Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Obama Sandbag His Own Health Care Bill?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 06:49 PM
Original message
Did Obama Sandbag His Own Health Care Bill?
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 07:35 PM by proud patriot
(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

By David Michael Green

So Barack Obama got his change. Other people can even believe in it if they want. I regret to say I remain unimpressed. And that's about the nicest way I know how to put it.

In fairness, I will say two things about this bill that redound well for him. First, passing major health care legislation in America is hard. In fact, governing this country in any real respect is hard, just as the Founders intended it to be. For a century, presidents have tried and mostly failed bring some sense to health care in America. Give Obama credit for succeeding at a very tough task, where others have imploded. (Except, of course, you can call anything "health care reform", and then take credit when it passes, which is kinda what happened here. Putting a ham sandwich through Congress is not such a big thing, no matter what it's labeled.)

The other positive note about the bill concerns a good deal of its content. If you take it at face value which may constitute a serious mistake by the time the industry vampires manage to twist and shred the restrictions supposedly imposed on them by the bill it does seems to have some laudatory and much needed features. Even progressive critics of the legislation, if they're being fair, have to admit that adding tens of millions of people to the ranks for the insured is no small thing. Nor is blocking the disease profiteers from their most egregious practices, like refusing care to people for pre-existing conditions, or dumping those who've paid premiums for decades at precisely the moment they start making claims. These changes if they are real and they stick will literally improve people's lives massively, sometimes saving them altogether, and we should not hesitate to say so.

All that said, there are two problems with Obama's signature piece of legislation: What is, and what could have been.

What this bill is, at its core, is a giant gift to massive predatory corporations who are as far removed from pursuing the public interest as regressive politicians are from the human genome. That's really bad news, for at least two reasons. The first is that we as a society find ourselves, yet once again, crafting legislation to service the greedy few rather than the hundreds of millions of ordinary folk just trying to get by. You can see that pretty readily in this bill, which ties itself in knots of absurdity in order to avoid grappling with the obvious problem at the core of the world's richest country spending twice what anyone else does, only to produce one of the crappiest health care systems among developed countries. The obvious, glaring, 800 pound gorilla in the room is that we do health care as an industry in America, for the purpose of profiting investors and corporate managers, not for purposes of making people well.

<snip>

Link to entire article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Did-Obama-Sandbag-His-Own-by-David-Michael-Gree-100404-924.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
daleanime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Book marked.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boomerbust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. under peril of government-imposed penalty
Read the bill. Not true. David Mike Green=IndianaGreen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. i would guess not...
"David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not sure why the Mods edited this post since it was ONLY snippets
of course they cut any meat out, so I would suggest following the link...it is an exceptional read, and apparently too controversial for DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Only allowed the equivalent of 4 paragraphs because of copyright laws.
But that :tinfoilhat: sure is shiny.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. A+ k*r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
30. Good article.
snip...

“The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us.

“In every campaign for major office, the party passes out money and buys candidates from both parties. Thanks to the candidates who get elected, this pay to play system remains perfectly legal … even though it looks like bribery.

‘In return for contributions, the election winners come through by fixing the laws so that The Money Party cleans up. … Cost is no object, because in the end it’s all paid for with our tax dollars.” Michael Collins: The Money Party, Sept. 30, 2007.

~emphasis added

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here's another cautionary note:
Edited on Sun Apr-04-10 09:31 PM by truedelphi
We know from watching the summer of 2009's various backroom deals, that the Rahm Administration (oops, didn't mean to say that out loud) is in bed with Big Pharmacy.

So the other night, while watching what passes for local news, the news team was discussing how statins are so decidely wonderful for people over fifty that now it might be a good idea to see that everyone over fifty takes them. I am not making this up,and not exagerrating - an industry study shows that everyone over fifty gains if taking statins. (Never mind the reports that are out here that statins cause ALS - like symptoms and then death. Or the other side effects.) - that is what they said.

Since more people (supposedly) will be covered once this bill starts to take effect, is that the sort of "postitive" pharmaceutical reaction we will be seeing - just start having the drug companies produce the research that "proves" how everyone must take everything all the time. With the government subsidizing so much of the cost, WHOOPEE! (At least "Whoopee" if you are a drug manufacturer.)

The last words the news team spoke on this matter were these: "Since this was an industry sponsored study, you cannot afford to ignore its result." Both my spouse and I cracked up at all the various and sundry implications that this hypnotic inducement could be analyzed as containing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleanime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. "Since this was an industry sponsored study"?
Dear God, are they even teaching journalism in school any more?:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The top of the class at most journalism schools
Now avoid the news business entirely - and instead take jobs as spokespeople for entities like Monsanto, or Novartis.

Why make 70K a year when you can make twice that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleanime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Some thing in my old brain has snapped...
pure capitalism is a death sentence for society, if the only reason any one works is to maximize they own income-we will be gone within two generations.


Newsmen-a reporter, isn't that a worthy role? Something worth doing with your life? Money is more important?



I feel sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Ah, the old substitute the word "industry" for "independent" trick, eh?
After all, why would they lie to you? :ca-ching:

No need to tell me which "statin" sponsored this study... :eyes:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. I'm well over 50 and I refuse
to take statins.

I hate big pharma and the insurance industry. Why should the American people serve as prey for these vultures? I know, it is the nature of our corrupt political system. But it sucks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. A friend of mine, a 59 year old woman,
Got a letter recently from her health insurance company, telling her that she should start taking a statin. She asked her doctor about it, and she didn't think it was necessary.

She seemed to think that the insurance company was looking for an excuse to drop her for not following their instructions. She filled the prescription, but never took the drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I think she made the right choice.
This is a choice many of us might be forced into in the future as the insurance industry gains more control over our lives. My cholesterol is good, amazingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. And independent research shows that it might not even be the cholesterol
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 04:41 PM by truedelphi
That is the problem. Rather, It may be all the heavy metals we have accumulated (in many cases from water brought to us through the aging plumbing inside our own houses)

The heavy metals cause hardening of the arteries.

And even when statins are used, to get good results using them, you still have to eat healthy and exercise, so if they do provide a benefit, it is hard to separate out whether it is the life style changes or the pill.

Other indie researchers point to huge connection between blood flow deterioration and small amounts of left over bacteria from common infections, including tooth decay.

They see this problem as a big concern to overcome so a person can avoid a heart attack. This is why for so many people, taking statins might only expose them to risk, rather than to any benefit - statins cannot help remove these bacteria from your system, and probably make your system more acidic and thus the bacteria will proliferate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. That is interesting, truedelphi.
I have a history of blood flow problems and a single severe staph infection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I'll send you somthing later today about
Simple things that can help.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. To appreciate how really BAD this bill is,
simply compare it to what is taken for granted is any "civilized" country in the WORLD.

"A uniquely American Solution"....indeed.

bvar22
cursed by having been there and seen it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
An American Woman Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 04:48 AM
Response to Original message
13. Did Obama Sandbag His Own Health Care Bill?
yes he did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
17. Kick & Rec!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
18. Yes. We gave up too much too early. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
19. some people are seeing it later than others
it all became distressingly clear to me this summer, when I saw the teabaggers take over the message without a peep from the president, who in his campaign had spared no effort to counter any distortions with a "ready response" team. This time, however, it appeared that distorting the message of "health care reform" was instrumental to the plan.

The other lack of response was when doctors and nurses were arrested for trying to get a "seat at the table" for universal single-payer--a "table" that was only imaginary, again a meaningless piece of rhetoric designed to make people think that their input really would mean something or even be heard.

No, as Russ Feingold pointed out a long time ago, Obama got the bill he wanted, and the real beneficiaries are the insurance companies. Universal single payer was never even considered--even though 2/3-3/4 of Americans want it. Even the bone of a "public option" was withdrawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. " without a peep from the president"
His silence was infuriating! :grr: :grr: :grr:

What really pisses me off, is at the same time the teabaggers were stealing the message, people from all over the country were going to that Remote Medical event held in LA. It would have been the perfect opportunity for the prez to have a presser & tell people, "Hey - this is what single payer would be like - see a doctor without paying - only better! because you can go to the clinic & doctor of your choice!" But no, he was silent. He let the teabaggers & media take control of the message.

Feingold was right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. it worked very well for him ...
in the end, he hardly had to compromise anything and delivered as promised to the insurance co's--it was a win-win for him and them as they laughed all the way to the bank--for American citizens, who were duly ignored, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Will health insurance reform prove to be
Edited on Mon Apr-05-10 09:24 PM by NorthCarolina
his "Waterloo" after all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
35. heck I knew that's what he'd shoot for when he was running for pres
he gave a good speech but I knew he didn't believe what he was saying
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
20. This health care program solves a bigger problem
...which is the fact that our retirement funds were lost in this latest Wall Street meltdown. So a deeply flawed "healthcare program" is actually good since so many people will die before they need their retirement funds.

You people just don't appreciate Obama's skillful dovetailing of social programs.


Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
22. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, North Carolina.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
23. YES!!! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. I truly love Mr. Green's writing, but respectfully disagree on one point
>"...the greater tragedy of the health care reform process is not what was, but what could have been.".

No, IMO the greater tragedy is yet to come when the vampires suck the lifeblood out of the sick & elderly whether newly insured or not. Having an insurance card and guaranteed coverage is not the same thing at all as having affordable access to health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-05-10 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
34. kick--if Obama twisted Blue Dog and DLC arms the way he did Kucinich,it would have been
an indisputable victory.

As is, I'm left feeling ambivalent about whether the good was worth the giveaways to insurance companies--and they will surely turn around and use the profits from those 30 million new customers to buy more pols and protect their monopoly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. I was too late to recommend the thread, so I'll agree with you wholeheartedly instead.
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 02:08 AM by Vidar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC