Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
White House Appears Ready to Drop 'Public Option'
WASHINGTON - Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system.
Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.
Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
Obama's top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.
"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
On Saturday, Obama himself appeared to hedge his bets.
"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."
Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate's budget committee, has pushed the co-op alternative. He called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.
"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."
As proposed by Conrad, the co-ops would receive federal startup money, but then would operate independently of the government. They would have to maintain the same financial reserves that private companies are required to keep to handle unexpectedly high claims.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.
"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.
Republicans say a public option would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan.
"We'll have the same number of people uninsured," she said. "If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured."
Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said the Democrats' option would force individuals from their private plans to a government-run plan, a claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office supports.
"There is a way to get folks insured without having the government option," he said.
Obama, writing an opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.
"In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary - truly risky - is the prospect of doing nothing."
Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.
"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said.
Sebelius said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill.
"We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table," she said.
Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Johnson and Price spoke with "State of the Union." Hatch was interviewed on "This Week."
177 Comments so far
Show All[""What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said."]
How about choice and competition when buying the products that the Wall St. health industry sells?
"Change you can believe in." For all the Obama fanatics who joined in his charisma based movement-- now you should see clearly what an empty suit he is. Now you should see the fallacy of political movement that is personality and not issue based. Now you should see what happens when we let an "Obama will fix it" attitude substitute for policy promises. Look at the deal he is making with Big Pharma and tell me if you still want to support this very self serving, and uncourageous man.
How about making Medicare available to all who want it, regardless of age?
HR 676 is (short) titled: Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. There are 78 co-sponsors and it needs more (hint, hint).
If those 78 good legislators who support HR676 would form a block with recalcitrant Republicans and vote down ANY AND ALL LEGISLATION ON ANYTHING UNTIL HR676 IS PASSED, then we might have something to cheer about.
It could happen.
Well, let's place a bet on which happens first: a) those 78 legislators do as you suggested, or b) citizens who are interested in Medicare for all (aka, single-payer Universal health insurance) will contact their own representatives and strongly urge them to support HR676.
As for myself, I'm not betting that either will happen (thought I have already done the latter, fool that I am).
Welcome to the US of A. The govt for the corporation. NOT for the people. So much for democracy. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Yup...
Almost everything Obama has said about what he wants will not be in the actual final law, which you can bet comes from the executive offices and boardrooms of the biggest health insurance companies. I mean, in the primaries, Obama said he wasn't even in favor of the mandate, which however, has been the only thing that has seemed to be a 100% certaintly from the start of "negotiations".
In other words, the resulting law will be in most respects essentially completely the opposite of what Obama has claimed to want. Even by political standards, this is an especailly rank and disgusting betrayal of voters and others who hoped Obama might actually mean what he says on occasion.
But now we know: Obama never means what he says. (Or almost never, maybe if he says he's going to the White House kitchen to grab a snack, he might mean that, laugh out loud.)
As for the "reform" most everyone here knows it is not really reform and that there is a 100% chance that it will fail. So there is no sense me wasting any time going through those aspects again.
The two biggest parts of this drama not resolved yet are:
(a) can the house and senate progressives (along with some right wingers) defeat this worse than nothing law?
(b) How many years will it take for the economy in general, and for jobs creation in particular, to be completely crushed by out of control health care costs?
"The only parts of this drama not resolved yet are:
(a) can the house and senate progressives (along with some right wingers) defeat this worse than nothing law?
(b) How many years will it take for the economy in general, and for jobs creation in particular, to be completely crushed by out of control health care costs?"
(a) Possibly, but I think Dems will pass something, even if it's worse than what we have, just to prove that they did "something."
(b) Who knows. I've heard that we can expect our premiums to double in 10 years.
Just like they did the past ten...
That's correct. And how much more money do we have in the bank since 1999?
The savings rate is now close to zero or in the red in this nation. In ten years most of us will either have no health insurance at all, or we will be taking out 2nd mortgages to pay for our premiums and food and savings will not even be in our lexicon.
In many ways we are already a 2nd world nation and now we're rounding the base for 3rd.
76 legislators out of what, 500 or so ain't enough to get a socialist single payer plan.
Socialism is the scare word I predicted.
Obama is scared of being called the S word as the vast majority of legislators and probably our brainwashed public depending on how the poll questions are framed.
If what is passed does not work, then Medicare for all will be back in the congressional elections and all elections after that.
The Coops plan might be better than nothing if they include lots of free clinics or very nominal fee charges for those who cannot afford insurance.
This is how I see it goin down. This is not Europe and we like to choose all the weak options first because the big corporations control public opinion... and of course we all know it.
Whatever we get is what we will get.
The Right has outmobilized the Left yet again. Let's face it, they're better at playing this game than us. If we could unify and give up on our all-or-nothing approach, we might stand a decent chance to make some progress. We don't, so we won't.
Pity, my kids could've used decent health insurance. As it is, I'll have to take out a loan in order to pay their $15,000 deductible should something unmentionable happen.
"It's not true that it's one damned thing after another - it's the same damned thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
The Right has a huge advantage in organizing...they don't question, they blindly follow.
For all those who truly believed that Obamacare actually had something to do with reforming health care as such, is the true objective finally clear enough? If not, I beg forgiveness for the following repetition.
What it's really all about, and has been from the outset, is protecting corporate capitalist "rights" to profit from human needs and misfortunes. In the U.S., only corporate needs and misfortunes are socialized. And, man, are they ever socialized, to the tune of trillions borrowed from current and future generations.
Like all else in the "greatest democracy on earth", health care and any "reform" thereof is for corporate persons, not the human variety whose only recognized worthwhile tasks are to contribute labor and "democratic" legitimization to their imperial masters.
Ain't the governance of "lesser evil" grand? It almost makes one long for the catastrophic consequences of the real thing just to get to the end of it more quickly.
"Ain't the governance of "lesser evil" grand? It almost makes one long for the catastrophic consequences of the real thing just to get to the end of it more quickly."
Good point: This is exactly what the purists want who hold out for all-or-nothing, knowing that we will all end up with nothing thus hastening us "getting to the end more quickly."
Oh joy! Oh rapture!
Or, we can all just do the hard, daily, grinding work of working things out - maddeningly slowly, but with some progress.
The governance of the "lesser evil" stinks, but often, it beats the alternative.
I voted for Obama out of sheer terror of a President Palin Theocracy, in other words, the "lesser of two evils." Looking back at the options, a "Palin presidency", which would occur upon the likely death of McCain just seems to ridiculous to even comprehend. The "lesser of two evils" is still evil. Never again.
Yeah, I said something similar a while back. I was wrong. Just when I thought things couldn't get worse, in came George Bush.
Vote for who you believe in but do so with eyes wide open 'cause there is going to be a price. Sometimes that price is very steep.
Can you hear ringing of the bell that signals the end of democracy in America. Our grand experiment with democracy falls as Obama prostrates himself on his knees to kiss the feet of republicans who were not the majority in the last election nor do they represent the vast majority of the American people who stand for our "general welfare" and cry out for healthcare for all.
This bell also rings for the abject failure of the democratic party and Obama's presidency. Like the buzzer on your oven this one is done.
The ring of this bell can be heard from shore to shore and signals that our very health is on the line and we must get up, stand up, speak up and act up for there is nothing more precious in the world today than our own, our children's, our family's health.
ObamaCare stinks.
So now we'll have an individual mandate but no public option. This means we are all required to buy private health insurance if not already covered by our employers.
This is not providing health care for all Americans. This is more intrusion by the Federal government. Federal government as muscle for the insurance company. Federal government as accomplice to corporate larceny.
Obama is a spineless weasel. Glad I voted Green.
Exactly, his plan is worse than the existing plan that will force and subsidize people into buying insurance from the same companies that are ripping off Americans and their government.
A corporate death panel for the USA? I think so.
Incidentally, Americans also pay the highest cell phone rates in the developed world. The two are not unrelated with corporate monopolies making damn sure that the government doesn't take anti-trust action. And we are also seeing the highest income disparity ever, even more than at the beginning of the Great Depression.
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
The Obama Administration is failing the progressive leadership litmus test miserably (over and over and over). The writing is on the wall, loud and clear.
Maybe this is what it takes for Americans to see they have a right wing government run by republicans and republicrats. There is no democratic party. It died with JFK. LBJ's social programs were only a reaction to the perceived shift to the left.
In reality the pendulum swings to the far right and then back towards the center right; nowhere else.
When politicians are owned by the 1% of the population who are the wealthiest, there is no democracy. There is fascism. Heil Fuhrer!!!
MichaelC
Exactly. But this is the "new and improved" fascism. Firing squads make martyrs. Gestapo prisons make the natives restless. Drown 'em in tits and porno! Oprah, Martha Stewart and Lifetime for the women! ENTERTAINMENT! Keep 'em occupied while we milk 'em dry. That's the NEW FASCISM.
AND REMEMBER, THE "GOOD GOLDEN SENIOR CITIZENS OF aMERCA" must wave the flag at every opportunity and be prepared, like our fine troops, to give their life (commit suicide, you old fuck!) for GOD AND COUNTRY! Hail America! King of the shit pile!
Jim Shea
Another sellout by Obama.
WHY is he catering to Republicans? In the end they won't support him.
Dropping the end-of-life counseling is a complete sellout to the know-nothings.
I am literally sick to my stomach.
This is another demonstration that we are truly a corporate state.
Where are the Obamabots now? Are they still blaming Nader for Bush's "win" in 2000?
And tell us how Obama bin Biden is working for you. Is he doing any better than McPain/apPaling?
"Where are the Obamabots now? Are they still blaming Nader for Bush's "win" in 2000?"
Well, yes, even though the two topics are unrelated. And since you brought it up, isn't it about time even a single Naderite admitted that having Nader on the ballot was just one of the many factors in the stolen election of 2000 and the end of the American experiment with Democracy? No? I thought not...
Obama worship, expecting him to be something he's not, is foolishness. But so is Nader worship, attributing super-progressive godhood on him and thinking that a vote for him somehow makes a positive difference. A Naderite condemning someone as an Obamabot is simply hypocritical. It's all just cult of personality, which doesn't get us much past the corporatism that is strangling us.
The corporatism that is strangling us all right now will continue to be picketed and teabagged into an even stronger stranglehold by stupid Americans who cannot process anything more complicated than "Dancing with the Stars" or the "news" as presented by Glen Beck or their preacher. I honestly believe at this point, they believe anything other than that is merely socialist propaganda put out by A.C.O.R.N! I mean Jeebus!!! A guy picketing a town hall meeting telling the government to keep its stinking government hands off of his Medicare? I wonder how long it's going to be now until Porky Pig comes on after the 6:00 MSM "news" and stutters "That's All Folks!" so they know it is over?
How dare you compare supporters of Nader, a consumer advocate and anti-war candidate, to supporters of Obama, a corrupt corporate puppet and war criminal?
And Democrats are the only ones to blame for 2000, not Nader. 2 million registered Democrats voted for Bush, that's two million. Gore couldn't even win his own home state. Are all Democrats this blind?
Thanks for proving my point - not a single Naderite understands reality when Ralph is involved. And thanks for proving how blind a cult of personality can make its adherents. The object of the cult doesn't matter - Dear Leader or Ralph Nader - but the cultists fail to accept reality. Saying only the Dems are to blame for 2000 denies the complex reality that most subjects actually are, and that one certainly was. Are all Naderites such simpletons?
If Nader was president and half of congress was socialist/progressive then he might achieve some of the magic you attribute to him. If somehow he was installed as president right now, in Obama's place, he'd have to triangulate, compromise, and give in to get anything done. Then you'd have to scream about what a sellout your saviour had become. That's the system; it has nothing to do with Nader. But Naderites here on CD have consistantly proven more dogmatic, blind, and unyielding than any other group. You've totally turned many of us off with your religious zeal.
Like a good Lesser Evilist, you're just listing more excuses and apologies for Obama's miserable failure. He doesn't need congress to accomplish a number of different things, stop finding excuses for the fraud, please. And stop attacking Nader just because you can't excuse Obama. Nader's not in power, Obama is. By the way, your point didn't get proven by a long shot. I'm a Cynthia McKinney supporter and voter.
By executive order, Obama could've brought the troops home overnight, no need for congress there. He could've ended don't ask, don't tell. But Obama has no intention of "change", he'll be remembered as the greatest con-artist in American politics history. And his gullible, brainwashed Dem Party Apologists voters are making it all possible.
Please don't confuse my attempt at establishing a reality-based position as anti-Nader or pro-Obama. I am not an Obamabot and never have been; I've pointed out that they are suffering from the same delusions as Naderites.
Please don't read my comments as defending Obama or making excuse for him. Far from it, I am as ripshot as you with his center-right corporatist position and lack of action on so many fronts, only a few of which you enumerate. Maybe moreso, as I did once believe he'd be better than Bush. Of course Obama bears the blame for his myriad failings and miserable failures because, as you rightly point out, he is in charge, even if he doesn't act like it. I've just gotten to the point of defeatism where I accept that nothing we do nor who we vote for will ever have any impact on the raging rightwing corporate warmongering monster that once was my country. I'm actually more of a GREATEST Evilist - I believe all is lost and the best we can hope for is a good seat from which to watch the final conflagration.
wcdevins,
That's right, blame all your problems on somebody else. Your dem candidate was so awful, you couldn't even suffer a one to three percent vote for the better man. For eight years Corpoate Al gore threw his tiebreaker vote in the senate for big corps. For many more years, so did Ketchup Kerry. Better we had bush than corporate al gore, or skull and bones kerry. At least bush is so bad of an actor, half of america will never trust the GOP again.
It is not a cult of personality. If Nader had Obamanation's personality, maybe he could have pulled a dark horse. Ralph is about substance. Ralph is about integrity. You know where you stand with Ralph Nader. He has always come through fighting against the big corps.
And pallie, like you said, big corps are your biggest enemy.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I didn't blame my problems on Nader, what I said is that no Naderite will accept that Nader's candidacy played some role, no matter how small, in the complex outcome of the 2000 election. You have proven that failure to face reality once again.
I agree with almost all of Nader's positions, but realize how pie-in-the-sky they are. But you Naderites are subject to a cult of personality, of course. Nader has never held elected office yet his supporters assume, if he held office, he would save the world from all the evils infecting it. It's just not a reality-based position. [See comment above.] Obamabot, Naderite - same thing: a person suffering under the delusional and irrational hope that one man can save the world.
[I understand your need to stake out that irrational hope, as it's all you've got left. Otherwise you'd be like me, resigned to a future in which we are perpetually screwed and no one can save us. Reality-based for sure, but very depressing.]
Nader's campaign played the same role, no more, no less, that every other candidate in Florida played...all the socialist, constitution, communist, reform, etc. candidates all got more than the 537 votes Gore lost by.
You might as well blame Pat Buchanan for it. If he wasn't running, would the slot where he was on Palm Beach County's ballot been confused for voting for Gore? Who knows.
My point exactly. If you are a Naderite, zmann, you are the first to admit his candidacy was but one of a myriad of factors in that disputed outcome.
It's not even as simple as counting up the votes lost and re-attributing them to Gore. Many Nader voters would have stayed home rather than vote for Gore; same goes for others voting third party. Buchanan's "landslide" in that predominantly senior-citizen Jewish district is more proof of how ridiculous it is to claim Bush won by "537 votes", the scenario we've been sold since the high court rendered its flawed, activist, and partisan verdict.
Blame is the wrong word - certainly the largest part of that falls to Gore himself who failed to carry his home state, who chose to divorce himself from Clinton and thus the booming economy of that time, who selected a soon-to-be conservative traitor as his running mate - need I go on?
I'm a great fan of Nader, but I (regrettably) voted for Obama in the last election, and Kerry in 2004 when I didn't know any better, and was 17 in 2000 so I couldn't vote.
