"Attention should have been paid" to candidate Obama's vague health-care reform talk

[brentspeak]

Obama's supporters during the primaries refused to push him to provide specifics.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/17/EDKC18927J.DTL

...For starters, candidate Barack Obama never ran on a platform to provide universal coverage. Of course he always said - then and now - that his goal is to cover everyone. But he has never put forward a concrete proposal for doing so, and hasn't endorsed a firm mandate that everyone purchase insurance. Remember those primary-season debates in which rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards criticized him for this? Attention should have been paid.

Now President Obama has left the legislative "details," as the White House likes to call them, to our esteemed lawmakers on Capitol Hill. This has fed an every-member-for-himself mentality, an instinct that needs no nourishment. Lawmakers of every political leaning are putting forward their own ideas, none of them as tough-minded or comprehensive as a single administration-initiated proposal might have been.

snip

The result is a raft of proposals that are patch-and-fill jobs on the current system - a system that pretty much everyone believes is crumbling to the point of collapse. This is an odd way to begin a major reconstruction project.

snip

No one has seriously proposed an overhaul that would achieve what a single-payer system has been shown to accomplish in most other countries: universal coverage with lower costs that delivers better results than we now get in the United States.

Instead, Democrats have all but abandoned the idea that everyone be covered without exception. They've so far avoided endorsing clear cost-containment measures that would pass the budget-scorers' test of legitimacy. The wished-for savings that Obama says he wants the private insurance industry to achieve are exactly that - wishes.

The winners so far are health-industry lobbyists. They sense that their chances of protecting the interests of big insurers, drug companies, medical specialties, technology companies and the like are improving every day. They're probably right.

[ZombieHorde]

1. We all knew Obama and Clinton were against single payer.

We seem to have wanted Kucinich in someone else's body.

[ThomCat]

3. Yup. If only Kucinich was taller and prettier maybe he would have

been taken seriously. :(

He was the one with the proposal that 83% of people says they want, but we ended up with a President who is leaving it to senators and lobbyists to fight it out. Of course the lobbyists are looking like the eventual winners. When have the lobbyists not won a fight like this in the past?

[NYC Democrat]

5. Kucinich im sorry to say is unelectable in a nationwide election.

[ThomCat]

6. Why?

The media keeps insisting that is true, so they exclude him and make it a self-fulfilling prophesy.

You believe the media when they say it apparently. But why?

His policies are closest to what people really want, not what lobbyists and corporations really want. If elections were really determined by voters, without M$M acting as a one filter, and big money primaries acting as another filter, then Kucinich WOULD be electable in a nationwide election.

It is only the corrupt filters of corporate interests and wealthy gatekeepers that keep him out.

[Captain Hilts]

12. He's too short and funny looking. Being short is unforgivable in a man. Ask Dukakis. nt

[Dinger]

33. And Robert Reich Too

I think he's about 4"11, and I think he's wonderful by the way.

[mkultra]

35. or, he really is unelectable

His ideas and policies may be solid, but he just doesn't have wide enough appeal. I Like him alot, but he fact that he claims to have seen a UFO automatically casts him as a kook. This may be unfair, but it is reality.

[camera obscura]

18. I'm not a fan of Kucinich. But I will say, I sort of wish Feingold had decided to run.

[AllentownJake]

29. Dennis was running to sell his ideas

He was never running for President.

[liberalmuse]

4. Yes we did.

However, the alternative was unthinkable. We would be spending our prospective health care money bombing Iran right now.

[Zodiak]

28. LOL...so true

And if we had that, I would DEFINITELY vote for it.

[jenmito]

2. He was against mandatory coverage except for children. He never campaigned for single payer. I

LIKED that he didn't campaign for mandatory coverage.

[avaistheone1]

8. He did campaign for single payer before the AFL CIO. Obama said he was a single payer

advocate. But he said the Democrats first had to get the White House, the Senate and the Congress.

Check. Check. Check. We're waiting President Obama.

[vaberella]

13. He didn't campaign as a single payer as a CANDIDATE!!!

I listened to him as a candidate. He never advocated for single payer as a candidate and he was my candidate in the primaries and I voted for him based on his principals as a candidate. I did not vote for Senator Obama. But Candidate for Presidency Obama. I got what I expected because for 2 long bloody and stressful years he advocated public option along side people keeping their insurance. So don't try to manipulate the situation as though he campaigned for it during his candidacy. That's utterly false. Further more the video you use and statements everyone use is 3 years before his candidacy---people change and outlooks change as well and how things get done change over time. He followed one path through candidacy and that is what he should be tested on. And in the case of health care...he's fulfilling it.

[avaistheone1]

14. I miss Obama the community worker because Obama the community worker was

alot closer to what the people of this country wanted and to what Obama advocated in this video.

So what would you say changed Obama given the health care crisis in this country has gotten worse, the cost savings for single-payer as the best alternative are even clearer, and the Democrats have all the political power? What principles would have caused Obama to turn from the strongest plan single-payer to a significantly inferior plan?

[vaberella]

16. Maybe Dems who are on the take.

Maybe Dems who don't give a fuck about health care and are willing to screw the people. Obama doesn't make law...love. You understand that right? There is a bloody political process so many here decide to ignore. Maybe he saw what happened with Clinton when they were trying to do it and when he decided to run for President he wanted to know what would be a realistic promise he could try to keep when he was in presidency that would eventually lead to a sort of "single payer system" in the future. One that he could try to achieve and maybe achieve because the American people would support him since they would not feel threatened.

As a candidate Obama ran on a realistic regime...not one that was built upon fantasy. Single payer is unrealistic because of the political climate. Obama, with his historical win, didn't purge the Congress of all the criminals who fucked us over. Remember it was under Clinton we saw a failed Health care plan. It was also under Clinton we have the dreaded and horrible DOMA/DADT-----Dems helped them along and Dems have not worked to fix it since they were majority. It wasn't until Obama came in to run that there was some change----however the majority of fuckers who created DOMA/DADT and dropped universal are still sitting in office.

Don't act like you don't know this. Don't act like Congress has no power. Don't act like Obama just has to exert leadership and things will get done. Gitmo is a perfect example. Your excuse of having two houses is such utter shit that I'm appalled people even use that meme. You know very well that Conservadems don't vote on shit like republicans. You must know that Landrieu who is a Dem PUBLICLY stated that if there is a public option on health reform she's not for it. Do you hear that?! And you ask what could change Obama. Just because there's a public option this stupid twit is willing to drop the entire plan. Where in hell do you think single payer would have a chance.


Why is this so hard for people to understand. It's not complex. Look, I realize you just want something to whinge about. However, I think Obama is trying to push a policy that has a better chance than anything else. This is the one thing that really can't be killed with a few commercials because idiots who feel threatened, and there are posters on this board who LOVE private insurance but are stead fast Dems, want to keep their insurance.

And to b honest they have a bloody right. You and no one else should have the right to force something they don't want down their throats. That's what single payers want. You are as extreme as those private insurance lovers. No one wants choice---and I have no problems with private insurance because many developed and extremely well recognized and developed health care systems ie France, England and the like have private insurance.

[tranche]

15. Wasn't that as a state senate candidate?

It's alright to push him for single payer, which he didn't even campaign on during the election, but at least keep it truthful.

[jenmito]

17. No he didn't campaign for single payer. Why are you making stuff up? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

20. P. Obama did support single-payer in 2003, he did not campaign

for single-payer when running for President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[jenmito]

21. Thanks. Candidate Obama did not campaign for single-payer when running for president. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

22. Exactly, just do not use the word never :)) n/t

[jenmito]

25. I didn't. But he never ran on single-payer as a presidential candidate. :) n/t

[andym]

7. Attention was paid! That he now supports a public option is good!

Let's help him pass it!

Single payer may be better (if implemented well), but appeared untenable politically given the moderate majority in both houses of congress.

[Droogie666]

9. Better Than The Republicans

He doesn't have the votes for single-payer healthcare.

[Strong Atheist]

37. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[ProSense]

26. Actually, he campaigned on offering a public plan.

Obama’s key components here include:

Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.

link

[andym]

30. Oops I should have said that he now STILL supports a public option! nt.

[quantass]

36. PRECISELY! Public Option is the ONLY chance America has -- No way Single-Payer would have passed

..and i am all for single-payer but there is just no chance it would have passed. Public Option is the only best hope for America in achieving ultimately the proper path to single-payer. baby steps are needed.

[vaberella]

10. This is a rather worthless thread. Only stupid Obama supporters didn't pay attention.

Anyone who read his website and listened to his words new where he stood. I voted for him because of his health plan. So obviously there are lot fools out there who think he was vague. He told us exactly what he was going to do and only advocated public option as a candidate--nothing else. So I'm rather surprised that no one paid attention and felt duped.

[LWolf]

11. I did pay attention.

It's one of the many reasons I didn't support him.

[slipslidingaway]

23. Me too :) n/t

[Canuckistanian]

19. It was hardly EVER discussed here on DU

:hide:

[ProSense]

24. OK, WTF?

...For starters, candidate Barack Obama never ran on a platform to provide universal coverage. Of course he always said - then and now - that his goal is to cover everyone. But he has never put forward a concrete proposal for doing so, and hasn't endorsed a firm mandate that everyone purchase insurance. Remember those primary-season debates in which rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards criticized him for this? Attention should have been paid.

They lost, and Obama won based on his opposition to this BS.

Obama's position hasn't changed:

I understand the Committees are moving towards a principle of shared responsibility -- making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and asking that employers share in the cost. I share the goal of ending lapses and gaps in coverage that make us less healthy and drive up everyone's costs, and I am open to your ideas on shared responsibility. But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it. In addition, while I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.

The public option is to give people choice. Affordability comes before mandates, which is what he has always said. He still want to avoid mandates.

Also, Obama's plan was the only one that included coverage for catastrophic care.

[AtomicKitten]

31. thanks for this

[PurityOfEssence]

27. and his vague pacifism, vague environmentalism, vague financial regulation and blatant religiosity

The arguments from his stalwarts that he never promised all these things is a truly flimsy defense; the homilies about CHANGE and "hope" and all that were designed to sweep vast groups along with emotional momentum that THINGS WOULD BE DIFFERENT. This is classic old-style politics.

It was obvious to all who paid any attention (and to their credit, many of his strongest supporters) that he was an ULTRA-MODERATE CORPORATIST. Why so many people thought otherwise is quite impressive, but not the least bit surprising if one knows any history or has any awareness of the human condition.

Campaigning and legislating are vastly different from leading, and the latter forces one to take sides, something he has scrupulously avoided. Wanting to build consensus and serve all is a wonderful thing in theory and occasionally in practice, but having core beliefs and sticking to them is what people want from their leaders.

He does stand up and say the difficult thing at times, but he's made some serious blunders already and goodwill is a fleeting thing. Fickle as they are, people are herd animals, and the downside of starting with such high approval numbers is that they will by definition fall, prompting news hounds to infer more of a disillusionment than may be the case at certain times.

The basic problem with fame, image and public relations is this: life is decidedly marginal and bland, so distinctions have to be radically exaggerated to fulfill the hero-worshiping needs and villain-loathing righteousness of people. All groups fall into this, and politics is show business.

I remember talking with my dad about Kerry in '04. Dad's a staunch moderate liberal from the depression era south/midwest, and he was careful to point out to me that Kerry's grades weren't much better than Bush's. It was a surprise to him that I wasn't the least bit surprised: Kerry simply isn't that bright; he's not much smarter (if any) than Bush, and it showed. Still, those on the left had to build up Kerry's genius to the nth degree to contrast bumble-boy's imbecility. The truth was that they were on the dim side of average. (Sadly, though, Kerry had the worst of both worlds: not only was he an eastern intellectual--which is death in American politics--but he wasn't even all that smart.)

Enough rambling, though. The point is that people fill in the blanks and have expectations that are often unfounded, and those who deliberately play both sides of issues and inculcate feelings of being allied with people's hot-button issues will have to pay the piper at some point. By being on both sides of so many issues, MANY people are going to feel deceived. That does not bode well.

[dionysus]

32. the quality of your negative OPs has been on a downslide now for some time. try harder.

[Beacool]

34. "Attention should have been paid" about a lot of things.

But, as usual in this country, style trumped substance.

:shrug: