Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 23, 2009
Politics Barack Obama Never Campaigned On the Public Option
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Except when he did.
Media Matters—via Americablog—documented the promises made about the public option back when Joe Lieberman claimed that a public option hadn't been mentioned during the 2008 presidential campaign. Lieberman lied when he said the public option didn't come up during the campaign and Obama is lying now when he claims that he never campaigned on it. Don't get me wrong: I want the current HCR bill to pass. Liberals and lefties and progressives preferred a HCR bill with the promised and campaigned on public option. But if we're going to get HCR without a public option, Mr. President, liberals and lefties and progressives would prefer it without any unnecessary insults to our intelligence, thanks.
1
You are so politically naive Dan that it is beyond laughable. Go back to wearing your son like a purse.
2
His entire first year in office has been nothing but one great, big insult to our intelligence. Why are you so surprised?
3
I don't want the health care reform bill to pass - it is nothing more than the best Christmas present the health care lobby ever wished for, and will be extremely hard to fix once in place:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mi…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mi…
4
@1: So Dan is the only "naive" person with criticism for Obama??? What about everyone else?
Why insult people for holding our leaders accountable for their words & behavior???
FAIL.
Why insult people for holding our leaders accountable for their words & behavior???
FAIL.
5
@4: Because pure idealism must be tempered with world-worn pragmatism. Idealism can look attractive on a 20-year-old, but on a fortysomething like Dan, it looks lazy and stubborn and about as bad as seeing a 45-year-old just-out transgender wearing a miniskirt.
It makes you just want to cover your eyes and not look.
It makes you just want to cover your eyes and not look.
6
As much as I must hold my nose for the current bill we I think we must encourage our Senators to support it. Is this bill perfect or even fairly good? No but there are some major reforms that can be built on.
On a completely unrelated note is it just my computer or does slog keep jumping down to the Google map in Dominic’s “Death On Beacon Hill” post when people refresh?
On a completely unrelated note is it just my computer or does slog keep jumping down to the Google map in Dominic’s “Death On Beacon Hill” post when people refresh?
8
He has put power back in the hands of congress. This was necessary and long overdue. He's not, nor should we want, a dictator. We need to see the many improvements and work from there.
12
And as I recall, Obama campaigned on making health insurance NOT mandatory as part of any reform. Hillary, who backed mandatory health insurance, took a lot of criticism in the primary campaign for this.
And here we are, finally, with a bill that does more for health insurers than it does for patients. Unless you qualify for Medicaid and live in Nebraska.
And here we are, finally, with a bill that does more for health insurers than it does for patients. Unless you qualify for Medicaid and live in Nebraska.
15
@14: I dunno. I wasn't thinking "political pragmatism" so much as critical pragmatism from Dan as a columnist/journalist/sounding horn.
17
Are Dan or any of the "progressives" around here even aware of what else is in the bill? Or do you just know about the public option? Do you pretty much only care about keeping evil corporations from doing corporationey things? That seems like the priority, there's a ton of stuff in this bill that, if you care about health policy, is WAY WAY more important than a public option.
The reaction from the left is revealing either of the left's real priorities - you don't care about helping people when it comes down to it, you really really want to hate corporations. How else do you explain the completely unhinged Hamsher/Savage reactions? All such innocents, realizing what it takes to govern and pass legislation. Look at history - look at something like social security and what it took to make it the institution as we know it today. It's a decades-long process of experimentation and adjustment.
The reaction from the left is revealing either of the left's real priorities - you don't care about helping people when it comes down to it, you really really want to hate corporations. How else do you explain the completely unhinged Hamsher/Savage reactions? All such innocents, realizing what it takes to govern and pass legislation. Look at history - look at something like social security and what it took to make it the institution as we know it today. It's a decades-long process of experimentation and adjustment.
18
If it does more for health insurance companies, why are they STILL hell-bent on getting it defeated? I don't buy it. The bill changes the landscape for them, and they know it. This IS major reform: maybe it's not what we hoped for in the dewy-eyed days of '08, maybe there's no public option, but it's the beginning of real health care change in the US and IS NOT a boon for the insurance industry.
19
Nice perspective from shaneleopard @18. And nice perspective from Dan Savage in making this distinction:
I'm all for defending this bill and Obama's efforts shepherding it through, but I'm not about to defend an apparently false statement. Yes, he did campaign on the public option, even though it was hardly a centerpiece of his campaign.
Don't get me wrong: I want the current HCR bill to pass. Liberals and lefties and progressives preferred a HCR bill with the promised and campaigned on public option. But if we're going to get HCR without a public option, Mr. President, liberals and lefties and progressives would prefer it without any unnecessary insults to our intelligence, thanks.
I'm all for defending this bill and Obama's efforts shepherding it through, but I'm not about to defend an apparently false statement. Yes, he did campaign on the public option, even though it was hardly a centerpiece of his campaign.
20
@16, while I agree we need torte reform -- I ordered a linzertorte over the phone last week and they gave me a sachertorte -- I don't think every little thing belongs in the health care bill.
21
real progressive changes comes by building the movement ANd using the partial compromised victories along the way to do so, creating a platform for future victories. For example, fucking Winston churchil started unemployment insurance in UK starting only with the dangerous trades, it later exapnded to cover everyone, almost. Here, social security, blah blah blah. So on HCR this bill does that in a very, very mild way, by establishing this so called market needs fundamental govt. regulation. O-kay, it's a small step but in the future we can go for more.
At the same time, yes, dammit, we could have gotten more this time if Obama had not said LET'S SIT DOWN WITH INSURERS which all you freaking obamatrons loved him for. By saying that he bought into the "they're no so bad" riff which is the GOP riff of gummint bad, market good, which even a bunch of Saskatchewan wheat farmers in the 1950s figured out was a total lie in the area of HCR and we need socialism in this sector. so, he didn't explain we need socialism in this sector like every other advanced nation has. He ALSO FAILED to go change politics by organizing nebraska and arkansas ....really folks, until you urbanhipsters figure out you need those dogpatcher whites to pass shit, you're not going to get what you want. Can you not count fucking votes? Can you not win arguments and show these rural folks why they need socialism too? The damned wheat farmers up north could do it, why can't we and our limp democratic leaders?
And this 60 vote thing has GOT to go, you don't hear ONE senator bitching about that so guess fucking what, come the next election and the next reorganization fo the US Senate the stupid fucking democrats are going to support the 60 vote rule AGAIN and then in the following year all us progressives and urban hipsters will act all surprised that FOR SOME REASON WHO KNOWS WHY these idiot senators from nebraska and maine and arkansas and shit have the fulcrum of power.
So (a) pass the bill (b) start talking about the 60 vote rule as denying us the right to vote and majority rule, gotta change, and (c) start saying the health care insurance we know have to buy is too expensive and we want to save 7% of our gdp by using socialized health care and yes it's fucking rationing like everything the government does and that's a good thing becaue then:
EVERYBODY GETS SOME
EVERYBODY GETS ENOUGH
AND THE RICH HELP PAY FOR IT.
Just like in UK Canda Germany France Sweden and every other fucking country that has figured this out and btw tthere isn't ONE of them that passed anything progressive without bullshit 60 vote rule that empowers conservatives and makes their votes in the senate count more than our senators'.
More...
At the same time, yes, dammit, we could have gotten more this time if Obama had not said LET'S SIT DOWN WITH INSURERS which all you freaking obamatrons loved him for. By saying that he bought into the "they're no so bad" riff which is the GOP riff of gummint bad, market good, which even a bunch of Saskatchewan wheat farmers in the 1950s figured out was a total lie in the area of HCR and we need socialism in this sector. so, he didn't explain we need socialism in this sector like every other advanced nation has. He ALSO FAILED to go change politics by organizing nebraska and arkansas ....really folks, until you urbanhipsters figure out you need those dogpatcher whites to pass shit, you're not going to get what you want. Can you not count fucking votes? Can you not win arguments and show these rural folks why they need socialism too? The damned wheat farmers up north could do it, why can't we and our limp democratic leaders?
And this 60 vote thing has GOT to go, you don't hear ONE senator bitching about that so guess fucking what, come the next election and the next reorganization fo the US Senate the stupid fucking democrats are going to support the 60 vote rule AGAIN and then in the following year all us progressives and urban hipsters will act all surprised that FOR SOME REASON WHO KNOWS WHY these idiot senators from nebraska and maine and arkansas and shit have the fulcrum of power.
So (a) pass the bill (b) start talking about the 60 vote rule as denying us the right to vote and majority rule, gotta change, and (c) start saying the health care insurance we know have to buy is too expensive and we want to save 7% of our gdp by using socialized health care and yes it's fucking rationing like everything the government does and that's a good thing becaue then:
EVERYBODY GETS SOME
EVERYBODY GETS ENOUGH
AND THE RICH HELP PAY FOR IT.
Just like in UK Canda Germany France Sweden and every other fucking country that has figured this out and btw tthere isn't ONE of them that passed anything progressive without bullshit 60 vote rule that empowers conservatives and makes their votes in the senate count more than our senators'.
22
Shut you Fucking Piehole, you filthy animal.
What are you going to do- Vote for the GOP?!
BWAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHAHAHA AHAA
HAHAHAHOHEE
What are you going to do- Vote for the GOP?!
BWAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHAHAHA AHAA
HAHAHAHOHEE
23
HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHOHOHOHEHEHEEHEEEE!
HAHAHAHA
HOHOHOHO
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!!!
STOP IT!
YOU'RE KILLING ME!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HOHOHO!!!!!
REALLY!!
MY SIDES ARE KILLING ME!!!!
What ARE you going to do?
Vote for the GOP?!
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
HAHAHOHOHOHEHEHEEHEEEE!
HAHAHAHA
HOHOHOHO
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!!!
STOP IT!
YOU'RE KILLING ME!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HOHOHO!!!!!
REALLY!!
MY SIDES ARE KILLING ME!!!!
What ARE you going to do?
Vote for the GOP?!
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
24
NO PROGRESSIVE would have wanted the watered down public option that never had a chance of passing the filibustered Senate.... Let's pass this bill, which is otherwise pretty monumental, then fight for a reconciliation bill next year that opens up Medicare for buy-ins to everyone!
25
Well... Barack's the best America can produce. Let's hope that the public continues to rally for a public option.
If it were McCain, we'd be talking about healthcare for Gitmo prisoners.
If it were McCain, we'd be talking about healthcare for Gitmo prisoners.
26
the individual mandate is the most important part of the bill. our health care system will never function properly without one. a mandate + default public option for those who 'opt out' of the private market would be ideal. but a mandate alone is better than a public option alone.
28
@17 True that. A robust public option would have been ideal but there was no way that was going to pass and we would've ended up with nothing more than the status-quo. As it is, this bill does subsidize Medicaid payments on a sliding scale allowing you to buy into the current system if you earn $88,000 or less a year so that you can actually afford it.
29
i follow Obama on Facebook and the majority of the comments are all negative about the bill. Good job Barry.
32
@30
"But the problem is, after the health care bill is signed, all of the momentum to reform the system is going to drain away. Legislators will have come through what will be regarded as a grueling fight that they won't be too keen on taking up again."
I hate to tell ya, but if the bill passes or not, all of the momentum will already have been drained away, and no legislator will be keen on taking this up again anytime soon. Say in another 15 years or the entire health care system collapses under its own weight, whichever comes first.
"But the problem is, after the health care bill is signed, all of the momentum to reform the system is going to drain away. Legislators will have come through what will be regarded as a grueling fight that they won't be too keen on taking up again."
I hate to tell ya, but if the bill passes or not, all of the momentum will already have been drained away, and no legislator will be keen on taking this up again anytime soon. Say in another 15 years or the entire health care system collapses under its own weight, whichever comes first.
33
did you "eager-to-see-your-comments-online" commentors even read what Dan wrote? The only one who got it right is @19. Dan is calling Obama out for lying because he said did not campaign on public option, which is total B.S. I think we can all agree with the facts on that.
Dan didn't say to kill the bill. He can't be compared with Jane Hamsher @17, and you are way off Telsa Grills. I think you can call a lie at lie at any age. The rest of you are just debating the merits of bill, which has nothing to do with Dan's post. Grow up!
Dan didn't say to kill the bill. He can't be compared with Jane Hamsher @17, and you are way off Telsa Grills. I think you can call a lie at lie at any age. The rest of you are just debating the merits of bill, which has nothing to do with Dan's post. Grow up!
35
Well, he didn't campaign on a public option so retarded that it would be worse than what private insurance has to offer. He campaigned on a public option that would provide some competition, which the last vestiges of this thing did not.
Frankly I would rather that this bill didn't pass. If we get no reform then we'll be ready to address health care again sooner than if we do pass reform, and this pile of shit we're getting is unacceptable.
Frankly I would rather that this bill didn't pass. If we get no reform then we'll be ready to address health care again sooner than if we do pass reform, and this pile of shit we're getting is unacceptable.
36
Karey, please do the math. we need 60 votes in the senate, right? and this is what we get. NOT passing this isn't going to change that given, unless you have a plan to go change that. If we pass it we can come back and improve it, having posted a huge win, and having posted the principle that:
govt. needs to totally regulate this "market."
If we don't pass it, we will have a loss, GOP will win more seats, and we will be less able to pass anything.
While I agree we need a stronger reform, really, the way change happens in democracies is usually incremental. The Social security act excluded farm laborers at first, this was code for "black people".....the first unemployment bill was proposed by W Churchill and only covered dangerous trade, mainly miners....the way change consistently happens is more step by step. Even the civil rights movement took decades, they didn't do it all at once. They started with a law school, then a grad school, then colleges, then all schools. They started with one lunch counter here and one bus system there. It took about two deacdes of activism and then we started getting civil rights laws. at first, only voting rights (the racists thought that was okay as you didn't have to physically mix with black people to allow them to vote the way you did if there was deseg. on busses, for ex. LB Johnson worked out this deal, and got the first civil rights act passed in 1957. We didn't get civil rights in housing and employment until the 1960s. We still haven't got gay rights, but should we have denied ourselves the civil rights acts because they are flawed and do not include sexual orientation?
The notion that by turning down a third of a loaf you become more politically powerful and more able to get a whole loaf later is false. It's naive, too.
There are few examples from history of social change happening that way. Esp. in democracies, if the whole system is a corrupt dictatorship then yes, it's different and you have to overthrow the whole thing. but this isn't Guatemala in 1954 or Russia in 1972 or Cuba today. We are a majority, we can elect more democrats, and be stronger for more reform in the future
BUT NOT IF WE DON'T TAKE THIS THIRD OF A LOAF NOW.
More...
govt. needs to totally regulate this "market."
If we don't pass it, we will have a loss, GOP will win more seats, and we will be less able to pass anything.
While I agree we need a stronger reform, really, the way change happens in democracies is usually incremental. The Social security act excluded farm laborers at first, this was code for "black people".....the first unemployment bill was proposed by W Churchill and only covered dangerous trade, mainly miners....the way change consistently happens is more step by step. Even the civil rights movement took decades, they didn't do it all at once. They started with a law school, then a grad school, then colleges, then all schools. They started with one lunch counter here and one bus system there. It took about two deacdes of activism and then we started getting civil rights laws. at first, only voting rights (the racists thought that was okay as you didn't have to physically mix with black people to allow them to vote the way you did if there was deseg. on busses, for ex. LB Johnson worked out this deal, and got the first civil rights act passed in 1957. We didn't get civil rights in housing and employment until the 1960s. We still haven't got gay rights, but should we have denied ourselves the civil rights acts because they are flawed and do not include sexual orientation?
The notion that by turning down a third of a loaf you become more politically powerful and more able to get a whole loaf later is false. It's naive, too.
There are few examples from history of social change happening that way. Esp. in democracies, if the whole system is a corrupt dictatorship then yes, it's different and you have to overthrow the whole thing. but this isn't Guatemala in 1954 or Russia in 1972 or Cuba today. We are a majority, we can elect more democrats, and be stronger for more reform in the future
BUT NOT IF WE DON'T TAKE THIS THIRD OF A LOAF NOW.
37
Its not even a step in the right direction. This bill is like if the public asked the government to do something about the unemployment crisis, their solution was to stick a fine on everybody who isn't working and say you're welcome. If health care bills rise to 40% of your income, as its currently projected, there'd be riots in the streets. Anything that slows down that implosion is just going to delay the inevitable and make us all suffer for longer. But if people see the system implode in 5 to 10 years maybe they'll finally get their heads out of their asses about a single payer system. I'm not happy about how dramatic it is but I'm not the one bleating on camera daily about how evil regulation is.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (37) RSS