Sounds like you're in the same boat as I am, only I've been in this seat longer. I hope my defeatism, born of long years of losing battles, does not discourage young people like you from trying to retake this country. Maybe you guys can succeed where we failed. I had such hope for my "Woodstock Generation", but so many of us fell victim to the lure of lucre and forgot that humanity is all in one big boat.
A lot of us voted for Obama, hoping against hope that he'd live up to a bit of his rhetoric. I've had 58 years to get as delusioned as I am - I hope Obama's betrayal doesn't kill your spirit sooner. Remember all of the heroes and saviours are just human beings like you, after all. The dream of a real America of equality, by the people and for the people, must live on in your generation.
wcdevin,
"Nader has never held elected office yet his supporters assume, if he held office, he would save the world from all the evils infecting it. It's just not a reality-based position."
Sure it is. Nader has a proven track record of doing exactly that: of successfully slaying corporate dragons. The FDA, the EPA, food labeling, auto safety are all proven Nader accomplishments. Obummer has none. Kerry has none. Al Gore has none. Bush has none. Cheney has none.
I don't want another "experienced compromising, business-as-usual" puppet politician in there. And for christ sake's, quit calling democracy irrational! The concept, that is lost on this generation, is that you are NOT supposed to be "realistic" and vote for the "hip" guy because his teeth are straight or he tells good jokes. You vote for the issues. You vote on his track record. You vote on the source of his campaign contributions.
You've set your sights too low wcdevins, and I fear you will score accordingly. Voting is not about winning. Voting is about taking a stand.
Cheers,
TJ
p.s. RN may not be a viable candidate anymore because of his age. That is why we Nader supporters wonder who can possibly fill his huge shoes when he's gone.
The progressives had better to be prepared to win elections without more than 50% of those who voted for them in the last election staying home. I for one cannot ever vote for a Republican, so I just will not vote anyone. That in itself is a vote. A president cannot ignore 70& of the people on such a vital issue and expect to get re-elected.
He WON'T be re-elected. But thats fine with the dems in congress. They'll still stay in power and get their wonderful healthcare--at our expense. Its a win-win-win for Washington repubs, dems and big medical.
about as hard to anticipate as your average freight train --
if you voted for obama, how long do you remain tied to the tracks?
So....are you all giving up? Fuck the public option. Single Payer Universal health care such as HR 676 has always been the goal!!! Can't we make some noise in our own defence? Must we count on people we already know are bought off to do it for us? Even Lou Dobbs is finding out that the rest of the world isn't wrong. They have a BETTER plan. It is proven better. WE are the laughingstock as far as healthcare goes. The light will be seen and the dark will end. Sooner or later.
Nothing can be done now. The plan is in motion.
This battle has been going on for so long now, I know for a fact it is going to be not "later", but "Much, MUCH later." Teddy Roosevelt was tagged as a "socialist" for trying to establish a national healthcare program way back in his day, and his political career destroyed. Why would anything change now? I fear that the Europeans who traveled the ocean blue to establish the U.S. had some deficiency in intelligence genes, at least among a large number of them, and that gene pool persists to date (common symptoms including but not limited to a fondness for "teabagging" with real tea bags, thinking socialism = authoritarian communism, etc.)
"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said.
What the fuck does he think the HMOs are doing? I watched the show, and so many openings were left for hard questions for that asshole. He wouldn't even answer whether or not he believed Sarah Palin's "death panel" statement. He is a jerk, and Spector isn't much better. I'm sick of them and the dumb fuck moderators that don't ask the tough questions and then follow up the bullshit answers!
You know this is BS!!! Plunder IS the new black. Our president is a sell-out. So we are in more trouble now, dont you think? FISA, the re-writing of our nations bankruptcy laws(i.e. which favor CORPORATION over the sovereignty of the American people), now this. I sure people like Coulter are pleased. Hey, if YOU help them destroy our planet, they'll give you the world. We are going to be killed so you may as well stand up and die on a living planet instead of trying to live on a dead one.