home

What Are We Fighting For?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:13:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

[This is not a post about Afghanistan.]

Politics is the art of the possible. We all understand that. So on health care reform, what are we (as opposed to the pols) fighting for? In my view, we are now fighting for the most progressive health care bill that can get 218 votes in the House and 50 votes in the Senate (a later separate bill can be fashioned that gets 60 votes in the Senate to take care of Ezra Klein's concerns.) To get that, we have to demand much more than that now. And our "negotiators," the Progressive Block, have to be tactically extreme in this process.

But pols, even the Progressive Block pols, are not fighting for that. They fight for their own personal agendas - getting reelected, expanding their political power, etc. John Aravosis writes about the political skin the President has in the game now:

The debate has now shifted to a point that Joe and I had predicted months ago. No longer are we talking policy, but rather, Obama's inability to fight for what he believes in has now turned the debate to a discussion of whether our president is a "wuss." People don't like having discussions about whether their leader is a wuss. The very fact of having the discussion is trouble in and of itself.

. . . There's a rather disturbing trend in this article that the AP writer didn't even notice. On a lot of foreign policy, Obama seems to be quite aggressive and well-liked. But on domestic policy, he's increasingly seen as out of touch and a bit of a "wimp." That describes a previous president by the name of George H.W. Bush. He was a one-termer.

That's what President Obama is fighting for now - not to be seen as a wimp. The Progressive Block is working hard to make sure the President's political machinations on being seen as a "strong leader" directs him to advocating for their point of view, and then winning that fight.

That's the fight.

Speaking for me only

< Daschle Endorses Using Reconciliation For Health Care Reform | Republican Gomorrah: Deconstructing the Radical Right >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Are We Fighting For? | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I am fighting for providing affordable (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    health care. Legislation that has no cost controls will not provide affordable health care. Triggers that will never be implemented will not do that. Co-ops would be a costly experiment and a poor bet with bad odds. I refuse to fight for any legislation that only props up the insurance industry with tax payer funds. It IMO would be nothing more than a give away to the insurance industry and worse than no legislation at all.

    MO Blue - Where do you think Claire is on all of (none / 0) (#34)
    by mogal on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    this?

    Parent
    She is tepidly for something (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    labeled a "public option" as long as it is structured that it would be impossible for it to compete in any way with the insurance industry. IOW a "faux public option." Here is a link to her position in August.

    Now you have to keep in mind that my sweet Claire prides herself on being "bipartisan" at every opportunity. IMO she would be more than willing to compromise away anything and everything and sign on to even the worse bill you can imagine.

    Parent

    it's just this type (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Makarov on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    of "faux public option" present in current legislation, that makes me hope it all fails. With a reboot, maybe Single Payer will be on the table next time.

    Forcing the poor and middle income Americans to buy junk health insurance isn't a solution to the health care problem.

    Parent

    We are also dealing with a faux trigger (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    As one of the very "serious" Democrats said today:

    Well I think he [Obama] has to say that if there's going to be a public option, it has to be subject to a trigger. In other words, if somehow the private market doesn't respond the way that it's supposed to, then it would trigger a public option or a government-run option. But only as a fail-safe backstop to the process
    .
    When I say trigger, out here in Nebraska and the midwest, I don't mean a hair-trigger. I mean a true trigger -- one that would only apply if there isn't the kind of competition in the business that we believe there would be. link

    Not a "hair trigger" but a very, very patient trigger. One that is similar to all those sternly worded letters the Dems sent to Bush and members of his administration a while back.


    Parent

    I tend to agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:33:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Here's an interesting list (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    of quotes from Obama on what he said he would fight for.  Let's hold him and Dems to a lot of that list.

    And as for what we are fighting against, quoting Obama again:  

    I've got a plan. But we've had plan before, under a Democratic president in the '90s and a Democratic Congress. We couldn't get it done because the drug and insurance companies are spending $1 billion over the last decade on lobbying. And that's why we've got to have a president who is willing to fight to make sure that they don't have veto power.


    Heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    Well that was then . . .

    Seriously, whoever buys that stuff anyway?

    Got to fight now.

    Parent

    Well, the way to not look wimpy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    is to stand by your stands -- and fight your foe.

    We can see his stands, and we know he knows his foe.  It's not other Dems.

    Parent

    Sure it is other Dems (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    the GOP is not even in the game. Not sure IF Obama understands that but think he does.

    He seems not to understand that the Blue Dogs are his foes now.

    Parent

    I think he's more blue dog than (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    progressive.  I have to convince him that listening to his inner blue dog is not the smart move here.

    Parent
    Doesn;t matter now (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    Obama can live with a robust public option.

    Progressive Block insists on it.

    Blue Dogs are against.

    they are his foes.

    Parent

    Where is this robust public option? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    The two in HELP and HR3200 are absolutely horrible.  They have been so hamstrung that it is hard to see how either are viable at all.  I think the activists screwed up when they ditched Medicare for All for something called "public option".  They didn't help the progressive caucus because their biggest bargaining chip disappeared.  

    Parent
    I mean, this is (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by masslib on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    the so-called "public option".  Does anyone think this is robust?

    Parent
    I question the financial outcomes (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    that this write up foresees.  Speaking from only my perspective, I don't think providers can make it with pay for services being Medicare plus 5%.  And when insurance company profit margins are removed from what premiums cost, paying providers a fee worthy of the services isn't going to eat up the difference.  I'm sometimes ashamed to note what some doctors and their staff have to settle getting paid for certain services they provide our seniors.  Perhaps if we didn't have to pay big pharma so much and we could actually negotiate with them we could pay others in the system more fairly.

    Parent
    The Progressive Caucus (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    is currently fighting for a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates.

    Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable. A plan with negotiated rates would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of providing choice and competition to keep rates down. The public plan with set rates saves $75 billion, which could be lost if rates are negotiated with providers. Further, this public option must be available immediately and must not be contingent upon any trigger. Letter to Obama

    I agree that if the Progressive Caucus loses this fight that the public option would not be viable. I, also, think that there are other restrictions that we need to be concerned about. Yet, it is important that we accurately portray the bloc's current position as well.

    Parent

    You do realize though that many many (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    doctors out there will not take Medicare patients because payement for services can be essentially pathetic?  Are people having to use public option insurance going to be restricted in what doctors they can see.....only being treated by those who graduated in the lower twenty percentile of their class?

    Parent
    This "not accepting Medicare" (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    or "not accepting Public Option" issue could be dealt with by a "no cherry picking" clause in the bill. Providers of health care refusing to participate in Medicare(for example) may not be eligible for participation in any other federally- funded,  federally-supported or federally-subsidized  health care program.

    Parent
    Actually I have not read any (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:21:42 PM EST
    reports that show how many doctors will not accept Medicare patients and in what areas this problem exists. I have only read that it is a problem. Is this a problem like all the "welfare queens driving around in their Cadillacs?" A regional problem? Rural vs urban problem? Is it a small problem or a real problem?. Lot of claims go around about health care and often, the claims are proven untrue or exaggerated.

    I don't see it as a problem in my area. I have been in the health care system for over a year and a half. I, also, belong to several health care groups where we discuss problems all the time and it has never been a issue.

    Also, Medicare +5 is the rate discussed in at least one of the House bills.  

    Parent

    It is a problem (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:02:00 PM EST
    in Washington state, as I've said like a broken record:

    Link

    This article links to the Medicare site where you can find doctors who accept it.  None of my doctors are found in the database.  When I'm 65 I hope they'll grandfather me in.  Otherwise I'll have to find new doctors.

    Restricting reimbursement rates in a public option insurance plan is just another way that it won't compete with private insurance.  Doctors will preferentially accept the higher reimbursed private insurance, and what's left will go to people with public insurance, essentially creating something of a firewall.  You can say, "those greedy doctors!"  Whatever the opinion, the bottom line is doctors don't have to accept Medicare patients.  Adding more people to pseudo-Medicare roles will only make that situation worse.

