When "Yes We Can!" Meets "No We Won't!"

I am very concerned about the future of this country.

No, not just because health care reform is being so watered down in Congress that it now completely fails to address the underlying dire (and spiraling) problems of the health care system. (As I've written previously, there is no defensible position to opposing a public option.) Rather, it's watching how the health care debate has unfolded (and other attempts at legislation this year, too), and how Congress has handled the relevant legislation. And also how the American people have reacted.

At the risk of oversimplifying something that is far more complicated, in their most basic form, I see two trends that are disturbing:

1) Congress (not just the Republicans, either) has not supported President Obama's attempts at delivering the change on which he campaigned (and the change for which Americans overwhelmingly voted).

2) The American people have not been savvy about the dynamic in Washington, mainly because, it seems to me, they are in total denial as to the severity of the problems facing the country.

As I removed my New York Times from its three (!?!?!?) protective bags yesterday morning and glanced over the front page, I noticed that four of the six articles directly or indirectly revealed how neither Congress nor the American people are really confronting the problems facing the country. On health care, there is a piece that details how the millions of dollars in campaign donations raised for Democrats by a Texas hospital are affecting how Democrats in Congress are approaching health care. With insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies having poured $81 million and $134 million, respectively, into Congressional coffers, it's not surprising that more senators and members of Congress seemed to be concerned with the profit margins of these companies than with the health and wallets of the American people. I expect Republicans to out-and-out lie to protect their health insurance company benefactors (like Sen. Tom Coburn saying that people will die if health care reform is passed). But when you have a Blue Dog Democrat like Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas proudly saying Wednesday, "We have successfully pushed a floor vote to September," you really start to wonder if there is any pretense left as to who those who oppose the president's health care reform are working for. What is he so proud of? Delaying relief to the American people?

Another article addresses how despite the Obama administration's aggressive plan to cut down on home foreclosures, mortgage servicers are subverting the process, because they make so much in fees from foreclosing on delinquent homeowners. This was just another reminder that the banks, despite nearly bringing down the economy last year, still rule on Capitol Hill, which is directly related to the massive amount of money the industry funnels to campaigns. (For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, in the 2010 cycle, the finance/insurance/real estate industry has contributed more than $14 million to 422 members of the House and more than $6 million to 89 senators, and one subset of that group, the securities and investment sector, has given more than $2.8 million to 300 members of the House and more than $1.9 million to 58 senators.)

On the bottom of the front page, there is an item about how the popularity of installing white roofs is increasing in an effort to cut energy costs, which only reminded me of how little this year's energy bill does to actually address the country's dependence on foreign oil (impacting national security, the economy, and the environment, including the threat of global warming).

The articles were a reminder of what I've been thinking since it became clear that Congress had no intention of passing anything resembling Obama's ambitious health care reform plan that addressed the underlying systematic problems, rather than just handing out more money to the industries that are responsible for the current broken model: While voters enthusiastically embraced Obama's calls for change, too many senators and U.S. representatives have no interest in signing on to a new agenda. In fact, beginning with the stimulus bill and moving through energy, financial regulation and now health care, Congress has gutted Obama's proposals. Instead of embracing necessary systematic change, Republicans have concentrated on opposing anything Obama proposed to win political points, moderate and conservative Democrats have looked to ensure that Obama's proposals were defanged, and even the mainstream wing of the Democratic party seems more intent on winning old battles than furthering the president's ambitious proposals, the very ones that carried him (and, to some extent, Democrats in Congress) to power last November.

To me, the battle has shaped up as a forward-looking president (the "Yes We Can!" of my title) trying to deliver the change he promised against an inward-looking Congress more interested in self-preservation (which has different meanings to mainstream Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans, but all adds up to the "No We Won't!").

You would think that this breakdown would be clear to Americans observing the process unfold. As is often the case when trying to figure out the U.S. electorate, you would be wrong.

The fourth article that caught my attention on the front page of the Times was about poll results that show not only that the country is growing uneasy about Obama's health care reform plan (even though Obama is still more trusted on the issue than Republicans are), but that, according to the piece,

"Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors and, treatments and tests."

Clearly, the Republican misinformation campaign, equating a public option with a single-payer Canadian system (and we all know we can't do anything the Canadians would do), has found traction, which is depressing, considering the judgments are being made based on lies. It's Harry and Louise all over again. (I re-read the transcript of Obama's July 22 press conference today, and I think anyone who thinks that the president's plan will hurt them should really give the speech transcript a look.)

And there was something even more disturbing in the article. According to the Times, "The percentage who describe health care costs as a serious threat to the American economy ... has dropped over the past month." Wow. Fantastic. Denial has set in. (As I pointed out last week, the nonpartisan/bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care has detailed the exponentially growing health care burden on the country, and how despite the high cost, we still receive comparatively lousy care.)

How can we address our serious problems if, as a nation, we aren't prepared to admit they exist? I feel like the country is an ocean liner heading for an iceberg, but the captain can't convince the crew to change course because doing so would affect the suntanning opportunities of the passengers (who would then vote the crew out of jobs).

To me, it looks like Obama is trying to honestly take on the mammoth problem of health care, advocating for reform that would reduce costs, increase coverage, improve quality, and protect people from the whims of the insurance companies, but he is being opposed by Congress, even though his party has 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House (thanks to the Blue Dogs who are siding with the Republicans and mainstream Democrats who lack the constitution and compass to stand firm for systematic change). And, what's worse, Obama is taking the blame.

Yesterday, in a response to a Facebook friend's status bashing Obama, someone commented that he was sick of the president making "empty promises" and that he should start fixing the problems facing the country. I felt like I was reading a Facebook page through the looking glass. An "empty promise" is one where the person making the promise has no intention of carrying it out. You can make that charge about Democrats in Congress, but I don't see how you can put such an accusation at the feet of the president.

I can argue the facts all I want, but in this guy's mind (and based on the Times poll, he's not alone), it's all Obama's fault, even though, despite George W. Bush's belief to the contrary, a president is not a dictator who can act alone. To pass legislation, Congress has to do its part. And right now, a majority of members of Congress are not helping Obama face our very real problems.

I'm not sure I have an answer to all of this. Sometimes it feels like our current corrupt system of status quo government is unbreakable. But I do know that if the Democrats in Congress don't find a way to become co-advocates with the president on these important issues, their future political problems (and there will be losses if things don't turn around, especially considering that the president's party traditionally loses Congressional seats in mid-term elections) will be the least of it. The real result will be that we will fail, as a society, to make the truly make-or-break decisions that need to be made to address serious problems that threaten our stability and prosperity. Health care is one of these challenges, and it's as good a time as any to turn the tide.

And if Americans don't acknowledge the depth of the health care problem and the role Congress is playing in choosing the interests of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies over their constituents (as well as the other challenges facing the country), the problem won't be addressed, and the results could be catastrophic.

Actually, Americans have an even bigger job right now. They have to stand up and take responsibility for their country. Even though health care will benefit nearly everybody, we still have to look past self-interest to address the looming threats that escalating health care costs pose to our personal bottom lines, and the economy of the country. The time for placing our heads ostrich-like in the ground and thinking only for today has to end. As the president said in his speech, when you look at the current health care system as a proposal, it's one no sane person (outside of an insurance or pharmaceutical company) would support.

Am I optimistic? Not really. But it's important for everyone to speak out now, before it's too late.

Comments

[ricardocoav]

Obama says: Yes we can! I say: Yes we should! The Big Interests (The rich, rich rich) say: No we shouldn't! So who's right! I say: We can and we should! Why? Because we the people are the ones that pay for all America's dreams and without us, the rich, rich, rich wouldn't be so rich, so this has to change in favor of the ones that pay, pay, pay!

[ricardocoav]

Obama: Yes we can! And I say: Yes we should!

[elliaryan]

"Americans have an even bigger job right now. They have to stand up and take responsibility for their country." I absolutely agree.

The challenge now is to knit citizen voices together into a strong message - people talking to their fellow citizens to state clearly 1) the benefit of health care reform that includes a public option (and which clarifies that it is not the same thing as 'single payer') and 2) how important it is during August to contact their state's elected representatives to demand that they put partisan politics aside and do what is right for this country, that they are obligated to protect the basic human rights of citizens before submitting to the 'requests' of big businesses that have the ability to look after themselves. This message needs to be broadcast far and wide - tv, newspaper, and magazine ads (incl online); through social media; outdoor posters; wherever people can be reached.

Who would be best placed to do this? I don't know the answer to that. I suspect not Organizing for America, which is essentially the DNC - it's important for this to be a nonpartisan action. Perhaps one of the existing, or a new, nonpartisan group.

How to make this happen? Agreed, it would take big bucks to act quickly and to spread the message as widely as possible. But with so much at stake, I fall back on this quote from Sir Nicholas Winton ("Britain's Schindler"): "Nothing is impossible if it can be done."

[billw8017]

The first HMOs date to the Nixon years, and afterward we have hospitals going private in a big way pulling down millions for the governing business people. That is, the disaster is blowing up somewhat swiftly and somewhat recently. It may have characteristics of a bubble, matters cannot continue as they are, but the business plans now operating will crash.

President Obama is giving us somewhat honest budgeting, no more supplimentals for the wars, but a straight statement of the anticipated deficit. That clarifies the problems just now as people may be more willing to confront and work on them.

2010 is an election year. Serious Republicans will turn more liberal once past the primaries. If the President can sustain much popularity, he may finally get some bipartisanship. We'd prefer a revolution, but big changes can roll over with glacial slowness. I don't trust revolutions, anyway. i think they change personnel without going to root causes. Finally, the implementation of whatever change we get can be the biggest change of all. We need President Obama to be reelected in 2012.

[Mike Barden]

Mr. Bard:

It can make your head spin tryin' to connect the dots, can't it?

[BarryS]

Best congress money can buy. Everyone outside the USA laughs at the corrupt legislative process. Only third-world countries would put up with it. And yet, we say we are the freeest, best etc. without any study coming from anywhere backing it up. Perhaps a poor person from a basket casec ountry wants to come here, but that isn't true from elsewhere unless they are so rich they drip money.

[Promote]

USA can send MEN to the MOON , about to go to MARS , put SATELLITES in SPACE ,can INVADE other COUNTRIES , Can VOTE a BLACK MAN Into PRESIDENCY , BUT no DECENT HEALTH CARE for, WE THE PEOPLE ?
YES WE CAN ! CHANGE YOU CAN BELIVIEVE IN !

[Spesabsquemetu]

Excellent article. Thank you.

[belyeu]

What it boils down to is our elected officials are self serving and answer to greedy big business and not the American people. A big purge is in order.

[fuelie]

Well said Rogan

[CindyMax]

If you are interested in persuading others about the advantages of health care reform, go to http://energycommerce.gov/ and scroll down to where it lists individual representatives by state. Click on your representative and you will find a document called "Benefits of America's Affordable Health Choices Act."

The information is based on statistics from 2008 and applied to your district. It's one page. Here's what the summary of benefits for one of the districts said:

"...up to 18,600 small business could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 14,800 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 1,200 families [the number that went bankrupt in 2008] could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers could receive payment for $78 million in uncompensated care each year; and 71,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance."

Following the summary are concise details.

This kind of information, if it becomes widely disseminated, has the potential to resonate with those who are skeptical because it addresses issues specific to where they live -- it's less abstract than what they might have been hearing.

[Chazet2]

2. Last evening, Axelrod reframed and drove down expectations on healthcare. He called it "insurance reform" which is not the same thing. Having not defined what the administration is after, he can take this fall back position and call the ineffective bill that will result from this process a "victory".
The American public is lazy, but many of us were not so lazy when we were out campaigning for change in the name of Obama. We thought we were electing an advocate for us. It appears that he is not much different than the others. At least he has not indicated that he is so far.
Obama took office facing more problems than any president in 70 years. With it came wonderful opportunities. He has failed to address those issues (to the detriment of the society) and failed to seize those opportunities. All while undermining those who would...

[mountclemens]

Right!

Bard said:
"1) Congress (not just the Republicans, either) has not supported President Obama's attempts at delivering the change on which he campaigned (and the change for which Americans overwhelmingly voted)."

MY REPLY is that Obama himself has not supported the change we thought he had campaigned for.

Proof: Obama on video six years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
We thought THAT MAN was our man.
Wrong.

We Need Change. But Pres. Obama is not it.

Bard says he doesn't see how any of the blame can be put at Obama's feet. I expect the masses to be that ignorant, but I don't expect the writers of official posts to be that ignorant.

[fuelie]

I think too many people are jumping to the wrong conclusions too soon. President Obama has been in office only 6 months. Rome wasn't built in a day or destroyed in a day. The problems we have have been festering for 50 years. Change won't happen overnight, and I think Obama is our best hope for change. If he disappoints us in his first term, then he won't get elected for a second term, but I think he will go down in history as one of, if not the greatest president this country has ever seen, at least in my lifetime, currently 65.

The old establishment in Washington can't be changed by any president. We must throw the old fogies and bums out of Congress and vote in younger people who can still make changes to improve society.

[ChelseaC]

Fanned.

[ChelseaC]

MountClemens,
My post to you ended up in the wrong place.
You're fanned.
Indeed--you hit the nail on the head--sad but true.

It's not about how LONG someone is in office, it's what they do or don't do--who
they associate with.
Single payer was taken OFF the table by Obama before the CBO counted it or it could be debated.
That's democracy?

I would expect the following people to be a big part of "change" in this Administration's tackle on "health care" reform:
Rep.John Conyers
Rep.Dennis Kucinich
Se. Bernie Sanders
Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee
Rep. Anthony Weiner
Havard Public Health Professor and Former Editor and Cheif, Marcia Angell, MD
David Himmelstein, MD
Sydney Wolf, MD, etc.

But no, the big players are....dru­mroll.....­.the INSURANCE COMPANIES, BIG PHARMA, HHS Sebelius and the same old Beltway "insiders" club!
This is "CHANGE" I can't believe in.
Kucinich's admendment better stay on the bill or there will be a lot of Dems like myself packing up, heading to voter registration and changing to Independent.

[Clever Screen Name]

Uh, no. Actually, this is what he should have been saying all along --- because this IS health insurance reform, not healthcare reform. The R's got to frame it that way to scare the public into thinking they would get worse care. As far as blaming Obama, did you bother to read the article?

[Chazet2]

1. Mitch, great article. I think, though, that you have understated the role this president has played in the failure of his legislative moves, and even the caution with which he has approached each issue.
Numorous articles have appeared here exhorting Obama to get our and sell his proposals, something he has consistently failed to do. Even during his town hall meeting of the other day, he could not give a simple response to a questioner who had heard that his program would put seniors to death. He could not state that the woman had been told a lie.
Obama was supposed to be our champion, and he has consistently, as pointed out by many, aimed low at the start. He has not informed or in any effective manner tried to sell his ideas or proposals. He has been tonedeaf to middle and lower class suffering, apparently believing that fixing the banks, then ignoring their continuing gauging of the public (see article here about how banks continue to foreclose on homes because its more profitable).
And has he ever held up the Congress to scrutiny? No. When progressives started being critical of members he immediately came out in their defense, stating that we don't need to turn on each other.
Congress, and the Republican party have been able to exploit this, while he does nothing.

[ThanksMatt]

I find it important that Mitchell Bard points out that the Congress and the Senate are mostly responsible for the lack of change in Washington and not President Obama, as much as msm try to sell that story.
Yet I became a bit gloomy over this and was very grateful to see another article on Huff today about the MoveOn organisation who attacks the Blue Dogs in no uncertain terms to safeguard first and foremost the Americans and not the insurances!
The other articles to give me hope that change is coming are the one about President Obama's field workers and the one about MediaMatters who bought advertisement time to dismantle Lou Dobbs on his own show!

These are all very positive signs which show me clearly that many people are very determined to change America's politics. NOW. And so it undoubtedly will happen.

[ChelseaC]

LBJ didn't put up with this crap. He steamrolled over Repuglicans to get Civil Rights and Medicare passed. He also told Dems he would "knock heads together" if they didn't get on the ball and get bills moving.
Contrast that with Obama telling Max Baucus is working heard doing a good job getting things done, etc.
Obama said nothing about the Baucus involvement with having the PNHP doctors arrested in May's Senate Finance Hearing were these doctors where not allowed to attend.Yeah, Baucus has done and continues to do such a great job.......­......Good grief.
Obama says nothing to this clown on the take from the insurance industry and big pharma.
Then again, how can he critique Baucus when he excepted 13 million from the health insurance cabal himself?

[Ascoli]

Is there any hope for America?

[ThanksMatt]

Yes. See MediaMatters and MoveOn organisations for example!