Just Like the Time Obama 'Sold Us Out' on Health Care Reform.

[The Doctor.]

I'm trying to think of what he's done to screw the middle class. It's just not coming to me. Is there anything he's compromised on our behalf that he did not get anything in return from?

I remember the massive cri de coeur that has gone up every time a major (or sometimes minor) issue was not addressed according to a proscribed ideal or at all. I remember how so many lamented when the DoJ did the job it was supposed to do instead of the job Obama could have told it to do.

So now, in the face of this new travesty, I find myself reflecting and wondering just what has Obama given up, on behalf of the poor and middle class, that he has not somehow secured something in return?

I really think there may be much to learn.


Any examples?

[RoadRage]

1. According to many here..

anytime Obama "COMPRIMISES" he's selling out. He's suppose to wave his magical Presidential Wand and just make everyone in the Senate & Congress do exactly as he says. Comprimising to get something actually accomplished is completely frowned upon.

We need to remember that we don't live in a bubble.. and in order to get anything through (tax increases for the wealthy).. we're gonna have to make some changes too. No one ever wants to give anything from their side.. they just want the other (WRONG) side to give in completely.

Life usually doesn't work that way...

[Andy823]

3. +1,000,000,000

Couldn't have said it better myself! :thumbsup:

[The Doctor.]

4. Right, but that's why I'm asking.

Yes, I'm tempted to suppose it's merely a lack of understanding of how government (barely) works. I'm open to the possibility that he has given away far more than he has gained for us.

So, maybe someone will have something.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. It is *DEFINITELY* a lack of understanding of how government works, and that's what Republicans are

hoping for: they know that the average American really knows nothing about the public policy making process. They could give a shit about what a filibuster is, or the fact that the Democrats never really had a majority because the party is not ideologically homogenous. The only thing that Americans care about is the state of their economic well being, and rightfully so. The Republicans exploit this for political gain, hoping that Democrats will get blamed when it is THEY who caused this mess in the first place.

At any rate, many people were declaring that they would stay home in 2010 to "punish Obama," thinking that if they didn't vote, somehow Obama would magically become more liberal or ideologically pure.

It made no sense. They stayed home. We got even more crazy teabagging wingnuts at the local, state and congressional levels.

And STILL people are wondering why Obama is not liberal enough. HELLO!!!!! How do you expect him to be when he now has MORE wingnuts who now control the House? Again, it makes no sense!

[GillesDeleuze]

12. its called leadership

you use the presidency to set an agenda.

offering up MORE republican policies is not a negotiating strategy, its suicide.

[JoePhilly]

17. A simple challange for you ....

Let's pretend that the public option is on the table again.

We have enough votes to pass it in the House.

And in the Senate we have 59 votes all lined up (all of the bluedogs, no GOP). We need just one vote.

Now ... YOU are the President, and the one vote you need to get to reach 60 is that of Joe Lieberman. That's all you need, just that one.

Demonstrate YOUR leadership. Get Lieberman to vote YES. Ready ... GO!!

While you are thinking about what specific action you will take, recall that Lieberman campaigned AGAINST YOU for President, is nicknamed "the Senator from Aetna", and he has no plan to run for another term.

So please, please ... describe SPECIFICALLY how you will use your leadership skills to get this one vote.

I've posted this challenge many times ... and so far, no one has been able to come up with a way to do it.

(And saying "leadership" or "bully pulpit" over and over doesn't answer the challenge).

[GillesDeleuze]

19. easy

Repeated public lambasting, you get your national groups to dump $ in his state.

only when he's weak do you cut a deal on a nonrelated manner.

i find it amazing that on a political website, no one here actually knows, yknow, politics.

you certainly don't accomplish your agenda by starting with theirs and working right.

[great white snark]

22. He started with their agenda?

Republicans wanted the new regulations and people with pre-existing conditions insured?

[GillesDeleuze]

30. Mandate was their idea. Were you alive in the 1990s?

[Ikonoklast]

24. That is a non answer. Lieberman is toast, and will not get re-elected.

He already knows that.


Lieberman DOES NOT HAVE TO ANSWER TO ANYONE, PERIOD.

Hadassah Lieberman is a health insurance lobbyist, and who do you think Holy Joe listens to, her, or a president he hates?

Talking about political naivete....

You could have a three-hour speech every night on national TV excoriating Joe Lieberman for a year, and he wouldn't give a shit.

[great white snark]

28. Bravo.

I bow to your reply and shamelessly steal it for any forthcoming P.O. discussions.

[JoePhilly]

41. leiberman does not care about being "lambasted" and he's not running again ...

so no amount of money dumped in his state will impact him ... PERIOD.

After going Independent after being beaten by Lamont, do you think he would blink twice about switching to Republican?

What horse SPECIFICALLY do you as President plan to trade with Lieberman??? How will you pay him off with more money than the Insurance companies are already going to give him??

You have ZERO leverage with Leiberman. You can't weaken him, he's NOT RUNNING AGAIN.

AGAIN ... what is the specific "unrelated matter" you will pick? Name it.

As you suggest in your subject line ... should be "easy", particularly given your self proclaimed vast knowledge of politics.

[lunatica]

47. How far would it get Obama to lambast his opponents?

He would only be perceived as the angry black man in the Whitehouse and the racism would be far worse that it is right now.

