By Ditching the Public Option, Obama Gave His Enemies a Path to the Supreme Court

[Better Believe It]

By Ditching the Public Option, Obama Gave His Enemies a Path to the Supreme Court
By Matthew Rothschild
Editor of The Progressive
March 27, 2012

The sad thing about the rightwing Supreme Court challenge to President Obama’s health care policy is that it was totally avoidable. It would have been impossible if Obama had offered a robust public option, like “Medicare for All Who Want It.”

Rather than forcing people to buy private insurance largely from the companies who’ve been ripping us off every step of the way, Obama could have and should have given people a choice.

Instead, he bought in—and told everyone else under 65 who is not disabled to buy in—to the private insurance model.

And that’s the core of his problem today at the Supreme Court.

Read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/ditching_public_option_obama_gave_enemies_path_to_supreme_court.html

[zipplewrath]

1. Mandate and PO should have been hand in hand

When the agreement was made to dump the PO, he should have dumped the mandate as well. Institute some sort of market mechanism to "penalize" people who wait until they are sick to buy insurance. But no mandate without a PO.

[ProSense]

2. Well, at least

"Obama Gave His Enemies "

...in blaming Obama for the lunacy, Rothschild nailed the opposition to the heatlh care law.

[ClassWarrior]

12. As we all do.

All except the trolls.

NGU.

[sharp_stick]

3. And how exactly was Obama

to force a public option through Congress? Shit he barely got the current ACA bill through a Congress when his party held the majority in both the House and the Senate.

So many people have these pie in the sky dreams that unfortunately crash to the ground the second they wake up and realize that Obama can't rule by fiat in this country.

[still_one]

6. please don't talk facts /nt

[pinto]

9. Good points.

[Better Believe It]

13. President Obama opposed a public option so how could he pass something he was against?

If Obama had supported and fought for a public option I think a bill would have passed far more easily than this piece of crap because of public support for a public option and their general hatred for the health insurance industry racket.

Of course, the insurance industry and big pharma would have campaigned hard against a health care bill that actually helped people but one would expect a liberal President would challenge their power, something President Obama failed to do. Isn't that right?

Instead Wall Street lobbyists wrote a law supported by President Obama that should have been called "The Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act". That title gives a more accurate depiction of what that legislation is really all about.

It has nothing to do with providing decent health care to all people at a reasonable cost. The insurance industry doesn't provide any valuable service to health care. It's a useless and unnesssary middleman. The law mainly guarantees and protects the Wall Street stranglehold on our health care system at the expense of sick people.

Don't you agree?

[ClassWarrior]

14. please don't talk facts nt/

NGU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Where are the facts? n/t

[uponit7771]

37. Luckly this poster did what you said before you said it

[ProSense]

18. He did

"President Obama opposed a public option so how could he pass something he was against?"

...not. He also expanded Medicaid (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002483563) and provided a path to single payer (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482074)

[FedUp_Queer]

51. Where does either one of those even mention public option?

[ProSense]

67. It doesn't, but

"Where does either one of those even mention public option?"

...is there a problem with rejecting the argument and pointing out that other programs were expanded. I mean, why on earth would the President expand Medicaid so dramatically and reject a public option?

The premise that he opposed the public option is nonsense.

[girl gone mad]

76. It's no premise that Obama opposed the public option.

It's a fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[FedUp_Queer]

130. Ok.

If it's nonsense, where did he say he was for it and then fight for it?

[Creideiki]

65. True. But only in the 87th dimension

And it won't take effect for 26 billion years. So make sure you elect Democrats for the next 26 billion years, or we'll be screwed.

[sharp_stick]

32. Well now that's just pretty much wrong

but not at all surprising.

Obama put through what he could get passed plain and simple.

All the "What If's" and "If Only's" in the world aren't ever going to change the fact that there have never been and are likely never going to be A Liberal President, a solid Liberal majority in the House and 60 Liberal Senators. Obama has never been as Liberal as many of his detractors either say he is or hope he will become. As for the House and Senate, I'm in favor of a full on enema to clean those places out.

Obama could have pushed a lot harder for a single payer system or even a public option and the damned thing would die in committee for the simply reason that nobody would consider bringing the thing forward. It would probably have been lucky to make it to committee because he would have had a tough time finding someone to write the bill to begin with. When you're facing a hostile opposition who's mandate is "Defeat Obama" it's time to start playing in the real world.

The Republican's in the House and Senate have made it their goal to obstruct any and all Presidential priorities because they made the calculation that it is the only way they have a shot at the Presidency in 2012. This has been their goal and target since January of 2008.

[JoePhilly]

34. Explain how you get Lieberman to vote yes ... I'll spot you all the other blue dogs ... Go!!

I'll make my case first ...

1) Lieberman is nicknamed "The senator from Aetna".
2) Lieberman's wife worked as a pharma / insurance company lobbyist
3) Lieberman campaigned against Obama in 2008.
4) Lieberman is angry at the Dems for allowing a primary challenge against him
5) Lieberman is not running for another senate term, and was not going to do anything to upset the insurance industry because they will be him off even more after he leaves the Senate.

Now ... please make your case for the specific approach you, as President, get Lieberman to vote YES and end the filibuster. I'm spotting you all of the other blue dogs, you only need to explain SPECIFICALLY how you get Lieberman to flip.

Please explain the leverage you will use to get his vote.

My guess is you will babble about the "bully pulpit" or some other non-specific approach.

But you will not be able to describe a coherent approach to get Lieberman's vote.

Well??

[slipslidingaway]

36. "For one thing, the White House could have used THIS:"

posted by Bvar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002472947#post131

You never replied in that thread, you just keep on asking the same question in different threads. One would almost think Lieberman is president.
You want to start from Lieberman, but you really need to go back to the beginning of the Obama administration to see what was done and what was not done!
Forget about what was said, watch was done.

As Kucinich said years ago, take it to the people first.

The public option was different as it was never really defined, there were so many different versions. Nobody knew exactly what it was, how it would work etc. When the public option was described as being similar to Medicare the polls showed a higher percentage of people in favor of it.

What the public option was, a BIG distraction from a national, not for profit HC system that two-thirds of the country said they wanted, but the Dems ignored their wishes.

[JoePhilly]

50. Ok, I'll play ... Obama sends those people to get Lieberman ...

so what happens then exactly.

What is it that causes Lieberman to vote YES?

He does not care if you hate him. He does not care if those people hate him.

He's getting PAID.

Why does Lieberman cave in when those people show up? What causes him to say "oh well, I'll vote yes".

He still has no reason.

[slipslidingaway]

71. Who knows what his reason would be, maybe we needed to first build support or until ...

Lieberman was voted out of office.

He does make a convenient scapegoat though

Interesting to remember who gets strong armed and who does not, again watch what is done and not done.

White House as helpless victim on healthcare
http://www.salon.com/2009/12/16/white_house_5/


"... The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won’t get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. “We’re not going to help you. You’ll never hear from us again,” Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.

That’s what the White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want. Why didn’t they do any of that to the “centrists” who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care? Why didn’t they tell Blanche Lincoln — in a desperate fight for her political life — that she would “never hear from them again,” and would lose DNC and other Democratic institutional support, if she filibustered the public option? Why haven’t they threatened to remove Joe Lieberman’s cherished Homeland Security Chairmanship if he’s been sabotaging the President’s agenda? Why hasn’t the President been rhetorically pressuring Senators to support the public option and Medicare buy-in, or taking any of the other steps outlined here by Adam Green? There’s no guarantee that it would have worked – Obama is not omnipotent and he can’t always control Congressional outcomes — but the lack of any such efforts is extremely telling about what the White House really wanted here ...


... UPDATE III: Over at Politico, Jane Hamsher documents how Joe Lieberman’s conduct on the health care bill provides the perfect vehicle to advance the agenda of the White House and Harry Reid. Consistent with that, she independently notes media reports that White House officials are privately expressing extreme irritation with Howard Dean for opposing the Senate bill as insufficient, but have nothing bad to say about Lieberman, who supposedly single-handedly sabotaged what the White House was hoping for in this bill.

"UPDATE IV: Immediately prior to the MSNBC segment I just did — video for which I will post when it’s available — an NBC reporter explained how Robert Gibbs used his Press Briefing today to harshly criticize Howard Dean for opposing the health care bill. Why did Gibbs never publicly criticize people like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and the like if they were supposedly obstructing and impeding the White House’s agenda on health care reform (this is a point Yglesias acknowledges as a “fair” one)? Having a Democratic White House publicly criticize a Democratic Senator can be a much more effective pressure tactic than doing so against a former Governor who no longer holds office..."


Compare and Contrast: How Obama Treated Dennis Kucinich vs. Blanche Lincoln
http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/17/compare-and-contrast-how-obama-treated-dennis-kucinich-vs-blanche-lincoln/

"In light of today’s news, it’s worth revisiting a post about Obama’s supposed powerlessness over Congress by Matt Yglesias.

I think there’s something perverse in the very strong desire I see among liberals to make problems in congress be about anything other than congress. It’s just not in the power of Barack Obama to make the senate anything other than what it is. [...] These are men and women who have amassed a great deal of power, and who ultimately need to decide on a daily basis what it is they want to do with that power. If they choose to use it for bad ends, then blame them for that, not Obama or his team’s alleged lack of familiarity with the United States Senate.

Cue Blanche Lincoln.

President Barack Obama hasn’t reached out to lobby Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) on healthcare, the senator said Wednesday.

“I made it pretty clear that I didn’t support reconciliation,” Lincoln said during an appearance on MSNBC, by way of offering a reason as to why the president would let her be. “I think he hates asking people to do things contrary to what their gut tells them to do"

[JoePhilly]

72. How do you vote him out of office when he does not plan to run again???????

Do you not understand this???

There was no way to vote Lieberman OUT of office prior to the HCR debate, he'd already won re-election!!!!

And he did not plan to run again later.

And your points about Lincoln and Nelson are IRRELEVANT to my question ... I already said I'll spot you them.

BTW ... you do know that Obama tried to BRIBE Nelson with what's known as the Cornhusker kickback, right?? It was well reported.

But who cares ... I'm taking the position that we have all of those other blue dogs locked up and ready to vote yes ... we need ONE ... Lieberman.

You seem to want to debate how we get the others ... ... fine feel free to describe how YOU as President would flip ALL OF THEM ... after all you need them ALL.

I am not scapegoating Lieberman. I simply use him as the best example.

I'll tell you what ... I'll spot you all the Blue Dogs as YES votes for Single Payer, including Lieberman, but you have to start with one of them as a NO.

You pick which one ... and you explain how YOU as President obtain the leverage to flip them. Remember to be specific.

And when you do this ... try not to think about the fact that in reality, you would not have to flip just ONE of them, but all of them.

But go ahead ... pick the one blue dog that YOU know how to FLIP on this.

I'm all ears.

[slipslidingaway]

81. Post links to the public pressure from Obama to Lieberman ...

Lieberman: Obama Never Pressed Me On Public Option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/lieberman-obama-never-pre_n_399355.html

Now we know Lieberman is not to be trusted, but show what Obama did to win his support.

I'm all ears.

[JoePhilly]

89. I have Lieberman on the phone ... tell me what to say to him.

Lieberman campaigned AGANST Obama in 2008, you do realize that, right?

But you believe Lieberman when he says, "Obama never pressed me" ... really??!!??

Try this ... do you recall the "Cornhusker kickback?" ... do you know what that was with the HCR debate?

That was Obama trying to get Ben Nelson to come along.

What public pressure do you think Obama had at his disposal to use to press Lieberman?

I'm all ears.

I'm going to say this again ... the reason you can't come up with anything specific is because there was ZERO leverage with Lieberman. None. He was never, under any circumstances vote for it.

Yet you demand that Obama should have used some unknown leverage with him. Some leverage that you can't describe.

I'm going to help you some on this. I've asked this same question maybe 100 times here on DU and I have received about 3 interesting responses ... I will share them with you.

1) Use the DOJ to black mail him. YUP, this was a serious position. Use the DOJ illegally to black mail him. Its a bad idea, but at least this person was thinking.

2) Threaten to cut funding to Israel, or to DOD contracts in Lieberman's home state. Once again, this is a bad idea, but it shows an effort to come up with something Lieberman cares enough about to get hinm to play ball. Most serious people would recognize that you don't play games with national security, and so this approach also fails ... but again, this person was thinking about it.

3) Get Harry Reid to threaten to remove Lieberman from all committees that he's on. This is the best of the responses to date. Lieberman benefits personally from being on those committees because the lobbyists want to come see him ... and so if you take that away, maybe you can get a yes vote out of him. The problem with this approach is that if Lieberman doesn't backdown, and you carry out this threat, (a) Lieberman goes public (which might actually be a good or bad thing), but (b) Lieberman decides to caucus with the GOP, and he votes against every other Dem bill that comes along ... after all, Lieberman is in this for Lieberman, and he's a vindictive jerk ... so this was the only potential path forward, and it was not assured either.

So again ... if you actually have to get votes ... you have to have leverage ... what you suggest i.e., "pressure him" is meaningless unless you describe specifically where the leverage might come from.

most of the folks railing against Obama on this never get that far.

[Chan790]

126. I've now posted the leverage twice...

it's his committee chairs. As a non-member caucusing with the Democrats, he's not supposed to retain accrued seniority; he's supposed to go to the end of the line after all the freshmen Democrats in the Senate in terms of committee assignments among other things. He got a sweetheart deal from Reid to keep his committees, keep his chair. Those are more important to him and his constituents than anything. He admitted as much. That says to me that's where to twist his arm; he can think what he'd like, say what he'd like, but in the end...he'd better vote the party line where it matters.

In exchange, he was supposed to be a loyal member of the caucus. He traded his independence for the chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Then he reneged. I'd say that spoils the deal. Let him serve out his time on the special committee for mopping the drool off John McCain's chin.

Edit: Every step of the way, every time he's gone maverick and screwed us I've asked "Why are we allowing him to break the promise that underlined his caucusing deal??"

[JoePhilly]

136. I included that as item #3 in the post you responded to above.

That item was the only real potential leverage.

Where you and I disagree is on how much Lieberman values those committee positions and what would happen if those were pulled.

I do think that Lieberman likes his committee positions a great deal, but not enough to throw the health care lobby under the bus. I think he places the health care lobby above his committee positions, and WAY above his constituents. After all, he no longer needs his constituents, he's not running again, so he can toss them overboard.

You have to also consider that Lieberman votes with the Dems about 90% with the Dems (source link below). I suspect that if they pulled his committee positions, that percentage falls significantly. And that's why Reid would not, and will not, pull them before the HCR vote. You pull them and you get no HCR at all, and then lose lots of other stuff down the road because Lieberman is a vindictive jerk.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/L000304/votes/

Now of course I set this thought experiment such that all we need to do is flip Lieberman. The reality of course was that not only did we need Lieberman, but we also needed about 5 or 6 other blue dogs.

And you'd have to go through this exact same thought experiment with each of them as well.

