MoveOn members support passing health reform bill 83%-17%

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 15:05


Roughly five out of six members of MoveOn favor passing the health reform bill in its current form:

Should MoveOn support or oppose the final health care bill if it looks like the plan recently proposed by President Obama?

Support 83
Oppose 17

That is a pretty resounding endorsement from the grassroots.

I know that some people here think that House Progressives could force the White House to push conservative Democrats to accept a stronger bill if the Progs refused to vote for anything less.  However, if the Democratic leadership is facing two different groups of Dems demanding "give in to us or else we will kill the bill," the leadership is just going to pressure the group whose constituency is more in favor of passing the bill as is.  And clearly, House Progressives have both activist and in-district constituencies that are overwhelmingly in favor of passing the bill as is.  So, the leadership will pressure the Progs as the path of least resistance.

Even if they were serious about killing the bill, House Progressives are simply not in a position to force the leadership to put more pressure on conservative Democrats in Congress.  There is not much left-wing support for killing this bill, and as such the leadership simply is not going to cave to members of Congress who want to kill the bill from the left.

I know not everyone is going to accept this, but that really is the calculation at hand.

Chris Bowers :: MoveOn members support passing health reform bill 83%-17%

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

MoveOn members support passing health reform bill 83%-17% | 22 comments
Which is why Obama's strategy (4.00 / 7)
for passing his centrist, moderate Republican (in Jon Chait's words) plan was relatively sound. He knew that most progressives would end up supporting anything called health care reform that ostensibly provided health care to the uninsured. It would've have been virtually impossible for the White House, Baucus, etc to create a bill too bad to win support for most progressives.

Unless of course progressives, out of principle, decided to fight. You're right that Obama would put pressure on progs, as opposed to centrists, not least because that's what he's done all along, but if a block of progressive Congresspeople had  stuck to the demand they had pretended to make, that would've been that. A progressive (ish) bill or no bill.

Consider what the progressive pro-choice women in the House are doing right now re. Stupak. A bloc of 40 or so is saying that if Stupak language goes in, or if there are restrictions on abortion that go beyond current law, they won't support the bill. No one is urging them to cave because everyone knows they're serious.  

Reason prevails... thank goodness! n/t (4.00 / 1)


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!
I'm sure some fat corporate insurance exec (4.00 / 1)
is reading your comment and chuckling.

"Hey Bob, I'm reading this supposedly 'far left' website called Open Left, and even the so-called 'liberals' there are on board with our taking over the country!  We really own the whole damn world now!"

[ Parent ]
I could care less about a fat, corporate insurance exec.... (2.67 / 3)
If they make billions off of this, I don't care... if it means 30 million people who have ZERO access to care now, I don't care who gets rich off of it.  I really don't.

Would I prefer a true single payer system?  Hell, yes!  But, I learned long ago that the only way to get any improvement for the middle class in this country is to pay off the ones who are really in charge.  Yes, it's more expensive, but our political system is too broken to do it any other way.  Rich people always win, so they have to be bribed to do the right thing for the rest of America.  I've learned to live with that truism, 'cos until the constitution is changed, that's the best we will be able to do.  History bears this out, otherwise, we would have had meaningful health reform sometime during the last 100 years.

So, pay the protection money, get people covered and move forward from there. If the insurers are right, reform will actually weaken their position substantially over the long haul.  Remember that they don't want this.  It will cost them money to insure everyone, and the more federal money they get in subsidies, the more accountable they will be to populist pressures.

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 ]
re: money (0.00 / 0)
If they make billions off of this, I don't care... if it means 30 million people who have ZERO access to care now, I don't care who gets rich off of it.  I really don't.

you know something? I agree with you on this. if 30 million would get health-care, then screw the money. if they don't spend them there, they'd spend it on the army, on tax-breaks or big-farm subsidies.

but what do we see now? insurance companies caring about making the most money possible while not giving a damn when people denied care die. and your solution is to pay those greedy fuckers to give care to the ones that don't have it?

isn't this naive? does the status of these companies change from making the most money possible being priority #1? no? and you think they'll give care to 30 million? damn, you must be smoking something good...

[ Parent ]
Sad but true (0.00 / 0)
Remember, even Medicare was a big boon to private insurance.  They didn't want the older, more expensive people.  By taking them off the private insurance plans at the end of life, they could make much larger profits.

Personally, I don't think this bill is a boon to private insurance, however; I think it is a wash in the the short term.  A large chunk of the funding comes from reigning back Medicare Advantage (pure corporate welfare), they cap profit and there are other restrictions.  That is made up for by the mandates, but not passed.

Long term, however, I think this is very bad for private insurance.  While we will probably never see single payer in this country, it does set the stage for highly regulated non-profit insurance, potentially competing against public options and/ore Medicare buy-in.

Insurance execs aren't gleefully rubbing their hands over this, they are sighing with relief that the dodged (most of) the bullets.  But they are fearful and rightly so.

[ Parent ]
Effect on insurance companies (4.00 / 2)
I think before Medicare, half of all seniors didn't have and/or couldn't get private health insurance.  So while some seniors were taken off of private rolls, for many it was not a case of insurance companies "being relieved" of them; it was the government taking care of those that the insurance companies had already relieved themselves of.

I disagree with you about the effect on insurance companies.  In fact, if anything they're worse off over the short term, when they have to deal with regulations and paying for subsidies.  But as more time passes, they'll be able to steadily increase their premiums and consolidate the political power they've gotten.  And watch as they start pushing to roll back the things that are supposed to rein them in.  They'll get rid of the subsidies.  They'll get rid of the regulations.  The one thing they won't touch, though, is the individual mandate.  And they'll always be able to depend on so-called liberals and progressives to defend that for them.

This bill essentially gives away the whole store to the for-profit insurance companies, in hopes that one day they'll be nice enough to give us some of it back.

Oh, and why don't we ask the insurance execs, who have been getting tons of good deals from President Obama and who've been conspicuously silent or even supportive throughout this process, what they think.  I believe they said, "We win."

[ Parent ]
I'm amazed you think that we'll even be able to move forward (4.00 / 2)
If you give insurance companies all the power in the country, what makes you think they'll ever give it up?

You really think that one day we're gonna come back and say, "hey insurance execs that we've been feeding out of the public trough all these years, we're gonna make you non-profit now.  Or give you some competition.  Or replace you with Medicare for All."

It's hard enough to say that already.  How does putting every American in their pocket and giving them billions in subsidies a year make that easier?

The subsidies are not going to make insurance companies dependent on anything.  If anything, they're gonna want to get rid of those subsidies because they're probably paying for them in part.  But if people can't afford their premiums, so what?  They have to buy something by law.  Meanwhile, those who can afford to pay ever-increasing premiums will continue to do so because there's no other game in town.  And an insurance industry flush with public money will be able to dominate our government like never before.  They'll have enough money to buy all the future Bernie Sanders and Alan Graysons and Dennis Kuciniches ten times over.

It'd be different if, say, the government would collect all our money and then contract out one or a few insurance companies to provide insurance to everyone.  It would be total divide-and-conquer.  The insurance companies would be clawing each other's faces and stabbing each other in the back to get the right to insure everyone.  And in turn, the government can list any demands it wants.  Like, the companies would have to be not-for-profit.  And the government would set the prices and rates.  In the end, the government would be on top, telling insurance companies that they need the government, not the other way around.  As it should be.

With this bill, it's the government telling insurance companies that we need them.  The government is basically on its knees, begging the insurance companies, "Please please PRETTY PLEASE insure everyone even if they have preexisting conditions!!  Here, here's an individual mandate so you can have a captive market!  Here, take this shitload of money!  What, no drug importation or price negotiation?  Okay, okay!  No public option?  Well I promised my supporters that I'd get it for them, but okay, whatever you want, just please don't hurt me!"

It's pathetic, and it's not worth our support.

[ Parent ]
You know, Mike, I don't agree with you, in fact (0.00 / 0)
people who say something like that and mean it are worse than the rich executive.  Because you don't care what happens as long as you get what you want.  I really feel you are a man no principles.  If we listened to you we'd still be living in a system of feudalism.  You go back and tell that to the people of the 1930's and 1940's who lived through the depression and gave up their lives to fight for a living wage.  Without people like that you wouldn't even be having this discussion.  God help this country if you represent the majority view.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
And what kind of principles is that you are advocating (0.00 / 0)
"I don't care about the 30 million uninsured people (including the kids) if, to do something for them, we have to pay the rich executive!"
[ Parent ]
Uprated. (0.00 / 0)
Not trollworthy.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
If that's reason, I now understand why (0.00 / 0)
they won't prosecute torturers, bank theives, or end the wars.  Now it makes perfect sense.  Throw enough of other peoples' money at the problem and call it fixed even when it isn't.  What a brilliant chess move.  
[ Parent ]
Whatever else you call it, (4.00 / 3)
you can't, in all honesty, call it a victory. (Well, you can, of course, and they will, but a few more victories like this, and the next third party to come along may be the Socialist Workers' Party. (Yes, I'm joking, but then so was Krokodil.)
Context (0.00 / 0)
Considering that NO ONE has been able to get comprehensive reform passed in the last 100 years, despite dozens of tries, it is definitely a victory... an ugly one... a very sloppy win, but, a big one nonetheless.

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 ]
Just because you name it "comprehensive reform" (0.00 / 0)
doesn't make it so.  Remember Bush's Blue Skies and Clean Water Act?   A pig is a pig, even when you put lipstick on it.  If this is the best Obama and the Democrats could do with a mandate and a majority, then they and this bill deserve to lose.  
[ Parent ]
I think you have nailed the reality Chris (0.00 / 0)
It's not what I would have wished for, but as long as Obama and Reid do not fold to unreasonable demands by the Blue Dogs it will fit into the short term game plan of Obama and the leadership.  However, I don't think they have a clue about what's going to happen this November.

I would have thought the Democrats would have learned in 2004, when given a choice between a candidate of decisiveness and a candidate of thoughtful contemplation, which the people would choose.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

Maybe we can't make the bill better... (0.00 / 0)
but we can name the politicians who have made this bill the POS it is now, and then work to replace them all. We can let people know that this bill is about as progressive as Dick Cheney.

We can find ways to disrupt their agenda, over and over, until they begin to change their mind about the left wing of the party. Start by finding something they like -- I hear that Blue Cross demo- I mean Blue Dog democrats like agricultural subsidies-- and then see if we can take it away from them.

Or try to get their biggest donors investigated, or give them tons of bad P.R. and try to convince their constituents not to volunteer or donate to them, but give their money and time to actual progressives, instead.

And primary the crap out of them, every two (or six) years. I know we can't challenge them all at once, but as many as we can afford to do.

Oh, and "Move On?" the left? Really? That's like National Journal saying John Kerry was "the most liberal senator" in 2004.

MoveOn members support passing health reform bill 83%-17% | 22 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox