White House Blogger Call: Axelrod Answers Questions on Healthcare Bill
Information always has a soothing effect on me, and I'm feeling much calmer after tonight's White House conference call. Obama advisor David Axelrod and White House Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle took the time to answer our questions.
I started by asking about the recent maneuver to block imported drugs. I said it was "shameless," not only because Candidate Obama ran on the issue of allowing Americans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada, but because the FDA already does site inspections in those same plants they were calling unsafe. (Basically, in order to sell any drugs in America, your manufacturing facility must meet the same standards as an American plant.)
I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they would be submitting an HHS bill in the near future - they'd "just this week" gotten funding to address any safety concerns, but more importantly, to start putting an infrastructure in place to import drugs.
My other question (as a former reporter who frequently covered insurance corruption) was about using state insurance commissioners to enforce new insurance regulations.
I said that in many states, insurance commissioners were pretty much owned by the local insurance companies, and I was skeptical as to whether making them the enforcers would actually work.
DeParle said HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, a former state insurance commissioner, was not one of "those" commissioners, and she would be overseeing state departments. Sebelius already met with state insurance commissioners, she said, and having found a wide discrepancy in authority from state to state, got language inserted in the bill that would give them additional powers. (DeParle noted that the West Virginia commissioner didn't even have the authority to see if insurance companies were solvent.)
DeParle said this was the widest expansion of insurance regulation in 20 years.
David Axelrod also chimed in, noting these changes were part of the reason why the insurance industry has opposed the bills so stringently. If this was a giveaway, he said, they wouldn’t be lobbying so hard to defeat the bill.
I have to give it to Axelrod on this: Without even a little exaggeration, I'd say that standardizing state oversight is probably the insurance industry's worst nightmare. They've always taken advantage of a hodgepodge of weak state regulations, sprinkling generous political contributions along the way to buy off state legislators. So this bill is really what you want from federal regulation: Overriding weak state laws that trample consumers.
Other points:
Joan McCarter from Daily Kos wanted to know if the annual cap on expenses was left in the Senate bill. DeParle said they were working with CBO and Senate on improvements, and said a lot of what people thought was happening was due to “misinformation.” She said CBO said to put the qualifier “no unreasonable limits” in the bill language so they could score it, and said they're working with the American Cancer Society in an attempt to make an enhancement to the system. She said at the very least, it will ban annual limits.
Open Left's Chris Bowers wanted to know if the White House wanted the bill to go to the conference committee - or did they support "ping-ponging," which would essentially mean the House would accept the Senate bill without changes. (DeParle said no, they want to get it to the conference committee.)
In response to a question from MyDD's Jonathan Singer, Axelrod talked about having a daughter with a chronic illness while he was a reporter in an HMO plan. "I spent tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket that I didn’t have. The stress was extraordinary. This bill attempts to fix the system on the basis of the human costs on patients and their families." He called it "wrongheaded to suggest these bills aren't infinitely better than anything we have today. This is an extraordinary moment on which we can win."
He added that he "doesn't question the motives" of the people in this debate on all sides.
Huffington Post's Nico Pitney brought up the president's declining poll numbers. "Is there something in the context of this health care debate that will reverse this trend?" he asked.
Axelrod got into the nuts and bolts of polling, saying there was a "great gap between a naked question they’re asked and when you actually describe what’s in the bill."
He said these are "very hard times," and that once the economy picked up and people realized the benefits to them, "It will impact very positively on people."
"In this town, we’re all obsessed by polls." he said. "It’s not election day, the elections are far off and I assure you the numbers the president is looking at are people who can’t get insurance because of pre-existing conditions."
He talked about Obama watching his mother worry as she was dying of ovarian cancer, with her insurance company claiming she had a pre-existing condition.
"We're not here to look at our poll numbers, admire them and put them up on a shelf… we’re here to do something," he said.
Gina Cooper asked about when we'd see the president fighting for his vision.
DeParle responded, "He's fighting to get this done. You don’t know how many meetings, how many phone calls, how many hours he’s spent on this thing. I don’t mean to be chiding of you, but please appreciate how difficult this is."
Axelrod closed by saying he "appreciated your passion," but the White House would reactly strongly to any "misrepresentation of fact."
I have no reason to believe a word they said.
I have a comment.
I don't believe Axelrod.
I don't believe Pr. Obama either.
They have done nothing but help Wall St. since coming to office.
Why not overturn the rotten bankruptsy act? Make all medical bills dischargable?
isn't he? He must actually believe his own spin and bullshit.
Another Clinton lapdog.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I have reason to not believe what they say but....
In the end if this thing gets passed the proof will be in the pudding. In other words, if there is no there there people will not show up at the polls in 2012. If there is no there there Obama will not win in 2012. He may think, "who else are they going to vote for" but I will tell them right now that if there is no there there I will not care about who else to vote for. If the two parties are one in the same I don't really care if Republicans are in power or not. They would be on in the same. Obama can not win without my vote because my vote is the same as 2,000,000 other votes. If 2,000,000 people who voted for Obama do not vote for him again he will not win. I will not vote if this ends up being the status quo. So there you have it.
there's nothing believable coming from the mouths of (R)ahmocrats.
They are what they do!!!
Some stuff you can't make up!
So far we have not seen squat, as far as a real bill, and they want us to take it on faith? No, sorry, I don't do that.
Not with a Republican and not with a Democratic party member.
Reality has to do with facts. Not leaps of faith.
As far as I can tell, and from what the Bloggers with pom-poms have been telling me to take on faith, is that the regulation they have in place is the power to audit an insurance company and the only authority they have to enforce findings from that audit?
A sternly worded letter from HHS. Like shaming the insurance corps., banks, republicans or Conservadems into doing the right thing will ever work.
The biggest problem here is that the only legislation to back up what some are saying is based on bills that have not been passed and that are in the House.
We do not have a clue what is in the Senate version that has been sent to the CBO, and that has subsequently been weakened to feed the Liebertrolls.
haven't we heard this "we'll fix it later" bit a few times before.... and are still waiting. I'm thinking FISA but there's other timea they;ve used that worn out lie too.
"Fix it later".
Ok...we'll vote for you after you've fixed it later.
See you in 2014.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Well now that it's on the record we shall see in short order won't we! Woohoo! what's this about manditiory though - i doubt that will fly without
the public optionpublic involvement [ie governemnt].let's say you're right. how soon will it be before we can write them off?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
obama is proving that he is not to be
taken at his word....and that is very sad.
Exactly.
Words have a soothing effect? What are we? Two years old?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
insurance companies the chills...They have had a free rein for decades since they got corporate personhood! We need to start with a bill that can be built on--cut the crap and buy this starter home---so we can amend/supplement and work on it! All or nothing gets us NOTHING!
Getting the smaller pile of crap means you are still getting crap.
punishable by a fine if you don't comply is just a chess move to negotiate and get more choices in for Profit Health Insurance Plans for people before Obushama signs the final Bill.
They can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
OK. Is that really what is being propoesed still?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Have you? You'd think it might have been reported if it had been removed.
Ya, you're probably right but to tell you the truth i've only overheard two puppet heads on TV barking about it is all, and i was kinda hoping it was like all the other Republican lies.
If it's just manditory to pay for insurance to get insurance, then fine, [as long as there is a safety net for those without enough money to get the same insurance.]
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
that I've read the bill myself. All I know is that they(Congress members) were saying it was in there some time ago and I haven't heard anything about it getting taken out. I kind of had the feeling that that was basicly their center piece of the legislation at this point.
have done nothing but hack off or bargain away valuable aspects of health reform that the more vulnerable populations in this country dearly needed with no concern for those who will suffer because of it.
No way in hell will I ever trust them on this issue.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Awesome video of Jane Hamsher putting the smack down on Lanny Davis's shady involvement in the health care debate.
{We have a thread up on this topic called 'Lobbyist Lanny Davis Won't Say Who's Paying Him' our sister site Video Cafe. Thanks. SiteMonitor}
[Edited by the other Sitemonitor]
Hamsher got her ass kicked by Kathleen Parker today.So, wadda ya gonna do?
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
I just googled and found nothing, but I'd love to see that. I am pro ass kicking!
me-oww!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Hardly an ass kicking. And Parker's an A-hole.
and called out Hamsher's statements. That makes her an "A-hole"?
I wait to hear the rest of the dialog, but for now my view is that a blogger got raked over the coals by a syndicated columnist. Read like an ass kicking to me.
And, no, Nicloe, I ain't no "fact-free Repugnancant strawman". 40 years a Dem, donor to C&L since I first found it. Thanks for the link. I was on grand baby duty.
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
I said Parker's argument is one.
So, did you mean Lie is a lobbyist, or not.
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
I enjoy reading what you write, and rarely comment. But, I think Parker made a point in this column, and that seems to be missing from the dialog. Occasionally, I see brilliant commentators here crossing a line that we progressives decry of the conservatives. I sensed a bit of that here. It was never, however, my intention to divert the conversation away from the disaster that is the health care debate we have at the moment. That is the important issue. Please, carry on.
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
Unless you're into your typical fact-free Republican strawman.
Kathleen Parker was shocked--shocked!--that Jane could call Hadassah Lieberman a lobbyist, despite the fact that Hadassah is a lobbyist, in all but official title.
From Parker's own article "kicking" Jane's ass:
Um, that's called being a lobbyist.
Parker, once again, triumphs ideology over facts. I have problems with Jane's tactics occasionally, but Parker is far from having kicked anyone's ass.
Nicole, with all due respect. If one lacks a title, how can one be what the title describes? Lieberman may be something else, but by your own admission, she is not a lobbyist. I think that was the point Parker was making.
May I be so presumptuous as to say; "once again, Belle triumphs ideolgy over facts"?
In all honesty, I find that Hamsher being the subject of a syndicated columnist bashing is stimulating, and a validation of Hamsher, Firedoglake, and all progressive bloggers. I'm a fan!
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
Give me a break. I grew up in LA. You could have the title of Managing Director of Recycling Technologies, but you know what you really are? The trash guy. Titles don't mean anything. My last corporate job was as Regional Vice President of Sales for Northern California. I was a sales person, no more, no less.
Hadassah's role at all of these firms were synonymous with what a lobbyist does. She made it part of her employment contract that she be called a "Consultant" to avoid CONFLICT OF INTEREST issues with her husband. Parker glosses over her employment with lobbying firms and doesn't bother to research what her roles were. Instead she clutches her pearls at how horrible it is that Hadassah's employment may be scrutinized.
and more bandwidth than Parker's 3 column inches so I cannot argue "glosses over". I wouldn't know. I wonder at the impact of those 3 column inches as compared to what we have here.
Nicole, should I have said "Hamsher got her ass kicked", except for those of us who live at C&L? Hell, that doesn't sound right either.
Give me a break; When 40 million people (or how ever many read Parker) get the message, what is the mass perception? Hamsher got her ass kicked. But, I could be wrong, that happened a time or two before. Merry Christmas. And, thank you.
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
Nicole, here is another example of why I do not drink the kool-aid. I have a friend (actually my son's friend, but also mine over the years) she runs the recycling effort for The Port of Portland (OR). She created it and it runs at a profit. She is now exporting the concept to other major airports around the world. She is definitely NOT a "trash guy"(gal). I think she is on the job in Frankfurt as I type. So you see, from my personal experience and perspective, your example is not well grounded. Perceptions are mighty deceptive.
The United States aspires to democracy, but no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
that titles do not mean anything. High-faluting titles are often given to ameliorate less than high-faluting positions. Your friend does nothing to disprove that.
We look beyond the right wing spin on this site. You assert that Parker kicked Jane's ass. I've given you the background information to tell you that it's only an ass-kicking if you buy into ideological strawmen and poor fact checking.
Whether the rest of the country perceives it that way is moot. That's like me saying that Glenn Beck kicked someone's ass during one of his fact-free cryfests. It isn't based on the truth, no matter how many low information viewers watched it. So, therefore, no actual ass kicking took place, because we have the facts to know that Beck (and Parker) are wrong.
such as $1000 dollar a day hospital stays and $30,000 a month medical treatments or half million dollar life saving treatments since this whole thing began either.
Or did I miss it?
will convince folks the bill is anything other than a piece of shit insurance company give away. Fluff away Axelrod and you will see no results despite your obvious skills. The commission checks for you and Rahm will have to wait. The times have changed and Obama has neither political capital nor trust and as a result your bullshit will not fly. these are not the 90s.
Leave it to Washington D.C. to drop a bag of crap like this down peoples chimney's for Christmas.
Obama's die hard supporters become the "new" 20 percenters!!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
except for the whole fighting for your own best interests instead of fighting against them thing.
The statement that "standardizing state oversight is probably the insurance industry's worst nightmare" seems odd. I would say that their worst nightmare was single payer aka Medicare for All.
a free (and fair) market!
as it stands now Insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws and are the only industry not subject to the "interstate commerce clause" in the constitution.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Noticed that too, did you? Another nightmare would be making for-profit health insurance ILLEGAL. That would keep them up nights, too, which is why this administration won't consider it.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
it should be!! Or at least so heavily regulated they'd wish it were illegal!
Setting aside for one moment the fact that the most important questions about what is and is not contained within the Senate Bill are not discussed at all:
1. Price of drugs: the administration is going to get on this "soon," just not now in this bill. I bet this hypothetical bill will be a lot about "safety" and not much about cost containment (the latter part will disappear from the Senate bill at the command of Senator Droopy Dog Lieberman). Sure we'll get around to proposing a bill to Congress. Right after we repeal don't ask don't tell.
2. "Uniform" federal preemption: this one is a gem. Depending on the administration, federal preemption will be used not just to provide uniform enforcement, but to nullify state laws that give more protections to consumers than the feds want. Witness the activist Bush Adminstration using federal preemption to strike down state laws. Therefore, the flip side also exists: "Overriding [strong] state laws that trample [insurance industry profits]."
3. Cap on annual expenses: yeah, we're working on it. This will be the next thing that gets compromised away. It's anyone's guess whether it will be in the final bill. I'm not holding by breath.
4. Obama is working hard, making lots of phone calls. Give me a break. Who is he taking out to the wood shed: Anthony Weiner or Bernie Sanders?
That word "soon". Notorious government euphemism for "when we feel like getting around to it", which often turns into "you bet your life, never". This administration is way too much about vague terms like "soon".
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
remember guantanamo?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
remember FISA?
aren't really the same thing.
Take a close look at the linked refrences at the wiki page for DeParle. Numbers 7 and 8 at the bottom of the wiki page. This is NOT someone who's word you want to take on health care reform! This is very much a corporate insider!
I have no reason to believe these people. This is the same "we're working on it, HONEST" crap we've been hearing for months, and every step of the way, more has gotten dropped and more conciliations to the insurance vampires have been added. Power to the commissioners? Yeah, very nice, but power is useless if it's not implemented. We've seen that in other areas of government, where inspectors don't inspect, and regulators don't bother to regulate, all because the right palms get greased.
When I see it, I'll believe it. Until then, it's just hot air. Believe me, it pains me to say that, but that's where I've ended up. Cynical.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I maintain that the WH made this deal long ago and drove it to this conclusion. I think Lieberman did what was asked of him, he isn't winning any more elections and will be an insurance lobbyist when this term is over anyway. why would we believe the WH didn't make deals with insurance after they made them with Pharma and hospitals. In the end does anyone believe the WH sold progressive/liberal reform with any enthusiasm? We've been played. does that mean we should kill it? I don't know, my gut wants to go with Dean but my head isn't quite as sure. I know this, Wendell Potter says it's shit and he should know and I'm sure it's not only the "base" Obams will lose, indy's and moderate reps wanted big change in HC and didn't get it, we're losing all kinds of votes when this passes.
