Weiner On Health Care's Demise: We Lacked Leadership From Obama

[sabrina 1]

Source: Huffington Post

At least one leading House progressive is blaming the White House for the likely death of health care legislation, arguing that President Obama never forcefully made the case for reform.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday evening that, with some difficulty, he believed that passing a bill in the immediate future was not likely to happen. Part of the problem, the New York Democrat insisted, was that House Democrats no longer believed that the rest of their agenda was contingent on health care's passage.

"I don't think people are buying it as much as they were," said Weiner. "We have been asked to accept as an article of faith that success on health care was a building block for anything else we do all year. And I think increasingly my colleagues are saying: 'Really? I think we can bounce back OK if we move on from it for now.'"

> snip

"Obama's kind of populist thing on taxing the banks, I wish we had seen a little bit of that on health care. He hasn't been really willing to do that. If he went around and did a push on the public option three or four months ago, I don't know," he said. "If he would have been in Nebraska and just given some cover. Go to the University of Nebraska and say to the same 20,000 kids he spoke to during the campaign, 'Look, I need you again and here is what this is about.' Because look, I believe on the merits it was the right thing to do. And then you have the added value that it turned out whenever we talked about it, it was popular."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/weiner-on-health-cares-de_n_429540.html

---

The loss of the Senate seat in Mass seems to have released a lot of the frustration Democrats like Weiner, who publicly had supported the Senate bill, felt about a bill that had so little of what Progressives in Congress had hoped for.

I think they now realize just how unpopular it was and are no longer willing to just toe the party line on something that as so many people tried to warn them about, was political suicide. Better it happened with this one special election, than in November after the bill had passed and cost the Democrats their majority.

[midnight]

1. "We lacked leadership" essentially the support to provide meaningful affordable

access to health care. Howard Dean basically says the same thing when he states we need to be tougher...

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

2. i did note work for and vote for Republican lite

I will work again and vote again to support Democrats BUT how do we get them to understand that

FRUSTRATED

[sabrina 1]

3. Yes, tougher at fighting for real health care reform. Dean was right.

But I think what both are saying, and others too, in a nicer way than many of use have been saying, is that Obama never fought for a Public Option or any of the many progressive initiatives put forward by Democrats, like Dorgan and Kucinich and what Weiner and Dean and Obama himself had advocated for.

Some day maybe they will be able to explain what happened, why he did not fight for real reform. Maybe like the rest of us they are wondering too.

But he could still do it. As Weiner says, and others too have pointed, he has the ability to be really persuasive and the fact that he never used those assets to push for a Health Care bill that would have been popular, is puzzling especially considering his stated goals in the campaign.

[Proletariatprincess]

4. The Ship of State is lacking a Captain.

I'm not one to panic, but it feels like the Titanic.
Better change our course before it gets too late.

[aquart]

5. Obama isn't dumping his advisers.

And what do you think they're telling him?

[Hardrada]

7. Bomb Iran.

[sabrina 1]

9. If he listens to that advice, his presidency will be over.

I really don't think he wants to do that. And I hope he gets some new advisers now that he realizes how much harm the ones he has have caused his presidency so far.

[Selatius]

18. His presidency will be over, and we will be in a Second Great Depression if he does that.

Imagine how much economic devastation there would be if gas prices spiked above 5 dollars/gallon because all of a sudden it's dangerous to ship Persian Gulf crude oil through the Hormuz Strait, which is overlooked by craggy mountains on the Iranian side. They would be an ideal spot to shoot missiles down at the oil tankers trying to get through during a full-blown Middle East war.

[sabrina 1]

6. I think the guy who was hired to be the Captain, lost his way

and got on the wrong ship for a while. I hope he's leaving that crew behind and returning to the crew that hired him, before they fire him.

[glinda]

27. He needs an outside drug test to see if the CIA are doping him. Seriously.

[BlueIris]

8. Harsh.

But accurate.

[regnaD kciN]

10. I'm not sure how much "leadership" might have helped...

...when the whole thing came down to needing to win over Democrats from deep-red states (Nelson, Landrieu, Conrad) and loose cannons with no loyalty to the Democratic Party (Traitor Joe). It is possible to pressure recalcitrant representatives of your own party, but only when you have some leverage over them (such as in a blue state where you can threaten to throw the White House's support behind a primary challenger), but the conditions were such that, for most of those politicians, breaking with the president would only boost their in-state popularity. Could it be that, had Obama done as you wish and, say, threatened to veto any bill without a public option (much as Clinton threatened to do in 1993 with any bill that didn't offer universal coverage), it would only have meant health-care's demise earlier-on?

Sad to say, but rather than jumping in the Blame-Obama game, you might want to consider that the problem here was that there were certain fundamental factors the public demanded in a health-care bill, and what proved to be enough Senators fundamentally opposed to those factors to guarantee a successful filibuster against any bill containing them?

[sabrina 1]

16. Well, I criticize policians when they deserve it and I

compliment them when the are doing what is right, so I've been accused of being wrong no matter what regarding Obama.

I definitely opposed him on the health care bill which is was worse for the poor than nothing at all, not to mention completely unconstitutional and against Obama's own policies.

Those of us who watched in horror as it got worse and worse, tried to tell Democrats that it was going to bring down the party, it was that bad.

I am glad that this election, which is a small price to pay for what has gone on and already it seems to have given Obama courage to do some progressive things, happened when it did. If the bill had passed, Democrats would be out in November and finished by 2012. People did not vote for Repub. lite, they voted for a fight, they knew it would be a fight and instead the fight was with them.

As for as needing Lieberman et al, they did not not. They had the momentum to push through a bill with medicare for all or something with a good public option without needing 60 votes. No one fell for that story, another reason why people were angry.

NOW, they admit they could use reconciliation after denying it for so long.

[CTyankee]

21. I understand your (and the WH's) rationale here which is better something than nothing.

But the MA election was really a cold awakening. We saw the vitally needed independents and our own Dems vote for a candidate who vowed to vote AGAINST the Dems hcr.

The problem in the history of this thing that you DON'T mention is the cold shouldering of any mention of Single Payer, the disregard for the inchoate popularity of the Medicare expansion, and the utter surrender of the VERY popular public option.

What did you expect to happen, RegnaD, when you consider all those factors?

Well, now you know, don't you?

This isn't, as you put it a "blame Obama game" or at least not with me. I'm one who just wants him to open his eyes and look into the absolute truth of what he has just been told with the MA election.

You know, a friend of mine, a social worker who had a degree in Counseling, told me, in response to my question "What makes people change?", she said, "A kick in the pants."

Mr. President, consider this your kick (and I say so as a person who as had a few of those in my lifetime!).

[eridani]

11. If it was teabagger propaganda that turned the public against reform, then how come--

---support for the public option never varied by much? It has always been 65-80%.

The worst thing has been being lied to by Obama. Even if you don't count as a lie the sophistry over whether "liking" a public option is the same thing as "requiring" one, he campaigned against mandates. Not only that, many people who had not decided between Clinton and Obama until later in the year picked him over Clinton on that issue.

[sabrina 1]

20. I am one of those people. I listened to the debate

between Hillary and Obama where he said he disagreed with her that mandates were a good idea, because, he said if you had mandates you would have to have 'some kind of enforcement mechanism'. He went on to say that that it would be wrong to force people to pay for something they could not afford. I actually never considered Hillary because of her war vote, but as they began to sound the same on foreign policy, I wondered if, had he been in the Senate at the time, Obama might have voted the war also.

So, in the end, his position on health care made the difference between them. He has never explained his complete back-tracking on those issues, except to say that his 'thinking has evolved'.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. I will quote another DU'er - President Obama disagreed with Candidate Obama

President Obama disagrees with Candidate Obama ...
Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion: Presidency
Tue Jan 19th 2010, 12:13 AM
the people liked "enough is enough" and negotiating for bulk drug prices. People criticizing him on this are not asking that he abandon his agenda, they are asking him to follow through on this part of his plan. He called out others during the campaign and said "that is not who we are ... it is time for us to change."

Candidate Obama ...

"And we are tired of watching as year after year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance lobbying once the campaign is over.

That is not who we are, that is not who we have to be, enough is enough, it time for us to change."


Links and video ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

This part is from the 4:55 mark so the detailed plan by the candidate that could save up to 300 billion was replaced by a deal with the lobbyist Tauzin for 80 billion. The study referenced in the Obama plan may or may not account for the increased enrollment by the baby boomers, 46 million to 79 million over the next twenty years.

Tauzin got a good deal IMO, Medicare and seniors not so much.


From the Obama/Biden HC plan ----

"...Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion (per year),33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality."


Obama's $80 Billion Deal with Pharma Is a Very Bad Deal for Us
By William Greider

I have pointed out (whined as I am told) many times that Pres Obama had a plan the day he took office. It was detailed, it was laid out, he campaigned on it, he debated it, he presented it in Town Halls, and then the day he took office, he acted like it didn't exist ---in stark contrast to the quote I bolded from the diary above. He did exactly what he cautioned against.

Jim Webb has lambasted Obama for not simply presently a bill or at least some guidelines or a roadmap when Congress began the Progress. I have been jumped on countless times by people saying "you don't get it, that's not his job" "Congress writes the laws" blah blah blah like they never heard of Presidential input during the legislative process.

My own theory, and it's strictly mine based on nothing, is that Rahm Emanual and/or his brother Zeke who was supposedly playing a part in these discussions, never liked the President's plan anyway. Zeke has been openly for privatizing Medicare and handing out vouchers, so it was no surprise to me when we ended up with an all private plan with subsidies/vouchers. I also THINK, again based on nothing but my own thoughts, that Rahm Emanual had lived the healthcare wars with Hillary when one thing she was lambasted for was presenting a bill to Congress to be tweaked (proving that it can be done, to those who say it can't) and she was pilloried in the press for her usurption of the process. I can clearly imagine Emanual counseling the President to avoid that pitfall. BUT this is not the ninties, Obama had a specific mandate to solve healthcare, he needed to get it done sooner rather than later, and he had majorities in both houses. This was a CRITICAL error that he did not present the plan he himself ran on and then FIGHT for it and get it passed.

He missed a historical window of opportunity whether or not it was based on bad advice or just his own inner counsel (himself).

[sabrina 1]

15. Excellent post ~

It's certain that something happened to cause him to do such a complete turnaround. I do think he believed what he said in the campaign, about mandates and fines and a public option and that he preferred if possible, a single payer system.

I think that's what stunned everyone, how he changed. Why he didn't fight, but he really didn't fight for the 'new' bill either, at least not publicly.

Not sure I agree that Rahm was worried about it not passing with a PO or other progressive elements. Maybe you're right, maybe he is that easily scared. But his brother seems to be the one whose ideas prevailed, bad ideas. And I'm glad it has been stopped.


He did miss an incredible moment when he probably could have even pushed through Medicare For All. I think he will always regret that.

[Nite Owl]

13. The whole bill was about how much

the insurance companies would be able to give without going broke not about what how much people can afford. If they cannot afford the plans we need at the price we need they need to go bankrupt. The people have been there, it's there turn. Obama's whole main point on cost controls was a sham once he got in office. Unless we misunderstood him and he meant we were the ones who needed the controls not the industry.

[sabrina 1]

19. Yes, and people saw through that. I think they believe that

they can fool people still. It was obvious to most people paying attention, that all they had to do was look at what is happening with Rommneycare. And in Mass more than anywhere else, the voters recognized Romneycare when they saw it. He tried to pass a Republican bill. If Republicans gained a majority, they would make a big deal over parts of the bill, but in general, this is a bill they themselves would have proposed.

[Bitwit1234]

14. I have come to the conclusion as to why Obama did not lead

Corporate America did not want the Health Insurance Bill. So they got to Obama who like the rest of this democratic congress is in bed with ALL CORPORATIONS.

Since he saw what happened he is half heartedly trying to pretend he is against big business, robber banks and crooked wall street. But if he had been doing what he was elected to do I think he would have had a major effort going to clean this financial mess up and MA would not have been lost to the republicans. And whose fault is it he was the corporate shill, Rahm and Geither. They have Wall Street in their blood.

[branders seine]

17. his only "leadership" role in the whole process was to

negotiate away single payer before negotiations even began.

[amborin]

22. K&R almost an understatement

[quiet.american]

23. And of course, Weiner is acting heroically by bitching about the president and backing off himself.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Our party. WTF.

[dionysus]

25. yeah, way for weiner to dodge his responsibilities...

:eyes: indeed.

[dionysus]

24. nice way to abdicate one of their own responsibilities....

[sabrina 1]

28. If fighting for the people who elected them is not one of their

responsibilities then what is? The WH was told from the beginning, that any bill without a public option at least, which was already a huge compromise for people who put Democrats in the majority, would be a real problem for them. And not just with people on the internet.

They underestimated the ability of the public, particularly Independents and Democrats who tend to be pretty informed even if they are not online, to figure out what was going on. The bill was a giveaway to Insurance Cos.

Voters in Mass above anywhere else, already have Romneycare so they fully understood how it would effect them, how it would increase not decrease costs. And everyone on all sides, hates mandates for obvious reasons.

Weiner has been up front on these issues all along. Congressmembers are not supposed to betray those they represent just out of loyalty to their party.

[budkin]

26. Whether it passes or not the Democrats are fucked.

Because the GOP has been successful in turning the blame for everything onto them.

[Lord Helmet]

29. It was Weiner's big mouth on MSNBC that prompted Lieberman to change his mind on Medicare buy-in.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

----> LINK

In the interview, Mr. Lieberman said that he grew apprehensive when a formal proposal began to take shape. <...>

And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

"Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it's the beginning of a road to single-payer," Mr. Lieberman said. "Jacob Hacker, who's a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, 'This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.'"