Pelosi Reps the Public Option; Obama Admits He Abandoned It

[Triana]

Source: AlterNet

Well, there’s good news out of the presidential health care summit today. Nancy Pelosi who has gone back and forth time and time again over the public health insurance option has really repped it today. Addressing the President, Pelosi said:

• • • 

Pelosi’s remarks were followed by what may be Obama’s first public admission of what many of us have been pointing out for some time now — that he abandoned the public option he campaigned on… and not for lack of votes as has been the official mantra, but because the GOP can’t swallow it, and he was striving for a bipartisan bill.

Read more: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/25/breaking-pelosi-reps-the-public-option-obama-admits-he-abandoned-it/

[saracat]

1. And the truth hurts.But even if the Prez says it, Some will not believe it.

Thank you ,Nancy.

[timeforpeace]

22. Had a hunch about who you're referring to, and lo and behold, looked below and saw them.

[timeforpeace]

23. Down a little more.

[depakid]

2. If Pelosi wants to keep the House majority, she needs to place the onus directly on the Senate

including several senators of her own party who've tarnished every Democrat in every state at every level with their corruption and complicity.

[golddigger]

3. Slam Dunk Nancy!

:yourock: :headbang:

[Robbien]

4. Obama doesn't want it but not because GOPers don't like it

but because he has already made an agreement with insurance companies to not support it.

[JTFrog]

5. Bullshit. n/t

[Robbien]

7. See this thread

The Real Reason Obama's Plan Doesn't Include a Public Option
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7790696


"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried (about a public option.) 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html

[JTFrog]

9. I've seen more than enough of that thread. Anonymous bullshit sources from August-'09.

"Hospital industry lobbyists, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House, say they negotiated their $155 billion in concessions with Mr. Baucus and the administration in tandem."

And folks fall for it. Hook line and fucking sinker.

[Robbien]

11. Show me one

quote anywhere where Obama says he supports a public option. Other than campaign rhetoric.

[JTFrog]

12. And when I do, then what will you say?

I could even provide video of the words coming out of the President's mouth.

What good would that do? Would you recant what you've said? Would it change your mind?

I seriously doubt it.

A waste of time dealing with folks who fall for anonymous sources then demand that others cough up proof to prove them wrong.

[flyarm]

58. major news organizations have relied for centuries on anonymous sources

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/media/09askthetimes.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


The Times and other major news organizations have relied for centuries on anonymous sources, including, in the most famous case of all, the Pentagon Papers, almost exactly 40 years ago (the Columbia Journalism School study, alas, does not have a decade-by-decade comparison). And the suggestions in your question, that if we banned anonymous sources we would get back to "normal," and that anonymous sources have made reporters lazy, are ones with which I disagree.

If The Times and other large news-gathering organizations declared a unilateral ban on anonymous sources, readers would be denied critical and urgent news in the public interest. Think about some of the major stories that have been published as part of journalism's highest calling, keeping the government accountable to the people: not only the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, but also the more recent revelations about the government's secret, warrantless eavesdropping program and the C.I.A.'s overseas detention sites. These stories, published by The New York Times and The Washington Post, were justifiably awarded journalism's highest honor, the Pulitzer Prize. And each of them relied on anonymous sources.

In many cases, anonymous sources are people working inside the government, a business or other powerful institution who witness possible abuses of power and talk to journalists in order to hold power accountable. They fear retribution, perhaps losing their jobs or worse. This is why they ask to be cloaked in anonymity.

[freddie mertz]

61. Do you really the president has supported the public option in any substantive way?

Other than some promises, made a long time ago?

The question now is whether he will support it if the Dems get 50 Senators to vote for it and Biden becomes the necessary 51st.

Will Obama move to support it then?

I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.

[saracat]

13. Cute. So say anything to get elected"campaign rhetoric" is okay with you?

Gotcha. This is what is wrong with our party today.

[amborin]

19. so it's ok to lie to voters? make promises that he had NO intention of keeping?

[flyarm]

59. major news organizations have relied for centuries on anonymous sources

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/media/09askthetimes.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


The Times and other major news organizations have relied for centuries on anonymous sources, including, in the most famous case of all, the Pentagon Papers, almost exactly 40 years ago (the Columbia Journalism School study, alas, does not have a decade-by-decade comparison). And the suggestions in your question, that if we banned anonymous sources we would get back to "normal," and that anonymous sources have made reporters lazy, are ones with which I disagree.

If The Times and other large news-gathering organizations declared a unilateral ban on anonymous sources, readers would be denied critical and urgent news in the public interest. Think about some of the major stories that have been published as part of journalism's highest calling, keeping the government accountable to the people: not only the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, but also the more recent revelations about the government's secret, warrantless eavesdropping program and the C.I.A.'s overseas detention sites. These stories, published by The New York Times and The Washington Post, were justifiably awarded journalism's highest honor, the Pulitzer Prize. And each of them relied on anonymous sources.

In many cases, anonymous sources are people working inside the government, a business or other powerful institution who witness possible abuses of power and talk to journalists in order to hold power accountable. They fear retribution, perhaps losing their jobs or worse. This is why they ask to be cloaked in anonymity.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Soooooooooooooo do you have a better way of getting info from people working inside the white house or government???

Seems by your premise..we would never have known about the Pentagon papers, Watergate, Warrantless Spying on Americans..or the Valerie Plame story..and so many other stories too numerous to post here..

So what is your better solution rather than Annonomous sources???????

We all know how well the whistleblowers have been protected..or better said..not protected.

Bring it on ..you have a better solution than a system that has been used for centuries of using annonomous sources..bring it on!!

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

57. IMO, what the hospitals object to is the

"paying Medicare rates" part. It does not compensate them for the cost of care of the patient. Right now they have to make it up, along with the cost of caring for the uninsured, from the insurance companies negotiated rates.

I don't think they would object to a single payor plan that paid at a higher , fairer rate. It would sure save them a lot in admin costs such as billing and collecting from so many insurance companies.

[Unvanguard]

64. Um, there's a qualifier in that sentence that most people in that thread are ignoring

"a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services."

Of course, both of those possibilities were blocked by conservative Democrats anyway; the final form of the public option, if I recall correctly, included neither.

[PassingFair]

68. And as I recall, they were discussing Medicare PLUS rates.

The percentage over kept changing, but I seem
to recall Medicare plus 6% being discussed at
one time.

[Cleita]

6. I can understand after the divisive Presidency of the uniter GWB* why

Obama wants to bring the two warring sides together as Americans first by trying for bipartisanship. But does that mean you must walk in lockstep with everything one side wants? I don't think so. It's time for President Obama to listen to what two-thirds of the people want and this is from both parties and that is health care that they can count on and that they can get no matter what they can or cannot afford.

[SnoopDog]

8. How lame...Do they really think Democrats are that stupid to believe that????

[Bluenorthwest]

10. And look at all the support he gained by trying to please them

He got no support whatsoever. The lesson is that this 'striving' for bipartisanship is wrongheaded, foolish, and a waste of time. It puts Democrats in the position of being forced to vote for a Republican idea, when even Republicans won't vote for it. This 'exchange' and profit only mandate bill is not acceptable.

[swilton]

15. Bipartisanship is a Figleaf

Obama loves the Liebermans of this world (keep in mind he campaigned for same in Connecticutt) so that he can use them as an excuse when he does the lobbyists bidding.

If Obama really believes in bi-partisanship we will never move forward with the change that this country so desperately needs....Vested interests represented predominantly in the Republican Party will always resist such change because it threatens their power and vested interests.

[skyounkin]

14. Damn....Nancy,

I have dissed you in the past. I apologize and hope to see you speak truth to power no matter who it is.

[Jefferson23]

16. K&R

The PCCC just put out the following statement:

“President Obama gave Republicans one final chance, and the verdict is in: Bipartisanship is dead. It’s clear that no Republicans will vote for health care reform. So Senate Democrats should pass the highly popular public option through reconciliation. Starting tomorrow, we will ramp up our pressure on Senate Democrats to do the will of the people – and do what’s best for America’s health care system – by passing the public option into law.”

Well, let’s hope!

[ProSense]

17. Where does Obama admit he abandoned it?

What a bogus claim.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Nothing like garbage from our side,

to add to the pile on from the other side and their media.
Kind of like some here work for them, even if they don't think so.

[JDPriestly]

21. FrenchieCat, Pelosi's words and Obama's words speak for themselves.

We cannot deny reality just because we like someone. The reality is that Obama caved to corporate pressure. That is the reality.

[amborin]

20. bogus? Obama has abandoned the P.O.! the public wants it, dems can get it, but Obama abandoned it!

[Cali_Democrat]

29. We have enough votes to get it through the Senate?

You sure about that?

[hulka38]

33. Obama, "...after the public option wasn’t available..."

Synonyms for unavailable are: taken, out and nonexistent but do not include the word abandon. But if context is considered, I think it's fair.

Quote from Alternet: “There were criticisms about the public option. That’s when supposedly there was going to be a government takeover of health care. And even after the public option wasn’t available, we still hear the same rhetoric…We have the concept of an exchange, which previously has been an idea that was embraced by Republicans before I embraced it. Now, suddenly, it became less of a good idea.”

[vaberella]

60. I've been searching and searching and searching. Ugh...more shit. n/t

[timeforpeace]

24. Sounds like Nancy's on board for starting over with the PO being the centerpiece.

[ROTATING_VILLAIN]

25. looks like they are in damage control mode

they are afraid of being caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Their shell game on HCE is becoming a bit too obvious

[polichick]

26. No surprise - and we all knew it would get him NOTHING! Wonder if he gets it yet. nt

[jenmito]

27. If enough Dems. would've been for it, he would've welcomed/praised it. n/t

[saracat]

30. His job is to make enough Dems want it.That is what other presidents did.

Some even got GOP votes and didn't give away the farm to do it.

[amborin]

31. it's called LEADERSHIP!

[jenmito]

34. And he led us further than any other president has to getting a HCR bill!

[amborin]

38. he fiddled all summer, while the issue languished; he abandoned the PO and his campaign promises!

[No Elephants]

51. He led us into deals with insurers, PHRMA and big health care before the process

even started. Maybe no other President was willing to give away the store from the jump. And no bill yet, despite 13 months and loss of the 60th Senator in the Democratic Caucus.

If you want to see what happens when Obama really leads the Democratic Congress, check out the speed with which Congress banned drug re-importation from Canada, once Obama made his wishes known.

[PassingFair]

69. He hasn't led US on this, we've led HIM.

He won the primary based on his apparent
DIFFERENCES from the DLC Candidate, INCLUDING
health care with a pubic option and NO MANDATES,
and his anti-Iraq war, anti-Neocon rhetoric.

Then the country voted to elect him to fix things.

We put him in the zone, now we want him to follow
through. NOT make the same deals with insurance and pharma
that the 'pukes would have.

[polichick]

37. True, as opposed to placating the enemy or covering one's ass...

Hopefully, he gets it now and will lead.

[jenmito]

32. Obama has gotten us further than any other president has.

He seems to know what he's doing.

[saracat]

35. Not really. Nothing has happened yet And the WH poposal isn't that much better than status quo.

Nixon had a better health plan.If this passes, it will be landmark but mostly symbolic.Winning to win.But some think that is better than nothing. We could have gotten a much better deal with the mandate pres.Obama had and the strength of congress.If anything notably good comes of this, I will give credit to Nancy Pelosi, who has fought for this.

[ProSense]

39. "Nixon had a better health plan.If this passes, it will be landmark but mostly symbolic." Bullshit

n/t

[amborin]

42. it's the painful truth

[jenmito]

40. "Not really"??? That just shows you have no idea what you're talking about...

or you hate Obama so much that you're ignoring the facts. NO president has gotten a HCR bill passed in the House and Senate like Obama has.

[saracat]

45. This isn't HCR no matter what it is called. No real plan has ever

gotten anywhere because it has never been submitted. This is nothing but political theatre.And I do not hate Obama.I am just not impressed with him. I don't think her is a good leader.He is better than Mccain would have been but he is certainly no FDR or even LBJ on domestic issues.

[No Elephants]

52. He did not get the House Bill passed. Besides, the first House Bill was single payer, which Obama

took off the table during the primary. At most, Obama may get the House to swallow the industry bonanza Senate bill, which was Obama's baby, or so we must assume, after all the praise he gave Baucus during the summer and after the Senate bill was passed.

[amborin]

41. unless you're a high-profit health insurance corp, then Obama's plan is way better!

[jenmito]

43. Yeah. That's why everyone is against it. Every liberal congressman is a sell-out, right?

:eyes:

[amborin]

44. there are quite a few, who, along w/ the American public, want a P.O.

[jenmito]

46. Nice try at a change of subject.

[saracat]

47. Even liberal congressmen can be bullied by party loyalty and the need for DNC funding for

reelection.

[jenmito]

48. Keep making up reasons to justify your position.

[No Elephants]

55. Better than a Republican President proposed 4 decades ago, when the sittutation was

entirely different than it is today? Before K Street controlled Congress and health insurers, big health care and big PHRMA got to be the criminals they are today?

BTW, where has Obama's vastly superior plan for the past 13 months, especially the 12 months the Democratic Caucus had 60 members?

[tekisui]

50. "Further" means nothing.

Clinton got further than any other, up until now. What did that get for us?

Only results matter.

[No Elephants]

56. Self Delete.

[jenmito]

66. In case you haven't noticed, they're well on their way to getting it passed. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

28. What the House passed was a watered down public option. Pelosi making point Dems have compromised.

The Republicans, of course, have not. Their aim is to kill. the. bill!

[boppers]

36. Abandoned?

Cute word choice.

[No Elephants]

53. He left it out of his bill. He never insisted on it with Congress. To the contrary, he called it a

sliver last summer, while chiding his "liberal friends" for clamoring for a public option and praising Baucus to the skies . Which word would you use?

[freddie mertz]

62. I would use "abandoned," like any other honest observer would.

I don't understand why people are still disputing this after all we seen and heard from this WH.

[boppers]

71. I would say he "accepted losing it".

Abandonment (in the headline's context) places the onus of it's removal (or lack of support) on Obama, rather than where it belongs, in Congress.

[DisgustedInMN]

49. Truth to power.

We see you have no clothes Barack.

[No Elephants]

54. Earth to WH. No admission necessary. We noticed. All your "liberal friends" noticed. The rest

were in deep denial and still are.

[Unvanguard]

63. That's not what the quoted portion of his remarks said.

Effectively it implies that it was dropped because of the opposition to it, but it doesn't say whether it was a matter of lack of votes or not. (Recall that it was not until the very end that it was clear the Democrats could pass the bill with no Republican votes, and doing so cost them a lot in terms of bargaining with Nelson etc.)

[LatteLibertine]

65. IMO

There's no PO because many of the Democrats who claim to support it do not. Some of them are insurance industry puppets just like the Republicans. It's sad that the "industry experts" that helped shape this bill were simply lobbyists.

BTW we should have medicare for all.

[yurbud]

67. Open Left's take on it:

http://openleft.com/diary/17574/breaking-pelosi-makes-strong-case-for-house-public-option-going-forward-we-must-act

[tnlefty]

72. Thanks for that!

Bookmarked and I may go :puke: over the rail of the porch.

[maryf]

70. How about 400 billion?

Pelosi "Well, I bring that up because we have come such a long way….As a representative of the House of Representatives, I want you to know that we were there that day in support of a public option which would save $120 billion, keep the insurance companies honest, and increase competition. "

What she and everyone else keeps forgetting is that an Expanded Medicare for all Single Payer plan would save 400 billion in administrative costs alone...and the implementaion would be very easy...the only thing is all these legislators would lose the INSURANCE Industries' campaign finance contributions...And that's why Margaret Flowers and other Baucus 8 people weren't invited to the summit and held their own on the sidewalk...