Campaign 2008 Redux? Obama Calls for Democrats to Unify on Health Care Reform

“Sometimes Democrats can be their own worst enemies. Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know the other side, they just kind of do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves
==========
Oh, that is rich. Democrats do thinking for themselves, but he is asking them to support whatever bill is presented. OFA started asking people to sign pledges to support “his” healthcare plan last Spring. He still doesn’t have one.
So yeah. Sign the pledges. Call your Congressmen. Think for yourselves. Support what you get.
Hilarious.

totally off topic – sorry.
mr. tapper:
if you really have to question why fox news should not be considered a NEWS organization, you belong at fox news!
PLEASE READ THIS:

Oh the good old days when life was simple for Obama.
On the campaign trail and voting present as a Senator instead of taking a stand.
Not much has changed except that he is president.
Still campaigning and still can’t make a decision.
Still using silly campaign slogans.
Who is more lame?
Obama or the fools that still believe those slogans.

Might be hard for Obama to rally the younger crowd when they discover he plans to force them to buy health care or pay a fine.
But they will never know the truth unless they watch FOX.
Obama prefers an uninformed public.

Obama called on Democrats to be united and do “everything they can” to support the Health Care bill. “Sometimes Democrats can be their own worst enemies. Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know the other side, they just kind of do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves. I like that in you, but it’s time for us to make sure that we finish the job here, we are this close and we’ve got to be unified instead of thinkin’ for ourselves. I need you to just shut up and do what I tell you to do.” And to all the “non-Democrats” — the president said he believes in a two-party system where ideas are tested — especially when a Republican is president, but now that I am president you all just need to do what I say and that there’s “no shame’ in doing what your told. “What I reject is those people at Fox reporting the news objectively like we need fair and balanced right now. Who needs that when we have health care reform? We may have the best health care in the world right now, it may provide a higher level of care for the largest percent of citizens and non-citizens than any other nation in world history. It does not matter. I am an idealist and I believe I will take what is the greatest health care in world history and make it better.” There were three reporters who fainted for being in his glorious presence, one from CNN, one from CBS, and a third from PBS.

“The bill you least like would prevent insurance companies from barring you from getting health insurance because of pre-existing conditions”
This is the huge one. Require coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions and health care is no longer tied to employment and the rescission dirty tricks are hobbled. It sure doesn’t end the job of giving America the world-leading system we deserve, but it is a big first step on ending the embarrassment we have now.

“Might as well since Rahm is the real president.”
tyler | Oct 20, 2009 10:55:02 PM
Seriously? THAT’S how the Right is trying to resolve their “he’s done nothing/he’s single handedly destroyed America!” doublethink? Good luck with that – Rahm ain’t no Cheney and he serves at the will of the President.

Do any of these Congress critters, and those who worship them, understand that our current GNP is about $14 trillion, and in decline…and the Obama Administration and Congress since January have essentially committed the United States to well over $10 trillion in expenditures or guarantees?
Paying for all of this, how to pay for this, all of this…that seems to be one of those pesky important items that appears to be lacking.
Forget government budgets…we are mortgaging almost the entire “worth” of all production, all property, all assets held privately and by government, all of it…to do what?
Other than have my great-grand kids sit back and wonder as they scrabble amongst the millions of homeless for a new candle or try to find something to eat what in hell happened in what used to be America in those dark days of 2009-2013, what are we allowing to be done to all of us for the next several generations and beyond?

wonder as they scrabble amongst the millions of homeless for a new candle or try to find something to eat
Posted by: james
that’s an excellent description of what Obama inherited on 1/20/09.. nice work by you

Oh Yeah, fyi, Obama has quadrupled the deficit in just 9 months so stop blaming Bush it is no longer is credible to do so. In addition, unemployment is at near 10% and rising so what planet are you living on? Obama is destroying our economy with his deficit spending, tax increases and thug like tactics on business which is destroying our economy.

James
I live near an Indian Reservation…the health care there isnt well maintained because the government doesnt fund it like they should we will have no scare tactics here…some CEOs …mind you the ones that thought if they supported Obama in 08 that they could form the health care debate etc ….I was listening to Mike Malloy coming into work… and he said there is no difference between Obama and W cause the contractors are still over in IRaq and afganistan making millions

julieterra
all those”projected” numbers are just nonsense… like Obama promised health care in the campaign… but there is a behind closed doors conference wit the health insurance industry promising not to enact it till the “out” years…I need health care now not 2013!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“all those”projected” numbers are just nonsense…”
___________________________________
There are not nonsense in the least. They are the numbers projected by the Congressional Budget Office and others way back in January 2009 BEFORE Obama took office.
The 2009 fiscal deficit was projected at $1.2 trillion while Bush held the office.
Educate yourself.

Promises made to the Native Americans by treaty are also being broken by the government. JUST LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH GOVERNMENT RUN SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE ON THE INDIAN RESERVATIONS WHICH IS A FAILURE.
Posted by: james | Oct 21, 2009 12:22:24 AM
***
The way you lead into this it sounds like you’re trying to insinuate that all of a sudden promises are being broken when in fact HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said “she will launch a new multiyear effort to improve health care for American Indians, which she calls a ‘historic failure.’” In addition, since writing the blogs you mention, Tom Giago has also written one called “health care through the eyes of an independent”. Google that one, and note that he says the Indian Health Service and the single-payer systems of England and Canada may have some problems, but for the most part, they are working– and that he thinks health care reform is needed in a dire way.

julieterra
wrong again tbhe CBO numbers were suspect… I dont know why you are arguing when Baucus is going to get his way as republican lite and all you pencil necked wealthy people who voted for Obama to keep your stash just want to make sure he doesnt really do anything like blow up the system and start again which is what most economists including paul Krugman say! the taletale sign was that fundraiser in 2008 in san Fran at a wealthy benefactors homes where he tries to explain why normal people cling to guns and religion…the Bill mahers oft e world are very upset that this university of Chicago petrie dish experiment is not happening like it was supposed to

allyson
startign and doing are two different things they have had enough time to start something yet there is no final bill in place

January 7, 2009
“When Barack Obama is sworn into office in two weeks, he’ll also inherit another less pleasant piece of history: the largest deficit ever, $1.2 trillion.”

“Oh my goodness!” as one of my favorite science professors usedt o say when he knew people were getting away with something…julieterra et al can cut and paste stuff from offical talkign points but doing that in the campaign versus in the white house doesnt have the same gravity… you really arent important to THEM anymore… they dont even expect you to come out to vote in the mid-terms!

the stock market is coming back based soley on energy commodities…
… but there are you people who eat up the half truths that the DNC and people around Obama… not Obama himself put out
Posted by: JG | Oct 21, 2009 1:17:31 AM
If you wrote with a little more clarity and specificity, you never know, we might agree on some things. I don’t know which reforms, or “half-truths” you’re talking about. I do agree that that a commodity surge drove the rise in the stock market, so there you go– a bit of agreement.

Who is more lame?
Obama or the fools that still believe those slogans.
Posted by: larry | Oct 20, 2009 10:39:35 PM
***********
Ummmm – both? We need jobs, not health care. I’ll chant: JOBS YES WE CAN! if you deliver on your promise of 3.5 million jobs. Heck, since you missed the deadline of ‘end of summer’, I’ll even take 3.5 million jobs by end of year. Focus on that instead of this LAME health care crap.

I am getting a little tired of the slogans myself. Do I want healthcare for everyone sure its a great idea, but can I afford it can all americans afford it? I dont think so. I have healtcare wear I work. I am pretty much covered. I pay a ten dollars for office visits and pay 10 dollars for medication. Is that a Cadilliac Plan that they want to tax? I only make 35,000 a year. I gave up a raise to prevent lay offs and keep our healtcare coverage the same. Tell me this what incentive will buisness have to offer employees a healtcare plan if the public option goes through? They will drop their healtcare plans like hotcakes and tell their employees to get on the public option or find their own healthcare in the mean time I will still be making 35,000 and now end up having to come up with about at least 400 bucks a month to get healthcare plan cause forgive me if I dont want the government who didnt do anything about the economic crisis until it was just that, who run social security and medicare that are about to go broke deciding what coverage I deserve.

It’s clear a public option is a precursor to single payer. The strategy is to promise “competition” in the free market when in reality a public option will eliminate private health insurance due to a lack of fair competition. No private insurer will be able to compete with government subsidized health care and the sponsors of a public option know it.
Here’s a short list of people who are on record stating that a health care reform bill that includes a public option is just the first step to single payer:
President Obama (2003 and 2008)
Rep. Barney Frank
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Former Sen. Tom Daschle
Sen. Russ Feingold
Sen. John Conyers
Sen. Bernie Sanders
“The Architect” Jacob Hacker
The 90+ cosponsors of H.R. 676
We keep hearing of new polls where 50%+ of Americans support a plan with a public option. However, American support of single payer (government run health care with no private competition) runs at about 10% on average. The real question pollsters should be asking is, “Would you support a public option even though it would likely lead to single payer in your lifetime?”

How sad it is to recall that nine months ago this president’s Approval Index was a +30; today it’s a -13. A negative swing of 43 points from the days of hope, of “no red states, no blue states, just purple states.”
The public’s disappointment with Obama is palpable.

The public’s disappointment with Obama is palpable.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 21, 2009 11:19:48 AM
***
LOL!!! Yeah, right, sure, if (and only if) the only people you know are conservatives, Faux News apologists and those of the tea party ilk and you consider that the “public.”
Meanwhile, only 1 in 5 Americans want to identify themselves as Republicans, intraparty Republican fighting may ensure a Dem wins a Republican district in NY for the first time since the Civil War, the public option is popular, and House Democrats are convening a forum of economists to debate the state of the economy, with a specific focus on job creation while the GOP just continues to do nothing—

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 21, 2009 9:56:45 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let’s put this in perspective shall we? Since the Rasmussen results deal with the ‘spread’ let’s see how they did in the 2008 election.
Obama / McCain / Spread – Poll
52.9 / 45.6 / 7.3 – Final Results
53 / 46 / 7 – CNN/Opinion Research
53 / 46 / 7 – Ipsos/McClatchy
50 / 43 / 7 – FOX News
52 / 46 / 6 – Pew Research
52 / 46 / 6 – Rasmussen Reports
It looks like Rasmussen came in 5th place. Interestingly, they were behind FOX news. And, CNN and Ipsos nailed the ‘final results’ and ‘spread’.
So, why are you so fascinated by the Rasmussen poll?

Ernest,
I think the CNN poll is adults. The Ras poll is likely voters.

The Fox poll was 10/13-14.

Why did Rasmussen use ‘Total Approve’ vs ‘Total Disapprove’ during the Bush administration, but now wants to use ‘Strongly Approve’ vs ‘Strongly Disapprove’ with Barack?”
Because he weighs GOP poll responses more heavily and knew the new breakdown would be FoxNews friendly.
Rasmussen is a sleaze.

===Why did Rasmussen use ‘Total Approve’ vs ‘Total Disapprove’ during the Bush administration, ===
I’m not sure what you are talking about. I just checked the archives and Rasmussen had this about Bush…
“In the final full month of his Presidency, just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved. That gives the President a -30 rating on the Presidential Approval Index”
It looks the same as the one for Obama today. What exactly are you referring to?

How sad it is to recall that nine months ago this president’s Approval Index was a +30; today it’s a -13. A negative swing of 43 points from the days of hope, of “no red states, no blue states, just purple states.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 21, 2009 11:19:48 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Rasmussen poll has four answers: ‘Strongly Approve’, ‘Somewhat Approve’, ‘Somewhat Disapprove’, and ‘Strongly Disapprove’.
Why is it that Rasmussen does not post ‘Somewhat Disapprove’ vs ‘Somewhat Approve’ ?
Is it because those percentages are diametrically opposed to the ‘Strongly Approve’ vs ‘Strongly Disapprove?

===This is your proof? January of 2009? ===
Proof of what? I don’t know what is different. I found this at DU in May 2008.
“For the week ending May 9, just 32% of Americans approved of the way the George W. Bush performed his role as President. That’s down two percentage points from last week and the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The decline in the President’s ratings come as the Rasmussen Consumer Index also hovers around record lows—72% of Americans believe that economic conditions are getting worse.
Sixty-five percent (65%) disapprove of the President’s Performance, up two points from a week ago.
The weekly figures include 13% who Strongly Approve and 47% who Strongly Disapprove.
The weekly figures also represents a two-point decline from the numbers recorded during the full month of April. During that month, 34% of Americans gave the President their approval. That too was an all-time low, the lowest full-month approval rating ever for the President measured by Rasmussen Reports. For the full month, just 14% Strongly Approved of the President’s performance while 46% Strongly Disapproved”
What is the difference between how Rasmussen polled Bush and polls Obama? I am obviously missing something, but I don’t know what.

What is the difference between how Rasmussen polled Bush and polls Obama? I am obviously missing something, but I don’t know what.”
Notice the emphasis on total approval being the first thing mentioned even though its terrible at 32%
Compare with Obama
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13. That’s just a point above the lowest level ever recorded for this President. It’s also the sixth straight day in negative double digits, matching the longest such streak”
You actually have to dig a little into the article to find Obama’s total approval number.
Rasmussen is obvious in his framing.
He is a sleaze that references a bogus study to call himself the most accurate pollster.

“I actually thought that was a posting at DU, since it didn’t link back to Rasmussen. I thought Ernest was arguing that Rasmussen didn’t poll strongly disapprove when Bush was president”
He unveiled the index (subtracting strong approve from strong disapprov) this year. That is what I thought Ernest was referring too.
I discussed this when right winger began posting the index in Feb.

===Notice the emphasis on total approval being the first thing mentioned even though its terrible at 32%===
I thought Ernest was arguing that Rasmussen didn’t poll strongly disapprove when Bush was president, but I found it all over the internet where he did. The numbers he posted earlier included the “somewhat” he wanted, so I still don’t know what the beef is. Rasmussen finished the 2008 elections off by very little. He is polling likely voters, the others aren’t. I suspect that is why there is a difference.
Posted by: Axey | Oct 21, 2009 2:37:55 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks for the attention to detail. I should have said “Emphasized” instead of “used”. That is clear from the history and shows the bias I am referring to. However, ‘Total’ was “emphasized” back then for Bush, whereas ‘Strongly’ appears to be used solely now for Barack.
The following, using your figures for Bush and the recent Rasmussen data, illustrates the ‘Rasmussen GOP Bias’ then and now using the 4 answers; 1) Strongly Approve, 2) Somewhat Approve, 3) Somewhat Disapprove, 4) Strongly Disapprove. Index = Approve-Disapprove.
Bush
View / Somewhat / Strongly / Total
Approve / 19% / 13% / 32%
Disapprove / 18% / 47% / 65%
Index / 1% / -34% / -33%
Obama
View / Somewhat / Strongly / Total
Approve / 20% / 27% / 47%
Disapprove / 13% / 40% / 53%
I
ndex / 7% / -13% / -6%
As you can see Bush’s ‘Index’ was better (even though still very bad) by “Emphasizing” ‘Total’.
And, Barack’s ‘Index’ is significantly worse by “using” ‘Strongly’.
But the most interesting thing is what ‘Somewhat’ says because that is where the ‘swing vote’ is!

Alyson:”Meanwhile, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR)has sent tea party organizations and other conservative groups including think tanks a memo urging them to join in a coordinated approach “to deliver a decisive ‘knock out’ punch” to health care reform legislation. Looks like some folks who comment here got the memo.”
Posted by: Alyson | Oct 21, 2009 11:04:25 AM
=================
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. All I did was a little search on “single payer supporters Washington” and all this information comes pouring out. I noticed you didn’t refute a single thing in my post regarding who supports single payer and also is on record stating a health reform bill with a public option would be a great first step. That’s because it’s irrefutable. I presented facts, you chose to attack the messenger. That’s OK, I can take it. I’ll repeat some of my post with the hope of returning the thread back to a health care discussion:
It’s clear a public option is a precursor to single payer. The strategy is to promise “competition” in the free market when in reality a public option will eliminate private health insurance due to a lack of fair competition. No private insurer will be able to compete with government subsidized health care and the sponsors of a public option know it.
Here’s a short list of people who are on record stating that a health care reform bill that includes a public option is just the first step to single payer:
President Obama (2003 and 2008)
Rep. Barney Frank
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Former Sen. Tom Daschle
Sen. Russ Feingold
Sen. John Conyers
Sen. Bernie Sanders
“The Architect” Jacob Hacker
The 90+ cosponsors of H.R. 676
The most interesting and blatant one here is Jacob Hacker, the architect of so much of the legislation currently under consideration.
Hacker:“Someone once said to me, ‘Well, this is a Trojan horse for single payer.’ I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there! I’m telling you!’” Hacker said in a video which was filmed at a July 2008 forum sponsored by the liberal Tides Foundation.
“We’re going to get there (to a government-run system)–over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employment-based health insurance, as we should.
“But we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”

Alyson:”You’re too funny. Facts? “It’s clear a public option is a precursor to single payer” is NOT a fact.
=========
No, that’s an opinion based on the FACTS I presented. You’re being coy at best, disingenuous at worst. Here’s another fact:
Washington Post, August 19, 2008 covering Obama on the campaign trail in Albuquerque, NM:
Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time.
Listen up. Single-payer health care might just work. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.
– Again, there is no Trojan Horse involved. Obama has a plan to get us to single payer. He’s patient. As he said in 2003, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”
Facts are stubborn things. I’m sure you’ll say his position has evolved or something like that even though there’s no evidence to support such a notion.

Alyson:”His view is pretty much the same as mine. I want a structure in place that is flexible enough to easily allow for a movement toward single payer if the public shifts in that direction. It’s the smartest move– …”
Well, well. I can always count on Alyson to tell the truth. It takes a while to get there sometimes but when left with no choice, eventually you’ll come out with it.
Let’s get greedy. Can you honestly state in your heart of hearts that the White House and Congress have framed the debate as you have so eloquently put it? I can’t recall anyone in a position of power stand on the floor of the House or Senate or the WH Press Room saying the public option is the first step to single payer. Or that single payer is the best, smartest system out there, etc. Because if this is what Obama, Pelosi and Reid believe then they haven’t exactly been honest with the American public.

anything other than a public option, leaves control of our health decisions to the insurance co.s period..they do not make decisions based on the best interest of the patient(ie..all you overweight or underweight children and adults shall be excluded from health care benifits…how are you liking that??? They only want to insure the least likely to get ill…some people need to smarten up..