4 ms·

He didn’t support a single payer system or a public option, he just made mouth noises to that effect. Look at the recent failure in California to bring a single

by ckw 4y ago

He didn’t support a single payer system or a public option, he just made mouth noises to that effect. Look at the recent failure in California to bring a single payer bill to a vote, despite the Governor’s ostensible support and Democrats’ 75% super majority in the Senate. Perennial incompetence isn’t a plausible explanation; rank corruption is. Edit: to add a bit of evidence that Obama specifically is corrupt, here is an article titled ‘Barack Obama Got Paid $400,000 for a Speech to Health Care Execs. Here's What He Told Them’: https://money.com/barack-obama-speech-400000-health-care-conference/ https://money.com/barack-obama-speech-400000-health-care-con... How is that anything but a payoff?

scarface74 4y ago
I don’t get it. The same article said he made $60 million from a book deal. $400K is a nothing burger. He would have made money from the speaking circuit regardless.
- ckw 4y ago
  I don’t understand, you say $400k is nothing, but then say he would have made money from the speaking circuit regardless, as if he didn’t do just that, and as if taking vast sums from powerful corporate interests whose interests he’d manifestly served during his time in office isn’t the definition of corruption. I’ve read claims that he makes about 50 speeches per year, which seems plausible, given that Bill and Hillary Clinton made 729 speeches between 2001 and 2016 for a total of $153 million ($210k average). See: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill... I want to go back to the $400k speech to the healthcare industry. First, the notion that this isn’t corruption because he made so much more money in a less unseemly manner is pretty curious. Does it not then follow that the very rich, so long as their original fortunes are not ill gotten, are incapable of corruption in principle ? Second, $400k is precisely the annual salary of the President(!). For maybe an hour of work. It’s not just egregious, it’s super on the nose. Third, imagine he’d put every bit of political capital at his disposal into the fight to create a single payer system, and against the odds (and the money of those executives to whom he gave the speech) succeeded. Do you think the healthcare industry (or the part that’d still exist) would still pay $400k for an hour of his time?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    He had no political capital against the lobbyist who had the democrats in their pocket too. Clinton also tried passing health care reform with a Democratic majority and failed miserably. At least Obama got something passed. Now, even though I personally would pay a decent chunk of change for health care if I decided to go into independent consulting, at least it’s an option now. It wasn’t before. He would have made money on the speaking circuit from some group of people regardless of what he did.
darkerside 4y ago
Your theory is that Obama pushed through a complicated health care plan that affects millions of Americans and acts as the centerpiece of his legacy, and it was all to set up a $400k speaking fee a year after leaving office?
- ckw 4y ago
  He makes it clear he’s the sort to play ball, so he gets the money for the campaign. He plays ball, so he gets paid. And it’s not $400k, it’s $10-20 million per year indefinitely. See my other comment—-the Clintons made $150 million on speeches alone between 2001 and 2016.
  - darkerside 4y ago
    As President, no matter what you do, somebody benefits. Also, somebody will be willing to pay you six figures for speaking fees. Sometimes those parties are the same. I guess I just subscribe to Hanlon's Razor on this one. I think he should have advocates for single payer, but I think it was a strategic error, and not a selfish manipulation of the system. Obama cares about his legacy as much as anyone else would in that situation.
    - ckw 4y ago
      A couple thoughts: As President, no matter what you do, somebody benefits. Also, somebody will be willing to pay you six figures for speaking fees. Sometimes those parties are the same. Presidents have no business accepting speaking fees from anyone. They receive a lifetime pension and various other benefits worth millions of dollars after leaving office. Even if these fees were accepted in good faith, they still have the appearance of corruption, which undermines public confidence in the political system, and cannot but instill in the corrupt the belief that for corrupt acts in office they stand to gain tremendously. My understanding is that the presidential pension was created to avoid the embarrassment of a destitute former president, specifically Harry Truman. Harry Truman conveniently had an opinion on the subject: No young man should go into politics if he wants to get rich or if he expects an adequate reward for his services. An honest public servant can't become rich in politics. He can only attain greatness and satisfaction by service. Further, Jimmy Carter rarely accepts speaking fees, and when he does he donates them to charity. I guess I just subscribe to Hanlon's Razor on this one. I think he should have advocate[d] for single payer, but I think it was a strategic error, and not a selfish manipulation of the system. This is certainly not dispositive, but I wonder what you think about Obama’s extraordinary intervention in the 2020 democratic primary. Right before Super Tuesday he worked (successfully) to convince Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar to drop out, endorse Biden, and exhort their supporters to vote for Biden over Sanders. If Obama was so convinced of the need to reform the medical insurance system that he made doing so his highest legislative priority, and if he did believe that in theory a single payer system was preferable to the ACA, but made as you say, a strategic error in not at least advocating for it initially, then isn’t it somewhat curious that he would work so hard to ensure that Sanders, who was the only candidate who plausibly would have attempted to pass a single payer system, lost, and Biden, who not only did not support a single payer system, but said that if by some miracle it came across his desk he would veto it, won?

by ckw 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

I don’t get it. The same article said he made $60 million from a book deal. $400K is a nothing burger. He would have made money from the speaking circuit regardless.

ckw 4y ago
I don’t understand, you say $400k is nothing, but then say he would have made money from the speaking circuit regardless, as if he didn’t do just that, and as if taking vast sums from powerful corporate interests whose interests he’d manifestly served during his time in office isn’t the definition of corruption. I’ve read claims that he makes about 50 speeches per year, which seems plausible, given that Bill and Hillary Clinton made 729 speeches between 2001 and 2016 for a total of $153 million ($210k average). See: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill... I want to go back to the $400k speech to the healthcare industry. First, the notion that this isn’t corruption because he made so much more money in a less unseemly manner is pretty curious. Does it not then follow that the very rich, so long as their original fortunes are not ill gotten, are incapable of corruption in principle ? Second, $400k is precisely the annual salary of the President(!). For maybe an hour of work. It’s not just egregious, it’s super on the nose. Third, imagine he’d put every bit of political capital at his disposal into the fight to create a single payer system, and against the odds (and the money of those executives to whom he gave the speech) succeeded. Do you think the healthcare industry (or the part that’d still exist) would still pay $400k for an hour of his time?
- scarface74 4y ago
  He had no political capital against the lobbyist who had the democrats in their pocket too. Clinton also tried passing health care reform with a Democratic majority and failed miserably. At least Obama got something passed. Now, even though I personally would pay a decent chunk of change for health care if I decided to go into independent consulting, at least it’s an option now. It wasn’t before. He would have made money on the speaking circuit from some group of people regardless of what he did.

darkerside 4y ago

Your theory is that Obama pushed through a complicated health care plan that affects millions of Americans and acts as the centerpiece of his legacy, and it was all to set up a $400k speaking fee a year after leaving office?

ckw 4y ago
He makes it clear he’s the sort to play ball, so he gets the money for the campaign. He plays ball, so he gets paid. And it’s not $400k, it’s $10-20 million per year indefinitely. See my other comment—-the Clintons made $150 million on speeches alone between 2001 and 2016.
- darkerside 4y ago
  As President, no matter what you do, somebody benefits. Also, somebody will be willing to pay you six figures for speaking fees. Sometimes those parties are the same. I guess I just subscribe to Hanlon's Razor on this one. I think he should have advocates for single payer, but I think it was a strategic error, and not a selfish manipulation of the system. Obama cares about his legacy as much as anyone else would in that situation.
  - ckw 4y ago
    A couple thoughts: As President, no matter what you do, somebody benefits. Also, somebody will be willing to pay you six figures for speaking fees. Sometimes those parties are the same. Presidents have no business accepting speaking fees from anyone. They receive a lifetime pension and various other benefits worth millions of dollars after leaving office. Even if these fees were accepted in good faith, they still have the appearance of corruption, which undermines public confidence in the political system, and cannot but instill in the corrupt the belief that for corrupt acts in office they stand to gain tremendously. My understanding is that the presidential pension was created to avoid the embarrassment of a destitute former president, specifically Harry Truman. Harry Truman conveniently had an opinion on the subject: No young man should go into politics if he wants to get rich or if he expects an adequate reward for his services. An honest public servant can't become rich in politics. He can only attain greatness and satisfaction by service. Further, Jimmy Carter rarely accepts speaking fees, and when he does he donates them to charity. I guess I just subscribe to Hanlon's Razor on this one. I think he should have advocate[d] for single payer, but I think it was a strategic error, and not a selfish manipulation of the system. This is certainly not dispositive, but I wonder what you think about Obama’s extraordinary intervention in the 2020 democratic primary. Right before Super Tuesday he worked (successfully) to convince Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar to drop out, endorse Biden, and exhort their supporters to vote for Biden over Sanders. If Obama was so convinced of the need to reform the medical insurance system that he made doing so his highest legislative priority, and if he did believe that in theory a single payer system was preferable to the ACA, but made as you say, a strategic error in not at least advocating for it initially, then isn’t it somewhat curious that he would work so hard to ensure that Sanders, who was the only candidate who plausibly would have attempted to pass a single payer system, lost, and Biden, who not only did not support a single payer system, but said that if by some miracle it came across his desk he would veto it, won?