Reviewing President Rahm Emanuel's Health Care Speech

Not to be too much of a downer, but I found Obama's speech tonight a big O-bummer. Really, other than his very important reminder that "we're all in this together," it was disappointing (although that's probably not the right word, because it implies I expected something more). And remember, while I have at times been critical of Obama, I've been very supportive of him on health care...up until tonight. Here's a list of my basic problems:

- Why do Republican presidents and politicians never bash "The Right," but President Obama uses a joint session speech to bash "The Left?"

- Obama felt the need to tell the country that he's devoted to making sure the wildly unpopular private insurance industry at the heart of the health care meltdown remains profitable. He also made sure to forget that Americans love Medicare and hate private insurance when he went out of his way to reiterate his support for "market" economics (shocker - this was the line both parties stood up and gave a thundering round of applause). Awesome.

- Completely unclear why Obama promised to "call out lies," and then proceeded to embrace the Right's most dishonest narrative about tort reform being a major vehicle to fix health care (not surprisingly, the "don't negotiate with legislative terrorists" lesson was reinforced when the GOP response called Obama's bluff and pushed to work with him on tort reform).

- The wavering on the public option would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Really - his insistence that he supports it but might also support removing it reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit parodying wavering and waffling Democrats. Obviously he just had to listen to pundits insisting he must abandon the public option, when a huge majority of Americans continue to support it, and he has a huge legislative majority in Congress. He obviosuly just HAS to compromise on it because...well...just because - and he certainly can't use reconciliation like President Bush did because...well, again, just because. And, of course, those of us who don't expect him to compromise away an already compromised yet still wildly popular public option are obviously on the radical fringe regardless of polling data. Obviously!

- Though he didn't draw a direct equivalence, he implied there was one between the progressive push for single payer and the ultra-conservative push to destroy the entire health care system. Sick.

In sum, when you couple this with the speech's fawning praise for lunatics like John McCain and Chuck Grassley and add to it the news that the White House is holding closed-door compromise meetings with corporate Democrats tomorrow, I felt like I was listening to a parsed screed by President Rahm Emanuel, not a call to arms from the Barack Obama who actually ran for president. There was lots of passionate talk about the problem, and little courage to demand a serious solution.

I mean, I seem to remember an election just a few months ago that resulted in a Democratic president, and huge Democratic majorities in Congress - and I seem to remember there was a Barack Obama who only a short while ago said geting those electoral results was the only obstacle to a full-on single payer health care system, much less a weakened public option. But again, I guess it's just too bad that after that election, President Emanuel now rules America.

Comments

[codycap]

We can’t negotiate for drugs because a deal is already made. Why make a deal when it has been proven we would save more without one? Back in 1993, all our Veterans Administration hospitals got together and agreed to buy prescription drugs as a group. The next week, the costs of those drugs went down by 50 percent.

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20090723213400363

The Congressional Budget Office, the “public options” described in the Democrats’ legislation might enroll 10 million people and will have virtually no effect on health care costs, which means the “public options” cannot have any effect on the number of uninsured.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/3

Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole go**amned thing,

The public option is hardly a cure-all: Among other things, it does nothing to reduce the $350 billion a year in unnecessary paperwork and administrative overhead that makes the current system so expensive and maddening. "That's one of the big issues," says an aide to a member of the progressive caucus. "None of this addresses the paperwork issue. It might even make it worse."

Simply by removing the profit motive, the government plan would be cheaper than private insurance.

I can’t see there is much left to fight for.

[charmante]

A mandated purchase of a for profit private product in exchange for a promise of not abusing customers is surreal. The government of the United States should not have to bargain to get an abusive industry less abusive.
Given that the health insurance industry has a history of rampant customer abuse and our legislators have no recent history of being able to enforce corporate competence or fairness of any industry in the last several decades, you can count me against any big corporate giveaway at a such massive scale that does not have an option open to all that uses the full power of the US government to negotiate prices with the medical industrial complex.

[XME]

I understand Sirota would want to hear the president speak in "left rhetoric", since he's progressive. However, it would seem Obama understands something Sirota doesn't: speaking in terms that are meant to make the far left cheer tends to scare of the middle.

Sirota claims Obama is "wavering" on a public option because he's willing to consider other solutions that accomplish the SAME THING...even though no one has offered an alternate solution that would give the same results.

Sirota seems to be focused on terms, rather than the goal. If Obama were to do the same, I can assure you he'd lose support from the middle who WANT him to consider all options, to not simply be focused on one solution to the extent that he's not willing to LISTEN. His openess to listen to all sides is why people like myself voted for him! Yet it would seem that people to the far left are upset that he's open to any ideas but their own. I want a public option, but I also want a president who will listen and consider another idea that might result in the same ends. Thus far, he has indicated no one has given an idea other than a public option that would accomplish what it's meant to...so why get upset over words when the results are what matter?

After someone like GWB, I'd think we'd be happy to have a president who listens to ideas other than his own!

[lordjin]

Oh my sweet lord, here we go again.

What on god's green earth makes you think that centrists are the core of his base? He is shutting out progressives, who ARE the core of his base.

And did you know (apparently not) that there is an iron-clad consensus among experts that anything other than a robust public competition in the exchange will amount to nothing?

Why would you want him to listen to those whose sole aim is to sabotage any real change? His lackadaisical approach to these elements (which incidentally is not laziness, but a scheme to keep the entrenched corporate interests happy) is the cause of all this.

He is tuning out on the ONLY thing that has a hope of bringing about any kind of real reform.

I personally didn't vote for him because he thinks Reagan was a great uniter. I voted for him in spite of that, for all the other wonderful crap he said about putting corps and their lobbying henchmen in their place.

[XME]

I never said I believe centerists are the core of Obama's base...the fact is Obama would not have been elected without EITHER group, and because BOTH groups are a part of the people who elected him, he has a responsibility to both of them, NOT JUST THE FAR LEFT. It might make you angry because he doesn't use the rhetoric of an extreme progressive, but the point was that there would be a lot of centerists who DID vote for him who if he did use that type of approach...and if he did, it would be exactly what GWB did for 8 years, only to the far right. Just because this president is on the left, it wouldn't make that approach any better...to completely ignore one portion of the people who elected. Especially since he said from day one that he had no intention of doing that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Sirota claims Obama is "wavering" on a public option because he's willing to consider other solutions that accomplish the SAME THING"

This does not accurately represent any claims made by David Sirota.

The words that he used speak for themselves. They do not say what you say they say.

[XME]

Actually, that was Sirota's exact wording: "The wavering on the public option would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious"

What Sirota sees a "wavering" some of us not as "leftist" actually see as openness to ideas that accomplish the same thing as a public option...which is what I said, so I have no idea what your post even meant.

[bebopman21]

One slight correction, if I may. .... When you talk about the "huge Democratic majorities in Congress" elected in November, suggesting that Obama can just ram through anything he wants, and then lament that Obama is trying to deal with the "corporate Democrats", you apparently forget that the "huge Democratic majorities" includes the "corporate Democrats" you dislike. If Obama had 60 Obamas in the Senate and couldn't get anything done, then you would have a point. But he doesn't.

[lordjin]

He's not suggesting anything of the sort. What he is suggesting is that with a partisan majority (all these people with a D next to their names), he should be able to exercise forceful guidance as the top guy with a D next to his name. The president should and must exercise aggressive leadership amongst his own party.

but when you look at the real source of the problem, Rahm Emanuel, who Obama picked and apparently takes all his orders from, one can very well say that Obama himself is the cause of this conservative Democrat dissension.

Obama's real opposition are the progressives Dems in congress who are pushing for a public option.

Get a clue.

[lordjin]

And then he gushes on and on about morality and the character of Americans. Who's writing his speeches these day?

[lordjin]

"Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

INSURANCE EXECUTIVES DON’T DO THIS BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD PEOPLE. THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT’S PROFITABLE."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

And when you think of this particular situation which is representative of others, just remember that Obama now wants the Republicans' so-called tort reform.

The Texas system is already bad enough. The Republicans, with the support of Obama, want to make it worse and have made it known that they want to limit and otherwise take away the right to seek a recourse in the courts.

[lordjin]

yes. glaringly, that too.

[FirstShirt]

Well said.

[Republicrats]

The right/cons­ervs/repub­s are unabashedly pro-business, the left/libs/dems are apologetically pro-business. The Rs ram through stuff while in power over the Ds objections because they have the centrist or blue dog dems to count on, whereas when the Ds are in power, they cant' rely on ANY Rs and their own Ds are split between way left and the centrists. Ever since Clinton sold his soul- if he ever had one- down the "triangulation" path, for the sake of two terms and success in many areas, except the corporatization of the Ds, and Rahm recruited all the latent blue dogs to win a majority, it now becomes even more apparant how troubling leading these factions will be for Obama.

Add in the fact that most of the Ds committee chairmanships and leadership posts are occupied by Ds to the left of the rank and file of the congressional Ds as a whole, it is a recipe for disaster, or inaction, whichever your view, but answers in large part the Ds dilemma.

[charmante]

I completely agreed with the author. As a matter of fact, it is worth repeating what I posted in other blogs:

The President was still somewhat ambiguous on the public option. While he would like to create such an option, he said, “it is only one part of my plan,” a means to the end of affordable coverage for all.

He also said he was open to alternatives, including nonprofit insurance cooperatives and a backup plan that could be offered by the government in certain circumstances. He also refers to a trigger for public option, non profit health insurance co-op, and a backup plan that could be offered by the government in CERTAIN circumstances as all constructive ideas worth exploring. Why is he still exploring at this stage?

Finally, the President's attempt to take the moral high ground did not deliver the necessary punch as he did not encourage his audience to repudiate the belief that illness be treated as a commodity. In essence, he did not challenge the prevailing belief that it is okay to profit from someone’s illness. To do that would have required him to support a single payer system which he had already taken off the table.

[MrJoyboy]

Everybody seems to jump to the conclusion that a public option would wreck the insurance industry. I don't see any basis for that. You think that most working Americans will drop the private insurance they get through their jobs? Only the bottom rungs of society would go for the public option (maybe), and those are people the insurance industry wouldn't want anyway, because they have more health issues.

[charmante]

The American public in general lag for behind their peers in other social democratic society. Unable to see the big picture and easily distracted, many continue to cling to the idea that I’ve done my job, I’ve worked hard, I’ve gotten what I’m supposed to get. I have what I need and if the other people don’t, then that’s sort of their problem. 


This mentality have hurt us all in the long run because the medical industrial complex is united in their willingness to extract the maximum amount of profit from our illness. Right now, the health insurance industry and the hospitals charge the insured for the uninsured and then turned around charge the uninsured a much higher fees for services rendered. In essence, they have managed to squeeze us from both ends and I see no end to it short of a change of mindset from the general public.

Until then, politicians and the medical industrial complex will continue to stoke and take advantage of our divisions to fill their coffers.

Real change will occur when the public is united against the medical industrial complex profiting from our illness. Only then will our elected officials get the message and monster the courage to change the healthcare system.

[codycap]

Won't happen. The public is stupid. I saw it during Viet Nam. Thought the next generation would be smarter with the knowledge of how the public was duped then.

I was wrong, here comes the neo-cons. People are even more stupid.

Now comes a cheap way, single payer, to help save lives and money. The very people it would help fight it with all their might.

People are just stupid.

[Halfwit]

Look. If we can pass a bill that gets rid of pre-existing condition clauses, props up consumer protections, gets the insurance exchange running, requires health insurance, and subsidizes those who cannot pay their premiums - we should be happy with it.
Eventually, we will be a single payer nation, but to expect that much radical change to the system right now is ridiculous.
Once people accept the idea that everyone should be insured, single payer will follow because there won't be any other option.
Patience. Anyone who thought we could get this all at once is more faith-based than reality based.

[BandsofBlack]

This is more what I see happening:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-most-nightmarish-heal_b_281214.html

[jmpurser]

Well as long as our president refused to try to do anything but create corporate welfare bills I'm pretty sure that's the best we'll get.

[Rule Of Law]

"but to expect that much radical change to the system right now is ridiculous."

Yep, I bet those black slaves felt much better when they were counted as three fifths of a human being rather than not one at all. I mean, it was a step in the right direction, right? Can't move too fast. Might do something, oh I don't know--Right, for once?

[Halfwit]

Total straw-man.
There is no equivalence between slavery and universal healthcare.
That is just insulting.

[nyscribbler]

I disagree that we should see the reform you outline as an acceptable outcome to this healthcare battle. A robust public option will lower costs- what you suggest will not.

For the sake of argument, I would suggest that If we are to give up on the public option then take out the mandate for individuals and perhaps even for employers. We have universal coverage, through the exchanges,right? If anyone fails to purchase insurance- the only difference is the government doesn't penalize them. This brings on board the Republicans who hate the mandate.

I also don't see that "once we see that everyone should be insured single payer will follow". Most people agree today that everyone should be insured- but still no single payer! I agree that the higher and higher costs created by the system you outline will lead to chaos- but chaos tends not to inspire rationality.

[mwhaley]

I posted the following three posts in reverse order. Oops.

[bluebird47]

I'm so glad I took the time to read this. I thought I was alone in my disappointment. There were many points that bothered me. Although have I "government" coverage (medicare and medicaid), I'm behind EVERYONE in this country being insured. It really does look like the insurance companies and drug companies are the big winners in this. Did anyone noticed Joe Biden's reactions? I noticed the parts that really disappointed me, Joe had his head down during. Several times he "reluctantly" rose to applaud after looking around.

[jmpurser]

David,

Welcome to the bitter reality that the single payer crowd has been well aware of for months now. Obama is in this to rescue the insurance industry, not the American tax payers. This was obvious the day he took single payer off the table.

[Rule Of Law]

183 billion to AIG. Hmmmmmmm? Sounds about right.

[sixchair]

I kept getting the sense that we were all being persuaded to accept Baucus' bill.