Rahm's Lullaby - Lulled Into Craving a Public Option - RIP, Single Payer!

What has happened is the equivalent of getting a meat lover to crave White Castle sliders instead of a thick prime rib for the same price or less. But that would take more than lulling. That would take bamboozling. Just like we have been bamboozled into craving, even begging for, a public option that is not only anemic, but won't take effect until 2013.

This past weekend we've heard spokesmen for the administration say again that the public option is, itself, optional. In addition, we learned that Rahm Emanuel will be the White House representative to the small group, meeting behind closed doors, charged with hammering out a surrender, I mean "compromise".

Rahm "hold my seat until I can be Speaker of the House" Emanuel is a get things passed kind of guy, a get Democrats elected kind of guy, a take the money and run (moderates for office) kind of guy. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter if what is passed will solve the problem or even get us back on the right track, or if who is elected is the best person we could elect to represent us, or which vermin (it's okay, I have Michael Savage's permission to use the word) is giving the money to elect the lesser of two evils to pass the lameass laws, just so we can say we did something.

And saying that we did something, as happened with the nearly worthless credit card bill, seems to be the goal. Once again, we are at the pass something/pass anything stage of the game. Despite significant Democratic majorities in both chambers, a Republican party in disarray, and a clear message from voters last November, this administration, instead of leading the fight for single payer health care, is making us beg for the (screw the) public option?

As we enter the 9th year of a military somethingorother in Afghanistan (did I miss the declaration of war?), we do hear questions like "What is our purpose there?" or "What is our exit strategy?" but one rarely hears "Can we afford it?" Yet, how many times have we heard, "Can we afford health care reform?" Tax cuts for the rich and Big Business, no problem. Planes that the Pentagon says they don't need or want, no problem. But, doing the right thing and providing health care for all Americans - that's a problem. Considering that this country balks at paying for a DNA test, not previously available, that could prevent a wrongful execution, the murder of an innocent person, who's surprised?

It is long past the time to declare health care as a right of all Americans. THAT is something we should crave! President Obama should say exactly that - in plain, clear, simple non-legalese English. Health care is a RIGHT of all Americans. But that would conflict with his insistence on budget neutrality, according to him and his experts. The truth is that single payer, universal health care for every American is not only the right thing to do, but it is the best way to achieve budget neutrality. Unless we can get administrative costs down and profits out of the equation, there's no way this reform can work.

In contrast to the Obama campaign rhetoric, there are more lobbyists in Washington than ever before, buying more influence than ever before. Every lobbyist made it to the table; shamefully, single payer wasn't so lucky. We are squandering the best chance we will have to pass single payer for decades, probably the only chance. And, as a result, we will continue to throw people who need health care under the bus, as well as alienate voters from the Democratic Party, which would have benefited from real reform.

Didn't I hear something during the campaign about making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share? Not only haven't we raised taxes on the top ONE percent who earn 23% of income, but we are STILL MAKING PEOPLE PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS! That was a Reagan invention, but I guess the Obama economic advisors like it, too.

If this administration can't bring itself to do the right things, maybe a part of its next stimulus package can be to construct pneumatic tubes from hospitals to funeral homes, for when an uninsured person trespasses by seeking medical care. That would kill three birds with one stone - create jobs, decrease the pool of unemployed, and keep health care costs down. I better stop there. I don't want to give the Republicans any ideas.

I'm sorry if this seems a bit harsh on the administration. I still have hope that President Obama will be a great president, just as soon as he jettisons his cabinet and remembers why he won the election. Other than his Supreme Court appointment, his finest moment as president, things wouldn't be much different with a President McCain. This isn't change; it's barely fine tuning. The term "business as usual" comes to mind.

As for Rahm Emanuel, I don't mean to single him out for all of the blame but, you have to admit, Axelrod's Lullaby just doesn't have the same ring to it as Rahm's Lullaby. Nevertheless, you don't have to be a crime scene investigator to know that Rahm's fingerprints are all over the administration's health care dealings. He is the White House insider most likely to win a Nobel Prize for Pragmatic Exuberance, should that be instituted, in addition to serving as President Obama's Chief of Staff, although I'm not sure why, unless the goal is to fill swear jars.

Hey, if he swears as much as they say, let's put swear jars everywhere he goes. Maybe we can pay for health care that way.

He would NOT promote single payer as a part of health care reform.

SHEESH!

:eyes:

Didn't you fucking listen?

(except for covering kids).

If he could change his mind about that, he could change his mind about single payer. But apparently lobbying by the insurance industry means more than our opions.

Just to make sure I understand your position, anyone who voted for Obam is suppose to accept all his positions without question? We can't continue to push for something better than his half assed "insurance exchange" idea?

comes into play.

to do the right thing.

The Democrats try to serve two masters: corporations and the rest of us. Some individual Democrats (Blue Dogs) come down most of the time on one side of that divide.

The difference with the GOP is they serve ONE master: corporations. Their voter base is satisfied gestures on cultural issues that rarely if ever inconvenience the master.

:shrug:

after he made the picture big enough for you to read?

I raise 'em back.

:)

:evilgrin:

Didn't you fucking listen?

Anyway, I wish we'd elected this guy, instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

we'd get single payer, all we had to do was take back the WH and the Senate. I thought I remembered him saying that, but so many people have come on here and said he never promised single payer....

DLC Centrists know how to do.

The one who ran for the Senate. That particular Obama actually said that he knew Universal SPHC to be the only solution and to get it, we just needed to get Dems elected!

Then he got his panties in a knot and decided that he needed to be President so badly that although Single Payer was the best solution, and although the health care situation was in crisis mode, we do, after all, owe something to the majestic insurers who are now part of our system.

The change came about in Dec of 2007. And unfortunately for many of us, we didn't realize that there had been that big of a change until he got into office. Then he really showed us that he was most willing to change himself, and give up the things the people need for the sake of the Corporatists he feels he owes for those camapign contributions.

single payer. He since decided it would be "too disruptive". At one point he gave the reason that too many employees would be displaced from the insurance industry (work in it by chance?) if we went to single payer. Another time he said that so many people were so happy with their current plan that we couldn't change to single payer. Sorry, I am not that stupid that I believe that too many people love the health care system we have.

But I wanted to know what he means by "too disruptive", so I wrote the White House web site, and I checked the box that I wanted a response as to the meaning of that phrase. The response had no relevance to my question. I guess they didn't "fucking listen" to the question?

Depending on the meaning, I believe I can overcome his excuse of "too disruptive", and have single payer for less than his proposal, or what any of the other proposals would cost. When they talk, I will listen. And I'm sure when I have the money of an insurance industry lobbyist, they'll listen to me, too.

Furthermore, DUDE, I have what they refer to as a CADILLAC plan. But, I would be happy to see everyone get the same plan - single payer, universal care. It's a matter of doing the right thing and making this a right, as it should be.

And, if you are employed in a job that would go away with single payer, I have a job for you and all your friends that would, most likely, pay more than you now earn, unless you're an overpaid executive.

a single payer system. What would no doubt surprise Obama is the number of health insurance employees at the bottom of food chain who would like to see single payer (at least that was the case at United Health Group).

The only thing a single payer system would "disrupt" is the flow of cash from the insurers to the politicians.

who really need to contact the White House and let them know that, especially if the numbers are significant. The reason that Obama is against single payer, in my opinion is, because he thinks he's looking out for you. He's trying to save your jobs. It's a reasonable concern from a decent man.

I mean, just out of curiosity, don't you think many insurance company employees would lose their jobs? I do, but I know how to solve that problem with a win/win situation for all parties.

Your last line says it all.

(thank God!) The company I worked for subscribed (probably still does) to the Jack Welch school of management where you lay off a certain number of employees a few times every year on the assumption that everyone will work harder if everyone is worried about their job. This results in employees being laid off for subjective reasons - a lot of times there seems to be a dispropotionate number of employees over 45 involved in the layoff, but good luck proving age discrimination.

Anyway, even back when I was working for the crooks (fortunately, no where near the claims department) a lot of people wondered why we couldn't have health care like other countries and my contacts tell the same holds true today. This is probably because many insurance companies, including the one I was at, don't feel the need to provide their employees with especially good coverage (I know of one company that does, but it is non-profit) so no one working there was under any delusions about how good the current health insurance system is.

I really don't think Obama gives a damn about the worker bees at the insurance companies. If he cared much about workers he'd be making it clear that any bill that hits his desk that includes increases in H1B visa would be vetoed and that any company that received TARP money better not be laying anybody off while paying big bonuses to the jerks who caused the problems. He's concerned about those CEOs and the checks they write for campaign "donations".

"I'm not at all about change, or meaningful reform, I am about getting something done so we can say we tackled that problem."

Health care reform over the next ten days and then onwards and upwards to the new wars in Afghanistan and Iran HOORAY!

calling me an Obama hater, but if you are, you have very selective eyeballs. If you think I hate Obama, you need to let me know so I can defend myself, as a huge Obama supporter, and set you straight. Either way, please respond. I'm trying to figure out this discussion forum.

As a progressive member of the Democratic Party, I don't think there is a more loyal member than me. We can disagree amongst ourselves, right?

Yesterday I went to eat some Mandarin oranges, but they had gone bad, and the expiration date was still months off. You better believe Rahm's fingerprints were all over that.

we would get it, even with Democratic control. :(

A real, honest to goodness PO is the next best thing, provided it's strong and does open the door for universal single payer in the _near_ future. (Admittedly, I am not even holding my breath for this either.)

to influence his policies.

Go ahead and threaten to hold your breath. You cheerleaders for Team Hate Obama have no credibility outside your own little whiny echochamber.

influence the legislation.

Do you get a bonus for me saying that?

If you get paid by how much idioy you spew in bad writing, you're making quite a bit.

Like this poll commissioned by the Wall Street Journal?
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091020-711426.html

although that article left out a crucial detail that the Huffington Post pulled out of it:



Can't you guys find more dignified work than being pay-per-post shills?

your Bush=Obama delusions.

I support a strong public option. I would prefer single payer.

I think your posts are rubbish.

All that's really visible is Bush next to Obama with a reference to 'aristocrats.'

Which implies they are nothing alike

Extreme straw mans here. Can you not criticize policies of an entire ruling party without being grouped in an almost imaginary group?

That's been my take

Or you're just naive. If that's the case, politics isn't for you.

The Democrats executed this masterfully

If I was amongst the masses, I'd have Pom-poms, screaming, "Give me Public Option or give me death".

Ive tried to encourage thoughtful caution during this process, to no avail. People are swallowing this thing whole (or rejecting it outright).

Because the Dems never said they were going to do a Single Payer.

Pres. Obama didn't run on a single payer platform.

So where does the hoodwinking occur?

If people feel they've been hoodwinked, it's because they spent the last two years of the campaign living beneath a rock.

Somewhere along the last 12 months, the Democrats (who theoretically have the power to create a comprehensive and beneficial health care system) created a new mixed market model to hide a primarily mandated & subsidized private industry reform (Nixonian in origins), and sold it to a desperate population as "universal health care". People are now clamoring for a "public option", any "public option" mind you, without really further analyzing the industries problems and looking for other solutions. Only once before have I seen a bandwagon so masterfully created and shoved, willingly, on the backs of the American people (Patriot Act/Iraq war hoopla).

There are far better alternatives, which remain unconsidered, that the American people are not clamoring for. Those in charge forgot to educate about these and promote them to the general public, opting rather to join the campaign for the public option bandwagon.

People are foolish to be begging for merely any public option at this point. They should always have been begging for more, willing to accept only the best public option. But to chalk this up to the stupidity of the American people alone is to have been completely blind to the smoke and mirrors that promoted this as the only bestest super-good solution available.

option is very, very good, we'd be better off passing nothing now, and working our butts off in 2010 to elect others, where possible.

No one was hoodwinked. Only the dumb were hoodwinked because they duped themselves into believing we were getting single payer.

This campaign essentially tricked desperate people into thinking that this reform was adequate "universal health care". They are clammouring for something now, name "public option", that wasn't even in the political lexicon a year ago or so.

Im not aware of anyone who believed the US was getting single-payer. I know of many who thought the US "should" get single-payer if the ruling party cared about them. Some people may of believed single-payer would at least be considered and intelligently debated (are those the fools you refer to?).

But it was scuttled by an inbound bandwagon with no brakes.

Some stupid people fooled themselves into believing Obama would bring about universal healthcare.

Even though had they paid attention during the two year primary fight and then the year-long general, they would have understood he was against single payer and the term universal healthcare.

It's unfortunate people got duped into thinking something that was never going to happen. But that's their fault. They didn't pay attention to what Obama was proposing during the campaign. Had they, they would've known he wasn't for universal healthcare or a single payer plan.

So they shouldn't be surprised he's working for this type of reform.

But now your argument falls apart a bit.

You see....Obama, Hillary and Edwards ALL campaigned using the language, multiple times, of "universal healthcare". Yes, Obama included.


"It's unfortunate people got duped into thinking something that was never going to happen. But that's their fault. They didn't pay attention to what Obama was proposing during the campaign"

Maybe you weren't paying attention. Yes, they all three NEVER used it with single-payer in mind. Their plans were not tantamount to UHC at all. But they all consistently kept using the word. Obama seemed to use it less at first, but he picked up as the primaries went on and carried it into the general. Here is a quick example that pops into my head (yes, I listened to almost all his speeches):



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10818.html


"Had they, they would've known he wasn't for universal healthcare or a single payer plan"

Right....all people needed to do was ignore him, and learn about politics. Then they would never of expected anything of the sort.

Like banning recission, pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, etc.

BUT, a small insurance reform bill could of been passed by now with all that non-controversial good stuff, and hardly any balking. Instead, its being lumped together with mandates and private subsidies, hidden by what may be a firewalled public option. Who really knows what the end result will be after the thousands of pages get implemented.

During the campaign, the Public Option was a government run Health Insurance Plan "like Medicare" available to anyone who wants it. MOST Americans still believe that THIS is what the "Public Option" is

Sadly, a "thin sliver" that will at best directly benefit about 3% of Americans has been substituted.
ALL they kept was the name ..."Public Option".

Yours.

And like you suggest, every single time I think of Americans being sold this shoddy bill of goods, I think of how the Iraqi war was unloaded on us. On how the Patriot Act was unloaded on us.

Naomi Klein need not retire her Shock Doctrine any time soon.

couldn't afford it after the medical bills.

In a democracy people get the government that they deserve. When Americans are firmly convinced that our massive defense budget is needed to keep the country safe, politicians of both parties are naturally going to favor a huge defense budget because they want to win elections.

The President has only so much power to change public opinion and the mentality that defense budgets should go unquestioned whereas social welfare programs should be heavily scrutinized has been around for decades (the first part since the end of World War II, the latter since Reagan).

The polls say the vast majority wants a public option.

Chief of Staff before the election.

People are also bamboozled as to the need for this absurd defense budget. By both parties. Ask people in cities what terrorizes them most. The choices in elections, skewed by money, are without a difference. We should secure our homeland here at home, and use a substantial portion of that defense budget to secure our health and conduct research that will result in improving the quality of life, whether medically or otherwise.

Defense budgets used to be passed because of jobs in districts. With the increasing amounts of defense dollars being outsourced, maybe we can trim the defense budget and take care of what counts at home.

With lobbyists, increasing in numbers daily, I doubt it will happen.

As for what the president can do, even Tricky Dick Nixon had everyone out of Vietnam in less than the time that Obama has been in office.

referendum on getting the hell out of Iraq? A lot of good that did those who bothered to vote.

Did we deserve that, too? Yet, we are still in Iraq and up to no good.

It doesn't matter where the video comes from. There's quite a bit on YouTube showing that Obama ran in the early primaries on single payer universal access.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk


That's what I hoped for. But nooooo. Obama caved to the big for profit special interests groups who make big bucks limiting our medical care and choices. Obama didn't even try to discuss the advantages of single payer or 'sell it' to America,

Rahm Emmanuel is a creep. He's not for 'us.'

and I mean that solely in the insulting not virile sense.

I just read that Rahm Emanuel will be your representative in the final negotiations of the health care reform bill.

This is very discouraging since Rahm has a strong track record of putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of average Americans and even backing corporate compliant candidates in elections instead ones with a greater chance of winning as he did in the Duckworth vs. Cegelis primary.

We need a strong public option open to everyone like medicare for all, or the final bill will be considered a capitulation to insurance companies that puts money in their pocket that should be going to provide medical care, that leaves Americans very lives in the hands of these companies that in California were found to deny a fifth of all claims by the Attorney General, and strategically will weaken public support for the Democratic Party going into the 2010 & 2012 election instead of giving an easily attainable landslide.

If you sell out on this as you did with the Wall Street bailouts and your appointment of an economic team whose past actions created the crisis, people will no longer hope that you can help us, but hope that you will be replaced in a future election by someone who will.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

:patriot:

If you let me plagiarize.

I will be probably writing in a name next Presidential election. Last fall, I thought that maybe a black man could get something done - surely if you grew up outside the White Boy, Fat cat paradigm you'd have a clue.

Now I realize that it takes someone with enough courage to be beyond the control of the Corporate Puppet Masters, regardless of race.

Currently I put Maxine Waters and Alan Grayson in that category.

With the existence of Fox News and the weakness overall of the democrats the idea of a Single Payer proposal would have been as dead as...well, dead. It is the perfect solution to resolve ALL the problems as has been seen around the world but America is sooo afraid of anything that resembles change especially one that is literally a 180 degrees.

There is no question that Obama ideally would prefer a Single Payer system but he is clearly very realistic and understands America very well. Sadly, it would have been a clever strategy if they put out SP 1st and THEN compromised down to a strong PO instead of drunkenly stumbling onto the idea (and a weak one currently at that). The only hope of reform is through baby steps. What i fear is a triggered PO since it appears very much so that we are heading that way. It is like doing nothing. It is movement but still a pretty crappy one.

America needs to be more passionate like the people in Europe who will revolt for the simplest things. I think America was more like that in the 60s/70s.

reincarnated, along with Lyndon Johnson to whip some butt?

Baby steps are for babies. The time is now or it ain't gonna happen. I want some of what you are smoking.

My favorite though is your line, "America is sooo afraid of anything that resembles change."

Did I miss something last election? Weren't we supposed to have voted for change, or was that just a silly slogan?

lifetime customers who need mega amounts of taxpayer subsidies to barely afford ins. which ironically has nothing to do with healthcare.

Once we get the ins companies in that severely weakened position we can start pushing incremental changes through now knowing we have a congress that isn't 100% beholden to the insurance industry.

Makes perfect sense.

Obama ran on a Public Option "like Medicare" available to anyone who wants it....AND No Individual Mandate to purchase Health Insurance.

Now, what was your point again?

than not getting it by at least 2-3 lightyears because the card was never even in the deck. At first, I might say I was a little oversensitive to the hubbub but damn it is fucking crazy to still be pretending it was underhandedly taken away or something. Only a completely oblivious crackpot would have followed this process and come away with the impression that single payer is anywhere near a realistic possibility with the current Congress or in the short term.

Hell, the shootings at the town halls alone would send the topic out of consideration longer than doing something different and coming back to it. In fact the whole thing would be dead as week old fried chicken by now and we'd be in statue quoville for 15-20 years.

If you still believe this was doable then tell Mr Roarke and Tattoo hello for me or failing that puff, puff, pass that bubonic chronic.

the rest of the United States of America would be a bunch better. Could you take a few of your buds with you? Bye-bye, now!

P.S. Keep on growing!

(and pass it over to me)

I'm just talking about reality here. You can't possibly tell me you think we have anywhere near the votes for single payer nor that we can get them in any reasonable time but want to have a fucking tantrum twice a day and five times on Sundays.

You're being a moron. I'm on your side and have to do it from somewhere outside of the lands of the solid Democrats rather than where it is easy as well as it is easy to pretend away that there is any other brand of thought.
Where are you from that is so motherfucking special that you can talk down to long time liberal Democrats that work as hard as we can to elect Democrats here and across the nation.


FUCK YOU!

you were severely deluded.

can get to but only with at least good ten years of groundwork laid.

Back in 2004. Maybe he was deluded, but I liked him a lot more then than I do now.

Why should we even bother to have political parties and campaigns if we are to be admonished continually that we must do whatever is most expedient in terms of the Corporate Lobbyists that are really running this nation?

I'd be banging my head against the side of the wall nearest the computer except for the newest Progressive Warrior Alan Grayson.

And he joins Kooch, Maxine Waters, and a few others like Lyn Woolsey in being on the side of Truth and Democracy, rather than joining those enslaved to the protocols of "Sophistry of political expediency."

This is where they post pictures of Michelle and put up smiley icons on how the President 'rocks'.

It doesn't matter how factual a post or how legitimate the complaint. It is all about maintaining their rock star image of a politician rather then the policies he advocates or the people he appoints.

I think I have been spending too much time in this forum.

The "leave Britney alone!" atmosphere is not exactly conducive to mature discussion.

Over to the other side, then.

I believe you captured the Essence of Rahm.

You know, at one time, Rahm WAS a dirty word at DU.
NOW, he has a fan club.

K&R

I know Obama said that during the debates. I don't know if I agree with that. A government has a responsibility to keep it's citizens safe from harm. That's what the local police and military are for. But it is OUR job to look after our own personal well being. I'm sorry, but you don't have a RIGHT to health care just because you're born in the USA.

their own personal well being, as you put it, and through no fault of their own. You might want to give it more thought. I hope it doesn't take something happening to you or someone you love to make you see the light.

The rest of the industrialized world treats health care (or at least a certain amount of it) as a basic human right that all of its citizens are entitled to. The United States treats it as a commodity to be bought and sold like any other. The problem is that it is not just a commodity like any other when people will literally die if they don't get it.

and FDR's Second Bill of Rights mention health/medical care as a right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_declaration_of_human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

..... a White Castle would be might tasty.

...

win win for the status quo...... The handlers knew how to make us digest no single payer.......

It's a favorite maneuver of the Obama administration, going back to the primaries.