Shame on Max Baucus for killing the public option

(This article will be featured in the New University on Monday)

There was one a moment in the history of the health reform bill (H.R 3200) where passing reform through Congress seemed like an easy task--and it was. That was back in early August. That was before the health care bill met Sen. Max Baucus. Since the bill came in contact with Baucus it has been ripped, shredded, smeared--the works, and it is mostly because of Sen. Baucus.
On August 1st, H.R 3200 had passed through four out of five committees in the senate with relative ease. Ideally, the bill was supposed to pass through the fifth with the same grace. Obviously that was not the case. Why? Sen. Baucus called for a bi-partisan effort and stopped the bill dead in its tracks to make the infamous "gang of six", composed of conservative democrats and allegedly moderate republicans (if you can call Sen. Grassley a moderate). Since then the health reform bill has been cut down inch by inch and has been muddled with countless concessions and compromises--one of those compromises including the public option. Now, bi-partisanship is wonderful, however it has been more than evident the republicans are just looking to kill any bill that is proposed. So, here we are today, with a health care bill watered down with concessions Sen. Baucus has given away, still with no republican votes. Sen. Baucus is literally destroying proper health reform-- and now he is paying the price for it with his political career.
As of late, certain liberal organizations such as Progressive Campaign Change Committee and Democracy for America have retaliated against Sen. Baucas with ads that calls on the American public to hold Sen. Baucus responsible for watering down and stalling health reform and killing the public option. In the ads, set to air in Montana and Washington D.C, Baucus is slammed for receiving upwards of a million in campaign contributions from the health care industry, and is threatened with a loss in the primary elections in 2010. The ads features a man, named Bing Perrine, from Baucus' state, Montana, who has racked up $100,000 in debt from medical bills due to heart problems. Perrine closes the ad directing a rhetorical question towards Sen. Baucus, "who's side are you really on?".
Unfortunately, this type of hardball politics is what pro-reform activists need. It seems as if without them--without these ads--nothing productive will get done on the left side of the isle. This is not to say however, politicians should never make mistakes if they have a hope for getting re-elected. If Sen. Baucus created the "gang of six", realized the Republicans wanted no part of bi-partisanship and then fought to keep health care reform strong, that would have been appropriate. However, that is not what happened. Sen. Baucus continued to make the same stupid mistake of assuming, or allowing, the GOP was there to help pass reform. This level of ignorance at such a crucial time such as this one is utterly unacceptable, and Baucus should be held accountable for his disregard of proper reform. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Sen. Baucus has been fooled for two whole months. So shame on you Sen. Baucus--you do not deserve to be re-elected.
Of course it is important to note not all of the blame can be put on Sen. Baucus. A number of democrats have had this same attitude of appeasement; they too have been targeted. Sen. Mike Ross and independent Sen. Olympia Snowe have had similar ads run against them. While any democrat without a spine at this point deserves to have their political career put in jeopardy, the person who deserves the ads the most is Sen. Baucus. He had the most power to pass reform in the senate and he failed miserably. He watered down the bill for republican votes, but got none. The, when he realized he had no republican votes, he did not have the piece of mind to strengthen the bill again. Worst of all, he voted against adding a public option in the bill during the amendment process. He is the reason a public option becomes a less likely of an option every day. He deserves those ads against more than anyone else in the senate. He should have to reap what he sewed.

Bipartisan Speech, Partisan Session

While the speech was a glamorous one, the behavior in congress was hardly the same case. It was evident the wear and tear from the brutal month of August has taken it's effect on congress. The joint-session was clearly divided by partisan lines, and efforts to reach out across these lines were not evident in either party--excluding the President of course. Yet, while democrats showed their partisanship in the traditional way, by clapping and handing out standing ovations every time the President said something reasonable moving, which in Obama's case was every other sentence. Out of everyone in the democratic congress, my favorite was Nancy Pelosi, who wore a gleaming smile on her face over every word Obama spoke, struggling to contain herself from clapping or standing. Of course, if you watched the speech, you realize she didn't do too fairly with her restraint. On the other hand, she did get one hell of a work out from how any ovations she gave.

While, the democratic partisanship was rather conventional, and humorous, the GOP was a different story entirely. Their partisanship was hardly conventional, and it wasn't humorous. It was hilarious. It made the whole session out to be like a bunch of teenagers in a fight.

There was of course most notably, Sen. Joe Wilson who shouted "You Lie!" in middle of the President's speech, and proceeded to distract himself from the speech and of the glaring eyes of Pelosi and the left--and even the right, with his blackberry. Some of the older members of congress, like Rep. Rosa DeLauro, claimed she had never seen anything like that in her years of congress. Unfortunately, it didn't stop there for Wilson, he has been reprimanded by both sides of the isle non-stop, and his opponent in the 2010 election raised over 100,000 dollars in less than half a day due to Wilson's outburst. Who would of thought two words, two three letter words, uttered at probably the most inopportune time, could cost an election, and possibly a career.

But while Wilson, may be the most outrageous, and doomed, of the partisan efforts, there was still plenty more inappropriate behavior to go around the GOP. From what, I, and most of you who watched the speech live could see, the Republican Party was holding up signs and a stack of papers. The signs were from Republican members such as Louie Gohmert that read "What Bill", "What Plan?", as if he were campaigning for a high school election. The stack of papers were apparently a reference that the Republican Party had a proposed bill--apparently indicating President Obama had not in fact taken their suggestions. Why we haven't heard about these suggestion until they were waved around in the President's face is beyond me. But it seems the President has some apologizing to do--after all, he hasn't really considered the plan of the GOP; a plan they had for a substantial...five minutes. And of course, the partisan nature of the session could be most seen in the discontent faces of the GOP, when ever they weren't texting of course.

If you watched live that's about how partisan it got, however, the Huffington Post reported even more efforts to be uncivil. After the President debunked the "death panel" claim, one republican mumbled loudly enough to be heard at the floor, " Read the Bill!". When the President said he had no interest of putting insurance companies out of business, he got a loud "HA!" from the right side of the isle. Then of course there was the normal, heavy sighing, agitated whispering, and groans at the presidents claims--something that actually is conventional partisanship.

Just how partisan was this session? Well, aside from Obama's speech, the two most bi-partisan moments in the whole joint-session were: John McCain giving his trademark thumbs up to President Obama after he credited McCain with an idea proposed in the bill; The Republican party hooting and hollering, and stomping on the floor as if they were cheering on their team at the Super Bowl, after the President said he was considering the mal-practice reforms the GOP had advocated for.

Woo, bi-partisanship!

Speech To Congress: Standing Ovations, Moving Words, and Screaming Congressman

Yes, it seems the joint-session health care speech to congress was all it was hyped up to be. We saw a reemergence of President Obama as he was during the election, we saw Nanci Pelosi get an amazing workout standing up every other sentence, we saw angry Republicans waiving papers around angrily, we even saw the topic of tomorrows news as Congressman Joe Wilson showed some lack of class.

The speech obviously lived up to expectations in hype but did President Obama live up to expectations in his speech?

Our poll said 37 percent of you wanted him to be clear on the public option, another 37 percent said you wanted him to explain how he will pay for this plan, 11 percent of you wanted him to be emphatic and emotional about the strifes of the current system, and 14 percent of you wanted him to stress a bi-partisan effort. Lets take those one at a time:

Pubic Option: President Obama did, in fact advocate for a public option. And he did so forcefully. He explained the benefits of a public option, such as healthy competition and affordable insurance for everyone. He also dispelled any rumors that went along with it, such as a government take of health care. Obama clearly stated that the notion of the government taking over health care is not true. He made sure the public, and congress, knew that it would only be a option, he even quoted the Congressional Budget Committee in its estimate that only 5 percent of Americans would sign up. However, Obama, eased up a bit and did what I hoped he wouldn't do. He claimed the public option was not a necessity for health reform. While he was still adamant about the option he claimed that he would go for anything that brought costs down. Which is all good and well except for that fact it gives those opposed to reform leeway to move away fro a public option. Nothing really will bring down costs as well as a public option--and any leeway given to move away from a public option is will risk the vote of those on the far left.

Paying for the plan- Obama really scored well with the blue dogs and progressives by outlining how he is going to pay for the plan. When it came time to talk about costs, he cut right to the chase. The first thing he said probably was effective enough to win over a majority of Blue Dog democrats. He said, he will not add a dime to the deficit. Clear. Simple. Truth? Yes. He gave proof, finally. Obama stressed the idea there would be a provision in the bill that would cut spending if the savings anticipated from the reform did not materialize. Boom. There was the left jab. Obama again stresses the savings he will get the inefficiencies of medicare and medicaid, but this time goes on to claim that the rest of the plan will be paid for through the revenues of the drug and insurance companies who will stand to see millions of new customers. Another jab. Think its over? No. Obama is relentless. The reform will charge a fee for insurance companies most expensive policies, not only reducing costs, but providing the capital to pay for reform. There is the right hook. The Blue Dogs are staggering...they are backing down. But here comes the knockout.

Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.

Ding Ding Ding! That ladies and gentleman is knockout. The Blue Dogs doubt are conquered. So what makes this really a knockout? Because those same centrist wing Blue Dogs voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan War, and the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. So, they should be complaining about costs any longer.

The current system: This one is easy. Obama was tugging on heartstrings from the get go with two heart breaking stories of people who were denied insurance and suffered a high price for it. Check it out:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.

That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

As Obama delivered these heartbreaking stories, Nanci Pelosi was fighting to stay sitting in her chair. But pathos wasn't enough. Obama went on, forcefully, to describe what will happen if we will maintain the status quo--and the he wont stand for it. Case closed.

Bipartisanship: Though this definitely wasn't on my agenda, it was on some of yours, and it was on his. President Obama made huge efforts to be bi-partisan and despite the largely partisan nature of the session, most notably from the right, he earned a thumbs up from John McCain for his bi-partisan efforts. All in all, he reached over to the isle include provisions that the Republican party advocated on mal-practice issues, incorporated John McCain's idea, and even gave leeway, much to my disdain, on the public option.

All in all, it was a great speech, aside from the public option part. He may not of hit a grand slam...but at the very least its a home run with two on base.

New Poll: What is the most important thing Obama does in his address to Congress

Vote now! Tell us what you think is the most important thing President Obama needs to do in his address to congress! Give us your opinion over to the right of this blog!


(Mind the grammatical errors--we cant change the poll)

The Bare Neccisities Of Obama's Address to Congress

After two months of having his health care reform propositions be muddled, twisted, and turned in every which direction, the president is ready to take matters into his own hands. It is about time. Frankly, it has taken him to long to take initiative on the health care issue--and he has quite the mountain to climb to make up for his passiveness. As history has proved, a home run speech in front of congress simply won't do the trick to pass an effective health care reform bill--Obama needs a grand slam. Anything short, will be ineffective. Here is what Obama needs to do in his speech to be effective.

First thing, dispel all rumors quickly and decisively. Obama, to put it bluntly, has let the GOP walk all over him with their fear mongering tactics. Aside from a few defensive comments, he really hasn't done much battling these rumors-- really it has been the media doing the dirty work for him. The first thing he needs to do, before getting into the plan itself, is let everyone know, in an authoritative, commanding, almost aggravated fashion that these rumors about "death panels", veteran health insurance, gov. take over of health care, all of it...is nothing but false. However, because he has done such a poor job battling these rumors in the past months, dispelling these false notions won't be enough to get the job done. He is not only trying to win congress, but the American people as well. He needs to reprimand those elected politicians who encourage the rumors--let everyone know that anyone who has progressed these rumors are doing so for political reasons. Point out the hypocrisy in the rumors. Get the message across, these far fetched ideas have no place in the health care debate, and anyone who introduces them should be ashamed.

Second, clearly,concisely, and emphatically address the problems with the current health care system. Make sure everyone understands the problem with the health care industry is the private insurance companies. Too often the President glosses over this section of the argument, leaving the question to many conservatives, who have this notion of American infallibility, that there really is nothing wrong with the health care system. Part of this explanation should be emphatic. President Obama recently gave a speech on health care where he showed more emotion than I have ever seen him show, and it was incredibly effective. When he talks about the horrors of the health care system today, he must, MUST, utilize his incredible charisma, arguably more than any other part in his address to congress. The reason is because congress really already knows a lot of he details in bill--they are writing it. This is for the American people. It seems that of those who understand what the bill proposes, the majority supports it. The chunk of nay-sayers are people who don't understand the need for reform, and don't really understand the bill. These type of people are not going to be persuaded by by facts, or by a clear cut plan. They will be persuaded by rhetoric filled with the pathos of an ailing nation in dire need of reform. Obama's charisma, if used effectively, has the potential to sell this idea to reform to Americans, who simply don't, and really will not, understand the contents of the bill that is being proposed.

Thirdly, clearly address the details of the proposed plan. Most importantly, Obama needs to be clear, crystal clear, on what he wants in a plan, and how he plans to pay for it. This is more for Congress than for the American people, but it definitely wont hurt to have the public hear his plan. He needs to be stone cold on the idea that a public option is must. No more of this wishy washy, maybe co-op, maybe public option crap. We need a public option. That's what we want. That's what you are going to give me. That's the attitude the President needs to take. When it comes to details of the plan, so far, Obama has done a pitiful job explaining. When asked about competition between private sectors and the public option, or about costs or raising taxes, he has either beat around the bush or sugar coated it. He needs to make up for that Wednesday. Give congress a clear cut answer on why private insurance company will be able to compete with the public option. Most of all, explain how he plans to pay for his proposed health care plan. In gaining votes this is the most important part of his speech. If he can effectively produce a rational answer to come up with the 1 billion dollars needed to fund this thing, he will be able to win over the moderate democrats, and maybe even a 1 or 2 republicans.

In short what needs to happen, is the timid, passive, Obama that has shockingly emerged for these last two months needs to disappear. He needs to show the American public and congress, with the confidence and authority he had campaigning that he has full faith in the public option. Any speech that doesn't radiate confidence is a failed one. Any speech that doesn't address these three steps is a failed one. Obama has dug this whole through his passiveness, lets see him get out of it.

I invite anyone to give us what you think is necessary for Obama to do in his speech. I am interested to see what everyone thinks.