Sen. Harkin blames Obama for Public Option failure, supports Single Payer

[Shadows]

Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the co-authors of the Affordable Care Act, now thinks Democrats may have been better off not passing it at all and holding out for a better bill. “We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly and we didn’t do it,” Harkin told The Hill. “So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all. “What we did is we muddled through and we got a system that is complex, convoluted, needs probably some corrections and still rewards the insurance companies extensively,” he added. “All that’s good. All the prevention stuff is good but it’s just really complicated. It doesn’t have to be that complicated,” he said of the Affordable Care Act.  

Harkin, who is retiring at the end of this Congress, says in retrospect the Democratic-controlled Senate and House should have enacted a single-payer healthcare system or a public option to give the uninsured access to government-run health plans that compete with private insurance companies.“We had the votes in ’09. We had a huge majority in the House, we had 60 votes in the Senate,” he said.He believes Congress should have enacted “single-payer right from the get-go or at least put a public option would have simplified a lot.”“We had the votes to do that and we blew it,” he said. It was the first time since 1978 that Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

Harkin, however, believes Obama and Democratic leaders could have enacted better policy had they stood up to three centrists who balked at the public option: Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), a Democrat turned independent, Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

“The House passed public option. We had the votes in the Senate for cloture,” he said.“There were only three Democrats that held out and we could have had those three,” he added. "We had “[Sen.] Mark Pryor [D-Ark.] so we could have had Lincoln. We could have had all three of them if the president would have been just willing to do some political things but he wouldn’t do it." Harkin and other liberals are now faced with the bitter irony that the centrists tried to placate five years ago by crafting a labyrinthine market-based reform are now all out of the Senate. “So as a result we’ve got this complicated thing out there called the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

He believes Congress should have moved legislation in the first 100 days after Obama’s inauguration, which drew over a million people to the National Mall on a frigid January day. “There’s this old saying, ‘If you have the votes, vote. If you don’t, talk.’ We had the votes but we talked,” he said. Then-Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) held listening sessions with Republican senators for months but ultimately failed to pick up a single GOP vote on the floor.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/225812-harkin-dems-better-off-without-obamacare

2014 Article

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It didn't need 60 votes. it just needed 50 votes as a budget reconciliation bill. When the Senate approved the final version, it was by reconciliation, and anything subject to cloture would have failed anyways, thanks to Scott Brown. But the Democratic party preferred to tell progressives to go f**k themselves than have a good bill.

[Koharu]

If nothing else, all this mess with the AHCA will push us towards some sort of single payer system, I think. Even among my conservative relatives, there are a lot who are pushing for single payer. Or who appreciate Medicaid/Medicare, but then complain about socialism...

[Phony Moderate]

This reminds me of the time Bill Frist claimed he'd have voted for Obamacare if he had still been in the Senate.

[publicunofficial]

Never forget who is to blame:



Joe Lieberman is on my personal Mount Rushmore of politicians that should be boiled in a lake of fire.

[Pericles]

It didn't need 60 votes. it just needed 50 votes as a budget reconciliation bill. When the Senate approved the final version, it was by reconciliation, and anything subject to cloture would have failed anyways, thanks to Scott Brown. But the Democratic party preferred to tell progressives to go f**k themselves than have a good bill.

Certain provisions of the bill were done by reconciliation, such as the budgetary measures. But reconciliation would not have worked for the whole bill as it did not follow the contours of the Byrd Rule. Besides, passing it with reconciliation in 2010 created a flawed bill that the House couldn't amend and one of the many reasons the AHCA is flawed is because it is being pushed through with reconciliation(no insurance across state lines is not something that can pass reconciliation). Though abolishing the legislative filibuster altogether would have been good.

[JA]

Of course, Obama would not do anything to promote a Public Option. Democrats were so high on what Obama appeared to be, that they were (and most continue to be) blind to what he really was and is. Like the Clintons, Obama was a sellout who did nothing memorable for the average American. Saying "he's better than a Republican" is setting the bar pretty damn low and a total deflection from his overall pretty awful Presidency. Even when he had 60 Democratic Senators and an overwhelming majority in the House, the best he could achieve was a 1990s Republican style, Heritage Foundation, "Romneycare" healthcare bill and a stimulus package that he knew was less than half the stimulus necessary to actually get our economy moving again.

Add to that, he helped destroy Libya, massively expand the drone war, engaged in targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists in foreign countries, fought for unpopular and job-destroying trade deals, did absolutely nothing to resolve our enormous trade deficits, retained the Patriot Act, watched as wealth inequality continued to skyrocket, made no substantive improvements to labor rights or the minimum wage, and I could go on. Yes, good things occurred during his Presidency as well, such as the repeal of DADT, millions of more Americans gained access to healthcare under the ACA, our unemployment rate is down to 4.4%, and he was stuck with a Republican-dominated legislature for much of his Presidency. However, even when given the ability to make radical changes, his investment in the fight was weak at best. He was perfectly happy to bring countless Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street cronies into his administration and now goes around making millions off of book deals and has already given a $400,000 speech. But, all of that is acceptable because he is a Democrat and "look how cool he is!!!"

Obama was a fraud. The Clintons were frauds. We can see how Obama is already using the office of the Presidency to enrich himself today, similar to how the Clintons made tens of millions and became filthy rich after they left the White House. Of course, that is perfectly acceptable because "everyone does that," except Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman, the former spends his time working with charities and the latter retired to his modest home in Missouri and let anyone contact him at his office.

[Yank2133]

Never forget who is to blame:



Joe Lieberman is on my personal Mount Rushmore of politicians that should be boiled in a lake of fire.

Meh, it just easier for people to blame Obama.

[LabourJersey]

Of course, Obama would not do anything to promote a Public Option. Democrats were so high on what Obama appeared to be, that they were (and most continue to be) blind to what he really was and is. Like the Clintons, Obama was a sellout who did nothing memorable for the average American. Saying "he's better than a Republican" is setting the bar pretty damn low and a total deflection from his overall pretty awful Presidency. Even when he had 60 Democratic Senators and an overwhelming majority in the House, the best he could achieve was a 1990s Republican style, Heritage Foundation, "Romneycare" healthcare bill and a stimulus package that he knew was less than half the stimulus necessary to actually get our economy moving again.

Add to that, he helped destroy Libya, massively expand the drone war, engaged in targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists in foreign countries, fought for unpopular and job-destroying trade deals, did absolutely nothing to resolve our enormous trade deficits, retained the Patriot Act, watched as wealth inequality continued to skyrocket, made no substantive improvements to labor rights or the minimum wage, and I could go on. Yes, good things occurred during his Presidency as well, such as the repeal of DADT, millions of more Americans gained access to healthcare under the ACA, our unemployment rate is down to 4.4%, and he was stuck with a Republican-dominated legislature for much of his Presidency. However, even when given the ability to make radical changes, his investment in the fight was weak at best. He was perfectly happy to bring countless Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street cronies into his administration and now goes around making millions off of book deals and has already given a $400,000 speech. But, all of that is acceptable because he is a Democrat and "look how cool he is!!!"

Obama was a fraud. The Clintons were frauds. We can see how Obama is already using the office of the Presidency to enrich himself today, similar to how the Clintons made tens of millions and became filthy rich after they left the White House. Of course, that is perfectly acceptable because "everyone does that," except Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman, the former spends his time working with charities and the latter retired to his modest home in Missouri and let anyone contact him at his office.

You're entitled to your opinion re: Obama, but quite a few of the perceived shortcomings you attribute him literally could not have been fixed given the political state of affairs between Nov. 2010 and Jan. 2017. And even then everyone tends to forget how the 2006-10 majorities in the House will filled with moderate Democrats who were not interested in much left-wing reform.

I understand why you're disappointed in Obama, but the man was not a miracle worker.

[Mr. Smith]

Of course, Obama would not do anything to promote a Public Option. Democrats were so high on what Obama appeared to be, that they were (and most continue to be) blind to what he really was and is. Like the Clintons, Obama was a sellout who did nothing memorable for the average American. Saying "he's better than a Republican" is setting the bar pretty damn low and a total deflection from his overall pretty awful Presidency. Even when he had 60 Democratic Senators and an overwhelming majority in the House, the best he could achieve was a 1990s Republican style, Heritage Foundation, "Romneycare" healthcare bill and a stimulus package that he knew was less than half the stimulus necessary to actually get our economy moving again.

Add to that, he helped destroy Libya, massively expand the drone war, engaged in targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists in foreign countries, fought for unpopular and job-destroying trade deals, did absolutely nothing to resolve our enormous trade deficits, retained the Patriot Act, watched as wealth inequality continued to skyrocket, made no substantive improvements to labor rights or the minimum wage, and I could go on. Yes, good things occurred during his Presidency as well, such as the repeal of DADT, millions of more Americans gained access to healthcare under the ACA, our unemployment rate is down to 4.4%, and he was stuck with a Republican-dominated legislature for much of his Presidency. However, even when given the ability to make radical changes, his investment in the fight was weak at best. He was perfectly happy to bring countless Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street cronies into his administration and now goes around making millions off of book deals and has already given a $400,000 speech. But, all of that is acceptable because he is a Democrat and "look how cool he is!!!"

Obama was a fraud. The Clintons were frauds. We can see how Obama is already using the office of the Presidency to enrich himself today, similar to how the Clintons made tens of millions and became filthy rich after they left the White House. Of course, that is perfectly acceptable because "everyone does that," except Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman, the former spends his time working with charities and the latter retired to his modest home in Missouri and let anyone contact him at his office.

You're entitled to your opinion re: Obama, but quite a few of the perceived shortcomings you attribute him literally could not have been fixed given the political state of affairs between Nov. 2010 and Jan. 2017. And even then everyone tends to forget how the 2006-10 majorities in the House will filled with moderate Democrats who were not interested in much left-wing reform.

I understand why you're disappointed in Obama, but the man was not a miracle worker.

The House with its Blue Dogs and moderates got it through just fine.

And most of the events between Nov. '10 to '16 could've been altered radically by just taking a  bolder direction from the outset. No Tea Party uprising or Occupy backlash if the economy improves quickly because of a good stimulus bill.

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The house has a bigger margin of error (34 moderates voted against the ACA), the Senate didn't.

[JA]

Of course, Obama would not do anything to promote a Public Option. Democrats were so high on what Obama appeared to be, that they were (and most continue to be) blind to what he really was and is. Like the Clintons, Obama was a sellout who did nothing memorable for the average American. Saying "he's better than a Republican" is setting the bar pretty damn low and a total deflection from his overall pretty awful Presidency. Even when he had 60 Democratic Senators and an overwhelming majority in the House, the best he could achieve was a 1990s Republican style, Heritage Foundation, "Romneycare" healthcare bill and a stimulus package that he knew was less than half the stimulus necessary to actually get our economy moving again.

Add to that, he helped destroy Libya, massively expand the drone war, engaged in targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists in foreign countries, fought for unpopular and job-destroying trade deals, did absolutely nothing to resolve our enormous trade deficits, retained the Patriot Act, watched as wealth inequality continued to skyrocket, made no substantive improvements to labor rights or the minimum wage, and I could go on. Yes, good things occurred during his Presidency as well, such as the repeal of DADT, millions of more Americans gained access to healthcare under the ACA, our unemployment rate is down to 4.4%, and he was stuck with a Republican-dominated legislature for much of his Presidency. However, even when given the ability to make radical changes, his investment in the fight was weak at best. He was perfectly happy to bring countless Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street cronies into his administration and now goes around making millions off of book deals and has already given a $400,000 speech. But, all of that is acceptable because he is a Democrat and "look how cool he is!!!"

Obama was a fraud. The Clintons were frauds. We can see how Obama is already using the office of the Presidency to enrich himself today, similar to how the Clintons made tens of millions and became filthy rich after they left the White House. Of course, that is perfectly acceptable because "everyone does that," except Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman, the former spends his time working with charities and the latter retired to his modest home in Missouri and let anyone contact him at his office.

You're entitled to your opinion re: Obama, but quite a few of the perceived shortcomings you attribute him literally could not have been fixed given the political state of affairs between Nov. 2010 and Jan. 2017. And even then everyone tends to forget how the 2006-10 majorities in the House will filled with moderate Democrats who were not interested in much left-wing reform.

I understand why you're disappointed in Obama, but the man was not a miracle worker.

Even if they could not have been fixed, which is debatable, he either did absolutely nothing to even fight for those issues or worked to make them worse (such as fighting for the Parriot Act). It is not about expecting him to be a miracle worker, since I know the legislative process is incredibly difficult, but Obama put up no fight. Fight and lose is one thing; not fight at all or give an unconvincing fight is another.

[Indy Texas]

Obama very badly wanted to get at least one Republican to vote for it so it could be considered a bipartisan bill. Ultimately, this resulted taking the legislation in a more conservative direction and getting nothing to show for it.

Lieberman and Nelson's behavior during this was particularly galling considering neither of them ran for reelection after this vote anyway.

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, this aspect of it is a bit overblown.

The biggest issue is the political ramifications of a single payer system. Single payer would require a tax increase (and Americans hate higher taxes, even though they would see lower premiums.....) and single payer would require an overhaul of the entire system which could lead to people getting kicked off their current plans and most Americans get their healthcare through their employer and actually like their plans (granted, they don't like the premium).

Once you get into the details of single payer, it is a hard plan to sell to the public.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Also keep in mind that Rahm wanted Obama to give up on the reform entirely. He didn't think it had the votes and wasn't worth the political capital.

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, this aspect of it is a bit overblown.

The biggest issue is the political ramifications of a single payer system. Single payer would require a tax increase (and Americans hate higher taxes, even though they would see lower premiums.....) and single payer would require an overhaul of the entire system which could lead to people getting kicked off their current plans and most Americans get their healthcare through their employer and actually like their plans (granted, they don't like the premium).

Once you get into the details of single payer, it is hard plan to sell to the public.

It was so hard to sell in every country in Western Europe, and other developed nation, and yet they passed it. This plan, when you get down to the details, can help the vast majority of Americans and will pass in the next few years.

Single payer could cover the vast majority of healthcare costs, with only a few exceptions.

How is it overblown that the Republicans are paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

Single payer couldn't even pass in Vermont, it will never happen nationally here. The big issue with healthcare reform is that no one wants to pay for it, once people realize they have to pay higher taxes, the plan loses support.

Best case scenario is that we get some sort of public option, but a true single payer system just isn't going to happen unless Americans's attitudes change.

[Shadows]

Why are people taking this yank person seriously? This is the same person who a week or 2 ahead went on a tirade about Berniebros & the white male crowd of Bernie in a horrible series of posts. Everyone knows & David Brock has admitted that he pays trolls to infiltrate all online discussion boards, so who knows!

Anyways as for the topic, ACA is exploding, a lot of people don't get their insurance from the exchange, the public option would likely be voluntary like the medicaid option with the states choosing. Trump & the GOP in power would either kill it n replace it or main it in a way that is exploded. There is no point in looking back at a complicated part good part bad law.

FDR increased taxes from 24% to 90%+ & won election after election in landslides & wiped out the GOP. Bill Clinton increases taxes from 32% to 40% odd. FDR introduced Payroll taxes for SS just so that it couldn't be messed around in the general budget. Overall, people are paying much more  in deductibles, so most people will see huge savings, as a matter of fact studies show 95% will be net gainers atleast. And it will end millions of people uninsured, under-insured, millions not being able to afford medicines & people choosing between food & medicines, exploding costs at 18% of GDP which is 6% for UK, 12% for France, 8/9% for Canada.

Single Payer is going to happen, whether it is now or  5 or 10 or 15 years into the future. It is inevitable !
As for the topic, pretty surprised Obama didn't do his best & use political capital to ram through the public option! Disappointing !

[heatcharger]

Single Payer is going to happen, whether it is now or  5 or 10 or 15 years into the future. It is inevitable !
As for the topic, pretty surprised Obama didn't do his best & use political capital to ram through the public option! Disappointing !

Why do you keep insisting on using this disgustingly Trump-esque style of communication?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Never forget who is to blame:



Joe Lieberman is on my personal Mount Rushmore of politicians that should be boiled in a lake of fire.

What was that POS's problem? A huge tragedy Ned Lamont didn't knock him out in 2006. He was from Liberal Connecticut but voted like he was from Alabama.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ObamaCare was amended by a 56-43 vote of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. They didn't need Lieberman if it satisfied the Byrd rule. The only nays were Ben Nelson, Pryor, and Lincoln. Lieberman voted for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010

[Blue3]

Joe Lieberman said he did it because Obama beat his friend McCain, and because Obama was against the Iraq War, right?

[publicunofficial]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, this aspect of it is a bit overblown.

The biggest issue is the political ramifications of a single payer system. Single payer would require a tax increase (and Americans hate higher taxes, even though they would see lower premiums.....) and single payer would require an overhaul of the entire system which could lead to people getting kicked off their current plans and most Americans get their healthcare through their employer and actually like their plans (granted, they don't like the premium).

Once you get into the details of single payer, it is hard plan to sell to the public.

It was so hard to sell in every country in Western Europe, and other developed nation, and yet they passed it. This plan, when you get down to the details, can help the vast majority of Americans and will pass in the next few years.

Single payer could cover the vast majority of healthcare costs, with only a few exceptions.

How is it overblown that the Republicans are paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

Single payer couldn't even pass in Vermont, it will never happen nationally here. The big issue with healthcare reform is that no one wants to pay for it, once people realize they have to pay higher taxes, the plan loses support.

Best case scenario is that we get some sort of public option, but a true single payer system just isn't going to happen unless Americans's attitudes change.

It'd be a lot easier to set up single payer federally than statewide like in Vermont or like Colorado's initiative would've done.

[EnglishPete]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, this aspect of it is a bit overblown.

The biggest issue is the political ramifications of a single payer system. Single payer would require a tax increase (and Americans hate higher taxes, even though they would see lower premiums.....) and single payer would require an overhaul of the entire system which could lead to people getting kicked off their current plans and most Americans get their healthcare through their employer and actually like their plans (granted, they don't like the premium).

Once you get into the details of single payer, it is hard plan to sell to the public.

It was so hard to sell in every country in Western Europe, and other developed nation, and yet they passed it. This plan, when you get down to the details, can help the vast majority of Americans and will pass in the next few years.

Single payer could cover the vast majority of healthcare costs, with only a few exceptions.

How is it overblown that the Republicans are paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

Single payer couldn't even pass in Vermont, it will never happen nationally here. The big issue with healthcare reform is that no one wants to pay for it, once people realize they have to pay higher taxes, the plan loses support.

Best case scenario is that we get some sort of public option, but a true single payer system just isn't going to happen unless Americans's attitudes change.

Polling evidence shows that single payer is very popular in the US. As for 'having to pay for it' who on earth do US voters think pays for the US's notoriously overinflated medical and pharmaceutical costs right now?

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, this aspect of it is a bit overblown.

The biggest issue is the political ramifications of a single payer system. Single payer would require a tax increase (and Americans hate higher taxes, even though they would see lower premiums.....) and single payer would require an overhaul of the entire system which could lead to people getting kicked off their current plans and most Americans get their healthcare through their employer and actually like their plans (granted, they don't like the premium).

Once you get into the details of single payer, it is hard plan to sell to the public.

It was so hard to sell in every country in Western Europe, and other developed nation, and yet they passed it. This plan, when you get down to the details, can help the vast majority of Americans and will pass in the next few years.

Single payer could cover the vast majority of healthcare costs, with only a few exceptions.

How is it overblown that the Republicans are paid for by the pharmaceutical companies?

Single payer couldn't even pass in Vermont, it will never happen nationally here. The big issue with healthcare reform is that no one wants to pay for it, once people realize they have to pay higher taxes, the plan loses support.

Best case scenario is that we get some sort of public option, but a true single payer system just isn't going to happen unless Americans's attitudes change.

Polling evidence shows that single payer is very popular in the US. As for 'having to pay for it' who on earth do US voters think pays for the US's notoriously overinflated medical and pharmaceutical costs right now?

It polls well, because the average person doesn't know the details of creating such a system. Once the details come out and the GOP get their machine running, support for it will drop.

And as for your second point, I know it is a contradiction. But Americans have not yet figured out that they already pay for it (it just in the most inefficient way possible). Honestly, it is the most frustrating thing about healthcare reform.