Quote"Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill," Obama said. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."
In listing those priorities, he cited the 30 million uninsured Americans projected to receive coverage, estimated savings of more than $1 trillion over the next two decades, a "patients' bill of rights on steroids," and tax breaks to help small businesses pay for employee coverage.
Those elements are in the House and Senate versions of the legislation; their competing proposals will have to be reconciled in conference committee next year. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan favored by progressive Democrats; the Senate version does not. "I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122202101.html
So, I'm curious. I have mixed feelings about the statement; my gut reaction is that it's pretty sleazy, and comes off as Obama trying to distance himself from a cornerstone of his initial proposal that proved impossible, and is an effort to rewrite history. On the other hand....
I'm having trouble seeing the other hand. So I'm curious what people think. This isn't a comment on the merits of a public option, per se; it's rather a question of what people think of Obama as a politician.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 23, 2009, 11:24:08 AM
So, I'm curious. I have mixed feelings about the statement; my gut reaction is that it's pretty sleazy, and comes off as Obama trying to distance himself from a cornerstone of his initial proposal that proved impossible, and is an effort to rewrite history. On the other hand....
On the other hand he didn't campaign on the public option. In fact of the three primary candidates his was the most incrementalist health-care proposal. The Senate bill is pretty close to what he campaigned on and, if anything, slightly to the left.
Edit: Actually he did call for a public plan during the general election but not during the primaries when Edwards published his plan and then got Clinton and Obama to publish their's.
Edit-Edit: Reading a bit more Edwards and Clinton both supported a public plan; Obama's scheme had one but it was only for people who were self-employed or in very small companies. The theory, I imagine, being that employers would buy insurance for people in bigger companies and the very poor could get medicaid.
One other thing he didn't campaign on is individual mandate. That was quite stupid, and I'm glad he changed his mind.
Quote from: DGuller on December 23, 2009, 11:45:23 AM
One other thing he didn't campaign on is individual mandate. That was quite stupid, and I'm glad he changed his mind.
That's what I'm thinking about in terms of the Senate bill being slightly to the left.
Just drink the Obama-Aid and enjoy the ride. Is that too much to ask?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 23, 2009, 11:24:08 AM
So, I'm curious. I have mixed feelings about the statement; my gut reaction is that it's pretty sleazy, and comes off as Obama trying to distance himself from a cornerstone of his initial proposal that proved impossible, and is an effort to rewrite history.
When was the public option ever possible beyond progressive fairyland? All along Lieberman has publically opposed it, while Baucus was consistent in saying that he did not believe the Senate could pass a bill that contained such a program.
He seems to strongly favor a single payer system, govt system, but of course says it may not be realistic (yet) due to all the jobs and the place of the insurance industry.
Quote
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/
Obama Touts Single-Payer System for Health Care
Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time.
"If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system," Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.
A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars.
Many liberals have long embraced the coverage plan, saying it would cover everyone, take the profit out of health insurance and allow for greater efficiencies. But Republicans cringe at such deep government involvement in the private sector, calling it socialized medicine. And many Democrats, including Obama and former rival Hillary Clinton, have taken a much more moderate approach.
Obama's health-care plan aims for universal coverage by offering a new government-run marketplace where Americans could buy insurance, mostly from private plans. He would offer subsidies to individuals and to small business owners that offer their workers coverage. His plan also would require that parents get insurance for their kids. And he aims to lower health-care costs to make coverage more affordable. His plan includes one small step toward single payer. His new marketplace would create a new government-run plan, like Medicare, to compete against the private plans.
But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. "Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You've got a whole system of institutions that have been set up," he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, "Why not single payer?"
"People don't have time to wait," Obama said. "They need relief now. So my attitude is let's build up the system we got, let's make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody's covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively." [\quote]
You gotta respect the guy. He pretty much fucked everybody over: the public option, repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, ending the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan etc. - he went back on everything.
Especially the things he didn't say he'd do.
He's like The Smiler. :(
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2009, 12:42:46 PM
You gotta respect the guy. He pretty much fucked everybody over: the public option, repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, ending the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan etc. - he went back on everything.
He did not run on the public option.
He promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
We're getting out of Iraq.
Who the fuck cares about gay issues? You'll vote Republican anyway once you get your "rights."
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 12:53:27 PM
He promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
That's being charitable.
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 12:53:27 PM
He did not run on the public option.
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200911190006
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2009, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 12:53:27 PM
He promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
That's being charitable.
How so? I remember Republicans during the general election attacking Obama because he was too bellicose when it came to prosecuting the war against the Taliban in Waziristan.
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
How so? I remember Republicans during the general election attacking Obama because he was too bellicose when it came to prosecuting the war against the Taliban in Waziristan.
Off the top of my head I don't remember the exact wording of Obama's campaign promises about Afghanistan but I'm pretty sure he didn't say he would be pulling out in 18 months.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2009, 01:10:02 PM
That's being charitable.
QuoteIf elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
"It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," Obama said in a speech last week. "It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists."
The Illinois senator, whose opposition to the Iraq war is a campaign centerpiece, has concluded that the US presence there has fanned Islamic terrorism and diverted scarce military resources from taking on new terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda operatives trained for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Obama believes that the United States has relied too heavily on forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a Europe-based military alliance which has little experience in guerrilla warfare.
"Afghanistan should have been our fight," said retired Air Force General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, national cochairman of Obama's campaign. McPeak blamed the Iraq war, where the United States has about 140,000 troops, for diverting the Pentagon's focus on Afghanistan, where only 32,000 American troops are stationed.
That was acted on pretty early, 17 000 more troops were ordered into Afghanistan in March.
It's interesting on these issues because I read a post by Ezra Klein (admittedly an Obama fan) which described the Senate healthcare bill as broadly speaking what Obama campaigned on, while Dan Drezner (more of a neutral) wrote that Obama's foreign policy is broadly speaking what he campaigned on - for better or worse.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 23, 2009, 01:11:40 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 12:53:27 PM
He did not run on the public option.
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200911190006
Shall we start linking Newsmax as well? Media Matters is not a neutral source when it comes to liberal boilerplate issues.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2009, 01:26:29 PM
Off the top of my head I don't remember the exact wording of Obama's campaign promises about Afghanistan but I'm pretty sure he didn't say he would be pulling out in 18 months.
Well starting to withdraw - not actually withdraw - and it's still not clear if he meant from the whole operation or just the 'surge'.
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 01:32:12 PMShall we start linking Newsmax as well? Media Matters is not a neutral source when it comes to liberal boilerplate issues.
Oh righteous sage, what source linking to media events is acceptable?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 23, 2009, 01:30:14 PM
That was acted on pretty early, 17 000 more troops were ordered into Afghanistan in March.
Notice he didn't say "it's time to focus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan for 18 months."
Quote from: Faeelin on December 23, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 01:32:12 PMShall we start linking Newsmax as well? Media Matters is not a neutral source when it comes to liberal boilerplate issues.
Oh righteous sage, what source linking to media events is acceptable?
The first qualification of an acceptable source is one that doesn't have an obsession with spinning every single utterance from Lieberman's mouth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2009, 01:36:40 PM
Notice he didn't say "it's time to focus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan for 18 months."
We've argued over that point a lot. I think it's a deliberately vague promise - you think it's the most important part of that speech (I actually think it was the linking of Pakistan to the Taliban, never been done before by the US government).
iirc it was Hilary who was all about the public option. Or am I misremembering. That was last year.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on December 23, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
iirc it was Hilary who was all about the public option. Or am I misremembering. That was last year.
Edwards and Clinton both supported a public option. Obama did for certain people, such as, the self-employed. But I think it must have been Democratic party policy because come the general election Obama did support a public option (and, I think, an individual mandate).
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 23, 2009, 01:41:32 PM
We've argued over that point a lot. I think it's a deliberately vague promise - you think it's the most important part of that speech (I actually think it was the linking of Pakistan to the Taliban, never been done before by the US government).
We argued at length over the wiggle room left from his West Point speech. This argument over campaign promises is brand new and fresh.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2009, 01:51:33 PM
We argued at length over the wiggle room left from his West Point speech. This argument over campaign promises is brand new and fresh.
Oh, joy! :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2009, 01:51:33 PM
We argued at length over the wiggle room left from his West Point speech. This argument over campaign promises is brand new old and fresh boring.
FYPFY. The signal to noise ratio on this topic isn't even 1%, but feel free to help the rest of the spinners beat that dead horse if that is what amuses you. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2009, 12:42:46 PM
You gotta respect the guy. He pretty much fucked everybody over: the public option, repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, ending the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan etc. - he went back on everything.
Yeah I don't remember him promising those things. I mean not that it matters. The President does not have the power to do those things without Congress.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 23, 2009, 11:24:08 AM
So, I'm curious. I have mixed feelings about the statement; my gut reaction is that it's pretty sleazy, and comes off as Obama trying to distance himself from a cornerstone of his initial proposal that proved impossible, and is an effort to rewrite history. On the other hand....
I'm having trouble seeing the other hand. So I'm curious what people think. This isn't a comment on the merits of a public option, per se; it's rather a question of what people think of Obama as a politician.
Obama at least got something done on the Health Care thing and now can move forward. I am not necessarily impressed but it was certainly farther than Bush got with his Social Security reform promise after 2004.
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2009, 04:52:30 PM
FYPFY. The signal to noise ratio on this topic isn't even 1%, but feel free to help the rest of the spinners beat that dead horse if that is what amuses you. :cool:
Thanks!
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2009, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2009, 12:42:46 PM
You gotta respect the guy. He pretty much fucked everybody over: the public option, repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, ending the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan etc. - he went back on everything.
Yeah I don't remember him promising those things. I mean not that it matters. The President does not have the power to do those things without Congress.
He ran on HOPE! and CHANGE! not on any real specifics. Well, we CHANGEd Presidents, and we HOPE he don't screw up too bad, so we got what he promised.
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2009, 04:52:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 23, 2009, 01:51:33 PM
We argued at length over the wiggle room left from his West Point speech. This argument over campaign promises is brand new old and fresh boring.
FYPFY. The signal to noise ratio on this topic isn't even 1%, but feel free to help the rest of the spinners beat that dead horse if that is what amuses you. :cool:
I try my best. :(
Read my lips: no public option!
I did not campaign on that option, the public.
So much for hope and change.
Quote from: The Brain on December 23, 2009, 07:05:08 PM
Read my lips: no public option!
I did not campaign on that option, the public.
So much for hope and change.
When will you change, The Brain?
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:07:34 PM
He ran on HOPE! and CHANGE! not on any real specifics. Well, we CHANGEd Presidents, and we HOPE he don't screw up too bad, so we got what he promised.
That's kinda what I think, as well. By this time in the last Presidency, we didn't even have the hope, let alone not having the change.
I think people who are disappointed in Obama had unrealistic hopes for his Presidency. For a guy with no significant experience in national politics and no clear idea what he wants to do as President, Obama hasn't been too bad. I'd say that, at the almost-one-year point, the last President I thought was doing better was pappa Bush. I am still on wait-and-see as to whether Obama can become an effective President; he is smart enough to learn on the job.
Quote from: The Brain on December 23, 2009, 07:05:08 PM
Read my lips: no public option!
I did not campaign on that option, the public.
So much for hope and change.
I hope Obama changes..... <_<
Quote from: Faeelin on December 23, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 23, 2009, 01:32:12 PMShall we start linking Newsmax as well? Media Matters is not a neutral source when it comes to liberal boilerplate issues.
Oh righteous sage, what source linking to media events is acceptable?
Fate has no knowledge or opinions of note about anything. He is not fit to judge appropriate venues for liberal discourse.
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2009, 08:07:08 PM
I think people who are disappointed in Obama had unrealistic hopes for his Presidency.
I agree. I think the complaint about a lack of change is very odd though. I mean how much more did they want the administration to do in a year: very close to universal coverage, new strategy and more troops in Afghanistan, large economic stimulus and a cap-and-trade bill completed in the House (apparently Graham, McCain, Snowe and Collins are still keen on passing an environmental bill so the Senate might cobble something together).
Now I can't think of any President that's had as significant a first year in a long time. I mean in terms of legislation healthcare reform is probably the most significant single domestic piece of lawmaking since, I don't know, Clean Air Act? Welfare Reform? Reagan tax cuts?
Quote from: Neil on December 23, 2009, 08:17:24 PM
He is not fit to judge appropriate venues for liberal discourse.
Indeed. Fate is actually a right-wing nutjob posing as a liberal idealogue impersonating a conservative blowhard. :blink:
Quote from: citizen k on December 23, 2009, 11:48:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 23, 2009, 08:17:24 PM
He is not fit to judge appropriate venues for liberal discourse.
Indeed. Fate is actually a right-wing nutjob posing as a liberal idealogue impersonating a conservative blowhard. :blink:
And, even more importantly, he is a retard.
CC is mindful of the Fate Rule, but apparently not everyone else is. :huh:
Quote from: citizen k on December 23, 2009, 07:46:39 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 23, 2009, 07:05:08 PM
Read my lips: no public option!
I did not campaign on that option, the public.
So much for hope and change.
When will you change, The Brain?
I fear change.
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2009, 08:07:08 PM
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2009, 06:07:34 PM
He ran on HOPE! and CHANGE! not on any real specifics. Well, we CHANGEd Presidents, and we HOPE he don't screw up too bad, so we got what he promised.
That's kinda what I think, as well. By this time in the last Presidency, we didn't even have the hope, let alone not having the change.
I think people who are disappointed in Obama had unrealistic hopes for his Presidency. For a guy with no significant experience in national politics and no clear idea what he wants to do as President, Obama hasn't been too bad. I'd say that, at the almost-one-year point, the last President I thought was doing better was pappa Bush. I am still on wait-and-see as to whether Obama can become an effective President; he is smart enough to learn on the job.
Indeed.
I am cautiously optimistic that this is happening - after all, what would the effect on his left wing base be of him backing away from the promises that got him elected and taking a much more careful approach to issues he is largely out of his depth on?
Yep - massive crying and wailing about them being betrayed by someone who was not nearly as radically stupid as the loony left hoped.
He is like the anti-Dubya in his first year.
Quote from: Valmy on December 23, 2009, 05:02:14 PM
Yeah I don't remember him promising those things. I mean not that it matters. The President does not have the power to do those things without Congress.
Which is sad seeing as how his party is ascendant. Even when divided something good should have been accomplished.
Quote from: Martinus on December 23, 2009, 12:42:46 PM
You gotta respect the guy. He pretty much fucked everybody over: the public option, repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act, ending the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan etc. - he went back on everything.
You gotta admit there's a huge giveaway to hospitals, doctors, and the insurance industry, though. That's gotta be good for America.