This whole thing has become a mess.
I know what Obama tried to do - the opposite of the carefully planned and micro-managed plan the Clintons tried to present. Congress didn't like that they had little or no say.
But, in trying to go about it a different way, Obama handed the ball off to the very people beholden to the corporations who give contributions that get them re-elected. That's not just letting the fox in the henhouse, that's giving the fox the secret herbs and spices, a cookbook and a gas grill.
I'll be surprised if we get anything at all. And if we get anything, it'll probably suck. Just please don't attach Sen. Kennedy's name to anything that isn't outstanding!

Essentially another form of the "11-dimensional chess" argument. We'll see. The experience of the last 15 years shows that once an Administration loses control of the framing and the meme stream they don't get it back, and those who hold control make the decisions. Perhaps this time will be different?

Cranky

Or perhaps Obama really wanted a big health/big pharma/big insurance-friendly bill all along.

Obama needs to watch Bill Moyer on Bill Maher's show last Friday and get a clue from a guy who's been in a lot of fights like this during the last 50 years.

Keep it simple and fight for what's morally right. To date, Obama has kept too many of us, the voters that put him into office, in the dark and he's not going to achieve anything meaningful unless he proposes something we can all get behind.

"Or perhaps Obama really wanted a big health/big pharma/big insurance-friendly bill all along."

And Cranky wins the kewpi doll!

The President was never with us on this. He still isn't. He wants a middle-of-the-road, look-I-did-something bill.

He isn't with us on torture. He isn't with us on rendition. He isn't with us on peace.

I would say he is Clinton's third term, but that's not fair to the Big Dog. Clinton never strung us along.

Time for a primary challenge.

September is to be the waterin' down month.

oh, and the "eat shit progressives" month...

complemented, of course with the 'comforters':
"well, obama always said as a candidate he wanted afghanistan to be a bog and health care reform to be something something, so blah blah blah blah..."

Now if I can just put off seeing a doctor for another 13 years I can get Medicare and not have to deal with the insurance company.

If there's no mechanism in the legislation to reverse the increases in insurance premiums, then it will be impossible to have subsidies that are big enough to enable to people to purchase insurance or if they are the program will not be sustainable. The only proposal that allows the government to depress insurance premiums is a robust public option with a national insurance exchange.

Absent that, the reform SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK.

I agree with Ornstein in yesterday's WaPo and Leonhardt in today's NYT that Obama may pull this off by getting the most he pratically could given the Senate that he has.

If this results in the Dems picking up more seats in 2010 rather than losing ground, thereby weakening the GOP even more, then Obama can pursue even better health reform before the end of his first term. I wish we could everything the first time around, but I would consider any improvement this year to be a great success.

This is not to say the White House will call for dropping the public option, only that Obama will start directing lawmakers with specifics that he expects to be in the final bill, and the public option won't be one of them.

If true, this will be a very dangerous -- probably fatal -- road for Obama to take. It will crystalize for everyone that he is bought and paid for by the health care industry, most likely due to an obscene deal cut behind the scenes. There will be no hiding behind the Blue Dogs as an excuse.

Very seldom does a complex issue like this one with lots of ambiguity and smokescreens boil down to what is said -- what position is taken -- in a single speech. This "I believe the public option is the best way to cut costs, increase competition, and protect consumers against insurance companies, but I won't insist on it" bullshit won't fly. It is a FUCKING insult to everyone who has ever been fucked by an insurance company.

Nothing that passes will have repug support. If it doesn't have progressive support either, his presidency is toast. He will have squandered whatever trust progressives still have in him.

EVERYONE knows he can insist on at least a weakened public option and get it. EVERYONE. If he pulls this "I won't insist on it" bullshit again, we may lose the House in 2010.

Even the "eleven-dimensional-chess" advocates know what the right move is now. Signing a bill with a mandate and no public option cannot be spun as a victory. And the MSM will NOT spin it as a victory. It will be spun as a huge defeat on a signature issue that 70+% of voters could very well oppose. It will be spun as a totally partisan solution -- Obama Care -- that greatly enriches the industry at the expense of average Americans.

He can spin exchanges and subsidies all he wants. It won't work. And no one -- repeat no one -- believes that insurance companies can or will be regulated. Folks have already seen with his awful bank bailout how waiting for regulations to discipline banks has turned out. There will be NO regulations -- or they will NOT be enforced.

As I understand, implementation of the weakened public option still in one or more bills would be postponed for 4-5 years. And he still won't insist on that? WTF?

BHO is at a well-defined fork in the road on an issue of monumental importance. If he follows Yogi's advice, and takes it -- that is, tries to split the difference -- he will lose millions of supporters who will draw the conclusion that money is more important to him than expanding health care coverage.

I have voted dem in every election of my life. I supported Obama over Hillary in the primary and voted for him with great expectations.

It's hard to put into words how regretful and disappointed I now am with my decisions. Totally demoralized.

"...and a 10-year price tag for the overhaul below the $1 trillion mark."

Which, at this point, I'm not really going to believe. Ten-year price projections are pretty much entirely fictional, so he'll put whatever price on it that will allow him to sell it. Remember Medicare Part D? The "price projection" for that changed exactly two days after the Congressional vote.

sorter obama: fooled yeah!

This "I believe the public option is the best way to cut costs, increase competition, and protect consumers against insurance companies, but I won't insist on it" bullshit won't fly. It is a FUCKING insult to everyone who has ever been fucked by an insurance company.

And to everyone who voted for Obama.

Watching the campaign, hearing the hype, and listening to Obama's words I realized that many Progressivs were projecting their values onto the candidate. I recognized he was always more middle-of-the-road than they. So when I voted for him I made a mental note, "who will he throw out of the lifeboat first, I wonder." Now I know. The millions of working Americans who can't afford the ever increasing cost of health insurance without a public option. He's just another Clintonite, another "just get something passed so you can say you did it" even if it abandons millions of Americans, today, tomorrow and every day after.

Those of you who say that we can work for greater reform in the future assume the Dems will retain control of Congress. Good luck with that.

HEALTH CARE REFORM - THE PUBLIC OPTION

Reports that President Obama will not insist that reform include the public option is really distressing. Most experts consider this an integral part of meaningful reform. Without it the insurance companies benefit from all the influx of the previously uninsured and do not face strong competition.

From a public relations point of view, perhaps it should have been called the public insurance option. This would have mitigated but not prevented the misleading claims that government is taking over health care.

But I do agree with Republicans when they say that the Democrats control the White House and Congress and can pass health care reform legislation. Those Democrats that have not been supporting their president on this issueshould be threatened with loss of perks, primary fights, and long sessions with Rahm Emmanuel.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

I realized that many Progressives were projecting their values onto the candidate. I recognized he was always more middle-of-the-road than they.

Point taken.

But I never thought BHO was a progressive. I merely thought that he would never trade away to the health industry behind close doors what he claimed was an important piece of his plan to reform health care.

For me, it's not that he is less progressive; it's that he is dishonest and shilling for the banking and health industries.

Letting the dogs loose in August was a big mistake. The Rethugs have now framed the issue their way, Obama's political capital has been spent to no avail, and progressives are rightfully in outright rebellion.

Giving Congress carte blanche on the issue was idiocy. Certainly Clinton went too far the other way, but Obama should have spelled out his healthcare reform parameters from day-one and then fought for them. Letting a bought-and-paid-for Congress have its head only produces predictable and unacceptable results.

Exactly what sort of healthcare reform, worthy of the name, is going to result from this gross mismanagement of the most vital domestic issue is still anyone's guess. I am really disenchanted with Obama.

Obama and his team plan to specify exactly what the president expects to see in the legislation. This includes the likelihood of "a major speech," which may come as early as next week -- the same week lawmakers return to the Hill.

At this point, unless the "specifics" include a public option, it would be better to give no speech at all. No one will care about anything else he says.

I think any good PR person -- liberal or conservative -- would know this.

It is long past the time for Obama to lead on this issue and specify exactly what he wants. If he doesn't want at least a strong public option, though, he probably shouldn't have started this mess.

martin, you and me both. good luck to both of us with that.

I've been struggling to be practical and not be thoroughly disillusioned. I knew Obama was not a progressive, but I thought he would at least take their point of view into account. God knows the Republicans cater to their far right base to a ridiculous degree. I think he's doing what he maybe always planned, but I think Rahm or whoever is advising him re:progressives forgets that a lot of us will be lackluster next election, including those new voters who thought he would be different. Have they forgotten about Nader voters and the harm they caused?

He does seem to be another term of Clinton. Not necessarily a bad thing and certainly better than the alternative: I shudder to think where we'd be with McCain/Palin. I can only hope that some health insurance restrictions will help in the short term and maybe maybe--if we are lucky--better options down the line. Judging by the appalling media coverage on healthcare, there's not a great deal of hope that down the line any meaningful reform will be possible. I'm beginning to believe in that far left meme that this country has been bought by corporations long ago. I always thought that was a bit extreme; after this healthcare debacle, I'm not so sure. Maybe watered down reform is all Americans will ever get from any Congress.

What happened to this country and how did we let it happen?

But I really did think Obama was a different kind of politician. Shame on me to be so gullible I guess.

I sometimes wonder if the posters on these blogs can read or if they just like to whine?
The quote was: "Obama will insist on a 'mechanism to cut costs and increase competition among insurance companies,' AND that he sees the public option as the best way to make that happen. But he's prepared to let lawmakers meet that goal as they see fit."
Now, please show me where, in that sentence, it says President Obama has quit supporting a public option? A hint: nowhere. He is, as he has stated before, willing to drop a public option in exchange for something that will produce the same results. Folks, there isn't anything else that will produce the same results; the President knows it and, by now, so should we.