izzybeans]

22. Today is one of those far too frequent days where the top two threads on the greatest page

contradict one another.

Typically one of them is a mass panic being driven by the viral marketing of some half-truth.

[emulatorloo]

25. Sort of debilitating, isn't it? n/t

[Kalun D]

26. No, it's originally from the NYT

Here's the article from back in Aug

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html

[Skinner]

36. Here, let me help you.

The article doesn't say what people say it does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7938558&mesg_id=7939351

[izzybeans]

45. True Skinner and I think the link I posted just below contains a few hints

as to what the deal with the hospitals may have been. The first PDF on page three states the American Hospital Association's position on the public option, given as testimony to Sec of HHS.

The NYtimes article makes a few reckless claims that have been transformed from the White House met with 'the hospitals' into he cut a deal with insurance lobbyists.

[izzybeans]

40. Doesn't say anything about insurance companies. It's about capping costs at the

hospitals, which isn't opposed to the public option. Though they wanted to restrict it to the uninsured and individual market. This link contains PDF's of their positions. The first one has their position re: the public option on page three. It looks like they wanted to ensure that public option payments weren't tied to medicare, which was why all the talk about Medicare plus 15 or whatever the numbers were, back at that time.

That article said there was a deal, but failed to report any details on the deal. And then the Huffpost blogger made it seem (unintentionally I hope) that the deal was with the insurance lobby, when in fact they were talking to the hospitals. Kind of stupid not to listen to the hospitals.

http://www.aha.org/aha_app/testimony/most-recent.jsp

[Kalun D]

49. IMHO

the providers are just as complicit as the insurance companies, their profits and practices are just as obscene

[izzybeans]

51. Sure they are complicit, however they are responsible for care.

I think those links show they have a vested interest for sure, but negotiating with them, the medical associations, and other healthcare interest groups has to occur alongside our lobbying efforts. Ideally the insurance companies would be irrelevant. But the Senate sure as hell made sure they stayed in the picture. The deal that was struck obviously has to do with single-payer, which obviously got locked out of every room. Most of us agree we aren't getting what we set out for. I'm hoping reconciliation provides what Obama used to call a "robust" public option - which would be more comprehensive than what is outlined in the link I provided.


IMHO, I place blame on the Senate for the bills' specifics (obviously not the 45 or so PO supporting Senators) for bumblefucking their way through this. Who did Baucus, Bayh, and Lieberman meet with and what deals did they strike? That to me is a more important question. People forget that Obama applauded the House version as passed and in his HC summit, in his opening remarks, told the Republicans the ideas he put on the table for the meeting weren't his personal preference but were specifically chosen as common ground. Not the tactic I would have chosen, but the effect has been to hand them more rope to hang themselves with. Someone had to say, look at these assholes, and now they are squawking hypocritically in public setting themselves up to be hammered during the election cycle (if the Democrats play hardball and use all of the lies and publically stated contradictions over the years).

Since that day he's battered them and the insurance companies about reform. Is he specific enough? no. I think he should have been battering both the House and Senate the entire time (his own party included), but his strategy from day one was to let the legislature do its job. Blame rises and falls with them on the specifics. Obama's blame lies in the soft balls he lobbed all this time until now. He isn't the legislature and he played it too safe and too hands off until now. He may have been out muscled by the Senate and thus has dropped talk of the public option in sometimes embarrassing ways. But, hopefully, its not too little too late. We needed him to lobby on our behalf. That's where I see Obama lacking on this issue (until now). But those bills aren't his in the Senate or the House.

[Kalun D]

56. Funny

""but his strategy from day one was to let the legislature do its job. ""

funny how that isn't how he handled the defense appropriations. He was up front and arm twisting just like the $700 billion banker bailout. When it comes to the workers issue it's suddenly "hands off".

I'm more cynical, it's all posturing, he's a corporatist from back to front. Everything of substance that he's done has been for the corps, nothing of substance for the workers if it means the corps lose money.

[izzybeans]

57. It's real funny about the $700 banker bailout given that Bush did that.

[Kalun D]

64. Obama

helped push it through congress, he was front/center on the "bailout", he tried much harder than he has on real HCR

and he's appointed and kept appointed the crooks that are at the center of the banking theft

Geitner and Bernanke, BOTH OF THEM ARE REPUBLICANS

and after over a year, none of the rules have been changed that allowed the theft, it's business as usual

[Mari333]

3. yes, he is on campaign record stating he was religiously behind a PO

lot of people got taken in by the theatre of the absurd.

I kind of held out a little hope for a teeny while, but as the clusterfuck got underway I figured out who was calling the shots and it was biggggg money.

[timeforpeace]

9. Seem to recall his statements to that effect being posted over and over.

[NJmaverick]

17. they were posted but they were not true

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/

[NJmaverick]

16. That is simply untrue and here is my supporting reference

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/


They gave President Obama a "barely true" on his statement that he did not campaign on the public option. So it's safe to say a claim that he was "religiously behind it" is completely and utterly false.

[Kalun D]

37. It's called Lawyer Weasel-Speak

Clinton was a master of the art, but Obama has taken it to a new level.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is, you know, plausible deniability.

[laughingliberal]

71. Whatever it's called, it's dishonest and I can't believe people defend it.

If we can't hold our own accountable, how are we different from the Republicans who give any lawmaker with an (R) behind their name a pass? I did thing being a Democrat meant something at one time. As much as I have always hated those who would tell me, "they're all in it together, I'm afraid they are now more correct in their assessments than I was."

[Edweird]

4. Someone will be along shortly to inform you that he didn't actually say

what you have video of him saying.

[Individualist]

30. No doubt.

[Edweird]

42. Look up ^

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orsino]

10. Congress wrote the bills, not the president.

Perhaps the president promised a bit more than he ever intended to deliver, perhaps not.

But Congress gets most of the blame/credit for whatever arrives at his desk.

[Kalun D]

29. Obama, for or against?

funny how when Obama is for something like $700 BILLION for crooked bankers or more defense appropriations he's front and center twisting arms and making it happen. But when it's something for the working class like real health care reform, he talks a good game but doesn't seem to lift a finger with real action.

Now we find out what was really going on, we knew about the backdoor Pharma deal, and now we find out about the backdoor health provider deal. Sort of makes sense on why he laid down on the public option issue when he said he was for it.

[Edweird]

34. Ah, I see. So Bush/Cheny are off the hook and Congess gets tried for war crimes?

[Kalun D]

38. Off The Hook

They are all off the hook according to the Obama "justice" department.

[Edweird]

41. Deja-vu all over again.

[Orsino]

52. Bush 'n' Cheney have long since left the building.

Congress is funding the continuation of those war crimes now.

[Edweird]

58. I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

[Kalun D]

66. And they broke numerous laws

but will not be held accountable for one single one of them

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Sometime back I quit listening to the liberal media because they all sounded Conservative. n/t

[Kalun D]

47. You mean

You mean you quit listening to the "liberal" media because they are owned by conservatives.

[Ozymanithrax]

67. I didn't ask who owned them.

Their message was wrong, so I tuned them out.

[Echo In Light]

18. Found this:

From the Obama ‘08 campaign document, "Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America" (PDF):

"The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover more of the least well-off among us; and (6) allow state flexibility for state health reform plans."

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/

[Echo In Light]

19. ???

[Kalun D]

48. Wait, wait

I'm sure somewhere else he quantified and qualified

and lawyer weasel-speak-i-fied his stance on this issue.

Question if Obama pushed for $Billions for the crooked bank Goldman Sachs when they only gave him $996,000 in campaign donations,

How much did big health care give him and how much are they going to get in return?

[Greyhound]

50. IIRC, it was in the neighborhood of $30M, and they get all the rest. n/t

[Kalun D]

54. $Million for $Billions

not a bad deal. With Goldman Sachs it wasn't pennies on the dollar, it was pennies on the $100 dollar.

[bvar22]

69. But you see....

that does not contain the exact words "Public Option."
It does not matter that what he specifically describes IS, in fact, a Public Option.
(More of a Public Option than what the House Bill contained.)

[emulatorloo]

20. Only source is a healthcare industy lobbyiest. I WOULD NOT TRUST HIM IF HIS TONGUE came NOTARIZED

Some times it pays to read these articles critically.

EDIT spelling, probably missed some

[Romulox]

39. Can't believe we're at the "depends on what 'is' is" phase of this presidency so soon. nt

[blindpig]

44. That we have this conversation at all is indictment enough.

k&r

[Echo In Light]

46. Bingo

[Individualist]

59. +1

[Jakes Progress]

62. Sturm und Drang. Sturm und Drang. He said: He didn't.

We still don't have a decent bill. It's a watered down, industry friendly, compromise of a concession of a compromise.

No one well ever own up to being the reason or saying whether they had a deal in advance. Insurance lobbyists lie like crazy. Politicians do too. This ain't the movies. No one is going to confess on the witness stand. The people will never know.

But the end result is a defeat. We can celebrate that we didn't get whipped in front of our girlfriend, but we still got left in the dust with a bloody lip. The insurance industry won this one We know the republicans were part of their gang. How many and which of our guys were spies or traitors, we won't ever know.

So I'm angry about it. How much shit Obama should take may be up for grabs, but he's the one who asked for the job where the buck is supposed to stop. If he want's credit for stuff, then he has to take some blame for stuff too. We won the presidency, the House, and the Senate. Then we lost health care reform. How can you not be pissed?

[Nikki Stone1]

63. It was PR and total crap.

False hope and no change.

[robinblue]

70. yes, the over and over false hope is the meanest thing for the WH and congress to do.