Will any Liberals be satisfied with the Democrats in 2010?

[Sheilbh]

Easily a whiff.

This is specifically about the Dan Lungren remark and a more developed version of what Obama said to the NYT:

Lungren was referring to remarks Obama made during the ABC News' June 24 special, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, which was anchored by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

We went to the transcript of the event and found that Lungren is distorting Obama's words. While Obama did bring up the example of patients and their families possibly having to choose between a pill and a pacemaker at some point, he did it as a hypothetical example while emphasizing that the government's role should be to provide background information so that patients and doctors can better sort through thorny, end-of-life issues.

The exchange began when Sawyer introduced Jane Sturm, who takes care of her mother, Hazel, now 105. When Hazel was 100, Sturm said, the doctor told her she needed a pacemaker. Both mother and daughter said they were game, but an arrhythmia specialist initially said no, before seeing Hazel's "joy of life" in person.

Sturm asked the president, "Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?"

After joking that he'd like to meet Sturm's mother and "find out what she's eating," the president said, "I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people."

After Gibson interjected with a comment about how money may not have been available for a pacemaker, Obama responded, "Well, and — and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care."

Obama continued, "And all we're suggesting — and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve."

Looking at the full transcript, it's clear that Obama voluntarily brought up the example of having to choose between a surgery and a pill. But he did so as a hypothetical example of difficult decisions about medical treatment for older patients. He was not advocating, much less requiring, bureaucrats to make a potentially life-ending decision for a centenarian.

People keep asking me IRL what I think about Obama's "plan", and I keep answering I have no idea what his plan even is or if there is one, so I can't comment.

I think Obama's still negotiating.  What intrigues me about this is that Obama never supported the public option in the campaign, he didn't even support individual mandates (right phrase?).  I think the House bill is a base, to the left of what Obama thinks possible, from which negotiations with the Senate can start.  And I agree with Peter Suderman that the public option is a chip he can negotiate with.  The focus on the public option means that if Obama gets rid of it it looks like he's made a huge concession when much of the important stuff remains in the bill.

I wouldn't treat the public option as the be-all and end-all that some Democrats are.  As far as I know many European healthcare systems don't have one, such as Switzerland and Holland.

There are plenty of ideas on both sides of the aisle.  But the GOP also realizes it's of the utmost importance to defeat Obamacare.

This is what annoys me.  Grassley was asked that if he got everything he wanted into the healthcare bill but Republicans in the Senate still wouldn't support it whether he'd vote for it or not, and he said he wouldn't support it.

So in all honesty I don't see the point in Senate Democrats continuing negotiations if they can pass it in that Committee and that they'd be better served by doing that and then negotiating with Republicans who have suggested they could support it like Snowe and, I believe, Graham.

[Admiral Yi]

This is specifically about the Dan Lungren remark and a more developed version of what Obama said to the NYT:

How is that a response to my comment?

[Sheilbh]

This is specifically about the Dan Lungren remark and a more developed version of what Obama said to the NYT:

How is that a response to my comment?

I think it's a more expanded version of the quotation where you detected a whiff and would be a useful thing to read

[Razgovory]

What pisses me the fuck off is Hans is dancing the fucking happy dance he now has a way to attack the Democrats politically but the Republicans have zero alternatives and indeed only expanded the fucking health care system themselves when in power.

The GOP has put forth lots of alternatives.  There are plenty of ideas on both sides of the aisle.  But the GOP also realizes it's of the utmost importance to defeat Obamacare.  And to defeat Obama in general

I hope Obama fails

It won't be enough.  It falls on you to build an ANFO bomb.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it's a more expanded version of the quotation where you detected a whiff and would be a useful thing to read

Yours was from June 24, Hans said his was from April.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's a more expanded version of the quotation where you detected a whiff and would be a useful thing to read

Yours was from June 24, Hans said his was from April.

Expanded is the wrong word.  My first choice 'a more developed' version, is better

[Admiral Yi]

Expanded is the wrong word.  My first choice 'a more developed' version, is better

"Clarified" or "calibrated" are the White House approved terms.  "Reset" works too.

[Tonitrus]

Although it probably is bad that many of Obama's underlings, including the Health secretary have no idea what Obama wants...

Even I know that; Obama wants to be re-elected in 2012.

So much for Change.

This is the genius of the American system.

1. I cannot do this, as I want to be reelected to another term.

2. I've been reelected, but I cannot do this as I am now a lame-duck, and these congressmen who average 20-year careers will just ignore it and wait me out.