Momentum, Confusion, and Sticking to the Strategy

by: Mike Lux

Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 14:30


The intensity is ratcheting ever higher as we move toward the final stages of the health care fight. It's been a good week for reformers overall. Pelosi and Reid are both whipping for strong bills, including a very strong public option (in the House) or a respectable public option (in the Senate). Progress is being made on other key components of the package including the affordability issue. Even traditional media sources like The Washington Post and the New York Times are waking up to the fact that even though they have been declaring health care reform on life support and the public option dead for six months, something decent might actually pass.

The only down moment of the week has been the confusion caused by the White House on the Senate strategy. This whole muddled are-they-or-aren't-they backing Harry Reid or backing Snowe's trigger-designed-not-to-trigger mess was just a poorly handled distraction. I mean, look, anyone who has been in DC longer than a week knows that if you have a meeting at the White House with more than five people in it, that certain folks with their own agenda will start leaking stuff to the media, so whatever the intent of all that was, it was bound to undermine Reid and our overall momentum. The White House is now on the record denying that was their intent, and folks there have sworn to me they are backing Reid to the hilt, so I believe them and that's all good, but it was still a mess.

I think we're still moving forward, though. The next few days will tell us what kind of deals can be cut, but no matter what, I think the strategy for progressives remains the same as it has been from the beginning of this fight (more in the extended entry):

Mike Lux :: Momentum, Confusion, and Sticking to the Strategy

1. House progressives have to stay strong and united in pushing for a strong public option and more affordability for the middle class. Health care reform will not pass without the votes of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and they need to continue to say a big Hell NO to triggers that are written to never trigger and co-ops that are designed to never compete with the insurers. If House progressives absolutely refuse to fold, the final bill will have a solid public option and decent affordability for the middle class.

2. The 30 core progressives on health care in the Senate need to stay strong and stay together as well. They need to keep pushing Reid and the White House to reject the Snowe trigger that will never trigger, and they need to twist the arms of their last couple of colleagues who are holding out. The idea that one or two Senators are going to stop the entire rest of the Democratic party from delivering on the biggest issue in front of congress in 50 years is an outrage, and those Senators should be told in no uncertain terms that nothing they want will ever again see the light of day if they support the Republican filibuster on this issue.

3. Everyone in the broader progressive community needs to be 100% clear that the Snowe trigger written to never trigger is deader than a doorknob. To call this a compromise is actually pretty funny. Fundamental to health care reform is real competition and a check on the market power of the insurance industry. Without that, private insurers will continue to raise their rates and otherwise screw people over at will. The trigger as written by Snowe has a Catch-22 in it that makes sure it would never be triggered in real life, so it would provide no competition or check on insurance power whatsoever. Come on now: if you are going to ask progressives to compromise, don't give us something that is no compromise. Most progressives understand we need to compromise some, and in fact we already have compromised an enormous amount, but we aren't going to let you give us nothing.

I think we still on track to win this fight and get a very decent health care bill, and in fact the momentum is building. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deserve an enormous amount of credit for continuing to push forward on a strong bill in spite of all the obstacles being thrown in their way. Progressives need to stick together and not allow themselves to get rolled on phony compromises. If they do, we are going to be able to celebrate a huge victory before the year is out.


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Leadership (4.00 / 12)

The White House is now on the record denying that was their intent, and folks there have sworn to me they are backing Reid to the hilt, so I believe them and that's all good, but it was still a mess.

Obama had an opportunity to lead on the public option he professes to love so much, and he decided to pass.  Whether he "pushed" triggers or just "mentioned" them, the lack of any push for a public option is damning enough on its own.

A lot of people are going to remember his feckless leadership style coming out of the most important legislation in decades, no matter the outcome.

He had better just hope that the rumors of a "secret" deal with the insurance industry do not become a popular conventional wisdom.  Especially if the outcome of all of this is mandates with no substantive reining in of the insurance industry barons.


Victory (4.00 / 1)
If we end up with a good bill, I don't much care how we get there.  Good leadership does whatever it takes to achieve the goals, sometimes that means shutting up, and even being willing to be questioned by allies.  I'm not saying that's what Obama is doing -- I haven't got a clue.  I do know that if he comes out all for a public option and it doesn't pass the Senate, I won't be happy.

[ Parent ]
Great article (4.00 / 2)
I quoted it extensively in letters to Obama and healthreform.gov.

But what is "the strategy"?

I'm contributing every penny to the Nevada ad pressuring Reid to show stronger leadership. What else?


The new PCCC ad (0.00 / 0)
The one in ME, is great.

[ Parent ]
Use the FDL calling to tool to call Harry Reid's constituents in Nevada (4.00 / 3)
We're asking them to call Reid and tell him to bring a public option to the floor of the Senate for a vote. 1 constituent calling Reid is worth a 100 callers from out of state.

Here's the link to register and start calling: http://call.fdlaction.com/login


[ Parent ]
Kill the Bill. (4.00 / 6)
There is only one strategy. That strategy comes from conscience and commitment. There will be a bill, but it will be real reform or it won't happen. Stand strong and say out loud, it has a real public option or it dies.

There is no other strategy. The failure of the bill will wipe out the marginal mushy conservadems. The passage of the Bill guarantees a robust Democratic 2010 election cycle.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


I agree -- Mike Lux is living in a dream world. (4.00 / 1)
Calling the Senate's version of the public option "respectable" is a serious public disservice. According to WaPo, this will be a public option in name only--it will be run by a private insurance monopolist. There are many other aspects of the bill which are dangerous to working famlies. Subsidies are inadequate and not properly indexed to inflation. The individual mandate and the tax on employer benefits have the potential to become major middle class tax increases. We do not have a credible partner in the White House. Kill The Bill.

[ Parent ]
Stop! (4.00 / 1)
Medicare, Medicaid, and Tri-Care are alos run by private insurance monopolists... or did you not know that all three government-run plans contract out their claims and administration services to insurance companies?

Yes, even medicare.  Each region has a different insurance company handle claims for part A and Part B benefits (seperate companies for part A and part B).  The country is broken up into several regions (which aren't the same for Part A or Part B) and all claims processing and reimbursement decisions are handled by these companies at the regional level.  For example, the midwest may choose to cover procedure A, while the West Coast will not pay for such treatment.  These are determined by private insurance companies.  THAT'S government run medicare!


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
A private contractor for claims processing is one thing... (4.00 / 1)
when you have an administrated-rates public option. But with negotiated-rates, the PO becomes just another insurance company. In fact WaPo says, "The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan". Here in California we have five major insurers. One more probably wouldn't hurt, but it won't help either. In contrast the flaws with this plan are severe and they are real. We can no longer afford to wait and see, because the risk is too great that this bill could actually become law.

[ Parent ]
Harkin criticizes Obama's "lukewarm" support for the public option (4.00 / 8)
Via Aravosis:

"I've not been very happy with the White House's lukewarm support of the public option," he said, articulating a gripe liberals have been making for months.

"I would hope the president would speak out more forcefully in favor of the public option," Brown said, adding "I expect he will."

If opt-out fails at this point, after all the build-up this week, I don't see how the Obama WH does not own the failure.


Sherrod Brown on the Ed Schultz radio show was asked, (4.00 / 10)
Is it all on Harry Reid? Brown's response:  I don't want to not answer the question so let me just say everybody needs to make their positions known to the WH.  It's a paraphrase, but he pointed directly at Obama, not Reid.  Obama better get with the program on health care and a whole host of other things.   This country is in no mood for a neoliberal and more of the same.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
It would be a "Democratic filibuster" (4.00 / 2)
The idea that one or two Senators are going to stop the entire rest of the Democratic party from delivering on the biggest issue in front of congress in 50 years is an outrage, and those Senators should be told in no uncertain terms that nothing they want will ever again see the light of day if they support the Republican filibuster on this issue.

A filibuster does not occur unless/until a cloture vote fails. Republicans cannot make a cloture vote fail. It takes the action (or non-voting inaction) of a Democrat to make cloture fail and actually effect a filibuster.

The first half of your sentence has it exactly right -- it would be one or two Democrats stopping the rest of the Democratic party, so call it what is would be: A Democratic filibuster.

...those Senators should be told in no uncertain terms that nothing they want will ever again see the light of day if they support the Republican filibuster on this issue.

It may be beyond that. I don't see how the obstructionist Senators can remain welcome in the caucus. Imagine that next caucus meeting -- awkward, to say the least.

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners."


Obstructionist Democrats will pay! (0.00 / 0)

  Just like the ones who actively campaigned for Obama's Republican opponent last year. They caught HELL for that!  

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

[ Parent ]
The difference... (4.00 / 1)
...is this action would be putting their own future and viability at risk. A lot of these pompous asses only care about themselves. A Democratic filibuster of a Democratic senators -- that's a shiv being stuck in their backs.

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners."

[ Parent ]
thanks Mike (4.00 / 1)
Good stuff and good to read.  I trust your reporting on this.  

If you say so, I believe you, but (0.00 / 0)
Everyone in the broader progressive community needs to be 100% clear that the Snowe trigger written to never trigger is deader than a doorknob.

What will states have the option of Opt Out of?

Will the public option be negotiated rates or Medicare + five percent?

The WaPo story today says that a public option tied to Medicare rates is a "nonstarter" in the Senate.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905


What about 'abortion funding' in the Senate? (0.00 / 0)
We've known for some time that Stupak is trying to get a wedge of Dem reps to oppose the healthcare bill on 'abortion funding' grounds. (The Hyde Amendment wouldn't apply to funding provided under the bill.)

The Hill is saying that Stupak is saying he's got 40 or so Dem reps to vote against the rule under which the House healthcare bill is to brought to the floor.

But I've seen nothing about a similar move in the Senate. Or even that senators like Landrieu are even raising the issue.

The dog that didn't bark?


So wait a minute (4.00 / 1)
Are we supposed to get all upset about the Snowe trigger but let slide another equally damaging and unacceptable form of a limited-to-the-point-of-ineffectiveness public option, the opt-out?

I do not find it a credible position to take that the trigger is bad but the opt-out is good, unless we've decided that the goal of health care reform is to enable 10-15 "blue states" to have a public option, to write off the millions of people living in about 20-25 "red states," and to refight this entire battle in the remaining 10-20 states, except this time with fewer resources, fewer allies, and on 10-20 different fronts.


How is the opt-out supposed to work? (4.00 / 1)
Does it work at the executive, legislative or referendum level? Can states set the rules for opt-out, or would the federal bill do so? I can see how a well-constructed opt-out would make it hard, or at least politically dangerous, for states to actually opt out--and perhaps even provide an excellent opportunity for Dems to turn some states blue, where health insurance is currently awful and citizens are literally dying for it to get better.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Time to attack Snowe? (4.00 / 1)
To a large extent, I think that "moderate" pols in either party, like Snowe, are able to get away with their fake centrism (and actual corporatism) by coming across as decent, reasonable, well-intentioned people who JUST HAPPEN to be a bit more conservative than some might prefer, but are still well within the bounds of respectable opinion.

Which, of course, they are most definitely not. Unless they're out and out morons who literally don't understand policy (and I'll allow that some might well be), these are BAD people who KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY (if not EAGERLY) try to pass legislation that undeniably hurts the vast majority of everyday Americans, in order to benefit the small slice of them (and they're often not even Americans, e.g. foreign investors), because the latter matter to them much more than the former (for financial, political, social and personal reasons).

So why not just call them out as such already--or threaten to do so, and perhaps fire a few shots across their bows, to show them that we're serious, and that they need to shape up or prepare to do battle? Make them realize that Lamont and Edwards were the START of a major trend, and that they're all endangered. But STOP KISSING THEIR FAT ASSES!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Herein lies the problem. (0.00 / 0)
As I write the big headline over at HuffPo is "LEADERLESS". That is the opening shot that Obama has pushed his base too far, and they're no longer giving him the benefit of the doubt. Think the so-called moderates don't smell blood in the water? Whatever his strategy was before, his only chance now is to give them everything they want and hope the rest of the party will swallow hard so he can ram this thing through. This is really, really bad news for reform.

[ Parent ]
That doesn't make any sense. (4.00 / 2)
Yes he has pushed his voters too far and yes there is blood in the water. But giving the "moderates" everything they want only pushes his voters further away, and encourages the "moderates" to ask for even more.

To extend your metaphor, you're expecting Obama to reject the lifeboat and embrace the sharks.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
An excellent metaphor (4.00 / 1)
If Obama truly has decided to side with these faux "moderates" and tie his fate to their's, then he is a fool (or a coward, and unprincipled in either case), because the public wants genuinely progressive solutions, not faux "moderate" ones, and is really only fooling himself at this point. If he wants to be a successful president, then he's got to stop playinWEG "teacher's pet" to these Broderite blowhards and corporatist shills, and stop grovelling for their affection and support. It's really quite pathetic. They might not be as crazy as the far-right, but they're no less noxious--and sometimes even more so.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
The Huff Post is a ratings-obsessed rag (4.00 / 1)
designed by and for media and political celebrities and wannabes, and I wouldn't place ANY faith in its ability to accurately reflect the true zeitgeist of the party and left. And to the extent that Obama has lost credibility in the party, it's precisely BECAUSE he's given in too much to these so-called "moderates" and alienated the left (and the majority of Americans who, even if they don't call themselves liberals, unquestionably support liberal--NOT centrist--policies).

So to suggest that his only option now if he wants to regain his power and popularity is to give even MORE to these faux "moderates" is the height of absurdity. At this point, his words have lost most of their meaning, and only by being GENUINELY progressive can Obama regain his power and popularity. It is, at best, naive--and at worst, willfully dishonest--to suggest otherwise. The majority of Americans support liberal, not "centrist" (let alone conservative) policies, and toe suggest otherwise is either foolish or dishonest.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search