Wow, Dean sure changed his tone from yesterday (updated)

[ProSense]

Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform

By Howard Dean
Thursday, December 17, 2009

<...>

To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont we have accomplished universal health care for children under 18 and real insurance reform -- which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

Here is what Dean said yesterday that is very different from the tone of this op-ed:

DEAN: Well, if it were me—I don‘t think this will happen, if it were me, I‘d kill the bill all entirely and have the House start reconciliation, which is what they should have done in the first place. To be held up by four senators—a minority of 40 who are totally uncooperative, which are the Republicans and then four senators beholden to insurance industry I think is wrong. But that‘s what‘s happened.

[AndyA]

1. Not really.

That's pretty much what he said on MSNBC last night.

[ProSense]

2. That does not say kill the bill. Not even close n/t

[AndyA]

8. All of the points you bolded were mentioned by Dean yesterday.

He said the bill didn't bring real reform yesterday as well.

Just because he didn't repeat the exact same thing verbatim from yesterday means he's changed his tone? :eyes:

The overall point is still the same: bad bill with a few good things.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. "as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America".

Since I do not beleive that Dr. Dean would advocate in favor of doing more harm than good to America I think it is safe to say that he would rather this bill be killed than pass "AS IT STANDS".

Of course he isn't rooting against the President, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that he still hopes this legislative effort can be improved upon and redeemed.

But as it stands now he would vote to kill it, that seems pretty clear.

[impik]

15. Wait! What? No "Kill the bill"?????

Damn, and already brought my gun.

[golddigger]

3. Huh? That was the same thing he said yesterday.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. "as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America"

An op-ed is usually more measured than speaking, but he hasn't changed his conclusion.

Assuming the OP is complete and he didn't actually write: "...as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America, so let's pass it!"

[ProSense]

7. The bill is in the works, and the Senate bill is not the final bill

Saying the bill can dtill be improved is different from "kill the bill."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

He said to kill the senate bill as it existed post-Lieberman

That is what he said.

And you know he supported it pre-Lieberman.

He didn't go on TV last night to denounce HCR categorically. He said that nobody should vote for the senate bill as it existed at the time of his speaking.

There was no attack on hypothetical improved bills.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Right, Republicans simply want the Democrats to fail

Democratic opponents of the current bill, myself included, would rather see it improved, but rather than passing it without improving it, we would rather see it killed. This is still a work and progrss and a moving target until the day it isn't.

[Cant trust em]

6. Great message and strikes the right tone.

I wish you didn't have such an inflammatory OP title.

[ProSense]

There is nothing "inflammatory" about the title.

It's a simple observation.

[Cant trust em]

20. Maybe inflammatory is the wrong word, but...

it does stir up some additional emotions. I like Dean's softer approach. No need to try and make him sound like a hypocrite.

Just my two cents.

[NJmaverick]

9. He is walking his comments back, he realizes he screwed up

with his first comments

[KansasVoter]

53. LOL...nice try!

[NJmaverick]

55. sorry but you're incorrect

Here is what Dean said today

"To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing. "

[chimpymustgo]

11. OP is false advertising or stupidity.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. That's what he said yesterday.

He wasn't saying to start over from scratch, he was saying not to let the bill as is through the Senate because it could be so much more with reconciliation.

[Enrique]

13. walkbacks are common in Washington

but that isn't one of them. Dean might at some future time come around and support the bill, but he hasn't yet.:

I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

[Larkspur]

19. Dean is not a Washington insider

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Yup, he's walking it back.

He done fucked up. Oh well, it's not that important.

[polichick]

16. You WISH! nt

[Sparkly]

17. "this bill would do more harm than good"

:shrug:

[Cha]

18. This was predicted and I don't blame

Dean for getting upset and then getting back to Earth.

[librechik]

22. there was a secret caucus meeting, remember (yesterday afternoon)

and Lieberman came out purring like a cat that the bill was almost good enough for him to vote for--now that they took everything out of it that would help the little guy and strengthened everything the corporations wanted.

That's when Dean turned. And why wouldn't he? We just learned that Obama is on "their " side not ours.
We used to think the president was on the people's side against the big monopoly. That American Dream we used to actually live is officially over. And we worked so hard to reinstate it after Bush. We had a chance, it seemed.

Just a dream.

[Mass]

23. If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill.

How more explicit can you be?

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

After that, he calls for senators to work more on the bill in order to make the modifications, but his point is clear. If he was a senator, he would not vote for this bill.

He has been told he did not understand the senate, so he tries to cast that in a way most Democratic senators can understand, but his point his clear.

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

[Clio the Leo]

24. I like how he just told Tweety, "I didn't say 'kill the bill!'" NT

[vaberella]

29. Clio when you get the video link of that, please post it in the GDP section here.

Because many here said he didn't change his tune.

[Clio the Leo]

43. lol, I thought about you the ENTIRE time I was watching that.....

.... I'm not so sure I'd agree that he changed his tune because he's basically saying the same thing (I was just piling on with my previous post in this thread lol)

Here is him saying "that is not what I said" to Tweety's question "you will bring this bill down, you will kill it!"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34449474#34452771 (he says, "I would vote against it if I were in the Senate" as if that means something totally different.)

And here is his appearance on Countdown last night. That's not where he said "Kill the Bill" but he doesn't deny it when O'Donnel said, "you would kill this bill."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34439255

I think the original "kill the bill" comment came in that New Hampshire interview, right? I dont have time to look.

Well .... we all knwo the ORIGINAL Kill the Bill chant came from the teabaggers .... which makes it all the more sad that Dean and half of DU is now chanting it.

[Cha]

30. Really! Yeah, I love Dean..this sounds more

like him!

[Clio the Leo]

25. lol, the only thing more amusing is "Big Eddy" now suddenly against the bill

.... that he was in favor of for the last two nights.

[midnight]

26. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good

to the future of America. This is what he said today. Does not sound like he is talking any differently.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Regarding your update

The key I believe is the phrase "if it were up to me" followed by a specific course of action that included starting a reconciliation process for what presumedly Dean feels would lead to a better final product. But he also acknowledged that not only is it not up to him, but it probably won't happen that way. So back to the realm of what Dean seemingly thinks are more realistic possibilities, he still hopes the bill can be improved on before being forced to conclude that the final version may not be any more worthy of passage than the current one. But were that still his conclusion at the end of the day, he would urge it be rejected.

[ProSense]

28. Yeah, too bad the knee-jerk reactionaries didn't see it that way.

Now he's walking back his comment. It happens.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. I don't think he walked back his comment

I do think that he provided more context to view it within though. I think that is worth noting but I don't think it fair to say he has walked back anything - he explained it further but his bottom line conclusion remains the same: Better NOT to pass this legislation in its current form. Or in other words, based on today's snapshot kill it but see if we can't make it better before we have to "pull that trigger (multiple puns intended).

[ProSense]

34. Walking it back is clarifying to remove the unintended interpretation. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. OK. I can live with that definitioin...

...but he also reaffirmed the intended interpretation.

[madfloridian]

40. Yes, Tom, he just further explained it.

And he did not change any thing substantial..

I appreciated your posts today, BTW

[vaberella]

31. Well I'm not holding what Dean says as worthwhile these days to be honest.

He's been switching from one fence to the other with no clear position. To be honest I'm starting to think he never read the bill and probably is self interested. I thought his agenda, earlier on in this debate, was for the American people. Now, I can honestly say I dont know where he stands. I was glad he started advocating for the PO since I pushed it more than SP...but his back and forth is tiring and really shit mixed messages.

[girl gone mad]

37. No mixed messages.

"I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America."


In politics, it doesn't get much clearer than that.

[vaberella]

57. Uh he was in support of the bill a week ago and now thinks it's worth killing.

He changed his tune.

[Phx_Dem]

32. I guess he doesn't want to be held responsible for killing HRC afterall.

[dave29]

38. I really hope he does not kill Hillary also.

:O

[IndianaGreen]

35. Kill the bill! Viva Chavez!

[madfloridian]

39. Not true. He was loudly pushing reconciliation on Hardball

while Mary and Chris played footsy while she lied.

He was just as firm and clear.

[Zodiak]

41. Oh look

Another sad attempt at misrepresenting Dean's intentions for the purpose of cajoling progressives into falling into line.

Seriously, I know some people here have repeatedly said that progressives are "stupid" or "immature", but that does not mean we buy into intellectual dishonesty. I am beginning to think that some of those who have been railing against liberals on this site lately are starting to believe their own tired talking points.

[cornermouse]

42. I'm sort of curious as to how you

can link to a Washington post article dated on the 17th when today is only the 16th and its nowhere near midnight even on the east coast. ...I don't suppose you'd like to explain that?....

[Moosepoop]

45. I'm going to go out on a limb here

and assume that she was able to link to the article in question by copying and pasting the URL to it.

That would be: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html

As to why the Washington Post published the article online with tomorrow's date on it, I can only suggest that you contact them for an explanation.

[cornermouse]

54. One little problem with that defense.

The website is still showing December 16 on everything.

[Moosepoop]

56. Yes... and ???

The website is correctly dated. The opinion piece authored by Dr. Dean is not. Some possibilities are that Dr. Dean put tomorrow's date on his op-ed on the assumption that it would be published then, or that it's simply a typo made by somebody in the process of getting the op-ed posted. Again, I suggest that you contact the Washington Post and ask them about it, since it seems to be causing you such consternation.

I am not offering a "defense" to anything, by the way, as there is nothing to "defend." I am curious, though, as to what nefarious activity you suspect the author of the OP of engaging in. Do you believe that she wrote the article herself, passed it off as being authored by Dr. Dean, and somehow got it fraudulently published online by the WaPo? Or are you thinking that she somehow, and for some reason, hacked into the WaPo website and changed the date on Dean's piece? Or what?? Really, I am curious. What dastardly deed has been done? Please enlighten, and thanks.

[cornermouse]

62. No. It wasn't available on the actual website stories for that day.

I looked so I know. It is there today, however. Somebody got a little too cocky.

[Moosepoop]

63. Thanks for the nonsensical answer.

I'm still really curious as to what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate, please?

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Today Dean still says the bill does more harm than goode

"I know health reform when I see it, and there isn't much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America."

No tune changed at all. Have you no decency, sir?

[Cha]

46. Dean says there are some good provisions in the Bill..

"To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing."

[Bluenorthwest]

47. But overall he concludes that it does more harm than good.

More harm than good. That is Dr Dean's conclusion.

[asdjrocky]

48. I support Howard Dean.

[AndyA]

51. Yo, Rocky!

:hi:

[asdjrocky]

52. Long time man!

:hi:

[Guilded Lilly]

49. Sounds pretty much the same to me.

He spoke on Dr. Nancy on MSNBC this morning and said the same things. He hasn't changed his tone. He's clarifying it. And yesterday he said that there would some good things in this bill as well, but not enough of what we SHOULD be getting. I think he is right. Still.

[AndyA]

50. Tonight--on Hardball--Dean basically said the same thing he said last night.

I'm not really sure why this is such a big deal to you, but no he really hasn't changed his tone from yesterday. He still talked about reconciliation, and how the Republicans shoved everything through that way during the Bush years.

Give it a rest.

[Justitia]

58. Huh? He was all over teevee saying exactly the same thing.

:silly:

[AuntPatsy]

59. I have been reading you for quite some time, I realize your position

on DU but I have to tell you , this is one time that you have allowed yourself to go low...in an attempt to make a Cartoon Characters of Howard Dean whom cannot nor should be taken seriously you have OPted to imply that he is someone that should be seen as playing games when in fact, it is more than obvious to many of us that out of all the power players in washington, Dean is perhaps one of the very few that can be counted on to be up front and honest when the issues have to do with the citizens of this country, the fact that there is such a small percentage of representatives who can be counted to stand up for the citizens of this country regardless of the backlash of smears and more than likely threats that can be hurled at any unwilling to play ball is telling...

By you falling in line like many today attempting to belittle Dean you have in essence become what you seem to despiise...you know the ones, the ones that come bearing false "myths" instead of "dispelling" them...

There are many other issues you could write about in an attempt to help reign in the dissenters , but trashing Dean was just not one of them, and regardless of how you worded your op, what it amounts to was nothing more than a HIT piece on a man who could not have been less deserving of such.

JMHO even if my opinion is of so little merit....

I am just disappointed I guess...

[mcablue]

60. why didn't you bold"this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America."

Why not put such an important part of his op-ed in bold letters, as you do to your favorite portions?

[ind_thinker2]

61. I didnot change from yesterday, I donot approve of Pres Obama