Will Obama's Sales Job Work?
The "On The Marc" column is written by The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, CBS News' chief political consultant.
"...Insurers should be prohibited from denying coverage or charging exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and from imposing annual and lifetime limits on benefits. Stronger consumer protections should be enacted. And a virtual shopping mall with more private health plan choices should be created so that consumers compare prices, benefits and quality, and then pick the plan that's best for them. Top actuaries and the Congressional Budget Office have said that making plans compete will keep premiums lower and increase affordability for everyone."
The remarks I've pasted are the essence of the president's health care plan. And yet these words were not uttered Wednesday night by President Obama. They were, in fact, spoken by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has become the face of opposition to the Democrats' health care legislation in the Senate.
So here's the bottom line: The president became an advocate for a plan that Congress, in effect, has agreed to. This isn't ledgermain: Mr. Obama promised as much during the campaign, and Democrats, for years, have been fighting for many of these reforms. And the irony is that these changes to the American health care system are popular.
So why are we even here?
The president was dealt a tough hand when he got into office, no doubt, but the debate about health care managed to make majoritarian proposals sound like the type of liberal social engineering that wouldn't be prudent amid a deep recession.
At the same time, the president's willingness to work with the insurance companies, the hospital and doctors' lobby and the pharmaceutical industry have raised suspicion among the left about the president's motives. Many liberals came to view the agreed-upon proposals as inherently suspect because of who it was that was doing the disagreeing.
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
One popular proposal -- adding a government-funded plan to the menu of options for those lacking insurance -- became the Mason-Dixon line for many progressives. Cross it, and you're with the enemy. The White House, determined to let Congress fill in the blanks and work out the details, lost control of how the basic, popular reform package was communicated.
Ah, so here we are.
A presidential address has many audiences, but the president tonight was focusing on people who have leverage: House Democrats who seem willing to jettison the largest expansion of government health care since Medicare because the Senate can't vote for a non-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange; those few Senate Republicans who have been willing to consider a bill that was written by Democrats in an era of Democratic government; and political independents, a plurality of whom are skeptical, today, of health care reform, but for whom the degree of partisanship associated with a particular position often determines how much -- or little -- they support it.
No mistaking the president's tone: he reached across the aisle, name-checking Republicans who contributed to the bill (John McCain, Orrin Hatch, George Bush, even Grassley), but he was explicit in condemning those who are participating in the debate only to defeat reform.
For the liberals, there were carrots and sticks, although more of the former. Mr. Obama explicitly endorsed an individual mandate. He defended the essence of the public plan. He linked this moment in history to the broader narrative that has animated progressives for decades: "Hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of fair play and that sometimes, government has to step in and deliver on that promise." Health care is a social responsibility.
So will this sales job work?
I think, among liberal, the answer is almost certainly: yes, more because of the president's style rather than the specifics of his proposal -- The end of his speech, where he invoked Ted Kennedy's vision and called it a moral imperative for the nation; The middle of the speech, where he castigated opponents as defenders of the unworkable status quo; at the beginning of the speech, where he outlined the fundamental stakes of the issue; And because of two words, from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who called out "you lie," when Mr. Obama said that the Democratic bills wouldn't provide coverage for illegal immigrants. This was inaccurate and was churlish.
Full CBSNews.com coverage of the president's speech on health care:
Obama Tells Congress to Stop Bickering
Full Video Full Transcript Speech Highlights
GOP Response: "It's Time to Start Over"
Marc Ambinder: Will Obama's Sales Job Work?
Mark Knoller: Obama Willing to Compromise - Up to a Point
Was Obama Clear on the Public Option?
Ted Kennedy's Letter to Obama
Rep. Wilson Apologizes for Obama Speech Outburst
Analysis: The Road Ahead for Health Care
From the perspective of the president, there is hard work yet to do.
For one thing, independents are still skeptical, although I suspect that those who watched the speech will be comforted somewhat. Before the speech, Republicans were more enthusiastic about defeating the plan than Democrats were about supporting it.
The president's performance tonight will probably buck up liberals, which will have the paradoxical effect of further hardening the spines of conservatives, which might well mean that we're in for a period of poisonous political exchanges. (The partisanship of July and August is one reason why health care reform is more popular in its parts than in its sum.)
And make no mistake: the details that have yet to be worked out (members chuckled when Mr. Obama mentioned there were a "few") aren't details. The transition to an exchange will require that many Americans pay more money up front than they've ever paid for before. The scope of the various waivers -- for individuals and for businesses -- will prove hard to define. Under the leading Senate proposal, employers might be incentivized not to hire workers from low-income families. And the public option will remain controversial.
It's too early to say whether Mr. Obama was successful in shifting the onus of responsibility onto Republicans. But by calming down his own party -- without alienating moderates -- and by making a moral case for health care, he has unsettled the status quo.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. "...Insurers should be prohibited from denying coverage or charging exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and from imposing annual and lifetime limits on benefits. Stronger consumer protections should be enacted. And a virtual shopping mall with more private health plan choices should be created so that consumers compare prices, benefits and quality, and then pick the plan that's best for them. Top actuaries and the Congressional Budget Office have said that making plans compete will keep premiums lower and increase affordability for everyone."
The remarks I've pasted are the essence of the president's health care plan. And yet these words were not uttered Wednesday night by President Obama. They were, in fact, spoken by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has become the face of opposition to the Democrats' health care legislation in the Senate.
So here's the bottom line: The president became an advocate for a plan that Congress, in effect, has agreed to. This isn't ledgermain: Mr. Obama promised as much during the campaign, and Democrats, for years, have been fighting for many of these reforms. And the irony is that these changes to the American health care system are popular.
So why are we even here?
The president was dealt a tough hand when he got into office, no doubt, but the debate about health care managed to make majoritarian proposals sound like the type of liberal social engineering that wouldn't be prudent amid a deep recession.
At the same time, the president's willingness to work with the insurance companies, the hospital and doctors' lobby and the pharmaceutical industry have raised suspicion among the left about the president's motives. Many liberals came to view the agreed-upon proposals as inherently suspect because of who it was that was doing the disagreeing.
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
One popular proposal -- adding a government-funded plan to the menu of options for those lacking insurance -- became the Mason-Dixon line for many progressives. Cross it, and you're with the enemy. The White House, determined to let Congress fill in the blanks and work out the details, lost control of how the basic, popular reform package was communicated.
Ah, so here we are.
A presidential address has many audiences, but the president tonight was focusing on people who have leverage: House Democrats who seem willing to jettison the largest expansion of government health care since Medicare because the Senate can't vote for a non-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange; those few Senate Republicans who have been willing to consider a bill that was written by Democrats in an era of Democratic government; and political independents, a plurality of whom are skeptical, today, of health care reform, but for whom the degree of partisanship associated with a particular position often determines how much -- or little -- they support it.
No mistaking the president's tone: he reached across the aisle, name-checking Republicans who contributed to the bill (John McCain, Orrin Hatch, George Bush, even Grassley), but he was explicit in condemning those who are participating in the debate only to defeat reform.
For the liberals, there were carrots and sticks, although more of the former. Mr. Obama explicitly endorsed an individual mandate. He defended the essence of the public plan. He linked this moment in history to the broader narrative that has animated progressives for decades: "Hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of fair play and that sometimes, government has to step in and deliver on that promise." Health care is a social responsibility.
So will this sales job work?
I think, among liberal, the answer is almost certainly: yes, more because of the president's style rather than the specifics of his proposal -- The end of his speech, where he invoked Ted Kennedy's vision and called it a moral imperative for the nation; The middle of the speech, where he castigated opponents as defenders of the unworkable status quo; at the beginning of the speech, where he outlined the fundamental stakes of the issue; And because of two words, from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who called out "you lie," when Mr. Obama said that the Democratic bills wouldn't provide coverage for illegal immigrants. This was inaccurate and was churlish.
Full CBSNews.com coverage of the president's speech on health care:
Obama Tells Congress to Stop Bickering
Full Video Full Transcript Speech Highlights
GOP Response: "It's Time to Start Over"
Marc Ambinder: Will Obama's Sales Job Work?
Mark Knoller: Obama Willing to Compromise - Up to a Point
Was Obama Clear on the Public Option?
Ted Kennedy's Letter to Obama
Rep. Wilson Apologizes for Obama Speech Outburst
Analysis: The Road Ahead for Health Care
From the perspective of the president, there is hard work yet to do.
For one thing, independents are still skeptical, although I suspect that those who watched the speech will be comforted somewhat. Before the speech, Republicans were more enthusiastic about defeating the plan than Democrats were about supporting it.
The president's performance tonight will probably buck up liberals, which will have the paradoxical effect of further hardening the spines of conservatives, which might well mean that we're in for a period of poisonous political exchanges. (The partisanship of July and August is one reason why health care reform is more popular in its parts than in its sum.)
And make no mistake: the details that have yet to be worked out (members chuckled when Mr. Obama mentioned there were a "few") aren't details. The transition to an exchange will require that many Americans pay more money up front than they've ever paid for before. The scope of the various waivers -- for individuals and for businesses -- will prove hard to define. Under the leading Senate proposal, employers might be incentivized not to hire workers from low-income families. And the public option will remain controversial.
It's too early to say whether Mr. Obama was successful in shifting the onus of responsibility onto Republicans. But by calming down his own party -- without alienating moderates -- and by making a moral case for health care, he has unsettled the status quo.
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 812 Comments
- Boehner calls out Obama administration's "arrogance of power"
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Could the GOP pull an upset in Mass. senate race?
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
President Roosevelt did not die of Polio. He died of a cerebral hemmorhage on april 12, 1945.
He did however have polio for most of his adult life and overcame enormous obstacles both politacally and personally.
He probably could never be elected today because all the bloggers and haters would be in full swing and there would have never been the changes that we enjoy today.
He was one of the greatest examples of something that has been long forgotten. HOPES AND DREAMS!
Can anyone imagine never having to worry that your health will bankrupt you???
In spite of the massive "snow job" from the insurance companies and conservatives, I have yet to see any cries of abuse or demands for change from any country that provides healthcare to its constituancy.
We are so used to getting "screwed-blued-and tattooed" by the insurance companies that we are afraid to change anything.
The president was right on when he said that "we must not fear the future-we must shape it"
Unfortunately when it comes to the republicans, it is like trying to shape a box of rocks!!
I have reached the conclusion that the time is over for word games and theatre. Congress needs to just RAM IT THROUGH and move on!!!
But on these boards since before Obama was even elected, they have called him a terrorist, a commie sympathizer, a fascist?, a Marxist, a socialist, a Muslim extremist, Kenyan-in-Chief, Commie-in-Chief, loser, enemy of America, and have even called him a nig and a slew of other insults I have on file.
The republican extremists have threatened Obamas life, threatened violence at americans who support Obama, they bring guns to town hall meetings which was just another veiled threat to Obama, they have insulted the appearance of Michelle Obama saying she looks like an ape, they have attacked his children, they have spread fear to little old ladies and attempted to do the same with veterans but that did'nt work, they created this massive insurance funded mis-information campaign, they insult, deride, abase, manipulate, twist other posters words, and presented these boards with an element of extremist lies on every subject.
But they find it "dusgusting" that some of us call them out on all of this?????? What arrogance! What gaul! Whatever abuses you get my extremist friends, you brought on yourselves. We act like that because you treat us like that. All of you! You guys drew first blood and now you want to complain because you are not treated as you would like to be treated????
Please. Quit your lies, renounce extremism, seek out your God or a psychiatrist for some help and come back here in a more civilised manner and you will be treated better by other posters. It's really that simple. Quit your whining about everything under the sun. Admit when you are wrong. Be real men instead of the girly cowardly man you so aptly represent. Do this first and you may re-earn some marginal respect from America.
It is just audacious arrogance that any of you complain about anything or anyone getting on your cases.
He hit a HOME RUN last nite!
Now on to fix Immigration!
Reagan got one thing right - IMMIGRATION MUST INCLUDE PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP!
YES. OF COURSE!
But I distincly remember the republican extremists saying a couple weeks back how Obama was in bed with the insurance companies.
Guess you idiots were wrong again huh? Yep. You are.
All that we see from the republican extremists is smoke and mirrors, typical diversionary GOP tactics, and stalling tactics.
The republicans know that if this bill fails it will lose Obama seats in 2010. Combine that with the historic fact that the party in the WH always loses seats in the off election year and that number of lost seats would be even more as the republicans will exclaim that Obama is a failure (hell they already do).
Additionally, if Obama fails to get reform, this will weaken his ability to get passed an energy bill and any other bill that he may propose and then the fascist extremists will declare his entire presidency a failure and Obama will most likely be a one term president.
Democrats need to understand what is at stake here and continue to be even louder than the obstructionists.
We need to fight against those who desire to ignore our constitution and against the same people who desire to re-write our constitution to read, "A government of big business, for big business, by big business".
Stand firm my independent and democratic friends and all reasonable republicans. Let's get this done and keep our government a government of the people, by the people, for the people!
I hope nobody is going to try to tell me I can not disagree with someone.
I've heard all that before. Wake me when folks finally give me some specific items of discussion to evaluate.