Am I the only one (4.00 / 10)

Who doesn't see any incongruity between Obama's and Rahm's statements? The way Obama's statement is framed makes the trigger seem possible as a way to "keep the insurance companies honest." It's possible that Obama is trying to spin this with his progressive supporters without actually walking back Rahm's statements.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:56:19 AM CDT

You are certainly not the only one (4.00 / 6)

If you read the two statements carefully, they are saying the exact same thing: that the supposed goals of bringing down costs, etc., are critical, but the public option is supposedly only one way (if, as Obama argues or grants, the "best" way) to achieve those goals.

But Obama really does a great job of making it sound like a pushback on Rahm, doesn't he?  

---

by: frankly0 @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:03:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Although your comment acheives the point of attacking Obama, (4.00 / 2)

The point of moving forward toward a no-trigger public option has to be more important.

So, using the methods described in this article, on this site and others on how to bring the pressure that is being felt, and Adam so clearly shows as being efective, I urge people to move their disappointment toward some or all of the actions needed to bring about this necessary reform.

http://campaignsilo.firedoglak...

www.WeWantThePublicOption.com

https://secure.actblue.com/con...

Dem Leadership Will Not Voluntarily Pressure Conservative Dems

As said elsewhere:

The drive then must be: to deny them a health bill. Thway to do that, is make sure that Progressives in the House make good on their promise to deny passage of any bill that contains a trigger, and does not contain a public option.

The American people are angry that they spend far too much for coverage that is shockingly, fatally,  far from complete, are being offered legislation that cannot cost less than what is offered now, and will not cover any more than what the Insurance criminals offer now.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:13:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And how is it a positive step (4.00 / 5)

for Obama to be issuing a statement that is interpreted -- surely by intention, since why otherwise issue this precise statement? -- as a pushback on Rahm's statement, when it is so clearly nothing more than a reformulation of the same set of commitments (or lack thereof)?

How is it a positive step for progressive writers to be taken in by that kind of (very likely intentionally) deceptive statement?

Why should those interested in progressive policy, as represented at bare minimum by a commitment to a robust public option, not criticize Obama for failing to be far more forceful in his commitment to such an option, and allowing him to pretend that this weak tea statement represents a positive step?  

---

by: frankly0 @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:26:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You seem to have missed that I agreed that you had successfully attacked Obama (0.00 / 0)

Let me once again congratulate you for that hard work. I have not seen such complete analysis and castigation for some time. However I then went to urge you, and any others who have been working, or wishing, or even merely disparagingly given up on, a viable, no trigger, public option, to take action and move on the methods listed here and elsewhere, to push it over the top.

Pressure, you may not be aware, is not merely pointing out that something is less than desired, it is creating the conditions for what is desired.

I am sure you have ideas on what to do. Please offer some.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:41:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pardon me (4.00 / 1)

But why is this important?

"Public option" is nothing but a slogan. They'll find a way to label something a "public option" and cheer about how they saved it from the evil goopers and conservadems, but it will be a manure sandwich.

You are participating in a kabuki show.

I'll only lend my hand to raise a flag on this ship of fools if it has an explicit provision that the states can implement single payer health insurance or a completely government run state health service on their own.

---

by: cenobite @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:24:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TomP (4.00 / 1)

has a diary on DKOS that makes the same point.  I don't see any real distance between these two statements either.  

---

by: fladem @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:09:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, you aren't (4.00 / 1)

I need to dig up my Dictionary of American Newspeak, though, to be sure. The problem with Obama is that sometimes he speaks English, and sometimes he doesn't. When he does, he can sound like Shakespeare, or at least like Lincoln. When he doesn't, he can sound more like like a used-car salesman, or a TV evangelist. This sounds more like the latter to my ear, but not unequivocally so.

---

by: William Timberman @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:12:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stay unconvinced, and sure that pressure is necessary! (4.00 / 1)

BUT

I am sure the pressure is working, and only the pressure is responsible for any movement back toward universal health, but, you can be sure that this statement by Obama is very encouraging.

So work hard, pressure more congress critters and don't let up, but it is working.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:20:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

obama to rahm: "not so loud" (4.00 / 4)

Z

---

by: Z @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:58:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As good with the press as the Bush people were (4.00 / 1)

The WH communications operation is top notch, up there with the Bush people, who were notoriously good at playing the press.  I don't think they do anything without a good deal of thought and planning, even when they make things look informal.

But there's nothing informal about an on-the-record interview with a Murdoch publication like the Journal.  This was a planned interview, and there's no chance at all that Rahm did not walk into it with a very clear sense of what message he wanted to put across, or that he was representing anything other than the message of Team Obama.  Of which he's one of the top guys.

Maybe he goofed on execution, but I doubt that as well.  I think that the Administration fully intended to put out the idea of dickering on the public option part of the plan, at the very least as a trial balloon.

What they probably have more difficulty with is gaging what kind of response they'll get, especially since they can't totally predict the framing of a WSJ piece.  I suspect that they figured out, fast, that the folks that want real health care reform were a lot madder and a lot quicker to respond than they anticipated.

We're yelling at Rahm.  But we'd be better advised to yell at Axelrod, or even at Obama himself.

The best question, I think, is trying to figure out what the Administration thought it was doing by telegraphing flexibility on the issue.

---

by: mbayrob @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 17:18:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

curious (0.00 / 0)

If you were Obama, what would your comment today say if you wanted to walk back Rahm's statement? (Keep it real, don't offer something he obviously wouldn't say.)

---

by: AdamGreen @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:18:51 AM CDT

While _I_ agree that Obama was clear. (0.00 / 0)

one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.

Public option does what I want, I look forward to it included. And it doesn't say "if necessary." it says "includes"

I am encouraged, but on disbelief, I hope that people's caution urges them to greater effort, not cynical detachment, or frustrated inaction.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:24:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh, no (4.00 / 1)

He says he looks forward to "these goals" being achieves, and points prior that a PO is but one way to achieve those goals.

All this parsing is a little silly. It should be clear to everyone that Obama would prefer a plan with a PO but would sign a bill without it.

Anyhoo, the more I read about the issue, the more I think any plan short of single-payer is destined to be a political and substantive problem, if not a disaster.

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:47:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed agreed agreed. BUT the point is more action. (0.00 / 0)

Not less, not more wondering not more disappointment, not more frustration or any willingness to 'settle' for less than a no trigger public option.

There are several inks here in this post, in Chris bowers post and here http://www.openleft.com/showCo...
which lists several, that will drive what we demand forward.

That is the point. It is not my point, and never will be, that we don't have to pay attention and work our asses off.

I believe that all victories are temporary, and all defeats permanent. If you arent working to make it better, all the time, the powerful will complete their efforts to make it worse.

Sorry. The freedom of freedom is the work of citizenship.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:04:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's deep problem here is that Rahm's position (4.00 / 5)

just is his own position -- though he won't own up to it in front of progressives. He has already made it perfectly clear that he was not going to draw a line in the sand on the public option. Obviously, this pretty well binds his possible responses.

But he does have ways he could drive the public option a hell of a lot better than he has. He could say, for example this:

I am of course an advocate for the public option. But, as I've said, it's not a make-or-break issue by itself. My real commitment is to the goals of bringing costs down and making health insurance available to all while maintaining quality. I am convinced that a well designed public option can achieve those goals. It is possible that some other mechanism might achieve the same. I will say, though, that I have yet to be in any way convinced that the alternatives I have seen so far have any real prospect of achieving those goals. I think the burden of proof lies on those who offer such alternatives to make a credible case. If they can't, then I simply won't be supporting those alternatives. Under those circumstances, I will, instead strongly support only the public option, because, as I've said, it can achieve those goals.

Likelihood Obama will say such a thing? About zero. Because, as I've said, he's really as ready to compromise as is Rahm on the public option. Both he and Rahm know perfectly well that any piece of crap that becomes legislation can be spun as achieving the goals Obama mentioned (see the political spin on the Medicare Drug package for a similar case).

---

by: frankly0 @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:39:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"I believe that it is critical (4.00 / 2)

to increase access and reduce costs.  The only way to accomplish these objectives is to ensure a Public Option is made available."

---

by: fladem @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:13:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (4.00 / 3)

My additions in italics:

I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is to provide every American a public option, available as soon as is practical, that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.

That would successfully walk back the "a trigger is OK" language which was the most damaging part of Rahm's comments - and which Obama's statement does not reverse.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:03:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would add (4.00 / 2)

That the "one of the best ways" phrase would also have to be cut out.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:04:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Love the analysis made in this link (4.00 / 2)

here

Obama's response to a question about single-payer health insurance at a town hall meeting in New Mexico on May 14 illustrates the quandary the Democrats are creating for themselves. The question was, "Why have they taken single-payer off the plate?" The woman posing the question was referring to a statement by Sen. Baucus, who chairs the committee with the most influence over health reform issues in the Senate, that "single payer is off the table." Obama's response, essentially, was that single-payer is off the table because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat, and there are other ways to cut health care costs that don't require implementing a single-payer system. He is wrong on both counts.

Obama began his reply to the woman's question with a statement about the necessity of cost containment: "If we simply insured everyone under the current system we couldn't afford it. We'd go broke. We've gotta drive down costs." So far so good. Obama is unquestionably correct about this. America's per capita health care costs are double those of the rest of the industrialized world. Congress will never find the political will to establish a sustainable universal health insurance program unless it finds a way to cut the high cost of health care.

But then Obama went on to imply that we don't need a single-payer system to cut costs. "There are ways that we can drive down costs," he said. He cited three ways: greater use of preventive services, (not by making insurance companies pay for them, but by changing the way doctors are paid); electronic medical records; and a public program to compete with private insurers. The first two ideas are straight out of the insurance industry's hymnal. The third idea, the proposed public program (which its advocates now refer to as "the public option") will either quickly morph into a single-payer or it will accomplish little or no cost containment.

Here are excerpts from Obama's response:

If we emphasize prevention and wellness programs ... so that we're reimbursing doctors, not just for treating people after they get sick but for helping people stay well, if we use medical technology to reduce error rates and ensure electronic medical billing ..., these are simple things we can do that will save us money...

But the research does not support Obama's claims. Even assuming the way to deliver more preventive services is to focus on doctors rather than insurance companies, more preventive services will not reduce costs. Proven preventive services definitely improve patient health, but the vast majority of preventive services cost so much, and have to be given to so many people who would not otherwise have gotten sick, that the cost of the services outweighs the savings from reduced illness.

Further down it continues analyzing Obama's statement

Having properly defined a single-payer system, Obama continued:

If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense.... The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have ... a tradition of employer-based health care. ...We don't want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we're trying to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy.

Note how cautiously Obama talked about "disruption." He didn't say who would be bothered by "disruption." Under a single-payer or Medicare-for-all system, patients would notice no change in their clinics or hospitals, and all Americans and all employers would be relieved of the immense hassle of buying insurance, paying for it, and playing "captain may I" with the insurance industry when people get sick. The "disruption" Obama is concerned about is the disruption a single-payer system will cause for the insurance industry when it gets knocked off its perch at the top of the health care food chain. Obama's statement about "disruption," then, may be translated as, "I don't want to make the insurance industry mad."

Having told his audience that cost containment is absolutely essential, and having misled them about the ability of prevention and computers to cut costs, and having asserted that we dare not "disrupt" the insurance industry, he turned to what he would probably call the central plank in his cost-containment platform - a public program that will sell health insurance to the non-elderly in competition with the existing insurance companies:

So what I've said is, let's set up a system where if you already have health care through your employer and you're happy with it, you don't have to change doctors and you don't have to change plans, nothin' changes. If you don't have health care or you're highly unsatisfied with your health care, let's give you choices ... including a public plan that you could ... sign up for. That's been my proposal.

Note that Obama did not claim that setting up a government-run insurance program to sell insurance to the non-elderly in competition with the insurance industry will save money. But other advocates of this idea, which over the last few months has come to be called "the public option," are making precisely that claim. Their argument starts out on a sound footing, and then veers into the ditch. They assert that Medicare has proven to be more efficient than any insurance company ever will be. That is true. I have already indicated that Medicare spends a much lower proportion of its expenditures on administration than private insurers do. Medicare's large size also permits it to pay clinics and hospitals roughly 20 percent less than smaller private insurers pay. (However, Medicare's lower reimbursement rates are offset by its cooperativeness with providers, which results in lower overhead costs for providers.)

So the premise that Medicare is unusually efficient is correct. But then "public option" advocates take a wrong turn. They claim that if a program "like Medicare," but separate from Medicare, were authorized to start selling health insurance to the non-elderly, it would automatically enjoy Medicare's advantages (low overhead, low provider rates, and large size) and would, therefore, be able to set its premiums below those of the private insurance industry and seize a very large portion of the non-elderly "market" for health insurance. (Don't ask me why "public option" advocates want the new program to be separate from Medicare. I would bet it's because they understand the new program is going to suffer from "adverse selection," that is, from disproportionate enrollment by the sick, and that this would raise Medicare's costs dramatically and annoy the elderly.)

But why should we assume that a public program for the non-elderly will enjoy Medicare's advantages? Medicare enjoys those advantages precisely because it is a single-payer.

Just a long post to say....Obama is on the same page as Rahm and the most recent  statement issued in Obama's name that prompted the diary is a sop to progressives

---

by: Susan H @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:31:00 AM CDT

Well, it's not technically a walk back (4.00 / 3)

primarily because he says "one of."

one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option

and goes on to say he looks forward to a final product that achieves "these goals"--nothing about the final product including a PO.

