No Public Option? Then Kill It
I just saw on Yahoo news that the AP is running a story saying Obama is going to abandon the public option which is the only really decent aspect of his health insurance reform plan. Here is how the article startes out:
WASHINGTON - Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.
Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan.
If this is true, then there's no longer any reason for progressives to pretend that the health insurance reform effort is worth supporting. If Obama abandons even his weak public option proposal then progressives need to kill the bill and come back in January unapologetically with the Medicare for All bill and insist Obama support it instead of engaging in yet another attempt to kowtow to the preferences of the most reactionary, greedy and unpatriotic forces in American politics. I have been disappointed far too many times already by Obama.
If he doesn't even have the balls to stick to his own public option plan then I move from the deeply disappointed column to disgusted. Who exactly does he think elected him? I see no reason for the public or any progressive to support a moderate Republican President (which is what he's turning out to be) who is so weak he cannot accomplish the one things he said "must" happen this year. They elected and expected a Democrat and look what they got. Another weak, cowardly, craven and calculating politician without the courage of what he says are his convictions.
This was it for me Oleeb. Today I declare my Independence! After 37 years as a registered Democrat, this was the last straw. This was the big deal. This was the reason for remaining active in the party. This was the difference that mattered. War, labor, human rights, civil rights all matter. But this matters more to more Americans than anything else. This was the domestic issue they had to do right. This is is signature issue. This defines who they are. I will not have this miserable sell-out bill identifying me. I want no part of it or of the party that is foisting it on the American people. It is underfunded. It will not be able to protect the working poor. It is has sold them to big insurance and big pharma. Worst of all they have had the unmitigated gall to change the end goal. They have claimed that we have been fighting for insurance reform for 60 years when we have been fighting for universal healthcare. They have withdrawn the goal and replaced it with a plan to support insurance corporations with captive policy holders.
And they have only begun to surrender. They have raised the white flag to Chuck Grassley and he'll be back for more and they'll give it to him and say thank you.
August 16, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And they have only begun to surrender."
Truer words, I'm afraid, were never written.
August 16, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans and the industry lobbyists raise a bogus stink about "death panels" and the White House and Democratic Congress cave on the public option.
The Democrats have just handed their opposition the template they will use on any issue that Obama tries to address throughout his administration.
Embarrassing!
August 17, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to put too fine a point on it... but the Republicans are not the ones killing it.
The Dems have the numbers in the House and the Senate to pass this... But they won't do it.
And I'm pissed as Hell about it.
Like herding cats!
August 17, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, bluebell. And to rub salt in the wound, just think how this emboldens all the righties. If Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Gingrich, and on and on were insufferable before...
Barry got teabagged. Or did he know all along?
August 16, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. They have surrendered after a non-battle, after a non-struggle. Like you the Democrats have now become "them" for me.
August 16, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell, you and oleeb have expressed here my intense disappointment and anger with these developments.
Imagine what could have been accomplished if we had elected the leader we thought we had. There is an intense (and ill-defined, unfortunately! Thanks, Dick Armey & Friends!) anger among the populace - righteous for its many losses over so many years of Reaganomics ("Golden Shower Trickle Down") and for the way in which we continually get sold down the river in Washington by the corporate bosses and their lobbyists and their bought-and-paid -for Congressmen. (See Baucus, Blue Dog Dems; Grassley, et. al.)
And to think we were told that we could not engage in the very important work of democracy in "looking back" at the gross malfeasance and crimes of the previous Administration because we needed to be pragmatic; we needed to remain focused upon the so very important work of health care reform. And this is what we get? An "Insurance Industry Enhanced Profits Plan" that's does absolutely nothing to ensure sustainable universal health care as you point out? And all because we fear the Republicans and their distortion campaign and other corporate boogey-men?
Looks like the GOP got a two-fer on this one, and the American people (and our Constitution!) have taken it in the neck. Kinda' shows what happens when you forego principles to embrace "pragmatism" or "bi-partisanship." With no such foundation of principles upon which to stand, Obama has left a great opening for the unprincipled money-changers to knock him flat on his ass. So much for pragmatism. So much for "bi-partisanship" at any cost.
My contempt for Obama at this moment is nearly as extreme as the contempt I have felt for any politician in recent memory. He has such talent for true leadership. He had all the planets in alignment to accomplish great things, INCLUDING the financial mess he inherited and the two wars and the Bush/Cheney debacle that had an electorate hungering for real change we could believe in. And he surrendered his magnificent mandate to the Repubs and their corporate handlers, allowing them to define "change" this time around as a Wall Street giveaway, a continuation of ruinous wars, an endorsement and continuation of Bush/Cheney "best practices" in the abuse of Executive Power, and finally this "Enhanced Insurance" proposal that is as corrupt as anything this nation has seen since the days of the Robber Barons.
We thought we elected a leader. What we got was a creampuff casper milquetoast who has instead done little but raise the white flag of "bi-partisan pragmatism" without firing a shot. It's beyond contemptible and for the first time in my life I look diligently for who might best serve America in the upcoming Primary contest in opposition to a sitting Democratic President.
Am I confident any such real leaders can be found who can actually stand their ground against the Corporate-owned whorehouse that is now Washington from top to bottom? Obama has done much to diminish any such hope I have ever had, but I remain in the good fight if only because it is so vitally important for the future of this democracy.
August 17, 2009 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Equally well said, SJ.
BTW you might be on the road to bumper sticker fame and fortune with "Corporate owned whore house".
August 17, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
SleepinJ,
When Obama got elected I made the observation that
he had the opportunity to either go up on Mount Rushmore or become known as the biggest snake oil salesman to occupy the Oval Office.
He's adopted many of the Bush ideas on terrorism, privacy/transparency, unitarian Presidency, etc.
And, rather than redefining the mission, he's expanding the war in Afghanistan.
He's showing absolutely NO leadership on this health reform issue, rather, he's just reacting to what the Republicans and right wing are throwing out there.
His lack of leadership, along with Red State Democrats, will cause the Democrats to lose seats in Congress in 2010. They will lose seats because many independents will go Republican and many of the base won't turn out as they did in the last election.
August 17, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I now you are right, john. From a purely political standpoint, Obama has been an abysmal wreck. The Repubs deserve to be pushed so far to the margins that the only thing between them and oblivion would be "lipstick," yet they are in the ascendancy with all this "death panels" crap and other absolute nonsense that remains unchallenged.
In other words, the GOP has presented such a terrific target with all their lunacy, and yet all Obama has been able to do is shoot himself in the foot.
And unfortunately all the "Insurance" in the world ain't gonna stop the bleeding.
August 17, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What universe are you people living in?
Obama has done more for health care reform and progressive causes in the last six months than anyone else has in the last 20 years, and all you can do is carp and whine and say you're never going to vote for Democrats anymore. I can hear the Republicans chuckling.
Health Care reform is a long hard slog - FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton all tried it and couldn't get it. If it were easy we would have done it 60 years ago. We're not going to get everything we want on the first round.
However, if we listen to naysayers like you, all were going to get is conservatives back in power and another decade of regresssion.
Stop the crap and get behind our side!
August 17, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
please document the advances made by Obama? They sure aren't apparent to tye naked eye.
Look elsewhere on the thread, and you find actual instances enumerated where he is more comfortable continuing the policies and practices of the Bush Administration, fer chrissakes! And this latest suggestion that he is willing to capitulate fully to the Insurance Industry is beyond anything I could imagine the GOP accomplishing if they were in power.
With friends like this....
August 17, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe your naked eye needs glasses. Just that fact that we are talking about health care reform at all is a huge step forward. With a Republican in office, it wouldn't even be on the table. Big legislative victories don't happen in six months. Health reform will be a slow incremental process - we won't get it all the first round. Meanwhile, look at what the Obama administration is doing internationally, with the courts, the environment, etc. A thousand daily decisions are now being made by Democrats and progressives rather than Republican right-wingers.
If we listen to people like you and turn on our side just because the gratification isn't instant, we lose everything. People who think like you are the biggest danger to our side right now!
August 17, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quick! Everyone line up to surrender! It is our only avenue to victory at some unknown date!
Sorry, but the time for saying talk is an advance is long past. Obama has caved in on every major issue and now this one, the one that means more to average Americans immediately in their daily lives than anything else he has also capitulated on and now wants us to accept a health insurance premium subsidy plan that benefits the parasites without reforming anything about our rotten system? No thanks.
August 17, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment, Virginia. These are the same sort of "liberals" who would hurl insults at FDR for not getting everything done by August of 1932.
August 17, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I swear, if President Obama stood on his head and shit silver snowballs the extremists on both sides would whine because they snowballs weren't gold.
August 17, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
you mean these achievements by President Obama;
He stabilized the markets, so 401Ks are starting to slowly come back and we are not about to meltdown anymore. Unemployment numbers are coming down dramatically from when he took over. GDP went from 6.5 shrinkage to 1 shrinkage since he has been in office. Tens of thousands of state employees still have jobs, and services are maintained because of his stimulus.
He ended torture. He IS closing Gitmo.
95% of Americans are receiving a tax DECREASE.
He provided unemployment, food stamps and a 65% reduction in Cobra for those who lost their jobs.
He set new emissions standards.
He protected wilderness land set for oil leases.
He got Pakistan to agree to fight the Taliban, which Bush never could. The top leader was taken out this week.
He nominated and got confirmed the first latina Supreme Court Justice in history.
He signed Equal Pay for Equal Work, Children's Health Bill and Credit Card Reform.
He has a first time home owner's credit, a modification of mortgage plan in place. (This needs work, but it is in place)
He has made it easier for students to get college loans. (UMass just gave a 1500 rebate to all students because of the stimulus money.)
He has improved America's image around the world, especially with Muslim countries.
He got the 2 NK journalists out.
He got the non-proliferation treaties going again, and he will chair the next meeting. Already an agreement exists to reduce Russia's and US's arms.
A significant amount of the bailout money is being paid back. This is a good thing.
He has taken on healthcare, the most difficult thing to pass in the US. I am not completely happy with how he is doing it, but he is doing it.*
He ended the abstinence only thing. And the law that said a pharmacist could refuse to give birth control pills to women if they so chose.
He is sticking to the timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq.
He got funding for the useless bomber cut.And those heliocoptors. He plans to make more weapons' cuts.
He has cut 2 trillion from the budget over the next ten years.
He has taken on energy, the second most difficult thing to pass in the US and it has already passed the House.
He saved the American auto industry. (Cash for clunkers is doing great too, both for the industry and jobs, and for the environment.)
He is building a green economy for the US. First steps in the stimulus, others in the energy bill.
More jobs will be created in transportation when rest of stimulus kicks in in 2010.
He is facing complete disrespect and vilification from the media and the wingnuts,getting more than 30 death threats per day,and still goes on, calmly and with determination and intelligence.
August 17, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a very impressive list for our President, jonnienohands. You've done some extensive homework there. Keep it up. I can see you're in the progressive camp for the long haul, just like investors should be investing in stocks for the long haul instead of nitpicking the zombie for morsels of profit.
Discouraged advocates for universal healthcare, should focus on, instead of their own despair, these four goals:
1.) Inclusion of coverage of essential medical procedures in the emerging health care plan.
2.) Acceptance of all citizens into insurance plans.
3.) No discrimination by insurance companies (or co-ops!) against citizens with pre-existing medical conditions.
4.) Lifetime coverage for everyone, no cancellations.
Retreat is not defeat.
August 17, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
can't take the credit jonnie rae (not related lol) at DailyKos compiled it. I fact checked and keep it handy.
August 17, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't get it.
We've already compromised enough by giving up on single payer. Without public option, this legislation will simple be a massive giveaway of public money to the private health insurance companies by mandating people into the system.
August 17, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did we "give up" on single payer? It was never even remotely on the table. If Obama or anyone else had seriously proposed it, he would have been laughed off the stage. You people who think we ever had a chance to get single-payer are living in a dream world.
We may not like it, but this is the truth. I support single-payer, by the way, but I'm reality-based enough to admit that it would have zero chance of being implemented in the U.S. anytime in the foreseeable future.
If we get something that gives most people decent coverage that they can't lose, we will have made a GIGANTIC step forward, even if there is no public option and even if it doesn't meet our every wish. We can't let the perfect drive out the good, and we certainly can't turn on our own side. That's just a formula for losing it all.