Just like an angry woman lambasting opponents is perceived as just another bitch. Try telling me this isn't so.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. You and I BOTH know this all too well. Thanks!! n/t

[great white snark]

20. Get the DOJ to blackmail him!

Sorry LOL, had to do it. That response will live in my mind forever.


:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

42. The guy who suggested that approach was absolutely serious too.

[COLGATE4]

40. Tell Lieberman that unless he agrees to vote yes you will

have your foolproof majority enact the "Nuclear Option" and do away with the filibuster, and hang that over his head forever and ever.

[JoePhilly]

43. First, Harry Reid would have to do that ...

and the Dems would have to live with the after effects for a very long time.

Having said that, I doubt Lieberman cares. He'd switch to GOP, and then try to flip the majority to Republican. And then they'd ram through whatever they want and the Dems would have zero ability to stop them.

I will give you credit ... your path is far better than most.

Now all you have to do if explain how Obama gets Reid and the DEM Senate (and the Blue Dogs I spotted everyone as YESes initially) to pass that.

[Hippo_Tron]

91. Okay, name 51 Senators who will agree to that

I doubt you find more than 40. Having their power to hold things up when they are in the minority is more important to them than passing important legislation.

[slipslidingaway]

48. You make a critical error IMO, if you really want a public option you do not start ...

at that position, you need to go back to the original televised meeting, the WH summit.

Unless you think opening negotiating from where you want to end up is a good strategy.

:eyes:


Invite some people who will really challenge the established corporations, that was not done.

Imagine if P. Obama had called upon Dr. Maria Angell to speak at the WH summit instead of Karen Ignagni, members of Congress might be pleading for a public option.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=328837&mesg_id=328837

[stevenleser]

90. That doesnt work either. If you start at a farther left position for HealthCare than Public Option,

now you are on record of REALLY supporting socialized medicine and the GOP can hang that on your head for the next few elections. As it is, they have their most uneducated supporters believing that. Had Obama started with medicare for all, the entire country would believe that because it would have been true.

[slipslidingaway]

92. This is what I posted below, he did not have to go on the record ...

of supporting anything further to the left, what he needed to do was allow others with that view into the discussions.

Imagine if a few advocates were invited to the WH summit or the WH town hall meeting, those powerful lobbyists might have been more willing to give a little more.

As I said below in another post, he did not even have to endorse a national system, he just needed to not silence universal HC advocates and allow them to participate in the debate.

Instead he sided with big business and made deals with them in exchange for their backing and TV ads to support the bill which included an individual mandate to buy "insurance."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. You know, it's very interesting. The president DOES set the agenda through his

budget proposals for the government. I am a federal employee and we just finished with our Fiscal Year 2012 budget and are now moving to FY2013.

When we work on these budget proposals, we work closely with the Office of Management and Budget, housed under the White House.

When DUers like you assert that the president does nothing, I sit in amazement. Here we are, the Republicans have held up the budgets for FY11, FY12, and will hold it up for FY13.

I repeat: The President, through his duty to set the budget for government agencies, IS setting an agenda. By virtue of the doctrine of "checks and balances," those proposals have to be accepted/rejected by the U.S. House of Representatives (Civics 101).

The question for you is: What do you think the president can do when he has said over and over again--you weren't paying attention--that his proposals have been DELIBERATELY held up in Congress?

He can't just go and make speeches; that doesn't get ANYTHING done. The bottom line is that those proposals MUST go through the House--an institution that has stated plainly that they hope to destroy this administration.

Again, please come up with viable solutions because I've yet to see anything of substance being recommended.

[treestar]

64. Your vision is of a benevolent dictatorship

Yet that never works out.

The House and Senate are leaders too.

a leader is NOT someone who makes everyone else do exactly as they please! When will people who use that phrase get that through their heads?

[ljm2002]

36. So you are saying that in order to get "tax increases on the wealthy"...

...we have to give up something too?

You do realize that the tax cuts were set to expire, right? They were extended for 2 more years so to my way of thinking, the rich and the super-rich got a bonus. Now I don't see why we have to give away anything at all in order to let a law lapse when it was written to lapse in the first place. It's not a tax increase on the wealthy, it's letting the tax structure go back to its default state.

But that's the thing: in all of these negotiations, it is always -- ALWAYS -- the Democrats and the more liberal positions that are placed on the defensive. The Republicans never -- NEVER -- have to justify why they would rather see Mr. Goldbags have another yacht than see Granny get her heart medication.

[OhioBlue]

49. All of the tax cuts were set to expire - not just the ones on

the wealthy. So... for all of us making under 200k a year, our taxes would have increased, the child tax credit would have been reduced and other tax cuts would have been reduced or eliminated. Pres O specifically said many times when he was running for President, "look, if you're making less than 200k dollars a year, your taxes will not go up in an Obama administration". He HAD to protect the tax cuts for the middle class. The GOP held us hostage to get their way. Pres O negotiated some great stuff in return.

The thing is the Democratic leaders suck at messaging and have sucked for years. The Republicans kick our ass in messaging. They have had a strategic plan for years upon years that they have worked to monopolize the message. they have the think tanks, the echo chamber and even a cable news show all dedicated to catapulting the propaganda. The left doesn't come close to their well oiled machine and likely never will. We just don't have it in our DNA to be so disciplined to messaging, talking points and propaganda. We like to explain, discuss, understand and investigate.

