Did you know that the "public option" for health care actually has a 62 percent approval rating?

It needs a 60% approval rating in the Senate, but thanks to some DINOs, it ain’t gonna get it.

The new commercial for this is so effective.

What % of American voters actually know any of the specific details of Obama’s proposed health care initiative?

@The_Compassionate_Heretic, what health care initiative are you referring to, specifically? Obama isn’t a legislator.

@Qingu Sure he is. Presidents are always legislators. Many bills come from the White House and are submitted for consideration to the floor of the House or Senate by a congressperson. For example, the ARRA was introduced to the House floor as “sponsored by Congressman Dave R. Obey of WIsconsin by request of the President of the United States.”

@lefteh, I do see your point. The white house can propose bills—or more often, broad outlines for bills, as Obama has done here—and can put pressure on the legislative branch for specific items in the bill. But claiming that Obama actually has a bill on the table is asinine. (I’m not actually sure if TCH was saying he did or not.)

He has broad outlines that he’s detailed numerous times, though. But there is as of yet no bill, as Obama’s broad outlines are in the process of getting hashed out (and, unfortunately, watered down) in the House and Senate. And we haven’t even gotten to reconciliation yet.

I think I’m just pissed off at all of these idiots screaming about how WE HAVEN’T EVEN READ THE BILL YET, OMG! Of course not, they’re still writing it!

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Thats pretty much the point i’m trying to raise here. In a national poll, there was plenty of opposition to “Obama’s health care plan” when stated as such (see the linked results); however, when asked about critical elements of it, many american’s were suddently open to them, so long as Obama’s name wasnt attached to it.

This indicated to me that there is a significant portion of oppositionists who don’t even care to look at what his and the Dem’s plan includes before somewhat mindlessly following along with the messages and talking points they receive from conservative pundits.

The news media seem to have a huge bias towards the right wing in this country. So ironic. The right wings carps about supposed bias of the media, when they sit back laughing at how they have taken over the media. Shameful!

@Qingu I see your point better now, and agree. GA.

It WAS 74% when this whole thing started. The lies and fear are doing their job, but it doesn’t matter because a) Republicans vote lock step, always have, always will, and b) there are enough Dems who have been bought and sold by the insurance companies (who spend $14 million a day to kill any meaningful reform) to make it possible for this kind of ignorant debate of non issues actually have the effect of screwing us out of what should be a no brainer human rights issue. I’m ready to move out of this fucking country.

I don’t know, @dalepetrie. I might just go down with the ship. It’s amazing, though, how Republicans love to lose money, and also lose money for the working and middle classes. It is amazing that the average IQ in almost every Republican state is lower than the average IQ in most Democratic states. Stupidity just abounds, and obstructionism is enough to impose the cost of stupidity on everyone.

I’ll just say, I won’t vote against Obama in 2012 unless the entire definition of Republican somehow changes in the next 3 years, but let’s just say if he fucks this up, he’s not getting the level of support from me in 2008, and IF a liberal with conviction and BALLS (and a snowball’s chance in hell) runs against him in the primary, I will certainly consider voting to nominate that person.

@dalepetrie, what exactly do you think Obama could/should be doing to ensure the public option gets passed?

Again, I’d like to see it passed, but it’s not as though it can’t get passed in the future, when the political climate is more favorable. And it is getting more favorable for liberals demographically. Republicans are old, white, and uncultured.

@Qingu – First off, there’s an issue of what he should have already DONE.

Instead of handing the writing of the bill off to Congress in the first place, he should have put forth a structure of a bill which included more than bare bones necessities, so that there would be room for some less important things to be stripped away, and he shoudl have hit the road on a PR tour to counter the PR he knew would be coming from the other direction.

Second, I admire what he is doing with his campaign to dispel the lies and get the truth out there, but it should have been more widespread and should have started earlier.

Third, he should NOT have allowed Congress to recess without getting this done, because the people who are trying to kill reform are spending, as I said FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS EVERY SINGLE DAY to convince people of the lies and scare tactics. If the bill had been completed and voted on before Congress recessed, we wouldn’t even have HAD all these town hall meetings where ignorant blowhards are screaming that they want their country back.

Fourth, he should NOT back down, not on things that are important, like a public option. Health care reform without a public option is fucking MEANINGLESS, and all that will have been accomplished here would be that Obama would have kept his political brand in tact by getting SOMETHING passed, even though Progressives will be pissed about it, because hey, like a true Progressive/Liberal is going to vote against Obama (yeah, right).

Five, he should do anything and everything necessary, including openly mocking the absolutely silly rhetoric. I would say he should do what he did in the last days of his campaign, where he went on TV and laid out the facts in a calm and rational manner, dispelled the lies, and laid it out in very personal terms that related to the lives of real people.

Sixth, he should go to each and every one of those Blue Dog Democrats who threaten to vote against reform and say to them, “look…this is the single most important human rights issue our country is facing today. If you cross your party on this one, you may retain your millions in campaign contributions from the health care industry, but you will be making some POWERFUL enemies within your party, and the buck stops right at MY desk. You will be able to COUNT on me personally supporting another Democrat in a primary challenge in 2010/2012.”

Seventh, don’t EVER back down. Tell Pelosi to whip the House, and Reid to invoke the nuclear option if necessary, but by GOD we will pass MEANINGFUL health care reform, period, end of fucking discussion.

@dalepetrie,

#1—I actually thought he had done this pretty well. As far as I can tell, the basic framework—reforming insurance company policies, mandate, subsidies for poor, and public option to compete with private insurers—has been in place for a while and came straight from the WH.

#2—it’s easy to argue that he should have done more in hindsight. But it’s not even clear that the lies and nonsense are having an effect on the policy. I don’t think the Blue Dogs were ever in support of the public option.

#3—Obama does not have the power to unilaterally order Congress to finish a bill.

#4—what do you mean “not back down”? He can use all his power to influence Congress to write the bill he wants. But if the finished bill doesn’t contain a public option, what then? Veto? That seems awfully backwards when further legislation could always make a public option. And, as Nate Silver argues, the bill—even without the public option—would significantly improve the health care system. It’s not all or nothing.

#5, I’m not sure you, or I, are in a position to say what the most effective political strategy is for Obama to counteract Republican rhetoric. It’s easy to play armchair David Axelrod. I would also like to see more forceful language from Obama, but then I’m not going to be super-pissed if he doesn’t take my armchair advice exactly.

#6. I absolutely agree, the Blue Dogs are a huge problem. But if Obama does put pressure on these people, it’s going to be behind the scenes. Meanwhile, we liberals should put pressure on the Blue Dogs and primary them where possible (and where more liberal candidates can actually win over Republican opponents—Blue Dogs are better than Republicans.)

#7—this is just “ra ra ra.”

This is America. We aren’t a “center-right” country, but we are relatively conservative compared to other, more civilized countries. So I don’t think it’s realistic to hope for a health care revolution. I am going to be happy if we get a series of incremental reforms. If public option doesn’t pass this year, maybe we can re-propose it next year, or second term. And maybe when some of these old people start dying off in a decade, our culture will be sufficiently liberal to support single-payer.

@Quingu – I’ll have to respectfully agree to disagree on a lot of this. I agree with your assessment in #1, he and the WH HAVE done a good job of imparting many, many important facets of the bill to Congress, but I say certain things are too important to let go by the wayside. I don’t believe better is “good enough”. The bottom line is, that 74% of people originally supported a public option, that support has eroded by 12%, and it is in the AFTERMATH of that erosion and the public outcry that the White House has backed off on what was once the friggin’ CORNERSTONE of Obama’s plan. You say it’s not clear that the lies are affecting policy, but I say, once the lies started to reach a fever pitch, THAT’S when Dems backed down on the end of life provisions and THAT’S when the White House signaled it was willing to forgo the public option. Pardon my French, but how much fucking clearer do you need the cause and effect to be?

Next, I’d like to point out that I follow Nate Silver as well, I’ve read everything you have, and you clearly discount what he says about how to do this would have required a major rhetorical push back in June. And he’s been arguing that since June, as have many others. As for what if the bill doesn’t contain a public option, my point is, he may not be able to dictate Congress’ every action, but he damn sure has enough power to change some minds, and he can get Pelosi and Reid, who are already behind him on this, to do THEIR fucking jobs and get it done WITH the public option. If he tells Congress, you’d better deliver me a bill with a public option, period, end of discussion, he sure has enough influence with Congressional Democrats to get them to play ball.

As for the PR press, it’s too little, too late as far as I see, and yes, you can say hindsight is 20/20, but many including myself have been openly wondering why isn’t he doing x, y and z? One thing I put out there a while ago is, why no prime time ½ hour commercial like he had during the campaign to lay out the facts, dispel the lies and put the issue into perspective for Americans so that this was the FIRST impression they had of the bill. It’s a lot harder to play defense, and that’s EXACTLY the position Obama has put us in with this bill. If people had been empowered with the facts in the first damn place, then they wouldn’t be so quick to believe in Obama death panels and government takeover of your right to make medical decisions for yourself.

What I’ve seen is a response to the lies that the slow action and overly accommodating demeanor with which we seem to be treating the opposition have allowed to take hold is a White House based website which if you actually go there does a good job of dispelling the myths, but people who are already suspicious of the White House and Obama aren’t going to believe that’s a site worth their time. Basically my argument is, IF it had been done right in the first place and the truth had been spread in the beginning, the lies wouldn’t take hold, and I sure as hell have to place the blame for that squarely on Obama (even though I credit him where credit is due). But now that this can of worms is opened, it’s going to take pretty much buying up ad time on all the networks to contrast the lies against the truth and show in a way that no person with 2 brain cells to rub together how stupid and uninformed and dangerous the anti-reform rhetoric is, and get the facts out there about who is funding the opposition and what they stand to gain from their investment. Do THAT, and you’ll have a mandate from the masses.

But at this rate, less than 50% of the Senate firmly supports the bill, enough are undecided to make it so that as long as they support “something”, enough of their constituents will be happy enough with the outcome that they won’t be out for blood. The only thing that keeps some of these politicians honest in the face of the big insurance money their campaigns get is outrage from their constituents. The lies are basically putting outrage at bay enough to make it possible for them to screw us without enough of us being up in arms about it.

@dalepetrie, I don’t disagree with most of what you say, and like I said, I don’t know to what extent Obama could have performed better rhetorically on this. It’s entirely possible that he messed up, and that he could be stronger now. I don’t know. I don’t know to what extent backing off on the public plan was the result of insane rhetoric either. It’s possible that it is—though Blue Dogs have been saying all along, the entire time, that the votes were never there.

There are two basic issues I disagree with you about.

1. That passing this without a public option means you should not support Obama strongly in 2012. Like I said, it’s possible that he could have done a marginally better job pushing this bill. But the failure wouldn’t be on his hands. That’s simply not fair to him.

2. That Obama (and Pelosi and Reid) actually have the power to push this through in a significantly stronger way than they already are. I’m a strong Democrat, but our leaders are not dictators. They need to work within the machinery of our legislative process. Unfortunately, that machinery is clogged up with a lot of corrupt and insane politicians. But imagine how pissed off you’d be if, instead of Obama, McCain was president and he was trying to ram through some massive health care deregulation bill by doing violence to the legislative process.

The level of corruption and ignorance—both in our legislative branch and in the media—is ultimately a reflection of the American populace. Which is very depressing. Remember that 47% of Americans voted for McCain and Palin. But you shouldn’t be so pessimistic. It’s not like things are worse today than they have ever been before. In fact, things seem pretty clearly to be getting better. In the 1990’s, Clinton got elected on a plurality and absolutely no health insurance reform took place.

@Quingu – I would support him strongly in 2012 no matter what, but I probably wont’ be as likely to put my money where my mouth is like I did in 2008, and if I saw someone who was as passionate as Obama but not as prone to compromising away his ideals come along and mount a primary challenge, I could see myself backing off support for Obama, if only temporarily. And I agree with you about the legislative process, but I do think more can be done if Obama were to use his bully pulpit to incite righteous anger among Democrats against those blocking reform the way the reform blockers are using theirs to incite anger about things that aren’t even real.

Hold on.

1. Nobody is going to primary-challenge Obama. I don’t even think you can do that.

2. Elections are binary. If someone like Huckabee challenges Obama, it doesn’t matter if your support is “analog.” It’s a win-lose situation, and one outcome is going to be significantly, probably catastrophically worse than the other. Withholding donations to “teach Obama a lesson” will not affect his policy in the slightest. It will simply make it more likely that the Republican will win.

Well, I don’t say it’s likely, I say it’s possible for someone to challenge a sitting candidate in the primary. And I wouldn’t withhold my donations to spite him, I’d do it because I’d have better uses of my money than re-electing someone who was all talk.

@dalepetrie, calling Obama “all talk” is really not fair at all. He’s accomplished quite a bit in six months. And, believe it or not, Obama has always been a relatively centrist candidate in his stated policy positions, and had actually campaigned on a willingness to compromise in politics—which is exactly what he’s doing.

Also, one of my greatest regrets in life is not doing more to get John Kerry elected. John Kerry was a shitty candidate, a soulless career politician, and he probably would have been a mediocre president. But like I said, elections are binary. I wish I could go back in time and support Kerry to the same extent that I supported Obama, because the alternative—a Republican president—is orders of magnitude worse than any marginal difference between an “all-talk” Democrat and a progressive hero.

Well, OK, “all talk” is a bit harsh and out of emotion more than anything. He’s doing some great things, I don’t doubt that. But I also think when the real rubber hits the road, he’s too prone to compromising with people he should just tell to suck it. And bottom line is, there is no requirement I give money to a Presidential candidate, Obama would have been elected without the $200 I sent to his campaign, and I having been unemployed for the last 6 months could think of a hundred things that money would have been better spent on. I have never given money to a Presidential candidate before and I gave money to Obama’s campaign freely without reservation at the time, let’s say I was inspired to do so, because here was someone who vocally and articulately laid out support for every single issue which has ever been important to me…he was basically me in a prettier package ideologically speaking. He was what I longed for in a President. And by and large, I’ve been pleased. But we’re not a year into his term, and what I see happening is him allowing ignorance to affect policy, and I can’t abide by that. I can celebrate that someone who would at least TRY to do the right thing and not always succeed is infinitely better than someone who would try to do exactly the wrong thing, but I can’t in good conscience spend my family’s hard earned money on someone who caves too easily to special interests, because today he sells us out/drops the ball on health care (and I really do think a bill that doesn’t include a public option is an absolute disgrace), what is the next thing that he’s going to cave to big money special interests who scream loudly but don’t have their facts straight on? And I too would have preferred Kerry to Bush, but look at it this way, had there been no Bush, I doubt there would have been an appetite for an Obama and we’d have status quo Clinton if we were lucky, and status quo McCain if we weren’t. Basically as I see it, Obama has accomplished a lot, but not much more so than I’d expect of any Democrat President…he has to bring about BIG change, a monumental shift in American politics as usual to make me feel that he is living up to what he is capable of. And I think someone who gives up too easily, which is what I fear I’m seeing here is just not someone capable of doing even a fraction of the things I hope, nay EXPECT Obama to accomplish, because I KNOW he’s capable of doing them. I’d almost rather have no hope at all than false hope. And again, I’m just pissed right now, so don’t put too much stock into what I’m actually going to do in 2012 based on what I’m saying today, just let me be pissed and get back to me in 3 years.