August 19, 2009 9:26 AM

Health Care Concessions Irking Liberals

(CBS/AP)  Frustrated liberals have a question for President Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?

A case in point:

Sen. Charles Grassley, a key Republican negotiator on health care, was on a winning streak as Congress recessed for August, having wrung important concessions from Democrats, including an agreement to back away from a government plan to compete with private insurers.

How did Grassley reciprocate? With an attack that struck Democrats as stunning and baseless. Grassley told an Iowa crowd he would not support a plan that "determines when you're going to pull the plug on Grandma." The remark echoed conservative activists who wrongly claim a House health care bill would require Medicare recipients to discuss their end-of-life plans with doctors.

For liberals supporting far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system, it was another sign that months of negotiations have been a one-way street. It's time to move on without Republicans, they say.

According to a report in Tuesday evening's New York Times, the White House agrees. The story quotes Mr. Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel as saying Republican opponents have made "a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes," and that the time has come for the White House and top Democrats to try and force reforms.

More coverage of Health Care Reform

On CBS' "The Early Show" Wednesday, a pair of political strategists critiqued

"I don't think he (President Obama) made a mistake," Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis told "Early Show" co-host Maggie Rodriguez Wednesday. "I understand the legislative need to give yourself a number of options. He didn't want to take a position that you couldn't negotiate from. Plus, it was a legislative reality that Congress was going to take the lead on this. I think what the White House and the Obama administration now is facing is the reality that Republicans were never going to negotiate in good faith."

"It's interesting - I don't blame them for doing this because they're having trouble passing the legislation - they're putting all the blame on Republicans," GOP strategist Dan Bartlett told Rodriguez " When, in fact, most of the objections from the United States Congress is from Barack Obama's own party. … The fact of the matter is Democrats control Congress. Democrats can pass this bill if they have the votes. The problems are coming from within their party and from the American people who aren't buying what he's selling."

On Tuesday, liberals were fuming over Mr. Obama's recent remarks suggesting he might also yield on the federally run insurance option he's been promoting. Many saw it as a huge concession that could leave them with nothing more than watered-down insurance cooperatives.

But the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, dismissed even such co-ops as a "Trojan horse" leading to government control of health care.

Many liberals are fed up.

"It is clear that Republicans have decided 'no health care' is a victory for them," Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview. "There is a point at which bipartisanship reaches a limit, and I would say it's reaching that limit."

The growing liberal unhappiness sets a difficult stage for Mr. Obama this fall. Political pragmatists want him to keep seeking a middle ground that will attract at least a few Republican lawmakers as well as moderate Democrats who could prove crucial to passage in the House and Senate. Even modest achievements, such as preventing insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing medical conditions, would allow Mr. Obama to claim a victory and perhaps try for more later, they say.

Liberal activists say there's no point in the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House unless they use their clout to enact the major measures that Mr. Obama campaigned for - with or without some Republican support.

For now, Mr. Obama seems on the defensive. He spent valuable time this month knocking down claims that Democratic plans could lead to euthanasia of the elderly. And his chief spokesmen spent much of Monday and Tuesday insisting that the president still supports a government-run health insurance option despite mixed signals from the administration.

On Saturday, Mr. Obama told a Colorado crowd, "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it."

While liberals are discouraged, the endgame remains unclear. Some still hope that Mr. Obama and congressional Democratic leaders will use all their parliamentary powers - which could prove especially divisive in the Senate - to pass a far-reaching bill that would include a public option for health insurance and more palatable consumer costs for prescription drugs and other needs.

The pivotal decisions will be made this fall, with administration officials saying the debate cannot lapse into the midterm election year of 2010.

What seems clear is that the room for compromise between Republicans and Democrats is shriveling to almost nothing. Some Democrats found Kyl's remarks particularly galling. Even if Democrats manage to produce a health care bill that won't increase the federal deficit over 10 years, Kyl said, "that doesn't mean Republicans would support it."

And Grassley has said he's uninterested in a compromise that draws only three or so Senate Republicans' votes.

The continued outreach to Republicans, meanwhile, is testing Democrats' unity. This week, more than 50 House Democrats issued a letter saying: "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable."

Some of them told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a conference call Tuesday that discussions with Republicans are pointless.

White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass played down the intraparty fuss, noting that it's far from clear how the final legislation will turn out. She said negotiations involving Mr. Obama have led drug manufacturers to agree to reduce costs for the nation's health care system by $80 billion over 10 years, while hospitals have agreed to an additional $155 billion.

Those concessions will carry weight with lawmakers as they "look at enacting reform that will lower costs and increase stability and security," Douglass said in an interview.

But such concessions cut several ways. Pharmaceutical industry leaders say the $80 billion agreement should end efforts to allow the government to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs used in Medicare and other programs.

Liberals say such price reductions are precisely the type of change Mr. Obama called for in his presidential campaign. And now, they say, is the time to turn those promises into reality.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 115 Comments
by govmess August 20, 2009 8:55 PM EDT
Obama's health care plan will be...
-written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,
-passed by a Congress that hasn't read it,
-signed by a President who smokes,
-funded by a Treasury Chief who did not pay his taxes,
-overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and
-financed by a country that is nearly broke.


What could possibly go wrong with such a plan?


"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"
It appears America is on permanent snooze alarm these days.
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti August 19, 2009 6:58 PM EDT
I am seriously shocked at the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the right wingers. They listen to Faux News Channel and then spew nothing but lies. You need to shut it off and get a brain. Do all Republican lie and cheat or just the ones that listen to these right wing extremist wackos on Faux?
Reply to this comment
by reddboots August 19, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
This administration can't even operate the "Cash for Clunkers" program efficiently. It's a simple reimbursement for buying an approved vehicle that is on their own list of approved vehicles. But they've got dealers that haven't been paid for a long time. How are they going to manage your health care?
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
Hungry is equating this Government takeover of the healthcare with the FDA.....Quote "anymore than the FDA a "takeover" of the food and drug industries"

Oh, yeah, the FDA and the FAA are the same as this takeover....right

can i take a trip up state to get some of what your smokin ? just kidding of course







You don't need to smoke anything - you're obviously high enough.

You think that the government regulating health care, is a "takeover".

Did the FAA "takeover" the airlines, or are they tasked with REGULATING them?

Did the FDA "takeover" the food and drug companies, or are they tasked with REGULATING them?




And then you act like it's everyone else's fault that the Fox News talking heads brainwashed YOU into believing it's a takeover?!?!
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:59 PM EDT
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:44 PM EDT

The government is not "regulating" the healthcare system, they are attempting to replace the insurance companies with themselves....this isn't about regulation alone....they become the system, they are the single payer, the single authority, dicator, , funder, payer, everything, controller....and in your mind, this is equivalent to a simple regulation of an industry like the FAA ??

I just can't even discuss things, if you are so warped and twisted

THIS IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE - PERIOD !!!!!! EVERYONE EXCEPT YOU, KNOWS THIS
by jsd330 August 19, 2009 4:56 PM EDT
hungry1968-16

Take a civics class those agencies are regulatory, they don't compete and never have. They are supposed to enforce regulations(although sometimes I have my doubts).
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:39 PM EDT
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:25 PM EDT

Keep re-writing history, including the historical record of these posts.....I know what I asked, and I know how you responded....you pretending different means nothing, other then to cover up your embarrassment.
Like This







We were talking about "unprovoked attacks" against people that did nothing to us (Iraq), and YOU stated that sometimes you have to attack people just because they pose a threat to you, even if they don't actually attack us.

Then YOU said, "Just like Hitler. Do you really think we went to war with Germany over the actions of a few U-boats? No we attacked him because he was a threat to the world."

Then I had to explain to you, how we got involved in WWII, and YOU STILL don't understand it.



And you think that I'm embarrassed over this ridiculous nonsense that YOU wrote?!?!
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 3:01 PM EDT
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:39 PM EDT

It was a simple question I asked you.

You continue to use the phrase "Saddam never attacked us", so I said to you, "How did Hitler attack us prior to our involvement in WW2".....to which you stated..."Ever hear of Pearl Harbor".....THAT'S IT !!

you can sugar coat your answer to modify it, to avoid embarrassment, but I know what I asked, and you responded exactly as I quoted above.
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
Hungry is equating this Government takeover of the healthcare with the FDA.....Quote "anymore than the FDA a "takeover" of the food and drug industries"

Oh, yeah, the FDA and the FAA are the same as this takeover....right

can i take a trip up state to get some of what your smokin ? just kidding of course
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:25 PM EDT
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:15 PM EDT

Really now, coming from someone who thinks that Hitler bombed Pearl Harbor, when asked "how did Hilter attack us prior to WW2"....who believes Doctors are "created" in weeks/months by a bloated Government healthcare takeover (no 8 year degree and residency needed).....someone who believes this bill is NOT a government takeover







Do you REALLY think that lying gives you any credibility?

You claimed that we got into WWII as an "unprovoked attack" on Germany, for "the actions of a few u-boats". I then had to explain to you that we got into WWII AFTER we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and Hitler was allied with Hirohito. After I explained this to you four or five times, you STILL don't know how or why we got into WWII? Maybe you should buy a history book?

I didn't claim that "doctors were created", *******. I said that "supply and demand" will fill the void created by a lack of primary care doctors. Remember the conversation, where I had to explain to you how "supply and demand" works? It was only yesterday, you forgot already?

And you are correct - this legislation IS NOT a government takeover of health care, anymore than the FDA a "takeover" of the food and drug industries or the FAA was a "takeover" of the airline industries.
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:25 PM EDT

Keep re-writing history, including the historical record of these posts.....I know what I asked, and I know how you responded....you pretending different means nothing, other then to cover up your embarrassment.
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:08 PM EDT

not meant to "add meaningful dialogue"






Right on par with ALL of your posts.
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
by hungry1968-16 August 19, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
Right on par with ALL of your posts.
_______________________________

Really now, coming from someone who thinks that Hitler bombed Pearl Harbor, when asked "how did Hilter attack us prior to WW2"....who believes Doctors are "created" in weeks/months by a bloated Government healthcare takeover (no 8 year degree and residency needed).....someone who believes this bill is NOT a government takeover

You are not dealing with a full deck Liberal
by misands August 19, 2009 2:00 PM EDT
Well it's about freakin time!! Good grief, how many times do the Democrats feel they need to cave into Republicans gripes and threats? And why? The GOP is not in power because the American people did not agree with their agenda, but if the Democrats and Obama don't grow a pair quickly, they won't be in power for long - and nor should they be. Wake up Democrats and quit letting the powerless GOP brow beat you.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 August 19, 2009 1:19 PM EDT
"Barry flavored Kooooool-Aide!"

It is comments like this that make no sense at all.
How is this suppose to add to the meaning of the discussion?
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 19, 2009 2:08 PM EDT
by sjc_1 August 19, 2009 1:19 PM EDT

I said Barry-Berry Hater-Aid, get it right....this was a comment about the dellusion of the commentator, not meant to "add meaningful dialogue"....but you have to have a sense of humor, when the Liberal Dictators are Raping the American people with Marxist takeovers (insurance, banking, auto)
by sjc_1 August 19, 2009 6:24 PM EDT
No, I copied the comment directly. I don't know if you said it and I really DON'T care! Express your opinion, but add some facts and reasoning, don't just spew hate and slogans.
See all 115 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook