------ Forwarded Message > From: "dasg...@aol.com" <dasg...@aol.com> > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:36:57 EDT > To: Robert Millegan <ramille...@aol.com> > Cc: <ema...@aol.com>, <j...@aol.com>, <jim6...@cwnet.com>, > <christian.r...@gmail.com>, <l...@legitgov.org>, <rac...@msnbc.com> > Subject: NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Backroom Deal to Kill Public > Option >
> NY Times Reporter CONFIRMS > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500 > 999.html> > Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option > Miles Mogulescu <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu> , > Entertainment attorney, writer, and political activist > Huffington Post, March 16, 2010 > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_5009 > 99.html > > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500 > 999.html#comments> > > > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500 > 999.html#comments> > For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama > made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he > would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health > reform legislation. (See here > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/obama-durbin-and-pelosi-a_b_497 > 359.html> , here > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-real-reason-obamas-pl_b_473 > 924.html> and here > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/whos-killing-the-public-o_b_334 > 372.html> ). I've been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial > story last August in the New York Times, > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html> no major media > outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further. > > Hopefully, that's changing. On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times > Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick > confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist > for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House > would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded: >> "That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the >> hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate >> Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal >> here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals >> on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. >> And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these >> deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side >> and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be >> in the final product." > Kirkpatrick also acknowledged that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim > Messina had confirmed the existence of the deal to him. > > This should be big news. Even while President Obama was saying that he thought > a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his > healthcare plan would include one, he had promised for-profit hospital > lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill. > > The media should be digging deeper into this story. Washington reporters > should be asking Robert Gibbs if President Obama is still honoring this deal. > They should be calling Jim Messina and hospital lobbyist Chip Kahn to confirm > the specifics of the deal. They should be asking Nancy Pelosi and Senate > Democratic leaders Dick Durbin and Harry Reid the extent of their knowledge of > this deal. They should be asking Pelosi if the reason she's refusing to > include a public option in the House reconciliation bill to be sent to the > Senate is that there are at least 51 Senate Democrats who would vote for it > and she needs to insure that a final bill with a public option does not end up > on President Obama's desk where he would then have to break his deal with the > hospital lobbyists and sign it, or veto it to honor his deal. > > More deeply, there are serious questions about the extent to which Obama, with > the help of Rahm Emanuel, used a K Street strategy to pursue health care > reform. The strategy seems to have been to make backroom deals to protect the > interests of the likes of the drug industry and the for-profit hospital > industry in exchange for campaign cash, even if this meant reversing campaign > promises to include a public option to put competitive pressure on private > insurance premiums, and to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices > and Americans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada. The result is a health care > bill that is generally unpopular with voters. > > Questions need to be asked, too, about the extent to which the White House is > following a similar strategy with Wall Street financiers when it comes to > shaping financial reform and new regulations to rein in the banks who brought > the economy to its knees. > > Voters viscerally sense that the White House and Congressional Democrats may > be as concerned with protecting special interests -- whether it's drug > companies, private hospitals, or Wall Street bank -- than they are with > protecting the people, and this is feeding a populist backlash against > Democrats that resulted in Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts and is > making a Democratic bloodbath in the fall elections increasingly likely. > > Polls indicate that about 60% of voters support a public option while only > about 1/3 support the overall Democratic healthcare bill. There still time -- > very little time -- for Democrats to shift course and include a public option > in the final bill, even if it means going back on the White House's backroom > deal with the hospital industry. If the media picks up on this story, perhaps > the White House and Congressional Democrats can be embarrassed into changing > course. > > If, on the other hand, Democrats continue to honor these special interest > deals, then passing an unpopular health care bill may just be walking into a > Republican trap. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > > RESPONSE TO COMMENTS: Whenever I write blogs which are critical of Obama and > Congressional Democrats for making corporatist deals, I get numerous comments > from people who believe they are progressive but say they will never vote for > Obama or Democrats again, that they will stay home at the next election, or > that they will vote for small third parties who have no chance of winning. > It's not my intent to encourage those views. Do people making these comments > really think bringing Republicans back to power would make things better? > > My goal is to shine a light on these backroom deals in order to embarrass > Obama and Congressional Democrats to put the interests of the voters over the > interests of special interests so that Republicans can't play at being faux > populists and use that to take back Congress in order to enact even worse > corporatist policies. > > Progressives need to have a sophisticated and nuanced relationship with > elected Democrats. After the 2008 elections, too many progressive > organizations demobilized believing their job was simply to take orders from > the White House to support Obama's agenda, whatever it was. That was a > mistake. It's equally a mistake for progressives to overreact in the opposite > direction and think they can abandon electoral politics and do nothing to > prevent the Republicans from regaining power. What's needed is a powerful > grassroots progressive movement to force elected officials to do the right > thing more often and to counter-balance the power of big money in politics. > The periods of progressive change in American politics, like the Progressive > Era, The New Deal, and the Great Society, have come when strong progressive > movements have forced elites and elected officials to enact som ------ End of Forwarded Message
