President Obama’s Saturday radio address is on the health insurance industry’s efforts to kill reform:
“Of course, like clockwork, we’ve seen folks on cable television who know better, waving these industry-funded studies in the air. We’ve seen industry insiders – and their apologists – citing these studies as proof of claims that just aren’t true. They’ll claim that premiums will go up under reform; but they know that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that reforms will lower premiums in a new insurance exchange while offering consumer protections that will limit out-of-pocket costs and prevent discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. They’ll claim that you’ll have to pay more out of pocket; but they know that this is based on a study that willfully ignores whole sections of the bill, including tax credits and cost savings that will greatly benefit middle class families. Even the authors of one of these studies have now admitted publicly that the insurance companies actually asked them to do an incomplete job.
It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, “Take one of these, and call us in a decade.” Well, not this time. The fact is, the insurance industry is making this last-ditch effort to stop reform even as costs continue to rise and our health care dollars continue to be poured into their profits, bonuses, and administrative costs that do nothing to make us healthy – that often actually go toward figuring out how to avoid covering people. And they’re earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exception from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.
Now, I welcome a good debate. I welcome the chance to defend our proposals and to test our ideas in the fires of this democracy. But what I will not abide are those who would bend the truth – or break it – to score political points and stop our progress as a country. And what we all must oppose are the same old cynical Washington games that have been played for decades even as our problems have grown and our challenges have mounted.
Last November, the American people went to the polls in historic numbers and demanded change. They wanted a change in our policies; but they also sought a change in our politics: a politics that too often has fallen prey to the lobbyists and the special interests; that has fostered division and sustained the status quo. Passing health insurance reform is a great test of this proposition. Yes, it will make a profound and positive difference in the lives of the American people. But it also now represents something more: whether or not we as a nation are capable of tackling our toughest challenges, if we can serve the national interest despite the unrelenting efforts of the special interests; if we can still do big things in America.
I believe we can. I believe we will. And I urge every member of Congress to stand against the power plays and political ploys – and to stand up on behalf the American people who sent us to Washington to do their business.”
I had a feeling that once this bill got through the Finance Committee, the president would start sounding a lot less wishy-washy and a lot more like Nancy Pelosi. More of this, please.
He’s doing what I suggested in your last thread. Today the target of his attack is the insurance industry. Next will be any Democrats who step out of line.
Obama has to control his party. If he does behind the scenes or using some clever 11 dimensional chess move, that’s fine, but if he doesn’t, we’re all screwed.
The denouement approaches. The details of the final bill will reveal the true Obama – savior or snake oil salesman.
Seems to me this confirms that he’s gone all-in on a public option or something like it. How do you mount a stunning attack on the insurancecos and then end up trying to sell some lame “compromise” with them as a victory? You can’t, and he surely knows that. Am I wrong in thinking he’s staked everything on getting real healthcare reform passed?
Why would he start this withering attack on a Saturday morning? Why this late in the game–after the sell out bill already has steam?
I don’t know . . . maybe you guys are right . . . but the evidence thus far suggests a sell out.
Taking on the insurance companies means doing everything to take a pound of flesh from them . . . let’s see if he gets some legislators to move in the direction these words suggest. . . . but at this point his words are getting cheaper and cheaper.
Because the set-up game is over.
Any questions?
Yes. One main question: Can I take this to the bank?
Obama’s words will definitely match his actions? He will be signing this bill?
Antitrust exemption is over? Will the DOJ enforce this?
What happens if this talk of antitrust exemption makes liberals like me hope and trust in the president again and then lo and behold it doesn’t end up in the final bill? Then liberals will have squandered their chances because they’ve been suckered into a false fight. A fight they were never going to win.
The only sausage I’m interested in is how many progressives vote to defeat this probable monstrosity.
The way one really stands up to the insurance industry is to vote NO. I don’t care how hard the president tries to twist arms.
These speeches and enless posturing by the Democrats is designed to provide cover for the eventual sell-out.
In all likelihood the deal is done. And it’s a win for industry and a huge loss for the American people. The middle class will be further crushed at the expense of the wealthy corporate interests.
I hope you guys are right about this clever move. I fear it’s foolish to have hope though. I’ve seen this game before.
