Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Obama Should've Said on the Talk Shows
President Obama did all the Sunday morning talk shows, as part of a ramped-up campaign to promote his sincere if ill-defined belief that health care should be reformed. and he continued to argue, albeit tepidly, that this reform probably needs to include a public option.
Obama was smooth and smart and presidential and the appearances on ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," CNN's "State of the Union" and on the Spanish-language Univision network will undoubtedly aid his personal approval ratings.
But these exercises in pulled punches and anti-government apologia will do little to advance the cause of genuine health care reform.
Indeed, as Obama describes his notion of a public option, it is so constrained, under-funded and uninspired in approach as to be dysfunctional.
While there is no question that the right reform remains a single-payer "Medicare for All" system that provides quality care for all Americans while eliminating insurance company profiteering, if the best that can be hoped for is a government-supported alternative to the corporate options, then it should be robust enough to compete.
That's what Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, is proposing on behalf of the CPC, which now numbers more than 80 House members.
Grijalva says, "The CPC will do its best to ensure that the public option is as close to Medicare as we can get it."
To that end, he says caucus members will use their key committee positions and needed votes to promote "a robust public option that:
- Enacts concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.
- Consists of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.
- Be made available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation.
- Allows patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promotes the medical home model and eliminates lifetime caps on benefits.
- Has the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management and good public health.
- Utilizes the existing infrastructure of successful public programs, such as Medicare, in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes, including payment systems, claims and appeals.
- Establishes or negotiates rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.
- Receives a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.
- Ensures premiums are priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.
That's the outline of a real public option -- one that is robust enough to fight for.
Indeed, if President Obama had outlined it during his Sunday morning television appearances, the cause of real reform would have gotten the boost it needed.
As things stand, the CPC -- not the unreliable and unfocused Blue Dogs and certainly not the Democratic Leadership Council-aligned "New Democrats," who come with more corporate strings attached than many Republicans -- are the best strategic and practical allies that the president has. By adopting the CPC line with regard to the public option, Obama could energize the base that elected him and turn this into a real fight, bringing savvy inside-outside political operations like that of Progressive Democrats of America into the thick of the struggle and activating the crowds that turned out in cities across the country last week for the "Mad As Hell Doctors" tour on behalf of "Medicare for All."
By significantly muscling up his public-option proposal, the president could also give the labor movement's most determined organizers (who are, invariably, single-payer backers) something to sink their teeth into.
Obama can still get a public option.
But he needs to understand that the public option is, itself, a compromise. It falls short of the "Medicare for All" model favored by serious reformers.
As such, the president cannot compromise the compromise.
He needs to take seriously the standards outlined by Grijalva and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Indeed, he needs to incorporate them into his agenda. The right will scream in opposition. But the right is already screaming in opposition. Obama needs to get the left screaming in support of real reform.
- Posted in




56 Comments so far
Show AllAgain, Single-payer OR SINGLE TERM!
I'm going to promote that slogan.
Atta Boysgramps!
But when the time comes, the two-party will have crafted another grand scheme to herd everyone back into the pen and the same powerful minority will win again. If you read carefully this article by Nichols, you'll realize just how easy that will be.
Medicare for all. Everything else is bullshit.
Everything else is designed, DESIGNED, to fill the coffers of the insurance companies.
Mandating compulsory health care insurance purchases from 50 million people who can't afford to pay the rent AND buy groceries, and FINING them if they fail to comply? And what if they can't pay the fines? Prison? At a cost of $60,000 a year to keep someone locked up? How is THAT "cost effective"? Do these people have brains? Can they think? Are they stupid? Or just fucking MEAN?
As Reverend Wright said...
The left is already "screaming in support of real reform," but neither Obama, the MSM or anyone outside the left is listening. Obama is deliberately blocking not only single-payer but a public option with his tepid, maybe-this maybe-that compromise talk, just waiting for Glenn Beck to pounce again and scare the shit out of him. This whole charade is just a bone thrown to Big Insurance so they'll know they're every bit as in control of disease and illness management as ever. It's an insult, a continuing ripoff and an outrage to the public, which is what Obama's in the White House to successfully carry out. Medicare for All will happen when neither Republicans nor Democrats (meaning their corporate sponsors) control the levers of power. Until then, we're absolutely screwed.
There is no reason Obama and the Democrats should fear Glen Beck! I don't believe that for an instant. Obama won the election, a majority of Americans want at least a government option, and prefer single payer. This is evidenced in poll after poll.
It's all theater to make it appear that teabaggers and Glen Beck have some kind of authority. They don't. We the People have the authority and if the Democrats don't understnad that and try to pretend otherwise - we can toast them in 2012!
What's amazing is that Obama won't even throw the progressives a bone to chew on. Instead - it seems - according to the "inside" story that Obama is hammering the progressives while pandering to the republicans and the bluedogs -
Doesn't Obama know that he is "ONE AND DONE OBAMA" if he doesn't get some courage to do the right thing instead of worrying about the lecture circuit for when he's done in Washington.
This is a clear indication that we have lost our democracy to the corporate interests. The VERY definition of FASCISM.
What ever happened to land of the free and home of the brave?
Sometimes I get the feeling Obama and Michelle laugh at us -- and I believe Michelle is very much a part of this mess. I'm sure they're both assuming that no one would be caught dead voting for a Republican in 2012, no matter what Obama does or does not do, and why would anybody vote for a third-party candidate? This is why Obama feels he can do whatever he wants to further his agenda -- and I'm assuming this mess was his agenda all along. His polling is down on his handling of the issues, but he's still popular. The only thing that might cut through some of the Obama haughtiness is if his popularity sinks towards the basement. Could a sellout on health care reform achieve that?
Haughty is the way I see Obama. He plays his supporters like a bunch of fools. I don't want Paterson to be my Governor anymore, but I have to admit, I couldn't help appreciating the news that Paterson was giving Obama the proverbial finger and running anyway. Let it be up to the voters in my state. My sense is New Yorkers are fed up and we'll do the right thing, if given the right choice in the primaries.
Samalabear: I live in NYC, and I couldn't believe that Obama was inserting himself into the political process here in NY state. Of course, Paterson is a mess, and I won't vote for him, but it is up to the voters here in NY, not up to Obama -- he's not even a New Yorker.
Oh, how could I forget? He's joined the Wall Street crowd, hasn't he?
Don't give up hoping for the bones. A few tiny ones will be thrown our way and the Democrat apologists will say: "Oh look! a tiny bone for us! We do matter after all!" Trust me, it won't take much. A hollow hummingbird bone will suffice, don't ya think?
"Green Jobs" -
Does anyone know where I can get an unbiased analysis of Obama's "Green jobs" agenda? 70% of Americans think global warming is a threat to us. Four out of ten say it's a "serious threat." So why was Van Jones resigned? http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
On health care, the majority want government payer health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
It appears that a tiny minority is setting the agenda.
rvrwalker (September 21st, 2009 6:46 pm) -- I enjoyed reading the NYT article cited and agree with your conclusion that a tiny minority seems to be setting the agenda. Thanks!
The democrats could still redeem themselves. They could revolt against Obama and throw their full support behind a true progressive in the democratic primaries for the 2012 campaign. They could run a TRUE progressive and win in 2012. Or they can run Obama and lose to Sarah Palin or, possibly, a rutabaga plant.
Why do people like Nichols continue to talk about Obama needing "to understand that the public option is, itself, a compromise," and Obama "needs to take seriously ... the Congressional Progressive Caucus," and Obama needs to do this and do that?
It is perfectly clear that Obama knows exactly what he is doing and he does NOT WANT "the Left screaming in support of real reform." He has said so numerous times now. How long does it take to wake up?
Obama does not want real health care reform. If he did he would have already been doing all the things Nichols is talking about long ago.
Forget Obama. He is not on our side. The people have to scream and act for real health care reform on their own.
Stop waiting around for a leader to save us. This is maybe the best lesson we can learn from the travesty that is Obama.
Support Grijalva, the CPC, the PDA. Open Medicare to All. Oppose the mandate.
An additional point: we need to demand that the legislation go into effect within a year -- not the f'ing four years currently in the bills.
"Obama does not want real health care reform. If he did he would have already been doing all the things Nichols is talking about long ago." -- Emma
I agree with your post, and your additional point, "we need to demand that the legislation go into effect within a year -- not the f'ing four years currently in the bills."
Do these journalists really think that Obama is going to listen to them?
Some of these writers could help us organize -- that is, if they are serious about real reform.
It's amazing that so many people are still being so manically loyal to Obama and expecting that he is playing chess on health care reform. No, he isn't. He knows exactly what he's doing. You summed it all up perfectly. It's there for everyone to see if they unplug their ears and open their eyes. Numerous advocates for real reform have tried to get an "audience" with Obama and have been turned down flat, the latest being the Mad As Hell Doctors. Heck, Wendell Potter wrote an open invitation on HuffPo for Obama and Members of Congress to join him at the LA Remote Area Access clinic. Imagine how powerful it would have been had Obama shown up? I believe that week he was touring the national parks. It was an incredible snub but not surprising for a President who actually seems to have disdain for the progressives who got him elected, or the far left, as I guess he likes to put it. Health care for all, according to Obama, is a far left idea.
Agreed. For the most part, the Nation is just a mouthpiece for the DNC. And the DNC is just a kinder, gentler mouthpiece for corporate interests. From here on in, I vote only third party. And to those who figured this out a long time ago, I apologize that it took me so long.
Welcome to the populist party movement. Let's get both wings of the corporate party out of power.
Well put.
About a month ago, the president offered a helpful and telling metaphor for his concept of healtcare reform---BTW, it's now called "insurance" reform for anyone listening. Read it carefully (and weep):
'"This is sort of like the belt and suspenders concept to keep up your pants. You know, the insurance reforms are the belt. The public option can be the suspenders," the president added.' (CNN)
The Public option CAN be the suspenders? Really? Do you know anyone that wears suspenders except to a society ball or coronation? And why (listen carefully) is the public option now always couched in subjunctive tenses---woulda, coulda, shoulda, oughttta, instead of definitives---MUST and WILL be a MANDATORY leg of reform? If there was ever a need for a veto threat this is it.
What we get instead is just the belt---hard across the naked backside. Quite literally adding injury to insult, the only mandate we will ever see is for the IRS to withdraw premiums from workers' paychecks. The fix is in, and the deomocratic party is toast.
The president's pants have now fallen to his ankles for lack of either a belt or suspenders, and they will surely trip him up in 2010 and 2012. Some of us will cry when that happens, while insurance companies and drug pushers are laughing all the way to the taxpayers' bank.
What happened Mr. President? This could be the fastest betrayal in the history of American politics. We never saw it coming.
As I recall, Obama has always, or nearly always, used the phrase, "health insurance reform," rather than health care reform. I remember picking up on that a few months ago.
When he cast his TELECOM vote to grant immunity, I knew Obama wasn't trustworthy! In addition, throughout his campaign, he was very clear with his intent to escalate the war in Afghanistan. That was more than enough to engender my 3rd party vote for Ralph Nader.
You didn't see him in the debates against Hilary waiting for her to talk first because he didn't have the slightest grasp on any of the issues???? My wife and I could not believe that he was being taken seriously as a candidate, even for general manager at McDonald's. But the media smelling the corporate shill a mile away, born and bred in some of the finest prep schools in the land, was all over him. He could do no wrong. And if you think it's starting to get bad now, wait until the corporate shill loving media figures out that he's so disorganized and discombobulated that try as he might he's mucking up their corporations and apparently has less of a grasp on reality than GWB? Krugman: "I was startled last week when Mr. Obama, in an interview with Bloomberg News, questioned the case for limiting financial-sector pay: "Why is it," he asked, "that we're going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or N.F.L. football players?"
Even Georgie Porgie wouldn't have been that dumb. For example, he would have said the same thing but spoken with a bunch of gafaws as if he were an illiterate making people want to drive across country with him and have a beer.
Mea culpa, admittedly some of us were credulous suckers, engaged in selective listening.
Indeed, the rationale for not capping executive pay does show a surprising level of cluelessness (or cynicism, for he is not really slow-witted). To be sure, ball players enjoy taxpayer-funded stadia and other subsidies, but they are not direct taxpayer employees, nor are they vital to our economy. Similarly, silicon valley entrepreneurs are allowed to sink or swim without bailouts.
Banksters are once again engaging in reckless casino captialism, and Obama has missed his narrow window. Will the house collapse before 2010?
Doug,
We were suckers for quite a while. The turning point came when we were giving money to Oxfam for the world hunger spike and were looking into the reason for it. Turned out that Oxfam was claiming that U.S. ethanol policy was a big part of it. Then we noticed Tom Daschle and Obama were a team and lo and behold. The great ant-racist candidate is involved with killing the invisible poor all in "the name of national security." Now doesn't that sound familiar!
Our only hope now is the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Doesn't "The Fool Formerly Known As Obama" realize that if he did bring Medicare down to 55, even if by executive order or some such thing, hell have FEMA do it, hire Brownie for God's sake, then every one, myself included within that age group and anywhere near that age group, will vote against the party trying to take Medicare away from them? Because it you're my age and you have the slightest irregularity in your health, you ain't getting health insurance any other way except through an employer and 60% of the folks out there with jobs are afraid of losing their job right now.
"The Fool Formerly Known as Obama" made an absolute ass of himself on the networks claiming that he was going to fine those who didn't buy health insurance. Cry or laugh, but he's sinking the whole party.
I didn't listen to all the network stuff, but did Obama finally come out in public about the fines?
My wife said he did but here's an excerpt from USA Today's coverage. They obviously came close to talking about it. Still, telling anyone that the gov is going to require them to buy insurance is absolute whack.
"That legislation includes a requirement that all Americans buy heath insurance or face fines. On ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Obama disputed the contention that this amounts to tax increase, saying it will save money for taxpayers who are bearing the costs of medical care for uninsured patients. The president said most Americans are required to buy car insurance, and "nobody considers that a tax increase."
From the article:
"By adopting the CPC line with regard to the public option, Obama could energize the base that elected him and turn this into a real fight..."
Like so many others, in these pages and elsewhere, Nicholson and the Nation take for granted that O'Bummer reall, REALLY wants to do the right thing, if only we'd "make him do it."
That they can so delude themselves, after so much evidence to the contrary has accumulated, is dismaying. The only "fight" any of these empty suits is interested in is the one that gets them a second term, but they'll promise the public anything while cutting insider deals with their big donors.
You want to cut cost????
Make the facilities public!!!!
The taxpayer should own the hospitals and everything physical that is used in hospitals. There is never a charge for using ANY of the above.
All of the supplies should be purchased just like the government purchases now from the GSA under contract.
https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/advgsa/advantage/main/start_page.do
The contract should include the maintenance of their products.
This would allow communities to choose who they want to run their local medical facilities and choose what THEY need locally.
I believe everybody that does real work in the profession will be taking home more money since the only thing not covered is finding a suitable administration to run the staff.
A stronger public option-- it would have to come from the House or Senate Leadership or Obama proding them to do so-- what's the chance of that. Reid, Doodd, Pelosi, Hoyer--even Obama-- I don't have any faith, even any respect for them.
"sincere if ill-defined belief that health care should be reformed"
Sincere? What kind of game are the Nation staffers playing? Are they really as stupid as this article screams out or are they taking a payoff?
I agree.
He locks us out, then mocks mass protest and states that he will ignore them.
The problem with John Nichols' prescriptive suggestions to Barack Obama is that they are pointless to begin with. They continue to 'beat a dead horse,' that has long since decomposed.
Single Payer or "Socialized Medicine" was decapitated before Obama was even elected; there was nothing else–that was the 'line in the sand.' The battle should have been won or lost right there. The aftermath of that shameful capitulation resembled nothing as much as picking bones from an old graveyard. John Nichol's should stop playing silly parlor games and state clearly what has long been obvious.
Nichol's and his patrons at the Demo-centric "Nation Magazine" continue to see the world within the terms and conditions of a rigged game. Only hide-bound loyalists– who still absurdly believe substantive change can come from a Democratic President– continue to wear the 'rose colored glasses' of a hope long since strangled.
Nichols, after the fact, 'advises' Obama as to "what he should have said." Do sane people care anymore what Obama says, has said or will say in the future? Continuing to pay obsequious homage at the altar of a dysfunctional, utterly cynical American politics is not only intellectual untenable, but insulting.
Many people could not watch or listen to George W, Bush for obvious reasons–not the least being that one felt that one was peering into a chilling, almost primordial abyss; similarly, the same cipher like vacuity presents itself with Barack Obama's rhetorical excrescences. The 'style' may differ, but the song remains the same.
Grotesquely, Bush's brutalisms and lies had the virtue of a hideous, sociopathic candor, as one was never sure the man did not actually believe what he was saying; with Obama the oratorical 'sincerity' reeks of purest cynicism: The man knows that he is 'flim-flamming,' if not lying. – (Jill Bains)
"Obama needs to get the LEFT screaming in support of real reform!!!"
In what never never land is John Nichols living in! His article leans on the side of apologetic pablum. The President has refused to meet seriously with ANY advocate of Universal Single Payer, like Dr. Himmelfarb or Dr. Steffi Wohlstetter. Doctors and nurses have been arrested at the spineless Bauchus "hearings." This "attempt" at reform appears as a tragic travesty of snake oil double talk, not even buying into the outlandish Republican irrational obstructionism. Neither party, except for the ProgDemCaucus, has any interest in "reform." As Chalmers Johnson has so wisely reminded us on many other crises: BEWARE OF THE BLOWBACK!!
"We The People" need to primary Obuma out of contention. Then primary in a progressive for the next election. I voted for him but didn't trust him but was swayed by the likes of Thom Hartmann that we could "make him work for US".
I blame the liberals and prigressives for falling once again for The HOPE arguement that has been used since Xlintoon to get our votes and once elected they turn Immediately into Riech Wing AHs but with a soft demeanor which makes us feel good as they march down the corporate path to misery.
"We The People" need to primary Obuma out of contention."
AGREED. LET'S START NOW!
One of the contradictions of capitalism:
I read that part of the push by insurance companies to get the "mandatory" rule in there was because these health insurance companies were bleeding customers. People are losing their jobs right and left, so they are losing their health insurance. Companies during the economic downturn have had to drop health care policies altogether or cut back on what they are offering, so less premiums and money to the insurance companies.
So capitalism caused the job losses that caused the insurance companies to lose customers - they turned around and told Obama, make it mandatory so we can get a client base back.
And even more contradictory is when there are no jobs and people are not paid how will they give those insurance companies a piece of the pie or will this be a crucial point where the peope will unload on a platform and be told to go to the left and straight to the private contractor's prison's for the use as slave labor, or to the right where they will sign over their assets to those insurance companies?
Mandantory insurance is absolutely wrong and especially when someone would try to pay for a trip to the doctor or treatment out of their own pocket.
This is all so pathetic.
Even the list of proposals from the Congressional Progressive Caucus is still so entrenched in and clogged with thinking based on the current stupid insurance provider model (like the perceived "need" for premiums).
We would all be better off if the progressives in congress would spend more time showing how a single payer system could provide jobs for people (especially how it could re-employ the people who currently work for the private insurers) instead of trying to mimic the current corrupt system.
This option talk is a waste of time.
Obama ... the shoulda, coulda, woulda mirage ...
These people are still surprised after Obama's cabinet picks ?
"The Nation" magazine should renamed " The Neo~Nation" ... for the neoliberals it coddles ...
"Obama was smooth and smart and presidential," hazarded the above pundit.
But why even open with such a line? When it's obvious that Obama was being nothing more than smoothly disingenuous and smartly camouflaging of his corruption?
As for Obama meeting the current standard of "presidential," I suppose the pundit got that one right.
He should say "No, public is better than private. Because public doesn't need to satisfy shareholders."
Simple and easy.
And BTW, don't the United States have the largest military in the world, when it comes to spending? The Right loves it - and it's all public.
Obama should have simply stated:
"14,000 Americans die every year prematurely because they do not have insurance"
However, such urgency would force him and Congress to act. Better to set yourself up for failure.
In his televised address before both houses of Congress not long ago, President Obama said that he's open to all ideas and suggestions, "My door is open."
He lied.
His door is not open to his own physician to discuss single payer health care, nor to Oregon's Mad As Hell Doctors, who are traveling cross-country to advocate for single-payer, and who requested a meeting with him, nor to members of PNHP, who asked to be included in White House health care talks...there was no room, apparently, after the insurance and drug company representatives were seated.
The answer where single payer is concerned is a cold, heartless, "No!".
A very sad, and tragic, mistake.
Oh, I don't believe that Obama was lying when he said his door is open.
It may well be WIDE open.
But since his GATE is triple-locked, and electrified to boot, and there are junkyard dogs with spiked collars on the front walk and the booby-trapped porch, there's no chance that anyone who's not invited will ever get NEAR that door.
· Yr Obd't Servant
obedient: you overlooked the blackwater security guards waiting to pop a cap in our asses...
Priceless!
This only SOUNDS like a joke now, but this is America.
Svejk: you got that right
the author writes: obama is on a "a ramped-up campaign to promote his sincere if ill-defined belief that health care should be reformed. and he continued to argue, albeit tepidly, that this reform probably needs to include a public option."
well it is an ill-defined policy, to say the least, to the public (read suckers) but not pharma, hmo's or health insurance who got to make secret "behind closed doors" sweetheart deals - for them its called a cash cow - the gift that keeps on giving
it falls into obama's greater policy of capitalism (read your are on your on sucker) for the poor folks and welfare heaven for the corporations - like the bank crisis bullshit - 24 trillion and counting
let me tell you what obama should have said:
i am a nwo plant
i am part of a psyop not unlike the manchurian candidate - this plot involves the final takeover of the republic
i work for the rockefellers and i have done so my ENTIRE WORKING LIFE, including up to this moment
he should have concluded with a heartfelt: good luck suckers
matt taibi's piece on the healthcare debate - posted here last week, says all we need to know about this debate
here's the bottom line: we lost this dream of healthcare - we need to stand down and wait until the president isn't a nwo appointee and then try again
rockefeller's policy is not unlike p t brnum's policy that said: never give a sucker an even break...
President George W. Obama has lied about everything. He is a
complete fraud. If he keeps this up the question might not be
whether he is elected to a second term but rather will he
finish his first term?