"Are you feeling like a chump yet?"

A few items on Obama and Heath Care
[Edited, 2 links added, 12/24/09]

Below are interesting links on Obama's behavior with regard to getting real reform for Americans who have looked for actual progress and solutions to their financially burdensome and disaster provoking health care dilemma. (Do I blame the wellspring for much of the anti-health care sentiment on the Republican leadership and the likes of Fox News? Of course I do! But they were not elected on a platform that promised real reform. Obama wasted the political capital he was given by a vast majority of the American people and frankly, he lied to us.)

On Wednesday, Obama told NPR that:
"This notion I know among some on the left that somehow this bill is not everything that it should be ... I think just ignores the real human reality that this will help millions of people and end up being the most significant piece of domestic legislation at least since Medicare and maybe since Social Security," (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121783002) but many are questioning his spin on the health care/insurance "reform" that is presently before congress. No one really knows what the Senate-House reconciliation will produce, but it is not likely to meet the hopes of many of his supporters, or his own promises, during the '08 election campaign and after he became President.

The first link below, from July of this year, shows Obama saying that any plan he signs "must include . . . a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest." He also reaffirmed his opposition to any mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance, whether they can afford to or not: "If a mandate was the solution we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone to buy a house--the reason they don't have a house is that they don't have the money." It points out that 59 % support a public option, and that only 33 % support a mandate to purchase insurance.

You can watch the video whether you contribute to the cause or not (No Mandate!)--Must See: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/obamapromise?refcode=sbjt_prom
__

Obama rejected mandates during his campaign

Obama also rejected mandates in the January 21, 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates debate, using the notion of promoting mandating the purchase of insurance against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. He also indicated support for an open process, enlisting the American people in the process, and opposition to secret, "behind-closed-doors" deals with insurance and drug companies, deals that he ultimately made with drug companies and others after he became President. He also said that we need to be "very clear about who is carrying water for the drug companies and the insurance companies and who is looking out for the families who are struggling. . ." So who now is carrying water for the insurance and drug companies? Watch:


__

Aother article from the Washington Independent:

Obama: Health Reform Bills Not Compromised ‘in Any Significant Way’
By MIKE LILLIS 12/22/09 3:16 PM
http://washingtonindependent.com/71769/obama-health-reform-bill-not-compromised-in-any-significant-way

Liberals might be grumbling about the concessions needed to pass health care reform this year, but President Obama has no regrets. In an interview with The Washington Post Tuesday, Obama said he’s “very enthusiastic” about the reforms contained in the Senate bill, which, he added, accomplishes “95 percent” of his campaign goals.

In listing those priorities, Obama cited the 30 million uninsured Americans projected to receive coverage, budget estimates of more than $1 trillion in savings over the next two decades, a “patients’ bill of rights on steroids” to protect consumers from being dropped by insurance companies, and tax breaks to help small businesses pay to cover employees. [...]

“We don’t feel that the core elements to help the American people have been compromised in any significant way,” Obama said. “Do these pieces of legislation have exactly everything I want? Of course not. But they have the things that are necessary to reduce costs for businesses, families and the government.”

In a curious claim, Obama also told the Post that the public option “has become a source of ideological contention between the left and right,” but added, “I didn’t campaign on the public option.”

That’s curious because he did campaign on the public option. It’s here, in “Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America:”

Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.

Easier said than done.
__

And then there's this one:

Healthcare FLASHBACKS (VIDEO)

Huffington Post
First Posted: 08- 9-09 12:30 AM | Updated: 09- 8-09 05:12 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/flashback-obama-promises_n_254833.html



Oh my! But guess what--the White House lobbied against North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan's amendment which would have allowed safe, less expensive drug imports from other countries. Obama said "We'll allow the safe re-importation of low-cost drugs from countries like Canada" during his campaign, but his White House lobbied against Dorgan's bill, and it failed without a whimper from Obama.

See:

The Senate Health Care Bill: Leave No Special Interest Behind

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-200912231659tmsahuffcoltq--m-a20091223dec23,0,6309565.story

See also:

Study Reveals “Revolving Door” Between Capitol Hill Staffers and Healthcare Lobbyists

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/22/study_revolving_door_between_capitol_hill
__

Obama Double-Crossed Progressives on Health Care

By Matthew Rothschild
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24254.htm
From: http://www.progressive.org/wx122309.html

December 23, 2009 "The Progressive" -- - Are you feeling like a chump yet?

If you're a good progressive, and you wanted single-payer health care for all, or, second best, Medicare for All Who Want It, or third best, a robust public option, or fourth best, a paltry public option, now you've got nothing, nada, zippo.

Has it ever crossed your mind that this is the way President Obama wanted it to be?

That he tossed in the public option at the beginning only to get progressives on board, knowing full well that he was going to jettison the public option by the end?

Have you considered that maybe Max Baucus wasn't the problem?

And that maybe Olympia Snowe wasn't the problem?

And that maybe even hideous Joe Lieberman wasn't the problem?

But that Obama himself was the problem?

After all, Obama never once said he wouldn't sign a health care bill that didn't have a public option in it. [Well, Mr. Rothschild, he did in fact say that--see the ActBlue link above--Obama Promised! https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/obamapromise?refcode=sbjt_prom]

After all, Obama dumped on the public option at almost every opportunity, calling it just a "sliver" of the overall package, and not the most important sliver at that.

After all, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was huddling regularly with Max Baucus when the Montana Senator squashed the public option the first time.

And after all, Obama didn't even ask Lieberman to back the public option.

Seems to me that Obama played us all for fools.

His discussion of the public option was a cynical charade from the start, and now he expects all good progressives to rally around this "historic" health care bill?

Forget about it.

The most historic thing about Obama's health care bill is the double-cross he dealt progressives.

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
© 2009 The Progressive
__

This could go on and on . . . . But lastly, two items from BBC:

BBC World News - US Congressman DENNIS KUCINICH on healthcare reform 1300g 24Dec09



__
BBCNews
Obama's bonanza for lobbyists
US President Barack Obama's decision to leave Congress to flesh out his healthcare plans has provided rich pickings for lobbyists on Capitol Hill, as The Report's Simon Cox discovered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/obama_healthcare/8270958.stm

As any viewer of the long-running but now ended US political drama The West Wing could tell you, lobbyists are almost part of the fixtures and fittings on Capitol Hill.

Back on the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama announced that he was "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists".

But leading lobbyist John Jonas argues that today, the way the President has chosen to present his healthcare reforms has created a bonanza for the industry.

"That's kind of one of those curious things the way the world works out. Obama has made a lot of noise about his dislike for lobbyists, raised a lot of concerns about their negative influence on the process," said Mr Jonas.

"Former president Bill Clinton did not have those concerns, but interestingly, by leaving the process to Congress by not being prescriptive in the way Mr Clinton was, President Obama has really allowed lobbyists to have much influence on the process because it hasn't come in a pre-packaged form.

“ In the US lobbying is a great sport. The insurance industry is once again triumphing over the public interest ”
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
"It has been developed in a variety of different committees and so we've had a much more porous process."

Lobbyists trying to influence the reforms have focused their efforts on winning the argument about the economic cost.

Washington has been awash with dollars spent on lobbying, with an estimated $250m (£156m) spent in the last six months alone. Tales circulate of several lobbyists vying for the attention of a single senator or congressman as they make their way to vote.

'Gucci Gulch''

As someone firmly on the left of the Democratic Party and strongly pro-health reform, Congressman Dennis Kucinich is unlikely to be on any lobbyist's list.

He put forward his own failed bill, which would have introduced a US version of the British National Health System in America.

As a long-time advocate of the controversial so-called public option - a government insurance plan that would compete with private insurers - Congressman Kucinich has watched lobbyists' attempts to influence Mr Obama's healthcare reform with growing alarm.

HEALTHCARE IN THE US
46 million uninsured, 25 million under-insured
Healthcare costs represent 16% of GDP, almost twice OECD average
Reform plans would require all Americans to get insurance
Some propose public option to compete with private insurers
"In the US, lobbying is a great sport. The current bill before Congress is called HR 3200 - I explain to people how that got its bill number: 3200 is the number of lobbyists who are promoting the interests of the private insurance companies," he said.

"We have an area where people move through to try to go to vote, an open space called Gucci Gulch, where all the people with their $2,000 suits and their Gucci shoes gathered to importune members of Congress, and frankly the lobbyists have been successful.

"The insurance industry is once again triumphing over the public interest.

"They have moved mightily to forestall a very weak so-called 'public option' that would give people who could not find private insurance an opportunity to find any kind of insurance, and they are aggressively knocking down each and any effort towards substantive economic reform."

Influence

So who are these Machiavellian figures who prowl "Gucci Gulch" looking to buttonhole senators and congressmen?

Nick Allard, who formerly worked for the late Senator Ted Kennedy before joining advocacy firm Patton Boggs, rejects this stereotyped view of his industry.

"That expression plays into the popular image of influence peddlars, and cigar-chewing people who get results and influence with money," he says.

“ The dirty little secret about our government is that it can't be bought, it can't even be rented for a little while ”
Nick Allard, lobbyist
"Really the way you get things done is kind of boring and embarrassing, but it is by rolling up your sleeves and making a good case on the merits."

But, as I stood with him on the spot which Dennis Kucinich called the Gucci Gulch, he admitted he will make last-minute attempts to catch a Congressman before a final vote.

"At the final stages of legislation where things are really stacked up the only chance to get them is here," he says.

Some $250m (£156m) have been spent by lobbying firms in the past six months but Nick Allard denies that this money has bought undue influence:

"The dirty little secret about our government is that it can't be bought, it can't even be rented for a little while. There are exceptions of course, but by and large money doesn't buy results," he told me.

"If it was that easy you wouldn't need to hire expert advocates."

President Obama hoped to have his plans ready by summer but he will be lucky to have one by the end of the year. Whatever the outcome, it appears the lobbyists win either way.

You can listen to The Report via the BBC

or download the
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/obama_healthcare/8270958.stm

Published: 2009/10/01 09:01:53 GMT

© BBC MMIX
__

I'm so tired of being a chump for the Democratic establishment!

So . . . I signed up with Oregon's new Progressive Party (hoping not to be a chump for them). At least they support "Every American will have access to guaranteed quality health care, regardless of their financial means," although I probably wouldn't be able to support some of their positions on mass immigration.

Oregon Progressive Party:
http://progparty.net/
__

Joe Lieberman--the Republican's Democrat--Lover of War & Friend of the FIRE Sector, Hates Medical Options for the Poor

Senator Joe Lieberman (D, CT), rabid Zionist, enabler of Israel's aggression and crimes, champion of the tragic war in Iraq, provocateur for an attack on Iran, has threatened to help prevent up or down vote on Senate's ghost of a "health care" bill. Lieberman was Al Gore's vice-Presidential running mate in '04 but gave a speech supporting John McCain's Presidential candidacy at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

The following article indicates that Lieberman doesn't understand the public option. I believe otherwise. I think he understands it perfectly but chooses to lie about its costs so as to protect insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

See also the following prescient article by Robert Scheer, "Lieberman Twists the Knife."
FIRE sector = Finance (aka Wall Street), Insurance, and Real Estate. FIRE
___________________________

Lieberman Doesn't Understand the Public Option
Posted: 2009-10-28 13:36:00 UTC
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1326-Lieberman-Doesn-t-Understand-the-Public-Option-

Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT] went on Fox this afternoon to restate what it would take for him to break from a Republican filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote on the Senate’s health care bill. Via The Hill:

“Just take this government-created, government-run health insurance company that will cost the taxpayers, premium payers and the debt a lot of money — take it off the table,” Lieberman said.
This is basically how he talked about the public option yesterday as well. Thing is, he seems to completely misunderstand what the public option actually is and how it would work.

Taking his statement point-by-point, he is correct that it would in fact be a “government-created, government-run health insurance company.” But he’s wrong on the other points. The public option would not cost taxpayers or the debt a cent. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has repeatedly scored public option plans as saving the government money. The bigger and more “robust” the plan, the more it saves. And as for Lieberman’s claim that it would cost premium payers, CBO has estimated that it would save premium payers up to 10% on the cost of their insurance.

As I’ve stated repeatedly on this blog, the public option is entirely funded by taxpayer premiums. It is not an entitlement program, like Lieberman claimed it was yesterday, and it is not run with federal funds. Both the House Tri-Committee bill and the Senate HELP bill that includes a public option provide start up money ($2 bln in the House bill, unspecified in the HELP bill) for the public option but require it to be payed back in full over a 10-year period.

The House bill even contains the following paragraphs in its start-up funding section just to make it extra clear that the federal funds are limited to start-up costs and that no other federal funds can be appropriated to it, even to save it if it’s failing:

C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(3) NO BAILOUTS- In no case shall the public health insurance option receive any Federal funds for purposes of insolvency in any manner similar to the manner in which entities receive Federal funding under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The final Senate bill that Lieberman will be voting on is not publicly available yet, but you can be sure that it will include similar limitations on federal funding for the public option. As soon as it’s available, I’ll find the bill text relating to funding for the public option and post it to this blog for all to read.

Meanwhile, faced with Lieberman’s opposition to a public option plan that doesn’t even exist, Democratic leaders are reminding the world that they still have an procedural option available that would make Lieberman irrelevant — budget reconciliation — and they’re not afraid to use it.
____________________________

Lieberman Twists the Knife

By Robert Scheer
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23832.htm

October 28, 2009 "Truthdig" -- Is there a more hypocritical figure in American politics than Joe Lieberman? The Connecticut senator declared Tuesday that he would support a filibuster of any health care reform bill that has a public option—even the version with the “trigger” compromise accepted by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe—because it might cost money.

“I think that a lot of people may think that the public option is free,” said Lieberman, one of the Senate’s big spenders, in a suddenly frugal mood. “It’s not. It’s going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now, and if it doesn’t, it’s going to add terribly to our national debt.”

This from a senator who, as much as anyone, helped run up the national debt since 9/11 by pushing to raise the military budget to its highest level since World War II. It is a budget inflated by enormous expenditures on high-tech weaponry irrelevant to combating terror, such as the $2-billion-a-piece submarines—produced in his home state of Connecticut—that he claimed were needed to combat al-Qaida, a landlocked enemy holed up in caves. The same week that he and others in Congress passed a $680-billion defense bill larded with pork of the sort he has always supported, Lieberman is worried about the impact of a very limited public option on the debt.

Lieberman, whose state is also home to insurance companies that are opposed to any consumer-friendly medical coverage alternative, boldly stated that his opposition to even the most limited version of a public option should not be surprising: “I think my colleagues know for a long time that I’ve been opposed to a government-created, government-run insurance company.” Perhaps during his filibuster to prevent a vote on the public option Lieberman can square that position with his longtime support of the massive government–run insurance programs Medicare and Social Security.

Maybe he can also take that time to justify his strong support for the government bailout of troubled banking and insurance companies that has tripled the federal deficit this year to $1.4 trillion. Is AIG not now a “government-run insurance company,” and doesn’t the $185 billion of taxpayer money tossed at that sorry enterprise add up to more than twice the yearly cost of the health reform package? And that’s without considering the trillions of tax dollars put into play to shore up Citigroup, Bank of America, GM, Chrysler and those other suddenly socialized sectors of American corporate life.

If a scant public choice in health care is so threatening to our way of life, because health care alone must be kept a pristine captive of the most destructive impulses of an unbridled free market, then why not privatize Medicare as well as the publicly financed health care programs for government workers—including those in Congress like Lieberman, veterans and the active military? And while we’re at it, why not revive that Republican fantasy, popular in their ranks just a few years ago, of privatizing Social Security by turning the most effective government program over to the vagaries of the stock market?

I do continue to begrudgingly respect the consistency, if not the wisdom, of libertarians like Ron Paul who oppose all of this big-government intrusion into the economy. At least their belief in the efficiency of the free market, affirmed in opposition to the banking bailout, is not compromised by a willingness to throw trillions in taxpayer dollars into backing the riskiest of corporate bets. But it is not possible to feel anything but loathing for those like Lieberman who vote for every big government program, no matter how wasteful, in support of big business, but draw the line at a program designed to cut medical costs for the ordinary citizens they have been sworn to serve.

Lieberman’s threat to thwart a vote on sorely needed health care legislation, complete with a public option that a majority of Americans have consistently supported, should spell the end of his connection with the Democratic caucus. It should also cost him the committee chairmanship he was granted in order to guarantee the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. But a filibuster, which would expose Lieberman and the others as irresponsible wreckers of essential reform, is not the worst outcome. The surrender by the Democratic leadership to this blackmail by the party’s disgraced former vice presidential candidate would be a blow from which the party would not deserve to recover.

Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C.
_______________________________

Amerika v. 6.0 (The Best We Can Do)

Steve Earle
© 2002 E-Squared LLC, Sheridan Square Entertainment, LLC

Look at ya
Yeah, take a look in the mirror now tell me what you see
Another satisfied customer in the front of the line for the American dream
I remember when we was both out on the boulevard
Talkin' revolution and singin' the blues
Nowadays it's letters to the editor and cheatin' on our taxes
Is the best that we can do
Come on

Look around
There's doctors down on Wall Street
Sharpenin' their scalpels and tryin' to cut a deal
Meanwhile, back at the hospital
We got accountants playin' God and countin' out the pills
Yeah, I know, that sucks – that your HMO
Ain't doin' what you thought it would do
But everybody's gotta die sometime and we can't save everybody
It's the best that we can do

Four score and a hundred and fifty years ago
Our forefathers made us equal as long as we can pay
Yeah, well maybe that wasn't exactly what they was thinkin'
Version six-point-oh of the American way
But hey we can just build a great wall around the country club
To keep the riff-raff out until the slump is through
Yeah, I realize that ain't exactly democratic, but it's either them or us and
And it's the best we can do

Yeah, passionely conservative
It's the best we can do

Conservatively passionate
It's the best we can do

Meanwhile, still thinkin'
Hey, let's wage a war on drugs
It's the best we can do
Well, I don't know about you, but I kinda dig this global warming thing...