Skip to main content

While Gibb's apologizes for "inartful" wording, he goes on to reiterate his animosity toward those of us on the left.

Isn't that like punching someone in the face and then saying, "Sorry, I meant to punch you in the stomach."?

I'm not accepting the apology. I'm angrier than ever with this administration. To hell with their "historic" legislation. Did it actually address the problems? Or did it simply continue to serve corporate interests? It wasn't Gibbs who triggered my anger today, though. Read on....

I was talking to a friend today, who is a psychologist. She, and all in her profession in Massachusetts (and probably beyond), just got notice that as of September 1, their reimbursement rates will drop 40%.

Take a moment. Imagine your boss sending you an email which let you know that your paycheck will be cut by 40%. Imagine that they had cut your paycheck 25% the year before. Just like that. No justification. No negotiating. Bam.

My friend is thinking about whether she can afford to continue her practice. She says that many, many psychologists in MA will be going out of business.

So, yes, the "historic" healthcare legislation made sure that there are people getting insurance coverage who didn't have it before. However, it did not address the profiteering of the insurance industry, who sees this extra burden as an excuse to cut costs. So, those newly insured patients may not have practitioners to go to (these kinds of cuts are not limited to psychologists), unless they can pay out-of-pocket. I'm guessing that if they could do that, they would have had insurance in the first place.

I'm empathizing with a friend about her anguish over how she is treated as a commodity and her searing concern for her patients whom she may have to abandon. Then, I get home and hear Gibbs slamming the left for pushing for stronger legislation.

His apology isn't about his animosity towards us. Its about his "inartful" way of expressing it.

He thinks we need to be drug tested? Well, perhaps they need some psychiatric exams. Last I heard, it wasn't so sound to be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

We don't need useless legislation that makes them feel good. We need meaningful legislation.

Dictatorship? Last I heard, we elected a Democratic majority. When did we give up majority rule? When did the party with the least support of the populus get to control the agenda. They had their (8 years of very long) day. The country ousted them and put in our team. Our team that ran on a fairly progressive platform.

Can anyone say, "Bait and switch."?

We expected our populist president to push for a populist agenda. So, when something close to 70% of the populous supports a public option, how is it that our elected representatives can't include that in the health insurance bill?

To date, I've been critical but supportive. I'm willing to accept that the legislative process is challenging and that this administration inherited unprecedented problems. I believe that unprecedented problems require unprecedented boldness, but I get that we can't always have that. Still, it has to be understandable that we will cry out for what we really think is needed. That should be a healthy tension.

They should use us and our ability to rally as a support for their own push for bolder action. Instead, regardless of the words he expresses it with, Gibbs has made one thing clear: this administration holds us in contempt.

The worst thing about this is that it plays into the suspicion that they are just another set of corporatists in office, with no intention to actually challenge corporate control of our society. The "too big to fail" line suggests more: that they like the corporate state we're in. If we look at every bill and figure out why "compromises" were made, why they are so watered down as to be meaningless, we will find a money trail. At the end of the trail are corporations.

So, while I've been critical, but supportive, today I am simply offended and wondering what to do with that.

Originally posted to UnaSpenser on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:32 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  This is getting out of control. (6+ / 0-)

    why is it that everyone here thinks what he said was about them?

    and now thats absolutely the last time I am commentating in one of these diaries.

    Down with Prop H8! Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

    by GlowNZ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:35:24 PM PDT

    •  You sure? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "So, am I right or what?"

      by itzik shpitzik on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:36:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  because I was one of those (7+ / 0-)

      who felt that the HCR should have been more radical and didn't see the point to what they did.

      Pls support a BETTER Dem: @Mac4Mass http://www.actblue.com/page/mac

      by UnaSpenser on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:37:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amk for obama

        didn't see the point to what they did.

        I can understand thinking the bill was too little, too watered down, etc but not seeing how there are any benefits from it is ridiculous.

        •  Insurance stock went up (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          churchylafemme, neroden, pawtucketpat

          so the foundational issue with our healthcare system was not addressed and its already biting us in the ass.

          Pls support a BETTER Dem: @Mac4Mass http://www.actblue.com/page/mac

          by UnaSpenser on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:50:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I certainly hope that wasn't really your measure (0+ / 0-)

            of how the insurance companies thought they were going to benefit.

            ALL stocks have been up, because in late 2008, the stock market crashed, health insurance companies included.  By the time HCR was signed March this year, all stocks were trading significantly higher than they had a year earlier, right after the crash.

            This is not a book (Atlas Shrugged) to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown, with great force. - Dorothy Parker

            by edwardssl on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:20:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, no, up relative to the market (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, if you're watching a sector you have to compare it to the general market.

              Not that any of these stock quotes mean anything due to the incredibly low volume of real trading (as opposed to high-speed trading) in the market lately... but that's another matter for another diary.....

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:24:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you think Health insurance (0+ / 0-)

              Companies traded much higher after the HCR passed?

              Because they have a guaranteed money supply from the Compulsive language of the bill.

              Obviously Congress had much money washing their pockets to get that language, thus eliminating the risk in the Health Insurance industry while at the same time guaranteeing record profits while at the same time bailing them out.

              But the Mandate is a good thing right? Unlike, say, capping Hospitals, clinics and doctors to what they can charge Medicaid, thus driving medical costs way down. Hospitals and clinics and doctors recieve 185% above actual cost of a procedure from Medicaid, However when charging Private Insurance, there is no limit, and as such, charge anywhere from 300-600% above actual cost. And people wonder ehy it is so expensive. It isn't the Health Insurance companies doing the charging, it is Hospitals and clinics and private doctors that drove privant insurance costs through the roof and the current HCR bill forces people to pay for that insurance without addressing the root of the problem.

              Now I support the Pre-Existing Conditions and the Medication provisions of the HCR, but the Compulsory language hurts America much more than it helps.

              Address the problem with the medical dual pricing for Hospitals, clinics, and private doctors, kill the Insurance company bailout language, give a single payer provision and give a public option, keep pre-existing conditions and medication language, and open cross state line insurance purchasing.

              Then we will have a true HCR.

    •  I think there has been such a huge reaction... (6+ / 0-)

      ....because it appears that the White House has shit upon progressives/the left one too many times.

      I mean, they seem to go out of their way to be offensive.  

    •  What's out of control is Gibbs. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Joieau

      Dean was wrong.
      We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

      by shpilk on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:46:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps a case of excessive self-absorbtion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soonergrunt, amk for obama

      bordering on egomania?

      God has no religion. - Gandhi

      by OIL GUY on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:49:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Their key political tool is to build an "us" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, pawtucketpat

      narrative. Those other people are defective. They are naysayers, dead-enders, mis-informed. You don't want to be one of them, so think like we do.

      This is just a different brand of divisive politics. Mind control. group think.  The tactic is terrible. This administration isn't bringing people together anymore then the last one was.

    •  It's like when somebody posts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      something negative about batshit crazy Christians and all hell breaks loose.

      The comeback  "well if you're not a batshit crazy Christian (just a regular one), this doesn't apply to you so calm down"  rarely is entirely convincing.

    •  Possibly because the people Gibbs mentioned (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Tom Taaffe

      don't actually exist in reality -- there is no "professional left" that will only be happy with "Canadian healthcare" and wants to "eliminate the Pentagon."

      So unless we think Gibbs is literally delusional, we know he's talking about someone -- but because he acted like an ass, he didn't really say who he was talking about.  So people have to guess at what he means, because he didn't make himself clear.

      He's the White House Press Secretary.  His job is to articulate the Administration's positions to the media.  This was a pathetic job by him.  The tempest in a teapot is on him.

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:31:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey GlowNZ. You've identified a wide-spread (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      trend.  

      And meaning is in the ear of the beholder.

      I heard and mostly agreed with an analysis that Gibb's remarks were an insult to Martin Luter King Jr., and surprisingly found myself agreeing.

      Earlier in the day, I was encouraging folks to stay focused and let this blow over.

      But, the more I read the more I predict, that poor ole Gibbs' has stepped on a land mine, and become the symbol of much deeper issues the administration is having with liberals, progressives, left-wing folks, the GLBT, civil liberties and 4th Amendmentment folks, unions, etc.

      I'm now thinking Obama's best option might be to discover that Gibb's needs to spend more time with his family, (and maybe Rahm, too) as a gesture to Party healing and reconciliation.

      Feelings are running deep on this one.  The "Force" resonates strongly with this one, my friend.

      Kind of sad, really.  I was just starting to warm up to Gibbs.  But, we can and should do a lot better with such an upfront position, espcially with the election coming up.

      His replacement should be absolute top notch though - no on the job training time will be available.

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:10:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh enough on this already, sez me. Please? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moonpal

    "So, am I right or what?"

    by itzik shpitzik on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:35:42 PM PDT

  •  He wasn't referring to YOU (8+ / 0-)

    He was referring to people like Jane Hamsher and David Sirota who go out of their way to trash Obama. The idea that Obama can't push back against criticism just because it's from the left wing is ludicrous.

    Wanting Obama to do more is okay. But don't smear Obama and call him names, or even say that he's like Bush (or even worse than Bush), which has no basis in reality.

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:36:38 PM PDT

    •  I see the HCR thing the same way Hamsher does (4+ / 0-)

      so, he was, in effect, speaking to me.

      Pls support a BETTER Dem: @Mac4Mass http://www.actblue.com/page/mac

      by UnaSpenser on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:37:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stop thinking (3+ / 0-)

        that this is about you. You're just a useless, nameless blogger (and so am I, and most people here). Gibbs couldn't care less about you. Are you really willing to smear and abandon the left wing just because you can't get what YOU want?

        People panic too much on this site.

        by thematt523 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:41:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wow, nice attitude (9+ / 0-)

          I didn't abandon the left wing. I'd be abandoning myself. I feel that the administration has.

          I'm not simply stomping my feet because I didn't get what I want. What a condescending way to speak to me.

          Pls support a BETTER Dem: @Mac4Mass http://www.actblue.com/page/mac

          by UnaSpenser on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:44:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, but, then what are you doing? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            amk for obama

            Because that's exactly what Jane Hamsher did. She teamed up with Grover Norquist to kill the HCR bill. Would you REALLY do something like that?

            Look, it's fine that you disagree with the administration. I do a lot as well. You can even be vocal about it. But don't take small things out of context to explicitly take Obama down, like David Sirota does.

            People panic too much on this site.

            by thematt523 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:54:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And by the way (0+ / 0-)

              I support Mac D'Alessandro as well.

              People panic too much on this site.

              by thematt523 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:56:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Gibbs is his spokesperson (6+ / 0-)

              and this isn't the first time they've expessed animosity towards progressives. It's one thing to acknowledge differences, but to demonize us? The tension can be healthy, if we're treated with respect. That's not what's being expressed and this isn't a one off, so I don't think its small.

              Plus, it would be so different if they had been fighting for the liberal agenda and were expressing their own frustrations with what they have to contend with. Instead, they don't want to look at war crimes, because that's just looking back? They don't want to push for single payer or even a pubic option? They push for further violations of the warrantless stuff?

              You can't move the liberal agenda forward, well, ok? But to not really try and to go further to the right in some cases? And then be upset with those who rallied to get you into office because they're upset about it? I think they have issues.

              And, no, I didn't join the Hamsher route of siding with Norquist. But I was not happy and see the legislation as a giant fail. I'll be gleefully remorseful about my poor judgment if I turn out to be wrong. I promise.

              Pls support a BETTER Dem: @Mac4Mass http://www.actblue.com/page/mac

              by UnaSpenser on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:06:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I didn't hear an apology. (9+ / 0-)

    Was there an 'I'm sorry' or an 'I apologize?'

  •  I Like To Try And Take A Zen (4+ / 0-)

    approach to the world. I knew Obama wasn't as liberal as I was. Knew he wasn't going to vote the way I wanted on many issues. I'd have to be stupid to know this wasn't the case. That folks like Gibbs dislike folks like myself calling him names and to account, well I bet they are not so happy about that. He just said what he thought. Nothing more nothing less.

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by webranding on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:40:17 PM PDT

  •  Gibbs represents where most of this Party is. (7+ / 0-)

    Corporatist, craven to the military industrial complex, Wall Street, Wal-Mart.

    They don't care about the people, except to use them as props.
    He really is letting it all hang out.
    'Truthtellin'.  

    I don't think it's the 'dirty hippies' who are going to frost Gibbs' cookies: it's the working class and unemployed. They'll be making their voices heard, in various ways. Sure they may vote, but they not volunteer to help campaigns. Maybe they'll do what I do when the DNC/DCCC/DSCC calls. Hang up the phone.

    Meanwhile, I will be working for my candidates in NH, because I believe they are from the Democratic wing of the Party. Even though I'm not longer a Democrat, I'll be working for them.

    But not for Gibbs.

    Dean was wrong.
    We don't need to take our country back. We need to take our Party back.

    by shpilk on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:41:13 PM PDT

  •  Diary Not Accepted. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina
  •  You say to hell with Obama's historic health care (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    diamondqueen
    Hidden by:
    FeDhu

    legistation, and I say that all the backstabbing bastards like you who would rather stand on idealogical purity than actually help people can kiss my ass!!!  You idealogical purists are no better than the bible thumpers.  Your theology may be different, but it's the same old tune.  You see no shades of grey, and you would rather judge others than actually help them!!!  Screw you and all of the other backstabbing bastards who are trying to take down our President!  I hope your happy when you help to elect Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich in 2012!

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself

    by bhouston79 on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:00:51 PM PDT

  •  I have 6 kids. Every now and then, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amk for obama

    over a beer, I complain to a friend about one or more of them about their "hard to understand" behavior.

    I still love 'em! And always will.

    Grow up!

    Peace

    Some people make you want to change species

    by ulookarmless on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:13:32 PM PDT

  •  Who's ever said he's a populist? (4+ / 0-)

    We expected our populist president to push for a populist agenda

    Were you been paying attention at all?  Edwards was the populist candidate, not Obama.

    This is not a book (Atlas Shrugged) to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown, with great force. - Dorothy Parker

    by edwardssl on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:16:18 PM PDT

    •  Indeed, Obama just played one on TV . . . (4+ / 0-)

      you know, with the small donor schtick and all that.

      In any event kids, remember next time around, we won't get fooled again.

      •  Sorry, he didn't play one on TV either. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden

        Perhaps we have a different definition of what a populist is, although, considering Edwards was a multi-millionaire, I never could understand why he was considered one.

        So, good luck with that whole "let's primary Obama" thing.  But just so you know, he's not running this year.

        This is not a book (Atlas Shrugged) to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown, with great force. - Dorothy Parker

        by edwardssl on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:24:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never considered any of the big three (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          Dem candidates to be anything close to populist - Edwards was simply a warmongering, naked opportunist.    And he wasn't even necessarily the worst of the three (needless to say, the whole primary season was very, very depressing).

        •  whether genuine or just a poser (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          churchylafemme, Roadbed Guy, neroden

          Obama rode the back of populist opposition to the war and Bush and got past Hillary Clinton because he wasn't in the Senate when Clinton and the rest of the fakes voted for two wars, US Patriot Act and a host of other right-wing legislation. And he provided a viable alternative for those who would never vote for another Clinton after Welfare Reform and NAFTA.

          He was also wrapped in the legacy of MLK and the civil rights movement as the fruit of a long, long struggle and swept to power on the backs of all those who were desperate for someone to save them from economic disaster.

          While a lot of energy has been spent by his shills, downplaying that populist campaign posture (reducing our expectations), he would not have been elected had he not played all those populist cards.

          He may be a status quo centrist, but he won because he promised us change and invited us to 'hope'. Those are populist themes.

          •  Since when are "change" and "hope" (0+ / 0-)

            populist themes?

            The repubs are hoping for change, too, but they're certainly not populists.

            Obama didn't have to play "populist" cards. After Edwards, or Kucinich, dropped out, populists had a choice - support Hillary or support Obama.

            Hillary had a known history, Obama did not.

            Obama didn't have to play any card.

            This is not a book (Atlas Shrugged) to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown, with great force. - Dorothy Parker

            by edwardssl on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:50:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, many repubs are populist (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              Racist, sexist, violent, bigoted, irrational populists, but populists nonetheless.  The theocratic types are largely populist.

              The big-business group has been controlling them, but it's coming apart at the seam.

              Agree with the rest though....

              -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

              by neroden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:29:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Apparently not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              But therein lies the cynical use of ambigious words. But that bogus crap doesn't travel far, if its not backed up with substance.

              And 'there ain't no there there', to quote your buddy Ms. Parker. Certainly nothing for those of us who needed an end to the nightmare of the new world order or protection from the predators who run the world.

    •  or a "progressive", (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      or even much of a "liberal".

      That's just what us DFH "progressive liberals" wanted him to be.  A pony . . .

      In retrospect he really ran as a pro-war, pro-Wall Street, anti-national health care center-right Republican . . . and delivered.

      We won't be fooled again . . .

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:01:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It is not a "suspicion" . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckinfuzzard

    they are just another set of corporatists in office, with no intention to actually challenge corporate control of our society.

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:48:38 PM PDT

  •  Isn't this a state issue? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueintheface

    Since MA is one of the few if not only states with mandated healthcare?

    was talking to a friend today, who is a psychologist. She, and all in her profession in Massachusetts (and probably beyond), just got notice that as of September 1, their reimbursement rates will drop 40%.

    My friend is thinking about whether she can afford to continue her practice. She says that many, many psychologists in MA will be going out of business.

    •  This is a "my friend says" issue. And there is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      very little difference between what the Teabaggers said during the healthcare debate and what this diarist is saying now. There are no references or anything to fact-check, but plenty of references to being a victim of the system, which of course makes Obama responsible  because he hasn't changed it yet.

      I suspect that the issue is far more complex than Obama and healthcare, as you suggest may be possible. But for some reason, I don't think that really getting to the bottom of what needs to be done about the diarist's friend's reimbursement rates is what the point of this diary is about.

      "I will fight for my country, but I will not lie for her. " -- Zora Neale Hurston

      by blueintheface on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:13:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, since Obama copied the Mass. plan (0+ / 0-)

      it may be relevant.  :-P

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:29:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site