Skip to main content

View Diary: "There's no crop!! We're gonna starve!!!" (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "There’s no crop" = "Let them eat cake". (9+ / 0-)

    I’m not sensing a great deal of concern for folks in your position. It all seems detached and political.

    •  That's what the reform was for. (15+ / 0-)

      It wasn't for people who have affordable insurance, was it?

      Somehow your implication that having concern is better than actual policy leaves me cold.  Concern doesn't pay the bills.    

      Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

      by Inland on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 01:50:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Remember (26+ / 0-)

        It could have been much, much better if there hadn't been so many Conservative Idiots standing in the way, including Nelson, Lieberman, et al.

        They were the ones who removed the public option, they are the ones who's staunch opposition and misinformation made it so that the Single Payer option wasn't even considered.

        I have no doubt that if Obama was the ONLY person in charge of drafting this bill, it would have been a Single Payer, government run health care bill. It's certainly not his fault that it turned out the way it did.

        On top of that, additional health care reform between now and November at the least, probably 2012 or 2014 more realistically, isn't feasible. It's a political loser, the voters are just now recovering from the smear campaign ran by the Rethugs against the bill passed in March, and there's absolutely no way there would be the support in either the Senate or the House, especially with the Filibuster in the Senate.

        It makes no sense trying to clamor for something that's realistically impossible to get.  

        •  N.B., if we had chosen a single payor system (24+ / 0-)

          for example, that person would still have been out of luck for a couple of years.  Or longer.

          Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

          by Inland on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 01:59:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  WRONG! (7+ / 0-)

          It could have been much, much better if there hadn't been so many Conservative Idiots standing in the way, including Nelson, Lieberman, et al.

          They were the ones who removed the public option, they are the ones who's staunch opposition and misinformation made it so that the Single Payer option wasn't even considered.

          The Public Option was negotiated out of HCR by Obama himself -- in a secret deal made in the White House with pharma lobbyists -- before Baucus even began his Senate committee hearings.  Obama PROMISED insurance industry lobbyists that he wouldn't push the Public Option in order to guarantee that the industry would back the 'reform'.  And why wouldn't they?  Once the ONLY competition which HELPED consumers was removed, the MANDATE all but guaranteed MEGA profits for the Insurance Industry.

          This revisionism has to end.  Obama KILLED the Public Option, not Lieberman; not Lincoln; not Nelson, Bayh, Baucus, or the Evil Republicans.  Obama did it.  It could have been in there.

          You can argue that the HCR is worthy even without the Public Option (I wouldn't make that argument, but you can), but you can not say that ONLY conservative Democratic Senators were responsible for killing the Public Option...it's simply not true.

          •  I must have missed that memo. (13+ / 0-)

            Frankly, I don't believe half of the crap I hear when someone uses "Behind Closed Doors" mainly because if it was behind closed doors, who was there to actually see the deal take place?

            It reeks of speculation and conspiracy to me.

            From the news reports and blogs that I read, the Public Option had no chance of passing the Senate, because Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Nelson vowed to vote against it and filibuster it.

            Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe Obama is some sort of Corporatist Puppetmaster, but I highly doubt it.

            •  Here's that memo" (8+ / 0-)

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

              March 16, 2010

              On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:

              "That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              August 12, 2009

              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. House staff members were present, including for at least one White House meeting, but their role was peripheral, the lobbyists said.

              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 — generally 80 percent of private sector 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.

            •  Plus... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chaoslillith

              ...there weren't supposed to be any 'back room deals' in this administration.

              Frankly, I don't believe half of the crap I hear when someone uses "Behind Closed Doors" mainly because if it was behind closed doors, who was there to actually see the deal take place?

              The resulting piece of shit legislation (Mandates sans Public Option) is all one needs to see in order to speculate -- with a high degree of probability, I might add -- about what took place behind those closed doors.

              That's how Cheney crafted Energy Policy during the Bush Regime.

            •  No... (0+ / 0-)

              Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe Obama is some sort of Corporatist Puppetmaster, but I highly doubt it.

              It doesn't have to be that extreme -- and that's not what I'm saying.  I've been very specific.  He wanted to pass HCR, but he gave away the farm in order to guarantee there would be little-to-no industry opposition.  He felt the pressure of the Health Insurance Industry and he gave away far too much to avoid a fight.

          •  That is not true. The public option was (0+ / 0-)

            alive from the start to the end. I guess you didn't notice the insurance corps fighting against the law all the way. They fought tooth and nail. Geeze, they poured money into the blue dogs and to republicans campaign chests and into PACS. Where the hell do you think Scott Brown started getting a million dollars a day after the senate actually passed HCR. They hoped to kill any compromise bill from the house and senate.

            Insurance Industry NEVER backed the HCR bill. Obama never bargained it away.

            He did negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry. He got more than the savings by bargaining for each drug on the market would be in the short run. He also deflected a fight to kill the twice as big as the insurance corp fight against reform.

            He actually got a bill through that will extend health care access to over 30 MILLION who had no access at all and take MAJOR steps to improve quality of care, increase preventive care, reduce outright preventable errors, and reduce costs.

            You would prefer no bill I take it.

            Now the insurance industry is learning just how regulated they are. The disclosure rules alone will provide competition.

            "You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it." - Rabbi Tarfon

            by samddobermann on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 02:40:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Laughable... (0+ / 0-)

              ...he never seriously pushed for the Public Option (once he assumed the presidency, that is -- I recall that HCR was one of those 'minor' quibbles he had with Hillary Clinton in the primaries -- something about being against mandates) -- even Lieberman said as much when talking about his White House meeting with Obama -- never felt any pressure to support, let alone vote for, the public option.

              Even the most generous appraisal of Obama wrt HCR is that he cautiously allowed Baucus and the Finance Committee do its work to gut real reform, but, in actuality, he worked closely with Baucus (and the Blue Dogs and the insurance Industry) to craft the legislation -- hell, even Howard Dean said that the bill he signed was written by insurance industry lobbyists closely tied to Baucus.  

              He saved his most ardent criticism for Nancy Pelosi and the progressive hold-outs in the House who were threatening not to rubber stamp the Senate version if it didn't contain the Public Option.  

        •  it is realistically impossible to get (0+ / 0-)

          remember this?

          Now, the public has had an opinion about this for decades. A considerable majority want a national healthcare system, like other industrial countries have. They usually say a Canadian-style system, not because Canada is the best, but at least you know that Canada exists. Nobody says an Australian-style system, which is much better, because who knows anything about that? But something like what’s sometimes called Medicare Plus, like extend Medicare to the population.

          Well, up until—it’s interesting. Up until the year 2004, that idea was described, for example, by the New York Times as politically impossible and lacking political support. So, maybe the public wants it, but that’s not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed, so it’s not—no political support. Well, in 2008, for the first time, the Democratic candidates—first Edwards, then the others—began to move in the direction of what the public has wanted, not there, but in that direction.

          So what happened between 2004 and 2008? Well, public opinion didn’t change. It’s been this way for decades. What changed is that manufacturing industry, a big sector of the economy, has recognized that it’s being severely harmed by the highly inefficient privatized health system. So, General Motors said that it costs them over a thousand dollars more to produce a car in Detroit than across the border in Windsor, Canada. And, you know, when manufacturing industry becomes concerned, then things become politically possible, and they begin to have political support. So, yes, in 2008, there’s some discussion of it.

          All liberal values can be summed into a single issue: The dismantling of the American Middle Class. Publicly Funded U.S. Politics NOW!!!

          by innereye on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 05:19:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not the first time you'd be associated with (0+ / 0-)

      a lack of sense.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 02:18:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site