Robert Reich: Obama Should Have Gone With a Comprehensive Public Insurance Plan

[kpete]

Robert Reich: Obama Should Have Gone With a Comprehensive Public Insurance Plan
Not surprisingly, private health insurers cheered on the Republicans while doing whatever they could to block Democrats from creating a public insurance system.

..................

Now that the essential Republican plan for healthcare is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant.

Last week, after the giant insurer Wellpoint raised its earnings estimates, CEO Joseph Swedish pointed to “the long-term membership growth opportunity through exchanges.” Other major health plans are equally bullish. “The emergence of public exchanges, private exchanges, Medicaid expansions … have the potential to create new opportunities for us to grow and serve in new ways,” UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J. Hemsley effused.

So why are today’s Republicans so upset with an Act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it’s the signature achievement of the Obama administration.

There’s a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway.

MORE:
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18283-robert-reich-l-obama-should-have-gone-with-a-comprehensive-public-insurance-plan

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. And it would have been unquestionably constitutional. n/t

[russspeakeasy]

2. That was back in the President's "Can't we all just get along" days.

[truebluegreen]

5. Yup. We can thank him, and Max Baucus, the Blue Dogs and

particularly that swine Joe Lieberman for this decidedly-less-than-ideal program...which is still better than what we had.

[geek tragedy]

7. Don't forget DINO Ben Nelson and his abortion antics, nt

[geek tragedy]

3. As much as we wished that Lincoln, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Olympia Snowe

didn't have tremendous amounts of leverage in crafting the ACA, they did.

Just a fact.

Also a fact was that the Democratic margin of majority in the House during that time consisted largely of Blue Dog/New Democrat types, plus a bunch of anti-choicers as well.

So, yeah, Obama could have asked for this or that. But what matters is what got 218 votes in the House and ultimately 60 votes in the Senate.

[Dawgs]

8. I think RR's point is that, as President, he should have insisted on a much more progressive bill.

Essentially moving to the middle from the left. Instead, he started in the middle and ended up with Romneycare.

[karynnj]

11. Do you think that he could have persuaded Lieberman or Collins?

In Lieberman's case, it might be the concentration of insurance companies in CT, even though Dodd was fully on board.

I assume that Obama knew he had a short window of opportunity. In addition, he did not have 60 Senators at the beginning of his term - even if he could have counted Franken likely being there later. He needed to get at least some Republicans. I assume that he did speak to likely Republicans like Collins, Spector and Snowe. I also think that is why Baucus worked with the gang of 6. As it was there was only a 4 month window when Obama had 60 votes -- and that was almost too short. It meant that the main bill had to be the Senate bill passed in December - with NO changes because a vote in the Senate would have lost.

[Dawgs]

48. If he would have started with something more progressive, absolutely.

Obama could have moved to Obamacare and got Lieberman and others to accept a public option and/or medicare for everyone over 55.

By starting with Obamacare he had no leverage.

[karynnj]

54. Lieberman specifically rejected Medicare for those over 55

This was in November/December 2009 when they were working on the final version. That was am option that Baucus was willing to include if he could get all 60 Democrats. Obama was supportive. Lieberman went public saying he would not vote for that. No Republican was in favor -- so there were not 60 votes.

Obama was in favor of a public option. Howard Dean had a web site that monitored the number of Senators and Congressmen in favor. It never had enough support -- even counting Snowe who said she would favor a triggered public option.

You don't gain leverage by taking positions unlikely to be close to winning.

[Dawgs]

59. Of course he did. Obama had absolutely no leverage.

Obama lost every bit of bargaining power when he let a blue dog like Baucus write the fucking bill.

If I'm selling a car I wouldn't start with the minimum amount I'm willing to take and expect to force the buyer to pay more. It's just stupid. That's exactly what happened with the ACA.

Obama let Baucus come up with the selling price and it turned out to be the most that Lieberman and others were willing to accept.

[geek tragedy]

65. It's certainly possible he could have done more to sideline Baucus, but

unfortunately Baucus was Senate Finance chair and he was a tough guy to sideline regardless of how confrontational Obama wanted to be with him.

And Lieberman was a lot worse than Baucus was on the economics, and DINO Ben was awful on the abortion stuff.

[Dawgs]

71. So, then why did we elect Obama if Baucus, Lieberman, and others were going to design ALL policy?

Can you at least put a small bit of the blame on the guy who was actually President?

[geek tragedy]

74. He mishandled a lot of it. There are about 1000 scenarios as far as how this could have

gone. How many would result in a strong public option? Maybe 10/1000.

[Dawgs]

92. 10/1000 with a weak President. Much higher with a stronger one. n/t

[geek tragedy]

94. Sigh. You're way to obsessed with the idea that the President is a national daddy

figure who can just impose his will on Congress if he is 'strong' enough.

[Dawgs]

96. Sigh. All I wanted was for him to try. Instead, he left it up to the blue dogs. n/t

[woo me with science]

114. +1 That's the game.

And until we get money out of politics, including our own party, the scam on the 99 percent will continue.

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

[chimpymustgo]

170. Woo, this should be pinned to the top of the page. How they play us. And the SUCKERS who fall for it

They play us for fools - because too many of us actually ARE.

[geek tragedy]

157. That doesn't even make sense.

He left it up to Congress, because Congress is what needs to pass it.

And that meant 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

Unless there are 218 solid, honest liberals in the House and 60 of them in the Senate, there's problems.

[Dawgs]

194. So you're admitting that he's worthless when it comes to policy then. Nice to know. n/t

[geek tragedy]

195. No, he's neither powerless nor omnipotent. nt

[Dawgs]

198. Too late. You've already said he has to leave policy up to Congress. Can't take it back now. n/t

[geek tragedy]

199. Yes, I made the remarkable observation that when it comes to passing

acts of Congress, Congress has to do it.

This must be a stunning revelation for you.

[Dawgs]

200. I know exactly know you meant, and I'm not surprised one bit. At least you're consistent. n/t

[geek tragedy]

201. Yes, I understand how government actually works, as opposed to

people who thinks that Presidents just make shit happen, as well as the angry white people who insist that Obama and the 90% of African Americans and the 70% of Latinos who support him aren't 'real Democrats' i.e. Obama-hating white people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3729017

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3729222

The vast majority of blacks of Latinos are being ignored by the Democratic leaders.

It's not my fault if they don't get it.

[Dawgs]

209. Except I never said, or don't believe, that Presidents make shit happen.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

And, bringing up old arguments that you lost to try and win a current argument is the number one most pathetic thing I've ever seen on DU.

Truly amazing, and quite hilarious. Oh, and also very desperate.

[geek tragedy]

210. In your view, how does a bill become a law? nt

[Dawgs]

213. What does that have to with Obama not pushing for something more progressive than the ACA?

[geek tragedy]

214. Obama did push for a public option, and also lowering the Medicare age was put on

the table and was ready to be enacted, when Lieberman threatened to filibuster.

The president can 'push' all he wants, but what matters is votes, and the Senate rules give indidvidual senators way too much power.

[Dawgs]

215. Sorry. I'm starting this argument over again. Look at my previous posts if want an answer. n/t

[geek tragedy]

216. Yes, your answer is that you would have done a much better job.

Because you know everything about how to move a bill through Congress--just be 'strong' and show 'leadership.'

[Drunken Irishman]

186. He got something done...

You said a stronger president would have been able to get something through. Okay, so, why didn't it happen? Was Clinton weak? Was Carter weak? Was Johnson weak? Was Kennedy weak? Was Truman weak? Was FDR weak? None of those presidents came anywhere near offering universal healthcare or a plan that would open the doors to millions of Americans. The closest we got was Medicare and that had its limitations too (limitations today that are still there). Was Johnson weak and that's why we don't have Medicare For All? Of course not. He knew what could and could not pass. It passed. Today, liberals celebrate Medicare ... even though it didn't go far enough all the way back then.

[mountain grammy]

77. That's how I remember it.

And the tea baggers, and the death panels and the hatred and lies spewed out of the mouths of the talking idiots on radio and teevee. The fights against Medicare and Civil Rights legislation was ugly, indeed, but at least we could rely on decent network news to present some of the issues truthfully. The crap that passes for "news" these days is appalling.
We got passed what could get passed. It works in Mass. It will eventually lead to single payer and we all know it.

[sabrina 1]

181. Yes, just like other Dem President's have made it clear to their party

members that their cooperation was necessary to pass signature Democratic policies. Lieberman didn't want to lose his committee positions. HE, not WE, would have had to compromise.

The problem was that Obama supported what passed, he said so, he stated that he got most of what he wanted.

We need an Alan Grayson in the WH. Someone who puts up with no BS from anyone. All that 'compromise' we were told was so necessary, where did it get anyone?

There's an old Irish saying 'You may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'. As Reich says, Republicans were going to oppose ANYTHING Dems were FOR, even their own HC Bill.

But if we had gone for a Singe Payer system, the PUBIC would have been supportive and Republicans would have done what they are doing now.

[geek tragedy]

14. Problem was Lieberscum kept on moving the goalposts.

Lieberman supported lowering the Medicare age to 55. When the decision was made to concede the public option and get that instead, Lieberman yanked it off the table and threatened to filibuster, just to be a dick.

So, they would have been better off just taking that instead of pushing the public option, as it turned out.

Negotiations aren't as simple as "start out extreme and you'll get a better deal."

[Dawgs]

53. Romneycare + PO was hardly "extreme". It was more like center-left.

It may not have been easy, but starting with a far left single payer and moving to Obamacare plus a public option and/or Medicare for all under 55 is not that far fetched.

[geek tragedy]

57. No, it wasn't extreme. But the problem was the math in the Senate, which made

that prick Lieberman a kingmaker. He was the 60th vote, and then he flip-flopped on a position he had held for years, and said he'd filibuster any bill with a public option or lowered Medicare age.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/liebermans-medicare-flip_n_391732.html

Note that in 18 months, Lieberman went from pushing for lowering the Medicare eligibility to 65 to recommending that it be raised to 67.

[Dawgs]

61. See post #59. n/t

[JDPriestly]

63. He did not allow single payer advocates to sit at the table and discuss health insurance reform

at the White House. That was a huge, huge mistake. That would have brought some balance and fresh ideas to the discussions.

One of the biggest mistakes Obama has made. Just one of them. Republicans would now be saying "At least we missed the bullet" now and telling constituents "It could be worse. They wanted single payer. Look how much we saved you. We were the victors" instead "Mandate. Mandate. Mandate."

Very amateurish negotiation techniques. No wonder he has to have the NSA listening in on the phones of other world leaders. That's the only way they can make sure he figures out what the right negotiating stance is. Oh, dear!!!!!

Negotiating successfully is something you learn over time I think. Oh, dear!!!!

President Obama is a great guy and a good president in many respects but, oh,dear!!! Negotiating is not his strong point. He doesn't know how to show his teeth or stiffen his back or even move into the butting stance. He doesn't know how to signal from body language (and I suppose other language) this far and no further. Michelle must handle the child discipline in the family because the children are extremely well behaved, and Obama doesn't seem to have a clue.

[whathehell]

192. +1000..

"President Obama is a great guy and a good president in many respects but, oh,dear!!! Negotiating is not his strong point. He doesn't know how to show his teeth or stiffen his back or even move into the butting stance. He doesn't know how to signal from body language (and I suppose other language) this far and no further"

Could not have said it better -- I don't understand why someone as conflict averse as Obama appears to be would go into politics.

Politics requires someone with good, tough negotiating skills -- Someone who knows how to fight and doesn't give

a rat's ass as to whether or not we "all get along".

[cui bono]

113. Exactly.

I am amazed at how many people refuse to see that. It's basic negotiating.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. I think there would be great value today if a beter plan had been advocated by Obama, even if

we wound up with this, because now this is called 'Obama's plan' and he is having to explain the problems with that which is in fact the Blue Dog Republican Plan.

[geek tragedy]

15. the plan advocated by Obama was better than what passed, but

what passes Congress is what he's stuck with.

Heck, the plan Joe Lieberman said he would support early on was more progressive than the one he threatened to filibuster later.

[zipplewrath]

49. Straight out of the gate?

If you look at what he was proposing, straight out of the gate, those 4 musta had some REAL early influnce.

No where was anything like what Reich is talking about present in the earliest proposals. Quite the opposite, it was clearly a merging of the Heritage plan and the Romneycare concepts, straight out of the gate. And from that point on it only move RIGHT. One wonders where we could have ended up if we had started further to the left. At least allowed single payer to "come to the table" (or to the hearings).

[geek tragedy]

55. That was the plan he campaigned on--it was based on the plan

enacted by the heavily Democratic Massachusetts legislature.

Time to complain about the basic structure of his plan would have been in 2007.

It also didn't help when guys like Lieberman moved the goalposts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/liebermans-medicare-flip_n_391732.html

[Bluenorthwest]

69. He campaigned on a strong public option and his oppostion to individual mandates.

He used those two points every way he could. He sent me mail saying Hillary wanted to pick my pocket with an individual mandate. He gave speeches in which he said trying to solve our health care problems by mandating that everybody buy insurance is like trying to solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house.
All of that was instantly abandoned after Rick Warren said amen.

[geek tragedy]

73. The individual mandate stuff was a counterattack against Hillary after

she went after him for not including one, stating that it meant that his plan wouldn't provide true universal coverage.

Krugman backed Clinton up on that, and got a ton of flack from the Obamafans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman&_r=0

Professor Krugman is very smart.

Strong public option was of course a great idea, as was lowering the Medicare age. But, thanks to Lieberscum etc, Medicare age lowering was scrapped alongside public option, though honestly the type of public option they were talking about towards the end was weak and not worth it.

[zipplewrath]

133. 'Kay, but

Okay, but you said it was due to Lincoln et. al. Now you're saying it was Obama. Which is it?

[geek tragedy]

135. The plan as it started was fairly centrist, with a few sprinklings of

genuinely liberal reforms.

Blanche, Joe, Ben & Co took a lot of those good liberal sprinklings out.

And Nelson demagogued the abortion issue for good measure. Remember the Stupak Amendment?

The law was probably close to as good as could get through any US Congress, but that says a lot more about how shitty Congress is than how great the law was.

[zipplewrath]

138. Heritage Foundation

Even Obama explained that it was "not all that different" from what the GOP (i.e. the Heritage Foundation) wrote up in the '90s to oppose Clinton. How that is "centrist" is a stretch. It was a GOP plan that the GOP never had to vote for.

[geek tragedy]

144. If you haven't picked up on the GOP's game (including Lieberman and Heritage) when

they do bother to come up with a proposal, they do so with 2 things in mind:

1) they try to make it seem reasonable--"why can't the president compromise and join us in passing this kind of plan" and

2) the nanosecond the Democrats take them up on it, they disown it and brand it socialism (see Lieberman and the Medicare eligibility age).

Also, when people talk about "Romneycare" they conveniently forget that it was a very liberal Massachusetts legislature that passed that plan, with some elements coming via an override of Romney's veto.

In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[23] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[24] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[25] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[26]

[zipplewrath]

145. Still trying to see how Lincoln et. al. drove Obama to pick this up

Heritage actually liked their plan. In fact the whole time that Obama was trying to get it passed, their staff was under instructions not to comment at all, for fear that their support would kill the plan. They far from disowned it, they worked to ensure it passed.

And the Romneycare part that they picked up was the mandate. Not exactly the liberal feature.

[geek tragedy]

150. You have sourcing for the claim that Heritage secretly liked Obamacare?

The reason they didn't want it discussed seems to be more obviously explained by embarrassment and especially loss of donors.

The ACA is a lot more like the Massachusetts law than it is like the Heritage plan.

Heritage plan, by the way, didn't get rid of pre-existing condition exclusions or community rating. That's kind of important.

Read all about it (bottom of page 5):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/159348726/Heritage-Health-Care-Plan

[zipplewrath]

207. Closest I've found

I saw the original back in the 2010 time frame on a talking head show with some guy formerly employed by Heritage. The closest I have is this from Krugman. (Who characterizes your differences as "trivial&quot

[geek tragedy]

208. Professor Krugman is mistaken as you can clearly see from reading the

actual Heritage plan I linked to. Heritage plan offered neither guaranteed issue nor community rating.

Per page 5 of the Heritage plan:

Some insurers certainly would specialize in low-risk families, and the market no doubt would be intense. That would drive down insurance costs for healthier Americans. But other insurers would specialize in higher-risk people--at a higher price. Just as it does for life insurance, the market would offer differently priced plans for different medical histories, and the services covered would be tuned to the segment of the market being sought (an improvement on the "one-size-fits-all" plans normally offered by employers)."

The Heritage plan's idea of subsidies, btw, was a 20% government subsidy for catastrophic health care plans.

"Americans would have more incentive to pay directly for routine, modest health expenditures and to reserve insurance protection for potentially heavy costs."

In other words, catastrophic insurance would be the goal, with no coverage of preventive care.

[zipplewrath]

211. And this is due to Lincoln et. al.

And this has something to do with Lincoln et. al. driving Obama to choose this conservative/GOP approach to things (Even Obama said that it "wasn't all that much different&quot .

[geek tragedy]

212. Huh? Krugman's main complaint with Obama's plan

during the campaign in 2008 was the lack of a mandate.

Massachusetts legislature plan--passed on the strength of liberal Democrats--is a closer analogy.

Lincoln et al definitely made it more conservative/worse.

[zipplewrath]

228. But you said

But you said that the conservative document that ORIGINATED was caused by Lincoln and company and I still don't see how that happened. Everything you've argued showed that the administration chose to start from the starting point that they did, and that it included a significant amount of GOP/Heritage inspired work, even by Obama's own admission. Lincoln et. al. only made it MORE conservative.

[geek tragedy]

229. If I said that the conservative document was originated by Lincoln & Co

I did so inadvertently.

The whole Obamacare/RomneyCare/Massachusetts/Heritage/Clinton/Edwards plan labeling stuff is non-descriptive spin.

The US constitution is set up to prevent stuff like comprehensive health care reform. So, only something a lot more conservative than it should be was going to get through--as evidenced by 5 decades of failures on that front.

[bvar22]

127. The Obama Administration had TONS of "leverage" that went unused.

Lieberman and Lincoln were well rewarded for playing Judas in the Kabuki Theater
that killed REAL Health Care Reform.

Lieberman had nothing to lose, so he took one for Team DLC and retained all his seniority, committee chairs, and perks.
Lincoln, the Wicked Witch who Killed the Public Option received an Oval Office Endorsement from the White House in the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010.

[geek tragedy]

129. nice conspiracy theory, wherein every shitty thing that any

Democratic Senator does is actually the fault of the President.

Very convenient for those with one-track minds.

[bvar22]

131. No. It is called "politics",

and when you grow up and start noticing the patterns,
you will be able to see it too!


Waa. It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!
He was a Superman BULLY who beat up the president
and ruined health care for all of us.
There was NOTHING we could Doooooo.
It was horrible.

Not a pretty sight,
and not an effective excuse.

Presidents KNOW how to get what they want,
and Obama is as good a President as any.
He KNOWS how to use power and influence,
or he would have never made it To the TOP in CHICAGO.

"It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. "

You can keep believing the bullshit
and propagating the talking point excuses,
but I've been watching Presidents for too long to buy into the bullshit.
I'm going to keep looking behind the screen because that is where the TRUTH is.
DINO Obstructionists Blanche Lincoln was rewarded with an Oval Office Endorsement from the White House that rescued her failing Democratic Primary Campaign against a Democrat who supported a Public Option and was pollling better than Lincoln in the general Election.
YOU explain THAT.

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."



http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

[geek tragedy]

132. Lincoln got the endorsement in exchange for voting for the ACA itself.

Lieberman endorsed McCain in 2008 and had just gotten elected as an Independent. Good luck reasoning/threatening him under those circumstances. Especially when they needed his vote to be #60.

Democrats were PISSED at Lieberman when he flip-flopped on Medicare age. But, they needed his vote.

LBJ as President never had to deal with filibusters the way Obama did. There were only 32 Republicans in the Senate when he was President, and some of them were actual moderates/liberals.

As Senate Majority Leader, he was good but was working with a Republican president, so his job was a lot easeir than Reid's was.

[bvar22]

136. Excuses, excuses, excuses,...and more excuses.

So NOW you are selling Conspiracy Theories just two posts after attacking me for posting Conspiracy Theories ?
Oh the IRONY...it BURNS.

Consistency is the hallmark of an honest broker.

ALL politics is about Conspiracies.
Now...take the next step and look behind the screens.


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their excuses.

[geek tragedy]

141. Congress is a coequal branch of government.

It is not under the control of the President. Senators do not take orders from the President. He can lobby, beg, whatever.

The real question is why the President is the one to blame for the faults of a Congress that was designed in 1789 to thwart change.

[questionseverything]

137. from woo's excellent post #114

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

[pnwmom]

163. Greenwald, the Libertarian, is lying about the Dems.

The truth is that the public option didn't pass because, while only 50 votes were necessary for passage, 60 votes were still required for cloture -- to allow the vote to be taken at all. And of the 60 Dems and Independents, Lieberman from Connecticut, insurance capitol of the world, was the holdout.

Lieberman voted against cloture and that was the end of the public option.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/10/did_lieberman_just_kill_the_public_option.html

One largely unspoken assumption behind Reid's quest to get an "opt out" version of the public option through the Senate is that he doesn't really need 60 votes for the health reform bill itself. He just needs 60 votes for the cloture motion prior to final passage. Once a filibuster is cut off, health reform can pass with 50 votes (the 51st being Vice President Joe Biden, president of the Senate).


___________________________________

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-never-secretly-killed-the-public-option-its-a-myth/2011/11/17/gIQAZQt0UN_blog.html


Did Obama secretly kill the public option?

The question is still an important one for many liberals. The claim lives on to this day, and is still seen as perhaps the clearest evidence from Obama’s first term that liberals ultimately can’t trust him on their core priorities, and won’t be able to trust him going forward.

But did he? A close look suggests there’s no evidence that he did.

The latest version of this assertion comes today in a Drew Westen Op ed. He claims as outright fact that even as pundits endlessly debated the public option, in reality “the president had cut a deal with health care industry executives to block it the year before.”

Westin links to what appears to be confirmation for this story, and it’s been repeated by others. However, if you follow the links the story starts to dissolve — after a couple levels of assertions that this “deal” has been proven, it turns out to be built on some very murky stuff.

SNIP

[questionseverything]

168. reconciliation bypasses filibuster

...........But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option

[jeff47]

174. Laws passed by reconciliation also only lasts a decade.

Which is a very bad idea for a public option. We'd just be signing up people right now, and the public option would go "poof" in 4 years.

A new bill would have to pass to make it permanent, and that would still be subject to filibuster.

[dreamnightwind]

143. Excellent

And re another point thrown around in this thread, that he shouldn't have relied so much on DINO's like Baucus, Baucus IS Obama. At least two of his main advisors are former Baucus staffers (Plouffe and Messina, IIRC).

Also the company in the OP whose earnings estimates are up, Wellpoint, is the company whose lobbyist's name appears in the metadata of a draft of the ACA as the author of that legislation. Now they see future earnings growth, I am shocked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7359379

...."Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit watchdog organization in Santa Monica has asked California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to investigate its claim that WellPoint Inc. pushed workers to write their elected officials, attend town hall meetings and enlist family and friends to ensure an overhaul that matches the firm’s interests. According to Consumer Watchdog, California's labor code directly prohibits coercive communications, including forbidding employers from "tending to control or direct" or "coercing or influencing" employees' political activities or affiliations."

Elizabeth J. Fowler is now the Senior Counsel to Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and leading opponent of the "public option" in healthcare reform. “People know when Liz is speaking, she is speaking for Baucus,” said Dean Rosen, the health policy adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). (if you open the bill and look under document properties, it lists her as author).

With Fowler as author one might say that Wellpoint and Anthem BC wrote the bill.

Keeping the single payer people out of the room, to me, was the ultimate tell. It was the best solution, it was what the out-of-control costs indicated we needed, it was what much of the world successfully uses, it was unquestionably constitutional, yet single payer advocates were literally arrested when they showed up uninvited to the meetings while the insurance lobbyists sat at the table with the Obama team.

Instead of being arrested, they should have been the keynote speakers, and if we couldn't get it done, at least the stance would have been taken, the issue legitimized, and we could have moved a little from that position to a compromise that the Republicans could have presented to their base as a victory.

Would everything have gone as I say? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll never know, because it was never attempted. The plan all along was to keep single payer away from the table, and to implement a corporate based plan. That's not because of what was or wasn't possible, it's because of who we elected and who was running the show behind the scenes.

[pnwmom]

164. Lieberman took one for the Connecticut insurance industry.

Connecticut is the insurance capitol of the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-never-secretly-killed-the-public-option-its-a-myth/2011/11/17/gIQAZQt0UN_blog.html

Did Obama secretly kill the public option?

The question is still an important one for many liberals. The claim lives on to this day, and is still seen as perhaps the clearest evidence from Obama’s first term that liberals ultimately can’t trust him on their core priorities, and won’t be able to trust him going forward.

But did he? A close look suggests there’s no evidence that he did.

The latest version of this assertion comes today in a Drew Westen Op ed. He claims as outright fact that even as pundits endlessly debated the public option, in reality “the president had cut a deal with health care industry executives to block it the year before.”

Westin links to what appears to be confirmation for this story, and it’s been repeated by others. However, if you follow the links the story starts to dissolve — after a couple levels of assertions that this “deal” has been proven, it turns out to be built on some very murky stuff.

[sabrina 1]

146. When the Dem leadership wants unity, they can get it.

The problem was that this was what they wanted. Obama himself stated that he got almost all of what he wanted.

[geek tragedy]

151. When Dem leadership gets unity, they thank their lucky stars.

Democrats are notoriously disorganized. Blue Dogs have been screwing Democratic Presidents for generations.

[sabrina 1]

173. When the leadership is on the page as the Blue Dogs, when they

campaign for Blue Dogs over Progressives, when the President states that he got most of what he wanted in the HC Bill, blaming it on 'not having enough support that was never tried, just doesn't cut it.

[rhett o rick]

179. So do you agree that the Blue Dog Democrats are the scourge of the Party? nm

[grahamhgreen]

190. This is a revisionist meme; he wouldn't even let single payer advocates into the original meetings:

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s go to Margaret Flowers, Baltimore pediatrician and congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program, who is definitely in favor of that. Single payer was not a part of yesterday’s discussion. No advocate was there — Dennis Kucinich, not Physicians for a National Health Program. Your group asked to be represented, Dr. Flowers?

DR. MARGARET FLOWERS: We did, because the President had stated that health experts should be involved in this process. And so, we wanted to offer our services as people that do research in this area. And indeed, they quoted several of our studies during the summit.

AMY GOODMAN: What happened? Why wasn’t anyone represented?

DR. MARGARET FLOWERS: Well, you know, this has been a series of — throughout the entire health process, that we’ve been excluded from this discussion. I think it’s pretty basic. It hearkens back to the special interests that have been involved in this process, you know, and we — it’s really interesting to watch this debate, because so many of the areas that the President and Congress are talking about — cost controls, increasing coverage, excluding pre-existing conditions — all of these would be met through a national Medicare-for-All system. But — so we win, you know, on the policy. But there is such a heavy influence from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that they, I guess, felt threatened by the presence of the single-payer advocates.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/26/healthcare_summit_ends_in_deadlock_single

[geek tragedy]

193. Single payer was never on the table. Wasn't during the campaign either. nt

[grahamhgreen]

220. That's the point. It is the better idea and would have avoided all the blowback the admin is

getting.

It would have been better for the people, controlled costs and provided better care.

In fact, it is inevitable... Just that now it will happen state by state

[geek tragedy]

221. It's a goal, but going cold turkey for single payer was not plausible.

For one, there's a big uproar these days over 3-6% of the population not being able to keep their bare bones policies.

Imagine proposing that EVERYONE's insurance policy get taken away and replaced by a government program.

Medicare for all? Sounds good. Any idea how much of a tax increase would have been necessary to pay for it?

Would the healthcare.gov tech team have been in charge of implementing it?

Single payer never drew serious opposition because it was never a serious possibility.

In retrospect, they should have banked the optional buy-in for Medicare at 55 and traded away the public option in exchange for it.

[grahamhgreen]

231. Well, it's actually what most of Americans want, so it would have happened, IMHO, but I can agree on

just doing the buy in at 55!!!

[woo me with science]

4. Bait and switch.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Surrrre

Nice piece of cake served from the ivory tower. Yum.

[karynnj]

9. It did not have 60 votes in the Senate - and was not going to get 60 votes because of Lieberman,

Lincoln and likely others.

The Democrats only had 60 votes for 4 months - and they had to get EVERY Democrat because even Snowe and Collins were not "gettable". If I know this, I assume that Reich does too. I would love to hear how he thinks this could have passed the Senate.

[woo me with science]

12. The public option was very popular in polls, and public opinion

could have been mobilized to change those numbers if Democrats had chosen to fight and rally for it. Instead, there was a policy of deliberate silence.

Corporatists deliberately narrow the scope of debate so they can argue that liberal solutions aren't viable. They do that because they KNOW their "lesser of two evils" con falls apart when the public is offered the option of solutions that actually meet their needs.

[karynnj]

16. Do you really think one Republican would have been swayed by the public opinion numbers?

Any Republican would know that a vote for that would mean a challenge and they would lose in the primary. Not to mention, I can't name a Republican who would NOT have been against that from ideological grounds - including Snowe and Collins. This means that you can't even argue they could have moved that way because they thought it the right thing to do.

[woo me with science]

20. Defeatism is *always* the argument. The truth is that

the only time we are able to beat back predatory corporate policy is when the country is united and sees a better option as possible. Look what happened with Syria. Look what is happening now with spying. The truth is that the country *already* supported a public option, which is why public discussion of it was considered a threat.

Rallying the country is the very best tool the people have to force politicians to respond. Ideas are never considered viable until people begin talking about them in a serious way. Corporatist politicians know that. That is why the propaganda is all about limiting the conversation and spreading passivity and defeatism.

[geek tragedy]

26. Now you're using Cruz's "surrender caucus" language!

Yes, if we just insist on what we believe, the American people will rise up and demand that our beliefs be enacted into law.

Maybe they should have defunded the government while demanding a public option.

[woo me with science]

29. ...

[geek tragedy]

30. If the jester's hat fits . . . nt

[karynnj]

41. It would have been a very high stakes risk

With the Congress they had, they could - by the skin of their teeth - get a very major expansion of health care. The expansion of Medicaid alone - that the Supreme Court partially prevented - was in and of itself a very major expansion of the existing single payer health insurance - Medicare and Medicaid.

As to Syria, it was NOT public opinion that made the difference. It was a very significant behind the scenes diplomat effort by Kerry and Lavrov - at the behest of Obama and Putin. Putin had no interest in getting the CW out of Syria until there was a very serious threat that the US would bomb Syrian military assets. That pressure was successfully used by Kerry - and he and Lavrov negotiated a solution that defined the common ground that Russia, the US and Syria (under pressure from Russia as well as the US threat). Note that when Samantha Powers wanted to go further, there was no agreement and the final resolution - that Kerry and Lavrov again negotiated at the UN - was essentially identical to the Geneva agreement.

This agreement was a world wide agreement that chemical weapons should not be used - which is essentially what Obama's red line was. The solution was a better match to Obama's concern than bombing would have been. What you may have missed - in anger over the US threat to attack - is that Obama and Kerry both said very often that this was NOT an attempt at regime change, but a response to using chemical weapons. It was easy to conflate that with Saudi Arabia et al, the neo cons (like McCain) who wanted a far bigger attack that would remove Assad.

In fact, Obama's very nuanced position was an extremely difficult position that he took partly because his words had to mean something -- and because he had meant them when he said them. It is very clear that he was working with Putin on a diplomatic solution in parallel.

Now, had that not happened, it is possible that what you already claim might have happened. There is a very good possibility that Obama might have still ordered the limited attack that he spoke of - maybe before both Houses voted. This is what happened on Libya - so it is impossible to rule it out. There might have been more reason to do so as well. After he had made the case that it was needed, to do nothing would have crippled his foreign policy going forward.

On the NSA, you have a far better case. However, we have still not seen what changes will actually be made. The only thing I think Obama has ruled out is the spying on the world leaders. I hope that there are more constraints - as his is clearly out of control. However, think back to late 2006 when the issue was FISA. I thought there was a good chance - in 2007 - when we had the House and had 51 Senators, that we could stop what was then an illegal effort. Instead by August, the legislation - without many constraints - legalized it and in fact gave the telcos retroactive immunity. There was the same outrage then -- but like now, it was not from the mainstream, but the edges of both parties. The only hope is that where the Democrats concerned - unlike the Republicans in 2007 - will stand on principle not their party's position. Not one Republican voted against it.

It may be that our ONLY chance is to use the libertarian Republicans when we have the Presidency to put limits on this. For the foreign governments, I think it may be that the US needs to lead the way arguing that the solution to the spying on foreign governments needs to be handled by working on an international treaty that will set the rules for everyone.

[woo me with science]

43. No, it would not have been a risk.

There is nothing to be lost by standing up publicly for good policy.

There is *always* something to be lost by deliberately refraining to do so.

[karynnj]

50. Yes it was a risk

Had they spent time pushing for something they were not going to get, it would have meant that they would not have gotten the bill they did get passed through the Senate.

Both Kennedy (HELP) and Baucus ( Finance) started work on the health plan BEFORE the election. (In fact, Senator Kerry spoke of Kennedy being in DC working on that at his reelection rally (and celebration of the Obama victory). Obama initially worked on the stimulus package - which rightfully had to be the first thing he did. When would you have had him go to the public for the program you are speaking of -- and how would that have affected what the committees did?

[woo me with science]

112. From the very beginning, of course. The country *already* polled in support of a public option,

Last edited Thu Oct 31, 2013, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

and if we'd had even half of our intrepid politicians making strong, fact-filled, passionate public speeches about why it is not only possible, but GOOD for the country, that already strong support could have been transformed into public demand that could not have been ignored. That is how change happens.

These arguments of defeatism we hear all the time are absurd, and they are deliberate. Corporatists maintain support for their policies that impoverish millions precisely because they drive home their lying message, over and over again. Corporate Democrats complain incessantly about those evil Republicans and their Fox News brainwashing, but let a real Democrat suggest that our politicians make a sustained effort to COUNTER the lies, and the whining and scolding begin about "risks" and "not possible."

America is finally catching on to the cynical game of corporatists. It is unconscionable that this opportunity was quietly, deliberately trashed. It is unconscionable that, after campaigning as champions of the 99 percent, our President and corporate Democrats make soaring speeches about the need to eat austerity peas or spy on the entire US population, but they cannot muster the will to passionately advocate a policy that will actually help Americans...EVEN when they already control the Presidency and half of Congress, and EVEN when the country clearly supports the policy and could be rallied behind it.

We didn't hear about it BECAUSE the country supported it. That is the sad, ugly truth.

[cui bono]

121. Absolutely correct.

Are people really telling their kids not to even bother trying at all because, hey, what's the point, the other kids are all smarter anyway, or the other team is better so you're not going to win. Why bother going for extra points?

etc... etc... etc...

Astounding.

[JoePhilly]

45. But I heard Putin stopped us from invading Syria.

Maybe he could have gotten 60 votes for single payer.

[TheKentuckian]

80. Nope and we didn't get those votes anyway so fuck em.

The only TeaPubliKlan vote came from the guy in Louisiana, who fumbled into Jefferson's seat after he got busted and that was in the House.

[geek tragedy]

17. "public opinion could have been mobilized to change those numbers"

Ah, the Ted Cruz justification for pursuing the unattainable.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=9191130

He said he and fellow fierce conservatives U.S. Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida have agreed to oppose the spending bill at the end of the budget year in September if it includes funding for the health care law.

"In my view, this is the best opportunity we have to defund Obamacare and quite possibly our last to effectively defund Obamacare," Cruz said.

He also acknowledged, though, that many of his Republican Senate and House colleagues won't support the effort unless "the grassroots rise up in overwhelming numbers and demand it."

[leftstreet]

21. Unattainable? The power of public opinion = See Syria n/t

[geek tragedy]

22. Puh-leaze. Syria resolution never stood a chance of passing Congress--

opposition on the Hill was overwhelming from the start. Democrats opposed it because they didn't want another military adventure. Republicans, other than McCain and his posse, opposed it because it was Obama's idea.

Like comparing apples and green beans.

[leftstreet]

25. Public opinion forced the WH to go to Congress

It started with public opinion in the UK

My point was not underestimating the power of public opinion to shape policy

[geek tragedy]

27. There was a ton of debate over the public option.

Outside of liberal activists, it just wasn't a big deal with most voters.

[YoungDemCA]

217. There was?

The public option was taken "off the table" preemptively by the Democratic Party leadership, if I recall correctly.

[geek tragedy]

219. You remember incompletely.

The bill that passed the House had a public option. But, it was DOA in the Senate, thanks to Lieberscum and his ilk.

[woo me with science]

34. Methinks you are dealing with the "last word" rule.

Anything to extend the subthreads and bury critical points of argument in garbage.

The goal of the propaganda is not to convince anyone of anything...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

I know you know that, but I think it's worth putting here...

[leftstreet]

37. I win!

You lost 'last word position'

[woo me with science]

47. Nah uh!

And also, nothing else but corporate policies are even POSSIBLE!

So there!

[zeemike]

79. +1

And it is obvious sometimes...but still seems to work.

[woo me with science]

35. +10000 Corporatists loudly support policies that help the 99 percent

when they are absolutely certain they cannot be passed.

Polls at the time showed that the public supported and wanted a public option, and would have backed Democrats in publicly demanding it. That's why they wre so careful not to.

[karynnj]

88. In hindsight, I think it was Obama buying time while keeping the pressure on

Buying time to get the agreement he got.

[karynnj]

87. That was NOT public opinion

It was because back stage diplomacy did.

If Kerry and Lavrov had not found common ground and Russia been willing to pressure Syria, it is very likely that Obama would have done what he did on Libya --- gone without the Congress.

[leftstreet]

89. LOL n/t

[karynnj]

100. You are aware that he did go to Libya

when the Senate could not pass a resolution in favor of it and the House had actually passed one saying "no".

Had you watched events leading up to August, you would have seen that Obama was holding back most of the US foreign policy establishment. You also have missed that the chemical weapons agreement has been a turning point in the US's role - to Saudi Arabia's displeasure. You might have also ignored articles claiming only Kerry and Obama want Geneva 2 - and most of the State Department disagrees with them. You might also notice that AIPAC et al are angry with Kerry and Obama over their willingness to negotiate with Iran.

Maybe if Alan Grayson had said that it was irresponsible not to try diplomacy with Iraq and had spoken against those using fear tactics - rather than the SoS - maybe it would get your attention.

However, it more significant that it is the PRESIDENT who took both of these ANTI PNAC positions. Yet though there were hundreds of this is PNAC posts - complete with links - when the limited attack on Syria was proposed, no one seems to notice the start of a pretty significant shift.

[leftstreet]

104. UK & US citizens said NO!

After they did....everything you're talking about is probably somewhat possibly maybe accurate, but no one cares because that wasn't the original point

Public Opinion is powerful - it can make, break, shape policy

[karynnj]

115. "no one cares" -- rather presumptuous to assume that

I agree that public opinion is powerful. There are many things that do not happen because the public is sufficiently against them -- and major change rarely if ever happens without it. Major examples of that are recent changes in gay rights and the long ago civil rights changes.

My point was that Syria was a very poor example. It is also true that the people of the UK and US were against Libya -- and both were involved.

There are likely hundreds of things that could have happened in Syria - including Obama doing nothing. We will not know the results of any path other than the one taken. However, admitting that it involves speculation, I think it easy to argue th there is better than doing nothing. Had Obama done nothing, without having spoken of attacking, many would have questioned his words. Had he done nothing after saying he would, it would have been worse. I say this fully knowing that attacks - even if genuinely planned to be targeted - can expand. As it was, the result will likely save some lives by eliminating the weapons that could have killed many.

[leftstreet]

123. Quite the opposite

It's an excellent example

People seem to 'really care' about military interventions

[karynnj]

126. However, there is NO cause and effect that you can prove

If there had been no diplomatic solution and if Obama had then said that he was not going to attack because he did not have public support or Congressional approval -- then you would have an excellent example.

However, through the hearings, EVERY administration person said Obama thought he had the prerogative to attack without approval. Then there is the example of Libya where he did just that.

[jeff47]

176. Just like it stopped the strikes on Lybia!!!!

Oh wait....

[jeff47]

175. The Republicans just shut down the government, against the vast majority of public opinion.

You really think they'd respond to public opinion about a public option? When they were busy shouting "death panels!!!"?

Please pass what you're smoking.

[zeemike]

75. Funny how that works though.

Bush did not have the votes ether, but still he got what he wanted...how do we explain that to the children?

[karynnj]

86. On what did Bush not have the votes?

He had the votes for the tax cuts - including some Democrats for the first set. He had the votes for the Patriot Act - 99 of them in the Senate, He had the votes for the resolution that started the war on terror - except for Barbara Lee. He had the votes for the IWR.

Now, when Bush did not have the votes --- including drilling in the Arctic and when he wanted to privatize SS -- he could do neither.

[liberal_at_heart]

185. that is such a tired argument.

[jsr]

13. Of course. I don't see a lot of health insurance CEOs whining and moaning about the ACA.

[xchrom]

18. Du rec

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. So, the most popular excuse today is the Lieberman/Baucus/Nelson BS.

What is forgotten or (more likely) ignored is the fact that none of those people had any claim to be in the positions they were in. They were reinstalled by the party, a party that the President is ostensibly the leader of.

We got less than our due because President Obama is/was obsessed with appeasing "conservatives" and he actively excluded the "people who brung him".

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. +1.

We got less than our due because President Obama is/was obsessed with appeasing conservatives and he actively excluded the people who brung him.

[geek tragedy]

24. There's this thing called "elections" you should learn about.

none of those people had any claim to be in the positions they were in

Lieberman was elected to the Senate by the people of Connecticut.

Nelson was elected to the Senate by the people of Nebraska.

Baucus was elected by the people of Montana.

Obama did not appoint them. Reid did not appoint them.

They were elected.

Your post is textbook ODS--blaming Obama for the presence of Lieberman (who won as an Independent), Nelson, and Baucus.

Furthermore, it's flat out crazy talk to state the national party is the reason why Montana and Nebraska didn't elect liberals to the Senate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

31. And here we are again. You ignore what was written and argue against a point

that nobody outside your head, made. The people of NE, CT, MT, or FL do not elect the Chairman of the Finance Committee or who sits on that, or any, committee.

[geek tragedy]

33. You're ignoring the role of the filibuster, because it destroys

your entire argument. Math is math.

Unless you're going to blame Obama for the existence of the filibuster.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. No, I'm not. But if you just keep inventing stuff to argue about long enough, people might forget

what the point actually is and you can pretend you won something.

We can argue about what could have been, but was not, done about the filibuster by a party leader that knows how and is interested in leading in a thread that deals with that. This one is about what R Reich wrote.

[geek tragedy]

40. You falsely claimed that the role of Lieberman, Baucus, and Nelson

in shaping the health care legislation was Obama's fault because he put them in that position.

I corrected your false statement by pointing out under Senate rules it was necessary for each of them to vote for the bill for it to become law, and that neither Senate rules nor their presence in the United States Senate was the fault of President Obama.

Last word is yours.

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. You've corrected nothing, and all you've done is argue with yourself over points

you wish were made so that your argument might have some chance of derailing the conversation away from the topic set by the OP.

I guess that's why we don't talk anymore.

[beerandjesus]

42. Here we go again....

Your post is textbook ODS

[geek tragedy]

46. Blaming Obama for the fact that 60 votes were required to

pass legislation in the Senate, and for the presence of Lieberman, Nelson, and Baucus in the US Senate, and that Blue Dogs had significant leverage in the House, is pure ODS--factually false, irrational, and derived from a psychological need to blame Obama for stuff out of his control.

60 votes--including those of Baucus, Lieberman, and Nelson, were necessary regardless of who would have been president. Blaming Obama for that math is delusional.

[beerandjesus]

51. You legitimize the tea baggers by aping their tactics.

You're half right on the substance, but I see precious little difference between your cry of 'ODS!' and the bagger's cry of 'BENGHAZI!'

ODS is a bagger syndrome. Don't call fellow DUers baggers and I won't call you out for doing it.



Incidentally, LBJ would have had 60 votes.

[geek tragedy]

60. LBJ had 68 Democrats in the Senate. nt

[beerandjesus]

62. That doesn't excuse calling DUers tea-baggers

...which is what the ODS slander is.

[geek tragedy]

68. It's not calling them Teabaggers.

It's an ideology-free term. Since Obama tends to be a centrist squish, he gets it from both sides, though the right has a lot more of it since they have a lot more crazies and virtually all of the virulent racists.

[beerandjesus]

76. In the real world, it is not an ideology-free term.

I'll spare you the hassle of a quick Google search. Here are the first three results:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obama%20derangement%20syndrome

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/real-world-consequences-obama-derangement-syndrome

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/how-obama-derangement-syndrome-is.html


In the Real World, i.e. the world outside of Internet forums, ODS is a bagger affliction, and is a manifestation of the right-wing attributes you correctly identify (craziness and virulent racism). Attributing left-wing criticism of Obama with tea-bag ODS is about as intellectually honest as saying Republicans can't possibly be racist because George Wallace was a Democrat.

If you intend no malice, then cut it out. There are plenty of good names to call people. "Asshole" is an ideology-free term. "ODS" is not.

[geek tragedy]

78. Are you denying that there are Firebaggers? nt

[beerandjesus]

84. Yes. Because you're using the same slander in the term "Firebagger" as you are in the term "ODS".

When you start calling those who reflexively agree with Obama "Tea-bama-ers" or something equally witty, we can reassess.

And incidentally, are you calling Firedoglake subscribers racist? Because it sure sounds to me like you are.

[geek tragedy]

90. Well, if you insist that every single critic of Obama from the left

is rational and measured in their critiques, we inhabit different planes of reality.

The posters at Firedoglake, with a diminishing few exceptions, are hardcore nutjobs.

https://www.google.com/#q=impeach+obama+site:firedoglake.com

And, yes, we have ODS leftwing nutjobs here at DU as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3190546

This goes so far beyond the limit that it cannot stand.

Impeach, or kiss America goodbye.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389& topic_id=7127032&mesg_id=7127101

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102 x4886453

[beerandjesus]

93. So you might as well call them racists?

Because that's what you're doing. Bagger ODS is rooted in racism.

There's a big difference between knee-jerk suspicion of government and racism. When you accuse DUers of ODS, you're equating guilt of one with guilt of the other.


I wouldn't attack you for calling another poster crazy, irrational, paranoid.... you name it! But calling them baggers is beyond the pale. Is it safe to assume you disapprove of posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache?

[geek tragedy]

95. I accused no one here of being a racist.

We do have loony-tunes, delusional criticisms of him, and those deserve to be called out.

[beerandjesus]

98. Indeed we do. But you DID call them racist.

Or do you think the posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache just make a harmless point about the non-totalitarian aspects of Nazism?

[geek tragedy]

101. The people who call for Obama's impeachment or compare him to Hitler

aren't necessarily racist, just batshit crazy.

[beerandjesus]

105. Then don't call them racist by lumping them in with the racist right.

Words have meanings. The term "ODS" implies racism the same way the terms "Nazi" or "KKK" do.

[geek tragedy]

107. You're the one insisting that ODS means racist.

It's not generally understood that way.

[beerandjesus]

108. I already refuted that "point".

See above.

Outside of DU, "ODS" is a tea-bagger affliction, and tea-baggers are generally motivated by racism.

Why is it so important to you to call DUers tea-baggers? Can you not find a less offensive term to express your feelings?

[geek tragedy]

109. You cited urban dictionary as exemplifying external reality.

That's not a stirring argument.

[beerandjesus]

110. I cited urban dictionary as the first thing that comes up when you Google ODS.

And I only did it to save you the trouble. You're free to do your own research.

When you're finished, please explain why it's so important to you to lump DUers in with tea-baggers.

There are no tea-baggers here. Is it necessary to invent them?

[geek tragedy]

111. ODS is a lot more common on the right.

But it exists on the left.

Last words is yours.

[beerandjesus]

116. We're all allies here. I don't understand why slander is such an important tool in your arsenal.

Honestly.

Some of us on DU support Obama no matter what he does, no matter how heinous; others are suspicious no matter what he does, no matter how positive. We are all here because we love this country, we want what's best for it, and very broadly agree on the direction we should take.

"ODS" has a specific denotation, but it also has a very specific connotation, and you can't claim the one while denying the other. I started this fight because what "ODS" connotes, which is bagger-ism, is an unworthy epithet to level at any DUer. I would like to see it stop.

My hope is that by making explicit what you're implying by leveling that charge--that slander--you will come to agree that it is over the top, and find a more appropriate, less offensive way of dismissing another DUer out of hand.

I often disagree with you, but I generally appreciate your OPs and your contributions to these threads. However, I think you debase yourself when you impute ODS to those you disagree with.

[leftstreet]

97. Wow

Thanks for posting those links

I didn't know that! LOL I thought 'ODS' was a term created by...Ardent Supporters™ here at DU to slam critics of WH policies! Interesting

[beerandjesus]

99. Hahaha! My pleasure... that's why I find the epithet so infuriating.

If geek tragedy calls you an "insane, paranoid motherfucker", I won't take umbrage!

[leftstreet]

103. They know those get hidden

Outright name calling is disallowed

Which is why insinuation has become an artform around here

[beerandjesus]

106. I've been tempted to start flagging posts that accuse DUers of ODS.

As far as I'm concerned, it's an attack on a user's moral character in a way, that calling someone a "bastard" or an "asshole" is not.

You call someone an asshole, you're just pissed. You call someone a racist, you're making a serious accusation.

Hence my one-man crusade!

[bvar22]

159. Well Done!

[karynnj]

118. LBJ would have had 60 votes because the Democrats had 68 Senators in 1964!

Not to mention there was an underlying liberal movement in those years. He also had a huge margin in the House. Still it was a challenge to pass the Civil Rights bill - an issue that cut across party lines with many Dixiecrats being the worst of the bunch. LBJ greatly increased the social safety network and he fought for all those bills.

However, even with 68 Senators, there were things he did not even attempt to pass because he could count votes - just as the Democrats did in 2010! You might note that he passed Medicare -- which helped only the elderly. If he had so little trouble passing anything, why did LBJ not go directly to Medicare for everyone?

Answer - it would not have had the votes!

[beerandjesus]

119. Thank you for making the point without saying "ODS"!

[karynnj]

120. Your welcome, I have always thought the "X" syndromes response no matter who X was is bullying

- and also a sign that the responder has run out of logic arguments. Thus I have always taken that response to mean that I have won the argument.

[beerandjesus]

122. I strive for your serenity!

And I think I need to get a book on LBJ. I confess that I romanticize him a bit, in our current climate, for his reputation for bullying Congress!

[liberal_at_heart]

189. +1

[gopiscrap]

28. agreed

[Auggie]

32. I agree, though we might still be mired in debate over it ...

either way, one big plus: the public option would have better top-of-mind awareness.

[polichick]

36. Yes - Dems "win" only when they implement RepublCON plans...

So which set of voters are the most delusional?

[progressoid]

39. But, but, but...we won!!1

[gussmith]

44. Too Willing to Compromise

with the recalcitrants. Thanks. Single payer health care has been set back generations by Obama's sad handling of the whole mess.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. There's no way that Medicare for all could reward politician-stockholders who voted for the ACA.

Neither politicians nor persons related to them, nor their corporate sponsors, should be allowed to own stock in health insurance companies while passing laws making the purchase of heath insurance mandatory.

If they wanted Medicare for all, they would have promoted and passed Medicare for all.

[ProSense]

58. Obama should have gone with single payer

There’s a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway.

This is one of those handwringing commentaries again. I mean, the health care law barely passe. The public option was being blocked by a few Senate Democrats. Three of them voted against the final bill passed via reconciliation. Does anyone remember the dozens of blue dogs who voted against the final law even with out the public option? The law survived RW attacks on numerous fronts, and shoulda, coulda, woulda isn't going to change things now.

In fact, the best thing to do is push for improvements.

[polichick]

64. I also remember the ads that liberal groups began to run to pressure Blue Dogs...

and the WH standing up for those Senators, while insulting liberals.

[ProSense]

67. It didn't pass, and frankly this is a colossal waste of time.

Nearly 12 million Americans are about to get Medicaid (the other 5 milion are being blocked by Republicans).

The law can be improved.

[polichick]

70. It's a RepubliCON plan - Medicare for all would be the Dem plan.

[ProSense]

72. It's the law, and "would be" isn't going to get people coverage in January. n/t

[zeemike]

82. So is medicare.

And simply lowering the age of eligibility to say 25, the problem would have been solved....and so would the medicare shortfall...but the insurance industry would never allow that would they, so we have to just give up when we know they own us.

[ProSense]

83. Yeah,

"And simply lowering the age of eligibility to say 25, the problem would have been solved....and so would the medicare shortfall...but the insurance industry would never allow that would they, so we have to just give up when we know they own us."

...maybe that will happen soon. Should Obamacare be put on hold until then?

[zeemike]

130. It will never happen unless Democrats try to make it happen

And they will never try to make it happen as long as we make excuses fro them.

[leftstreet]

91. +1

It could have been so simple

[jeff47]

202. That's OK, we designed the plan to do that.

The ACA moves the health care fight to the states. And we will have a much, much easier time getting single-payer or public options in blue states.

The successes of those programs will destroy the anti-single-payer FUD. Which will let us get single-payer or public option in more and more states.

With a majority of states happily using "government healthcare", we can return to the national battle in a much, much stronger position.

Just because "Obamacare" passed doesn't mean the fight is over.

[polichick]

205. Well, the sooner the better - it's way past time to join the civilized world.

[zipplewrath]

134. One in which you invest heavily

For such a colassal waste of time, you spend alot of time on it.

[ProSense]

139. What the hell are you talking about? Here's something more important

than handwringing about why the public option didn't pass.

The Week in Review

The government shutdown dragged into a second week. A growing majority of Democrats and about 20 Republicans in the House favor a Senate-passed resolution to reopen the government, but Speaker John Boehner refused to bring the resolution up for a vote. When House Republicans first forced a shutdown on Oct. 1, they were demanding the defunding of Obamacare as part of any deal. That would be a death sentence for thousands of Americans without health insurance, Sen. Bernie Sanders told a Senate hearing on Thursday. As the week wore on, Republicans shifted their rationale for closing the government and defaulting on the country’s debts. Now they demand deep cuts in Social Security and other programs. The whole spectacle drove public approval of Congress, especially Republicans and the Tea Party, to new lows. As Sanders sized up the situation in a Friday floor speech, he began by citing a piece in The Onion. “Psychiatrists Deeply Concerned for 5% of Americans Who Approve of Congress,” the headline said.

<...>

Obamacare “How many people will die if the Affordable Care Act is repealed?” Sanders asked at a hearing he chaired Thursday on what would happen if Obamacare is repealed. The hearing came on the 10th day of a government shutdown forced by House Republicans insisting that any deal to reopen the government defund the health care law. Watch excerpts from the hearing, Read Greg Kaufmann’s piece in The Nation

<...>

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/the-week-in-review-101113

This Week in Poverty: What ‘Defunding Obamacare’ Really Means

Greg Kaufmann

When the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was in question, independent Senator Bernie Sanders was no easy “yea” vote.

<...>

In the end, Sanders helped to pass the ACA—legislation that Republicans are now so desperate to repeal that they have shut down the government and put the full faith and credit of the US in jeopardy...He noted that “we are (still) the only country in the industrialized world that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to people as a right.” As a result, there are 48 million Americans without health insurance. Under the ACA, 20 million currently uninsured people will finally receive coverage (more if GOP governors get out of the way) and thousands of lives will be saved every year...Sanders pointed to a Harvard study that estimates 45,000 people are dying each year from illnesses that arise due to a lack of health insurance....“For all of those folks saying we have to repeal the Affordable Care Act, what they are doing is passing a death sentence on many of our fellow Americans.”

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a nonprofit organization that advocates for affordable healthcare for all Americans... used a “conservative” methodology—designed by the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine—to determine how many people between the ages of 25 and 64 died in 2010 due to a lack of health insurance.

“We found that approximately 26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage that year,” said Pollack...this breaks down to 2,175 people dying every month, 502 every week, and seventy-two every day...between 2005 and 2010, it added up to 134,000 preventable deaths...That’s a number that resonates with Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who shared his personal experience with health being determined by coverage.

<...>

“These deaths occur invisibly,” he said. “They occur one at a time, all over the place, and it doesn’t say in the obituary ‘died because of no healthcare.’ If it happened all in one town, at one time, we would be moving heaven and earth to solve this problem, if we lost anywhere from 26,000 to 45,000 (people) a year. If we lost the town of Augusta in one year, and the next year it was someplace in Colorado, or Vermont, this society would have dealt with this many, many years ago.”

- more -

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176599/week-poverty-what-defunding-obamacare-really-means

[zipplewrath]

142. You call it a colassal waste of time

and then spend time engaging in the activity, and posting more and more stuff.

[Demo_Chris]

66. I want this guy as President. nt

[Cleita]

81. Of course.

Can anybody remember when it was announced that the public option was not on the table? I remember a public sigh that said nooooooo! across the land.

[ReRe]

85. I totally agree with Reich, but......

... I think it's the wrong time to say "I-told-you-so," out loud on camera. We have to remember that we MUST win the House and Senate back in 2014, and if we just pile on PO, it adds fuel to the Repub's fire. Yeah, he laid down with the dogs and got up with fleas. Not good. But we should support him right now because of the virtual beating he's taking. This is health insurance for those who don't have it.

[WillyT]

102. Yep...

[pnwmom]

117. How was he supposed to overcome Lieberman and the 60 vote requirement?

Lieberman was always the main roadblock, and he came from CT where the large insurance companies rule.

[bvar22]

149. Maybe if he had worked as hard for a Public Option...

...as he did to get a WAR with Syria, things would have been different?

Maybe if he had used his ARMY for CHANGE during TeaBagger Summer instead of abandoning the field to the Republicans we could have moved the ball?

We will never really know, will we.
Nobody here can truthfully say that President Obama worked hard for a Public Option.

. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. "

[font size=3]"I didn't campaign on the Public Option"[/font]
[font size=1](John Edwards made me do that).[/font]

You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[pnwmom]

153. Give me a break. Lieberman wouldn't have budged.

That's part of why he left the Democratic party -- he did his own thing, whatever that was. He wasn't going to be bound by whatever the Dems were trying to do.

[bvar22]

161. Lieberman "took one" for Team DLC by playing Judas in the Kabuki Theater.

He was well rewarded by the Democratic Party leadership who should have stoned him at the city gates.
Instead, he was allowed to keep all his seniority, perks, Committee Chairs, and a rousing round of applause and praise for his efforts upon returning to the Senate,
....enough to make a goat puke.

I don't know why your crowd clings to that weak and ineffective image for President Obama.

It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!
He was this super BULLY who beat up the helpless President
and ruined health care for everybody.
There was nothing we could Dooooooo.
It was HORRIBLE!


Can you imagine what would have happened if little Joe Lieberman had stood up on his hind legs and told LBJ he wasn't going to vote for Medicare??!!!
LOL.
We would STILL be finding little pieces of Joe Lieberman's ass spread all the way from Texas to Connecticut!

ALL President have immense power.
ALL president KNOW how to make offers that can't be refused.
Even Little George Bush-the-Lesser got almost everything he wanted,
and he NEVER had 60 votes in the Senate.

Obama KNOWS how to get what he wants.
He climbed to the Top of the Pile....in CHICAGO fer gawds sake.
This man KNOW how to Make a Deal
and it is a disservice to him to insist that he doesn't have these skills.
That claim is simply ABSURD, pathetic, and demonstrates a lack of knowledge about Politics and History.

Didn't President Obama just ridicule Boehner for not being able to keep discipline in his own caucus?
Yes...He did:
Obama says Speaker Boehner ‘can’t control his own caucus’
http://greenecountydemocrat.com/?p=8370

Don't you find that ironic in light of the argument you are making that President Obama has no authority or ability to control his own?

Aside from all that,
Are you enjoying the Kabuki Theater as the country and the Democratic Party slides ever further to the "business friendly" Conservative Right?

Oh Man...We almost WON it that time. So CLOSE!
If it wasn't for that rat Lieberman! It was ALL his fault, but he's gone now,
so lets play again.
We're SURE to win this time.

Sincerely,

[pnwmom]

165. Lieberman was NOT a Dem. And the only group that controlled him

was the insurance industry.

Lieberman is the Senator from the great State of Connecticut, home of the biggest insurance industry in the world. He was well rewarded by them, which is why he could run as an Independent. He didn't need anything from the DNC.

[bvar22]

171. What do you not understand?

If not Lieberman, it would have been another goat.
Lieberman was convenient, and well rewarded.

[questionseverything]

152. reposted from woo

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

[pnwmom]

155. Yes, Greenwald does spout a lot of woo. n/t

[questionseverything]

160. the point is all we needed

for the public option was 50 votes...greenwald clearly points out this possibility

[pnwmom]

162. Greenwald was wrong. Lieberman voted against cloture

and that was the end of the public option.

Till near the end, Dems were hooping Lieberman might vote for cloture, allowing the bill to come to a vote, and then just vote against it. But that's now what he did. He voted against allowing it to be voted on, and so the Senate couldn't pass the bill with the public option in it.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/10/did_lieberman_just_kill_the_public_option.html

One largely unspoken assumption behind Reid's quest to get an "opt out" version of the public option through the Senate is that he doesn't really need 60 votes for the health reform bill itself. He just needs 60 votes for the cloture motion prior to final passage. Once a filibuster is cut off, health reform can pass with 50 votes (the 51st being Vice President Joe Biden, president of the Senate).

[questionseverything]

166. reconciliation bypasses the filibuster

again from the article...................But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option

[pnwmom]

167. They couldn't bypass the cloture vote. Reconciliation bypasses the filibuster

only for the actual vote itself.

[questionseverything]

169. http://www.ehow.com/info_7954864_budget-reconciliation-definition.html

One major use of budget reconciliation is passing a bill after an election. In the 2010 elections, Republicans gained a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Democrats in the Senate can't pass new bills without approval from the House, which would require Republican votes. As an alternative, Senate Democrats can use budget reconciliation to pass a bill that the House passed before the election, when Democrats held the majority. Members of the other chamber cannot filibuster a reconciliation bill, so a minority of legislators in the other chamber can't block it, therefore, the reconciliation bill needs fewer votes from members of the opposition party to pass.

[jeff47]

203. Reconciliation bills also can not last more than 10 years.

Meaning if you passed a "public option" via reconciliation, it would go "poof" 4 years from now.

Unless you think Republicans would return to sanity in 4 years. Hint: Not gonna happen.

[questionseverything]

222. link pls

i honestly think with a robust publc option and a reasonable percent of income buy in the dems would of been so popular repubs would not of been a problem down the road

thats what candidate obama pushed for on the trail and even my very repub bosses loved the idea

[jeff47]

223. Can't find Wikipedia yourself?

Or don't remember the fight over the expiration of the "Bush tax cuts"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule

The "Public option" would increase the deficit, because it would require new spending. That makes it subject to the automatic-sunset-clause.

The same clause caused the Bush tax cuts to expire after 10 years, leading to the first fight over continuing those cuts after Obama was elected.

[questionseverything]

224. frm your wiki link

require that any spending increase or tax cut be approved by a majority of 60 if it does not contain a sunset provision assuring no increase in the deficit after the budget resolution period (though there is an exception if the total effect on the deficit in a particular title is to not increase the deficit, the point of order is not triggered). With the sunset provision, only a simple majority is necessary in the budget reconciliation process.

////////////////////////

(though there is an exception if the total effect on the deficit in a particular title is to not increase the deficit, //////

i disagree that a public option(with reasonable buy in percentages) would of increased the deficit as it would of freed up creators of small businesses to increase gdp which is what really matters

and as i already stated even with a ten year sunset,dems would of been so wildly popular we would of been in a position to easily renew

[jeff47]

225. "Increase the Deficit" means "Increase Spending"

in how it is practically used. Especially since the CBO won't score the benefits you list when it calculates the cost of a bill.

and as i already stated even with a ten year sunset,dems would of been so wildly popular we would of been in a position to easily renew

Because you think the Republicans will return to sanity in only 4 years?

[questionseverything]

226. because if dems actually promoted policies that helped

repubs would not get elected

[Rex]

124. Would it have separated the deathhold employers have over their

employees and their health insurance policies? I mean, I hate to sound like a broken record but if not then it is not as good.

[B Calm]

191. +1 Couldn't agree more!

[madrchsod]

227. +2

[kentuck]

125. Also...

He should have ended the wars sooner. He should have let the Bush taxcuts expire. He should not have negotiated another trade treaty.

He has bent over backwards to do what a Republican President would have done and they still hate him.

[Arkana]

128. With all due respect, Mr. Reich, you go out and whip the votes.

[arthritisR_US]

140. Exactly! Armchair quarterbacking is always so effective ;)

[Arkana]

147. If Reich can get 60 votes in the Senate to overcome an almost-certain filibuster

and 218 in the House, then he should come back and talk about what we "should" have done.

If Obama had gotten what he'd wanted, we'd have gotten the public option with waivers for states wanting to implement single-payer. People conveniently forget that the Senate and the House have to play ball to make laws too.

[arthritisR_US]

148. Wish more blokes would remember this because reality does interfere with

wishful thinking. Easy to say how things should be but let RR try and work with the spineless.

[stillcool]

154. of course no one else..

Would go with him...but, that doesn't matter. People have such selective memory..or is it selective facts?

[MisterP]

172. well, they DID try, but got the heave-ho

[Doctor_J]

156. Obama has less political will than any president in my lifetime

Unless of course he's a Reaganite like he claims. In that case he's an unqualified success.

[ancianita]

158. Newsflash for Reich: It wouldn't have passed both houses. His is bullshit 20/20 hindsight criticism.

[jeff47]

177. So Reich can't count to 60. The good news is the ACA gets us to the same end

The ACA moves the fight to the states. It will be much easier to pass a single payer or public option in blue states than nationally.

Success in those blue states will destroy the anti-single-payer FUD, and will cause other states to join.

Then when we get back to the national battle again, we will be in a position where it will actually pass.

Reich, and all the other people in this thread bashing Obama, can't count to 60 and seem to think the fight is over. The fight is never over.

[blkmusclmachine]

178. Obama's Paymasters On Wall Street Call The Shots.

[NYC_SKP]

180. This presumes that Congress would have gone along with it. Jesus, while we're wishing....

Why not toss in cutting the DOD budget, lifting the cap on SS and providing Platinum Plans for every American???

I like Reich, but really.

[idwiyo]

182. k&r

[liberal_at_heart]

183. exactly. Obama was too accommodating because he was trying to avoid a fight. Well he got one anyway.

He should have gone for single payer.

[eridani]

184. The only way single payer will be possible is state by state

Some states are just more progressive than others, and there aren't enough of them to sway federal policy. ACA does allow for state single payer starting in 2017.

[liberal_at_heart]

187. I do not believe that. Wages are down. Inflation is up. Costs of rent, college, groceries,

everything are up. People are pissed. People are so pissed that they hate Congress right now and not very happy with the president right now either. There is a pent up demand by the people for their representatives to represent the people, not themselves and not corporations. Ideas that are popular with the people get ignored by Congress. Ideas like universal background checks, legalizing marijuana, and a public option on health care. Not having the votes in Congress has nothing to do with representing their constituents. It has to do with them getting a big fat check from their corporate masters.

[jeff47]

204. If that was true, we wouldn't be in this situation.

People are so pissed that they hate Congress right now

The problem is they hate Congress, but not their Congressperson. So the individual members have no reason to fear the backlash you claim. While their voters hate "Congress", their voters like them.

And of course it will be easier to get single-payer in CA or VT or the other blue states. That's why they're "blue states"! The people in those states already like the idea, so getting it passed will be much easier than passing it nationally, where flukes in the Constitution over-represent "red" states.

Once we get single payer or public options in blue states, that will destroy the anti-single-payer FUD that makes it a difficult national fight. That will let us expand to not-quite-so-blue states. And that will let us return to the national battle in a much, much stronger position.

Just because the ACA passed does not mean the fight is done. And the ACA gives us fantastic tools to use in that fight.

[liberal_at_heart]

232. believe whatever you want. I disagree.

[Skittles]

188. NO SH**

[Adrahil]

196. I absolutely agree.... but....

I don't think we could get it passed. But I still believe Reich is right on this.

[colsohlibgal]

197. American Exceptionalism In A Bad Way

It's just us among civilized industrialized nations. Just us who allow fat cat CEO types to skim billions from our premiums and the high deductibles, etc. It makes no sense and it's capitalism run amok where it does not belong at all. It's insane and it's killing people for pure greed.

We all are trying to stay well and alive, for profit health care is trying to make money. Our goals are not the same.

I heard an American woman call in to a talk show awhile back, broke her arm while traveling in Italy, as I recall, She was admitted, treated, had a cast put on and seen for follow ups while she was there. She filled out no forms and was not billed at all.

It used to be kind of like that in The US, but that ended in the 80s.

I always hear the right say we don't want to be like western Europe and I ask why not, it seems like they're on the right path, at least most countries there - and not just with health care, it's infrastructure and education as well. Some states are following their lead and that's probably how it will begin to change, at the state level. If you're in a solid red state you may be out of luck for some time unless you move.

How long are we going to allow billionaires to get more filthy rich while the commons and the public good to to pot? - and not pot in a good way.

[quinnox]

206. yep, of course this should have been pursued

A progressive president would have, instead, we have an unfolding clusterfuck where greedy giant insurance companies are taking the golden opportunity to gouge their customers, and raise rates to skyrocketing levels.

[Prism]

218. Meh, shoulda woulda coulda

No point in navel-gazing now. The only thing we can do is get a sense of the ACA's effects and the new insurance reality, work like hell to get a Dem House in 2014, and see how we can cast a net to save the people falling through the cracks of the new system.

That, at least, seems doable to me over the next couple years.

[Skidmore]

230. And Reich shouldn't have peddled NAFTA

when he had the chance to step up and disagree. Reich can bite me. This johnny come lately to populism.