When the left talks about raising taxes on the wealthiest... most of the country agrees.. then the right comes out and says "everyone knows you don't raise taxes in a recession" over, and over, and over, and over, and a bunch of heads start nodding in agreement... they have them programmed, they have catapulted the propaganda for so long that it has become ingrained and critical thinking skills are gone. It is like Pavlov's dogs.

Pres O is working with a handicap and that is the Democratic Party and the left of decades past and the lack of progressive messaging. The right will attack him for anything and everything and do what they can to make him seem illegitimate.

[Armstead]

52. His JOB is to correct that by leading

The messaging problem is very real. But the problem stems from the top.

If Obama actually wanted to lead tge party in a more liberal direction, his role is to both support those who also believe in that and do what he can to empower them. His role is also to sell that to the public.

The problem is that he backsteps away from that, both in his actions and in the way he continually sets up hope and then dashes it...And in the way he cuts the legs out from under liberals and progressives.

[high density]

44. So...

The Republicans spend us into massive debt and huge deficits with tax cuts for the rich and wars of choice.

The Republicans ignore the spending problem until a Democrat is in the White House.

The Republicans now make as if spending and the deficit is an immediately urgent issue, and the only solution is to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The President sits back and lets the GOP dictate this discussion, just like they did on healthcare.

Compromises will have to happen, and I think most of us realize that. The issue is that the Republicans have started the discussion in the far right crazy wing, and the Democrats seem to start the discussion from the middle. We've got a great recent history at screwing ourselves by compromising our ideals before we even sit down at the table.

[treestar]

63. Amen!

Or he is supposed to twist their arms or some such chest beating shit. Some people just don't accept that Congress has power. They want a benevolent dictator so it's not hard work for us all.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[enlightenment]

89. The words 'against the rules of DU' come to mind, too. nt

[derby378]

85. Well, it worked for Bush...

George W. Bush only had to snap his fingers and the Democrats in the House and Senate fell over themselves trying to keep the Little Prince from throwing a fit. I'm not saying that Obama needs to act like a dictator - we're tired of that shit - but he needs to learn how to stare down the other guys instead of giving away the store.

[Andy823]

2. Well

Looks like the trolls and Obama haters are already hitting the unrec button! I guess instead of actually coming up with some examples, they feel that's the best thing to do!

K&R

[The Doctor.]

25. I wish there were a way to know

what the total number of recs up or down are. I doubt it was only 6 up and 2 down.

That would tell a very interesting story.

[mistertrickster]

5. As far as I can see, the only thing we got in his health INSURANCE compromise was guaranteed

insurance.

We didn't get guaranteed insurance that is COST CONTROLLED.

We didn't get drug prices negotiated or any medical costs brought down.

The insurance industry did get a huge captive customer base because of the mandated insurance.

Feel free to correct me because I haven't really studied this . . .

[phleshdef]

8. But we got a billion things that the healthcare system does need.

Not literally a billion but you get my point.

We got a system to subsidize health insurance costs thats based on a progressive income scale. We got the creation of exchanges that companies and citizens have to participate in in order to get at those subsisidies. This exchange system gives HHS the ability to regulate insurance costs because participating companies will have to adhere to certain standards. If, in the future, we could add a public option to this dynamic, it would be the next best thing to a completely public system.

We got funding for thousands of new free health clinics. Bernie Sanders secured this in the bill himself.

And of course we got new regulations that ban rescissions, bans pre-existing condition discrimination and bans lifetime limits.

And we got a path to completely close the donut hole.

We got a regulation that states that insurance companies have to spend 80-85% of their premium intake on healthcare costs. Of course there needs to be more oversight regulation to make sure they don't fudge those numbers. But that goes for any given business law thats ever been passed.

And the mandate isn't really a mandate. It doesn't have much in the way of teeth. If you can afford insurance and don't have it, you can pay the 2.5% surtax so that potential emergency room costs are covered. The only difference between that and how things work right now is that those emergency room costs are subsidized with a stealth tax that comes out of general income taxes instead of being out and in the daylight.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. It is the opposite of what he ran on. He mocked mandates

endlessly, in the strongest language. And this 'reform' does in fact create the first and only mandate to buy a private, for profit product or be fined ever to exist in the US or in any of our peer democracies. In other nations that mandate purchase of an insurance plan, it is illegal for anyone to profit form providing those plans. A crime.
And your last paragraph, by the way, actually says 'if you can not afford insurance, just pay a fine, as if those who can not afford basic health care can afford a fine in the form of a tax for not contributing to the profit of other Americans.

[phleshdef]

34. I could give less of a shit. He changed his mind after they got into the writing of the bill.

The fact is, no universal system can work without some kind of mandate or tax. Even a single payer system would require that everyone with an income pays into the pool via a tax or something similar.

If you can't afford basic health care, under these new changes, you likely qualify for Medicaid or you qualify for the subsidies that are to come. And there rules that allow people to opt out because they can't afford it. I recognize that the numbers won't be perfect and there will likely be some people in between a spot where they have too high an income to qualify for subsidies but not enough to buy health insurance. Tweaking will be needed to correct that and I think an affordable public pool will ultimately be the remedy. But there is no way I would've let those downfalls serve as an excuse to not have passed all the other stuff that the bill does.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. There's also a "hardship waiver" for the poorest of poor.

People are acting as if this health reform bill is ALL that we'll ever get.

Policy making doesn't work that way. It is characterized as a "piecemeal" process. You have a piece of legislation, and the hope is to continue to improve on the reform down the line.

People are angry because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted (single payer) WHEN they wanted it (NOW)!! That is incredibly naive and doesn't comport with the way in which policy making actually works!!

When Obama ran on change, he didn't say RIGHT NOW, and he didn't say the HE ALONE was the ONLY one who could bring about that change. It takes time, and he was very honest about that.

But, many here on DU charge that he is charlatan simply because (a) they didn't get what they wanted, (b) when they wanted, and (c) they expected him to be purely liberal regardless of the fact that (d) Republicans filibustered/blocked every single piece of legislation, joined by Blue Dogs and DLCers and (e) our impatience and naivete sent MORE Republicans to the House and Senate in 2010!!

It makes me sad that so many people refuse to use common sense and don't know much at all about how government *actually* works.

Obama is NOT a king with a divine right!! He has to work within an institutional context that is set in place by the U.S. Constitution!!!

[mistertrickster]

11. Good information, thank you. Obama should talk this up . . . nt

[phleshdef]

35. He has talked it up on countless occassions. People need to listen.

[Armstead]

53. It does not control insurance costs...All it does is force peoplecto buy it

Subsidies will not offsetvthe high costs for people who are not "poor" enough to qualify, but not ablecto really affordcthe extortion.

[madamesilverspurs]

6. Nice to have something to rec for a change.

Some days DU looks more like 'that other place.'


=

[slipslidingaway]

7. knr - for acknowledging the sell out! n/t

[ChiciB1]

18. Yeah, Didn't Know If I Should Rec. Or Not! Sell Out Hits The Nail On The Head... n/t

[slipslidingaway]

27. That's why I gave it a rec :) n/t

[The Doctor.]

33. Not too hip to "quotation marks", are you?

Hint; They mean something here.

Another hint; Read the OP.

[The Doctor.]

32. How did he sell out?

Can you give any examples that the OP is looking for?

[slipslidingaway]

38. He had a chance to advance the issue of a national HC system which would ...

have also helped insure the long term solvency of Medicare and Medicaid programs. As I said below in another post, he did not even have to endorse a national system, he just needed to not silence universal HC advocates and allow them to participate in the debate.

:(

Instead he sided with big business and made deals with them in exchange for their backing and TV ads to support the bill which included an individual mandate to buy "insurance."

Feel free to look through my journal, many of the posts deal with the HC issue and what could have been done.

Here is a start ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/288

What is surprising is that he is not focusing his energy on universal HC

Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion: Presidency
Tue Feb 23rd 2010, 10:15 PM

for everyone instead of keeping the investors of the for profit companies happy.

Never once have I heard him use his position to praise other HC systems throughout the world. Did you ever hear him give a speech on the merits of the Canadian system, tell people of the US that they do not have hundreds of thousands of people going bankrupt or waiting hours/days in line for a free HC clinic.

Not once!

And that is the real shame, he had an opportunity to advance the idea of a national HC system, financed by taxes, that well over half of the citizens want.

What a lost opportunity this has been, it could have been different had he listened to what the people wanted, he had the backing and enthusiasm coming into his first term. He wasted that chance and that is the real crime.

A crime that, even if this bills is passed, millions will be left behind without any access to care and thousands will die as a result. Tens or hundreds of thousands will still be underinsured and face financial hardship and US companies will continue to struggle to compete with other nations.

Instead the insurance companies who are losing customers get bailed out by the tax payers and the medical providers who try and help him fight the for profit companies are silenced.

All he had to do was reach out a hand, even to his personal physician of 22 years who was cancelled from the WH Town Hall meeting last summer at the last minute.

That is the surprising and disappointing aspect of this past year.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/4

President Obama calls on Karen Ignagni of AHIP to speak on HC reform

Imagine if P. Obama had called upon Dr. Maria Angell to speak at the WH summit instead of Karen Ignagni, members of Congress might be pleading for a public option.

Dr. Marcia Angell not invited to attend and therefore not called upon to speak, Conyers asked that two single-payer advocates be invited to attend....Dr. Quentin Young and Dr. Marcia Angell - his request was denied...


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/11

They're Winning - Private insurance companies push for 'individual mandate'

...But this time, it turns out, the health insurance industry has good reason to support at least some change: It needs it. Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously -- a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage -- is not adopted.

...Insurers do not embrace all of the healthcare restructuring proposals. But they are fighting hard for a purchase requirement, sweetened with taxpayer-funded subsidies for customers who can't afford to buy it on their own, and enforced with fines.


...The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors..."


For insurers, getting "run over" would be the adoption of a so-called single-payer plan, where the government pays all medical bills. Such a plan would wreak havoc on the private insurance market, and is widely viewed as politically unfeasible this year. So the best way for the industry to preserve the private insurance market -- and derail the campaign for a single-payer system -- may be to go along with more palatable proposals on the table now, said Jeffrey Miles, a healthcare analyst and president of the Miles Organization, a Los Angeles insurance brokerage firm..."


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/89

THE HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC OPTION...

"... One key player was Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future. Hickey took UC Berkley health care expert Jacob Hacker's idea for "a new public insurance pool modeled after Medicare" and went around to the community of single-payer advocates, making the case that this limited "public option" was the best they could hope for. Ideally, it would someday magically turn into single-payer. And then Hickey went to all the presidential candidates, acknowledging that politically, they couldn't support single-payer, but that the "public option" would attract a real progressive constituency. Here's Hickey from a speech to New Jersey Citizen Action in November 2007:


....Starting in January, we began to take Jacob Hacker to see the presidential candidates. We started with John Edwards and his advisers -- who quickly understood the value of Hacker's public plan, and when he announced his health proposal on "Meet The Press," he was very clear that his public plan could become the dominant part of his new health care program, if enough people choose it.


The rest is history. Following Edwards' lead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton picked up on the public option compromise. So what we have is Jacob Hacker's policy idea, but largely Hickey and Health Care for America Now's political strategy. It was a real high-wire act -- to convince the single-payer advocates, who were the only engaged health care constituency on the left, that they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer, thus transferring their energy and enthusiasm to this alternative. It had a very positive political effect: It got all the candidates except Kucinich onto basically the same health reform structure, unlike in 1992, when every Democrat had his or her own gimmick. And the public option/insurance exchange structure was ambitious..."


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/112

Senator Carper Publicly Defends Secret PhRMA Deal In Exchange For Support Ads

Carper, Baucus and Menendez voted to uphold the prior deal with Pharma.

The reported deal was that if Pharma supported health care reform and kicked in 80 billion over the next ten years the administration would not push to negotiate drug prices in the Medicare program.

When you look back at the Obama/Biden Health Care Plan the proposal was to negotiate prices for ALL Medicare recipients, not just dual eligible seniors. The figure mentioned in the Obama/Biden plan references a study and states that this could save up to 30 billion per year, that number was based on VA rates.

"...Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug
Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of
prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug
prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality..."

It appears that we may have moved from a possible 300 billion over 10 years to 80 billion. Maybe the Nelson amendment will be added in the final bill, but that is still far short of what was discussed in the original plan.

..."In a stunning moment during the Senate Finance Committee markup Sen. Tom Carper defended a secret deal that the White House, Baucus, and PhRMA had reached. The White House has long denied the deal. Carper publicly acknowledges that part of the deal was that PhRMA would run millions of dollars worth of campaign ads in support of health care reform.

...Carper was speaking in opposition to an amendment from Sen. Bill Nelson and Sen. Jay Rockefeller. The amendment mirrors what Henry Waxman did in the House to close the Medicare Part D doughnut hole by requiring drug manufactures to provide rebates for the overcharging of dual eligible Medicare/Medicaid recipients. In July, Debbie Halvorson and Heatlh Shuler authored a letter to Waxman signed by 70 Democrats, asking him a rewrite the bill to " substitute the President's proposal" for his own, which reflected the PhRMA deal.

PhRMA's board approved the $80 billion in price reductions on June 19.

On June 30, the Hill reported that PhRMA began running ads in the districts of vulnerable Democratic House freshmen."

[The Doctor.]

50. Oh dear.

Please, read and re-read what you've posted.

You answered the big question in the same post you've asked it.

The question was; "Why?"

"Why?" is the bridge to the truth.

[slipslidingaway]

66. Oh dear is right - waste of my time. n/t

[The Doctor.]

70. It's only a waste of time if you learn nothing.

You posted a lot of C+P info after stating that Obama 'had a chance to advance the national health care issue'.

I didn't disagree that he had a 'chance'. What you posted just proved that it was a snowball's chance in hell. The lobby is too powerful. NOTHING resembling what would do the most good would have ever made it to his desk. There is plenty of evidence of that in your own post.

The bottom line is that Obama made concessions in order to get something for the middle class.

You just helped me prove the point of the OP.


Now, do you have any examples of when he made concessions on middle-class issue where he didn't win something for us?

[slipslidingaway]

80. So invite the lobbyists and leave those who have fought the corporations for decades...

outside the gates.

Good strategy.

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

82. Still not taking, huh?

"The lobby is too powerful. NOTHING resembling what would do the most good would have ever made it to his desk. There is plenty of evidence of that in your own post.

The bottom line is that Obama made concessions in order to get something for the middle class."

Anything?

[slipslidingaway]

84. You need to read the links again, with an open mind. n/t

[The Doctor.]

87. I'm sorry,

But I no longer play that game.

I'm sure you're confident the links prove your point, but if there's a reason the insurance industry was about to step aside and let itself be annihilated, I'd appreciate it if you could post it for me rather than expect me to scour several pages of information that I'm not confident will tell me anything.

Your post gave support to my point; no bill that harms the industry will pass.

"For insurers, getting "run over" would be the adoption of a so-called single-payer plan, where the government pays all medical bills. Such a plan would wreak havoc on the private insurance market, and is widely viewed as politically unfeasible this year. "

More is about 'compromise', where the industry was given a good chunk of bennies not to block it.


If you have some information that demonstrates HOW Obama could have had a better bill on his desk (realistically), then I'll be perfectly open to it.

[slipslidingaway]

88. You could find other quotes that do not support your POV if you wanted to ...

best to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. "Any bill I sign must contain a strong public option". Ring a bell?

This is also the man who claimed to oppose mandated purchase of for profit plans, said it was like trying to solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. He called out his opponent Clinton for her support of these mandates, said she was trying to reach into your wallet.
So that which he says is not that which he does. We got mandates, no public option, no cost controls, just a bill for the people. We got what he said Clinton would deliver, and he said then it was foolish and reckless.
Trust is earned.

[vaberella]

13. And we'd have no bill and none of the goodies in the bill we did get.

Why because we had Dems and Republicans who said if there is a PO there is no vote.

[Dawgs]

14. Only because he DIDN'T start with a progressive bill, like single payer.

If you start negotiations in the middle then the only place to go is to the right.

[slipslidingaway]

29. He did not even have to endorse it, he just needed to allow a discussion ...

instead he silenced advocates while making a deal with "Billy" and the insurance companies.

[ChiciB1]

16. I Haven't Watch Ed Schultz In Quite Some Time, But I Did Watch His "Intro"

last night. AND, what HE said is exactly how I feel. Perhaps others here watched him too when he was talking about the euphoria felt on election night. The masses of people who cheered and praised THIS man and what he had managed to accomplish. I too was so PROUD that this country FINALLY elected someone other than a WHITE MAN!

He was never my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice, still I worked VERY, VERY hard in a state called Florida to get him elected. And no, I wasn't a H. Clinton supporter from the get go either. But I would have worked just as hard for her. It MEANT so much that we as a nation were willing to finally break down the white man's hold of the WH!

But, as Ed said last night... had Obama said that he was going to even "think" about fooling around with the BIG 3, we would have been SHOCKED. He said a lot more, including that he really needed THREE shows last night, not two. These are not the exact words, but the gist of it anyway.

While talking with my husband yesterday morning we both stated how "bad" we feel that we are going to HAVE to vote for him again, or the alternative is worse. I don't have much good to say about him, except that he does seem to be a genuinely nice man with a nice family. But then, to have gotten where he has, "nice" doesn't really fit too well anymore.

He has turned into someone I don't recognize from back then, and while I can't fathom the other side, I sure don't really want to vote for him again. To think that at this point in time he will be primaried is almost nil, and a THIRD Party needed to be started 10 years ago to even have a chance of breaking through to have a chance. Yes, The Tea-P'ers have taken hold, but it's more that they played a good game at throwing spaghetti at a wall to see what sticks and many simpletons followed them to some promised land that doesn't exist.

We are on the ROAD TO RUIN! Didn't there used to be a famous saying about "how Rome goes?" I think I feel that way NOW!

I almost decided not to post this because it's pretty useless just talking about it. I KNOW what many of the replies will be and I have written many posts in the past that I eventually didn't post because of the same reason. I have been trying NOT to get too involved because it depresses me, still my old addiction rears it's head and takes over sometimes!
:shrug: :argh:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. All I can say is that we have to take some responsibility for the outcome.

We gave him MORE wingnut Republicans that he is now forced to work with and compromise. It also wasn't him alone. The Blue Dog and DLC Democrats went along with Republicans, especially in the House. I remember calling the Democratic Senators and begging them to pursue the public option. None of them would. They were never going to.

I tell you that things will never change unless we stop sitting on a forum, and get off our duffs to work for progressives at the local, state and congressional level.

We continue to put Blue Dogs and Corporatists in office, and then we wonder why we never get more progressive policy outcomes.

The answer is very clear to me. When we don't push for more progressive candidates, we get this outcome.

We knew that Obama was not a liberal--well, for those who did the research. But, matters were made worse when Republicans started obstructing EVERY piece of legislation that Dems put forth, with the help of Blue Dogs/DLC.

And yes, sadly, we must work for Obama again, but I'm hoping that *this time* we help him by supporting good Democrats at the local level.

We are getting screwed royally by these Republicans who dominate the state legislatures.

[ChiciB1]

68. Unfortunately For Me... Locally There Is NO Way Any Democrat Can Get

elected in my county. Lived in this county for 30 years and have yet to see ANY Democrat get elected to any office that could affect local politics.

Ruby Red is what it is and our local Democratic Party is VERY LIGHT! To them, I'm RADICAL!

[Beacool]

65. I hear what you're saying, but................

Why was it more important to elect someone due to their different background than to his qualifications? My main complaint about Obama, then and now, is that other than being a good speaker he had a razor thin resume. He was running to be the CEO of the country when he had been in management a mere two years. No board of directors in their right mind would entrust a Fortune 100 company to someone with as little experience. Yes, Obama appears to be a nice person and a good father & husband. So freaking what?

Since when does being a "nice" man has equated to knowing how to run an economy as large as this one? I'll always believe that Obama should have been VP and learned the ropes, THEN run for president in 2016. He had no close ties in Congress and it shows. They have ran over him with a Mack truck repeatedly. This leading from behind crap doesn't work. He needed to be more like LBJ, he would get in their face and tell wavering Democrats exactly what would happen to them when they were up for reelection if they didn't vote the way he needed them to vote.

Whatever, he's what we got and now we have to live with him. The nutty Republicans are far scarier.

:-(

[Dokkie]

21. +1000

The worst part is that the mandate is a republican idea. If i knew that when elected, Obama would look to republican side for healthcare bill advice, I would have stayed home on Nov 5

[Hand_With_Eyes]

15. Private insurance is the problem

Obama institutionalized the problem. My deductible went from 50$ per visit to $6k per year within two weeks of the healthcare bill passing, because Obama did not put anything in that stops price gouging until 2014. I can no longer afford to go to the doctor, I have insurance, and I am middle class.

Two additional years of Bushes failed economic policies (tax cuts for the rich). Supply side economics drives wages down, after Bush the average family makes about 2k LESS per year. Obama has doubled down on that policy.

Obama's hard shift to the right 'centrism' is ruining the Democratic party, which USED TO protect the middle class. Obama seems more worried about his legacy than the middle class. Ironically, he is ruining his legacy in the process.

Does that put it into perspective for you?

[Mimosa]

83. ^ Yes. ^

Hand_with_eyes, I know quite a few people in your situation because of higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays, as well as people who've had to drop health insurance. I have no idea what 2014 will hold.

[Jim Lane]

23. It depends on how you interpret the "something in return"

For example, last fall Obama gave in on a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts (even for the rich). He threw in the Social Security employer payroll tax holiday, thereby weakening a key bulwark of the poor and middle class, as well as ending another tax provision that was also supposed to be temporary but which benefited the poor. The result of the whole package was that people earning less than $20,000 actually got hit with a tax increase.

What he got in return was that the Republicans agreed to a one-year extension of long-term unemployment benefits. That was a good thing, to be sure, but it raised two issues: Substantively, did the whole package do more good than harm? Tactically, would he have done better by hanging tough and seeing if the Republicans were willing to take the heat on ending the unemployment benefits?

People have referred to that deal in the context of the current debt-ceiling fracas. Whether or not the Republicans would have let the unemployment benefits expire, they for sure don't want to see a default. So the question is: If the Republicans propose something crazy, and then back off it in exchange for a further shafting of the poor and middle class, has the President actually gotten something in return?

Obama's commitment to bipartisanship or nonpartisanship or postpartisanship or whatever buzzword you choose has been an open invitation to the Republicans to roll him in these negotiations by articulating far-right positions. You can argue that Obama has done the best he could, given Republican intransigence. The response is that Obama has done a lot to create that Republican intransigence, by rewarding it with major concessions.

At some point he must draw a line in the sand. With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that it would have been better to draw the line on the Bush tax cuts. That deal not only emboldened the Republican economic terrorists, but also ballooned the deficit and thus strengthened the public appeal of their hypocrisy about the debt. Because he didn't fight when to do so would have admittedly been costly, he now faces the situation of having to fight when it's even more costly.

[The Doctor.]

74. I can agree with that.

It isn't always the 'first born son' gambit though. The problem here is that Republicans actually can succeed in getting crazy shit, even if simply by obstruction.

What we're up against here is an immensely powerful machine, and he knows it.

[The Doctor.]

26. How very odd this is. One would think that those most upset with Obama

would want to air their grievances and inform everyone of just how badly he has 'sold out' progressives, his base, and the middle class.

Yet instead, it appears that these same people are making an effort to keep any such discussion from gaining visibility.

Anyone have any ideas why that might be?

[The Doctor.]

31. Anyone?

[The Doctor.]

37. Anyone?

[slipslidingaway]

39. Here just posted ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=704257&mesg_id=704634

[slipslidingaway]

45. More on the sell out - Tauzin got a good deal IMO, Medicare and seniors not so much.

This is even more important because this idea could be introduced, AGAIN, as a way to save money in Medicare.

Should we believe it the second time? Will people remember it was part of his HC proposal and that he even made a campaign ad entitled "Billy"

:shrug:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/239

Candidate Obama ... from a speech in Newport New - late 2008. Then he calls "Billy" to the WH and makes a deal.

Fool me once ...

:(


"And we are tired of watching as year after year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance lobbying once the campaign is over.

That is not who we are, that is not who we have to be, enough is enough, it time for us to change."


Obama's $80 Billion Deal with Pharma Is a Very Bad Deal for Us

By William Greider, The Nation. Posted August 8, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/health/141856

"The White House has cut a deal with Big Pharma that smells like the same old rotten politics that candidate Obama regularly denounced.

So now we know why the president wants everyone to make nice in the healthcare debate. His White House has cut a deal with Big Pharma that smells like the same old rotten politics that candidate Obama regularly denounced and promised to end. The drug industry agrees to deliver $80 billion in future savings and the president promises the government will not use its awesome purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.

Wow. This is roughly the same deal that George W. Bush cut with the drug makers when he was legislating Medicare's new coverage of drug purchases. It is the same bargain that Democrats in Congress universally condemned as wasteful and corrupt. The deal does not smell any better now that a Democratic president is embracing it..."

Healthcare FLASHBACKS (VIDEO)
several videos

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/flashback-obama-promises_n_254833.html

"How Barack Obama has changed!

We recently learned that President Obama has secretly made a sweetheart deal with Billy Tauzin, the former congressman turned chief lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. In return for $80 billion in projected cuts -- and $150 million in supportive television ads Obama has apparently sworn to protect the industry from congressional efforts to, among other things, let the government use its bargaining power to lower prescription drug costs.

Now flash back to April 2008, when the Obama campaign put out this ad, in which Obama held Tauzin up as an example of everything that was wrong with the game-playing in Washington..."

[girl_interrupted]

51. +1,000

[slipslidingaway]

67. :) We'll hear about this great plan again soon. n/t

[Armstead]

54. It is the way you framed your OP

Rather than an honest desirevto discuss, it just looks like another "calling out" of those who dare to be disappointed in Obama.

Perhaps that was not your intent. But thats how it comes across to me.

In very simple terms, I have wanted Obama reallyvtry and turn the tide away from the right wing corporate chokehold on this nation. But i have been constantly frustrated atvallmof so-called compromises tgatcwere sell outs to the right wingcandctge corporate overlords.

[slipslidingaway]

46. kick n/t

[JoeyT]

55. Unrec.

Your preemptive attempts to spin away their cutting social security are noted and mocked.

Patriot Act? He supported that, so what did we get for it besides a police state?

Opposing medical marijuana? What is he trading for increased suffering of cancer patients?

Continuing the old and starting new wars of choice? What are we getting out of those besides dead, wounded, or traumatized soldiers, all of whom come from the poor and middle classes?

[The Doctor.]

71. Hardly.

For one; Obama can't cut social security. What he's done here is taken the scabbard off the sword before Republicans fall on it.

The 'Patriot' Act is not a middle-class issue. I don't know enough to say one way or another what his intentions are regarding that, but it has nothing to do with the plight of the middle class at this point.

Same goes for medical marijuana.

As for the wars, he was handed two that he can't simply 'drop' without consequences one way or the other. I'd like him to, but I'm not in his position.

As for Libya, if you and so many others want to ignore all of the facts and pretend it's the same as Iraq or Afghanistan, there's no getting through to you.

[unionworks]

58. The Problem

...as I see it, is that with F.D.R., he came into office and IMMEDIATELY took action that made the people feel that someone was standing up for them, that someone was listening to them, even if some of the programs such as the public works only scratched the surface of the problem, it gave them the feeling that SOMETHING was being done, and it probably uplifted their spirits to see F.D.R. going after the monopolists and trusts. We are not getting that from Obama.

[Creideiki]

61. The selling out on a weak Health INSURANCE Reform bill

was screwing the middle class.

Not going for a jobs-based WPA-style stimulus.

Not making the non-jobs-based stimulus large enough (remember why Romer left? Obama was warned, as were the Establishment Third Wayers.)

Not prosecuting the people that nuked our economy.

Not breaking up Too Big Too Fail financial institutions.

Signing the extension of tax cuts to the top 2%.

Endless occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And Pakistan, Syria, Lybia, and now, Somalia!) (Putting the military into these never-ending wars punishes the middle class and the working class.)

Letting BP off the hook punishing the middle class along the Gulf.

Not pushing for a renewable energy bill.

Not stopping fracking, which will harm the middle class--the Upper Class (like Obama) will not be poisoned; we will.

There's more, but that should get you going.

[The Doctor.]

73. You're right, he shouldn't have signed it.

That sure would have showed them! Nothing at all would have been better.

:eyes:

As for the wars, I agree. Problem is, he was handed the two unjust ones, there's no easy way out. As for the others, they don't even compare in scope or reason. Doesn't mean I like them either.

I agree entirely that these screw all but the top 10%. My original question was regarding domestic social policy though, as this discussion is about social security. It much more directly effects the middle class.

Regarding the rest; What negotiations has he had a hand in? Simply failing to act is not 'selling out' the middle class. I won't argue that letting people get screwed isn't much better, but that's been par for the course for decades. If it doesn't get on congressional radar, it's not likely to get dealt with at all. It should register to many, that he is willing to do what is right, and supporting equal rights is a pretty strong indication of that.

What is frightening is the idea that he knows what is right, as I'm certain he does, but he cannot do everything that is right.

[Edweird]

69. Yeah that FAR RW individual mandate is real 'winner'.

[The Doctor.]

75. The bill could not have passed without it.

Do you understand why it's in there?

[Edweird]

76. I do actually. Obama is to the right of Reagan.

[The Doctor.]

77. It is obvious you do not.

All of the provisions that Democrats, including Obama, wanted would never have even been discussed without the mandate.

Why?

Because if insurance companies could no longer refuse anyone, then no one would have to buy insurance until they became ill.

It would have been the death of the industry. Not that I would have had a problem with that.

Now do you understand?

[Edweird]

78. Like I said, he's to the right of Reagan. He fought for and won the continuance of insurance

companies that profit from denying/obstructing care. He had opportunity, the votes, and the public support for other options. If you are paying attention to everything else you'll notice a pattern of support for RW policy by Obama including the latest assault on SS.

[The Doctor.]

79. If that's what he wanted, all he had to do was veto the bill.

I'm not sure how you can believe what is plainly wrong. The HCRA restricts companies from 'denying/obstructing care'. But you just simply believe that Obama is the enemy because that is what you want to believe.


When you feel like coming to live in reality, perhaps it will be possible to hold a constructive/informative discussion. Until then, there is absolutely no point in my even trying.

[Beacool]

81. Betty Ford's passing made me think of her husband.

Thinking about the Republicans of that era it dawned on me that the new crop of Democrats that we have now are more conservative than the Republicans of that era.

:-(

[derby378]

86. That's because we don't HAVE Health Care Reform yet

And the reason we don't is because Obama sold us out and saddled us with mandatory insurance - something that is antithetical to everything the Democratic Party stands for - without even the benefit of a robust public option, which the Republicans rightly accuse of being a stepping-stone to a more equitable system such as single-payer.

Now I hear that some of these insurance exchanges could become de facto public options, but they are buried within 2,000 pages of red tape and a poison pill that would add beaucoup sums to our National Debt if the Affordable Care Act were to be repealed. Right now, it's a matter of "I'll believe it when I see it." I've already been burned enough.