Health Care Reform And Obama's Theory Of Change

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:06:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

On what has become the signature issue of the first year of his Presidency, health care reform, What Obama Really Meant with his theory of change will likely be answered. From my December 2007 post, E.J. Dionne:

Clinton[] claims that her experience readies her for the coming battles for change that all Democrats devoutly wish to wage. . . . The Edwards campaign is . . . appealing to the many Democrats who are in a fighting mood.

But Obama is running as the candidate who can transcend these fights. . . . Clearly but obliquely referring to Edwards, Obama preached that anger won't cut it, either. "There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there," he said. "We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition."

(Emphasis supplied.) What about the policy math Mr. President? The Fix writes:

The White House has long believed that the average voter is less concerned about whether large numbers of Republicans support the Administration's priorities than whether the President is making an honest effort to attract GOP support.

This sounds ominous. To wit, if Cilizza is right, Obama believes that "the average voter" just cares about Obama capitulating to Republicans. I hope Cilizza has this wrong. Clearly that is what Max Baucus thinks. Hope Obama does not agree.

Speaking for me only

< BaucusCare: Ezra Raves About Exchange Provisions, The Magic Of the Market And Gov't Regulation | Wednesday Afternoon News And Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Health Care Reform And Obama's Theory Of Change | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:33:20 PM EST

well does Baucus get his marching orders from the WH or is he going it alone? I'm of the mindset that he's pretty much doing what the WH wants since he was handed the responsiblity. Frankly, it was a huge mistake to hand this off to Baucus but what's done is done on that account.

I honestly think that this whole (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:34:26 PM EST

debate is turning out to be very scary on a lot of levels.

Well, Obama can't transcend this fight (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Cream City on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:38:36 PM EST

but some of us knew that.

And I bet he really knew that. But I doubt that he really is self-delusional, either.

So how was it put last year? He was willing to say or do anything to win -- the election, that is, and change for him. Sadly, he is not willing to say or do anything to win real change for the rest of us.

But then, some of us knew that, too. Sadly.

I think Obama did believe he could transcend (5.00 / 5) (#21)
by magster on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:37:48 PM EST

partisan divide. He thought Republicans would act like Democrats did under Bush.


Then Obama is as politically (5.00 / 5) (#26)
by SGITR on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:01:43 PM EST

un-astute as his supporters who believed he could transcend the divide. Sheesh look at things. He is giving them all they want and they still say no. But like Cream said a lot of us already knew that would happen.

And then there are his supporters who were also politically un-astute that claimed that he was just campaigning on post-partisanship and didn't mean a word of it one he was elected. How so may people who claim to be politically aware, even to this day(!), got duped by this charlatan is utterly amazing.


Remember (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by kmblue on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:15:06 PM EST

when the health insurance reform hearings were gonna be on CSPAN? Those were the days.


: Yup (none / 0) (#37)
by SGITR on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 04:04:44 PM EST

He thought it was the Clintons that (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:57:04 PM EST

were divisive.


: Yup (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by cal1942 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:06:36 PM EST

and what he didn't get is that the Republicans are stooping to Leninist tactics to insure that Democratic Presidents will fail to pass anything of substance unless it's one of their projects.
I don't believe that Obama has even the slightest clue about the way the world works. He's demonstrating that ignorance daily.

In that case he drank his own kool-aid (3.50 / 2) (#44)
by magnetics on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 12:30:07 AM EST

which is what I feared, and why I supported Hillary, who had been fighting Rethuglicans since she was a staffer on the Senate Watergate Committe, back in the early 70's.


Good lord, why? (none / 0) (#22)
by Cream City on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:41:25 PM EST

That would require Dems to act with discipline.


It looks like the Republicans won't accept (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:40:18 PM EST

ANY surrender terms. Good.

Cokie Roberts made this point on (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:02:09 PM EST

NPR a month ago. GOP rejects every suggestion designed to entice their support. Why do the Dems bother.


11 dimensional chess, etc. (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:09:20 PM EST

Mostly, I think it's for two reasons. 1) papering over differences within the Democratic caucus; and 2) avoiding charges of being "too partisan."


11 dimensional chess... (none / 0) (#19)
by magster on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:33:09 PM EST

...(otherwise known as dumb luck) might actually be how this ends up, with the Dems being forced to use reconciliation and ending up with a PO, a mobilized progressive caucus that was previously inconsequential, and the Republican party looking like what they've become in 2010.

The Republicans are fools for not trotting out a couple of safe Republicans to accept co-ops and join the Blue Dogs, but the party has gone so far right, everyone is vulnerable to a primary. That the progressive strategy relies on Republican intransigence will be hilarious if a public option is actually enacted into law.


That's really what I'm hoping for. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by andgarden on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:35:59 PM EST

And really, that's the way it's supposed to work: the elected party implements its agenda and is then judged on the implementation.


Just got an email from Gillibrand (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by nycstray on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:52:06 PM EST

I'm hopeful that over the next several weeks Republicans will now come to the table in good faith to address health care and a number of other critical issues. But if not, we must move forward without them.

and from her site/petition:

Real health care reform must include a not-for-profit public option.
Opening up a not-for-profit public health plan like a "Medicare for all" can ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care regardless of his or her income. In the world's wealthiest nation, it's unconscionable that people are turned away from coverage because of a pre-existing condition and that families are just one illness away from bankruptcy.

bolds mine


Funny how a primary (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by andgarden on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:54:35 PM EST

will make a legislator responsive. (Her race is basically over, but the point stands).


Not really (none / 0) (#29)
by Steve M on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:26:49 PM EST

Gillibrand was responsive from literally the first day she was appointed to the Senate. She simply understands the things she needs to do to win over her constituency, period.


You're kidding me right? (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:28:52 PM EST

Do you seriously believe that she would have bothered to go through the flip-flop ridicule if there were not a primary threat from the word "go?"

I am very happy with what she's doing now, but I'm not going to pretend that the changes came as quickly as they did just because of her "new constituency."


I thought she was for a (none / 0) (#31)
by nycstray on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:39:27 PM EST

"medicare for all" type plan back before her Senate days?


Yes (none / 0) (#35)
by Steve M on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 03:00:22 PM EST

I think in a state like New York, the potential for a primary is implicit. I think you are oversimplifying to equate the fact of an actual challenge from a credible candidate like Sestak with the random mutterings of an iffy challenger like Carolyn McCarthy.


: You remember the process quite differently (none / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 03:03:11 PM EST

from me. Carol Maloney didn't commission an expensive poll by Mark Penn for her health.
And even the implicit threat was enough for Gillibrand, who always trailed or tied McCarthy and Maloney in primary polls.

Resulting in (none / 0) (#40)
by cal1942 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:07:57 PM EST

pathetic policy.


How do you "transcend" a fight? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by aeguy on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:45:59 PM EST

Well, first you count on this: (5.00 / 7) (#8)
by Cream City on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:01:17 PM EST

"The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."

I mean, we know now that Obama didn't believe everything that he was saying then. But maybe he believed what others were saying.:-)


: You are baaad. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by oculus on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:03:05 PM EST

: lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by nycstray on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:11:34 PM EST

The electoral math (5.00 / 9) (#6)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:49:52 PM EST

is not always the same as the policy support math. Yes, he changed electoral math by being an appealing personality that did not ruffle a lot of independent voter feathers.

But you can't make real change in policy without making some divisions. People really do care about this stuff. A lot of what he calls 'partisan bickering' is argument about real differences about how government should work and what it should do.

Plus, as that post last might noted, even the Baucus bill has no Republican support. Might as well have started out with single payer.

: Well (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:55:39 PM EST

you could say Jimmy Carter "changed the electoral math" too. In reality changing the electoral math is pretty worthless past getting into office. Many of the states that were blue can very easily go back to red unless you have effective policy.

: Well (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by cal1942 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:14:06 PM EST

really had it not been for the meltdown.
Everyone seems to forget that in the state by state polls just before the Democratic convention Clinton won vs McCain and Obama lost vs McCain.
After the convention it was the same until the 'meltdown.'
After the meltdown Democrats could have won the White House running the mule.

Obama and Baucus... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by masslib on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:01:33 PM EST

Good cop, bad cop...

I do think Obama believes the good faith effort helps him. Short term it may. Long term his policies will fail. But I worry a lot more about the concessions he and Baucus are making to Wall Street than those they are making to Republicans.

: As I understand it (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by cal1942 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:15:07 PM EST

Baucus' mini-committee had Obama's blessing.
Bad cop, bad cop.

The dollar basics as reviewed (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by oldpro on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:07:57 PM EST

by Somerby today...so simple, so straightforward, so satisfying. And his dissection of Modo is tasty, for dessert.

I get August 17th, Monday, as current Howler (none / 0) (#38)
by DFLer on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 05:56:47 PM EST

What's up?


Dunno...it suddenly appeared (none / 0) (#43)
by oldpro on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:20:19 PM EST

and September 2009 is gone...even from the archives. I emailed Bob.

Those damn Rethuglicans...


: Opey (none / 0) (#45)
by DFLer on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 01:08:04 PM EST

seems to be back up and running now

I hate to say this but Bush's (5.00 / 8) (#15)
by MO Blue on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:14:20 PM EST

method of appearing to make an honest effort {gag} to attract bipartisan support was much more effective.

Basically he held highly publicized meetings with Dem leadership. Claimed he tried to reach agreement while refusing to negotiate anything. Then held a press conference(s) stating that he tried but the Dems were obstructionists. Then each and every Republican told the public that the Dems were harming them in some way by refusing to negotiate.

: Back when elections had consequences, (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:18:49 PM EST

something that is only true when Republicans win them.

It's all well and good to be (5.00 / 6) (#17)
by Anne on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:20:41 PM EST

seen as a conciliator who cares what the other side thinks, but we aren't just talking ideas, we're talking about legislation that will affect - eventually - millions of people. And if that legislation has a negative effect on people's lives and bank accounts, does Obama really think he's going to get points for making the effort to reach out for Republican support?

What is more likely is that he will be punished for not fighting, for being seen as not being able to commit fully to what even he says is the best policy; at some point, what Obama sees as "transcending" the partisan bickering will be seen by the people as being "dismissive of," "indifferent to," and "ignorant of" the interests and needs of the people.

Does the WH not really understand that the average voter would walk on hot coals for the president who could deliver the kind of reform we need?

I continue to be baffled by this ongoing sucking-up to Republicans that has done nothing except weaken and water down and neutralize what could have been truly historic legislation.

Well, when you put it that way (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by Cream City on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:30:51 PM EST

it's clear that what he's "transcending" is the reality faced by me and my family and millions of others also faced with firings, layoffs, no access to health insurance, or soaring health insurance costs for the few of us lucky to still have jobs.

We have to help our kids, because we're sure not getting any help from Obama in this health care fight and in this jobless recovery he prattles about.

Really, he seems more removed from reality every day. Wasn't he the one who said he wouldn't let D.C. do that to him? Yeh, another promise "transcended," too.

So now that we oldsters with jobs have seen much of retirement funding go kaput, too, while we're also spending our savings to help our kids, I fully expect to see him tell us to "transcend" our "entitlement" of Social Security and Medicare, for which we've been paying for much or even most of our lives, which meant that we couldn't save more.

As even my diehard Dem and Obama-backing spouse says now, that we all were doing better financially under Bush, well, it "makes you think." That cannot be a good sign for Dems, if they're losing the diehard.


Obama is (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by kmblue on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:16:36 PM EST

so faaaaar above me.


Have you forgotten the recession may (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:51:45 PM EST

be technically over?


Yeh, that's the jobless recovery (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Cream City on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:56:28 PM EST

noted above. Another term that boggles the mind until you parse it out to read what it means re who is recovering. And not necessarily all of those of us who do have jobs. It means the banks and big business, aka CEOs with their bonuses. I'm still trying to figure out what they have to recover from -- having to take our hard-earned money as a bailout? Awwww, the poor thangs.


: NYT/IHT articles this week on (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by oculus on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:58:46 PM EST

financial industry collapes, bail out, one yr. later etc. says unemployment in financiall industry is 8% compared to a year ago. Makes you think. And, no, thanks for asking, my unemployed offspring is not yet employed.