Pres Obama: "hands-off approach to healthcare...likely a mistake" & lost many progressives in August

[amborin]

"President Obama acknowledged on Wednesday that his hands-off approach to health care legislation had likely been a mistake and that he had “probably left too much ambiguity out there’’ by allowing Congress to take the lead in drafting a bill.

snip

When he set out to revamp the nation’s health care system, Mr. Obama sought to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton administration, which drafted a detailed measure in secret and then presented it to Congress — only to see it fall apart on Capitol Hill. The president said he had probably gone too far the other way, giving his opponents an edge.

“I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do this thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which then allowed opponents of reform to come in and fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense — everything from this ridiculous idea that we’re setting up ‘death panels’ to false notions that this was designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants,’’ Mr. Obama said...."

snip

<http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/hands-off-approach-may-have-been-a-mistake-obama-says/?scp=17&sq=hillary%20clinton%20and%20public%20option%20and%20obama%20and%20primary&st=cse>

old article, but still relevant; surely there was a middle ground between essentially handing over the drafting of healthcare legislation to Congress, and drafting it in total secret;

also back in August, Krugman wrote:

According to news reports, the Obama administration — which seemed, over the weekend, to be backing away from the “public option” for health insurance — is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives.

A backlash in the progressive base — which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory — has been building for months.....it’s also a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach.

snip

One purpose of the public option is to save money. Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums down.

And let’s be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham.

snip

Also, and importantly, the public option offered a way to reconcile differing views among Democrats. Until the idea of the public option came along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled some of those qualms.

That said, it’s possible to have universal coverage without a public option...... Unfortunately, the president’s behavior in office has undermined that confidence.

On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat who talks of “bending the curve” but has only recently begun to make the moral case for reform.

snip

Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy.

And then there’s the matter of the banks.....

I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing.

So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar.

snip

It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled.

Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced that co-ops, too, were unacceptable.

So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html?scp=4&sq=public%20option%20and%20obama%20and%20primary&st=cse>

[Poll_Blind]

1. Ah, so he's awesome at understatements as well! n/t

PB

[Turbineguy]

2. OK

So we start again.

[Cant trust em]

3. An important lesson moving forward.

I blew the criticism off at the time, but coming from the legislative body probably inculcates this mindset, to an extent.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

4. He can still fix it.

[AlinPA]

7. Hard to do now, the airwaves are still full of anti-Obama messages.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Ya think!

Well, at least he will never be unable to answer the question, "Mr. President, have you made any mistakes?"

Clearly, Obama is no Bush.

[iceman66]

6. You have to give the man credit.

He is at least willing to admit his mistakes, and hopefully learn from them!

[Bluebear]

8. Of course, Sen. Feingold says this is EXACTLY the bill the President wanted.

[iceman66]

14. I trust Obama over Feingold on this one.

If this was the bill the President wanted, he could have very easily avoided all the wrangling over the more controversial elements like the PO, and passed the damn thing months ago.

[noise]

16. This is the key point

This sounds like damage control. Like many politicians it seems Obama wants it both ways (i.e. support of the base and support of the insurance companies). He can't have it both ways. The democratic base should not fall for this. It is not an acceptable excuse.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. No, we don't. He still hasn't reined in David or Gibbster, or even Rahm.

if he reaches out to the left, or moderates, or better, if he demands that mandates are gone unless a serious public option is put in, then, he continues to blow us smoke.

[iceman66]

15. Why would he have to "rein in" Gibbs or Axelrod?

Two of the people most responsible for his election.

I'm not a big fan of Rahm myself, but I doubt he has any significant role when it comes to policy decisions.

[depakid]

9. The tendency usually is to "fight the last war"

even though the dynamics have substantially changed.

[Marr]

10. That "hands-off approach" was just a public thing.

They've apparently been very involved in negotiating behind the scenes. They knew where they wanted to take this bill-- they just wanted to let Obama stay out of the splash radius when the shit hit the fan.

[timeforpeace]

17. Like Bart Simpson: "I didn't do it!" Splash radius, LOL.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. And now the "opponents of reform" are against anything the Insurance companies tell them they are

What a difference a few months makes.

News to the Administration -- It wasn't "death panels" and "illegal immigrants" that killed this bill. It was your capitulation to PhRMA & Co and putting Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman's wishes against what is best for this country. Check your own CBO on that.

[csziggy]

13. So what has he done since to remedy that mistake?

The speech that shortly followed that article certainly did not give Congress a better focus and things have just gotten worse, not better.

I like Obama, I just want him to fight for what he campaigned for a little harder.

[timeforpeace]

18. Well, he realized it in August. So, not much.

[csziggy]

19. That is the frustrating and infuriating part of this

I do not believe for a second that Obama does not understand the system. He has got to know how things work and how he could push to get things done, but he has not actively pushed as hard as he could to get the important issues through Congress.

Maybe he underestimated the extent of the Republican opposition, but he had to have figured it out by September and he still has not changed his tactics.