Look at it in reverse, Would he veto it?
But he didn’t threaten a veto. He urged enactment. So they are cheap words. No? That’s my point.
If they don’t send him a bill he can say he was for it in principle, he fought for it, and it’s not his fault. This is the definition of political cover and writ large is Obama’s strategy for enacting health care “reform”. Most of the Dem politicians are looking for similar cover.
It may be only a shot across the bow. But aren’t we always asking the Dems to fire shots like these?
What the hell are we talking about here? This ain’t the final bill by a long shot. It’s one thing to be a pessimist. It’s another thing to be tone deaf.
“Yes. One main question: Can I take this to the bank?”
Yes, you can take that to the bank. Absolutely you can. However, the bank went bankrupt in the financial melt-down and is now closed. But as for taking that promise to the bank, absolutely, “Yes, we can!”–a phrase that has now entered the French vernacular.
C’est la vie!
;^)
Reid, Baucus, Emanuel, Nelson, Carper, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman …
He won’t come out and admit that they’re what’s stopping reform. Maybe it’s smart not to say it in public, but everyone knows it’s true. Obama is either with them or with us and we’re going to find out shortly.
DaveW, Yes, and I remember he also went in on a total ban on Israeli settlement expansion in occupied Palestine. If that has stopped, I’ve missed the news.
I didn’t realize he was the president of Israel.
If he isn’t, he shouldn’t have said what he did. He probably thought he was.
I don’t follow your reasoning here. he said it as president of the United States.
“How do you mount a stunning attack on the insurancecos and then end up trying to sell some lame “compromise” with them as a victory?”
“Behold!, “Victory!”
—and like that.
Trust me, Dave: you’re going to accept that. You have no choice. It comes as part and parcel of the corruption you’ve already subscibed to as inevitable.
“Am I wrong in thinking he’s staked everything on getting real healthcare reform passed?”
As Dick Cheney said, “So?”
Frank seems correct about Obama’s strategy. The sell out bill is what Obama had in mind all along (Obama has pretty much said this for months now). The end game is Obama blaming both “extremes” and moving the final compromise through. First, Obama will frame this as the insurance companies being the bad guys (as indeed they are) and then the next step, after congress doesn’t go as far as Obama’s vague platitudes suggest, he will then turn on liberals and try to force them to accept a sell out bill. And Obama may come out on top of this politically (successful triangulation).
As a liberal though, I do not trust Obama’s intentions and fear this strategy is designed to help the insurance companies and defeat liberal reformers.
I fear that Obama is taking easy pot shots at the insurance companies to shore up the left with rhetoric (he’s fighting again–did you hear that speech?–pick up that mop!), meanwhile on the ground the insurance companies are set up for victory. I’m sure the insurance companies don’t mind the fact that its lobbyist wrote the bill the president will probably end up fighting for. The insurance industry will be more than happy to be the bad guys and let the president take up the mantle of “reform” which is really a bill that mandates tens of millions of new customers and billions more in profits for the insurance companies. Oh, and gives pharma billions in profits in exchange for nothing (except campaign contributions).
The likelihood of a public option for all or the end of antitrust exemption (or other ERISA exemptions) is slim to none in my book. I will be happy to be surprised though.
I fear (as opposed to hope) that Obama is just saying this stuff when it no longer matters so that he can say he “fought” for real reform but being a pragmatist he just had to sell out. It’s intended to give a bit more cred for when he turns on liberals and tells them he tried as hard as he could now get on board the sell out train.
That is the exact opposite of my read, as he is following the script I’ve been writing for him to a tee.
link
link
link
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
It’s too late to change The Master Narrative, BooMan. Even if Obama wins — strong public option, anti-trust exception gone, the works — he loses.
I expect the Congressional elections to actually go slightly worse if HCR passes in the form and in the way you’ve sketched, because the professional left won’t be mollified by whatever passes, and the Republicans will go berserk if anything passes.
The muddled middle of the Democratic party will wonder why they bothered sticking their necks out for something nobody likes, and go back to their default state of abject tortoise-hood.
The base stays home. House 223-212. Senate 53-2-45. Complete stasis in Congress for ’11.
On the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph “Killed by a Story Arc”.
It’s like I am being deluged by pessimists.
Hey, pessimists are probably right more than they are wrong, so I’m not saying you are definitely wrong.
But, the majority of people aren’t going to benefit directly or be harmed directly by this legislation before the 2010 elections. What people will notice is that their health care is portable, that they can’t be dropped for b.s. reasons, and that they can change jobs even if they have a preexisting condition. These are the popular features of the bill, and voting against them is not going to win people any points.
We do see things differently. I see this as a bone being thrown to liberals to shut them up while the adults sup at the big table free of molestation from the yapping liberals. The bone may be worth gnawing on if it were likely to be law . . . I don’t know.
At least its a grown up policy debate and it seems like a no-brainer to repeal this antitrust exemption.
I’m basically trying not to get suckered into the weeds on this stuff re the different strategies, etc., because I have long thought it a diversion. The real fight is over–the window of what is acceptable or not acceptable is far too friendly to the status quo and liberals don’t stand to gain much unless it’s a surprise attack out of nowhere. Liberals were not sitting at the (metaphorical) table when the deal was done. We’re fighting over scraps and bones now.
Another issue I’ve wondered about is bankruptcy treatment of health care debts. I could see them slipping in a provision that makes this debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy now that everyone will be required to buy insurance. That would be a huge gift to the health care industry and insurers. Again at the expense of the middle and lower class. Surely they wouldn’t be this stupid?
On antitrust–why not a stand alone bill to end the exemption from antitrust law. Why does this even have to be a quid pro quo? Same with the ERISA treatment. Why do they get special protection? Why didn’t we start the “debate” with two very easy bills that leveled the playing field and then we can discuss agreeing to things with insurers?
I guess I’m all hoped out.
If you want to argue that Obama’s Plan (the one he campaigned on) is too little, I won’t argue with you.
But I thought the debate was over whether he was sincerely trying to enact health care reform that provides:
I argue that that is exactly what he is trying to do, and he’s been going about it in the only way that I could see that had a good chance of working.
Yeah, it’s funny, that’s where we were abut a month ago and here we are again.
I know the left got suckered in to throwing their support behind the words “public option” but I don’t think that obligates them to that position forever.
They are entitled to realize they’ve been had and sometimes in politics to win in the long run you have to be willing to take the heat for jumping off the bandwagon and saying “no” to a popular president.
I was willing to say “no deal” a month or two ago. I’m still there unless a drastic surprise occurs.
It will be interesting to see how many progressives hold firm and vote no and if Obama can get 10 to 20 Republicans in the House to pass this sucker.
I wouldn’t rule it out. ACES passed that way, which offered us the spectacle of both Kucinich and DeFazio on the one hand, and Boehner and Bachman on the other, all voting ‘nay’.
LOL!!!!!!!
Obama: …”Last November, the American people went to the polls in historic numbers and demanded change. They wanted a change in our policies; but they also sought a change in our politics: a politics that too often has fallen prey to the lobbyists and the special interests; that has fostered division and sustained the status quo.” …
[ [left unstated was]: “well, having been elected, and, upon reflection, I can today tell them, ‘that just ain’t gonna happen’, and, what’s more, I’d now have to ask such people, ‘what the Hell is wrong with you folks, anyway?’ You really have no idea how politics works!” ]
“a politics that too often has fallen prey to the lobbyists and the special interests; that has fostered division and sustained the status quo.”
“too often,” huh? How about almost and practically “always“?
Our politics doesn’t “too often fall prey” to these. No. Our politics is, body and soul, a politics of, by and for lobbyists and the special interests. Instead of taking that on, we decided we’d yield to it and try and bring you the best hobbled, deformed and bastardized version of what every other advanced nation has–despite the fact that those nations, too, have political systems hardly or no less corrupt than our own–namely, universal, not-for-profit, health-care.
Why, indeed!? Puhleeeessse! Uh, let’s see, could it be to save your gutless self and your seat by folding under pressure?
So, the insurance industry is, to its consumer-public, a “lion’s den”? Okay. I indeed buy that view. Only, when did that happen? Just “recently” or, rather, isn’t it the case that it’s been such a “lion’s den” for at least since the Reagan era of glorious deregulation?