Harkin: OBAMACARE Should Have Been SINGLE-PAYER But 'WE BLEW IT'

[Segami]

"....the first Congress of President Barack Obama's administration should have passed “single-payer right from the get go or at least put a public option (which) would have simplified a lot....”

AND 'BLEW IT', WE DID!!...........................






Retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who helped oversee the drafting of the Affordable Care Act, lamented in a recent interview that the law had become compromised amid the political turmoil that surrounded its passage. He also expressed regret that the law didn't include liberal policies like a single-payer health care system or a public health insurance plan, as many had hoped it would in the early stages.

“We had the votes in ’09. We had a huge majority in the House, we had 60 votes in the Senate," Harkin told The Hill, saying that the first Congress of President Barack Obama's administration should have passed “single-payer right from the get go or at least put a public option (which) would have simplified a lot.”

“We had the votes to do that and we blew it,” he said. He decried that the law as it exists is "really complicated" and benefits the insurance companies, though he praised its prevention health funding.

“We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified health care, made it more efficient and made it less costly and we didn’t do it,” Harkin told The Hill. “So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.

The latter comment reflects those made recently by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said that health care reform "should have come later" after Democrats took control of Congress and the White House in 2009.




http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tom-harkin-obamacare-single-payer-blew-it


.

[antigop]

1. yep. nt

[Sherman A1]

2. Yup!

it most certainly should have been.

[JoePhilly]

3. Did he mention why he didn't get Lieberman to vote YES?

Lieberman was NEVER going to vote yes on a public option, let alone single payer.

Harkin should explain why he, personally, did not talk Lieberman into it.

[Segami]

6. You'll need to wait for Harkin's tell-all book

for the Lieberman nitty-gritty details and many other issues......but you won't hear it now until its time to tease the public with the details for his book tour.

[JoePhilly]

7. You are probably right.

This is just his teaser.

[Autumn]

10. I wonder if Obama or Reid had told him you vote yes or no chair if he would have given in?

He might have caved.

[JoePhilly]

50. See my post #49 ... he was never voting YES.

There was no leverage.

Pretend you are President, outline the mechanisms through which you get Lieberman to vote YES>

As I explain in post #49, he has absolutely no reason to vote YES. None whatsoever. In fact, doing so hurts him.

I have asked on DU, repeatedly, for folks to come up with a way to force Lieberman to vote YES. I'm spotting you all of the other blue dogs. You just need to flip Lieberman.

Explain how in detail.

[AtomicKitten]

65. Lieberman balked because of "liberal enthusiasm."

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-liberal-enthusi_n_392887.html

In an interview with the New York Times, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) revealed Tuesday that he decided to oppose a Medicare buy-in in part because liberals like Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) liked it too much.

And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

"Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it's the beginning of a road to single-payer," Mr. Lieberman said. "Jacob Hacker, who's a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, 'This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.'"

[JoePhilly]

71. Yup ... that is the 3rd item in my post #49.

[Volaris]

67. "...outline...YES>."

You find a microphone and a television camera and SHAME that self serving, worthless rat-bastard into it.
Day
after day
after DAY...

Maybe next time something needs doing in this country in a really big way, Elected Dem's will remember this little snippet of Hindsight being 20/20, and...well you get the idea...

[JoePhilly]

70. You think Lieberman cares about shame?

lol.

[Autumn]

82. I disagree, IMO there was leverage. The chairmanships he was given after campaigning for McCain.

I base my opinion on deals to get senators to vote for what they don't want to vote for in previous senate sessions and administrations. As for the rest of your post, I have no desire to take your silly little challenge.

[JoePhilly]

95. It was not enough.

You have no prior basis to use as an example do you?

Of course not, there isn't one.

My challenge is "silly" because you can't come up with anything specific that would have worked.

A few have tried, I provided their best attempts below for your reference.

But it is so much easier to blame Obama.

Takes much less real thought.

[GoneFishin]

157. "It was not enough". Your opinion. When BO wanted Dennis Kucinich's cooperation

he at least tried, and he got it.

You don't know what would have happened if BO had made a real effort because he didn't make any effort. Like so many issues he has handed to the right-wingers without any real push back, he gave it away without even asking for anything in return.

[merrily]

182. Oh, please. Presidents have bargained with Senators on important votes since forever.

Lincoln did it for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, FDR did it for the New Deal, LBJ did it for the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society, they all did it.

Explain how in detail.

Same way all Presidents have done it in the past. You find out what he wants, what he thinks he needs and then you find a way to give it to him, or come as close as you can.

Since I never met Lieberman--never chose him as my mentor, either--your challenge is bogus as to me and probably all DUers. Other Presidents did not figure out how to get what they wanted from a message board--but they DID figure it out.

[jeff47]

239. He wants millions as a lobbyist.

He gets that by voting against you.

Now actually explain how you get him to vote yes.

[merrily]

251. *massive eye roll* Easy. Have him call me.

[jeff47]

259. So, you have no idea and are just spouting off. (nt)

[merrily]

260. If that's what you need to tell yourself, I can't stop you.

Keep trying to sell the idea that I can negotiate with Lieberman or anyone without speaking to him.

A lobbyist job is so damn easy, anyway. you should have asked for something harder, like beating Lamont.

[jeff47]

262. If you had a way to do it, you could say it here.

Yet over and over again you cite no strategy. Just that it could somehow have been done.

[merrily]

263. Fine. Prove I couldn't do it if I had access to Lieberman and the same leverage over

him that the Democratic Party and its head, Obama, had over him in 2009.

Demanding that you do that in a vacuum is almost as dumb as your claim that I can decide in a vacuum what Lieberman wants. And again, a lobbyist job for a former Senator is easy peasy. Just ask Dodd and others.

[jeff47]

265. What leverage?

Lieberman knew he would not be running again. He could not win a primary in either party. So threatening to not help his reelection gets you nothing.

At that point, Lieberman was setting himself up to be a talking head/lobbyist. Take away his committee assignments and you advance his talking head career.

Threaten aid to Israel and you lose several other senators.

Again, you keep claiming that there was leverage, yet you are unable to actually list any ways in which the party had leverage over Lieberman.

And we haven't even gotten past Lieberman to Ben Nelson yet. And the next 5-or-so most conservative Democrats

[merrily]

266. What is the goal of these exchanges, Jeff?

[jeff47]

267. Well, some would use them as an opportunity to explain how they'd actually get Lieberman's vote.

Thus showing that the Democrats could have done more. Say, if you were Senator Harkin and trying to explain how a single-payer bill could have actually passed the Senate.

Since you insist that it could be done, I'd like to hear how it could be done. But that requires specifying how it would be done, not vague claims of "leverage". What, specifically, would have caused the Senator from Aetna to vote for single-payer?

[merrily]

269. Those would be the asses, Jeff. The notion that you can negotiate with Joe Lieberman in 2009

from a message board in 2014 without ever talking to Lieberman is too stupid to entertain.

[jeff47]

270. Then why are you not only entertaining it, but supporting it? (nt)

[merrily]

271. Zzzzzzzz

[jeff47]

272. I know, actually backing up your assertions can be so tiring.

[merrily]

276. I don't think that post helps you.

This exchange has been more useless than most. If you need the last word, it's yours.

[jeff47]

282. As if your lengthy string of evasions was helpful to you?

If you need the last word, it's yours.

The ACA moves the battle to the states. Get to work in yours.

[Jesus Malverde]

277. "Threaten aid to Israel and you lose several other senators. "

Or not when they all cave to keep the billions flowing to that apartheid state. You can't play poker without betting.

[jeff47]

281. And going all in with a pair of 4s when they're showing a pair of kings isn't gonna win.

They had the leverage. They knew it. They used it to kill health reform in the 1990s and didn't suffer, so they knew they could kill health reform in 2010 - and they had Coakley to hide behind.

National single-payer couldn't get past the conservative Democrats in the senate. So the ACA moved the battle to the states. Get to work in your state. That will let us have a much stronger hand when we return to the federal battle.

[AndyTiedye]

161. Nope. Nothing Could Possibly Have Induced Lieberman to Vote For a Public Option

The insurance industry owned him. He could not possibly be induced to act against it.
Not even threatening to sideline Electric Boat and every other military contractor in the state could have gotten him to vote for a public option.

[Autumn]

219. Yet with a 56 to 43 vote we got mandated health insurance.

Reconciliation.

[jeff47]

261. No, the second vote was to 43.

The first vote was 60 to 40. That bill was tweaked by the second vote.

The ACA includes things that can not be passed by reconciliation. Those were passed by the first bill. Then a second reconciliation bill was passed that tweaked some of the first bill.

[helpmetohelpyou]

26. I don't buy it , Liberman would have caved if every other Democrat voted for single payer

I don't care if he's from the insurance capital of the country.

He would have not stood as the single man alone that stopped single payer

[geek tragedy]

32. He would have had company.

Remember Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln?

[helpmetohelpyou]

43. I did forget but

all 3 were because of funding for their political campaigns
from insurance companies , medical groups and the pharmaceutical industry


I still say all 3 would have been pressured to cave for one of the most significant things to happen
since social security in this country.


It was Obama that needed use his persuasion for it to happen.

It never happened because Obama never wanted a single payer to the dismay of many no matter
what had been spoken publicly by him.

Money runs Washington not idealism when you hold the single most important office in the world.

It would have meant that Obama really believed in what he said , he didn't so that's why
we have the ACA

It is what insurance companies wanted and really in the end it's what Obama really wanted.

[geek tragedy]

55. Joe Lieberman was immune to pressure.

He actually enjoyed pissing progressives off. He proposed lowering the Medicare age to 55 then threatened to filibuster it once progressives supported it.

Obama does not have magic powers that transform corrupt rightwing cretins like Ben Nelson into socialists.

In addition to the three we're discussing, don't forget Max Baucus, Tom DLCarper, Mark Pryor, Chuck Schumer (who thinks the ACA was too ambitious), Mary Landrieu, Feinstein, McCaskill.

[JoePhilly]

73. They think "Obama pressure" beats a 7 figure think-tank deal.

Of course they can't really explain how the pressure from Obama works, or even what it is, but Obama still should have "done it" ... whatever "it" is.

[helpmetohelpyou]

108. Electric Boat

[helpmetohelpyou]

110. Electric Boat

[JoePhilly]

49. Wrong for four reasons.

1) Lieberman campaigned against Obama and for McCain in 2008. McCain was going to make Lieberman either SecDef, or SecState (giving the other position to Graham). Lieberman was pissed that Obama prevented this by winning.

2) Lieberman is know as the "Senator from Aetna" for a reason. Not only were they major contributors to his campaigns, members of his family had careers with Aetna. He was not going to damage that.

3) Lieberman had already said he was not running for another term. He was pissed that liberals beat him in a primary and that he had to run as an Independent. He's a vindictive shit, and he could not have cared less about being the last man standing.

4) He was already lining up his 7 figure think-tank deal. And where is he now? At a think tank making 7 figured. He's getting PAID.

Even if I spot you all of the other blue dogs, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you could do to get Lieberman to vote YES on a PO, let alone single-payer.

[helpmetohelpyou]

51. I go back to my other point for it to happen

it would have needed Obama to really want it also.

He didn't

[JoePhilly]

61. Can't come up with a way to get Lieberman to vote YES?

Don't feel bad, no one can.

I've challenged DU members for years on this point.

Whining about Obama "not wanting it" is one of the more popular ways to avoid admitting there was no way to flip Lieberman to Yes.

So not surprised you went there.

[helpmetohelpyou]

113. Electric Boat

[JoePhilly]

115. My challange has caused others to go crazy too ...

... you are not the first.

[helpmetohelpyou]

117. You asked me how to pressure Lieberman

EB was his baby this whole time and he would have been looked at as a failure
in CT if he didn't get the contracts secured and EB closed it's doors forever

[JoePhilly]

124. Ahhh ... I see, at least you took a shot ...

In post #69, I've mentioned a few other examples where people at least tried to come up with some thing.

Your response falls in with the second item I mention, threaten aid to Israel ... and is along the lines of "take away something he wants".

The Electric Boat isn't as big as cutting off aid to Israel, but its the same kind of approach. It fails for a few reasons. First, at this point Lieberman does not care how CT sees him. The Dems attacked him with a primary that he lost, and he's not ever running again. He doesn't care. The payoff from voting NO is much larger.

[helpmetohelpyou]

129. I don't buy that for a second

He absolutely cares about his legacy in CT where he born and still lives with his family and all his children and his grand children.

He is a CT native and EB was one of his most fought fights to keep that shipyard open
even though economically the subs could have built cheaper in the shipyards in the south.

He knew if EB closed that whole eastern part of the state would have turned literally
into a ghost town with 100's of other businesses that would have followed.

This was a big deal for our state to keep EB open.

This was the pressure that Obama could have used if he wanted to.
And don't think for a minute Obama didn't know that.

As to cut off aid to Israel?

No one's going there and neither was Obama

[merrily]

208. No, they didn't go crazy. They were only laughing at how silly the alleged challenge is.

[2banon]

167. you win so many points on your "whining" argument..

really astute and so persuasive.

[sabrina 1]

235. It is an insult to this President to claim he had zero influence over his own party.

Lieberman's vote would not have been needed had Dems ended te 60 vote rule in the Senate in Jan 2009.

You have been told over and over again how Lieberman could have lost any power the DEMS GAVE HIM. They could have just easily taken it away.

So yes, all these lame excuses are simply that, excuses.

Presidents have faced much more difficult challenges than that moron.

It is ludicrous to use Lieberman as an excuse. It is claiming that he had more power than the WH and more power than Congress AND every Dem in the Senate.

I've heard some ridiculous excuses, but that one was always one of the worst.

And btw, if ONE Senator has that much power, what is the point of electing Democrats, giving them the House, the Senate and the WH? Can you answer that? Because trying to use Lieberman as an excuse has caused many voters to ask that question and to decide that all the work they did was for nothing. ONE SENATOR does not have that kind of power!

But these kinds of arguments caused Democrats to lose Congress in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Sometimes I wonder if that is the goal??

[Andy823]

64. You are right, but

Don't expect the hard core Obama bashers to see the facts, that just ins't their way. Nope "everything" that goes wrong is "Obama's fault" and all the accomplishments he has made since beaming president are simply ignored. Hell some of them even go so far to say he has accomplished "nothing" at all. Bashers gotta bash.

[JoePhilly]

69. The best answers to my question ...

I've asked my Lieberman question on DU many times.

"YOU are President, how do you get Lieberman to vote yes, given my 4 points?"

No one has yet to come up with a "workable" answer. However, a few folks at least tried, rather than deflect.

One said ... "Obama should have used the DOJ to blackmail Lieberman". This was from a fairly vocal, self proclaimed liberal, who is still pretty active here. Totally insane, but at least it shows some thought.

One said ... "Obama should take Lieberman aside and threaten to significantly cut US aid to Israel." Again, also insane, but the person really thought about it and took a shot.

And one said ... "So offer Lieberman SecDef or SecState for his vote." Again, insane, given that putting Lieberman in charge of either of those would risk war on a massive scale.

Most just give up, and complain that Obama didn't come up with a way. Yet they can't offer a path forward.

[Doctor_J]

151. You you think the voters are sympathetic to a party that can't get the job done with 59 Senators?

especially since Obama promised he would not sign a bill that didn't have a PO in it. When he did, that makes him either a liar, or hopelessly weak. Either way the new voters are going to throw up their hands (just like the president did).

[smokey nj]

155. You've hit the nail on the head. Democrats, rather than doing what they needed to to get things done

with the numbers they had (which was a larger majority than the Republicans ever had during the Bush administration), pissed and moaned that they didn't have a filibuster proof majority. That made them look weak, helpless and pathetic.

[joshcryer]

173. Did he mention Ted Kennedy's illness and death?

And Al Franken's fight to get seated?

That 60 votes thing is a talking point.

I would've expected some honesty from Harkin since he's retiring but it seems he wants to throw some hyperbole in there.

Yes there was a 20-30 day window, where you take the dying body of Ted Kennedy in there with a life support system and have him make his vote, but Obama was never that kind of leader.

[merrily]

183. No, it was not 20-30 days, but closer to 3-4 months. Besides, Kennedy's illness was no surprise.

Had the ducks been in a row, the vote could have been taken.

You can google the exact number of days. The number is on the net.

Or, you could claim to know better than an experienced Democratic Senator like Harkin, or claim that Harkin is being dishonest. (Didn't you tell me he was your number 1 choice for President, but he doesn't want to run?)

[joshcryer]

186. 39 days from Franken seating to Kennedy death.

Assuming you got Kennedy in there on life support with a wheelchair and he was even conscious when Franken got seated.

Otherwise you needed Lieberman's vote. And you sure weren't getting a public option with Lieberman.

[merrily]

190. LOL! You are not going to count Kennedy's hand picked place holder as a Democrat?

Again, Josh, just google. Someone checked a calendar and did the math, literally.

And you sure weren't getting a public option with Lieberman.

Not if you didn't want it, no. You need to read this thread.

[joshcryer]

191. It always depended on Lieberman.

Fact.

[merrily]

193. Again, Josh, read the thread.

[joshcryer]

196. Drop the circularity.

Kent Conrad, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, and Joe Lieberman were against it. Eventually that included Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus as they wanted to get something passed before the budget issue came up.

[merrily]

197. It's linear, not circular. Read the thread.

[joshcryer]

201. Read post #196.

Do you have evidence those Senators would've voted for it? Otherwise we don't have the votes. Period.

[merrily]

202. I have. And responses are already on this thread.

Do you have evidence those Senators would've voted for it? Otherwise we don't have the votes.

Um, no. The second sentence does not follow from the first at all. But, surely, you knew that. You're too intelligent to have logic that is thatbad.

BTW, you have no evidence that they would not have voted for it under any conditions--or even evidence that Obama wanted them to vote for it. Or that he tried.

Again, read the thread Josh. You will find responses to every meme you've repeated so far. But, obviously, you don't want responses, or you would read the thread, rather than keep pushing the played out memes.

[joshcryer]

226. No votes for P.O. reconciliation.

Fact. Show me the votes. I already gave you the names. All you have to do is show how one of them would be for it. Just one. The bar is so low.

[sabrina 1]

177. Lieberman would have voted 'yes' for anything to keep his chairs. All they had to do was

threaten to remove those positions they gave in order TO GET HIS VOTES. Or so were told when we expressed outrage at them giving him a standing ovation and Chairs to committees AFTER he betrayed the party..

AND they should have ended the 60 vote rule as soon as they took over. Why didn't they? They had enough votes without Lieberman to do whatever they wanted had they listened to the people instead of their Corporate 'advisers' and ended that rule.

But as someone below said, 'then they wouldn't have any excuse not to pass progressive legislation'. So there is that.

[merrily]

184. Lieberman valued his National Security chair a lot.

And there are other ways. Presidents have gotten Senate votes for controversial legisation since at least Jefferson, if not Washington. (I'm assuming some balked at the Louisiana Purchase, but I know many balked over the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Great Society legislation.

I don't know why we have to pretend government was invented and impossible once Obama took the oath of office.

(BTW, I wrote my Reply 179 before I read your post.)

[sabrina 1]

233. Exactly! The excuses are ridiculous. In Jan 2009 Dems not only had control of the Senate, Congress

and the WH but they had a MANDATE from the people. They dragged their feet instead of acting swiftly, first get rid of the 60 vote rule in the Senate, then move fast to pass legislation which was POPULAR, a PO at least, re the HC Bill among other things.

And had they done that, they would have held on to Congress in 2010. They simply refuse to acknowledge WHY voters lost trust and chose to focus on local issues where at least they have some chance of being heard.

Reading this thread just reminds me of all the excuses we kept hearing, not one of them valid.

The end result was that voters, who had worked hard to WIN IT ALL, decided that no matter how hard they worked, it wouldn't matter.

[tblue]

245. Your last paragraph, ugh,

is what eats at me. All those volunteers and voters who are now turned off and won't ever do it again because they feel it didn't make enough of a difference when it could have. We could haveBwrapped up the millennial vote for good. Now look what we've got: major gridlock and a Repub Congress, plus more war, no accountability on Wall Street, and still no public option.

[merrily]

250. Yep. The lack of a strong public option, as promised, was the final straw for a number of Dems

I know personally, many of them lifelong, once very loyal Dems.

They don't vote Republican, of course. Some vote so-called "third" party, some became indifferent about voting and some still vote Dem, but with no enthusiasm for donating or volunteering.

[merrily]

179. Better query: Why did Lieberberman lose a chair for campaiging for McCain, but lose nothing at all

for refusing (allegedly) to vote for a public option? One thing hurt all Americans, the other hurt only the pride of some Democrats.

I'm not even sure his refusal wasn't D.C. kabuki.

[joshcryer]

194. Kent Conrad, Tom Carper and Bill Nelson come to mind?

[merrily]

205. Replies to all your aged memes are already on this thread. Read it.

[joshcryer]

214. What would've made Kent Conrad vote for it?

[merrily]

215. Again, replies to that are already on this thread.

[joshcryer]

220. I am the only person who has mentioned Conrad.

Your post is a flat out lie. No one has addressed Conrad and the others' vote on the public option, this is a flat out vote, not any tricks to get around the process, the number of Democrats absolutely needed.

If you're wallowing in "reconciliation," even more Democrats were against using reconciliation because they did not think comprehensive reform should be done in reconciliation. The public option was not in the legislation, and tacking it on through reconciliation wasn't right, was their view.

first Senate Bill. Let’s look at a list of the Senators that would be on the fence.

Evan Bayh, Mark Begich, Thomas Carper, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman (of course), Blanche Lincoln, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb.

Good luck.

[merrily]

221. Of all people, you should know to be careful what you call a lie, Josh.

Many posts on this thread are broad enough to cover Conrad and any other Dem else who voted against Obamacare whether or not mentioned by name, especially since your question is as silly as the other and similar alleged challenge to which I responded. To name just two of many that fit that description, see replies 17 and 182.

If you're wallowing in "reconciliation," even more Democrats were against using reconciliation because they did not think comprehensive reform should be done in reconciliation.

"Wallowing" in reconciliation? LOL! Not half as much as you and other DUers have for years "wallowed" in sixty votes, Lieberman, Baucus and the rest of the worn out memes. At least reconciliation actually happened.

Gee, even more Dems were against reconciliation than were against the original bill. And that doesn't spell kabuki to you? See also Reply 213.

As delightful as these exchanges have been, I must leave DU for now. See you another time, no doubt.

[joshcryer]

224. Yes, "reconciliation" has less votes than flat out vote.

Shocking, isn't it? That reconciliation had less votes than a flat out vote because some Democrats didn't think further modifying the law was the spirit of reconciliation.

That's not "kabuki" that's respecting the spirit of the process. Yes it doesn't surprise me that some people don't have ethics and would want to change a bill beyond the original vote after it passed the goal, a lot of Democrats weren't for it because they saw it for what it was, unethical.

Oh I have no doubt you'll respond for days, and days, and weeks maybe, going in circular arguments when you can't even show how the votes are there. I already gave you names, all you have to do is show me where one of them is for it, that's it! But you can't, neither in reconciliation or in the straight up and down vote.

BTW, reconciliation fixed some issues with the law, it did not change it dramatically, and that's why Democrats wouldn't put the public option in there because it would've changed the law dramatically.

[a2liberal]

187. convenient talking point

Ignores the fact that the public option could've easily been added in during reconciliation. There were more than 50 votes that had committed to supporting it and it met the rules (I forget the details frankly, but many of us pointed it out here at the time). Also conveniently ignores the fact that the real reason we didn't get the public option was that the President promised the insurers that in a meeting early in the process (well before the votes went down). Conveniently ignored by the mainstream media for the most part. But go ahead and keep making excuses if it makes you happy.

Edit: apparently the promise was to for-profit hospitals and drug companies http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/500999

[tularetom]

4. What you mean "we", white man?

I hope by "we" he means Obama and the Democrats in the Senate, because a lot of "we" out here beyond the beltway were screaming this at the time.

[merrily]

185. Seriously.

[Autumn]

5. No shit. I think we know why the law didn't include liberal policies like a single-payer health care

or at least put a public option. “So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all." I agree with that body and soul.

[Segami]

15. See how fast the reTHUGS backed down

on all the Immigration fire n' brimstone threats against Obama's presidential executive orders. They are nothing more than a bully-noise-machine shouting out lame threats in order to scare off the spineless. We should have muscled forward and gone to war with the reTHUGS over implementing a robust Single Payer System.......it was the right fight to wage!!

[Autumn]

19. I doubt we will get there now. We have mandated health insurance.

[helpmetohelpyou]

29. It's a pipe dream now

Insurance companies will run our healthcare using the law of the land with the ACA

Obama blew it

[LanternWaste]

120. And Kasserine Pass was the point in which the U.S. lost the second world war...

And Kasserine Pass was the point in which the U.S. lost the second world war...

[merrily]

192. Thanks to Obama and Justice Roberts.

The same two who messed up a two line oath of office while about 150 million people around the world watched.

[groundloop]

25. The war over single payer was with Joe Lieberman..... and we lost

WE controlled both the House and had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, but Joe Lie-berman blew it all up. I firmly believe, had he not done that, we'd still have control of both houses.

[zeemike]

59. +1

You don't deal with bullies by giving in even an inch...you stand up to them and let them make their next move.
But the Dems gave in right away...etheir they were scared of them or they were on their side to beguine with.

Had they stood and fought for it we would have a Democratic house and Senate today...I am convinced of that...Americans hate weakness in leaders...

[dotymed]

94. IF President Obama wanted a public option or single payer

why did he campaign for liarman against the Democratic candidate in 2010? IF President Obama wanted a public option or single payer, why wouldn't he allow it to even be "brought to the table?"
Yes, this had everything to do with the Democratic massacre of 2010.

money money money mon A mon A...

[kelliekat44]

75. "Bullied forward and gone to war" a black first-term President trying to get healthcare reform that

at least a eight President's before him failed to accomplish? The Dems in the Congress and the Senate had the power but THEY didn't use it, they could have bought along the NEW President with their experience and skill at negotiating. But most of them who voted at all didn't think it was going to pass or work. Rather than taking the lead and HELPING the President see the light it was much easier for their campaign purses to just sit back an milk toast their way through hoping for the best and not being seen a big government spenders.

I don't like how these old white men and women are now saying we should have pushed for this and we should have done that as though Obama made them give up PO or universal healthcare. Let the record show that Obama did what he pragmatically thought he could do in the face of opposition from both the right and the left for either the PO or Universal.

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

[truedelphi]

96. Same here, autumn. n/t

[world wide wally]

8. Just one more consequence of Democrats not having the balls to fight like Republicans do.

Repubs probably would have shut the government down if they did't get their way. (sadly, an approach that apparently works with American voters)

[Scuba]

16. +1,000

[pscot]

34. That's the Truth

[merrily]

203. I disagree. It wasn't about balls. It was about getting what they set out to get.

[Jack Rabbit]

118. Not in this case

We don't have a public option because Senator Boughtkus fought against it just like a Republican would have.

[merrily]

198. It was not about balls or vaginas or any other body part. See Reply 17 and others on this thread.

The House Progressive Caucus tried several times to meet with Obama, but he would not meet with them, even flat out stood them up on one occasion. He met with them only after the POS had the Senate votes.

[gvstn]

9. I agree bad negotiating tactics.

Look at gay marriage. 15 years ago civil unions seemed, to me, like a great compromise. All the rights but just call it something other than "marriage" which is word everyone understood to be between a man and a woman. Just create a new word. Simple.

Thankfully, the movement refused such a compromise and insisted on EQUAL rights. I never would have believed 15 years later we are on track to have gay marriage be the norm rather than some second class, snidely remarked about thing. It seemed a big risk to me at the time but it payed off.

The public "option" in healthcare was a compromise as opposed to Medicare for all, but we didn't even fight for that but gave up immediately. I realize there was a lot more big money against healthcare reform but a public option should have been the minimum we were fighting for and non-negotiable.

Fixing Medicare part D allowing for negotiating prices for covered drugs with the pharmaceutical industry has to be addressed as well. Very little mention of it but it is costing hundreds of millions a year without being adequately financed. It never gets discussed because drug companies spend so much money on t.v. advertising and no one wants to rock the boat.

[Little Star]

11. But, but, but......

It's the pathway to single payer.

[adirondacker]

12. "The system is working" nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. I've finally discovered what politicians are good at: 20/20 hindsight.

Very few of them seem to be capable of realizing that they're screwing the pooch while they're in the process of doing it, though.

[Autumn]

14. They know damn good and well they are screwing the pooch while they're in the process of doing it.

Who else you gonna vote for?

[Buns_of_Fire]

21. You're right. It's a shame that all their introspection and courage doesn't show up

until a few years after it was needed in the first place.

[Autumn]

37. I think that they have it planned that way. No responsibility

and GOTV!!!! cause I don't suck quite as bad as the republicans do.

[A Simple Game]

121. It was planned and it was originally a Republican plan too.

They gave the insurance companies what they wanted and threw us a bone.

Truth is they can't give us what we want because they are afraid if they do we would have no reason to vote for them in the future. Same for the Republicans and abortion, they can't outlaw it completely or their base will have no reason to go to the polls.

[merrily]

199. Wyoming conservatives to Heritage Foundation to Billarycare to Romneycare to Obamacare.

[Marr]

17. They very aggressively excluded advocates of Single Payer from the debate.

From the very earliest stages, or party leadership set up all the pieces to accomplish exactly the policy we got. They didn't 'blow' anything. They got what they wanted.

Really, this sounds more like Harkin starting to position himself to support repealing the small benefits we *did* get.

[Le Taz Hot]

48. Yes.

Thank you. They shoved through what they were paid to shove through. All this Kabuki theater would be laughable if not for so many people dying for lack of health care which is NOT the same as insurance.

[merrily]

189. Thank you. Tell the truth and shame the devil, as the saying goes.

DU's handwringing over the impossibility of passing decent legislation with overwhelming control of the house and 60 in the Senate would be amusing, if it weren't so lame--and transparent.

If it's true, we will never get decent legislation again, because it will be a long time before Democrats see those numbers again, especially if they continue to insist on being "Pub Lite."

[woo me with science]

236. Thank you.

[sabrina 1]

18. That's what we tried to tell them, but we are attacked and told we wanted 'ponies' and how

impossible it was when we KNEW that was not the case.


Too late now, an incredible opportunity missed.

[hifiguy]

63. As usual, sabrina, you strike the nail squarely on the head.

As soon as Big Insurance and Big Pharma were invited to the table and single-payer advocates invited to leave, it was clear nothing truly significant was going to happen and that the Big Fix was in, just as it was with Wall $treet. Corporatists do what corporatists do.

[RufusTFirefly]

72. Of course, the now thoroughly disgraced John Edwards pointed this out seven years ago

Just because he had feet of clay in his personal life (cf. JFK, MLK, RFK) doesn't mean he was wrong on this. In fact, he was absolutely right:

Mr. Edwards replied, “Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.”

This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a “big table” that would include insurance companies and drug companies.

On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by name. He declared that “We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic.”

Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

Paul Krugman: Big Table Fantasies

[SammyWinstonJack]

116. +a million!

[woo me with science]

237. +100000

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. because YOU DID want ponies...

and you still do!

[sabrina 1]

136. There you go, you always come through for me. I was going to go look for some comments

from the period when this 'debate' was in progress, but you just saved me the trouble.

Btw, what is YOUR idea of a 'pony'?

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. I am not the one interested in ponies....I want Progress....

I am not going to allow that progress to get mired down by those who let the Good be the Enemy of the Perfect.

[sabrina 1]

138. What's your idea of 'progress'?

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. The same as Bernie Sanders....who said "We must protect the progress we have made"

Why do you disagree with Bernie?

Is there room for more progress? Certainly there is.....but that is NOT making the good the enemy of the perfect...

[tblue37]

164. You have that saying backwards. The way you phrasd it means the

opposite of your actual position on the issue.

[VanillaRhapsody]

169. No I didn't and no it doesn't...

[tblue37]

230. Maybe I misunderstand your position, then. When you said you wanted progress, not ponies, it

sounded like you meant you were willing to accept incremental progress ("the good&quot instead of getting everything you want at once ("ponies," or "the perfect&quot .

IF that is what you meant--i.e., if you think the ACA is "progress" and also the best we could have gotten at the time (which it seemed you meant, especially since the person you were arguing with was saying Obama should have and could have gotten the PO or single payer)--then the saying would be that you didn't want the perfect (i.e., holding out for "ponies," meaning OP or single payer) to be the enemy of the good (i.e., the ACA).

I just got the impression that you were defending the ACA as the best we could get back then and at least progress, which we would not have gotten if we allowed insistence on the perfect to be the enemy that would have prevented us from having a chance at the good (the ACA).

Personally, I think the ACA *is* progress, and I know a lot of people using their new insurance who are desperately grateful that they have it, so I am one who does believe we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. I (apparently wrongly) thought that you and I agreed in that point.

Politics is the art of the *possible*. The CheneyBush cabal was able to get their agenda through without as many votes because TPTB were on their side, and because relatively conservative blue dog dems and quivering scaredy cat dems were willing to go along with them, while those same dems were either unwilling or too scared to support a truly liberal agenda.

(Reason for multiple edits: I am on a mobile device, so I had to keep coming back to correct typos I made because of the small screen and clumsy fingers.)

[VanillaRhapsody]

247. Yes that is exactly what I am saying.....because the "Perfect" or "ponies" are not likely to happen.

PERIOD....


and politics IS the art of the possible.....that is all it has ever been

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”


― Otto von Bismarck


you have it all wrong my friend...

and who is Otto von Bismark you might ask...

Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg, (1 April 1815 – 30 July 1898), known as Otto von Bismarck, was a conservative Prussian statesman who dominated German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890. In the 1860s he engineered a series of wars that unified the German states (excluding Austria) into a powerful German Empire under Prussian leadership. With that accomplished by 1871 he skillfully used balance of power diplomacy to preserve German hegemony in a Europe which, despite many disputes and war scares, remained at peace. For historian Eric Hobsbawm, it was Bismarck, who "remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost twenty years after 1871, [and] devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers."[1]

[tblue37]

249. The line is from Voltaire.

The best is the enemy of the good.
"La Bégueule" (Contes, 1772)

Variant translations:
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The better is the enemy of the good

ON EDIT: http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire

[WorseBeforeBetter]

284. Heh... perfect timing and delivery.

Well done.

[Odin2005]

212. You DLCers are so fucking predictable.

[merrily]

195. The health pony Obama-Biden promised us during the 2008 campaign? You bet I wanted it.

I wanted single payer even more, but I was very willing to settle for a strong public option. Obama said it was the only way to control costs and, as Hillary said (when asked in 2008 if she believed that Obama was not a Muslim), "I take him at his word."

[JaneQPublic]

20. How were there 60 Senate votes for Single Payer...

...when the Dems had to water down the plan to the current version just to get Olympia Snow and others to vote for it to JUST make 60 votes?

Remember, in early 2009, Al Franken hadn't yet been given his seat because of recounts, Teddy Kennedy was absent because he was dying of brain cancer (he had a siezure at the inaugural), and Robert Byrd was in and out of the hospital before he died in 2010.

Methinks Dear Former Sen. Harkin is mis-remembering the facts.

[PoliticAverse]

27. Indeed the PPACA passed without a single vote to spare. n/t

[merrily]

216. The final bill passed by reconciliation.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

35. No shit, what is wrong with him, why would he say such an obviously provable wrong thing?

Now, I dont know if the will was there in the Democratic leadership to go all the way to single payer, I want to think so but knowing what I know about the health insurance business, the massive profits being made not just by the CEO's and wall street but by sales people and claims people and clerical people and so on, I cant be sure.

To do away almost entirely with the health insurance world you would have had to have a system where existing rank and file workers in health insurance would be retrained to work for the new, much bigger single payer operation, or you would have some serious fallout with jobs.

I have always said you can do it as long as you prepare and manage a system that allows for retraining and hiring.

[Cosmocat]

76. he's talking out of his head

and ...

Now the people who have ginned up the "IF OBAMA JUST WOULD HAVE FOUGHT FOR IT HARDER" delusion now have something to point to.

[sabrina 1]

78. That's why they should have taken care of the 60 vote rule as soon as they had the chance.

IF they had wanted a Single Payer system, they had enough time to figure out how to get it. Starting with eliminating that self-imposed 60 vote rule. Then moving swiftly to get what they wanted. That is what would have happened if Single Payer ever was the goal.



And btw, airc, Olympia Snowe DID get things 'watered down' and then did not vote for the bill.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

119. But if they got rid of the 60-vote rule ...

... they'd no longer have that darn 60-vote rule.

That darn rule, it just keeps them from having anything nice or getting anything done. Darn that rule. If only they could do something about getting rid of that darn 60-vote rule.

Oh, if only somebody ... ANYBODY .... could do SOMETHING about that darn rule in the U.S. Senate!

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. And if it happens now?

[sabrina 1]

176. That's WHY Dems should have done it. You are MAKING THE POINT. Had they done it, lots of

progressive legislation could have been pushed through. But they didn't, so now, as you admit, Repubs are likely to do it so they can push their legislation through.

Democrats failed, period and now we are left with this debacle.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

248. Not only did Dems not deal with it, they didn't even make Rs actually work

At the mere sniff of a filibuster, Democratic Senate leadership blinked.

Sure, there were probably times when it would have resulted in wasted time. But what else was accomplished in that valuable time? And why not let Republicans actually follow through and show that they are on the wrong side of history on so many items - in the Congressional Record - with video of them, one after another, looking like dicks and hopping on one foot to avoid soiling themselves on the Senate floor while waiting for the next in the parade of fools to show up to whom to yield the floor.

Unless you really don't care are the legislation in the first place and are looking for any excuse to table it.

Or you want that powder to be really, really dry.

[sabrina 1]

135. It's a great excuse, isn't it? I guess they actually do believe we are all stupid!

[VanillaRhapsody]

170. Who is WE?

And probably you will get your wish.....Republicans don't want any pesky minorities getting in their way...they are the Majority now.

[merrily]

218. They did. In March 2010, Obamacare passed by reconciliation because Brown got elected January 2010.

I remember seeing video of Obama himself handwriting the final changes to the bill.

[treestar]

79. +1 with added congratulations for using "methinks" eom

[JaneQPublic]

111. ...

[Zorra]

158. Senator Harkin is 100% correct. Democrats did have a 60 vote majority in the Senate.

They simply didn't get it done when they had the chance.

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley)...

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It’s important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it’s probably something I haven’t kept in mind myself in the past.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

Democrats blew it, in the sense that they allowed Centrist "Democrats", who generally work for the 1% alongside their republican kin, to control the entire conversation. Nevertheless, they were elected as Democrats, and should have stood in solidarity with real Democrats and the party line to make universal healthcare a reality in the US.

Democrats had a 60 vote majority. They blew it. Excuses, excuses, blahblahblah, they

The lesson here: Only nominate and elect real Democrats, or Independents who are better than most Democrats, because centrists will betray the people, the party, and the country when it's a matter of doing what the 1% wants vs. what is good for the American people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. Except for that whole ELECTIONS business...

what could possibly go wrong?

[librechik]

238. exactly--Obama with his huge landslide had a sliver of time

in which he could have fired all the Bush officials, mobilized the base and gone hell for leather for a progressive agenda.

He MIGHT have been able to overcome the blue dog blockage. But they didn't even try.

That was the biggest disappointment.

Now we know that the whole ACA deal was done in the first few weeks and behind closed doors--

Obama just stepped in to the existing Bush era bureaucracy and tried to get along.

[annabanana]

240. 60 except for Joe Lieberman you mean..

He personally killed the "public option". The only remaining instrument that MIGHT have ushered in single payer, by attrition.

[merrily]

207. Wrong on the facts.

As to Franken, Kennedy, etc. please see Reply 183.

Snowe was not allowed to water down that bill to get her vote. They had enough votes without her and the final bill passed on reconciliation anyway. I don't even think she voted for Obamacare. I am not sure why they allowed her to do it. The cover story was that it would look like more of a bipartisan bill, but that story was laughable.

But, sure DUers know better about what happened in the Senate than an experienced Dem Senator like Harkin whose day job it is (even the DUers who get the facts wrong).

[merrily]

217. Yup. I was correct. Snowe never voted for Obamacare. (I just checked her wiki.)

And the final bill passed by reconciliation in March 2010 because Scott Brown got elected in January 2010.

[JaneQPublic]

241. But she DID vote to move it through the Senate Finance Committee.

And without her vote, it would have died in committee.

[merrily]

257. Dems had a majority on that committee. If they allowed her vote to be the

deciding vote, it was kabuki.

BTW, do you have a link showing her vote was the deciding one?

[Arkana]

22. Where were the votes, Senator?

If you thought we could do this why weren't you out there whipping votes?

[Delphinus]

23. Boy, I really

want to cuss right now - so many of us worked our tails off for HR676 - Medicare for All and were not listened to. This makes me quite mad.

[RoccoR5955]

24. Brilliant deduction, Holmes! n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

28. Blew it on purpose. nt

[TBF]

104. ^ This. nt

[pa28]

145. Yes.

[Phlem]

30. wait a minute,

We were told we also wanted ponies by plenty here in DU. Now it's OK?

[geek tragedy]

31. He's blind in his hindsight. nt

[Orsino]

33. What Congress could he have used to pass it?

The ACA was about as progressive as it could possibly be and barely squeak through Congress. Shouldas as hypothetical as Harkin's have nothing to do with the politics of this universe.

I'll rephrase: we should have been smart and dedicated enough to keep our democratic process clean enough that we could pass the laws we needed.

[NYC Liberal]

36. We didn't have "60 votes" for single-payer. We had 60 Senators caucusing with the party.

And that included non-Democrats like Lieberman, and other conservative Blue Dogs who most definitely DID NOT support single-payer.

The final bill passed the House by 7 votes. That's not a "huge majority". 34 Democrats voted against it, and not because they wanted single-payer instead.

Do I, personally, support it? Yes. However, it was never going to happen. Not then. We should be focused on the future and let that be our goal, rather than squabbling about the past.

[Cosmocat]

77. Right

this is just something else to give democrats a reason to pout against this president ...

[treestar]

85. + 1 zillion

Sen. Harkin is not helping.

[dionysus]

38. and Bernie said single payer had about 10 votes, so which is it?

[BeyondGeography]

39. Lieberman killed it

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_death_of_the_public_option.html

[INdemo]

40. Hell yes it should have been single payer

But Insurance companies were spending millions to fight against that and would have spentillions more.The famous saying among Democrsts was that "we take what we can get and its a start" "We Will improve it later" among those Democrats was Evan Bayh whose wife just happen to be on the board of a insurance company. And there others that caved but pressure from Insursnce companies was just one reason.

[abelenkpe]

41. duh nt

[Blue_Tires]

42. Harkin, god bless him, is being revisionist as fuck

1. I want to know exactly when they ever had 60 votes, personally:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rXz131H_-kAJ:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D385x379984+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

2. The 5 DEMS against the PUBLIC OPTION
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:H4LXKPMxjwQJ:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D389x6658975+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

3. "...If Tom Harkin was a liberal he wouldn't be trying to sell the Senate legislation that forces people into health care insurance that doesn't guarantee quality health care..."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GEcKk8R9Tg4J:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D389x7306064+&cd=48&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

4. Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482243

5. Krugman asks: So does this mean that liberals should have insisted on single-payer or nothing?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023930378

6. The damage Olympia Snowe does to healthcare in America
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:201DOxa83RYJ:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D389x6689257+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Remember her? and all those fun times she made Senate Dem leadership grovel before her while exploiting her situation for more concessions than even she was asking for??

7. Ron Wyden is against the health care public option. Wants to get 70 yes votes.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ALdYj4AQKNMJ:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D389x5686426+&cd=23&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Personally, I was upset but not surprised at single-payer being dropped from the discussion so quickly...But having said that, had Dems gone all-in on the public option, it would probably be a reality in one form or another today...Sadly, this wasn't the case since some Dems and DUers wanted to take their ball and go home after losing single-payer, which felt too much like a consolation prize not worth fighting for...Some Dems/DUers/activists thought they could get single-payer back in negotiations by opposing the public option, and other DUers and activists decided to let the perfect become the enemy of the good and jumped on the "kill the bill" bandwagon (alongside Grover Fuckin' Norquist of all people)...So with the Dem base so bitterly divided, the GOP was able to have a much bigger hand in the bill's watering down...

And there's plenty more backstory for anyone who wants to start diving into the archives

[BeyondGeography]

44. And Blanche Lincoln

Fuck the Senate. Now Harkin's lost his seat to someone who campaigned for arresting governors who implement Obamacare. Superb.

[joshcryer]

174. End of term hyperbole.

Let's him get sound bytes or something or seem more liberal than he was as a Senator. It's annoying because if you're retiring why not just become, you know, honest, for a change.

[turbinetree]

45. Leadership

The leadership on this issue had blue dog democrats siding with the republicans, lets get this in the picture and they are now gone and some are now in the health care lobbyist industry or ambassadors in the Far East.
We told, asked, cajoled and pleaded to the leadership to have the public option in and on the table, but there was one man from Montana who was not having any of this and he was the chair on the oversight budget committee, he had the means to say yes or no, and took the latter, and then when others decided to back away, this public option was in trouble from the get go.
We need to get HUMAN BEINGS in CONGRESS to correct this option for universal health care, I am presently looking at exchanges now in the "MARKETPLACE" and all I am seeing is greed.
I am asked if I have a pre-existing condition---why, I called asked one of the representatives why is this being asked, HIPPA says I do not have to disclose this information unless it is to my doctor under the privacy laws, I am being based on income affordability for a metal plan, what happens if I loose my job, what happens if I am a contractor for a firm, I am stuck for the entire year with this bill, do I have to pay COBRA like fees.
I can not get a separate plans for me and my wife based on our health need.
Schumer should have proposed a universal system from the day he was elected and had it on the table for consideration everyday or in committee, he should now be putting this measurer on the table and everyday we will see the right wing table the plan and everyday a democrat should put it right back on the table show principles, even if Touché Turtle doesn't like it, expose the hypocrisy that's how you win.
This should have and could been is degrading to the intellect.
They knew and everyone knew it was better to have a public option for the sake of competition but it was punted its that simple .
And if you have a employer helping with the costs it effects your wages, your benefit packages, and those that are looking in the plans based on costs see greed.
Some of us see the field goal punt being blocked for the win and we that believe in the public option see nothing but fourth and long

[librechik]

46. Obam could have ridden the popular wave in 08 to push through his agenda

instead he stepped into the existing bureaucratic infrastructure thinking it would change for him.

I would have ton in there and fired everybody and put in my own people.

WTF, Obama. You are just another Bush. How I hate saying that.

[still_one]

127. no he couldn't. Lieberman, Bayh, both Nelsons, and other blue dogs wouldn't go for it.

[merrily]

204. You need to read this entire thread. The cake was baked before Baucus ever got his

hands on it. It was done during meetings the Obama administration had during the first months of the administration with representatives of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, along with big health care. The ACLU filed an FOIA request for the White House visitor logs because of that. It was refused and the ACLU went to court. There was a ridiculous charade about privacy for visitors to Sasha and Malia and Michelles mom--as if those could not be concealed with a footnote! Then, the White House blamed it on the Secret Service, never explaining how a record of visits months earlier could endanger the President.

[think]

47. They didn't even allow it to be discussed during the congressional hearings

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/march/obama_to_single_paye.php

[Stuart G]

52. This story is bullshit...please consider this point.

On a major vote in the House of Representatives, Affordable Care Act, passed by 3 votes. I recall so clearly how close it was. That was after many concessions and deals that watered it down. I think it was 217 to 214. We were lucky to get this law.....

If..and this is my opinion only, not Harkins, if single payer had been proposed in the House of Representatives, it would have never passed, it would have been too radical, and we would now have nothing. It is really that simple. This was the best that could be gotten at that time., and it was very close. Looking back and saying we could have gotten "single payer" is wishful thinking. It wouldn't have happened. If one looks at the politics involved at the time of voting and the deals, the truth will be clear. Harkin in my opinion is wrong, and Obama in getting this was correct..ACA was the best that could be gotten at that time.

[Cosmocat]

80. Yeah, that is the REALITY of it

but, this just adds some bullshit justification for the people who want to hate on BHO for NOT WANTING SINGLE PAYER ENOUGH!

[Stuart G]

106. Cosmocat is correct, that is the Reality of it....

If Obama could have gotten single payer, he would have gotten it. As it was, he barely got ACA. Let us think back. The insurance companies were not against ACA..I recall they were, are you ready??? silent on the matter ...why because they were being included in a part of the pie..so they shut up.

Now if it were single payer, the insurance companies would have lined up completely against ACA..it wouldn't have stood a snowballs chance in hot hell..Obama got something through that was very difficult. Let us give him credit.

[Cosmocat]

140. Spot on

People just are living in a fantasy world if the think what was the REPUBLICAN version of health care reform barely passed by fricken reconciliation, with all the cries of socialism and what not, that a more progressive version was some kind of untaken slam dunk.

[Dont call me Shirley]

53. The Disease Management Industrail Complex has a vested interest in making sure we get sick

and stay sick. Disease is profit. Health is financial loss.

MEDICARE E NOW

[DeSwiss]

54. K&R

[Blue_Tires]

58. I never fully understood that, unless he was trying to be glib...

he might as well have cut to the chase and said all humanity is evil and any attempts to better it is a waste of time...

I know that Mencken's litany of simple one-line quotes has made him the Confucius of ideology for libertarians, teabaggers, and garden-variety cynics (especially online), but for such a profound thinker, his most-quoted stuff doesn't stand up well to scrutiny, imho...

[JimDandy]

83. +1

is my non-profound contribution today.

[Bluenorthwest]

231. Mencken was an extreme racist and opponent of representative democracy, an elitist.

People who quote him on DU always puzzle me because he opposed democracy and favored leadership by an elite. Here's a quote every Mencken fan should explain prior to foisting him up the wisdom pole:

"I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him."- H.L. Mencken

[MisterP]

56. barring single/universal advocates isn't an oopsie, it shows what the whole thing had a chosen goal

from the beginning: it's the "fine art of the fait accompli"

of course they KNEW they'd get cover until '15 (half the posts about Liz Fowler say she had nothing to do with the bill) and that any unhappiness would be blamed on the voters themselves (by people otherwise immune to the appeals for loyalty--what do you think October's "anti-abstentionist" flapdoodle was about? even the DUers who got *blamed* for low turnout are condemning the ones who "didn't vote&quot

[kentuck]

57. It is assumed..

...that Senators like Lieberman and Lincoln could not be "persuaded" to vote the party line.

[savalez]

60. What do they say about hindsight? n/t

[spanone]

62. hey Tom, you didn't blow it, you gave us exactly what the insurance companies wanted.

the price was right....for the politicians

[Xyzse]

66. I don't quite agree.

Even though back then I railed against the ACA, and Obama for negotiating from the middle and taking off single payer before the actual formalized process began, I still do not agree with the statement: "So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all."

Since the current law as it stands is better than back then. As crazy as things are right now, it is still quite a bit better since bottom line, more people have health insurance now than ever before. I have no data points on the issue about people waiting for care till they reach the ER, but just by having health insurance, that should have gotten down, so in the end it is still a net plus.

On Edit - They act as if it was not confusing back then either. The issue is, more people do it now, so of course people will feel put off since they actually have to actively participate.

[lark]

68. Thank you Obama and Rahm

Obama took out single payer to attract Repugs but only 1 Repug in either house voted for it. So, this was a huge fail on his part along with his adviser Rahm who was also against it because he wouldn't want to see profits lowered.

[kelliekat44]

81. Obama could not have and did not do this alone. He would have gone with PO had the Dems

been up to the fight but they weren't and didn't want to go out on the limb for the young black President they weren't sure of. Remember, the old party traditionalists didn't think he could or should win and they didn't vote for him. It was a huge surprise that he won an the lip service they paid to supporting him was very obvious. It was the young folks that put him over but he needed the experienced, seasoned Dems in the House and the Senate to help assure him that OP would get through and most of them advised against it. So stop the BS.

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

So now all this hind-sight talk about the ACA being complicated and poorly designed comes just in time to help the SCOTUS determine to kill it! Thanks old-time Dems for helping to convince people to not support it. Glad when you are gone.

[lark]

84. How about Obama not being up for the fight?

Yes, some of the Dems were acting like pussies, but he could have pushed and kept this extremely important option. He didn't. No BS.

[treestar]

86. He could have "pushed" them?

How?

[lark]

87. Not fold like a wet shirt is how.

He could have gotten with Reid and told Lieberman no committee assignments at all, much less chairmanships unless he supported the president's plan for single payer. He could have written articles, gave speeches, pulled the Dems to his office and jawboned them.

There are many things he could have done but did nothing.

[mvd]

90. I don't know if we would have gotten Single Payer, but..

I wish the President and other Dems would have started with the single payer idea. It's not just Obama's fault - the whole party approached it wrong IMO.

[lark]

91. I agree

I was just saying the president because, well, he's the president and leader of the party. The Dems, as a class, totally whiffed on this.

[treestar]

93. "Started with single payer"

It's a lot more complex than that. Street bargaining is where you might start higher or lower than willing to go, for one price over one item.

Or in personal injury cases, you make an initial demand of higher than you think you will get. But not so high that you get laughed out of the room. You end up having to come down several notches.

