If you take a look at the history of left-wing politics in America, you’ll find that left-wingers always seem to be spoiling for a fight—with each other.
This summer, many on the left have decided to attack the very president who so many championed not nine months ago. Let me be clear: I, too, could find fault with what the President has done, and hasn’t done, during his first eight months in office. In particular, I’m sorry to see a troop build-up in Afghanistan, and would be much happier if many more U.S. soldiers were coming home.
But military strategy is not my area of expertise. Health care is, and when it comes to reform, this president has accomplished more in eight months than any president in the past 44 years.
Yet, the left, like the right, continues to spread misinformation about President Obama’s efforts at healthcare reform. For example, today Allison Kilkenny co-host of Citizen Radio, the alternative political radio show published this piece on AlterNet alleging that the president has “betrayed the progressives who got him elected” :
False Claim: “The President's behavior on . . . healthcare reform, is . . . abysmal. Obama's shameful conduct has been well-documented, including the White House's agreement to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada, and the agreement not to pursue Medicare rebates or sift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.”
Fact: The only “documentation” is a typed memo which is unsigned, and typed on letterhead. The only “source” is an “unnamed knowledgeable health care lobbyist” according to the journalist who “broke” the scoop on Huffington Post. I’ve posted about this here and here on Huffington Post.
False Claim: “In exchange, PhRMA agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years, mere pocket change to the booming industry over a decade-long projection, which makes it unlikely the cuts will significantly help citizens or ever actually happen. It's almost like the number was plucked from thin air to give the appearance of PhRMA's concession so liberals wouldn't completely lose their minds.”
Fact: It’s interesting to see how misinformation evolves. Originally, reporters suggested that Obama made a “deal” with Pharma as a “quid pro quo” for the $80 billion (which seemed to many a large sum), not to mention the $125 million Pharma was spending on ads supporting reform. Now $80 billion is “pocket change” and the White House made a deal because ????? Also, if the White House cut a deal, why is it that the House bill explicitly stipulates that Medicare can negotiate for discounts on drugs?
False Claim: “The popular single-payer model vanished almost immediately from the health care reform debate, and was replaced by the ‘public option.’”
Fact: The president never supported single-payer. He was very clear that if it were possible to wipe out the history of health care in America and start over, single-payer might well be a good idea. But obviously, that is not possible. The majority of Americans have employer-sponsored insurance and don’t want to give it up for an unknown government plan. During the Democratic primary, the president, like Clinton and Edwards, supported a hybrid plan that would force private insurers to compete with a public insurance plan.
False Claim: “the public-sector option, an entity no politician bothered explaining to the American people, who remain confused and miseducated [sic] about what it means. It's no wonder that myths spread quickly, culminating in the famous town hall blowouts.”
Fact: The public sector option has been explained, in detail, in the House bill, beginning on p. 116. Ideally, bloggers and the reporters in the mainstream media would read the bill and summarize the public sector option to the public. Some, like Rock the Vote have done just that:
“The ‘public option’ is a government insurance program that would be open to anyone. Short version: you buy into this public plan just like you would buy insurance from an insurance company.Your doctor would send the bill to the government instead of you, just like the old folks get with Medicare. The public option would operate alongside private insurance companies, making the market more competitive and driving quality up and costs down. As President Obama has said: ‘If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.’ Now, if you don’t have a doctor or a health care plan, the public option is there for you.”
The details of the public plan (which won’t be rolled out until 2013) have to be worked out but the House bill explains that the public sector option will offer basic insurance as well as a premium plan. The basic plan has to be equal in value to the prevailing employer-based insurance in the area. Cost-sharing cannot exceed $5,000 for individuals or $10,000 for families in the first year. The Senate HELP bill lists what the public sector option would cover—it’s very comprehensive and includes dental care for children. In terms of co-pays, the House bill states that there will be no co-pays for primary care. This applies to both the public option and to private insurers.
Some refer to the public option as “Medicare E” (Medicare for everyone). But the House Bill makes it clear that Medicare is going to be reformed to lift quality and reduce cost (by paying for quality of care rather than quantity), and the public sector plan would follow that reformed model. Finally, the House bill stipulates that the details (pricing etc.) won’t be carved in stone. They can be adjusted as we find out what is affordable, what isn’t, what works, what doesn’t, and how many people sign up for the public plan.
False Claim: “It's no wonder that myths spread quickly, culminating in the famous town hall blowouts. The mainstream media and politicians snickered at the screaming crowds, implying citizens are somehow too stupid to understand what's really going on.”
Fact: Especially at the beginning, many in the “screaming crowds” were planted by conservatives with the goal of making it impossible for reformers to describe or discuss their plans. Insofar as reporters suggested that screaming and shouting is not the way to carry on a rational debate about health care they were right.
When conservatives are in power, they stick together. The left, on the other hand, turns on its own. Why? I’ll let you try to answer that question.
I’m hardly an expert here, but it does seem that the left has a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, or, when that fails, redefining victory as defeat. by their own scorecard, it is hard to find an issue in American history where the left has won. so there’s plenty of precedent here.
The old “circular firing squad” — pointed inward.
Maggie,
Each party is comprised of a contiunum of political ideologies, although the republicans lean to the right and the democrats to the left. But each party has more conservative or liberal members that populate their ranks. I think you canfind examples in both parties where they have not been able to stick together. Bush couldn’t get his party to go along on his privitisation of social security, for instance.
I don’t think you can generalize to one party or the other. Bush also lost the more conservative elements of his party over time due to his persistent budget deficits and expansion of goverment. It seems the more radical elements of each party will never be happy since their extreme political view will alway be divergent from the majority of the electrorate.
Maggie,
I disagree that the Democrats are left, by and large. There is still the belief that unfettered free markets are the best. Clinton was essentially a Republican when it came to matters of finance and Wall St. And to my mind, the mainstream Democrats are center right, which is how any mildly progressive idea gets labeled “socialist.”
My beef with Obama is his naivete in thinking Republicans would bargain in good faith. They were simply using him to buy time and wait for the tide to turn.
He started with a weak hand by endorsing what he thought was reasonable. He should have pushed for a single payer plan (knowing it would not fly) and negotiate down from there.
The Republicans always paid attention to their “base” and did not take them for granted. They have been willing to stand up (or beat down) to Democrats to get their way.
The Democratic leadership does not operate this way and as a consequence, our country has moved further to the right every decade since 1980 and there’s nothing about Obama so far that shows me this is going to change.
Gary–
I completely agree that most of the Democrats in Congress are not members of the “Left.”
Many are centrist/liberal “New Democrats” of the 1990s who definitely would not want to hear themselves desribed as members of the Left. Others are pure centrists.
But the person I was quoting does see herself as a member of the “left.”(or as a progressive–definitely not as a centrist.)
I was talking about how some of the small group of Democrats who are on the left–and many bloggers and pundtis who consider themselves left/progressives (and not necessarily Democrats) are attacking Obama.
The did help elect him.
But now they are turning against him.
Keith-
You are right: Bush couldn’t get his entire party to go along with privatizing Social Security.
But SS is , arguably the most popular government program that has ever existed.
Voters were overwhelmingly against doing away with SS as a govt’t program. That’s what made it hard for Bush to get the REpublican rank and file to join him.
On the other hand, he was able to get hte party to sign on for a war that would, in many ways, be Vietnam II. Endless, very expensive, fought in a country that did not want us there, and killing so many Americans and Iraqis . . . .
Finally, the reason for going to war– the threat of “weapons of mass destruction” turned out to be a lie. How many Republicans stepped up to question that assumption?
This is what I mean by
“party discipline.” Not always a good thing, but
conservatives do seem better at it.
Damon–
Yes, the ciruclar firing squad, pointed inward.
But why do liberals do this?
Jim–
Yes, the Left does seem to have a habit of seizing defeat from the jaws . .
But I have to disagree about the Left’s histroy of victories:
They won on civil rights. We still have a long way to go in defeating racism, but things are much, much better than they were in 1960.
Women’s rights. Again, we haven’t won the final battle, but my life would be very, very different, if I had been born 20 years earlier.
Gay Rights. Again, we have made great progress–and have a long way to go.
Where the Left has failed:
Poverty: the rate of poverty in this country is totally unacceptable, and much higher than in any other developed country in the world.
Education: Our public schools just aren’t as good as they should be– even in the suburbs.
Students graduating from high school in Candada (which lasts 5 years-meaning that children have 13 years of education compared to 12 years here)
are much better prepared for college.
They know how to write. They know how to think critically.
We don’t pay our public school teachers very well–we don’t respect teaching as a professoin.
Thus, our best and brightest don’t go into teaching.
“Our children are oru future” is a cliche. But it is also true. Wny don’t we value teaching as a profession?
Why do we pay divorce lawyers more than we pay teachers?
A certain amount of flak from the left may actually help Obama with moderates. Disapproval from the left does not mean more votes for Sarah Palin in 2012, for example.
I think there are still a lot of Republicans in northern and western states who do not want to claim blocking health care reform as their greatest legislative achievement.
As an Obamacare antagonist, I don’t think he has led well on his signature domestic issue. It’s rather astonishing that with control of the WH and both houses of Congress that the Dems have not even passed a bill. Most of his political difficulties are not from the GOP or the ‘town hallers’, but from the moderates in his own party. It was a political failure that no bill was passed before the August recess, which provided great a opportunity to attack any of the various plans that existed and continue to evlove. He promised budget neutrality but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office roundly disputed this specious claim. He was making deal after deal with various stakeholders trying to corral them under his tent. The cornerstone of his program, the public option, is withering. Many of us are skeptical that this option is really to ‘compete’ with the private sector, as presented in your posting as FACT. We suspect that its true design is to outcompete it. Obama knows he’s in trouble here, which is why he will be addressing a joint session of Congress next wk. He will find many of the members to be as skeptical as the public is. If you think the left isn’t playing ball with him over health care, just wait for Afghanistan. http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
Maggie,
Some loose thoughts:
1) The Left has been chomping at the bit for decades to get health care reform done. And whether some like it or not, it is imperative that some significant reform gets done. The demographics do not wait for our prejudices. Is it surprising they feel jaded and punked by the sausage making process that is the crafting of legislation in an atmosphere that is so polarized an extreme in its partisanship? I don’t think so.
2) Republicans are very united in their opposition for a very simple reason: they will be left with NOTHING to offer if the Democrats solve the biggest woes or our non-system of health care.
2) Our political system makes it easy for a minority to oppose the will of the majority. Thus, the Republicans have a built-in advantage that helps their posture.
3) There is so much money in health care that any change is perceived by a lot of special interests groups as a threat to their bottom line.
4) This coalition of opponents, the slothfulness and moral depravity of the mainstream media who cannot be bothered to report the FACTS but will revel in keeping “political scores”, the sheer madness exhibited by some opponents (smells like a jihad at times) is enough to make any proponent of this reform a bit hysterical and resentful toward a President that doesn’t appear “combative” enough to take on the opponents head on.
Just my 2 n’gwees.
I don’t think Obama could have started out assuming Republicans would argue in bad faith. He had to demonstrate that they wouldn’t argue in good faith before bringing the hammer down. It seems like liberals would prefer if he were completely a Bush-style “dictator” but he’s not. He’s more savvy than that and knows the appearance of things is as important as what gets done in the end. So he gave the Republicans their rope, they hung themselves, now let’s see what comes out of it. Reconciliation has lots of potential to create a more liberal bill and if it does, the Republicans will look like the morons they are.
I think the left should hold its fire until we actually get a bill – the President’s address to congress will probably be where he expresses his goals to those crafting this thing – up till now, I think, it’s been a bit of a game. Like the so-called deal with Pharma – maybe the White House was just playing Billy Tauzin (they knew who this guy was and what they were dealing with) just to keep Pharma out of the fray – that’s one less opponent to deal with – all the while knowing that this “deal” was about as valid as writing a number on a napkin and sliding it across the table with the impression that this was some kind of binding contract. Sorry, Tauzin, the joke’s on you.
In fact, Ms. Mahar is wrong in her reporting. The White House did negotiate a deal with PhRMA to prevent the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices and to bar drug importation from Canada in exchange for cost savings of $80 billion over ten years. The story by reporter Tom Hamburger first broke in the L.A. Times on 8/4 and was confirmed by Tim Noah in Slate two days later and by Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic on 8/25.The latter is appropriately entitled “How Big Pharma Extorted the White House.”
Here are the three links:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-pharma4-2009aug04,0,3660985.story
http://www.slate.com/id/2224621/
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/drug-deal
Well, perhaps the thing I like about Obama the best is that he will throw people under the bus ASAP if needed.
I remain hopeful that Obama is a good man and not a politics as usual guy. If he means well, then he can throw Bill Tauzin and all the big donors to politicians under the bus and roll over them a few times for me.
Just do it Barack.
John F., Michael, Francois, Mike C., delNorte,
Thanks for your comments.
John F– I think you’re right. People in the Northwest understand healthcare, and how to fix it, better than most of us. I would think Congressmen there would be relucant to be seen as blocking reform.
Michael–
See my post on why CBO can’t score healthcare.
Evidence of deals?
We have strong evidence of no deal with Pharma– the House bill authorizes Medicare to negotiate for discounts on drugs.
The public option is hardly in shreds.
It can be passed — with 51 votes in the Senate.
The White House may or may not decide to go that route, but it can be done.
Most of the difficulty comes, not from Democratic moderates, but from industry lobbyists who “own” both many Republicans and some Democratic.
They don’t want reform that reins in spending because they don’t want to see their revenues cut. It is that simple.
And by telling outright lies, conservatives have managed to make some of the public afraid of reform.
(Since you are an M.D. I have to assume that you understand that end-of-life counseling is a good thing, and does not mean “pulling hte plug on Grandma.”
Francois–
I agree with virtually everything you say.
OUr system is designed to make it possible for the minority to block the majority–and it is designed to make it difficult for the Senate to get anything done.
This was purposeful– as a check on majority rule–but at times it is beyond exasperating. . .
If the progressives win real health reform you are right, the conservatives are out of power, perhaps for a very long time. This is why they are frantic–and will do and say anything (Obama is going to pull the plug on Grandma–Baucus) to try to win.
The way the media focus on health care reform as if it were a football game makes me a little crazy too.
For instance, so much of the reporting about the upcoming speech this Wed. focused on “is giving a speech at this time savvy political strategy?”
Instead, the media should be focusing on the substance of the issues by explaining the House Bill and the HELP bill, explaining how they are alike, and how they represent the bulk of the administration’s plan.
Mike C–
You write: “I don’t think Obama could have started out assuming Republicans would argue in bad faith. He had to demonstrate that they wouldn’t argue in good faith before bringing the hammer down. It seems like liberals would prefer if he were completely a Bush-style “dictator” but he’s not. He’s more savvy than that and knows the appearance of things is as important as what gets done in the end. So he gave the Republicans their rope, they hung themselves, now let’s see what comes out of it. Reconciliation has lots of potential to create a more liberal bill and if it does, the Republicans will look like the morons they are.”
I basically agree. Though I pretty much knew the Republicans wouldn’t compromise–they don’t want reform, they want the status quo because so many of their backers profit from it, and most of their voters have health insurance.
Nevertheless, it was wise of the president to make a real effort to get them invovled in reform.
And now, as the Republicans dig their heels in–it should be clear to the country that they don’t care about patients.
If the White House decides to go the 51 vote route- much fo the public will understand that they gave the Republicans every chance to be part of the discussion.
delNOrte–
You write: “Like the so-called deal with Pharma – maybe the White House was just playing Billy Tauzin (they knew who this guy was and what they were dealing with) just to keep Pharma out of the fray – that’s one less opponent to deal with – all the while knowing that this “deal” was about as valid as writing a number on a napkin and sliding it across the table with the impression that this was some kind of binding contract. Sorry, Tauzin, the joke’s on you.”
I think it’s possible that someone like Baucus– or even possibly Rahm Emanuel– made a “napkin” deal with Tauzin, and Tauzin believed it.
I very much doubt Presdient Obama would do that; not his style.
But someone could easily have led Tauzin to think he had a deal with the White House–Tauzin is the type of politican who would think that all presidents make deals, that all policy-making is about “you scratch my back, I scratch yours.”
That’s the sewer Blly Tauzin swims in.
John F., Michael, Francois, Mike C., delNorte,
Thanks for your comments.
John F– I think you’re right. People in the Northwest understand healthcare, and how to fix it, better than most of us. I would think Congressmen there would be relucant to be seen as blocking reform.
Michael–
See my post on why CBO can’t score healthcare.
Evidence of deals?
We have strong evidence of no deal with Pharma– the House bill authorizes Medicare to negotiate for discounts on drugs.
The public option is hardly in shreds.
It can be passed — with 51 votes in the Senate.
The White House may or may not decide to go that route, but it can be done.
Most of the difficulty comes, not from Democratic moderates, but from industry lobbyists who “own” both many Republicans and some Democratic.
They don’t want reform that reins in spending because they don’t want to see their revenues cut. It is that simple.
And by telling outright lies, conservatives have managed to make some of the public afraid of reform.
(Since you are an M.D. I have to assume that you understand that end-of-life counseling is a good thing, and does not mean “pulling hte plug on Grandma.”
Francois–
I agree with virtually everything you say.
OUr system is designed to make it possible for the minority to block the majority–and it is designed to make it difficult for the Senate to get anything done.
This was purposeful– as a check on majority rule–but at times it is beyond exasperating. . .
If the progressives win real health reform you are right, the conservatives are out of power, perhaps for a very long time. This is why they are frantic–and will do and say anything (Obama is going to pull the plug on Grandma–Baucus) to try to win.
The way the media focus on health care reform as if it were a football game makes me a little crazy too.
For instance, so much of the reporting about the upcoming speech this Wed. focused on “is giving a speech at this time savvy political strategy?”
Instead, the media should be focusing on the substance of the issues by explaining the House Bill and the HELP bill, explaining how they are alike, and how they represent the bulk of the administration’s plan.
Mike C–
You write: “I don’t think Obama could have started out assuming Republicans would argue in bad faith. He had to demonstrate that they wouldn’t argue in good faith before bringing the hammer down. It seems like liberals would prefer if he were completely a Bush-style “dictator” but he’s not. He’s more savvy than that and knows the appearance of things is as important as what gets done in the end. So he gave the Republicans their rope, they hung themselves, now let’s see what comes out of it. Reconciliation has lots of potential to create a more liberal bill and if it does, the Republicans will look like the morons they are.”
I basically agree. Though I pretty much knew the Republicans wouldn’t compromise–they don’t want reform, they want the status quo because so many of their backers profit from it, and most of their voters have health insurance.
Nevertheless, it was wise of the president to make a real effort to get them invovled in reform.
And now, as the Republicans dig their heels in–it should be clear to the country that they don’t care about patients.
If the White House decides to go the 51 vote route- much fo the public will understand that they gave the Republicans every chance to be part of the discussion.
delNOrte–
You write: “Like the so-called deal with Pharma – maybe the White House was just playing Billy Tauzin (they knew who this guy was and what they were dealing with) just to keep Pharma out of the fray – that’s one less opponent to deal with – all the while knowing that this “deal” was about as valid as writing a number on a napkin and sliding it across the table with the impression that this was some kind of binding contract. Sorry, Tauzin, the joke’s on you.”
I think it’s possible that someone like Baucus– or even possibly Rahm Emanuel– made a “napkin” deal with Tauzin, and Tauzin believed it.
I very much doubt Presdient Obama would do that; not his style.
But someone could easily have led Tauzin to think he had a deal with the White House–Tauzin is the type of politican who would think that all presidents make deals, that all policy-making is about “you scratch my back, I scratch yours.”
That’s the sewer Blly Tauzin swims in.