home

More Vitriol From Team Obama

This time from David Axelrod:

“To defeat a bill that will bend the curve on this inexorable rise in health-care costs is insane,” Axelrod said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” "I don’t think that you want this moment to pass. It will not come back."

Leaving aside the new fighting spirit out of the White House (apparently even the docile Obama likes punching DFHs), Axelrod's comment makes no sense. This bill's selling point to progressives is its cost cutting features? Really? Forget for a moment that Axelrod is FOS on the "cost cutting," I thought the more effective pitch was the provision of health insurance to the less well off. Moreover, if this is THE moment, as Axelrod states, this argues for fighting for more now, not accepting the lousy bill you have. The once vaunted No Drama Obama Team is really off its feed these days.

Speaking for me only

< Wyden-Bennett Vs. Single Payer: Fundamentally Different Views Of Health Care Reform | Longest Held Wrongfully Convicted Man Goes Home >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The balance of the evidence ... (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    seems to indicate that Feingold was right and the White House now has the bill it always wanted. The path for getting there seems a bit inept to me, sort of relying on the President-is-powerless model to get there. But now the curtain is pulled back showing the strong-arming going on.

    And this also is more evidence that (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:23:49 AM EST
    Axelrod is really, really not good at governing.  Or even at talking about it.

    Parent
    I disagrre (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    They never really knew what they wanted and if they ever did they've long forgot it.

    they are in pure political mode now.   They don't care what's in the bill.  They've convinced themselves that they can pass a POS and then with the political win use that mandate to change it after the fact.

    The reality is they won't be able to get it fixed and we'll be stuck with something that nobody likes.  

    Most Americans and most smart politicians know this and that's why they are losing this battle.

    Dean is right, drop this load of garbage and start over or start simpler.   Pushing through a tax hiking, Medicare cutting deficit raising load of garbage will be a bigger political liability then passing nothing at all.

    They have blinders on.   They feel they can't go back.   They'd be better off starting over, blaming republicans etc...

    Parent

    Slado Is Right (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by norris morris on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    Thanks for your excellent post.

    Parent
    This reform effort is becoming (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:31:56 PM EST
    the Democrats' Terri Schiavo, and I believe it will hurt them just as much, if not more, as the actual Schiavo-related spectacle hurt the GOP.

    Parent
    Love the analogy (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    Anne!

    Parent
    Yeah totally (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    man those losers who would get Medicaid coverage (which is massive since most states currently don't extend coverage to Childless adults regardless income) are just like a brain dead woman.

    Parent
    Nice attempt to hijack the analogy, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    but we both know I was not comparing those in need of health care to a brain dead woman.

    There's nothing wrong with disagreeing on these issues, but the level of dishonesty in your comment suggests that there isn't much point in engaging you.

    Parent

    I will say (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    the "reform" is without brain activity.  That's where I think the similarity ends.

    The one tiny difference is this bill is a pocket book issue, whereas Schiavo was an abstraction for most people.  

    Thus, if this bill passes, it will make Sciavo look comparably like it was GOOD for Republicans.

    Parent

    For me, it's about how hard they (none / 0) (#85)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    are trying to keep it alive, and how stunt-like some of the recent actions have been, that brought Schiavo to mind; I mean, what's next, Obama flying back from his Hawaiian Christmas holiday so that he can make a dramatic, middle-of-the-night appearance in the well of the Senate to help get a bill passed?

    They're going to make it worse even before then, I can feel it in my bones.  I feel like the Village Bloggers are turning into Schiavo's parents, certain there is a glimmer of life, of sentience, when all that is left is a shell of who Schiavo once was.

    Parent

    So bang on that 'Schiavo' becomes Obama-era verb (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ellie on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    As in: "C'mon gang, let's Schiavo this healthiness cr@p for the cameras and all go home for turkey! Where's Joe -- you're up, then Ben, Blanche and Joe again ..."

    I mean, why even pretend along that they're hammering out details at this point? After the holiday carcass is picked clean the excuse for another Obama admin inaction (failure) will be Let's Not Politicize, Um, Politics During This Holy Time of Electioneering.

    Parent

    AWESOME!!! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 05:01:26 PM EST
    I was a Terri Schivo, Medicare Bush loving republican.

    It was a hard lesson to learn (that I was a fool) but I learned it.  Supporting your party over your personal politics results in bad legistlation and eventually the public lashes back.

    Obama is more worried about winning then passing something that will work.

    The truth about healthcare is it's need both progressive and conservative changes.   Certain aspects should be dealt with from a progressive standpoint (access to care, safety net, etc.. etc..) some should be conservative (price controls, tort reform, etc...) if you try and apply a purely conservative or progressive solution you have to pretend that certain realities don't exist.

    That's been the problem from the start.  Obama tried to do it all, when it started to break down he made compromises in the wrong places and now we have a mess that all of us can agree sucks.

    Start over.   It took 60 years to get to this point it was unconceivable that in 6 months we could fix it.

    Parent

    Sorry, Slado, it's clever but nonsensical (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    to say that sticking us with something that nobody like is good governing.  And it's also bad politics.

    Parent
    thats what Landrieu said (none / 0) (#89)
    by jedimom on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    FDL posts Landreiu and Dean smackdown where Mary claims Obmsa never promised a p.o and dean says he cmapaigned on it, she says no he did nto, she says there was NEVER a chance for a p.o. etc etc

    meaning the House bill was a stalking horse to triangulate

    nice racket, good thing a Clinton wasnt elected! horrors!

    Parent

    I don't get it (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    why is it that the objections of Lieberman et al are a fait accompli, but the left's objections meet with nothing but hostility?

    I'd love to see this level of fight from the WH directed at the moderates or the Republicans.  "Joe Lieberman, how can you even think about defeating a bill that will bend the curve on this inexorable rise in health-care costs???"  Instead, it's all "give Joe whatever he wants."  Why?

    Joe as the 'bad cop' (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:22:39 AM EST
    One guess... (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    the WH wants what Lieberman and the Repubs want, aka what the insurance companies want, but don't want we the people to know thats what they want.

    Parent
    I haven't wanted to believe this (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    But the evidence would indicate that this is fact.

    Parent
    LIHOP! (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:36:29 AM EST
    Nothing I've seen or heard has proven otherwise.

    Some of the excuse narratives:

    Obama was keeping his powder dry.  (11 dimensional chess)
    Obama was working behind the scenes.  Trust us on this.
    Obama didn't want to create resentment by interfering in Congressional affairs.
    Obama really did support the public option.  Really!

    What I didn't hear:
    "Obama is fighting for the best possible bill he can wrangle out of Congress, even up to threatening to veto it!"

    Parent

    Wow, you said VETO (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    What's that?

    Parent
    Had it been a great bill, he probably would've (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    vetoed it.

    Parent
    So true. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    But with Senator Lieberman, President Obama may never need a veto!

    Some of the hard right Senators might look like crazies, but here comes reasonable old Joe, talking about how he can't support this or that bill because of some little bitty problem.  Then the Senators try to negotiate an agreement and just as they succeed, along comes mild mannered Joe with another objection.

    The man is perfect.  He keeps the Republicans from taking the blame for being heartless obstructionists.  And if he is a plant by the White House - no one will ever be the wiser.

    Parent

    And people wonder (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    why the Democrats don't kick Holy Joe out of the caucus.  He's useful to them...keeps them from having to move away from their pretence of being Democrats.

    Parent
    Here's one (3.50 / 2) (#73)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:17:20 PM EST
    no president can pass healthcare reform that substantially curtails the profits of the insurance industry- for the same reason no one is ever going to significanlty reform Defense- people are scared of what would happen and the powers opposed to them have insane amounts of money.  

    Parent
    That's Nader talk (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:30:42 PM EST
    you're outa' here, socialist scum.

    Parent
    Because Obama wants the same things (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:23:59 AM EST
    Lieberman wants. I am left with that conclusion, the most reasonable explanation that fits all the facts.

    Parent
    Gee, it's almost as if (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:23:28 AM EST
    ...we could have predicted this.

    Parent
    Anyone who was paying attention... (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by trillian on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    ...would have predicted this when Obama was extolling the virtues of Reagan and blaming the "excesses of the 60s"

    Could he have been more clear?

    Parent

    Harry, cough (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    Louise, cough.

    Parent
    People who pay CLOSER attention (2.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    would still be aware of the fact that even if he had said Raygun was a semi-animate, corporate stooge and that the spirit alive in the sixties still inspired him, he still would've needed to find a way to raise $500 mil.

    Parent
    Dunno what the alternate (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    ... universe Obama campaign would have been. He threaded a needle and still got less than half the D vote with everything breaking his way.

    The thing that dawned on me during my mile swim at lunch is that although BHO's $1 billion in contributions had poor marginal utility over Hillary's and McCain's (he did lose big Dem states where he outspent HRC many times over, after all) he may know something that we don't. He may not have been viable if he had only spent a normal amount; he may have only been viable if he was able to make the paid and unpaid media all Obama all the time, a la Orwell. When the press, big money, and the party do 6 months of heavy lifting for you and you still can't get a majority of your party to vote for you, your candidacy is probably a house of cards.

    This might be the reason why Obama is so much more of a corporatist than any previous D pres.

    This also might explain why Congress and D leadership were so slavish to OFA's corporate fund-raising: they know they don't represent a base of voters in the way that the previous version of the Dem party did.

    I agree that the DP has been corporate as long as there have been modern campaigns, but what we have seen for the past two years seems to be a quantum step worse.

    Parent

    Um the higher fundraiser (none / 0) (#105)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 07:58:52 PM EST
    is almost always going to have a worse marginal utility- because campaigns spend all the moneny they have on hand. Also "most corporate" yeah sorry I was alive during the 90s when the White House was basically arm of Wall Street- Glass Stengall, who needs it Phil Gramms plans for further deregulation sounds great, uh oh President Greenspan's on the phone better get Bill, the leader of the Free world doesn't like to be kept waiting.

    Parent
    Unregulated derivatives (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    and unregulated fraud. Courtesy of Allan,"Bob", and Bill.

    If we're even more corporate than that now, we may as well beat the crowd and go out and get our bar code tattoos before it becomes mandatory.

    Romantic revisionism: Bush's gift that keeps on giving.

    Parent

    Obama's Lost Moment (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by norris morris on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    This is suicide for the Democratic Party,

    Obama has sold out and we will now be run by corporate insurance and Drug cartels.

    The secret drug deal he made in July with Big Pharma insures continued skyrocketing prices and profits.

    Should this be law and when everyone is mired in this mess from Stupak to mandates for buying private insurance.....forget the Democrats for the next 20 years.

    Obama has been deceptive and has not made good on his promises.  He has not led.

    He's now using phony fear tactics and hardball to get us to buy this piece of crap.

    Parent

    I may be as simple as the fact (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    that Joe's position is much more in line with the what the good folks who line warchests would like.

    What are the odds? Or am I oversimplifying things?

    Parent

    And suddenly the President is flexing (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    With this new found fighting spirit and his secret deals with Pharma and the Insurance companies, this is going to ENRAGE people.  He has never fought for us, and now IS FIGHTING us.  I see the potential for great damage done to Obama's image with the base.  A damage I don't know if he can recover from ever.  You can't shove Afghanistan down the DFH's throats and then do this and keep your base at all.  I feel like I'm watching him literally fry himself.

    thereisnospoon's ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:28:09 AM EST
    reclist diary over at Kos has a lot of food for thought:
    So here's what you have to understand.  If the health insurance and financial industries really felt scared by any particular politician or political party, or their lobbying efforts were inadequate, they could throw them out of power in a heartbeat.  With a wave of their hand and a few billion dollars or so in our direction, the pharma companies and Goldman Sachs could absolutely destroy the Democratic Party in 2010 and beyond.  The only reason they don't do so is that it's cheaper and easier to buy a few key Democrats off instead, and intimidate the rest.  Plus, they don't have to run the risk of a right-wing populist backlash, either.

    That's why Barack Obama can't renege on his deal with PhRMA: PhRMA almost singlehandedly destroyed Hillarycare in 1993, and spent the money to tip the balance of the elections in 1994.  They can easily do it again.  So could Goldman Sachs and the rest of the financial vampires.  Rahm Emmanuel knows this, too: the deals are in place in return for their holding their fire.
    [Emphasis in original. DM]



    Parent
    I am keeping such facts in mind (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    There are ways to fight though, and Obama is not good at negotiating.  Obama has a few things that Hillary did not have, he has a true blue crisis much larger and looming than hers and a swarm of bloggers who would create a lot of energy.  He doesn't want to owe them anything though.  He only wants to owe cool fat cats at the end of the day!  The other thing that spoon overlooks is that Wall Street is in big trouble.  I don't care if they are showing profits right now, it is only very very temporary and the market is crippled for years and years now.  Are you running to throw your money in to save for your retirement?  I'm not and I won't ever until regulations return.  It can't survive with any kind of vitality without government intervention.  The health insurance companies can't either.  They are on the tailend of a good run and that's it.  They need fresh meat.  It isn't as if the administration has no muscle at the table, it is that Obama won't muscle anyone but little people.  That's pretty cowardly.

    Parent
    I think Obama likes hob-nobbing (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by sallywally on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    with the Big Powers in government, Wall Street, etc., and not with the little folks, even with the smart ones, the smartest ones in the country. I think he just loves power and prestige and wealth and thinks whatever he wants is the best thing for the country, whether or not it is. Arrogance, lust for power and fame.....sold out long ago. IMHO.

    Parent
    It is beginning to look like you are (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    right about this.  It was something that David Sirota sort of noticed very early on too.  I have always liked Sirota so I made a mental note when he wrote about "noticing" Obama things like that.  And the Hamilton Project is all about amassed power and wealth, and who was the Senator that spoke at its founding?  Sadly you could not have written a diary at Orange about such concerns during the primaries unless you wanted to be drawn and quartered.

    Parent
    Washington is a kind of gigantic (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    roach motel for attracting a certain hyper-ambitious, hyper-cynical personality type. What you see in Obama is much closer to the rule and the insiders expectations than some aberrant exception. Put 90% of them in a glaring spotlight for a while and you'll detect the same is-is equivocating, shuck 'n jive and compromising of dearly held, non-specific "values" and promises they were elected on -- though the better one's can put on one hell of a semi-entertaining Prof Harold Hill - rain maker weaving horsesh*t into Egyptian cotton act.

    Change isnt going come out of D.C. People need to get educated and get organized.

    Parent

    thereisnospoons (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Pat Johnson on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:02:55 AM EST
    What you just posted is the problem in all of its stripped down analysis.  This nation is owned outright by the corporations who have it in their power to select/deselect those who serve their interests or not.

    The congress of the US is held hostage by the money spent to buy their votes and the nation is helpless in the face of it.  But isn't this one of the issues Obama campaigned on?  The eradication of special interests and their lobbyists when he took office?

    The nation is at the mercy of the fat cats and the whores in congress who choose to honor them.  

    Parent

    And those in the White House...n/t. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sallywally on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    TINS's major value (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    is to prove the opposite of what he means.

    Those of us who were out of diapers in the '90s recall that the last President to take on insurers ended with two terms and an approval rate of around 70%. TINS is also a Californian, and, again, if he weren't handicapped by lack of knowledge would know that our new member of congress from CD10 was the giant killer who successfully took on CA insurers as state insurance commissioner... and one should be able to extrapolate success from CA, since its economy is the size of decent size European nation.

    It is, though, absolutely true that insurers have more money than *od, and that is a reality we need to work with, like to automatically reject candidates who run Harry and Louse campaigns, and design legislation that undermines the ins. co. stranglehold on the market. The answer here is obviously to stick with simple legislation that has open access to public insurance as one of its legs.

    Any successful plan also needs to be elegant enough to diagram on a napkin, like page 2 of this pdf. Can anyone here imagine trying to diagram the Obama/Lieberman insurer protection plan?

    Parent

    The times are far different (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    however; Obama had support of the Beltway Boys, so to speak and the public behind him; he didn't have to fight the MSM calling him every insulting name in the book.  And, he has substantial majorities in both houses and overwhelming public support for real healthcare reform.  Obama has had every advantage, but has either blown it or never wanted want the advantage could have enabled him to achieve.

    Parent
    I think it's safe to say he never (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    wanted a reform that was for the people.  I think it is safe to say he even sabotaged the public option by feigning powerlessness.  And now suddenly he discovers that he doesn't think his voice is sooooo powerless and irrelevant.

    Parent
    Team Obama (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Pat Johnson on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    If "capitulation" is the name of his game, than he deserves an A+.   Obama could not care less about the people, he is strictly interested in Obama.

    Had he wished to do so he would have fought the Right and the special interests like hell before he agrees to sign onto this travesty.  This bill is loaded with "junk" on behalf of the insurance industry and had the public paid attention, they would have spotted a RINO in the works before they turned away from Clinton in droves in order to make themselves "feel good" by electing the first black president whose experience and non qualifications were readily on display.

    So we have him.  Now what?  

    The other view (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    is that he doesn't in reality capitulate, but is precisely A+ effective at his singular organizing principle, depriving the GOP of 2012 campaign contributions.

    If there's one thing we should all know by now, it's that appearance and reality are two different things, and the appearance that Medicare buy-in or any other public distraction mattered just wasn't accurate.

    A gen-X buddy who is a professional publisher and pundit once told me that people his age and younger were raised as cynics when their toys never matched the idealized Christmas marketing of Madison Ave. His belief that people in their 30s and younger can see right through marketing hype has been tragically proven wrong.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    Well, that's gen-X'ers for you, thinking that deceptive marketing started when they were born....very short-sighted thinking.

    Deceptive marketing certainly was around when I was a kid.  Just try and get your hot-wheels to do loop-t-loop every time and you'll see.  Try and get your EZ-bake oven to make a perfect cake.

    Parent

    Or a (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:45:05 PM EST
    slinky, or a boomerang, or a butterfly yoyo. Ooo, or an etchasketch!

    Hey, did we live on the same block?

    Parent

    Can we get together for a play date? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ellie on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    Due to economic restraints, my sibs and I had a rag tag collection of handed down "refurbished" toys and (then) contemporary cr@pola we all had to share.

    IOW, the working model of spreading the suckage so that no one bossy kid -- me -- used the good toys to make her lessers scrape before her and bend to her will.

    And they're still being trouble.  

    Parent

    That cynicism back-dates ancestrally ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ellie on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    ... among my people, when we discovered that the dessicated femural monkey bone, when banged against other bones, didn't quickly result in awesome tech toys that worked out straight of the box or monolith.

    We've been complete @ssholes ever since and don't care who knows it. (Fun fact: but for the advances in depillatory products, that ape could easily be any number of relatives at my family reunions.)

    Parent

    Pharma and insurance (none / 0) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    industry money will go to both parties in 2010 and 2012 as they routinely do.

    Parent
    Sure. They buy both sides (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    But in 08, their mix favored Obama. That's why before one primary vote had been cast, Wall St. had given more to Obama than to Giuliani or any other Republican.

    Obama's eye is on the mix, and surely expects to top his record $1 billion next time.

    But there is a flaw in all this, that the utility of campaign cash plateaus to the point that endless extra spending does not yield results. OFA proved this in the last three months of the primary in which he tried to drown Hillary with paid media, but lost those states by a total of 8%. No amount of spending budged the Nov race either, since McCain was ahead until the day of the financial crisis, and then stayed behind by about the amount of the discontinuity of that change.

    Parent

    But yes, they buy both sides, (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    Yes they do (none / 0) (#94)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:18:53 PM EST
    One of my oldest friends who supported HRC, but really, really, really rooted for Obama this past year now feels so betrayed that he said he will not pay any attention to any liberal issue except campaign finance reform. Not peace, not education, not hunger, only campaign finance reform. I have to say, he seems to be thinking more clearly than most people I know.

    Parent
    If the current admin loses popular (none / 0) (#104)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    support, we'll see how quickly the donations scale will tip in the other direction; to some extent, I believe, the lobbyists follow the probabilities.

    Parent
    Every healthcare bill in memory is written in (none / 0) (#75)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    to benefit the insurance industry (excepting SCHIP possibly):

    MMA- obvious
    HIPAA- pushed the long-term care insurance plans giving them 20%+ average gowth for years
    Catastrophic Care- MMA back in the day,
    Medicare/Medicaid- only pass after congress makes major concessions to the AMA, AHA and the Insurance industry fails to turn a profit with similar plans.

    Parent

    Medicare and Medicaid (none / 0) (#95)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    ... largely exclude private insurers. That's what Newt's "wither on the vine" talk to Blue Cross was all about. So if by "every," you exclude the half of the healthcare economy that is single-payer for retirees, you might have a point. Or something.

    Parent
    "Bend the curve..." (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    I suppose I'd better get used to hearing that nonsensical phrase. Isn't a curve already bent?

    Not necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    IIRC, a straight line can be a curve in mathematical parlance. But I agree it's a nonsensical phrase, reeking of jargon.

    I guess the idea is that the straightforward phrase 'lowering costs' is inaccurate. The best we can hope for is that costs will be lower than what they would have been otherwise.

    Parent

    Bend a curve far enough (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Coral on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    and it turns into a boomerang.

    Parent
    Or a viscious circle... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    Which is essentially what they are proposing.  They are feeding us all back into the private system that failed so miserably in the first place that people insisted on reform.  What none of us really understood was just how devoid of honor and soul our Congress really has become.  It isn't like Americans haven't been sold out many times in our 200+ year history, but in the past, the sellouts still usually preserved something that they could honestly say was good for "The People".

    Next will be the no-jobs "jobs bill" - then the regulation-free financial regulation bill - then the climate change act - where we will not only not cease activities that fuel unnatural climate change - but instead accellerate the activity on all possible fronts - and then when it gets really bad - we'll enact more bankruptcy reform which will be centered around the establishment of debtors prisons.  I am indeed expecting great things to come from this crowd!

    Parent

    Don't forgot the proposed (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:08:22 PM EST
    bipartisan committee that plans to "fix" the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

    Parent
    Oh please don't remind me. nt (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    Bah. The Canadian Drug Importation Provision (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    was the one cost cutting provision which required no new government spending.  It had bipartisan support.  And Obama, the bipartisan unity pony killed it.  They aren't even trying to make plausible arguments anymore.

    He's the baby Cuckoo in the left's nest. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    All the money spent on electing him could have been used to ensure the votes of other pols.

    Parent
    At least... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    the black market could play a role here...lots of good reefer coming down from Canada despite the governments prohibition of its import...if we ask nicely maybe the smugglers wouldn't mind piggy-backing some pharma meds onto the bales of soul meds.

    Parent
    You must rethink the conclusion... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Salo on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    ...that Obama is a man without a plan. This Bill is no accident.

    Everything that he did concerning the PO and Mandates in the primary was fakery.

    he's the fat Corpocuckoo (TM)  sitting in the left's nest.

    Bully Pulpit (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by norris morris on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    Salo,
     You are so right.

      Hope and Change have morphed into the American Corporate Rape The People Machine.

    Parent

    it finally dawned on me recently (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by pitachips on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    that when obama talked about expending the "political capital" he gained during the election, it would be to pass bills that he knew his own supporters would hate - and not, as I always assumed the terms implied, to push for policies that might otherwise be somewhat unpopular/hard choices and to overcome strong opposition etc.

    Who here is surprised to see this? (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    Isn't this what Obama always does?  Look how they've been demonizing Howard Dean these last couple of days, and look how willing the media were to carry that message to the larger arena.  Mr. Let's-Please-Be-Civil loses his mind when his path to glory is thwarted, and he will say - or get his minions to say - whatever he needs to to get rid of the opposition.

    Axelrod has to know that ordinary Americans are not wringing their hands over bending the cost curve, they are horrified as they have watched the Dems bend themselves over, by choice, and are now struggling with the realization that this legislation may force many of us to bend over under threat of penalty.  I think there's a term for that.

    So, sorry, David - pack up your little bag of petulance and hit the road; tell your boss to put on his Big Boy pants and try being the person he claimed to be for the last two years.


    Now they fight? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    It is the bill Obama wanted. Otherwise it would have been shot down months ago. Obama and his team have never felt any obligation to Democrats. They feel the reason he's in the WH today is because of the support of moderate Republicans and Independants. He focused his campaign almost exclusively to them

    Too bad none of his people are reading the polls anymore! They'd see that he's lost those people already. And at the rate his ship is sinking among Democrats, I don't know what group he's going to pander to to try and get reelected.

    Axe is an @ss (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:25:52 AM EST


    You said that so much nicer (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    than I could . . .

    Parent
    What about yesterday's guilt trip (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    Where our Prez claimed, speaking to Charlie Gibson on good a.m. America, that failure to pass the Senate bill would bankrupt the federal government!!
    Does he really think anyone would buy this argument?

    David Axelrod's siege-like (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    outburst of the insanity of defeating a bill that "bends the curve"  may have unwittingly revealed the legislative underpinning and primal objective of cost-cutting, a view also bolstered by Obama's own scare tactic under duress--that defeat will bankrupt the federal government.  The selling points were  reform to provide for the uninsured, assurances for those who have insurance, removal of those grim realities like cancellation for becoming sick, limits, and denial for preexisting conditions.  And, of course, affordability. The more recent selling point seems to be  saving millions of lives (although we would, regretfully,  have to lose a few more million before the bill would kick-in).  The "bend the curve" is jargon bruited about by health care economists, who are driving the discussions. Not much heard about health professionals analysis of plans, just "scoring" by the budget office. Axelrod, who sports expertise as a political consultant, had, in addition, some experience marketing cost-cutting, when hired in 2007 by the University of Chicago Hospitals to assist in a marketing plan for steering patients without health insurance to other hospitals, essentially, dumping the costly patients. Some health economists do not like Medicare, because they can.t bend that curve, and must have freaked out  with that proposal to reduce the age to 55, when their aim is to go in the other direction, say, to start at age 70 or so.

    Et tu, BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ellie on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    Please tell me this was sarcasm (or dry delivery):

    Leaving aside the new fighting spirit out of the White House (apparently even the docile Obama likes punching DFHs), Axelrod's comment makes no sense.

    rather than adding to the current acceptance that smacking a Liberal, even a straw one, is Fighting or even Scrappy.

    Until I see Obama actually bite off an ear and give a post-bout speech while spitting cartilage at the camera, another round of Lib-smacking's not even up to shadow boxing level.

    Nah (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    I'm sorry but we need to admit that if the bill is killed we aren't getting health reform for a decade at least- we might get marginal expansion like SCHIP under Clinton but true reform, even massively compromised reform ala this bill isn't going to happen for another decade at the least.

    Yeah (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    ...and if the bill passes we still aren't getting healthcare reform now or in 10 years.  ...but we are getting further taxed in a huge way to "bail out" the healthcare industry....and we are soaking money out of our economy into one industry while health CARE doesn't change much.

    Parent
    FOS is right (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:21:06 AM EST
    In a way I hope he is right - this moment appears to be a horrible moment, and I hope it does not come again.  I firmly believe a moment will come in which people decide they have been cheated enough by the private industry and will demand, at the least, a buy-in to Medicare.  Axelrod better hope it does not come before 2012.

    If this bill passes the moment will come when (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by esmense on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:40:10 AM EST
    Americans decide they've been cheated by the government. And that will be a very sorry day for the Democrats.

    Parent
    You bet (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by kempis on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    I am astounded that Axelrod and Obama (and Ezra and Matt and the Village Bloggers) don't realize that those people who will be "covered" by mandated, crappy insurance will not be grateful.

    McJoan has a post about how folks may be charged triple for pre-existing conditions. In addition, insurers can limit how much they pay out on an individual's policy in a year.

    So, let's say you don't have insurance because you're working class and barely making ends meet, your family living paycheck to paycheck. Let's say you're 52 and have high cholesterol (according to McJoan, pre-existing conditions).

    Here comes Obama. Congratulations! You're now going to have health insurance!

    Insurance that will come out of your empty pockets, but hey you'll get tax credits to pay for some of it. Oh, and you'll have to pay triple what a younger, healthy person will have to pay. And, uh, don't get too sick or you'll still be bankrupted by high medical bills.

    What a great deal. And if you're foolish enough to turn it down, you'll have to pay a $750 fine.

    No, I can't imagine why average people wouldn't be pleased with an offer like that.  

    Parent

    If this is still in the current (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    legislation (bill as of 11/09), extremely sick people will have to pay more in taxes.

    The itemized deduction for medical expenses allows tax filers with large health expenses to reduce their income tax liability. Individuals with health expenses greater than 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) can claim a tax deduction equal to the portion of their expenses above the 7.5 percent threshold if they itemize their deductions.  

    To help pay for provisions that would make health coverage more affordable, the new Senate bill would raise the threshold to 10 percent of AGI. This change would target the tax deduction towards people with the highest costs. However, filers over age 65 would remain eligible to deduct expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their income until 2017. link



    Parent
    geez--People need to comb through this thing (none / 0) (#49)
    by kempis on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    for all the fine print that makes "covering 30 million!" by mandating that they purchase crappy, private insurance a bad deal. And beyond that, the excise tax will endanger "cadillac" plans, mostly fought for by unions and benefiting middle class workers.

    This is not some abstract policy. It's going to affect people's lives. And from what I see, it's going to bring as much if not more misery as it does relief.

    We have to do better than this.

    Parent

    You Better Or..... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by norris morris on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    Kempis your post says it all in common sense terms.

    Democrats once more commit political suicide and show they cannot govern.

    Why would anyone buy Obama's new and desperate scare tactics to buy into this piece of sellout garbage?

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    But.......That's the "old Democratic Party" as Donna Brazille pointed out. Who needs those unions anyway! (snark).

    Parent
    Just ask anyone (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    who ever sat on a Walmart board.

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 04:10:11 PM EST
    Poor jondee (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    She just has to constantly bring everything back to Hillary.

    Parent
    Axelrod says older people will ONLY have to pay 3x (none / 0) (#91)
    by esmense on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    more -- in some few states (oh boy I bet we can guess which part of the country they can be found in) insurance companies are now allowed to charge 5x more.

    I haven't heard if there are states that put stricter limits (than what the administration is proposing) on what insurers can charge older premium holders -- the Obama admin is unlikely to broadcast it if there are -- or whether states that place greater restrictions on how much more insurers can charge their older customers (if there are any) will be required to adopt the federal standard instead. Those are two pieces of information I would like to have.

    Parent

    To answer my own question -- both MA and CA, (none / 0) (#93)
    by esmense on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:16:34 PM EST
    I've discovered, limit age rating to a ratio of 2 to 1. There may be others.

    Parent
    So does that mean in CA (none / 0) (#98)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:47:10 PM EST
    they can ONLY charge me double?

    Parent
    This is classic "third way" ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    politics.  Make it about costs for the already insured, playing to the suburban swing voters.

    But Axelrod is misreading the politics on this.  The public is farther to the left on health care than he wants to accept.

    Axelrod The New Rasputin (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by norris morris on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    Axelrod and Rham have totally miscalculated.

    The emperor has no clothes.

    This will cost Democats big time and is a monumental misreading. Rasputin's plan must be that no matter what Obama does, Democrats will vote Obama rather than risk a Repub.

    I say Rasputin is wrong and the harm being done to Democrats by Democrats is self fulfilling doom.

    Parent

    Ax sure wouldn't answer Ed Schultz' question (none / 0) (#26)
    by DFLer on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    Here's a link to the Morning Joe vid: link

    His credibility is marginal at best (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:22:46 PM EST
    when he says things like: "the insurance industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day to defeat this bill".

    Parent
    Good tactic to provide them with billions (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    more so that they can defeat any future attempt at reform. More money to buy congresscritters is just what the doctor ordered. :-)

    Parent
    Except, there are limits to how much they (none / 0) (#55)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    can give to each congresscritter....and, hundreds of millions a day exceeds those limits.


    Parent
    heck, I don't even think you can spend (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    that on advertising in one day!

    I bet their fundraising letter uses the same words in "hopes" that all the little people will try and match it like they did during the campaign . . .  methinks all the little people are broke now.

    Parent

    I am pretty sure (none / 0) (#68)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    there are ways you can spend money other than donating to elected officials.

    Parent
    I am pretty sure there are, but (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    I'm not seeing the ads on tv, or hearing them on the radio. Hundreds of millions of dollars a day. There are many ways to spend it, just not really buying that the sum is being spent daily in an effort to kill health insurance reform....especially since this is their win.


    Parent
    If Axelrod says (none / 0) (#59)
    by Spamlet on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    that the insurance industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day to defeat this bill, then GOOD! I'll just make my donation to the insurance industry today instead of waiting for the mandate.

    Parent
    Interesting that the industry (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    has that kind of money to throw around. Shouldn't Axe be questioning that as, you know, a democrat?

    Parent
    That's the sad part (none / 0) (#100)
    by Pacific John on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    The one thing I wanted a D president to do was perform an extensive bug hunt to undo all of the Bush-era damage to government agencies. Hillary, with a government full of Clinton-era veterans would have done this as second nature, and we expected the same under Obama. A Clinton  administration official who works with the current administration told me, "we will not let Obama fail," meaning, the professional Democratic bureaucracy was mindful that their competence was essential to Obama's success. But little did we expect that Obama could care less about competent public policy. Even I couldn't imagine that on major policy, he would be indistinguishable from Bush and Lieberman. So yeah, I had low expectations, but I'm disappointed too.