So the decision not to demand single payer at the beginning would have had a lot of facets. The media would be all over them, too. And they would still be accused of caving here anyway. And they'd have had to cave a long way.

[mvd]

98. To me it's the same thing

politics is bargaining also. I am not going to change my mind on this. I just don't think the Party approached it right. Also the President had plenty of power to change a vote.

[treestar]

99. They knew they'd never have the votes

So they'd have looked dumb when they had to come way down.

They knew what the Senate was made up of.

I don't second guess that easily since I have not spent years actually being in the Senate.

[mvd]

100. No way

I completely disagree. You never start to right like that. That is defeatist IMO.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

228. Yup

If we wind up with the same result that most here are upset about, what difference does it make where we started? From where I am, we were lucky to get what we got. Would love Harkin and Schumer to explain what they would have done different that would have made anything different.

[treestar]

92. 1. Gotten with Reid and Lieberman and told them no committee assignments or chairmanships -

who has the power to determine those, and why should they be blackmailed in such a way for their votes on any bill?

2. Written articles - I bet he did.
3. Gave speeches - I'm pretty sure he did.
4. What is jawboning?

"He did nothing" is a statement too irrational for consideration.

[jhart3333]

112. I remember it clearly. The silence from the White House was deafening.

It wasn't that long ago and we were all there.

[Marr]

133. lol-- let me get this straight:

Denying Lieberman committee chairmanships for failing to support the party's agenda would have been... blackmail?

[kelliekat44]

88. You do realize what else the newly elected President was dealing with at the time. Dems failed to

give experienced support on the ACA when needed. They were too afraid of losing the next election...which they did anyway.

[lark]

89. Dems and the President both folded

They were afraid of not attracting Repugs support, but didn't get it anyway so wasted a golden opportunity.

[JoePhilly]

97. See a subthread starting w/ my post #3

You are president, flip Lieberman to yes.

[BeyondGeography]

103. Just pretend he was Ned Lamont

There should be no holding of breath waiting for an answer on that one.

Once the antiwar left hurt the little man's feelings, he was going to use every opportunity to get even. Or how the Iraq war cost us public health care for all.

[JoePhilly]

109. That's definitely part of Lieberman's anger.

I think that's item #3 in my list up in post #49 ... why Lieberman was NEVER voting Yes.

[SoapBox]

74. It was another BIG missed "chance".

And more big chances are not looking good...for many, many...decades?!?

[pa28]

101. Obama dealt away the public option.

He wasn't going to try selling it after that and Congress was not going to give it to us without leadership on the issue.

So yeah, they blew it. They blew it badly.

[JoePhilly]

114. A challange .... You are now President in 2009 ...

... you are so great, you have all the Dems in the Senate ready to vote yes on single payer or public option (you decide).

Every Dem vote, except one. Joe Lieberman.

You are President. Tell me, with some detail, how you get Lieberman to vote yes.

When you explain this, please try to cover the 4 points I've listed in post #49 up above. Those are the reasons Lieberman won't vote YES.

You are now President ... get Lieberman's vote.

That's my challenge.

Maybe you can do what no one else on DU has been able to do since the first time I put this challenge forward back in 2010 after the law passed.

Flip Lieberman.

[merrily]

206. LOL! You may as well put that silly, simplistic challenge away. No one is falling for it.

[JoePhilly]

225. Silly and simple ... but you can't do it.

Got it.

[merrily]

252. Dude, you got nothing but embarrassing yourself. Have him call me. I'll take care of it.

[merrily]

253. Of course I can do it. Just have him call me so we can talk.

Because that is the only way it gets done. Not by some dumb ass faux challenge in a vacuum on a message board. (Duh.

[mvd]

125. It should have been sold as a bigger priority

More party pressure and growing public pressure and I think even Lieberman cracks. The ones who don't think so won't think so whatever we say.

[irisblue]

102. No Lie Senator

You all f'ed this up by weaselhood. a plate of just desserts is waiting.

[Initech]

105. No the Republican obstructionists blew it.

[ut oh]

107. Of course they can

say these things now, since he's retiring...

Though coming at this time is more like pouring salt into an open wound.

[silvershadow]

122. Captain obvious has spoken. nt

[True Blue Door]

123. I think he's lying that we had the votes for single-payer.

Given the unbelievable hurdles that even what we got had to overcome.

And let's not forget the Supreme Court dominated by lawless fascist revolutionaries who will strike down anything they don't like.

[still_one]

126. Bernie Sanders: Single Payer never had a chance (March 2010)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025905116

can't have it both ways.


I would like Harkin to tell me how he was going to get Lieberman, Bayh, both Nelsons, and the other blue dogs to go for that?

Oh right, all Obama had to do is raise his arms and the red sea would open up

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

154. 8-10 votes?

Then why not have let it come up, and get shot down? The infuriating part with our current Dems is that they don't even try on some pretty important things. Rather than actually taking the votes, they just shrug and move on to worse options. Not going to get it? Fine, but at least vote and find out.

[still_one]

128. schumer can go screw himself. I didn't hear him protest at the time. As for Harkin, he is not

Last edited Thu Dec 4, 2014, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)

recognizing the fact that Lieberman, both Nelsons, Bayh, and other blue dogs would not go for it

[YOHABLO]

131. I am sick of hearing what they should have done .. and as mentioned we will

have to wait for the book. And also we'll see Obama offered millions for his book too. They all make me sick sick sick

[liberal_at_heart]

134. Democrats can try and shift blame all they want. There was a window of opportunity to get it done.

The there's no way in hell we could have done it argument is crap. Passing a living wage bill in there during that window of opportunity would have been nice too. Now all we can hope for is a increase to the minimum wage that won't do enough to help.

[eomer]

139. The final bill passed the Senate by a 56 to 43 vote. It did not need 60 votes.

Because the final bill was done under the budget reconciliation process it required only a simple 50 vote (plus one vote by the VPOTUS) majority, could not be filibustered, and did not require 60 votes.

It's amazing that such a long discussion about the possibility (or lack thereof) of passing Single Payer could have so many Democrats talking about the need to get 60 votes, Liebermann, etc., and not a single person has mentioned the fact that there is a process that does not require 60 votes in the Senate. I could understand if someone wants to argue that Single Payer could not be done under the budget reconciliation process (although I disagree - I think it could) but at least know what you're talking about enough to recognize that this process exists and discuss whether or not it could have been used.

Sheesh.

[NorthCarolina]

141. They had the votes? Every time I mentioned single payer back then

someone from the conservative side of this site ALWAYS pointed out to me how "Obama Never Would Have Gotten The Votes", followed by the usual "Awww, you didn't get a pony" line, and of course . Now we hear, according to Harkin, “We had the votes to do that and we blew it,” he said. Don't I feel silly.

[Segami]

153. Wait for Harkin's book tour

if you want to know more........and for $29.95, he will tell you things that will make your head spin......of course, for $29.95!!

[merrily]

256. No, you don't feel silly at all now--because you never fell for their story back then.

Same reason you didn't feel silly when it got to the point that no one would say anymore that there were WMD in Iraq when we invaded. You knew all along that the WMD excuse for invading was bs. Same deal both times. The stories didn't pass the smell tests and there were just too many stories hitting the news throughout that made the whole thing smell to high heaven.

[NorthCarolina]

268. Do you think the Democratic Party will ever return to it's roots,

or are we simply just stuck with third-way interlopers in control of party direction for the duration?

[Android3.14]

142. Ya think?

shit.

[Man from Pickens]

143. Fine, then repeal it

and while you're at it, call it what it really is: a financial crime ring intended to enrich insurers and keep the pharma price-gouging party going, enforced by law.

[Diclotican]

146. Segami

Segami

When you think about it - how angry conservatives in the US are about ACA - or Obama-care as they prefer to call it - just think about how angry they would have been if Obama had been going all out - and made a public case for a PUBLIC option - or worse - universal Health care in the US?.... Millions of Americans who hate the idea of something like this would have died spontaneity because of cardiac arrest - and they had the idea that Obama was a communist because of AC - just think about what they would think about Obama - if he had managed to get true the Congress and Senate - a system who for once would give US universal health care.....

And even if ACA is a small first step - it is a long way to the US are any near a public founded health care system like in the rest of the civilized world... It is still a lot to work on - to get US to the rest of the world - when it come to public founded health care...

I for one are very glad I do live in a country where we have aces to public founded health care - and if you are sick - you will get the treatment you need - regardless if you are a poor or a rich person.... I for one have experienced that sometimes the 1.5 years - from a lengthy hospital stay because of a kidney failure and pneumonia - to a less lengthy stay because of a surgery who fixed a defect in my body - it have something with one of the kidney's working.... Anyway - all the times I have ended up in a hospital bed because of nasty infections and so one - I have been able to, after a while come home again better than I left - and not with a expensive hospital bill either - of course I pay more taxes than in the US - but still....

Diclotican

[DemandsRedPill]

147. same refrain but different day

"we blew it"
"we didn't know"
"it was the fillibuster"
"we couldn't get the votes"
"we'll do better next time"
Etc
Etc
Etc

This is the standard MO of the Democratic Party

They tried but well 'you know'

That's the standard apology from the voters who put them in there

If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are both generally accepted as being bought and paid for by billionaires and the billionaires are all members of the same exclusive club covering each other backs, is this old maxim appropriate to explain the Democrats so called 'low level of performance'?

"A slave cannot serve two masters"

[JDPriestly]

148. One word. Baucus.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

152. Two words. 'Rotating villains'.

When the kabuki must go on, different villains will be rolled in and out as needed to block important changes, while still making it look like most Dems 'really want' progress. As long as Dems had a majority, there would always be 'just enough' defectors to make sure anything that could go through would have poison pills attached. Even the stimulus was carefully crafted to be both too small and to have massive amounts of tax giveaways to corporations, rather than be all the sorts of stimulus that gives the best 'bang for the buck', thanks to the 'villains du jour'.

[merrily]

210. Rotating villains or rotating DU memes. Take your pick. The kabuki could not have been

more clumsy or transparent.

[joshcryer]

175. Baucus fell on his sword.

He was for it, as well as Blanche Lincoln, before he decided to fold and follow Kent Conrad, Tom Carper, and Bill Nelson.

They didn't have the votes.

[merrily]

209. They didn't have the votes because they didn't WANT the votes.

BTW, the final bill passed by reconciliation.

[Marr]

243. That's the part that put the lie to the whole thing.

In the end, all of the "concessions" were needless, because it was passed by reconciliation. So why not remove the concessions and pass what you claim to have wanted?

[joshcryer]

246. It had less votes under reconciliation.

Why people persist in making up stuff I don't know.

Reconciliation was making tweaks, not major changes.

[Marr]

273. Like any of the "minor tweaks" that were made ostensibly in the name of wooing Olympia Snowe.

They remained. I'm not saying they should've passed Single Payer under reconciliation-- I'm saying their eventual passage of the bill under reconciliation, with all the little and not-so-little pro-insurance industry "compromises" still in place, made it all too transparent that those weren't compromises at all.

[joshcryer]

274. Mistakes were made.

The votes still weren't there, even with the mistakes.

You can talk about alternate futures, fine, the reality is the votes were not there in the timeline we experienced.

[merrily]

255. What you said the first time: they did pass pretty much what they wanted.

Them and big health care, big pharmaceutical and the health insurance industry. The ones they were meeting with before Baucus ever got started.

[Marr]

244. Baucus was not some rogue agent.

He was a highly placed member of the party leadership. He did what the party leadership wanted.

[merrily]

286. Of course not. Obama praised Baucus for his work on the ACA and rewarded him.

On December 18, 2013, Politico reported that the White House had selected Baucus to be the United States Ambassador to China.[6] On February 6, 2014, Baucus was confirmed by a vote of 96-0 with three Republicans absent and Baucus himself voting "Present".[7] He resigned from his Senate seat on the same day.

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

If Baucus had been a rogue agent on Obama's signature and legacy legislation, that would never have happened. Full stop.

[Marr]

287. Yeah-- I can't believe anyone could actually buy such an idea.

To think that, with the amount of money in play, and the entrenched political/corporate establishment we have, in the second biggest economy on the planet-- that something like this could just be redefined at the last moment by one rogue Senator...

Policy like this is crafted to death behind the scenes by industry insiders. The politicians are little more than their sales team.

[Enthusiast]

149. It was necessary to at least have a national discussion on single payer. Max Baucus quashed that.

They didn't want the people to know the truth about single payer.

They®* were afraid if the people knew the truth they would demand a better, more equitable system.

*They® are the establishment, the protectors of the status quo.

[merrily]

211. Baucus was one of several (willing) scapegoats. Please see Reply 204, among others.

[Enthusiast]

223. (bribed, paid)

Yeah. I know it was all agreed to behind closed doors beforehand. I hate to say it out loud for fear of offending the squad that will hear no evil, see no evil etc.

[merrily]

254. Meh. No worries. They'll be offended anyway.

I don't know that anyone was actually bribed with money, though.

I do know the negotiations weren't televised. (Remember that 2008 campaign promise?) And, once the ACLU moved for the visitors' logs, they moved the negotiations outside the White House. IIRC, it was a nearby diner (which didn't maintain visitors' logs that could be obtained by an FOIA request or a lawsuit over a denied FOIA request).

For your viewing displeasure:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch3.html

(Moyers did a number of shows on Obamacare before the bill passed, but this one stuck in my mind.)

Another interesting link: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19692-obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history

(I was surprised to read at that link that millions had been raised to get the public to buy into Obamacare. Why? It was polling at over 70% approval before they delayed long enough to let the Republicans have at it.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-obamas-deal-with-industry-on-health-care.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

(emails show Obama agreed with pharmaceutical industry to oppose drug reimportation)

http://hardnoxandfriends.com/2013/11/22/who-actually-wrote-the-affordable-care-act/

(Wellpoint executive joined Baucus to write Obamacare bill--and that was before Snowe made it even worse.)

[Enthusiast]

258. Wow!

Thanks for all the information.

[merrily]

264. You're welcome. It is but a fraction of what was out there at the time.

The loyalism on this thread is ludicrously transparent.

[Enthusiast]

280. I have said it before, that

the ACA was the single payer prevention act. I'm sure that pissed off a number of loyalists. That is not to say that I wish to abolish the ACA. At least it is something. I have a number of health issues so I have had the unfortunate luck to experience the shortcomings of the status quo up close and personal.

[merrily]

283. It was indeed a single payer prevention act, but, oh, so much more.

Medical cost was the single largest cause of individual (i.e., not business) bankruptcies in the US and creditors don't like bankruptcies, even creditors who are doctors and hospitals. Hospitals also wanted out of the burden of providing emergency room care whether or not the person had insurance or other means to pay. The AMA and hospital associations are some rich and powerful lobbies.

PHRMA wanted to be covered, too, including the doughnut hole because poor people were doing without medication when they could not afford it. PHRMA also wanted to block drug reimportation, which Obama did kill. (I think Dingell was the one who had introduced it.)

Health insurers wanted the young and statistically healthy market to make up for the 55-60 plus population who carried private insurance and were not eligible for Medicare.

Hence, those were the groups that were meeting with the then new Obama administration when the ACLU tried to get the White House visitor logs.

[Doctor_J]

150. 1. Sign EO lowering the Medicare age to 60

2. Get Reid in the office and tell him to go nuclear or prepare to be abandoned by the white house

3. Spend 2009-2010 saying, at every opportunity, "The American people did not elect me and my party to enact a giveaway to Big Insurance. If Republicans insist on leaving millions without healthcare, they will have to answer to the voters in 2010. In the meantime I am making 8 million more eligible for Medicare, and asking you to give me two more Dem Senators for the next term so we can say good bye to for-profit healthcare"

[eridani]

156. And this is why Republicans win and Democrats lose

Republicans don't give a flying fuck about whether their proposals have any chance of passing--they keep advocating them anyway.

If at least some Dems had vigorously advocated single payer, they would have at least raised public consciousness, and maybe even gotten a public option through.

[certainot]

159. this is a waste of time. republican radio made single payer politically impossible long

time ago.

and it is because the left ignored it. 1000 radio stations have been blasting the country with stories about canadians streaming across the border to get health care for 20 years. stories about long waiting lines and the horrors of single payer in 'communist' european countries. it was limbaugh and spawn who stopped the clinton attempts.

the teabaggers who stopped the public option are nothing more than the talk radio base with koch bros bus passes.

the left soon better stop giving the most successful and dangerous PSYOPS in our history a free speech free ride, or this will get a lot worse.

[humbled_opinion]

160. DOH !!! n/t

[bhikkhu]

162. We "blew it" consistently for all the 60+ years previously

as other developed countries fixed their own health care systems, and they worked. There's a whole lot of blowing it that went on before the ACA. I think the ACA is about the first step in the right direction.

[blkmusclmachine]

163. Obama NEVER wanted single payer. He works for the 1%, and they tell him what to do.

[Festivito]

165. Perhaps Harkin needs ten years in prison.

Wasn't that the threat given those who mentioned single payer?

However,

Going immediately to single payer would have put about 1,000,000 people out of work immediately.

It could have been done but not with ten belligerent Democrats.

[babylonsister]

166. I love Harkin, but I am happy there is

now health insurance for so many of us. Yes, make it better! But I thought that was the plan all along. Improve it, but the base to build from is there.

[davidpdx]

168. So he wait to say this when he's weeks from retirement

Sure single payer would have been better. We all know that.

For those doubting that the ACA as a starting point, look at what South Korea has achieved. It took them many years to full implement the health program, it didn't happen overnight.

[Omnith]

172. That's odd Mr Harkin

I specifically remember the President saying there was not enough votes to pass single payer. Please return to reality Mr Harkin.

[imthevicar]

178. When I Bitched and complained about Medicare for all

Being taken off the table, By people like this, (DINO), I was basically told to stop complaining. This from the same Dino Cheerleaders as always. You Know who you are.

[loyalsister]

180. I think the last thing I remember Ted Kennedy saying publicly was "Don't screw it up"

in reference to healthcare. I don't think the onus should lie only on Democrats. