web
counter
 

It's Not Selling Out; It's Called Politics. And It's an Ugly Business

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (34)



Rahm_Emanuel(1).jpg

Obama’s Deal, the latest Frontline documentary now available on Netflix Watch Instantly, tracks President Obama’s historic passage of his health care bill, focusing on the back room dealings, the compromises, and the setbacks along the way. It doesn’t offer much in the way of new information, and if you followed the healthcare bill debate — or even scanned the New York Times from time to time — there’s not much in the documentary that won’t be familiar to you. Nevertheless, it’s a fascinating doc, not for the details it provides, but for the way it lines up the major events along the way, and allows you to appreciate a lot of the political maneuvering behind the bill’s passage. It also lays out some of the tougher, morally and ethically ambiguous choices that had to be made to get it passed.

The compromising behind the bill involved a lot of selling out, but Obama’s Deal at least demonstrates why selling out was necessary. It’s easy, I think, to maintain a self-righteous, go-for-broke attitude, especially if you swing hard toward the left side of the political spectrum, but 90 percent of the time, that all-or-nothing attitude will usually get you nothing. That’s what Bill and Hillary Clinton learned in the early 1990s, and a mistake that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — who was a minor figure in the ’90s healthcare debate — learned from, applying those lessons to his attempts to pass Obama’s deal. It’s clear, from the documentary, that it was Emanuel’s cut-throat, fuck-you approach to his own party was a huge part of what made passage of the bill possible.

Some of the more interesting parts of the documentary, however, focused on those external factors, largely out of the White House’s control, that ended up becoming a huge factor in the bill’s progression. In this case, it was the death of Ted Kennedy that both propelled the health care bill and that, subsequently, nearly killed it. There was a lot of pressure on Obama to abandon universal healthcare before he’d even got started on it. But under the correct belief that he’d never be more popular than he was at the beginning of his first term, he decided to use his political capitol then. And in cold, political terms, the ailing health of Ted Kennedy — Congress’ champion of healthcare reform — was part of the impetus, in both political terms and out of respect for the Senator. It was Kennedy’s death, in fact, that pushed the Senate to pass the bill, 60 to 39 (also in part because of that horrible, politically toxic deal that Obama had to make for Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, in which Nebraska was given $100 million in exchange for Nelson’s vote).

But in a horrible, ironic twist, it was Kennedy’s replacement in Massachusetts that nearly killed health care. As many may recall, there was a healthcare bill on the table — passed on Christmas Eve — but it hadn’t yet been passed by the House. In order to get it to the President, the House had to pass the Senate bill because, without the super-majority in the Senate — thanks to the victory of Scott Brown— the President wouldn’t be able to push a compromise bill through the Senate. Healthcare seemed all but dead. But, Emanuel ultimately shoved the Senate bill down Nancy Pelosi’s throat. And thanks to the insurance industry’s adamant opposition to the bill — which gave Obama an unpopular enemy — he was able to force public opinion just enough so that the House eventually passed the bill, 219-212, but not before Obama spent a month on the stump or before Obama threw McCain’s words back in his face during a White House Health Care Summit, in what would become a major political turning point:

What’s nice about Obama’s Deal is the way it highlights all the major events leading up to the passage, stripping away the mindless media chatter that dominated the day-to-day maneuvering. The problem, however, is that part of the reason I decided to watch the documentary was because I’d hope it’d help explain what actually was passed back in March and how it will affect us now and in the future. Unfortunately, there were no answers provided in that regard, so all we’re left with is the knowledge that Obama scored a major political victory. What he won most of us still don’t quite fully understand, and it may be years or decades before we do.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Reese Witherspoon IS Peggy Lee | ...IN "Peggy Lee: Man of Action" | "True Blood" (S3/E8) Recap | Here Today, Gone Tomorrow









Comments

I have many comments I'd love to say regarding this topic. But I'm just too fucking tired of it all. After suffering through 8 years of W, I would have liked to have a bit more peace during Obama's first term. But that didn't happen. It's all "Socialist!" and "Hitler!!!!" and Sarah Fucking Palin. I'm exhausted from attempting real, honest, thoughtful conversations.

I might see this. 5 years from now.

Posted by: Scully at August 10, 2010 10:09 AM

Looking at that picture, all I can think of is how hot Rahm Emanuel is, especially for a political flack. Usually, they're pasty, chubby dudes with bad haircuts. He looks like an ex-Israeli commando.

The fact that he doesn't take shit off the Republicans (as far as I can tell) is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: Slash at August 10, 2010 10:26 AM

The problem, however, is that part of the reason I decided to watch the documentary was because I’d hope it’d help explain what actually was passed back in March and how it will affect us now and in the future. Unfortunately, there were no answers provided in that regard, so all we’re left with is the knowledge that Obama scored a major political victory. What he won most of us still don’t quite fully understand, and it may be years or decades before we do.

Isn't that frightening? Shouldn't everyone - at least the legislators and people who follow politics closely - know what is in legislation and what it will do before it gets passed? Yes, there are unintended consequences of legislation that you may not know about, but not know at all what this "reform" does, is truly horrifying. And, I know that people will claim they know what's in the bill and what it does, but that isn't true. Every day new info trinkles out about stuff in the bill that nobody knew about that will have devastating impacts on small business, your current insurance policy, etc. If everyone knew what was in the bill, why was none of that discovered or reported prior to passage?

Posted by: Chewster at August 10, 2010 10:34 AM

Slash are you Katie from Champaign, IL? (Because if you are then: Hi! Fancy running into you here. I love you even more for reading Pajiba. How amazing are you?! Let’s go make out or something [But not really because I really like your boyfriend {And my husband wouldn’t approve either *What the hell does one use after exhausting parenthesis and brackets?*}]).

If you’re not Katie from Champaign, IL then you better watch out. Her love for Mr. Rahm is intense. She often fantasizes, very descriptively about their, AHEM, time together.

Posted by: Scully at August 10, 2010 10:42 AM

Nope, not Katie, nor from Illinois. And I don't write Rahm Emanuel fanfic, but maybe I should...

Oh, Rahm, you hot Democratic attack dog... it's about time someone joined Feingold and Carville.

Posted by: Slash at August 10, 2010 10:59 AM

Nope not going to take the bait on the need for the program.

As for the political side of it, Pelosi stating, "we have to pass the bill so you can see what is in the bill," is what drove me over the top. Obama's call for transparency was violated and many who put faith in him, were watch a swing back to the politics of old, something that he was supposed to be above. Obama's mistake, was not going for the health bill right away, he went for the stimulus that has not worked. Kennedy would have seen the passage of a life long quest, and though I did not agree with his politics he did deserve that.

Bottom line, is will it pass on the Constituional level? Many of FDR's pet projects did not on the first try and he was dealing with a 5-4 against, type court as well. If it falls, he will not get it pass the Senate again.

Posted by: richmac at August 10, 2010 11:05 AM

(Because if you are then: Hi! Fancy running into you here. I love you even more for reading Pajiba. How amazing are you?! Let’s go make out or something [But not really because I really like your boyfriend {And my husband wouldn’t approve either *What the hell does one use after exhausting parenthesis and brackets?*}])

You are such a nerd. (and that is so frakking hot.)

Posted by: Mulder at August 10, 2010 11:15 AM

Scully,
You're from Champaign? So am I. I don't currently live there but my parents still do. I was just there in July.

Posted by: Jen K. at August 10, 2010 12:04 PM

I'm sorry, but if you don't know what was in the bill, then wake the fuck up and read. Even bloody Snooki from Jersey Shore knew about one provision in the bill (now Act). I'm sick to the teeth of people slamming on health care reform who can't even tell me one single provision of the Health Reform Act. Like Scully above, I am sick to death of attempting sane thoughtful conversations about it and getting ignorant rhetoric shoved in my face instead. Take my mother-in-law who, with a straight face, told me she would have fully supported a bill giving universal health care but she just couldn't support socialized medicine!!!!
People need to stop relying on sound bites from the right and the left for their information. Complex issues need more than 10 seconds of your attention.

Posted by: PaddyDog at August 10, 2010 12:18 PM

Jen K. I'm in Chicago. My Rahm-loving friend Katie lives in Champaign. But I'm sure Rahm feels her lust all the way in DC.

Posted by: Scully at August 10, 2010 12:20 PM

Gah! Sorry, Paddydog. It's not that I don't know anything about the bill -- I have a fairly basic understanding of it in the abstract, but I was hoping to find a better, more detailed explanation of how it will be rolled out and implemented, how it will change the health care system, what it will do to the deficit, and what to expect in the concrete, which is why I watched a PBS documentary: So I could get more than 10-second sound bites.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at August 10, 2010 12:27 PM

Dustin the following is a comprehensive timeline of how H.R. 4872 will be implemented and how it will affect Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs, etc:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8060.cfm

Here is the report from the CBO that might answer your budged questions:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

Posted by: Scully at August 10, 2010 12:40 PM

One day, when they make the movie of Obama's life and they cast anyone but RDJ as Rahm Emmanuel I will wield my cane as a weapon to kill the movie's producers. Those two look so much alike I could've sworn it was RDJ playing some silver fox in a new movie.

Posted by: figgy at August 10, 2010 1:04 PM

All I know about healthcare reform is that my family still doesn't have and can't afford private insurance for two healthy adults, one healthy child and one child with a chronic, pre-existing condition. Just because an insurance company can't deny us coverage for the child's pre-existing condition doesn't mean they can't charge us an ungodly amount for that coverage. The provision that would have capped those rates was stripped out very early in the debates.

I watched this Frontline on PBS and what I learned was that it was a lot of time and money spent on nothing more than allowing them to say they got it passed.

Posted by: Mrs Smith at August 10, 2010 1:14 PM

"The election is over, we're not campaigning anymore John." OBAMABURN!!!

Seriously, when you have to talk to a former presidential candidate like a child something's probably broken in the political system.

Posted by: aroorda at August 10, 2010 1:22 PM

RE figgy: "One day, when they make the movie of Obama's life and they cast anyone but RDJ as Rahm Emmanuel I will wield my cane as a weapon to kill the movie's producers. Those two look so much alike I could've sworn it was RDJ playing some silver fox in a new movie."

Rahm is hotter.

Heh... the banner ad at the top wants me to STOP OBAMA. And shows him dressed as a surgeon or somesuch. Maybe he performs procedures in his spare time. What little time he has left over after DESTROYING DEMOCRACY AND PLANNING DEATH PANELS.

Posted by: Slash at August 10, 2010 1:25 PM

Figgy:

RDJ will have to be on his knees the whole time. Rahm E. is one tiny little man.

Sorry Dustin, I didn't mean to go postal on you, but I'm at the end of my tether. I suppose because I work in the industry and see everything that is wrong with it and because I came from a country with universal health care, I just don't understand why so many people here believe that passing some version of reform is the equivalent of herding everyone into gulags by the end of the week.

Posted by: PaddyDog at August 10, 2010 1:40 PM

Look what happened to Canada, Paddy! Just look at what happened to Canada.

Posted by: admin at August 10, 2010 2:25 PM

But in a horrible, ironic twist, it was Kennedy’s replacement in Massachusetts that nearly killed health care.

For a few days I thought that the first and last patriotic act Ted Kennedy ever made was dieing. And then he failed even at that since the bill passed anyway.

Posted by: EricD at August 10, 2010 2:34 PM

You're so right Admin. Canada is just one giant gulag. The people there are so unhappy. Why they don't even have Internet freedom and they have to keep crossing US borders to use the American Internet, and probably dropping some anchor babies while there.

Posted by: PaddyDog at August 10, 2010 3:57 PM

Mrs Smith, as the system functions now if we allowed a cap on insurance premiums and deductible/out of pocket costs the majority of insurance companies would quickly go bankrupt leaving thousands to millions without coverage. By no longer allowing them the ability to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions they are exponentially increasing the amount of money the insurance companies will have to pay out, because presumably people with pre-existing conditions are pretty sick and cost the system more money. The only way costs can be capped in a sustainable manner is to mandate coverage for everyone because it increases the pool of payers into the system, both healthy and sick. One of the smartest things the new laws do is make being insured mandatory, so hopefully in the near future we can impose caps on costs. This is basic health care economics for anyone who cares to do any research into the matter.

But don't tell this to the ignorant nay-sayers who argue that their freedoms are being infringed upon by forcing them to have insurance. Apparently the freedom to pay exorbitant amounts for health care is God given, and they don't give a shit about you and your individual issues anyway. They'd probably argue it was somehow your own fault anyway for the situation you currently face.

Posted by: katy at August 10, 2010 5:09 PM

Katy,

Having lived in the UK for four years, I am a huge proponent of health care for all and I'm happy for my taxes to go up to pay for it, if everyone, and I mean everyone, is eligible. You can call me a Socialist, I won't mind.

Mr Smith and I are both self-employed with variable income from month to month. We pay out of pocket for all medical care, though we do carry dental coverage right now. I'm pretty sure my son's ADHD isn't going to break the back of the insurance industry, but since he will have it "for life" it is considered chronic and a pre-existing condition. We pay for him to see a specialist because his GP is not trained for both the mental health (therapy) and medical (pharmaceutical) management he benefits greatly from receiving, albeit intermittently. He gets to take a "break" from his ADHD meds every summer which he likes, but mostly because we need a break from the $350/month prescription. He sees the Dr 4x/year which is all we can afford and the fewest times they will allow him to come in per year. Since his expenses are so great none of the rest of us ever goes to the Dr for preventative care, which means I haven't had a pap smear or mammogram in over four years. We are not poor, or unemployed but if something catastrophic happened, like a car accident, or cancer we would quickly join the ranks of the destitute and homeless. How is fining me for not having insurance gonna fix that?

We live in a state that is covered 95% by BCBS and they have already canceled us once for being late paying a premium by a few days. They then expected me to pay three months in advance to get our coverage back, plus they would be raising our rate to accept back my son with his pre-existing condition. This was at a time when I was unemployed and Mr was struggling to start his own company. Thanks, but no thanks.

Someone needs to explain to me how you can "mandate" every American to buy insurance but at no point guarantee that every American will have health care? To me it's just a huge FU from the government because it's still my problem and we're at least lucky enough to have a little money to cover the small stuff.

Posted by: Mrs Smith at August 10, 2010 6:20 PM

I’ll watch it just for the sheer joy of watching Obama achieve something no other President has done in the history of America, then I’ll tell Obama not to run again in 2012. I’m so fucking sick and tired of the Democratic party bitching and moaning about Obama not being tough enough or compromising too much. Never mind passing health care, or the stimulus bill, or economic reform, or putting two women on the Supreme Court, or any other thing he’s done in less than two years in Office. If I were Obama I’d tell the Democratic party to fuck off, then I just sit back and write books.

Posted by: Pookie at August 10, 2010 6:36 PM

Impose caps on costs - i.e., price controls, i.e. rationing health care. Which is what we said would happen all along. At least now some libs are admitting that was the plan all along.

"I get to keep the insurance I have and the doctor I have". Unless of course someone decides its too expensive and they rule it out - i.e., "cap cost". Because in fantasy land you can increase coverage for everyone and make it less expensive and reduce the deficit. Its the constant lying more than anything else that infuriates me. Either people lying to themselves about this "reform" or lying to america. And it isn't the people against it that have done the lying.

Posted by: chewster at August 10, 2010 7:46 PM

"But, Emanuel ultimately shoved the Senate bill down Nancy Pelosi’s throat. And thanks to the insurance industry’s adamant opposition to the bill — which gave Obama an unpopular enemy — he was able to force public opinion just enough so that the House eventually passed the bill..."


Hmm - I followed the passage of this bill very closely (I watched the summit you excerpted above live), and what I quote above is just about the exact opposite of what I thought happened. As I remember it, the insurance companies were actually for the bill - they liked the individual mandate. It was only at the very end that they started to have doubts, and that was about the House version of the bill. And scuttlebutt was that it was Rahm who wanted to give up after Brown won the Mass seat, and Pelosi the one who forced Rahm to back down, convinced Obama to go forward, and made final passage happen. Now I have to watch this and see how good their sourcing is.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at August 11, 2010 12:28 AM

Oh, and chewster: I was forced to change insurance plans four times in the past ten years, and almost had to change my doctor two of those times until he very nicely decided to accept the new plans. Of course, that was because my employer made those changes without my consent, not the government, so that's completely different, right?

Posted by: Three-nineteen at August 11, 2010 12:34 AM

OK, here's a link to at least explain part of what I remember. Sorry, it's Politico. It will be interesting to compare the two narratives.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34753.html

Posted by: Three-nineteen at August 11, 2010 12:48 AM

i stopped reading at "political capit_o_l"

Posted by: nya at August 11, 2010 5:21 AM

... I just don't understand why so many people here believe that passing some version of reform is the equivalent of herding everyone into gulags by the end of the week.

Because (speaking for myself here):

- We (the US) are uniquely bad (or good, depending on your perspective) at managing spoils & patronage entitlement programs, especially federally. Exceptional, one might say.

- Over time, every program becomes a spoils & patronage an entitlement program.

- Over time, every bureaucracy goes looking for more to do, spending its budget justifying mission creep.

- Over time, every government function gets sucked into the unresponsive ooze of the swamp Washington, DC.

So, we end up with out of control spoils & patronage entitlements, dispensed by near-infinitely remote potentates through their high-handed Satraps. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Mortgage Supports (Fannie & Freddie), blah, blah, blah become one rake-off after another, each to a constituency politically expedient, "deserving", or the one dressed in the other. Hell, this econo-spasm the freaking DOT was treated as a jobs program - which it's become - without a hint of a blush. Meanwhile, we sit in traffic.

The US feds are about as remote from the folks they "serve" as are the EU-o-crats in Belgium, with 200+ years' more practice obfuscating the connection to their constituents & delegated aims. Sadly, the chattering classes in the US are fine with remote, imperial administrations when it's their guys, whining about it only when it's the other guys. Sadly, the same federal authority you want for your (noble) agenda will be grabbed by anyone who can get it, including your worst nightmare.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at August 11, 2010 10:30 AM

You know Bierce Ambrose, I usually enjoy your comments on most matters because you are someone who tends to think through things, but this time I can't go there. Your whole argument boils down to "America: we're different" and "it can't be done perfectly, there will be abuses so why do it at all".

That's just childish. The US is just not that different. It's bigger, you have more people than most other western countries and that's it. Guess what: most people think their governments suck, most governments are removed from the populace and tend to balloon into a ridiculous bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean wiping out programs that were put in place to try to help people make it through life.

Yes. It's not perfect. But it's a step or two in the right direction.

Posted by: PaddyDog at August 11, 2010 10:49 AM

PaddyDog - thank you. I am sick to death of the anti-government wackos. Really? You'd rather have this stuff handled by the market? Rather than the folks you (presumably - b/c if you complain and don't vote then you're truly invalid) elected? Because I wouldn't and, at the risk of sounding like a huge fucking douchebag, I'm among the people getting taxed the highest to enable "handouts" and "entitlements" (to my mind, shit that involves basic human rights).

Posted by: Samantha T at August 11, 2010 11:36 AM

And I'd like to add that our present President is not removed from the masses. He's from a far-less-than-privileged background and plainly gives a shit about regular folk. So, enough.

Posted by: samantha t at August 11, 2010 11:39 AM

Well, you asked. Sorry you don't like the answer.

I don't see an argument for why this one won't go off the rails. I do see the Steve Dallas argument, "Something ... must be done!" (Uttered in the course of The Great LaRouche Toad-Frog Massacre, from Bloom County Babylon - still hilarious.) For me, "Something ... must be done!" isn't good enough. I can be convinced government action is warranted:

- If it's the governments business. On health care, I'm at "maybe", "some parts" and "some of the time." Health care as a universal service, or fundamental human right, so we Do Whatever It Takes(tm), not so much.

- That we can do it effectively via the government. On health care, I'm at "probably not", "not the feds", and "support, not direction."

- And that the cure won't be worse than the disease (Pardon - I couldn't help myself.) On the recently passed US health care bill, I'm at: "Oh, god, what a mess."

Meanwhile, name calling isn't terribly convincing.

Said one - "That's just childish."

Said another - "Anti-government wackos?"

Really? That's hardly polite.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at August 11, 2010 4:38 PM

I was bored and watched this on Netflix last night. It was a nothing but a white washing of nearly the whole debacle with clearly a liberal slant (which is a given on PBS). It tried as it could to show Obama as some shrewd political strategist always a step ahead of the forces united to defeat him. When in reality the whole thing just highlighted yet another collection of campaign promise that Obama fell back on. I mean he debated against Hillary arguing for all the reasons why an individual mandate was such a bad idea. It just exposed how Obama is in over his head and has no idea how market forces interact and how the Washington political machinery operates. I mean, he caved into the insurance companies after one meeting? Yea, REAL shrewd businessman right there to snatch up your opponents first offer.

I love how the program tried to make it seem like Obama's "popularity" influenced public support to get the vote through the House. Puuhhlease! Nancy Pelosi rammed it through your House caucuses in spit of the public opinion, not because of it. Nearly every poll, one right after another, during the debate showed support continually eroding. Despite Bill Clinton's proclamations, the healthcare bill has only gotten more unpopular now that it has passed and we are finding out what's in it.

There was no mention in the program about how the economics of the bill would play out. Obama continually kept saying that the cost curve would be bent down. Now we are finding out that with the critical "Doc Fix" law that was signed on afterwords that the cost curve is being bent UP over the next ten years.

Finally, my head nearly exploded when Frontline claimed that Obama somehow saved the bill when he brilliantly called a Healthcare summit to be broadcast on Cspan. AAAAArrrrgghhhh!! The ONLY reason he had the summit is because of all the criticism that he wasn't following through on yet another campaign promise to hold all the discussions on Cspan. Not to mention that a copy of the final bill would be posted on the internet for several days before they voted on it. I could go on all day on ripping this useless "documentary" apart. But I think you get the point.

Posted by: Josh Reiter at September 15, 2010 12:26 PM