Obama has lost his 'public option' on healthcare

[SavageOrangeJug]

Swatted down like that fly he killed.

A few comments.

Wait for it . . . “I don't think this bill is worth passing without a public option,” said former DNC chairman Howard Dean.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “Ultimately, if the president decides he’s going to go with a reform effort that doesn’t include a public option, what he will have done is spent a ton of political capital, riled up an incredibly angry right-wing base that’s been told this is a plot to kill Grandma, and he will have achieved something that doesn’t change health care very much and that doesn’t save us very much money and won’t do much for the American people.

Roiling Netroots Nation -- where they’re looking for a cause: “Many at the convention expressed their own frustration at being unable to effectively push for health-care reform because terms like public option and single payor are confusing. Their inability to do so raises questions about their own effectiveness,” Kris Maher and Jake Sherman write in The Wall Street Journal.

SOURCE: ABC News

 

[OrangeYankee]

While this is good news to me, I do have to agree with the sentiments that if the bill does not include a public option, than what is the point of the current bill?

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

While this is good news to me, I do have to agree with the sentiments that if the bill does not include a public option, than what is the point of the current bill?

Exactly. Teleprompter Jesus will have to pass something to save face.

He lost and Americans won, it's that simple.

We won big time. This healthcare debate has exposed Obama for the unqualified idiot that he really is. It has seriously damaged his political authority. In 2010 liberals become sitting ducks, and he becomes a lame duck. In 2012 he becomes a former POTUS.

 

[rjd970]

I think everybody looks silly here. Appealing to the lowest common denominator with terms like "Death Panel" and birth certificate psuedo-controversies is the bread and butter of the conservative party....and the "cry me a river", equality for all mentality of the liberal base reared its ugly head once again. The sad part is, the utter stupidity of the HC bill could have been argued and won simply on the facts. Generally speaking, the American public (on both sides) have to be convinced with one-liners and bumper stickers instead of intelligent, honest debate. I don't think Obama was the only one looking stupid here, I think this debate brought out the worst in both parties.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

I think everybody looks silly here. Appealing to the lowest common denominator with terms like "Death Panel" and birth certificate psuedo-controversies is the bread and butter of the conservative party....and the "cry me a river", equality for all mentality of the liberal base reared its ugly head once again. The sad part is, the utter stupidity of the HC bill could have been argued and won simply on the facts. Generally speaking, the American public (on both sides) have to be convinced with one-liners and bumper stickers instead of intelligent, honest debate. I don't think Obama was the only one looking stupid here, I think this debate brought out the worst in both parties.

You are probably correct in that assessment. Most major political debates do bring out the worst in both parties.

However, Obama is clearly the one with egg on his face.

 

[joevol320]

I think everybody looks silly here. Appealing to the lowest common denominator with terms like "Death Panel" and birth certificate psuedo-controversies is the bread and butter of the conservative party....and the "cry me a river", equality for all mentality of the liberal base reared its ugly head once again. The sad part is, the utter stupidity of the HC bill could have been argued and won simply on the facts. Generally speaking, the American public (on both sides) have to be convinced with one-liners and bumper stickers instead of intelligent, honest debate. I don't think Obama was the only one looking stupid here, I think this debate brought out the worst in both parties.

i don't think that's accurate. i think you saw a lot of Americans truly worried about a government run healthcare. unlike these cooridinated protests that unions and acorn do.

as for the death panel, look at what washington did with their state run healthcare. they did exactly what people fear from the Fed. they deny various cancer treatments but do encourage end of life counselling.

i do believe that the government would progress to something like that. as they do in anything they take over.

 

[lawgator1]

i don't think that's accurate. i think you saw a lot of Americans truly worried about a government run healthcare. unlike these cooridinated protests that unions and acorn do.

as for the death panel, look at what washington did with their state run healthcare. they did exactly what people fear from the Fed. they deny various cancer treatments but do encourage end of life counselling.

i do believe that the government would progress to something like that. as they do in anything they take over.

They were worried because they were duped with false statements and hysteria drummed up by a small constituency on the right that placed a higher premium on embarrassing Obama than having a legitmate policy discussion on what to do with the out of control cost of health care in this country.

Obama is feeling the sting now, no doubt., But I suspect that in a few years this may prove to be a politically hollow victory for the the right.

 

[T-TownVol]

I think everybody looks silly here. Appealing to the lowest common denominator with terms like "Death Panel" and birth certificate psuedo-controversies is the bread and butter of the conservative party....and the "cry me a river", equality for all mentality of the liberal base reared its ugly head once again. The sad part is, the utter stupidity of the HC bill could have been argued and won simply on the facts. Generally speaking, the American public (on both sides) have to be convinced with one-liners and bumper stickers instead of intelligent, honest debate. I don't think Obama was the only one looking stupid here, I think this debate brought out the worst in both parties.

Now, THERE is the transparency we have been waiting for!

 

[BigPapaVol]

They were worried because they were duped with false statements and hysteria drummed up by a small constituency on the right that placed a higher premium on embarrassing Obama than having a legitmate policy discussion on what to do with the out of control cost of health care in this country.

Obama is feeling the sting now, no doubt., But I suspect that in a few years this may prove to be a politically hollow victory for the the right.

don't be silly. The vitriol is because the public funding option is not legitimate policy in this country.

Be honest with yourself, the nitwit was trying to use a huge recession to generate enough of a trumped up emergency to talk the American public into buying more something for nothing talk. It was a rehash of FDR style politics and thank goodness it appears to be floundering.

Trying to pin this on a few right wingers is stupid. Nobody in the middle wanted it either. Clearly the full court press was about salvaging this before Obama lost his fantasy mandate. That wasn't about policy debate. It was about political maneuvering. The left wing machine was far more active in this silliness than the right wingers you're trying to toss bombs upon.

 

[rjd970]

Trying to pin this on a few right wingers is stupid. Nobody in the middle wanted it either. Clearly the full court press was about salvaging this before Obama lost his fantasy mandate. That wasn't about policy debate. It was about political maneuvering. The left wing machine was far more active in this silliness than the right wingers you're trying to toss bombs upon.

Absolutely the left wing machine made this about political maneuvering, but the right wingers made it about saying anything (whether it was true or not) and doing anything to kill it.

Any healthcare plan with a public option was going to be disasterous and it should be obvious strictly by looking at the facts. There was way too little of this from what I could tell, and the good points that were made I suspect was more an outcome of political partisanship, not legitimate reasoning.

Just once, I would like to see debate about policy strictly on its merits. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[utvolpj]

Just once, I would like to see debate about policy strictly on its merits. I'm not holding my breath though.

I would too but you have to first (1) complete the legislation you are working on and (2) allow people to read and understand it. I'm not sure both those have happened in a long time

 

[rjd970]

unlike these cooridinated protests that unions and acorn do.

I think it is pretty naive to think some of these townhall protests weren't coordinated in some fashion.

as for the death panel, look at what washington did with their state run healthcare. they did exactly what people fear from the Fed. they deny various cancer treatments but do encourage end of life counselling.

I think this is indicitive of the fear mongering the left was talking about.

...

 

[MG1968]

...

sure, some of them were coordinated. so what? I don't recall anybody on the left crying over the Prop 8 protests in California.

the "death panels" are already law, they were passed in the stimulus bill, section 9201.

American Thinker: How the Stimulus Bill Could Kill You

On page 151 of this legislative pork-fest is one of the clandestine nuggets of social policy manipulation that are peppered throughout the bill. Section 9201 of the stimulus package establishes the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research." This body, which would be made up of federal bureaucrats will "coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research."

Sounds benign enough, but the man behind the Coordinating Council, Health and Human Services Secretary-designate (and tax cheat) Tom Daschle, was kind enough to explain the goal of this organization. It is to cut health care costs by preventing Americans from getting treatments that the government decides don't meet their standards for cost effectiveness. In his 2008 book on health care, he explained that such a council would, "lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments and procedures are most effective-and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags."

 

[lawgator1]

don't be silly. The vitriol is because the public funding option is not legitimate policy in this country.

Be honest with yourself, the nitwit was trying to use a huge recession to generate enough of a trumped up emergency to talk the American public into buying more something for nothing talk. It was a rehash of FDR style politics and thank goodness it appears to be floundering.

Trying to pin this on a few right wingers is stupid. Nobody in the middle wanted it either. Clearly the full court press was about salvaging this before Obama lost his fantasy mandate. That wasn't about policy debate. It was about political maneuvering. The left wing machine was far more active in this silliness than the right wingers you're trying to toss bombs upon.

I never really though that the push was for health care reform based on the economy. Sure, the argument is made that it would be less expensive over the long haul to provide insurance this way than to provide health care via the public system and the ever expanding base of people that qualify for Medicaid, particularly when things are getting very dire and expensive.

But it never seemed to me that he was selling it based on finance as much as the call to broaden the delivery system to those who can't afford it.

In the end, that might have been the mistake. Perhaps had he said, look, these 45 million people will eventually get health care anyway because they will show up at the ER when they get really sick and the hospitals must treat them by law, then pass on the costs to us in Medicaid or indirectly through chargin insured patients more.

We will pay for their healthcare, one way or the other. We can either do it the way we've been doing it, with a system riddled with inefficiencies and pointless red tape, or we can make health insurance available to so many more people, thereby reducing their criticial utilization and avoiding the after-care part of the administrative costs, which are huge.

 

[MG1968]

the "45 million without insurance/access" number is such BS.

it's been proven, time and again that there might be 10-15 million Americans who cannot get health insurance for a variety of reasons, most having to do with chronic, pre-existing conditions.

those people can and should get some help, but not at the expense of the entire system.

 

[T-TownVol]

I never really though that the push was for health care reform based on the economy. Sure, the argument is made that it would be less expensive over the long haul to provide insurance this way than to provide health care via the public system and the ever expanding base of people that qualify for Medicaid, particularly when things are getting very dire and expensive.

But it never seemed to me that he was selling it based on finance as much as the call to broaden the delivery system to those who can't afford it.

In the end, that might have been the mistake. Perhaps had he said, look, these 45 million people will eventually get health care anyway because they will show up at the ER when they get really sick and the hospitals must treat them by law, then pass on the costs to us in Medicaid or indirectly through chargin insured patients more.

We will pay for their healthcare, one way or the other. We can either do it the way we've been doing it, with a system riddled with inefficiencies and pointless red tape, or we can make health insurance available to so many more people, thereby reducing their criticial utilization and avoiding the after-care part of the administrative costs, which are huge.

Not one word of your speech here is, in ANY way, a reason that people spoke up against this, listen carefully now, are ya listening, GOVERNMENT run program.

Everyone agrees that costs need to be contained, DUH.
The government mandating it is the issue.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I never really though that the push was for health care reform based on the economy. Sure, the argument is made that it would be less expensive over the long haul to provide insurance this way than to provide health care via the public system and the ever expanding base of people that qualify for Medicaid, particularly when things are getting very dire and expensive.

But it never seemed to me that he was selling it based on finance as much as the call to broaden the delivery system to those who can't afford it.

In the end, that might have been the mistake. Perhaps had he said, look, these 45 million people will eventually get health care anyway because they will show up at the ER when they get really sick and the hospitals must treat them by law, then pass on the costs to us in Medicaid or indirectly through chargin insured patients more.

We will pay for their healthcare, one way or the other. We can either do it the way we've been doing it, with a system riddled with inefficiencies and pointless red tape, or we can make health insurance available to so many more people, thereby reducing their criticial utilization and avoiding the after-care part of the administrative costs, which are huge.

You are pissed because of all the $$$$$$$$ that could have had under the bill.......

:banghead2:

 

[T-TownVol]

the "45 million without insurance/access" number is such BS.

it's been proven, time and again that there might be 10-15 million Americans who cannot get health insurance for a variety of reasons, most having to do with chronic, pre-existing conditions.

those people can and should get some help, but not at the expense of the entire system.

and the left calls us the "fear mongers"

 

[T-TownVol]

You are pissed because of all the $$$$$$$$ that could have had under the bill.......

:banghead2:

Thank You for changing the av & sig

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Thank You for changing the av & sig

Wait till football is over...

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

sure, some of them were coordinated. so what? I don't recall anybody on the left crying over the Prop 8 protests in California.

the "death panels" are already law, they were passed in the stimulus bill, section 9201.

American Thinker: How the Stimulus Bill Could Kill You

First off, I was only saying that calling out union and ACORN organized protests is kind of silly when (even by your own admission) these townhall protests were too. I personally don't care either way.

Second, from the above article:

Once a panel of government experts decides what is and what is not cost-effective by their definition, the government will stop paying for treatments, medicines, therapies or devices that fall into the latter category.

Insurance companies do this everyday, and in fact, any system (government or not) will have problems like that. This is why all this "death panel" crap is absurd, and why your article leaves out the fact that we already have "death panels" sitting in board rooms of major insurance companies.

Most of this unfounded fear applies to elderly care anyway and I'm not aware of anybody on medicare getting treatment witheld for cost-effectiveness reasons. In fact, according to most seniors at these healthcare townhalls they are quite content with the care they get through medicare.

I'm not going to sit here and defend socialized healthcare...it's an awful approach. But to me articles like this are an example of the political vomit that plagues this debate.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Insurance companies do this everyday, and in fact, any system (government or not) will have problems like that. This is why all this "death panel" crap is absurd, and why your article leaves out the fact that we already have "death panels" sitting in board rooms of major insurance companies.

Most of this unfounded fear applies to elderly care anyway and I'm not aware of anybody on medicare getting treatment witheld for cost-effectiveness reasons. In fact, according to most seniors at these healthcare townhalls they are quite content with the care they get through medicare.

I'm not going to sit here and defend socialized healthcare...it's an awful approach. But to me articles like this are an example of the political vomit that plagues this debate.

but there is recourse today in the free market. The day the gov't is driving that, there will no longer be an option.

 

[rjd970]

but there is recourse today in the free market. The day the gov't is driving that, there will no longer be an option.

Is there? How many insurance companies are going out of business because they don't cover the medical costs of their customers? And right now, having the words "free market" in any defense of the current system is disengenous.

 

[MG1968]

Is there? How many insurance companies are going out of business because they don't cover the medical costs of their customers? And right now, having the words "free market" in any defense of the current system is disengenous.

every policy has an appeals process, plus the customer can also use the power of the press. How will you sue the federal government?

the left likes to use the emotional canard of "people dying in the streets", but I have yet to see or hear any proof of that.

 

[KB5252]

First off, I was only saying that calling out union and ACORN organized protests is kind of silly when (even by your own admission) these townhall protests were too. I personally don't care either way.

Second, from the above article:



Insurance companies do this everyday, and in fact, any system (government or not) will have problems like that. This is why all this "death panel" crap is absurd, and why your article leaves out the fact that we already have "death panels" sitting in board rooms of major insurance companies.

Most of this unfounded fear applies to elderly care anyway and I'm not aware of anybody on medicare getting treatment witheld for cost-effectiveness reasons. In fact, according to most seniors at these healthcare townhalls they are quite content with the care they get through medicare.

I'm not going to sit here and defend socialized healthcare...it's an awful approach. But to me articles like this are an example of the political vomit that plagues this debate.

Yes, but the very fact that some peoples claims were denied by health insurance companies was used by Obama and government option supporters as a selling point and sob story to try and muster support is an indictment on the left.

Both sides are guilty of half truths to sell their position to the people. IMO the vast majority of the people were able to see past both sides talking points and came to the conclusion that government is in no way able to run a program of this magnitude without running up huge deficits or increasing taxes on a public that is already reeling from the economic downturn.

It is a loss for the democrats and Obama in particular, he is backing off now because he knows if he continues it will be his end, his plan is not trusted by the average citizen and too many valid arguments have been made and he has been unable to give a believable answer for.

This is not a win for the republicans and they would be smart not to spin it as one......this was about the American people and their opposition to Obama's plan, this was a win for the average American.