If you think that the Congress in 2009/2010 would have passed Single Payer legislation

[Yavin4]

then you are either completely ignorant about the politics at the time or you are cherry picking facts in order to manipulate DU opinion.

Here's my proof. Without ANY Republican support for ANY healthcare reform, the president needed to get 100% support from the Democratic caucus. And that caucus included Sen. Joe Lieberman from CT.

IOW, Single Payer would need Lieberman's support, and he was against it.

Anything else is just pure manipulative BULLSHIT from the hate Obama crowd who would be better served to use their time and energy to get progressives elected to congress instead of using DU forums to sap the morale of potential democratic activists. Or maybe that's what they really want to do, esp. if you're a Paulbot looking to turn gullible voters.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. I think most are the latter...

"...then you are either completely ignorant about the politics at the time or you are cherry picking facts in order to manipulate DU opinion. "

[FSogol]

17. +1 n/t

[TexasTowelie]

2. Manny will be alerting on this thread in 3, 2, 1 ...

[rufus dog]

106. Manny don't have the guts to state their actual agenda

Oh, I read many when you wrote manny.

[1000words]

3. If the Party properly supported LaMont's run, there is no Lieberman.

[redqueen]

23. OMGZ OBSTACLES!!!

Who ever could have imagined?!?!?!?!

The answer to a challenge is NOT to cede the battlefield.

[Ikonoklast]

26. Union locals came out for Lieberman, big time.

Lots of people contributed to that bitter little man's revenge campaign against Democrats.

[1000words]

27. The machine decided it was better off with Lieberman

Regardless of what the voters wanted.

There's the problem.

[treestar]

55. There was a primary was there not?

Followed by an election.

The voters there picked their poison.

Just like the Mass. ones did and gave Teddy's seat to a Republican, killing the public option.

[LiberalAndProud]

81. You are aware that Lieberman lost his primary and ran as an Independent?

The party failed to support the Democratic candidate because Lieberman was expected to caucus with the Democrats. He did, enough to water down the Democratic position. Our party failed us in Connecticut.

[sweetloukillbot]

105. Didn't he pull the Republican vote? n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

108. You decide.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Connecticut_U.S._Senate_election,_2006

[CTyankee]

136. well, I know some progressive party activists and they pretty much turned it around

so that we Dems could get rid of Joe. So the party did redeem itself eventually. Joe then ran a Senate campaign that largely kept from many of his base the fact that he wasn't running as the official Dem candidate, but as essentially the "party of Joe Lieberman".

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Good point about single payer. Also, the public option didn't even make it out of committee

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/health/policy/30health.html?_r=1&

Yet we were supposed to get single payer?

The mind wobbles....

[RC]

128. It didn't make it our of committee because they arrested people that brought Single Payer up.

The insurance industry and their lobbyists writing the legislation, did not want Single Payer, because that would mean the end to their river of money.
It had absolutely nothing to do with "We the people...", the greater good, or the betterment of this country moving forward. It had everything to do with keeping the money train moving, by looking as it they were actually doing something. All they did was change tracks.

[Whisp]

5. K&R. Well put.

Next question, is why, why are they lying and manipulating when the truth is so easy to find.

[Skidmore]

8. Suppressing the vote comes to mind...

or there's the old standby of divide and conquer.

[sheshe2]

30. +1

[Historic NY]

101. +2

[Bobbie Jo]

132. Yes, the timing is especially curious. nt

[redqueen]

24. Indeed. nt

[JaneyVee]

6. Yup, Lieberman and other blue dogs weren't having it.

[ProSense]

7. Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance (2010)

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance (2010)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482243

As Sanders points out, it will come via the Obamacare provision.

Uh... we should be thanking *Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden* for single payer in America.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636

Obama just launched single-payer in America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088437

Obamacare: It's Obama's signature achievement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695694

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Silly Sanders. All he had to do was read DU and he wouldn't have made that statement!!1!(one)!!

What does he know about Congress anyways? He's just a congressman.

[DCBob]

12. Sanders: "it would have had 8-10 votes"

Sanders is simply not progressive enough!

[redqueen]

29. Yes, clearly "progressives" like Sanders are just sensible woodchucks.

If they really believed, Tinkerbell would be al... I mean Single Payer would be a reality!

[grahamhgreen]

88. Because it was kept out of the process!

[phleshdef]

93. Including it in the process would've changed NOTHING.

I believe Bernie knows a hell of a lot more about what he is talking about on this than you ever will and if Bernie said it would've only had 8-10 votes, then it only would've had 8-10 votes.

[Recursion]

107. You're reversing cause and effect there

It was excluded because it couldn't have gone anywhere to begin with, and it would have moved the shitstorm we saw in 2010 back a year.

[Warpy]

10. Lieberman single handedly stopped lowering the Medicare age

which is something that would have benefited everybody over 55 tremendously while insurance companies were glad to get rid of them.

That little worm did the most damage to us of anyone since Reagan.

[Yavin4]

20. Yet, without him, you don't have a filibuster-proof majority

That was the dilemma at the time.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Yes, the ACA passed in the Senate without a single vote to spare (60).

Of course, Reid could have brought back the talking filibuster which would have reduced the requirement to 50 votes.

[ProSense]

15. That was just the Senate version. The

"Yes, the ACA passed in the Senate without a single vote to spare (60)."

...joint House/Senate bill had to be passed via reconciliation because of conservative Dems, three of whom (Lincoln, Nelson and Pryor) voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00105

[PoliticAverse]

28. That was a different bill, separate from the original ACA. You could call it 'ACA part II' or

the 'ACA fix-it bill'. As it was a 'budgetary reconcillation bill' it only required 50+ votes in the Senate to pass.

The original bill was: H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03590:
It passed in the Senate 60-39 (12-24-2009) and the House adopted the Senate version 219-212 (3-21-2010)
The President signed it 3-23-2010.

The second bill was: H.R.4872 (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR04872:
It passed in the Senate 56 - 43 (3-25-2010) and the House adopted the Senate version 220-207 (3-25-2010)
The President signed it 3-30-2010.

Wikipedia's History of both bills:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate

[ProSense]

31. No, the health care law was part of the joint bill.

From the second bill:

The bill makes a number of health-related financing and revenue changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted by H.R.3590 and modifies higher education assistance provisions. Read together, H.R.3590 and the health care-related provisions of this bill are commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

[PoliticAverse]

33. Um, right. As I pointed out it was a separate bill that modified the original ACA. n/t

[ProSense]

35. Yes, and from Wiki

Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010.[119] The amendment bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30.

If you remember, the issues were unresolved. The House agreed to the Senate version, and then they had to take up the other unresolved issues. The amended version resolved the issues. It was political maneuvering that led to it being passed this way. Without the amended version, there would be no funding and major provisions would not have been included.

[PoliticAverse]

38. The Wikipedia page on the second bill highlights the modifications...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010

Amending the Senate's Healthcare Bill

The Reconciliation bill makes several changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was signed into law on March 23, 2010. These changes include the following,

Increasing the tax credits to buy insurance
Eliminates several of the special deals given to senators, such as Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback"
Lowers the penalty for not buying insurance from $750 to $695
Closes the Medicare Part D "donut hole" by 2020 and gives seniors a rebate of $250.
Delays the implementation on taxing "Cadillac health-care plans" until 2018
Requires doctors who treat Medicare patients be reimbursed at the full rate
Sets up a medicare tax on the unearned incomes of families that earn more than $250,000 annually.
Offer more generous subsidies to lower income groups. Households below 150% of the federal poverty level would pay 2% to 4% of their income on premiums. Health plans would cover 94% of the cost of benefits.[19] Households with incomes from 150% to 400% of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) would pay on a sliding scale from 4% to 9.8% of their income on premiums, rest will be covered by government advanceable, refundable tax credit. Health plans would cover 70% of the cost of the benefits.
In 2014, if a company with more than 50 workers does not offer coverage, they will be obligated to pay $2,000 for each full-time worker in the company, exempting the money due for the first 30 employees. For example, an employer with 53 workers will pay the penalty for 23 workers, or $46,000.
Would increase Medicaid payment rates to primary care doctors to match Medicare payment rates, which are higher, in 2013 and 2014.
The federal government would pay all of the costs of expanding Medicaid under the reform until 2016, 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and 90% thereafter. Some states that already insure childless adults under Medicaid would receive more federal money for covering that group through 2018.
The Medicare patients will receive 50% discount on brand-name drugs would begin in 2011. By 2020, the government would pay to provide up to 75% discount on brand-name and generic drugs, eventually closing the coverage gap.
Would extend the ban on lifetime limits and rescission of coverage to all existing health plans within six months after signing into Law.

[cheapdate]

67. "Joint bill" is a bit of a misnomer.

The senate bill was inserted into the house bill as a complete refplacement.

[JVS]

13. All you are demonstrating is that we have bad politicians in our caucus.

If a party can't make something supported by 70% of the public a reality, they need to get rid of the shitty politicians in their ranks.

[JoePhilly]

41. Why didn't better candidates mobilize that 70% to win their nominations?

I mean, if that's how it works.

The voters need to get rid of the shitty candidates.

[sulphurdunn]

46. Amen

[loyalsister]

71. 70% is an illusion

Geography nullifies any chance that such a poll reflects reality.

[MindMover]

102. AMEN ...

[morningfog]

115. And the weakness of party leaders who couldn't figure out a way to get the coalition.

The reason the couldn't is because they didn't even try.

[Zorra]

14. No. Harry Reid could have ended the filibuster rule any time he wanted, as long as at least

51 Senators voted to do so.

Why do you think so many of us were screaming at the Senate to end the filibuster back then?

Because of failure of the Democratic Senate to liberal up and end the filibuster, we don't have single payer, the President is a lame duck, the country is fucked, and we are faced with the awful possibility of losing control of the Senate this year.

on edit: Also, it is highly possible, IMO probable, that we lost the House because of the Senate's failure to end the filibuster. If Dems had a free pass to do what by needed to be done to fix the country, republicans would be nearly extinct by now.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Bernie Sanders said single payer would have had only 8 to 10 votes and that's it

So even if Reid ended the talking filibuster, single payer still would have gone down in flames.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482243

[cheapdate]

65. I don't think that's quite accurate.

I believe that the senate rules allow for changes of that kind with 51 votes on the first day of a new session only. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.

[Zorra]

69. Yes, it is accurate. Here:

How To End the Filibuster Forever

The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.

Democrats Go ‘Nuclear,’ Eliminate Filibusters on Most Nominees (Update)

Posted at 12:34 p.m. on Nov. 21, 2013
Comments in post: Democrats Go ‘Nuclear,’ Eliminate Filibusters on Most Nominees (Update) 74

Updated 1:22 p.m. | Senate Democrats succeeded Thursday in deploying the “nuclear option” to make the most fundamental change to floor operations in almost four decades, ending the minority’s ability to kill most presidential nominations by filibuster.

The Senate voted, 52-48, to effectively change the rules by rejecting the opinion of the presiding officer that a supermajority is required to limit debate, or invoke cloture, on executive branch nominees and those for seats on federal courts short of the Supreme Court.

Three Democrats — Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — voted to keep the rules unchanged.

[truedelphi]

18. Okay, yes on your statement, but why do so many here ignore the

Fact that it was the damn Democratic Party leadership itself that allowed people like Rahm Emanuel to go around the country, circa 2003 to 2007 to force more progressive minded "D" candidates out of the Primaries? The Big Party money almost always went to the more conservative types running for office.

That salient point is basically buried inside the discussion of "Oh Noes! What could the Rahm Emanuel WH do under the terrible situation of all those Blue Dawgies in the Congress?"

[FSogol]

19. K & R. Well said. n/t

[Zorra]

21. David Swanson on DU, Wed Dec-24-08 11:18 AM

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4711992

If, through one means or another, the Democrats eliminate the filibuster excuse, our job will be to organize and agitate immediately to take full advantage of this rare opportunity for actual representative government. Greider proposes reducing to 55 percent of the Senate the number of senators needed for cloture. I propose reducing it to 50 percent plus one. Either way, nobody is proposing that a minority be empowered to decide anything, only that a majority finally be permitted to (even to the extent allowed by an anti-democratic body like the U.S. Senate in which both Wyoming and California have the same number of senators). Should that happen, all I can say to Wall Street and the military industrial complex is: get ready to be shocked and awed!

If the Democrats choose to keep the filibuster excuse around, our job will be to overwhelm them and the media with our refusal to believe it. Yes, we'll also want to lobby for peace, justice, jobs, green energy, and health care. But we'll never get them unless we insist on pressuring the Senate on this seemingly arcane little matter of passing bills, or what we might call a campaign for "No taxation without representation."

How To End the Filibuster Forever

The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.

Democrats Go ‘Nuclear,’ Eliminate Filibusters on Most Nominees (Update)

Posted at 12:34 p.m. on Nov. 21, 2013
Comments in post: Democrats Go ‘Nuclear,’ Eliminate Filibusters on Most Nominees (Update) 74

Updated 1:22 p.m. | Senate Democrats succeeded Thursday in deploying the “nuclear option” to make the most fundamental change to floor operations in almost four decades, ending the minority’s ability to kill most presidential nominations by filibuster.

The Senate voted, 52-48, to effectively change the rules by rejecting the opinion of the presiding officer that a supermajority is required to limit debate, or invoke cloture, on executive branch nominees and those for seats on federal courts short of the Supreme Court.

Three Democrats — Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — voted to keep the rules unchanged.

[redqueen]

22. K&FuckinR!

Since when did wishin' and a hopin' become political strategies?

"Can't anybody here play this game?"

Anything else is just pure manipulative BULLSHIT from the hate Obama crowd who would be better served to use their time and energy to get progressives elected to congress instead of using DU forums to sap the morale of potential democratic activists. Or maybe that's what they really want to do...

[Dawgs]

25. Not the problem that us "haters" have with how things were handled in 09/10.

Instead, it was how the start of the negotiations began with a center-right republican plan, instead of single payer; which would have gotten us no less than a public option and maybe the Medicare age dropped to 55.

[sheshe2]

32. K&R!

[cui bono]

34. Your OP saps morale of potentional democratic activists.

You also fail to recognize that there was never any effort to pass single-payer. There was never a good effort to pass the public option either. We all learned as children that if you don't try you can't succeed.

Also, if you want to end up with the public option, you start by fighting for single-payer.

You want to sap morale? Keep giving up before you try for anything. Keep not fighting for the people. Never take a stand for what you believe in. That'll do it.

[1000words]

36. We must be the "Paulbots" mentioned in the OP

[cui bono]

37. Undoubtedly. It's a good dogwhistle though.

Gets the troops rallied up.

But, not good for what the OP is complaining about, morale of possible democratic activists. I often wonder how Obama would like his most fervent followers' behavior.

[jeff47]

42. Ok, let's do that.

You also fail to recognize that there was never any effort to pass single-payer. There was never a good effort to pass the public option either. We all learned as children that if you don't try you can't succeed.

Ok, let's do that.

Bernie Sanders says you get 10 yeas, 90 nays. One of those "yeas" is him, and he'd really like it to pass, so we can be pretty sure he's not fudging the numbers down that far.

You're not going to pick up 50 votes in a PR campaign that lasts less than 2 years. Especially with terrified blue dogs entering election season.

You want to sap morale? Keep giving up before you try for anything. Keep not fighting for the people. Never take a stand for what you believe in

OK, so we torpedo the ACA, just like we torpedoed Clinton's efforts at healthcare reform.

What happened in 1994? Republicans crushed Democrats, at least partially due to healthcare reform's failure, and healthcare reform was dead for 25 years.

Why, exactly, would 2009 be different?

[sulphurdunn]

49. If humane healthcare for all

was DOA, the president knew that and should not have campaigned on it. At least that little prick George W. Bush did exactly what he said he would do and more. I wish I could make that claim for Barack H. Obama.

[jeff47]

70. The issue is a difference in definition.

There's an awful lot in the ACA that expands "humane healthcare for all". It doesn't finish the job, but advances the fight much further.

You appear to be arguing we should have let healthcare reform be dead for another 25 years if we couldn't do everything in one go.

[sulphurdunn]

119. Nothing of the kind.

Half a loaf is better than no loaf. My objection was that a whole loaf was never on the table and neither was a half loaf. I weary of democrats who begin negotiating for half loaves, settle for crumbs, make excuses for it and then congratulate themselves that they got crumbs.

[jeff47]

124. Then provide any evidence that it would work.

Senator Sanders has repeatedly said there were 8-10 votes in the Senate for single-payer. So the bill goes down 10-90. That kind of crushing defeat does far more to set back a cause then not bringing it up. Losing 10-90 means there is concrete evidence that single-payer is not popular, despite what polls say.

For single-payer to be a useful starting point, we'd have to show there was significant support for it in Congress. And support simply was not there. It was a step too far at that time.

[sulphurdunn]

130. You just provided it.

Something is seriously wrong when the party in control of congress and the White House is impotent against the minority and the rightists in its own party. That can only happen when the president is powerless or complicit or both, and the real goals of the majority party are very different from its stated agenda.

[jeff47]

131. 10-90. That's not a "minority and rightist" problem.

That's a "almost no support at all" problem.

And no matter what Obama said during his first campaign, that 10-90 problem still existed.

[sulphurdunn]

137. Again, that states the problem:

What kind of democracy has 40% policy support for universal health care among the public (even after massive media campaigns against it over many years) and 90% opposition from their elected representatives? What does that tell you?

[cui bono]

56. I don't know what your point is. Honestly.

There was no effort. You simply cannot know what the outcome would have been if there were any effort.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Now if the Dem Party had actually gone out and fought for medicare for all, which would have gone over very well imo, we probably would have been able to get the public option. especially if that were explained properly to the people.

Get the people excited about it like the R's got their people afraid of it. Too much misinformation was allowed to stay out there. The messaging was bad on the Dem's part. if they had gotten the people riled up for medicare for all then their pressure could have pushed pols to vote differently.

But having secret back room deals with only the insurance companies, not even listening to any single-payer advocates and telling the left to STFU isn't going to get it done.

And since no one tried we'll never know. So again, you can't know if you never try. Dems have a bad habit of settling before trying.

I'll concede your point if it means that our government is inept or doesn't care what's good for the people and is there to make sure corporations get the best deal they can.

[jeff47]

72. I really don't know why the question is so hard to answer.

I keep asking you what specifically Obama should have done. "Try" does not answer that question. "Make an effort" does not answer that question. Neither one is specific.

What, specifically, should team Obama have done? And how would that have won the vote of Lieberman and the blue dogs?

Now if the Dem Party had actually gone out and fought for medicare for all, which would have gone over very well imo, we probably would have been able to get the public option.

Bernie Sanders says no, it would not happen.

Why, specifically, is Sanders wrong?

Get the people excited about it like the R's got their people afraid of it.

It already had the support of a supermajority. Popular with the public does not necessarily mean Congress will pass it.

If you'd like another example, after Sandy Hook, >80% of the public wanted gun control. So we got that, right?

And since no one tried we'll never know.

Yeah, those Senators really have no clue what other Senators will vote for.

[cui bono]

74. I apologize. I didn't see that specific question and I really didn't understand what you were

trying to say in your last post.

He should have educated the public. He should have had meetings (not secret) with single-payer advocates. He should have pushed publicly for medicare for all. All Dems should have done that. Then we might have had a public option as a compromise.

I'll tell you what he should not have done. Have secret meetings with insurance companies that he continually denied until he had to admit it. Talk about losing the public's trust as well as not negotiating on our behalf. Emanuel also told the left to STFU. That doesn't sound like they even wanted a public option, even though Obama claimed that he did.

You can roll your eyes about your senator remark but that's exactly what I'm talking about. They're just counting existing votes rather than trying to change them. That's a huge problem with the Dem Party in general. Settling for what they've decided is all they can get rather than trying and asking for more so they get more than the usually do. Get the people fired up so that they'll bombard their reps with phone calls and emails and force them to support it.

Obama and the Dems should unleash the true left if they really want to get something that is for the people accomplished. Here's a New Rules for you that is of course taking it to the extreme but that's exactly what should happen, but with real goals of course.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Nothing was ventured.

[jeff47]

125. Do I need to link the definition for "specific"?

He should have educated the public. He should have had meetings (not secret) with single-payer advocates. He should have pushed publicly for medicare for all. All Dems should have done that. Then we might have had a public option as a compromise.

And again, Liberman killed the 50+ public option. Why would he kill that, but vote for one for all age groups?

You need Lieberman's vote. How do you get Lieberman's vote?

They're just counting existing votes rather than trying to change them.

And that is why I keep asking you what they could have done to change them. SPECIFICALLY what they could have done. You keep coming back with nebulous "try" bullshit that results in Liberman laughing his ass off while he stabs you in the back.

You need Lieberman's vote. How do you get Lieberman's vote?

Obama and the Dems should unleash the true left if they really want to get something that is for the people accomplished

Lieberman knew he could not win re-election. "The true left" is utterly irrelevant to him. He did not need to win another primary. One of the reasons term limits are awful is they leave the politician no motivation to represent the people.

You need Lieberman's vote. How do you get Lieberman's vote?

[cui bono]

138. Do you expect me to write the speeches they should have given?

FFS. Get a grip.

If you never try for something you'll never know if you could have done it. Settling for what you think you can get before you even try for anything else gets you lackluster results.

Again, if the entire message had been about medicare for all the conversation would have changed. Just like OWS changed the conversation. Who saw that coming?

[jeff47]

139. No, I expect you to provide a mechanism that can actually get Lieberman's vote.

Speeches would do what, exactly?

To Lieberman, nothing at all.

Fire up the base all you want. Lieberman does not need them. He has no reason to care that they're angry. He can not be removed from office, and he was not running for re-election.

Just like OWS changed the conversation.

Among politicians who were seeking re-election.

So how do you get Lieberman's vote? Maybe this time you'll think about it before saying the same thing again.

[cui bono]

140. If you never try for something you'll never know if you can get it or not.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Or are you telling me that you've never been shocked at certain things happening that you never thought would happen in a million years?

When you give up before you try, you will never get what you want. True fact.

[jeff47]

141. You know, you can just say "I have no idea how to get his vote".

Or are you telling me that you've never been shocked at certain things happening that you never thought would happen in a million years?

Then explain how a speech could have won Lieberman's vote. Why, exactly, would the Senator from Aetna vote the way you want after a speech "riles up the base".

[cui bono]

142. Or you could just say "I reduce everything you said to something you didn't say".

Because I never said just one speech would change anything.

But you go ahead and keep giving up before you fight.

[JoePhilly]

39. I've spotted folks every bluedog as a YES, and asked them to describe how ...

... they, as President, would have gotten Lieberman to vote YES, if he was the only vote still needed.

No one can come up with an answer.

These facts make it impossible.

1) Lieberman campaigned for McCain and against Obama. Obama prevented Lieberman from becoming McCain's SecDEF.

2) Lieberman was not going to run again.

3) Lieberman's nickname was "Senator from Aetna".

The best idea anyone had, in all the times I've asked this question ... "Have the DOJ blackmail Lieberman." Illegal, but sure, that might have worked.

Bottom line: None of them can come up with the leverage that was needed to flip Lieberman, even if you spot them all the other Blue Dogs.

[jeff47]

43. Apparently Obama was supposed to "try".

No details on what, exactly, he could try that would actually get Lieberman to vote yea.

And no real evidence that trying, but failing would have satisfied. These posters aren't exactly praising Clinton's failed efforts.

[JoePhilly]

50. One suggested threatening to cut support

... To Israel, and was serious.

[Cali_Democrat]

109. The fuck?

[mike_c]

40. DU continues its descent into divisive self immolation....

Paulbots, huh?

[Thinkingabout]

44. What does anyone think is going get a single payer system?

I do not see how a single payer system had the numbers to pass, this is fact. There has to be more than ranting going on now, we have elections coming up and elections has consequences. Voting third party may be way to register a protest but then you get a Congress which we do not like. The TP is getting its members ready to vote, the DNC needs to ramp up their members so we can control Congress.

[steve2470]

45. ACA barely passed Congress as it was

Anything more towards single payer would have been DOA. It's a START towards single payer. Every year it can be tweaked and amended. Either now or very soon, ACA will be sunk deep into America, just like Medicare and Social Security. Once the roots are deep, morphing it into single payer will be easier than just getting the damn thing passed.

[Trust Buster]

48. Bingo Steve

Single payor was clearly not in the political cards at the time regardless of extremists claiming otherwise.

[steve2470]

52. there's so much deal-making and horse-trading that goes on to get bills passed

Yes, some bills are wildly popular and pass with no arm-twisting. ACA was NOT that way. Congress is no place for purists, unless you just want to be a bombthrower (which we at DU love including me). Obama's always had a reputation as a deal-maker for years, playing poker and cutting deals. One can frown at that kind of activity, but that, more or less, is how Congress functions. You give me this, I give you that, we're both sort of happy. That's why very little has gotten done in the last few years, because the asshole teabaggers want it 100% their way.

LBJ could literally yell in people's faces back in the 1960's, but you can't do that any more, definitely not in public.

Would I have loved for America's version of the NHS to get passed ? HELL YES. However, it was NOT possible. I know many on this board vehemently disagree with me, but we'll have to agree to disagree. NHS was partially born out of the devastation of World War II (if I read history correctly). The Brits here can correct me on that.

Give me 5% towards the final goal. Next year give me another 5%. After a while, you get 100% or damn near close to it.

[bobduca]

75. Ah being called an "extremist" for advocating what Iraq and Afganistan have setup under US control

PRICELESS, DU.

[Trust Buster]

77. ? ? ? ? ?

[bobduca]

78. single-payer advocates are "extremists", your words, own them

Here is a huffpo blog about single-payer in the Iraqi Constitution. I'm too tired to find the equivalent in Afghanistan's constitution.

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

[Cha]

54. That's right, steve.. they were begging dennis kucinich and he helped

get it passed at the eleventh hour.

The all or nothing crowd get NOTHING.

[Andy823]

61. Exactly!

As Cha pointed out, "the all or nothing" crowd would get "NOTHING"! I can't understand how having something to build on, the ACA, is so upsetting to that crowd. Would NOTHING have really been better for them, or would they be complaining just as much today if we got nothing?

I agree with you that true ACA is going to get us to the single payer option. It might take a little time, but like you said it will be just like SS and medicare, and the people will not want to give it up, but will be supportive of going even further till we get a real universal health care program in this country, and I don't know about those who are so upset about the ACA these day, but without it we would have nothing today, and no hope of ever getting to universal coverage for everyone, no hope at all! Something is always better than nothing.

[stupidicus]

47. who said they thought that

or is this just another in a rather lengthy list by now I'm sure, of DU strawpeople?

It sure as hell could have been given some lip service as a starting point, as opposed to what, the PO that was subsequently abandoned. Perhaps having it to compare and contrast the ACA (you know, that insurance company preservation and enrichment program we got) with, we coulda ended all that "socialist/gov takeover of healthcare/etc stuff we heard from your Paulbot pals.

[Cha]

51. I've seen so many whining that canard.. It's all Obama fault.

wah wah wah.

FWIW... they ain't "sapping" my moral or energy. They just make me more to determined to get President Obama a Democratic House and Senate in 2015.

But, thank you for reminding the board how much time is wasted on that lie, Yavin. I know my blue dog dem at the time in NY was scared of the words.

[treestar]

53. hear, hear

The House didn't even pass it. It's a dream at this point. Reachable, but a dream.

[mother earth]

57. If you think we the people were represented by no possibility of it whatsoever, I have a bridge to

sell you.

It was never an option, so you are absolutely correct, nothing but the plutocracy was being represented & it simply could never gain any support whatsoever, but miraculously there is a majority support for it, still....still...still...we the people are not represented. WTF? Gullible voters, no, gullible apologists.
.
Next time you fight for something you believe in, remember, throw away your best option at the start and smile, you are truly learning to give an illusion of a good fight...congratulations, pats on the back, you are a politician in the oligarchy.

[Capt. Obvious]

68. You are wrong

It was kleptocracy, not plutocracy.

[mother earth]

118. TY for that correction.

[bornskeptic]

58. The single-payer whiners never bother to mention how it would be paid for.

In 2009 US healthcare costs were estimated at $2.7 trillion, with about a third paid by state and local governments, another third paid by private insurance, and the rest paid by individuals. Almost 59 million people weren't covered at all. Single payer would mean that the government would at least have to take on more than an additional $trillion in spending, that which is paid now by insurance companies plus the cost of covering the currently uninsured. Obama came in with a deficit of a trillion and the economy in free fall. Many Democrats insisted that healthcare reform be paid for, which it was with cuts to Medicare Advantage and some small tax increases on providers. The cost of ACA was estimated at $900 billion over ten years. The cost of single-payer would have been between 10 and 20 times that much. The folks crying about not getting single payer need to explain a way to pay those costs if they want to have any credibility.

[bobduca]

79. "whiners"

[grahamhgreen]

91. BS - go to pnhp.org 10,000+ doctors for single payer? SP is cheaper than the ACA.

[TransitJohn]

59. That's a pretty good hippie punch and a blame the left thing to say

But it's a great straw man. What was actually promised and then abandoned was the 'robust public option'. If that had simply been included, 90% of the left's unhappiness with the PPACA wouldn't exist, because there'd be a price control with power.

[Cali_Democrat]

110. The public option couldn't even make it out of committee. nt

[TransitJohn]

114. Oy vey. eom

n/t

[madokie]

60. You are 100 percent right

there was no chance of single payer and anyone who thinks so is either fooling themselves or they have an agenda, like a certain person here on this board who is forever finding a reason to diss President Obama, covertly and not so covertly. Gets sometimes hundreds of replies on the bullshit too.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Who has said this? What was possible but never even advocated was the

robust public option as in 'Any bill I sign must contain a strong public option to help control costs' which Obama stated as his intention while he was a candidate. He could have gotten that, he certainly should have tried since he said he'd not sign a bill without it and then did exactly that. If nothing else, it is the very picture of cynicism in politics that prevents so many Americans from having any respect or trust in the process.
The lack of a public option is a flaw in the current law. My entire Congressional delegation would have been delighted to work for a public option. Their constituents would have strongly supported them in that as well.
Single payer was not discussed nor did anyone expect it. The public option was a campaign plank that was simply and wrongly discarded.

[rhett o rick]

63. Good grief. Not another one.

[cheapdate]

64. Reality.

Sen. Robert Byrd was wheeled into the senate in his wheelchair to cast a late night cloture vote that sent the bill to the floor. There wasn't a single vote to spare -- not one.

Failure to move the bill at that time would have been the end of any chance for any health care reform for a long time.

There was a short window when the Democrats had sixty votes in the senate between when Al Franken was finally seated and when Scott Brown won the special election to replace Ed Kennedy (actually 58 Democrats -- 60 votes if you count independents Lieberman and Sanders).

It's easy to bitch and complain if you're not the one counting votes in the senate and making a decision that turned on a razor's edge.

[ecstatic]

66. Not to mention the fact that ACA opens the door

to the single payer. I really don't get why that's so hard for some people to understand. Like you said, it's either ignorance or trolling.

[Trust Buster]

73. Here is an excellent 1 hour long PBS documentary......

......in which I think those of us on either side of this issue will find helpful in jogging our recollections as to the context of the time in which the ACA battle was fought. It's a documentary that I believe is well worth your investment of time;

http://video.pbs.org/video/1468710007/

[CBHagman]

76. That they got anything at all passed is rather remarkable.

Remember the drama surrounding Bart Stupak and other antiabortion Democrats?

[url]http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1973963,00.html[/url]

Stupak nearly brought down the House version on the bill last November when he objected to the abortion language in the legislation. At the last minute, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to an amendment authored by Stupak that barred any federal funds from subsidizing abortion on the health care exchange that is expected to be set up in 2014 to provide insurance to upwards of 31 million uninsured Americans. Prochoice groups were outraged, accusing Stupak of moving beyond current law, and the amendment was stripped out in the Senate and replaced with softer language that Stupak and his group felt did not go far enough. Sunday's last-minute Executive Order, expected to be signed by President Obama immediately following passage of the bill, was the compromise that allowed Stupak and his group to vote for final passage of health care reform.

House Democratic sources credited Representative John Dingell, the longest serving member in the history of Congress and dean of the Michigan delegation, for bringing Stupak around. Stupak, a Dingell protégé, was in tears when Dingell lost his House Energy and Commerce gavel to Henry Waxman last year — the committee is the only one Stupak has served on since his election to Congress in 1992. Health care reform has been Dingell's top priority during his 54 years in office and, in fact, the House bill was named for him. "Mr. Dingell had a piece of me yesterday for quite some time," Stupak told reporters Sunday to laughter. "John Dingell is one of my nearest, dearest, closest friends. I'm glad for John Dingell to have this day."

[Yavin4]

83. Facts don't matter

There are folks here on DU that just want to bring down morale of Democrats by manipulating facts and history to server their purpose.

[bobduca]

80. joementum and stuff

A: "IF YOU THINK CONGRESS would have passed Single Payer legislation" <=== straw man argument, nobody can refute your claim based on unwritten legislation that was never put forward.

IF YOU BELIEVE A) YOU ARE ( COMPLETELY IGNORANT | MANIPULATOR OF DU OPINION )
Really those are the two choices? good to know.

JOEMENTUM WASNT WITH US!!!
Such a low low bar you've set... think of all the other crap he wasn't for, truly a race to the bottom you've setup.

[Yavin4]

82. "JOEMENTUM WASNT WITH US!!"

Without Lieberman, there was no "veto-proof" majority. He was the 60th vote.

If you cannot handle facts, then I cannot help you.

[bobduca]

84. What other legislation was dead in the water without Joementum?

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53278/joe-lieberman#.UzD34_ldX0A

[Yavin4]

85. What?

What are you talking about? The simple truth is that JOEMENTUM would have never voted for Single Payer. Period. End of story.

To speculate otherwise is engaging in fantasy thinking.

[bobduca]

86. Joe was a horrible, fifth-columnist, third-way shitheel

Why bother to propose anything left of center, because JOEMENTUM?!?!?

I think I figured it out! thanks for keeping it simple!

[CTyankee]

123. there was real ignorance of CT Dems and the general voting population in CT in 2006

when I worked for Ned Lamont for Senate. People just didn't know that Joe had become a real monster in the Dem Party. He hid his true colors very well for an unsuspecting Dem party in CT. But the real left in our state party took over and we managed to throw Joe OUT of the CT Dem Party. He took his revenge out on the rest of the country...

[bobduca]

127. Thank you for that! (voting out Joementum) n/t

[grahamhgreen]

87. If you think there was NOTHING the President of The United States of America had to

offer Leiberman for his vote, you are living in fantasyland, IMHO

Not to mention, the President could have asked for calls to Congress or a march or Wash., or at least NOT KEPT SINGLE PAYER ADVOCATES OUT OF THE PROCESS.


ONE senator? C'mon, loL!

[phleshdef]

90. Yes, one fucking Senator who had the power to stop the whole thing...

...whether you like it or not, that's the mathematical fact of reality. There is no refuting this and any attempt to refute it is absolute bullshit.

[grahamhgreen]

92. So offer him Sec of State, or something WTF. Politics 101.

[phleshdef]

94. Lieberman ran against Obama, campaigned for McCain and tutored Palin on foreign policy.

And seriously, make Joe Lieberman SOS? That sounds less like politics 101 and more like remedial politics.

[grahamhgreen]

95. Then fire him. Just find out what he wants (say bombs for Isreal) and make the deal. One guy...

C'mon, they bought off Kucinich with a plane ride.

[phleshdef]

96. You're about as politically realistic as Dick Morris.

[grahamhgreen]

97. You believe there is nothing the President of the USA had that Lieberman would have traded his vote

for?

Nothing in the entire realm of political power the President has that Lieberman wanted?

Nothing in the whole Dem party apparatus that Joe would have gone for?

That's what you believe?

[phleshdef]

98. Yes. Lieberman's ties to the insurance industry were/are a hell of a lot more important to him.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[grahamhgreen]

99. President has access to more $ than all the insurers combined. Now you're saying big insurance

bought Lieberman, could they have bought Obama too?

[phleshdef]

100. Lieberman's wife is an insurance company lobbyist.

And the answer is no, I believe Obama is a better person than Joe Lieberman is. Lieberman is slime.

[grahamhgreen]

143. In the end, we both agree Leiberman is corrupt. I believe the President had items in his hand

with which he could have bought off Joe's vote.

Because corrupt people are for sale.

[nationalize the fed]

122. Max Baucus - the D that had single payer advocates arrested

Baucus has been criticized for his ties to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and was one of the largest beneficiaries in the Senate of campaign contributions from these industries.[41] From 2003-08, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies, $851,141 from health professionals, $784,185 from the insurance industry and $465,750 from HMOs/health services, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[50][51] A 2006 study by Public Citizen found that between 1999 and 2005 Baucus, along with former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, took in the most special-interest money of any senator.[52]

Only three senators have more former staffers working as lobbyists on K Street, at least two dozen in Baucus' case.[52] Several of Baucus's ex-staffers, including former chief of staff David Castagnetti, are now working for the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.[53] Castagnetti co-founded the lobbying firm of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, which represents America’s Health Insurance Plans Inc, the national trade group of health insurance companies, the Medicare Cost Contractors Alliance, as well as Amgen, AstraZeneca PLC and Merck & Co. Another former chief of staff, Jeff Forbes, opened his own lobbying shop and to represent the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Advanced Medical Technology Association, among other groups.[citation needed]

A statistical analysis of the impact of political contributions on individual senators' support for the public insurance option conducted by Nate Silver has suggested that Baucus was an unlikely supporter of the public option in the first place. Based on Baucus's political ideology and the per capita health care spending in Montana, Silver's model projects that there would be only a 30.6% probability of Baucus supporting a public insurance option even if he had received no relevant campaign contributions. Silver calculates that the impact on Baucus of the significant campaign contributions that he has received from the health care industry further reduces the probability of his supporting a public insurance option from 30.6% to 0.6%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Baucus#Opposition_to_single_payer_health_care

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now exposes Baucus' insurance ties
Skip to 6:00

[Cali_Democrat]

111. LOL

You're cracking me up. Surely you can't be serious with these ideas.

[grahamhgreen]

135. I'm say ing you offer him SOS, then fire him if he doesn't live up to expectations. In the end,

was Leiberman offered anything for his vote, ever?

[grahamhgreen]

89. That said, we're all working for it now.... Right?

[HooptieWagon]

103. Of course not. They were well paid by Insurance industry (esp Lieberman) to block single-payer.

[Trust Buster]

104. As I stated earlier, this one hour PBS documentary explains a lot. Please give it a try.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1468710007/

[nationalize the fed]

120. +1 yes that is a must see for anyone that wants to know what happened

[Bobbie Jo]

133. Welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay.

[GeorgeGist]

112. Playing defense scores less ...

Than offense. Just saying what's true in the long run.

[B Calm]

113. Congress is so out of touch with what the MAJORITY of people

want. It amazes me why people keep voting them back in.

[DebJ]

116. My 'favorite' post was that SP would have passed because the majority of citizens supported it...LOL

Just like gun control legislation, and registration, right?

[G_j]

117. that has no bearing on the need to include

something that the majority of Americans want, in the discussion. There is no legitimate excuse for not even allowing it to the table.

[NCTraveler]

121. Seems like a moot point.

Single payer wasn't offered or talked about at the national level. While the people want it, our elected officials don't.

[Vashta Nerada]

126. So when I order an omelet for breakfast and instead get cold, flavorless oatmeal, I should be happy?

[lostincalifornia]

129. The problem with my way or the highway was highlighted in 2000. Sometimes one needs to

Look at the actual realities and bend

They needed to get something through in two years because the midterms were uncertain

We would have nothing if that wasn't done

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. "use their time and energy to get progressives elected to congress"

Yes, if only we had enough Democrats to pass bills over the heads of the GOP.