No Public Option: It's Obama's Fault
Democratic aides said that a "handful" of senators who are skeptical of a public plan likely could be persuaded if not to support it then at least to oppose a Republican filibuster, if the administration were to apply a bit more pressure -- or even guidance.
"There is a clear sense that it would be helpful," said one senior Democratic aide. "Throughout this entire debate the White House line has been 'We will weigh in when it is necessary'.... Well now we need 60 votes. So if it's not necessary now, then when will it be?"
"I think folks in general in Congress were looking to the president to clearly define his feeling on the issue," another aide said. "And I don't think he has done that on the public option from the get-go... With a lot of senators nervous because of elections or other political dynamics, it would be helpful for the president to send a strong signal that this is what he wants in the final bill."
Oh give us a break please.... This is the Democratic Party's way of getting away from any blame if a public option ends up not being a part of the final Health Care Reform package.
I agree with Press Secretary Gibbs on this one, ""I think the folks on Capitol Hill, based on the speech the president gave on Capitol Hill, know where he stands,"
Just last September 7th during a visit to Cincinnati they president said,
"I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."
So what else is he suppose to say, "add it or I won't sign the bill"? Oh that would solve everything wouldn't it. Not only would it not give Democrats anymore leverage it would just end up putting all the blame on Obama if the bill does not pass.
Nope, if Obama came out and demanded a public option, it would instead most likely kill whatever they've accomplished so far.
I'm pretty darn sure there will be some sort of trigger or way of going back into the package that is passed this year and changing the rules at a later date, even if that doesn't happen during Obama's term in office.
So, what he's been saying is plenty of ammo for the Democrats to get those 'votes' to stop a filibuster if they truly want to stop it. If they fail to do so, it won't be Obama's fault, it will prove once again that the Democratic Party as a whole, can't seem to work as a team on anything of any real substance.
As I blogged last week, if Obama comes out publicly strongly in support of PO, the Republican "Obama MUST fail" machine will redouble their efforts to defeat it, just to show Obama as "weak".
I think the level of support he is currently showing is about as much as he can give without dooming the public option.
Only a day or so before a Senate up or down vote can he really push it hard....to do so earlier would allow too much time for the Insurance and Pharma lobbies to react.
October 20, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, Obama is weak.
October 20, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obama is weak. Feel Better?
October 21, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - I'm impressed and actually agree with you. I'm surprised you didn't say it's Bush's fault.
October 20, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No trolling here. Not at all.
October 20, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. I actually agree with her. And I am surprised she doesn't blame it on Bush.
How is your analysis coming about Lehman's failure? Or are you just going to tell me to read Rolling Stone? It just kills me that someone who claims to be a professional in the area of finance would tell me to read Rolling Stone.
October 20, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The number of references to Bush in coonsey's post was exactly zero. So only a Fox News-drunk asshole like yourself would even bring it up as a gratuitous slap at imaginary "bus Derangement Syndrome."
And if you're so concerned about the Lehman issue, research it yourself. Last time I checked, Timothy McVeigh-Fan Bill wasn't signing my paychecks.
October 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
She and I have had a long-standing discussion over the last few months about what Bush should and shouldn't be blamed for. So you are taking the comment out of context because you don't have the benefit of that background.
I have researched the Lehman point myself and provided you with my view on multiple occasions. I've asked for you to defend/substantiate your claim that short-sellers caused Lehman's demise but unfortunately all you have done is reference 3rd party articles such as Matt Taibbi and something from Global Research.
For someone whose day-job is the financial markets, I am surprised that you wouldn't have formed your own reasoned opinion rather than just relying on other peoples' work.
October 20, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take the view of people who actually get published over a douchy fuckwad commenting on a blog like you anyday.
It's pretty clear, since you've admitted that you've countered my providing you with numerous sources with nothing but your "thoughts" on the issue, that you're not going to be convinced anyway. You can't factually dispute any of the reporting I've provided you, so you attack the credentials of the journalists instead, thus admitting you're a typical Hannityesque rightwing hack.
So feel to bring this issue up every time you respond to me. I'll nevertheless continue to point out what a disingenuous troll you are, on each and every topic.
October 20, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you don't need to take their view if you work in the financial markets and the Lehman bankruptcy was part of your professional capacity.
Why not explain to me from your perspective since you must know the topic inside and out rather than just citing 3rd party articles?
October 20, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why not explain to me from your perspective...?"
Because you are an idiot. You didn't understand when I explained it months ago, and you haven't gotten any smarter since.
October 20, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your premise was that Lehman was similar to the others in terms of risk metrics and leverage.
Therefore, you inferred, since Lehman was the only one to go bankrupt it must be due to short selling
But as I have already pointed out, Lehman was in the same bad shape as others but they did not get bailed out.
People were shorting plenty of stocks but they didn't all fail
Lehman was worse off than others from a credit perspective and nobody wanted to play the role of JPM or BOA or Wells and save Lehman
October 20, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with anything you just wrote. But it also shows that you completely misunderstood most of what I wrote those many weeks ago.
But, this is discussion about the public option and who deserves the blame if it doesn't pass. Do you have anything of value to add here, other than taking swipes at the original poster and trying to derail this onto one of the (the only?) topics where you're not completely ignorant?
October 20, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you were in agreement with me then you wouldn't be writing non-sense such as "what basically killed Lehman were the short sellers".
Lehman would have failed even if nobody shorted the stock.
October 20, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be "No."
October 20, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is very valuable to point out when somebody like you makes a claim which is completely wrong and then chooses not to back it up.
October 21, 2009 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are obviously people who have also researched the issue who disagree with you. But apparently you find it "valuable" to re-hash a months-old disagreement on every thread, no matter what the topic.
I would call that the very definition of a troll. Not that there has been any doubt about you since you first began infesting this blog with your Fox News talking points, torture-loving, Timothy McVeigh-defending bullshit.
October 21, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would only be a re-hash if you had actually presented an original thought and not just referenced articles.
Since I previously worked for one of Lehman's competitors prior to being laid off, I was looking forward to an intelligent debate with someone else who also claims to have first-hand knowledge of the matter. But so far I've yet to hear your own view
October 21, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey, you wrote: "I'm pretty darn sure there will be some sort of trigger or way of going back into the package that is passed this year and changing the rules at a later date, even if that doesn't happen during Obama's term in office."
Congress can revisit legislation at any time. If something passes and there are major, major problems with it, you can bet they will, regardless of whether there is or is not a trigger provision in the legislation calling on them to do that. They don't need "permission."
Congress can force itself to revisit legislation with a provision in an enacted law, and this is the case with many laws that authorize funding only for a specified number of years. Congress has to extend the current law as is or revise it in order for funding to be continued.
Congress can also pass a separate law repealing provisions which would have forced it to revisit the existing law, with or without a whole lot of discussion.
Not saying any of this will happen with this legislation and I certainly hope not. But there was a huge outcry over Medicare legislation passed some years back (90's or 80s; it can start to blur together a bit when you get to be my age) that led to some seniors paying more out of pocket. There was a big hue and cry and Congress simply repealed the law, if memory serves.
My biggest concern in this regard is if the out-of-pocket costs for below median income families are experienced as onerous, it is possible there could be such a backlash as to force Congress to make changes to whatever is initially adopted. Obviously not a prospect the Congressional leadership or the White House would welcome.
October 20, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, so you are arguing that not using the power of the Office of the President to bring about legislation that you supposedly want is a bad idea? What sort of alternative universe have we been dropped into here?
Obama has always been lukewarm on the Public Option. His campaign trail statements not withstanding he has dropped the total ball on this reform bill.
We are going to get what the lobbyists and the republicans allow us to have. Thanks Barack. One has to wonder about all those that lent a nickle and dime to help get him elected. I hope they realize where most of that "grass roots" money came from. Sad day for us all.
October 20, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical. Passing on responsibility. And what about the OFA 100,000 calls to Congress? Isn't that added pressure? I'm sure all of those callers told Congress they wanted the PO.
What more do these guys want? Why don't the Dems in Congress who want the PO (the vast majority) corner the hold outs in a meeting and make them play nice?
October 20, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. Read the fine print. OFA's script asked people to support the "President's plan." Since a public option is not "essential" and is not even mentioned in the script, being counted as a part of that 100,000+ lessens the pressure for a real public option in the final bill. And when they remove the public option from the bill, Obama and OFA will use it to show how many people support the "compromise."
October 20, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I am reading some of you think that Obama's saying the following,
""I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."
Actually means, he DOESN'T REALLY believe a public option will help improve quality and bring down costs --- is that what you are saying?
Are you sure? Maybe you don't really mean what you say you think.///
October 20, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would pretty much sum up my thoughts. Though, that he is even having to discussion that the idea isn't primary in the legislastion shows to me how far away he is from his words of the campaign. Do believe we all were talking single payor options at the time and there seemed to be agreement that when the election was sealed that is where we were headed. Silly me to have believed campaign rhetoric. "Change" is now equaling "no change". The plan we are getting now is no different than what would or could have been proposed out of a Dubya Whitehouse.
October 20, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two or three people in Congress that are worrying more about their own rearends/jobs then that of the American people.
While they may have ran for office with the novel idea idea of serving a good cause (the people), they now serve for their own well being.
Plain and simple. Because of that, (Senator Reid), they need to be kicked out of office.
October 20, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So, what he's been saying is plenty of ammo for the Democrats to get those 'votes' to stop a filibuster if they truly want to stop it. If they fail to do so, it won't be Obama's fault, it will prove once again that the Democratic Party as a whole, can't seem to work as a team on anything of any real substance."
I'd have to say I disagree strongly with this take on the public option and Obama.
The White House has been trying to distance itself from the Public Option for months. Emmanual has repeatedly said in public that it's something Obama can live without. Obama himself has said it at least twice in public. This past Sunday his spokeswoman reiterated it again. Obama has failed the leadership test on this and he has intentionally failed it. If Obama were really for a public option he would say so without reservation. The Republicans are not relevant in this context because their votes are not needed. Obama is not much of a Democrat when it comes down to it. He flatters himself with the idea of being "post partisan" which is code for being a patsy of corporate interests.
One might have gotten away with this backhanded support of a public option a couple of months ago, but now the time has come to fish or cut bait and Obama is clearly cutting bait. This is the point in the legislative process when the President has to lead and specifically and repeatedly make it known that a public option is a necessity and is not negotiable. Instead, Emmanual is encouraging Reid's waffling and wavering and indecision.
October 21, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me give you an example of what you claim is leadership. Because Obama wants to close Guantanamo, he should demand that all it's POWs be moved to a specific Prison, for example, a prison in Utah -- otherwise he will veto any other place that Congress might suggest.
Because of his demand -- Congress can't get the bill passed. Guantanamo stays in business.
The same will happen if Obama Demands a public option. There are just enough senators unfortunately that can stop the health care reform in it's tracks and they know it.
Saying you want "THIS" and you will settle for nothing else is just asking for trouble.
Sort of like Bush demanding we invade Iraq and his refusal to allow inspectors more time --- look where it got us.
October 21, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he had real courage he could close Guantanamo and send those "terrorists" home any time he wanted to. Guantanamo wasn't opened by the Congress. Bush did it from the Executive. What yu see is leadership is actually just playing the game of trying not to really make a decision and get blamed for it.
He is tacit leader of the party. Use the bully pulpit and your own personal power to do what you KNOW is RIGHT. He is hiding behind the Republicans to make sure he doesn't have to make a decision and can blame Congress if it goes off line without a bill......
October 21, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you said but add to it he also is doing it so he can continue to curry favor with the corporate parasites who oppose a public option.
October 21, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO....you use the strategy that WORKS and actually gets something DONE.
October 21, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Coonsey, I agree that the point you make about "getting something done" is of course highly relevant.
However, that seems to me to beg the question of whether what is being discussed now in Congress will, when the disagreements are hashed out and a final bill is voted on, represent a step forward or a step back.
One issue in particular is a focus of the questions some of us, me included, have. That's the issue of the mandate to purchase insurance.
My understanding is that the current notion is to help people pay these costs with tax credits.
Well, ok, obviously better that than no help at all, but that doesn't help people at the time they have to pay.
I am asking, and am trying to find out, if there is a precedent for forward-funding the tax credits so people will have the money to pay the premiums at the time they get the bill for the premiums instead of paying the bill with...exactly what money they don't have to spare?, I wonder.
Having served as a Congressional committee staffer some time ago and been involved with the passage of major legislation, I am constantly aware of how easy it is for members of Congress and even a WH to simply not put on the lens of "what will this bill mean in very concrete terms for the family making $30,000 a year?".
The people these folks are meeting with day-to-day probably all have health insurance themselves. The government officials nor the advocates they're talking to may not, or may no longer, have any practical ability to imagine what it is like trying to live on a family income of $30,000 or $20,000 or $40,000 a year in this country today.
One of the enduring lessons of the service of elected officials, it seems to me, is how many of them, somewhere along the way, even though they probably at some times during their lives have struggled to make ends meet, seem to forget what life is like for people of ordinary and below-ordinary means.
Or else remembering doesn't seem to be quite at the forefront of their considerations when they vote and lobby internally with their colleagues.
They don't all forget. I think of David Obey, a US Representative from Wisconsin who I think truly does "get it" and who acts accordingly. He is a giant.
I could be convinced that the WH and Congress both really understand how this will affect millions and millions of people the legislation is supposedly intended to benefit, and have a strong and bottom-line policy response to that concern.
I'm not--not yet, anyway.
If in fact a bill that passes turns out not to resolve in a satisfactory way this issue of ability-to-pay-at-time-premium-bill-is-due for people below median income, I think some of us might well conclude that, on balance, even with all of the important improvements that may be in the offing, such legislation might be a step backward.
Do you think that would be an entirely unreasonable or wrongheaded conclusion?
October 21, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems have no sense of history or they would know that a win will entrench their party in Congress for years to come. With 20% self-identifying as GOP and 57% supportng a public option, what is there that suggests the GOp deserves our attention and the public option is political suicide? Dollars don't elect politicians, people do. 57% is a winning percentage. The sole reason not to support it is being under the sway of lobbyists. If you spend all your time with lobbyists who oppose the PO, then it will see to you that everyone is against the PO. These guys need to see more people who support the PO, plain and simple.
October 21, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey, I'll try asking you this question again. Maybe my first try, two comments "above" this one, wasn't clearly stated.
Do you think passing anything on health care is necessarily better than not passing something?
Do you believe it is relevant if whatever gets voted on would--on balance, obviously, since there are going to be pluses and minuses in anything that will come to a vote--be a step forward or a step backward?
Would you think a provision which ends up leaving many individuals and families of modest means having to come up with up-front costs for insurance premiums that are truly onerous for them, or that penalize them if they do not come up with that money, a step in the right direction?
These are not meant to be rhetorical--or hostile--questions. I am paying you the respect of taking what you are saying seriously.
October 23, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink