Hey, I don't approve how Obama is handling health care either
Watching the cable pundits last night wrangle with the majority of Americans disapproving of how Obama is handling health care reform, I was struck by their automatic assumption that all 52% of those who disapprove are against reform. Where did they get that idea?
If asked if I approved or disapproved of how he was handling health care reform, I would be in the disapprove category because think he is weakening reform by trying to get GOP support that won't come. I disapprove of him bowing to the Blue Dogs and letting the least Democratic Democrats run the show. I disapprove of him not pushing the Senate to act before the recess, thereby opening up more opportunities to weaken the bill. I think he's going for too little, too diffidently and compromising too much.
So I disapprove - because I want better strong health care reform and I am wiling to bet that since 72% of Americans want the public option and see it being frittered away by over-conciliatory compromise, that it's damn likely that more of those 52% who disapprove of how Obama is handling health care reform do so because they think he's dithering and wasting the opportunity for a stronger, better plan than are those who want little or nothing.
In fact, those who want some tinkering around the edges reform should be the ones who approve his handling, because as it goes right now - that's where we are headed.
If asked if I approved or disapproved of how he was handling health care reform, I would be in the disapprove category because think he is weakening reform by trying to get GOP support that won't come. I disapprove of him bowing to the Blue Dogs and letting the least Democratic Democrats run the show. I disapprove of him not pushing the Senate to act before the recess, thereby opening up more opportunities to weaken the bill. I think he's going for too little, too diffidently and compromising too much.
So I disapprove - because I want better strong health care reform and I am wiling to bet that since 72% of Americans want the public option and see it being frittered away by over-conciliatory compromise, that it's damn likely that more of those 52% who disapprove of how Obama is handling health care reform do so because they think he's dithering and wasting the opportunity for a stronger, better plan than are those who want little or nothing.
In fact, those who want some tinkering around the edges reform should be the ones who approve his handling, because as it goes right now - that's where we are headed.
Advertisement
Cable news is like alcohol, in that it strengthens all aspects of the "American personality."
August 7, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Oregon -
I think that disapproving of where things stand and disapproving of Obama's performance are two different things. I happen to be more favorably inclined toward both, because even if the public option debate isn't resolved on ideal terms, what remains in the legislation is more important, and will dramatically transform American society for the better. Even if we ended up with no public component at all - i.e., no government run government plan and no strong non-profit co-op plan - we would still have a strong insurance reform package overall, but I do think we will achieve some type of public component. It is salutary for us to express disagreements among ourselves, as long as we don't sabotage each others' efforts.
Obama is not a dictator, and his pushing was designed to maintain momentum rather than force votes before the recess. He might have wished the former, but Congress is jealous of its prerogatives, and with legislation of this complexity, it's not surprising that the process is slow.
At this point, all who are disappointed that we aren't there yet should become even more vigorous in putting pressure on legislators to pass a robust reform bill as early in the fall as possible.
August 7, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress had been half as jealous of its prerogatives under Bush we would not be in such a mess. Dems rolled over for Bush and stand up to Obama. Yeah, that's the way to win!
I disagree strongly that a bill without a strong public option will be a good bill. A bill that mandates insurance without cost control measures that are effective (such as the public option) will do more to enrich the insurance industry than to cover people, prove unsustainable and confirm the people in the idea that we cannot afford universal care.
August 7, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A reform package without any "public" component - either government run or run as a non-profit cooperative - would be a disappointment, but this should be put in persepctive. First, I don't see that outcome as likely. Second, a public option, while desirable, is not the most critical reform needed for health insurance. Rather, what is more important is that insurers must accept all applicants, charge no discriminatory rates based on health status, offers all essential services as a minimum, and refrain from capping annual or lifetime total payments, and that low income families receive adequate government subsidies to afford premium costs. All these are provisions in the legislation that are unlikely to be sacrificed, and would constitute an excellent step even without a public option.
I do believe vigorous efforts to defend a public option should continue. I'm merely trying to make the point that the other provisions are very significant steps forward.
Finally, at least one European healthcare system with excellent and affordable universal coverage utilizes exclusively private insurers for most medical care. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Netherlands
August 7, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well why the f*** doesn't Obama act like Bush? He has more of a mandate, and yet he sits around compromising with Republicans and Blue Dogs, while his chief arm is telling progressives to STFU. Oh wait, I guess he is acting like Bush.
August 8, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought this. Approving his "handling" of health care reform is different than approving reform. He hasn't handled this well, because I see chances of a public option weakening every day. But approving his ideas for reform?? Damn straight! Unfortunately the mainstream media distorts reality on this issue.
August 7, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point! But the media are not in the business of explaining or even finding out what is going on. They are in the business of presenting two simplistic sides to every story. Therefore: 52%=against reform. It's stupid, but there you are.
August 7, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone explain to me why we're expanding Medicaid and not killing it dead?
Why poor people don't deserve the same basic insurance as everyone else?
August 7, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand you want stronger HCR. I just dont think it is Obama's fault. He's pushing a public option at every town hall, and yet the Blue Dogs are flaking out. He could be doing a better job, but he is simply not in control of Congress. It's simpistic to pin it on the executive.
I also think blame rests with us: We all want HCR, but are getting out hussled by the wingnuts and industry. We need to fight for this, but some people would rather complain that this bill is not good enough, so why bother. That's a formula for doing nothing ever.
Real people are being victimized by these insurance cartels as we speak. Any delay is likely to kill real people. The next "recission" is somebody's mother or brother or friend. That guy who can't get meds and who might lose his foot to diabetes.
Don't tell me that we should wait another decade or two for some perfect bill that we can really get behind. Every inch of turf is worht fighting for here.
August 7, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rescission? Bad example.
Solving that problem takes one paragraph in a supplement to some dull-as-death, ordinary Judiciary Committee bill -- a bill funding the U.S. Marshall's K-9 veterinary services, perhaps.
It doesn't require $1 trillion of faux reform.
August 8, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
We were promised a t-shirt, and we're not going home without the t-shirt. Okay, it can be a faux t-shirt, but I still want it.
August 8, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Oregon Activist.
I wonder if progressives (what ever that term means) have thought through what a bill with no option means in the broader political arena. I believe that it will deflate the Left on many levels. All this work and energy for real change. And we get short-changed.
August 7, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Oregon.
First things first, Its a little embarrassing but I confess I sorta have a thing for hot female avatars and you qualify. God Damn.
Next, Great post.
I too would fall under the dissatisfied category. After the watered down stimulus this should have been next up on the agenda this spring, it should have been full court press with the full Obama campaign working the ground. Health Care groups should have been formed to keep all those idealist volunteers working the streets and ads telling true insurance industry stories should have been saturating the MSM. WE should have townhalls ready to go with blueteam candidates and real people with unassailble insurance tragidies in every bluedog district. Fight fire with fire. There should have been demonstrations, marches, and letter writing campaigns in full boar.
In another thread Kali had a super suggestion of a camp in front of the whitehouse with hundreds of sick people without insurance. Why not? Why stop there, I say we camp out at CNN and Fox too (But we be careful to weed out the real crazies)
Upstream Good'Ol Vichy Fred does make some good points, but these people are professional campaigners who had an unprecedented organization at their disposal, that they are getting out gamed now is pretty ridiculous. They only have themselves to blame.
Sure congress has its prerogative, but on this issue the numbers don't add up. We solidly have the house and 40 plus senators. We just need a few senator votes and those can be found. Pressure them. LBJ knew this playbook. Be nice if Reid looked up some history sometime, find what they want need most and turn the screws. If you have to Use the nuclear option (stupid 40 vote thing is unconstitutional and I would love to see it come to a head; super majorities cripple democracy (see California)).
However none of that would work without a popular mandate, and that is where the ground game came in. So where is it? Why did they wait and let insurance and Fox news set the game?
Finally I notice we both hail from the same neck of the woods. If you know of any local townhalls with some teabagers in need of confrontation. Give me a shout.
August 7, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink