Obama explains why there is no public option in Obamacare

[thesquanderer]

at 2:40

they say, well, why didn't we have a public option in our health care system, or have a single payer system? Well, it turns out that 85% of people get health care through their jobs, they're pretty satisfied with it, they don't want big change on that. That's why it didn't happen. It wasn't necessarily because there was some corruption or venality or that people were unresponsive to democracy.

Ah. There's no public option because people didn't want it. Glad he cleared that up.

[hereforthevoting]

1. Riiiiighhhhhtttt

[Buddyblazon]

2. Fuck they didnt...

and part of the reasoning for single payer is it no longer being attached to your job so those cheap fuckers can't use it as a type of employment extortion anymore.

What he's talking about is not removing that power from employers.

Terribly disappointed in you on this one, Obama. Don't shit in my mouth and call it a sundae.

[Hoyt]

35. ACA makes it possible to tell an employer to screw themselves and not worry about pre-existing condi

tions. Actually, a number of unions have fought health care reform for decades because it is an important member benefit and way to attract members.

But ACA definitely needs a lot of improvement.

[lsewpershad]

74. Since when

Have they been listening to union members?

[Hoyt]

82. Here's just one source, but look back at history.

And I'm not saying their opposition was necessarily wrong, but there was union opposition.


"Most advocates of universal health care focus on the opposition of Republicans and insurance companies. But perhaps the most important factor keeping an overhaul off the national agenda is one that few Democrats acknowledge: most of Mr. Gettelfinger's fellow labor leaders don't support a single-payer system either.

The reason comes down to simple self-interest. The United Auto Workers is one of the few private-sector unions that doesn't run its own health plan. Rather, most have created huge companies to administer their workers' plans, giving them a large and often corrupt stake in the current system.

Opposition to a national health care plan is as much a part of the American trade union tradition as the picket line. It goes back to Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor, who railed at early Congressional efforts to pass a law mandating employer coverage as Britain had done, which he said had "taken much of the virility out of the British unions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/opinion/big-labors-big-secret.html


Some of that opposition may have waned more recently, but you can bet they were part of the reason Hillary Care and other attempts failed.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

153. Fuck the ACA. It raised my taxes because I can't afford healthcare. n/t

[Hoyt]

180. All about you, the hell with uninsured that got coverage. Disgusting.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

181. No, it's about us.

I'm far from the only one paying a poor tax because I live in a red state. I'm glad for those who gained from the legislation. Your lack of empathy for your fellow human beings is what I find disgusting.

[Hoyt]

182. I live in a red state too. Glad to pay increased taxes for subsidies to poor, uninsured.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

183. Do you have health insurance? n/t

[Arizona Roadrunner]

3. Remember, Corporations are people now......

Do you think when he says "people", he might actually be referring to the health insurance industry's corporations?

[Plucketeer]

68. Yup!

Welcome to DU and I strongly agree with your assessment here. It wasn't the care recipient that made Obama (and crew) ditch his campaign promise. Of course, that wasn't the only pledge that went straight to the trash can!

[djean111]

4. And there are fewer and fewer people with jobs that provide health insurance, every year,

and the "trade" agreements will hit those jobs hard.

Bull Shit.

[edhopper]

5. He made a big error

intentional or not.
People are satisfied with their health care.
They are NOT satisfied with their insurance coverage.
Covered by their jobs but still paying out thousands a year, and the fear of changing jobs and losing insurance.
No Mr.n President, they are not satisfied.

[LiberalEsto]

13. And meeting your annual deductible, changing jobs and having to start from scratch

with another insurance company's deductible.

[progressoid]

184. Yep.

We supposedly have good coverage from my wife's job. But that's only after thousands of $ of co-pays and deductibles that we can't afford.

[randome]

6. No protesters in the street, no civil disobedience threats. I'd say he's right.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Festivito]

15. You're right. He had 42 days and 10 Dems against him, and, we stayed off the streets.

Health Care is a 2.5T$ US business that should be 1T$ business. Jobs were disappearing like they were jumping off a cliff. Dumping the 1.5T$ Health care denial industry away in one fell swoop would have been devastating.

There is nothing in ACA/Obamacare stopping us from moving to single payer.

[yodermon]

20. That's where the bar is set? It requires massive protests and civil

disobedience to get anything the fuck done that actually benefits the people?

Thanks for endorsing the political revolution, or at least acknowledging that we need one to move forward.

[randome]

43. There is no revolution when people sit at their computers and post on social media.

Making Congress accountable needs something other than bland screeds like "You need to do this."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JayhawkSD]

48. Indeed. Congress passed the ACA with no public option...

...and 85% of them were reelected. That most certainly is not "holding Congress accountable."

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. So wouldn't that suggest Pressident Obama's assessment was correct?

[stevenleser]

94. Yes, it would. The folks here arguing against Obama are only succeeding in proving him right.

It's sadly comical that they don't see that.

[thesquanderer]

98. No it wouldn't. It's not even logical, much less comical.

please see post #97.

[Hortensis]

159. People are logical in their own minds,

not necessarily to others'. Just look at that crew at the top of this thread. If conviction were truth, they'd own Truth.

Fact is, a good half of Americans really dislike and resist change and still more view it rightly with some degree of caution. The Obama administration gave the people what most at one point said they wanted -- reform that seemed to protect what they already had and were afraid of losing and that involved as little change directly affecting them as possible.

And at that, when the time came for this democratically responsive version of change to actually happen, large numbers started backing and kicking, trying to avoid going forward with it.

[thesquanderer]

165. I agree about also having to deal with some people's resistance to change

and that could be one other hurdle in any move toward single payer... but it certainly shouldn't have been an issue in offering a public option which would not have impacted anyone who didn't want it.

[Hortensis]

166. That's what I wanted, but Obama

also entered office thinking he had been given a mandate to heal the rift in America, and he was working on that too by trying to make reform a bipartisan product.

[thesquanderer]

97. Not really.

People rarely vote their congresspeople out over a single issue. (And it's not like anyone--and certainly not Obama--was saying, "Insist on a public option or vote those suckers out!" There was no real organization along these lines.) I mean really, would you seriously argue that the fact that 85% of congress got re-elected meant that the voters were 100% happy with 85% of the folks in congress, and agreed with everything they and the president had done? That's a huge leap.

Also, saying 85% of people are happy getting covered through their jobs doesn't mean that the desires of the other 15% don't deserve consideration. Remember, it was going to be a public option. Having it available would not have negatively impacted those 85% in any way, they could have ignored the option. It simply would have made things better for the rest.

Finally, even if 85% of people are "pretty satisfied" getting covered through their employer, you have to make another leap to assume that some percentage might not still have preferred another option, even if they weren't necessarily unhappy with what they had.

ETA: also see post #107

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. No ... I have NOT made this leap ... fortunate for you, the strawman broke your fall ...

I mean really, would you seriously argue that the fact that 85% of congress got re-elected meant that the voters were 100% happy with 85% of the folks in congress, and agreed with everything they and the president had done? That's a huge leap.

The 85% re-election right indicates what you said, "People rarely vote their congresspeople out over a single issue", and the absence of a/the Public Option (let alone, single payer) was not a big enough issue to have them do so ... i.e., what President Obama said.

Also, saying 85% of people are happy getting covered through their jobs doesn't mean that the desires of the other 15% don't deserve consideration.

No. It means nothing of the kind ... It means there was/is not broad enough support for a change to get the pressure to it through congress ... i.e., a recognition of how things are done ... well ... everywhere where there are divided co-equals.

In the public option proposal I heard being floated at the time, someone who already had insurance through work wasn't even going to be eligible for the public option.

What proposal was that?

[thesquanderer]

123. Two different things...

re: "the absence of a/the Public Option (let alone, single payer) was not a big enough issue to have them [vote people out] ... i.e., what President Obama said"

that's not equivalent to being able to say that people didn't want it (i.e. Obama being right). There are a whole lot of things people want, even things they want very much... that doesn't mean there are tons of people willing to vote people out over them, over single issues, regardless of what other candidates are available... Basically I'm just disagreeing with the proposition that you seemed to be putting forth, that because congress was largely re-elected, that means most people agreed with the president's POV. I don't think you can say that about the public option or about any single issue or any single element of any single issue. As to that last point, I mean, even if you wanted to "send a signal," who is to say, if you vote someone out, are you voting them out because you objected to the ACA? Or did you like the ACA but objected to the lack of the public option? Or was it about something else entirely? Really, especially outside of any kind of big organized campaign, you rarely get much sense of this kind of thing. In short, a vote for your congressperson that year did not equate to a vote in favor of killing the public option, I think that's silly. You could easily have opposed the PO and still vote for the person for other things that you liked or because you thought the alternative candidate was worse, etc. So to suggest, "hey, the President and Congress were re-elected, so I guess they were right that nobody cared about the PO" is a big stretch to me!

Good question about the details of the PO proposal that was being floated at the time. I don't remember the details, but once someone posted about it here, it definitely rang a bell, that the public option being discussed would not be something someone could choose if they got insurance through their job. And I guess it makes sense because, as a rule, isn't it pretty much always the case that the employee can't choose their insurance plan other than choosing from what the employer chooses to make available? So the PO could only be a choice if the employer permitted it. Beyond that, there are still differences between plans offered to businesses vs. individuals. I don't remember seeing anything about the proposed PO being offered to businesses, either. So I'm not even certain it was an option for businesses. At any rate, I don't think it would have been a requirement! But maybe someone else can remember the details better than I.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. I didn't say "nobody cared about the PO" ...

I said (in essence) "No one cared about it enough to not vote against those that denied them the P/O."

[thesquanderer]

133. No, but I thought you were agreeing with BO that essentially 85% of the people didn't care about it.

Rhetorically, that was close enough to "nobody" for me.

But really, my point is simply that I don't think you can take the fact that most of congress was re-elected as necessarily meaning that most people didn't care about a public option, that's all. Any more than you could take their re-election and assume that all those voters agreed or disagreed with any particular policy that was legislated that year.

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. Okay. Where we stand depends, largely, on where we sat ... before we stood.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

154. Fuck the ACA and the neoliberal horse it rode in on.

He let Max Baucus and his committee dither for almost a year and then Big Health Insurance wrote the provisions, including the one raising my taxes because I can't afford health insurance. Bern or burn.

[1StrongBlackMan]

160. And fuck the millions with pre-existing conditions that, now, have healthcare financing ...

because of the ACA ... Better they should have the dream of single payer, one day.

No, Bern AND burn.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

162. Outlawing pre-existing conditions was a good provision.

Good for them. I support that. But the Big Health Insurance ACA didn't have to be passed to get that done. So people like me got our taxes raised. Fuck that and fuck the neoliberalism which is driving people out of the Party.

We had the votes to pass a good health care bill and we failed. No leadership. That's why we need Bernie.

He won't let lobbyists write key provisions. Also he won't appoint lobbyists as chief regulators.

[1StrongBlackMan]

167. There are far more provision is the ACA than just pre-existing conditions ...

In the real world, you can't just write a law to unlaw/legalize something without figuring out how to make it work.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

168. In the real world, people are rebelling against an unjust and corrupt bi-partisan conspiracy.

A conspiracy to fuck the people in favor of their corporate masters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

171. Okay we're done ... you have no connection to the real world.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

172. I do not value your opinion on that subject. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. I don't care. n/t

[Admiral Loinpresser]

174. +1 n/t

[RadiationTherapy]

86. That isn't true. The sharing of ideas via media is an essential - and probably universal -

component of any revolution.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. When Reagan wanted something, he went on TV

and asked his supporters to flood their Congresscritters with mail and phone calls.

Obama didn't ask for support.

[awoke_in_2003]

118. And the risk of arrest and losing your job

I am glad the party is looking out for us

[HughBeaumont]

156. Heh, sometimes, not even then.

Exhibit A: 2003-2010 Middle East war protests by the truckload. Millions around the world took to the streets.

Result: the magnates and their leaders pretty much just gave the world the middle finger and sent our troops to die for lies anyway.

[Silver_Witch]

32. Have you read the paper

100's being arrested in DC for protesting?

[randome]

41. Yeah, but for what? To "get money out of politics"? What does that mean?

Sure, soundbites are over-used but there needs to be something concise and specific to get the attention of the dullards in Congress.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[thesquanderer]

46. re: "there needs to be something concise and specific to get the attention of...Congress"

Yes. And a popular president who made good use of his bully pulpit could provide that focus. I wonder if we'll ever have a president who might try that approach.

[Silver_Witch]

54. Ummm let me think?

Oh yeah to overturn citizens united to make sure rich don't pick our candidates. To give VOICE to the people?

Does that explain it to you. Guess it must be upsetting the politicians because they are actually arresting people and the media is silent!

[elljay]

61. I don't think demonstrations work anymore

Now that our media is fully oligarchy-owned, they just don't mention the demos and all is well. We're realistically not going to tear people away from more important things, like their favorite reality shows. What works is money. If they are hit in he pocketbook they notice.

[Silver_Witch]

177. Gosh I hope that is not true!

Because most of us don't have any money!

[elljay]

179. Boycotts

Their money.

How much news coverage did the Washington demo get this week- very little from what I can tell. We need to take the fight to the businesses that feed the system.

[Silver_Witch]

187. Boycotts might work.

I have boycotted Walmart for 20+ years. Have not stepped inside and won't accept anything anyone buysn from their either. Hasn't really affected them! And we have all boycotted advertisers on Rush Limbaugh they still have him on the air. And don't get me started on the Duggers.

But we can try!! Whose is in!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

158. Getting money out of politics means fully funded federal campaigns. Easy and cheap to do. n/t

[hfojvt]

80. Really.

I mean I am pissed off myself about not getting a public option. I only wanted two things from health care reform - I wanted NO mandate and I wanted a public option I was 0 for 2.

But the plain fact of the matter is - IF the voting public wants a public option - they already have the public option of voting in a Congress that will give them one.

And yet, election after election they choose NOT to do that.

But no doubt, if only we, the radicals, can get Bernie at the top of our ticket, we will all live happily ever after. Because after he loses 45 states and sweeps in huge Republican majorities to Congress, we will be sure to get single payer.

[thesquanderer]

99. Hard to lose 45 states when you're polling well ahead of every Republican opponent.

Unless maybe you get indicted or something. Then it could happen.

[awoke_in_2003]

119. We are given the option

Of candidate A, who is going to screw us, or candidate B who is going to screw us, but MAY agree with us on a few social issues.

[hfojvt]

136. I don't think the choices are that bad

I like to believe that if the D's had not gotten clobbered in 2010 that we would be in a much better place now, on all issues.

[awoke_in_2003]

144. Economically I don't see much difference

between the parties. Hell, the DNC chair is even siding with payday loan sharks, I mean lenders. No one seems to have the will to go after them or the pirates on Wall Street.

on edit: And yes, I will be voting for the candidate if only for the Supreme Court vacancies. If a puke names the next one you can kiss marriage equality and reproductive rights good bye.

[HughBeaumont]

163. Try the next FOUR.

Scalia is dead. Kennedy and Brayer are on the wrong side of their 70s and RBG is entering her mid 80s. They're not going to be around forever. Without those three (less so Kennedy) Sotomayor and Kagan are the only reasonable justices left. Trump or Cruz would load that court with four more Sam Alitos . . . young RCC anti-choicers who would send women's issues back to the dark ages for decades.

If a 7-2 Opus Dei Supreme Court doesn't make anyone else shit bricks, I don't know what will. Say goodbye to any labor and human rights progress made in the past 100 years. Might as well install the Plutonomy, as we're halfway there already.

[awoke_in_2003]

175. Yep

Losing the SC, especially by that number, would mean decades to fix. The pukes won't be nominating people in their 60s, like we currently are.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

157. I call extreme bullshit!

Bernie consistently outperforms Hillary against GOP candidates in poll after poll. Is that true? Yes or no?

[Marr]

81. First, there *were* big protests. Second, the Dems controlled both houses of

Congress, *and* the White House, and very clearly maneuvered the 'public option' into a political ditch from Day One. They took it off the table before negotiations even started with sleazy tactics like putting it's most vocal opponents at the head of committees and having people who tried to bring up single payer simply dragged out of the meetings.

The party establishment successfully marginalized the public here in favor of giveaways to the insurance industry. That is not a condemnation of the public, it's a condemnation of the party establishment.

[ibegurpard]

189. yes

[Rex]

139. So your ideal system is one where we have to revolt to get any kind of policy change, every time?

Thanks for the asinine statement, it gave me a lol.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

169. My ideal system is supplanting oligarchy with American democracy. n/t

[SHRED]

176. So to understand the will of the people...

...politicians need to see protesters in the streets?

This can't be true for every issue.

[HughBeaumont]

185. Especially not war. Just ask Dubya and His Gang.

They didn't care.

[NightWatcher]

7. They could have given the option for us to take or refuse

That's how OPTIONS work.

[Amimnoch]

53. It was close to passing. Lieberman wrecked it.

The government option had passed the bill from the House.

It stayed in limbo for some time and was ultimately removed because the industry focused on 1 person, and that was all they needed.. and got.

It was pass without the government option or not pass at all.

[cureautismnow]

151. Yes, that schmuck voted against Medicare at 55, too. n/t

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

8. Yeah, no.

Everyone I have ever talked to who has had any significant medical procedures done hates the medical insurance industry. The copays, coinsurance, deductibles, piles of bills, having to constantly fight with the insurance company to get them to pay, all of that only serves to make life that much more difficult for someone who is already dealing with significant health problems.

I'm sure if Obama talked to the people who actually use their medical insurance the most, he would hear a different story.

[astrophuss42]

52. Heck I barely use mine because it's terrible and I know it

Js.

[Enthusiast]

56. He knows both stories he just plays dumb. He's been very good at it.

I quit believing his act long ago.

[SammyWinstonJack]

103. +1000000

[abelenkpe]

9. Wrong

weak bs.

[Roland99]

10. What a BS thing to say! Change jobs? Lose insurance

Company switches carriers? Coverage changes, doctors change.


Fucking BS answer

[yourpaljoey]

19. Another slow sad headshake for Obama

[bluethruandthru]

11. Obama's handling of the entire health care reform issue

was when I realized how very corporate he was. Huge disappointment.

[Enthusiast]

57. When we realized there was to be no bully pulpit. Only Republicans had one of them.

[haikugal]

131. No kidding...talk about an invisible man, an empty suit...

What a con..

[Enthusiast]

140. I remember being so happy, filled with hope. What kind of evil would it take to smother that?

It's so nice to see you.

[LiberalEsto]

12. Oh, yeah, we just l-o-o-o-o-ve our $4000 deductible

which means we are broke from medical bills for much of the year. Thanx so much for 'splaining!

[Triana]

14. I don't think so. It's because Big Insurance fought tooth & nail against it.

Read "Deadly Spin" by Wendell Potter (former Aetna employee become whistleblower). It's ALL in there.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0049195R0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

The reason there's no Single Payer is because the CORPORATE "people" didn't want it. They waged a campaign against it similar to the campaign Big Tobacco waged when it was proven to be a dangerous health risk. That campaign is singularly why tobacco is still legal in the US even though it's deadly. The same tactics (only perfected and honed to an art now) are why we have no single payer in ACA.

[Enthusiast]

51. Big insurance collects free money every day. It's the biggest scam in the entire economy.

They receive billions for absolutely nothing.

[LittleGirl]

79. Spot on

Wendall Potter is a hero for disclosing that. Know all about him.

[Paper Roses]

16. Sorry Mr President, this is baloney! n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Bullshit

Pure bullshit

[Javaman]

18. well, I'm mollified!

[Feeling the Bern]

21. Someone get a shovel.

[dchill]

22. Unbelievable, frankly.

[MisterP]

24. problem is there were plenty of red flags--DU definitely forewarned us all

[dchill]

29. It was the DLC that didn't want public option...

Not people with jobs.

[MisterP]

31. and the DLC knew we'd take anything from a charismatic Dem

[merrily]

33. Lobbyists from Big Insurance, Big Health Care and Big PHRMA who met with the WH

early on, probably even during the transition, did not want the public option.



Do you remember how the ACLU made an FOIA request for the White House Visitor logs, then sued for them and the administration replied with some bs about how the Secret Service had vetoed providing the logs? That was the reason. Nothing had even gone to Baucus yet.

After that, the locus of the meetings was changed to nearby diners and such.

[Cheese Sandwich]

23. Hey that's not true. THe majority of people DO support the public option OR single payer.

Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

[Enthusiast]

49. Now now. He's just misleading us.

[SammyWinstonJack]

106. Yeah, he's good at that.

[FlatBaroque]

25. President Cool Breeze does not sweat the details. /

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

45. He's got medical insurance now and will have it after he leaves office

"I don't see what people are complaining about. Most of them get medical insurance through their jobs, just like I do."

Don't piss on me and then tell me it's raining.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

161. And all I get is raised taxes tomorrow because I can't afford health insurance. n/t

[Old Codger]

26. That is about

As lame excuse as I have ever heard from anyone ever..

[merrily]

30. I thought the repetition of nonsense about Joe Lieberman was the lamest, but maybe that's just me.

[HughBeaumont]

27. I'd like to see these statistics.

Just because you're "satisfied" with something does not make the case to not attempt something better . . . in this case, something that ISN'T tethered to how gainfully one is employed.

[merrily]

28. Remind me what he said about a robust public option being the only way before he was elected?

Actually, in 2008, people of all parties polled over 70% in favor of the public option. I am guessing both employees and employers were polled, and maybe some unemployed, too.

[valerief]

34. "The people" always get what they want. Except when it comes to laws and government. nt

[Old Codger]

96. Except

The "they" in that is big business..

"The people" always get what they want"

[SmittynMo]

36. DO not forget

He is PART of the establishment. What did you expect him to say?

I find it funny that 6 years later, his answer does not apply.

[onecaliberal]

37. Oh for fucks sake, that's a mile long pile of bullshit. Does he know we can see the video.

[Hydra]

38. *lmao*

He's sweating, as his actions to mollify the powerful are continuing to translate into a weak legacy among the normal people. I had to decline getting a better paying job because their insurance was horrible, expensive, and I was going to have to take it anyway.

He could have been so transformative...but I have to give him props for helping to wake the sleeping giant during his campaign. The "Hunger for change" has not disappeared despite his lack of desire for it.

[bbgrunt]

39. that's when you understand that the n-dimensional chess match was against you.

[KPN]

40. That's a boatload of political bullshit if I ever saw one.

Obama has been disappointing at times.

[truebluegreen]

42. "It wasn't necessarily because there was some corruption or venality

or that people were unresponsive to democracy."

Ugh. Just....ugh. A steaming pile if ever there was one.






p.s. nice dodge with the "necessarily"

[Pharaoh]

44. What I remember is that single payer was not even on the table.

[FighttheFuture]

66. You remember correctly. They were barred from even being at the meetings. Obama is bullshitting.

[Enthusiast]

47. LOL!

Good one, Mr. President! Reminds me of, "Ideally we would have single payer but it would be too expensive."

[ViseGrip]

50. I guess the voters never mattered to him either?

[stillwaiting]

55. Such spin.. Whirling..... Spinning... Spinning.... Spun. nt

[thesquanderer]

59. Spinning, whirling, twirling...

It's the politicians' stock in trade.

[Scalded Nun]

58. Pure bullshit!

And if you like his bullshit, wait until you get a whiff of Hillary's.

[thesquanderer]

62. Hillary says she wants a public option!

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

Continue to support a “public option”—and work to build on the Affordable Care Act to make it possible. As she did in her 2008 campaign health plan, and consistently since then, Hillary supports a “public option” to reduce costs and broaden the choices of insurance coverage for every American. To make immediate progress toward that goal, Hillary will work with interested governors, using current flexibility under the Affordable Care Act, to empower states to establish a public option choice.

I guess this is another place where she disagrees with Obama.

And good luck in all those states that wouldn't even support Medicaid expansion that would have cost them little to nothing. What's the plan for them?

[SammyWinstonJack]

110. Extra stinky bull$hit

[Enthusiast]

141. Yup.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[harun]

60. What a Whopper of a lie! He blocked the public option because he made a deal

to have insurance companies lobby for the ACA if he guaranteed no public option.

[Scuba]

63. "It wasn't necessarily because there was some corruption or venality ..." Yeah there was.

Using our precious healthcare dollars to fatten the bank accounts of corporate investors in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong isn't just bad fiscal policy, it's immoral.

[2naSalit]

64. Horsepucky.

ETA: Of course, if he actually told the truth he'd be Kennedy'd tomorrow.

[FighttheFuture]

65. Thanks, Obama. Pfaugh.

[Blasphemer]

67. Joe Lieberman is the reason

It was pretty close to happening and he was a major reason it did not. I'm not sure why Obama is trying to rationalize it. It was pure politics.

[HughBeaumont]

116. Lost us 2000, Lost us the Public Option, Campaigned with McCain.

With "Democrats" like this, who needs Republicans?

[4Q2u2]

130. Hartford Joe

Senator of Connecticut.
Insurance Company Capitol of the US.

He would never do that.

[annabanana]

132. (Not sure why this isn't higher in the thread.. There are LOTS here

who remember every wrinkle in that debate....)

[treestar]

164. True the people could be said not to want it

Due to the Senate they elected.

The 85% are complacent and got theirs.

[surrealAmerican]

69. He's mixing up cause and effect.

85% of people get health care through their jobs because there is no public option.

A lot of people with employer-based insurance would be in favor of a public option.

[LittleGirl]

84. +1

and competition because it's all daylight robbery even if you do have insurance.
3k deductibles, higher premiums, medication co-pays, doctor visit co-pays...on and on and on.

[NRaleighLiberal]

70. .

so disappointing.

[MrMickeysMom]

71. He didn't "clear that up" at all, and you didn't listen...

85% of people who have acquired their healthcare through their jobs, don't want big changes to that system.

That is NOT the same as the majority of Americans who PREFER Single Payer Health Care.

Listening and watching isn't that hard, unless you only hear and see what you wanted to, which I cannot even believe you would wish for this country unless you care not a red cent about it.

[thesquanderer]

73. Did I really have to put the sarcasm tag after "Glad he cleared that up"? Oh well. (n/t)

[MrMickeysMom]

111. I guess my reading skills have to improve today....

Sorry about that! heh-heh

(Hey, I'm trying to run a local hub to GOTV, phone bank, work, contribute.... so, cut me a break!!!)

[thesquanderer]

114. No problem! Break cut! ;-) (n/t)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

72. If Single Payer couldn't get implemented in Vermont

then it's going to be awhile before it can get adopted nationally. Personally, large blue states like California should try it at the state level and if they get it working well, other states should sit up and take notice. There's no way IMHO it's getting approved nationally until we have a Democratic President with large progressive filibuster-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress supporting it (and a SCOTUS that won't gut it like a fish when the wingnuts file the inevitable frivolous lawsuits against it).

[thesquanderer]

78. My OP was about the public option which would have been less of a challenge.

Obama lumped them together in his answer, though.

But yes, hopefully between 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, maybe we can achieve that "Democratic President with large progressive filibuster-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress supporting it" or at least go a long way toward it - in the mean time, we need to at least start. If you don't take the first step, you never reach your destination. 2016 is only the first step.

That's the fallacy in people saying "Bernie can't do it." No, he can't, not alone, not right away. But that shouldn't be an excuse to not start down that path. If we elect Hillary, we likely delay the first step by at least 8 years.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

90. I'm for the PO

Very nearly got passed along with the ACA in 2010 but got derailed largely because of Lieberman. I'm sure Obama would have signed the ACA with it had it remained intact. Too bad that the failure to block the Tea Party revolution prevented us from getting it passed since.

[subterranean]

75. "It wasn't NECESSARILY because there was some corruption..."

So he seems to be implying that corruption and/or venality might have been the reason the public option was killed, but that it wasn't necessarily the reason.

At least he was honest about that (sort of).

[tularetom]

76. I still like him better than I liked Clinton at this stage of his term

but he's quickly closing the gap.

I can't believe we wasted eight years trusting this fucking con artist.

[SammyWinstonJack]

112. Shameless con artist at that.

[KG]

83. I lulz'd

[zentrum]

85. Hysterical.

He can't really believe that—can he?

[EndElectoral]

88. C'mon Barrack...repeating Republican talking points isn't becoming.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. He kow-towed to the numerically insignificant Blue Dogs

and twisted the arms of the much larger Progressive Caucus, saying "Do it to give me a win" and "We'll fix it later."

Should have been the other way around.

Seven years later...

[mythology]

138. And FDR left blacks out of social security

Because southern Democrats said they wouldn't support it if blacks were eligible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. False analogy

If FDR had started Social Security by requiring everyone to invest in the stock market (i.e. required purchase of a product from the private sector), that would have been the same as the ACA.

[thesquanderer]

147. Interesting point there. (n/t)

[closeupready]

91. Sheer nonsense. How can he say stuff like this, in good conscience?

[HenryWallace]

92. Well Hell!

Maybe it's time for a leader who will consistently fight for what we need rather than for just what we want!

If I understand Sanders' disappointment with President Obama, it is that as a gift orator he choose too often to go silent. Moral suasion maybe an antiquated expression, but isn't this what the President's campaigns led us to expect?

National healthcare is a no-brainier!

_Morally, it will clearly produce better outcomes (particularly down the economic spectrum).

_Economically it would clearly be beneficial (wasn't the criticism of Gerald Friedman's analysis not that there would be an economic boost but rather only the size and duration of such boost).

[Helen Borg]

93. Awww, people love the uncertainty!

It's so great to wake up in the middle of the night and worry about what will happen to you and your kids if you'll lose your job...

[basselope]

95. Is this a joke?

[zalinda]

100. 85% of people get health care through their jobs?

Where did he find this 'fact'? It may be that 85% of the people who make his kind of money get health care through their jobs, but it certainly isn't 85% of people. I would guess that 85% of the people who make under $100,000 a year do not get health care through their jobs. The vast majority of people who make minimum wage do not get health care through their jobs and don't qualify for Medicaid, or Medicaid is not available to them.

Z

[thesquanderer]

104. I agree, the 85% figure is, itself, suspect.

In fact, at the moment, the real number is 45%.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/

I suppose he meant 85% of those who get private insurance, or something like that.

[Bradical79]

108. Seriously, looks like a made up number to me

I can't even find any kind of bullshit/biased poll or statistic to come close to backing that up. Everything I see looks like it was around 49% in '08 and drops some from then.

[SammyWinstonJack]

101. What horseshit that is. Yes people would rather be FORCED to

buy health insurance from blood sucking leeches who couldn't care less about paying for health care....no profit in that.

[Zen Democrat]

102. The public option was for the uninsured on the exchange, not for people with insurance on the job.

[thesquanderer]

107. That's a great point.

In the public option proposal I heard being floated at the time, someone who already had insurance through work wasn't even going to be eligible for the public option. At least initially. So it didn't affect the people Obama is talking about at all, they wouldn't have even had the choice, much less be forced into it. Though they would have had the choice if, for example, they were to lose their job. (And, I suppose, the employers themselves might have been able to choose a public option as the plan for their employees, not sure about that.)

[pengu]

109. Bingo

He's lying about what the public option even WAS in this clip. Sad but not unexpected.

[Vinca]

105. The public option was supposed to be an affordable alternative to big insurance and

something that would keep them in check when they decide to raise rates. Now they've got a captive audience with no public option to go to when the inflated premium comes due. It was necessary, but it wasn't possible at the time because the GOP was on the verge of tanking the whole thing. Bottom line, we're still mired in the profit margins of the insurance companies.

[Holly_Hobby]

113. How does Medicare do it for $104 a month?

Medicare covers the elderly, which obviously are unhealthier and more costly than younger people. Do additional funds come from taxes? TIA

[area51]

188. I think a couple of things play into this;

one is that Medicare doesn't cover everything, and also that Medicare doesn't have the administrative waste/overhead and doesn't advertise.

[awoke_in_2003]

117. There is no option

Because that is where our "side" began negotiations. They got exactly what they wanted, the insurance company bail out plan.

[ConsiderThis_2016]

120. So I'll triangulate just like Bill Clinton told me to :(

"On June 19, 2008, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

121. Calling it "the public option" isn't as popular as "Medicare for All".

[Umbral18]

122. So no cost controls, let the insurance companies jack up prices...

and create a backlash that effectively trashes the rest of your presidency. Good Job!

[intheflow]

124. I'm still paying for the healthcare I get through my employer.

As is EVERYONE I know. Sometimes an employer will kick in a percentage. Single payer would still be waaaaay cheaper. I'm sorry, Mr. President. No one asked me and this is bullshit.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

125. At one point 70% of the people wanted a single payer system.

[thesquanderer]

127. And these ideas are not necessarily contradictory, either.

It is perfectly possible for people to be "pretty satisfied" with what they have, yet still see another alternative as being better.

[OkSustainAg]

126. +1 for single payer

[YoungDemCA]

128. For those saying that a majority of Americans want single-payer

Close to 90% of Americans want universal background checks for guns.

Moral of the story: You can't necessarily rely on public opinion as a factor in Congress enacting progressive policies.

[thesquanderer]

135. Very true.

Especially when there are powerful interests on the other side.

Which only points out again how Obama's statement in the clip is off kilter.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. True. A majority of Americans support marijuana legalization, and Hillary's pal DWS

Votes to send not just recreational but medical marijuana users to prison.

[jwirr]

134. Anyone got the stats from the polls back then? I thought

that before his election the majority in the nation supported single payer.

And has he noticed the number of companies that are dropping their health care programs for workers?

[Warren DeMontague]

142. We had a full year or so where we had the votes to get whatever we wanted

And we dicked around with "town halls" and "gee whiz wotlwedoooo?", accomplishing nothing except giving a chance for every idiot with a tricorner hat their own platform to scream incoherently on C-SPAN.

It was pretty obvious that, at the one point when they werent constrained by "gridlock", the people pushing the levers of the party didnt actually WANT to get certain things done.

You wonder why there is such dissatisfaction with the status quo as it pertains to the DNC, etc... There is a big example.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

146. With all due respect, that was/is nothing more than a GOP talking point...

...and was never reflected in the opinion of general population.

The cat is finally out of the bag that Americans are disadvantaged in some very big ways compared to citizens of other countries...

We're so special... exceptional... that we don't deserve Universal (cradle to grave) healthcare, or free/low-cost higher education...

Oh they cry... "how could we ever afford that?"

They never ask how we can afford endless war, or corporate-tax-breaks amounting to more than the entire 1.1T discretionary budget...

People are beginning to wake up that the problem is not a shortage of money, but a failure in having priorities that benefit We The People instead of lining the pockets of the 0.01%.

...and the answer to that is reached by FOLLOWING THE MONEY.

[mrdmk]

148. What did you expect from a guy who said

“The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican”, President Obama.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-in-the-1980s-i-would-be-considered-a-moderate-republican/


"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s


Obama, Moderate Republican (Even Paul Krugman digs into this one)
July 14, 2011 7:55 am

OK, not exactly. But Nate Silver’s analysis of the budget proposals is a must-read. Nate looks at polling, and extracts the following implied preferences for the mix between tax increases and spending cuts in a debt deal:



What Obama has offered — and Republicans have refused to accept — is a deal in which less than 20 percent of the deficit reduction comes from new revenues. This puts him slightly to the right of the average Republican voter.

So we learn two things. First, Obama is extraordinarily eager to make concessions. Second, Republicans are incredibly unwilling to take yes for an answer — something for which progressives should be grateful.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/obama-moderate-republican/?_r=0


/

[nationalize the fed]

149. This NY Times reporter has a different story

NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option
05/16/2010 | Update May 25, 2011

Miles Mogulescu
Entertainment attorney, producer, writer and political activist

For months I’ve been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. (See here, here and here). I’ve been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial story last August in the New York Times, no major media outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further.

Hopefully, that’s changing. On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn’s confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:

“That’s a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he’s talking about the hospital industry’s specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry’s got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you’re interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product.”

Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: “Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal”.

This should be big news. Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one, he had promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill...
SNIP MORE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

MORE about the (lack of a) Public Option:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/health-care-public-option/

First, the mandate, then the PO

[thesquanderer]

152. good info there, thanks (n/t)

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

186. Great background info - Thank you for posting!

[Skittles]

150. what a stupid response

employer-based insurance is PART OF THE PROBLEM

[ananda]

155. That is just utter bullshit!

It's just a Reep-lite excuse.

[Jefferson23]

170. lol

Sorry, you do get to write your memoir, but you do not get to write your legacy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

178. Lotta gibberish and strawmen packed into that quote.

What does a public option have to do with keeping your old insurance?... as if keeping their old insurance was a practical effect.

[ibegurpard]

190. Because he helped kill it.

We have now codified the disfunctional system that had been built over the years and guaranteed taxpayer funding to insurance corporations... who add nothing but additional costs.