Camera Glimpses of Obama Frustration at Health Care Summit
So what did the (written about ad nauseum including here) recent health care summit that pitted President Barack Obama against his GOP critics accomplish?
As I’ve noted here and elsewhere, it showed (1)both sides had people who did think in terms of substance, (2)the Republicans did have specific ideas despite what some of their critics have said, (3)the philosophical gap between Obama, the Democrats and Republicans is huge and both sides basically dug in their heels so it became more clear than ever that the seemingly vanished onetime virtues of compromise and consensus are still no where to be seen. If the 20th century was an era of political wiggle room, the 21st century is the era of set-in-concrete.
Yesterday mega-bucks-guy and Democratic party supporter George Soros told CNN that Obama has “failed” as a uniter and he now must move to being an aggressive partisan to impliment policies and have a successful presidency. Soros pointed to FDR’s first year, when many felt Roosevelt was wishy washy — and FDR learned from it and became a fierce advocate who battled to get his agenda enacted.
Is that where Obama is headed? On one hand, there are those such as Sarah Palin and others who derisively refer to Obama as a “professor” or “professorial” — yet another sign of how in the 21st century things that were once considered virtues are now used as negatives. On the other hand there is no one undisputable fact:
It is now clear that Barack Obama was not happy with the GOP’s subtext at the health care reform summit and the accuracy of some of their charges. How do we know that?
We know that now by this facinating CNN report from Candy Crowley who gives us a glimpse into the unaired reactions of Obama as GOPers were talking.
When you watch this you have to conclude: you can now bet money that Obama is deciding it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy and that he is going to head into a new phase. Of course, that could be an inaccurate reading.
But this video below doesn’t show someone who is being manipulated by the opposition, being snowed, or who is naive that he’s facing steadfast opposition. Rather, it seemingly shows someone who is losing his patience. View it for yourself and reach your own conclusions:
39 Responses to “Camera Glimpses of Obama Frustration at Health Care Summit”
Well, the show is over. They did their “CSPAN” thing so Reps can't bitch about it anymore. Time to move on with reconciliation. Time to lead..
Yes, it shows that Obama, who has spent all of his life among people who swoon at the sound of his voice, doesn't know how to deal with honest disagreement – surely an essential trait for a leader. Trying to force an unpopular bill down the throats of the American people isn't leadership – it's a tantrum. Leadership would be backing up and trying to figure out what could garner popular support. This bill clearly isn't it.
Leave it to CNN to invent news, rather than report on it.
[...] The Moderate Voice [...]
Of course, the President is frustrated. He wants to get something done, but has run into the same system that frustrated him while in the Senate. I truly believe that he's trying to do what's best, whether or not I agree with his policies/tactics.
Don't get me wrong. I DO want healthcare reform. But the kind I have touted here on TMV, neither party will touch (too much lobbying money lost if they did). The GOP wants to lean completely on capitalism to fix the problem, and the Dems want some sort of socialistic entitlement complete with trillion-dollar bureauacracy to run it.
Both are wrong. You need governmental oversight and MUCH more regulation – including price-fixing of insurance, pharmaceuticals, and the like. You also need freedom of competition across state lines, tort reform, and the removal of pre-existing condition clauses (and much more).
In my humble opinion, a mix of both DEM/REP approaches is needed here. A force-feeding of the Dem plan will NOT be good for anyone. You call it leadership. I call it abuse of power.
A tantrum? LOL.
No, my dear, a tantrum is holding up all Senate nominees until you get your pork. A tantrum is refusing to extend COBRA and other benefits to million of out of work Americans, all the while saying “tough s**t” to those trying to reason with you. A tantrum is screaming for the government to keep their hands off your Medicare, all the while opposing health care for everyone else.
This wasn't a tantrum. It was a reasonable person seeing the opposition for exactly what it is: an machine determined to thwart any and all reform.
Look, Obama has quite plainly been telling one lie after another to the American people about ObamaCare. He said preventive health would save money; the CBO said no. He said he would negotiate publicly; he then cut a series of backroom deals. He came up with several anecdotes which proved to be false and misleading. He said people could keep the health care they currently have and then basically admitted they couldn't. He claimed Federally controlled funds wouldn't go to pay for abortions; now he's proposing it. He claimed ObamaCare wouldn't subsidize illegal aliens, but the Democrats gutted immigration check efforts. He said it wouldn't contribute to the deficit, but beyond the smoke and mirrors of course it will. He said there would be no new taxes on any but the rich, but is now pushing for excise taxes to force people to sign up. This barely scratches the surface.
The idea that somehow this perennial liar is now going to play hardball politics and stop being 'nice' is fatuous to the point of guffaw inspiring. Short of sending the SEIU goon squad onto the Senate floor to bite off fingers ( http://tinyurl.com/y9r4am4 ), Obama doesn't have that far to fall.
He's got the nasty part down. The question is whether he can wield it competently to get results or we just get another year of lies and threats and ill will from the man in charge.
What's interesting is that way that everyone will see what they want to see here.
For conservatives, Obama's expressions and body language work against him. He appears to have called a meeting to ostensibly listen to the other side, but even when they presented reasonable ideas or actual legitimate criticisms of the Democratic plans, his reaction was frustration. I mean, if you do agree that the GOP didn't just bring talking points about death panels or otherwise misrepresent the Dem plan or fail to present their own, then how is Obama's reaction justified? It would be one thing if he was frustrated at the inability to bridge the ideological divide…but if that was the case then he'd have had the 'frustrated face' reaction to a lot of what the Democrats at the meeting were saying as well. Instead, his frustration was strictly over the GOP's refusal to 'compromise' by accepting the Dem plan lock stock and barrel and then possibly throwing in a few ideas from the GOP plans.
I haven't seen any polliing yet on how the public viewed the GOP performance at the meeting. If it was mostly favorable though (not a high hurdle since expectations going in were low), I have a hard time seeing how Obama's exasperation and impatience would play well with the majority of the public. If the GOP is seen as having come to the meeting prepared in good faith to do what Obama asked them to do…present their own ideas…then why would people expect Obama to be so aggravated about that?
From the conservative perspective, his reactions look like those of a man who was hoping that the GOP wouldn't have been able to present their side as well as they did…and his frustration was that it wasn't a slam dunk for him to then declare that the Dem plan must proceed in the absence of any other possible solutions going forward.
Yes, we do need ideas from both sides, although I don't agree with your prescription. We need regulation that will actually let the market be free, which it is not, now. It's not a free market when insurance companies can change the rules partway through (such as dropping coverage when it starts to cost them too much, or raise raise arbitrarily). It is not a free market when insurance companies cannot compete across state lines, or it is much more expensive to get insurance on your own than through an employer.
But we don't need price-fixing. That never works. All it does it dry up supply. Healthcare is not a utility because there IS the possibility of establishing competition, and people do have a choice as to where they go for medical care.
There are elements of health insurance reform that can be done fairly easily, sold to the American people fairly easily, including tort reform, cross-state competition, and requiring insurance companies to renew policies as long as the premiums are paid and no substantive deceit has been done by their customers. These would help a great deal to lower costs.
Vera has it exactly right. The damav's and the fuzzyfaces's have yet to get a clue, but when they are so steeped in partisan kneejerk loyalty, all the clues in the world will do them no good whatsover. Their script has been written and they can't deviate even if they want to. So much for “thinking”.
The faces Obama was making in the video tell the story of an adult who is confronted with spoiled and stupid children who will never, ever grow up. And people like damav and fuzzyface will continue to vote for those stupid children over and over again. By all means, bring on the reconciliation!
A good column by David Frum that addresses why things don't seem to get done. Sometimes progress does not deliver what we expected,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/01/frum.smok…
Call the ASPCA, they are beating that dead horse again.
The show is over. People always make faces and whisper comments during meetings, especially a 7-hour one.
I agree…and I believe Obama agrees…with many things the Reps want to do. There is no reason to not do any of the abuse and cost reforms…competition across state lines…sure, as long as there is a federal public option as a “safe” option. I think I had this discussion of CS a couple of days ago.
The public option is one of those ideological do or don't things. You can't compromise on whether or not one exists. Dems won the WH and Congress. Americans put them in power to make these decisions….they need to do it in the same way Bush invaded Iraq. Make the choice…put it in place…and let the voters decide at the next election.
“Look, Obama has quite plainly been telling one lie after another to the American people about ObamaCare. “
Way to start a constructive thought.
“Look, Obama is a lying communist that wants to kill your grandma…”
One quick point about Dems in general….
What is going on with HCR is exactly why Dems always poll poorly on national defense. No one wants cowards that are too weak to implement their own policies…with a clear majority…protecting them from an evil world…and yes there are bad people and countries out there.
If you can't implement your own national policies…how in the hell are you going to implement foreign policy?
As most here know, I don't agree with Dems plans on HCR. I think they will raise costs and represent a big mistake. That said, I'm glad Obama showed his frustration. He was frustrated. The meeting didn't go at all times as he wanted.
Why is it considered a bad thing to show frustration when you are frustrated? He profoundly disagrees with the Republican perspective on how it is best to solve the problem. He has marshaled every argument he can in an attempt to change their minds and their minds are not changed. Of course he's frustrated. Almost everyone is frustrated at this point. The solution that is emerging from Congress is a travesty viewed from almost any perspective.
You have to picture a 2 by 2 grid. On one side, you've got the objective, cost control or coverage. On the other side you've got the method, private market or public. The current proposal is a confused mishmash of all of the above. That's why it stinks (and why it's frustrating).
So he's frustrated. I applaud him for being so. I'd think less of him if he weren't.
As I've said before, there's no compromise here. We're debating how to solve the problem and what problem to solve. The notion that Republican ideas have been included is a bit like my wife and I buying a car. I want a Mustang and she wants a Minivan but I get to choose the paint color. Sure by some accounts that's compromise but you can't expect me to like the outcome.
“But we don't need price-fixing. That never works. All it does it dry up supply. Healthcare is not a utility because there IS the possibility of establishing competition”
In my view, a “Utililty” is anything that is a need for life. Electricity, water, phone, and yes, healthcare are all necessities for life.
We now regulate utilities like water and electricity, and the businesses that provide it make decent profits, but must go through the government for rate hikes (sound familiar?).
This type of regulation would be the perfect compromise between dems and reps; without the need for government socialized healthcare.
“There is no reason to not do any of the abuse and cost reforms…competition across state lines…sure, as long as there is a federal public option as a “safe” option.”
This is the same gridlock mentality that the dems in Congress are using. The same as the republicans saying no to everything unless their “total free market” system is used.
My proposal does away with the “need” for public option. The federal government does not provide my electricity or water, yet it is heavily regulated and price-controlled. Why not try the same approach with healthcare BEFORE going with the socialist approach?
Jeff,
There is already a regulatory regime over insurance premiums in the states. A utility guarantees a rate of return which the government is not doing for insurers.
Explain why the Federal govt should play the regulatory role rather than the states and whether you are willing to guarantee a rate of return and then we can talk utilities.
Trust me, insurers would jump at the opportunity to be a utility. It's free money.
“whether you are willing to guarantee a rate of return and then we can talk utilities”
I don't give a rat's butt about the insurance company's rate of return. Either we go for government provided healthcare (which is what we will end up having if we keep bickering after the “nuclear option”), or we find common ground and pursue REAL reform.
The prices are way too inflated due to corporate greed (which has no place in public “utility” need), multiple billing, abusive lawsuits, and every other issue we've talked about here.
It's the only true compromise that is NOT public option that I can see.
But that's the point. A utility is guaranteed a rate of return by the regulator. That's what's in it for the people running the utility.
If you don't do this than you are just capping prices regardless of what you say and price controls that bind always reduce supply.
You're just using the word utility to obfuscate the point.
That's the corporate greed that produces 3 percent profits right?
Just checking.
I guess you're right about how the concept applies to national defense, but I don't think you even have to go that far. On domestic policy itself, I think the Dems have proven incompetent at finding consensus. They can't pass the most progressive versions (and they seemed to at least understand that much) but they are unable to conceive of the middle ground that would be likely to be effective AND palatable. As a result, the more moderate versions that they have come up with are so complex that hardly anyone understands them (which leaves openings for the opposition to demagogue) and then also have legitimate flaws which they refuse to address in the 'debate'. They instead try to pretend that all criticisms are of the first variety, which infuriates people who know better (and leads them to believe that the Dems won't answer the criticisms directly because they can't provide a good defense of the policy.)
There is no reason to not do any of the abuse and cost reforms…competition across state lines…sure, as long as there is a federal public option as a “safe” option. I think I had this discussion of CS a couple of days ago.
There are a number of ways to acheive that same goal, ranging from the more conservative ideas like disclosure requirements to increase transparency and help consumers know what they're purchasing, to exchanges with some sort of federal rating that would act as a seal of approval, to actual mandates. None of those things require a public option to 'keep the insurance companies honest.'
What never seems to be addressed by public option advocates is where the savings is actually supposed to come from. If it's profit, steveinch has provided numerous links showing that wiping out ALL profit wouldn't make enough difference to matter, so that can't be the manner in which a public option would theoretically be cheaper. If it's subsidization, then just come out and admit that this is eventually going to be backstopped by the federal govt just like other GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) but the history there doesn't speak well for that concept. If the cost savings (to allow the public option to provide higher quality insurance at lower price) is supposed to come from reduced waste and fraud, then you'll have to explain why you think this new govt run insurance program will do better on that front than its current programs like Medicare.
“In my view, a 'Utililty' is anything that is a need for life. Electricity, water, phone, and yes, healthcare are all necessities for life.”
So is food, and yet we do not regulate food production as a utility. A “utility” is a business that — for practical reasons — is granted a monopoly in a certain area and, to compensate, is subject to regulation, the free market being wholly unsuitable. Electric service is regulated as a utility, not because it is a necessity, but because you cannot wander into the marketplace and select an alternative provider. The infrastructure required represents way too great an obstacle.
That is not the case with healthcare. I can switch doctors at will. What is lacking is the ability to judge who is a good doctor, and what it will cost me before I pick one. Health insurance is a bit tricker; my employer controls that and only lets me choose once a year which plan I want. Divorce health insurance from employment and you can solve a fair bit.
I'm not too worried about descriptions about Obama's possible loss of composure. I've already heard (and read) all kinds of departures from reality about lefties who want to believe what they “observe” or “perceive,” in their defense of Dems and in their GOP-bashing.
If there is frustration, well, I have to just laugh at it (and at the frustrated). Obama and his team have been both naive and elitist, playing at government, when also apparently believing (if not just sparking in others) the silliness that instant magic farther-left Europe-this-side-of-the-Atlantic change would be easy, instant, and trouble-free. It also leads me to laugh at the attitude and those exhibiting it, not only from review of the “fatal conceit” of social and economic engineering since the Progressive Era and New Deal, and especially during the Great Society and shift to radicalism in the 1960s, but with this “Obama frustrated” theme, from a Canadian book about Pierre Trudeau and the NDP, like the Dems and the increasingly immature and emotional libs about health care legislation right now:
“KEY POLICY IS BEING MADE.” [salivating, eyes wide open, twitching with nervous excess now]
Real Americans: [snicker] BFD.
J.D., the highly-regulated “public utility” approach is suitable to look at for the long term, whether or not the federal government (nobody cares about federalism and the states any more; Washington isn't just the big, but the only, game of interest now) eventually acquires (owns) and operates the physical infrastructure of most note, such as hospitals and perhaps clinics. (Future medicine would be like the downtown public hospitals, and their emergency rooms, already existing.) Variants on this are possible, like Conyer's Medicare idea of forced convsersion to non-profit status. (Conyers doesn't want to compensate for lost growing profits over several, 15-30, years, which is the feature of his plan most unconstitutional, but saner people could engineer something that would survive basic reality checks.)
(The long-term question is Medicare or VA care for everyone, to keep a lid on costs and other problems.)
The highly regulated utility approach (local monopolies) works both with a view toward leaving the insurance model and going to a straight pre-paid comprehensive care model, or with selecting the Blue Cross system as a semi-public company insurance “utility” model (a more conventional approach), with an eye toward making Blue Cross or other insurers more public on their way to non-profit, public conversion eventually.
All of this is future stuff, nothing for here and now. The states, not the feds should be regulating the insurers now and the current Congressional health legislation can include reform, but little more than that. It's the lesson of last year and the reality and the propriety now that the Dems and the less in-control liberals in this country have yet to accept, or even to face.
“A utility is guaranteed a rate of return by the regulator.”
You're right to point out the details. Many liberals use “utility” freely to express an entitlement mentality, as though the object of their attention “owes” them “service” (with deference, even).
We've seen this confusion most recently by radicals like Malveaux who called bank ATMs “a public utility,” from whom people have a “right” to have cash dispensed at no charges. The same “public utility” misstatement comes from callers once in a while to far lefty talk radio shows when banks in general are the subject.
Related to this is the gross over-expansion of the scope and use of the term “public interest” (not limited to farther-left “public interest research groups” found in every state — fortunately our federal Republic hasn't fallen so far that we are stuck with a “national” PIRG like this — and that would be too intellectually challenging or removed from flighty and trendy subjects of typical younger lefties and the Obama crowd to matter much. Plus to ObamaCo there's no huge money there as with the banks…).
“So is food, and yet we do not regulate food production as a utility.”
Oh yes we do. The government says how much and how little. The price is controlled through subsidy (but you should have already known that).
I know you are against price controls….But as I pointed out, if you don't, you'll be enjoying the liberal version of healthcare – and let's see how well that works out. I'm merely offering a TRUE compromise. Like you and SteveInch above, I am against price controls in the private sector – when it comes to GOODS and production. Services like healthcare, police protection, fire protection, electricity, water, et. al….. don't fall under the stockmarket-driven economy (or shouldn't). When someone needs an operation, capitalism doesn't give a crap about quality or access, unless someone makes money doing it. That doesn't belong in healthcare, in my opinion – nor in police/fire protection and so on.
“The long-term question is Medicare or VA care for everyone, to keep a lid on costs and other problems.)”
I agree, DLS (I usually do)…..
Another option is to offer the Huckabee plan where you set up a government regulated entity that people pay into (like the VA plan).
But I have to disagree on the healthcare being a utility. Lack of an ATM cannot kill you. Other entitlement-mentality crap that liberals spew also won't hurt you much.
However, without electricity or gas, you can/will die in winter. Without a phone, you cannot call for help which, too, might kill you. Withou water, you surely would die. And without healthcare, you will find yourself in a life-threatening situation eventually. These are the things and the rationale that I use to describe utility – something required for life.
Food is not subject to price controls in most cases. There are exceptions (sugar and dairy) where there are price floors but those are the exception not the rule.
It's not a true compromise to offer price controls.
A true compromise would be extend Medicaid eligibility. Create a “real” utility high risk pool for those who cannot be covered by private insurance and leave everyone else alone. That would be a true compromise.
Hi, J.D.,
I believe part of the problem is that “utility” can sometimes get confusing. “Utility” comes into play because there's an infrustructure that is heavy and expensive (like institutions of all kinds, as well as like the kind of infrastructure that we see in the examples of electric power and water [both supply and sewage removal] and someday more often, possibly, land-line [wire or fiber optic] or wireless communications facilities).
Utilities are semi-public (the best term to use rather than quasi-public, quasi-private, publicly this or that) and what we see more and more (not only from activism but by default, which is part of the trend that few acknowledge — and that's not limited to the actions like relying on emergency rooms) and confusion can also arise because of the sense with which these things are viewed (more so with health care): namely that they are affected with a term going back to the Progressive Era again (beginning of modern liberalism): a, or the, “public interest.” (I believe you'd agree with this term and its use and that health care is getting that way.)
May I suggest the introduction of another term that leads often to resort to government, not only to provide it to all but to associate it with and subject it to public control, which is your heritage as a Dem:
health care => “essential service” (police, fire, health, education, social assistance and other services)
The American people don't really know what is in the bill….the Republican media machine aka Fox News, et al, unfortunately set the tone and defined what they said the bill was before the Dems knew what hit them last summer. And for that I fault the Democrats and President Obama who could not for one minute have really believed that the Republicans had any desire to cooperate or negotiate. Their only concern is to regain their political control on behalf of Big Corporate America…..and just tell the working stiff whatever they think that he wants to hear….
Tell us what the misperceptions are exactly.
The American people probably have a better understanding of what is in this bill than any other piece of legislation in recent memory given its complexity.
The argument called, if only they understood what was in it, they'd love it is truly a peculiar one and is an indication of great hubris on the part of those using it.
“Utilities are semi-public (the best term to use rather than quasi-public, quasi-private, publicly this or that) and what we see more and more “
That's my point exactly. Every municipality or county has a public health board or commission, correct? Right now, there are public and private hospitals. Right now even private health insurance is subsidized by the government – even yours. That's nothing new. I think that is the very definition of quasi-public or semi-public.
The government has set up standards in which to operate. They have complied, but have found ever more intricate ways in which to usurp the system and nickel-and-dime people. Among these are multiple billing (18 bills (or more) for one procedure). Capitalism dictates that profit is king. That's fine when you're building cars, but is unacceptable when you are treating a human being.
Perhaps that makes me a liberal. I don't know. I do know that I'm against the total takeover (socializing) of medicine. I am also against treating medical care as a “normal” business.
EDIT TO ADD: I'm also against union involvement in all utilities. The SEIU is partially responsible for their own part of the increase in medical care. That's something no one has addressed yet.
“I do know that I'm against the total takeover (socializing) of medicine. I am also against treating medical care as a “normal” business.”
Well, many object to the idea of profiting from illness (actually from treatment and cure) but medical care is a good or service like everything else. I do know that with the insurance model that there's an intermediary and it has other interests at stake, by definition.
Dispensing with the insurance model can't be done this moment (during this health care reform effort) but the insurers can be highly regulated. I believe in the long run we will end the insurance model and that government (fed, state, local) will assume a large intermediary role. First it will be the single-payer or Medicare model (though state and local governments will be involved, perhaps managing smaller zones of authority and specifics like the more costly infrastructure, hospitals, imaging centers, and such). That may be sufficient, but if costs are a concern or there is still waste, fraud, and abuse [tm] then we may eventually go to the VA model (socialized). Note that with VA we have a case many years old and older still at the time it may be sought.
“but medical care is a good or service like everything else.”
Yes and no, DLS. When the “business” takes steps to make sure that you must take pills, or prolongs your condition for that end, it's wrong. The entire industry cares nothing about CURING people…. They only care about TREATING people. There's a big difference. The curing of people allows for immediate (one-time) costs (like buying a car).. The treatment of people allows for more unethical “stringing along” to maximize profits. That's why capitalism doesn't belong in healthcare.
“The treatment of people allows for more unethical “stringing along” to maximize profits. That's why capitalism doesn't belong in healthcare.”
I believe there's an argument to be made for ending a profit-minded intermediary (though going to a government intermediary replaces one set of problems for another). I'd note here that I don't see the “stringing along” statement in my observations (including those from my experiences as a patient with a serious condition). Rather, it's cost-cutting, the “send Mom home from the hospital hours after giving birth to her child” kind of problem (and with insurers, denial of claims and such) that we see instead.