    Parent

    Look the system is rigged (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:05:20 PM EST
    Private insurance companies are able to provide higher reimbursement rates, despite having much greater overhead by denying people care.  

    You solve this problem by mandating every doctor accept Medicare.

    But at the same time it would be wise to increasing Medicare reimbursement rates where necessary (there are some procedures where more is needed), and finding some kind of way of reducing the cost of a doctors office.

    Parent

    I forgot increasing the number of doctors (none / 0) (#83)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    We have some really ridiculous prohibitions on allowing qualified foreign physicians from practicing here.

    Parent
    I see, a healthy system means we (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    mandate doctors....take away their choices, but we don't mandate purchasing insurance.  I don't think this sort of thinking is going to work and I'm reluctant to mandate anyone as to how or when they will practice their trade or craft.  I don't see other countries with functional healthcare systems that include public options mandating anyone to just stick it.  Do you?

    Parent
    Washington State may have a problem (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    In the article one of the people had moved from New Jersey (no problem) to Washington and now has a problem. Questions I would ask after a quick review is why

    Washington state ranks near the bottom -- 42nd -- among the states in per-patient Medicare spending.

    Five years ago, a ratio of three support staff to every physician was considered normal; today the ratio is 5-to-1.


    Parent
    We live in Houston and my husband (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by suzieg on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:05:42 AM EST
    who is under Medicare was drop a year ago by his doctor of 20 yrs+ because he'll only see patients who have medicare advantage plus. He's been trying to find one ever since without success.

    We are spending the summer in Austin and while here, he infected his finger and even though we went through half the list of doctors in the phone book, none would take medicare patients and he had to turn to a clinic which only allows their interns to treat medicare patients. It's a real problem, not an imaginary one

    Parent

    I think that your husband needs (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:51:46 AM EST
    to contact your Congresscritters and tell them that this is a problem. It is my understanding that the reimbursement rates for Medicare vary by city and by state. IIRC members of Congress can have an impact on the rates in their area.

    Parent
    BTW Medicare has a search (none / 0) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:23:37 AM EST
    function that provides a list of all doctors by specialty who participate in Medicare. Go to Medicare.gov, page down one page and clink on Find a Doctor or Other Health Care Professional. There are doctors in Austin who take Medicare.

    Parent
    And I don't want to dwell on this (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    because it can be used to feed the conartist blue dogs' views that we can't do a public option.  But I'm not upset with a public option that is looking at paying providers a bit better for services and I don't think that it will destroy the usefulness of getting this legislation through.  Other countries have a public option that keeps the whole system safe and productive and everyone appropriately paid....and is something that politicians can get voted in and out of office for not improving upon or maintaining.

    Parent
    You hit the nail on the head... you're exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by suzieg on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:00:21 AM EST
    right!

    Parent
    It's worse than that though... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by masslib on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    In the best case scenario in HR3200(ie w/Medicare reimbursement rates) CBO expects only 10 million enrolled by 2019.  Is that what people think when they here public option?  An insurance that covers less than 4% of the under 65 population?  How viable is a public option that doesn't have market share?  In HELP, CBO expects ZERO enrolled by 2019.  The pub. opt. has been so firewalled it is hard for anyone to choose it.  These details matter.  Using the word "robust" isn't enough.

    Parent
    He is now as irrelevant as he made himself :) (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:02:42 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree with this (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    During the campaign, my judgement of where Obama was, if elected, likely to really be on health care reform was based on his, and his staff's, closeness to Daschle. That alliance broadcasted a corporate friendly, rather than more populist/progressive approach. People who thought Obama was a progressive, rather than a health industry friendly "pragmatist" were overlooking the obvious and ignoring who, in terms of encouraging his run, his most important political backers really were. Not Northeastern liberals -- but midwestern "moderates."  

    Parent
    David Sirota pointed that out (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    and was swiftly drawn and quartered in Orangeland:)  Just remembering....that's all....not part of winning this fight today...just memories.

    Parent
    That would be the case (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:05:10 PM EST
    if we could get him to quit invoking Snowe.

    He needs to make this about the Blue Dogs. He needs to utilize the popularity of the public plan to kow them and point out they are standing in the way of the plan that the majority of the electorate prefer.

    Once he does that, the conversation will turn to brass tacks such as cost.

    It would be interesting to see where we are publically opinion wise on cost allowances. I wonder if the country sees this as an "investment" because the cost initially isn't going to be cheap. I suspect this may be a weak spot.

    I wish we had a point man who could explain that not making this investment will cost them anyway in the form of increased premiums, increased co pays, increased, deductibles, increased taxes to provide for the increased cost of programs like Medicare, SCHIP and Medicaid. I don't see that happening.

    Parent

    I thought I was (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by SGITR on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    an optimist. But I try not to go overboard.

    Obama's foes are the Progressives BTD. They are the ones he called and suggested that they back-off. He has had no such words for any Blue Dogs. In fact he is protecting them and their desire not to have a public option. He had his tools out this morning talking down the public option. I think you have who are his foes inverted.

    As for the GOP not being in the game, they certainly are. Are they offering support for the public option? Are they offering support for real HCR spending?

    Aren't they, via astroturfing Dick Armey, the ones who stunk up the townhalls and turned public opinion against the public option? Yes they are. So they are very much in the game.

    Parent

    We aren't on spending yet? (none / 0) (#55)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    First, the other side needs to concede on there being a public option.

    Parent
    One of the advantages of being the majority (none / 0) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    ought to be setting the agenda. Snowe and her cabal should not be able to say "no public option, now let's move on to subsidy costs."
    As the minority, she doesn't get to set the tone or pace. That's Obama's job(and he is on the record as supporting a public option and has a block that supports that premise).

    Once Snowe concedes a public option we should talk costs. Not before then though.


    Parent

    Why talk to Snowe (none / 0) (#72)
    by cal1942 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:31:13 PM EST
    about anyhing?  What she concedes should never have any relevance.

    Oops, I forgot, it's President Snowe.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    I've been arguing that from the get go. I've never understood why reaching out to a politically popular side to the opposition was smart strategically even if she is moderate. Then again I was never really much into the "bipartisan approach."

    Parent
    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#10)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    Many thousands of voters bought 'that stuff.'

    They didn't know about WORM, though.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    I meant intelligent people.

    Parent
    Well, informed people. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by masslib on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    It's hard to know where a pol really stands on an issue if you just listen to fuzzy campaign speeches and focus on the parts that appeal to you.  

    Parent
    Sigh...I've always thought of (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    elections as IQ tests...but not just of the voters...

    Parent
    Do not understand your comment (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:54:31 PM EST


    Meh (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    That is Nixonian "In The Arena" nonsense.

    It is not some selfless act on their part.

    Indeed, it takes a certain sociopathy to be a pol.

    I understand they have an important function to play but please, do not pretend they are some brave souls doing it.

    BTW, if you think Obama invented the health care issue think again.

    Parent

    This is what you wrote (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:44:36 PM EST
    "e simple fact of the matter is this: Health care reform would not even be on the national agenda for discussion right now, had Barack Obama not been willing to expend a great deal of political capital and goodwill to bring the prickly subject up for debate."

    It is delusional.

    If that is beneath me, well, I apologize to anyone I may have offended with my unseemly comment.

    Parent

    Honestly (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    I hear this so often my ears have burned off. For every person who thinks I'm not permitted to criticize my public officials unless I upend my life and run for office myself, I would merely point you to the first amendment. It gives me the right to criticize them 24/7, and I intend to continue doing so. And I have NO intention of running for office.

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kmblue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    see any "sweat, dust or blood" on Obama's pretty face.
    But that's probably because he has health care.
    Unlike me.

    Daring greatly (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    In order to be seen as daring greatly you have to
    actually take a stance. I'd say most of the country doesn't see that yet. Obama, himself admits, that he is more than willing to jettison his own belief in the public plan as the best option for the sake of political expediency. The progressive block is daring greatly. Obama, at this point? Not so much. I understand there is a point where you need to be pragmatic. I'd suggest that the point should not be in the BEGINNING of negotiations. It isn't too late for Obama to correct though. He needs to make it clear to Olympia Snowe and the block she represents that he is not willing to jettison a plan that garners the majority of the electorate's approval simply to please them. THAT would be daring greatly.

    It would be interesting if (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    he would dare to ask Snowe, publicly, who got her vote last November.  Elections having consequences and all. :-)

    Parent
    It isn't too late for him (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    to point out to her that she and those like her are standing in the way of the politically popular reform option that the majority of the electorate believes should be implemented.

    This one ought to be a no brainer.

     

    Parent

    But "Wimp" is a chimera (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Pacific John on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    I have endless real life conversations with friends and family who imagine Obama just needs to "man up." I've heard "man up," from a dozen unrelated people.

    When I reply with Greewald's diagnosis that the game is to deprive the GOP of '12 corporate donors, a theory that provides by far the most accurate optics, they simply deflate.

    Playing regular two-dimensional chess with the "wimp" frame will simply flush out the campaign cash queen, but way too late for anyone's good.

    Progressives would be more productive by forcing Obama into the open, by screaming bloody murder over his opacity, the relationships between his campaign contributors and his policies and by simply standing for their own values rather than by acting like Obama is a fragile flower who will wilt without extreme care and protection. (Dudes and dudettes, this guy is from the swamps of Chicago, he may be a lot of things, but he's no wimp).

    The obvious irony in all of this is that liberals will only hold him accountable when he fails, when it's too late; if they spoke up from the beginning, there would be room for successful legislation and Obama would be successful.

    Clintonistas get this. We fully expected progressives [sic] to to hold President Hillary accountable from day 1, and do that Overton Window thing they keep trying to sell to someone.

    Well, some of us do try (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    I've been speaking and contacting "my" DC power brokers from the get-go.  But they, oddly enough (snark), don't really seem to broker my power with nearly as much vigor as they do for, say, the folks that cut them a fat check.  Or ten.

    Parent
    Here's what said (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    He has manned up.

    He's fighting against the public and the Progressive Caucus who want a public plan that will drive a stake in the hearts of private insurers and stop funding these highway robbers.

    It's the people who don't realize this who need to man up, call him out, and make him fight his campaign donors.

    Parent

    You are right (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Pacific John on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    that the dynamic is that when he "mans up," he only does it to his own side. His vaunted ability to be tough and win has only ever been applied to people like Sen. Alice Palmer, the caucus voters whose statements I gave to people like Jeralyn, and his base on FISA.

    That said, the only time he has modified his behavior in the right direction has been when his base has threatened to go nuclear, as when he tried to pack his CA DNC delegation with campaign contributors rather than his supervolunteers.

    I soooo want to be wrong about this guy and have him be what his supporters hoped he was.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    if the wimp impression has already set in?

    It set in for (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    me way back in 2008....but I was called a racist for saying so....now, it's apparently okay to at least explore the wimp meme.

    Parent
    Just ask Tesla (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    You may be first more than once in this lifetime, but everybody is only going to be happy about it and happy for your achievement of that once :)

    Parent
    Last Stand (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dead dancer on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    HCR/PO will be the decider!

    Stand up and fight sir. Get your own arse kicked or get busy kicking some.

    Any thing less, at this point, and the WUSS is a permanent fixture for our president. IMHO.

    Parent

    Wag the dog (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    And we REALLY don't want to go there.

    Parent
    Isn't it too late (none / 0) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    This has come down to the PO for the public.  If he explains it and insists on it, he'll seem firm.  If he spends his time trying to pivot away from the PO, and they still don't understand it, won't people just go 'wtf?'

    I'm expecting him to insist it is only a 'sliver' of the bill, especially since he has the troops out this morning talking it down (one last push to sink it before Obama's speech?)

    I hope that is true (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:54:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Now, a real negotiator (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    -- as no doubt well you know -- would use this Wednesday's speech to resurrect single-payer.

    And then, if he was the sort of lawyer who knew how to do this, in negotiations he would grudgingly give up single-payer -- with public option as his fallback position.  Voila.

    But I think he has been hanging around the wrong sort of beaches to learn about drawing lines in the sand.

    Parent

    Was he actually much of a lawyer? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    Or did he spend more time writing books/teaching?

    Parent
    Interesting quote from a comparate (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:54:18 PM EST
    who is a candidate for PM in Canada, a "public intellectual" type -- as some perceived Obama to be, and as he appears to want to be -- as quoted this week in the New Yorker on his "steep learning curve" for politics:

    As an intellectual, you can speculate, you can ruminate, you can muse about things.  Can't do that in politics.  They want to know what you think, what you do.  A lot of the time, intellectuals are engaged in the business of showing how clever they are.  The public isn't interested in how clever you are.  It wants something very different, which is, Can I trust this guy?  Does this guy understand me, and will this guy be with me when times are difficult?  There's a totally different relationship between the politician and his audience and the intellectual and his audience.

    Let's see which one is in front of the teleprompter on Wednesday night -- and crafting his bill said to be coming soon afterward.


    Parent

    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    You can't do it now.

    Not a credible threat.

    Parent

    Use speech to resurrect single payer... (none / 0) (#44)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    No one would believe him. No one who's actually been paying attention, since the beginning, to how Obama plays the game. He's not much of a chess player, IMO. H*ll, he's not even much of a gin rummy player.

    Well, caveat: Maybe the John Aravosises of the world would buy into that act.

    It's all on the backs of the members of the Progressive Caucus to hold firm, and frankly, I don't care why they do it, as long as they do it.

    Parent

    Yeh, but if a madman (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    political bargainer is what is wanted, this would be a way to go. :-)  I've seen it done, and it sure can open an agenda again.

    Parent
    So, what's the progressive (none / 0) (#13)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    counter strategy?  Shouldn't that be ready to hit the six o'clock news?

    Just a thought...

    Parent

    Line in the sand (none / 0) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    Those that say... 'if it doesn't have a strong public option, we won't vote for it.'  The media may be trying to blame the left of the left, but they don't seem to be giving in.

    Parent
    The caucus members know where (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    their constituents are on this, and it sure ain't in co-op/trigger land.

    Parent
    I think more people are clear now (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    what a public option would do for all of us and the crazy doomsday liars have been addressed and properly dealt with.  It has broad and firm majority of Americans support now, and no thanks to Obama for that either.  If he pivots away this isn't going to be a wtf that comes with a lot of confusion that he can hope to hide behind.

    Parent
    Ah, Obama is the new (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    Theodore Roosevelt.  Firmly holding on to his positions and  fighting valiantly in the trenches for good affordable health care for all.

    Do you really believe that we should (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:35:03 AM EST
    acknowledge and celebrate the efforts of all politicians  who at least dare to venture into the public arena that is politics? Because if you do, then you need to celebrate the efforts of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

    Needless to say, I disagree with that premise.

    Parent

    Sean Hannity loves (none / 0) (#24)
    by kmblue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    that TR quote.  Uses it all the time to pump himself up.

    Pumps himself up to do???? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    Not much of anything...buwhahahaha

    Parent
    Pumps himself up (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by kmblue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    to bray from the sidelines--and get well paid for it.
    That's the diff between Sean and me--I bray, but I don't get paid. ;)

    Parent
    But you're smarter than Hannity (none / 0) (#48)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    He's one of the stupidest people to ever have a microphone.

    If that's any consolation.

    Parent

    And he looks like a (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    department store mannequin.  I'm suspicious that he's an android.  Ask me if I'm kidding.

    Parent
    I'm fighting for Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It (none / 0) (#57)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    Details here

    I think that's the gap that can be bridged between the PO and the Single-Payers.  

    And it's a bridge that we can reasonably move toward getting 218, 50 and that 1 signature.

    Medicare for all (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:10:11 PM EST
    would have been an interesting way to go. Particularly since 2008 became the year we are paying out more than what actually goes into the system. It's another reason I am not buying into reforms in Medicare being able to be placed into a public option without cutting. As it stands right now the economic inefficiencies ought to be weeded out so that the program isn't paying out more than it receives from the public and increasing the deficit in the process. I don't know what kind of percentage people would need to be paying though to make this type of program work for everyone(since anyone employed is already taxed and so is their employers to pay for the elderly as it stands and it still isn't enough).

    Parent
    Medicare and Medicaid's biggest inefficiency (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    ...is that all of it's risk pool only has people that are old, poor and disabled.  If you add younger and healthier people to the risk pool the financing problem takes care of itself, so says the CBO.

    Additionally, many companies already provide private insurance for their employees, which is substantially greater than it would be if they switched to the Kennedy Plan, specified in the Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It proposal.  Take Wal-Mart for example.  It has one of the crappiest insurance plans offered by a corporation, yet they pay about $3,500 per year per employee.  With an average wage of under $20,000 that's 17.5% of wages Wal-Mart is spending.  If buying into Medicare even had a 9% payroll match for employees, (which is multiple times higher than anyone has suggested) by enrolling in Medicare they'd see their health insurance cost cut in half.

    Incidentally, I'm not the only one calling for this.  It's perplexing to me why it hasn't generated more traction.

    Parent

    The younger people (none / 0) (#75)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    are already paying for the older people though. What kind of tax or fee would need to be implemented? Since Medicare is already paying out more than it is receiving just with its requirement to support the elderly, I have to wonder about adding to the burden right now.

    I think a public option leads to single payer if it is done right. It just does it more incrementally. At least that is my hope.

    Parent

    Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:45:51 PM EST
    Would be funded not by the 2.9% Medicare tax, but by premiums of the people who "Want It."

    That percentage is probably somewhere around 7%, which when split between employer and employee is 3.5% of wages a piece.  

    For a company to reach the current amount Wal-Mart spends on health care ($3,500) their employee would have to make on average $100,000 a year.

    Therefore, Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It would be very attractive for a great many of people, and businesses.  Now that Medicare would be a pool with people who are younger and healthier (instead of just people who are old, disabled and poor) the overall cost of the program (per enrollee) goes down.

    That's the way health insurance works: the young, healthy and wealthy pay for the old, ill and poor.  Medicare only gets the latter, which is why it costs right now more than it would if anyone could buy into it.

    Specifics are here.

    Parent

    For the record (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:39:42 PM EST
    I root for you single payer folks because I recognize that you push the debate left. I am hoping that what your pushing helps us get the most robust option we can possibly get at this point. I admire that the single payer folks have DARED GREATLY and even been willing to be arrested to make themselves heard. Out of all the groups single payer people should be lauded as the example of what Teddy Roosevelt truly meant with that quote.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:10:07 PM EST
    You get the negotiating posture.  I join you in the kudos for those who have kept trying to push Obama to the left . . . so that he might end up in the center, anyway.

    Parent
    Ummm... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:16:20 PM EST
    Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It is not single-payer.

    It allows the private insurance industry to remain as a competitor.  It just provides a much cheaper public option for people.  It actually does what everyone claims the existing "public options" do, but actually don't.

    Incidentally, why is a "public option that's like Medicare" (a fraudulent claim by the way) better than/or any worse than a public option that IS Medicare?

    Parent

    Even single payer (none / 0) (#70)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    countries have private insurance entities from what I understand.

    I tend to lean towards a voluntary public option from my own standpoint because it gives people a fallback in the unlikely event the government doesn't create efficiencies(emphasis on unlikely because the evidence supports it being able to create a system that pays less while providing more security for its citizenry).

    My position doesn't change my admiration for those that are committed to a single payer system though. They seem to know what they want and are willing to fight to get there. I totally think it embodies the quote above.

    Parent

    We're nearly the saying the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:33:19 PM EST
    Medicare for Anyone Who Wants It is a voluntary public option.

    I agree, as I think you do, that there are still a whole bunch of people stuck on this illusion that their private insurance is okay, when, in actuality when the crap hits the fan they're in the same boat as the 47 million without health insurance.

    I'm just saying provide a real public option (allow people and businesses to buy into Medicare), not an illusion of one.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    It sounds like we ARE on the same page. My biggest problem  with what I have heard about the public option is that alot of the proposals seem to emphasize limiting the number who would be eligble for it(which weakens it and makes it easier to demolish). I want an option open to anyone. I believe the public should have a right to choice and no one should be allowed to be held hostage by the private industry.

    Parent
    They call it the "firewall" (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by DWCG on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    There are several provisions that limit who and when a person can be eligible for the public option.  But there are other impediments like the lack of an existing provider network - basically a requirement for a program (that would operate more like a non-profit health insurance company) to start from scratch.

    Just think of the logic of all that: Why would a person, even one who is eligible for the public option, transfer to a network that has no doctors?

    Many people question whether a "public option," as currently envisioned by Congress would even survive.  CBO says it would only have 10-11 million.

    I agree with the P.O. advocates who say there are forces who are doing everything in their power to fight a public option.  But these same people seem oblivious to the fact that the same entities have already succeeding in sufficiently hamstring a public option.

    Parent

    I've read the exceptions and I agree (none / 0) (#93)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:38:35 PM EST
    that they are too broad. I still think we have time to get it fixed though. We just need to keep the pressure up.

    Parent
    Submitted for your consideration: (none / 0) (#92)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    Brad DeLong's Health Care Reform: Memories of 1994
    ... The plurality view in the Treasury Department ... had six analytical pieces:

    (1) There were not even 50 votes available in the U.S. Senate for any health-care reform bill sponsored by President Clinton. It did not matter what the bill included ... though the Democrats had a majority in the Senate, they could not pass Clinton's bill--whatever it was--even if the Republicans did not filibuster it ...
    Sounds like a fantasy to me (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    I'm sure they thought those things at Treasury but it just goes to show you how naive and stupid Dems are.

    Parent
    No, these were the realists (none / 0) (#102)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 11:33:47 PM EST
    ... and they were as close to right as you could get in those days.

    Parent
    CRAP. That is what the fight is for. (none / 0) (#100)
    by feet on earth on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:09:07 AM EST
    Many on this board during the primary figured out that Obama was no progressive and worked to get Hillary nominated. It didn't happen, partly because the establishment (Donna and Company) did not want her, partly because many Dems bought into the "Hillary could not win the General Election" meme. This was discussed here at great length.

    The side that went for what was Winnable as opposed to what was the Best won and we got Obama.  

    Now, what I don't understand is the surprise or disappointment of the people here who went for the Winnable in witnessing Obama doing the same. He is not fighting for the best, but for anything that he can label as a victory.

    I am not suggesting that those who voted for him regardless of the many indications he was going to operate from a center-right position should not try to push him left, I am just saying that we should not expect what we were not willing to do in the first place.

    As an indipendent(after many years of carrying the Dem flag)who now supports only those that demonstrates a strong left view of the world, I can only say that I glad Hillary is not the Vice nor a Senator. She may be the only one who will come out clean from this fiasco. And who knows, it may be enough to make her the "Winneble" choise next time around.    
         

    Parent

    I see you don't know where I'm coming from (none / 0) (#101)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 11:32:42 PM EST
    See this post from Feb 2008.

    Parent
    What Are We Fighting For? | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment