--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Partial transcript: > > > > > > > > "As we draw close to finalizing and passing real > > > > health insurance reform, the defenders of the" > > > > > > > > Notice how Obama has shifted the discussion from "health care > > > > reform" to "health INSURANCE reform." IMO the distinction is > > > > simply a weasel out of emphasizing health care. > > > > > > Oh, WAIT a minnit! That shift was deliberately designed > > > to appeal to the public, for whom health *insurance* is > > > the big bugaboo. > > > > > > The "best health care in the world" doesn't do you any > > > good if you can't afford insurance or your insurance > > > won't pay for it because you had a preexisting condition > > > or once had a hangnail you didn't report on your > > > application. > > > > > > We WANT to emphasize health insurance over health care. > > > "Health INSURANCE reform" is *precisely* the right > > > framing. All the health reform bloggers I've read are > > > strongly in favor of it. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > My argument with reframing is that it waters down the > > issue when Obama doesn't have to. He doesn't need to > > pretty the pig to please folks who are misinformed > > He needs to educate them. > > This makes no sense to me whatsoever. It doesn't > "water down" the issue, it frames it more accurately > and effectively. It puts the bull's eye on the > insurance companies where it belongs. That's what > people are complaining about; that's why reform is > necessary. Health *care* doesn't need to be reformed, > or at least not anywhere near so much as health > *insurance* does. > > To me, that *is* educating the public, the first > step, anyway.
We'll have to disagree on this point. IMO Obama needs to educate the public about the lack of health care because of greedy insurance companies. They are the reason we have lousy health care. We don't have a lousy of insurance companies because of sick people. O.K. maybe this fails logical scrutiny. The bottom line is, it just doesn't "feel" right. It feels like a subtle double cross or that he cares more about placating insurance companies than he does about delivering health care. Changing the frame in the middle of the game feels like fudging the facts. My stubbornness on this point is just a reflection of my lack of trust all along that we could get a decent health care bill. At this point it looks like we're getting co-ops instead of a public option and I'm not too hopeful about it. I still think this is a set up for something worse than what we have. Great link Judy, thanks. Here's the kicker: "10) Don't negotiate from the middle, damn it. Ask for the moon and stars, and work your way toward the middle, or risk people thinking you're a corporatist tool. (Ahem.)" That sums it up for me. > > And for god's sake, call off the leftwing attack dogs > > saying people who question health care stupid, Nazi, > > racists. Of course there are loudmouths at town halls > > but it shuts down dialogue when you paint everyone > > with the same brush. The rhetoric on both sides is so > > inflamed it's impossible to have a sane conversation. > > It plays right into the hands of the people who don't > > want a public option, the insurance companies. > > I agree that demonizing the popular opposition doesn't > help. > > > Obama needs to get in everyone's face about the fact > > that healthcare with a public option is less expensive. > > Not a word. He needs to tell people the majority of > > people want a public option. Not a word. He needs to > > come up with a plan of his own, something simple and > > understandable, like reducing the eligibility age for > > medicare. Not a word. If he were honest he would say, > > "Kiss your public option and cheaper healthcare > > goodbye. I'm in the pocket of the insurance folks, roll > > over so they can screw you." > > I agree with just about everything you say *except* the > notion that he's "in the pocket" of the insurance folks > and is trying to craft reform for their benefit. I think > he'd love to see not just a public option but single- > payer and just eliminate private insurance altogether. > Perhaps Obama did want single payer in his more idealistic moments before he got elected, but elections come with a price tag and a due bill. > He thought this was all going to be much easier than it > has been. He thought he'd be the irresistible force, and > instead he's come up against the immoveable object. And > now he's having to punt, to make concessions to the > insurance companies to keep them from killing reform > altogether. > Well, Obama does have beautiful bed-room eyes. The immovable object is not the majority of the American people. We WANT cheaper single payer health care. When Obama and Baucus started making concessions before anyone went into committee, I became suspicious that health care reform was going to tank. If Obama had been serious about single payer he should have taken his case directly to the American people. That beer with the president made me want to threw something at the TV. Talk about getting off message! Geez. > It isn't that he's trying to keep the money spout open > for his reelection; it's that he doesn't have a choice > about catering to the companies if he wants to get > *anything* passed. If he fails on reform, he's going to > have a very hard time getting reelected no matter how > much the insurance companies bless him financially. > I have a more sinister point of view. Corporations are considered "people." These "people" don't care who is president as long as they have their due. Big money runs government. Not the president. > <snip> > > A word about co-ops: They suck. > > > > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/103439/462 > > Going to keep my eyes open for a defense of co-ops. > I've read several by folks I respect, but I didn't > note the links at the time. I'm not convinced co-ops > are hopeless. > I'm convinced co-ops are hopeless because insurance companies LIKE them. That's all I need to know. > > A word about telling the left to back off: > > > > Judy wrote: > > "But there have been no reports from activist > > organizations that they've been told to back off." > > > > Violet puts that illusion to rest, quoting Jane > > Hamsher quoting potty mouth Rahm Emanuel: > > Yeah, I'll take that back. I was going by earlier > reports. I hadn't heard about the Emanuel tirade. > > <snip> > > In all this I keep thinking, if Hillary were still > > in the Senate, she would probably have given Max > > Baucus holy hell for taking the public option off > > the table right from the git go. > > She'd have fought a lot harder, there's no question > in my mind. But it's my understanding she's been > supported financially by the insurance companies and > Big Pharma just as Obama and the Dems have. > Right you are. She would have fought harder. No one wants to go "O" for two. I had no illusions about Hillary's ties to Big Money. It's just that she has deep roots as a Democrat in the tradition of FDR and I like that about her. I always felt she was a great public servant, an advocate for women and children and her heart was always in the right place, with we the people. > > It's makes me wonder if appointing her to SOS was a > > way to shut her up. She is passionate about healhcare > > reform. > > Could well be. After the debacle during Bill's first > term, Obama probably didn't want her associated with > reform. > > > I don't think she ever referred to it as insurance > > reform. Good for her. > > I'd be curious to know if she'd approve of that framing. > I bet she would. I really can't see any argument against > it. > I don't think she would argue with the framing and I don't think she would have changed the framing mid-stream. > BTW, if you haven't already seen it, here's a good piece > by Susie Madrak on Crooks and Liars, "Ten Things Obama > Did Wrong on Health-Care Reform": > > http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ten-things-obama-did-wrong-healthcare > > http://tinyurl.com/kpfgkt >
