Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[sls.stormyrider]

Featured Legislation

Signed on October 30, 2009
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009
Signed on October 28, 2009
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
Signed on August 06, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Extension
Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
Signed on May 22, 2009
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
Signed on May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Signed on March 20, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension
Signed on February 17, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Signed on February 11, 2009
DTV Delay Act
Signed on February 04, 2009
Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
Signed on January 29, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

[sophist]

So...what has he actually accomplished, then?

he named the family puppy, that's worthy of a vacation.   :wink:


(I just wanted to post that joke, I don't actually hold that cynical an opinion of him)

[sls.stormyrider]

^

I disagree. Obama's fundamentally a pragmatist - that's what he campaigned on, and that's how he's governing. He's hung back on HCR largely because he thinks that it's the best way to get some kind of a decent bill passed. Making big speeches and being specific about exactly what he wants in a bill would only have come back to bite him if the bill got watered down (which it obviously did).

there was an editorial in the Sunday nyt applauding Obama for just that. Being pragmatic, not waiting for perfection, taking what he can get, and keeping the ball rolling.
things work slowly.

I do agree with some of Westen's points. I think Obama (and Clinton), worry a bit too much about trying to make everyone happy. I would like it if he got a bit ballsier

Some of the comparisons to FDR were interesting. I would argue that the stimulous plan is a (constitutional) modern day version of the WPA.

FDR asked for, and was given, inordinate amount of power by congress. Looking back on it, it probably would be deemed unconstitutional. Congress wouldn't give up that much power today, and frankly, no president should get it. GWB tried to get some more, and look where it got us.

Another difference is that today, everything is out there. We have way more information about the process than we did even 5 years ago. The process probably hasn't changed much, but our knowledge of it has. And, to a certain degree, the process sucks. But that's what we have, and one person isn't going to change it.

what can we do? write your reps, write the White House. Every time I've written, I've gotten a response, and I can tell by the letter that someone actually read the response. How much of that got to the actual rep or senator, I don't know, but if enough people saying similar things makes a difference, imo.

[flow00]

^

I disagree. Obama's fundamentally a pragmatist - that's what he campaigned on, and that's how he's governing. He's hung back on HCR largely because he thinks that it's the best way to get some kind of a decent bill passed. Making big speeches and being specific about exactly what he wants in a bill would only have come back to bite him if the bill got watered down (which it obviously did).

there was an editorial in the Sunday nyt applauding Obama for just that. Being pragmatic, not waiting for perfection, taking what he can get, and keeping the ball rolling.
things work slowly.

I do agree with some of Westen's points. I think Obama (and Clinton), worry a bit too much about trying to make everyone happy. I would like it if he got a bit ballsier

Some of the comparisons to FDR were interesting. I would argue that the stimulous plan is a (constitutional) modern day version of the WPA.

FDR asked for, and was given, inordinate amount of power by congress. Looking back on it, it probably would be deemed unconstitutional. Congress wouldn't give up that much power today, and frankly, no president should get it. GWB tried to get some more, and look where it got us.

Another difference is that today, everything is out there. We have way more information about the process than we did even 5 years ago. The process probably hasn't changed much, but our knowledge of it has. And, to a certain degree, the process sucks. But that's what we have, and one person isn't going to change it.

what can we do? write your reps, write the White House. Every time I've written, I've gotten a response, and I can tell by the letter that someone actually read the response. How much of that got to the actual rep or senator, I don't know, but if enough people saying similar things makes a difference, imo.

Well said. 

[Alumni]

Featured Legislation

Signed on October 30, 2009
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009
Signed on October 28, 2009
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
Signed on August 06, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Extension
Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
Signed on May 22, 2009
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
Signed on May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Signed on March 20, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension
Signed on February 17, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Signed on February 11, 2009
DTV Delay Act
Signed on February 04, 2009
Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
Signed on January 29, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Obama runs the legislative branch, too?  :-P

I'm thinking more along the lines of:
-Afghanistan
-Bailouts
-Abandoning Financial System Reform
-Not having an opinion on health care so as to maximize his chances of being able to take credit for whatever Congress does produce

Next up...I'm willing to wager that we see a complete lack of leadership on the environment. I'm not necessarily referring to Copenhagen.

I get that there are different leadership styles. Obama seems happy with being able to claim that he "was in office when..."