I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.

It's a very crafty statement that designed, it seems, not to strengthen his commitment to a PO but to stop progressives heads from exploding.

I mean, is there a man, woman, or child in America who believes that if Congress passes a health care reform package without a PO, Obama wouldn't sign it? Of course not.

A more genuine, and more important, walk-back is what Obama said regarding Biden's greenlight to Israel for an attack on Iran.

The United States is "absolutely not" giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday.

"We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East," Obama said, referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:40:31 AM CDT

Rahm is not "weak." (4.00 / 3)

Emanuel is operating from his core principles -- neoliberalism as defined by the DLC -- and is likely to get what he wants. In health care, this is pretty much defined by the Jackson Hole Group, as it has been for almost 40 years.

---

by: nasrudin @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:32:21 PM CDT

Rahm Emanuel Is Wall Street's Favorite Politician (4.00 / 3)

Rahm Emanuel is all about money and power. Using other people's money to gain power for himself.  After all, who was he?  A nobody from Illinois who spent several years mysteriously working with the Israeli military, then returned to the U.S., sat in some friendly job for about 2 years then walked out with a reported $18 million to use to finance his campaign (i.e. buy a seat) for Congress.  When he walked into Congress, he reportedly told everyone that he controlled large amounts of money from donor groups, so they'd better do what he said.

He doesn't speak without thinking.

Go look at the Wall Street Journal, another of Rupert Murdoch's whorehouse publications.  They love Rahm.  His reputation in Congress (in addition to being a grade-A A-Hole), based on amount of donations received, was "Wall Street's Favorite Politician."  He bragged to the WSJ that the Obama team screwed up the financial recovery plan (the Wall Street giveaway) but he took control and re-wrote it to save the day.  

He's going to run for Senate from Illinois, and plans to run for President.  He opens his mouth when Obama is out of the country to reassure his generous donors in the insurance industry that he will not let anyone interfere with their obscene profits.  

He knows exactly what he's doing.  Why did Obama pick him?  Presumably because Obama wants to receive the money that Rahm reportedly controls from various donor groups in the country.  Specifically Wall Street.  Any wonder Obama keeps shoveling more money at Wall Street?  Rahm's got his ear.

---

by: NABNYC @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:54:53 PM CDT

All obama wants to do with his ambiguous statement is to ... (4.00 / 1)

... prevent riling up the progressive groups that go after his precious dlc dem pals and the blue dogs ... is there really much difference? ... with ads so that the blue dogs can stay safely ensconced within the democratic party and continue to be the dlc dems best friend.

Z

---

by: Z @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:10:03 PM CDT

Oh, puh-leeze (4.00 / 2)

A staffer releases a statement, and that's Obama interrupting his diplomacy? Can we stop swinging the incense burner for one second, please?

And how is "one of the best ways" any different from what Emmmanuel said, in, er, pragmatic terms? Not at all.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:38:37 PM CDT

rahm is very, very afraid to take on the insurance companies ... (4.00 / 1)

... but he was not afraid to push nafta thru for his corporate friends.  I suppose it's a one-sided "fear" that only applies to standing against big moneyed interests such as the ones on wall street where he "earned" $16M in two and a half years of "work".

Fear never tasted so good.  

Z

---

by: Z @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:54:07 PM CDT

the rahmbama game (4.00 / 3)

rahm plays bad cop to obama's impotent cop.

there hasn't been one thing yet that rahm hasn't ultimately gotten his way on and that's no accident becoz him and obama want the same damn thing which is why obama hired the dc dems' master of deceit to be his chief of staff.

Z

---

by: Z @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:00:35 PM CDT

Like Michael Jackson, public option advocates... (0.00 / 0)

... should patent their dance moves.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:09:36 PM CDT

Why do you think Rahm Emanuel is afraid? (4.00 / 4)

You are portraying Rahm Emanuel as someone who really really wants something like single payer health care but is too afraid of the system and the corporate elite to even try for it.

Are you sure you don't describe yourself?

It certainly describes most progressives who want single payer but are meekly going to the slaughter.  Rahm Emanuel does not strike me as meek or afraid.  I think he is getting exactly what he wants.  I think he is getting exactly what Obama wants too.

That just seems like a lot simpler an explanation for the facts.  

Could you please run over for me the evidence that suggests that Rahm Emanuel is actually wanting to introduce a very progressive piece of legislation and is just too afraid to push for it?  And would Rahm Emanuel be able to keep his job if his goals were far divergent from Obama's?

---

by: DavidByron @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:32:35 PM CDT