Bernie Sanders word too! He has a great dedicated staff who know how to dig and if Bernie says something is shit you can bet your ass you don't want to taste it to see.
I've been saying on this and other sites, There will be no threat to liebermans chairmanship, because he's only doing what's expected of him.
to you and the other progressive bloggers who finally got an opportunity to ask the questions that needed answering by Obama's reps. At the very least, we now know that THEY know what our concerns are and that there's NO excuse to waiver on the important issues. I'll remain optimistic until we finally see what the sausage looks like. Thanks again.
dandy
Okay, I want to see if I understand this. You noted that state regulators were practically owned by the companies they are supposed to regulate. They responded that the regulations would be standardized across the states, and that Sebelius would oversee the state enforcement of these newly standardized regulation.
Huh? I fail to understand how that is a satisfactory answer to your concern, which was that the state regulators were themselves corrupt, and in the pockets of the insurance companies. That the regulations will be standardized is great, but doesn't help much if the regulations aren't going to be enforced in the first place. So, it's up to Sebelius to oversee all 50 states? What is she going to do? By what procedures, under what mechanisms, will the federal government police the states to ensure that the regulators are doing their jobs? It hardly makes me feel secure that Sebelius has good intentions.
I would think competition from a government-run plan is their worst nightmare. Unless you can explain to us how the federal government is going to address the concern you raised, I have to question whether they're doing the "Don't throw us in the brier patch!" routine.
Insurance company insiders get to help write the words that will regulate them. All they care about is maximizing their profits. (I say that not with derision, but as a matter of fact.) If certain loopholes close, they'll find others.
Really? How come when the Teabaggers and Republicans spread the most vile misinformation imaginable, going so far as to call the president a communist dictator and a terrorist who will impose death panels, they get one of Obama's world-stopping, diplomatic speeches to correct the misinformation (after which the negotiations continue), but when we complain about the loss of the public option, we're rudely dismissed as irrational, irrelevant, fringe-types throwing a tantrum?
Where's our diplomatic, world-stopping speech to correct misinformation and placate us?
Yeah, uh, I don't think he's sitting around twiddling his thumbs. I'm sure he's actually doing stuff. And I know how hard it is.
Jeebus H. Crust on a pogo stick! Again, why do the out-of-control Teabaggers who live in an alternate universe get a joint-session speech to clear the air, but we're patronized?
Seriously, what "information" had the "soothing effect?"
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
couldn't have said it better myself, haha, some of my questions and even more
Nicely done.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
BULL!!!! - Axlerod is the #1 spinmeister for Obama. Don't believe a word he said. Why didn't anyone ask him if the Whitehouse made any deals with big Pharma and the Healthcare Industry.
This legislation is terrible and definitely not change I can believe in.
Corporate DEMS - I hate THEM!!!
Obama sold out, to the health insurance and pharma industries, among other powerful moneyed groups, the common people betrayed. Axelrod is just a loyal Obamanoid.
Is it the 21st century yet?
.........we STILL haven't seen the final product. Hell, I'm very displeased with a bunch of Obama's decisions so far---and he damn sure has not done a B+ job INMO, but we are waiting for a final product on health care, Gitmo, JOBS, and a host of other issues. We can still push for change!
dandy
The role of Insurance Commissioner in many states should be renamed 'Insurance's Commissioner because that is exactly what it is--a taxpayer supported friend to the insurance industry. I really don't see how giving these individuals federal regulatory authority is going to help if it doesn't come with some legislative teeth to ensure they will avail themselves of it. To pretend the situation is one of them being just so darn frustrated that they can't regulate on behalf of the people due to lack of regulatory authority is either wildly naive or insultingly patronizing on the part of Axelrod and Sebelius. The ability to regulate is not the issue, the desire to do so is.
David Axelrod expects us to believe that he does not know that the insurance companies will both work to kill the bill as a whole and help craft the regulations in their favor in case it passes?
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Were created by private companies, one set for the democrats for reform and one set for the republicans against reform. The talking points were repeated by both sides. See NYT.
Just watch the stock prices of the health insurance companies rise each time the Senate agrees to another compromise. Either Wall Street is wrong or Axelrod is wrong. Which do you think it is?
Yeah, that struck me as disingenuous. It sounds right, but your point is right on: the industry is playing both sides. Kill the bill if possible, construct it to their liking if not.
The Obama campaign's chief strategist is a master of "Astroturfing" and has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/c...
...........that might be a very good thing come 2010!!
dandy
right.
"Shaping public opinion for health insurance corporations didn't quite fly here"
You were present when Axelrod revealed a completely new White House policy: "Axelrod closed by saying he "appreciated your passion," but the White House would react strongly to any "misrepresentation of fact." That's something they've never really done before. They never react strongly.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
that sounds like a threat. Why would he draw some line between your passion, and any "misrepresentation of fact?" Sounds paranoid.
me-oww!
I guess he did a conference call so no one would see the lobbyist jism running down his chin.
He's a busy man dontcha know.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
First time I've done that - very cool!
At first, I felt pretty sucked in. Ax and Nancy sounded very sincere and tried hard to pitch the bill in an emotional way. That certainly made people less confrontational, and, I suspect, caused some non-follow-ups that would otherwise have taken place.
Towards the end, though, I started feeling a bit manipulated. I think it was after several repetitions of "we've been trying for 100 years", and "you don't know how many phone calls Obama has made, or the statistics he's pored over" etc.
I absolutely appreciate this is a difficult endeavor, and I appreciate that they are worn out and want closure. But THEY haven't been at this 100 years - they've been at it for several months. THEY, however, DID cut the Pharma deals, DID close off Single Payer without a hearing from the beginning, and, however much they may have done behind the scenes, DID NOT publicly fight for much of anything. Furthermore, if they feel, as they claim, that this is supremely important to accomplish, why do they basically threaten to stop trying? IE, it's this bill or nothing. That's it! If you guys don't get behind us and help pass this thing, well, gosh darn it, we'll just have to stop trying and move on.
What are they going to do if they don't get to 60? Call it a day? or will they finally start to be serious about reconciliation?
No one asked about reconciliation - bummer.
At the end, too, there was a nicely worded threat from Ax that they won't tolerate misinformation. He says they don't need, I can't remember the exact words, but something (criticism? misinformation?) from their "friends". So I guess we're friends now.
I don't know. They talk a good game about all the problems the bill will fix. They imply that it guarantees all kinds of things. My biggest problem at this point is that I don't know what's truly guaranteed, what's pure hope on their part, and what sounds like it's guaranteed but is actually loopholed away elsewhere in the bill. They made it sound like what we all want to hear: no one will be turned down, everyone will be able to afford coverage, no one will be rescinded. Yet language appears to still be in the bill that allows rescission in cases of "fraud" which is exactly the basis on which they rescind now.
I wish one of you guys would have asked about that. Oh well.
I reeeeeeeally needed a laugh , thanks . Look , all Obama and company have done so far is to cater to the same special interests that Bush did and that is not change but just the same old shit , it's just a fact . Now we are supposed to believe them , just believe , that this bill is a good bill for the people , don't worry , they'll put some goodies in down the road , " fix " it up . Sorry , I'm not buying , not this time . Either you are going to break the monopoly and the strangle hold the cartels have had on the country OR you sell the people out . You can't have it both ways , you cannot make deals with the devil and win or gain , you lose . AND if it stinks ... it stinks alright , the nose doesn't lie . Better to admit failure , not enough votes ( too many corrupt rats ) than to try and sell a bad bad deal and say it's good . That I could respect .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
I was a big supporter. Donated bucks. Cried on election night. But, Barack will have one term unless he turns this around.
Obama and company are caught between a rock and a hard place .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
But at least we now know we've been "wrongheaded" and can avoid any "misrepresentation of fact" that would cause The White House to "react strongly."
They really don't have a clue.
[on edit] Or maybe Axelrod just doesn't "appreciate [our] passion" as much as he thinks.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Did you ask why Howard Dean warranted a subtle attack on his motives, and Uncle Joseph gets a pass?
Perception is a major part of Politics. And my take is that the Obama Administration doesn't give a crap about what Progressives think.
The Administration is caught in the Beltway Bubble. How can you hold the field if you don't support your base? You can get all kinds of Corporate Money from this legislation, but why would any former supporters want to go Door-to-Door and canvass their neighbors for the likes of this? I guess Rahm Emanuel can pay people to do it, but it wouldn't cheap. And my car isn't going brandish a bumper sticker announcing my support. And my friends aren't going to brag about sending money to the Democrats in the hope that we can "finally fix" legislation that should have been "fixed" in the first place. --- Like how's that Iraq Pull-Out coming; It's been since 2006 when I first voted to get that cleaned up.
With the "Carrot" the Demos keep holding in front of me, by my projection, "fixing" Healthcare will be accomplished in 2024. I guess that's O.K., by then I'll be near Social Security age.
WTF
Enforcement would be based on the interpretation of the Administration in power. Sure the current Administration may have good intentions and will interpret the rules in a good way to benefit individuals rather than the health-care corporations. But the next Republican Administration will interpret things differently and wha la, the rules will change and enforcement will drop and the health-care corporation will have not just a field-day but a 4-8 year run or longer to extract money and get rid of all those magically appearing fraudsters. Even if the rules are rock solid laws, a Republican Administration will do everything in their power to not enforce them.
I like that. Sort of helps explain what Dean meant when he said he represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Rahmocrats are a new breed born out of the Clintonian era. Much like Republicans, who co-opted the working class with lies about welfare mothers and over-taxation, Rahmocrats co-opt the middle class with lies about reigning in the military industrial complex and imposing more corporate regulation. Emmanuel is simply taking a page from Rove's play-book: Appeal to the prejudices of a disaffected group of voters to get elected then do the bidding of your benevolent corporate overlords when you get your man into office.
Demagogues come in both parties. Will cable news tell you they are demagogues, never. It's amazing people still trust teevee, they shouldn't it's bad for your health. But seriously what Obama and team have given us the 'thuglicans could have produced themselves, a corporate health care bill. They're all corpo-rats.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Talk is cheap. They sold us out.
What do we want. SINGLE PAYER. PERIOD.
Otherwise, the President and the whole Democratic Party can go fuck themselves.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Democratic Majority!
Has the war ended? No.
Have the tax cuts for the rich been rescinded yet?
Do we have a works program? Infrastructure plan?
USELESS **********S.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
If Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod want to help...they should QUIT the Administration.
This is NOTHING but damage control.
SCREW ALL OF THEM.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
As a liberal who worked his tail off to get a Democratic majority in 2006 and get Obama elected, I feel like I've been handed a bullshit sandwich.
It's not what they didn't accomplish with the chance they had, it's going to be the lack of enthusiasm or even complete abandonment of the Party by the base. We are the working people who are getting it shoved into our backsides by the insurance companies and lied to by the corporate media. And I seriously doubt many of us will ever trust the Democratic Party again. For every hardworking, honest Congressman or Senator, it seems like there are 4 or 5 crooks who are on the take. We're no longer naive.
Democratic Party progressive, Vietnam veteran and proud Union member for 41 years
More horse hockey - just like the campaign.
Don't look at what's actually been done. Just trust that they will patch it up or correct it later.
Hope. Change. Yes we can (screw ourselves by listening to this phony liberal).
Comments are closed on this entry