[Alumni]

^

I disagree. Obama's fundamentally a pragmatist - that's what he campaigned on, and that's how he's governing. He's hung back on HCR largely because he thinks that it's the best way to get some kind of a decent bill passed. Making big speeches and being specific about exactly what he wants in a bill would only have come back to bite him if the bill got watered down (which it obviously did).

there was an editorial in the Sunday nyt applauding Obama for just that. Being pragmatic, not waiting for perfection, taking what he can get, and keeping the ball rolling.
things work slowly.

The HC bill didn't just get watered down. It got positively bad in spots. The NYT also editorialized that

In another concession, the Senate bill would allow states to ban the coverage of abortions by health plans sold on the new exchanges. Those exchanges will allow people who buy health insurance to choose from an array of private plans, with subsidies provided to help low- and middle-income people pay the premiums.

This amounts to deplorable interference by state governments into decisions that should be made by a woman and her doctor — and abortion rights groups are right to object.

Change we can believe in.

If we're members of the religious right

[sls.stormyrider]

Obama runs the legislative branch, too?  :-P

I'm thinking more along the lines of:
-Afghanistan
-Bailouts
-Abandoning Financial System Reform
-Not having an opinion on health care so as to maximize his chances of being able to take credit for whatever Congress does produce

Next up...I'm willing to wager that we see a complete lack of leadership on the environment. I'm not necessarily referring to Copenhagen.

I get that there are different leadership styles. Obama seems happy with being able to claim that he "was in office when..."

wasn't sure what you meant.

as far as Afghanistan, I guess you missed his speech. I admit, I'm a bit perplexed by the 18 month thing. It seems like it's throwing a bone to the left. As far as expanding our commitment there - he stated during his campaign that we need to bolster our efforts in Afghanistan. doing so wasn't pandering to the right; he said he was gonna do that.

the House recently passed a decent bill on FS reform. I suppose it will go to the senate after NY, It got watered down, like they all do, but still seems like a decent bill.

as far as the bailouts go, there are many people on both sides of the aisle that think the bailouts prevented a depression with even higher unemployment. Personally, I think more strings should have been attached to the money before giving it away.

as far as "not having an opinion on HCR", I think he had an opinion on the public option. He gave it away, perhaps too early, but I personally don't think it was gonna fly no matter what. I also think that both the merits and evils of it were waaaay overstated.
Unless you give the pres the line item veto (unconstitutional), we're stuck with congress throwing all kinds of shit in there, and taking things out.

[Alumni]

Part of it is me just trying to be provocative. Like the crack at giving Obama credit for signing into law legislation that was passed by a Democratic Congress that's been sitting on its hands since 1994.

But I am largely dissatisfied with Obama. I know he's an important symbol of racial progress. It's just that after a miserable few years with Bush in office and the GOP in control of Congress, I would have preferred someone with the courage of their convictions (a Democratic Reagan?) and then Obama.

I just don't think he's very effective.

I think Afghanistan is a mistake. I think he backed himself into it during the campaign when he wanted to be able to criticize Bush for Iraq and not seem like a liberal wimp. So he wasn't anti-war, he was "anti-the-wrong-war." I think Afghanistan will fail to accomplish much of anything, but I'm willing to be wrong, I guess.

I think the health care bill was handled poorly. It isn't completely without merit, I guess. But I have to wonder if the end result was worth it. I understand the need to spend political capital if you're going to achieve bold policy changes. But what we're getting is kind of milquetoast. Assuming the economy rebounds, regardless of Obama's actions one way or the other, he's going to get reelected. Was the health care bill worth the risk of 6 years of GOP control of Congress?

Maybe it will be, maybe it won't. I'm not up to speed on the latest draft, but previous drafts have seemed pretty fishy to me. They're advertised as a step forward because they prohibit things like excluding coverage for preexisting conditions. To which I say, "Prohibit preexisting condition exclusions or what?" One previous draft "prohibited" those exclusions by imposing something like a $10,000 fine for each case. Okay. You don't need to be a policy wonk on par with Bill Clinton to see what might go wrong with that approach.

If Obama doesn't have the spine to get upset when Wall Street types blow of scheduled meetings with the White House, why on Earth should I believe that Obama has the fortitude to push for real regulatory reform?

I'm not against countercyclical spending. I'm with Obama on the stimulus spending. Like you, I wish they'd been a bit more careful with the bailouts. I just brought it up because I see this more as a continuation of Bush's response than as an achievement in its own right.

Obama hasn't even really bothered with environmental/energy policy yet. Small wonder Copenhagen was a disaster. When other countries meet behind your back to get things done, that's a pretty clear sign that you are at best irrelevant and at worst counterproductive. I know, you can only do one thing at a time, and that thing was health care reform. I hope it ends up being worth it.

I can sum it up in one sentence. Obama strikes me as being just as cynical as GWB. I think he's more interested in being perceived as a transformational political figure than in actually being one. It's funny to read the editorials in international newspapers now that they're realizing that he's a business-as-usual president. Those folks really drank the Obama kool-aid.

To link back up to the nominal thread topic...maybe it was the right time for health care reform. I'm not sure it will bring about the level of change that's been promised. And I don't think we can judge whether or not it's a success without considering the whole range of effects it's had on Obama's first year.

[sls.stormyrider]

I hear ya.

I think a "Democratic Reagan" is a great analogy. What I respect most about Reagan, is that he had a vision, and got people to go along - sort of. It's not hard to get congress to cut taxes, and he wound up raising taxes before the end of his admin, but he gave the perception that he was in control. I didn't agree with his vision, but he had one.

that was my biggest knock against clinton.

I think the jury is still out on Obama. We'll have to see over time what he does when words alone don't get the job done.  I actually agree with the push in Afghanistan. I don't like war, but this was one that was worth starting. We should have finished it years ago, instead of going into Iraq. As much as I don't like war, sometimes we have to use our military. Part of the training vids for Al Quedah was some of our chickenshit moves in the past (Reagan pulling the marines out of Lebanon after the bombing - I guess he wasn't so much of a hawk). They have the feeling that they can do whatever they want without consequences. Regardless, his move isn't pandering to the right, he said he was going to do this from the beginning - if anything it's pandering to the left.

As far as health care goes, I think he saw what happened to Clinton. Clinton gave congress the bill. There was no effort at compromise, it just got shelved. Obama gave congress a barebones blueprint and told them to get on it. Should he have twisted more arms - maybe. Maybe he is saving that for the final push - something still can go wrong over the differences on abortion and public option.

He called in the head guys from Wall St last week. Unfortunately, there is nothing he can legally do to them, and they know it. It is up to congress to pass a law to get it done. Looking back on it, I kinda wish they took on Wall St before they took on health care. I think Obama was surprised at the resistance he got on Health care. Finally, they are starting to take those guys on. We'll have to wait and see if it has any teeth.

I'm anxious to see what he does with the environment, too. We'll have to see, but getting the economy going and getting people back to work are rightly his top priorities.

I don't think he is as cynical as GWB. to me, he is more thoughtful, and is trying to do the right thing. GWB had a lot of "I'm right, and if you disagree with me you're wrong". Black and white. BO is the exact opposite, sometimes to a fault. If I had to choose, I would pick the more thoughtful, nuanced leader. Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns. I think he has done it to some degree, but probably needs to do it a little more.

sooo- back to Health care, I see the current bill, if it is passed, as a flawed, but necessary 1st step. Hopefully it will pass, and improvements will be made.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

^

I disagree. Obama's fundamentally a pragmatist - that's what he campaigned on, and that's how he's governing. He's hung back on HCR largely because he thinks that it's the best way to get some kind of a decent bill passed. Making big speeches and being specific about exactly what he wants in a bill would only have come back to bite him if the bill got watered down (which it obviously did).

He didn't campaign on pragmatism...I thought his campaign was based on an appeal for idealism.  "Hope...Change...Yes We Can".  His whole rhetorical style has been based on saying that "idealism is pragmatic".

[sls.stormyrider]

I emailed my rep and Senators last week about a few issues; malpractice reform and prescription drugs. Got a response back from the rep today. Obviously, it's a partisan view, but interesting and informative, imo. It also tells more about the bill than you hear on the average nightly news

Thank you for contacting my office regarding health care reform.  I appreciate your views and having the benefit of your opinion.

For much of this year, both the House and Senate have been working on health care reform legislation with the goal of providing health care coverage for all Americans and lowering the unsustainable costs in our health care system.  This is an undertaking that has been decades in the making, and the passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act on November 7th represents a historic moment that lends great momentum to finally fulfilling this most important need and our late Senator Ted Kennedy's lifelong dream.

At its core, this health care reform legislation is built on the principle of "shared responsibility."  Individuals will be required to buy insurance, employers will be required to provide it for their employees, and the government will be required to help people find and pay for an affordable plan. In this regard, it is very similar to the universal health care system in Massachusetts that we already have. 

As this health care bill was crafted over the last several months, I solicited input from Fifth District residents at town hall meetings, during telephone town hall meetings, via email, letters and phone calls, and through my Congress On Your Corner program.  I also met extensively with doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, community health center professionals, insurance company representatives, pharmaceutical company representatives, nursing home administrators, patient advocacy groups, medical device company representatives, and other health care stakeholders in our district.

I heard over and over again that driving down the high cost of health care is our greatest challenge.  I also heard from so many constituents who were worried about losing their health care coverage in this economic downturn and from employers who were finding it increasingly difficult to provide coverage to their employees.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act takes many steps to address our system's out-of-control costs.  First, by requiring insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms, colonoscopies, and routine vaccinations.  This ensures that fewer people will need to rely on expensive emergency room care for potentially preventable illnesses. 

But more importantly, this bill makes significant steps towards changing the way we pay for healthcare by moving towards a global payment system for doctors rather than a fee-for-service system. These types of payment structures have been extremely successful in reducing costs in places such as the Cleveland and Mayo Clinics, while maintaining outstanding levels of care. 

It also encourages the formation of Accountable Care Organizations that allow hospitals and doctors to work together to manage and coordinate care in order to avoid duplicating tests and treatments, and allows doctors in the organization to get paid a salary rather than a fee for each service. It will also bring down costs by investing in electronic health records and by ensuring that patients get the best care possible, not the most expensive care available.

Our current fee-for-service system is part of the reason why health care premiums have doubled in 9 years, growing 3 times faster than wages.  Without reform, the cost of health care for the average American family is expected to increase by $1,800 every year with no end in sight.  There is simply no question that health care reform is central to our economic recovery.

This bill also allows people the freedom to choose the quality, affordable health care that is best for them, including the choice of a public option that competes on a level playing field against private insurance companies. This public option will also have to be self-sufficient, relying on the premiums it collects.  The bill preserves what is best in the current system by allowing Americans who like their doctor and their health care plan to keep it, a top priority for the Obama administration.  Additionally, it keeps the Massachusetts Connector intact.

This health care reform measure also gives families the peace of mind that they will have access to health care when they need it by preventing the denial of health care coverage due to pre-existing conditions and making it illegal for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick.   

Additionally, seniors will see their prescription drug costs go down.  The approximately 6 million seniors, 7,400 of whom live in the Fifth District, who currently fall into the Medicare "donut hole", the gap in which prescription drugs are not covered, will see that gap in coverage completely closed over time.

While access to care is not a problem that we have in Massachusetts, tens of millions of Americans cannot afford health care coverage, and that number increases by 14,000 every day.  The Affordable Healthcare for America Act takes significant steps towards covering all Americans, while enabling anyone happy with their current plan to keep it, facts which have earned it the endorsement of the American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, the AARP, and many other leading health care provider and patient advocacy groups.

Finally, this bill is fully paid for, not adding a dime to our deficits now or in the future. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will reduce our nation's growing deficit over ten years by $104 billion.

As with any undertaking of this magnitude, the legislation is not perfect.  I am very disappointed that the final bill included language that severely restricts access to reproductive health services for women.  By effectively ensuring that plans offered on the health insurance exchange do not offer abortion services, the bill discriminates against low-income women and goes so far as to prevent those who want to buy a plan that covers abortion services with their own money from making that choice.  I will be working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to change this unreasonable and unwarranted language in conference.   

But, overall, I strongly believe that this bill expands access to health care for nearly all of our citizens and begins to control the unsustainable cost of care.  It is for these reasons that I was proud to support this historic bill.

Before this bill becomes law, it has to be voted on by the U.S. Senate.  After that, the House and Senate bills will have to be combined, go to both chambers for another vote, and sent to the President's desk for his signature. I appreciate that you took the time to be in touch, and I will be sure to keep your thoughtful views in mind as Congress continues to work on this issue.

Please do not hesitate to contact my office in the future with questions or concerns.  If you would like more information on the Affordable Healthcare for America Act, please visit my website at http://tsongas.house.gov and click on the blue "Quality Affordable Health Care" tab

[Alumni]

Trivial side note:

I saw the URL at the end of the letter and did a doubletake. Tsongas, huh?

Wait...what?!?  :-o

Ahh. Different Tsongas.

[spaced]

^

I disagree. Obama's fundamentally a pragmatist - that's what he campaigned on, and that's how he's governing. He's hung back on HCR largely because he thinks that it's the best way to get some kind of a decent bill passed. Making big speeches and being specific about exactly what he wants in a bill would only have come back to bite him if the bill got watered down (which it obviously did).

He didn't campaign on pragmatism...I thought his campaign was based on an appeal for idealism.  "Hope...Change...Yes We Can".  His whole rhetorical style has been based on saying that "idealism is pragmatic".

Well yes, that's sort of true as far as it goes, but two things. First, he always marketed himself as a level-headed consensus-broker, not a fire-breathing ideologue - sure, he had plenty of aspirational rhetoric, but it was always couched in terms of "bringing people together" rather than single-mindedly pushing his own agenda. He ran the kind of campaign that caused people to project their own beliefs onto him - if you were a moderate, you probably thought he was too; if you were a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, you thought he was too.

Second, and more importantly, he has to look at the reality of the situation now. With most policy areas, he's completely constrained by what Congress does; he can't pass legislation himself, he can only try to persuade legislators to do stuff. Sure, he can go on TV and make big, inspirational speeches, but he can persuade legislators just as well (maybe better in some situations) behind closed doors - plus this doesn't carry the downside of being perceived as a "failure" when Congress screws things up and doesn't do what he says.

Basically, there are plenty of things to criticize Obama for (his record on civil liberties is totally inconsistent with his campaign promises, for example), but (a) he's still way better than any conceivable Republican candidate, and (b) most of the things people have been complaining about in the last few posts are more attributable to our completely ineffectual Congress than to him.

[sls.stormyrider]

good point.
I also think the Dems have done a pretty poor job getting out the message of the positive side of the bill.
The press has been covering this the way they cover elections - the horse race and not the meat. The GOP is also doing a much better job of getting their message out. Of course, it's easier to say "this sucks", than to give an intelligent argument, but the Dems, and the WH, need to get that argument out.
Desperately.

[Alumni]

Well yes, that's sort of true as far as it goes, but two things. First, he always marketed himself as a level-headed consensus-broker, not a fire-breathing ideologue - sure, he had plenty of aspirational rhetoric, but it was always couched in terms of "bringing people together" rather than single-mindedly pushing his own agenda. He ran the kind of campaign that caused people to project their own beliefs onto him - if you were a moderate, you probably thought he was too; if you were a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, you thought he was too.

If you're a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, you might remember pre-campaign Obama as one of you.
But I think it's a fair point

Second, and more importantly, he has to look at the reality of the situation now. With most policy areas, he's completely constrained by what Congress does; he can't pass legislation himself, he can only try to persuade legislators to do stuff. Sure, he can go on TV and make big, inspirational speeches, but he can persuade legislators just as well (maybe better in some situations) behind closed doors -

That's the exact basis for much of the criticism that I've heard. Obama hasn't worked with legislators behind the scenes. He's never spoken to Lieberman. He tries to make the best of a poor political situation without expending the energy to try and change it.

plus this doesn't carry the downside of being perceived as a "failure" when Congress screws things up and doesn't do what he says.

I don't think this is something the average president really needs to worry about - especially not Obama. Congress always has low approval ratings. There's nothing stopping you from articulating a clear vision and then expressing pragmatism in the end when/if Congress doesn't live up.

(b) most of the things people have been complaining about in the last few posts are more attributable to our completely ineffectual Congress than to him.

Out of curiosity, which ones? My long-ish post was intentionally focused on Obama as president.

I agree he's better than any of the Republican alternatives in 2008. I'm not complaining that the country elected a Democrat. Whether we elected the right Democrat...  :-)

eta

Of course, Obama was the right Democrat in the important sense of winning the election. Imagine that. The "black guy with a black name" (Chris Rock's phrase) was the electable one. Beltway politics aside, that's hard to complain about...