"Does President Obama have the imagination and courage to repudiate Obamacare? We will see."

[Better Believe It]

Repudiate ‘Obamacare’?: Here is a radical strategy for Obama
By Paul F. deLespinasse
April 7, 2012

No matter how the Supreme Court decides the medical insurance cases, we face prolonged uncertainty. If it upholds the law, Republicans will sabotage implementation and promise to repeal it when they return to power. If it strikes down the law, the uncertainty will be what, if anything, Congress will do next. Confusion will be even greater if the court only strikes down parts of the law.

The only way to avoid crippling uncertainty will be to stop the Supreme Court from making any decision at all. President Obama could do this by announcing that he is now convinced — after considering the arguments at the Court — that the 2,700-page law is unconstitutional. He would add that he has also concluded the law is unwise: too complex, precarious in its financing, too many provisions added merely to gain votes needed for passage. He can say we must do better than this and ask Congress to repeal the entire mess, depriving the Supreme Court of any opportunity to make a further mess. Congress would undoubtedly comply with this request.

Obama would explain that the obvious solution to our insurance problems would be a single-payer system (“Medicare for all”) financed by taxes, which would clearly be constitutional. Unfortunately he had to rule this out during his first term because he had promised not to raise taxes on anybody but the rich. He would apologize for making a promise that prevented him from doing what he thought best for the country.

Obama would announce that his re-election campaign will focus on showing voters why a single payer system is the best idea, noting that his promise not to raise taxes was only for his current term. He will note that elimination of insurance premiums (now paid directly or indirectly by employees) will make up for the tax increases required by a single payer system. In fact the average person will come out ahead since money now paying for insurance company management will be greatly reduced.

Read the full article at:

http://www.lenconnect.com/opinions/x221042168/Paul-F-deLespinasse-Repudiate-Obamacare-Here-is-a-radical-strategy-for-Obama

[Ikonoklast]

1. The author could have used many of the same arguments against FDR implementing Social Security

as it was initially written.

[ProSense]

2. Well, this

is a fairly stupid OP. I mean, isn't Obama a "conservative"?

It's also another in the long line of say anything ridiculously obtuse assertions. Now the word "courage" is being used to justify the author's own idiotic denial of reality.

Does the author realize that the administration strongly supports its own legislation, having defended it in front of the SCOTUS?

[Scuba]

7. +1

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Not all radical ideas are good ideas.

In fact, the reverse is generally true.

[Scurrilous]

4. ...

[leeroysphitz]

5. On what planet would a president spend 3 years touting a program as his "signature"

legislation only to up and one day reject it as too horribly flawed to survive?

As awful as the Affordable Care Act is I can't believe the above scenario is even remotely plausible.

[dionysus]

6. now thats just fucking stupid.

keep trying...

[cali]

15. but it's not simply stupid

it's jaw droppingly stupid.

[Better Believe It]

8. An interesting but not very realistic idea.

President Obama just doesn't do Medicare for All or a public option.

[ProSense]

10. So

"An interesting but not very realistic idea."

...that your response to the garbage commentary you posted?

Really?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

[MineralMan]

13. You replied to your own post to discredit it?

That's a first, I believe...

Why post it if it's such an unrealistic idea? Riddle me that.

[SidDithers]

9. And the beat goes on...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

11. hope he gets OT for working on Easter sunday...

[MineralMan]

12. Now, that may be the stupidest editorial I've ever read.

In the first place, the odds of this happening approach zero, to several significant figures. Secondly, who is this person writing the editorial in a small newspaper in Nowhere, MI?

Let's have a look on Google:

Paul F. deLespinasse, who now lives in Oregon, is professor emeritus of political science at Adrian College in Michigan.

Some retired professor from a college nobody's ever heard of, in a small town in the middle of Nowhere, MI. Well, there you go. Somewhere, somehow, you can find just about any crazy idea on the internet. Bravo, BBI! You've outdone yourself with this one.

His stuff also appears on commondreams.org, but mostly in that newspaper.

I'd call this a good example of FUD. Yup, I would.

[cali]

14. Another of your posts that no one should take seriously

this piece is beyond naive to breathtakingly STUPID.

This (among so many other passages) is emblematic of GROTESQUE stupidity:

The president’s principal goal would be to convince conservatives and Republican voters, since most Democrats and liberals would already agree. He should stress the simplicity and efficiency of single payer systems and the experience of foreign countries with such systems. He should ask conservatives to consider whether, even if they feel secure with their present insurance, they can be sure that they won’t lose their jobs (and hence their insurance), and whether they can be sure that their children and grandchildren will be equally fortunate.

I mean fucking hell; who is THAT stupid?

[ProSense]

18. Clearly

"Another of your posts that no one should take seriously this piece is beyond naive to breathtakingly STUPID."

there is an audience for "stupid."

[SidDithers]

33. Check the rec listing...nt

Sid

[unapatriciated]

46. What is that suppose to mean?

At the time HCR was taking place the vast majority supported a single payer system.
http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2008/01/poll-shows-majority-support-single-payer/

It was those in Washington that opposed it on behalf of Big Pharma, The Insurance Companies and the AMA (who not only opposed a public option they also opposed medicare) .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

We have been fighting them since the 1950's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association

Hell, we the people were the only ones not given a seat at the table when this was being discussed.

http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-it-means-when-doctors-and-nurses.html

http://www.pnhp.org/

So any one who thinks maybe we can do better is suspect or stupid. Is that what your comment suggests?

[Mimosa]

57. Maybe we're all desperate for health care which we can't afford.

It must be nice to have guaranteed health care you can afford while you're preaching at us.

Signed,

M.S. patient who doesn't want to go on welfare to get health care

[Better Believe It]

42. You clearly took the writer seriously enough to post a reply.

[MineralMan]

16. Looking at the post list for this thread, BBI likely thinks nobody has replied.

Almost everyone in the thread is almost certainly on his/her Ignore list.

[dionysus]

19. .

[emulatorloo]

45. . . .

[unapatriciated]

47. so glad you think real health care reform is funny.

Some of us know far to well what it is like to fight their insurance company for years. While we see loved ones suffer and we are forced into medical bankruptcy to provide health care.
Moore's documentary 'Sicko' wasn't just another movie for us it was real life.

[MineralMan]

50. I don't think health care reform is funny at all.

I think threads like this one are funny.

[spanone]

17. t3

[Uncle Joe]

20. Even if President Obama changed his mind and became convinced that it was unConstitutional

because for example the mandate wasn't "uniform," it would be too great a political risk for him to do so.

He would be as Bush' the Least's daddy Bush the Lesser and his "read my lips no new taxes pledge."

Bush the Lesser actually made a wise decision in allowing for higher taxes but the corporate supremacists in the Republican Party wore him out over that issue, the same holds true should Obama realize and admit the mandate was unConstitutional.

The best Obama can hope for is that the SC saves him from himself.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[KG]

21. rec'ed.

reflexively without reading article

[ProSense]

22. "reflexively without reading article"

Yay for stupid!

More please!

[KG]

23. the same way you fuckers reflexively post without reading the articles.

it's too funny

[cali]

24. Bzzzt. wrong, ya little genius, you. This fucker read the whole unfathomably stupid piece

and even posted some of the prime stupidity for the edification of idiots. Not that the idiot contingent is easy to edify. Sort of a Sisyphean task.

[ProSense]

26. Is that a

a reference to this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002495928

...or this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002529821

[SidDithers]

27. And a jury votes 3-3 to allow one DUer...

to call other DUers "you fuckers".



Sid

[ProSense]

28. Yeah, the

self-appointed more "progressive" than you anti-Obama (and his supporters) folks who claim they stand for unity and denounce divisive efforts are getting their groove on.

[Poll_Blind]

25. It's an interesting idea but the President is very much his handlers and AFAIK none of them are...

...the "Profiles in Courage" type. I mean, it's an interesting idea and so I recced the thread. But the reality of such a move is slim. I think the Supreme Court is going to force his hand on the matter, and hopefully he makes the right choice and suggests Singe Payer as an alternative.

The reality, though, is I think the President is going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into anything truly progressive at this point. A move like this could really help clarify the distinction between he and Romney but, again, I don't think the President's team really have a good idea yet just how to set him apart from Romney.

Honestly, if anything, I see his re-election team stroking their figurative beards and trying to think of new and volatile ways they can support even more right-leaning agenda than a left-leaning one, in order to gain ground against a Republican challenger.

PB

[ProSense]

29. Well

Honestly, if anything, I see his re-election team stroking their figurative beards and trying to think of new and volatile ways they can support even more right-leaning agenda than a left-leaning one, in order to gain ground against a Republican challenger.

...that's about as unrealistic as the OP.

[Poll_Blind]

38. You sound like you don't listen to the President's speeches. He's STILL prattling on about Reagan..

...and how great he was, as he did in his recent speech to the group of new editors and reporters in Washington. A week ago, his deputy press secretary explained that the individual mandate was Constitutional because the Republicans came up with and supported the idea- sort of a "Since both sides agree it's Constitutional, it must be Constitutional, right?" argument.

He's constantly invoking Reagan, praising him. It's an intentional election strategy. I suppose you might feel compelled to reject the obvious but that doesn't change the pattern of behavior on President Obama's part.

From yesterday:
[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.3077em 0.3077em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]Obama constantly invokes Republican icons[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3077em 0.3077em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]President Barack Obama is embracing an unlikely group of political icons as he tries to paint Republican challenger Mitt Romney as extreme: He's praising Republican presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

The Democratic president typically offers up Republican leaders of the past as evidence of how both parties can work together in Washington to pursue big ideas and rebuild the economy. With Election Day seven months away, Obama hopes to convince voters that he, like his Republican predecessors, is a reasonable moderate. At the same time, he's casting Romney as a candidate who would embrace too-conservative policies out of step with most Americans and with the Republican Party in years past.

Obama invoked Reagan's name four times in a speech this week to The Associated Press annual meeting. He said the conservative hero, never accused of being a "tax-and-spend socialist," still recognized the need for tax increases as well as spending cuts to tame federal deficits. Obama's verdict: "He could not get through a Republican primary today."

--snip--

Obama has cited Reagan more than 40 times in speeches and public events since 2009, according to an analysis of public statements and transcripts by the AP. But Eisenhower is Obama's favorite Republican for name-dropping -- the president has referenced him more than 90 times. Lincoln is right behind, with 80 mentions in public comments covered by the transcripts. Among Democrats, Obama has cited Bill Clinton more than 60 times and Franklin Delano Roosevelt 45 times at public events. Jimmy Carter? Four times.

This has been part of his playbook for a long time now. I don't get how pointing that out is controversial.



What he or his handlers don't seem to get is that President Obama could get a Reagan chest tattoo and it still wouldn't change their hatred of him. He's playing not to his base, but to the other side in a situation where the other side really wants nothing to do with him. He needs to stop kowtowing to that mythical center and start realizing that the center voted for a firebrand Democrat in 2008.

With Romney on the other side, 2012 is Obama's race to lose. If he can do a better impression of Candidate Obama, circa 2008, he'll do far better than he is now.

PB

[ProSense]

41. So?

You sound like you don't listen to the President's speeches. He's STILL prattling on about Reagan..

...and how great he was, as he did in his recent speech to the group of new editors and reporters in Washington. A week ago, his deputy press secretary explained that the individual mandate was Constitutional because the Republicans came up with and supported the idea- sort of a "Since both sides agree it's Constitutional, it must be Constitutional, right?" argument.

He's constantly invoking Reagan, praising him. It's an intentional election strategy. I suppose you might feel compelled to reject the obvious but that doesn't change the pattern of behavior on President Obama's part.

Your point makes it seem like you had no idea about politics until Obama became President. If you're basing your argument on this, it's beyond weak.

[cali]

36. What's interesting about it?

and anyone who can't clearly see the rather notable differences between Romney and the President is either stupid or blinded by ideology.

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. Can't support you on this one. It would serve no purpose at all. n/t

[Better Believe It]

32. I wrote: "An interesting but not very realistic idea."

It appears you didn't see my comment on the writers proposal.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. You're right, I totally missed it. n/t

[gulliver]

31. Rid the Congress of Republicans and we'll get ObamaCare 2.0

Version 1.0 is a historic achievement. Version 2.0 would take it us to Single Payer. People would still have the same doctors and the same treatments. They would just not have to rely on their employer for it. The wouldn't have to worry about being unemployed or their employed spouse divorcing them.

Flood the Congress with Democrats, and we make healthcare even better. The aim should be for a zero-Republican Congress or as close as we can get.

[Better Believe It]

34. I agree. 435 House Democrats and 100 Senate Democrats might be enough to pass single payer.

[ProSense]

39. You're dreaming

"I agree. 435 House Democrats and 100 Senate Democrats might be enough to pass single payer."

It's highly likely that 235 House Dems and at least 45 of those Senators (enough to filibuster) would be conservatives.

Remember, Democrats are sellouts. So you need another plan.

Still, the OP is pretty stupid.

[gulliver]

40. So in principle you agree that Democrats want to pass single payer.

That's what I'm talking about!

And it wouldn't take nearly a zero-Republican situation either. In fact, we would probably want a few of them around. That way they could watch all of their paranoid nightmare scenarios fail to come true.

[Better Believe It]

43. I wrote that with no Republicans in Congress that "might be enough to pass single payer"

It "might be enough" or it might not be.

Now how one goes about electing that many Democrats who proclaim themselves supporters of Medicare for All since not a single Democratic Senator has agreed to simply co-sign Bernie Sanders single payer legislation remains to be explained!

Right now we have a problem in that the national leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, and the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate are opposed to a single payer system.

You'd have to elect a liberal Democratic President for starters.

[gulliver]

49. I'm just glad so many Republicans have signed on with Grover Norquist

And also that Mitt Romney signed on with Paul Ryan. It makes the Dem job a lot easier.

I also like the fact that Republicans have decided to do a lot of lying right on video. Lying abjectly is the only way they would stand a chance given what they did to the country under Bush and the Republican Congress. They need Americans with short memories who believe lies. And now they've added a level of difficult by going on record with the lies and making the lies a lot more obvious.

Well, Republicans took us to new national lows of political discourse and government competence. Let's see if they can get away with peeing on the voters' legs and telling them it is raining. They seem to think voters are that dumb.

The big problem with Republicans is that they think that you have to be mean and paranoid to be smart or resolute. It really is a form of insanity, although it looks like mere stupidity. Their whole rationality mechanism is turned off. If you want something that is inexplicable, try that. I actually feel kind of sorry for them, because everything they hold dear is being threatened and taken away by the very people who have conned them and who they think of as their friends. It's like a really sad movie.

Some of the more evil corporations/wealthy and some of the more damaged, pathetic sadomasochists among the non-wealthy are keeping the Republicans and their sanity apart. Like Iago and Othello. But this time there is videotape of, for example, Romney pulling off his wondrous crowd magic. The Republicans in the audience ooh and ah at the strokes and validation. But he's cynically lying right to their faces. In his little Bain heart, I have to assume there is some laughing going on.

[Egalitarian Thug]

37. I don't think that would happen, but would love to be proven wrong.

Let's try it and see.

[TheKentuckian]

44. Courage and imagination have nothing to do with the equation, it is about inclination.

That and the prime directive to preserve, protect, and advance the interests of the establishment and keeping the money flowing to profit centers.

The debate is between a rough approximation of an unacceptable and terminal status quo and an oil burning, pollution pumping Dark Ages, also terminal.

Conservatism versus regressivism is the only debate in town. The article thinks courage and imagination are at work when it takes loads of both to keep everyone on board for our march to an ever diminishing nowhere or modern feudalism.

[ProSense]

48. Yeah,

"Conservatism versus regressivism is the only debate in town."

...because "conservatism" is all about Medicaid, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

[emulatorloo]

51. How do you come across these articles? This one is from The Daily Telegram, a local newspaper

from Adrian, MI.

Looks like a nice town from the website http://www.ci.adrian.mi.us/

Is this your hometown paper? Or is there a clearing house to find interesting editorials like this?

[joshcryer]

52. Likely a Google alert for the term "Obamacare"

Easy enough.

[emulatorloo]

56. Oh, that makes sense. thanks!

[SidDithers]

53. The best was the anti-Obama article that was sourced from the Sri Lankan Sunday Times...

sometimes you gotta dig deep to find what you're looking for.

Sid

[dionysus]

54. googling "obama bad", silly

[Flying Squirrel]

55. I am just not getting it.

I`ve been observing you for awhile and I`m still baffled. I applaud that DU is allowing you to continue posting pieces questioning, second-guessing or even flat-out attacking the president - even though this is a website supporting democrats in general. But what exactly are you trying to accomplish? Big picture, I mean. Most of us are smart enough to already know that Obama is far from perfect. We also know he`s our only option right now. If you`re trying to get a bunch of people to protest the things he`s doing, is this the best place for you? Are there no other sites more liberal and reactionary where you might actually be able to influence more people? Or are you just interested in getting reactions from people? I guess I just don`t understand what your purpose is. Do you?