Obama’s Reprehensible Rhetoric Against Single-Payer

[SHRED]

“On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.”

You can argue about whether it is realistic politically but there should be no question whatsoever that it’s practical in the sense of being functional. It works well in other countries, including Canada, and there is no reason it can’t work well here. Canada’s health outcomes, and the health outcomes of every other advanced industrial country with government-run systems, are superior to ours.

~SNIP~

“I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.”

By damning “government bureaucrats,” Obama played right into the hands of the anti-government crowd and made any durable expansion of health care coverage all the more difficult. He also insulted every single federal employee in the Medicare and Medicaid and VA and Indian health programs.

This was reprehensible rhetoric.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/obama%E2%80%99s-reprehensible-rhetoric-against-single-payer

http://progressive.org/wx0303b10.html

Any questions?


:argh: :wtf:

[jefferson_dem]

1. Obama was never an ideologue.

I mean in terms of politics not policy.

It's a shame that some fooled themselves into believing otherwise.

[SHRED]

5. "fooled"?

That is quite an assumption.

This is what he is doing and saying NOW.
The past is gone.


---

[TheBigotBasher]

48. He is not selling single payer.

There is a bill he has to win over in the minds of people who have been told that it is "Government takeover of health care" with death panels.

You have to fight on the battleground you currently stand on.

[Enrique]

6. that article makes a PRAGMATIC argument for single payer

Obama is the one being ideological, in denying the pragmatic case for single payer in favor of those talking points about "government bureaucrats", which are straight out of right wing ideology.

[SHRED]

7. thanks for clarifying!

[jefferson_dem]

10. You honestly believe a single payer plan is achievable right now?

The argument presented in article is merely theoretical and bears zero relevance to the current political conditions. Single payer was a non-starter at the outset and it still is.

Obama is being pragmatic. Look at where we are right now - one year into this debate - consider feasible options and promote the best one.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Single payer was a non-starter because Obama made it so

Opening Medicare up for everyone that wants to join it, which is the basis of HR676 Medicare for all, was killed by an Administration more interested in its corporate friends than on the American people.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Fair point.

Obama declared single payer a dead letter during the campaign, though I do reject your wild-eyed characterization of his motivations for doing so.

By the way, none of the three major Dem contenders was proposing Medicare for all. Nader...perhaps.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Dennis Kucinich supported Single Payer during the campaign

and he also wanted all the troops home!

[WonderGrunion]

33. And exactly how many delegates did he earn during the primaries?

Now you know how much support single payer has in this country.

[dionysus]

46. don't insult the mighty kucinich juggernaut

:rofl:

[karynnj]

41. Did he ever get above 5% of the vote anywhere? In 2004 or 2008?

[dionysus]

45. he said major contenders, not egotistical jokes.

:rofl:

[Go2Peace]

29. Yes, but by using the rhetoric he does damage to any future effort. His Rehetoric SUCKS

I wish he would stop using Republican talking points when it comes to health care. I am sure he feels it help him with his current HCR efforts. I disagree, it only makes it more difficut to pass anything, but worse, it hurts and further effort in his administration to move toward more universal care and makes it harder for Democrats to approach it in the future.

[karynnj]

40. Not true - there's a reason none of the viable candidates

ran on single payer. It is not achievable - there are too many nonpersuadable Senators and Congressmen. The administration did not kill HR676 - it never had anywhere near the votes needed.

Kerry and Dean both spoke of expanding Medicare down below 65, but given the way the Senate worked out - neither would have been able to get any further than Obama - as Lieberman would have said no to both of them as well. (That assumes that 2006 and 2008 went as they did in the Senate and that they were re-elected in 2008, because they would not have even had a majority in either house in 2005. Now, those assumptions are hard to believe - showing how unique this period is.)

[dionysus]

47. thank you for bringing rationality and facts into this thread.

:thumbsup:

[dionysus]

44. single payer was a non-starter because it had like 5 votes in the senate. you can pretend otherwise

all you'd like.

[Enrique]

13. the article is saying it can work

it is a pragmatic argument, not an ideological one.

An ideological argument would be for example that we should have single payer because corporations are greedy. This article does nothing like that, in fact it's Obama that is demonizing government.

So it's unfair for you to suggest that these people are being ideological.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Almost two- thirds of the country favored a national HC system before

the Dems diverted attention to the "public option."

Even if Obama did not push for Medicare for All, we needed him to not marginalize those who did, I see we have the little SP advocates here, and we certainly did not need him to misinform people about what a Medicare for All system, it is not government RUN health care.

We also needed him to keep his promises about having a real discussion and listening to ALL sides.

[Go2Peace]

28. Yes, the Dems should be more careful about using Republican talking points to defend their actions

Every time they reinforce Republican talking points they make it harder to make further change of any kind to health care in the future. Obama is not taking a "pragmatic" approach to "single payer" type health care, he is an ENEMY of it.

By using Republican "Talking Points" he has boxed himself in and it will be extremely difficult for him to mount any kind of campaign to expand Medicare or move toward a more universal system.

[slipslidingaway]

32. Yes, this does damage to a movement for a national HC system...

but maybe that is the point.

:(

[karynnj]

42. But in the same polls, comparable numbers wanted to keep what they had

To me, this means that they wanted Universal service, as every Democratic 2008 and the two main 2004 candidates (Kerry and Dean) spoke of.

[Go2Peace]

36. Regardless, the President is unwise to use Republican Rhetoric with the topic

Can you respond to his use of republican talking points on the subject? Do you think that is wise for future efforts to reform HCR? It might help get the current bill through (although I would argue it actually hurts the effort), but how can you see the RHETORIC as appropriate to the aims of the Democratic Party?

[jefferson_dem]

49. I'm not sure his exact comment was as harsh as you claim.

Personally, I can't quarrel with his use of this, in terms of political rhetoric and public policy: “I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.”

[Go2Peace]

51. That's repeating the meme that Goverment is bad and can't do anything right?

And you think that is an ok thing? Government is not bad, it is good and necessary. *Bad* government is bad, unresponsive government is bad.

This is one of the primary propaganda points of the Republican party, how can it not be unhelpful to repeat it?

Have you ever read cognitive works like those from George Lakoff? You seem pretty involved in political things. If so, understanding "Framing", linguistics, and cognitive behavior are absolutely essential. If language get's framed you can actually completely change the path that logic follows in people's minds, and have the effect of shutting down any alternative understanding of a subject.

The Republicans have been extremely effective of using cognitive science. The public has not become more "conservative", they have been forced toward it through manipulation of the language. Because we tend to be more well read we can work around these frames in our minds, but the general public is not in that place, so linguistic manipulation is extremely effective.

When Obama reinforces any of these Framing constructs he shows two things:

1. His own mind has been affected by the frames and he is having difficulty finding ways to express his ideas outside of them.

2. He is reinforcing these frames and limiting our societies ability to think outside of them.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Believing that health care is a fundamental human right is not being ideologue

Believing in universal health care as a fundamental human right is on the same level as believing in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.

It's a shame that some fooled themselves into enabling Obama's corporatist policies at home, and neoliberal militarism abroad.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Please don't misconstrue my point.

I was referring to Obama's politics not his policy agenda. His instincts are not to "dig in" but to promote common ground and consensus.

[slipslidingaway]

17. But he is only promoting common ground with the for profit companies

and leaving others at the gate.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Ugh...

I guess that's what all the Dems who support reform have in mind.

On the other hand, all the Reps hate the for profit companies...thus their opposition to reform. :crazy:

Nobody (even the President) is saying the bill is perfect. But let's keep the discussion in the reality-based universe, please.

[slipslidingaway]

23. If Obama really want to fight the evil companies who deny health care

then he would allow their biggest adversaries to attend any of these discussions.

Who has been sitting at the table and who is being denied any voice in these discussions.

But Obama if fighting them cause he read them a letter and meeting was moved to the WH from the HHS so he could pop in and read them a letter?

Talk about keeping the discussions in a reality-based universe!

Who is invited and who is blocked, pretty clear to me that the CEOs are that threatened when the Obama administration silenced their opponents.

Guess we see reality a bit different as I prefer to watch what is being done over what is being said.

But he read them a Letter!

How many assaults do we need on our intelligence and just plain common sense to see what is actually taking place.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

25. I am sure those health insurance honchos were moved to tears by Obama's reading of the letter

and promptly promised to slash their premiums and accept people with pre-existing conditions.

I am sure Obama will send them a memo next time telling them to be nicer.

[slipslidingaway]

31. Yes, maybe Obama needs to lock them outside of the WH gates and

have discussions with those who want a not for profit national HC system.

Then those honchos might think he means business and shed a tear.

[JackRiddler]

20. Golly, but is he a Democrat?

And what other than loyalty to the ideologies or rather myths of "the market" and of the "patriotic" war machine and national security state can explain the policy directions so far followed?

Gitmo's still open and the legal enablers of torture prosper, did you notice?

Single payer is not an ideology, it's a practical system in place (with many variations, but almost always better results) in every other industrial nation of the world. Have a look at their experience.

[QC]

26. Very true. Ideologues actually believe in something. n/t

[DJ13]

2. Any questions? I have one

Did we elect a Democrat or a Republican in 2008?

[JackRiddler]

21. Do we get to elect anything really?

The choices were set up a year in advance. A majority would want to reject the Bush legacy, so you could vote against the Republicans to signify that, but the only question was whether you would get Clinton or Obama (the only options allowed by the media already by late 2007) as the opposite figurehead, running much the same main programs: neoliberal economics, corporate regulatory capture, everything for the precious banks who give us life, let's cut "entitlements," and the same foreign policy of empire as has prevailed since WWII.

With a few important exceptions, like Sotomayor instead of Judge Genghis Khan II.

I voted for him knowing this and don't regret it, because the alternative would have signified a popular endorsement of the Bush regime and carte blanche for even worse than we've seen. As for 2012, let me be the first to say: Primary Obama.

[Greyhound]

30. +01

[Dr.Phool]

24. Yes.

[Auggie]

3. My rep made a similar statement that really irked me:

"The United States isn't ready for single-payer (Mike Thompson D, CA-1)." According to who? How about the Health Insurance business that pays him millions to say so.

The administration knows there's no way Single-Payer could pass Congress. It would be politically foolhardy to openly endorse it.

[SHRED]

4. It must be selfisness and greed

Politicians doing what's right for themselves instead of our country.


---

[nightrain]

8. knr. Think about how flat it would have been if he had campaigned on

health insurance reform, which is essentially what we're going to get? Instead, we got all pumped up for something real and it isn't forthcoming. Nice marketing. The bait, the switch.

[salguine]

19. I bet this gets unrecced into oblivion.

[inna]

34. Actually, the same article posted in GD had 108 net recs (despite dozens of unrecs, I'm sure):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7841952

[Go2Peace]

37. Yep, this forum is under control by a small group. Anything off "Talking Point" is unrecd here

GD Presidential is used as a "launching point" for coordinated messaging. Not much else is tolerated here.

[inna]

38. Very true.

I never go in GD-P, I only saw this post because it showed in Top Tens (under "New and Hot", I believe):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

(I discovered the Top Ten page fairly recently and now I often use it as a launching point, instead of the Greatest Page.)

[salguine]

39. I've begun to notice, recently, posts of mine deleted that were

critical of the Administration or the President but in no way violated DU rules. That pissed me off.

[Go2Peace]

35. Anything that is not a "talking point" get's a coordinated unrec in GD Presidential

GD Presidential is a launching point for beltway talking points. There is a group here that coordinate together to keep everything on message, fight things that don't make the message, and rec each other's posts up to the Greatest page.

[Perky]

22. Myopic self-importance.

The President was absolutely correct.
Single Payer is not realistic politically and it is impractical to attempt to transition to that sort of arrangement. Health Care is a house of cards and like it or not, if you start jiggering with it the whole thing can collapse. The best option is to strengthen the house of cards we have rather than scrap it.


There is nothing reprehensible in saying that at all.

And his other comment is actually precisely where most of the country is. So calling it reprehensible is really rather silly.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Medicare is a single payer system, while the VA system is like UK's NHS

both systems work!

[dionysus]

43. i'm crushed.

[WinkyDink]

50. Does he not realize he is the HEAD of government here?