Obama: Finishing health reform is a test of leadership

[babylonsister]

Obama: Finishing health reform is a test of leadership
By Jeffrey Young - 03/03/10 12:39 PM ET


President Barack Obama will urge Congress to "finish its work" on healthcare reform, which he described as a test of whether the political system is capable of tackling the nation's biggest issues.

"At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future," Obama will say, according to excerpts released by the White House. "They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

Backing up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) remark this week that Democrats "are right now freezing the language on the legislation" -- that is, not make any more changes to it before putting the issue to final votes in the House and Senate -- Obama will declare, "This is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year." Obama also highlights the handful of Republican proposals incorporated into his plan, and alludes to the fact that he has proposed scrapping provisions from the Senate-passed bill that roused controversy, such special treatment of Medicaid in Nebraska and of Medicare Advantage in Florida, that were added to the measure at the behest, respectively, of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) during Senate consideration.

Read the excerpts (at link):

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84739-obama-finishing-health-reform-is-a-test-of-leadership

[denimgirly]

1. The best thing is to do TRUE Campaign Finance Reform....

Doing so will make it significantly easier for a president to get his agenda done AND to have a positive effect on America and its people....on both sides of the isle....until then anything that attempts to be passed will always be watered down (which usually will be things that involve Big Money) or be dropped.

[flpoljunkie]

17. I totally agree, but it won't happen this cycle. Fair Elections Now Act languishes in both houses.

(Guess who signed on as a Senate cosponsor yesterday? None other than Evan Bayh! Excellent!)

1. H.R.1826 : To reform the financing of House elections, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Larson, John B. (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (139)
Committees: House Administration; House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 7/30/2009 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.

2. S.752 : A bill to reform the financing of Senate elections, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (9)
Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

COSPONSORS(9), BY DATE

Sen Specter, Arlen - 3/31/2009
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 5/14/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - 5/18/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 7/9/2009
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 9/15/2009
Sen Cantwell, Maria - 1/28/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom - 1/29/2010
Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/1/2010
Sen Bayh, Evan - 3/2/2010

http://thomas.loc. gov Type in Search box: Fair Election Now Act

[DrDan]

2. I think it is more a test of negotiatorship

we have a negotiator in the WH - not a leader

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Self -delete - I think I'm in the wrong forum

[DrDan]

4. look at the history of the HCR bill and tell me i am wrong

the for-profit hospital lobby
Pharma
the GOP

negotiating was the path selected by the WH for a reform bill - not leading the way to real reform

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. You're wrong in deriding that.

Negotiation and compromise used to be admired activities. I think beyond the blogosphere, they still are.

[DrDan]

6. where did I say anything negative about negotiation?

I only said it was the path chosen by the WH - as opposed to leadership.

[Bobbie Jo]

7. You're implying these are divergent "paths."

Nonsense.

[DrDan]

8. we are each entitled to our own opinions, are we not?

Don't you think it is quite the opposite of what we should be standing for to label the opinions of others as "nonsense"? There I go, assuming you are a liberal/progressive.

[Bobbie Jo]

12. Let me rephrase.

I disagree.

Does that make me a better liberal? You seem to imply otherwise. Perhaps you should also correct about a dozen others, who happen to agree with you, in the art of proper liberalism.

It's sorely needed.

[goclark]

16. This is the Forum that we are Supporting the Democrats - right?

I thought that was where I was posting ~

I want this Bill!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. Not if they're screwing the pooch.

DU spent 8+ years rightfully exposing George W. Bush and his adminstration for all the wrongs they did -- that is not going to stop just because the person in power has a "D" after their name.

I don't ever want DU to become an alternative FR -- where Dems are to be supported even when they are wrong.

This health "care" bill is one big wrong that si going to come back to bite us in a hundred ways.

Sorry if you can't handle that assessment.

And, btw, as a person with multiple pre-existing conditions that makes her virtually uninsurancable, I do NOT want this travesty of a health "care" bill.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. I can handle the assessment. It's just flatly wrong.

By nearly all educated accounts.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. Well, we will see won't we.

And if you are wrong, we are fucked around 100 times over. :(

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. And if you are wrong and we scrap the whole thing, we're still fucked 100 times over.

So clearly, something needs to be attempted.

[DrDan]

20. no - we are supporting democratic principles

[HughMoran]

9. black, meet white

There is no gray.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Negotiation = leadership.

Clearly indicating otherwise is where you implied that negotiation was negative.

[Cha]

11. Of course it does.

:)

[DrDan]

13. whatever . . .

you clearly do not see the difference . . . . and no amount of discussion will change that . . . .

btw . . . where can I get some of those rose-colored glasses. . . .

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. I think you should start off with some clear-lensed glasses first. (nt)

[Bobbie Jo]

15. Maybe...

The Department of Peace has a few extra sets of those rose-colored glasses you're looking for.

[DrDan]

18. Let me try this

When you think of going into battle - you think of leaders. Colin Powell was a leader. Norman Schwarzkopf was a leader.

When you sit down to finalize a contract - you think of negotiators.

Do you really not see the difference?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Powell and Schwarzkopf were Generals.

They were not tasked with both war and peace - they dealt ONLY in war. A President must deal with both war and peace. That's a major, major difference.

[DrDan]

26. were they leaders?

that was my point. There is a difference between leaders and negotiators.

It was an example, for goodness sakes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. It was a very poor example.

And leadership takes on far, far more than one form.

[DrDan]

30. no doubt about it . . . and often a leader needs to resort to negotiation to achieve results

but not always.

They are two different constructs. That was my only point.

Looking back at the history of the HCR bill, it is my view that Obama chose the path of negotiation. Look at the deals with Pharma, the for-profit hospital lobby, and the attempt to reach common ground with the GOP.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Maybe our disconnect is a semantics one.

Where you say "leadership", perhaps the word "force" is a more appropriate term? Because defining negotiation and leadership separately as you've done indicates that they are not two choices on the same overall path, but that one is different than the other (and better.)

[DrDan]

33. perhaps . . .

Whether one is a better choice than the other probably has to do with context.

I think a lot of the disappointment found here with respect to Obama's role with the HCR is based on the expectation of "leadership" - or as you suggest an attempt to "force" a direction. (Not sure I would use that word - but the intent is somewhat clear.)

It just seems to me that his approach is more one of negotiation. He cut a deal with the hospitals. He cut a deal with Pharma. He attempted to reach some level of common ground with the GOP. That failed because for negotiation to work, there has to be a willingness to negotiate with both parties.

[Bobbie Jo]

24. Here's the difference

Given the example you cited.

Powell/Schwartzkopf are military types who get things done because others have to follow orders.

Presidents have to operate as one of three equal branches of government...hence negotiation becomes necessary if anything gets done.

Negotiation is an essential function of leadership, and an absolute necessity for progress.

[DrDan]

27. you can lead without negotiation . . . and you can negotiate without having to lead

[Bobbie Jo]

28. That made my head hurt.

:banghead:

[DrDan]

31. lol . . . . n/t

[yurbud]

34. we are waiting to see whether Obama and Democrats act correctly or corruptly