Obama Organization: No Public Option? No Big Deal?

Via Brian Beutler, Greg Sargent reports the new OFA Talking Points:

OFA Talking Points On The Public Option

How to talk with your volunteers:

[. . .]  The public option is just one small part of health insurance reform.

For some of us, no public option means no reform. Indeed, no public option SHOULD mean no mandates. And if BaucusCare becomes ObamaCare, then I say NO to ObamaCare.

Speaking for me only

< Lanny Davis Loves Him Some Jim Cooper, Also Loved Lieberman | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Had dinner last night with early Obama (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    adopter friends.  One is ok with Obama keeping hands off HCR, ok w/mandates, ok with no public option, ok with trigger, and ok with coops.  None of this will personally effect friend re health care coverage.

    Second friend:  public option a must.  Obama is a must.  This friend, who canvassed on election day for Obama out of state, will go to barricades against anyone who votes for a bill w/o a public option.

    One is a fighter. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    The other is a "Got mine, good luck with yours!".

    Any party affiliation?


    Both Dems. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    Oculus (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    Hope your first friend never has his/her situation change so none of this DOES personally affect your friend.  Not sure why so many people miss this point - your circumstances re: health care can change in an instant.

    Go To The Barricades (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:26:42 PM EST
    Tell friend 2 that I'll go to the barricades with him to fight for the Public Option.

    Without it, there is nothing.

    We'd have to defeat the stinker about to be thrown at us, and start again with a huge demonstrable awakening. Political revolt and fight like hell for what we want and should have. And, er, were promised. Duh.


    "Obama is a wuss." (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    I'm starting to think he likes hobnobbing (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    with the powerful.  If you have the quality of fawning over power, how can you challenge it?  It would be a form of self destruction.

    and the entertaining (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:24:11 PM EST
    seems his primary focus right now is getting a future Olympics in Chicago.

    An obvious distraction technique. Oh look (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:48:59 PM EST
    there's a spider on your shoulder.

    Wanna bet? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    That he makes a "surprise" visit to the troops while he's over there?

    I'm going to bet against that one (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    Simply because I don't think he wants to be "affiliated" with what is going down in Afghanistan right now anymore than he wants to be "affiliated" with the public option.

    Is there a Green Zone (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    in Afghanistan? I don't hear much about our politicians going over there like they do to Iraq.

    There is of sorts (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    It's Bagram.  Easy to secure because it is out of the way...an airfield...and the open miles between it and everything else allows for layers of patrolled surveilled protection.  You fly in and you fly out, and I don't know this for a fact but suspect that it is safer to spiral into than Baghdad airport is. And you have to land there first in Iraq, then you have to travel from there to the Green Zone.  

    Troops close enough (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    for a photo op?

    More than Obama is willing to admit he (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    has there :)

    Yes (none / 0) (#63)
    by dissenter on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    That is all BAF is....an air force base:)

    Oh...you must be talking about (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM EST
    the Harley dealership or Burger King.

    IIRC, we've built the 2nd largest embassy... (none / 0) (#65)
    by lambert on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    ... in the world there, after Iraq. Sorry, can't find link.

    It's all plywood lambert, no foundations (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    Therefore it does not count as a "structure"  when you are counting the things that count for the stuff that goes into reports.  Look at it on the google Sat images.  I've never seen that much plywood in my life.  Not even during hurricane season with global warming so far.

    Didn't famouts tet a tet with Bloomberg... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    ...sorta give that aspect of his personality away?

    He always appeared like a transparently slick social climber to me.


    Please permit the addition of (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:32:15 PM EST
    "rich and the" to your powerful.

    Obama Is A Wuss (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by norris morris on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:28:23 PM EST
    Yes, so far he is. Change? So far nothing.

    Had a similar experience with a friend (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    last night at a dinner party.  Both of us are Democrats and were Obama workers in the general election so he asked how I thought he was doing.  I mentioned that I had some disappointments, but he was having none of it--after all, he said, Obama inherited a "car without an engine".  

    This is basically nonesense from your friend. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:46:30 PM EST
    It depends on what you are disappointed in.  

    In all fairness he has a planet to lift as far as the economy goes. That really is the missing engine. fair enough.

    On Healthcare he's probably like the malevolent Alberich the dwarf. I don't trust him here.

    His foreign policy may turn out to bleed the US dry in South Asia and set up a fight in 8 years with Iran.  Afterall the next GOP chap will be able to quote Obama on Iran now as he rains down missiles on Tehran...However he may be utterly powerless on this score. Who knows what's really going on with the higher military planners in the staff colleges?


    Alberich. Good one. (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    Can't wait until he reforms Social Security (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    Read that it is on his agenda for next year. Can't you just imagine a BaucusCare type of reform for SS.

    Your friend will pay a lot more (none / 0) (#77)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:02:28 PM EST
    for insurance, AND there will be no public option.  Is he aware of that?  

    Everyone in the country will have their rates jacked up.  How can people NOT care about that?  


    My favorite point (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    The most important thing right now is to get a bill out of the Senate Finance Committee

    Uh, I thought it was to get a good bill out of the Senate Finance Committee?

    This $h17 is seriously depressing me. (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    How can these people be so blind the political death that will accompany mandates without a P.O? It's utterly bizzare. It's like watching a bunch of people driving towards a cliff arguing that if they can just get over the edge everyone will be happy.

    I think it is called (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:54:36 AM EST

    The bill (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:55:57 AM EST
    I agree, mandate without Public Option is not workable.  But what Obama and Company do not realize that the Baucus plan has a jillion other flaws.  Once they get voted on, we are doomed.  Take a look at this chart comparing what it will cost to American families.  Not to mention all the other gyrations that give insurance companies the advantage.  

    Are the Obama people working on those?  Where are the public policy analysts from the Obama side?  

    What the Dems do not seem to realize (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    is that health care and its related costs are of interest to people across all political spectrums. According to a September Reuters Poll, 63% of respondents told the pollster they were even willing to pay more taxes for reform. Here is the breakdown:

    While more Democrats were amenable to the idea of paying more for effective reform, overall the willingness cut across party lines. Seventy-eight percent of Democrats willing to accept higher taxes, compared to 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans. HufPo

    Every year regular people see that their health insurance premiums exceed their raises and they have a negative cash flow  no matter how hard they work. This has been going on for at least the last 10 years.

    If the Dems pass legislation that has no impact on their premiums and they continue to eat up more and more of their incomes, people are going to notice and take it out on the party during elections. Can Obama survive the 2012 election based on promises of things to come? Maybe, but once the legislation goes into effect and people are forced to purchase insurance if premiums still continue to accelerate to all time highs, the party may as well pack up their tent.  


    Ah, but the beauty is (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    nothing will take effect until 2013, and Obama is planning his presidential library after his second term.

    Personally I think... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    ...there's a good chance he's not even looking for a second term. He's hardly ingratiating himself with his own side enough to make me think he is.

    Or, a simple restructure of the (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    job description....the way they did changing the title and the responsibilities of the Harvard Law Review Editor/President.

    He's the Ambassador of the United States to the world.


    I buy the Glenn Greenwald theory (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Pacific John on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    that's the opposite - that everything he does is to deprive the GOP of 2012 campaign cash.

    I think his operation and wing of the party took the wrong lesson from '08, that cash is everything, that Obama won in a landslide because he raised a billion dollars. But the truth resonates with your thinking, that the base, and respect for voters in general is more important. The cash obsessives strenuously ignore that outcomes were not proportional to spending. Hillary won big states in which Obama outspent her many times over. McCain was slightly ahead until the economic meltdown. These two major points leave the Obama people unable to respond.

    I think Anglachel is right today that the Obama-ites in DC and in the media are most interested in using and even abusing power than they are in any specific goals. It's the only thing that explains the endless string of anti-base, anti-voter behavior.


    That may be true but the party (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    will have to live or die with the results after implementation. Which is why I said

    Can Obama survive the 2012 election based on promises of things to come? Maybe, but once the legislation goes into effect and people are forced to purchase insurance if premiums still continue to accelerate to all time highs, the party may as well pack up their tent.

    Then again, there is enough of really bad things in BaucusCare that provide fodder for the Republicans that even Obama might not be bullet proof in 2012.


    The GOP are very good at... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:37:48 PM EST
    ...winning presidential elections.  Their record there outperforms the congressional record by about 20 times.

    I have a theory (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    I have a theory that the Repubs put up McCain as a placeholder, knowing he would lose, and yet knowing he would run the race with conviction and then lose gracefully. They knew whoever would be elected in 2008 would lose in 2012. Too many problems no one could fix.

    I'm certain there are (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    tens of millions who share your theory...

    And I thought I was the first. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 02:57:02 PM EST

    Setting the stage for right wing populism (none / 0) (#68)
    by lambert on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 04:58:08 PM EST
    That's why Palin was given the tryout.

    Huckabee is in the same category. Too bad his son killed that dog when he (the son) was a Boy Scout....


    Ick (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    Imagine what a do-nothing -- uh -- formless bystander Obama will become when he's re-elected.

    What a nightmare.


    MO Blue makes ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:07 PM EST
    the critical political point here.  The average voter understands health care. Often better than the average pol.  

    So HCR is not like a "crime bill" where you can pass some vague thing and still use it politically.

    Bad HCR will be understood, remembered and effect pols at the polls.


    And that's why (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    The Baucus/Obama bill must be rejected, even at the cost of getting no bill.

    With no bill at least we'll get a chance at something really good in '16.

    If ObamaCare passes (mandates, no PO) so many people who are marginally o.k. today will be hurt very badly. The backlash against Democrats will kill real reform for generations to come.


    No, it won't (none / 0) (#70)
    by lambert on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    It will split the Dems into the Finance Dems (the Whigs) and the Populist Dems (the 19th C Republicans). That's a good thing, at least for those of us who'd like representation.

    And (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 05:10:28 PM EST
    that will do what?

    (I'm a little slow)


    Well it seems that the Baucus bill (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 05:17:13 PM EST
    now has something labeled a public option in it.

    The Senate Finance Committee added a quasi-public option to the healthcare reform bill Thursday.
    "This proposal is about giving federal dollars to the states and putting them in the driver's seat," Cantwell said. "It is a public plan, but negotiated with the private sector."
    Under the Cantwell amendment, people with incomes between 133 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level who do not get insurance at work would enroll in these state-based programs. The federal tax credits that would otherwise have been given to those individuals would instead be paid to states to finance the plan. Cantwell based her amendment on a program in Washington state.
    States could choose to set up their plans, which would negotiate with medical providers on payment rates rather than base them on Medicare's fees, as other public option plans would do. Cantwell and Baucus said the amendment would save money.

    "We are putting someone in charge, finally, of negotiating rates," Cantwell said. link

    In essence, what Washington state does is define a basic health plan--it sets the deductible, out of pocket limit, co-pays, drug cost sharing, and defines exactly what must be covered. Private insurers bid to be able to offer basically this exact same plan. A few private insurers are qualified; there are small differences in the basic health plan depending on the insurer the individual selects. Premiums are subsidized by the state to make the plans affordable.
    I see two problems with Cantwell's amendment. The first is that the basic plan is restricted to only those people making between 133%-200% of the FPL. It should be open to everyone or the whole exchange should be run this way. This would depopulate the original state-based exchanges, reducing the market power and increasing the price for individuals making above 200% of FPL. It makes some people better off, but others considerably worse off.

    The other problem is that Cantwell is trying to sell her idea as a public option--and it is not a public option. It is still not a bad idea--it would be an improvement over Baucus's plan for people making below 200% of FPL (not hard to do)--but it is not a public plan. link

    Cantwell sent this email out yesterday (none / 0) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    to all on her email list:

    Dear xxxxxx,

    Yesterday my committee voted late into the night on a series of important amendments to the health care bill. While we made great progress, several amendments to provide a robust public option, one of which I cosponsored, did not pass.

    I believe a robust public option needs to be part of health care reform and while yesterday's vote was disappointing, the fight to reform health care continues.

    We can still add a public option to the bill on the floor of the Senate and if that fails it can be added during conference committee (when members of the House and Senate meet to resolve the differences in their respective bills). But to accomplish this we need you to make your voice heard.

    Join me today by adding your name to the call for a public option.

    While we must wait to fight another day on the public option, we did make real progress on other key provisions. Several amendments that I introduced did pass the committee - including one to make sure savings from negotiations over drug prices are passed on to consumers and NOT contributing more to pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines and another to reward doctors for providing high quality care and make sure that doctors get paid more for keeping you healthy than for ordering duplicate tests - putting quality over quantity.

    As I promised you when this fight began, I've been working day after day and late into the night for real health care reform. There are still many important amendments to debate and to vote on and I promise to keep you updated as this important legislation moves through the Senate. Again, the best way for you to be involved is to make your voice heard.

    Thank you,

    Maria Cantwell

    As usual, Cantwell opens her mouth (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 01:32:02 AM EST
    and more cr*p falls out. While I have always been a big supporter of the state's BHP, it is NOT a public option. And it only helps people UNTIL WE ARE IN RECESSION AND BUDGET DEFICITS and then tens of thousands of people get cut from the rolls! That's what happened in 2002, 2003 and 2004 and it is happening now.

    But Cantwell is a liar and a fraud. She is trying to convince those unfamiliar with this system that a plan that negotiates the rate scale with insurance companies is the same thing as a public option. She also lied when she claimed 75% of WA's uninsured were covered by the BHP. Sorry Maria -- 100,000 of 700,000 does not equal 75%. it equals 14%. 75% would be 525,000 people.

    Just as I expected and predicted, she SOLD US OUT on the public option and she kissed Baucus and Conrad a$$ the whole time.

    I despise Maria Cantwell more than I can possibly say.

    I will do whatever it takes to force this fraud out of office. She comes up for re-election in 2012.

    Buh-Bye Maria.


    Wow (none / 0) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 08:13:08 AM EST
    I don't hear much discussion around town about our Senators. Thought I was the only one who saw her as a fraud. My intent in posting her email message was to give a better image of how credible she is/isn't. The only reason I'm on her email list is because I consistently write to her to tell her I'm never voting for her. Her responses are so defensive :)

    If Obama signs something... (none / 0) (#44)
    by NealB on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    ...I'd think people, whether they have insurance or not, will be looking for some impact before 2013. If I still had insurance, I'd be looking for a perk, like being able to get a lower deductible (say from $2500 down to $1000) for no more than I'm paying today--with subsequent rate hikes no higher than inflation. Not having insurance, I'd sure like to get me a crack at that snazzy "exchange" I've heard so much about where maybe I could get something I could afford again. And I'd like to see these things start up no later than October 1st 2010. That gives our well-paid people in the government, all of whom at least HAVE A JOB, a good nine months to get this stuff up and running. What we pay in taxes, it's not too much to expect.

    If Obama signs a bill and people are still waiting around during election year 2012 for reforms to take effect--he's going to have a lot of explaining to do.


    I honestly don't know how it will (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:16:58 PM EST
    work out in 2012. From what I can tell far too many people are swayed by speeches even those that contradict what is actually going on in the real world.

    he's going to have a lot of explaining to do.

    One thing we know for sure is that Obama is extremely talented at giving the "World's greatest speech evah" when his own a$$ in on the line.

    Then too we have the standard "you have nowhere else to go" and "no matter how bad, he is better than a Republican."


    Yeah (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    but Bush had "war president" until he didnt and people got just plain sick of him. The same thing can happen to Obama. there's goign to be a point where the speeches are going to start makign people mad because they want action not more useless talk.

    Hilariously, neither HR676 nor S703... (none / 0) (#66)
    by lambert on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    ... are in the comparisons. The single payer blackout continues.

    It isn't just Obama (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    All the legislators involved in the design of these plans are proving they could care less about their responsibility to the people they represent. I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat or Independent...we are decades behind the rest of the free world in providing access to healthcare to all, people are going bankrupt and dying because of it, and it wouldn't take much effort to implement something similar/same to what other countries have in place.

    One thing I don't understand is how (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    anyone can notice how ineffective or perhaps even preserving Obama is when it comes to dealing with the entrenched powers that be, can then tell themselves and insist that Afghanistan isn't escalating :)  I personally don't mind that our footprint in the country is growing exponentially even as I type this....but I find it amusing that the Obama style of protecting the existing power structures in D.C. goes unnoticed because people just don't want to deal with that reality.

    He's the first Black President... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    ...just like Kennedy was the first Catholic. Ultimately this is enough to keep smug middle class (Euro middle class mind you) liberals from thinking too hard about the bill of goods they have been sold.

    I extremely glad that we had our (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    first Catholic president and I'm extremely glad that we have our first black president, and also agree with you that celebration over finally getting over that hurdle is often used to avoid seeing the reality the man each is and was and all the deeds done.

    There's an irony in the works (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Pacific John on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    Black activists rightly point out that white liberals moved on from economic social justice movements of the '60s to the more abstract vanity movements like environment, anti-nuke, and animal rights.

    Obama is just a box to check off to organize the conscience of American progressives. When they move on, or perhaps now that they've already moved on, people at the bottom of the ladder will be more ignored than ever.


    I guess the OFA message makes (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    sense to people who appear to have no real grasp of policy, who think reforming the system of CARE and reforming health insurance are the same thing, and whose focus is - and always has been - about getting a win for Obama, regardless of whether it would be a win for the people.

    That talking point is telling: one small part of health insurance reform.  Not CARE, but insurance.

    With failure of leadership comes failure of policy, failure of control, failure of vision; I would love to be able to tell Obama that until he stops believing that his mere presence is enough to make good things happen, we will just sink deeper into the morass of all of the same problems he was going to pull us out of.  I'm not going to get an audience with him, and apparently there is no one in his trusted circle, in the Democratic "leadership," who will speak the truth he needs to hear.  More failure.

    So, as long as we're failing, BaucusCare needs to fail, too, along with all the other half-baked schemes that seem to pop up almost every day.  Do I think that somehow BaucusCare can be vanquished by Tom Harkin's HELP committee bill and the House Progressive Caucus?  No, I am sorry to say that I don't see that happening.

    I think someday this whole exercise will be examined and written about as a failure on so many levels, and of such magnitude, that it resulted in years of regressive Republican leadership; by the time Obama absorbs the truth of that, it will be too late for do-overs.  

    This is not "Organizing" for America, or even "Obama" for America: this is just Failure for America.

    What the OFA clowns don't realize is that it's (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    not just
    No public option = no mandates
    No public option = No Obama in 2012.

    Maybe that's what he wants (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    I said all along that he just wanted to be an ex-President so he could command those giant speaking engagements and book deals that would guarantee him millions just to get out of bed.

    He bores easily based on his resume.


    I imagine there won't be much (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    to fill his presidential library. Well, there will be lots of photos of the girls with their dog, Bo.

    "Bores easily" seems very apt, and, sadly, so reminiscent of the last WH resident.


    no big deal? (4.83 / 6) (#22)
    by yttik on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    So far all I see is cuts to those with medicare and schip, fines for those in the middle who can't afford insurance, and taxes on those who already have good policies.

    Someone mentioned the attitude, "I got mine, so to heck with you." Well, at least we've killed that argument. This bill in it's current form screws everybody over in some way and benefits no one.

    Well except insurance companies (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by hookfan on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:50:09 PM EST
    They seem to be beneficiaries of most bills that have been proposed. funny how that happens. . .

    that's taken directly (none / 0) (#3)
    by Turkana on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 11:40:38 AM EST
    from obama's own words, in his speech to congress. it's either part of his eleventy dimensional chess strategy, or it's a signal that he'll accept and rationalize anything. i don't pretend to be omniscient enough to know which...

    White House ready to step in..... (none / 0) (#12)
    by trillian on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    ....with it's own bill if legislative efforts in Congress fail or if they move too far to the left.

    "too far to the left" = public option?

    You know (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    I expected very little from Obama or his administration.  Yet, I find myself still disappointed, even in light of that extremely low bar.



    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    Me too. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    I certainly didnt expect much from Obama based on his history but he's even not met my expectations.

    Well if true that supports what I have (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    been saying all along. The WH is behind the scenes moving legislation in the direction of the Baucus Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.

    This is one of those time I hope I am proven wrong.


    Now that I think about it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    I hope he is forced to step in with his own bill. Then there will be no doubt on exactly where Obama stands and who is the beneficiary of his bill. The American people or the insurance industry.

    I'm going to stop in at the nearby (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    farm to see if any of their pigs are beginning to sprout wings, because if Obama actually commits to something by putting out his own bill, I'm pretty sure pigs will take to the air.

    Besides, won't the criticism be that if he knew what he wanted the legislation to look like, he should have submitted it at the beginning of the process, instead of tip-toeing around the edges in speeches and pressers, and allowing Congress to dither over it for nine months?

    [rolling eyes]


    You definitely have a point. (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    Does it seem that the In Memoriam (none / 0) (#45)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    plan to do this for his BFF Ted Kennedy has enough distance now to ignore it?

    I am thinking the entire idea of providing access to healthcare for all Americans has become so distorted in what it should look like that the only sensible thing to do now is to abandon ship and wait a few decades for the next democratic president to handle the need.

    Let's push for campaign reform instead...and push really hard to eliminate the red carpet rides the last candidate entertained himself with!!


    But Obama has conveniently forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    that the Kennedy plan is the Senate HELP Committee bill.

    the slow creep (none / 0) (#62)
    by Illiope on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    using the way back machine... i remember when candidate obama talked about reforming america's health care system.... ah, memories.

    then... the talk turned to health INSURANCE reform. there was a lot of grumbling. but, as the obama admin gambled, eventually people would accept that we are not challenging health-profiteering itself, we are simply reforming how insurance profit from those in need.

    now... we are at a point where health insurance reform has given way to health insurance MANDATES. not only has the obama admin shielded and protected the for-profit health system, he and his cohorts are pushing to force everyone to buy into a system that looks to make money through denying people care they need.

    Why doesn't the OFA just tell people... (none / 0) (#64)
    by lambert on Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 04:42:48 PM EST
    ... to "Check the website"?

    Then, they can segue into the conversion narrative!

    NOTE Not that all OFA are OFB, of course. From the coments, about half.