Bipartisan Health Reform Off to a Bad Start as Republicans Bring Nothing to the Table
Karen Tumulty’s latest article starts with a telling anecdote from a meeting between Barack Obama and congressional Republicans. He said he thought it would make sense to look at limiting medical malpractice awards, a big health care bugaboo for conservatives. So what could they put on the table in the way of constructive compromise?
What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?
Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.
I think it makes a certain amount of sense for a battered minority party to say to hell with bipartisan compromise, now it’s your turn to govern by your ideas and pay the consequences when they fail. But that’s not really what’s happening here. Instead the minority whines that White House isn’t doing enough to compromise, but doesn’t actually want any kind of compromises.
53 Responses to “Bipartisan Health Reform Off to a Bad Start as Republicans Bring Nothing to the Table”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
How many times does Lucy have to pull the ball away before Charlie learns?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I’m with Myrtle on this one. If you can’t bring Mike Castle or Mark Kirk to the table for the stimulus bill or the budget, you aren’t going to bring them along on health-care reform. I hope Obama gets it.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
apparently they’re planning to run on the idea that Obama is steamrolling them. and to make sure they have a case, they’re going to make him steamroll them.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
From the article: White House officials say the President does indeed plan to step up his game on health care in the near future.
Sounds like he just did–Tumulty’s story about the unreciprocated offer is a classic Obama opening move.
If you can’t bring Mike Castle or Mark Kirk to the table for the stimulus bill or the budget, you aren’t going to bring them along on health-care reform. I hope Obama gets it.
I suspect his intention–and it really doesn’t take a genius to figure this out at this point–is to marginalize the diehard opposition to help pave the way for a settlement negotiated just among the necessary people, just as he did with the stimulus and the budget.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Democrats are complete cowards that have no idea how to play politics.
They are suckers and losers that are so scared of Republicans they have to ask for permission to play hardball politics with them.
And what’s Obama gonna do about it? Nothing!
He wanted to compromise in the first place and wanted the Republicans as cover. So now he has his cover. He just had to compromise because the Republicans are so mean and they didn’t want to give him anything so he just gave it to them because he wants to be seen as fair.
Coward.
Either that or they are pretending to oppose the Republican agenda but happy to let the Republican policy stand. I’m actually leaning toward that hyposthesis because no one can be as self-loathing as the Democrats to constantly seek the approval of people that give them no love.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
This is do or die for conservative Republicans. Pass UHC and the country will soon possess a huge, glowing, neon “exhibit A” demonstrating the superiority of social democracy over the curious mix of darwinian libertarianism and crony capitalism favored by the GOP. They, at least, get it. Here’s hoping so too, do the Democrats.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Wait — didn’t they offer to help update the electronic medical records information to include relevant prayers, so that more health care costs would be saved by the consumer and paid instead by God’s magic?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
It makes sense for Obama to go through the motions of inviting the Republicans to compromise, even if it isn’t exactly a mystery when they don’t. If they want to cast themselves as the Party of No right off the bat, fine.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Instead the minority whines that White House isn’t doing enough to compromise, but doesn’t actually want any kind of compromises.
Why would they want to compromise? They think they’re in the majority and that the American people will be behind them. Ironically, they can believe this only because their caucus has dwindled so much that almost all of their seats are safe, and they can rest assured that they don’t have to “deliver” anything to their constituents to get re-elected.
It won’t be until the Republicans wake up to the fact that they’re a minority party in a country whose ideological opponents outnumber them that they’ll be willing to compromise in exchange for having some of their ideas accepted on the margins.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I don’t see how the Democrats setting a deadline for negotiations before they switch to the reconciliation process isn’t playing “hardball”.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
My husband just raised a really good point about this – since very recently the GOP had the White House and both houses of Congress but didn’t make any moves for malpractice reform, clearly this isn’t really that much of an issue for them. Or rather, it is a favorite CAMPAIGN issue, but apparently not something they care about very much in policy terms.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
This is all just sound and fury. The Oct 15 reconciliation deadline is ticking. Either they get some of what they want in the bill now or they get nothing and it’s passed with 52 votes.
Which makes comment #5 all the more hysterical. Yeah dude, Rahm Emanuel has no idea how to play politics. We definitely didn’t pass a $780 billion stimulus bill or anything. I think we know who the self-hating Democrat is in the room.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Obama offers a concession prior to bargaining and the “loyal opposition” provides no quid pro quo. What gives? You would think they have no interest in striking a bargain… Maybe if we just take the public option off the table, then they’ll play ball.
I know, I Know, it is mean spirited to disagree with Obama’s political formula. I am sure someone will intone about the eight dimensional game of political chess our President is playing.
I will be waiting.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
1) I think Obama needs to be ready to beat the living shit out of the Republicans over healthcare if the swine flu turns pandemic in June.
2) CDC’s count of the number of US flu cases jumped from 286 yesterday to 403 this morning. That indicates that CDC has reduced the RO reproductive rate somewhat (from 2.5 in the first week to 2.27 currently), but it is still high.
3) My current calculations for number of flu cases over the next few weeks, assuming R0 stays at 2.27:
Revised Projection as of May 5: (Rt= total number of flu cases to date)
i= 0, Rt (total ) = 20 (April 26 )
i=1, Rt = 65 (April 29)
i=2, Rt= 168 (May 2)
i=3, Rt = 402 (May5)
i=4: Rt= 933 (May
i=5: Rt = 2139 (May 11)
i=6: Rt = 4875 (May 14)
i=7: Rt = 11087 (May 17)
i=8: Rt = 25187 (May 20 )
i=9: Rt = 57196 (May 23)
i=10: Rt = 129855 (May 26)
i=11: Rt = 294790 (May 29)
i=12: Rt = 669,194 (June 1)
i=13: Rt = 1,519,090 (June 4)
i=14: Rt = 3,448,356 (June 7)
i=15: Rt = 7,827,789 (June 10)
i=16: Rt = 17,769,101 (June 13)
i=17: Rt = 40,335,880 (June 16)
i=18: Rt = 91,562,467 (June 19)
i=19: Rt = 207,846,820 (June 22)
i=20: Rt = 471,812,303 (June 25 )
**US Population only around 300 Million ***
4) Hopefully, it will be nowhere near this bad — hopefully, summer weather and CDC measures in the next two weeks will drastically reduce R0. But if it does not, we will run out of Tamiflu around June 15 and casualties will soar. Plus the economic impact at this point in time will be devastating.
5) All of this should be dumped on the Republicans over the next two weeks — the country should be informed that past Republican footdragging over relatively low sums for healthcare may cost us $Trillions. It is the height of stupidity to spend almost $1 TRILLION on the military budget while CDC operates on only $7 billion and our doctors/hospitals are facing major financial cuts.
6) But time and time again the Democratic leadership ALLOWS the Republicans to inflict severe harm on this country –because the Democratic Leadership is too fucking cowardly (or corrupt) to hold the Republicans accountable.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
@9 – I think your right Tyro although it might be a little more nuanced than that. They might think they are in the majority but I want to believe the best about people so I suggest that most of the Republic Party realizes they aren’t in the majority but they do realize the majority of the Republic Party is rabidly anti-Obama and anyone working with Obama will end up getting beat in a Republic Party primary by someone outflanking them on the right. So, your right, it’s not in their interest to compromise.
However, both the Republic Party and Obama want (maybe, need) to look like they want bipartisanship. Moderate voters love bipartisanship – at least the idea of it. If Obama can’t get moderate voters, and in fairly sizable numbers, then he can’t get enough moderate Democratic Senators and if he can’t get enough moderate Democratic Senators then he can’t get health care. So Obama has to keep “trying” to engage the Republicans to win over the moderate voters to win over the moderate Democrats.
In any case, your also right that if Obama has it won the Republic Party will come back to the table and want to negotiate for real then but it will be too late. Sort of like the last ditch alternative Recovery “plan” put out at the 11th hour.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
In any case, your also right that if Obama has it won the Republic Party will come back to the table
Please. Let us not resort to such petty snipping at them. Please use the appropriate term: the Republicanistical Party.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Obama: The American people want health care reform. How can we work together and pass it?
Republican Party: Over our dead bodies!
Obama (sotto voce): Deal.
American People: Hey, we want health care reform! What are you Republicans doing standing in the way?!
Snowe, Collins: This party is too extreme and out of touch with the American people. We’re outta here!
Obama: Welcome to the winning team, Senators. We have work to do.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Jeff: Any chance you might wait until Obama actually caves on this issue before talking about how duped we are? I fully support criticizing Obama when he waffles or does something unprincipled, but you’re declaring defeat before the first shot is fired.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Well it didn’t happen so now Obama is annoyed they slapped his hand, the Republicans look like idiot obstructors and we can better convince Obama to roll them without capping malpractice awards.
Win-win-win.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Republicans are in a near impossible position, they have nothing to gain from cooperation (Obama and the D’s will get the credit), have little confidence that it will fail if enacted so only have left the option of stopping reform and convincing 51% of the people that only their efforts saved America from doom. In their favor, it did work in ‘93/’94. People still mention “Hillarycare” like a dodged bullet. I hope people are smarter this time around but there is lots of money at stake and very savvy opinion makers at work.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
brilliant negotiating strategy.
offer concessions before your opponent has even agreed to offer ANY sort of concession on their end.
memo to obama: before you actually offer concessions in negotiations, it’s usually a good thing to have an agreement that the parties will actually negotiate in good faith.
this is hilarious.
obama will end up negotiating against himself, as he did on the stimulus bill.
what so many dems don’t quite get – though it should be obvious as hell – is that republicans ARE negotiating when they pull stunts like that.
and you can bet that despite their incredibly weak position, they are going to water down, and basically eviscerate, whatever supposed reform happens on health care.
and like jeff wrote, i also can just imagine all of the warnings about the incredibly complex and sophisticated political jujitsu obama is performing at this point.
yea, right. just like he maneuvered and tricked the senate into voting down the cramdown amendment for the bankruptcy bill.
but what is really going on is that obama is setting the stage so that he can sell out on health care.
the process on the cramdown amendment is the model.
publically profess support, do nothing to really move the legislation to passage, and then bemoan the fact that it just didn’t get done.
“it wasn’t our fault. congress is a seperate and equal branch.”
or in the case of health care, crow about the historic “reforms” that will have passed, once the final, insurance industry-approved bill becomes law.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Healthcare is a National Security issue and should be cast as such in dealing with Republican obstructionists. Even if the swine flu does not develop into a major problem, there is the constant threat of a bio attack. Plus the economic costs of the present inefficient system are ruinous and a major drag on the US economy.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
You know, back when the republicans were in charge and insisting that nations like N. Korea and Iran make tons of unilateral sacrifices before we would begin to negotiate with them, I though they must be living in fantasyland.
Now, though, I am increasingly realizing that they’ve just been living in Washington, where this sort of negotiating strategy is actually effective against their opposition. No wonder they try to apply it to foreign policy, as well.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I think some here have a misconception about Obama’s “concession”. He’s talked about malpractice reform as part of his health care plan since the primaries. It’s the quid pro quo to the doctors – they get malpractice reform and Obama get’s their support for health care. It would be a nightmare to try and get health care passed without having the doctors on board.
I’m sure that the Obama camp wants to call it a concession to the Republicans and it looks like a concession to the Republicans but Obama decided long ago to give this to the doctors.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
the democratic approach to “negotiations” is so bad, i cannot do anything but laugh.
in a former career, i negotiated with someone on something just about every day.
THE first issue was simply whether the person on the other side was actually interested in negotiating.
it might take a minute to find this out.
it might take an hour to determine this matter.
however, unless i determined that the other guy/woman was actually interested in negotiating in good faith, we really didn’t have anything to talk about.
i’d say, thanks for your time and move on.
only when i determined that the other side would actually negotiate in good faith would i even consider talking about specific concessions.
otherwise, you simply weaken your hand.
based on how the administration has handled everything from the banks to the stimulus bill to the cramdown amendment to the discussion on health care, i have serious doubts about their ability to negotiate for anything of value.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Where was Obama’s concession? And why would we expect that a preliminary meeting would be where concessions are made?
I negotiate a lot, and typically we arrange negotiations in advance and both sides then have a strategy prepared. If I asked the other side to make a concession in the way that Obama did, they’d tell me to fuck off. Politely sometimes, but not always.
I don’t see why Obama’s proposal on medical malpractice should be seen as a concession. He needs to reduce the cost of health care, once the government pays for it. So, essentially, he wants bad policy to heighten the contradictions, and then he wants good policy when he’s the one signing the checks. You can call him a hypocrite, but you can’t say he’s made a concession.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“I think some here have a misconception about Obama’s “concession”. He’s talked about malpractice reform as part of his health care plan since the primaries. It’s the quid pro quo to the doctors – they get malpractice reform and Obama get’s their support for health care. It would be a nightmare to try and get health care passed without having the doctors on board.
I’m sure that the Obama camp wants to call it a concession to the Republicans and it looks like a concession to the Republicans but Obama decided long ago to give this to the doctors.”
sorry, but i just couldn’t help but laugh at this.
this is exactly the way that supporters rationalize obama’s conduct even when it is obviously…lame. for lack of a better word right now.
so i guess he did the same thing with the stimulus bill when he loaded it up with tax cuts republicans wanted – even before he got a commitment on any support for the measure – even though it resulted in his own middle class tax cut being cut pretty significantly.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I know, I Know, it is mean spirited to disagree with Obama’s political formula. I am sure someone will intone about the eight dimensional game of political chess our President is playing.
It’s not mean spirited it’s stupid and bitter b/c Obama’s polical formula has been working if you’d take a moment and look.
But as Obama has said he is persistently playing the long game, so real results won’t show for a while especially since we’re in the middle of an economic crisis.
Liberals against Obama during the primary were so wrong it’s funny.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Why does reading about things like this always remind me of this quote by Ned Flander’s parents:
“We’ve tried nothing man, and we’re all out of ideas.”
May 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Frankie d,
Was it ever necessary for you to convince third parties that the second party had no interest in negotiating in good faith?
May 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Your negotiation strategy depends on what you want to achieve and what you know about the negotiator across the table. If you know they are going to tell you to get lost, or you know that there’s something you are willing to give up, you might very well open with what looks like a concession because (a) you know they won’t take it or (b) you were already planning to give it. Of course, you still expect something in return — you can’t and shouldn’t negotiate against yourself, which in this case would be, “Ok, no malpractice reform, well how about taking public options off the table?”
In this case, Obama doesn’t just want to achieve a result but wants everyone to believe that he tried to achieve that result in good faith by trying, at least, to compromise on some principles. I don’t really see what’s wrong with this strategy.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I negotiate a lot, and typically we arrange negotiations in advance and both sides then have a strategy prepared. If I asked the other side to make a concession in the way that Obama did, they’d tell me to fuck off.
Sort of like Chrysler’s small investors? I bet they’re going to be unhappy when they get bent over and have new financial regulations shoved up their butts later this year.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Njorl,
of course there were times when you did so, or tried to do so.
but this negotiator would never, ever tip my hand and give specifics about any possible concessions, unless it was understood that such an action would be reciprocated.
i’d let it be known that yes, i was prepared to offer something, but i would need to know that the other side was prepared to offer something specific also.
if it’s just you and the other party sitting across the table with no one else present, obviously, it can be a bit riskier, but usually doable, because no one wants to be known as someone who reneges on a promise to actually negotiate and present an offer. a bad reputation is any community will kill any professional, and word gets around quickly, even in the biggest city. professional circles tend to be pretty small no matter whether you’re in chicago or athens.
in more formal settings, it’s a lot easier, as there may be several other parties – including a person of authority – who will make certain that negotiations unfold according to prior agreements regarding good faith.
so, yes, you may often want to let a third party understand clearly that you are being flexible and reasonable, while the other side is being obstinate and stubborn and is refusing to actually negotiate.
but, again, once you reveal what you will actually give up – no matter that the other side may imagine that you would give up that specific issue or concession – you have weakened yourself. to some degree.
let me add one qualifier.
if i was extremely desperate, and in an entirely weak, indefensible position, then yes, i might unilaterally offer concessions. but that would happen only when i was so desperate that i had absolutely no other options.
the fact that obama has, and would, use such a strategy when he should be negotiating from a position of strength is what is so troubling.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Frank – I think your missing a key point. There are no negotiations with the Republicans and there never will be. There won’t be a Republican vote for health care even if Obama “conceded” English as the official language, prayer in school, the end of affirmative action, and mandatory torture of foreign combatants. With reconciliation, you don’t need a Republican vote. All the “negotiations” are is a public relations exercise in which the appearance of bipartisanship is the point.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
You realize this isn’t an argument right? Merely calling Dave R’s point – that he campaigned on implementing exactly the “concession” he’s offered during the election (a fact you can look up, and confirm) – “lame” doesn’t actually refute it.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“you can’t and shouldn’t negotiate against yourself, which in this case would be, “Ok, no malpractice reform, well how about taking public options off the table?”
i’d bet that lots of lawyers are not too happy that obama would agree to “malpractice reform” – whatever the heck that actually means – as an opening offer.
imho, that’s a pretty large concession. especially when it is made without any real guarantee that the other side is even going to negotiate with you.
and imho, obama has already started the process of negotiating against himself because he and his spokespeople have given very tepid support to a public option. sure, they have talked about it, but often, it has been discussed as a “bargaining chip”. a bargaining chip is by definition, something that you reasonably might expect to give up, in a bargain.
instead of looking at it as a bargaining chip, a public option should be a dealbreaker, the one issue that makes him get up from the table.
by allowing his allies to define it as a bargaining chip, he’s already conceded that he very well might do exactly what you just described, offer: well, how about taking a public option off the table?
what needs constant repeating is this: obama should be negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
frankie
what needs constant repeating is this: obama should be negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness.
He already announced they’ll take health care through the reconcilliation process which means they don’t need Republican votes. If that’s not negotiating from a “position of strength” I don’t know what is. Sometimes I think people like you and Jeff just want to criticize and aren’t really being objective and really don’t have anything of value to offer.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“You realize this isn’t an argument right? Merely calling Dave R’s point – that he campaigned on implementing exactly the “concession” he’s offered during the election (a fact you can look up, and confirm) – “lame” doesn’t actually refute it.”
who’s arguing? i’m simply expressing my opinion.
malpractice reform is an extremely fuzzy term. it can mean any number of things, so the fact that obama campaigned on “malpractice reform” means absolutely nothing, in terms of actual policy. it simply means that he will try to implement something that he defines as “malpractice reform”.
and whether he campaigned on it or not is irrelevant. it’s an issue that causes plenty of consternation among many of his core constituents, so moving forward on such an issue is something that will cost him.
in some fashion.
so there will be political calculations involved in anything that happens on the issue.
and since when has he held to every campaign promise that he’s made?
i’m sure you’ve followed the controversy over the backtracking he’s done on “don’t ask, don’t tell”? where he has moved away from an explicit promise to repeal the law to a position where he basically says that he wants to change the law.
i suppose that we can all expect him to stick to the original language in his original promise?
or is that just being a bit demanding?
May 5th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
negotiating from strength is saying unequivocally that a public option is something that will be included in any bill and that the issue is a dealbreaker.
i’ve yet to hear that from him. or anyone in the white house.
instead, what they’ve done is essentially allow congress to take the lead on any legislation.
and today, on a hearing before the senate, a 15 person panel was present, with not one advocate of single payer present.
and while i only watched about 15 minutes of the hearing, the person who appeared to be in control, who was called on by the democratic chair, was karen ignani ( or however you spell her name ) the head lobbyist for the insurance lobby.
i was stunned. the idea that a democratic-run hearing on health care would actually provide her with such a leading role is extremely disturbing.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Jason, you’re being extremely foolish. Obama’s strategy (and it is very good) is to constantly reach out to Republicans in an attempt to engage them and treat them respectfully and seriously.
If they reciprocate, fine.
If they don’t, even better. Obama gets credit for trying, and Democrats get to run the table. And the remaining Republicans are so such a bunch of knuckle-dragging morons, they keep not behaving seriously.
This is a great win for Obama. In case you haven’t been paying any attention, his poll numbers are way up and we are about to get the most important healthcare reform in decades. Republicans are less popular than ever. We are winning.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Frankie, I share your concerns about a strong public option. But in that case it’s not Obama’s strategy that is broken but his policy.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Unless you can come up with some reason to believe that there is a difference between the malpractice reform he campaigned on an the malpractice reform he is willing to include in his health care proposal, this is just hand-waving.
Huh? It matters a great deal that he campaigned on it, because it demonstrates that he doesn’t consider its passage to be a loss, or the continuation of the status quo to be something he values. He was obviously not terribly worried
This is utterly irrelevant. You may have well told me my shoes are untied. What does this have to do with the point about negotiating?
May 5th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
[...] 5, 2009 · No Comments yglesias: Karen Tumulty’s latest article starts with a telling anecdote from a meeting between Barack [...]
May 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
poptarts,
i’m not going to provide a resume of my progressive and labor credentials, but i will only say that i’ve worked on every democratic presidential campaign since mcgovern’s.
what i won’t do is simply sit back and be mesmerized by a politician who speaks well and presents well, but has consistently refused to step and do the right thing, despite his soothing rhetoric.
i’d really like to know exactly what has been so great about what obama has accomplished so far?
letting the banks rip off the public?
keeping summers and geithner in their offices?
allowing his own justice department to continue prosecuting don seigleman?
maintaining bush’s policy on state secrets?
letting it be known that they might actually fudge on their promise about removing troops from iraq, if circumstances require it, while mindlessly pouring resources into the afghan conflict?
trying to prevent any sort of investigation into torture and war crimes committed by bush?
allowing the card check bill to wither away?
not using any political capital to get the cramdown amendment passed?
letting the auto companies go into bankruptcy while maintaining a blatant double standard for banks?
those are just a few questions i have.
of course, he’s an improvement on bush.
that’s not saying much.
but time after time, i see conduct that is extremely disturbing and unfortunately reminiscent of bill clinton.
i hope i’m wrong, but until i actually see actions on his part that show me that i am wrong, i can only judge what i see.
and, objectivity is one of the things i’m noted for, in my small circle. blindly following someone is not something i am comfortable doing.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
joefromlowell,
can you define malpractice reform as he referred to it during his campaign and then define the malpractice reform he supposedly referred to in his discussions with republicans?
May 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“troops from iraq, if circumstances require it, while mindlessly pouring resources into the afghan conflict?”
Actually, he did say that during the campaign. That was the whole “Get out as smart as we were dumb getting in” line. And the reup on Afghanistan was campaigned on heavily, even if you disagree.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
from karen tumulty’s blog:
“But now, up against a tight deadline to get this legislation passed, some Democrats say (mostly privately) that they wish the President were more of a presence in the talks, and that he would spell out more clearly what is and isn’t acceptable to him in a final product. For instance, does it have to include a government-run public plan like Medicare for the uninsured?”
i guess lots of democrats have the very same concerns i’ve been talking about.
gee, who woulda thunk it.
maybe it might help if the president would weigh in and say, unequiocally: i want a public option!
my guess is this: he’s going to sell out on the public option and he’ll blame congress for not including it in the legislation.
that is the only plausible reason for his refusal to stand up for something he supposedly believes in.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
health care « unconquerable gladness,
thanks for the tip on the tumulty article.
after reading it, it is even more obvious to this voter that he’s going to sell out on a public option.
it is truly a “bargaining chip” as opposed to something he is truly committed to.
and anyone who has any doubt about that should visit the cspan website and take a look at the hearing from this morning.
the direction health care “reform” is heading was painfully obvious to me, the moment the health insurance’s number one lobbyist took a leading role in the hearing.
imho, someone in her position should be off to the side, listening and taking notes, not dominating the proceeding.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“…the reup on Afghanistan was campaigned on heavily, even if you disagree.”
of course he campaigned on addressing what he saw as the real conflict.
i expected something of this sort.
but i thought that he would articulate a clear strategy concerning his actions.
so far, what i’ve seen is this: lots of men and equipment going to the area, but no real strategy for an endgame.
that is a recipe for disaster.
imho.
i think that he originally took his afghan position because he didn’t want to be painted as an anti-war wimp. but now, he doesn’t know what to do with the mess now that he’s in charge of it. i just hope he doesn’t end up doing with this war what nixon did with vietnam: take a bad situation and make it worse as it drags out, seemingly indefinitely.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Re: Democrats are complete cowards that have no idea how to play politics.
They took the filibuster off the table on healthcare so I think they are playing politics pretty well on this one at least.
Re: Pass UHC and the country will soon possess a huge, glowing, neon “exhibit A” demonstrating the superiority of social democracy over the curious mix of darwinian libertarianism and crony capitalism favored by the GOP.
It would be Exhibit B. Social Security is Exhibit A.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
From http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090505/pl_politico/22134
“The 2008 AIG bonus pool just keeps getting larger and larger.
In a response to detailed questions from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the company has offered a third assessment of exactly how much it paid out in bonuses last year.
And the new number, offered in a document submitted to Cummings on May 1, is the highest figure the company has disclosed to date.
AIG now says it paid out more than $454 million in bonuses to its employees for work performed in 2008.
That is nearly four times more than the company revealed in late March when asked by POLITICO to detail its total bonus payments.”
—————
I guess you guys are right — Obama is just lulling them into over-confidence.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
The signs that Obama is willing to throw the public plan under the bus without a fight are very real.
http://jwalkerreport.blogspot.com/2009/05/barack-obama-whitewashes-support-for.html
May 5th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
poptits,
While I do enjoy banter, I assure you I advocate plenty of solutions – and currently am employed as such.
However, what I do suggest is that it’s clear, especially after the stimulus bill, that pre-negotiation concessions will not bring republicans along and has very dangerous implications for legislation. The latter is the most important.
While Obama may gain political points, theoretically, for offering olive branches to the opposition, when such negotiation results in poor legislation, it will face the ultimate political cost.
If campaign promises are not met and the economy does not recover because legislation is to weak for rectification, the voting public will care less for posturing bipartisanship and more for results. And all that wondrous political capital will be useless.
I suggest that Obama can meet and talk with the GOP, but he should not negotiate on anything. He needs to line up the votes in his own backyard and pursue the best possible legislation regardless of the Republican party. They are a disciplined yet doltish bunch that will vote against most anything remotely decent. If we can align the votes, creating sustainable policy that benefits the citizenry is much more important than impressing the DC media.