Sunday, the president admitted to Steve Kroft of CBS that the health reform law now known in the vernacular as Obamacare wasn’t really Obamacare after all. It was actually a Republican plan—something we’ve been saying for quite some time
Obama revealed that the plan—complete with a requirement that everyone carry health insurance, subsidies for people who can’t afford it, tax penalties for not buying it, and making people responsible for more of their medical costs—was a GOP baby that has now grown up. Said Obama:
We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn’t that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans, including a Republican governor in Massachusetts who’s now running for president, we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn’t.
Obama & co. didn’t count on a stubborn and united opposition, who saw campaign gold in turning the tables on the president, in effect repudiating their own ideas. Too bad Obama didn’t make these points earlier, so the public and the press could have figured out what reform was about and been able to put the Republican challenges in perspective. The press, we know, waits for the pols before they report something, and this time Obama waited a mite too long. But he might get another chance. Is Obama’s belated characterization hinting at a possible storyline for the 2012 presidential race?
What does, "waited a might too long mean?" How about a "mite" instead?
#1 Posted by Mike Ratrie, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 03:34 PM
You are correct. Fixed.
#2 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 04:31 PM
Nice article with good points. My immediate take is Obama didn't want to lose Democratic votes by overly publicizing the Republican roots of the plan, plus he may have been too focused on delivering on campaign promises with "bi-partisan support".
Fair Winds,
Mike
#3 Posted by Mike Ratrie, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 06:58 PM
Excuse me, but what planet are you guys on? This bill was drafted by Democrats, passed by Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic president, over vociferous Republican opposition.
And now that Obama belatedly realizes that it's a c**p sandwich he's trying to pin it on Republicans? And you think this "characterization" is a great idea that voters will eat up in 2012? Just how stupid do you think people are?
If Obama doesn't like his own plan, then he can repeal the d**n thing.
#4 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 09:48 PM
It was modeled on Mitt Romney's and Bob Dole's plans. And Obama loved it, which was why he screwed his based over to get it done.
We wanted the public option. we wanted medicare for all. Republicans wanted to preserve the market while capping costs and expanding universality. Why? Because if you did nothing, you didn't care about the fiscal health of the country (health care is poised to eat up significant portions of GDP without reform)
Republicans did care about the future until the scary black president made them focus on the present to the exclusion of the future.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 10:25 PM
Thimbles I was going to argue but on second thought no. PLEASE DO continue with this line of reasoning, it's definitely a winner. It gets across that (1) Obama agrees that Obamacare is a lousy bill, and (2) he refuses to take responsibility for it. What more could a conservative want?
And Trudy I agree that this theme will really resonate with voters in 2012. Americans love it when their leaders tell them they wasted their efforts and left us worse off than before. I'm sure all will agree that it's not the Dems' fault.
#6 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 01:45 AM
Yes I will continue with this line of reasoning. Obama has been and will be a conservative. His cabinet and his policies have mostly been carry overs from reagan bush era initiatives and yes, the health care bill is a lousy bill compared to what it could have been and what other countries have.
What does this line of reasoning teach us? That conservatives make lousy policies that reward inefficiency so long as its profitable for wall street (from whom they buy shares) and campaign donators (for whom they sell votes).
The house bill was vastly better than the senate bill Obama chose to model upon. Why? Because the senate bill process was rigged to be weighted conservative and pro-business, Baucus's gang of six and the well point lobbyist who wrote the bill insured that.
What it also teaches us is that people labeled conservative are so rabid, they'll easily turn on their own, be they people or policy, because of a letter and a sliver of political advantage.
To hell with country, to hell with fiscal responsibility, to hell with consistency. Today's "conservatives" will mindlessly kick it all off the edge of a cliff if they sense they can profit from it.
How you like my reasoning now?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 04:22 AM
Great, thanks so much. Obama a conservative? Gotcha! Pro-business? Of course! (I'm sure he'll appoint a cabinet member with business experience any day now)
That's the trouble with the Left, they're just too darn fiscally responsible!
#8 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 05:54 AM
You know, after the Bush record and the way the modern tea partiers behaved during it,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
I'd knock it off with the sarcasm when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
And I know, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, Jamie Dimon, Pete Peterson, Robert Rubin, Tim Geithner, Gary Gensler, and all the other guys who advise and serve Obama are leftist hippies without a lick of experience in the private sector.
Dude, if you're not going to take the issues seriously, then shut up about them. You're wasting people's time while making a fool of yourself.
(of course that's been the standard operating procedure for conservatives for over 20 years, but one hopes that over the course of 20 years, with trillions misallocated if not lost and hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed out of conservative stupidity, that people in the movement would grow up)
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 10:28 AM
Obama's fiscal responsibility commission reports in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/us/politics/11fiscal.html
Tax cuts and benefit cuts, regressive consumption tax increases.
Is Obama conservative enough for you now?
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 06:42 PM
@JLD:
"This bill was drafted by Democrats, passed by Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic president, over vociferous Republican opposition."
Please, at least read up on Bob Dole and Mitt Romney before making a fool out of yourself. The ACA as currently drafted is based on the ideas of these two Republicans. The fact that they didn't propose it in Congress or vote for it makes no difference to this reality. The sarcasm in your tone is such that I'll bet that you think Obama was behind financial institution bailout of 2008 and the financial panic that preceded it.
And what was the "vociferous Republican opposition"? Criticism after criticism based on lies and misinformation (death panels? killing Grandma?). The very same voices that clamored for Republican control were the same ones rallying against ideas that were considered "conservative" 15 years ago.
Bill Maher was right-- the Democrats are moving to the right, and the Republicans are running further right off the cliff.
#11 Posted by MM, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 06:43 PM
To claim that Obamacare is somehow a nascently "Republican" plan, because a few Republicans espoused a few of its components or at some point kicked some of its ideas around, is not only disingenuous, but also just plain silly.
Such a claim like calling Welfare Reform, the Crime Bill, NAFTA or "No Child Left Behind" Democratic policies because they were supported by President Clinton and Ted Kennedy respectively.
The votes in Congress speak for themselves, and no amount of teeth-gnashing will change this little reality.
Ms. Lieberman's gripe is nothing but "sour grapes" from a die-hard hard advocate poseur in "journalist" garb.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 08:11 AM
@MM: If you're quoting Bil Maher no wonder you believe this stuff.
Not sure if you noticed the recent election results? Bill Maher is about as relevant to the current political climate as the Dodo bird.
#13 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 08:56 AM
I just want to parse the logic here, because I find this whole subject so nutty and entertaining.
If the Dems and Obama were proud of their bill they would not be trying to pin Obamacare on the Republicans. So they agree that Obamacare is a piece of c*ap.
So the idea is that some Republican somewhere promoted something they think is similar (although I lived in Mass during Romney’s reign, so I know better).
So therefore all the Dems in both houses and Obama went blindly running off to do what the Republicans wanted? Even though not a single Republican actually voted for it? This was because of – what? Mind control?
#14 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 09:19 AM
"Such a claim like calling Welfare Reform, the Crime Bill, NAFTA or "No Child Left Behind" Democratic policies because they were supported by President Clinton and Ted Kennedy respectively."
So let me get this straight... You consider welfare reform, the crime bill, NAFTA, and "No Child Left Behind" conservative policies how the content of the bills reflect conservative priorities, not based on who supported or opposed it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612
"Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "
The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."
One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.
"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."
So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
The GOP's 1993 measure included some features Republicans still want Democrats to consider, including damage award caps for medical malpractice lawsuits.
But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.
Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently."
A private market that made everyone personally responsible to take care of its maintenance instead of employers or government. That's conservative. It's their response to a problem with a liberal solution, regulated markets and/or a government healthcare like they have in Europe and Asia.
Obama didn't go with a solution that made sense in Europe and Asia - medicare for all, he went with conservative plan - everything covered, everyone covered, no treatment rescinded once you get ill, no pre-coverage illness preventing you from getting coverage, but the insurance companies need to get something in order to prevent guys from gaming the syst
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 10:47 AM
"If the Dems and Obama were proud of their bill they would not be trying to pin Obamacare on the Republicans. So they agree that Obamacare is a piece of c*ap."
They don't want to pin it on Republicans. They want to get credit for being bipartisan, conservatives - in spite of the fact that the people they are trying to reach out to are bad faith actors.
They are taking nothing but credit for the bill, but they are also trying to change public perception that it's a radical leftward manifesto. It's not even close.
It's pathetic to watch him trying to get favor from people that doubt he's a real American while he slurs the base he had as the "professional left" and whiners.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 11 Nov 2010 at 11:21 AM
They're gonna have to call this fight before JLD gets seriously hurt here... I don't think anyone expected a first-round knockout here, but Thimbles came out fired up and determined.
And it looks like JLD's cornerman is telling the ref it's over, the laceration is just too deep to close.... JLD will not be coming back out for a second round! We have a new world champion, in dramatic fashion! Thimbles, ladies and gentlemen!
#17 Posted by FreedomTent, CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 02:05 PM
Ummmm, Bush record? Considering obama has increased the debt faaaaaar beyond what Bush and (thankfully) former GOPer's did, you have no room to chastise anyone.
Conservatives need to grow up? Project much? Your loony left policies have ruined the lives of millions. I'll glady take our republic over your decorated gulag.
#18 Posted by Hard Right, CJR on Fri 12 Nov 2010 at 11:42 PM
Wrong again.
When was Obama inaugurated?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009.
Look at government spending during this time.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2007_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
In 2 years, Bush increased spending by about a 1 trillion, much of it in 2008.
From 2007 to 2008, spending increased by 500 billion.
From 2009 to 2010, it increased by 200 billion.
Look at the Federal deficit and the same pattern emerges.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2007_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 12:36 PM
So when we talk about deficits under Obama, we're not talking about huge expansions of spending, those happened under Bush. So what caused the deficit?
Government revenues are a percentage of national economy. When the national economy grows, government revenues grow. When the economy shrinks, revenue shrinks.
In 2008, there was an economic collapse. So what happened to tax revenues?
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2003_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
They decreased by 500 billion. The government had the same expenses paying for same essential services which people desperately needed as the unemployment figures doubled because of things that happened in 2007-08. Same expenses, if not more because of higher demand, with 500 billion less in revenue to pay for them.
No one, not John McCain, not Reagan, not even the sainted wisdom of Jesus Christ could run the government without big deficits after being handed that crap covered baton from GW Bush.
Take it from a conservative:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 12:59 PM
Most of this thread is a perfect example of why nothing gets done properly in this country. None of you can get along, or even try to. All you do is try and steamroll over each other with the way you see things, attempting to belittle anyone who sees it differently. And the worst part is, this is exactly how our politicians behave. Politicians have made it their number one goal to eliminate the opposition, rather than attempting to work together in order to further this nation as a whole. They no longer work for us, they work against each other. And most of you here just play right along. Every election or two the power will shift - it always has, it always will. So people better figure out how to work together, how to find the middle ground, how to communicate with each other without belittling each other. Because if we don't, things are only going to get worse. You people talk like you're so intelligent, yet you can't even figure out how to work together. It's time to grow up and act like adults.
#21 Posted by Chris B., CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 05:24 PM