Obama vs. Baucus for Health Care
In a defining moment for the politics of Change, the President is facing a fight-or-flight choice against a coalition led by a powerful member of his own party.
“Sometimes I get a little frustrated,” Barack Obama told a town hall yesterday, “because this is one of those situations where it’s so obvious that the system we have isn’t working well for too many people, and that we could be doing better.”
Yet, as the President commands crowds and TV cameras, Max Baucus and a handful of bipartisan assassins are strangling health care reform in a back room filled not with the traditional smoke but, more appropriate to the occasion, junk food.
Obama was sent to Washington last year by almost 2,000 times as many voters as the senator with a Montana residence who has found a home among capital lobbyists, but at this critical moment, Baucus seems to have more power to shape the future of American health care than the President and the heads of three other Congressional committees.
At stake are all the key elements of reform, including a public option and tax changes needed to pay the costs of expanding coverage, but Democrats seem ready to cave in, as Harry Reid puts it with his usual forceful leadership:
“I have a responsibility to get a bill on the Senate floor that will get 60 votes. That’s my number one responsibility, and there are times when I have to set aside my personal preferences for the good of the Senate and I think the country.”
In perhaps the most dramatic first six months of any American presidency, Obama has continually reached out for bipartisanship only to find empty air.
12 Responses to “Obama vs. Baucus for Health Care”
“In perhaps the most dramatic first six months of any American presidency, Obama has continually reached out for bipartisanship only to find empty air”
Obama had a meeting with the House GOP on the Stimulus package. He listened to Rep. Cantor. And he ignored all of Cantor's suggestions and proceeded pushed a pure Democrat Stimulus bill through. No House Republicans voted for the bill as a result. That’s not reaching out for bipartisanship.
Obama and the lib Dems in Congress view “bi-partisanship” in reality the way we predicted it: Do it all our way, or we'll ram it past you. (So much for the latest lie about “victim” Obama)
And they have enough votes to do this, unless it's legislation that's not what all the Dems want. Not only is so much of the public growing more concerned all the time about this health care stuff, but many Democrats are, too, especially about the worst attributes of the initiative.
Quert321 (Querty?): You have to realize that with Mr. Stein's beginning of the thread, it shows: Obama is trying still to take his traveling “campaign” circus here and there to manipulate public opinion, because some among the public indeed remain manipulable.
In perhaps the most dramatic first six months of any American presidency, Obama has continually reached out for bipartisanship only to find empty air.
How has Obama's approach to health care been bipartisan?
It hasn't. Too much disagreement over whether or not the system needs reform. No loss, though. Who really wants “bipartisanship” anyways?
Who really wants “bipartisanship” anyways?
Well, I do.
I'd also like medical coverage that's less costly to me, & more rewarding to the actual people doing the doctoring. And less commercials about a Purple Pill & how I need to go to my doctor & tell him to prescribe it for me…
“And less commercials about a Purple Pill & how I need to go to my doctor & tell him to prescribe it for me…”
Actually, that's an example of what the Dems (whose constituents in particular hate Big Pharma) could have done early after the elections, something that's sensible and could probably win support from some in the GOP. (If they can regulate tobacco or alcohol ads, what about these drug ads? Why allow them?)
Define “bipartisanship,” DaGoat.
Who cares about the public? Who cares about why Obama was sent to Washington? Who cares about any of the critical work that needs doing in America? What matters is that special interests remain in control and that Americans remain docile and accepting of their lot. The late, great democracy… now in word only.
DLS, I agree with you that they should be able to regulate the advertising spending on pharmaceuticals, but I think that the Supreme Court, in the 70s, with one lone dissenter, that being the then Justice Rehnquist, said that commercial speech can't really be regulated all that much. Tobacco and alcohol are different because it is actually harmful to people, especially children, so the advertising can be regulated. However, simple pharma can't likely be regulated because Brennan and his ilk decided that advertising is protected under freedom of speech, and thus can't really be regulated except to prevent harm.
Bipartisanship? You betcha…
Big Pharma, Insurance companies, and the bought and paid for political toadies on one side; and true Health care reform on the other. Not much of a compromise.
The toadies come from both parties, so the right hand waves the flag of Bipartisanship while the left hand passes the keys to the vault to the health industry with the other.
Simple example, Blue dogs demanded that the public plan NOT set prices, but must negociate costs. How does that save money? It doesn't. It does guarantee a year after yer increase, the very thing the blue dogs are aginst. Of course, the blue dogs all got nice contributions to their re-election funds – sweet.