home

HuffPo: Obama Pushing Against Public Option In Senate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:11:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

HuffPo:

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

Two Dem Senators confirm this reporting. One 11 Dimensional Chess player accepts this reporting and argues that it is a good thing. I disagree.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Football Open Thread | Progressive Group Ad To Pressure Obama On Public Option >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    HuffPo: Obama Pushing Against Public Option In Senate | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This is the same or (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kenosharick on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:15:41 AM EST
    worse than no "reform" at all and if the Dems do this they lose me, much of their base and the House in 2010.

    Maybe that's the goal (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    It is so much easier to get the dems to compromise with republican policy. Give this administration a repub majority and, from all appearances, presidenting won't be so darn hard.


    Parent
    Especially when (4.33 / 3) (#41)
    by Spamlet on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    you think Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."

    Give this administration a repub majority and, from all appearances, presidenting won't be so darn hard.

    Look! Over there! It's morning in America!

    Parent

    As soon as he cut that "secret" deal... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:22:04 AM EST
    ...with Big Pharma, it was clear he is so full of sh*t it's a wonder he can draw a breath. He doesn't care about an effective public option, he cares about appeasing the powers that be. And why would you do that? Because you are a bought and paid for political whore. Or because you are in so far over your head all your sh*t is starting to float.

    Or both.

    Booman's last line is priceless (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Faust on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:23:39 AM EST
     So why do we have to freak out everytime someone leaks something that sounds an off note?

    Just friggin LOL.

    I was compelled to share (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    these sentiments directly with Booman in his posting on Orange Satan.  My bad.  Slinkerwink gave me some love, though.

    Parent
    Amazing how we've gone from (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    "Yes, We Can!" delivered as the rallying cry for change in Washington, to "Mmmm...Well, I Don't Know, Maybe," to "Would You Take Something Else Instead?"  to where it may all end up, which is possibly:

    "No, You Can't Make Me;"

    or

    "Uh, Think Again;"

    or

    "Okay, Fine! Have It Your Way, Liberals, But Don't Cry To Me When It Fails."

    or

    "Hey! It's Better Than Nothing!"

    It's a damn shame; maybe we needed to call it The War on America's Health" and frame the insurance companies as an offshoot of al Qaeda in order to make real reform happen.

    I'm fed up with these people.

    That's funny, Anne (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    Those are the phrases that rang in my head all through the primaries and general from his campaign.

    Parent
    If it comes to the floor, the WH (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:17:07 AM EST
    will have to change its tune.

    Who knows? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    I think they are on the verge of going public for triggers.

    They now know Reid won't do their dirty work for them.

    Parent

    Wouldn't that be ironic (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    It will be difficult for them to flip-flop so obviously. I expect an outburst from Kent Conrad to be ordered up by the WH>

    Parent
    Oh sure (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    They'll do a "we have don/t have the votes for" rationale.

    The obvious question to the President will be "reconciliation?"

    Parent

    What I want to know is why there's (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    disagreement over whether the votes are there? Which Senators have been whining to Rahm about not wanting to take a difficult vote?

    Parent
    The usual suspects (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    Bayh, Lincoln, Landrieu etc.

    the thing is it is not a difficult vote with the electorate for any of them. It IS a difficult vote for them because of their contributors.

    Ben Nelson does not care. he is just an ass. But I really doubt he will be the one guy joining a GOP filibuster. He is bluffing. Reid will call his bluff.

    Not because Reid isa good poker player. But because Reid has to do it for his own political skin.

    What I hope though is progressives are ready to go with their fight for HCR THROUGH reconciliation if Obama scitches this.

    Parent

    I still think that if Reid brings it to the floor (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    Obama will have to help whip it. The only alternative is if, before the cloture vote, the WH "admits" that the vote is just to make liberals happy, and that they don't expect it to pass.

    If that happens, this whole healthcare reform experiment is dead. What gets passed after that will likely be worse than nothing.

    Parent

    That is what they will do (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:45:57 AM EST
    "Just to make liberals happy."

    I think they are not difficult to read. Despite Booman's protestations of a deeper game.

    Parent

    If they do that, it's over (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48:09 AM EST
    We're back to Ezra's song and dance about how wonderful the Finance committee bill is.

    BTW, it's really infuriating to me that the House hasn't yet passed a bill. They have the opportunity to provide some leadership, and they're dithering.

    Parent

    I tihink this all comes as a bit of a surprise (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:51:53 AM EST
    to the Obama team.

    They thought this was over in August. Indeed, I think they thought they could "ride to the rescue" and "save" the public option with Snowe's triggers.

    Parent

    Change comes from the bottom up. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Faust on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:22:07 AM EST


    Parent
    What I heard weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    was that Pelosi had decided the House should wait to bring their bill to the floor until they saw what the Senate passed.  So maybe wrong-headed, but I don't think dithering.

    What the House does isn't going to influence the Senate on this, I assume is the thinking, so better go charge into the conference with a full head of steam and all the headlines.

    Parent

    Cloture (none / 0) (#22)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    Of Bayh, Lincoln and Landrieu, Bayh's may be the most difficult vote. I do not think Reid or Obama has much leverage over him, he is very well set in Indiana.

    Parent
    You're obviously wrong about Bayh (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    He wants to run for President. How Bowers missed that completely escapes me.

    Parent
    Bayh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    will fall in line imo.

    Indeed, we have heard precious little from him lately.

    Parent

    I believe that they all will (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    if the WH just attempts to make an effort. But instead, they are intentionally killing the public option--apparently out of timidity. That is the hallmark of this administration, and it's infuriating. They are timid about almost everything that matters.

    Parent
    Why do you write: out of timidity? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    Here's my question:  will Pres. Obama veto or threaten to veto a bill containing public option?  

    Parent
    Well yes, the alternative is that they oppose it (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    But that would directly contradict what they've said on the record.

    Parent
    Oh, heaven forfend! (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Spamlet on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    that would directly contradict what they've said on the record

    It would certainly be the first time Obama did that!

    /s

    Parent

    Maybe daddy Birch had a long talk with him. (none / 0) (#43)
    by steviez314 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:43:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Daddy Birch (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    should give him a swift kick in the pants.

    Parent
    I don't think that's right. (none / 0) (#47)
    by steviez314 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    Before Obama would publicly commit to triggers, I think he'd need Snowe to publicly commit to vote for a bill with a triggered public option.

    While she "prefers" triggers, she has not indicated that she would vote for a bill with one.  I doubt that Obama would go public without her on board, and publicly to boot.

    I remain committed to the view that this is still just "sources" working the press/blogs who are analyzing every move just like we do with Girardi.

    Parent

    Getting to conference (none / 0) (#8)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    I think you're overstating Booman's enthusiasm. I read it more as saying it's not necessarily a bad thing.

    If the Senate fails passes some bill, then you can get what you really want in conference. But if the Senate does not pass a bill, there won't be a conference.

    So, what I read him a saying is by all means pass a public option in the Senate, if you can. Failing that, it's better to pass a bill with a trigger than to fail on trying to pass a bill with a public option. This seems reasonable to me.

    Reconciliation (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:28:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Conference seems preferable ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    to reconciliation. You can't handle everything under reconciliation, so you still have to go back and pass a second bill.

    And then, isn't there a limited time window for using reconciliation? If so, it's all the more important to move quickly on the other alternatives.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    a REAL health care reform bill is preferable.

    How you get it is irrelevant.

    Parent

    Well, duh (none / 0) (#17)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    It just seems to me that it's easier to get it through conference than through reconciliation.

    Parent
    Strange comment (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    in that you were extolling the virtues of conference (presumably over reconciliation.)

    so yeah, it is a duh to me, but your comment indicated otherwise.

    To take your logic to its conclusion, it would be better if it were bipartisan. But real health care reform will not happen that way.

    Parent

    What does bipartisan have to do with it? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    The Republicans are as effectively outnumbered in conference as they are in reconciliation.

    I have no objection to reconciliation per se, but it seems to me more laborious (requiring at least two bills), and I don't hear much enthusiasm out of the Senate for using reconciliation.

    Parent

    Go back and read (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:28:32 AM EST
    Contrary to the apparent opinion of Senate leadership, the WH believes that it is impossible to pass a public option through the Senate. Therefore, "if you can" is not relevant. They have decided that it's impossible.

    Parent
    "No we can't." n/t, (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by sallywally on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:33:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Self-fulfilling prophecy (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    in this case.

    Parent
    I do not agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    that two Dem senators "confirmed the reporting."

    The reporting says the White House is actively discouraging the public option.  Harkin and Brown merely said the White House's support has been lukewarm.  "Confirm the reporting" has a meaning and this is not it.

    I disagree with you (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    An on the record statement like that by 2 Dem senators does confirm the story.

    ON THE RECORD being the key here.

    This is not a court of law.

    Common sense is permitted.

    And Sparty stinks.

    Parent

    The Hill reports (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    After Obama met with Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders Thursday, the White House repeated its message that Obama supports the public option but will not rule out the trigger or any other compromise.

    That is not good enough, Harkin said. "I've not been very happy with the White House's lukewarm support of the public option," he said, articulating a gripe liberals have been making for months.

    "I would hope the president would speak out more forcefully in favor of the public option," Brown said, adding "I expect he will."

    That is a really, really, really, really, really long way from confirmation that the White House is "actively discouraging" the public option.  My common sense tells me that "active discouragement" is something quite different than wishing the White House's support would be more emphatic.

    Parent

    Is it? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    Funny, it seems like confirmation to me.

    and Sparty still stinks.

    Parent

    Maybe the Pres. reads AP: (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:41:44 AM EST
    AP

    Do you believe these stats? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    With insurance companies in the business of taking money, gambling with it, and hoping they win enough to cover just enough patients, while lining their pockets at the same time, well, I find any "analysis" of industry profitiablity right now to be impossible. Transparency ain't exactly an American business trait of any note.

    Parent
    No idea if the stats are accurate. Maybe (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    health insurance industry is manipulating bottom line so they don't look as profitable right now?  Who knows.

    Parent
    HuffPo: Obama Pushing Against Public Option In Senate | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment