Obama's Health Care Learning Curve
The Washington Post is running excerpts from Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson's new book about the 2008 campaign--must-read for political junkies, because the two veteran Washington Post reporters give us a lot of insights from the key players themselves. They also have access to important emails and documents, like Obama political strategist David Axelrod's Nov. 28, 2006, memo to the would-be candidate, which turned out to be remarkably prescient about the race ahead.
Dan sent me an early copy of the book, because he thought I would be particularly interested in the Obama team's take on an episode where I had a better-than-front-row seat. When you see and hear the President talk about health care these days, you cannot help but be struck by his fluency with the issue. But that was not always the case. As I have watched Obama take on the health care issue, and stake so much of his presidency on it, I have often thought back to a day in 2007, which Balz and Johnson describe as a "near disaster" for Obama.:
The gap between Clinton and Obama became clear in late March when the Service Employees International Union hosted [KT note: other sponsors were the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the University of Nevada Las Vegas] a candidate forum on health care in Las Vegas. Obama's appearance was a near disaster. No union in the country, with the possible exception of the California Nurses Association, had put more emphasis on health care then SEIU. But Obama was utterly unprepared while his rivals arrived fully primed.
First to speak was John Edwards. Two days earlier he and his wife Elizabeth had announced that tests showed a recurrence of her breast cancer, only now it had spread to her bones. Her condition was described as untreatable. Amid a wellspring of public sympathy for their ordeal, and expressions of admiration for Elizabeth's courage and the portrait of the loving, supportive couple they drew before the public, they vowed his campaign would continue.
On that morning in Las Vegas, John and Elizabeth were together for their first public appearance since their press conference announcing the return of her inoperable cancer. As he addressed the union audience he was crisp, forceful, and totally engaged. "What we have here is a dysfunctional health system in America," he said. "what we need is big, bold, dramatic change." Edwards deftly fielded questions about his wife's health and their commitment for him to stay in the race. He was also straightforward about the cost of his health care plan and how he would pay for it.
Obama came next. He made no mention of Elizabeth Edwards and her courageous battle and had no plan to present, saying, "Everybody on this stage will have a plan." The moderator, Time magazine's Karen Tumulty, had pressed his campaign ahead of time for information about his health care agenda but got nothing in return. She handed off the questioning to a member of the audience, Morgan Miller, who would later become known as the "Obaminator" to her friends because of her pointed questioning of the candidate. She expressed dismay at how little information was available on his campaign Web site. "What really are your top issues?" she asked. Obama was hesitant and defensive. "Keep in mind, our campaign right now is a little over eight weeks old," he said. When asked about how he would pay for expanded access to health care, he fudged. "I have not foreclosed the possibility that we might need additional revenue in order to achieve my goal," he said. "But we should underestimate the amoutn of money that can be saved in the existing system." He received only polite applause.
Clinton took the stage next, and Obama could see the contrast between them. After praising Elizabeth and John Edwards, she said, "We're supposed to limit this to three minutes. As some of you know, I can talk three hours or three days on health care." Though Clinton did not have a plan at that point either, it was quickly apparent how expert she was. Health care was her passion, and it showed. It is a disgrace, she thundered, to have millions of Americans left out of the health care system. "We need a movement. We need to make this the number one voting issue in the '08 elections," she said as her words were drowned out by rising applause. "We're going to get it done this time." She was even more impressive during the questions. When she finished, someone in the audience yelled, out, "You go, girl!"
Obama knew he had lost the day. Now he understood better what [Campaign Manager David] Plouffe had told him in December about the pressures of a presidential campaign. "Her presentation was sharp and she knew how to arouse the crowd. ... He was impressed by it," Axelrod said. "Basically he had leaped into the deep end of a very cold pool and I think it was a shock to the system. It took him a while to figure out how to swim. ... As bright and as gifted as he is, this was all new to him. He went through a period that was very difficult. He was tired. But he felt challenged as well. Little by little he began to learn the rhythm and the pace and the requirements."
When we talked to him about that Las Vegas forum more than a year later, Obama vividly recalled it. "We had made a strategic decision that we weren't going to put our health care plan out yet," he said. "I thought to myself, this is conversational. I'm going to have a conversation with Karen [Tumulty] about how I see health care. And Hillary came in and made a full-blown stump speech presentation. She was standing up, she was playing to the crowd."
A few days after the SEIU forum, Obama spoke before a convention of the Building and Construction Trades in Washington. He opened with a dismissal of the group's significance. "I've got to vote at noon so I'm going to have to cut this short," he said. He was as good as his word, speaking briefly and then departing. On his way back to the Capitol, Obama confided to a colleague that he had not done well before the union audience. He was, he admitted, exhausted after only two and a half months as a candidate. He asked Gibbs to follow him over to the Capitol for the vote. Gibbs was struck by Obama's demeanor. He looked miserable. "You could tell he was wiped out form the whole thing," Gibbs said.
And yet, only weeks later--right around Memorial Day weekend--Obama presented a health care plan. It was a credible one, though it differed from Clinton and Edward on a key element: It did not require individuals who are not covered by their employers to go out and buy coverage on their own. As a result, his rivals criticized it as not achieving true universal coverage.
But that, as we have since learned, was really only the beginning of Obama's evolution on the issue. He now embraces that "individual mandate." I asked him about his change of heart last week. Here's what he had to say:
I feel pretty good that I've been pretty consistent on this. The individual mandate is probably the one area where I basically changed my mind. The more deeply I got into the issue, the more I felt that the dangers of adverse selection justified us creating a system that shares responsibility, as long as we were actually making health insurance affordable and there was a hardship waiver for those who, even with generous subsidies, couldn't afford it. And that remains my position.
I think other than that we've been pretty consistent about how I think we need to approach the problem. And by the way, I in no way want to suggest that cost is more important than coverage. My point has been that those two things go hand in hand. If we can't control costs, then we simply can't afford to expand coverage the way we need to. In turn, if we can expand coverage, that actually gives us some leverage with insurers or pharmaceutical industry or others to do more to help make the health care system more cost-effective.
That's your carrot.
Yes.What about — you mentioned that subsidies have to be there. What's — you're hearing now — 300% [that the government would provide assistance to people earning up to 300% of poverty]. Is that enough? Is that really —
Until I actually see the numbers, I don't want to give a definitive answer on that. I do think that if we can figure out what is a fair, appropriate percentage of your income that you're paying on health care, and peg it — peg subsidies so that it's meeting that test, potentially with some regional variation then we'll get it right. And I think that the committees are working on that. That's the kind of detail that we had anticipated working through in conference. If it turns out that Congress just can't get there and that's the holdup, then we'll give a very definitive idea of where we need to go on it.
All of this brings me back to a criticism we are hearing more frequently of the Obama strategy on health reform. While he has laid out broad principles, more and more in Congress are asking him for more specific guidance to get them past the roadblocks. In health care, details matter; to get anything done, you have to be ready to engage them. But timing matters, too, and an early stumble or two isn't fatal. Maybe that's why the White House doesn't seem to be as rattled as everyone else at the fact that there are rough spots along the way.
-
1
Great post Karen.
As important as this issue is to me, I'm finding myself numbed by the hope and then dashed hopes of the plans being put forth, and the fear that meaningful health care won't get done.
I've begun to put it into the category of things I can't affect and that I need to let go of paying intense attention to. (It helps that my representation is very strong in this regard, and Welch even inserted an ammendment to get negotiating authority re prescriptions for medicare)
I can well understand how the public at large is increasingly confused and fearful.
I really count on the clarity and integrity you bring to coverage of this issue.
-
2
Definitely worth waiting for.....
I'm reminded too, that part of the reason for his apparent reversal on the individual mandate, is that his plan during the campaign had to differ from the other candidate's. Perhaps absent the need to differentiate himself from HC, he would have come down in favor sooner.
-
3
Thanks, Karen. Great stuff again. I'm still amazed that: (1.) Edwards ran despite his affair and (2.) Hillary's campaign drifted. She could've rammed the HC point home as her theme instead of “experience” ala '92 Perot's budget issue + charts campaign (and nothing else, literally). “Hillary '08: We'll Take Care of You, McCain Won't”. Or were we as receptive last year?
re: mandates, in last night's open thread I posted a video about Middle East HC privatization + Saudi Arabia making employers provide coverage – http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1201246826 …and now this – http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=1093261315 I don't know yet how the new Saudi system addresses insurance cos. claims denials / pre-existing's. Many countries have public options (and we don't, but I digress), but is *this* mandate working elsewhere or not? I'm still digging but YOU'd know more than me, KT. Thoughts?
-
4
And yet, only weeks later--right around Memorial Day weekend--Obama presented a health care plan. It was a credible one, though it differed from Clinton and Edward on a key element: It did not require individuals who are not covered by their employers to go out and buy coverage on their own. As a result, his rivals criticized it as not achieving true universal coverage.
_
the real point here is that Obama's plan was not credible because it lacked a mandate. But the media was so slavishly devoted to Obama that not only was his "disasterous" performance at the health care forum not presented as evidence of Obama's lack of readiness, the media also treated the Obama plan as credible.
_
(Obama's "no mandate" proposal made absolutely no sense because he also talked about "community rating", and community rating only works if everyone in the community has coverage. )
_-
4.1
Plukasiak -- give it a rest, even Hillary has joined the team now. You remind of that last Japanese soldier in the cave 20 years after World War II ended. Of course, I'm pretty sure that by now someone on this site must have already told you that.
-
4.2
" .. it lacked a mandate. But the media was so slavishly devoted to Obama .."
Give the campaign animus a rest for now.
Think about what we are trying to do now, and how it will change USA and the (gentler) way Americans live for decades and maybe centuries to come - long after we have run out of social security and you are dead and forgotten.
{eh, and your Grand Old Party has gone the way of the aged relics and dinosaurs .. I like the thought.} -
4.3
facts is facts --- the media spent a lot more time criticizing Clinton's "gasoline tax rebate" proposal (a relatively minor idea) for not making sense than it did addressing how ridiculous Obama's health care proposal was -- and IMHO the media's consistent pro-Obama bias probably has played a role in how poorly he's been governing; Obama lived a charmed life with the media until he became President, and never really had to "put up or shut up" until now. (Obama reminds me of the 30 Rock episode about Tina Fey's boyfriend who was so handsome that he lived in a 'bubble' of approval...)
-
4.4
plukasiak " .. facts is facts .."
I am not sure what that means. Do you remember that once upon a time "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" and "We found WMD in Iraq" were presented and admitted by most of your cronies as 'facts'?
How about the 'fact' indeed 'truism' that "The USA does NOT torture"?" a role in how poorly he's been governing; .."
You may be the ultimate governor.
So, Jesus/God is no good at managing peoples' sentiments. They crucified him! [They must have been Repugs!]So, you don't want to give it a rest. Then what?
Do you want
- him accomplish nothing for the next seven and a half years of his presidency and maybe even demonstrate he is worse than Bush#43 by sending the good ol' USA to the rock-bottom of economic and moral cussedness?
- to stage a coup d'etat or ''regime change''?
- to wipe USA's dust off your feet as you sail away into the sunset of your well-governed promised land - never to return?
- to keep stewing in your own consumption? -
-
-
5
KT:
Please tell me that you have seen former head of Public Relations at health care insurer giant CIGNA Wendell Potter speak on Bill Moyers to the current health insurance system and the industry's power in the captiol.
-
5.1
'Ere be th' problem, Stuart - it were on PBS.
'Ow many people d' ye think were seein' it?
'Ow many in th' MSM be pickin' it up, showin' clips, referrin' t' it, 'r otherwise gettin' th' information out t' th' rest o' th' masses?
'Ow many talkin' 'eads made use o' it t' challenge their guest whores' "opinions" on th' matter, instead o' just settin' 'em up t' run away wi' their pre-determined scripts unquestioned ?
Th' problem be th' whole subject be relegated t' th' sidelines...specific' 'cause corporate media be in th' same da*n bed an' don't want no one lookin' too close!
YARR!
-
5.2
Unfortunately SZ, even if she heard him it wouldn't matter much. This town is wired to discount the words of whistle blowers. In a town so ripe with obvious corruption, nothing is hated more than a whistle blower. You saw how they treated Scott McClellan didn't you? That's no fluke, that's how this town always treats whistle blowers, with noses held and and at arms length.
-
5.3
Dee: ' .. In a town so ripe with obvious corruption, nothing is hated more than a whistle blower. ..
Indeed. That is an observation on American psyche that fits neatly into that great book by Tocqueville on America.
For a thief, nothing in more scary than the sound of "Stop Thief!" - even if it is directed at someone else. -
5.4
Thanks for sharing that. Unfortunately I feel health care reform (or insurance reform) is ultimately dead. I don't think there is enough interest or will power left in the American people to overcome those vested in the status quo. It doesn't help the cause that the Republican party seems so hell bent on distorting the process with outrageous lies and fear mongering. I guess I can go back to hoping I don't lose my job/coverage and if I do get very sick it kills me quick.
-
5.5
I hope this doesn't represent the opening salvos in an attempt to blame Obama if Congress fails to pass decent reform legislation. If that happens, the blame deserves to be placed squarely as follows: 1) the insurance giants (and their "conservative" allies), for buying off our representatives in Congress with cash and engaging in a massive, deceitful propaganda campaign designed to fool the public about proposed reform, 2) "conservative" congresscritters of both parties for selling out the interests of their constituents for the sake of personal gain, 3) the corporate-controlled media for failing to tell the public the truth about industry and "conservative" propaganda.
-
5.6
Don't lose heart, health care reform is not over, this just represents an alternative reality created by the media, whose default narrative must have a winner and a loser. On one hand they are very much like the courts strictly adhering to the rules of precedence: Health care reform has always failed in the past so it goes without saying that it is more likely to fail this time as well! What they never include in this narrative are all the ways that things are different this time around.
We talk about the corporate interests allied against health care reform, but the fact remains that this time around the insurance companies are on their own, having only their conservative allies and paid Congressional flunkies for company. Big business represented by the US Chamber of Commerce, AMA representing the doctors, AARP representing medicare recipients, big pharma is partnered with Families USA for goodness sake, the hospitals etc. are all aligned in favor of reform. So please don't let the media paint a picture that all is lost. I realize that their "Chicken little theory of diminishing returns" is effective, but it is not the only game in town. Think of it this way, more than anything they want is to be able to write a story that Obama is dead. When you talk about favorable media coverage, don't forget what it is they actually do -- their pattern is to build someone up only so they can knock them down later. I believe I predicted that this is exactly what was going to happen once they got a taste of blood from derailing the Daschle appointment.
The truth is that if Obama does nothing else on health care reform beyond the agreements that are already in place, it might not universal, but it would be more affordable for those who currently have care, those like me who can't by coverage at any price, those who are floundering in the private market, and those who are self employed, would have made major gains with this insurance reform. for us it would indeed be historic. But the media doesn't want to talk about that story, because what they want more than anything at the back table of Charlie Palmer's or wherever they hang out is to be able to say that once again they took down a president. So don't expect anything to change even if he gets everything he wants on health care -- they will just move on to the next issue with the same old agenda. for the media, taking down presidents is like heroine and they've been fiening for the thrill since they got hooked on Nixon and Watergate. Haven't you ever asked yourself why every media scandal ends in gate -- even when it sounds utterly ridiculous like Gatesgate?
-
-
6
At the time, most Democrats believed (or chose to convince themselves) that we had been blessed with 3 wonderful candidates. Sadly, all three were fatally flawed in their own way.
Hillary, the wonk, lacked the leadership skills to drive health care reform. Yes, she might be able to TALK about health care for three days, but she was also the last of the candidates to roll out a robust plan and she was never able to explain what happened to her fight between 1993 and 2007.
Obama, a typical finger-in-the-air politician, understood that "mandate" is a political loser in an environment of runaway health care costs and smartly emphasized costs over coverage during the campaigns. Where Hillary would be less likely to pass health care reform, Obama was less likely to pass meaningful reform. Pick your poison.
Unfortunately, Edwards, clearly the best negotiator of the three, was saddled with his serious character flaws. Plus, as a relative political neophyte and outsider, he would likely have been treated as an intruder into the Village by the chattering classes and the former Clintonites. One can easily imagine an Edwards administration -- even devoid of love children -- dying a death of a thousand cuts like the Clinton administrations' first term.
-
6.1
No actually he learned the lesson of Massachusetts, where many of those mandated to buy health care couldn't afford it. Because despite their gross income, which usually comes nowhere near to what they actually bring home, the lack of discretionary spending has little impact on eligibility for government subsidies that don't really take into account how much rent you pay or food you have to buy, let alone what you may already owe on student loans or credit cards. Even now Obama is waiting to see the numbers because he knows that 300% of poverty in the northeast doesn't mean the same thing as it does in Idaho or Nebraska. Moreover, making one dollar over the federal eligibility line doesn't really make it more affordable now does it? So I commend him for considering how real people live rather than just plucking some arbitrary figure and saying everybody ought to able to afford that. At least someone has recognized that the days of people paying no more than 35% of their income in housing is over, especially if they are trying to live in an area with better schools for thier kids.
-
6.2
Maybe I wasn't clear, Dee.
I 100% agree with you that mandating that people purchase insurance that they can't afford is absurd. Color me skeptical that any means-testing for subsidies would fix the problem.
Where I do criticize Obama is that he is insufficiently willing to challenge certain stakeholders to bring down costs.
But I credit him with the political sense to not create a system, a.k.a. Hillarycare Mark II, that is attacked from the Right as socialism and the Left as a massive corporate handout to insurers.
-
6.3
And this is why single-payer makes sense...
But it is kind of horrifying to think of opposing mandates because they would force poorer people to buy insurance and instead suggest that they shouldn't have insurance at all. The language of this "hardship exemption" idea is Orwellian.
Clearly a cap should be set on the maximum % of income (minus a personal living allowance) an individual has to pay for health insurance.
-
6.4
Square 1 --
Maybe it was that "typical finger in the wind politician" remark that threw me off. But I agree that even with subsidies there will be people who won't be able to afford it. That's why even now, when he has embraced mandates he is unmovable on issue of hardship waivers. Because I can guarantee you for many parents if the choice becomes health care for themselves, or a private school for their kids, they are going sacrifice themselves in order to get their kids a better shot.
To that other matter, what you see as failure to stand up against "certain stakeholders" I see as a strategic move to keep the big guns at the table. The plan is to fix this stuff in conference when it is too late to stop the train. Obama always knew that the Democratic Congress would be the biggest problem, just as they were in 1993 with Hilary care, or 1973 with Nixon care. Some people study history in order not to repeat it. Keeping the Dems from exploding is dependent on his ability to keep the AMA, the hospitals, AARP, the chamber of commerce and big pharma off the airwaves. Once he gets them back in September, if he's limited the impact of the opposition by not having those certain stakeholders in the mix, you might see the benefit of this strategy.
-
-
7
I guess the difference is that without the Clinton campaign's failure to invest in caucuses and the biased media coverage, Obama would not have won the nomination. But this time the media is against him and it's unlikely his opponents will mess up as badly as the Clinton campaign.
BTW, I still think his decision to oppose mandates was an error, unless you believe that a longer primary campaign actually helped him (which is not impossible, of course). There is a tendency to retrospectively characterize everything a winning candidate did as strategically smart, and everything their opponents did as strategically stupid. But the close result in the primaries makes that kind of thinking implausible. The fact that HRC was the only candidate who supported universal health care and had a viable health care plan fueled her campaign in its last months. It made fighting on seem worthwhile and if Obama had suggested reconsidering his stance on mandates in say early April, the primary campaign may have ended sooner. Perhaps the Obama campaign was thinking about the GE, but it was always obvious that health care was a Democratic issue.
-
7.1
Rose, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you as well. clearly his health care plan was not the reason that the primary went on forever. And as for favorable media coverage, let me remind you that if it was not for the media portraying the primaries as close after he expanded his lead to over 100 delegates, she would have been out long ago. The only thing responsible for the drawn out primary was the media narrative "of Clinton as energizer bunny or vampire whom can't be killed" I have been studying politics for a long time and never before has the media ever been so involved in helping a candidate try to change the measurements. That whole big states -- small states crap was ludicrous and everyone in politics knew it, including the political reporters. However, just as they did last week with covering Gates 24/7 instead of covering health care at all, they did then, it is nothing new for the media to keep something going for their own personal entertainment. Primaries are won and lost on the number of delegates a candidate can amass. All those ridiculous protests didn't mean squat and Hillary's attack dog Harold Ickes, with all of his maneuvering knew the process was fair because he helped write the rules in the first place. Hillary lost the race on February 5, when she had no plan to go on after super Tuesday -- period. Trying to come up with another scenario is an exercise in delusion at best.
-
7.2
She certainly fell behind on Super Tuesday, but she was nowhere near mathematically out of the campaign. The argument that a 100 delegate lead was insurmountable is based on the assumption that their relative popularity would continue essentially unchanged for the remainder of the election, so he couldn't expand his lead greatly and she couldn't make up the difference. That is how it turned out. But it wasn't inevitable. He could have won by a wider margin and she could have caught up. He could have handled the Wright thing worse. WJC could have been discovered having an affair. Anything could have happened.
As for the media coverage, it's hard to know how much coverage a historic campaign that is raising millions of dollars, winning primaries and facing an almost but not quite insurmountable path to victory should get. That's not sarcastic: I seriously don't know. No doubt media scholars will explore this further.
-
7.3
Sorry Rose--
But playing by the Democratic Party's rules of proportional representation, which Ickes wrote by the way, the only mathematical way for Hillary to catch up to Obama was if she won upwards of 90% of the remaining vote of all the remaining states. Do I really have to point out the improbability of this feat? Even if every white person left voted for Hillary such as they nearly did in west Virginia and Kentucky, this is the Democratic party and African Americans make up a significant percentage of the Democratic primary vote. There is no way for her to get what she needed without the ability to capture at lest some part of that vote and it is clear that by this time he was getting upwards of 80-90% of the black vote. Add in the youth vote and she didn't have a shot in h3ll.
If there is one thing that galls me it is this. We always mock conservatives for having their own set of facts, yet, here we are arguing that 2+2=4 everywhere in the world including the Democratic primary campaign of 2008. Don't believe me do the math. She had no shot after super Tuesday, she knew it, her campaign knew it and all that hoopla about big states and small states, Michigan and Florida and not giving up the fight was about one thing and one thing only: Buying time to try to convince super delegates that a black candidate couldn't win the general! They knew that their only shot was having the party elders just take it from him and give it to her. You do remember those recorded conference calls where her camp insisted that he couldn't win right? But everyone knew that this would have been the a nuclear option because it would have severed African American voters from the Democratic party forever.
-
7.4
Sorry, I'm not understanding the math of a 100 delegate lead on Super Tuesday translating into Obama just having to win more than 10% of the remaining pledged delegates to win the nomination. That 90% figure was from way later in the campaign.
But none of this is particularly relevant now, is it?
-
7.5
But playing by the Democratic Party's rules of proportional representation, which Ickes wrote by the way, the only mathematical way for Hillary to catch up to Obama was if she won upwards of 90% of the remaining vote of all the remaining states.
Dee, that's a lie.
The media used two different standards -- Clinton had to WIN enough delegates in the primaries in order to secure the nomination, while all that Obama had to do was show that he'd won more delegates than Clinton. While Obama had a delegate lead going into the convention, it was nowhere near sufficient to win the nomination outright -- and his lead was based on delegates from states that traditionally voted Republican (states where if the Democrat did win, they already had more than enough electoral college votes from Democratic and swing states that the extra states didn't matter.)
-
-
8
Rose, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
The Obama administration made clear that they supported a plan where anybody who wanted to be covered could be covered. It was tatamount to what we are now talking about in terms of a robust "public option". Indeed, on the stump it was far robuster than what we will ultimately get under the rosiest of scenarios.
The "mandate" issue isn't a coverage issue. It is a funding issue. If the young and the healthy opt out then the system would be underfunded.
HRC was not the only candidate who presented universal health care. No candidate presented true universal health care. Edwards came the closest.
But HRC was last to the table and she brought a package that many Democrats feared would be more easily attacked as socialized medicine. For God's sake, the HRC team couldn't even come up with a euphamism for "mandate".
You know that "biased" coverage and "slavish devotion" that you and p_luk talk about? It didn't happen by accident. Obama got favorable press precisely because he avoided language and policies that would threaten the press corps. (Remember, Joe Klein once declared capitalism to be teh greatest human achievement of all time, after the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel!)
-
8.1
I think we basically agree, we're just wording our conclusions differently.
Since universal health care cannot be funded without a mandate - for the reasons HRC and now Obama have outlined - Obama's rejection of a mandate was effectively also a rejection of universal health care. That was the Clinton campaign argument and it was correct. As Obama has implicitly accepted. Funding and coverage cannot be separated.
I agree that "mandate" is a politically problematic term - and the Obama team haven't been able to think of a euphemism either, which makes me think it just can't be done. They're pretty good words. And you might be right that Obama won more primary votes indirectly with his rejection of mandates because of media support. I personally differ a little from you (if I understand you correctly) and plukasiak in that I don't think the media disliked HRC because she was the more progressive candidate. I don't even think she was more progressive overall: my thinking was that she was a little more progressive domestically and a little less progressive on foreign policy. I think the media preferred Obama for numerous reasons including his newness, his gift with words which writers naturally felt was important, his charisma, the fact his last name wasn't Clinton, sexism, and better campaign media outreach.
BTW, my comment about HRC being the only candidate offering universal health care referred to the end of the primaries when there were only 3 Presidential candidates: Obama, McCain and Clinton.
-
-
9
"When you see and hear the President talk about health care these days, you cannot help but be struck by his fluency with the issue."
.
Isn;t this the same guy who recently talked about rejecting tests and doctors ordering unnecessary tonsilectomies?
.
And didn't he just recently figure out that young healthy people are not necessarily incented to buy health insurance?-
-
9.2
Ah, square1. I see you're back. First of all, read KT's post--the quote is from there. Second of all, your credibility is pretty much in the crapper. Remember our little Sotomayor debate. You had said that I was the idiot because Sotomayor was right that Ginsburg's opinion would have affirmed the Second Circuit. Of course, genius, you had no answer to the problem that Ginsburg's opinion didn't deal with the Equal Protection claims of the plaintiffs. Get that part right, SFB, before yapping.
-
9.3
I can read the quote, Spob. I simply have no idea what the quote has to do with the non sequiturs that you posted.
I also wonder why someone who would vote for Sarah Palin over Obama would weigh in on this matter. Clearly you aren't looking for a wonky President.
On Sotomayor. You then wrote
she flat-out demonstrated that she doesnt know how to read a Supreme Court opinion by saying that she read Ginsburg's dissent as affirming the Second Circuit.
I pointed out to you that Ginsburg, applying the test she found relevent, would have dismissed the Plaintiffs Title VII claims. I.e. She would have affirmed the Court of Appeals.
You now write:
you had no answer to the problem that Ginsburg's opinion didn't deal with the Equal Protection claims of the plaintiffs.
Are you on crack? I can't even follow what tortured legal argument you are attempting to pass off. Are you suggesting that Ginsburg WOULDN'T have dismissed the EPC claims??? If not, what f-ing point are you attempting to make? If so, on what out-of-your butt basis?
On second thought, don't bother answering. It has become quite clear that, for you, a little legal knowledge is a dangerous thing. However, your ignorance of both the substantive and procedural law involved in the Ricci mess makes any further discussions totally pointless.
-
9.4
Square1, too f'in easy. First of all, genius, you get the quote wrong--it's not a "little knowledge", it's a "little learning". ("A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian Spring.") And yes, that's from memory, you uneducated rube.
.
Second of all, the quote from the post dealt with Obama's erudition. My retort was that he said some pretty unerudite things (is that a word, if not, well, you know what I mean) and I provided examples.
.
Third of all, re: Sotomayor. You really miss the boat. As you are aware, the Second Circuit, in the Ricci case, affirmed the District Court's SJ grant in favor of the defendant City of New Haven. In order for that SJ grant to be appropriate, all of the claims of the plaintiffs have to be resolved. Since Ginsburg's opinion was silent on those claims, it is simply impossible to read the dissent as affirming the SJ grant. This is elementary. Your discussion as to what Ginsburg would have done had she ruled on the EPC claims is nonsense. Maybe she would have; maybe not. But judges speak through their opinions, and she certainly didn't take the position in hers that Sotomayor's panel should have been affirmed, and it was wrong for Sotomayor to say otherwise. -
9.5
...Though the [spob] seems innocent enough, the grandson warns [Swampland commenters] that [they] must not let the [spob] near bright light, especially sunlight, which can kill the [spob]; must not allow water to touch the [spob]; and, most importantly, must never, ever feed it after [it posts a comment].
-
9.6
grape, were you born a douchebag or did you just become one. I have posted nothing trollish whatsoever on this thread. KT extolled Obama's "fluency", and I pointed out some recent commentary that showed him to be less than fluent.
.
I took a shot at Square1. So what? His post was insulting, so I hit back.
.
You guys don't like what I have to say. But you cannot out-argue me, so you whine about me being a troll.
.
So which is it? Born that way or did you become one. -
9.7
grape, were you born a douchebag or did you just become one. I have posted nothing trollish whatsoever on this thread
A classic example of the self-refuting argument. I can only assume a severe case of 'D!ckhead dyslexia"
-
9.8
Well, PD, please ID the trollish langauge. If you cannot, then take back your insult, SFB.
-
9.9
"..trollish.."
.
...[spob] keeps using that word. I do not think it means what [spob] thinks it means. -
9.10
well, then, Grape, perhaps you could enlighten me--then maybe you can take on my point--i.e., that some of Obama's recent comments look a bit less erudite than as portrayed in KT's post . . . .
-
9.11
..perhaps you could enlighten me..
.
Rule #1: Must not let the [spob] near bright light, especially sunlight, which can kill the [spob]... -
9.12
Hello, spob--
You know, it should be an apostrophe, not a semi-colon here:
"Isn;t this the same guy who recently talked about rejecting tests and doctors ordering unnecessary tonsilectomies?"
Does it matter? Heck, no--no more than " a little knowledge" versus "a little learning" matters.
Do you suppose that there's any inherent virtue in memorizing a line?
-
9.13
georgiac, there is no inherent virtue in memorizing a line . . . . but, typically, if you're going to use someone else's words, in this case Alexander Pope's, you should try to get it right.
.
And I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm not just doing that to rap Square1's knuckles. I get called "stupid", "idiot" etc. more times than I care to count. Unless I am a savant, evidence that I know where "a little knowledge" actually comes from, argues quite effectively that I am no dummy. I suspect you realize that . . . .
-
-
10
Ye know wha'?
I don't be carin' who said wha', when' 'r whar' durin' th' campaign. It were a POLITICAL campaign, wi' all th' bet-hedgin', weasel-wordin' smudgin' an' obfuscatin' tha' be goin' 'long wi' it. Nothin' more, nothin' less.
It be o'er, me hearties, let' it go!
If we miscalculated our course, we be stuck now ('specially considerin' our "journalists" unwillin'ness t' rock their corporate boats!) 'til th' next election cycle. Th' rudder be set, an' We th' People be no' havin' a whit o' influence in th' meantime wi' our bought-an'-paid-fer representative an' "news" media whores.
Th' ship be bein' scuttled, me hearties - watch out fer th' sharks, an' 'appy swimmin'!
YARR!
-
10.1
…aw, ‘ell, let's whip up influence anyway. Repeating earlier “ideas”: (1.) form our own KT-PAC lobby (of the un- / underinsured + real people) to fight back / pay off blue dogs / change the debate, or (2.) make KT, JNS, etc. hunt ex-Baucus staffers-now-lobbyists and get in their faces to force confessions of Congressional tithing. If footdragging reps want delays, bring on media judo and use their delay against them with intense coverage / pressure. They'll wish they had voted on a timid compromise before fleeing on vacation, oops.
-
10.2
deconstructiva -
Thanks fer th' laugh - th' cynical, "tha'll be th' day!" laugh, bu' a laugh noneth'less.
KT? JNS? Gettin' in anyone's faces? They won't want t' be wastin' their time!
Ri'...
I can be usin' all th' humor - tho' it be black - I can be gettin' these days!
YARR!
-
10.3
...glad to be of help. Alas, MJ kids custody / will executor hearings today may get more TV face time than HC rants.
And that's no joke.
-
-
11
It's more than a little laughable to compare Republicans in Congress to Hillary Clinton on health care and their opposition to Obama. The GOP doesn't exactly have a plan...
-
12
Our friend Karen on Diane Rehm on this very subject

.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/ -
13
I hope this doesn't represent the opening salvos in an attempt to blame Obama if Congress fails to pass decent reform legislation. If that happens, the blame deserves to be placed squarely as follows: 1) the insurance giants (and their "conservative" allies), for buying off our representatives in Congress with cash and engaging in a massive, deceitful propaganda campaign designed to fool the public about proposed reform, 2) "conservative" congresscritters of both parties for selling out the interests of their constituents for the sake of personal gain, 3) the corporate-controlled media for failing to tell the public the truth about industry and "conservative" propaganda.
-
13.1
Actual, shepherdwong,
I'd be puttin' th' Democrats (bu' fer one 'r two) first on me list - they could'a formed an' passed anythin' they wanted bu' fer their cowardice an' susceptibility t' bein' bribed. In tha' respect, thar be no diff'rence a'tall b'tween Democrats an' Republicans - they all be enslaved t' corporate interests a' th' expense o' those they supposed' represent!
YARR!
-
13.2
I appreciate your ire, PW. Just remember, you can't be enslaved without an owner and mere slave-masters will always be for hire.
-
-
13.4
deconstructiva -
It ain't goin' t' happen (KT bein' th' change).
If it were, she (an' other MSM "journalists") would'a:
been prominently interviewin' Senator Sanders, askin' difficult questions 'bout why no single payer
prefacin' ev'ry comment fr'm ev'ry congressperson wi' th' amount o' money they be receivin' fr'm corporate health lobbies
runnin' stories 'bout how th' process be co-opted by special interests.
clearly comparin' th' current options wi' wha' we'd be gettin' instead wi' single payer
ne'er be allowin' th' corporate health shills t' be spoutin' their sh*t free an' unchallenged
callin' bullsh*t when th' lies be pourin' forth an' providin' correct information
just t' start wi'.
I don't be seein' it.
It be impossible t' be change when ye're part o' th' problem!
YARR!
-
-
14
KT: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
-
14.1
…or be the change. Karen, HC is clearly “your issue”, personally and professionally. Remember how Bethany McLean pried open Enron? It took awhile for corporate media and stock market to catch up but when they did, whew! Don't forget Watergate too. (has anyone bought that property yet?) Simply by digging and asking q's others didn't (other than us), the coverage changed the events and made new things happen…all without taking sides. We take sides here, but it's not always blinding obvious.
-
-
15
Brave teabaggers,
marchingwaddling as if to War!(As if, lolz.)
~ -
16
-- a wee bit off topic, Newbie Going Overboard?
Talking of health and superpower rivalry: Recently we saw the hunk macho Putin displaying his abs, fitness and endurance by
- shooting and tranquilizing a Siberian tiger (or was that a wandering, dazed quitter Palin who had strayed into that Siberia she sees from her balcony?) and
- diving in a mini-submarine to the bottom of the world's deepest lake, Lake Baikal.
O hubbub, our hunk POTUS may have said, I can body surf at the bottom of their pond they call Lake Baikal. -
17
We are starting to see reports and videos of brown shirt tactics being used at town hall meetings. Disruptions are being encouraged and coordinated by the same people that were responsible for the teabaggers. Think Progress has a leaked memo from Freedom Works that encourages thuggish behavior with the intent to 'rattle' and intimidate representatives (link) .
There is nothing 'grass roots' about this phenomena (although it's designed to look that way). It's coordinated and has the intent of maximizing the press reports of opposition to health care reform, while minimizing the opportunity of reform advocates to have a say. The goal is not to have a reasonable discussion -- it's to quash discussion.
My question is: How should this behavior be handled? I don't want to see closed Democrats-only meetings (in the same way that the gopers have so-called 'town hall' meetings that only let in gopers). But I also don't want to see the meetings descend into shouting matches (or even violence) -- possibly making those in favor of reform look as unhinged as the teabaggers. So how should they be handled?
These meetings also present challenges for the press. Will journalists merely report that the meetings encountered boisterous opposition to health care reform (despite the fact that the opponents are a small minority of the public)? Will journalists report that this is a coordinated assault on the meetings intended to play to the press while stifling debate?
I don't think it's an exaggeration to call this behavior brown shirt tactics. How should it be countered? One of the oldest and finest democratic traditions of our country, the town hall meeting, is being taken away from us.
-
19
KT:
I found this part surprising:
And by the way, I in no way want to suggest that cost is more important than coverage. My point has been that those two things go hand in hand. If we can't control costs, then we simply can't afford to expand coverage the way we need to. In turn, if we can expand coverage, that actually gives us some leverage with insurers or pharmaceutical industry or others to do more to help make the health care system more cost-effective.
As I said above, I thought that Obama was wise in the primaries to prioritize cost savings over universal coverage.
One of the biggest mistakes that the Democrats are making in this whole legislative battle is failing to communicate to the American people, in simple terms, exactly what reform means. Reform should mean two things:
1. Across the board cost savings. Regardless of whether you are privately insured, publicly insured, or uninsured and paying out of pocket, the goal is to reduce the amount you have to pay for health care. Period.
By definition, the cost for this portion of reform should be negative, as the government should be saving money on what it would otherwise be spending. Not to mention the net savings to private individuals and corporations.
2. Universal coverage. Because some people can't afford health care or health insurance, even with cost savings from #1, it is an aspirational goal of many liberals to have the government subsidize the additional cost.
This is where ALL the increased costs lie.
The foolishness of the Democrats has been in allowing the "debate" over reform to conflate #1 and #2. Democrats have allowed opponents of reform to create the impression that reform is inherently costly. How many Americans now think "we can't afford reform" because they hear a $1T price tag attached? If you want Americans to appreciate the value of a "public option", start talking about what those premiums would be relative to what Americans are paying now.
-
20
"The Washington Post is running excerpts ..."
.
I will require verification of every fact stated in said article, and also verification that the excerpts printed in fact accurately mirror what's in the book and has not been altered in any way. Thank you.-
20.1
"I will require verification of every fact stated in said article, and also verification that the excerpts printed in fact accurately mirror what's in the book and has not been altered in any way. Thank you."
.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how arrogant that sounds?
-
-
-
22
SQ, did Joe really write that (about capitalism)?
KT, any thoughts on Douhat's column today (praising TX)?
And, in general, the above comments are the same old, rehashing primary battles, as well as the current ones: dems who feel Obama is "their man" vs. those who feel he must be held accountable.
From May:
AMY GOODMAN: When Barack Obama was running for president, asked in the debates who would MLK endorse, who would Dr. King endorse, he said, “None of us.”
HOWARD ZINN: Yeah, that's true, because King believed—and this actually is one of the themes of our people's history, is that you cannot depend on presidents, and you cannot depend on elections and voting to solve your problems. People themselves, organizing, demonstrating, clamoring, they are the only ones who can push the President and push Congress into change. And that's what we have to do now with Obama. We have to point to what Obama said in the course of the campaign, when he said we not only have to get out of Iraq, we have to get out of the mindset that brought us into Iraq. Obama, himself, has not gotten out of that mindset yet. And I think we, the people, have to speak to him about that.
-
23
For all those yearning for relief from all the greed and insincerity sorrounding the health care debates, be happy: You could be spending time reading this:
-
24
[...] Obama’s Health Care Learning Curve The Washington Post is running excerpts from Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson’s new book about the 2008 [...] [...]
-
25
Okay media here's a challenge for you and it seems to be right up your alley. The tactic is not new, corporate America has always hired thugs to advance their cause. But I think they've just turned into extremists and as all extremists do they've gone one step too far. It was one thing to hire thugs to keep us from unionizing, but its another to hire thugs to prevent Americans from exercising their freedom of speech, preventing voters from lawful assembly and preventing voters from seeking redress from their government officials.
It's one thing for voters to disagree on the issues, like I might of us disagree with exiled or yoshi, but its another thing for some corporate entity to jam this site so we can't do verbal battle. What do you say exiled, yoshi will you join with progressives, liberals and moderators to call out the corporate lobbyists for acting like the Iranian militias. We are a Democracy and they are trying to prevent Americans from participating.
- ktumulty freshman senators are on the senate floor trying to put more "reform" in the health bill. will they get 60 votes? #hcr http://bit.ly/8HTPuq - 5 hours ago
- ktumulty Is swine flu turning out to be the Y2K of epidemics? - 7 hours ago
- ktumulty New Blog Entry, "Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill" - http://tinyurl.com/ykwdygf - 23 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- How to Outsmart a Debt Collector
- Best of the Decade: Gadgets
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Suspect Headley: Pakistani Terrorist Group Going Global?
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late













RSS