Obama caves in

[justapixel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run health insurance as part of his ambitious health care proposal.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives. Such a concession is likely to enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

The community organizers who fought against government control of the health care sector have won.

This was Obama's number one domestic priority and he caves in. I guess he rather be re-elected than bring about "change".

 

[01solara]

[Quoted post: Removed by Moderator]

We understand quite well how laws are made and we will have our eyes on this one till it is seen through. The cool thing is we can focus on more than one thing at a time. I am sure that doesn't make you happy. We want the unspent stimulus money returned next and something done about spending and encroaching government control. We want cap and tax and any other laws that will further destroy our ability to compete soundly defeated. We want an America that is strong economically and militarily. The world is a safer, stronger place that way. We need an effective way to deal with China and that won't happen if we continue to sell ourselves to them. This is not gonna be an easy problem to solve but we better get on it sooner than later.

 

[iman]

I happen to think that the public option is essential, however, there are indications that the votes might not be there. That would be a big win for the lobbyists and the insurance companies. I would prefer they go with 51 votes and get the public option.

Bill Clinton is saying that we may have to accept something considerably less than what would be ideal:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26137.html

Nevertheless, something would be better than nothing. (Nick should love that comment)

 

[landers]

Well, at least the co-ops would be non-profit. That's a step in the right direction. The next step would be to make make insurance premiums and deductibles tax deductible. And a provision to prohibit for-profit insurance companies from buying not-for-profit insurance companies.

 

[01solara]

Just as an FYI, you can get the big changes made this way, get it passed. Then use reconciliation to expand the program. It's a trick to get things you need done.

That's the way liberals do it. If you don't have the support to do it honestly then trick people so you can impose your will without anyone knowing till it's too late. Problem is folks are on to you and watching closely. Tricks only work when no one is paying attention.

 

[01solara]

Oh dear! Looks like you're wrong, again.



Watch him say it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReFNStNpF5E

Keep in mind Republicans under Bush used it on a number of occasions. Like cutting Medicaid, decimating the budget surplus in 2001 , and again in 2003 .

Since 1995, Republicans have pushed everything from the Contract with America, to welfare reform, to tax cuts targeted at the rich, to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, using reconciliation. Republican leaders even fired successive Senate parliamentarians who disagreed with their use of reconciliation.

A case of amnesia Solara?

So, what else ya got?

No amnesia. I don't blindly support Republicans and I don't like it when they engage in trickery either. I want honest, open government and we don't have it now and have not for some time. I and most other Republicans I know were not happy to have McCain as our nominee. That's a big part in why we lost the last election. Many people saw him as a democrat in a republican suit and wanted no part of it and stayed home. We didn't like McCain and we don''t like a lot of our representative but that doesn't mean we like democrats more. We were not in love with W either we agreed with him on a lot of things and didn't on a lot more. That was not reason enough to vote for Gore or Kerry because we liked them even less. If there were a fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidate from either party I would vote for them but I haven't had the opportunity yet.

 

[01solara]

Actually you did. His name was Bill Clinton.

Socially moderate I will give you. Fiscally conservative not so much. He was dragged down that path kicking and screaming but he did go. There was a very popular Republican congress at the time and he being the savvy politician he was he went along. He believed in whatever the polls at the time said was popular. I grew up with him as governor and lived under him and his policies for a very long time. He and Ronald Reagan are the two people that inspired me to be a Republican.

 

[noah617]

If the Republicans have indeed killed the public option then I guess now they'll have time to get to work on doing away with Medicare. Government run health insurance is such a scary scary thing. My it would be unethical to allow it to continue. Come on GOP leaders! Come on angry mobs! Grab your signs there's still work to be done!

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

 

[naked gent]

Socially moderate I will give you. Fiscally conservative not so much. He was dragged down that path kicking and screaming but he did go. There was a very popular Republican congress at the time and he being the savvy politician he was he went along.

01 there was a time I might have agreed with you but that was before Bush got elected. The republican congress you refer to under Clinton was largely the same one that served under Bush yet somehow they were no longer fiscally conservative if you could explain why that was to me I'd be interested to hear you reasons.

Refusing to give Clinton credit while giving credit to a republican congress that soon became as fiscally irresponsible as anything the dems could come up with until recently makes no sense imo.

 

[opinterph]

Poverty is also likely to be one of the major factors that hampers human development in the South.

I don’t discount the validity of your correlation, but note that the manner in which poverty is measured in the United States is seriously outdated.

The U.S. measures poverty by a standard developed more than 40 years ago, when data indicated that families spent about one-third of their income on food … Food now comprises far less than a third of an average family’s expenses, while the costs of housing, child care, health care, and transportation have grown disproportionately. Thus, the poverty level does not reflect the true cost of supporting a family. [National Center for Children in Poverty]

Map depicting poverty in the United States:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/maps/pdf/NAM_US_THEM_Poverty.pdf (PDF)​

 

[Apollo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul



The [strike]community organizers[/strike] republicans and insurance companies who fought against government control of the health care sector have won.

This was Obama's number one domestic priority and he caves in. I guess he rather be re-elected than bring about "change".

Corrected your post.

 

[opinterph]

Um. Ok. So are you saying the map you provided is an outdated one or the new way to measure? I guess I didn't get what you were saying. Or is there another proposed way of measuring poverty?

The map I linked provides a visual representation of the current distribution of poverty in the US according to the official method of measurement. Thus, it is reasonable to consider that map in relation to the various other maps that have been posted.

My comment about the methodology that is used to define poverty is merely intended to illuminate the deficiencies inherent in the way poverty is currently measured.

 

[HenryReardon]

Blue Cross Blue Shield and other insurance companies are "non-profit" you know?

Not all of the 'blues' are non profit:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/22/4/100.pdf

PROLOGUE: The movement toward conversion to for-profit ownership among
Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans has provided a rich topic for study and debate
since the Blues abandoned their traditional requirement that all licensees be nonprofit.
While the number of for-profit Blue plans remains small, it includes two of
the fastest-growing, most profitable regional health plans in the nation: Anthem
(the former Indiana plan) and the California-basedWellPoint Health Networks.
More than one-third of Blue Cross and Blue Shield enrollment nationally is now in
for-profit Blue firms.
Many Blue plans traditionally performed a quasi-public function for which
nonprofit ownership seemed fitting and proper. They sold community-rated
products that made coverage more affordable for individuals and small groups. In
many cases, they served as statutory insurers of last resort. Although they were
generally slow to modernize their management and lost much of their market
share in the 1980s and early 1990s, both nonprofit and for-profit plans have turned
their businesses around and proved the value of their greatest assets—strong
brand indentity and long-term stability in customer and provider relationships—
in the crucible of the marketplace.
In addition to scholarly and ideological debate, protracted

 

[ColorSlaughter]

Now if there were a true and loving God, he'd inflict everyone who helped stop this with cancer and they all die a quick, painful death by 2012.

Its not dead yet. Its time we honestly stop being pantywaists about this and take to the streets. En Masse.

 

[JB3]

\
Since 1995, Republicans have pushed everything from the Contract with America, to welfare reform, to tax cuts targeted at the rich, to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, using reconciliation. Republican leaders even fired successive Senate parliamentarians who disagreed with their use of reconciliation.

I don't agree with the use of reconciliation, but you do understand that the president has to sign those bills still, don't you?

 

[MystikWizard]

Score another one for the Insurance Companies. So nice to see so many politicians on the take, that the Democrats can't even manage to get 51 Senate Votes to pass Health Care Reform. We can thank the Lobbyists, as well as the Seniors who have been terrified to death by propaganda such as Death Panels determining their fates.

To say that I am utterly disappointed with this turn of events is an understatement. It makes me sick to my stomach. The public option was absolutely essential to taking steps towards reform.

 

[JB3]

I agree with everything you've written.

So, how about if liberals pull a Blue Dog and refuse to support any bill that doesn't have a public option? I mean if six senators from Podunk states can sabotage health care for the rest of us, isn't it appropriate for liberals to close their legs and walk (admittedly an anatomically difficult thing to do)? Why support a bad bill?

On the flipside, what if those other senators can't support what they see as a bad bill?

Everyone has their own stake in the bills, and all are going to perceive them differently.

 

[palemale]

We understand quite well how laws are made and we will have our eyes on this one till it is seen through. The cool thing is we can focus on more than one thing at a time. I am sure that doesn't make you happy. We want the unspent stimulus money returned next and something done about spending and encroaching government control. We want cap and tax and any other laws that will further destroy our ability to compete soundly defeated. We want an America that is strong economically and militarily. The world is a safer, stronger place that way. We need an effective way to deal with China and that won't happen if we continue to sell ourselves to them. This is not gonna be an easy problem to solve but we better get on it sooner than later.

We are painfully aware that you right wing nuts can focus on more than one thing at a time. After all, look at your accomplishments under Bush\Cheney. You fucked up our foreign relations by lying us into an unnecessary war in Iraq while failing to accomplish anything positive in Afghanistan, thus enmeshing us in two quagmires, in the process destroying our relationships with every other country in the world. Then you fuck up the economy. You also fucked up the environment. Did nothing on health care, leaving it an unqualified mess. There was a reason the American people didn't vote for McCalin/Bailin. There was nothing left for the right wing to fuck up!

 

[Apollo]

We are painfully aware that you right wing nuts can focus on more than one thing at a time. After all, look at your accomplishments under BushCheney. You fucked up our foreign relations by lying us into an unnecessary war in Iraq while failing to accomplish anything positive in Afghanistan, thus enmeshing us in two quagmires, in the process destroying our relationships with every other country in the world. Then you fuck up the economy. You also fucked up the environment. Did nothing on health care, leaving it an unqualified mess. There was a reason the American people didn't vote for McCalin/Bailin. There was nothing left for the right wing to fuck up!

*Standing Ovation*

 

[palemale]

A bit interesting that the bluest of the blue states also has the most covered people.

I was thinking about this the other day, and wondered if it would just be better for a group of progressive blue states to team up, and pass their own coverage and healthcare reform amongst themselves and let those uber-conservative states continue their spiral down into poverty.

No it wouldn't. We shouldn't continue to let Henry's powerful friends in the South and Mountain states oppress their poor and working class neighbors by allowing the continuation of a system that denies them adequate health care.