Skip to main content

Last week was a flurry of mixed messages on healthcare reform, first with sources telling Greg Sargent that the White House supported the reconciliation fix for healthcare reform. Then another administration source told HuffPo's Sam Stein "that no such signal was being sent."

Meanwhile, Sherrod Brown complained that Obama's involvement has "dried up," with Al Franken and Bernie Sanders reiterating that message directly to Obama adviser David Axelrod, pressing him for more leadership from Obama. Rounding out the week, a report in Saturday's Times on Thursday's leadership meeting with Obama suggested that Pelosi again "rejected continued pressure from the administration simply to pass the Senate bill and send it to Mr. Obama for his signature," an approach that Pelosi has reiterated just can't happen. At the same time, Obama told the DNC that

I’m not gonna walk away from health reform. I’m not gonna walk away from this challenge. I’m not gonna walk away from any challenge. We are moving foward. We are moving forward.

How he's intending to move forward emerged as a real head-scratcher: yet another bipartisan summit.

“I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to attend the meeting with their plans for lowering the cost of health insurance and expanding coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Republican leaders said they welcomed the opportunity and called on Democrats to start the debate from scratch, which the president said he would not do....

When asked by Ms. Couric if he would agree to discard the bill and start over, the president said he would not. The starting point, aides said, would be with the proposals that passed the House and Senate.

While Obama is stressing that he won't start over from scratch, he's leaving room for "scaling back the scope of the legislation in hopes of drawing more support for a health care plan." A vain hope, if indeed he's really thinking there's Republican support out there to be had.  Both Boehner and McConnell are already approaching this summit as a restart on the whole process. The experience of the past year should be enough to convince anyone other than David Broder that Republicans would actually play a part in passing any kind of reform.

Perhaps this nothing more than an elaborate set-up to expose the depth of Republican obstructionism and, as Greg Sargent speculates lay the groundwork for passing the bill through reconciliation by providing them cover. But a more straightforward, and quicker, path would certainly be providing the leadership the Senate seems to be craving and help push the reconciliation fix through.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:30 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Health care may not be dead, but (9+ / 0-)

    it's definitely on life support now.

    With Obama's Presidency, I feel the enduring pain of every teabagger, and believe me, I completely enjoy it.

    by pollbuster on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:31:53 AM PST

    •  politically, Obama has failed to (22+ / 0-)

      explain to the American people both:

      WHY health reform is necessary, and
      WHY the Dems have encountered so much resistance from the Repubs and Blue Dogs.
      On the first point, the necessity of HCR.  McDonnell in his otherwise boilerplate response to the SOTU nailed the three major points: cost, access, and quality.  

      Cost, Access, Quality.  

      Pretty fucking simple.

      Have Americans been told (I say that because on average we're a very stupid people and don't bother to find out for ourselves) HOW MUCH health care is costing the country RIGHT NOW?  Or what those costs are PREVENTING US FROM DOING (in economics, that is called an opportunity cost) NOW or in the FUTURE?

      Not effectively.

      WHST are the figures, Obama and crew?  

      For an example of effective persuasion, remember Condoleeza Rice's Mushroom Clouds, Colin Powell's Anthrax, or Cheney/Rumsfeld's "They'll follow us home"?

      Americans haven't been told of the costs at different levels, where the costs come from.  It's not just money that we're hemorrhaging in our current healthcare system.  It's quality of life, happiness.

      The same could be said of the handling of access or quality of healthcare system.  Coverage of health fairs in Appalachia or other rural areas is powerful stuff.  Americans watch and can't help but think that we need better access.  When our fellow man is shown on television suffering, we HAVE to recognize that improving access to Healthcare is a must.

      Why hasn't the Administration used footage of these healthfairs more frequently to hammer in the need for better access?  Rush Limbaugh and his shameless ilk love to talk about how GREAT the healthcare system is.  It's fine if you're filthy rich, Rush.

      And quality?  Get Atul Gawande on the TV or Radio to talk about how many people have complications from bad surgery/postop management, poor medicinal management, or doctors who don't follow protocols or update their knowledge.

      We need simple concrete examples, Obama.  We're stupid.  

      As for the 2nd point, the resistance to HCR.

      It's simple: the bloody health-for-profit industries (pharma, private insurance, technology developers like Siemans etc) don't want to lose their HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of profit yearly.  

      They will spend whatever they need to buy off our politicians like Joe Lieberman.  

      THAT's IT.


      Better healthcare for Americans, OR, more profits for these greedy companies.

      It is going to be a Win-Lose.  You can't have a Win-Win in this situation.

      No one has convinced me that private insurance companies HAVE to exist.  My medical practice (in which I have several other colleagues in primary care) has thousands of patients and we do all right both in terms of providing great value care and in earning enough for our families.

      The much-discussed public option would be great for us physicians and for the patients.  

      So would adopting standards of care for procedures for specialists, medications, etc.  

      •  pro-corporations or pro-Americans? (7+ / 0-)

        As much as it may pain him, framing the 2nd issue as being either pro-Americans vs Pro-profits-for-private companies has to be adopted.

        He's reluctant to simplify matters--it's just not who he is--but such framing works.  Remember the Bush administration's "You're for us or against us"? (We all hated it as it fragmented Americans from other Americans).  Well, healthcare companies aren't American.  These companies are corporations first and have no loyalty to America or its citizens.  Legally speaking, these corporations are obligated to maximizing profits for their share holders, but even this is being affected by the greed of CEOs who hold significant stock to fuck the shareholders too while they themselves take millions in profits.

        •  Right are you for the American patients or the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wolf10, primarydoc

          profit of corporations?

        •  Genghis Khan conquered the world on horse-back, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          not2plato, primarydoc

          but discovered than he couldn't run it from there.  I was at the DNC meeting, & I think "what we have here is a failure to communicate. . . ." in terms of disciplined control of the message.  You know, Rethugs are mostly wrong on facts & content, but have nonetheless been startling effective over years because they seem to understand things like the concept of meme better than we do.

          It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Be fearless & show humility. (h/t)Aung San Suu Kyi

          by sturunner on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:51:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  exactly. remember how we couldn't escape Rice or (5+ / 0-)

            Tenet or Rumsfeld or any of those Bush Admin fucks whenever we turned on the TV?  

            Where the fuck are the Obama people?  There's no united message.  

            I say get Anthony Weiner, Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Alan Grayson on the talk shows, 24/7.  Fucking get them on Oprah.

            Have them break it down using pie charts, figures, etc.

            We can do this.

            Get them to flash numbers on the television to call Congress and exert pressure.

            We can't allow the health-for-profit industry to derail HCR, or worse, manufacture a sausage bill [as Dennis Kucinich has said here] that pushes tens of millions of Americans into the arms of Insurance companies.  These corporations have already spent $500 million dollars to buy off the Blue dogs and Republicans; they know that hundreds of billions of dollars of profits -- OUR MONEY-- are at stake.

            •  They have no message (9+ / 0-)

              They have nothing to say at the white house because they have no position on health care.  How does the white house feel about the excise tax?  Nobody knows.  How do they feel about the public option?  Nobody knows -- except Barack dubiously claimed he did not run on it.  

              On and on it goes.  The administration leaves the congress to create two bills, has no opinion of its own, and no message as a result

              Whoever profits by fighting a dragon has an interest in the dragon's remaining alive. --Nietzsche

              by not2plato on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:14:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's not true (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                carlos the jackal

                obama has repeatedly laid out his criteria as to what regards real reform.  he's said the legislatin we have achieves a lot of it.  deaniac outlined how the senate bill conforms to the dem party platform on health care 85%.  and here is where the WH is on HCR today:


                People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                by Cedwyn on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:17:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That diary isn't about where the WH is on HCR... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:


                  Are we really expected to know the WH position from vague, broad statements like:

                  President Obama is willing to "add various elements" to health care legislation suggested by Republican lawmakers during an upcoming bipartisan meeting on the topic. But he won't change the entire plan and he is "absolutely not" hitting the reset button on the legislative process, the former Kansas governor insisted.

                  With such vague positions, anyone can interpret whatever they want.  If a Republican senator were completely in the pocket of an insurance company, they could reasonably interpret it to mean that President is willing to "add various elements" like more loopholes, exemptions, caveats, and giveaways to insurers in order to the pass the package, just like they did for Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, Lincoln, Landrieu, Stupak, PhARMA, etc.

                  I think many of the President's own supporters, myself included, are getting extremely tired of his weak leadership and constant courting of Republicans. Learn to take NO for an answer Mr. President. Continuous groveling & capitulation are neither effective nor attractive.

                  It's way past time to move on to Medicare-Buy-In-For-All via Reconciliation. It could be done in a few weeks with serious leadership and would free up the administration & congressional Dems to focus on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

                •  False all over the place (0+ / 0-)

                  When and where has Barack said anything about the excise tax?  Oh, I remember, he was against it on the campaign trail.  Where and when did he ever say anything about individual mandates?  Oh, I remember, he was against it on the campaign trail.  What did he say about the PO -- he was for it as a candi, now he says he never ran on it, even though it was in all of his campaign literature, much of which I still have from such locations as CO, TX and IA.  

                  So, again, the pres has essentially NO POSITION on health care reform.  He has NO CRITERIA for what counts as "comprehensive reform" of the sort Sebelius mentions but does not define.  He has NO CRITERIA for what he will accept and what he will reject.  He has announced NOT A SINGLE CRITERION for even one element of reform.  NOT ONE!!

                  You can delude yourself and believe otherwise.  What you cannot do is provide any proof of his having taken a stand on health care since taking office.  

                  His decision to talk more is just his decision to try to get ANYTHING at all that he can then label reform (and his minions will believe him, of course, even if it is no reform at all).  

                  Whoever profits by fighting a dragon has an interest in the dragon's remaining alive. --Nietzsche

                  by not2plato on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 06:27:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Progressives as the true patriots (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is the uber-meme of our time. I love this:

          These companies are corporations first and have no loyalty to America or its citizens.


          The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop!

          by Wolf10 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:25:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bullshit. Obama HAS explained. (11+ / 0-)

        The fact is Congressional democrats have not messaged on health care AT ALL. They haven't messaged on anything: not the stimulus, jobs, or health care.

        They've let low hanging fruit pass: senate delaying unemployment insurance, Obama's nominees, and the Shelby Shakedown.

        The MSM has used progressive anger to insinuate health care reform is losing support for conservative reasons; when in many cases it is because progressive validators trashed it to the liberal base.

        The White House has stood alone IMO and they nearly came close to passing it; with this CSPAN gambit I think they're forming a path for reconciliation.

        But instead of keeping teh focus on the senate or the house passing the senate bill; folks are once again hitting the White House.

        •  so you're telling me you're absolutely clear (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuckvw, pollbuster, RadicalRoadRat

          as to the relative costs of healthcare vs defense vs other costs? really?

          where did you procure this knowledge?

          certainly not from Obama.

          All it takes a couple of fucking pie charts showing the total costs and then breaking them down to show the relative contributions (a small fraction from tort, ER visits, diagnostic tests, etc)

          •  americans aren't brilliant. (4+ / 0-)

            when i explain illness and how we treat it in my clinic, i use pictures.  lots of pictures and analogies.  

            our clinic patients listen and when they dont we strive to find out where the nonadherence comes from.

            Obama's not done that.

            •  Endless GOP "Government Takeover" Propaganda (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              primarydoc, nutbutter

              On February I'm hoping Obama puts a big wooden stake through that one.

              This "government takeover" song and dance is the most blatant example of the Big Lie in a long time.

              •  And nobody denies it! (4+ / 0-)

                When have you seen even one dem or dem surrogate say on TV that the house or the senate plan is NOT A GOVT TAKE OVER?  

                Its ridiculous.  Its the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns all over again.  Never answer back.  Just ignore the wing nuts who are controlling the narrative

                Whoever profits by fighting a dragon has an interest in the dragon's remaining alive. --Nietzsche

                by not2plato on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:18:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Liberal Media"100% Complicit With GOP Propaganda (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  decisivemoment, Wolf10, nutbutter

                  Even on the daytime MSNBC shows, Mitch McConnell gets on talking about "government takeover of one sixth of the US economy."

                  And that was his response to "question time !" I held my breath waiting for the hammer to drop on him and ......crickets.

                  The press should react to stuff like this as if Mitch just shit in the punchbowl.

                  Clearly Obama has to go into the February 25th and call them liars right to their face to get the message out.

                •  The problem (one of them) is that everyone likes (0+ / 0-)

                  the President, but nobody seems to respect him politically.  Until they respect his agenda more than their own, nothing will happen and he will remain weak looking.

          •  I am crystal clear b/c I read the paper. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:


            You seem to think b/c the President didn't present legislation to Congress like Clinton did he was not for reform. NO. He wanted Congress to own it so it becomes THEIR failure in 2010 and they pay the political price for inaction. Then reform becomes VITAL politically.

            So now, everyone knows something has to pass and that's why I really think something WILL pass. this CSPAN thing keeps up the pressure on doing SOMETHING.

            •  Obama's that naive? as goes HCR, so goes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sayitaintso, chuckvw

              Congress, and most importantly for him, so goes his second term.

              •  ex congressmembers can enjoy the luxury (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                of the revolving door.  

                there's nothing that comes close to the Presidency.

                •  clinton makes much more (0+ / 0-)

                  as an ex prez than he did as prez. Even Bush is raking it in on the teabag speech circuit.

                  The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. -kos

                  by vintage clothes on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:22:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No. Obama doesn't need reform. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NLinStPaul, not2plato

                America does; Obama will still be able to pull a second term.

                Clinton did after all.

                This keeps a light on Congress, the CSPAN thing means they can't kill this bill in the dark. They have to do SOMETHING and Obama is forcing them to make a choice.

                •  Clinton didn't have a Depression on his hands. (3+ / 0-)

                  Nor was the media as accessible to so many.

                  •  The MSM was VERY powerful & set out to get him. (0+ / 0-)

                    Obama has actually turned it around from a depression to a recession and the recession is letting up so he now needs to focus on jobs.

                    But the structural issues in the economy will be around for a decade at least IMO and that is not his fault but the result of years of policy it'll take years to fix.

                    •  i don't disagree with you about the structural (0+ / 0-)

                      weaknesses of our economic fundamentals.  Shit, we've underfunded our public schools, have not emphasized math, science, or careers in education enough, and as a people, have spent more than we've saved.  THAT will take decades to improve.

                      What I disagree with is the politics.  

                      If a few batshit crazy people can gain momentum as the TeaParty movement, think of what will happen when shitty HCR gets passed.

                      It's a matter of politics.

                      And no, it's not just a matter of the mainstream media.  It's media in general.  Everyone's got cell phones, access to twitter, facebook. The landscape has changed.  

                      Nothing in history compares to the kind of media environment we're living in today.

            •  Even if he does not write a bill (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              He can still take a bit of risk.  

              But No.  

              Instead, the admin is waiting around, doing next to nothing on health care that any one can see.  A speech back in September?  Is that all we get?

              A bogus denial that the public option was part of the campaign?  

              And now nothing?  

              Face it.  The admin is in crisis.  

              Whoever profits by fighting a dragon has an interest in the dragon's remaining alive. --Nietzsche

              by not2plato on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:22:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So according to your analysis... (0+ / 0-)

              He wanted Congress to own it so it becomes THEIR failure in 2010 and they pay the political price for inaction. Then reform becomes VITAL politically.

              Obama cares more about being President and his political reputation than doing what's best for the country? If this so called "me before country" is true, then how is that thinking different from the teabaggers/repub reps?

        •  Bullshit back at you (13+ / 0-)

          Putting a series of qualified lukewarm statements that he later may or may not support and never campaigned on but definitely would be open to if the sun is eclipsed by the moon while somewhere 20 pennies come up heads one right after the other is not explaining to the American people what he wants. Being vague about what he is willing to fight for other than branding like " I am for health care reform" is not asserting a clear and convincing argument. It is branding, but that's like saying one prefers a soda because the branding says "it tastes great" or "I know the Secret, do you know the Secret" or "We do characters" It is meaningless rhetoric that pushes the right emotional buttons but says nothing.

          •  if thats 11th dimensional chess, i want checkers. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bruh1, ThAnswr, orestes1963
          •  Wow. You are really forgetting history. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            He has stated what he wants reform to do and then (not to copy Clinton's mistake) he let Congress legislate.

            He supported liberal eliminates like the PO over and over again; but clearly was willing to give it up for a national exchange and other things. That was HIS choice and would lead to significant reform that would expand the safety net and could be built on.

            But now, he was hit from the left for the choice and the goal became to destroy reform. Kill the bill.

            That was shortsighted, stupid, and ignored the reality millions without insurance live in.

            I'm crystal on what happened, thanks.

            •  We had this accidental twist of fates (0+ / 0-)

              that should have worked in Obama's favor after his election because that election turned "Clinton's mistake" into Obama's missed opportunity.

              People wanted Obama to lead on this, Clinton blindsided people.

            •  Was this before or after he said (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cofcos, RadicalRoadRat, orestes1963

              he never campaigned on the PO or before or after he said the PO is only a sliver and can you explain to me why Democratic Senators and House members said he did nothing behind closed doors to support the PO.

              Also, while we are getting on the subject of reality, can you explain why the administration pressured Senators to not pass the drug re-importation bill which was about the pass?

              I mean again and again I can refute you with specific historical examples from the last year.

            •  You give the Pres too many breaks (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hester, Cofcos, RadicalRoadRat

              The pres does not stand for anything except "send me some POS I can sign and parade as health care"

              No risk and all gain, that is the strategy

              Whoever profits by fighting a dragon has an interest in the dragon's remaining alive. --Nietzsche

              by not2plato on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:25:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  He asserted it, if you were listening. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And he will assert it again.  But this time, he's pushing it out wide.

            I don't think he's stupid.  I don't think he expects much out of the Republicans, other than being able to force them to discuss their proposals, their terrible, impractical proposals out loud so Americans understand that there's a choice there, and a choice the Republicans are not allowing Americans to make for themselves, due to their political greed and arrogance.

            We can't simply sit back and play the victims.  We have to air our greivances out loud, take the initative in the debate on the public stage.

            The GOP: The Party of Failure. Pass it on.

            by Stephen Daugherty on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:59:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Congress is hardly a united front, considering the very different bills they passed. They can't even agree on the same abortion restrictions! Meanwhile, Obama's "I don't care about the details, just get it done" approach has done wonders for the process. It allowed conservative nutbags to derail the process just by standing up and shouting while other people were trying to have a reasoned debate. It allowed people like Sarah Palin to flat-out lie and fabricate the contents of the plan and not get called on it. It allowed the better part of a year to get squandered away in deal-making that never came through while unemployment skyrocketed.

          Everyone holds a piece of the blame, but somebody of Obama's (then-)popularity had no excuse not to wade into the fight.

        •  bull (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuckvw, orestes1963

          when has Barack explained that our businesses are uncompetitive due to HC costs?  Never

          When has he explained why the costs are so high

          When has he explained how he intends to bring the costs down

          When has he noted that entrepreneurialism is drying up in America due to HC costs?  

          When and where?  

          Whoever profits by fighting a dragon has an interest in the dragon's remaining alive. --Nietzsche

          by not2plato on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:16:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Shamefaced lie. What did you think all the (0+ / 0-)

            campaigning on health care during the primaries or general elections was about? Even as president, he has related HCR to those issues you mentioned many a time. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your facts. You should be ashamed for stating something that's patently untrue.

            open your mind or someone else will open it for you, but be careful you don't open it too much for you brain to fall out.

            by carlos the jackal on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:48:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Obama has totally failed to lead (7+ / 0-)

        on this issue, both in fashioning and propelling the legislative process, and in providing rhetorical boost for the legislation through the bully pulpit.

        Next time he says he isn't quitting on something, I am saying, "Yeah? Prove it with some action."

        It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. Jimmy Carter

        by coral on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:52:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reasons behind Obama's failures. (0+ / 0-)

        The list is getting longer, and some pundits are heading into the West Wing to find out why.

        Luce in the FT has a very interesting piece via Clemons today.

        Some Front Pager should respond about this.  In fact, I'd like to read what Kos has to say.

        It's mostly laid at Rahm's feet, but Jarrett, Axelrod and Gibbs take a licking as well.

        I'm shocked that there is a diary on the Rec list about this, but everyone is too obsessed with Palin.

        "Capitalism is irresponsibility organized into a system." -- Emil Brunner

        by goinsouth on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:41:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He HAS explained why it is necessary. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        He had a whole press conference which did nothing but explain why it is necessary.  The problem is the Senate.  They obviously don't think it is necessary, at least not the way the House sees it.  I think the House should pass this damn bill, and fix it later through reconciliation, since what they most object to are the excise tax and the amounts of the subsidies.  These are clearly budget issues.  I don't know why they are saying they do not have the votes. The bills are 90% the same. I am starting to think that "Dems just get it done" means "pass the Senate version, Pelosi." There is no stomach for reconciliation and it will not work on such a comprehensive bill, merely the budget  parts of it.  Wonder if the President is trying to force the House to act with this bi-partisan televised meeting......

    •  That Pelosi has signed on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is most intriguing and I hope the event has some good effect.

      "I welcome the President’s call for a bipartisan, bicameral discussion in front of the American people on fundamental health insurance reform that will make quality care affordable for all Americans and American businesses. The House and the Senate will continue to work between now and February 25th to find a common approach between the House and the Senate on these solutions.

      Link to Greg Sargent "speculates" in story.

      The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop!

      by Wolf10 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:18:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where is the WH on HRC? (0+ / 0-)

      Why, preparing for their next
      television show, where else?
      If you can't DO the job, at least
      you can give the illusion of
      Obama is the personification of
      my disillusionment with
      It's tragic.

    •  I know where the White House is!!! (0+ / 0-)

      Witness Protection Program.

      Not the change I voted for.

      This space for rent!

      by Danno11 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:28:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Perhaps an elaborate setup" (9+ / 0-)

    After Axelrod publicly admitted that the administration had no backup plan in case of a Coakley loss, isn't a bit late in the day to be peddling this 11-dimensional chess bullshit?

  •  I'm from the Show Me state. (6+ / 0-)

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    It must be fun pulling the chain of the blogosphere on an almost daily basis.

    "Capitalism is irresponsibility organized into a system." -- Emil Brunner

    by goinsouth on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:34:17 AM PST

  •  How much cover do these idiots need? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pescadero Bill, BenGoshi, filby

    to actually move forward on the stated platform on which they were elected?

    Can anyone in that august body find a flying feck with both hands and a GPS?

    Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

    by boadicea on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:34:21 AM PST

  •  Absolutely spot on! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Limelite, filby

    But a more straightforward, and quicker, path would certainly be providing the leadership the Senate seems to be craving and help push the reconciliation fix through

    Best sentence of your diary!

    A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The USA for an amount of "up to and including my life." - unknown

    by AJsMom on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:35:59 AM PST

  •  The WH is trying to get health care passed. (9+ / 0-)

    Obama has made that abundantly clear.

    So instead of making this an issue of the WH why not focus on the bills and the fact that the senate needs to move forward? Why not focus on what the House could do, pass the senate bill to begin momentum for reconciliation changes.

    The progressive blogosphere has attacked the WH for the last year since the summer; it's not working. So why not try something else? Why not take the facts at hand (the Senate is obstructing legislation passing) and bring pressure on the senate?

    Shine a light on the senate?

    That is what this meeting seems to be about; so instead of hitting the WH why not try HELPING the WH and focus on the bills in front of us and the Republican ideas at hand. This could be a moment of genuine change; like the Republican retreat. But if blogs don't spread this and hit the facts continually teh message won't be received.

    Like how the  Shelby Shakedown fizzled.

    •  Amen; very very well said n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NLinStPaul, moonpal

      Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

      by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:38:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why? Because Obama could round up all the dem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      senators instead of holding a 'bipartisan' summit and say "Look guys...we were elected for big change. We need to deliver. If not for the sake of Americans, then for the sake of the country surviving in its current form of democracy. We need X votes and i want you to find them for a bill that has x,y, z in it"...just like he did last year when he wanted his war budget passed. If they don't want to play, he threatens them the same way with "don't expect any support from us again".

  •  And I'm expected to vote/donate/work in 2010? (4+ / 0-)

    Of course, even if every Democrat in the Senate and House loses his or her job, they'll just become lobbyists. The only real losers are us.

    Democratic senators, congressmen/women, and officials: Not spineless, weak, or scared. Just corrupt.

    by iconoclastic cat on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:36:13 AM PST

  •  This isn't complicated (5+ / 0-)

    From CNN, Jan 22 through 24, via
    "What do you think Congress should do on health care: pass a health care bill similar to the legislation that Congress has been working on for the past year, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system?"
    Current Bill: 30%
    Start Over: 44%
    Do nothing: 21%

    Getting support for the current bill is arguably dependent on showing that there is no other alternative, because the  Repugs are not serious.

    Obama is right to do this.  In general, the WH has been ineffective in the fight that matters: with the general public. This is reflected in how bad HCR polls.

    HCR's problems are not inside the betlway, they are in the fact that it does not poll well outside the beltway.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:36:36 AM PST

    •  Dems aren't selling the bill (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fladem, Dave B, NLinStPaul, Unduna, moonpal

      They're allowing a few voices who IMO believe that the MA results would make Dems tack left (which IMO is contradictory to this party's historical behavior) form the narrative.

      They're not defending themselves or their legislation.

      It's absolutely and completely incredible.

      Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

      by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:38:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No Bill (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, jdmorg, GN1927, Jerry056

        will pass unless the polling changes on the Bill, period.

        The problem is the public is tired of the hcr debate in general.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:40:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, the public does not like the Senate Bill (4+ / 0-)

          The public is perfectly fine with things like the public option.

          •  Show me evidence (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927, jim bow

            Because the polls I read show HCR polls badly, and well over 60% want to start over or do nothing.

            That is the objective polling evidence.

            The public is against this effort, and the public option is not dispositive in that argument.

            The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

            by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:47:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What the public wants is not dispositive? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The public wants a public option. They don't want the Senate bill.  But you say you are speaking for what the public thinks. Yet, you say what they want is not dispositive what they think of the bill. I could not sum up the DC mindset better than your post. You say they are "tired" but then ignore why they are tired.

            •  Incidentally, I always like to link (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hester, cybrestrike, RadicalRoadRat

              to this polling that occurred several years ago before the whole Obama screw up. Essentially, what the public wants has not changed very much. Indeed, many of the things they don't want are in the bill. Many of the things they do want is not in the bill, including the PO and drug re-importation (that Obama killed):

              ". The public wants the government to play a leading role in providing health care for all. For example, in an October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system. Similarly, in Kaiser polls from 1992 to 2000, a large majority of the public agreed that the federal government should guarantee medical care for people who don’t have health insurance. In a slightly different question asked more recently by Kaiser in June 2003, more than seven in ten adults (72 percent) agreed that the government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, while less than one-quarter (24 percent) disagreed with this statement. Finally, the last time Gallup asked whether the federal government should make sure all Americans have health coverage, they agreed that was a federal government responsibility by 62-35 (November, 2002).

              1. American overwhelmingly agree that access to health care should be a right. In 2000 just as in 1993, eight in ten agreed that health care should be provided equally to everyone, and over half agreed “strongly” or “completely”. In addition, in 2004, about three-quarters (76%) agreed strongly or somewhat that access health care should be a right.
              1. The public says it is willing to pay more in taxes to provide every American with health care coverage. In August, 2003, Pew found Americans favoring, by 67-26, the US government guaranteeing “health insurance for all citizens”, even if that meant repealing most of “recent tax cuts”. And the majority was scarcely diminished (67-29) by referring not to repealing tax cuts but more directly to “raising taxes”. Similarly, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Public Opinion Strategies (GQR/POS) found, in January, 2004, a 69-28 majority saying they would be willing to pay more per year in federal taxes to assure every American citizen received health care coverage.
              1. But support for universal coverage drops significantly if such a program would mean limitations on access to medical care. For example, while 62 percent in the October, 2003 WP/ABC poll said they wanted universal health care system run by the government, rather than the current system, that support dropped to 35 percent if that limited choice of doctors and to 38 percent if that meant longer waits for nonemergency treatment.
              1. Moreover, willingness to pay more in taxes for universal coverage is a “soft” commitment. For example, when phrased as whether the respondent would be “willing to pay more–either in higher insurance premiums or higher taxes--in order to increase the number of insured Americans”, 51 percent say they would not, compared to 45 percent who say they would. And, in the GQR/POS survey, when asked how much they’d be willing to pay in additional taxes to assure universal coverage for American citizens, 40 percent would not name a dollar figure at all and 16 percent named a figure under $100."


              You don't seem to want real proof, but want frames instead that reinforces your thesis that they are mindlessly making these decisions. I said similar of MA, and that was born out by subsequent polling data of the state.

              •  I'll be blunt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You are not interested in what the public thinks: you want to repeat you own arguments.  You cite a poll taken 7 years over polling now...

                The truth is Obama lost the public debate.  That is where he failed.  It didn't have anything to do with not being tough with Congress.

                Does anybody think if this bill polled 55-35 in favor we would be having this conversation.   The current Bill struggles to break 40% with the public.

                The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:04:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And now the typical, I know you are, but what am (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cybrestrike, orestes1963

                  I response from you. You do this every time. I make some argument. You can't refute it. SO you either slink away or make some false claim.

                  For the record:


                  b) Indeed, I reinforce my point by pointing out the POLLING DATA FROM MA THAT SHOWS THE VOTERS THERE SUPPORTED IT.

                  I am capping this to make a point. Rather than addressing the polling data, you claim that I am acting like you because I use a comparator to illustrate a larger point about the consistency of the consistency of the data versus what you claim here. Can you respond to the data without pretending that  I am like you or pretending what the public says it wants is not dispositive?

                  •  The problem (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    is that you ignore the data, and you haven't provided a link to any data of your own.

                    So the debate becomes pointless.

                    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                    by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:20:48 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Jesus, I have never called you a bullshit artist, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      but here you are true bullshit artist.

                      Below, I link by the way to the Washington Post poll in Septemeber that confirms my arguments.

                      I link to data from the last decade that confirms my argument.

                      I discuss the MA data from voters that confirms my argument.

                      And your response?

                      I have not proven my argument.

                      Whatever do. You don't need to debate me because frankly you don't have a leg to stand on at this point other than these bullshit retorts.

                      Let me know when you can back up your claims.

                      •  Look (0+ / 0-)

                        at the link at the top of this post.  It links to all of the HCR polling.

                        I take looking at data seriously.  I make mistakes, but  I try to be objective about the data.

                        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                        by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:39:13 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That polling data is about the overall (0+ / 0-)

                          picture , but it a) tells you  nothing of the ideological reasons for not support it (a large chunk is from the left saying the bill did not go far enough as has been argued over the last few months variously by Nate Silver and backed up by polling data again like out of MA where liberal voters voted against the Dems to make a point about the bill being too far right, etc). b) tells you nothing of the individual popular parts of the bill, which is important for telling you if they are truly tired of everything is the bill or just hate the bad parts more than they like the good parts.  My point here is that this is more complicated than how DC presents it. The reality is that the bill is not liked because it is at variance with what the public wants. I try to be objective as well. The polling data is telling me this over time from reading a lot of it rather than something I just thought up. The problem is the gap between what DC thinks of as a good bill and what the public says it wants. That's why I provided so many comparators from the past- it demonstrates the variance at a time when this was not a heated public debate. In other words, I intended the post as a base line.

                        •  I did say one think incorrect above (0+ / 0-)

                          I stated that the numbers started to go down when the PO was excluded, but the picture is more complicated than I describe.

          •  The public doesn't know what's in the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            senate bill, and that's because there are a ton of people obscuring what's in the senate bill.

            The public also doesn't know that there's an option for having progressive features added to HCR from the House via a deal with the senate to pass certain budgetary matters via reconciliation.  And that's because certain people are obscuring this information as well.

            Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

            by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:57:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The numbers started to go down (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              when the PO was excluded as well as other terms they liked were excluded. The MA polls after the election said a sizeable chunk did not like the bill as it is. Many, including the GOP voters, wanted the PO.

              Many of you are simply frozen in your DC thinking, and I am not really going to keep pulling up polling data each diary to refute your CW which you perceive of as fact.

              •  The numbers went down (0+ / 0-)

                when the right and the left began attacking both the Dems in general and this particular legislation in unison.

                I agree that the public option was popular, but I have yet to see via your polling links that the public has a solid comprehension of what's in the senate bill and that there is a strong possibility that the House will have an imprint via budgetary matters which could be passed through reconciliation, such as expanding Medicare and tinkering with reimbursal rates in order to quell any objections from providers.

                And that's because there are people who are more invested in feeling superior to other people and floating around a useless narrative about the WH than anything else.

                Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

                by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:05:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The Public Option (0+ / 0-)

                was in the bill in July and August.

                It was unpopular then, too.

                Please present data if you want to argue this point rather than simply repeat assertions.

                The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:06:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It took me 30 seconds to google this (3+ / 0-)


                  It illustrates my point about the nature of the bill being the problem and discussing the fragility of support based on what's in the bill.


                  Faced with a basic choice that soon may confront the administration and Democratic congressional leaders, a slim majority of Americans, 51 percent, would prefer a plan that included some form of government insurance for people who cannot get affordable private coverage even if it had no GOP support in Congress. Thirty-seven percent would rather have a bipartisan plan that did not feature a public option. Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of this question, while independents prefer a bill that includes a public option but does not have Republican support, by 52 percent to 35 percent.

                  But if there is clear majority support for the public option and the mandate, there is broad opposition to one of the major mechanisms proposed to pay for the bill. The Senate Finance Committee suggested taxing the most costly private insurance plans to help offset the costs of extending coverage to millions more people. Sixty-one percent oppose the idea, while 35 percent favor it."

                  There is a lot more like that out there.

                  I await your links to data backing your assertions.

                  •  Bruh (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I linked to the polling report summary of Health Care polling at the top of this thread. It contains the vast majority of polling on HCR since January of 2009.

                    Which you know already.  But I have long ago learned you never listen to data when it conflicts with your view.

                    Here goes:

                    Polling from August:
                    Ipsos, August 27 through 31:
                    Favor HCR 40, Oppose 45
                    Do you think Obama's plan is a good idea or a bad idea:
                    July 24-26
                    Good idea 36, bad idea 42
                    ABC, August 13-17
                    45 Favor, 50 Oppose, including 40% who strongly oppose
                    Favor HCR: 36, Oppose 47
                    Pew, July 22-26th
                    ""As of right now, do you generally favor or generally oppose the health care proposals being discussed in Congress?"
                    Favor 38, Oppose 44

                    If you specifically ask people about the PO it helps the polling.  If you tell them about insurance reform being part of the Po it helps the polling.

                    And that is the problem, as I began this post, the battle has been lost with the public.  Now it is interesting that the same post poll you cite also shows the public was opposed to the Bill in August.

                    At some point I would think you would take back you point when opposition built to this bill, since that is what even the data you cite shows.

                    Where is the link to the Mass data?

                    I do not appreciate being told I am ignoring data when you never link to the data you cite, which I have done at every turn here.

                    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

                    by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:36:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  They were opposing specific parts of the bill (0+ / 0-)

                      which does not refute my statement at all. You cite polling that tells you nothing of the details. I provide you the details of what they do and do not support. Your polling is not a refutation of my argument.

                      The point is that they are not tired of the PO and other provisions they like. They are tired of those they don't like.  That's a more complicated reading of the polling that just reading a top line. The polling I am seeking from you is polling to refute my position about what the public does or does not support.

                      The MA data was written up on the front page here and else where , I believe at Move On, Huffington Post, etc. I am not going to look it up as it is easy to find.  

                      I don't care what you appreciate when you attack me above in similar fashions regarding what you think of me. You can not have it both ways.

                    •  This by the way strikes me as like (0+ / 0-)

                      the discussion prior to MA in which I attempted to argue with you that relying on labels such as liberal versus conservative is not as useful as polling on specific issues to understand voter intent. As I said there, to buy the argument of the PPP poll, one would have to believe that MA suddenly veered far right rather than merely being disenchanted with the failures of the Democrats. The polling post the election that actually asked about issues seemed to bare my argument out.  The problem here is (and this the DC kind of thinking that i am trying to get you see you are doing) is that you will take some basic analysis and run with it as to meaning. I am trying to dig deeper into what the public thinks by asking why they behave as they do by saying they support a bill or not. For example, a large chunk of the people (Nate Silver had a post up several months ago on this) who were not supporting the bill did so because they were to the left rather than right of the bill. So while the overall number for support was bad- the really important data could only be found in the analysis of the individual provisions since the reason for overall support veered from left to right while the individual provisions can you a better glance of reasoning.

                  •  That does not prove (0+ / 0-)

                    that the public has a grasp of what IS in the senate bill.

                    Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

                    by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:50:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  By the way, i fully expect you to continue (0+ / 0-)

                  to ignore the polling data on MA that's been on this and other blogs for weeks now. I also expect you to ignore all other polling data that I bring to the table. When I do bring evidence to support my argument the next tactic is to ignore it or claim "it is  not dispositive" even when I provide evidence that it is.  Meanwhile, you provide no evidence of your position whatsoever.

        •  fladem, agreed. People need a job first. nt (0+ / 0-)
          •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

            that is the real problem

            The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

            by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:48:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And when the jobs aren't there? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Because they AREN'T. They've gone to China, India, Vietnam, various Central and South American countries, anywhere and everywhere that labor is really cheap and worker rights are nonexistent.

              Those jobs are never coming back.

              Nobody wants to face this ugly reality, and nobody will until they are FORCED to.

              So what can we do about it?

              "Government jobs" is a popular idea for a stopgap, but it IS just a stopgap.

              We BETTER not solve the "jobs problem" by starting more wars - that will just finish us as a country even faster.

              Eventually, I think, it will be necessary to make "unemployment compensation" permanent. That is, as long as someone can't find a job, for whatever reason, they get a subsistence allowance from the government that will keep some kind of roof over their head and keep them from freezing and starving on the street. We will do this when we are FORCED to, and probably not before. :P

              If it's
              Not your body
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              AND it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:40:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  They aren't tired of the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GN1927, jim bow

          debate, the media has deliberately made them confused about what is in the bill. Inside of reporting facts, the media has allowed Republican lies to go unchallenged. While the WH has been busy refuting the lies almost all other Dems have been nonexistent. Meanwhile some progressives also starting attacking the bill on the left so people just said fuck it!

          "Don't bet against us" -President Barack Obama

          by moonpal on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:56:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            on much of that....

            The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

            by fladem on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:58:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly; so much misinformation (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fladem, jim bow, NLinStPaul, GrandmaMJ

            Coming from both the right and the left.  Small group of people, dominating analysis, spreading misperception and confusion.  How many people don't know that their insurance would be subsidized?  Or that they would be eligible for Medicaid?  So much misperception obscuring real information.

            Ends discrimination based on pre-existing condition. Insurance companies will have to take all comers.  They can’t deny you coverage or jack up your premiums based on your health status.

            Ends gender discrimination. Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge higher premiums based on gender.

            Caps out-of-pocket expenses. Insurance companies will have to abide by limits on what they can charge you for out-of-pocket expenses like deductibles and co-pays.

            Prevents dropping of coverage for seriously ill.  Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping, watering down, or refusing to renew your coverage when you get sick and need it most.

            Prohibits caps on total coverage. Insurance companies will no longer be able to limit the total amount of coverage you can receive.

            Allows children to stay on their parents insurance until age 26.

            Limits premium differences based on age. Currently insurance companies can charge older Americans up to 5 or 6 times as much as younger Americans.  The bill will limit that ratio to 3-1.

            Provides seniors with relief from prescription drug prices.  Seniors in the so-called "donut hole" will immediately receive a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs, and the size of the donut hole will be reduced by $500 in 2010.

            Tax credits for individuals, families, and small businesses.  The bill provides tax credits for small businesses, as well as middle- and low-income Americans, to help them afford health insurance.

            Makes preventive care completely free. Insurance companies will be forced to fully cover – with no co-pays – preventive care like colonoscopies or mammograms.

            Significantly reduces the federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the bill will reduce our deficit by $132 billion over the first decade, and by as much as $1.3 trillion by the end of the second decade.

            Creates new health insurance Exchanges. The bill creates new health insurance Exchanges where individuals, families, and small businesses can compare plans and choose the one that works best for them.  These Exchanges will lower premiums by increasing competition and reducing administrative costs.  They will also provide consumers with unprecedented information.

            Extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. The bill roots out waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and adds 9 years to the life of the Medicare trust fund.

            Controls skyrocketing health care costs. The bill contains a wide range of cost-control measures, such as rewarding quality of care, and encouraging health care providers to work together.

            Protects patients’ choice of doctors. Individuals will be allowed to choose any participating  primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before a woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care.

            Ensures Americans get value for their premium payments. Insurers won’t be allowed to gouge consumers or funnel dollars that should be spent on health care to line their executives’ pockets.  They will be required to spend 80 percent of small group and individual premiums and 85 percent of large group premiums dollars on health benefits or provide customers a rebate.

            Expands community health centers. An immediate and substantial investment in community health centers will expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most.

            Lowers premiums for retirees and employers. The bill creates access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees.  This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.


            Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

            by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:01:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  IMO, the WH is waiting for Congress (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, jim bow, NLinStPaul, moonpal, nutbutter

    to do their jobs.

    Why can these two chambers not hammer out a plan?  Why are they allowing an ill-informed purity assault to make it appear as if they can't get anything done?

    Congress needs to get on this, and now.

    There's a perfectly fine plan: pass the senate bill, pass measures which can be passed via reconciliation to ensure that the House has influence on legislation of major significance.

    Why in the world can Dems not accomplish this?

    Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

    by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:37:07 AM PST

    •  The WH is waiting for Congress (5+ / 0-)

      on it's signature legislation...

      There's something wrong with that picture, don't you think?

      Why wait, when you can lead? And pressure? And manage? And support? And frame the debate? And.....fill in a dozen blanks.

      "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

      by Unduna on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:46:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the WH has been absent from this process? (0+ / 0-)

        Or is the WH taking a cold and pragmatic look at what is possible given the context of people we have sent to DC to sit on their behind, fundraise, and pose?

        They need to do their freaking job.

        There is a perfectly good plan already on the table: pass the senate bill, plus some progressive touches via reconciliation so that the bill reflects the influence of both chambers, as is only fair.

        Why is that not being pursued?  Why are our lawmakers unable to do this?

        I wish that POTUS would twist some more arms as well, but I don't know if that wouldn't do more harm than good with these territorial prima donnas.

        I've written my "representation" about this mess; hopefully everyone else will do so as well.  The usual suspects in the netroots looking to give POTUS a black eye will do so, because that's what they do.  But everyone else needs to pressure both chambers to do their jobs, and do them now.

        Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

        by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:52:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  where? (0+ / 0-)

    The WH is still looking for Senator Snowe and trying to narrow the gulf between red and blue America-

  •  This meeting is a good thing. It will show Rethug (0+ / 0-)

    to be lairs.

    •  So what! We already know that...what we (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      need is healthcare, not wack-a-mole!

      •  We know that but the public does not. (0+ / 0-)
        •  So we have to wait until the moles have been (0+ / 0-)

          whacked before we move on healthcare? People are dying! Seriously...haven't we been down the educate the people on this already and if after over a year later and two bills later we aren't going to act until the population knows what a failure the republican party is, why bother. Again, the focus in on the republican party! Wouldn't we figure it out that they are a failure and the dems can lead if congress passed a great bill since we're the majority rather than simply talking about it?

        •  & the public STILL won't know it after the meetin (0+ / 0-)

          g or whatever it is. the public just wants something done, not today, not tomorrow but fucking YESTERDAY.

          "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

          by hester on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:32:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Is Obama more concerned about (0+ / 0-)

    pleasing the Republican thugs who will resort to anything to hurt him or getting a healthcare bill that actually helps people and not the insurance companies?

  •  It seems they are trying (9+ / 0-)

    to reverse the opinion out there that the repubs have been shut out and there hasn't been enough transparency.  This is suppose to give cover to the senators that are stuck in the fetal position by exposing the repubs for the obstructionists they are.  Also, it will help the public see what is really in the bill.

    •  Totally agree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NLinStPaul, fl1972, GrandmaMJ, moonpal

      Because there is a mountain of wrong information out there, coming from both the right and the left about this legislation.  IMO we went too far demonizing the senate bill at a point in time in which the House was still in a position to influence the final compromise bill.  The MA results ruined that plan and we need to pivot onto Plan B, which includes educating the public, as you very well noted.

      Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.---POTUS

      by GN1927 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:43:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You don't think the public already knows the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      Anyone I've talked to knows the republican's have nothing. And they just shake their heads in disgust at the lack of the Democrats to force the issue and work as a unified bloc.

      It sucks being a Dem. It sucks that our country is so overwhelmed with lies and propaganda. It sucks that the process has become so corrupt. And I think is sucks that the corrupting influences have become so potent that they can destroy a presidency and make it seem impotent while it lasts.

      Our. Country. Is. Broken.

      •  It sucks. (0+ / 0-)

        Latest polling shows, unfortunately, that people believe the repubs have been shut out and they don't know what is in the bill.  The fact that the senate needs their hands held is disgusting to me.  I still believe HCR will get done.

  •  Meeting with Republicans on live television (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, jim bow, NLinStPaul, Engine 08, moonpal

    in order to dismantle their talking points and fake plans one by one is bad because ... things went so horribly the last time President Obama did that?

    Sounds like a beFuDdLed argument to me.

    Heckuva no jobs bill, Senator Brownie

    by samantha in oregon on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:37:42 AM PST

    •  It could be great. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pescadero Bill, cybrestrike

      It could also suck.

      It depends on whether this is the Snowe approach or the SOTU/GOP retreat approach.

      That's the point, you never freakin' know with these guys what they are about. Which is exhausting.

      "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

      by Unduna on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:48:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Two things: (0+ / 0-)

      Your assuming the President wants to dismantle their talking points and isn't legitimately trying to work with them.

      And I think you're assuming the republicans won't be better prepped this time around making it work against the President if it is his plan to belittle them in public again.

  •  GOP won the propoganda war, this is a way to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    take that away from them.

  •  I think he wants to expose their hypocrisy... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, Unduna, brooklyn137

    And then get his own Party members to get off of their rear ends and pass an effective bill. Surely he's going to get nothing from McConnell, and just as surely, he knows that. My hope here is that he wants to expose them for the obstructionists they are--again--and then get the House and Senate to pass a reconcilliation bill--and in the Senate, through the Reconcilliation process. To me, this is encouraging the Repub leadership into the same sort of "smackdown" he gave the House members a week ago Friday.

    "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."--Miguel De Santa Anna

    by GainesT1958 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:38:02 AM PST

    •  You think they'll let that happen again? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Fool me once because I'm a daft insincere republican.

      Fool me twice, not likely because I may be a daft insincere republican, but I know how to play cut throat politics.

      Good luck with giving them fair notice and expecting it be easy to expose their hypocrisy.

      Although, it is the GOP we're talking about.

    •  I agree, the proof, CSPAN (0+ / 0-)

      When Obama first suggested this he said the reps, the dems, himself CSPAN, and, wait for it, the health care experts.  That is the point.  If they come up with a plan that will solve all the health care problems at no cost the health care experts will point why it won't work.  (In the unlikely event that it would, Obama has said he will adopt it, at which point the repubs will oppose it.)

      It is good television.  People will watch and see the president and the dems as being reasonable, the repubs as being obstructionist.  The healthcare experts are the key to the whole thing.  

  •  The summit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby, cybrestrike

    I heard about the summit on the radio this morning, and I was really taken back.

    I hope it's a way to expose the Republican obstructionism, but I'm not going to hold my breath.  

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix

    by Dave B on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:38:16 AM PST

  •  I am very sad to say this but, the President is.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    looking weaker and weaker by the day.  I know that we have to support him as the alternative is so much worse, but I have a lot of Union/tradespeople friends, and they are so fed up and discouraged.  They will not vote Dem coming up.  The Dems look tragic and Obama is leading the tragedy, but that's all he is leading.

    •  Hate to say it, but labor is preventing the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jim bow, NLinStPaul

      Senate bill from being approved by the House and signed into law.

      Then the rank and file want a strong leader. Can't have it both ways.

      •  Don't blame labor when the Cadillac tax (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sayitaintso, splashoil, cybrestrike

        should never have been there in the first place. Blame whoever put it there.

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          Everyone in industry had made concessions for the greater good of insuring 31-36 million Americans.  What concessions has labor made?

          •  It's not an "industry" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashoil, Cofcos, orestes1963

            You're asking middle class people who happen to have a good health insurance plan to sacrifice that so . . . others will have so-so ones. I understand that there are sacrifices that need to be made in order to cover the uninsured, but being that it's a wide societal goal, it seems like the burden should be shared across a wider variety of people . . . something like, say, a tax, that everyone pays, that's progressive, etc. But, no, we can't do that, so we have to twist ourselves into circles getting the healthy and uninsured to pay for it, getting those with good health insurance plans to pay for it, getting struggling small business owners to pay for it.  

            •  The excise tax *is* progressive. (0+ / 0-)

              Generally, those who don't get their health insurance through their employer -- those who would be unaffected by the excise tax -- have lower wage jobs (i.e., the waitress, the retail sales clerk, the hotel worker).  That makes the tax progressive.

              Put another way, would you consider a tax on sailboats to be regressive?

              •  That's ridiculous . . . (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wsexson, splashoil, orestes1963

                . . . sailboats? Health plans? Yeah, they're really in the same category.

                It may be "progressive" in that it takes from those who have a little to give to those who have nothing, but I don't really think that most of us think of something like that as progressive. Progressive is taking something from everyone, but the most from those who have the most. People with the good health care plans are not by and large the richest people in our society.

          •  Spoken like a true Democrat! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jdmorg, splashoil

            Blaming labor?  On a progressive website?  I think red is more your color.  Try the shop to the right.  

            For your information, labor is a group of American citizens who join together to increase their leverage against their employers.  They are not comparable to "industry."  When you accuse labor of "holding out" try to bear in mind the differences between CEO salaries and those of workers on the line.  

      •  well that's bullshit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jdmorg, Cofcos

        how is labor preventing the Senate from being approved by the House, exactly?

      •  We (Labor) know bs when we see it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cofcos, cybrestrike, orestes1963

        From the high paid shill Jonathan Gruber on up, the message was that if employee benefits were taxed then the magic pony would appear bearing higher wages and more jobs.  Give us a break.  We are not stupid.  Our President spoke against this bs during his campaign and we thought he was sincere.  Now we have had to call him out.  The POS Senate bill intends to break good employee benefits down, squeezing money that would have provided care to those who earned it and using that money to buy junk insurance for the poor with no alternative option.
        Why do you think we would support this?

        What He said when He wanted our help!

        •  Full of inaccurate information...don't even know (0+ / 0-)

          where to start.

          So we're supposed to stand up for so-called Cadillac plans and throw HCR under the bus?

          The tax would not affect that many workers, and it wouldn't eliminate great health insurance. I believe labor is being entirely parochial on this one.

          And it isn't forcing junk insurance on anyone. It is getting good insurance for millions. Stop making things up.

          •  Just listen to what our President said! (0+ / 0-)

            What He said!

            Words do have meaning.  We believed him when he was against the excise tax.  Now we see what he is really about and it's not us.  I predict he will now try to rope the Rethugs into supporting the tax on health benefits and more assaults on the middle class.

  •  I lean towards 'an elaborate set-up" myself (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    what better way to show a STARK difference in the handling of this issue then to have Obama play the roll of the Benevolent President, trying his best to bend over for the opposition in order to get healthcare reform passed?  

    Think of this as a 3 act play...

    act one: let the congress try on their own while repeatedly reminding them you WANT THIS DONE and done in a bipartisan fashion

    act two: let everyone go CRAZY over the lack of progress on this issue while you continue to call for a BIpartisan solution and bring the debate fully into the open while calling, repeatedly, for bipartisan action

    ACT THREE.... disappointely abandone Bipartisan action in order to get healthcare reform passed but remind every voter that you tried and tried and TRIED but the repubs would just not budge from their NO stance so you had to move this forward without them, much to your chagrin...but you will continue to seek bipartisan solutions to the other major problems facing the nation... starting with climate change legislation ;)

    "Obama set his Phaser on stun and aimed at the GOP Retreat"

    by KnotIookin on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:38:25 AM PST

  •  President Obama is trying to bring HCR back to (4+ / 0-)

    the forefront in the court of public opinion.  By bringing both sides to a summit (and televising it), his hope, I believe, is to illustrate that the obstructionist behavior on the part of the GOP is simply that.  And also to get the Democrats to move this forward.

    If they can get HCR passed (both the Senate bill and the pre-emptive fix bill together) before the end of March, Democrats can use HCR as a reelection tool.  In the meantime, they need to start planning monthly reconciliation bills to illustrate why Republicans shouldn't be reelected.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:38:38 AM PST

  •  I don't know where Obama is on HCR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but if he does not attack Iran he won't get reelected.

    When the [SHAREHOLDER] does it, it is NOT illegal.

    by plok on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:38:56 AM PST

  •  This is all for cover (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The WH has no plan so they'll blame GOP obstructionism when HCR is officially pronounced dead.

    And then we will all know this about our president:

    He doesn't know what he's doing.

  •  One of these days, (10+ / 0-)

    folks will wake up and recognize that when Obama says he wants to "change the way Washington works," he means it.

    This meeting has very little to do with bipartisanship with GOP leaders and everything to do with getting an overall movement going for HCR that includes an informed public pushing for change.

    This is exactly what a community organizer does. But you have to look through a different lens to see if for what it is.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by NLinStPaul on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:39:02 AM PST

    •  The Main Thing a Community Organizer Does Is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pescadero Bill, cybrestrike

      tweak the system slightly because they're not able to make major change.

      Major change requires regional and national leadership.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:40:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see (4+ / 0-)

        community organizing at odds with regional or national leadership.

        The real question is whether or not electoral office is at odds with community organizing. That's the great gamble Obama (and Plouffe) are taking.

        But at least we need to be clear about what it is they're trying to do and not continue to analyze it through the old lens of politics as usual.  

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by NLinStPaul on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:47:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  One of these days the sycophants may... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pescadero Bill, bruh1, Cofcos, RenMin

       . . . embrace action more than a personality and may, just may, realize that milquetoast bullshit does.  not.  get.  the.  job.  done.  

       Or, like the T'baggers, they'll just stick their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la..."


      "I have to go now. I feel . . . sticky." Anthony Bourdain

      by BenGoshi on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:45:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jim bow, carlos the jackal

        big tough guy BenGoshi needs to belittle those who see things differently as sycophants.

        So what's new?

        As far as I'm concerned, you can continue to make a case for "blood sport politics" and I'm sure many will agree with you.

        But that's not what this President is going to do. Since we haven't had much success with things like health care reform over these last few decades, I think Obama's way is worth a shot.  

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by NLinStPaul on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:53:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What does "big tough guy" have to do with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike, RenMin

          anything tough guy? Was BenGoshi acting like a tough guy? Or are you just projecting that?

          And as far as giving Obama's way a shot, how many shots will it take before he realizes THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK WITH HIM.

          They want to destroy him.

          He has got to try another way. An ugly, back door, deceitful, political slight of hand way sort of way, but any way that will bring an end to the suffering and deaths of so many Americans.

          If this slaughter were from an outside enemy rather then an entrenched corporate enemy, it would be cause for a national emergency and radical executive orders from the White House to stop it.

          •  Did you notice (3+ / 0-)

            that "the big tough guy" has to refer to someone like me as a sycophant? That's what I was referring to.

            At least you made a case for what you think. I get tired of folks thinking that insults and belittling are the way to respond to someone they disagree with.

            Some of us don't think this is about getting GOP leaders to work with Obama. We agree with you about how unlikely that is and think Obama is smart enough to see that as well.

            If you look at my original comment in this thread, that's what I've been saying. This meeting is to shore up the commitment of Dem leaders and to get the American people on board with a show of transparency and some actual information.

            Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by NLinStPaul on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:44:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The Multi Dimension Chess Idea is Now CT (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, bluicebank, cybrestrike

    If he's not doing something obvious, he's not doing it subtly either.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:39:55 AM PST

  •  White House is nowhere in health care reform. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverbird, splashoil, Cofcos, J M F, Eposter

    That the diary, Congress and the nation has to ask tells it all.

    White House lack of leadership on health care reform is central to failure of health care reform. It is why health care reform fails at every point in the process. Even now when some minor reforms could be salvaged via reconciliation, the White House checks out.

    The White House tactics on health care reform are why Democrats are going to likely lose Congress in 2010. People are angry over being lied to by Obama.

    Obama made health care reform a central theme in his campaign against Clinton and against McCain and then abandons it when he gets into office.  Then he fails to propose health care reform that matches his promises. He actively undercuts health care reform and his campaign promises with secret deals with industry lobbyists. That is why you see 20% of Obama voters voting for GOP candidates.

    •  WH has declared reform vital and is pushing for (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NLinStPaul, KHinSF, moonpal

      Comprehensive reform.

      The lack of SENATE leadership is killing things. The senate won't act and the president can't make them act; but he can keep the light on the issue and not let them kill this bill quietly.

      That's what he's doing.

      •  WH never proposed reform, undermined reform. (5+ / 0-)
        1. Obama never proposed any health care reform that had his campaign promises of public option, lower costs.
        1. Obama broke his his campaign promise of transparency, lower costs and no lobbyist influence by cutting secret deal with drug industry lobbyist to insure higher drug costs.

        Then Obama sat back and let minority right wing Democrats filibuster any slim chance of reform bills in Congress.

        Even now, when reconciliation could save Obama and Democrats from voter backlash in 2010, the White House bails out and is silent.

        Obama's failure is equal to Clinton's '94 failure with the same predictable results, bit election losses for Democrats for failure to deliver.

        Clinton at least had a balanced budget proposal to fix deficit/debt, Obama lacks the courage for that as he apparently lacked courage on health care.

        •  That's not true. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The progressives made the public option the holy grail; but it's clear the White House was far more interested in creating a national exchange, insurance regulation, and expanding coverage.

          The WH supported the public option; but not at the expense of coverage.

          Progressives made a bad bet tearing down this legislation and feeding Republican memes. He broke his transparency pledge and the drug thing, yes. But IMO he didn't kill reform. Progressives did when they adopted right wing memes to kill this bill.

          •  Don't blame it on progressives that saw through (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cofcos, cybrestrike, RenMin, orestes1963

            the BS bill.

            The PO was coverage. The kind of coverage people were hoping to be able to opt for. Progressives just tried to enforce the will of the people Obama seemed willing to turn his back on to get a check in the win column.

          •  The man campaigned on a public option (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            although he later denied it.  He also opposed the mandate, yet it is the centerpiece of the senate bill.  To try to "blame" progressives for the centrality of the public option to HCR is absurd and unfair.  Obama championed the public option (and made the same arguments progressives make for why it is important).  

            What does "the WH supported the public option, but not at the expense of coverage" mean?  That the public option was not important?  That he didn't actually campaign on it?  That it was a nice idea so long as it did not conflict with the gift to the insurance companies?  

            If you think the problems with this bill are due to progressives, you are sadly ill-informed.  The senate bill simply does not pass the smell test with most voters, including large blocks of the traditional Dem constituency (eg, labor, liberals, working class).  But any chance to blame progressives for trying to have their voices heard cannot be passed.  Haven't you heard that the WH considers the left "f-ing retards"?  That shows how much power progressives over this bill or this administration.

          •  Obama promised public option. His key to costs. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashoil, Cofcos, orestes1963

            "The progressives made the public option the holy grail"

            Nope. Obama made public option his holy grail. Public Option was key to giving people a choice. Public Option was key to no mandates. Public Option was key to lower costs. It was written right into Obama's campaign health care proposal.

            "he WH supported the public option; but not at the expense of coverage."

            Public option was key to universal coverage. As you may remember, Obama was against mandating universal coverage and his reasoning was by offering people the choice of a public option the public would choose universal coverage.

  •  ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby, cybrestrike

    Another bipartisan summit? Really? Obama said it himself, the republicans are making the health care bill out to be a communist plot. They've given themselves no room to maneuver other than to just say "no" to everything that comes up. And you want to give them something to campaign on, to take credit for? Screw them. Screw the people who have been lockstep against every single thing you've come up with. Make Democrats the party of progress again, and consign Republicans to being obstructionists and naysayers. You can be the person who gets a lot done alone, or a little done with the people who wanted this to be your Waterloo.

    •  The whole point of doing this... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin that the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner.  As long as they could justify it, they were okay.

      But what Obama's going to do here is simple:  Show them for the whining, temper-tantruming children they are.  Show how inflexible they are.  Show how brittly resistant to change they are.  Use their stiff resolve to make it easier to break them in the public debate.  Either force them to yield and look weak, or double down and give him the excuse to tell them to Cheney themselves.

      The GOP: The Party of Failure. Pass it on.

      by Stephen Daugherty on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:07:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Leadership? From a President? (0+ / 0-)

    You're kidding, right?  Since when are they supposed to lead?  We had the MBA President in Bush, who was a high-level guy letting his lackeys and Cheney run the world.  Now we have Mr. Rogers playing non-directive therapy with government.  Lead?  Bwa-ha-ha.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:41:10 AM PST

  •  This administration has crossed baffling (5+ / 0-)

    and landed in the realm of the lost. It's very upsetting, dammit. I keep trying to hold on, here...

    The Luce article and Steve Clemmons summary of it (over at both talkingpointsmemo and Huffington post) are very enlightening, and I hope someone with the power gets the message in front of the president asap.

    We've got serious trouble in this admin and I think we've run out of time to pansy ass around the mess that's being made.

    "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

    by Unduna on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:42:03 AM PST

  •  11 Dimensional Chess! (4+ / 0-)
  •  Interesting. Some of us wondered about that... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, RenMin

     . . . back in mid-August, almost half a year ago.  

     But no, White House, don't listen to us dumb bloggers.  What do we know about politics or living in America?


    "I have to go now. I feel . . . sticky." Anthony Bourdain

    by BenGoshi on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:42:28 AM PST

  •  Short answer: (5+ / 0-)

    Where is the White House on HCR?


    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:44:22 AM PST

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Perhaps this nothing more than an elaborate set-up

    I think it's time to give up on any 11-18 dimensional chess.

  •  This president's accomplishment is confusion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    For months people have been arguing about what the man said or didn't say, wants or doesn't want, will do or will not do. His leadership problems are annoying.

  •  They don't have any other strategy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, RenMin

    That's the problem. They do the same thing again and again regardless of whether it succeeds or not.

    The definition of insanity.

  •  I think this is a good idea, but even the (3+ / 0-)

    left blogasphere has to frame things in a negative light. There were no mixed messages from the WH just mixed up information passed along by bloggers. Our leaders might be pathetic, but they represent us pathetic liberals pretty well imo.

  •  The White House is leading (10+ / 0-)

    Ezra Klein:

    This is, first and foremost, about defusing the lines of attack that have scared the hell out of Democratic legislators. If you talk to people on the Hill, there's relatively little concern about the substance of the likely compromise, but there's enormous anxiety over the public's belief that the bill is thick with noxious deals, which is fed by the idea that the process has been hidden from the American people. After all, people reason, if the bill was so good, why wouldn't they let C-SPAN into the negotiations? The White House hopes this summit will be a clean break with that narrative.

    Second, and more importantly, this creates a next step for health-care reform. The House and the Senate have not been able to agree on a path forward. The president, of course, cannot hold a vote for them. But by setting this summit, he's bought them a few weeks to figure out how to hold a vote themselves. That won't be easy, but it'll be easier with the White House summit giving some structure and narrative to an effort that had collapsed into murky chaos.

    For weeks, congressional Democrats have been calling for more leadership from the White House. Now they've got it. The president will set the agenda, as only he can. But that doesn't take the ultimate burden off House and Senate Democrats So much as Obama can call the next play, he can't run this into the end zone for them.

    •  mark - thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This summit is not about the repugs. This is about how to bring together the Dems. The House will not pass the Senate bill "as is". I don't think the Speaker could find 180 votes for it. The Senate is working through all of the real details to see what they could do with reconciliation, which turns out to be much more complex than many of us thought. The Senate will never pass the House bill, but there may be a way to thread the needle through reconciliation in the Senate. The "summit" is to craft the reconciliation package although it will be sold to the public as open and bipartisan.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:54:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If it is a 'head scratcher' then you don't.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lookit, jstipich, moonpal

    understand how gov't works.

    So sadly, yet another diary from some anonymous blogger who thinks they can do the presidents job better than the president.

    Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. --George Orwell

    by thestupiditburns on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:47:39 AM PST

  •  There won't be any meeting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluesteel, wsexson, RenMin

    because the GOP won't show up.

    The excuse they'll use is that Obama is unwilling to shelve everything the Democrats have done so far and "start from scratch."

    •  If they don't show up... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluesteel, Dartagnan, RenMin

      The headline is "Republicans run away from Obama and Bipartisanship".  Republicans get the blame, Obama can say they left him no other choice but to get things done by alternative methods.

      Then he pushes Congress to get their jobs done.

      The GOP: The Party of Failure. Pass it on.

      by Stephen Daugherty on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:09:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The GOP thinks that will be less harmful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, RenMin

        to them then getting their asses handed to them by Obama a la their recent "retreat."  The GOP is going to run against HCR whatever the Dems do.  The polling supports them.

        I'd take odds they find a reason to bail.

      •  If you think (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, Cofcos

        that will be the headline from the MSM you are naive.  The republicans will come up with some ridiculous claim of standing on principle or honor (preferably while wrapping themselves in the flag) or what-not and the media will trumpet it.  You can't win the debate against repbulicans through the media.  They are alligned with the republicans.  You need to get the message directly to the people.  That is the only way to prevail in the current media climate.

    •  That's how I see it too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but maybe, just maybe, that's enough to give wavering Democratic Senators some cover.

      I doubt it, but one can hope.

      "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

      by RenMin on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:39:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And perhaps ........... (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps this nothing more than an elaborate set-up to expose the depth of Republican obstructionism and, as Greg Sargent speculates lay the groundwork for passing the bill through reconciliation by providing them cover.

    And perhaps we'll see a large pink pig flying over the Capitol.  

    How much more talking does this bill require?  How many more kicks in the cojones does Obama need before he gets the idea the GOP couldn't care less if he fell into the Potomac?  

    They have to stop putting off the inevitable and get to reconciliation.  

  •  Hey, where's the part where Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pescadero Bill, RenMin

    and all the  Senators and Representatives link arms and sing Kumbaya?

  •  OK It's been a year (4+ / 0-)

    and Obama still hasn't figured out the only time the word "Bi-Partisanship" is even uttered in the village bubble is when Democrats are in power in any or all branches of gov't. and then its definition is "do what Republicans want".

    You will never hear it so much as whispered when Pukes have power. Never.

    Wake up and smell the irrelevance Mr President. Your opportunity to be a great leader and agent of real change is slipping away as the media and the pukes ready their campaign to label you Jimmy Carter Pt. 2. And you know what President Carter's fault was? He thought he needed to be all "Bi-Partisan" and shit too.

    Time to get real, Mr President. To do less is to betray your country, seriously.

    "Fall seven times, stand up eight.": Japanese Proverb

    by Dave925 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:50:02 AM PST

    •  As I suggested in another comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave925, cybrestrike

      if there were an outside enemy killing 40,000 Americans a year, it'd be cause for a state of emergency and all kinds of powers would be claimed by the Administration to do something to stop it.

      But fuck no. Because it's a good old fashioned American industry profiting on those deaths, it has to be approached gingerly in a bipartisan fashion and definitely not interfere with said profit.

      •  This Country is Beset (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pescadero Bill

        With a criminal class masquerading as "businessmen" so venal as to think nothing of the deaths they foster and ignore.

        The crimes are so immense on so many levels as to be mind boggling. That they are thought of as "business as usual" may be the greatest crime of all.

        "Fall seven times, stand up eight.": Japanese Proverb

        by Dave925 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:11:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If, as you say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this is nothing but an elaborate setup to expose the Republicans as the ones who have blocked health care reform ... then this is nothing but stage craft.

    The intent then is not to fix the legislation, but to prepare the republicans for being the ones we pin the blame on for its failure.

    And if that's how we're expending our energy, that sends the signal from the White House that they believe it's a battle that's already been lost and our time is best spent spinning the damage.

    •  And if Obama is involved in this, then he's (0+ / 0-)

      deceiving the American people. I refuse to believe he would balatantly do that.

      Instead, I think he actually is serious in thinking one more try at BP will work. When he gets shit thrown in his face, it is time to act swiftly.

      Pass the damn Senate bill, sign it. And get on with the business of recovery. Fix what you can in the next two years.

      •  Not for nothin but... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silverbird, RenMin

        depending on how you look at it, he already HAS deceived the American public.

        That is, if you believe he allowed his left base to tacitly believe that he supported the Public Option and then did nothing to defend it (or anything for that matter) ... then you have been deceived.

        Politicians do it every day.  And it's somewhat rosey-glassed thinking to believe he's somehow above it.

        "This Space for Rent"

        by Detroit Mark on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:56:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bullshit...the PO never had enough votes in the (0+ / 0-)

          Senate and you know it. Reconciliation isn't really an option to get all that's in the bill. It will only work for those parts that have a budgetary impact.

          I agree Obama could have twisted arms and dealt out penalties, but I really think, Nelson, and Lincoln would have still stuck it to him.

          Now we don't need to. House passes Senate bill in its entirety. Obama signs it. Fix it later.

          •  The President isn't a Senator. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So I don't see how "enough votes" would have been his job.

            His job would have been to be an advocate for the Public Option and demand a better fight than the one they were giving.

            But that could only have occurred if he actually was dedicated in any way to a real, robust public option and we now know he doesn't.

            The point is, we didn't know that before, and he let us believe he did.  That's water under the bridge now.  I'm not using that fact to skewer him.  I'm simply saying ... if you think Obama hasn't already crossed that line look again, that's all.

            "This Space for Rent"

            by Detroit Mark on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:03:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  History: LBJ and civil rights (0+ / 0-)

              That's an example of a President who showed leadership and went out and drummed up the votes.

              "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

              by RenMin on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:28:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A lot of that was due to the (0+ / 0-)

                assasination of Kennedy which made the senate more open to passing something which he had advocated for.  

                •  And a near depression (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  doesn't provide a similar perfect storm?  

                  •  Mostly it seems that that has lead (0+ / 0-)

                    to a lot of complaints from both the right and the left about what has been done.  And I know I didn't feel the same sense of shock about the bank problem as I did about the assasination by any means. Also there used to be more reasonable republicans in the senate in those day, mostly of the New England repub variety, which is a lot different than what is there now.

                    •  fair enough (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      but I do believe the current state of affairs provided the perfect opportunity to enact progressive reforms and was squandered.  For example, if real HCR were billed even as a temporary fix to make sure Americans were cared for during these difficult times, it could have gotten passed and would leave the onus on the opposition to repeal it.  It would have become like SS.  

          •  According to Schumer, PO did (0+ / 0-)

            have 51 votes.  Who was against it?  Only ones I am aware of were Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh . . . anyone else?

            "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

            by RenMin on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:30:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'm for pressuring the House to pass the Senate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    bill, and get on with it. Fix what can be fixed next year.

    But this clusterf*(k has got to stop. Yet another "bipartisan summit" will achieve little but more opportunity for Repubs to delay and score political points.

    I think either Obama should fire his political aids or needs to talk more with people outside the beltway. Working together? Has he learned anything from the past year? Or is HE just being political?

  •  I actually think this is a good idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It will FORCE the House and Senate Democrats to come to a conclusion on how to reconcile the House and Senate bills so that they come out as a united front on one bill by February 25th.

    Plus it will showcase to Americans exactly what is in the bills.  I still think that Americans have NO CLUE.  They just assume it is just a bunch of Nebraska side deals.

    The reality is that the Senate bill isn't that far different from a Republican bill any ways.  The only thing it doesn't have that Republicans want is getting rid of exemption for Insurance companies because Republicans want to be able to purchase across state lines (which is what the House wants so do as well).  

    IMO the Senate bill is too state centrist and instead there should be a national exchange instead of state exchanges for small businesses.  Also, IMO EVERYBODY should be able to purchase insurance through a national exchange and NOT just small businesses (the Wyden-Bennet rule).  

    In terms of purchasing insurance across state lines as long as there is a basic floor for benefits that every state has to abide by so that no matter where you buy insurance you know you will get certain benefits, I think it is a good idea.

    Also, Republicans want tort reform which as a physician who is also Democrat I really believe that there should be tort reform.  Medical malpractice insurance is crazy right now and we doctors DO INDEED practice medicine sometimes as if we are going to be sued any minute and thus order too much tests. Unlike Republicans I do not feel that it is the end all of cutting cost in medicine but it would save $40 billion dollars on the overall package over 10 years. I say throw in tort reform and use that extra $40 billion that would be saved to improve affordability.

    Plus if nothing else, this will stop the frozen state that HCR is in right now and force it to a conclusion which IMO will end up being a reconciliation any ways unless a few Republicans jump on board.

    Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit."

    by Drdemocrat on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:51:41 AM PST

    •  I don't believe that's correct (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, RenMin

      If the republicans stand pat ........ and they will ..... then the ball is simply back in our court to pass it with the votes we have (a garbage bill) ... or kill it.

      That means moving the ball ...... zero yards.

      "This Space for Rent"

      by Detroit Mark on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:53:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Republicans want tort reform (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      because they want to shut the average person out of the court system. How do you suggest injured patients be compensated?

      The cost of malpractice insurance has not fallen in states with tort "reform".

      All that changes is access to the courts. I've seen stats showing that a small fraction of doctors are responsible for the majority of malpractice cases. Why are these guys allowed to continue to practice?

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:58:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tort reform doesn't have to shut the average (0+ / 0-)

        person out of the court system at all depending upon how it is designed.

        It can be designed to get rid of frivolous law suits but allow the average citizens in which there is indeed malpractice to get their due in court or arbitration.

        It CAN work.  

        Obama has said that he is open to tort reform and it can be designed right.

        Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit."

        by Drdemocrat on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:00:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But it has failed to (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jim bow, cybrestrike, RenMin

          bring down insurance costs in states where it has been instituted. Plus, judges already have the authority to throw frivolous suits out, and sanction attorneys who bring them.

          Define frivolous.

          Tort reform is just another item on the insurance companies' wish list, as far as I can tell.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:06:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  According to CBO it will save $40 billion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and we could use that money to improve affordability.

            Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit."

            by Drdemocrat on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:08:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whose pocket will (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jim bow, RenMin, orestes1963

              the $40 billion come from? The injured patient? The insurance company? The attorney who works on contingency for patients who cannot afford the up front $$$ to seek justice?

              Access to the courts is a basic right in a free society. All the reform measures I've seen work primarily by denying this access, usually by capping awards, which has the effect of making it impossible to hire an attorney.

              As I pointed out, none of the state restrictions imposed to date have brought down insurance costs, and that is the issue.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:16:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  How? (0+ / 0-)

          How do you differentiate the "frivolous" law suits from the meritorious ones?  In fact, it is unethical/sanctionable at present for a lawyer to bring a frivolous law suit, so what change can be instituted that does not in fact deny an injured victim of medical malpractice her day in court?

    •  I'm going to recommend this comment. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Not because I agree with it or even half of it but because I find it thoughtful.

      On the nationwide plans, I see no reason to have them.  But you need more than just there to be a federal minimum benefits package.  You need the insurance rating rules, the reserving requirements, the premium taxes, etc. to apply to the state of the consumer -- not the purchaser.  Even with the minimum benefits package applying to the state of the insurer, you worry about insurance companies mucking up the community ratings -- making health insurance unaffordable for people with pre-existing conditions -- by cherry-picking healthy people on the benefits they offer.

      On medical malpractice, such legislation may save the federal goverment $50 billion, but who pays for the $50 billion?  The woman whose breasts were amputated after the hospital mixed up her test results with that of a cancer patient.  The man who had both his legs amputated instead of just one because the hospital accidentally amputated the wrong leg.  The woman who got severely sick after her obstetrician forgot to take out the sponge.  What is the maximum amount each of these people should be allowed to collect for non-economic damages?  $250,000?  $500,000?  $750,000?  Any such cap seems inconsistent with fundamental American values of fairness and justice as we see it today.

    •  The goal is fact checking and truth telling. (0+ / 0-)

      As I see it, the main reason for the summit is to get out the FACTS about the Democratic healthcare reform bill.  That has been the problem from the beginning.

      The White House and the Democrats allowed the Republicans to set the narrative. And with the help of the echo chamber and the media stenographers, the Republicans were able to rule the day.

      The summit is a way to educate and inform the public about what is actually in the bill.  I think this can be accomplished.  It reminds me of the stimulus bill. Americans don't like the stimulus but the like all of the elements that make up the stimulus package (tax cuts, infrastructure, help for the states, high speed rail, clean energy projects).  This tells me that the White House has a messaging problem.  

      Bottom line, the American people need to know the facts about the healthcare reform package.  What's in it for them. No it is not a government takeover no matter how many times John Boehner says that.  It is built the on the employee based platform that currently exits.  

      The day the bill is signed quality, affordable health care will be a right and not a privilege.  Some insurance regulations will kick in immediately.

      The White House needs to speak clearly and concisely about how long it has taken to get to the point.  They  need to clearly explain what will happen if nothing is done. And they need to clearly explain the benefits for everyone for implementing the hcr package.  

      My guess is that c-span broadcast may be more transparency than the Republicans can handle.  We shall see.

      "Now is not a time for partisanship, it's a time for citizenship." President Barack Obama (01/07/10)

      by Ladyhawk on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:16:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Team Obama still runniing a campaign (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashoil, cybrestrike, orestes1963

    instead of getting policy enacted.

    Running for office and running a government is two different skills.

    "be a loyal plastic robot boy in a world that doesn't care" - Frank Zappa

    by Unbozo on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 08:54:26 AM PST

    •  If they're running a campaign . . . (0+ / 0-)

      they;re failing pretty miserably, aren't they?

      "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

      by RenMin on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:17:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Obama administration: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zinger99, RenMin

    For when you absolutely, positively can't be bothered to get it done.

  •  Bipartisan summits were common in the Bush years. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, RenMin

    Reagan and Bush 1 used them often as well.

    Oh wait.

  •  Thank you for cutting through the bullshit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashoil, cybrestrike, RenMin

    of this farce of a circus.

  •  Maybe you should just Macro this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverbird, cybrestrike, RenMin

    and put it out once a week.   Once again there's no leadership on the issue.  Once again the WH has decided that gimmicks will move this along and, I fear, once again the WH will be surprised when theri strategy blows up in their faces, either by a GOP group that will be better prepared than it was for his speech to their conference, or by belatedly realizing that there may some deal that the WH made vis-a-vis HCR (e.g. the deal with big pharma) that maybe they don't want aired on the teevee and they have to pull back, leading ot another embarrassing moment.

    •  Worst case (0+ / 0-)

      Obama. desperate to get a bill passed, agrees with GOP to cap medical malpractice damage awards, let consumers buy insurance across state lines, and provide a non-refundable tax credit for health insurance premiums.  That's it -- no other HCR (OK, maybe the GOP agrees to very diluted pre-existing condition limits).  The GOP crows that they saved the country from a government takeover, the Dem base is totally dispirited, and the Republicans retake the House in 2010.  

      Even as recently as the beginning of this year, I would have said this scenario is impossible.  Now, I'd say the chances are 50-50.

      "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

      by RenMin on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:23:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Most people could look at what was being (3+ / 0-)

    shoved at us and I think people were smarter that the Democratic Party thinks they are.  We looked at a very corporate friendly bill that only increased expenses for most people with or without insurance (not to mention being fined for not purchasing the corporation's faulty product) and we decided we were not interested in getting that bill passed.  Single payer is what we will have to have one of these days; nothing else is going to offer universal healthcare.

    2.5 trillion dollars have been "borrowed" since the [SS] system was "reformed" in the 80s and they simply don't want to pay it back. - dKos Blogger -

    by Silverbird on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:03:33 AM PST

  •  The House won't pass the Senate Bill so..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ....what is Obama supposed to do?  The House can put a quick end to all of this if it just passes the damn bill.

  •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin, Jampacked, jstipich

    be providing the leadership the Senate seems to be craving and help push the reconciliation fix through.

    Why the hell doesn't the Senate provide the leadership the Senate seems to be craving? Why the hell does the President have to hold their friggin' hands through the whole process, like the old guy at the self-checkout line who needs a store employee hovering over his shoulder the whole time?

    Why aren't people like Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, and Bernie Sanders standing up and demanding that Harry Reid grow a spine or lose his job? Seems to me like the Senators are covering for one another and putting all the blame on the President rather than putting it with their colleagues in the Democratic Senate "leadership."

    Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

    by mistersite on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:04:36 AM PST

    •  I agree. I keep seeing quotes from senators (0+ / 0-)

      saying the president needs to tell us what to do.  Why doesn't the senate start leading ! They know what to do!   Does anyone really think Pres Obama hasn't had conversations with Harry Reid and Pelosi.  He has !  They're not getting the job done.

      Eyes on the Prize People

      by jstipich on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:11:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, I've Been Reading Some of the Comments (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jim bow, pragprogress, RenMin, orestes1963

    -- No leadership from the WH on HCR. . . check.

    -- Public at large is tired of hearing about HCR reform. . . check.

    -- HCR bills are too complicated for the Public to understand, hence they remain unpopular and easy targets for detractors who spread disinformation. . .check.

    -- 2 TV broadcasts of bi-partisan consulting with the president on HCR will make all the above go away, scales will fall from the Public's eyes, Dems will score big political points, HCR will get done. . .you're kidding, right?

    How about this?  Everybody just shut up except for President Obama who should say very clearly what he will accept and what he will not accept in an HCR bill.  Introduce such an acceptable bill for the up-or-down vote.  Pass it or fail it.  Sign it or veto it.

    JUST  GET  IT  DONE one way or another.

    It's the process that's failing America, not the proposal.

    "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

    by Limelite on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:05:23 AM PST

    •  Good Point. The question is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      would he DO that?

      Does he really like to be remember as "When push comes to shove, I am proudly on the sideline."? Let us see the action.

      BTW, the senate bill fails in BOTH the process AND the contents. Do NOT assume American people are stupid.

  •  It is genius (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin, Jampacked

    If Obama hands the GOP another spanking like last week.

  •  Where is the White House? In the health (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin, orestes1963

    insurance industry's pocket, that's where. When they're not there, they are with Billy Tauzin and big Pharma.

    They don't give a rat's ass about healtcare reform. It's become obvious, painfully obvious.

    •  Here is where the White House is at (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      at least as I read it:

      An alarming new study shows that health care costs increased last year at the fastest rate in more than a half century.

      Health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person -- and is now projected to nearly double by 2019. If we don't act, this growing burden will mean more lost jobs, more families pushed into bankruptcy, and more crushing debt for our nation.

      The conclusion is clear: This isn't a problem we can kick down the road for another decade -- or even another year. We need to pass health reform now.

      We're incredibly close. But too many in Washington are now saying that we should delay or give up on reform entirely. So we need to make it crystal clear that Americans understand the stakes for our economy and our lives, and that we want action.

      Can you write a letter to the editor of your local paper right now?

      In just five minutes of your time, you can tell thousands of readers about this new report on spiraling costs, and why abandoning reform is just not an option.

      You can also help by posting this note on Facebook, letting your friends know about the new costs study and asking them to join you in writing a letter to a local paper.

      President Obama and many allies in Congress are working hard to finish the job -- but we can't rest until it's done. Your note will help break through the Washington spin and show members of Congress and the media what local voters really believe. Click here to get started:

      It's clear that we're in the fight of our lives to pass real reform. But after a century of trying, the finish line is finally in sight. As President Obama reminded us all in his State of the Union address, we're fighting for our families and our country -- and we don't quit.

      Thanks for making it possible,


      Mitch Stewart
      Organizing for America

      •  Oh? See, I thought he was kissing up to (0+ / 0-)

        repubs again. You know, this bipartisan meeting that he wants to have with them. It's gotta be bipartisan for goodness sakes.

        And we all know how that's gonna work out.

        •  I see this meeting more as an opportunity to (0+ / 0-)

          show the country that some of the repub ideas have been included and to tell the country what is actually in the bill.  Having the health care experts there should be very enlightening.

      •  Duh, you need to understand the WH (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        through insinuation and looking to your gut, not facts and the words coming out of various WH outlets. So when the President says he isn't quitting "on this [HCR] or anything" what you should really be thinking is "no more promises of unicorns Mr. President, you had your first year of your first term, now it is time to face the music".

  •  Sounds like Obama is still playing 17 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    dimension checkers.

  •  After the 1st year, what have you seen? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    On three most important things, economy, war, and HCR, our president has CONSISTANTLY shown he cannot lead on the last two. And for the most important one, the economy, after the stimulus bill his message or the lack of, has CONSISTANTLY been "Things are too bad, the Wall Street crowd are too greedy, I am angry, BUT..."

    Who cares what else th WH will say, and any new trial balloon is out there. (BTW how many balloons you have seen? I've lost count.) SHOW ME the action.

  •  Radio host Joe Madison was on the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ed Show a while back. He talked about explaining things "so even the goats can get at it." This means explaining the issue from the bottom of the complexity ladder and moving up. Democrats, Obama included start somewhere in the middle not with the basics and so don't move people up the ladder. The Republican talking points are simplistic lies that
    distort the picture. But since they start at the bottom of the ladder they attract more people.

    Abolish the Homeland Scrutiny Department.

    by hoplite9 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:12:38 AM PST

  •  11th dimensional chess? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PolitiCalypso, Jampacked, jtown

    Perhaps this is nothing more than an elaborate set-up to expose the depth of Republican obstructionism and, as Greg Sargent speculates lay the groundwork for passing the bill through reconciliation by providing them cover.

    That thought entered my mind as well.  If it's true, and Obama intends to follow through, I think it's a very good move politically.  It should insulate Democrats with independents (nothing will work with Republicans) against Republican attacks that the Dems rammed the bill through.  (Not that they wouldn't be fully justified in doing so, but that argument has some traction with voters who don't follow the issue closely -- in fact, didn't a recent poll show that most voters don't even realize the Republicans are filibustering healthcare?)

    However, given the sorry history of Obama's "leadership" on this issue, I can't say that I'm optimistic, or that I believe this is really what's going on.  I hope it is, but I don't think it is.

    "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

    by RenMin on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:13:58 AM PST

    •  M-theory hasn't been confirmed yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If they're playing 11-dimensional chess, they're trying to do it without knowing whether the chessboard really is 11-dimensional.  And even if it is 11-dimensional, they are trying to play without knowing all the rules or even knowing all the pieces that they have before them.  </physics nerd analogy>

      I'd like to believe that Obama is this good, but sadly, we haven't seen much of the brilliant strategist that we saw during the campaign.  Something happened when he hired his WH staff in Nov. of 08.  Since then, this administration has had massive problems with messaging, leaks, and getting caught flat-footed.  I hope that this summit will expose to the American people that the Republicans either HAVE no ideas and don't care a whit that people die from lack of health care, or are flaming liars who will claim to support certain provisions but then vote against them come crunch time.  That's unfortunately all that we can expect to come out of it.  I think most people regard this as a Democratic failure, and this summit is probably little more than a last ditch attempt to pin ownership on the GOP.  That's cynical, I know, but that's what it looks like.

      "Those puny little ants outnumber us 100 to 1, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life." -- Hopper from A Bug's Life explains the class war

      by PolitiCalypso on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:42:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good man, bad staff (0+ / 0-)

        This happens EVERY time you get a President who is "too much Mr Nice Guy". He picks his buddies to run things for him, and the buddies turn out to be incompetent or corrupt or (usually) both.

        Ulysses S. Grant: trusted his friends not to be crooks. But they were.

        Warren G. Harding: Didn't care that his friends were crooks.

        Jimmy Carter: Finally wised up but way too late.

        Bill Clinton: Couldn't see through the "bipartisan" bullshit.

        Barack Obama: On track to be Carter/Clinton Redux.

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:05:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Leadership (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin, Jampacked, jtown

    I believe this is leadership.  We can not lead the Senate to do HCR without convincing the citizens the GOP is obstructionist.  The Democratic Senate needs to demonstarate once agian and in a public way the GOP is opsed to real change that does not meet their supposed free market principles.

    •  Respectfully, the only people paying attention... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin the details already know the facts and have so seen this play acted out in enough theaters.

      There are only a few remaining steps to get closure and none involve votes from Republicans or the public.  

      HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in - national single-payer NOW.

      by kck on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:30:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They ARE obstructionist because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      as the opposition party, their job IS to obstruct.

      For Mr. president and his team , their job is to CONVINCE American people their way IS the right one. What has been shown seems to be, that he lacks bedrock convitions! Everyone please ask youself some simple questions and answer honestly:

      Do you trust him on reigning in the Wall Street after the AIG debacle? Do you trust him on war or peace after the Afghanistan surge debacle? Do you trust him on HCR after the senate bill debacle?

      Now you see why his team is in water. BTW the ideals the Democratic Party stands for are not in water, instead they are quite popular.

  •  I don't think the summit is what you think it is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluesteel, GN1927, RenMin, Jampacked

    The way forward is to expose the GOP, then use reconcilation. I know Obama does not expect the GOP to give him votes just because he called a summitt.  I think this gives some DEMs coverage for going reconciliation. This summitt is just as much about the DEMs as it is about the GOP.  It's about getting the damn thing done.

    Recommended by:
    al23, RenMin

    I have no other words, just a picture.

    "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

    by Wayward Son on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:19:03 AM PST

  •  Obama is clueless here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have to come to that conclusion. This is why I voted for Hillary. Given what she and her husband endured with Ken Starr, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott, she wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to be "bipartisan". She knew the lessons from 1993-1994. Back then Obama had yet to even win his first election to the IL State Senate.

    Obama is clueless here. Whatever infrastructure enabled him to win the election has failed since he took office. It's as if he had found inner David Broder. What will it take to get through his apparently dense, thick skull that the Republicans have no intention of being "bipartisan" with him? Is he that stupid? I don't mean to sound insulting, but I'm really at wits end here. Even Paris Hilton would realize that the Republicans aren't going to work with Obama.

    I wouldn't expect much leadership from Obama on this or any other major legislative issues. It's clear to me that he has no idea of how to govern effectively. He is living in some fantasy land where supposedly "bipartisanship" reigns.

    I never bought into the "message" of Obama to the extent that others did. I feared that he was very much all show and little substance. I was worried when people I knew--all of them Democrats--were comparing him to "JFK" and "how he knew to bring people together". I didn't buy into the Obama worship because I had concerns.

    It pains me to type this. It really does. I was hoping that Obama could accomplish something but he has failed. Like all too many Democrats in DC he lacks the skills of effective PR and messaging. He doesn't know how to handle the Republicans effectively.

    •  My sad feeling is (0+ / 0-)

      I thought (am still thinking) that Hillary is probably worse. Any way you never know. She didn't win. What she does now is to act on the President's policies, so you cannot judge how she would be the President by her current performances.

      On the other hand I am very hopeful that we (American people and the Democratic party) will survive and thrive, IN SPITE OF him. It is a good thing, and a sad thing at the same time.

    •  I was opposed to Hillary and I think you're right (0+ / 0-)

      That is extremely painful to admit.  In terms of corporate legislation, I don't think she would have been any different, but HCR would have been her "pet" and I really don't think she would have let the Republicans or wishy-washy Democrats tell her no.  Being stubborn and (this is not a negative thing IMO) vindictive can really come in handy sometimes, LOL.

      As far as Obama goes... I think this is pathological.  There are people who honestly think that they can turn ANYONE into a friend if they are just accommodating enough.  It's like the parents who tell their kids that if they are just nice enough, the school bully will eventually become their friend.  It will NEVER happen because the bully doesn't want to be their friend; the bully just wants to beat them up and trash the schoolhouse.  I was not concerned about Obama's message because I figured it was just sloganeering and marketing; I didn't think he actually believed it.  But apparently this man does believe his own BS.  It makes you want to grab him by the shoulders and say between clenched teeth, "Snap out of it!  These people think you were born in Kenya, stole the election via ACORN, and want to dismantle capitalism!  NO they do NOT want to work with you!"

      It's frustrating.

      "Those puny little ants outnumber us 100 to 1, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life." -- Hopper from A Bug's Life explains the class war

      by PolitiCalypso on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:53:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think the appeal to bipartisanship is (0+ / 0-)

      a tactic more than anything else.  Appeal to the voters that we are trying to work with the repubs and then when they obstruct point it out.

      As Obama said in his meeting with the repub house members if some of them even try to work with him their base will oppose them because they have portrayed him as someone who is trying to ruin America.  So I think he is quite well aware of the games they are playing and he is trying to make the public aware of it as well.

      But I will say that you comment is very demeaning.  Do you really think Hillary could have gotten HCR further along than he did?  What happened the last time she tried?  And I think Hillary is doing a great job as Sec of State and have no problem with her on a personal level and, in fact, think she was much maligned during the Clinton admin.  But can you see that what the repubs are doing now is analagous to what they did to Clinton?  I think the dem base stood up for Clinton even when what he accomplished was not appealing to the dem base but they are not doing the same thing for Obama but constantly criticize him.

      •  I say this because Hillary endured Ken Starr (0+ / 0-)

        and the rest of the GOP leadership. Having had to deal with them I think that she would have handled certain issues much better. Keep in mind that Obama doesn't win his Senate seat until 2004. Throughout the 1990s he was still in Chicago.

  •  I don't think this qualifies as (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pundit, RenMin

    11th dimensional chess-- everyone involved must realize this is about Obama trying to regain some rhetorical ground/political capital after the Disaster of 2009. Obviously no GOPers are going to vote for anything, so the point is to get them on record with their shitty ideas.

    It's the same logic as forcing them to actually filibuster, phone book and all, on CSPAN.

    If Obama can put on a good, aggressive, Baltimore-style performance, I think it'll be worthwhile...assuming they push the reconciliation fix right after wards.

  •  Three cheers for the progressives. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pundit, RenMin

    Love it that Sherrod Brown, Al Franken and Bernie Sanders raised the ante by speaking out for WH action. Unfortunately, while having a manana attitude is wonderful, this WH is way too laid-back. Their reaction is to have a meeting? Late in the month? With Republicans?
    I completely support Pelosi and the Progressive Caucus standing strong for the content and principles. She can take control now by making the next move. She and Reid should agree on a reconciliation bill and get that signed by both houses. Now.

    Energize Congress for jobs and financial regulatory legislation by taking the momentum and getting a reconciliation bill coincident with a Senate bill to Obama's desk before the theatrics with the Republicans.  

    HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in - national single-payer NOW.

    by kck on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:27:33 AM PST

  •  I don't see this ending well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Either the President takes the Republicans demand to start from scratch, or the Republicans get to sit there on national TV exposing every dastardly backroom deal buried in the midst of the 2700(?) pages of this bill, and I'd be willing to put good money that there are plenty.

    If HCR as currently proposed is polling in the 30's right now, I'd wager that it will be in the 20's after all of this.

    If you're playing 11-dimensional chess it's because you've already anticipated the other side's moves way before they even thought of them. It's as clear as day that the White House never intended to be where we are on health care reform, given that Obama repeatedly reiterated his confidence that it would be done by the end of 2009.

  •  HCR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The GOP

    "what plan?

    the GOP has none.

    continue the status as it is-but slowly see the USA disintegrate into a bankrupt banana republic. Something like Cuba under Batista."

  •  this is a mockery of a travesty of a sham; this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is Obama playing Clinton--august, high-principled, and above the fray--while he quietly sells Congress and the rest of us down the river. Likely result: Obama is re-elected by the thinnest of margins (where playing to the middle tends to leave you), Congressional majority gone. Then we have the same gridlock of the last 30 years, and more Wall St-sanctioned sellouts.

    There is no welfare to kill this time, but privatization of social security is a real possibility. He has seemed to dangle it in front of Republicans in the SOTU and in their little meeting the other week (p.r. triumph, substance disaster). Flat-earthers here will continue to worship his Cheshire-cat smile, peeling away by the ones or twos (or just heading back to the porn sites or Survivor re-reuns), America will continue to die.

    Let's let the pols do the selling out, you and I keep fighting for what's right.

    by Matthew Detroit on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:40:11 AM PST

  •  The very fact that Dkos comments go back (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and forth as to whether it's congress fault for not pushing this thing through, or the WH fault for not pushing harder on Congress and supplying the population with clearer messaging just proves that the lack of leadership is apparent. Whose job it is to provide is also unclear, as it becomes a chicken or the egg cycle. But one thing is perfectly clear about this thread and others on HCR: there is a palpable lack of leadership to get this thing through. And THAT is exactly why, IMHO, the public is starting to drag out that old meme that democrats can't effectively govern! Just somebody please stand up and provide THE course to get this thing done. The American populace will thank you in November!

  •  ONE MORE TIME! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jampacked, jstipich, GrandmaMJ

    Please drop this meme that it's the President who has not been involved enough. The President is no longer a Senator, no longer a legislator. Why are even bloggers not holding the people who wrote the bill to this point, responsible for not finishing the legislation? Why are they waiting for Obama to tell them how to complete their legislation? Do Dems want Obama to utter the reconciliation word so that if the public doesn't like the idea, Dems can blame Obama for suggesting it? I don't understand why the President is to blame for not finishing legislation he didn't write? I like Al Franken but, why did it take him so long to come out last week and say that the way forward is to pass a recolciliation bill and the Senate bill? Shouldn't Reid have done this last year before the August townhalls? Sure, Obama could suggest a way forward but, that's not his job now. I hope they get this bill fixed and passed and I also hope that Reid, Lincoln and any other conservadem get's their asses kicked out of office. If we can pick up New Hampshire and a few other states it won't matter. Reid would likely be replaced with Chuck Shumer.

  •  a new drug for Obama? (0+ / 0-)

    that's it, Obama's moved from Cigs to something much harder if he still thinks engaging Rs is going to get him anywhere. He is rapidly becoming Einstein's definition of insane.

  •  Honestly I've given up on Obama and HCR. (0+ / 0-)

    I do appreciate his efforts at bipartisanship but c'mon it's a two way street.

    Is this a psychological thing on his part or a political move?  I'm beginning to think the former as I can't fathom how this will help politically. I understand Greg Sargent's sentiment but I'm less than hopeful. OTOH, Obama has gotten military support on DADT.

    Sometimes compromise is surrender. Perhaps a 12 step group to grant him the ability to understand the difference is called for.

    The situation reminds me of some divorce "mediation" proceedings where the controlling authoritarian spouse is unwilling to mediate and the wife keeps on giving.

    SCOTUS, 1-21-10, revising Dr. Seuss: "Even though you see or hear them in every which way, a corporation's a person, no matter how huge."

    by SuburbanGrrrl on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:48:00 AM PST

  •  Mixed messages, hollow rhetoric & undermining (0+ / 0-)
    Just another day in the Obama administration.
  •  The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly! (0+ / 0-)

    The Good:
    Glad to here that now that the HCR ball is "goal-to-go" on the 5 yard line, President Obama has no intention of letting Republicans punt the ball back to the opposite End Zone to start the drive for HCR over again.  (Sorry, about the football analogy.  Still hung over from the Superbowl I guess.)  If this is simply a way to show on live TV how reasonable the Democrats HCR ideas are compared to those of the "Party-of-NO", and then move forward without them through a Reconciliation fix, its got my approval.  It also might be a way for Congressional Dems. to put the Public Option back on the table since it is in the House bill (not hopeful).

    The Bad:
    On the other hand if this is an attempt by President Obama to put some Republican ideas in the bill to create a vail of "bi-partisanship" when Republicans won't likely vote for the bill anyway, or if its simply an attempt by the President to extoll the virtues of the Senate bill to try to pressure the House to vote for it "as is", - its got my disapproval.

    The Ugly:
    This could get ugly if the President and/or Dems. in Congress don't operate under the "K.I.S.S. Principle" and keep it simple for the public to understand.  Delving too much into the details and the complicated cost analysis, could further allienate an already skeptical public.  They need to frame the debate in terms of the plight of the un-insured with specific cases of lost homes and preventable deaths, and the benefits in cost savings and health insurance security (i.e., prevents arbitrary policy cancellations) it will provide to the currently insured.  Having a televised debate that focuses around CBO scores and complicated government cost analyses, will not help win public support.  Also, the Republicans could use this as an opportunity to grandstand some of their stupid, but simple proposals like tax credits or tort reform which the public could latch on to.

    Outcome?:There is no doubt that this is a risky move on the President's part.  Sort of like the New Orlean's Saints decision to open the second half with an on-side kick.  If it works, it could make the Republicans look foolish, embolden some shakey Dems. and pave the way for the Dem.s to pass a Reconciliation bill and HCR without the Republicans.  But if the meeting "bombs" for the Democrats, it will encourage more of them to "run-for-the-hills" and kill HCR for at least the remainder of the term.

    We all need to keep our fingers crossed X!    

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:54:03 AM PST

  •  Obama needs to enter the Senate Temple (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vintage clothes
    and start over-turning the gaming and bribery tables.
  •  MC Joan answered her own question: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndySteve, GN1927, Jampacked

    Where is the WH on HCR?  It's quite clear that the White House wants the House to pass the Senate HCR bill, something that I and others have advocated for weeks.

    The problem is with the House Dems.  They are afraid of the current political environment and are simply making excuses for not acting.

    The entire blogosphere should recognize this and push the House Dems to pass the Senate HCR bill now.

    What Obama is doing is trying to convince the House that the GOP will not cooperate and the only road to passage is through the Senate bill and that it will be a good thing for all in the party if they proceeded to vote for it.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:08:05 AM PST

    •  uh DLC astroturfer? (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:

      The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. -kos

      by vintage clothes on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:26:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  At least read some of the commenter's (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueyedace2, bubbanomics

        history and check the user ID moran.

        •  you're right I went kneejerk (0+ / 0-)

          I apologize tokhyber, his last diary had this great nugget of truth:

          What I am suggesting is that this failure could cause a sea change in political support similar to what happened to the GOP in 2006 and 2008.  It has already unmoored me from my previously held political views up to this point.  I've always been a solid Democrat, but I am an American first, and I expect government to work and for politicians to do the best they can to fight for what they believe in.  Bill Clinton redeemed those values.  Barack Obama appears to be running from them.

          The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. -kos

          by vintage clothes on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:42:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When I wrote that statement (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dirtandiron, Jampacked

            I was critical of the President's silence on the issue at that time.  He has since shown strong leadership beginning with the State of the Union.  

            However, I would really appreciate if he would tap his inner Lyndon Johnson, and call all the House Dems up to the White House and rip them to shreds and demand that they do what he wants or he will withhold every campaign dollar, expose their shoddy business deals and mistresses, and basically make them fear his wrath more than they fear an erratic electorate or the GOP.  I think persuasion calls for that type of hardball in critical moments and I think we are in such a moment.

            Alternative rock with something to say:

            by khyber900 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:03:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  see that's something I think works (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              You and many others were and are criticizing Obama. One thing was his silence on HCR, and look at that criticizing him made him change. Not saying just your diary, but I mean all of the criticism from the left combined. I think it's still not enough though, but others on this site disagree and want us to criticize him left because they say it's like a circular firing squad. That's the fundamental disagreement I think.

              The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. -kos

              by vintage clothes on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:08:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Have you seen vintage clothes' history? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arbiter, CKendall

          Fox News in a Nutshell: IOKIYAR and INOKIYO (It's Not OK If You're Obama)

          by wry twinger on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:11:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  HRing dissenting voices is the preferred method (0+ / 0-)

        of debate these days.  This is perfectly legitimate political POV and it is HR abuse to hide it because you do not agreee.  

        If rules are for one, they need to eb for ALL.

  •  I really and truly hate to say this but it seems (0+ / 0-)

    like President Obama cares more about how things seem/look (the politics) to actually GETTING IT DONE... i.e strong-arming the dems in congress to get this done (via reconciliation). I hope I am wrong. I honestly do.

    "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

    by hester on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:35:56 AM PST

  •  The president is trying to make the process look (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    more open and appetizing to the average non-politically obsessed voters in America. GET IT ??  He knows the Repubs will not go along, but at least HE will be doing the right thing.  Honestly, the people on this site are almost as dense as the tea partiers.   Don't you get anything that is not black and white and spelled out in front of you ??
    The president is trying to take the lead after the house screwed this up.

    Eyes on the Prize People

    by jstipich on Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:07:50 AM PST

  •  Democrats in Congress need to stop blaming (0+ / 0-)
    Big Daddy O for their own ineptitude.  Their chronic whining sounds like nails on a chalkboard a this point.  The President's job does not entail holding Al Franken's stubby little hand every step of the way.  These senators need to man up, shut up and GET THE JOB DONE!

    That's why they were elected in the first place.

  •  Obama's trying to pressure the House (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    into voting for the Senate HCR bill.

    I got an interesting call tonight from Organizing for America (Obama's grassroots arm).  The woman on the line was asking me to call my representative, who "wants to rework the bill", and ask him to vote for the existing (Senate) bill as-is.

    I happen to be from New York, and am already paying near the threshold of the so-called "Cadillac Tax" for health insurance.  If the Senate bill passes, it's a sure thing that I'm going to have to downgrade my family's insurance. IMHO, the Senate bill is trying to reduce the rate of UNinsured by increasing the rate of UNDERinsured, particularly in high-cost states like mine, so I really can't support it.

    It's interesting, however, that Obama seems to be trying to ram the Senate bill through the House, while he's publicly saying that he's open to modifying it.

  •  Rahm is a class act (0+ / 0-)

    I smell him working this attempt to cram the Senate bill through with no changes-just the give away to private insurance and pharma as designed by the WH.  I have resigned from DFA in disgust and put them on my spam filter.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site