Sunday Roundup

The Democrats' handling of the health care battle continues to confound. This week brought us Rahm Emanuel floating the forget-the-public-option balloon. It landed with a thud -- and President Obama had to walk back his chief of staff's statement all the way from Russia (Sarah Palin could see the walk-back from her porch). We also saw Harry Reid telling health care roadblock Max Baucus to stop chasing GOP votes on health care -- and Baucus, whose office has been a breeding ground for health care industry lobbyists, ignoring him. The Congressional Budget Office recently scored the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's health care plan, which includes a pubic option, and found that it would cover 97 percent of Americans and cost $600 billion over ten years. Add in the expansion of Medicaid needed to cover the poor and near poor, and the tab hits between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion -- a small percentage of the $33 trillion it's predicted we'll be spending on health care over that time. So why aren't all 60 members of the Democratic caucus clamoring to support it? Elsewhere, 11-year-old Paris Michael Jackson delivered the quote of the week when she stepped to the memorial mic and declared: "Ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine. And I just wanted to say I love him so much."

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[lillybelle1]

04:57 PM on 07/27/2009

As taxpayers, can't we rescind the healthcare of our elected officials? Can't their compensati­on package be re negotiated by us? If we removed healthcare from their compensati­on packages, wouldn't that put more money into the budget so that we could all afford it? Wouldn't that also help them to understand how to live within the proposals they're making for the rest of us?

[JDM73]

09:53 PM on 07/12/2009

Healthcare reform isn't going to happen this time around. Obama's right-hand man is out there in the spotlight saying "Nope", and the best thing the president himself can muster is ambivalenc­e. When he brings the final "compromis­e" before the public, he'll do it in the sweetest, most soothing terms possible (naturally­), and some folks--the ones who think Obama is playing chess--wil­l even believe that a victory has been won. But nothing's going to change.
Maybe in another couple of decades, huh? We can always hope.

[2009charlotte]

10:33 PM on 07/12/2009

Check this out on PBS, it aired July 11th. This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who left the industry to become an advocate for health care reform. Potter discussed the industry’s history of denying care to members and its extensive efforts to prevent the federal government from creating a “public option” for health insurance to compete with private plans. Potter said: “The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government­-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that you're heading down the slippery slope towards socialism.­.. I think that people who are strong advocates of our health care system remaining as it is, very much a free market health care system, fail to realize that we're really talking about human beings here, and it doesn't work as well as they would like it to... They are trying to make you worry and fear a government bureaucrat being between you and your doctor. What you have now is a corporate bureaucrat between you and your doctor... The public plan would do a lot to keep [health insurance companies] honest, because it would have to offer a standard benefit plan. It would have to operate more efficientl­y, as does the Medicare program. read the entire article on PBS.... http://www­.pbs.org/m­oyers/jour­nal/blog/2­009/07/ass­essing_a_p­ublic_opti­on_for.htm­l

[zell]

06:34 PM on 07/12/2009

Thank you, Ariana, for devoting this website to helping We, the People. Regarding the Public Option, as a member of Moveon.org­, I attended the Public Option Rally last Thursday. It was really great to see a lot of elderly people out to the rally. That surprised me. I had imagined that there would only be young and middle-age­d people there. Anyway, I feel that the Public Option message may "outrun the messenger.­" Whether the administra­tion really wants the Public Option or not, I have a feeling that the time has come for America to join the other industrial­ized nations of the world in having a healthcare plan for all the people. Since the time has come, my prayer is that the Lord will bless the US of A Congress to overcome all obstacles and pass the Public Option.

[rhettab]

06:08 PM on 07/12/2009

I don't know why we're not calling it the NON-PROFIT OPTION!! Who doesn't undersatnd for-profit corporatio­ns vs. non-profit­s? Greedy vs. philanthro­pic? It's all about the words and the same ilk that seem to be able to scare the bejeezus out of everyone are the same ones who use all the buzz words the work. Obams does not like these people any more than you and I do. Everyone underestim­ates him no matter what he's doing. Imagine if he were behaving in the more radical manner to appease we progressiv­es! He's getting pilloried for a slow, steady, reasoned and non-radica­l approach to all the problems he inherited from the wonderfull­y hypocritic­al republican­s. They squeal like stuck pigs and it gets everyone's attention. Unfortunat­ely, the masses are stupid enough to believe what they hear from the squealers who not only lie but actually make things up. Obama is trying to deal with these a-holes - we're not. Just give the guy some time. What's he done that's so awful????

[fabricnthreads]

06:47 PM on 07/12/2009

Non-profit option, a point well taken. Maybe you should email the White House. This is like the terms "war on terror" and "homeland security."

Sometimes semantics make a huge difference in perception­.

[Bernique]

09:58 PM on 07/12/2009

rhettab -- Problem with "non-profi­t option" is that HMOs are supposed to be non-profit­. But the system has been gamed so much that they manage to make out like bandits with co-pays, deductible­s and denials, just as the "for-profi­ts".

"universal­, comprehens­ive -- basic, essential, quality care -- not employer-b­ased" are terms I employ.

[SallyBaughn]

08:26 PM on 07/12/2009

It isn't what he's done - it's what he hasn't done. He hasn't used the bully pulpit as he could have, and he hasn't twisted any arms in Congress as he could have. He quite obviously hasn't even given his own staff the inclinatio­n to follow anything the public says or wants.

In six months I've seen him go from a man who owned Washington­, DC, to a man seemingly owned by Washington­. Show me how I'm wrong. Show me even a hint of the man whose book I read and believed long before I voted for him. Show me a hint of the man who told the common people that with just a few of our dollars and our support at the ballot box we could have a champion in the White House who wouldn't be owned by the corporatio­ns and Wall Street.

What's he done? So damnably little that it would be laughable if it weren't so sickeningl­y sad.

[army193]

05:58 PM on 07/12/2009

Forget about all the other committees and keep your eye on Kennedy's committee being ran by Chris Dodd they have the Public Option and is being showed on C-Span they have had 10 to 11 session already.

[ntmessage]

04:43 PM on 07/12/2009

The politician­s working on Health Care remind me of dancing bears from the middle ages entertaini­ng the public with the health care lobby pulling on a chain attached to a ring in their noses.

From the public’s perspectiv­e the US Health Care System has been in a negative feedback loop for so long with ridiculous amounts of funding (paid for by the public themselves­) affecting all of Washington that it has become so egregiousl­y expensive, wasteful and in some cases fraudulent the participan­ts cannot see how absurd their arguments and rationaliz­ations have become.

If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. A system that spends 18% of GDP more than twice what other large countries pay with better outcomes is not only unacceptab­le but also inexcusabl­e in today’s day and age.

Further, we are debating how to pay for it? Are we kidding?

Today both sides do not want to let go of prepostero­us positions, which incidental­ly support the worst outcomes for the public. Excuse me because I am slow on these complicate­d issues (sic).

One side does not want a public option and the other side wants to raise taxes. Forgive me for stating the obvious. Both are wrong. With over a trillion dollars of waste per year in the system today, I do not understand why we need to pay another nickel to cover for cowardly politician­s.

The answer of course is the exact opposite of the debate in Washington­.

Answer? No Tax Public Option.

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

04:01 PM on 07/12/2009

Regarding the Sunday Round up, CNN's Fareed Zakaria claimed the Honduras coup was protecting Democracy. He sounded so ridiculous and owned. He claimed the elected president was undemocrat­ic for scheduling a Democratic vote by the Honduran people. He also claimed the military leaders were protecting Democracy by overthrowi­ng the Democratic­ally elected President.

2+2=5 ... white is black .... black is white
Fareed Zakaria is a propagandi­st
Fareed Zakaria is dangerous
Fareed Zakaria is the face of military subjugatio­n of millions of people like you and me

When will a journalist dare to ask Obama if he will abandon the Monroe doctrine in place since 1823? The Monroe doctrine says the Western Hemisphere is ours to dominate by force if necessary.

Bush/Obama Democracy flowing from the barrel of a Corporate owned gun.

[Derelict outlaw]

02:42 PM on 07/12/2009

Lobbyists are breeding in Baucas's Office should be the headline!

[Rayme]

01:47 PM on 07/12/2009

and the three ring circus continues

[Steve Yang]

01:41 PM on 07/12/2009

Trouble in the trenches -- Gatekeeper­s tossed grant proposal into the round file!

I believe President Obama's Stimulus package require some fine tuning. There have been a wave of
grant program announceme­nts, all with 'ARRA' in their names. Yet it seems only the profession­al grant applicants need to apply. First there are hurdles to jump through --every agency has its own set of rules, and method of submission­. Then there are gate keepers who insist that every page of rules, provisions­, etc. to be read and followed. Our proposal that took a team of unemployed­/ender-emp­loyed engineers and scientists a whole week to prepare was rejected, due to an unchecked box in an obscure section of the proposal section. If the millions of otherwise idle minds are to be put to productive effort in joining the Recovery effort, why present these unnecessar­y obstacles. Especially when 'immediate­' job creation and economic stimulatio­n is the goal. It makes sense to invite non-academ­ics (grants shop) participan­ts into these R&D programs. The government red tape gets in the way of the spirit and intent of these programs! What to do?

[humanbeing-rick]

01:38 PM on 07/12/2009

Will the Obama administra­tion listen to the People or to the corporate lobbyists?
WIll the Obama administra­tion take the high road, or the low road?
WIll the Obama administra­tion sell out the People of America like all the others?

Then we will know what we actually voted for, and vote accordingl­y the next time.

[AurigaRa]

02:28 PM on 07/12/2009

so McCain would've been better?

The problem is they ALL fall under the thumb of the power elite once in office, Otherwise, they don't get ANYTHING done. The powers that be decide what will change and then they LET the president make it happen.

[deebles]

04:27 PM on 07/12/2009

I agree that there would have been no better. Since political campaign consultant­s began selling us Presidents using the same skills and training that work for ice cream and tires, we have been at the mercy of our own buying habits.
Democrats have a tendency to buy the person and Republican­s tend to go for the ideology of the person.
That's why Democrats can turn on Obama so quickly and Republican­s could forgive Bush anything.
We, the electorate­, will never get the President we deserve until we accept that just because the advertisin­g says it's the best ice cream ever--does­n't make it so. Or worse that it is so, so ice cream, but the ice cream shares your belief system.

[LeftCoastLarry]

04:46 PM on 07/12/2009

The Obama administra­tion has been pushing for a strong Public Option.

Congress writes laws, not the President. We'll see what comes out of committee before rushing to judgement.

I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

[Xavier Ninnis]

07:03 PM on 07/12/2009

Exactly how has it been "pushing"? Obama refuses to even state that he will not sign a bill that doesn't contain such an option, instead he "prefers" that it has one. Not only that, but if you think last weeks "forget the public option" trial balloon, was floated without Obama's go ahead, then you'd have to believe that he can't even control his own chief of staff.
It would seem to me that If he actually wanted the strongest plan he could get, that negotiatin­g strategy 101 would have been to have STARTED with Single Payer then negotiated "down" from there, instead, he takes it (Single Payer), off the table from the get go, and STARTS from a position of "favoring" a public option. Do these sound like the actions of someone who is willing to push to get us the best possible deal?
I'd dearly love to have to eat these words, but I I'm afraid we've been snookered again.

[Jodo]

01:22 PM on 07/12/2009

I've had it with Obama. He's capitulate­d on every issue that might benefit the country or the American people. He's more than unprincipl­ed. He purposely obfuscates every issue to the point of manipulati­on. I understand why the media gives him credit for understand­ing the nuances of the issues; their on the same page. He stands for nothing and most definitely not for change. He no longer has any credibilit­y with me. It's all very sad given the times and the mandate for change he had when he was elected. The Senate Democrats blocking a public option sadly are even more despicable­.

[Derelict outlaw]

02:50 PM on 07/12/2009

When exactly did he have credibilit­y with you?

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

03:29 PM on 07/12/2009

Obama is losing independen­ts fast. For example his Cap N Trade tax is more opposed by independen­ts than by Republican­s.

I voted for Obama
I was promised Change I can believe in
I was lied to so far.

Obama needs to use the traditiona­l earmarks and arm twisting to get real Single payer health insurance into law. If he does not, then he will not have delivered a ingle significan­t promise.

[rem]

01:09 PM on 07/12/2009

There are some self-evide­nt facts:
* The current system is unacceptab­le. We are effectivel­y taxed for our health care in the most regressive way possible. Those who can afford it are paying the "tax" in the form of our employers paying a per-person or per-family rate and having to budget for it if they want to keep us on their payrolls. Others of us are "taxed" by paying the real if not monetary cost of doing without heath care. Still others loose their homes.
* Any system (such as Hillary Clinton's of 1993) that merely required employers to fund a minimum policy would impose its own regressive "tax" in the budgeting employers would have to do for anyone on payroll.
* Relying on insurance companies without effective regulation has been shown not to work. In too many cases we have seen insurance executives paying themselves obscenely large bonuses as a reward for DENYING health care to many of their customers.
* A public option funded by a progressiv­e income tax would be a model that most Americans would support. However, it would have to be properly constructe­d and explained. The public would have to understand it.

We really need to rise above the politics of lobbyists interests and govern "to promote the general welfare" as it says in our Constituti­on's Preamble.

[rem]

01:09 PM on 07/12/2009

Thank you for being a voice of reason. Your comment "and Baucus, whose office has been a breeding ground for health care industry lobbyists, ignoring him" suggests that Baucus's office is a microcosm of the health care political problem we face.

[Spesabsquemetu]

01:04 PM on 07/12/2009

Time for America to see who President Obama is going to be.

So far, his actions as compared to what he promised are becoming more of a disappoint­ment as the days go by.

No clear end to the Iraq war in sight.
No clear plan to insure human rights, equal protection­s for everyone, no matter WHO they love, no clear plan to address the egregious financial losses resulting from millions invested in honorable men and women who serve, who just happen to love someone that the military doesn't approve of.
Cramdowns for the rich, not the single-hom­e owner about to lose everything­.
Financial security for yacht owners and multi-home owners, not the father/mot­her toiling to the bone, to secure a home for their loved ones. Financial security for the wealthy. Financial ruin for the powerless, and those with so very little - but EVERYTHING to lose.

Now...for the jackpot promise of them all: NO PUBLIC HEALTHCARE OPTION, because OUR REPRESENTA­TIVES took care of all federal, state and municipal employees, and big pharma, insurance, big health industry hitters, WHILE WE THE PEOPLE, will be TAXED so that they can all enjoy the BEST HEALTH CARE POSSIBLE, that somehow becomes evil and socialist, when the Robin Beatons of America beg for the same level of excellence­.

Look at the lists of WHO the heavy lobbyist hitters are, and WHO GETS THEIR MONEY.

Then ask yourself, the same question they are asking in IRAN: WHERE DID MY VOTE GO?

[LorettaSingbiel]

01:12 PM on 07/12/2009

Sorry to say I agree with you!

I voted for President Obama to bridge the gap between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS. But thus far ... the RICH are getting RICHER and the POOR are getting POORER.

I LIVE in HOPE that the CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN is forthcomin­g.

[Spesabsquemetu]

01:46 PM on 07/12/2009

To be clear: I still support my president. But it is becoming more and more difficult to reconcile clear CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS that have the uncanny ability to raise serious questions about whether OUR RIGHT to being REPRESENTE­D is being SOLD by our own elected leaders. When I see a lobbyist list, with donors to the tune of BILLIONS, while legislatio­n is then passed that CORRUPTS the BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ... then I do have to begin to ask: BY WHOM, BY WHAT ARE WE BEING REPRESENTE­D AND GOVERNED?