Obama to Bloggers: Keep Pressure on Re: Health Care

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:21:04 PM EST
Tags: health care reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama held an invitation-only telephone conference with bloggers today urging them to keep the pressure on Congress regarding his health care plan.

It is important just to keep the pressure on members of Congress because what happens is there is a default position of inertia here in Washington," the president said during an invitation-only conference call. "And pushing against that, making sure that people feel that the desperation that ordinary families are feeling all across the country, every single day, when they are worrying about whether they can pay their premiums or not... People have to feel that in a visceral way. And you guys can help deliver that better than just about anybody."

He even took questions: [More...]

Peppering the president with questions were some of the progressive community's most prominent netroots voices from Jonathan Singer of MyDD to John Amato of Crooks and Liars. As in interviews and public statements past, the president stressed that the White House had already made major steps toward achieving reform, including bringing key stakeholders in the private sector to the table. Repeating his statement on Monday criticizing the posture of some of his Republican opponents, Obama accused those who sought to delay the bill as trying to kill the prospects of reform and, by extension, his presidency.

Sounds like blogger history was made. While we've had teleconferences with Congress and candidates for President, I can't remember one being held by the sitting President. Congrats to those who were invited to be on it. So far I see McJoan at Daily Kos, John Amato at Crooks and Liars and Jonathan Singer of MyDD and DDay at Digby's.

Memo to President Obama: If you hold a blogger call on criminal justice issues, I hope you'll remember to include TalkLeft.

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Obama Delays Report on Closing Guantanamo >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama to Bloggers: Keep Pressure on Re: Health Care | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Maybe the bloggers (5.00 / 6) (#9)
by Cards In 4 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:31:31 PM EST

can tell him how to pay for it without raising taxes during a recession. Solve that and it will sail through congress.

Explaining to bloggers what his plan is and how he would pay for it would be useful as they can explain it to their readers. But asking them to pressure congress without saying what he has to have in a bill before he signs it is not much help. What are they supposed to support?

Important post at PHNP on the bait-and-switch (5.00 / 8) (#10)
by jawbone on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:47:57 PM EST

going on about the formerly good plan called "public plan" --which has been neutered, downsized, sold out, and firewalled.

The Obama-Congressional Dems' So-Called Public Plan

The public is being snookered, getting the ol' rope-a-dope. Read, weep, tear out some hair...then demand single payer. Loudly.

The public probably remembers what Hillary campaigned on, a public plan which would permit people to buy into the Federal employees' insurance plans or into Medicare. No restrictions in her plan, but there was a cap on what people could be expected to pay as a percentage of their income.

What are we getting? Something called by the same name, but actually gussied up and limited HMO's. Which may well reprise the horror show aspects of the original HMO restrictions. Remember being afraid to go to the ER? Not getting necessary referrals to specialists? Remember Helen Hunt's rant in As Good As It Gets?

The 44th anniversary of Medicare's signing is coming up July 30. LBJ signed it in 1965; eleven months later it was up and running.

Obama's plan? Won't start until 2013, four(-ish) years from now, but language in the legislation says it won't be fully implemented until 2018 --if then? wow (deliberately in all lower case, as in lowered expectations).

Plus, 44th anniversary of Medicare and our 44th president wants to "reform" that as well?? Uh oh.

Great link & recap of Hillary's health plan (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:33:44 AM EST

Those were some of the health care plan POLICY DIFFERENCES el Krugman noted between Hillary and Obama back when...well you know...when it could have made a difference.


: Policy differences? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by cawaltz on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:30:52 PM EST

Why whatever do you mean? I hear that they were all the same, same same interchangeable cogs. At least that what was what I heard anytime any of us attempted to dialogue on the differences.

Did Obama learn a lesson from Bush-Cheney? (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by good grief on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:48:47 AM EST

It is notable to me that Obama is using the Bush-Cheney strategy of stirring up a mood of emotional crisis in Congress and around the nation, saying in essence the sky will fall (in the form of ever-increasing private insurance premiums) if Congress doesn't pass healthcare, just as Bush-Cheney stirred up intense fear of potential impending terrorist attacks to impel passage of two AUMFs and two Patriot Acts. Some of Obama's rhetoric sounds familiar, such as this plea to bloggers . . .

. . . to make sure that people feel that desperation that ordinary families are feeling all across the country, every single day, when they are worrying about whether they can pay their premiums or not... People have to feel that in a visceral way.

The feeling he is inspiring is fear.

The question I have is this: If Obama is willing to expend this much political capital and use an extreme rhetoric of fear to evoke the terrorism of ever-rising private insurance premiums, why is he locking most Americans into forced-purchase of these self-same terrorizing commercial policies? Why is he not insisting that we defeat this domestic terrorism by taking the private insurance companies out of the healthcare scene and replacing them with single-payer?

Fear-mongering to garner public support (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 04:04:03 AM EST

for an health care package that profits the medical establishment, pharmaceutical corporations, and health insurance companies - seems so.

But, imo, the economic crisis became the political equivalent of 9/11 for the Obama Administration. It provided a a smoke-screen to panic, confuse, and dupe the nation into accepting an ongoing deluge of no-strings-attached mega-handouts to Wall Street. While also diverting our attention away from increased military spending, escalation of war in the Middle East, continuation and expansion of Bush-era executive powers, further erosion of domestic civil liberties, and violations of international law.

Not to put to fine a point on it.


: Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by good grief on Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 11:19:33 PM EST

He used/uses fear on both fronts. My point remains that if he views insurance companies' practices as a form of terrorism, why isn't he fighting terror and removing them from the healthcare scene?

Did Obama learn a lesson from Bush-Cheney? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by good grief on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:51:44 AM EST

That said . . . (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by good grief on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:55:24 AM EST

having read the bone-chilling blog post cited above by jawbone from PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program) about the bait-and-switch on the public option, it occurs to me that Obama's dramatic rhetoric -- about the terrorizing experience of sky-high private insurance premiums, etc., framing the need for urgent action to reform the system -- is perfectly set up, should President Obama read this PNHP post, for him to wheel around and use the same language of urgency to bring in single-payer, arguing that Congress in its own fear has appeased the health insurance and drug lobbies and right-wing Dinos to such an extent that they have chiseled down the public option to such a weak, ineffective and mousy thing that the current legislation must be scrapped and single-payer taken up in its place, as suggested by the author of the post.

This way, at least Obama's rhetoric would be consistent with itself.


No personal snark intended but... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 04:12:32 AM EST

Pigs will fly before Obama resorts to using a: "language of urgency to bring in single-payer". Still, I'd like to see pigs fly.


: Ahhhhh more 11th dimensional chess (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by cawaltz on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:33:17 PM EST

Sebelius is on the record as saying that the admin does not want single payer and the public option being floated is EXACTLY as the statement she made suggested "designed to ensure that single payer never exists."

Only for the ELITE bloggers (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 04:54:41 AM EST

By invitation only.

Did Obama specifically say what his bottom line (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by ruffian on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 04:56:40 AM EST

is regarding the public option, ie. who is eligible, how he wants it paid for, etc? Seems to me that he wants everyone to get behind him, just trusting that he will not accept an outcome we would not like. He is the one that has to sell the plan to the people. He's the only one with the standing to do it, as he well knows, hence the PR offensive. But to do that effectively I think he has to come out in public with the details of what he wants. Maybe this vague-in public-specific-in-private approach will work to get something passed, but to try to get solid grassroots progressive support for something he won't come out for himself is a little strange to me.

: Strange indeed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by lentinel on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 05:03:27 AM EST

He wants his "army" to rally behind what exactly?
A not-for-profit healthcare system?
A system that provides basic coverage for all Americans?
It appears to me as if he considers himself to be the issue.
Not healthcare.

You may remember (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 07:46:57 AM EST

that a few weeks ago Obama complained about Moveon and Blogger pressure on members of Congress. It's cool to see that he's started this dialogue...especially since Obama usually dismisses blogs.

Except that he's not (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by dk on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 08:45:11 AM EST

asking the bloggers to put pressure on for progressive reform. He's asking bloggers to put pressure on for his own bill, which is most certainly not progressive.


I've seen analysis of the House Bill (none / 0) (#36)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:39:21 AM EST

and the Senate bill. What I have not seen is anything on an Obama bill. What exactly is contained in the Obama bill?


: The House bill is (none / 0) (#44)
by dk on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:19:09 PM EST

the furthest to the "left" that Obama has signalled to Congress that he wants on the table, in order for it to have cleared committee. Of course, that is not as far to the left as Obama wants to the final legislation to go, as he also signed off on the Senate language.
Yes, there is no specific "Obama bill" at this point, but the bill will be somewhere between the Senate version and the House version, and Obama has approved this.

It's a measure of his desperation, (5.00 / 5) (#30)
by Anne on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:56:24 AM EST

I think, and any blogger truly interested in accountability and keeping the pressure on should have called him on it - respectfully, of course.

I can't help but think that this invitation-only aspect mirrors what happened with the original health care summit - that was invitation only, too, and it took a lot of pressure to get Obama to invite anyone from the single-payer side of the debate, and even then, they were not accorded anything near the credibility of the rest of the invitees. As I recall, the transcript of the summit omitted the remarks of the single-payer advocate who did get to say something.

How these special bloggers do not feel used, I don't know; would have been nice had one of them told the president that he could not keep treating them like a booty call, only paying attention to them when he wanted something, but I suspect he knew those who were invited would not dream of doing that.


Well (none / 0) (#49)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:38:32 PM EST

as someone around here says, "Pols will be pols..."

I think the significance is that an actual point of contact has been established between bloggers and Obama. Whereas once dissing bloggers was to his advantage, now it is not - that's interesting to me.

And as for bloggers on the call being only Obama friendly, I think that is incorrect. Pam Spaulding was invited (but apparently too sick to participate - actually the story is kind of funny, read it here) but she has been a huge critic of Obama esp. on gay issues. Americablog has been harsh as well. Say what you will, but those two blogs are not like John Cole at Balloon Juice, for ex.


: Pam Spaulding is (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by dk on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:23:57 PM EST

great on LGBT issues, but she has never waded into the healthcare issue. And just today she starts, but only to criticize Republicans which, while always a fun thing to do, is a distraction from what would be a more productive criticism of Obama's giveaway to the insurance industry. (Not that I'm expecting Pam to focus on healthcare). So, I don't think she's such a great counterexample in this instance.
As for Americablog, I refuse to take that guy seriously.

Not really sure (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:49:15 AM EST

what everyone expects. Single payer was not proposed by a single candidate for national office. If we get a large public option, that includes more than half the population, that is a huge step in the right direction. No one is saying it has to be the last step. But it is a whole lot easier (politically) to tweak something in the future than start a brand new program from scratch (like SCHIP).

This is highly ironic to me, especially since a lot of it is coming from people who complained about the raw deal Bill Clinton got for not being progressive enough.

This is still Washington, the same people are around who tried and succeeded to kill any type of reform in the past. You gotta start somewhere. It sounds to me like he is pushing pretty hard for an inclusive public option. I think that's a good thing. And yes, he is doing it to save his political a$$, but frankly, I could care less about the motives so long as it succeeds.

The Health Exchanges (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by dk on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:54:13 AM EST

are a brand new program. Medicare is not a brand new program.

Thus, by your own logic, Medicare for all should be "a lot easier (politically)."

This is the issue. No one has been able to argue against single payer on the merits. Who cares if no candidate proposed single payer in their campaign? Heck, Obama made a lot of promises in his campaign that he is now going back on. Pols are pol. They lie all the time during campaigns?


expanding medicare (none / 0) (#31)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:03:30 AM EST

to all would be great, nothing wrong with that. But it is a brand new program in the way the American people think of it, since the size of the expansion would be astronomical.

I am not saying single payer is a bad idea, but I don't think it is politically feasable at this time. It's also not the only good idea available. So I will take what I can get.


Still don't get your logic. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by dk on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:37:16 PM EST

The size of Obama's giveaway to the insurance companies will be astronomical too. About 1 Trillion over ten years, right? And, unlike single payer, it will not slow down health care costs in this country.

So, I still don't see the logic in supporting his bill.


the logic (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:41:19 PM EST

is that approximately 34 million people who don't currently have insurance will be insured, according to the CBO.


Actually (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:57:21 PM EST

I think the CBO report says 9 million will be covered. A nice start, but not even close to really making a dent.


: Right. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by dk on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:07:21 PM EST

Further, coverage does not equal care. Medicare will be slashed to help pay for Obama's illogical plan, which means that while some (but not many) will get insurance coverage, others will experience a decline in health care.
Further, the set-up is one that is designed to fail, so that those who may experience short term increase in coverage (which, again, does not equal care) will likely lose even that appearance of progress eventually.
Again no logic.

: look at the chart at the end (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:10:20 PM EST

30 million under exchanges, 4 million due to employer mandate. 9 million of the 30 million in the public part of the exchange, but 30 million subsidized.

If you haven't already read (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by Anne on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:04:37 AM EST

the article linked in jawbone's comment, above, I strongly urge you to do so. I think it explains why what is being touted as a public option is likely not destined for success - it really is an eye-opener - was for me, anyway.

The public option as it is currently being drafted would be a brand new program, with more unknowns than one could shake a stick at.

The article might change your mind about what is being proposed, and even if it doesn't, it still provides a perspective that is important to consider,and which no one in the Congress is sharing with the American people. Call me crazy, but I kinda think people need to know what it is they are supporting and that it is not at all what it is being sold as.


I've read it (none / 0) (#33)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:22:50 AM EST

I agree that the house bill is significantly better than the senate bill, and I doubt the senate bill will pass with house approval. In addition, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that included in the health care bill in the house is a provision that mandates health insurance to some degree, which I think will go a long way towards solving the "pre-population" problem. Here in MA we actually have the opposite problem where more people than expected signed up for said option, I don't see why it would be any different nationally so long as the subsidies are significant. And yes, I realize that this isn't as good as what was proposed during the campaign, and I would sincerely like to see a public option that would be available to everyone. I also don't think this fight is over yet, and Obama is working pretty hard to sell a public option, including running ads against blue state Dems. I still think there is a chance for an inclusive public option, but even without it, I think the House Bill is a pretty good start and will make a significant impact on the number of uninsured at the very least.


Obama would not have (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by dk on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:22:00 PM EST

given approval to the House leadership to let the current language out of committee if he were at all interested in moving further toward an all-inclusive public plan. That is where Obama's current language is revealed as disingenuous.


I think if you had read Kip Sullivan's (none / 0) (#62)
by Anne on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:21:43 PM EST

PNHP article on the bait-and-switch nature of the "public option," you would see how really pointless it is to continue to debate whether the House bill is better than the Senate's or vice-versa, because as both bills have constituted the public option, both are bad and neither will accomplish what it was expected this reform effort was undertaken to fix.

Mandating insurance for all does not solve the pre-population problem since all will not constitute the population of the public option - not by a very long shot.

We should be looking more at how reform will expand access to and delivery of care than we should be looking to make sure everyone has a health insurance policy. Even among the population that has health insurance, there is a wide range of what is covered, how much is covered and what the out-of-pocket costs are. And in Massachusetts, as I understand it, even though more people signed up - thus enlarging the pool and presumably spreading the risk, premiums have gone up faster than the national average - that doesn't seem like a convincing argument for how the "public option" will spur competition and drive prices down.

If the committees designing a new system had taken the time and had the courage to listen to voices other than those of the insurance industry, they might have had a better chance of creating something that might actually work, but they have allowed themselves to be seduced and suckered by all that money, to what I believe will be our detriment.


: I read it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:38:08 PM EST

there are two issues at stake here. One is expanding access to health care. The other is lowering costs. This bill achieves the first one (in my opinion). You are right that it does not appear to achieve the second one. However, I personally feel like the first goal is a very good and important start.
In MA, it is true rates here have risen faster, but that was true before the plan was implemented. Stuff here costs more. And it doesn't get that way by being behind the national average in terms of how fast costs rise. That being said, they are looking at further legislation to try and control the cost. Additionally, there may be charges pressed against some of the players for collusion, and unfair practices which caused the prices to rise faster than they should of. Shocking I know that the insurance companies would try their best to rob us blind. But there are things that can be done about that, indeed there are things being done about that.
Once all that gets sorted out, I imagine costs will stop rising so much. That being said, it takes a while to iron this stuff out.
I don't see how it can be to our detriment to insure 34 million more people. Making the case that this is not enough is one thing, I really don't see how people can ignore the upside as opposed to doing nothing at all.

: One other thing (none / 0) (#65)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:40:33 PM EST

I think there is something like 400,000 people using Mass health right now. 9-10 million will have a much greater effect.

I agree and disagree (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:31:34 AM EST

If we get a large public option, that includes more than half the population, that is a huge step in the right direction.

I agree with you 100% that if we get a large public option, that includes more than half the population, that it would be a huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the bills severely restrict who may participate in the public option.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the "public options" described in the Democrats' legislation when fully operational might enroll 9 or 10 million people.Page 6 of PFD Link

IMO a minute public option will not have any negotiation powers nor will do anything to pressure the insurance industry to reduce rates.


Clarify (none / 0) (#37)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:45:53 AM EST

Available to that % of population, not necessarily used. Also, I am not reading what you are reading. They say 30 million in the article you linked, and 97% of "authorized" people (not including illegal immigrants) insured, including changes due to an employer mandate and aging population.


The PFD specifically states that (none / 0) (#39)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 11:31:47 AM EST

the public option when fully operational will insure 9 or 10 million people. A direct quote from the CBP's PFD, page 6:

Taking into account both the access to providers in the public plan and the relative premiums its enrollees would pay, CBO estimates that roughly one-third of the people obtaining subsidized coverage through the insurance exchanges would be enrolled in the public plan--so enrollment in that plan would be about 9 million or 10 million once the proposal was fully implemented.

Please provide a direct quote from the PFD that states that 30 million people (approximately 10% of population - not 50%) would be eligible to participate in the public option.


Not "eligible" (none / 0) (#40)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 11:41:56 AM EST

10% actually participate, more are eligible, although point taken.

So I just figured out the difference. 10 million is the number enrolling in the public plan offered on the "exchange" and 20 million is the number receiving subsidized private insurance on the "exchange" for a total of 30 million insured on said "exchange" (not including an increase in employer based health care due to mandates).

Frankly, I don't really care whether people get subsidized "public" or subsidized "private" insurance so long as they are covered and they have the option to choose public.

I was getting my data from the chart at the end, which is kinda hard to quote. Specifically, the change in # of insured based on this new proposal, in various subcategories. It is not insignificant.


When it comes to insurance, I don't (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 11:48:28 AM EST

care what people have access to, either.

When it comes to medical healthcare, I care very much. It's frightening to think what congress is doing right now since I have insurance and can't afford healthcare.


There are (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by CST on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:14:09 PM EST

certain criteria in the plan that insurance companies have to meet in order to qualify. Not just any old health insurance plan will do.

That being said, I have no problem, indeed, I think it's a good thing when people criticize what is wrong with the current plan, and what they would like to see change. I just think characterizing it as an epic fail because of said problems is disingenious. I think the house plan is a real start. Key word being start.


: Actually in the Senate plan (none / 0) (#68)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:46:55 PM EST

it looks like any old health insurance plan will do.

New health insurance policies sold in the individual and group insurance markets would be subject to several requirements regarding their availability and pricing. Insurers would be required to issue coverage to all applicants and could not limit coverage for preexisting medical conditions. In addition, premiums for a given plan could not vary because of enrollees' health and could vary by their age to only a limited degree (under a system known as adjusted community rating). Policies that were established before enactment and that are maintained continuously would be "grandfathered," meaning that they would not have to meet those requirements.

Most people will not have the option (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:07:01 PM EST

to participate in the public option. That is main reason for my objection.

If your employer offers any type of insurance, no matter how inadequate, you cannot participate in the public option. If an employer has a work force of more than 10 people, the employer cannot choose the public option even if it would provide better his employees with coverage for the same or less money.

The public option because of the restrictions and small size will do nothing to force the insurance industry to keep their rates affordable. Instead, it may well become nothing more than a drain on the federal budget with no real benefits for the average person. The current trend of people paying more money for less coverage will continue unabated.


Should Read (none / 0) (#59)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:42:10 PM EST

the employer cannot choose the public option even if it would provide his employees with better coverage for the same or less money.


Is the apparent goal of the pending (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:44:40 PM EST

legislation to either provide to or force more of us to be insured? Does the apparent goal also include trying to reduce the cost of health care?


The proposed (none / 0) (#66)
by MO Blue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:41:30 PM EST

legislation, will in fact provide or force more of us to be insured.

Everyone in the administration and Congress gives lip service to reducing the cost of health care. Democrats say the major way to do this is by having a public option. This statement by Senator Bingaman is pretty representative of the comments made by Obama and other members of Congress.

"This strong public option proposal will ensure that there is real competition between public and private insurance plans. It is an important safeguard, the goal of which is controlling escalating health care costs and extending coverage to millions of Americans for whom health insurance has been out of reach," Senator Bingaman said. link

Neither bill, IMO, provides a strong public option. Due to the restrictions placed on who may enroll in the public option and its small size (9 - 10 million by 2017), there will be NO real competition between public and private insurance plans and NO pressure for cost containment.

Costs will be reduced for Medicare and Medicaid if Congress reduces their budget by $300 million dollars as proposed. I remain unconvinced that the health care for the people in these groups will not also be reduced as a result of the budget cuts.


: Fewer doctors will accept Medicare (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:43:10 PM EST

I suspect. Not good.

2 numbers public option advocates never mention (5.00 / 5) (#34)
by lambertstrether on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:30:34 AM EST

The bait and switch:

130 million -- number of enrollees under "public option" as sold to the public

9 million -- number of enrollees under "public option" in the legislation, according to CBO.

The whole "keep the insurance industry honest" comes from the perception of 130 million.

The reality is 9 million.

The legislation is a FAIL. No wonder they don't want it in place until 2013 -- after the 2010 mid-terms and the 2012 presidential election.

Did anyone ask if the plan will save money? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by nycvoter on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:35:33 PM EST

I saw Sebelius on MTP and she didn't have any good answer to the the CBOs report that it costs more than we are spending now.

The key stakeholders in the private (4.87 / 8) (#2)
by Anne on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:47:24 PM EST

sector already own the table, BTD, and that's why there were no single-payer advocates invited to participate; if Obama had wanted to have a real conversation and brain-storming session about how to improve/fix the current system, he would have wanted ALL the stakeholders there, and not allowed the private, corporate sector to have the biggest microphone and the largest presence. It might have signaled that he was really committed to actual reform, which, in my dictionary, is not defined as the status quo with a cute new name.

What kind of pressure is Obama applying to the Congress? Or is this the community organizer approach, where he will serve merely as a guide, a facilitator, and whatever happens is all on us?

This is the second time today that Obama has made reference to those out to kill his presidency, which kind of puts the lie to his claim that this isn't about him; I think it's very much about him, and about not spoiling his win-at-everything record.

I guess I will wait and see whether the bloggers will allow themselves to be seduced by the sexiness of direct access to the president himself, or whether they will apply the same kind of pressure to Obama as he expects them to apply to Congress.

Some of us who've worked for top-down (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:47:13 PM EST

bureaucratic institutions have had the specious privilege of being invited to have a sit-down with a boss who tells us that other levels of administration are dead set against his/her visionary agenda and our 'input' could be really helpful in turning things around. But lo and behold things don't turn out for the better.

At some point, you realize the fix was in from the get-go, and your participation was a charade - then you either continue to go through the motions, or you take the consequences for pulling back the curtain.


Jeralyn wrote this post (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:48:32 PM EST

: Oops - sorry! (none / 0) (#5)
by Anne on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:44:03 PM EST

Was going back and forth between two health care threads. It's been that kind of Monday... :-)

No single payer advocates? (4.75 / 4) (#7)
by lambert on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:37:53 PM EST

Why am I not surprised?

All Obama cheerleaders too (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:48:36 PM EST

...which isn't surprising either.


Is McJoan an Obama cheerleader? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Tony on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:17:20 PM EST

That doesn't seem right to me.


Um (none / 0) (#27)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:09:17 AM EST

give one example of REAL criticism issued by McJoan. Name one instance of any criticism during the primaries.

Obama knows that all you have to do is schmooze these "elite" bloggers and they do your bidding. They always have.


One example (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Tony on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 11:57:56 AM EST

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/7/717546/-More-Immunity-Claims-on-Wiretapping-from-Obama-DO J

Greenwald called her criticism of the Obama administration "vehement."


An easy call (none / 0) (#52)
by lambert on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:03:52 PM EST

How about health care?


I have no idea. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Tony on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 03:27:55 PM EST

I know zilch about health care policy.

It has not been my experience that McJoan is a cheerleader for Barack Obama, which was the point of contention.

As for your original statement, I believe D-Day, a single-payer advocate, was on the call.


: If dday is a single payer advocate... (none / 0) (#69)
by lambert on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:01:47 PM EST

... then could you direct me to his single payer posts?
At most, he's the kind of "progressive" who says, "Yeah, I'd really like single payer, but there's no point demanding it, and we didn't really do anything about it in 2008, or hold Obama's feet to the fire, or anything, but look, we're the experts on strategery so STFU."

And a gay man (none / 0) (#58)
by lilburro on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:43:37 PM EST

is not Secretary of Defense.

Who on earth is expecting Obama to do something totally out of left-field??


Talk Left wasn't invited? (none / 0) (#1)
by Idearc on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:31:33 PM EST

Heh!

: Wow (none / 0) (#23)
by kmblue on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 06:56:29 AM EST

Jeralyn says Obama even answered questions.
Big of him!

So now it's official: (none / 0) (#4)
by dk on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:39:52 PM EST

We know which bloggers belong to OFA?

Who's got the attendee list? (none / 0) (#8)
by lambert on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:01:33 PM EST

Jeralyn?

Trying to kill his presidency (none / 0) (#22)
by ruffian on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 05:12:23 AM EST

Why is he accepting the premise that if something, anything, regarding health care reform is not passed this fall, his presidency is dead in the water? I would be fighting against that notion, not accepting it.

Great point (none / 0) (#24)
by Slado on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 07:43:40 AM EST

Isn't fixing the economy a big enough legacy builder? Worked out for Clinton.

If he gets that done he gets another term and get to work on bigger issues.

The state of the economy is dragging him down and his poor handling of it (so far) or the perception that he is handling it poorly is leaking into everything and the fiscal reality that we're broke makes these challenges much harder.

He should focus on the economy and get into these other issues once we've come out of it.


Too late for that (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by lambertstrether on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 10:48:34 AM EST

The $24 trillion is already committed.

Second stimulus ruled out...

HOLC never put in place...

And so on.


: I think Obama is in such a rush (none / 0) (#61)
by Slado on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:48:59 PM EST

because every day something else terrible comes out about these plans.
I really don't understand what he's doing.
Maybe it's that 11 dimensional chess thing again?