Obama’s Pre-emptive Health Care Surrender
Racing to regain control of the health-care debate, two top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals.
via Key Feature Of Obama Health Plan May Be Out – washingtonpost.com.
President Obama stands in the Oval Office prior to a meeting with Members of Congress on July 13 (Pete Souza/White House)
I was about to write a post today sort of apologizing in advance for the tone of my forthcoming article on the health care business. I was worried all weekend that I had been too negative and too harsh with regard to the Democrats. It had struck me that in the month and a half or so that I spent on health care I spoke with a great many staffers and members of congress who seemed genuinely committed to fixing health care — people like Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown, Lynn Woolsey, and numerous others in and around the House and Senate. I was suddenly feeling very guilty for ignoring (to a degree) their efforts and focusing instead in my piece on the treachery of the Democratic leadership — Pelosi, Reid, the White House — for bargaining away real health care reform before this process even started.
Then I came home this afternoon, turned on my computer and read this latest smoke signal emanating from the White House, indicating that the “public option” is now being walked a few more steps forward along the plank. And I stopped feeling guilty about hammering the leadership. The latest news:
As President Obama finishes a western swing intended to bolster support for his signature policy initiative, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius opened the door to a compromise on a public option, saying it is “not the essential element” of comprehensive reform. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Obama “will be satisfied” if the private insurance market has “choice and competition.”
Now, obviously (and this is will be explored in more detail in the forthcoming piece, which will be out this week), the public option was not a cure-all. In fact, the Democrats had in reality already managed to kill the public option by watering it down to the point of near-meaninglessness. But the notion that our president not only does not have any use anymore for a public option, but in fact “will be satisfied” if there is merely “choice and competition” in the market is, well, disgusting.
I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?
To quote Method Man’s Calvin “Cheese” Wagstaff character from The Wire, “This is some shameless shit right here.”
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Jesus Christ, the Democrats are such motherfucking cliches of themselves.
Just once I’d like to see them act like they’re in the majority.
The Wire quotation did make me smile through the tears though . . . “you got to…this is America, man”
First, always much respect for a Wire quote.
Part of me hopes Obama drops the public option to wake up the lefty Kool Aid drinkers who, somehow, despite 8 straight years of failure of the Democratic party, were convinced by some neat You Tube videos and clever PR that one young guy was going to change the system. BS. The Dems laid down and died for 8 years because they always have been and still are Republican light, to caught up in trying to be career politicians to grow a spine and risk their relationships with the special interests that keep us fighting their wars and dying for their profits.
Maybe if the millions of us who worked so hard for the Dems once again when they didn’t deserve it get thrown under the bus with healthcare, we can start seriously talking about supporting a third party to force the Dems to start living up to their rhetoric.
Daywalker-
In response to another comment. See in context »I feel your pain- A pox on both their houses. At 60, I have licked envelops, canvased neighborhoods, donated tons of money, marched and crusaded- all for Democrats who, for the most part (I am partial to Clinton), disappointed. Money is at the root of it all- Marketing and advertising gets us the best President and representatives $$$ can buy and then they spend half their time fund raising more money so they can run again (not to mention the influence garnered by corporate donations)
I know many of the big guys have talked about a third party but apparently the organization and money involved is immense. If someone or some group had the will it could happen- How great would it be to have a third party candidate beat the other two using small change by going completely viral! We can dream. . .
fer christ’s sakes! I just knew something like this would happen. I hoped that it wouldn’t. I hoped that Obama, et al would put their proverbial foot down. But you had to question his so called audacity in reforming health care when he came out NOT with sweeping reforms, like say single payer but this flimsy, public option BS. The fact that covering abortions was completely off the table made me angry, but I could deal with that. But now, no public option?! Something that affects not just women but everyone? Ugh…I don’t really know how many compromises I can witness before I give up on these guys. The time may have already come.
I used to share your perverted admiration for Bush and his ability to pass legislation without impunity. But it is smple to see why he and his party never made a stink about what the CBO had to say or how well something ranked in the polls. Money, big business was on his side and the sad part is that he really had no one else to answer too. It’s easy to have a backbone when it’s made of solid gold. My admiration stops right there.
anyway, i’ve never commented on this site before so i would like to say great blog/articles and I can’t wait for those 7000 words.
…one more thing…with the Internet and the now incredible ability to remember and track what every politicians says or has said, I wonder if the Democrats realize just how screwed they’ll be if they keep dropping the ball.
When the main excuse we were given for why they couldn’t do anything about the wars, tax cuts, wiretapping, torture, deregulation, environment, etc., was that they needed more power, they’re gonna be annihilated by both the right and progressives if they fail now.
Why would anyone on the left believe them, and why would anyone on the right not launch massive ad campaigns against them highlighting all of these broken promises….if they don’t do it now, then it leads to that classic lawyer line…you’re either lying now or you were lying before.
Either way, there’s no reason to support you again.
I just don’t get it. What IS the point of this? He’s not going to get the votes of Republicans, AND he’s going to alienate major portions of his base of support. It’s just so plain stupid.
Seriously, Obama – get your shit together. You beat McCain, and you beat Palin. You’re going to surrender to yokels like these?
Matt, I for one think the so-called leadership of the Democratic Party is even more deserving of derision than Goldman Sachs. Goldman has never made any bones about being interested in any thing other than making money – that’s what they do and they are damn good at it. Learning how they make it and who they hurt in the process has been rather juicy.
With the Dems however, we have a bunch of people who claim to be representing ordinary working Americans, who claim to have our interest uppermost in their minds unlike the evil Republicans. They are lying and have been lying for decades. We still expect them to be the party of FDR or at least LBJ, but they can’t even measure up to the liberal record of RMN.
That is spot on. The Dems have become as corrupt as the GOP. Obama et al should or could have run as republicans. It is not like the dems don’t understand. They just want to pretend they have to cave in to the GOP so they get the money from K Street too. Kabuki, dog and pony show, hypocrisy, whatevah! I will never donate squat to a Dem Party again. I always knew Odrama was an empty suit. When the Dems cheated Hilary out of the nomination, I knew our goose was cooked. Some fools were taken in, but if you had a brain you knew what happened was so corrupt as to be beyond the pale. The fix was in for Obama the same way the fix was in for this health care sham. The fix was in so we could have this sham. They can’t be content to plummet the treasury, they have to steal all the future treasury too. RIP, USA
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m used to being in the minority (in several ways) but was I the only person that though the public option/semi-universal care was D.O.A.?
Seriously, check out Kent Conrad’s plans for the local co-ops. Progressives should be wetting themselves with joy, as his plan provides the bennies of the public option without the overweening elements of a massive national health system.
It provides local control, which will keep the red staters happy, and will still provide the competitiveness that the industry hacks sought.
Sounds like a win-win-win….
Here’s Conrad’s impetus for his idea:
“Votes. The problem is this. If you’re in a 60 vote environment in the Senate — and I believe we are, because I believe reconciliation simply won’t work — if you begin tallying up the votes, I believe that virtually all Republicans are against the public option and some democrats are. So how do you get to 60?”
In other words, the whole country is being held hostage by the minority.
North Dakota Population: 650K
(There are 3X as many people in Queens, NY alone.)
We’ve seen how California has been paralyzed by minority rule…the same thing is coming to America, with similar disastrous results…
In response to another comment. See in context »Nydon,
Presumably the 40-50 senators opposed to universal care represent a significant portion of the populace. (Crazy, I know, but….)
I actually like Conrad’s plan. It totally takes the wind out of right-winger’s sails by offering local control (no “big gubmint” plan), throws a bone to business by being competitive, and can essentially be used to bludgeon the insurance companies. (”What, you don’t like the local co-ops? Well, you know, we can turn everything into one big co-op called universal care….OK, you’re fine with that? Good…”)
In response to another comment. See in context »Umm, yes 40 senators do represent a good number of people, but if you do the math, 20 of those senators represent less than 20 million people…
In response to another comment. See in context »Mike- not so much, I’m afraid. The history of co-op health insurance plans is a poor one. Each time a non-profit system has been created, it has eventually turned into a private company once enough membership is achieved that money can be made by becoming a profit making enterprise (see Blue Cross-Blue Shield.) Additionally, co-ops rarely can build a large enough patient base to create real bargaining power with the health care providers. Remember that the ability to negotiate prices comes with the strength of the covered base in a program. The largest, successful co-op program running right now is in Seattle. After some 40 years of operation, they have managed to accumulate 500,000 members. They manage to make money because they raise their premium rates pretty much along the same lines as the for profit insurance companies and, in some years, even more. One never wants to say never, but the deck is very badly stacked against a co-op succeeding. Maybe we will find a way this time around, but, by any historical standard, the odds of success are dramatically remote.
In response to another comment. See in context »But haven’t Germany and Japan had success with non-profit and community-based plans? Why are we so incapable of doing so?
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, a number of countries have had success with a blended public/private system just as countries have had success with purely public programs. However, one thing virtually all countries have in common right now is that, no matter what their approach, they are buckling under from the unsustainable cost of health care. Also- Japan is would not be the best example. While it worked very nicely for a long time, particularly for consumers, it is currently in very bad trouble. So many physicians have stopped practicing medicine in Japan due to to the low salaries, that people are having a very difficult time getting into hospitals for everyday things like having babies. Australia would be a better example of what you have in mind.
In response to another comment. See in context »re: a blended public/private system working
A good point, Rick. Both the outgoing and incoming heads of the Canadian Medical Association are saying the same thing about the possibility of introducing private health care delivery into the public Canadian system.
In response to another comment. See in context »So, we have a shortage of rural physicians, too, but still pay out the nose. Japan’s medical education system and strict immigration policies also play a substantial role in their problems.
In response to another comment. See in context »You know some kind of universal health care has been a staple in most civilized countries for so long that it seems that if the U.S. doesn’t have it by now it never will.
I get the sense that most don’t really expect anything to ever happen. It seems more like some kind of ritual. As an outsider, I can’t help thinking that there has to be more to this thing than politics and money.
I just can’t get my mind around the amount of hate that people must have for each other not to want their neighbour to have medical coverage.
“I can’t help thinking that there has to be more to this thing than politics and money.”
Ah, yes, but those two things are more than enough to kill any real reform. The scars of 1993 are still fresh and there’s a definite sense that an acceptable half-measure (local co-ops) is a winnable war.
re: most “civilized” countries having universal health care
Most “civilized” countries tax their citizens at a much higher rate than in the US and those nations — despite their excellent schools, stellar health care, and superb standards of living — are held up as quasi-socialist hellholes by the American right.
re: haters not wanting their neighbor to have medical coverage
I don’t see that as the case at all, especially since the argument for wider coverage has finally been pushed as a pocketbook issue. Problem is that the noise about socialism, “death panels”, “Obamacare,” and government takeover has squelched the signals about the benefits of real reform.
In response to another comment. See in context »Really its just the standard Democrat way of letting republicans frame every issue. The democrat strategy on everything is to backpedal away as quickly as possible to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Well its time to hurt some fucking feelings already.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mandates are next, just you wait, because you can’t keep the price of insurance affordable if healthy people wait to get sick before they sign up. And THAT means that people will be forced to pay money to private companies that will immediately turn around and pay nine-figure bonuses to their executives for all the new business they brought in.
It was the same thing with the bank bailout. Ordinary taxpayers forced to pay into the bonus pools of Goldman Sachs.
Obamanomics: Like Reaganomics, only sleazier.
By Jove, I think you’ve got it!
In response to another comment. See in context »A dog’s got to hunt, a fish has got to swim, democrats have to wet themselves at the first sign of opposition.
A story to throw in I just found out over the weekend: Friends of my parents — real fire-breathing, Rush Limbaugh, “fuck the poor” conservatives — just lost their health insurance. The husband’s commercial real estate company collapsed, and with the company gone, he cannot even get COBRA. As a prostate cancer survivor, he has zero chance of getting health insurance. So what are they doing? Applying for that bastion of freeloading, parasitic government largess known as Medicare.
I hope they get it because, despite their mad dog political views, they are dedicated friends to my folks and I would hate to see them bankrupted. But I hope they learn something from the experience.
Any chance of these people getting some media coverage at a town hall? Perhaps they can a spot on Larry O’Donnell’s Hard Ball or whatever it’s called. In this recession there must be hundreds of stories just lie theirs. Die Hard Rethugs applying for mediscarey.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s amazing that a huge fight has been drummed up over a policy that won’t mean that much of a real-life change for insurance users. Without a public plan, the whole health insurance debate is much ado about nothing.
Change as little as possible while still being able to call it change? Yes We Can.
Matt – Don’t you dare feel guilty about hammering these worthless sellouts! They are undeserving of 30 seconds of your consideration and sympathies. Do you think they feel guilt every time they throw the nation under the bus driven by the money-men and the whackos? They certainly don’t – so fuck ‘em!
The politicians you name, and all progressive voters, need to remove themselves from the Democratic Party and declare their independence. Just look how the Party kissed Leiberman’s ass when he did it! The Dems will never give progressive ideas a fair shot until not doing so risks losing votes. Progressives who continue supporting this long dead party are enablers, and a big part of the problem.
Anyone who is surprised by any of this bullshit has simply not been paying attention for a long time. Stand up, people! It’s time for the sheep to eat the shepherds and move on to greener pastures!
I still believe Obama is trying to do the right thing, but the problem is that he is trying just as hard to appease the health care industry and produce a “victory” to help him stay viable for 2012. He says he doesn’t care about being a one-term president. If only he *acted* that way.
I’ll never understand why Obama intentionally surrounded himself with people who do business as usual in Washington when he seemed so genuinely committed to changing business as usual. But those early decisions (Rahm, Geitner, etc.) set the stage, and, I think the next 3 and 1/2 years will be more of this same divide between rhetoric and action — straddling all positions until the 11th hour, selling out to the same special interests he ran against but casting the results as “historic” and “unprecedented”… in short, speaking loudly and carrying a small stick.
Amen. to that.
In response to another comment. See in context »PaLeeeeese! Step away from that sippy cup. Obama wants to do the right thing….NOT. He wants to do the thing that will make him look like he is doing the right thing. See the difference. Give me a break. I can’t believe you are still that naive as to believe that tripe.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Bipartisanship = No public option (because the GOP is all powerful). I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency? [...]
I think I’m most fascinated by the masterfully orchestrated Astroturf campaign that made the Democrats go limp as soggy ShamWows. Or at least provided them with a convenient excuse to go limp.
It’s a work of criminal genius. Most amazing of all was how the orchestrators (with a number of complicit enablers) convinced so many useful idiots to insanely chant, as batocchio of Digby’s Hullabaloo put it, “Deny me healthcare or give me death!”
Let’s just add it to the list of betrayals, shall we:
1. Don’t ask…
2. CIA rendition.
3. Closed door deal with big pharma.
4. Mortgage inaction…
5. “Bonuses” for Wall Street scum.
6. Delay of Iraq exit and expansion of wars.
7. Geithner and Summers.
8. Immunity for the telcos for spying inside USA.
9. Bank life support at taxpayer expense.
This guys is a weenie. At least with Bush he didn’t pretend to be your friend when he fucked you over..
hey, at least obama has the decency to give yo a reach around while tapping that ass… Or maybe its just a light ball cupping, but at least you got a minor thrill!
In response to another comment. See in context »This is yet another symptom of the GTD presidency. Obama is farming out the details, something he’s shown a fondness for, and that can only work if he maintains control. The problem is, he trusts the process, and what comes back to him from that process is crappy and weak and compromised. That’s thanks to, as Taibbi put it, trusting compromised people like a Wyoming Senator with 600k constituents (not quite six, but on our population scale, close) to be a major negotiator in health care reform. He needs to throw the hammer down: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/08/03/getting-things-done-president
I really hoped Obama would use the momentum he had early in the year to force Pelosi and Reid to put in place the needed changes in healthcare and since this was his number one priority he had a good game plan in mind. WRONG. Obama and his staff have shown no game plan and allowing Pelosi and Reid to manage the process was doomed from the start; and the White House should have known this! Obama and the White House staff have a lot of work to do in the coming months if they are going to take back control of the process and get any meaningful healthcare reform passed. Should they fail, Senator Jim “Deminted” may be correct that this will break Obama and be his Waterloo.
They will not change. Leave this psychic wasteland, the experiment has failed. Dems, Repubs, 3rd parties, makes no difference, all is futile. We have many times the resources available to take care of all of us, but too bad. Not going to happen like that!
Now then: breathe, look around. What you see is a collective dream. We can shift oceans with our hearts. I can free myself, so that’s where I start.
When did the White House ever claim the the public option was a must? I think it was last month (or maybe June) when a Prez said something like that but I can’t remember exactly. But the President has not changed his postion. The still support the public option, I just don’t remember anyone from the administration saying it was a deal breaker if it wasn’t in the legislation that ends up on Obama’s desk. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
And as others have pointed out today, NO SINGLE bill exists. I believe we currently have three in the House and two in Senate. I have also read quite a bit of pushback coming from more liberal House Dem’s today. I am in the wait and see mode before I light my hair on fire and declare the end of life as we know it because Obama surrendered to the wingnuts and teabaggers.
Besides, reading tea leaves has never been the strong suit of the establishment media.
[...] I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency? … (From Matt Tiabbi) [...]
The real change, which never depended on Obama, is that our top-down, one-size fits all, eight-guys-run-everything system can no longer work for a nation of 320 million people, much less the world. That is the change we were thirsting for – because this system is tragically dysfunctional. We were fooling ourselves if we thought anyone, even our charming, competent President, could somehow magically fix these broken social institutions. We need new institutions, focused around solving problem and not around accruing giant budgetary fiefdoms.
Americans need to look each other in the eye and ask each other how they can care for each others’ health, and forget the bureaucrats at the top of the system. It is too late for them, not too late for us. To achieve this will take new dialogue, new minds, new voices, new approaches, and a helluva lot of hard work, but it will be better than banging our heads against this monumentally broken system of governance.
Shocker. I mean really surprising! Who’d a thought the democrats would cower like little girls in the face of a fox news smear campaign? when has that ever happened? Time to put on the big boy pants and remove the plastic sheets! Come on ladies! Why is it that when the democrats are in office it suddenly takes 60 votes in the senate to pass a bill? Fucking cowards, Im voting for socialists and libtards from now on.
[...] via T/S. [...]
With so many un+under insured, the private sector has demonstrated it can’t do the job alone. We need a public option.
The administration is caving while corporate-republican continue spreading untruths and fear. The republicans offer no solution so are free to sit back and attack.The teabag-town hall efforts, while an embarrassment to the country, appear to have been effective.
“We’ve never had the votes for a public option,” says Senator Conrad. How can that be true? At one point there we over 70% of Americans who favored some kind of public option. How could we let Freedom Works out MoveOn-MoveOn?
Well, there is this thing about telling the truth.
I don’t understand why the president has to negotiate from a position of weakness. The numbers are on our side. This is not the time to compromise.
[...] http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/17/key-feature-of-obama-health-plan-may-be-out-washingtonpos... [...]
The GOP has its god, gays, guns and anti-abortion suckers, and Democrats have their universal health care and peace suckers.
What’s fascinating isn’t that liberals lost on this again — easily predictable when liberals embraced Edward’s plan — or that they lost so easily, but how much more money health insurance companies make every time they beat us back. Check out Why Health Insurers are Winning
I’m not sure that I’d like to play poker against Obama. I sense that he, Axelrod and Emanual are not dumb enough to have been caught in this Whirlpool’s spin cycle. Is it crazy to look at the public option as “bait?” I happen to think that the Co-Op idea could provide great leverage to squeeze the schmaltz out of the system. I’d suggest that we not paint this as a loss…just yet.
Obama advised Americans over and over during his campaign to be courageous. So uh, when is the Democratic Party going to lead by example and stop being polite and accommodating to people who paint Hitler moustaches on their portraits? Good fucking Christ, enough of this pandering to intellectual midgets and sociopaths already. GROW A SPINE, DEMS and deliver what you promised to the people who voted in overwhelming numbers for you. Ignore the assholes and get a fucking move on and do the job you said you would. Stop being equivocating WIMPS.
Health care in not really about health care. It’s about the money. How much will it cost and who’s going to pay. The so-called rich aren’t really going to give up anything especially their money. Even if taxes are raised on them the Dems will also create loopholes to go with the increase. In the end it will be the nearly ruined middle class that will pay for any reform. Otherwise deficits will go into outer space and the U S will truly be financially broken. Otherwise there won’t be real reform. And that’s what Obama is preparing to put into place. It will be cosmetic. And Obama will claim victory.
[...] under Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, Health Care | Leave a Comment From my favorite writer, Matt Taibbi: I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against [...]
I wish Tommy Douglas were still around.
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nominee/douglas-tommy.html
“Canada’s ‘father of Medicare’ stayed true to his socialist beliefs — often at the cost of his own political fortune — and earned himself the respect of millions of Canadians in the process.”
“Amid widespread skepticism, Premier Douglas mobilized aggressively, passing more than 100 bills during his first term. He introduced paved roads, sewage systems and power to most farmers and managed to reduce the provincial debt by $20 million. Over the next 18 years he weathered Communist fear campaigns and a province-wide doctor’s strike. Elected to five terms, he introduced Saskatchewan residents to car insurance, labour reforms and his long-standing dream of universal Medicare.”
Damn socialists.
[...] Matt Taibbi – Taibblog – Obama’s Pre-emptive Health Care Surrender – True/Slant [...]
Obama (so far) is a failure on gay rights.
Obama may now be a failure on health care.
The Stimulus was too little and it worked within existing programs and basically just provided funding for things we already had. Visionary? No. Change? Not really, Shrub added longer extensions to workers comp without anyone even bothering to report it. Obama’s single accomplishment is Sonia Sotomayer, and the Supreme Court balance is still unchanged.
So what is the point of Obama anyway? Take away all the hype and he may as well be G.W. Bush. What was all that fighting for anyways?
Obama (so far) is a failure on gay rights.
Obama may now be a failure on health care.
The Stimulus was too little and it worked within existing programs and basically just provided funding for things we already had. Visionary? No. Change? Not really, Shrub added longer extensions to workers comp without anyone even bothering to report it. Obama’s single accomplishment is Sonia Sotomayer, and the Supreme Court balance is still unchanged.
So what is the point of Obama anyway? Take away all the hype and he may as well be G.W. Bush. What was all that fighting for anyways?
I agree with almost everything you say (your one mistake is Judge Sotomayor, she is part of this camouflaged insurance industry bailout – check her legal rulings record), but as Drew Pearson once said, by “..their appointments ye shall know them.”
He was referring to the presidential appointments. Trivia question: Who was the last president who appointed an actual progressive economist? Answer: John F. Kennedy
Trivia question: Who was the last president to appoint a Secretary of Labor who was actually connected to American labor? Answer: John F. Kennedy
Trivia question: Who was the last president who wrangled the insurance industry to the ground; forcing them to sign a Consent Decree (stating they would stop establishing artificially high prices)? Answer: John F. Kennedy
Who are the Obama Administration’s appointments? The most anti-worker, anti-union people in existence: Diana Farrell, Laura Tyson, Roger Altman, Richard Holbrooke, Robert Hormats, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Gov. Gary Locke, Henry Kissinger. (And can anyone say Hillary Clinton, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and overthrowing governments as usual in South America?)
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ve heard many saying they wish that Obama was more like Bush, that Bush never compromised or listened to public opinion. Listen to what you are saying – I never want a president anything like Bush. While your pundit’s cojones may require it, remember where all that pride and arrogance got us.
I disagree with this.
Bush was awful in many respects, in fact almost all respects. But when you elect someone to represent you, you want them to exercise all their power once elected.
Bush/Rove/Cheney frequently went too far with their use of executive power. But they also treated the power of the White House as an opportunity, whereas Obama seems terrified of the power he has.
This isn’t a matter of wishing Obama was more like Bush. This is just a comment on the nature of our system. It’s a con game. When Republicans are in power, the executive has almost unlimited authority. But when Democrats are in power, suddenly their hands are always tied by the checks and balances system.
It’s the difference between a government that openly advocates for big business and a government that ostensibly represents working people. The system just functions differently according to whose turn it is at the tiller.
In response to another comment. See in context »When I elect someone to represent me, I don’t want them to use any power that they don’t have to. I believe Obama’s first priority is not healthcare (or selling out as many of your commenters would have it), but bringing the nation back from near civil war to a place where it is governable. Bush’s arrogance in ignoring one half of the population brought us to the brink. If Obama listens to the half that doesn’t agree with him, he is vilified by his own half, but unless he breaks the vicious cycle, this whole country will be as screwed as California
In response to another comment. See in context »“But they also treated the power of the White House as an opportunity, whereas Obama seems terrified of the power he has.”
I’d be interested to know which of his actions informed this perception. He seems frustrated he can’t find the right light switch, not terrified of the dark.
But speaking to your larger point, I’ve been noodling it for a while, as I’ve read it from you more than once. While the lack of consistent messaging from the WH is frustrating and the righteously indignant part of me very much wants Rahm to march into the Senate with a blunt object and knee cap the blue dogs, the pragmatic part of me isn’t convinced it would make a difference. The tactic didn’t work for GWB on immigration or social security reform. Two initiatives that seem comparable to health care in terms of scope and complexity.
At any rate, this health care debate has been nothing short of crazy making. I’m looking forward to your piece.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt said,
“It’s the difference between a government that openly advocates for big business and a government that ostensibly represents working people”
The Democrats may be associated with ‘working people’ but their legislative action is about the same as their Republican counterparts.
Maybe the entertainment industrial media complex gets more of its dirty work done in Democratic lead sessions, (DMCA anyone?) but that’s about it.
Given you probably want to keep writing for RS, I imagine you wouldn’t want to write about the entertainment industry the way you write about GS. But the same kind of abuse is going on.
In response to another comment. See in context »Truly, it is some shameless shit.
I thought Obama was pulling a massive bait-and-switch ever since his FISA choice during the primaries, but to have a democratic prez in office who can make BUSH look good by comparison?
Gah.
[...] Matt Taibbi: [...]
[...] Taibblog | “Now, obviously (and this is will be explored in more detail in the forthcoming piece, which will be out this week), the public option was not a cure-all. In fact, the Democrats had in reality already managed to kill the public option by watering it down to the point of near-meaninglessness. But the notion that our president not only does not have any use anymore for a public option, but in fact “will be satisfied” if there is merely “choice and competition” in the market is, well, disgusting.” [...]
President Obama has said over and over that change comes from the bottom, not the top. If we all would just put our energies out there where they can be seen — SIT on the capitol steps, WEAR an outrageous attention getting sign, WALK en masse to a senator’s and congress(wo)man’s house or office — maybe our yellowbellied representatives will find the guts to DO what they were elected to do! Just typing on our computers to each other is not the way to make change happen. We’ve got to SHOW them what we believe with CONVICTION and the same courage we expect from them. Both Pres Clinton and Gov Dean have told us repeatedly, Obama cannot do it all himself. If we get some watered down mush of a bill, it’ll be as much our fault as it is the administration’s, because we sat on our butts watching the lack of change, rather than being the change …
The thing I find so maddening about this whole thing is that I have not seen one single pundit, commentator, what have you that hasn’t said the same thing…forget the republicans. They dont want you to succeed on any level whether they agree or not. People voted for democrats for a reason not republicans. Why on earth doesn’t the white house get it???
[...] this has to be the most cutting piece of political criticism in a long, long time. It’s from Matt Taibbi and refers to this past weekend’s White House signal that President Obama might be willing to [...]
[...] Matt Taibbi: I was about to write a post today sort of apologizing in advance for the tone of my forthcoming article on the health care business. I was worried all weekend that I had been too negative and too harsh with regard to the Democrats. It had struck me that in the month and a half or so that I spent on health care I spoke with a great many staffers and members of congress who seemed genuinely committed to fixing health care — people like Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown, Lynn Woolsey, and numerous others in and around the House and Senate. I was suddenly feeling very guilty for ignoring (to a degree) their efforts and focusing instead in my piece on the treachery of the Democratic leadership — Pelosi, Reid, the White House — for bargaining away real health care reform before this process even started. [...]
Robert Reich is calling for a march on Washington on Grandparents Day, one day after a reportedly planned anti-reform demonstration.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26224.html
Mr. Matt,
You’re still thinking at the lower levels, dood!
This entire thing, from appointing Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, to the charade of the “public option” and so forth, is simply a backdoor bailout of the insurance industry.
That’s why the prez met with the UnitedHealth honcho soooo many times, etc., and why everything has been sooo orchestrated at these Town Hall meets. Remember, the banks and insurance clowns brought us the neverending economic meltdown and the insurance industry went in for colossal securitization just like those banksters did.
‘Nuff said…..
[...] seem to have the same reticence about pushing their agenda despite structural impediments. As Matt Taibbi writes: I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against [...]
you know…I am starting to think we are all missing something here. This guy in the white house is not a light weight by any means. The best way to overcome an opponent is to have them underestimate you. I think Sen. Grassley’s comments over the weekend were telling of that underestimation, along with Sen. Kyl’s today. Now you have the left up in arms, arguably more united (and vocal) then at anytime during this debate fearing the loss of a public option. Now word is coming out of the white house that they are now essentially prepared to “go it alone” if they have to, a 180 from where they were. The “we tried to reason with them but all they can say is NO” worked for the stimulus. I’m guessing this enough of a 180 to grab headlines (and momentum)
[...] seem to have the same reticence about pushing their agenda despite structural impediments. As Matt Taibbi writes: I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against [...]
[...] waffling on the public plan amounts to a “pre-emptive surrender” – it is truly “disgusting” when you think about it. And yes, congressional liberals are threatening revolt if [...]
Do the people of the United States have to hold Obama’s hand through ANY work he gets done?!?!?
Matt is exactly right, we elected Obama to LEAD, look it up in the dictionary Mr. President, you are the COMMANDER in chief. If I hear any more of this ‘we want a bipartisan coalition’ b.s., I’m going to throw up. Newsflash Obama, all the Republicans and morons who they will the town halls with will be opposed to EVERYTHING you do until you are out of office and Mitt Romney is in your place. So can we move on now and try to get something done during your first, and possibly final term?
I believe the whole sorry yet thoroughly predictable health-care spectacle was quite precisely engineered from Day One, and for very good reasons that fit nicely with the ongoing, planned deindustrialization and dismantling of the American economy and the effective transfer of sovereign power to the financial system (of which the $23.7 trillion bank bailout is but one symptom).
But first, to update: Since Matt posted, Obama has reversed field yet again (I think; can’t be quite certain) and said a public option is a must. Even so, I believe the worst outcome here, as others have suggested, may be passage of a plan that includes a public option that is so compromised, weak and constrained that it’s meaningless–and, in fact, less meaningful than even the bogus cooperatives.
Such a pointless, denatured public option, however, would have the advantage of giving everyone but the public what they want or need. The private insurers would grow even fatter and happier, Republicans would get a talking point to rile their base (which also serves the interest of top Dems), and Dems–especially progressives who desperately want to be smitten with Obama–would have a teeny-weeny nail to hang their hats on.
I think, as Matt says, there are sincere Dems in Congress who want real reform. But I may part from Matt in saying that they’re basically window dressing. I suspect that the party leadership, the Dems Who Count, wanted the issue but never the substance. I suspect that what we’ve seen–the Dems’ early emphasis on cost, the hemming-and-hawing that allowed Congress to recess for August and go home to a thoroughly predictable haranguing by wingnuts at so-called “town hall” meetings, etc. etc.–was all a well planned dog/pony show engineered by the Dems Who Count to make them appear beleaguered and clear the way for pointless “reform.”
The smart money knows this, as evidenced by health insurers’ stock prices and the ad campaigns they’re mounting IN FAVOR of overhaul. Regardless what form the legislation finally takes, they’re in clover.
But getting past all that, it’s even more evident when you consider what real reform could have meant and how it could have been sold to the public. It would have been perfectly possible to cover all Americans and SAVE huge sums of money by simply going to what amounts to an off-the-shelf, time-tested and proven single-payer system of the sort they have in Canada or Europe.
Here are the advantages:
1) Better care
2) Everyone covered, no exclusions (incidentally, this is a HUGE civil-rights issue and could have been powerfully framed this way)
3) Enormous cost savings that would …
4) … be the single biggest step we could take toward restoring America’s competitiveness in the world economy.
All these points could have been hammered and hammered and hammered home by Democrats till the Republicans and the health industry sweated blood.
And especially point No. 4! Look at our gargantuan, enduring and probably irreversible trade deficit. How are we ever going to fix that? Well there’s no hope in the world unless we do something about health-care costs. And there’s no way to address that without universal care that takes full advantage of the leverage that can be brought to bear by the full weight and mass of 300 million Amerians acting as one pool of health care users.
Here’s still another powerful point: Right now Americans are directly subsidizing, at enormous cost to themselves, far superior health-care systems in every other industrialized and developing country, which all can negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals. We can’t. Moreover, OUR tax dollars directly pay for well over 2/3 of the research that leads to development of new drugs. Yet we turn right around and pay top dollar for the same drugs when they’re marketed privately. So we, Americans, are paying twice for what everyone else in the world pays for once–and at a greatly reduced price.
These are simple and enormously powerful arguments–and quite urgent ones, given the state of our health care and economy.
But no one among the Dems Who Count made them. And that’s because they ruled out from the beginning THE ONLY option that made ANY sense whatsoever–a single-payer system.
So I believe it’s completely reasonable to conclude–just on this basis, let alone the mounting wealth of evidence from the ongoing phony debate–that the Dems Who Count never, ever intended to deliver any kind of real reform.
And why is that? Because among the Demublicans Who Count (or DWCs, mainly those working arm-in-arm with the financial industry), it was long ago concluded that disinvestment in the United States is the best way to serve the DWC’s own globalized interests. America, in other words, is not worth investing in. China and other crap countries are the future.
Thus the for-profit health-care system we have–as expensive and inefficient and cruel as it is–must be preserved because IT RATIONS CARE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY. The sad fact is, most Americans–financially crammed down and overextended as they’ve become over the past 3 decades or so–can’t or soon won’t be able to afford real health care, and any public or partly public system with any kind of open accountability and transparency would soon reveal this.
Better to maintain the private system, and even render it more complex and thereby more hopelessly unaccountable, than reveal in yet another dimension the sad but quite deliberately engineered long-term decline of the United States from the world’s most developed economy into developing-world status.
We could use Diogenes right now. He could dust off his little lantern and walk the earth looking for a journalist who had the combination of stones and brains to get a politician–perhaps a whore like Baucus–to complete this sentence: “Private, profit-making insurance companies should be involved in my health care because…” (Does anyone know–is there a special form you have to fill out to bribe Baucus?)
[...] дошли до такой степени раздражения, что ставят Буша в пример Обаме. Учись, мол, как [...]
[...] the other side of the spectrum, apparently some people on the left are appalled at taibbi’s comments about the bungling of the heath care thing (specifically, the portion that i quoted the other day). [...]
I wonder if judging Obama’s efforts are ignoring his penchant for playing the long game (at least by America’s political standards). Michael Preston’s post makes me wonder. All during the campaign, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about “he’s gotta do this” and “he’s screwed the pooch now” he and his team quietly and methodically racked up points. Matt can certainly come up with the proper sports analogy. That being said, trying to find the politician who’s selfless, honest and true is like looking for the most virtuous woman in the whorehouse. Obama’s a politician. On another note …”Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana)…” As one of the six people here I take umbrage! He’s a Demoblican, and some of his stances make him a tool, but he’s not Conrad Burns! Hmm. Maybe that makes him more dangerous. Anyway, don’t paint us all with the same broad brush.
You can’t get something for nothing. Health care reform will cost trillions. But where is the money coming from? There aren’t enough rich people to pay for it and they won’t pay for anyway since they will always take advantage of the loopholes. That leaves the middle class. They will lose big time. But as long as they understand that and are willing to pay the price than there will be reform. Right now most middle class people don’t quite understand that. When the bill finally comes out of the House they will start to wake up. Then Obama will have no choice but to pass a cosmetic bill that only looks like reform. But he will claim victory. And the press will just white wash the whole thing. And that will be the end of it. Otherwise if there is real reform you will have deficits pushed into outer space and the U S will be broken financially.
[...] a comment » This excerpt from a Matt Taibbi post a couple of days ago really needs no additional commentary. I suppose it is [...]
We elected Obama hoping that he would act exactly like Bush, except to do good with the laws/acts that he pushed down our throats. Bipartisanship is dead. Republicans have only one agenda, and that is to block any Democrat initatives. We didn’t elect a majority democrat Congress and Senate and PRESIDENT to play nice with the republican minority. We elected them to be just as ruthless as Bush was, only difference is we want our guys to do good….
[...] “Now, obviously, the public option was not a cure-all. In fact, the Democrats had in reality already managed to kill the public option by watering it down to the point of near-meaninglessness,” wrote Taibbi. [...]