When you do that, it gets harder and harder to figure out how Obama gets them all to go along.

[slipslidingaway]

135. Do you read any links or just say Joe is all powerful and the president is powerless. n/t

[JoePhilly]

137. Don't think I said that at all.

Lieberman isn't all powerful, and Obama was not powerless.

I use Lieberman in this thought experiment because many of those who rail against Obama on this topic have never tried to figure out the political challenges associated with getting Lieberman, or any of the other blue dogs, to vote Yes.

I use Lieberman simply because he's probably the most difficult of the bluedogs to flip on a public option.

[karynnj]

98. The "study" that found 2/3rds of the country for single payer is not all that impressive

It was essentially 2 focus groups, in 1991 and 1996, that AFTER a single payer expert spoke to them, sided with having single payer.

There are at least 3 issues with this:
1) This was done decades ago and you can't just claim that it still is true.
2) It does not say how many were in the "jury", nor how they were selected.
3) One concern most statisticians have with focus groups is that a strong "leader" can change the results drastically. Here, you had people who were likely seen as experts advocating for that position.

Now, I think single payer would be much better - and my daughter is very happy with it in London, but this is not a sample that would impress many who worked in statistics.

[slipslidingaway]

133. No, not really, the Dec. 2007 AP-Yahoo Poll had 65/54% depending on how ...

the question was asked.

http://surveys.ap.org/data/KnowledgeNetworks/AP-Yahoo_2007-08_panel02.pdf

You can also find more info here

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

And the July 2009 Kaiser Poll had support at 58%, but the lure of "a public option" was in full swing by that point.

Unfortunately the corporate media, and sadly politicians from both parties, have done a wonderful job of silencing any discussions.

I had a much longer post prepared, but I hit the wrong button.

Bottom line there is support, we just need our politicians to stop blocking the issue.


"Citizens' Health Care Working Group" Ignores Citizens
Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Sep 21st 2007, 01:22 PM

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/29

Is there more support for a single payer system than we are being told?

Congressional Task Force Disregards Public’s Call for National Health Insurance
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/october/citi...

"The group created by Congress to listen to Americans’ ideas for improving the health system has ignored their overwhelming advice to create a national health insurance program. Although a national health program was by far the most favored option at 86 percent (25 of 29) of the meetings of the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group (CHCWG), the group’s recommendations avoid the clear public preference for government-guaranteed health coverage.

When given a choice of ten reform options at public hearings held by the CHCWG, participants clearly favored a national health program by a margin of at least 3 to 1. At meetings where participants were asked to rank the 10 options, national health insurance was ranked first 16 of 19 times... "

[Chan790]

79. Threaten his seniority and committee-chairs he was gifted despite not being an elected Democrat.

It's pretty simple.

"Senator Lieberman, if you don't vote to end the filibuster then that sweetheart-deal you got to keep your committee assignments, seniority in the caucus and retain your committee-chairs...it all ends. Enjoy the baklava and coffee. I expect your answer by 9am; say "no" and you can serve out your term on every unimportant procedural committee in existence and we'll be moving your offices."

How do you get Senator Aetna to play along? Make non-compliance uncomfortable and carry the risk of marginalization. He could leave the caucus but he'd still lose his committees and he couldn't really do any damage as an outsider he couldn't have done as a caucus member.

[CTyankee]

125. I love your idea! The disgust I feel for this man is so great that I get sick just thinking about

him. He has betrayed his country, IMO. He certainly betrayed his party. And all because a bunch of us Dems in CT got together and threw him out of our party. He is a spiteful, vengeful, self serving and vile man. I am so glad that he doesn't live here any more and he doesn't make it into the papers much any more, so I don't have to look at his ugly face.

Now, excuse me while I go throw up...

[JoePhilly]

138. That is the best response. I posted my response up thread.

[Chan790]

140. I just saw that. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

142. Exactly. Huge pressure was brought down on holdouts on the left

None on Lieberman and his ilk.

[meaculpa2011]

91. I think we can agree that Bill Bradley...

is an intelligent, rational and ethical man.

He was also an advocate for tax reform in the 1980s.

When the question of tax subsidies for business use of cars was brought up, he was in favor of limits on the deductibility of luxury cars. Mercedes Benz, BWM, Jaguar and Volvo weighed in. The hard limits were thrown under the bus. Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar and Volvo were all, at the time, HQed in New Jersey. The legislation was modified, imposing very modest limits which were erdoded away over time, with Sen. Bradley's support. This is the way of the world, amigo.

[Myrina]

44. + a couple hundred brazillon

Thank you.

[frylock]

45. good points

[karynnj]

94. Please list all Republican Senators that would have voted for the plan you suggest

Here is an (incomplete) list of some of those that voted for ACA who by their comments in or out of the Senate would vote against it if there were a public option - Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson.

Republicans who supported expanding healthcare all their careers voted against it in 2009. Obama (and Baucus) wasted about 4 months trying to find something that at least Snowe, Hatch or a few other Republicans could vote for. It was not going to happen because the party was against any comprehensive healthcare reform.

[USArmyParatrooper]

132. Obama was not against a public option.

God I can't wait for Obama to be reelected. What will you be posting about then? Everything you've worked so long and hard for will be for not.

[Maven]

19. That actually proves our point, not yours.

He got no "bipartisan" support by dropping it anyway.

Asking Obama to make it part of the public agenda (instead of quietly killing it in a backroom deal with insurance and pharmaceutical company lobbyists) does not equal "pie in the sky dreams." He didn't even try, and that's unacceptable. One is forced to conclude he didn't really want it in the first place.

So yes, he brought this on himself and all of us.

[ProSense]

28. Actually,

"He got no 'bipartisan' support by dropping it anyway."

...the votes needed were in the Democratic caucus. Blanche Lincoln voted against two versions of the public option in committee. Lieberman, Landrieu and Nelson were all being jerks.

[girl gone mad]

77. Oh, waaah!

They were being jerks! Boohoo!!!

GMAFB. This is politics, not rocket science. You twist arms, you go to the mat to get deals done. Obama had no problem threatening progressives when he wanted to get TARP passed for his bankster backers and he had no problem making Kucinich an offer he couldn't refuse to get him to support this POS health insurance mandate.

[Arkana]

128. Oh this is precious.

That's your solution? "Go to the mat"? "Twist arms"? Do you remember what the battle over the health care bill was like? Those assholes were terrified out of their wits and were looking to save their own stinking skins, party and the greater good be damned. No amount of convincing would have corralled them.

And what the fuck are you implying? That he threatened Dennis Kucinich?

[FedUp_Queer]

53. The Bully Pulpit

You are dead on correct. Where did he even fight for it publicly? I know my point is (and has always been on this particular subject) if he had tried and lost that's one thing. But, he folded before even saw the other side's hand.

[AndyTiedye]

85. The Bully Pulpit is the Tee Vee, and it Only Works for the Repigs Because They Own All the Networks

[FedUp_Queer]

129. Good point.

I know when the president calls a press conference or gives a speech, I can't find it anywhere.

[great white snark]

25. Pesky, pesky facts.

Thank you.

[SidDithers]

31. Facts are good...nt

Sid

[LiberalFighter]

42. Obama wasn't on board with Single Payer or Public Option when he was a candidate.

And then there are the Blue Dogs that sat on the committees deciding the health care law and those that they had to twist their arms to vote for it. Some of those are tied in bed with insurance companies like Evan Bayh with his wife Susan as a board member with several health insurance companies.

Another problem are those that advise Obama are probably health insurance assholes or total incompetents.

[eridani]

52. He managed to twist Dennis Kucinich's arm to vote for HCR

Why not do the same to Liebermann et al. to get a public olption?

[sofa king]

92. Maybe this is how he does it.

For the past three years the President has been a master of forcing the Republicans to cast aside any pretense of decency in order to protect their awful, harmful core interests.

What we have all personally witnessed as a result tells us that Republicans are now clearly against non-white people, small businesspeople, poor people, women... and the sick. We are also seeing firsthand how the GOP controls even supposedly nonpartisan government institutions such as the Supreme Court, how their toxic influence helps to lower the quality of life of Americans every single day.

Maybe that is enough to get the message across that if Americans want their government to help improve their lives rather than shoveling profits to protected private interests, they have to run every last scurrilous Republican rascal out of office.

Maybe this is how a centrist, populist President finally begins to rip political control of our government out of the hands of political parties controlled by shadowy private interests and puts it back in the hands of some very pissed off people.

At least I hope it is.

[bvar22]

100. The Very SAME way he ultimatley passed the ACA.... Reconciliation.

When he finally resorted to Reconciliation to get the ACA passed,
he should have reinserted the original Public Option.

At that time, I actually believed that was his strategy,
and was prepared to march in his Victory Parade.
I was STUNNED when he submitted the old plan without a Public Option!


Resorting to Reconciliation with the same exact "reform" plan he has whittled down in a failed attempt to "gain bi-partisan" support was <expletive deleted>.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[nashville_brook]

108. [phone]

[sulphurdunn]

103. A President

can bust a senator's ass anytime one fails to vote the party line on a piece of signature legislation.

[SmellyFeet]

113. Not force, but fight.

Your argument is correct, but most of us that are mad at Obama for the deal he made with insurance companies was his lack of fight for something so many in his base wanted.

[WilliamPitt]

118. When you don't even try,

failure is assured.

[Cosmocat]

124. This shiite pisses me off to no end

It is bad enough the lunatic republicans brainlessly are trying to destroy it for nothing other than blind partisanship.

People want to blame Obama for not getting something that was NEVER going to happen.

[still_one]

4. and how were you going to get LIEberman, nelson, lincoln, byah, and others to go for it? /nt

[DonCoquixote]

22. don't bother

I hated the comment about "professional left" at first, as it wound up being applied to people trying to keep the party honest, but yes, there is a group that truly belives that facts do not apply, that if they just demand something, it will come out hot and ready, with the side dishes.

As much as these folk do not like to hear this, I say it; they are merely the opposite side of the American exceptionalist coin, which believes that heaven and earth are obliged to bend to your desires, facts be damned. OH, to repeat a canard "but why do the right wing people get all they want?"

One, because frankly, the right is controlled by corporations that discourage thinking. We make a trade off, we use our brains, we tend to defend our thoughts, whereas the right is guided by fear and greed, two things unchanged for milennia.

Two, because on our end, we sometimes think we are so rightoeus that anyone can see why we are right. We need to take into account that we have to appeal to the masses at the GUT level, not the mind. Admittedly, we are getting better at this, with the folks from MSNBC and CURRENT, but we have a long way to go.

So, in the meantime, if you asked people question like:
"how do you get the Blue Dogs to vote for Single player?"
They will not be able to offer an answer.

Granted,I will admit, if Obama had pilloried Joe Lieberman, he would have appeared stronger, of course, Joe would have played the race card, and by that I mean the Zionist one. Yes, I know, many of the Jews here are non zionist, and I give them a double salute as I know they have to deal with lots of crap, but Joe did know what card toplay, which is why he would get welcomed back.

In short, there are those who dream of castles in the air, and those of us who dig in the muck, building the foundations under them. But we are not sexy or glamourous, so screw us.

[uponit7771]

38. Basher could care less about answering these simple questions

[Enrique]

54. we should just ignore everything Obama says he's going to do

because, after all, how is he going to get Lieberman, et al to go for it?

Next time, let's vote for a president who can do things.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. Twist their arms: Tell them that if they want any DNC money, they'd better toe the line

Oh, and place ads in their media markets urging listeners and viewers to badger them.

How do you think the Republicans achieve unanimity if they really want something?

Obama really needs to fire his PR staff. They act like a bunch of amateurs who would be overwhelmed by anything larger than publicizing the junior prom.

[SmellyFeet]

114. +1. Sadly, so many blind supporters are okay with his lack of fight on the public option.

He didn't even try; and that's all that many of us really wanted.

[DonCoquixote]

143. OK, I respectfully ask this

Let's say we pilloried Joe Lieberman, obviously we had an excuse.

Let's say we want to twist his arms

How are you going to deal with him when he pulls the race cards, both Obama's, and his own.

Yes, I know not all Jews are zionist, but there are already people from Lynn evelyn de Rothschild on down (to people that need not be namned here) that call for Jews to withold donations until he agress to serve Israel. They do that why, because the money talks.

I use him as an example, I could have as easily used Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who, despite the fact that James O Keefe tried bugging her office, still serves the Oil industry willingly, even though her borther Moon still has not buried all the bodies after Katrina.

The point is, when a Congress critter has their constiuency locked, the president becomes just another face. That is the evil of money in politics, of frankly, of democracy itself. If you are really going to arm twist, you better be sure you have an angle, especially since money makes sure the congress critters have greasy limbs.

Oh, and as far as LBJ's mythical arm twisting, please, the man limped out of office because, despite the fact that HE did more for the poor than ANYONE since FDR, despite the fact that HE signed the civil rights act, many people just kept pining for JFK. LBJ did nto run, and we Democrats had a fine convention where a bunch of Circus Clowns like Abbie Hoffman pulled the camera time away from real issues we had, and enter Nixon.

My solution, we need to keep the gop out of the white house, but we cannot expect change until we apply pressure at the local levels. That means unity, but of course, that is not sexy. Now how some people are cheering on Dennis K to not support Marcy Kaptur, just because she won and he did not. Where are the feminists coming to HER defense?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

144. The part about LBJ is revisionist history

It was opposition to the Vietnam War that did him in.

I know, because I was old enough to watch and understand the news. JFK was fondly remembered (not by everyone, though, that's also revisionism), but I never heard anyone say, "I hate LBJ because he's not JFK."

If he hadn't had this macho compulsion to "finish the job" in Vietnam, he would have won a second term.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. By ditching the PO, he gave himself a route

to negotiate the shoals & reefs of the insurance comanies and get something passed.

I'm awfully critical of the current Act, for all the usual reasons you hear around here, but I don't think he could have gotten anything much better through at the time, what with the Blue Dog population in the Senate. And many people, including my own granddaughter, are receiving insured care that they would not otherwise have gotten.

[still_one]

7. The only thing they should have done is say it was a tax, which probably would have prevented the

case going to the court

[CTyankee]

33. and how many members of congress would vote for "a new tax"?

my guess is that thatoption was considered but rejected when they thought it thru...

[pinto]

10. Agree. And the Congressional compromise enabled the expansion of Medicaid as well

the end of denying availability of insurance for pre-existing conditions.

[Better Believe It]

20. Do you believe that President Obama wanted Medicare for All or a strong public option?

The record shows that he obviously didn't because he fought against advocates of both! They were locked out of the closed door White House and Senate discussions.

But Obama did get a bill passed that was welcomed by big pharma and the insurance industry.

So how do you think we can break the insurance industry stranglehold on health care that has been solidified under the insurance industry health care law?

[Jackpine Radical]

84. From the top:

I don't know what he wanted or didn't want, but I know that he never gave consideration to universal Medicare. He said as much in the campaign; something like "If I were designing it from scratch, uM would be the way to go, but that's not where we are."

He did dangle the PO around for a long time--a long time after it had already been privately given away, IMHO. So he did a fair amount of game-playing to keep the PO crowd quiet until it was too late for them to do anything.

And the end result (as easily predicted, and forecast by many besides me) was the tightening of the grip of the insurers on the public.

BUT---
There were many gains in that plan; not always big ones, but my young granddaughter with serious health issues is insured because of ACA. And a whole lot of other people got coverage that they would not otherwise have had. Appalled as I was by the massive giveaways to the insurers, the Obama plan has provided help to significant numbers of people.

So I'm pretty damn conflicted about the whole thing, actually.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Agreed ...

I'm hoping that people (especially on the Left) will one day understand that when affecting change, especially on the scale of healthcare/Inusrance, one must go slowly.

Face it ... There were not the votes for a public option in Congress, though it held a slight majority favorability with the American public.

Through the ACA, hundreds of thousand of young people could remain on their parents insurance policies; millions were escaped the pre-existing condition/life-time pay-out trap; millions of seniors saw their pharma costs covered.

All of this has positively affected their preception of health insurance coverage. People, in general, cannot appreciate much until they experience it personally.

Now it will be easier to take the next step to a P/O.

[SmellyFeet]

115. Then he's not as smart as many want to think.

He should have proposed something much farther to the left to make a 'public option' the compromise.

[SidDithers]

8. Matthew Rothschild is consistently wrong...

he's the Jim Cramer of the professional left.

Sid

[Maven]

24. Enjoy your single payer healthcare up there, Sid.

I'm sure it mixes nicely with ad hominem bullshit.

[Cleita]

11. No need for the article. Here at DU we argued this same point endlessly

and what the results would be.

[still_one]

15. isn't that the truth /nt

[laundry_queen]

30. I remember that well

despite the numerous gaslighters present.

[gratuitous]

16. In order for Obama to have gotten real health care reform . . .

Obama would have had to work for real health care reform. Instead, what we got out of the sausage factory was a re-working of health insurance, not health care. Obama was (and in too many cases still is) preoccupied with some chimeric vision of bipartisanship. And as long as he and his administration give away the store before negotiations even begin, the Republicans will happily run over his ideas, proposals, policies and programs.

Might things have been different with a coherent administration strategy, one that worked heavily on persuading the public before anything even got going? We'll never know. But Rothschild is absolutely correct that the seeds of failure were planted early on, and mostly by the administration in a futile effort to work with the Republican minorities, apparently thinking they could tweak and modify the proposals as they went along.

[JoePhilly]

35. Can you answer my question in post #34?

Even if Obama "persuades the public" ... how do you, as President obtain Lieberman's vote?

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Easier to win any Senator's vote than it is to get a SCOTUS decison reversed.

That much is a simple fact. So we shall see.

[JoePhilly]

87. So you don't know how either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. Tell him that you'll have the DNC flood his media market (Connecticut)

with ads urging his constituents to phone in their support for a public option.

Tell him that the Groton submarine base is in danger if he doesn't toe the line.

In other words, use the age-old political schemes that Dems used to know how to use but have mysteriously (and conveniently) forgotten ever since the Dem Establishment rolled over and played dead for Reagan.

[Maven]

23. This is the truth. The mandate probably is unconstitutional without a public option.

And it stems from the pained effort to impose a private solution on a public problem.

[mike_c]

26. many of us here have known that from the beginning....

Despite achieving a goal that most of us applaud, albeit somewhat reluctantly-- expanding access to commercial health insurance-- the ACA's individual mandate likely IS unconstitutional and is certainly repugnant. I mean, it's a republican plan, fer cryin' out loud. Medicare for all, on the other hand, has none of those problems. Obama likely scrapped an historic opportunity when he sold out to the commercial insurance industry.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Bought in or bought out?

[littlewolf]

29. I still believe that President Obama

has something planned ... I really don't see him letting something
he put so much political capital into going down in flames
w/o a backup plan of some kind ....

[adigal]

39. I hope he is a chess player, because if this goes down

he can go in front of the cameras and in interviews and say, "I tried to give all Americans health care, but the evil Republicans wanted only the rich to have it, so now we are going to have to offer everyone a public option." He can hammer this home in June, July, August, September, October and up to the day we all vote on him. And then maybe we get the House back and Senate numbers back up.

[mainer]

41. That's what I keep saying!

It leaves the path ahead very clear and uncluttered. We'll be left with only one choice to push for, no more distractions or deals with health insurance companies.

[BlueDemKev]

43. Sure, hammer it home....

....yeah, he can hammer home the "public option" all thru July, August, September, and October....then in November he'll give it a rest when he moves out to his new beachfront property in Hawaii.

The overturning of the health care law in its entirety, which appears very likely based on Justice Kennedy's comments this morning, will be the end of the Obama presidency because his only major achievement will be gone and he will be severely weakened by such a humiliating defeat.

Barack Obama got in way over his head by going for the presidency so early in his political career. Then he didn't get smart folks to advise him. He totally underestimated the partisanship of the right-wing in America and the fact that the Supreme Court is no longer an independent institution, but a nine-member political body where the judges vote according to their viewpoints, with no concern for the constitution or judicial precedent.

[adigal]

90. I disagree...people realize this is all political

And if they have even a half a brain, will understand the Supreme court is political also. Obama will make this case for those without half a brain. He is going to win in November, regardless. Romney is just too smarmy, people just don't like him.

[girl gone mad]

78. Who would believe him this time?

He should try honesty. "I love corporate money and I want to retire into easy riches when I leave office."

I'd have more respect for him.

[grantcart]

40. Yep Snowe, and all of the other 59 Senators needed to pass it all wanted it but Obama said

"No I am going ditch it".

Another writer that cannot count to 60.

[Better Believe It]

46. News flash! It only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, not 60.

And of course any fake Republican filibuster can be easily ended if the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate wants to stop those phantom "filibusters".

This fact has been documented many times on Democratic Underground.

Why even Senator Reid has quickly ended Republican procedural filibusters a few times by forcing them to actually filibuster on the Senate floor!

[grantcart]

56. No it takes a majority

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26%2A2%3C4QLS%3E%0A

Here is how a majority is defined by Senate Rule 22

Quote

The majority required to invoke cloture is three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen
and sworn, or 60 votes if there are no vacancies in the Senate’s membership.
However, invoking cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate’s rules
requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or 67 votes if
all 100 Senators vote.

Unquote

That you are unable to comprehend that in the Senate a majority is defined by its rules of being 60 and not 51, as you apparently do, explains a great deal why you have such a distant grasp of how legislation is actually passed, and the high hurdle the Chief Executive has to jump over to get legislation passed through the Senate.

The only time when the rules can be changed with a majority vote is at the begining of a Session of the Senate.

[chowder66]

59. Here is another link that explains the 60 vote/filibuster issues

It breaks it out pretty clearly and shows why it isn't as easy as just making people stand through the night, etc. It also discusses cloture and the quorum.

Excerpt;

"In this context, we should think about the quorum rule as a potential escape hatch for the minority when it’s being forced to conduct a live filibuster.

After all, if the majority has opted to for Option One (wait it out!), the minority is going to jump at any opportunity to adjourn the chamber (rather than stay up all night talking). Unlike in soccer, the Senate rules don’t stipulate a minimum number for each party — just a minimum of 51 total to maintain a quorum.

This means the minority can decrease their presence by simply turning the filibuster into an extended relay race. For instance, pairs can take turns showing up at the capitol for two- or three-hour shifts at the podium. With over 40 of them on board, they can keep a live filibuster going for days without demanding too much of any individual member’s time.

By doing so, the minority shifts the physical cost of the live filibuster to the majority, which must make sure that most of their members are around to maintain the quorum and keep the minority from using this escape hatch."

http://newsbound.com/filibustery-ep-1/

[chowder66]

62. Was this meant for someone else?

I posted an excerpt from a site that discusses in detail the filibuster, 60 vs 51, quorum's (that is an excerpt I posted about and how the minority can use/abuse it).

My guess is that you meant to post this in reply to someone else. I actually agree with you on the fact that we didn't have the votes.

[grantcart]

63. yep sorry

[chowder66]

66. Phew..eom

[Better Believe It]

64. A simple majority of Senate votes have always been required to pass legislation, 51 today, not 60.

Or in the case of a 50/50 tie the Vice-President can cast a tie breaking vote.



Pelosi Makes Her Case: A Majority Is 51 Votes
By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff
Feb. 10, 2010, 2:08 p.m.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is pinning the blame on Republicans for a lack of bipartisanship in Congress and plans to bypass them if they continue to oppose efforts to enact near-universal health care.

“A constitutional majority is 51 votes,” Pelosi said in an interview Tuesday with Roll Call. “If in fact the Republicans are going to say nothing can be done except by 60 percent, then maybe we all should be elected with 60 percent. It isn’t legitimate in terms of passing legislation.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-43170-1.html

President of the United States Senate

President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. For example, in the first half of 2001, the Senators were divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats and Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote gave the Republicans the Senate majority.

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


As you can see, it is the Republicans who insist that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate.

You seem to be still confusing a vote (60) to end debates or bogus "procedural filibusters" with a vote (51) to pass legislation once a debate ends.

Do you still need more clarification and credible sources on Senate rules and the Constitution?

[chowder66]

70. Yes. 51 is a majority BUT

if someone uses the filibuster you need to either get a 60 vote majority to overrule that filibuster or you need 67 of 100 for a cloture. That is why the 60 vote keeps happening. If these idiots didn't pull the filibuster every time they want to block a bill then the 51 majority would be sufficient.
Please review the breakdown of how broken the system is at the link I provided. It clarifies a lot.

So yes, you are right on that fact that it takes 51 votes to create a majority but the minority uses the filibuster to force a 60 vote majority to shut down the filibuster......... and they can filibuster until the cows come home..... passing it off to the next guy who wants to kill a bill, stall it and that puts the cost of doing the nations business at the foot of the majority. It's a nasty nasty way of not governing, wasting time and avoiding taking care of business in a particularly intense time.


http://newsbound.com/filibustery-ep-1/

just have a look. It's a good overview and it is a good roadmap for what needs to be fixed.

[Better Believe It]

97. Invoking cloture to end debate requires 60 votes. Passing legislation requires 51 votes.

Do you now understand the difference?

You wrote: "The only time when the rules can be changed with a majority vote is at the begining of a Session of the Senate."

Wrong again! Senator Reid can bypass Republican "procedural" filibusters and change Senate rules anytime he wants and go directly to a simple up and down majority vote on legislation.




Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton
October 6, 2011

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

[Major Hogwash]

105. You're talking about 2 different Congresses.

One is the Congress that passed the healthcare plan, who served from 2009 to 2011.
And the other Congress served from 2011 to present.

Not the same thing.

[slipslidingaway]

47. White House as helpless victim on healthcare - Dec 2009

http://www.salon.com/2009/12/16/white_house_5/

"Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferous email backlash — easily — was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama’s occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House — hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama’s campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn’t pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party — rather than the GOP – will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this — the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional “centrists.” Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start — the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:

... Indeed, we’ve seen before what the White House can do — and does do — when they actually care about pressuring members of Congress to support something they genuinely want passed. When FDL and other liberal blogs led an effort to defeat Obama’s war funding bill back in June, the White House became desperate for votes, and here is what they apparently did (though they deny it):

The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won’t get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. “We’re not going to help you. You’ll never hear from us again,” Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.

That’s what the White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want. Why didn’t they do any of that to the “centrists” who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care?

..."

[pnwmom]

48. Obama did NOT ditch the public option. He would have been happy to sign any public option

bill that came across his desk.

It wasn't his fault that the compromise bill didn't contain one. He could only sign the bill that came out of a sharply divided Congress.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. Since most of the provisions don't come into force will 2014

he could have sent it back and said, "No deal without a public option."

I have never seen a president act so helpless.

[treestar]

49. Forcing people to buy public insurance would be just as objectionable

to those who are objecting.

[Enrique]

55. on the far right, yes

they would object on the same basis they object to Medicare.

But to the vast majority of people, the public option would be just as welcome as Medicare and Social Security.

[treestar]

58. Is there any poll to confirm this vast majority?

I had gotten the idea overall that even the ACA was not particularly popular with voters, not because it was not progressive enough, either.

[Enrique]

60. well, the concept of paying for Medicare I mean

that is pretty much accepted now, and it's only controversial to super-extremists on the right. It makes sense that paying for a public option in the same way would be similarly non-controversial.

The mandate to buy private insurance, however, is undoubtedly controversial. Not just with the people challenging it in court, it was also an issue in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama was against it, you might recall, and it was hotly debated here at DU.

[treestar]

73. Hands off their medicare

Yes. Though how the public option would be seen is another issue. Faux and the right would be saying exactly the same thing about death panels, government involvement in health care and being mandated to be insured, even if you could buy the public option.

[girl gone mad]

80. Opposition the the mandate has held steady at 70%..

while support for a public option has held steady at 70%.

Clearly far fewer people object to a public plan buy in.

[progressoid]

86. Right, which is why so many people want to get rid of Medicare

Oh, wait. No they don't.

[AndyTiedye]

57. We DID NOT Have the Votes, We DO NOT Have the Votes, We WILL NOT Have the Votes Any Time Soon

[Better Believe It]

69. Obama did not have 51 votes to pass legislation he opposed, a health care public option.

Why would President Obama even try to win votes for legislation he is against?

If President Obama supported a public option and fought hard for it how do we know he couldn't have gotten 50 Senate votes to pass it with a tie breaker vote cast by the President of the Senate, Joseph Biden?

So what's your point?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. Yup, it could have been a rider to the ACA

allowing Americans under 65 to buy into Medicare. Medicare's main problem is that it insures only the oldest and therefore sickest and frailest Americans. If there were more younger healthier people participating (and paying the same fees that seniors pay), it would help the finances a lot--which is precisely why the Republicanites want to RAISE the age of ability and not only force 65-69-year-olds to buy really, really, really expensive private insurance but also skew the finances of Medicare even further, since the older you are, the more likely you are to develop heart disease, strokes, cancer, etc.

I remember asking the DUers on the UK forum about private insurance in their country. They said that both private insurers and private practice doctors were aware that if they price-gouged, their customers could always go back to the NHS, so this kept prices down.

[bvar22]

104. Well, thats the cover story,

and you can stick with it.

Truth is, we don't KNOW what would have happened because it was never tried.

I would have much preferred that Obama forced the Senate to actually VOTE on it,
and have Lieberman cast his vote facing THIS gang:
[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]


It is one thing for Lieberman to grand stand in the Kabuki Theater of threats.
It IS a very different thing to force him to actually stand up in full public view and DO IT!

We will NEVER really know what would have happened
because the Dem Leadership never really tried.


My personal response to weasels who threaten blackmail or vindictive retribution is
a very clear, "Do your WORST, asshole."
That has always worked well in MY life.
Bending Over & Taking it because some wimp asshole threatens to do something bad
only welcomes more manipulation.

There have been Democratic Presidents in the past who KNEW and Practiced
that approach in successfully dealing with whiny assholes.
FDR,
Harry Truman,
and LBJ come to mind immediately.
Thankfully, I am old enough to remember how Liebermans can be dealt with.




Can you imagine wimpy, little, spoiled brat, Joe Lieberman standing up to LBJ,
stamping his little foot and saying "No" to Medicare?

We would STILL be finding little pieces of Lieberman's ass spread all the way from Texas to Connecticut.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. I'm of the same era as you, and I am furious at the continuous

30 years of Dems playing helpless and deferential to the Republicans.

It's all theater. The Liebermans, Baucuses, and their ilk call themselves Democrats only because they don't want to be identified with the sociopathic loonies who make up the current Republican party. But in their beliefs and actions, they are EXACTLY like Nixon Republicans.

[AndyTiedye]

134. LBJ Had It Easy Compared to Today's Democrats

Can you imagine wimpy, little, spoiled brat, Joe Lieberman standing up to LBJ,
stamping his little foot and saying "No" to Medicare?

Totally! If LIEberman (D?, Aetna) had been the 60th vote to break the Repiglickin filibuster on Medicare, there would be no Medicare.

[bvar22]

139. The White House could have CRUSHED Joe Lieberman anytime it wanted to.

The key phrase is "wanted to".

Former DLC Chairman Joe Lieberman took one for Team DLC.
He had nothing to lose,
and was well rewarded by the Dem Leadership,
as was Blanche Lincoln.
SEE: Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010

[ProSense]

68. How about

some facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002485467

[NC_Nurse]

74. As I recall, it was Loser Lieberman who wouldn't agree to let a Medicare buy-in

be a part of the law.

[fascisthunter]

75. unfortunately, the author is right

this is why you aim high when you start negotiating.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

102. so you have an item worth 500 000 dollars and you need to sell it

Now you know what the item is worth and those wanting it knows its value

Do you really suggest that you would be able to get a good prize for your item if you started your negotiation at 2 million dollars? or do you think those wanting it would dismiss you and look for somebody more sensible

[fascisthunter]

106. that's your own hypothetical... why two million? Why not use a trillion as an example

that way you frame it so that my statement seems as ridiculous as your hypothetical.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

121. i chose 2 mill since that was a good equalent value in my mind when it comes to the likelyhood of

the public option passing congress

the reps knew the score, and the dems knew the score, had obama(or rather the democratic side of congress) tried to start negotiations sky high it would simply have been dismissed from the start

[craigmatic]

83. No matter what it would've gone to the SCOTUS.

[HiPointDem]

88. The difference would have been that public option would have been more popular than mandate.

That makes it politically harder for the sc to strike it down and write justifications for striking other social programs down.

If they struck down a universal care option, obama would be on the good foot.

as things stand, people don't like the forced to buy private insurance option. considering that EVEN WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE THERE'S STILL TONS OF STUFF TO PAY FOR. which is probably the main thing they understand about the law.

the law is over a thousand pages and tortuous. there hasn't been any attempt i've seen to make the whole thing clear.

[karynnj]

93. Sorry, but I really do NOT see the difference in terms of legality

if one option were to buy into Medicare. It would still be a requirement that you have to buy a product and the issue is whether a state could require that. The issue is not that for profit companies provide it. In fact, it is very likely that in most (or even all) there will be non-profits in the exchanges.

It is true that a straight Medicare for all, paid by a tax, would obviously be as Constitutional as Medicare itself. However, though that might be Constitutional, Bernie Sanders, who wrote a bill for that, said no more than 10 Senators would vote for it. There was no way to get the additional 50 needed. Likely because there were too many people who thought their current insurance was better than a public plan that would be the only choice. (though obviously a private company could sell insurance on top of the default plan that all would be in.

What this really is seems to me to be someone still angry that the public option was not added. There is NO legal support given to back up that argument - other than saying that Medicare has stood for 47 years. Adding that option, however, would not change the question of whether Congress has the right to MANDATE you select and buy one of the options. That it would have made many far happier with the bill and the options they would have does not make it more likely to survive the challenge. I did not hear any quotes from the SC that suggested that the problem was that all the insurance plans were public.

Additionally, it is disingenuous because it is very well known that even the idea of allowing people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare was proposed - and for a few days thought to be the way the Senate would go - until Joe Lieberman said he would vote against the bill in that case. This would have defeated it.

I think there should have been a robust public option because it would have driven the insurance companies to lower prices due to its competition. That, though, is a far different question than having it would have changed the Constitutional question.

[Better Believe It]

95. 50 Senate votes with the President of the Senate, Joe Biden, casting the tie breaker can pass it.

And Senator Reid can easily end any fake Republican "procedural" moves to prevent an up or down vote.

For some reason they are called "filibusters" without anyone actually filibustering!

I guess calling them "filibusters" makes it easier to allow Republicans to pull them off.

[ProSense]

99. While

"50 Senate votes with the President of the Senate, Joe Biden, casting the tie breaker can pass it."

...you're pretending that the filibuster doesn't exist, can you also increase taxes on the rich, end oil subsidies, pass the Progressive Caucus Budget and single payer?

Thanks!

On edit: This is still possible, you know. There are still 53 members of the Democratic caucus.

These likely wouldn't pass in the House, but imagine "50 Senate votes with the President of the Senate, Joe Biden, casting the tie breaker" going on record by passing these bills!

Woo hoo!

[karynnj]

101. It is true that at before the 110th Congress started, the rules could have been changed - but they

weren't. The likely reason was that it was assumed that it was better to pass bills that had more than just 50 people supporting them. The rules of the Senate define filibustering like that - and in this case, if they would have had to filibuster by speaking, they would have been speaking.

If it were just Reid, there would have been Senators complaining - if only Bernie Sanders. Not to mention, even by March 10, 2010, Howard Dean, who had a website that was tracking who was for the public option, spoke of having 40 Senators. It is really not clear that we would have had the 50 - especially as many might be concerned by the process.

[Better Believe It]

120. Actually fake Republican procedural "filibusters" can be ended at anytime as can Senate rules.

Republican "procedural filibusters" can be brought to an abrupt halt by Senate Democrats by simply ending their "dual-track" Senate debate practice. They don't even need to change Senate rules! BBI



Op-Ed Contributors
A One-Track Senate
By BARRY FRIEDMAN and ANDREW D. MARTIN
Barry Friedman is a vice dean at New York University School of Law. Andrew D. Martin is the chairman of the political science department and a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
March 9, 2010

During the 1960s, the Senate was frozen by lengthy filibusters over civil rights legislation. When, in the mid-’70s, that tactic once again threatened to bring the Senate to a standstill, Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who was the majority whip, invented a dual-track system. This change in practice allowed the majority leader — with the unanimous consent of the Senate or the approval of the minority leader — to set aside whatever was being debated on the Senate floor and move immediately to another item on the agenda.

The result of tracking? No more marathon debate sessions that shut down the Senate. While one bill is being “filibustered,” business can continue on others.

Because dual-tracking is a Senate practice, not a formal rule, the majority leader, Harry Reid, could end tracking at any time. By doing so, the Democrats would transform the filibuster and recover their opportunity to govern effectively.

The new-school filibuster would preserve minority rights in the Senate, while imposing significant costs on obstructionist members, changing the calculus that causes today’s logjam. Stuck on the Senate floor, filibustering senators couldn’t meet with lobbyists or attend campaign fund-raising events; they couldn’t do much of anything, really, until their filibuster ended.

After all, filibusters historically broke when public opinion went against the Senate minority. If the Democratic leadership eliminated the dual-track system, serial, single-issue filibusters would give us an opportunity to see where the country actually stands on issues like health care reform and financial regulation — and where the Senate should stand.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10martin.html?_r=2


Filibuster in the United States Senate
From Wikipedia

"After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Byrd, who was at that time serving as Senate Majority Whip. Before the introduction of tracking, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader — with unanimous consent or the agreement by the minority leader — to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the "two-track system", the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each matter or measure will be considered."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate


Critique of the Senate Filibuster
By Roy Ulrich
Roy Ulrich is a researcher at Demos, a New York-based policy and advocacy organization
May 5, 2009
The extended speechifying made famous by Strom Thurmond and Huey Long before him has been replaced by what legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have dubbed the "stealth" filibuster. Its genesis was the early 1970s, when it became apparent to then majority leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) that delaying tactics such as objections to unanimous consent motions; forcing the previous day's journal to be read aloud in its entirety; suggesting the absence of a quorum; and -- of course -- extended periods of time holding the floor were causing the Senate to fall behind in doing the people's business. (Contrary to popular legend, the workload of the modern-day Senate is substantial. Most members could make a convincing argument for the proposition that they really don't have time to wait out a filibuster.) In response, Mansfield devised a "two-track" system where the mornings were devoted to filibustering and the afternoons to pressing business. With liberal Democrats taking the floor to argue against further funding of the Vietnam War and in favor of stripping right-to-work provisions out of federal labor laws, there was bipartisan support for his efforts. While this dual system may have solved Mansfield's problems over the short term, over the long term it has proved to be disastrous. An explanation for this statement is in order.

Rather than dividing mornings and afternoons between filibustered bills and other matters, over time the Senate has come to a point in time where it seldom takes up legislation unless the majority leadership has counted sixty votes. In other words, a credible threat that 41 senators won't vote for cloture is enough to keep a bill off the floor on most occasions. Boston College historian Julian Zeliger puts it this way: "Mansfield's measure, which was intended to promote efficiency, inadvertently encouraged filibusters by making them politically costless and painless."

One way for a senator to let her colleagues know that she intends to pursue a filibuster is to place a "hold" on a bill, thereby letting her colleagues know she will not accede to unanimous consent. Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein has noted that in the modern Senate holds "are routinely employed -- often anonymously -- against bills or people the senator has nothing against, but wants to take as hostages for leverage on something utterly unrelated to the hold itself."

If members actually had to hold the floor as in the days of Senators Long and Thurmond, most filibusters would end quickly. The reason is that we live in an age where this public disgust over partisan gridlock. Public airing of the old-fashioned filibuster on C-Span and elsewhere would not be something most Senators would want the public to see. In the current climate, it would be sound political strategy for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to force the Republicans to engage in extended debate on a major issue such as health care reform. Best of all, no change in Senate rules would be required.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-ulrich/a-critique-of-the-senate_b_193221.html




Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton
October 6, 2011

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

[ProSense]

123. You should

send that article to Reid. I don't think he and the other members of the Democratic caucus are aware of the "fake Republican procedural 'filibusters'"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002489532

[ProSense]

96. Exactly,

What this really is seems to me to be someone still angry that the public option was not added. There is NO legal support given to back up that argument - other than saying that Medicare has stood for 47 years. Adding that option, however, would not change the question of whether Congress has the right to MANDATE you select and buy one of the options. That it would have made many far happier with the bill and the options they would have does not make it more likely to survive the challenge. I did not hear any quotes from the SC that suggested that the problem was that all the insurance plans were public.

<...>

I think there should have been a robust public option because it would have driven the insurance companies to lower prices due to its competition. That, though, is a far different question than having it would have changed the Constitutional question.

...not only that, but also the fact that there are Republicans who are challenging the constitutionality of Medicare and Social Security.

They would have challenged the law with a public option, which is not the same as Medicare for all. They would have challenged it regardless of its structure. Their goal is to preserve the status quo.

Also, while the health care law has been compared to Mass health care, Republicans have never challenged the constitutionality of that law.

[newspeak]

116. the difference is the "for profit" motive

I am one who would have opted for the public option over the for profit insurance industry.

But, some on the board complain how it's all those delusional liberals fault why we didn't take the senate and lost the house in 2010. And yet, being on this board, you can see that some were quite upset that the meeting for the health insurance bill did not include the people. It looked like the vested corporate interests were included at the table; but not, doctors, nurses, citizens who have been fighting for a less complicated, less expensive, less greedy, more compassionate system. As a matter of fact, I believe some doctors and nurses were arrested for attempting to get a seat at the table.

Oh I voted; but I'm not that delusional to know that there are more democrats who describe themselves as "new democrats" who are nothing more than toadies, like the repugs to corporate power OVER the people.

It looks like when some get up on the hill, it's buddy, buddy no matter if you're a repug and a democrat. Some negotiations, settling does nothing more than hurt the people more, while giving corporations even more power and money over us. They go to cocktail parties together, family outings together and have their nice little chats. I may get flamed, but right now, I'd rather see like some other foreign parliaments, fist and words flying-anyone who'd fight for the well being of the people over their mostly global business friends.

I live in nevada. And all the austerity measure bullshite, the "we must all sacrifice" bullshite is nothing but bullshite. Because, like some here, I know HOW AND WHY we got in this mess and right now I'm thinking it's an intentional mess created to take away even more labor rights, give even more to the ones who have too much and basically destroy the social safety net. I watch the ads now (thanks to citizens united) on the telly numerous times a day saying how it's the unions fault why people are hurting, why people don't have jobs; how union bosses are greedy. See, if only you'd get rid of what's left of anyone who is supposed to represent you, then we can do business and give you one of our shitty jobs for peanuts.

Okay, the rants done; but the environment being created in this country is like taking one step forward and about ten steps backward. Very scary, indeed. I'm really not looking forward to the return of the disgusting, sociopathic robber baron days.

[karynnj]

119. I agree that single payer is a far better alternative, but it is NOT the for profit motive that led

to the challenge. As it is, there will be non profits offering plans - as well as for profits. There will not be a government run option. The issue is not that, it is whether Congress can degree a mandate to buy some insurance.

[G_j]

110. and ironic that it's a RW Hertitage Foundation conception to begin with,

a single payer policy would have not ended up in this quandry

[just1voice]

117. The people who can get "health care" could care less about others in society

who can't. It's pathetically obvious from reading people's "but my grand daughter has insurance" stories as if that makes it OK that 10s of millions of other people don't have insurance. It's the "I got mine, screw you" society that's incapable of viewing society overall.

Mix that heinous sentiment with corruption on every level and America is where it is now, making excuses while people die.

[librechik]

122. yes indeed, and I screamed about it at the time

why do I even bother? It's like the narrative is already written that says SOL, America...

[Arkana]

127. Bullshit.

The public option didn't make it out of committee.

[Better Believe It]

131. And guess who killed it!

[newspeak]

141. meanwhile, back at the ranch

ryan's "screw the people, privatize the shite out of everything and cut medicaid" for austerity measures, you understand, just passed the house. Oh, wall street and the insurance industry are rubbing their hands, waiting for the windfall coming their way.

And since, repugs like ryan, are against any and all types of regulation; it'll be feeding sheep to the wolves (we being the sheep).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. And note that the Republicans get things done

We may hate what they get done, but they're unified and they have a single platform, not a bunch of mavericks who vote with the other party half the time.

[dkf]

146. No...he is in trouble because he couldn't call it a tax instead of a penalty.