August 17, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and many others make this sort of statement as though it were self evident. It is not. The only reason we never put single payer on the table is because of all the chickens who don't have the guts to put it on the table to begin with because they "know" it will not get passed. The self fulfilling prophecy is completed when leaders like Obama pre-empt any attempt to even discuss single payer which is what we need. If we never even discuss or introduce it, of course there's no chance for it to pass.
Funny how even though it isnt' even on the table the opposition paints a picture of us doing so anyway. If we're going to be tarred with that brush then let's at least have all the benefits single payer would bring as part of our argument. As it is we are defending a half ass effort that will benefit insurance companies more than it will the people.
August 17, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on.
Obama should have argued for single-payer, as he did before announcing his candidacy, then settled for a public option once the Blue Dogs and DINOs dug in their heels.
Not start off with the compromise position. It's not like there was a chance any Republicans would be seduced.
Bipartisanship is great when you can get it, but two sides have to be willing to play that game.
August 17, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, oleeb! Settle Down! How can serfs like us expect to gain anything from the Master's table if we are so brash and bold as to insist that we are somehow in charge of our own destiny? It's simply ludicrous to invite the wrath of the corporate masters. Keep up with the lack of respect and the lack of deference to our owners, and you'll get nothing! Just wait and see! We'll starve! Who will take care of us then if our Master abandons us?
We started this health care discussion by eliminating single payer as an option to be considered for the sole reason that our Masters (The Insurance Industry) forbade it. We then compromised any sustainable reforms and eliminated even the public option to make certain that the Master's agenda was fulfilled before anything else was considered.
Many are those who say we should be thankful for what few crumbs the Master has offered here. I say we should give it to the Master in the neck instead, and collectively - as democrats in this republic - take our own place at the Master's table at last!
August 17, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put SJ!
August 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. I warily entered the Democratic fold from the true liberal flock in order to help elect what I thought tentatively could possibly be someone who, while more centrist than I want, might actually have the political ability and will to enact the liberal ideology that Dems have been paying lip service to for decades. My cautious optimism was proven wrong yet again. No strong climate legislation and rolling over like a dog who wants its belly rubbed to corporations and republicans on health care.
I'm out, no more. Next time around all the energy and money that I spent on Obama is going straight into a true liberal candidate.
August 17, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have a lot of cash in your pocket, then.
I understand why you feel you've been duped, all the same.
August 17, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're moving to Sweden, then?
August 18, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would be happy with those provisions which are still being considered, particularly the right to stay in my pool when I retire, and simply pay a premium out of pocket, which I think is included in the portability concept. Another important feature is having simply the right to paid coverage, i.e. no refusal due to pre-existing conditions.
To do without these hugely important features is not trivial. And it is not likely that killing the current version will make a more comprehensive bill possible. You cannot call yourself helping to reform health insurance if you want to wash your hands and walk away.
August 16, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're wrong.
Refusing to go along with another pack of ineffective half measures that only make the pain of our current system slightly more bearable is the only realistic or pragmatic course left available to us. As long as we continue on the path of sustaining the rotten system we have we extend it's life. The death panel I'm in favor of is the one that will kill the for profit health system we have in the US. Everyone seems to acknowledge that if the system continues as it is it is unsustainable (which means the greed of the insurance, pharma and other healthcare parasites will end up hoisting them on their own petard). Well okay then. I say let the train wreck happen if that's what it takes for these cowards like Obama to do what is right.
And frankly, I'm no longer interested in being on the caboose of the "reform" train anyway. I'm not for reform. I am for creating a new, unified, national single payer healthcare system in the US that serves the people.
August 16, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And I'm in favor of cars that run on water and get 500 miles per gallon. How about coming down to Earth?
August 17, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about we stop calling humiliating, dishonorable capitulation progress?
August 17, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because it isn't any of the above. It's trying to work in the real political world to get something good done. Politics is the art of the possible.
August 17, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be true, but the politics you are advocating is the politics of appeasement and capitulation. You can have it. I want none of it. Capitulation and always losing on every important point is not compromise it is defeat. What part of "you lose" is so hard for you to understand?
August 17, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read jonnieohands comment above for a quick list of some of the amazing things that have happened in just half a year of Obama. And you guys want to throw it all away becuase you're not getting everything you want just like that. What a bunch of crybabies!
August 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And they're doing what with medicare?
August 16, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds too good to be true and it probably is.
It's only been a couple of weeks since Congress went on recess. I don't believe for a single second that Obama is giving up just like that, after a handful of staged townhalls over the weekend.
It's a ploy to incite mass hysteria among the progressives and bully the Blue Dogs into voting for it.
August 16, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that you are correct.
August 16, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope springs eternal eh, lalo?
August 16, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it's working. I'm hysterical!
I appreciate your insight and hope you are right!
August 16, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right?
August 16, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've often thought Obama was playing chess while others play checkers. That's thinking more then a few moves ahead. I like the outcome you are suggesting. I'm skeptical. But it would be a very smooth maneuver if it is true.
August 17, 2009 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The genius in accepting your perspective on Obama's strategy here, lalo, is that it doesn't require progressives to be quiet any longer. I am about as angry as I can remember being about the cesspool politics in Washington. I can most certainly not sit back and "go along to get along," as the Obama forces have continually suggested is the proper course of action to be taken.
If Obama cares to use the anger stirred among progressives to at last effectively show some backbone and send the rats scurrying into their astro-turf tenements, then I say "Bravo" for adopting a brilliant strategy.
But that's only if he's successful in gaining legitimate health care reform in the end. I would otherwise suggest that he was too cute by half in playing such brinksmanship at best, and at worst showed that he is no less a tool of Washington's corporate owners than the GOP and Blue Dog Dems, etc.
Time will tell. Meanwhile, contempt for all involved remains the proper response to such an assault on our health care needs as is represented by this "Insurance Profit Enhancement Program."
August 17, 2009 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFLOL! When are people going to start calling every step back taken by this administration something other than 'a cunning plan'?
August 17, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, Obey! At some point I gotta' believe even lemmings take a look at the cliff to which they are heading and think "Whoa! This ain't gonna end pretty!" lol
August 17, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Obey.
August 17, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a tug of war as this is, he's pulling people with him when he (and WE) takes a step "back"!
August 17, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to take it one "step" further. if you simply dig your heels in and refuse to budge, you're never going to win.
August 17, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice, if, for once, he took a step forward and asked people to follow him. It's called leadership... He should try it some time.
August 17, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the "insurance reform" package that is delivered will look something like the cunning bank bailout package we've seen.
August 17, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bushama has them right where he wants them?
-Sorry, but my cynicism has moved on into contempt. I allowed myself to believe that O was going to be OUR president. Good enough for everyone. I spent my money and time and a fair amount of 'social capital' electing a fraud. I thought we were taking OUR country back. We were just being taken.
This will not end well.
August 17, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If this is true, then there's no longer any reason for progressives to pretend that the health insurance reform effort is worth supporting." Are you going to take your ball and go home?
"If he doesn't even have the balls to stick to his own public option plan then I move from the deeply disappointed column to disgusted." - By design, he has never totally defined how his version of a public option would work. But of course yo don't want to hear that. As you should know there are different versions of the public option in both the House and Senate bills. You also appear to think that the president is an omnipotent being. Infantile, utterly infantile.
August 16, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect they called the Reagan Democrats "infantile" when they left the party over their own core values. I expect they just experienced that last straw. This is mine.
August 16, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell, I saw that you changed your avatar--will you be changing your name as well?
August 16, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably not but I'll be looking for a better avatar.
August 16, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the avatar you've found ain't bad at all bluebell.
August 16, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it lost a little in the translation but I guess the Blue Dogs took a few slices off the ends. It's a small price to pay for my Independence.
August 16, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is not that you want to leave the Democratic party. That's your choice and I respect it. What I take issue with is your attitude. So whatever you do continue to support health care reform now, even it means some compromise. For this is not just about politics. People's lives and livlihoods depend on it.
August 16, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My attitude is that when we allowed a healthcare bill to become an insurance bill we were baited and switched into an entirely different goal. I don't support financial industry welfare. I support the delivery of universal healthcare. The bill has a lot more to do with preserving the health of insurance industry profits than it does with the health of Americans. It will grow worse as it becomes the Blue Cross/Blue Dog bill.
August 16, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it will be even worse if we do nothing at all.
August 16, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It won't be worse if we do nothing at all. It will be worse if we get some half assed welfare bill for the insurance industry that prolongs the life of the rotten system the insurance and associated parasites have created and made into such a monster.
August 16, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that's true. I do believe, as Tom Wright said here that getting rid of rescission and pre-existing condition bans would improve things. But, without a real public option (by which I mean where every American with insurance now gets to choose between their current plan and a government plan so that insurers have to offer more services at better prices just to keep their clients) the health bill as I understand it now simply won't change much for most people. Insuring the uninsured will also, of course, be a good thing.
That's a problem because those people will rightly ask what they went through all of this for and any of them who have to pay higher taxes for it are going to wonder why.
It's not good and it's not right to have gone through all of this without providing some sort of pay off for the vast majority of Americans. The point here is to free people from the very real death panels at work in society.
Insuring the uninsured and changing the rescission and exclusion rules matters but it amounts to tweaking the system for most people. That's not what we're trying to do here.
August 16, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right, destor, and well said! Health care reform that actually provides relief to a majority of Americans! Wot a concept!
August 17, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Medicare for all says it about as simply as it can be said.
August 16, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the senate and congressional healthcare system for all?
August 16, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Medicare doesn't even work for some, let alone all.
If the liberal wing of the democratic party actually wanted a viable public option they should have used Medicare reform as the vehicle. It would have faced zero resistance and would be ad one deal by now on the left and right.
All or nothing ultimatums in American politics tend to lead to nothing.
August 17, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't say nothing, one always have that secure feeling of the door slappin' one's ass on the way out.
August 17, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good imagery. I hadn't thought of that reward.
August 17, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This must be fact, if for no other reason than jason said so.
I'd love nothing more than to follow you around, jason, and watch as you tell seniors you are taking their Medicare away because "it doesn't work." They'd pound you into oblivion.
What a farce! You do little in your prattle but show that it is indeed difficult to see the real world when one's head is shoved so far up one's arse.
August 17, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure how many times I need to provide the same link to the same 2008 Medicare Trustees Annual Report,/a>, but there you go. All the facts you need to finally have an intellectually honest opinion.
As to your hypothetical seniors, I would ask them why they support a party that is ensuring Medicare will fail within the next ten years.
I have never once advocated taking away Medicare. In fact, I said that it would have made much more sense to position the plan as the "public option" in order to get young and healthy people paying into the system at much higher contribution levels.
Again, you us ad hominem attacks and straw men to dispute points I have never made.
August 18, 2009 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments are nonsensical.
It is no longer relevant to discuss the different versions of a public option since they are hightailing it out of that alternative altogether like the cowards they are. They are chickening out. Running away. Surrendering. How you extrapolate I think that the President is omnimpotent because I think he ought to have the balls to stand by his own proposal of having a public option is completely unclear.
August 16, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think what you want. It looks like the only thing you have the balls to do is complain. Narrow left wing views are just as obnoxious as narrow right wing views. Same tactics. Call the other guy nonsensical or stupid and then declare victory. You are unable to accept that there are differeing points of view because you're too busy listening to yourself or others like you. I'm outta here. Happy now - you won - or so you think.
August 16, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, I've never really understood where people like you, who grovel like starving peasants and who are so willing to kiss the asses of the rich and powerful get off comparing people on the left to the whack jobs on the right. There is no comparison whatever except that accomdaters like youself get to posture as smug and superior when really you're just chicken and refuse to admit that your strategy has, once again, failed miserably.
What you would accept as partial victory would have been acceptable 20 years ago. Today it is little more than an insult. You're so whipped, cowed, put down and pathetically desperate to claim some sort of victory you don't even recognize when you're getting your teeth kicked in.
Wake up! It's the middle of the roaders and their reactionary allies who have killed healthcare and you have chosen to align yourself with them. So don't blame me or the people who aren't afraid to actually stand up for what they believe for the failure that persons like yourself have supported from day one. How you think this is the fault of anyone on the left who, though they didn't like it, did accept Obama's weak public option concept and supported him because of that is amazing. The left and the liberals were the only people who had Obama's back on this from day one and he screwed them in return with all his namby pamby kowtowing to the Republicans and the insurance parasites, none of whom would ever support health care reform as is plainly evident.
You've no facts of any kind to blame the left for the failure of your school of thought. Sometimes it is better to lose with honor than it is to claim a false victory and be humiliated all the same. That's what you're for. So quit pointing fingers friend and instead look in the mirror.
August 17, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
And mine...democrats can go suck air.
C
August 16, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been in this limbo since the Clinton years, but the Dem Party has (or had) a lot of meaning for me because of what they stood for, who they represented and a family history of fighting the greater of two evils in the past. So many great accomplishments were achieved by Dems in the last century; so many malicious acts accomplished by Republicans.
I have to wonder, why the capitulation now? Look at the arc of the HCR "debate" from even before Obama took office. Isn't the recent media coverage of screaming meemies planted in staged 'town hall' meetings spitting absurd talking points just a little too convenient an excuse to throw in the towel now? Congress is still debating the proposals. It isn't the American people that are being signaled to drop the pulic option; it's congress.
Many of us have yearned for a third party takeover. The good news is it has happened. The bad news? It is the Corporate Party that has seized (or retained) control, but quietly, of course, as a kind of silent partner to our democratic government.
August 16, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right about the Corporate Party and it was a weak leader, Barack Obama, who handed the last vestiges of independence in Democratic Party to the corporate interests. That's what baffles me most. He surrnders to them with no fight at all. And the surrender was not only unnecessary but we get nothing in return for it.
August 16, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But barack did might fine for himself, didn't he?!? Now that's the signature of the politicians we have come to know and despise. Say it ain't so?!?!?
August 17, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no third party. There is in fact no two-party system. We have a single party that owns Washington, and the Insurance Industry wing of that corporate party is showing us all just who is boss.
August 17, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone needs to put the heat on the White House. We need to flood their system. I know for a fact THEY are listening. Not so sure about Congress and Senate.
If everyone who voted for Obama would take a second and email the White House, they'd wake up really f_ing quick.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
quit bitching and do it.
PUBLIC OPTION IS NOT NEGOTIABLE!
ps forward this to everyone.
August 16, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Mike. Did it.
August 16, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done.
August 16, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth doing and I will, but what makes you think they're listening Mike? They didn't listen when it came to FISA. They didn't listen when it came to handing over trillions to Wall Street with no strings attached. They didn't listen when it came to rolling back the illegal/unconstitutional police state claims of power from the Bush years. They didn't listen when it was clear the majority of the American people support some form of single payer healthcare system. Why do you think it would be any different at this point?
August 16, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - I filled out form and submitted.
Please post this info as a stand alone blog post.
August 16, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done.
August 17, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I stated we need healthcare reform, not health insurance. The White House needs to tell the stories of the victims of insurance and remind everyone of the neighbors we all know who have been screwed by their insurers.
August 17, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Done
August 17, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Done.
C'mon everyone. This is how things happen - with a non-negotiable demand for what we voted for, for what we need. There's no excuse for not taking action.
"A man can't ride your back unless it's bent."
- Martin Luther King
August 17, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The president is delivering exactly what he promised in the campaign. Did you vote for Dennis Kucinich as a write in or something?
August 17, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
". . . health care . . . health-insurance companies . . . insurance company . . . insurance company . . . health coverage . . . insurance company . . . health-insurance reform . . . health insurance . . . health insurance. . . . health insurance . . . affordable coverage . . . health care costs . . . unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . enriching insurance companies. . . . hold insurance companies accountable. . . . insurance companies discriminated . . . prohibit insurance companies . . . require insurance companies . . . health insurance . . . health insurance . . . insurance company . . . .
"The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about. . . .
"We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been." Barack Obama
Lot there about "health insurance reform." Not much about "health care."
August 16, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I remember the hairs on the back of my neck standing straight up the first time Obama introduced "health insurance reform" into his speeches in place of the original mandate for health care reform. Disgustingly apparent who was in charge on this one, eh?
August 17, 2009 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still mulling this over oleeb. The only thing that prevents me from endorsing your point of view now, is the insurance and med infrastructure cos would be delighted with such an outcome. Total speculation here, but if they pass a truncated healthcare reform bill now that is costly, and without legs to reduce those costs, then it might, (and I emphasize 'might'), amount to a Trojan horse, that would demand actual reform down the road. Of course doing nothing might lead to the same result, although either way, the insurers may clean up their act just enough to stay ahead of public opinion. As I said, I'm still chewing on this one, and am doing what I can via letters to congress, to prod the congressional, I'd call them whores, but I hate to denigrate honest working women as such.
August 16, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
“As a rule, large capitalists are Republicans and small capitalists are Democrats, but workingmen must remember that they are all capitalists, and that the many small ones, like the fewer large ones, are all politically supporting their class interests, and this is always and everywhere the capitalist class.
The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles”. .wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
WHO GOT THE SPOILS HIS TIME
wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy
OBAMA SOLDOUT THE WORKING CLASS; INTO SLAVERY.
Inflation or deflation
THATS HOW YOU CONTROL lABOR, THATS HOW YOU WHIP THE SLAVES (22 MINUTES IN) higher unemployment all controlled by banks and corporations.
Healthcare in America, contriolled by Corporations.
WATCH THIS VIDEO, AND UNDERSTAND WE THE PEOPLE, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OVERTHROW A FAILED SYSTEM.
FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531&hl=en
August 17, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the Dems have to do is try to pass a real bill with 50 votes.
They can let Republicans filibuster for days on end, and see what the public reaction is.
Giving up on the public option (to the doubtful extent Obama ever really wanted it) is completely inexcusable.
August 17, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Dems, the non-capitalist ones?
Obama's giving them all cover. If it doesn't pass, it's Obama's fault; he should have tried harder. Obama will blame Congress. 50% of voters will blame one or the other. Rebellion contained, back to polarization, back to infighting of the working class. As long as the focus is off of the Master class
If you need another diversion, start a war against terrorism.
The election of Obama was the pressure relief valve. Capitalism saved.
Having saved the Federal Reserve and its Masters, it's a matter of returning to status quo.
Masters and slaves, Rich or poor
The Masters saying "Let the people eat cake, like us."
Until the next election and then they'll tell us about what we fear, and how if elected, BY God they’ll be different, they'll bring Change.
SUCKER BORN EVERYDAY
August 17, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
To the barricades, miguel! The fight is not lost.
Truth be told, Congress and Obama and the media have not heard from the Progressives in anything close to the effective way in which the GOP/Corporations have mustered the "death board" opponents.
It is my hope that this capitulation to the Insurance Industry at the cost of compromising genuine health care reform will be a catalyst for a storm of protest unlike anything Washington has seen thus far.
Righteous anger is the proper response to this "Insurance Profit Enhancement Program." And in large doses, too, to enhance the health of us all and to finally purge the system of these Insurance Industry parasites..
August 17, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, we're basing our opinions on something that "might" be true? Obama "might" be signaling acceptance of the co-op idea? Might it not be another con job? Get democrats to turn their backs and pack it in?
It ain't over 'til its over.
Obama was just here in Colorado and his comment to the effect of the public option being "just one sliver" of the overall debate is what the media goobers are basing their stories on.
And, of course, certain TPMers are eating it up. Talk about self-fulfilling prophesy.
I'm saying it again: if health care reform tanks, then thank yourselves.
August 17, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're simply wrong on this.
It isn't as though the news reports are based on rumor. Secretary Sebelius made clear they are ready to dump the public option. An piece on Politico says:
"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was “not the essential element” of the overhaul."
What, after all, do you think something like that means? It is quite clear and obvious what it means.
You are suffering from a serious case of denial if you simply ignore the facts, but that's your choice. Just don't blame those who recognize what's going on for Obama and company caving in on the Public Option like a bunch of terrified children because of the predictable and expected opposition of the special interests.
August 17, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, oleeb, you misundrstand. We are supposed to keep our powder dry until it becomes completely apparent that the battle is in fact lost.
What a crock is served up by these "go along to get along" "centrists" who think the worldview is so much better when you bend over and grab your ankles.
August 17, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for straightening me out SJ. :)
August 17, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb: Politico? Politico says so?!? Well butter my butt and call me convinced. No, Oleeb... not buying it for half a sec. (though I must admit that today is a new day and the "no public option" has already been "walked back" on several fronts). I'm replying rather late.
August 19, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We needed finance reform and instead we got a huge gift to Wall Street with few preconditions. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are laughing so hard.
We needed investigation of torture, and instead we'll get an investigation whether individuals deviated from the approved Bush/Yoo standard of torture.
We needed to get out of the Middle East, but instead we're shifting gears into ante-up mission in Afghanistan, whatever rationale we finally settle on (eliminating the Taliban, welcoming them into the government, eliminating drugs, eliminating Al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, bringing democracy...)
As Robert Reich noted, there's a lot of savings that can be done by using the large medical account to pressure pHarma. But we gave away that leverage by capping their contributions. So where will savings come from?
We've been talking about Electronic Medical Records for 6 years now, something that's supposed to save us lots of money and doesn't require Universal Health Care or universal insurance. How's that coming? It still sounds like "mission to the moon" when people talk about it. Is it that tough?
I don't have much confidence in government to come up with and run a new program. The prescription benefit/Medicare Part D turned into a huge boon for Big Pharma that was rammed through just because. Our new "success" story is "Cash for Clunkers", which is simply a huge $3 billion subsidy to get people to buy cars. Meanwhile the program to help people with their mortgages, something I'm much more interested in, is an unqualified failure, with new records for foreclosures set every month:
I don't expect people on the right or the left to tell the truth on any policy issue they're fighting about. Those on the left continue to pretend Canada has no wait problem even though Canada's had a "Wait Time Alliance" of major health groups pumping $6 billion into reducing wait times for the last few years with little result. That would seem to indicate Canadians see a problem. It's better than no care, but it's still a problem.
Curiously enough, Mackey from Whole Foods seems like the only voice I've heard of late that I trusted. He may be a bit of a loon (not that we have a shortage), but he seems to balance holding down costs with getting his employees good affordable health insurance. I'd trust him more than Rahm to go in and negotiate with Big Pharma and the insurance companies. I guess I'm conservative, but I tend to trust someone who has something working over someone who offers pretty promises. And that's what all this feels like to me - that the "revenue neutral" promise is either just as bad accounting as we had under Bush, or it means the actual benefit we get will be much smaller than anticipated.
And if I looked at the quest for Universal Health Care or Insurance Reform as a project, in terms of project management techniques, I think I'd spit blood. I thought last year that Obama had a crap response team, but an excellent organization and engagement team. But it's like having a football club that's known for its running backs decide that it's going to focus on its passing game for the Super Bowl. Engagement has been absent, and now after Republicans controlling the messaging on Town Halls for a week, we're going to bring out a too-late response.
Hanging the public option out on a hook? It was already dangling, what with waffling about untried co-ops and so forth. Just a space filler, never an important ingredient. Whoever wanted health reform just got a plate of sausage. Smather enough mustard on it and it might taste good.
August 17, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Citizens want reform. The healthcare industry (largely insurers) is where the opposition is coming from. Because congress is owned by the industry is why this is happening. Insurers grossly inflated revenues are fully intentional. Anything they can do to make the system enhance revenue and thus profit but isn't illegal, they'll do.
What really sucks is a lot of investors are foreign and we are effectively paying them and getting nothing in return. Plus I doubt that even one of the major insurers ever pays the 35% number that is the supposed corporate rate on income. Most pay between 15% and 20%. I wish I could figure out a way to reduce my taxes by a third of the established rate.
August 17, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Citizens want reform.
Agreed.
But "reform" of what?
August 17, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
One that will assure them they have acces to care that can't be arbitrarily dropped and that covers whatever they happen to need.
And doesn't discriminate when they change employers or become unemployed only to find they can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
And lastly one that doesn't cost the nation double percapita compared to other developed countries. And on a ratings basis, doesn't have us running 37th even though our costs are far in excess of any other nation in the world.
Those are good for starters.
However, IMHO reform would look more like nationalizing the entire system and after modernizing their operations for efficiency, sell them off to investors with forever restrictions to prevent screwing it up again. The same applies to banking and insurance. They are also very broken. But then you know that. And Oh Yeah. Remove any entitlement of corporations being citizens. Becasue they ain't.
August 17, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly I'm in a minority here--a tiny minority--an insignificant minority. I can't bring myself to join the fuckit school of legislation because something I want isn't in a piece of legislation.
If the bill does require coverage or pre-existing conditions, for example, what am I do to? If I had an answer to the person who can't get covered because of a previous condition except to suggest "bankrupt yourself and go on medicaid," maybe I'd say the public option was the be all and end all of health care reform.
But I couldn't look at that person and his family and say sorry, no public option, I withdrew my support, so just suck it up. I'm just not pure enough in my convictions for that. Sorry, it isn't me.
I'm rather deciding that I'd rather not be in this small, insignificant, minority. Too much TPM with its politics and lots of caffeine may not be good for me--I get too much caffeine from coffee in the first place.
August 17, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mike. I knew there were rational and logical liberal voices out there on the subject.
Even FDR didn't get the entire New Deal done during his first six months in office. Took most of his entire twelve years. Civil Rights took a number of years and many presidents to finally accomplish the goals, starting with Truman and culminating with LBJ. Labor rights, abolition, suffrage, the list goes on and on.
Lasting change takes time.
Obama only gets a max of eight years and can't blow his wad coming out the door, looking to bathe in the bloody entrails of republicans. All historically huge changes in this country have come by way of baby steps based on political compromise that led to greater opportunities on the next round of discussion. Give a little, get a lot. Keep your eye on the long-term goals.
This is why I find most liberals to be largely ineffective at achieving the goals they claim are most dear. It's the same sort of hysteria found over at my latest blog and the Lanny Davis thread it cites. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
August 17, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a bunch of hooey once again. You keep disparaging leftists, libruls, extremists, or whatever your label du jour is at the time. But it stands to reason that you centrists - you who propose a centrist ideology - are about as impotent as any eunuch in an Insurance Potentate's Washington brothel (aka The U.S. Congress) without assistance from the left AND the right.
After all, what is there to define "centrist" if not the ideologues on the left and the right. Your ridiculous assertion that FDR, LBJ, et.al., simply pulled ideas out of their centrist ass and - voila! - we have progressive policies is ludicrous. There was alot of pushing and loud voices and so-called "extremist"politics on behalf of Progressives that was engaged before any action was ever taken that advanced the Progressive cause, however incremental it may have been.
And my guess is that LBJ, FDR, MLK, and all the others would take offense to being portrayed as spineless weasels who carried with them no progressive ideology of their own. They would most certainly be more inclined to let you cover that territory all to yourself.
Did they know the art of compromise? Of course. But there is not ONE Progressive policy that was ever enhanced by selling out wholesale to the highest bidder. And this shit has gotta' stop! It is time to punch the Insurance Industry in the nose on this one, and keep punching and punching until they scream "No mas!" After all, they are defenseless in this struggle, and should be called out for the parasites they are that bleed our health care system for their profits without regard for or legitimate contribution to the common good.
And then we need to take on Dick Armey and Grassley and all the others who promote fear-mongering in support of their corporate owners. "Shame on you, Senator Grassley, for scaring Grandma into believing ANYONE is out to kill her!" We need to lay these lies at the doorstep of the corporations and their lackeys, and insist they tell us the reason they need to rely upon this kind of sinister nonsense rather than try to deal directly with the issues.
Finally, we need to validate the anger and the sense of frustration and impotence that has been expressed at the Town Hall Meetings. And we need to make it very plain that it isn't "guvmint" or "socialists" or "death panels" that are the real source of their misery, but rather the very corporations that have so cynically manipulated them in this process.
Sometimes, you need to stand on principle if you have them. It's a sorry state of affairs, jason, if you are indeed so handicapped in that regard, but it's of no consequence to the discussion that needs to be engaged. So get out of the way. Let the games begin!
This ain't tiddlywinks, jason. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. (Said by another of your supposed "centrist" ideologues, I suppose. My gawd!) We're coming after you and the rest of the "politics as usual" crowd on this one. And it's about time!
August 17, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You define centrist as being spineless weasles and expect the rest of the world to follow suit. I define it as the pragmatic march toward progress over a number of years and via a multitude of legislation with the power of the actual historical record to back me up.
None of the men you mention were radicals. They used the power of their pulpits to drive the conversation toward logical compromises that the grassroots of both parties could support.
You don't even understand the history of your own party (let alone the country) well enough to have a reasoned conversation as your continued fringe attacks make more than clear. This is just more distraction and misrepresentation. The same way the Rapture Right worked the edges for so long and made this country a nightmare to try and get things done in.
The democratic party's biggest on-going challenge to accomplishing all their very worthwhile goals is that there are too many democrats in it.
August 17, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actual historical record to back you up? Is that the same historical record that claims FDR and LBJ and MLK and all as fellow centrist weasels who stood not on principle, but rather engaged in "pragmatic" grovelling with a willingness to take what the powers that be deigned to give them?
You insult almost all of the greatest Progressives in history by including them in your manufactured reality. Your insistence on reinventing the careers of these leaders to support a "surrender first, then negotiate" political ideology is incredibly arrogant, to say the least. But then again, arrogance has always been your strong suit, with not much to back it up other than your "hysterical" record.
August 17, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You insult the greatest progressives in history by insisting they were radicals who were so politically naive they didn't use an entire nation to accomplish their goals.
Your grasp on history is a fuzzy as your grasp on politics and business and just about everything else you have ever commented on. There is the ENEMY and the APPEASERS and all that is left are the good people line up behind your ideas. You just make shit up to fit in your rather narrow world view.
Good look with your myopia. It must make taking a walk very dangerous.
August 18, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand how you're torn on this Amike. The problem is that without the public option or something equivalent to bring in competition, the insurers have complete pricing power.
So what happens when this 'option'-less bill passes? Insurers can no longer discriminate on the basis of condition/gender, etc, and can't rescind policies willy-nilly. So the cost to them of the average policy moves up from, say, $6'000 to $8'000. What happens to insurance premiums? They move up from $7'000 to $9'000. I don't claim these figures are anywhere near accurate, but you see the picture. More people are priced out of the market, and need subsidies. To expand coverage, more subsidies are needed, and all of it ends up being just a direct transfer to insurers' profits. Something similar can be said for drug-makers in the current deal. The more profits they make, the more political clout they bring to bear, and the harder it becomes to pass meaningful reform which necessarily hurts their bottom line.
It's the same situation with the banks. They have just received 23 trillion in guarantees and other indirect subsidies. Surprise, surprise, passing decent regulatory reform has become impossible. Yes, each time, short term pragmatism demands that we feed the corporate beast, but long-term it worsens the situation.
Is this bill starting to look like a big corporate giveaway? Yes, with the exception of some peripheral elements that really could be passed independently of this bill.
August 17, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the thoughtful and sympathetic response. I'm now focusing on your last sentence. Maybe the secret is to pass the passable peripheral elements first and pass them independently. I'm never convinced that mega-bills are the best way to legislate about anything. The last defense against passage is "nobody has had time to read all 900 pages." Break the bill down in to manageable segments, get passed what can be passed, and then hold the Donnybrook on what's left.
I suppose the problem with that approach is that as soon as a person gets his/her pet bit of reform enacted into law, he/she will head to the local donut shop and buy a French Cruller (after all they're liberals and we know they're Frenchies in disguise) and a coffee (they've sworn off lattes when it was pointed out that such were the drings of the elite and not of the "people") and celebrate. But I think it might still be worth trying.
August 17, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I, too, understand the dilemma you write about here. My bottom line is that it would be wrong to so wholly capitulate to the Health Insurance Industry just to gain a few crumbs from their table.
Far better to take incremental changes and continue the discussion about just what is the proper role (if any!) for the Insurance Industry to play in a universal health care system.
August 17, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is in direct contradiction to everything else you have stated. The current legislation is designed to provide incremental change with the hope of an ongoing dialogue that leads to a number of changes over the coming years.
August 17, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because liberals are unhappy with the evolution of the bill, that doesn't make it an even incremental improvement on the current situation. Do you even accept the principle that at some point the negatives outweigh the positives in terms of substance? Or is all you care about the perception of a 'dialogue amongst reasonable voices'? Address the substantive complaints about leaving out a public option, Jason, rather than going meta.
August 17, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Others haven given plenty of good reasons to support reforms absent a government-run public option. I see no need to repeat their worthy contributions.
These bills provide for a lot of fixes to the current system, allows the president a win and resets the "reform meter" to a more reasonable place. They can also garner "conservative" supports at the grassroots which is vital to building majority support in the country as a whole. Much of what is on the table will be a great step in the right direction that keeps reform as the trend rather than gridlock leading to status quo.
Sustainable change is incremental in nature and can be exponential if done right. All or nothing ultimatums usually lead to nothing in this country and starting back at square one. Sorry, but most of the criticism for this legislation seems painfully and hopelessly naive to me.
August 17, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"painfully and hopelessly naive"
Really? How tactfully insulting of you...
And way to not go meta...
Funny that you reference amike to whom I offer some arguments for problems with the legislation. But I'll stick to arguing with people who can keep their eye on the subject matter and able to argue the merits rather than sling shit and then claim it don't stink.
August 17, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reply was meant for this comment.
August 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not allowed to have an opinion about the liberal left response to this legislation yet you guys are allowed to sling poo in every direction for those who don't agree with your stance?
What the fuck does going "meta" mean anyway. That is a bullshit complaint that has nothing to do with what I posted, which was exactly what you asked of me. I gave my opinion as to WHY such tactics are counter to the democratic party's stated goals as well as the goals of its elected leaders.
Many voices at TPM are seeking to paint anyone who doesn't agree with them as the enemy and that is a horrible trend as far as I am concerned.
August 17, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just address the substance, Jason. It's not hard.
August 17, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
August 17, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
your optimism on incremental change is, well, optimistic.
The Republican party is in the hands of the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts and these people are who you think the Dems can run a dialogue with?
"Incremental change" can only occur if the rational Republicans can wrest control of the party from the gang that now has control.
August 17, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wingnuts are not negotiating in the senate finance committee, no matter how things are framed on TV.
The legislation that is likely to come out of conference committee will be very progressive, even if not particular liberal, and will frame the discussion as a win for the democratic party. This isn't about the republican party. They will change in their own time.
This about setting the stage for "bipartisan" reforms as being the desired state and then getting a "win" that cements that feeling. Make republicans run on voting for the reform package in advance of an election year. If the bills remain moderate and measured, it will be political suicide to vote against them when the number start to rise. Americans want health care reform. That is non negotiable. The democratic party itself can't even agree on single payer versus public option versus co-ops.
How does this have anything to do with wingnuts republicans?
August 17, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason says:
Jason, I don't feel "Republicans" and "wingnuts"
are interchangeable. John Kyl is a wingnut as is Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn to name a few. Richard Luger, Robert Bennett, Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander are Republicans.
Its my contention that the wingnut branch of the Republican party in Congress don't want the Democrats and/or Obama to pass anything that may benefit the Dems in the next election.
Sonia Sotomayor received just one vote from the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, the 5 that voted against her weren't worrying about it being a pre election year. Even Orrin Hatch who has a history of accenting a Republican nominee as being "well qualified" voted against the "well qualified" Sotomayor. Hatch certainly won't worry about passing health care in a pre election year.
You mention a bill that's "moderate and measured"; those that are financing this anti-reform bill and their right wing activists, in and out of Congress, will fight any bill regardless of its being labled "moderate and measured." A bill like that will be subject to warped interpretation just as the original.
August 17, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
She got nine votes in the Senate. There are more than nine republican votes for a moderate and measured reform package like the one emerging in various committee.
Moderate republicans will regain their composure and vote accordingly or there will be hell to pay in next year's primary elections. The majority of Americans want to see health care reform enacted. Obama is ensuring that the bill everyone votes on is something that republicans vote against at their own peril.
This is still a nation in transition, especially amongst the majority of republicans at the grassroots, and I expect voters expectations of both parties will be much higher in the years to come.
August 17, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point, jason. At last we agree on something.
But why, then, are we instead so keenly engaged in creating "Health Care Insurance Industry Profits Reform?"
August 17, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have clearly not read the current legislation nor do you really understand where the debate is likely to head in conference committee based on the various factions involved. You act as if there is no process at play. As if we are speaking of solutions yet to be crafted instead of ones that can be read online.
The issues addressed in those bills will significantly change the way the health insurance system in America functions. The insurance companies may in fact have access to more people, but they will do so under drastically circumscribed conditions with strict regulations and in a mandated partnership with the rest of the system.
You are the type of liberal who would have been pissed at FDR for not having everything fixed by August of 1932. This was never going to be fixed in one legislative session.
August 18, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink