THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The moderates and centrists critical to ongoing health care negotiations seemed to have found a good deal to their liking in the president’s speech tonight. Senator Olympia Snowe—a central focal point for the TV cameras scanning the chamber—issued a statement tonight that praised the President’s stated desire to bend the cost curve and, just as significantly, to ensure that the bill does not add to the deficit. “I was particularly pleased to hear the President’s proposal will require additional spending cuts if projected savings aren’t realized—as it is vital we maintain budget neutrality as fundamental to any final package,” Snowe said in the statement. Ben Nelson issued a particularly positive statement—one that included no direct criticism of the speech. In it, the Nebraska senator insisted that he was “pleased” that Obama had released the specifics of his plan. “I remain committed to work with the President and my colleagues for a bipartisan bill,” Nelson said, emphasizing the importance of “not bust[ing] the bank” with the bill. Altogether, by prioritizing a budget-neutral plan, Obama provided significant political cover for moderates in the bill, one senior Congressional aide tells me. “He made a pretty powerful case that we’re not going to add to the deficit.”
Moreover, the section of the speech that seemed to draw the most enthusiasm from the Republicans—his discussion of medical tort reform—may have been more than just a throwaway GOP applause line. Congressman Bart Gordon, who had been one of the Blue Dog holdouts in the House, devoted his entire reaction statement to the subject, expressing his pleasure that Obama had “talked about the problem of defensive medicine.” To be sure, Gordon had personally authored a last-minute amendment to the House bill that provided incentive payments to states to “reduce frivolous lawsuits” without capping malpractice awards. But other Blue Dogs (like Mike Ross) and more moderate Republicans (like George Voinovich) share this concern, which had up until now played only a marginal role in the mainstream reform debate. Yes, some leading policy analysts have cast significant doubt on whether tort reform will actually rein in health care costs. But if its inclusion in the bill takes the limited form that Obama suggested, it could be the kind of concession that would help get Obama’s moderate Democratic allies fired up to support the bill.
Of course, even those centrists who went out of their way to praise Obama didn’t let him off scot-free. Snowe, for instance, opened her statement with strongly-worded criticisms of the public plan, indicating that she would have “preferred that the issue were taken off the table” as “any bill with a public option will not pass the Senate.” But she ultimately came around to saying that she feels encouraged that the president has recognized her trigger as a real alternative. So, if Obama’s goal was to ease the concerns of those between the left wing of the Democratic Party and the (nearly monolithic) obstructionist wing of the Republican Party, he succeeded. There was little that such moderates “would feel alienated from,” the Hill aide tells me. “I think [Obama] really cast himself as a centrist.”
Cross-posted on The Treatment and The Plank.
2 comments
I do not know what Snowe found annoying about the President's weak positioning of Public Option, as a condiment instead of the main dish or even a side dish, of something as vital to the success of Real Reform as PO. This shift from President's full-throated defense of the Public Option in his press conferences, is to win over Snowe & Co and President's own Stray Dogs. I think it was an opportunity missed to use the bully pulpit to convince the American public of the importance of PO as a component critical to achieving Real Reform. President continued to repeat his very recent ritual of publicly cutting the legs of the Public Option ostensibly to court GOP votes, appease his own Stray Dogs and Health Inc. He claimed PO was only one additional feature. There may be other ideas to replace it. He has no further evidence than before that the objectives above can be achieved by any other means, yet he did not want to sell it to the American public. May be I am missing something about a political stratagem President is after. President also failed to clearly connect the pathetic plight of many Americans to his solutions. Also did not tell them honestly the time table of when the relief will come to the blighted. Like 4 years to an exchange. 4 years from 2013? From today? Progressives should not think PO is the only way, it is just one means. They should be open to other ideas. Mr P, have you not been open for months now? What do you have to show? Belittling the Public Option and the Progressives as extreme left who are stuck on this one idea. Is this a way to display your postparitsanship? I did not know that a compromise from Single Payer to making the Public Plan Optional is some kind of extreme left philosophy (horror of horrors some one labels him as a socialist). Do you think this approach will unite your stray dogs and right wing saboteurs to support a sham bill to put a feather in The Democratic Party cap. Mr P we have all bought into the importance of your three core objectives and your touching empathy for 14000 losing insurance every day and hundreds dying and going bankrupt. What I do not see is your commitment to selling and pushing the only real means to get there, i.e. the Public Option. I do not see you showing clearly how you will take care of the blighted, you so eloquently described in the campaign and continue to do so, in a timely and effective (in terms of $ & c from their pockets) way. Imagine the number of people losing their insurance, 14000*1400, tens may be hundreds of thousands dying or going bankrupt while waiting for 2013.
- doubleaseven
September 10, 2009 at 7:43am
It never fails to fascinate folks like me [those still capable of being fascinated by anything reactionaries in lockstep with one or another fully funded fuhrer have to say about the Evil in ObamaCare] how Republicans in Congress, as governmeet employees, slam the "public option" on healthcare while being covered by the public option themselves. Our tax dollars pay for their healthcare coverage and they fight tooth and nail to keep those tax dollars away from all the rest of us. In the context of all the terrible suffering born by the rest of us in the predatory healthcare jungle out there [a few examples of which Obama noted last night] people like this are really just one more species of scum. However civilized the veneer they coat it with, they are more or less indifferent to that suffering. Indeed, they do whatever they can to perpetuate it by hiding behind "principles". Snowe's fuhrer, one of the kinder, gentler sorts on Wall Street, is cleverer than most, of course. She doesn't snarl unless it is absolutely necessary. But one look at the top five industries that contribute to her campaigns reveals the bite behind whatever bark she manages: From OpenSecrets.org: Retired $427,835....INSURANCE $413,490....HEALTH PROFERSSIONALS $409,264...Lawyers/Law Firms $336,872....Finance/Credit Companies $332,700 Many progressives are preplexed. They don't understand why the Democrats in Congress don't take a page from Drew Weston and slam the Republicans for this...hard. Well, maybe in part because they tap into these fully funded fuhrers on K Street too. Consider the insurance industry in depth. Since 1990, these folks have contributed $320,802,051 to the election campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans. In the 1990, 1992 and 1994 election cycles, the millions were more or less evenly devided betweens the Dems and the Reps. But in 1996 the Delay/Gingrich agenda started to kick in: Dems: 11 million, Reps 23 million 1998: Dems 9 million, Reps 21 million 2000: Dems 14 million, Reps 27 million 2002: Dms 12 million, Rep 26 million 2004: Dems 12 million, Reps 25 million 2006: Dems 11 million, Reps 20 million But the Dems won that election, didn't they? So, in 2008: Dems 21 million, Reps 26 million The gap closes considerably. And in the 2010 election cycle OpenSecrets.org notes that so far the Dems have manage 4.5 million to the Reps 3.5 million. Yet I hear it all the time: George, how come you're still so cynical with the Democrats in power? Well, near as I can figure, I guess I just never learned how handle good news like this like the rest of you. george walton d/a
- iambiguous
September 10, 2009 at 12:25pm