Given that the public option will be crafted to prevent single payer... (0.00 / 0)

according to Sibelius, and that public option can't garner the administrative savings that a truly universal single payer system can (30% vs 3% == $350 billion savings per year), what's your feeling on support dangerous palliatives like Dr Dean's? Given that the public seems ready to accept real leadership on this issue?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 11:59:48 AM CDT

I Think We Need To Build Power (4.00 / 2)

The public option concept was developed by Jacob Hacker as a way to transition to single-payer.  It's only natural that the elite would try to subvert it and turn it into the opposite.  Of course I'd like to go straight to single-payer.  But if we have to get the public option as a way station, so that people grow accustomed to it, the sky doesn't fall, and then we can come back in a couple of years, and say, "well, the way to really make this work is single-payer," then that would be acceptable, too.

Honestly, I don't think any of us knows the future well enough to say what we should do, tactically and strategically in every detail.  What we can say is that staying honest, staying focused on the long haul and staying together are all crucial elements for long-term success.  If we let differences in strategy or tactics divide us when agree on long-term goals, then we only further weaken ourselves in the face of powerfully united foes.  So I tend to have a lot of tolerance for good-faith differences on how to get there--provided that people really want to get there.

The point of this diary wasn't to make any sort of comprehensive argument.  I wasn't implicitly saying the public option is great.  But it is a clear indication of general attitudes toward the government bogeyman vs. the totally failed fee market system.  And the bogeyman seems to have lost his bite.  Which is good news that we ought to spread around.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 12:11:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, I don't think that is acceptable (0.00 / 0)

1. The argument you cite from Hacker isn't responsive to the point I'm raising from Sibelius. I understand your "way station" trope, but if the legislation is crafted specifically to avoid a transition to single payer, then how, exactly, does the transition supposed to happen? Worse, suppose the legislation prevents states from setting up their own single payer plans separately or regionally? That would mean no U.S. Tommy Douglas and no Saskatchawan.

2. Why isn't the best way to "stay together" to support what everybody, including you, agrees is the best policy? Temporizing on this issue could put off a real solution for a decade or worse -- especially when the insurance companies, still in the game, the Republicans, and our famously free press start chipping away at it, like you know they will, and it turns into a fail and destroys the brand, like Medicare Part D was designed to do.  That's a lot of money to throw away, and a lot of people dying without care, for the sake of strategery.

As far as not knowing the future well enough, well, that's decision making under uncertainty, right? Personally, I've tired of "progressives" negotiating with themselves on this issue; if there was full-throated support for single payer from the blogosphere, then  Dean's ideas might have a chance. As it is, they mark Dean marks the left boundary of acceptable discourse, and that will be happily compromised away by Bill Maher's new Republicans.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:23:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sigh! (0.00 / 0)

(1) So Sibelius is all about making the public option categorically worse.  My point is simply that what they do now can be undone.  I agree that the public option won't deliver.  So if that's the path that gets followed, then there will be another battle to come.  

(2)

2. Why isn't the best way to "stay together" to support what everybody, including you, agrees is the best policy? Temporizing on this issue could put off a real solution for a decade or worse

I'm not sure what you're advocating here.  It seems pretty clear that one way or another we are going to temporize under Obama.  The question is only how.  Do I like it?  Not one bit. Tell me how to stop it.  Don't call me names. Don't accuse me of being impure.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 18:47:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I can't imagine why the sigh (0.00 / 0)

1. Yes,  I am aware that Congress has the power to make or alter or amend legislation under Article I. That doesn't change the fact that Sibelius said that the Obama administration plans to make it harder to get to the right policy and the legislation, as written, throws obstacles in the way of doing the right thing. Why do you think the battle is "to come", when it's now?

And since the public option is, as we agree, a FAIL in the making, shouldn't we stop temporizing on it and call it for what it is? Let Dean do what Dean needs to do. That's not what we need to do. Since we know the battle is to come, why not start fighting it now? Why not petitions, say, to get HR 676 out of committee, or get it CBO scored, to give two examples?

2.  I asked a question. "Why isn't the best way to 'stay together' to support what everybody, including you, agrees is the best policy?'

That's because I was unclear on the operational definition of "staying together" when you wrote "staying focused on the long haul and staying together." What does that mean in terms of concrete action? For example, the physicians who got themselves arrested in Baucus's hearing were certainly "focused on the long haul" and "staying together." If by "staying together" you mean "More like that, please!" I'm in whole-hearted agreement with you, because that accords with my values and interests.

Finally, when you write "we are going to temporize under Obama," who do you mean by "we"?

NOTE How in the name of sweet suffering Jeebus is the demand or directive not to call you "impure" on point?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 22:35:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*** Crickets *** (0.00 / 0)

Just saying.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 20:23:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course Sibelius will say that (4.00 / 3)

The NLRB as conceived under Taft-Hartley has become something vastly different now, thanks to various presidents staffing it with administrators who despise the labor movement.

Likewise, with sufficient organization and power, we can use a legit public option contrary to the intent of the pablum eating neoliberals who will put it together.    

---

by: wobbly @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 12:52:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like the idea (0.00 / 0)

But how do we do that?

As we've just seen, getting a liberal elected U.S. president is difficult. We haven't had a real one since Johnson.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 20:55:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with basically all of what you say Paul (4.00 / 2)

but you're laying it all on Obama's feet. I think its fairly evident that he's for a strong public option, and thats what he's trying to push for. The fact that all republicans and most centrist democrats in congress are not for it is not because of him. Now, a case can be made that Obama hasn't done enough to make republicans and conservadems have to face up to the public opinion against them, and thats a case that I actually agree with.  

---

by: ai002h @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 12:35:33 PM CDT

Pretty much where I am (4.00 / 4)

 Though I'm a bit harsher on Obama.

 Health care reform is THE centerpiece of the Obama administration -- as I saw someone mention on Kos, a lot of the left (not everyone, of course) has cut Obama some slack on other issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, DADT, the bank bailouts) in order to allow him to retain the political capital for a major move on health care.

 So when do we get to see this major move? Well, Obama's been saying all the right things in public, but his actions aren't backing up his rhetoric. He's not hesitant to send the Rahm goon squad to Congress to twist arms to suppress torture photos. But he's very hesitant to do so on health care reform, an issue which (as we see in the above poll) broadly resonates across the public.

 And the way the Democrats have (AGAIN) been caught flat-footed in the face of the right-wing media onslaught against health care reform doesn't augur well for the administration's capability to persuade the public (which is already very open to persuasion).

  They didn't see Harry and Louise, The Sequel coming? Sorry, nobody's that stupid. The Democrats are always about the illusion of reform, not about the reform itself.

 Bush was able to cow the Democrats in Congress to do his bidding. Obama, supposedly far smarter and far more popular, is still singing paeans to bipartisanship. This is not the rhetoric of a man who wants to solve problems -- this is the rhetoric of a man who has a shrine to David Broder in his study.

 This will not end well. The Democratic Party's reason for existence will be severely under question if we don't get meaningful health-care reform -- and we're not going to.

 "Political capital" is the new dry powder.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 13:19:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You've nailed it nicely, methinks (4.00 / 3)

The House has been okay in this, since the Progressives finally stood up and found some spine. The Senate, though, are true to historical form in being irredeemably corrupt, with the usual notable exceptions.

As for Obama, the Great Leader is anything but. He seems more than content to let the Senate do the dirty work of shredding any real notion of reform and instead turn it into yet another federal corporate subsidy program while doing nothing for the Public Interest. Oh boy! We'll get fined if we can't pay off the medical extortionists for healthcare we'll lose the second we actually need it! That's a winner!

One thing about this poll I find more than a little interesting is that given the wording, these numbers are pretty impressive. This is especially so since 50% of GOoPers are for a "Medicare-like" system in the face of massive media efforts at pulling these numbers down. Almost half of Republicans think covering everyone is more important than cost controls? This, given the fact that Obama and everyone else is ONLY concerned with costs and not at all about providing healthcare for everyone? This, given the fact the media pummels us all everyday with anti-socialist bullshit?

I have to conclude that this issue is polling this way because almost everyone in this country has horror stories (or someone they KNOW does) of mistreatment by the Medical-Industrial Complex. That takes it out of the ideological realm and into the personal realm.

If Obama doesn't see these numbers as an opportunity to strike hard for a real Public Option, then he's simply not playing on our team. It doesn't get much plainer than this.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 14:20:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would William of Occam please pick up the white courtesy phone? (0.00 / 0)

I don't believe the talking points about the Dems being spineless, or being caught flat footed, or any of that.

I think the simplest explanation for how the Dems behave -- as a group, with some honorable exceptions -- is that they believe in what they are doing (modulo those who are simply owned, of course).

There's simply no reason to evoke additional complex explanations of why the Dems are as they are.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 22:39:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm NOT Laying It All On Obama (4.00 / 2)

But he certainly has more than his share of blame.  By doing everything he could to shut out single-payer advocates, he tilted the playing field heavily in the corporate special interest direction.

Now, all of the sudden, he's back in "fierce advocate" mode.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 13:23:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the impact of polls written by fascists (4.00 / 1)

in order to advance fascist talking points?

1. I'm kind of very concerned sometimes.

2. Frequently I'm concerned a lot, maybe.

3. I'd always be concerned if I thought about it.

4. Liberal Media liar.

+++++++++++++

I love the wording of the questions - at least they keep advancing the talking points of Ronnie Raygun & Frank Luntz.

How about questions like:

1. Given that you're getting completely ripped off, and you have NO choice, should you keep subsidizing the thieves running at the insurance companies?

2. If you lose your job because you are SICK, and then don't have money cuz you lost your job, and then can't pay your insurance company cuz you don't have money, you'll be screwed. How STUPID do you have to be to think this system is good?

a. REALLY Stupid.
b. somewhat stupid.
c. really stupid only sometimes.
d. somewhat stupid all the time.
e. liberal media liar.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 13:23:19 PM CDT

It seems to me that if the health of the people (4.00 / 1)

actually mattered, there'd already be in place an infrastructure that would support a system of universal care, as there exists in various forms everywhere else on the planet where life-styles even remotely approach our own...

So the best available conclusion to draw is that the health of the people doesn't matter NEARLY as  much as the profits to be gleaned from capitalizing on their illnesses and injuries.

Obama is a corporatist/globalist/militarist flunky who happens to speak better than his predecessor, and thus commands a certain degree more "respect."

But if you listen to the actual discourse? New boss, same-same de ol' boss...

---

by: konopelli @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 14:16:24 PM CDT

Public option should be framed immediately as a FAIL... (0.00 / 0)

.... regardless of what Dean or anyone else might think,  since it will fail, and we need to move to single payer ASAP. That's the progressive (no quotes) position. See this interesting article from Arnold Relman in the current New York Review of Books, summarizing the state of play and comparing Exekiel Emmanuel's proposal to single payer. It concludes

Neither my proposal, nor Emanuel's, nor Conyers's, nor any other plan that starts with the elimination of private employment-based insurance and depends largely on public funding stands much of a chance of being enacted now. It would be too great a change, and it would threaten insurance companies and other powerful vested interests that influence Congress. The same is true of any major reorganization of medical care that phases out fee-for-service practice in favor of nonprofit multispecialty groups of salaried physicians and dampens the commercial fire that has converted US medical care into an ever-expanding profit-seeking industry.

As bad as they already are, things will have to get still worse before major reform becomes politically possible. The legislation likely to emerge from this Congress will not control-and will probably even exacerbate-the inflation of costs. But sometime in the not-too- distant future, health expenditures will become intolerable and fundamental change will at last be accepted as the only way to avoid disaster. When that time arrives, the opportunity to enact real health reform will finally be at hand.

Let the people who are putting the bandaid of public option over the festering sore of our medical system do their own framing, and run their own petition campaigns, and make their own compromises; they've got the money and the staff and the position for all that.

As for us, why is it never the right time to stand up for our own interests and advocate forcefully for what everyone knows is the right policy?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:39:59 PM CDT

I absolutely agree. (0.00 / 0)

I think it is a crime that progressives have been so willing to back away from single payer, claiming it's not going to pass so why keep fighting for it.  We keep fighting for it because it is the right thing to do.  I might also add that it is imperative to keep writing to our representatives and the White House.  We must not let up.  Our country needs single payer and it needs it now.  It is not acceptable to just roll over and quietly allow a system put into place that is destined to fail.  Single payer needs to be back on the progressives' table and we need to be pushing it as hard as we can and get it back on the table in Washington.  

---

by: 4thePeople @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 18:12:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]