Against The CW: Health Care Reform DOESN'T Have To Pass This Year

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 16:00


In a mid-week comment, I wrote:
The Most Hopeful Thing I'm Seeing

is Countdown's Free Clinic partnership events shaping up.  I honestly don't know if they can pull this off fast enough to make a difference in the short term, soon enough to win the battle in this go-round.  But this is the sort of thing we need to start seeing in terms of changing the whole zeitgeist.  The contrast between these mass events of public healing and the jackassery of the tea-partiers should be particularly striking.

It took a couple of years of this sort of thing to build up the momentum for the really big stuff during the New Deal, so I think that if we focus on building strength, and pulling off events like this, our strength will only increase in the years ahead. Maybe not the Conservadem's, but they're really not my concern.  And since Obama loves them so much, he's not my concern, either.  He will come to us when there's nowhere else to go.  

I want to be clear, I'm not giving up on us getting a decent bill this year.  But I think that if we take a longer view--and don't buy the Versailles CW that it's got to be now or never--then we'll be much better prepared to hang tough in the short run, and not fold.  And that's what's needed to win.

Don't get me wrong--I want health care reform to pass this year.  But I want us to be both as clear and strong as we possibly can be.  And I want to draw a very clear distinction between the logic of Versailles and the Democratic leadership, and the logic of progressive Democrats out in the wilds of America.

Inside Versailles, there can be no doubt--if the Democrats don't pass health care now, it will be dead for another decade or more--and so will the Democrats.  There can be no doubt about this, just as there could be no doubt that Iraq had WMDs, and that Bush's election in 2004 signaled the consolidation of a permanent GOP governing majority.

In other words, it's pure and utter crap.  Maybe it will happen.  Maybe it won't. Nobody knows for sure. But we do know what follows from assuming that it's true: a wholly uncalled-for degree of Democratic paralysis. In virtually all other walks of life, what's more American than saying, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"?

But when it comes to health care reform, we're supposed to stand and salute the proposition, "Take anything you can get--brown rice, seaweed and a dirty hot dog--and call it a victory, no matter what."  Could there possigbly be a more cowardly, unimaginative, downright un-American fore-ordained loserattitude than that?

Political Poison: None For Me, Thanks...

Furthermore, if we recognize the obvious--that an individual mandate forcing people to buy private crapolla insurance is pure political poison, then how can we not be willing to see health care "reform" die this year, rather than pass such a suicidal bill into law?

    As Digby wrote, regarding individual mandates, and potential Constitutional challenges:
    Reform advocates will undoubtedly look back on all this and wonder if the politics of single payer would have actually been easier. In this particular respect, it almost certainly would have been. There's no doubt that the federal government has the power to tax for certain benefits or compel payments to outside parties for certain optional privileges (like driving.) But whether it has the power to compel all citizens to pay money to particular private interests is an unknown. Who knows what the Roberts Court will decide on that?

    Of course, if a public option is in place it's a different argument altogether, isn't it?

    Sigh! None of this would have happened if only we'd had a constitutional lawyer as President!

I don't think that it needs to come to this.  In fact, I think that being willing to let health care reform die may well be the key to ensuring that it doesn't.  "Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it." -- So wrote Goethe, and he was absolutely right.  The converse of that is, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."  And that's become the Democrat's de factor operating script ever since 1994.

After 14 years of operating out of fear of failure, isn't it time we started operating out of hope of success?

At the very least, can't we just stop trying to out-stupid the Republicans?  Because in that game, even when you win, you lose.
Paul Rosenberg :: Against The CW: Health Care Reform DOESN'T Have To Pass This Year

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Against The CW: Health Care Reform DOESN'T Have To Pass This Year | 69 comments
imagine how much easier and effective (4.00 / 8)
this would have been if the president were actively working with his base and putting pressure on Congress, rather than attempting to hover above the fray and please all comers.

Instead he's trying to horsetrade with the GOP and Baucus and the insurers and the drug companies, assuring them that their oxen will not be gored by health care reform. They're reacting by demanding even more from him, and they still hate and fear him as much as they ever did. And his base is confused and angry, wondering why he won't just come out for something instead of going through all this elaborate rigmarole.

It's that very attempt to not be divisive that's dividing us.


Working with base (4.00 / 1)
I don't know about you, but I've got lots of email from Obama on just that.  The problem is I don't know if I actually support the bill, yet.  Obama is worried about passage, which I personally think is all but guaranteed at this point, while I'm worried what will actually be in the bill.
[ Parent ]
Details. Details! (4.00 / 4)
You're like a music fan who wants to know what a record sounds like.  No self-respecting music conglomerate can waste it's time on people like you. And look how well they're all doing!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Downloads (4.00 / 1)
Over the past few years I've actually gone out an purchased dozens of CDs I already had downloaded.  In one case, I actually had to find a store in England because the CD was too rare, even if fairly recent.  (The record company went out of business soon after the release.)

So yes, I like to know what something sounds like before I buy it.

[ Parent ]
I KNEW IT! (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
imagine if someone said, every time he was asked (4.00 / 5)
about his girlfriend: "I love my girlfriend. But don't get me wrong--she's just a small part of my life. I have many other goals, too."

The way Obama talks about the public option is a bit like that. "It's just a little sliver." "The main goal is cost control."

In that situation the girlfriend would no doubt wonder if her suitor really did love her.

And so the base is wondering just what the hell Obama supports, if he supports anything beyond having a piece of paper with "HEALTH CARE REFORM" printed in big bold letters across the top, that he can sign with a flourish for the TV cameras.

[ Parent ]
Plus (4.00 / 4)
he never talked about his girlfriend unless asked directly?

I'd say she'd be a fool not to think of the old Smokey Robinson song, "Shop Around."

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
That's what I keep saying, (4.00 / 5)
and even people who seem to understand all the other implications find this somehow scandalous. These implications being: that a mandate without a strong public option is NOT reform, that such a bill would not only be nothing but definitely worse than nothing, a reactionary predation.

I've especially wondered at the strange mental transformation that took place regarding the public option and the mandate, how even for many people of good faith these became detached in their minds, so that if the one plus the other equalled reform, then it follows the one without the other would still be partial reform and therefore better than nothing.

I don't know how much of this is due to some technocratic faith in "regulation" (which faith would have to completely ignore the evidence of decades now, that regulation doesn't work against powerful entrenched rackets) and how much is this mythology with its two coin sides of "the president needs a victory" and "if we don't do it this year we can't do it for another ten years".  

http://attempter.wordpress.com

I Think It's Due To A Belief In Belief (4.00 / 3)
333-dimensional chess & all that.

Honestly, at bottom it's nothing but herd mentality. Like high-school fashion trends.  Everyone else is saying it, why shouldn't they?

There was a better foundation for the Spice Girls fan base than there is for this.

Heck, there was a better foundation for Milli Vanilli's fan base than there is for this.  They were at least a plausibe prima facie fraud.

Individual mandates, not so much.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Love the idea of these clinics (4.00 / 3)
because they directly connect advocacy with helping people. I'm surprised they haven't been championed in the blogosphere that much...wonder why?
I can't believe the individual mandate (4.00 / 4)
A militant left Democrat I know is talking about civil disobedience. He just refuses to fatten up the insurance companies.

My feeling now is that the Baucus monstrosity is worse than nothing, bad in itself and not just relative to a better bill.

Of course, maybe there's 17 dimensional chess going on, and Obama wants us to think that.

Provided it dies from a filibuster. (4.00 / 1)

I think that being willing to let health care reform die may well be the key to ensuring that it doesn't. (4.00 / 6)
That's exactly right. If the bill ends up less than it should be our motto to the progressive block in the House should be:

KILL THE BILL TO SAVE THE BILL

If reform dies, Democrats will not be given another chance (0.00 / 0)
Republicans will get a hammerlock on Congress and by the time Democrats actually win it back, they will be far too afraid to touch healthcare.  
[ Parent ]
Arguement By Assertion Is For Assholes (4.00 / 3)
This is simply the boiled-down essence of naked "centrist" thuggery.  It could just as easily be used to justify a bill with actual death panels in it.

"Morally and ethically bankrupt" doesn't even begin to describe it.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
passing something bad is what will give Republicans a hammerlock on Congress (4.00 / 4)
voters will abandon democrats and say 'let the democrats' friends at the health insurance companies vote for the democrats. the democrats didn't help me and I will not help them'

second, if the democrats pass something bad why would I give them them my vote/time/money again?
to pass something bad again but promise to fix it in 2012?

[ Parent ]
How did passing nothing work in 1994? (4.00 / 1)
Voters saw Democrats as bumbling idiots for not being able to get anything done and voted the party out of power at every level of government.  
[ Parent ]
is this a live person? (4.00 / 1)
I keep saying and saying passing something bad is worse than passing nothing at all as in 1994

by passing bad things you will alienate both your base and the general public

the post I responded to, used the phrase "Republicans will get a hammerlock on Congress"
well, Republicans will get a hammerlock on Congress if we pass something bad

you keep saying if we pass nothing it will be bad
yes, I agree
but passing something something bad will be even worse

second, if the democrats pass something bad why would I give them them my vote/time/money again?
to pass something bad again in 2010 but promise to fix it in 2012?

[ Parent ]
If Democrats had passed something in 1994, they would have held the House (0.00 / 0)
Passing nothing was the worst possible outcome.  
[ Parent ]
depends on what they had passed (4.00 / 1)
if it was something good they'd have expanded their majorities

if it was something bad they'd lost even more seats then they lost

if they pass something bad 2010 it will be worse than 1994

republicrats will get a hammerlock on congress and democrats will be in the minority for generations

[ Parent ]
It cant possibly be worse than 1994 (0.00 / 0)
That year Democrats lost every possible race they could have lost and stayed in the minority for 12 years.  
[ Parent ]
it will be 1932 reversed (4.00 / 1)
republicrats will get a hammerlock on congress and democrats will be in the minority for generations. it will be awful.
[ Parent ]
That is basically what 1994 did to us (0.00 / 0)
Democrats were in the wilderness for 12 years after that.  
[ Parent ]
1932 was a re-alignment though (0.00 / 0)
we must pass good health-care legislation

otherwise we'll in bigger than 1994 trouble

[ Parent ]
1994 was a realignment also (0.00 / 0)
It gave Republicans control of most of the government at every level for 12 years.  
[ Parent ]
yes, every level (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
The only way to get a decent bill, or block a bad health care bill (4.00 / 2)
Is for all the uninsured to converge on Washington, D.C. and occupy it until Congress passes a real public option.

No amount of petition-signing, calls to representatives, TV ads or radio ads are going to change the fact that the nation's lawmakers in Congress know that they are the de facto sovereigns of this country, and they can flout the popular will and pass any legislation they wish, however much it harms the American people.

Only street action by millions of Americans is going to change this fact.

I spent a couple of hours on Capitol Hill on Wednesday as part of a delegation of signatories delivering to Harry Reid the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's petition with 87,000 signatures. It read as follows:

Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles.

For the first time in my life, walking around the halls of Congress, I realized on a gut level that:

a) the members of our legislative and the executive branches of government at the federal level have been bought outright by their corporate campaign financiers and, in the case of health care reform, the private insurance industry.

b) the anti-democratic, anti-majoritarian rules that the nation's two major political parties have instituted inside Congress enable any piece of legislation to be blocked by a small number of representatives representing a fraction of the population.

c) because of a) and b) the health care bill that will ultimately be adopted will most likely NOT contain a real public option.

We, the people, have been robbed of our sovereignty by an electoral system and campaign finance laws that have transformed our democracy into a plutocracy.

Barack Obama and the likes of Max Baucaus, Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson who have been legally bribed by their corporate campaign contributors can look us straight in the face and refuse to enact the Medicare-like health care system favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans. They can force all Americans to buy unaffordable health insurance from predatory insurance companies that are knowingly and willfully causing 122 people to die every day because they lack access to the health care they need, 44,000 people per year.

If the U.S. had a real democracy, we could oust these influence-peddling politicians from office legally. But since we can't, the only option we have IMNSHO is to simply descend on Washington en mass and refuse to leave until they give us the legislation we demand.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

 

Never Say, "The Only Thing" (4.00 / 1)
There are always at least two ways to skin a cat.  But I agree that they need to be seriously shaken up by people power, one way or another.

Which is really the underlying thrust of this diary.  Don't let us be rushed into something counter-productive.  Citizen anger is growing, and if we're smart and courageous we can help guide that anger in a creative direction--one that actually addresses the causes of what gave rise to that anger.  If the citizen outrage is not well enough developed to pass something decent this year, then work on building it toward the future.  That's what I'm arguing.  And building it can take a multitude of forms.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
The Uninsured People Who Are Sick and Dying Will Be Dead by Then (4.00 / 2)
Some legislation, like passing universal affordable health care, are a matter of life and death.

It is fine for us to build for the future, but what about the uninsured people who are sick and dying today and will be dead before that future arrives?

Hospitals are putting indigent and uninsured people in the streets to die, per Michael Moore's film, Sicko.

As the real economy continues to sour, and more and more people are losing their jobs, homes and health insurance, there are going to be more unnecessary deaths in the U.S. due to lack of health insurance. This is a travesty that demands immediate action.

This is an emergency situation that in my view can only be solved by street action, given the lack of other effective options.

Yes, let's build our forces for the future. But what's wrong with a march of the uninsured on Washington in the meantime?

How would that be "rushing into something counterproductive" if it gets a bill that saves lives now?

[ Parent ]
citizen anger (4.00 / 1)
Citizen anger is growing, and if we're smart and courageous we can help guide that anger in a creative direction--one that actually addresses the causes of what gave rise to that anger

the thing is, hr 676 practically sells itself. even to some republicans (first dollar coverage for everyone for the same total costs!).

complicated technocratic public option in a multi payer system that doesn't control costs but does impose a mandate, and subsidies the poor (yikes welfare!)? no way.

i'd love to go canvassing for hr 676, but i can't even convince myself to support any of the current bills under consideration. which is why i have trouble believing the very high approval numbers i've been reading for this approach (over 70%?). but i have yet to see a poll that even semi accurately describes the po, mandate, subsidies and costs (if there has been one, can someone give me a link? i'd love to know about it).

.... this has just been an extra convoluted way to say that if we're going to go populist with citizen anger, i think we have to do it with hr 676 (or something similar).

or do you have other ideas? please share if you do. thanks.

[ Parent ]
Of Course Single Payer Is Best (4.00 / 2)
But right now it's not really on the table.

One reason I think it's worth threatening to defeat a bill without a public option is that then we could start all over, and do so with single payer front and center.

Can a populist groundswell be mounted around a public option?  Well, I think we're going to find out to some extent when the mass public clinics that Countdown is helping to organize take place.

The important thing is that if we move far enough toward single payer then we can create momentum to keep pressing forward.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
not a question of best (0.00 / 0)
so sorry i'm not being clear. not trying to ask about what is best or what is on the table. answers on those questions are clear (single payer, not single payer) question is about your statement on citizen anger and people power. will try again....

Don't let us be rushed into something counter-productive.  Citizen anger is growing, and if we're smart and courageous we can help guide that anger in a creative direction--one that actually addresses the causes of what gave rise to that anger.

i don't believe i'm writing this but i don't think we can or should go  this route with the "solutions" now on the table. none of them control costs, and worse the public option is being way oversold (for example, "keep insurance companies honest" is nonsense, "affordable to all" is highly questionable, etc).

this was always an insider's technocratic incrementalist approach. and i think it is both wrong and likely to blow back on our credibility if progressive's first attempt at populism involves unrealistic claims about what our solutions can deliver.

[ Parent ]
Too Many Variables (4.00 / 2)
This is the problem with everything Obama proposes.  All his "solutions" are woefully inadequate at best.  So the question is really how to shift the entire framework of national debate--not just on health care.  And honestly, I don't think that there is one right answer to this.  People have to do what think and feel is right, even if it can't be proven or known in advance.  Because, for one thing, it really does take all kinds, bringing all kinds of pressure.  And it's important that we not spend precious time attacking one another for tactical differences when we fundamentally agree on the goal.

That said, I do think that there is a dividing line, a policy watershed, as it were, one side of which leads to further screwing things up in a conservative welfare state model, the other side of which leads to single payer and similar social democratic measures.  If we fall short of that line, but ultimately get people inspired to the point that they're determined to cross it, that can work, too.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
not knowing.... (0.00 / 0)
So the question is really how to shift the entire framework of national debate--not just on health care.  And honestly, I don't think that there is one right answer to this.  People have to do what think and feel is right, even if it can't be proven or known in advance.

i don't know either. which is why i keep checking in with questions. i'm looking for something better - maybe something that doesn't include confrontational pest.

Because, for one thing, it really does take all kinds, bringing all kinds of pressure.

agree completely.  insiders, outsiders, pragmatists, idealists, .....

And it's important that we not spend precious time attacking one another for tactical differences when we fundamentally agree on the goal.

i've learned to doubt this past year that we are all working towards the same goals. not when a top-down opaque process decision is taken to take single payer off the table, pre-compromise both single payer and the original hacker proposal for a set of substance free or even false talking points, when the rational for that decision is not shared in a timely fashion, when feed back from long time healthcare activists and experts is ignored and/or mocked. when even asking questions or pointing out inconsistencies is treated as disloyalty or stupidity and not deserving of an answer (i hope it's obvious that i don't think of this applies to you, paul)

well, i'm pretty sure that little d democracy is not a shared goal. and i've learned for the very first time, to feel the hot white hot rage that liberal elitism can evoke.

[ Parent ]
Let's Be Clear (0.00 / 0)
Everyone in the blogosphere was excluded from the decisionmaking process.  And that's hardly the only thing we were excluded from.  So I view virtually all inter-blogosphere attacks that aren't based on positions people have taken as needlessly counterproductive and divisive.

Given that virtually everyone was blindsided, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be making matters worse by snipping at one another over who was most wrong.  That merely drives people into defensive postures over the past, when what we really need is to be focusing on the future. People are much more willing to admit past mistakes when everyone is focused on moving forward, and there's a shared sense that we want to learn from past mistakes in order not to repeat them.

There are many things that are beyond our control, but this should not be.  We need to put the struggle first, ahead of our invidual egos.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
yes, let's be clear (0.00 / 0)
Everyone in the blogosphere was excluded from the decisionmaking process.

i was not referring to the dem party, i was referring to the decisions made by bloggers and other progressive organizations / think tanks / media. people are only responsible for the decisions they make.

So I view virtually all inter-blogosphere attacks that aren't based on positions people have taken as needlessly counterproductive and divisive.

what attacks and what positions are you referring to? i was referring only to positions people have actually taken. the reason i didn't use links to back up my statements is that i have no desire to make it personal. if i find the time/energy, i will send you an email with links and specific examples because i'm getting the impression you have no idea what i'm referring to. but imo a public posting would indeed be counterproductive and divisive. you have frequently made the point that systemic analysis is what is required, not a search for individuals to blame and i agree with that.

Given that virtually everyone was blindsided, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be making matters worse by snipping at one another over who was most wrong.

i stongly disagree that virtually everyone was blindsided about the dem's healthcare campaign. nyceve and others noted in july of 2008 that the hcan campaign was deceptive and co-opted the rhetoric of single payer healthcare activists. it was obvious to many at that time that the policy they advocated made no sense and was an insurance industry bailout more than healthcare reform for people. the problem wasn't that everyone was blindsided, the problem was that the people who weren't couldn't get a hearing.

but i don't care who was most wrong or even who was wrong. what i care about is misinformation, dishonesty, lies, deception, nonsense and bullshit. if it is sniping to note the bullshit, etc  and to object to it, i'll stop sniping when the bullshit stops.

That merely drives people into defensive postures over the past, when what we really need is to be focusing on the future.

but how exactly does it help to be silent in the face of bullshit? yes, people have responded defensively when i have objected, for example, to being told (by official public option spokespeople) that the public option will let you choose single payer, or the public option is single payer. i welcome any suggestions  you have for me as alternative ways to respond, but not if they involve silence and acceptance in the face of bullshit.

and maybe it's not fair, but i've already od'ed on the "don't look back must look forward" rhetoric. i don't buy it so long as the problem is ongoing.

People are much more willing to admit past mistakes when everyone is focused on moving forward, and there's a shared sense that we want to learn from past mistakes in order not to repeat them.

i don't care if anyone ever admits past mistakes (except to themselves). what i want is the deceptive public option propaganda campaign to stop. honest differences i have no problem with. people want to campaign for a public option for whatever reason? i say "go for it!" even though i disagree. but i expect an honest campaign, no triangulation or exclusion from the discussion and that progressive critiques will be acknowledged and responded to.

There are many things that are beyond our control, but this should not be.  We need to put the struggle first, ahead of our invidual egos.

agreed. and although i try, i don't always succeed. right now my options are to try and sometimes fail, or to take myself out of the struggle.  

finally, i hate being lied to (bullshitted, etc) and i don't trust people who do it. but i don't think that's only an issue of my ego.

[ Parent ]
another thing.... aside on moving forward (0.00 / 0)
The important thing is that if we move far enough toward single payer then we can create momentum to keep pressing forward.  

you said something similar in mike's thread saturday. i have no idea how the current campaign is moving us towards single payer. in fact, i think it's just the opposite. here's part of my reply to your earlier comment:

my pov is that a small po that doesn't live up to the hype (sorry but in no way do the words "robust" "available on day one" or "available to all" apply to any of the pos now being considered) will put is in the wrong watershed -- it will undermine the momentum to single payer.

if the po fails to deliver, then who is going to win the "i told you so" argument?  i'm hoping (and i hope you are too) it's the single payer folks who've been ignored, marginalize and mocked. because if it's not, it's going to be the republicans (and conservadems) saying "see, we told you that gov can't run a public insurance plan (and progressives only have failed big gov ideas)." that could be the stake through the heart of both a truly robust po (aka hacker's original proposal) and single payer.

maybe this thinking is all wrong (i'd love to be convinced otherwise), but it's not that single payer advocates haven't been thinking about the future steps in the battle for universal healthcare. indeed that's one of the reasons i keep making a pest of myself -- because i want single payer advocates to have a chance to win the follow on "i told you so" argument.

i actually don't know of any other ways to work towards creating momentum for single payer other than 1) not accepting single payer is off the table (even though i know it is at this time) and 2) pointing out the problems with the po in a multi payer approach in an attempt to make the discussion more honest/fair.

if you have ideas on other ways to build momentum for single payer, i'd sure like to know about them. maybe you could give me an alternative to the pest route?

[ Parent ]
Completely wrong Paul (0.00 / 0)
If reform doesnt pass this year, Republicans will likely be in control of Congress for the next decade and do you think they will ever pass any reform?  Just look what they did on healthcare for the 12 years they had control, nothing.  If reform dies, the Democratic Congress dies with it, just like in 1994.  
All You Can Do Is Make Baseless Broderite Assertions (4.00 / 4)
This is about as pure an example of sequential thinking as one could ask for.  There's no logical reasoning involved, merely the unsubstantiated assertion that one pattern will follow another.

But the only reason that 2010 might be anything like 1994 is that once again a new Democratic President is colluding with the corporate Dems against the Democratic base.

The one way to make sure that they don't get away with it is to tell them unequivocally in advance that there is no way they're going to pass such a monstrosity.  So they can either have a good bill, or no bill at all.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
It will be like 1994 because Dems are not geting anything done (0.00 / 0)
Voters will vote for Democrats if they have accomplishments and stand for something.  If they get nothing done, Republicans will come in and fill the vacuum.  
[ Parent ]
Dixiecrats (4.00 / 2)
One thing is pretty certain, it can't be like 1994 because the Southern Realignment is complete.  In 1994 we  still had Dixiecrats in the South and liberal Republicans in the North.  The old four party system finally came to an end, with a clear line between the Democrats and the Republicans.

There may still be a backlash against the party in power, but it won't be like 1994.

[ Parent ]
There are still some Dixiecrats in the South (0.00 / 0)
Look at Gene Taylor, Allen Boyd, Heath Shuler, Dan Boren, Parker Griffith, Travis Childers, and Bobby Bright.  
[ Parent ]
Jeeze! (0.00 / 0)
You don't even know what a Dixiecrat is!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Voters will not vote for Democrats (4.00 / 5)
who shove a mandate down their throats without a public option.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Sure, but (0.00 / 0)
The how and whys all matter.  I agree with your (unstated here) assertion that if Obama rallied hard for a strong public option and failed, that he could continue to hit congress with this over time and, perhaps, eventually win some year down the road.

That said, he clearly is not doing that.  So while there are theoretical realities where not passing health care now only improves the odds of something better in the near future, I'm not so sure that ours is one of those realities.

Could the Progressive Block pull this off without Obama?  Obviously, no one knows, but it would be much harder.

So here is where I'm conflicted.  You are rallying against self-fulfilled prophecies, which is good, but also denying the power of such self-fulfillment, which seems very real to me.

[ Parent ]
My Point Is Simple (4.00 / 2)
A private mandate without a public option is political poison. I can't say for sure when it will start to kill, only that it will have long-term consequences.

And unlike the courtier class, I'm much more concerned about long-term consequences for all of us than I am about anything else.

Sure, the power of self-fulfillment exists.  I'm not oblivious to it.  But I am opposed to it, since I see it quite clearly leading to self-destructive ends.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
not so simple! (0.00 / 0)
A private mandate without a public option is political poison.

what about a private mandate with a non-working public option (one that doesn't do what people are being told it will, or worse is not viable)?

my position is that if you are right about a mandate w/o a po being poison, and i think there is a good chance that you are, then imo a mandate and failed po is just as bad, if not worse poison.

if there is any chance you think i might be right about this, then we desperately need to be talking about what makes for a viable/workable po and what it can actually deliver vs the out-of-touch-with-reality claims being made about it.

[ Parent ]
This Is Much Trickier Than It Looks (0.00 / 0)
The public option should be as strong as possible.  But I'm not sure it actually needs to be fully viable, if it's a sufficient improvement, so that we can mobilize to improve it a couple of years down the road.  So that makes it virtually impossible to say.  I do know that we have to fight to mobilize people, and we have to fight to change the terms of debate.  And those fights are not limited to health care.  Those fights apply all across the board.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
tricky (4.00 / 1)
thanks for the straight answer.

if you are right, and i really hope you are, then imo we still need to be talking about what is "sufficient improvement."

but if i am right, and it seems that you are not so sure i'm wrong, then imo we need to be talking about the risks of failure and trying to mitigate against them.

finally, i love mobilization work, but i won't support a campaign that involves misleading people about what a po can and will do. and this campaign of po + mandate = healthcare for all americans is bullshit (either a damn lie or unconcerned with what is true).

[ Parent ]
So what's your point. (4.00 / 1)
The Democratic Party has actually gone ahead and helped the GOP kill health care reform.  Such stupidity deserves to be punished.  Really, it's not as though there's any significant difference between the two major parties anymore.  The public knows this, having seen it go on right before its collective eyes.


[ Parent ]
if you are afraid that voters will punish democrats for not doing anything (4.00 / 2)
keep in mind that they will absolutely obliterate the democrats if they pass something that makes things worse
[ Parent ]
The choice (4.00 / 4)
Harry Truman once said that given the choice between real Republicans and fake Republicans, the voters will choose real Republicans every time.

History proves Harry was right.

Bill Clinton did some right things but passing NAFTA and welfare "reform" didn't endear him with Republicans.  Presto change-0, 1994.

When FDR finally caved in to the Dixiecrats and tried to produce a balanced budget, the economy got worse again (calling it the recession of 1937 when the Depression was still on seems wrong).  The Republicans were on the verge of being eliminated (for real, down to 89 House seats) and in a few swift strokes they were back in business.

As mentioned frequently, LBJ's fears of right wing critics of Vietnam brought them back to life in 1966 and 19687 creating the last mixed-power party system.

Taking on Republicans in that glorious 1948 campaign not only upset Dewey but won back control of the House and 75 House seats.  Lambasting Goldwater as an extremist gave LBJ a huge landslide and a huge majority in Congress.  Investigating Watergate gave us the historic Watergate babies and 49 House seats.  Fighting back against W gave us nice wins in 2006 and 2008.

Oh, yes, failing to pour in everything but the kitchen sink, IMO, in 1996 led not to bipartisanship but to impeachment.

[ Parent ]
I want to know EXACTLY what's going on in the head of voters (4.00 / 1)
If Democrats don't pass a health care bill by next November, what exactly are low-information, swing voters thinking?

Are they thinking, "Democrats can't get anything done; let's elect Republicans to Congress so they can pass health care reform?"

Like, if Democrats fail, do these swing voters automatically turn to the Republicans?  If so, why?  Is it simply out of reflex?  What makes them think the Republicans will be more willing and able to pass health care reform then Democrats are?

They will vote for Republicans because of competence (0.00 / 0)
Republicans will promise some sort of vague, "free market" healthcare reform if elected and swing voters will eat it up.  Swing voters in America are the biggest bunch of retards you will ever meet.  
[ Parent ]
No Bob, (3.00 / 4)
YOU and your brain-dead Versailles Dem kind are the biggest bunch of retards you will ever meet.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
attaboy! (4.00 / 3)
Swing voters in America are the biggest bunch of retards you will ever meet.

Insult a key voter bloc and piss off the mentally disabled in the bargain. That's how you win elections, son!

[ Parent ]
What's up with the hate? (0.00 / 0)
I'm just trying to figure out the political consequences of not passing a health care bill.  No need to snipe at each other.
[ Parent ]
Of course Paul is correct (4.00 / 4)
It's been obvious to skeptics like myself for months. Bill Clinton saying "pass anything and call it victory" at Net Roots nation. Rahm calling his scorecard 13 and 0 this year. Obama himself saying "there are people who would kill it" in his speech to Congress.. and even said it in today's weekly address.

He sees any threat to passage of the bill, no matter what the bill may end up looking like" as a threat. He sees progressives as a worse threat than Republicans!

There is no progressive Snowe he's been coddling this year... quite the contrary... and he would single out republicans effort to kill it specifically if they were the only people he was concerned about. That message is for us more than republicans, imo.

If he really cared what the bill looked like his entire approach would have been dramatically different from the get go.

We should care... and should be very prepared to demand it die this year. I say this as an uninsured person who clearly understands just any old plan will not help. Starting anew from scratch sounds much better than starting from most position this years passage looks like it would leave us in.

re: demand it die this year (4.00 / 1)
ES, i can't make the call to kill the bill because i have insurance (at least right now i do) only because i live in MA. i've had cancer and i have a chronic and occasionally life threatening illness -- there is no way i could purchase insurance as an individual in most of the rest of the country.

mandatory coverage and community rating are for me the difference between having insurance and not. i don't think i could, in good conscience, could deny that to anyone. even if the rest of the bill sucks (and i think all the bills now under consideration suck big time -- they will not control costs and ultimately cost is why many people don't have insurance or get the healthcare they need).  imo, it is really going to have to be up to people like you to give guidance to people like me. so i'm going to be asking you for advice. hope that's ok.

p.s. we had mandatory coverage and community rating in MA BEFORE the 2006 reform. in 2006 we got the mandate and decent subsidies. there are still way too many people without coverage (reform did little to control costs and many people can't afford it -- and that number is growing). and because of the high cost of the program (the costs are much higher than planned, money has been cut from community hospitals that used to provide free or inexpensive care to the needy.

[ Parent ]
As a MA resident (0.00 / 0)
would you overall rate your state's health care system as a success?
[ Parent ]
no, not a success (4.00 / 2)
no, not a success. but less of a failure than now exists in many other states.

it's not sustainable. too many people left out (number is growing), support from free healthcare services for the needy is being slashed and costs are already too high (to the state and to individuals -- my premiums went up about 20% this year).

it was an experiment. the results are in and it doesn't work. and imo it won't work even with a po (unless possibly with something like hacker's original proposal).

[ Parent ]
a question on the mandate, regulations and public option (0.00 / 0)
first, i just have to say that i think financing health insurance via a mandate (ie premiums) is just nuts. complicated nuts.

but putting that aside for the moment....

imo, before even considering a mandate, we must first implement an extreme level of regulation and enforcement (*) because a mandate, absent a non-corrupt health insurance industry is immoral as well as stupid.

is that not the consensus here? does everyone think it's ok (politically, morally, etc) to impose a mandate with a corrupt, weakly regulated insurance market so long as there is a public option?

......

(*) note: regulation including things such as one defined policy (possibly w/ first dollar coverage), non-profit insurance companies, defined minimum medical loss ration greater than 95%, and so on -- very very tough regulations and enforcement to match. and a pony.

Sure you can (4.00 / 2)
If it's going to raise prices as everyone expects the privateers to do. If it's going to leave 17 to 35 million without care (in addition to the millions of working visitors).. if new found "coverage" would be junk for so many who fall under mandates.

If we allow opt out or whatever else might divide the low and mid income folks / the remaining 17 to 35 million, they will have a much more difficult time bringing this back to the table on their own. I can't help but think the evil numbers people are banking on this.

In addition to so many pertinent points you raise.. I would add off the top of my head that virtually any deductible would render "coverage' moot for so many working poor. I also think allowing higher rates for individuals for factors such as age instead of a simple progressive income tax is absurd as well.

Additionally  I am of the opinion if things fail this year it won't be long before public opinion and the economy demand we try again.

We will not be able to "try again" (0.00 / 0)
Republicans are probably going to control Congress in not much more than a year from now and they will do everything in their power to make sure that the current healthcare system doesnt change.  They are not interested in working to help the American people.  
[ Parent ]
wow! (4.00 / 2)
They are not interested in working to help the American people.

and if the democrats pass bad health-care legislation, they are interested in working to help the American people?
[ Parent ]
Well, better than the Republicans (0.00 / 0)
Democrats are at least talking about health care.  Republicans just plug their ears and sing "la la la".
[ Parent ]
I didn't equate democrats and republicrats (0.00 / 0)
I just asked if passing legislation that's bad for the people means you care for for the people. just that, nothing more

ps. sorry if that was sarcasm and I missed it

[ Parent ]
Goethe is totally overrated. And boldness often is a sign of ignorance. (0.00 / 0)
Come on, really, how many "bold" people you know are simply dumb loudmouths? Certainly the majority.

And even though I know that it borders treason for a German citizen, I never could understand the hype about Goethe. A great author, and certainly an inventive thinker, but his "theory of colors" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours_%28book%29) is absolute nonsense! So, Goethe wasn't a scientist, and much too often not even arguing rationally. And his statements should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

quoting paul from june... (4.00 / 1)
...what works politically in Versailles has no relationship whatsoever to the real world.  Politically acceptable health care reform will not actually reform health care...

maybe we first need to work to make real solutions politically viable, instead of pretending that the politically acceptable is going to actually reform healthcare in a workable way (for people instead of corporations).

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

Against The CW: Health Care Reform DOESN'T Have To Pass This Year | 69 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox