The Health Care Reform Debacle: Obama's Coming-Out
Let's face the harsh reality -- Obama has blown health care reform, big time. The opportunity of a lifetime has been squandered. The most recent revelations about backroom deals with Pharma and the other vendors of medical services drops the curtain on any hope of serious change in our costly and inefficient non-system. This is a painful admission to make. Not only does the country remain handicapped by grossly sub-par arrangements for health delivery, we also are burdened with a president who has been discredited as a progressive dedicated to a betterment of how we conduct public business.
A quick review of what has survived an unbecoming process of deal making exposes the dismaying reality. For starters: no public plan; no wealth tax to help pay for cost incurred; no right for the government to bargain with Pharma on drug prices; no meaningful enforcement mechanisms to ensure that vested, for profit interests comply with whatever undertakings, explicit or tacit, that they have made. What do we gain? Not much. A commitment that everyone must be insured, yet with a much weakened employer mandate to accomplish it. An elimination of the most egregious practices of insurance companies re. e.g. pre-existing conditions, arbitrary termination of coverage. Some small subsidies for the working poor. These last are minimal. Someone earning $20,000 a year will get no subsidy unless insurance premiums reach $2,400 -- according to the Finance Committee bill. Good luck all you folks who work for $10 an hour -- you'll need it.
It is Barack Obama who is to blame for this. For months, he stayed aloof from the out-of-control Congressional maneuvering based on a strange belief in some kind of bipartisan collective will emerging by osmosis. He never leaned the weight of his person and his office to elements of reform that has been touting as candidate and then President. He deceived the country by pursuing secret talks with the very lobbies who are the heart of disgraceful national health care situation. He entered into deals that were weighted heavily in their selfish interest rather than the national interest. In short, we have gotten from him the antithesis of what we were promised and expected -- in the substance and process of policy both. We have instead a conventionally minded politician overly respectful of the status quo and deferential to those who control and profit from it, A man with no apparent fixed convictions.
Serious health care reform is gone with the wind. It cannot be retrieved. All other domestic issues pale in importance by comparison -- except for the financial crisis. On that front, Obama has behaved exactly as he now has done on the health care front. That is to say, viewing the world from the prejudicial perspective of the high and mighty while neglecting his duty to the citizenry and those who put their trust in him. The question: 'who really is Barack Obama?' is more compelling than ever. The answer looks to be more and more disheartening.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree, Brenner.
My hugest problem with Obama's plan is insurance industry subsidies. He's rewarding the very industry that has put us in this mess.
LOL.
Where have you been my friend?
1.3 trillion Bailout for the banksters (+ 13 trillions guaranteed).
The undeclared war in Pakistan and a bigger show is going on in Afghanistan.
Only one good news:
http://www
I think I'm going to be sick.
Obama should just come clean and say that he is nothing more than the ventriloquist's doll of the big banks and corporations.
I am happy to see this Statist monstrosity (HR 3200) crash and burn. That is about to collapse without the help of "PHRMA" I say good ridance to them too. Perversely, they may have assisted in its demise. For that thank you Billy Tauzin. The policy wonk left is going absolutely nuts over the incompetence shown by BHO and his high command. I can't wait until the 2010 mid-terms when we can retire some of these turkeys such as Harry Reid and Chris Dodd. As for Pelosi - she has helped us more than any Republican in the Congress has.
There was no backdoor dealing. Whitehouse announced the $80 billion in a press conference. Anybody with modicum of commonsense knows that $80 billion was reached through negotiation and consultation.
Anybody who comes to this website to post comments has the level of education to understand that the Executive Branch of Gov. does not write legislation. The Executive signs legislation passed by the Congress into law. If the Executive vetoes any legislation passed by the Congress, the latter needs two-third majority votes to overturn the presidential veto.
Some people in the Congress seem to suggest that the $80 billion the Pharma agreed to contribute for universal healthcare is not enough. They want to squeeze them more and it is understandable. There are also among the Democrats who want nothing less than nationalizing every private institution and any government collaboration with the private sector is deemed criminal. We see these socialists rearing their heads in this website.
I think you give to much credit to the people who read these blogs and post here. Most people who blog here, and most Americans in general, I believe, seem to think that we elect some sort of dictator every 4 years to occupy the office of President of the US. Even the Presidents themselves, seem to think of themselves as a king or dictator. Every subsequent administration writes more Executive Orders than the previous, in order to circumvent Congress, and Congress never questions any of them. The POTUS was never intended to be the top man in the legislative branch, although in almost every respect, that is the position he occupies in our government today. Look at the recent stimulus and Wall Street bailout bills. Basically the President's men (both Bush and Obama) wrote them, and the congressmen voted to pass them without even having read them, because the President told them to.
How do you feel about free market? The VA gets a 30% discount because of the number of patients it brings to the table. Social Security & National Health would bring many more than the VA. Why do you oppose the same discount the VA receives for people on Social Security or National Health? Do you think America is better off with that 30% or the drug companies?
I cant add a single thing to what Mr. Brenner said here...abs
First, you are only playing the tape in your head about President Obama. Senator Obama the candidate said during the campaign that the Healthcare industry lobbyists will be on the table but they are not going to buy all the chairs. Senator Obama the candidate never said anywhere that healthcare industry lobbyists are not going to be on the table if he is elected President. If you find anywhere Senator Obama says otherwise, l will buy you lunch. Those who supported Obama during the primaries know where he stands on variety of issues. People should stop conflating what Dennis Kucinich proposed with Senator Obama’s proposals.
You say, that "Senator Obama the candidate said during the campaign that the Healthcare industry lobbyists will be on the table but they are not going to buy all the chairs."..
There was no backdoor dealing. The Whitehouse announced the $80 billion in a press conference. Anybody with modicum of commonsense knows that $80 billion was reached through negotiation and consultation
You nailed it Mr. Brenner. This resistance is not a formal organization hence no possibility of understanding its nucleus because its nucleus is emanating from 50 million different directions.
We are going to have real problems in 2010 when this could have been so easily dealt with by Obama by at the very least looking like he represents ALL the people which he has not done and is too late IMO to pull this back.
You may not have captured other's thoughts on this but you did mine quite literally.
Oh, I just received this. Ya know, I don’t have a lot of time and HP is the only blog I go to participate because of the intelligent diverse subject matter and discourse. I make it a conscious decision to not log onto other sites but to purview 99 percent of the time. I do pay bills on line but just received an email from Mr. Axelrod which was exactly the thing I was trying to avoid. Nice job David, now lose my f*#@ing number! You were preaching to the choir with me but now since you barged in uninvited I am pissed!!!! Regardless of whom the party is including my own family. Balls….dud
Keep this up....
Tina
I largely agree with this ... I'm disappointed in Obama in several ways... but he's the only one that has a chance of making any progressive change on the horizon. He's all we have it seems. I'm still a supporter and want reform of the health insurance and financial sectors. What can we do ... we just go woth the one that seems to best further our cause. As I and others have mentioned.
I hardly think it means 'DOOM, DOOM, We're all gonna' DI E!'
It's a hard choice. Big PhRMA was a major impediment to any healthcare bill that is proposed. They are perfectly happy now, and have the ability to torpedo any bill that passes with their buckets of lobbyists' money. Just ask Madame Secretary Clinton.
President Obama made a calculated choice to deal with big PhRMA in order to get them in favor of the healthcare bill. He did not give away the store, but he had to give away something. It can be debated he gave away too much.....b
It is my opinion, he did what he did for a legitimate reason. Now, I think more than he should have been at those negotiations, but I am going to try and not second-guess the President. He has much more info than I do and is a much savvier politician than I could ever be (or anyone I have ever heard of).
Right now, the healthcare bills still exist. We need to pass them.....a
http://www
Savy enough to get elected. Not savy enough to lead.
It's been all of 7 months.
He is leading fine. Most people don't get the hang of a new job until 2 years goes by.
You wouldn't be a bit partial and a trifle judgemental would you? Gee, I couldn't tell.
Big PhRMA's ability to influence legislation by throwing tons of cash into lobbying is an argument for marginalizing them so as to reduce their influence. Instead the President explicitly endorsed their influence and "gave them a seat at the table". By doing this he communicated to the American People and to the Congress that Big PHRMA's lobbying against the public interest was legitimate.
If he had played hardball; if he had named and shamed the lobbiest who are buying the Congress and the Congressmen who are selling out their constituents, Obama would have shaped the national debate in a manner that would have cut Big PHRMA's influence off at the knees no matter how much money they pumped into lobby efforts.
This situation, like the Health Care Crisis itself, is a result of a failure of leadership and a lack of will amongst our ruling elite.
BINGO. NAILED IT!!
The White House failed to preempt the opposition to the bill, thus leaving the door wide open for the shrill voices of the loonie right.
Well said. I wish I could say I was surprised but I saw this coming during the campaign when he built his post-primary economic policy team around establishment voices and defenders of the status quo.
And for all that McCain would have proven an unmitigated disaster as President; those who voted for Obama on the basis of "Change" (rather than consciously choosing the lesser of two evils) were clearly conned.
One point to consider (which the commentariat routinely overlooks) is that if the President truly saw the Health Care Crisis as a crisis and was truly willing to fight for reform; he would have called an emergency session of Congress and kept them working through August. Sadly, it appears that the health and lives of ordinary Americans are less important to this President than the comfort of Congressmen.
Oh, heck, I saw it coming during the campaign when he said he'd be "bipartisan". Eight years of Bush 1/2, ten years of rethug control of Congress (actually decades of conservative control of Congress via "conservative" southern Democrats) proved the Obama presidency would go nowhere.. In fact, like Clinton, he's giving conservatives what they demand so he can "work with them." You can't, unless you're willing to enrich the wealthy and screw people who work for their daily bread.
time for BO and the dems to admit the truth about the dem healthcare reform proposal -
* It going to cost more than 1 trillion $
* It's designed to drive the private insurers out of business (including their 2m employees, the auto guys actually got 53 Billion to save 2 million union jobs)
* It's designed to cover millions of non Americans- call them what you will
* it will cause rationing
* it will take resources away from Medicare and Medicaid
* The rich will not pay for it, what's left of the upper middile class and midddle - middle class will pay for it
* It will take from the elderly and give to the poor
Of course the fact that none of what you say is true is irrelevant.
You: It going to cost more than 1 trillion $
Me: Versus the current cost of how many trillions?
You: It's designed to drive the private insurers out of business (including their 2m employees
Me: Only if the executives continue to demand 10's of millions in salaries
You: (including their 2m employees
Me: Gee, then you give them a job. Waitasecon
You: it will cause rationing
Me: Versus the rationing that cuts off the insurance of the worker who gets really,really sick. Versus the rationing that produces 45 million Americans without medical care...
You: it will take resources away from Medicare and Medicaid
Me: A national healthcare system ends the need for Medicare and Medicaid. Pity you don't grasp the point.
You: The rich will not pay for it
Me: Versus wealthy stockholders now paying for extremely expensive private insurance for the people working at the corporations they have invested in.
You: It will take from the elderly and give to the poor
Me: (See above)
My overall conclusion is you're not very good at logic.
Well said, thank you.
Youre confusing the campaign promises with what is actually in the dem healthcare reform package
The actual package that has been passed (was decided on months ago...all this "debate" is just flogging the dead horse, completely moot) does the following:
*funnels 1 trillion taxpayer dollars directly into the health insurance industry
*designed to drive small companies out of business by making insurance mandatory and driving up skyrocketing premiums even more.
*will allow private insurers to institute MORE care rationing and exclude more patients from treatment because it removes all madates for care.
*will turn over Medicare and Medicaid completely to the private insurance industry
*Shifts more tax burden to the lower middle class and transfers most of those tax dollars directly into the pockets of CEOs without spending a thin dime on those actually fronting the money.
*takes away from everyone but the top 1 or 2% of wage earners.
This is the problem for liberal, they don't support each other.We do need to make deal.We need the money to be able to run the ads. There is no real person defending the progressive on any network.Th
http://www
http://www
We do need to stick together. President Obama said it was going to be hard going and that we all needed to keep on working. The presidency is not the end, it is just the beginning. Most people are not used to this activist type of politics.
Would you all like some cheese with that whine? What's the argument here? That Obama isn't actually the dictator that Limbaugh says he is? That he could develop the "perfect" plan that some here seem to believe exists and ram it through Congress? Yeah, that worked so well in 1993.
First, remember that there is no plan, and nobody knows what's going to emerge. Second, remember that without the cooperation of the existing medical establishment - AMA, nurses, hospitals and yes, Big Pharma - any reform is DOA and the result will be absolutely nothing.
Even the compromised versions that might pass and described so charitably as "stabbling middle class America in the back" has produced apoplectic reaction. Are you saying that if it were more extreme it'd have a better chance?
This is America, and the fact is it's Congress that writes and passes bills. If it doesn't get through Congress, it doesn't happen, and I've seen nothing in this article or in any of these hysterical, surrendering posts that names a single thing Obama could have included to make passage easier.
It's insistence on ideology over ideas and opposing anything that isn't "pure" that kept Democrats out of power for 30 years, and if these attitudes are correct you can kiss the next 30 years goodbye as well.
Seriously, what's the point? Are you saying you'd prefer Palin and Gingrich and Boehner's health plan?
You do not understand what's happening. Without the ability to negotiate lower prices with health care providers and Big PhRMA, the middle class will not be able to afford to comply with the mandate.
This means we will still have millions of people uninsured and sky rocketing prices for health care and drugs.
And without an actual bill that passes including portability, out-of-pocket limits, a ban on pre-existing conditions and a national pool so that small business and individuals can qualify for group rates, we're going to have many more uninsured and health care and drug prices will skyrocket even more.
A public option in addition would make it better, much better.
But what I would suggest you don't understand is if the choice is between "perfect" and nothing, nothing is what we'll get.
Sure would. The dead from their plan would offset the population increase from all those babies. Of course, with Rethuglicans, once born, the babies are on their own.
How wrong can a public commentator be? Public plan is in all the healthcare proposals from the four-committee chambers with the following breakdown: three from the House and one from the Senate chambers.
Medicare is under Senate Finance Committee. Finance Committee will write any agreement with Pharma into law. Talking about meaningful enforcement mechanisms demonstrates lack of understanding how the legislative process works. Somebody has to consult Lawrence O’Donnell before pontifications based on erroneous premises.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
