home

Playing Dumb For Obama

Ezra Klein:

The question has never been whether the White House supports the public option. It's whether Congress -- and, in particular, the Senate -- has the votes to pass it. Sebelius's statement this week does not change the administration's position. But it is being widely reported because it comes in context of the sagging popularity of health-care reform, and the changing conventional wisdom on the legislative politics. Namely, many think it increasingly likely that the White House will have to compromise on the public option because it will not be able to find sufficient votes in the Senate and is growing more desperate for a deal. That may or may not be true, but that's the actual story here. Blowing up Sebelius's comments is just a backdoor way of getting at it.

(Emphasis supplied.) My gawd. The timing here, like most everything in life, is of course the issue. We are nearing endgame in the bargaining on health care reform and having Sebelius say what she did on the Sunday morning shows NOW is of course the issue. Is Ezra pretending he does not know that? But let's face it, Ezra has been acting as a tool for the Obama Administration on this issue all year. It's one thing to not care about the public option and Ezra really never has. That's fine. But stop pretending that this is nothing. You just look foolish.

Speaking for me only

< The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining | Supreme Court Orders New Hearing for Troy Davis >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If the WH (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:45:07 AM EST
     is as "desperate for a deal" as Klein pontificates here then that's a sure sign that they'll cave on anything just to say that they passed something. That's a not a good position to be operating on so maybe nothing should be passed right now.

    Yes, no reform is better than crap reform (none / 0) (#8)
    by moderateman on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    I've been saying this for a while.  It's stupid to have reform for reform's sake.  Give me something good or nothing at all.

    What's confusing to me is all this talk about the senate needing 60 votes.  Are the blue dogs so opposed to certain parts of the bill that they'd vote against cloture against their own party??  Surely, you'd really only need 50.

    Parent

    Check out the previous thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:13:24 PM EST
    for a...spirited discussion of the 60 v 50 vote question

    Parent
    It's also the frequency (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    is the public option not important, or is it important?  I mean, it is ALL OBAMA HAS TALKED ABOUT THIS ENTIRE SPRING AND SUMMER.  If there are other more important parts of the plan, nobody has heard about them.  Period.  

    The way this is getting f*d up is driving me insane.  And also Ezra, the public option was a campaign promise.  Being so in love with the man, one would think you'd know that.

    Ahh, but love is blind (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:02:00 PM EST
    Let's face it (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    Ezra is the worst case of Cinderella Complex we've all seen a really long time.

    Parent
    Originally posted in the other thread (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by Bemused on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    It strikes me that were I a Democratic congressman, the signal from the Administration that the public option is negotiable and exclusion not a deal breaker means  my incentive to incur ANY political risk for it is dramatically diminished.
      Those not in safe seats and for whom this is not a matter personal principle have to ask themselves why they should stick their necks out if the WH doesn't have their backs. Were I a tepid Dem would I see any reason not to do whatever is in my narrow, short-term personal interest? Assuming my personal interests are paramount to me (and I think it's a safe assumption that describes many) would doing the heavy lifting for a WH that has implied it will drop the load for its pragmatic reasons be something I should do? I don't think so.

      On the other hand, were I Republican congressman opposed to the public option (or the whole shebang for that matter) the message I would get is to keep pushing because it's working.

      As a Republican do I see the Dems having limited their horizon now to: (a)legislation that is likely to cost money angering those who foot more of the bill while providing scant relief to most and unlikely to engender much goodwill; or (b) failure to enact any legislation which I can portray as a sign of ineptitude and weakness? I think I would.

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:48:36 AM EST
    Excellent point. I wish I had made it in my post.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    Ultimately this entire debate has been about shaping the blue dog view of the world. And the Republicans are winning.

    Parent
    I look at my state's delegation (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    in Congress with your post in mind, and I can see the concern (especially in a state where everything is in a muddle right now for Dems, with the Dem gov just announcing he will not run again, so with some of the Dems in Congress in contention for the govship, etc.).  Some will run for cover now -- the cover that they just got from the muddle at the top.

    Parent
    Not one adverse consequence (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    for not supporting Obama on a public option, if indeed it is what he wants that badly. Indeed, just the opposite. Rahm's out there cussing at liberals for talking about forcing primary challenges.

    Parent
    OOPs, read the poll wrong (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    My apologies, only 60% of democrats support the current bills.

    >>>Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this issue. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action. However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action.

    Voters who earn less than $20,000 a year are evenly divided but a majority of all other voters would prefer no action. Middle income voters, those who earn from $40,000 to $75,000 a year, are most strongly in favor of taking no action. <<<
    Link

    I can't believe it!  Support has totally eroded! How did things get this bad?  

    Ras poll? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    Um, puhleeeeaze.

    Parent
    Oh good! (none / 0) (#55)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 08:56:55 PM EST
    I'd love to see a more positive poll on this!  

    Thanks!

    Parent

    It's Rasmussen (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lacey on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:59:32 PM EST
    His polls tend to go against Democrats on almost every issue.

    Parent
    Latest poll (3.50 / 2) (#41)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    Might this be the reason that Obama is wavering?

    He needs to read the fine print, the 80% of democrats who support this.  Does he not care about us?  

    I blame Obama and his administration for not doing a better job of selling his health care plan.  The more he talks about it, the more he loses support among independents and republicans.  Politically, this was a disaster. Once he began losing support, it's very difficult to get it back.  His appearances don't seem to have helped, at all.  

    What a shame............

    You got it right at the top - He DOESN'T (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by allimom99 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:40:25 PM EST
    care about us. His entire career has consisted of doing what he needs to do to get elected to the next office. He's never been strongly against or in favor of anything - why would he start now?

    Parent
    please take your Obama bashing elsewhere (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:01:10 PM EST
    And keep your comments to health care. Thank you.

    Parent
    Why give Klein ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    the attention?

    He's a transparent apologist and a terrible writer.

    Look at that mixed metaphor in his final sentence.  Geez.

    think he is related (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    to Joe?


    Parent
    Heh ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:04:22 PM EST
    The spectacle of watching the so-called (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    liberal blogosphere pushing for what is going to essentially be the same health care reform plan John McCain advocated in the election would be funny if it was not going to so tragic for millions.

    Simply false (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    McCain didn't propose anything like what's on the table right now.

    Parent
    He sure as heck proposed (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    taxing the health insurance benefits provided by employers. That is in several of the versions floated now. I think he was also for mandates (which I support too, but with a public option available).

    Parent
    The things he had (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    were taxing health benefits by employers, and creating a tax credit for people to buy their own insurance.  Basically his plan was to get everyone off of employer insurance.

    Parent
    He proposed essentially deregulating (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    the health insurance market. It was a radical plan unlike anything proposed by Democrats.

    And taxing employee benefits seems like a nonstarter, especially in the House.

    Parent

    "Agreeing" to voluntary regulations (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    behind closed doors is in my view a back door entry to deregulation.

    The only real 11 dimensional chess players are the insurance companies.

    I'd love to be proved wrong....we'll see what happens.

    Parent

    Taxing benefits (none / 0) (#49)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:06:22 PM EST
    I sure hope your right on that. I read last week that that option was still being considered in the draft. I would think that would absolutely shoot down any plan.

    Parent
    Here's an analysis of McCain's plan (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    by the Heritage Foundation - a friendly analysis.

    The basics were these:

    The McCain health plan proposes three funda­mental reforms that would change the financing of health care and reform the health insurance market to give families more control of personal health care decisions:

    Equal tax treatment for health coverage. The Senator would replace the special tax breaks for employer-based health insurance with a univer­sal system of health care tax credits for the pur­chase of health insurance. These health care tax credits of $5,000 for a family and $2,500 for an individual would be indexed annually for infla­tion and would be available to Americans regard­less of income, employment, or tax liability. Even prominent critics concede that such a tax change is a principled and far-reaching proposal.[2]  This change alone would lay the groundwork for unprecedented consumer choice and competi­tion in the health care sector.

    Health insurance competition on a national scale. Currently, only federal workers and retir­ees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) benefit from competition among private health insurance companies on a national scale. In sharp contrast with almost every other sector of the economy, competition across state lines in health insurance is virtually nonexistent. The McCain health plan would change this by allowing individuals and families to buy health plans domiciled and regulated in other states. This would both expand personal options for affordable coverage and force health insurance companies to compete directly for consumers' dollars on an unprecedented scale.

    Federal assistance to the states to cover vul­nerable populations. The Senator envisions a large role for state innovation and experimenta­tion in health care financing and delivery, but he would provide safety-net funding to ensure cov­erage of the most vulnerable populations: the hard-to-insure and the uninsurable. McCain's Guaranteed Access Plan would provide federal assistance to the states to secure access to health insurance coverage through state high-risk pools or similar arrangements. His plan would also encourage expanding coverage options for Med­icaid enrollees and veterans.
    Beyond these major reforms of health care financing and insurance, Senator McCain would also promote specific initiatives to increase the value and reduce the cost of services that individuals and families receive for their health care dollars. These initiatives include promoting the use of health infor­mation technology (IT), care coordination and dis­ease management for chronic diseases, transparency of price and quality information, broad application of payment reforms for doctors and hospitals in government health programs, greater use of generic drugs, and use of alternative and less expensive medical facilities for routine care, such as walk-in clinics. He also supports enacting medical liability reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and defensive medicine in the medical profession.



    Parent
    Good post, Big Tent... (none / 0) (#12)
    by mstar57 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    Obama campaigned on universal healthcare ... he also campaigned on absolute transparency ....and ending once and for all DADT ... and stopping tortue...   The list goes on and on.  Here's a guy who is a f**king LIAR to the bone!  If these assh*les Rahm and Axelrod think Progressives are somehow going to forget this bullsh*t I think they are in for gigantic surprise - Obama's outta here in 2012!!

    Really (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    for me, what Obama's done so far hasn't surprised in the least.  

    "Post partisan unity" was his central theme and he's really abided by that.  His definition of post partisan unity happens to be, ignore the people who have "no place else to go" and cater to the ones who do.  Time will tell if that's a workable solution.  For me personally, where I used to vote, I now simply shred my ballots.  I have somewhere else to go -- the recycling facility.

    Parent

    Doesn't surprised me one iota either (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:52:28 PM EST
    The post partisan unity pony excuses him from all actual responsibility for any actual goals being achieved during this Presidential term.

    Parent
    Overreacting (none / 0) (#30)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:39:56 PM EST
    Don't be obtuse. Maybe you are young?

    Parent
    honestly, I'm torn (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    some (what seem to me reasonable) democrats are saying even without a public option it could be an important incremental step.

    anyone here agree with that?

    Anyone? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    Sure.  andgarden and Donald from Hawaii made those arguments in the other thread.  I am sympathetic to it as well, and I believe a few other commenters might be too.

    Jeralyn too.

    Parent

    Begala (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    had an interesting op ed the other day:

    Our history teaches us otherwise. No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt's original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy.


    Parent
    It's a ridiculous comparison (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Social Security was a government program.  The insurance bill as it stands is a giveaway to an industry, allowing them to run away with tax dollars.  The only similarity is that Social Security and mandated insurance are both effectively regressive taxes

    Make insurance a government program  -- take away the industry connection -- and then we can make valid comparisons between it and Social Security.

    As MO Blue said, giving more money to industry only makes them stronger and able to fight any potential incremental change that Congress could potentially make.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    the article makes a pretty good case for an incremental public option.

    Parent
    This is the difference (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    between a "non-robust" public option, which can be expanded later, and having no public option at all.

    I'm still trying to weigh the arguments but it really doesn't seem to me like this can work without some kind of public option.  Our political system is unlike Switzerland's.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:52:04 PM EST
    how much of a trojan horse can co-ops be?  this seems to be in dispute.  some seem to think they are, or could be, a public option by another name.
    anyone agree with that?

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    I am willing to keep an open mind, but I have yet to see the progressive case for co-ops.

    Parent
    I was looking for what I was (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    reading but cant find it.  it basically said that in the past co-ops have been a joke because they have been more or less neutered by the insurance companies but if a system could be set up that did not allow that neutering it could be a good thing.

    Parent
    Depends (none / 0) (#45)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    on how regulated and protected from insurance cooptation they are. Otherwise the case for corruption and Insurance industry takeover is strong. Having Insurance shills take them over and run them wouldn't help would it? If it is just another form of insurance company exchange, which you can do now online and compare plans and costs, but mandated, it just insures Insurance companies income without controlling costs. There is no premium regulation to contain costs, nor requirements on size of deductibles. Only promises. And Obama's goals for containment seems limited to reducing the rate at which the costs rise. So, even if you get a good price now, what about five years from now? Even if the premium inflation were halved, you would still be paying about 50% more in just the premium costs.
       Where's the limits on deductibles? Where's the limits on premiums? Why do we have to rely on insurance industry promises, but we are mandated by law?

    Parent
    Well IIRC the proposal (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:17:04 PM EST
    had the players in the insurance industry running the co-opts.

    Parent
    beat you to it (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    I posted that the other day.

    I am kinda torn.  I think the devil is in the details.  And we don't have the details yet.  It would be a whole lot easier to support a public option.

    Parent

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    I think gives a good picture of what "incrementalism" is like:

    Link

    Parent

    I completely agree (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    with this:

    So don't count this health care bill passing now and then being substantially revised in the next 1 to 3 years. By then, there will be more important issues on their agenda and they'd be hard-pressed to even get it heard.

    I have always thought that when this nightmare is over no one is going to have much of a stomach for a rematch anytime soon.

    Parent

    Count me as someone who thinks (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    that any bill that does not contain a mechanism that puts downward pressure on health insurance premiums is not be worth doing. We would still be at the mercy of the insurance industry.

    The mandates would only force people to purchase insurance that they cannot afford. The government subsidies would not be able to keep pace with the rising rates.

    IF you haven't listened to the Weiner video, listen to it. He makes the case much better than I ever could.

    Parent

    I'm a big maybe on that (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    I could imagine such a plan that would be acceptable. I just don't know if the final one will be.

    Krugman thinks it's possible.

    Parent

    Not the thrust ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    of Krugman's comments.

    The public option argument is something of a false one but for other reasons. Largely because the public options currently outlined could collapse before covering anyone.

    This is why I think it needs some form of pre-population.  Any form of pre-population will reduce start-up costs and increase the chances of it surviving.

    Because it can't expand if it doesn't survive.

    Parent

    If I thought the new regulations (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    on the insurance industry could or would actually be enforced I'd be more likely to accept "half a loaf". But I am 99% sure they won't be and costs will just continue to rise while quality of coverage declines. Without a public option to provide competition this is at most a speed bump.

    Parent
    Yes something better than nothing (none / 0) (#29)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    Obama has taken this further than any other Democratic president. Many wanted to get Universal healthcare and the closest they got was Medicare and Medicaid.  
    So even though we may not get a public option it's potentially better than what we have had till now.
    The question is will it be enough or will it ultimately just slide back down to no real change?
    Time will tell.

    Parent
    Lagging Support? (none / 0) (#36)
    by bob h on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    the sagging popularity of health-care reform,

    Surely Obama knows that part of his mandate from November was just this, and surely he knows that what seems somewhat unpopular now will be wildly popular when it passes and people start to see the benefits.

    Problem (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    is that nothing goes into effect until 2013.

    Parent
    And the benefits are WHAT? Requiring me to buy (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by allimom99 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    insurance I can't afford with a deductible I can't meet? Once again, the lower and middle classes get screwed in the name of political expediency. There are NO controls on premiums, costs, or any other items the insurance companies don't want touched.

    We have now given trillions of dollars to the financial and auto companies. Will we now give a trillion in free cash to an industrey that doesn't even need bailing out? I vote no. I really see no benefit for us at all - in fact, with a mandate, they'll take still more from me that I don't have in the way of fines.

    Without MAJOR changes, the cost of this "reform" will make it worse than doing nothing, as the deficit will further impede economic recovery, and not very many more people will be covered.

    Parent