home

Here Comes The "Progressive" Pushback Against The Public Option

Led by the Obama connected (through John Podesta) Think Progress:

Lawrence O’Donnell [. . .] tells Politico’s Live Pulse that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) shouldn’t [include a public option.] [. . . I]s O’Donnell right? Does it make more sense to exclude the public plan from the Senate bill and add it during Conference? I think it does. The public plan has become a political wedge issue. Republicans have staked their entire opposition to reform on the public plan, effectively shutting out any meaningful discussion about affordability or insurance regulations.

My gawd. A "meaningful discussion" with Republicans? The Villagers, both "Left" and Right, are really pieces of work. But hey, Alan Grayson is right there with them, despite his bluster.

Speaking for me only

< Politics And Policy: The Virtues Of The Blue State Public Option | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    I guess it's back to trying to please the GOP again? No matter how much you hope it might be different, this is what the Obama administration is all about.

    The DSCC called me a week or so ago wanting money. I told them that when Obama got a spine to call me back. I haven't heard anything from them and since I dont expect him to ever get a spine I don't have to worry about hearing from them.---oh, and they were talking about how they needed money to pass healthcare reform aka baucuscare. I guess they think I'm some sort of moron.

    I said (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    much the same thing when I got my call.  In fact, I went on at such length over Obama's (and the Senate's) failings, that the person hung up on me.  Yes, they think we're all morons, but all they want is our money.  They can whistle for my money until the Dems start acting like Dems and quit trying to "make nice" with the Republicans, who have proven time and again that they have no intention of agreeing with anything the Dems put forth.  You can't be "bi-partisan" if the other side won't play.

    Parent
    Yes, the infamous public option (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:58:15 PM EST
    is indeed a wedge issue, but the wedge seems to be being inflicted, in true atomic-style, by Democrats on Democrats, who, with their tighty-whiteys firmly stretched over their heads, apparently cannot hear the loud Republican message of "we won't support Democratic reform."  

    And so the Dems continue to embarrass themselves by all but begging for the GOP to like them enough to join in the reform effort.

    Ridiculous.

    And what does Lawrence O'Donnell know about health care anyway that anyone should care what he thinks?


    He was on Finance Committee (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:15:38 AM EST
    staff when Clinton tried.  He actually knows a fair amount about the political process involved, not necessarily the worth of the policy details themselves.  He was staff to Pat Moynihan, which is all you need to know about where he's coming from.

    Parent
    You assume the conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    So, if the public option is going to keep the bill from passing the Senate on Third Reading and thus prevent it from even geting to conference, then the logical thing is to remove it temporarily from the Senate version and then re-insert it at conference.

    Well sure, if it's an empirical fact that the public option can't pass the Senate, you can try to do it through conference.  I think even the moronic BTD grasps that point.  But nobody knows if it is true or not.

    What BTD terms the progressive pushback does not contend that the public option is evil, but merely that it is too much too soon, that it is unachievable, that we should abandon it and maybe it will magically come back later in the process.  It strikes me as unwise for real supporters to give up so easily.

    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    It won't get voted down 100-0.

    Parent
    Shibboleth (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:46:37 PM EST
    As a prerequisite to declaring victory, "progressives" are starting to focus on the idea that some bill, any bill that contains the words [a|the] [Federalist?] public [health insurance]? [option|plan] -- never mind the actual policy -- is going to be key. This comment exemplifies that.

    This comment also exemplifies what I call The Phonebooth Theory -- that is, at some point, Obama's going to ditch the Clark Kent glasses, step into a phonebooth, and emerge garbed as Progressive Superman. Na ga Happen -- though I'd love to be proved wrong.

    For Phonebooth, of course, read "Conference."

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:20:33 AM EST
    "Republicans have staked their entire opposition to reform on the public plan" is pure nonsense.  The genius of the Republicans is they hit things from every possible angle so that if one hit doesn't work, they've got a dozen others they've already laid the groundwork for.  There isn't a single major aspect of any of the proposed approaches they haven't been hitting on, from public option to mandates to taxes on Cadillac plans to general tax increases to Medicare cuts to increased Medicaid, etc.

    John Podesta is either a political idiot or he's deliberately falsifying the dynamics here.

    Cokie Roberts remarked months ago (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:37:27 PM EST
    on NPR about the futility of trying to entice GOP members of Congress into supporting any HCR bill, not matter how much the Dems. and Obama admins. tried to sweeten the pot.  Is she an idiot?  Doesn't seem like it on this issue.

    "A 'meaningful discussion' (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    with Republicans?"

    Isn't that akin to what Barney Frank referred to as "having a conversation with a dining room table"?

    It's about as productive.  

    I wish that the Democrats would get this through their thick heads:  They are not your friends.  They are Republicans.  They might seem friendly, but that is just them flipping back at you what Ayn Rand said about relying on your good manners to avoid naming things by their true name.

    Jeez.  For a guys who went to Ivy League schools (unlike yours truly), these Dems ain't proving out as too bright.

    Re: They are not your friends (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by mentaldebris on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    Nope.  But they sure are convenient cover when you want to sell out the public to the same corporate benefactors. There comes a point where it's hard to deny that bipartisan-driven capitulation is really just simple complicity.

    There could be two Republican senators in the whole of the Senate and Democrats would still be rubbing their worry beads to dust and fretting over the optics of going it alone--especially when it comes to potentially derailing  the corporate gravy train.

    Using the Repubs as cover is not dumb.  It's disgusting and cowardly, but it's not that dumb. Trying to use them for cover when you control Congress and the White House is dumb.

    Parent

    "Using Repubs as cover is dumb" (none / 0) (#16)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    Exactly.

    Parent
    When has letting (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    Baucus act like he rules the world done any good for the healthcare debate?  Accepting his bill and taking that to conference only gives him credibility and makes the battle to preserve the PO harder.  DUHHHHHH

    rep kuc (none / 0) (#6)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    isn't this similar to what rep kucinich is proposing, except substitute a state-based single payer instead of a state-determined public option?

    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:40:50 PM EST
    And what could be wrong with letting the states experiment with a policy that's actually been proven to work?

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lora on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 06:22:08 PM EST
    My gawd. A "meaningful discussion" with Republicans? The Villagers, both "Left" and Right, are really pieces of work.


    Now the doctors are chiming in (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 06:50:08 PM EST
    Just got this email from one of my doctors (they have never emailed me before).  I'm not on Medicare, (and their included link doesn't seem to work), but I'm curious as to what changes they are referring to:

    A Letter To Our Patients

    The ___ is privileged to provide your cardiovascular care, and we are proud of the high quality services we provide to the Northern Virginia area. However, we are very concerned that proposed Medicare regulations, if implemented, will severely restrict our ability to continue providing all the services you have come to expect from us. Therefore, we are taking the unprecedented step of contacting our patients to alert them to the situation we face.

    If implemented as proposed, the 2010 Medicare regulations will force cardiology practices such as ours to reduce services that we can provide in our offices. If these rules are put in place, many cardiology patients will have to go to the hospital to obtain imaging services, rather than having the tests performed in the office to be interpreted by their cardiologist with the results provided quickly back to the patient. Medicare patients will have higher co-pays, and everyone will have longer wait times for tests and results. Many of these new rules are based on incorrect data that the government has used to generate revised reimbursement rates.

    We ask that you help protect your access to cardiac care by contacting your legislators in Congress. We urge you to visit www.guardingheartsalliance.org/ where you can learn more about what's at stake for America's cardiac patients. The website makes it easy to email your senators and representatives and ask them to intervene on your behalf with Medicare before it's too late. Only a few weeks remain before Medicare finalizes its regulations, so we hope you will go to www.guardingheartsalliance.org/ as soon as you can.

    Cardiovascular disease takes more lives each year than cancer, accidents and diabetes combined. But advances in cardiology during the past 10 years have reduced heart-related deaths and the severity of heart-related illness by 27 percent. That's important, because the urgent need for this lifesaving specialty will increase 60 percent in the next 15 years as baby boomers advance in age and because the current shortage of cardiologists is expected to worsen over that time.

    Please help us continue to treat our patients' cardiac disease and ensure that the strides we have made in fighting our country's Number One killer have not been in vain. Please contact your legislators today.

    Thank you.

    The physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, technicians and staff of____



    putting the term (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:51:58 PM EST
    "meaningful discussions" together with "republicans", in the same sentence, might cause your head to explode. please take that outside.

    Silly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:18:00 PM EST
    Listening to O'Donnell I mean.

    But you go with that.

    Here are some "meaningful discussions" (none / 0) (#19)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:47:42 PM EST