Obama may drop Govt. Health Care

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sadaist
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    • Jul 2004
    • 11625

    Obama may drop Govt. Health Care

    W.H. backs away from public option

    Carrie Budoff Brown Carrie Budoff Brown – Sun Aug 16, 3 : 02 pm ET

    President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they’re prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that’s what’s needed to strike a compromise on Obama’s top legislative priority.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was “not the essential element” of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was “just one sliver” of the debate.

    He even chided Democratic supporters and Republican critics for becoming “so fixated on this that they forget everything else” — a dig at some liberals in his own party who have made the public option the main rallying cry of the health reform debate.

    At the same time, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of six senators involved in bipartisan Finance Committee negotiations, all but declared the public option dead in the Senate.

    “Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Conrad, who has pushed an alternative proposal to create a network of consumer cooperatives, on Fox News Sunday. “There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”

    A White House aide said in an e-mailed statement Sunday afternoon that the president is not backing away from the public plan.

    "Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. “The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

    But taken together, the remarks from Obama, Sebelius and Conrad suggest the White House is preparing supporters for a health care compromise that may well exclude the government option — which could help Obama win enough votes for a sweeping overhaul but touch off a nasty battle inside his own party between liberals and more moderate members who have resisted a bigger government role in health care.

    It was only in June that Obama said in a letter to Senate Democrats that “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

    A month ago, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that “any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.”

    But in the face of hardening opposition to the idea — even inside his own party — Obama appears ready to retrench. Obama and his aides continue to emphasize having some competitor to private insurers, perhaps nonprofit insurance cooperatives, but they are using stronger language to downplay the importance that it be a government plan.

    “What's important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said on CNN’s State of the Union. “And I'm convinced at the end of the day, the plan will have both of those. But that is not the essential element."

    The reaction in the liberal blogosphere and beyond was swift and negative Sunday.

    “Ultimately, if the president decides he’s going to go with a reform effort that doesn’t include a public option, what he will have done is spent a ton of political capital, riled up an incredibly angry right-wing base that’s been told this is a plot to kill Grandma, and he will have achieved something that doesn’t change health care very much and that doesn’t save us very much money and won’t do much for the American people,” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said on NBC’s "Meet the Press." "It’s not a very good thing to spend a lot of political capital on."

    One diarist on the Daily Kos said the “public option is in the ICU. ... When you call something that once was the central tenet of reform is now a ‘sliver,’ it is very difficult to argue it is not being de-emphasized.” Another diarist wrote this headline: “Told you so: Public Option, Meet Underside of Bus.”

    “It would be very, very difficult without the public option,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said on whether she could support a bill that dropped the public option. She spoke on CNN's State of the Union.

    Liberals say a health care bill without a public option would fail to actually reform the system. They view the public option as the best way to hold insurance companies accountable and provide affordable coverage, and they say nonprofit cooperatives are an unproven model.

    “Health Care for America Now believes that all of the elements that Secretary Sebelius spoke in favor of – a public option, insurance reform, making health care affordable to all – are essential to effective reform,” said Richard Kirsch, campaign manager of Health Care for American Now, a liberal organization pushing the government option. “There is no ‘the’ essential element – all are key to health reform that will work.”

    Sebelius, following Obama’s lead Saturday in Colorado, sought to shift the focus of the debate from the public option to more popular reforms such as prohibiting insurers from denying or dropping coverage because of a preexisting condition. It’s a subtle, but potentially telling, window into the White House’s latest strategy on reframing the terms of a legislative victory.

    “Those are really essential parts of the program, along with choice and competition, which I think we'll have at the end of the day,” Sebelius said.

    At the Saturday town hall meeting in Colorado, Obama defended the rationale for establishing a public plan, but he also raised eyebrows for suggesting the final package may not include one.

    “All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” he said. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.”

    On CBS's Face the Nation, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the government option had to be included in the final bill. He repeated the standard White House line that the president wants to "inject some choice competition into the private insurance market."

    But then, he appeared to hedge.

    "The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done through a public option," Gibbs said.

    "Is that a hedge?" asked host Harry Smith, referring to Gibbs's use of "thus far."

    "No, no, no. What I am saying is the bottom line for the president is that we ought to have choice and competition in the insurance market," Gibbs responded.

    W.H. backs away from public option - Yahoo! News
    “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”
  • sadaist
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    • Jul 2004
    • 11625

    #2
    “Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Sen. Conrad (D-N.D.)


    Wow, even Democrat senators won't vote for Obama's plan. Must be racism.
    “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

    Comment

    • Blackflag
      Banned
      • Apr 2006
      • 3406

      #3
      That's really surprising. I guess it's just the status quo then - I wonder how they'll spin this as groundbreaking legislation?

      Comment

      • Big Train
        Full Member Status

        • Apr 2004
        • 4013

        #4
        If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

        Who would you blame for it?

        Comment

        • jhale667
          DIAMOND STATUS
          • Aug 2004
          • 20929

          #5
          Originally posted by Big Train
          If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

          Who would you blame for it?
          There's plenty of blame to go around...

          The dems for backing down?

          Palin and Grassley for lying through their teeth?

          Originally posted by conmee
          If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

          That is all.

          Icon.
          Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
          I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


          Originally posted by Isaac R.
          Then it's really true??:eek:

          The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

          OMFG...who in their right mind...???
          Originally posted by eddie78
          I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

          Comment

          • sadaist
            TOASTMASTER GENERAL
            • Jul 2004
            • 11625

            #6
            Originally posted by Big Train
            If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

            Who would you blame for it?
            Since they can't pin it on George Bush this time, I'm sure they'll go to their standby...racist, redneck, teabagging, birther Republicans.
            “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

            Comment

            • sadaist
              TOASTMASTER GENERAL
              • Jul 2004
              • 11625

              #7
              Originally posted by jhale667

              The dems for backing down?


              Is it really backing down if they open their eyes and see that people don't want this? Remember, they are not in public office to implement plans they want. They are there to implement plans the people want.
              “Great losses often bring only a numb shock. To truly plunge a victim into misery, you must overwhelm him with many small sufferings.”

              Comment

              • jhale667
                DIAMOND STATUS
                • Aug 2004
                • 20929

                #8
                Originally posted by sadaist
                Is it really backing down if they open their eyes and see that people don't want this? Remember, they are not in public office to implement plans they want. They are there to implement plans the people want.
                Do you really think it's a case of them "opening their eyes"? Doubt it. Remember, they're also in office to do what's BEST for the country. And with as much information as is out there, do you really think the vast majority knows what they want??
                Originally posted by conmee
                If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

                That is all.

                Icon.
                Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
                I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


                Originally posted by Isaac R.
                Then it's really true??:eek:

                The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

                OMFG...who in their right mind...???
                Originally posted by eddie78
                I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

                Comment

                • WACF
                  Crazy Ass Mofo
                  • Jan 2004
                  • 2920

                  #9
                  It's things like this that make it a bit hard to understand....

                  <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

                  Being from a province that was mainly run on socialistic ideas for many decades...it was proven many times that government and business can not fairly compete.

                  I do not understand really....how insurance companies can provide a service against a government sudsidized service.

                  Insurance companies are not there for your good...they are there to make a profit first and foremost.

                  I also do not understand wholly how the tax payor will not be paying into this.

                  In the end...your tax dollars...one way or another will be used...and there would be no need for private insurance...other than for perhaps dental, eye, chiro, prescription type of benefits.

                  What ever you do...it needs to be debated and people need to be informed...then...and only then bills put forward.

                  Health care started here in my province...and from what the older people remember...it was quite tumultuous...in the end...Canada Federally adopted our provincial plan.

                  You need that debate...not a bunch of screamers and poor spelling on signs to make a point.


                  In the end....if the government can see to the well being and health of it's countrymen & women...what good is it?

                  Comment

                  • FORD
                    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                    • Jan 2004
                    • 58789

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Big Train
                    If this does happen, how do you guys feel about it? Major defeat or disappointment?

                    Who would you blame for it?
                    Most of the blame would go to the false "democrats" like Max Bluecross and Kunt Co-op Conrad.

                    Obama himself has said that he would not sign a bill without a true public option. If they send such a piece of shit to his desk, I hope he vetoes it, and tells them to get it right.

                    However, the minute Obama signs a shitty bill, then he takes ownership of the failure. And I would never forgive him for doing so.
                    Eat Us And Smile

                    Cenk For America 2024!!

                    Justice Democrats


                    "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                    Comment

                    • WACF
                      Crazy Ass Mofo
                      • Jan 2004
                      • 2920

                      #11
                      Originally posted by WACF
                      In the end....if the government can see to the well being and health of it's countrymen & women...what good is it?

                      Well...that came out wrong.

                      What I meant was...In the end...if the government can NOT see to the well being and health of it's countrymen & women...what good is it?

                      Comment

                      • FORD
                        ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                        • Jan 2004
                        • 58789

                        #12
                        It's right in the preamble of the Constitution....

                        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                        The "general Welfare" part is obvious enough, but I'd argue that it speaks to the defense, Justice, and tranquility parts as well. It only makes sense that you defend against illness as you would against any other enemy. There's no "justice" when millions can't even see a doctor, and anybody who's seen a video of the teabaggers can tell there's no tranquility up in here.
                        Eat Us And Smile

                        Cenk For America 2024!!

                        Justice Democrats


                        "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                        Comment

                        • ZahZoo
                          ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                          • Jan 2004
                          • 8970

                          #13
                          Originally posted by sadaist
                          Is it really backing down if they open their eyes and see that people don't want this? Remember, they are not in public office to implement plans they want. They are there to implement plans the people want.
                          I don't think it's so uch that "the people" don't want it... I think it's more the insurance industry can't allow it and are pulling out all the stops to kill it.
                          "If you want to be a monk... you gotta cook a lot of rice...”

                          Comment

                          • jhale667
                            DIAMOND STATUS
                            • Aug 2004
                            • 20929

                            #14
                            I love how this week's Repuke/Insurance agency lie/tactic is to claim Healthcare reform is now somehow Unconstitutional (I'll try to find the link my asshat birther co-worker posted later) - so I guess that means we have to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid now...
                            Originally posted by conmee
                            If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.

                            That is all.

                            Icon.
                            Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
                            I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667


                            Originally posted by Isaac R.
                            Then it's really true??:eek:

                            The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???

                            OMFG...who in their right mind...???
                            Originally posted by eddie78
                            I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.

                            Comment

                            • Big Train
                              Full Member Status

                              • Apr 2004
                              • 4013

                              #15
                              WACF curious to get your thoughts on this...since everyone cites Canada as a wonderful example of socialized medicine, why are they advocating essentially a Republican position?

                              Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
                              By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 2 days ago

                              SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

                              Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

                              "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

                              "We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

                              The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

                              His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

                              In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

                              He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

                              Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

                              "A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

                              A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

                              Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

                              "It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

                              "That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

                              Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

                              "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

                              "They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

                              Comment

                              Working...