Your spouse is ugly and your kids are morons

[jpgray]

I realize that's how criticism of Obama sounds to a lot of people. We have an emotional attachment to his success and are disinclined to give harsh criticism of his actions a full and fair hearing. The reason for this is simple: like it or not, anyone to the left of Scott Brown (everyone here, hopefully) is essentially married to Obama and the Democrats, if for nothing else than to stop or slow the nightmare hellscape that is the GOP platform from ever passing into law. To abandon Democrats in this climate, whatever the reason, will only be interpreted as validation of the Right, and all for which they stand, by the establishment. In more practical terms, to allow GOP majority in even a single house of Congress will open up anew the hunting of a president, and serve as a firewall against even the dithering, eighth-measure legislation that is the rule these days from the Democrats. The risk of this is so palpable, and the stakes are so high, it's forgivable that many here react to criticism of Obama as though someone just shot their firstborn, presuppose the criticism's wrongness and the critic's bad faith, and then tie themselves in knots to justify mediocre-at-best policies.

I get the emotion of it. That's fine. What I don't get is the refusal to admit, on a message board of all things, that much of what Obama promised may have been a glass half full in his terms, but what he ended up with was a glass with a few drops in it. More progressive than an empty glass? Sure. Better than a glass broken over our collective heads? Yes! But to paint the Democrats who see problems with his record as nitpicking whiners is hyperbole to say the least.

So let's look at some policy!

1. Healthcare

Does it block unreasonable rate-hikes? High deductibles? Rescinded policies for alleged "fraud?" Nope!

Did he refrain from negotiations behind closed doors with powerful interests? Nope! (Closed-door WH deals with the pharmaceutical industry.)

Any negotiations on drug prices, from the bargaining position of billions of tax dollars? Nope! (see above)

Does it allow importation of cheap FDA-approved drugs from other nations, the same as ours, and often from the same plant? Nope!

Apart from what Obama promised and failed to deliver, the bill fails the most crucial test--it poses no significant challenge whatsoever to the monopoly of the insurers. They have reaped forty million additional customers, billions more in gov't subsidy, and what have they surrendered? They do have to accept those with preexisting conditions, true, but there are significant loopholes--for example, if you fail a "wellness" program for diabetes, high blood pressure or cholesterol, etc., they can -double- your rates. They can now sell across state lines, obviating state-imposed regulations and encouraging an arms race of deregulation to attract insurers to one's state. Their chief mechanism for denying claims, "fraud or intentional misrepresentation," remains available. The tax on "cadillac" plans, tied as it is to a concrete number, will put increasing pressure on employers to get less expensive plans and/or cut pay, since little or nothing is done to restrain the -cost- of care. Nothing substantial is done to -reduce the cost of care-, the entire reason this was supposedly passed. Bottom line: a family of four making $50,000 or so can expect to pay upwards of $9,000 a year, per the CBO. Wasn't this supposed to be about the -cost-?

It's not awful, it's just not that good.

2. Financial regulation

Does it end to big to fail? Nope!

Does it provide disincentives for or prevent the construction of over-leveraged, massive bubble-tied debt? Nope!

Could it happen again--bubble, collapse, then mass-bailout? YES.

Provisions against predatory lending are great, and Elizabeth Warren's appointment is an awesome move, but here even the administration's proposal was not a case of the glass being half full. This glass contained something just north of dregs. The capitalization requirements are such that Lehman Bros. would have been just fine under the rule, right up to its spectacular collapse. The rule against proprietary trading was weak at first and then nibbled to death, and the only financial firm that would have to change its practices somewhat would be Goldman Sachs. Moreover, the administration's idea of a size-cap, set at the current size of the bailed out firms, is just too depressing to think about.

It's more than just nattering quibbles about something in there about derivatives. Basic, simple, academically agreed-upon measures (some proposed by VAT fan Paul Volcker!) received no consistent support, and what else could one expect when the Rubin/Summers failure parade was advising Obama before he even entered office?

Now I hear his glib remarks about the old days when lobbyists wrote legislation--is he joking? He made a -secret deal- with the pharmaceutical industry that made it right into the health care legislation. Who do you suppose provided the language throughout that 2,000 page monster? Brilliant health-care-knowledgeable minds like Max Baucus, or perhaps the FIVE ex-staffers of his that lobby for the industry, working for the likes of PhRMA and AHIP? But that's not Obama, you say! Well, despite his "rule" that no lobbyists may enter his administration to work on issues they lobbied on, he exempted a few. His Deputy Defense Sec is William Lynn, lobbyist and former exec for Raytheon. His US Trade Rep Ron Kirk lobbied for Merril Lynch. His Dep Sec of Interior lobbied for Sempra energy. His Treasury Dept chief of staff? Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson. This is to say nothing of Geithner, who, while no lobbyist, has been blind to significant financial missteps in every major job he's had.

It's not anywhere -near- as bad as the Bush administration, but it's still pretty damn bad. I'll give a hearing to anyone who says it's less bad than I think, but I'd have a hard time taking seriously anyone who would argue it is -good-. Obama can't control Congress, but he has vast control over the national debate. He did not work to support Brown's amendment to cap bank size seriously, he did not support Levin, he did not argue for a debate on Sanders's amendment concerning the health care bill. He's a politician--he will work with the powerful to achieve as much of what he promised as possible, and then he will point to any piece of legislation that is remotely similar to the promise and proclaim it fulfilled, truthfully or no. There's nothing wrong with that--it's what politicians do. But there's no reason we have to pretend an incomplete and mediocre bill is a promise fulfilled when it is not, and there's certainly no reason to believe that pointing out unfulfilled promises is the fetish of some doomsaying cabal of Democratic pessimists.

All the most powerful interests in the Beltway are putting pressure on Obama to triangulate, to avoid cutting too hard against the status quo. Once again--he's a politician. He and his allies in Congress need money and power to stay in office. Absent a countervailing force, he has no reason whatsoever to abandon the prevailing view in Washington. Don't subscribe to the "great man" theory of history--without a movement, there's no MLK, no Gandhi, and no FDR to find at the head of it. The only movement in Washington right now is to keep things more or less as they are, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the vast majority of our party's officials cresting the wave of same ol' same ol'. If we are surprised, the least we can do is refrain from insulting those who acknowledge it.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Failed Logic

Now is the time - in the Democratic Leader's moment of need to let them know there are actual conditions to our loyalty

Listen to your constituents

Legislate in the Best interest of your constituents and not solely in the Best interest of "Whats Good for Wall St."

[leveymg]

2. Chicken or egg question - movements need leaders, leaders need movements. Leaders need to lead

or else movements don't emerge and take power.

Where's the leadership? Name one.

[Lost4words]

3. Superior piece and 100% accurate In my opinion, Thanks for posting!

and you example only the larger instances of this admins predisposition to Promote High and Deliver Low. The list is longer than many will admit.

thanks for posting, this ones going to hard copy!

:hi:

[TreasonousBastard]

4. We get it-- you aren't happy with the way things are going. However,...

considering the less than overwhelming public support for most of these projects and the extreme resistance from the other side, just what would YOU have done to get your way?

(Doing the right thing is rarely obvious or easy.)

[Divernan]

7. Majority of Americans wanted universal health care/national health insurance/single payer

What interest group do you come from, saying there was "less than overwhelming support" for "most of these projects"? There were only 2 discussed in the OP in detail - health care & financial bailout.

As per the results in the many polls reported in the following link, significant majorities of Americans polled favored national health insurance/single payer/universal health care. Annals of Internal Medicine poll of physicians - 59% of physicians; 2/3 of New Hampshire physicians; Minnesota physicians - 64% ; Harris Poll - 75%; Washington Post/ABC - 62%; Kaiser Health Tracking Poll - 58%; New York Times/CBS - 59%; AP-Yahoo - 54%; CNN - 64%.

Who comprised the "strong opposition" you referred to? Big Pharma & Big Health Care Insurance, with their huge campaign contributions? Is that the "we" with which you associate yourself?

You've adopted the Tea Party's approach to political discourse if you think you can just blatantly make an outrageously untrue statement, and then frame your opinion in terms of an unidentified "we".

The issue of universal health care, more than any other issue facing Obama, is not only a matter of how much profit Big Interests can gouge from the American public. It is an issue of life and death, of daily human suffering, of hundreds of thousands of Americans with substandard or no health care at all. That translates to hundreds of thousands needlessly suffering for extended periods of time and then dying prematurely, when with the standard of health care available to all other industrialized countries, they could have led longer lives, with a much higher quality of life.

What I want from Obama is to take the lead and use his bully pulpit to educate the general public on the facts such as the 30% of health care costs wasted on Big Insurance, and the US's abysmal world standings on health care matters.

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html


Single-Payer Poll, Survey, and Initiative Results
Date

Poll, Survey, or Initiative

Highlight

Details
July 2009 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll

Do you favor or oppose, "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?"
Favor 58%, Oppose 38%, NA/DK 3%

Link
July
2009 Time Magazine Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide healthcare insurance to all Americans?
Favor 49%, Oppose 46%, NA/DK 5%

Link

Feb.
2009
Grove Insight Opinion Research "When given a choice of the current system or one "like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers," voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. A solid majority (59%) say they would prefer a national health insurance program that covers everyone, over the current system of private insurance offered to most through their emloyer."
Link

Feb.
2009
New York Times/CBS News Poll Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.
Link
Nov. 2008 Ballot initiative question in Massachusetts, “Should the representative from this district be instructed to support legislation creating a cost-effective single payer health insurance system that is available to all residents, and oppose laws penalizing those who fail to obtain health insurance?” "....local ballot initiatives supporting single payer and opposing individual mandates passed by landslide margins in all ten legislative districts where they appeared. With almost all precincts tallied, roughly 73 percent of 181,000 voters in the ten districts voted YES...."
Link
Apr. 2008 Quinnipiac Poll in PA, FL, OH

9. Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so?
In Pennsylvania; Yes 65%, No 31%, NA/DK 4%

Link
Apr. 2008 Annals of Internal Medicine, Study of Physician Support of National Health Insurance. (Includes a comparison of 2002 and 2007 surveys.) "...59 percent of them 'support government legislation to establish national health insurance,' while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral."
Link

Dec.
2007
AP - Yahoo News Poll

Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?
Yes 54%, No 44%, Refused / Not Answered 2%

Link
Dec. 2007 AP - Yahoo Poll

14. "Which comes closest to your view?
34% - The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance
65% - The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers
2% - Refused / Not Answered"

Link
Dec. 2007 New Hampshire Medical Society, Survey of New Hampshire Physicians "Two thirds of New Hampshire physicians, including 81% of primary care clinicians, indicated they “would favor a simplified payor system in which public funds, collected through taxes, were used to pay directly for services to meet the basic healthcare needs of all citizens.”
Link
May 2007 CNN/Opinion Research Poll

30. Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?
64% - Yes,
35% - No,
2% - No opinion

Link
Feb. 2007 New York Times/CBS News Poll

27. Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?
64% - Guarantee
27% - Not responsibility
9% - DK/NA

30. If you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent years or make sure all Americans have access to health care?
18% - Cutting taxes
76% - Access to health insurance
1% - Neither
2% - Both
4% - DK/NA

Link
Feb. 2007 Minnesota Medicine Magazine, Poll of Minnesota Physicians "Of 390 physicians, 64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care."
Link
Oct. 2005 The Harris Poll

“Please indicate whether you support or oppose the policy.”
“Universal health insurance”
75% - Strongly/Somewhat Favor
17% - Strongly/Somewhat Oppose

Link
Nov. 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation
Health Poll Report Public Opinion of "Consumer-Driven" Plans
Link
Oct. 2003 Washington Post/ABC News Poll

49. Which would you prefer – (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)
62 % Universal
33% Current
6% No opinion

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Don't give me polls-- there was no pressure on Congress or the White House...

for much of anything. A lot of screaming form the Left the "Now is our time..." but not a whole lot from that vast middle out there.

You seem to be forgetting that the majority of Americans HAVE some form of health insurance and don't want what they have to be screwed up by a new plan. What they say in a poll isn't necessarily what they want when faced with real choices.

And Big Pharma my ass. Of course they opposed a lot of it and spent a lot of money-- what else would you expect them to do? The practical opposition, though was from conservative elements in Congress who just won't let anything genuinely progressive out.

Besides rightwing ideology and politics, though, there is a lot to be said for going slow disrupting 24% of the nation's GDP for an untested plan.

[quakerboy]

14. Bull puckey

Just because it was ignored does not mean the people were not expressing their support.

And that was in spite of the situation, not because of it. The situation appeared to be precicely engineered to prevent anyone from coalescing in support of real reform. While its expected that the companies with the most to loose would organize to oppose reform, It was also to be expected that our leadership would form the posts for us to rally around in support. And that never happened.

We were left with no central position to organize around, no strong leader, not even a solid plan. Many Americans were ready to get going, but all we ever heard was "how can you say anything about it, there's not even a plan agreed on yet", "they've already made a deal, don't worry about it" and "Obama's got this, trust him".

Besides right wing ideology, which you seem to be parroting, there's no reason to go slow in fixing a cancer demolishing 24% of our nations GDP when just about any other industrial country you could name has tried and tested plans that work which we could have adapted to our needs.

[Mimosa]

34. Yes there was. They IGNORED US. The fix was in. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Excellent piece. K&R#10 I predict that . . . . .

Replies to this thread will prove your point.

[Starry Messenger]

6. For once I'm glad I came in this forum.

Great piece and nice to see you back. :thumbsup:

[treestar]

8. that's your view of it

But not fact as you portray. for me it is not emotional, but logical. It's just plain stupid to enable the right. Just like the Tea Party, they are plain stupid too, and enabling their opponents (fine with me).

The criticism is not constructive criticism. It's perfectionism at work. That never works; it freezes people into inaction.

[jaxx]

10. 'scuse me for laughing, but I've heard all this before.

Give no credit, demand more, and it's never good enough.

That about covers it.

[Skittles]

40. is there ANY way to get through to you?

no it is NOT good enough - NOT BY A LONG SHOT

[jaxx]

44. I'm a good listener.

But the constant carping just becomes a hum and is meaningless. It all runs together....it's not good enough it's not good enough it's not good enough it's not good enough. When people choose to ignore anything good and focus on what if they are choosing to be scared. Not me.

[Skittles]

45. you can be happy with some things and still want, DESERVE better

[quiet.american]

11. Are the "nopes" all accurate? Nope.

On the issue of healthcare:

Does it block unreasonable rate-hikes? High deductibles? Rescinded policies for alleged "fraud?" Yes.

Blocking of unreasonable rate hikes have already begun, even before the language in the legislation goes fully into effect:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HRDIRO0.htm

Plus:
Insurers will be required to publicly disclose the amount of any premium increase prior to the increase taking effect, and to provide a justification for the increase. This will limit the industry’s current practice of hiking up insurance rates in order to push less healthy individuals and small businesses off their rolls.

A health insurer’s participation in the Exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.

Add to that:
Beginning in 2011, large group plans that spend less than 85 percent of premium revenue and small group and individual market plans that spend less than 80 percent of premium revenue on clinical services and quality must provide a rebate to enrollees.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill96.pdf

High deductibles?

For all plans in all markets, prohibits out-of-pocket limits that are greater than the limits for Health Savings Accounts. For the small group market, prohibits deductibles that are greater than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families. (Add to that, the lower your income, the more cost-sharing you receive in upfront government subsidies, so that you don't come anywhere near having to pay for the 2k or 4k deductible)

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill96.pdf

Rescinded policies from alleged "fraud"?

Health insurance consumer information. The Secretary shall award grants to States to enable them (or the Exchange) to establish, expand, or provide support for offices of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman programs. These independent offices will assist consumers with filing complaints and appeals, educate consumers on their rights and responsibilities, and collect, track, and quantify consumer problems and inquiries. Provides $30 million in funding and is effective upon the date of enactment of the bill.

New health plans will be required to develop an appeals process that, at a minimum, provides beneficiaries with a notice of internal and external appeals processes and allows beneficiaries to review their file and present evidence in their appeal.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill96.pdf

Did he refrain from negotiations behind closed doors with powerful interests? (Closed-door WH deals with the pharmaceutical industry.)

Here is the bottom line as to what those negotiations produced:

Medicare: Beginning in 2011, pharmaceutical manufacturers will provide beneficiaries a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and biologics purchased in the donut hole. In addition, beneficiary cost-sharing for all drugs purchased in the coverage gap will gradually decrease until 2020, when the donut hole will be completely filled.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill96.pdf

Add to that, I'm interested to know how any progress was to be made, except by fiat, if Obama had not met with the pharmaceutical industry for negotiations.

Any negotiations on drug prices, from the bargaining position of billions of tax dollars? (see above)

See above.

Does it allow importation of cheap FDA-approved drugs from other nations, the same as ours, and often from the same plant?

On this point, not many seem to aware of the following that is included in our current, passed 2010 budget:

Follow-on Biologics & Drug Importation: The budget proposes a new authority for the FDA to approve follow-on biologics through a regulatory pathway that protects patient safety and promotes innovation. The budget also includes $5 million for the FDA to develop policies to allow Americans to buy drugs approved in other countries. 

http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/reportsmanualsforms/reports/budgetreports/ucm153154.htm

[jpgray]

13. Okay, one by one

1. What stops rates from going up? Prior disclosure stops them? Allowing doubling and quadrupling of rates, this is stopping rate increase?

2. How is $2000 to $4000 not a high deductible?

3. Yes, as a person becomes seriously ill, and fraud is alleged, presenting evidence and going through appeal is just what the doctor ordered. What -blocks- frivolous, profit seeking claims of fraud? A vague shunting of responsibility onto the states and a pittance of $?

4. Open door? Broadcast on C-SPAN? No and no.

5. As I understand the bill, nothing in there allows the government the ongoing ability to negotiate lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry on behalf of Medicare or the subsidized insured. What you're describing was a one-off, and not the negotiation that was barred in Medicare part D. You're describing a limited deal for a limited set of people.

6. But these drugs -are- FDA approved! There are plants in Canada, for example, that manufacture and distribute the same exact pills to our market and theirs--the -only- difference is the price. What more can $5 million tell you when you've already approved the damn things? Remember when I said "dithering" up there? This is that.

It's good to have this bill in several important ways, but it (1) did not fulfill what was promised, and (2) it's a huge infusion of tax money to insurers with profits in the billions. The NNU doesn't dig it, why do you? It's Obama's job to say he passed something, and that it's overwhelmingly awesome, but how is pretending to agree that it's overwhelmingly awesome on a message board doing anyone any good?

[quiet.american]

18. And one-by-one again.

1. What stops rates from going up? Prior disclosure stops them? Allowing doubling and quadrupling of rates, this is stopping rate increase?

The answer is in my reply. If that's not enough, go to the language of the final bill and look it up for yourself. But the proof is in the pudding. Rate hikes have already been rolled back.

2. How is $2000 to $4000 not a high deductible?

It is not a high deductible if you're looking at, like one family that spoke in support of healthcare reform, a $60,000 deductible and/or if you are lower-income. If you're lower-income, the subsidies and cost-sharing click in to help with those deductible costs. Edited to add, and if you're in the middle -- I'll use my own case -- when I had knee surgery, my insurance policy tried to make me pay $13,000 of the cost. It turns out in the end that they paid the total cost, but if they hadn't, looking at $2,000 may have been an issue, but not as big an issue as looking at having to pay $13,000.

3. Yes, as a person becomes seriously ill, and fraud is alleged, presenting evidence and going through appeal is just what the doctor ordered. What -blocks- frivolous, profit seeking claims of fraud? A vague shunting of responsibility onto the states and a pittance of $?

What blocks frivolous, profit-seeking claims of fraud? A new agency, dedicated to just that, created under the auspices of the Department of Justice. Edited to add, as to the first part of your question, the insurance company has to provide 30 days notice of its intent to rescind, and must submit their "evidence" of "fraud" to an independent third-party for review. and no action can be taken until the independent review confirms that fraud did actually occur.

4. Open door? Broadcast on C-SPAN? No and no.

So what? I didn't see Obama's several meetings with union heads and medical associations on CSPAN either.

5. As I understand the bill, nothing in there allows the government the ongoing ability to negotiate lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry on behalf of Medicare or the subsidized insured. What you're describing was a one-off, and not the negotiation that was barred in Medicare part D. You're describing a limited deal for a limited set of people.

The $250 checks towards the cost of drugs are a one-off. The 50% discount on brand-name drugs (which would appear to me to qualify as a negotiated lower price on drugs) is the first phase towards lowering drug co-pays within Medicare until they reach 25% by 2020.

6. But these drugs -are- FDA approved! There are plants in Canada, for example, that manufacture and distribute the same exact pills to our market and theirs--the -only- difference is the price. What more can $5 million tell you when you've already approved the damn things? Remember when I said "dithering" up there? This is that.

What happens then if there is a Tylenol-gone-bad type of incident with an imported drug? The FDA shrugs its shoulders and says "Who knew it could happen?" That wouldn't make much sense. They are putting in a dedicated system process that will guide the importation of drugs that extend beyond Canadian plants.

Here is what the goals of healthcare reform were in a nutshell: "It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government."

That has been accomplished.

The "huge infusion to insurers" comes at the cost that insurers must put 80-85 percent of that huge infusion into services for their customers and refund their customers the difference if they don't.

I'm not pretending that the bill is overwhelming awesome. I genuinely think it's awesome. Spending time reading the bill, the summaries, and the stories of people already benefiting from it, make "pretending" completely unnecessary. It *is* awesome. And I'm still finding out about things I missed, like the CLASS Act, which is a national plan for long-term care:

http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/details-on-the-class-act/

[jpgray]

21. A few things you don't understand about that pharma deal

It goes beyond "meetings with union heads":

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

Remember the promise of transparency, of no closed-door meetings, of any such meeting being broadcast on C-SPAN? This secret deal, which Congress was ignorant of, is not awesome, by any stretch of the imagination. They coerced the White House to slap down the House, which, blissfully unaware, was trying to do right by the taxpayer via allowing negotiation. I don't think the SEIU gets that sort of play.

[quiet.american]

23. The 2009 article states "...beyond the $80 billion deal" already struck.

Edited to change "2008 article" to "2009 article".

So, a deal worth $80 billion for consumers was already struck, resulting in cutting the price in half on drugs and then down to a quarter of the price of drugs, but that's a horrible thing?

Yes, I remember the transparency promise -- and Obama has said many times that they dropped the ball on that. He's not trying to dodge it.

And I never said the "secret deal" was awesome -- I said the bill is awesome. Edited to add: And I have to wonder if the WH negotiation was not more effective in the real world than pushing it through the House would have been. How far would that passage have lasted in the House version of the bill, or even had a chance of being passed as an amendment, given all the Conservadems prepared to vote against it?

And the bill is also organic. It's been said many times that Social Security when enacted looked nothing like what it does today. But does that mean FDR shouldn't even have tried if he couldn't leap the building in a single bound?

No. People are benefiting right now from this bill, and I find your "nopes" on it to be just inaccuruate.

[jpgray]

24. Go with me this far--open-ended negotiation = better than capped secret deals

Right? Yeah? Good.

I'll go with you this far--any degree of oversight on "misrepresentation" claims is a good thing. Caps on deductibles are good things. Coverage for preexisting conditions is a good thing. But none of this does enough to lower the rising -cost- of care, whether it's paid for by a business, an individual, or the government.



What needs pushing is a public option. Direct competition is necessary. You're right--it didn't get done this time, so let's identify where we didn't go far enough, and push to go the rest of the way. It's not incumbent on us to refrain from saying that the current reforms are inadequate or that something more is needed. The same is true of the stimulus, the same is true of financial reform, and the same is true on human rights, foreign policy, etc. I'm -way- happier than I would be without Obama, but there is much more to do in all these areas.

[quiet.american]

28. Okay, there are some things, I can agree with you on, but... :)

Can't quite make that conclusion about all "secret deals."

Obama's meeting with BP where he received a commitment from them for $20 billion in upfront restitution funds for the oil spill could be characterized as a "secret deal" as well, having not been broadcast on CSPAN, but I don't think it's a bad thing!

I'm looking at the chart in your reply, but it only extends to January 2010, before healthcare reform was passed. CBO estimates HCR, if implemented as written, will save $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years. Not bad!

On the public option: Jacob Hacker, the "father of the public option" has stated that the public option was designed as a means to an end -- not as an "end" in itself. After the Senate Dec. 2009 vote on the HCR bill, Hacker suggested items Obama could include in his own proposal (Obama's proposal then being crafted to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill) to bring the final legislation in line with the objectives of a public option. Obama did include those items in his Proposal -- one of the most important being a national Exchange, and those items are also included in the final bill. So, no, the final bill doesn't have a government-offered insurance policy, but it comes very close to meeting the objectives of what the public option was supposed to accomplish.

A link to read the 2009 article which features Jacob Hacker's comments:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/why-i-still-believe-bill

I can agree that providing an alternative to for-profit insurance in the form of an official public option would be a welcome development - and also have to acknowledge that getting the votes for it remains a serious challenge, though.

And yes, I can also agree that there is much more to do in all these areas.

[jpgray]

30. That secret deal and the escrow were both good things

Clearly secret deals are part of the gig--the difference is that the pharma deal went against a campaign promise specific to health industry meetings, and insulated an industry against a substantial risk of loss by privately settling on a smaller loss. This is different than securing a guarantee for a full payment of damages as in BP's case.

We agree that as a practical matter it would be difficult if not impossible to get something much better out of the Senate--on either health care or financial reform. But my argument is that the -pressure- to do more will come from nowhere, if not from us. This isn't about defeating Democrats, which would screw over any progressive--my argument is that disagreement can and should be freely voiced to fellow Democrats and our elected representatives. I sent to my representatives (and Obama) a letter outlining why I'm voting Democratic this year, what I hope for from the party, and where I think we can do significantly better. It's not much, but without wealth or influence it seems the way to go.

[quiet.american]

32. And I can certainly agree that disagreement should be voiced.

My overall point is that when it is done, disagreement holds more weight if paired with a fair argument as to what the facts of the matter may be.

[terrya]

12. Thank you for this post.

god...I have always enjoyed reading posts from jpgray. I've missed seeing them...and you, of course, around here.

You make some excellent points. This is what I've seen here...and elsewhere...when GLBT Democrats criticize Obama's lack of action on GLBT issues, which he explicitly campaigned on in 2008. Insults towards people who have criticized the lack of action...and even worse, when the DoJ have defended DADT and DOMA in the courts.

I'm going to recommend your post. Thanks.

[jpgray]

16. It's our job to demand more, it's his job to sell what he's accomplished

GLBT rights is a whole other ball of wax--he's now to the right of, what, Schwarzenegger and Laura Bush on marriage? I get the political motive to triangulate, I really do, but I don't see why a message board by and for Democrats should hail everything with "good enough" when so much could be and needs to be better. It's not advocating for GOP victory to say "we need to do better than this" in an essentially private setting.

[FrenchieCat]

19. You say....."It's our job to demand more, it's his job to sell what he's accomplished"

But your post only sells us what he's not accomplished,
and not only that, but you are taking what was accomplished,
and trying to make that less than it was, as was proven by
some very factual responses to your post, that in the end,
proved you inaccurate in your OP to begin with.

As for on the issue of this President and GLBT Right,
you are doing the exact same thing.....

So you are in effect giving no credit to this President,
and in actuality, not "selling" any of his accomplishments.

In otherwords, you ain't doing your self described "job",
and in fact, are doing quite the opposite.

[Radical Activist]

29. I also fail to see how belitting accomplishments helps the push for more.

It seems counterproductive to the goal of getting more.

[jpgray]

31. I see a tension between "we need to do better" and "everything is fine"

On the above two examples of health care and financial reform, I don't see the bills solving what needs to be solved. If you argue that they -do- solve what needs to be solved, what's the argument? There's nothing wrong with it, therefore it needs to be changed?

[Radical Activist]

38. I've never seen anyone argue that "everything is fine."

You appear to be having an argument with an imaginary foe. Your presumption that anyone who fails to frequently trash Obama believes that we've done enough is not supported by any observable reality. Even Obama has said more needs to be done in each of these areas. Your false presumptions are condescending and insulting to many liberals who fight very hard for progressive change.
Spreading a feeling of negativity, defeat, cynicism and general malaise has never propelled any movement to victory, ever.

[jpgray]

46. Who's having an argument with an imaginary foe?

This was my first post here in two years, man! How is that frequent trashing of Obama? Objecting to the caricature of critics as congenital pessimists with meaningless quibbles is hardly "trashing" anyone. I think he's wrong about the Democratic critics of his policy, and I explain exactly why. This is "trashing?"

[Radical Activist]

47. Yes, "trashing" is accusing hard working progressives of being

defenders of the status quo who only disagree with criticism of Obama because they like him personally. Acknowledging that progress has been made does not equate to a call that we should stop doing more. There's nothing wrong with celebrating a victory once in a while as we push for more and it fatigues the movement when we can't recognize the good in anything at all.

Obama has many liberal supporters who are eager to push him left, even as he asked us to do on election night. Most will respond to fair criticism much better than the exaggeration and hysterical hyperbole that is commonplace on DU and elsewhere. You should consider that, just maybe, some of the left punditry are full of shit and deserve to be called out on it.

[Whisp]

42. everything will NEVER be fine.

what world have you lived in?

[quakerboy]

15. Its nice to be listened too

Anyone who agrees with this will listen, but they already know. The right will listen, because they want to subvert and discourage, and anything that might get them an edge is important data. But the people who need to hear this are not listening, because they are too busy unrec-ing and moving on to the next victory in their mind, the next chance to slam the evil left, the next rationalization of why we don't matter and why its better if we compromise with those on the right.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. You must, of course, be destroyed.

There is no such thing as grey, so you're obviously against us. Life is strictly binary.

What a depressing litany of namby-pamby half-steps and feeble showboating we've seen. You didn't even mention the wars or the environmental dawdling. Of course, to be fair, he and his people were so studiously non-committal about anything when campaigning that nobody but a prime sucker could feel "specifically" betrayed. The deeply cynical broad-strokes glad-handing of being all things to all people reeks now as it has reeked and will continue to do so.

It's hard for those of us who have been beyond merely skeptical for a long time: just when we get a glimmer of admiration for some stance or other, something comes along to show the same appeasing bilge water. There I was merrily driving along listening to our President back up his statement in defense of building the Muslim center in Lower Manhattan, feeling happy that he was being even-handed and engagingly conversational, but then he has to say that, of course, "we are one nation under God", and I'm reminded of why I had a bad taste in my mouth in the beginning. The religion bullshit was my first shrill whistle of warning about the tactics to be expected, and there it was again.

Yes, I'll proudly stride to the polling-place in November and firmly ink-a-blot a Democratic ticket the same as I've done every other year since I was 18, but I'm disgusted.

What's worse is that if this spineless sucking-up to the powers that simply will not be appeased actually causes an almost-routed enemy to take the field anew, it will simply drive the Democratic Party cravenly even farther to the right, with the drug-addict's logic that we simply have to kiss up to the enemy even more. A specter of Bill Clinton will rise mistily from the miasma, smiling and reminding us that we have to suck up to power even more and just try harder. More people on the left will be ever-further disgusted and sidelined with the draining feeling of disenfranchisement, and infighting will increase between the acolytes and those with any scrap of awareness or morality.

You post this out of a desire to explain the honorable malaise of those of us on the left and a reminder that we're still pulling for the team, even though they seem to continually hand the ball to the opposing team on a silver platter and with apologies. Some will understand this, and some won't.

What's interesting is that the argument you're using is much akin to the argument used by the party-line commissars who demand the unreccing and crushing of any lefty dissent: their argument is that this is a place of refuge where people should be spared the rancor of open society, whereas you and I remind that this is a community where we should be voicing our concerns and blowing off steam so we can suck it up and maintain a united front to the outside. It's tough to really get behind the likes of Emanuel, Geithner and Summers, and one needs a place to kvetch among friends.

You will not be accepted except by those who already understand or agree, but a few will get the message and cool off a bit to realize that all of the criticism doesn't translate to opposition in the binary elections, and that's important to remind people of at times like these.

[dionysus]

20. i find it odd how congress always gets a pass.

[Mimosa]

36. They don't.

Congress tends to listen to the lobbyists who give them the money to remain on the gravy train.

The President might try *leading* them to do the right things.

[Radical Activist]

22. Does any of the above mean we should ignore the progress being made?

Nope.
Is it logical to blame Obama for the conservative nature of the US Senate? Nope.

[jpgray]

25. If I were mean, I would say you sound like Thomas Friedman

Iraqis dipping their fingers was progress, the surge was touted as "progress," etc., but these still left us a long way from solving the endemic problems in Iraq.

I don't want to be that unfair, and shouldn't be. The health care bill is not anything like the colossal fuckup that was the Iraq war--it actually does some good things. But what needs addressing are the essential problems--overwhelming costs, a duopoly of insurance providers in most states, a far too powerful pharmaceutical industry, massive taxpayer subsidies of all players, and a long history of deceptive profit-seeking practices by all players. The bill that passed does not address these essential problems as effectively as it might, and therefore it deserves criticism. Obama can't call it weak because he has to run on it--I understand this. But I don't understand the rationale that says we all have to claim it's just fine in private on a message board.

[Radical Activist]

26. In other words, the glass is half empty. n/t

[ibegurpard]

27. it's not even that

[Stardust]

33. "They do have to accept those with preexisting conditions" um, in 2014

:eyes:

[Mimosa]

35. K&R

We got screwed on health care. No ifs, ands or buts.

And the un-reccers can't change it.

I support Obama when he's right. I have nothing against him. He's better than what we had for a president. But I'm not going to cheerlead for anemic policies.

[Joe Bacon]

37. Sad but true

Obama's constant surrender to Republicans is heartbreaking.

[JVS]

39. Long time no see.

:hi:

[Whisp]

41. what the fuck is this shit headline?

[CakeGrrl]

43. Is your subject line what you assume the "cheerleaders" hear

when the President is criticized?

Condescending fail, if so.

[Cherchez la Femme]

48. Great piece

but didn't you read one *ahem* 'much admired' DU pundit recently admonish people here to 'hold their ("anti-Obama") piece'
-- & not in the Shakespearean sense!


I think some people here didn't quite understand your post however, as they seem to be on your philosophical side but are still arguing against you :shrug:


One thing I feel I must point out is your title in most cases is true, from my surfing, but in regards to the Reich-wingers, not those who *dare* criticize the POTUS,
especially on DU.
The DU 'pony-wanting whiners' are upset regarding the principles --rather, lack of-- shown by the New Democrats as opposed to ridiculous argumentum ad hominem attacks.

And I firmly believe, based on knowing Lefty Dems my entire life, that no actual Democrat would ever stoop to those kinds of posts. In fact, on Democratic boards in the past I've seen a firm denunciation against any self-described ('purportive' isn't a word? Huh) "Democrats" who try to make any kind of point based upon that fallacious, ultimately unfair "argument"
even when used against the Bush administration.

At least to my knowledge or remembrance I never have witnessed such insults against the Bush family (for example) go unchallenged (the VERY few times I've seen them), such as anything similar to the 'dog' slur against Chelsea in the 90's.
I've seen accusations of the Bush girls being drunk (&/or taking pills)...yeah but like, ya know, they were! People saying others were 'ugly' or 'moronic' (sans the marvelous Moran :D) are, IMO, Moles.


But then I'll admit I've never had the luxury of much free time to steadily surf a lot of Democratic/Left-leaning boards. I'd welcome any links that refute my beliefs.
Still & again, it's been my experience that Lefty's are truly Fair -- to our own fault, perhaps.