Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”
A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.
“The president encouraged this approach,” Mr. Messina wrote. “He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform.”
The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.
The White House commitment to the deal with the drug industry may also irk some of the administration’s Congressional allies who have an eye on drug companies’ profits as they search for ways to pay for the $1 trillion cost of the health legislation.
But failing to publicly confirm Mr. Tauzin’s descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama’s reforms.
The pressure from Mr. Tauzin to affirm the deal offers a window on the secretive and potentially risky game the Obama administration has played as it tries to line up support from industry groups typically hostile to government health care initiatives, even as their lobbyists pushed to influence the health measure for their benefit.
In an interview on Wednesday, Representative Raul M. Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who is co-chairman of the House progressive caucus, called Mr. Tauzin’s comments “disturbing.”
“We have all been focused on the debate in Congress, but perhaps the deal has already been cut,” Mr. Grijalva said. “That would put us in the untenable position of trying to scuttle it.”
He added: “It is a pivotal issue not just about health care. Are industry groups going to be the ones at the table who get the first big piece of the pie and we just fight over the crust?”
The Obama administration has hailed its agreements with health care groups as evidence of broad support for the overhaul among industry “stakeholders,” including doctors, hospitals and insurers as well as drug companies.
But as the debate has heated up over the last two weeks, Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats have signaled that they value some of its industry enemies-turned-friends more than others. Drug makers have been elevated to a seat of honor at the negotiating table, while insurers have been pushed away.
“To their credit, the pharmaceutical companies have already agreed to put up $80 billion” in pledged cost reductions, Mr. Obama reminded his listeners at a recent town-hall-style meeting in Bristol, Va. But the health insurance companies “need to be held accountable,” he said.
“We have a system that works well for the insurance industry, but it doesn’t always work for its customers,” he added, repeating a new refrain.
Administration officials and Democratic lawmakers say the growing divergence in tone toward the two groups reflects a combination of policy priorities and political calculus.
With polls showing that public doubts about the overhaul are mounting, Democrats are pointedly reminding voters what they may not like about their existing health coverage to help convince skeptics that they have something to gain.
“You don’t need a poll to tell you that people are paying more and more out of pocket and, if they have some serious illness, more than they can afford,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser.
The insurers, however, have also stopped short of the drug makers in their willingness to cut a firm deal. The health insurers shook hands with Mr. Obama at the White House in March over their own package of concessions, including ending the exclusion of coverage for pre-existing ailments.
But unlike the drug companies, the insurers have not pledged specific cost cuts. And insurers have also steadfastly vowed to block Mr. Obama’s proposed government-sponsored insurance plan — the biggest sticking point in the Congressional negotiations.
The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also opposes a public insurance plan. But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards.
Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. “They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else,” he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”
After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.
“They blessed the deal,” Mr. Tauzin said. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House was not bound by any industry deals with the Senate or the White House.
But, Mr. Tauzin said, “as far we are concerned, that is a done deal.” He said, “It’s up to the White House and Senator Baucus to follow through.”
As for the administration’s recent break with the insurance industry, Mr. Tauzin said, “The insurers never made any deal.”
Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.


64 Comments so far
Show AllThe Demos are going to pass a "health care" bill, only the health that's being ensured is the continued healthy profits of the medico-industrial complex.
The 2008 revenues for the top 12 pharmaceutical companies was 383 billion dollars.
(http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/industries/21/1.html).
For cost savings of 80 billion over ten years they would surrender 2% of annual revenue--assuming that revenues remain flat. A pretty good deal if you consider the possible down side of legislation that would empower the government to negotiate drug prices.
To what other industry is Obama going to sell us out for a mere 2% of annual revenues?
Yes, it's a good deal for the drug companies, but talking 'profits,' we're looking at about a 10% reduction.
If supporters are ever to get any effective traction with the American people in promoting the single payer health care system that most people want, it may be necessary for the dialogue to feature chapter-and-verse of just such corrupt shenanigans as are described here. There is a strong populist feeling (expressed in anger at the bailouts and "executive compensation") that can help get up enough popular dander to promote a driving from the public temple the merchants who are occupying all the seats at the "reform" table. And, unfortunately, these resentments can only build as "deal" after "deal" comes to light about, for example, the distribution of "stimulus" goodies from the federal treasury. (Just today, Broward County FL learned there would be no such funding for their strapped Sheriff's Office, tnough it suffered as much understaffing as other counties that did get such funding). Everybody must have noticed how exposed "scandal" can have devastating effects on the power of the rich and famous, and we who are promoting health care (or any other) reform should not be reticent about harnessing this populist anger against corruption in high places.
"Who is ever going to go into a deal with the white house if they do not keep their word"?
A very poignant question there 'Billy'.
This should be a clarifying statement (rhetorical question actually) as well as the rest of the article a 'reinforcement', that you can 'expect the White House to keep all the words'---you can pay for----.
Taking this information into consideration; I think that the People of the USA should start 'living in the real world', and the best start would be to 'come clean' with the rest of the world. Admit the 'obvious', and live a life 'out in the open'.
To facilitate this 'revelation' the american people should make a 'grass roots' effort the change the name of the 'White House' ----to .
" The Whore House @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave'---everyone is welcome--just bring money---lots of money--- we are open 24/7/365 for your pleasure."
At least they will 'sleep better each night' knowing in their 'hearts' that they are 'at least honest with the world'.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
LOL.... I wonder if Obama is beginin to wonder "Why did I ever want this job.?"
I hope so...
Sold out again. How many times in 7 months. This must be some kind of record. Pitiful. Just pitiful. And here we sit, twiddling our keyboards. How much more? Sort of a game now, is it not? How far will they go? It's absolutely astounding. Obama, you make the shrub look like a walk in the park...almost!
"How many times in 7 months"
My list is up to 48. If Obama doesn't care enough about his own health to quit smoking with all the resources at his disposal, why should he give a darn about the American People's health?
Barak like Bush? Let me count the ways:
War On Drugs re. Chavez
Support Israeli crimes
Rendition
Executive Secrecy & Privilege
Immunity for Illegal Wiretapping
Maintain Illegal Wiretapping
Troops/War In iraq
Increase Debt
Capital Punishment
Fight Gay Marriage rights
Offshore Drilling
Corporate Bailouts
Drone Strikes In Pakistan
Protect Torturers
Cut Veterans Benefits
Silence On Gaza
Appoint Industry Insiders
European missile shield
Boycott UN Session On Racism
Support "Clean Coal"
Protect Israeli Spies
Polluters Over Polar Bears
Drop White Phosphorus On Civilians
Military Commissions Trials
Oppose Valerie Plame's Case
Mum On Israeli Nukes
Oppose Single Payer Health Care
Outsourcing Intelligence/Interrogation
Unlawful enemy combatant status & prolonged detention
Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
Privatize War
Use DOJ to Help Repugs Not Dems
Secret White House Visitors List
Criminalize Legal Dissent
Secret Meeting w/ Energy Execs
Protect Saudis From Terrorist/911 Links
Increase Military Spending
Let NSA Spy On Private Internet Traffic
Keep Cheney Interview Secret
Falsely Claim Iran Aids Taliban
Militarize Africa For Resources
Don't Support Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Support Cheney's Concealment of Assassin Program from Congress
Reject Immigration Detention Rules
Protect Illegal DoD Propaganda
Military Spying On Peace Groups
Civilian Deaths Acceptable/Unspecified
In Bed with Big Pharma/No Price Negotiations
CACTUSPIE: Right on! The "hope for change" platform did change...from the repug/dems to the dem/repugs...but the modus operandi remains intact in spite of so-called "investigations."
Thanks for the post!
Nice! Excellent list! Do ya mind if I spread it around a bit?
What a mind-boggling list!
Obama is treading new ground for Democrats. Say what you will about Carter and Clinton, they didn't didn't pump trillions of dollars into the financial sector or expand manifestly fascist policies--all while posing as an agent of change. Hell, Clinton even raised taxes on the rich! He was a raving socialist compared to the Bammer.
Ugh! One dollar,one vote. Big Health wins another one for the Gipper.
I am not surprised about the deals that are being made. There is a lot in this Bill that the American people do NOT want, but yet it seems it will be forced down our throats.
One thing that the "right", from here to Pluto, and the "left", from here to Xanadu can agree on is that we are ALL getting fucked! Same with those making less than $250 thousand and those making above ....fuck them, they are the ones fucking us. We can all agree on that the money that "WE the PEOPLE" are taxed each day, week, month, quarter, year is given away with no return on our "investment". NativeSon very aptly renamed the White House, to the Whore House. That is surely where ANYTHING GOES for the right price! But, it doesn't stop there! Congress is seemingly in competition with the Whore House as to who can do the most johns for the most money! They are giving it away faster than we can make it! They are giving it away so fast that they have to borrow money from China. The only question I have left is Who's our daddy?; and who's fucking me next?
Here's what I don't get. Obama's smart, very smart. He's A-A and was a community organizer, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's sympathetic to the less fortunate. He's also an instant historic figure as the first black prez. AND everyone in the world loves him. I.e. he's got everything going for him. So WHY would he sell out so quickly? It just doesn't make sense.
Guess you haven't been paying attention. Obama doesn't work for the less fortunate. He works for The Man.
No, it doesn't make 'cents,' it makes dollars, and lots of them. An all out assault against big money has no chance. Small skirmish victories are all we can realistically hope for. Try to search them out and savor some of these little gems. Otherwise bitterness is the optimistic outcome.
“It is a pivotal issue not just about health care. Are industry groups going to be the ones at the table who get the first big piece of the pie and we just fight over the crust?”
Is the pope catholic?
Are you really that naive, Mr. Grijalva, about the fundamentals of your own country's corporatist version of "democratic" governance and how it's actually sponsored and controlled by so-called "industry stakeholders"?
Be grateful that you're privileged to "fight over the crust." The people whom you allegedly represent will be damned lucky if they get to fight over a few crumbs. In fact, their "pie" is never even on the table.
Well, who could have fathomed from Obama's repeated assurances that his administration would be TRANSPARENT that "transparent" meant "transparently devious and secretive"?
Damn his eleventeen-dimensional chess-playing political Ninja Master mind!
· Yr Obd't Servant
I received a letter about calling my Representative for "health insurance reform." The letter was from Mitch Stewart, the Director of Organizing for America, which is the President's campaign organization at www.barackobama.com
In the letter, it says at the beginning:
"Members of Congress have been home for just a few days, and they're already facing increased pressure from insurance companies, special interests, and partisan attack organizations that are spending millions to block health insurance reform."
Here is my letter back to Mitch:
>>MItch,
"Health *insurance* reform" you say? By this language you show us all that we have already lost the quest to create genuine health care reform. Most Americans want a single payer system. President Obama said that he supported it when certain conditions were met—which are now met—yet he refuses to endorse the system most Americans want.
I believe it is he who has caved to special corporate interests. And you too.
Please, reflect on the fact that President Obama has become a corporate Democrat in all areas of significant policy.
He is bolstering the medical insurance industry. He is escalating the occupation of Afghanistan. He refuses to even consider electoral reform to get the private money out of our elections. He has hired into his administration for economic policy the very same people who caused the problems. Yet Stiglitz, Krugman, Baker, Hudson, Greider are prominent, and not a word of support for them from President Obama.
The whole situation is sickening. And a betrayal of progressive ideals.
I hope the progressives in the House defeat any corporate insurance supporting bill. Then maybe we can get something worth getting in health care reform from a new Congress who will stand up to the insurance and pharma industries,
and to the corporate Democrat occupying the White House. And to the likes of you who pretend to be reformers. You are really part of a Trojan Horse operation that sounds progressive, but maintains the corporate totalitarian system that enriches the rich and betrays everyone else.
Have you the courage Mitch to respond to my letter? We'll see.
Sincerely,>>
I haven't heard from Mitch yet. I don't expect to.
Earthian, a perfectly appropriate response for the oafs at OFA. Please don't hold your breath waiting for an answer, but if you get one, please share it. Meantime, the gist of your message needs to be heard along with the screaming obscenities of those who, in fear of a "socialist" health care system, are perfectly content to accept a "corporatist" one (the one we now have or the brand new one negotiated at the notorious table with chairs only for the "industry.")
Thanks Jerry. Most of my communications are in support of true progressives and local and national progressive organizing in both the Democratic Party (state-level progressive caucuses) and the Green Party. But I think it is important to criticize the corporate Democrats loudly, clearly and frequently. The language we use for categorizing is crucial.
Wow .. that is a great letter!
Libs and progs, why don't you stop bitching and send politicians more money than they get from the cons in the health-care lobby?
ezeflyer, it's not health care lobby, it's health industry lobby. And being that the lobby has given over $100 million to Congress since January 2009, and all of our money (and them some) to Goldman Sachs, we're broke. No accident.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Thanks, I meant health industry lobby, which should be called the death industry lobby.
Right, it's not that these turds are venal and immoral, it's that we don't pony up and out bid the gangsters. Let's see, I know I had an expendable million here somewhere. Must be in my other pants.
Joke or problem counting?
Sounds like knee-capping extortion to me. Or a twist of Obama's arm as Big Pharma walks him out with a gun to his head.
Or just Obama knowing who's boss -- not the people who voted for him!
(Not that I am one of those -- I voted for Nader, and proud of it!)
What a schmuck!
In solidarity with licketyglick, I offer this impeccable illustration of our dysfunctional duopoly: an excerpt from "Citizen Kang" from The Simpsons' "Treehouse of Horror VII", when Homer exposes space aliens Kodos and Kang impersonating Bill Clinton and Bob Dole during the 1996 election:
______________________________________________
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens! But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[crowd murmurs]
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
______________________________________________
You may rest assured that "Man 1", aka Greg R, didn't waste HIS vote! He voted for Kang... or was it Kodos? They're almost impossible to tell apart, you know!
"I voted for Nader, and proud of it!" Hey, thanks a lot. That really helped.
This is the "change" we can believe in?
I'm so disgusted: my friends who are diehard Democrats still refuse to see through this. It's like trying to talk to a person in an abusive relationship; they're so used to the abuse that they don't realize it's abnormal and unhealthy, and until they get help and get out of the relationship they continue to justify the bad (dangerous, potentially fatal) behavior and mistreatment.
Meanwhile, the MSM continues to spread lies and myths about the countries that DO have the best health care systems in the world- and rightwing organizations are stacking town hall meetings with people to shout down their reps and anyone who tries to calmly and rationally discuss real reform.
he is already running for reelection. and needs the money
he is shaking these companies down for.so much for change!
its the dollar and cent kind of change he's really talking
about.obama is talking code when he starts talking about
change thats the signal to the ceo's watching him that
they need to send some bribe money. obama's from chicago
where that's how it done. also he taught at uc where
most of the destruction of our country was part of the
curriculum!
This is perfect. Make deals with pharma not to negotiate drug prices or purchse cheaper drugs from Canada, In the next breath, tell us how Medicare needs to be reformed (privatized) because it's getting too expensive. Just like the two faced Republicans and their Medicare legislation which did the same thing, then they scream about the outrageous costs of entitlement programs driving up the debt.
The biggest espense for pharma is their repulsive ads and sleazy marketing. They claim costs are high because of research, which actually accounts for 14% of pharma's costs. Research has become a profitable game sometimes by university researchers that milk the system or rig the results to get more dollars.
Nobody cares because Congress considers the American people to be the corporate world's ATM.
he is already running for reelection. and needs the money
he is shaking these companies down for.so much for change!
its the dollar and cent kind of change he's really talking
about.obama is talking code when he starts talking about
change that's the signal to the ceo's watching him that
they need to send some bribe money. obama's from chicago
where that's how it done. also he taught at uc where
most of the destruction of our country was part of the
curriculum!
I remember when Nader said that he wondered if Obama, when elected, would be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom. Oh! what a fuss that caused. Nader was a RACIST!!
But now it is clear that he was asking an important question and I have the answer. Obama is a willing and obedient servant of the boss.
Wars go on and expand, Employee Free Choice Act is dead in the water, Single Payer is not going to pass but instead the 'reform' will be worse than what we have now, and the banksters laugh all the way to the bank---oh, correct that. They won't put their nice bonus checks in the bank--they will use it to buy up the forclosed homes of the working people.
So now the White House is inviting scumbags like Billy Tauzin to come and negotiate drug deals that sell out the "customers" as Obama now characterizes sick people (he must be seriously brainwashed by the Goldman Sachs execs running the treasury). NativeSon is right. The place is looking like what was once politely termed a "red light house".
I've read about presidents living in a bubble. It's like they're isolated from reality. Certainly from the consequences of their actions. But we aren't. Maybe it will take a string of one termers for the American people to realize that as Ralph said, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. At least in the sense that the corporations own the country and both parties. And everything follows from that.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Here's a suprisingly EXCELLENT report from 60 Minutes in 2007 describing the ugliness surrounding the legislation that led to big pharmas' successful coup against Medicare.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/
id=3108688n&tag=related;photovideo
No health care reform is better than this. No matter what you think even single payer would deliver, you would be wrong. The only thing any "reform" is designed to deliver is profits to the medical monopoly. And then what happens when the "good guys" (Dems), get replaced with the "bad guys" (Rs)?
Educate yourself. Break the monopoly. Try wachoice.org to learn how the monopoly cheats us. (See "War on Holistic MDs) If you live in Washington State, learn about all the alternative practitioners in your State and consult them. Support their Health Freedom of Choice Act in the State legislature.
Learn about Health Freedom and Codex. The monopoly, along with agribusiness, has serious designs on our money and our health. www.healthfreedomusa.org (Natural Solutions Foundation-run by a physician who closed her natural medicine practice to do battle with trans-nationals and her retired Army General husband)
Everybody calm down, regain your composure and continue sending emails, signing on-line petitions, writing letters to the editor, calling your Congress person in the House and Senate, and the President, and all will be well.
We get what we voted for, like it or not. A few citizens weren't deceived, and pleaded against supporting this one-party duopoly.
Scorn for the common people, money for imperialism, the war-mongers, and money-changers, but zilch on Single Payer health care.
And for my fellow trade-unionists and sisters and brothers who work for a living and want union representation, what happened to EFCA? During campaign time, the political prostitutes frequent union halls (what's left of them) with their phony speeches and the union leaders are thrilled being photographed with them, only to be abandoned once these hypocrites are elected. There are a few good ones, Dennis Kucinich being the best!
What is lacking in America is working-class unity. Without a persons labor, nothing gets done, and all the money in the world is useless without somebody paid to do something. If the American people ever figure it out, you'll get Single Payer, EFCA, and other progressive legislation to advance society and the environment for the better. Remember the seven magic words and prepare to act on them.
“Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word?"
That includes the voting public, I assume.
The only deal the president should honor is the one he made during the campaign to end the influence of lobbyists in Washington.
It's a guaranteed failure for taxpayers, and a bonanza for big insurance.
And they know it.
The insurance companies will still be in charge, right? Then why should it take until 2013 with the system already basically in place? Aside from giving insurance a green light to keep sticking us with four more years of insane premiums and bankruptcy, it allows the cowardly Obama to run in 2012 without having to face ripped off and pissed off voters.
The guy is quickly morphing into a major piece of crap.
push the deck chairs around all you want; the sucker's still gonna sink.
First paragraph, first sentence:
"Pressed by lobbyists".....
Three words tells you who is in charge!
Before anyone corrects me, I left out "industry" intentionally. It's axiomatic they lobby for an industry. "Pressed" is the key word in this article.
Try plugging in "Pressed by Voters.... White House Officials assured the electorate that they stood behind "single payer"
Interesting is it not with over 70 percent of the electorate wanting Single payer and NO SUCH statement will ever be published.
It could not be clearer just who they work for and who they represent.
Excellent point.
Americans now have a president who appears willing to focus toward countering the snowballing environmental destruction,which is no longer disputable; as well as other necessary reforms.
However, This president is well aware if the slanderous and viscious assaults by the lobbiests and right wing that undone President Carter, because of his efforts to implement these vital measures--and this is now shaping his policies. He needs to know that the character assinations used against Carter will not again succeed.
"Americans now have a president who appears willing to focus toward countering the snowballing environmental destruction,which is no longer disputable; as well as other necessary reforms."
Sorry, but you must have meant "appears UNwilling".
Obama's campaign marketing strategy of branding him a True Friend of the Little Guy was obviously successful-- even after the election, Obama's starry-eyed disciples repeatedly insisted that Obama was elected by virtue of a "people's campaign" funded primarily by voters. He was no pawn of corporations!
But the "bottom-up" spin didn't survive Obama's first week in office; his enthusiastic support of the bankster bailout(d) was a clue that his enthralled following had been used like a booster rocket to put Obama in orbit. And, like a booster rocket, it was promptly cut loose to vaporize on its fall back to Earth.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"Meanwhile, the MSM continues to spread lies...and rightwing organizations are stacking town hall meetings...."
You bet.
And amazing, isn't it (and demanding much fuller understanding,) how fascist impulses in human nature are so much more easily ignited in us than any contra-poising progressive impulses are...?
But all of this rightwing, faux anti-Socialist storm trooper activity over the HC insurance issue became guaranteed once the newly ensconced Obama abandoned his campaign pledge to 'show presidential leadership,' and handed the HC insurance issue over to Congress -- way back in February.
Obama's staff insiders reportedly concede this now meta-disastrous tactical consequence, but say it was unavoidable; they counter with the explanation that O's campaign pledge To Lead HC Insurance Reform from the bully pulpit of the presidency, was conceived before the scope of the financial meltdown started to become clear in late Summer/early Fall08;
they say further, that O was sincere when he made his early to mid-campaign pledge, but that by Feb/March09 the US budget deficit/national debt accumulations were so direly stretched via Bush's TARP bailout and by the additional (they forget to mention even bigger, Obama-directed) payoffs to the finance/banking sector, any fed gov-administrated SP system was at that point no longer remotely affordable; so that there was no feasible SP issue for O to 'lead' at that point; and that THIS is 'really why' Obama threw the issue out to Congress: him knowing it was dead in the water and its failure better-blamed on a corrupt Congress than on him, etc. etc.
For those still charitably inclined toward Obama, all this might be quasi-believable if Obama had not begun to reneg from Day One on most of his Other campaign pledges, too -- reneg, that is, on policies having nothing to do with HC insurance reform.
The most realistic interpretation I've heard so far, to explain-away this Other problem with Obama's apostasies -- one that's still charitable to his alleged initially Good Intentions -- goes this way:
Obama became the latest Insider System's chosen fall guy for outwardly presiding over a dangerously citizen-angering but no-longer-delayable series of Corrections in the plutocratic System, not the least of which was the need to safely channel and redirect alarmingly growing public outrage over the System's blatant rottenness, through a credibly hope-speaking (the more self-deluded, the better), attractive (especially if a member of a racial minority), lightly-progressive reformer like Obama, rather than under the administration of another White, WASP Insider/Republican like McCain, who was, to boot, openly affirming the ruinous Republican-led duopoly policies of the past years, plus in danger of loosing the election.
But ESPECIALLY if you buy this somewhat deeper, however still-charitable, analysis of candidate Obama's campaign intentions vs his betraying presidential conduct, the following conclusion becomes all that more inescapable:
When it comes to US presidents, especially, no one is allowed to gain the visible administrative helm of government who can't afterward be safely controlled --assuming they might need to be controlled at-all -- by the unelected gang of power brokers; the largely-invisible, Constitutionally-illicit gang of plutocrats who run US society -- most of whom, ethically, are the worst scum of the Earth and always have been.
What to do about this horrible reality? -- given the added dimension of an increasingly distracted, ignorant, and passive citizenry, isn't clear even to a majority of sincerely reform-minded progressives.
In any case, and in my opinion, nothing democratically-Correctional can even have the potential of being done about this horridly deepening reality --at all -- until more of us progressives work harder/get more organized among ourselves, to make sure that sufficient numbers of additional average people come to see that a mindless plutocracy IS their governing reality.
If the general US population proves at that point to be still too far gone, too ethically/cognitively dysfinctional to be 'reached' or unable to care about Who's Interests? govern its members -- then such stouter progressive efforts will yield nothing most of us may want to see.
But such efforts failing, or failing the lack of them entirely, will at least yield a generic process which subsuming Nature prescribes in faltering bio-systems no less than in diseased human Polities:
final collapse, structural disappearance, and re-absorption into a newly fertilized Ground whose constituent poisons are, at least for the historical moment, re-alembicated-out.
I observed with keen interest a recent remark by the CD poster, 'Nietzsche,' in which he/she imprecates (apparently to Whatever controls Human Fate):
Don't let me come back HERE.....
I still try to resist this fully exasperated existential sentiment (and would guess that 'Nietzsche' does also.)
But it's becoming increasingly problematic, for some of us, at least, to do so.