We can accept no less than this when pushing for genuine health care reform. As pointed out by otherpeoplebefore, the weak public option won't do the job of fixing a system we all know to be broken. It is madness to push politicians for something that is, when evaluated on its merits, worse than nothing because of the likelihood that passage will destroy all political will to get something better when the half-ass measure fails. This is as true for health care as it is for climate change (something even the milquetoast Washington Post acknowledges).
The primary reason progressives keep getting their proverbial clocks cleaned is that we keep coming to the table with half-measures and bargaining down. What we ultimately end up with isn't just bad legislation; it's almost guaranteed political death for whatever cause we capitulate on. With health care reform, we've been doing the same thing. We've brought yet another insufficient idea to the table and are fighting not to make it better, but to prevent it from being made even weaker. This policy cannot be allowed to continue if we are to coalesce into a strong, viable political movement. We have to start coming to the table with 100% of what we want, tweak it as necessary, but in the end come away with something far more than we'd get than what we end up with under current strategy.
It's got to be single-payer. Don't even mention a public option anymore unless it is used in the context of discussing single-payer. Demand from your Congressmen and women single-payer health care. make a solid case for it, do NOT take "no" for an answer, and don't let up.
If we can't learn this lesson, we don't deserve health care or any other kind of reform.
I was reading Paul Krugman's column the other day and was dismayed by his argument. According to the Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist, a half-ass, half-hearted measure on curbing carbon emissions is better than doing nothing, but I'm unconvinced. As written in The Washington Post:
On paper, the Waxman-Markey bill puts a cost on carbon dioxide by imposing a ceiling, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions and then setting up a market for regulated industries -- such as the electric power sector -- to buy and sell allowances to pollute under that cap. As the cap is reduced each year, market participants will exchange allowances in a complex auction market.
If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you're going to love cap-and-trade. Just read Title VIII of the bill, which lets investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators participate in the cap-and-trade market. They don't have emissions to cut; they have commissions to make.
The real hidden catch of the cap-and-trade system, though, is that it will require consumers to pay twice: first for emission allowances and then for the construction of new low- and zero-carbon power plants.
That doesn't sound very good, and the bad news gets progressively worse.
Contrary to assurances from the bill's sponsors that utility customers wouldn't have to pay these costs for the first decade, some coal-dependent utilities would be forced to purchase more than half of their allowances when the program is scheduled to begin in 2012. Would these allowances reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? No; that would come when consumers footed a second bill - for the cost of their utilities either to retrofit coal and gas plants to capture carbon - something that cannot be done today on a commercial scale - or to shut them down and build non-carbon-producing nuclear plants and wind farms instead.
We're all tired of capitulation. We all think offshore drilling is pretty darn evil. But are we willing to give up a crack at something we need for the hubris of those reasons?
Let's talk about the New Energy Reform Act of 2008. If you haven't been paying attention, that's the name of the proposed energy bill sponsored by the "Group of 10" Senators in order to address all those concerns everyone has about energy. There are certainly a good bushel of bad apple policies in the bill, but some pretty awesome oranges in there too that might make the bill worthwhile. Let's take a look at both, plus some context, in the extended entry.
Back in August Matt Stoller first floated the idea of a "Bush Dog" campaign against Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies on core progressive values at key moments.
Now the campaign is in full flight. If you type "Bush Dog Democrat" you now get thousands of results. Profiles of all 38 House Bush Dogs have been completed. Among critics are the DLC, DSCC and insider news source National Jornal.
However it has been primarily focused on House Bush Dogs. However with a little research I found that Senate Bush Dogs are a much bigger problem.
From Dictionary.com, here's some definitions for capitulation:
1) the act of capitulating.
the document containing the terms of a surrender.
2) a list of the headings or main divisions of a subject; a summary or enumeration.
3) Often, capitulations. a treaty or agreement by which subjects of one country residing or traveling in another are extended extraterritorial rights or special privileges, esp. such a treaty between a European country and the former Ottoman rulers of Turkey.
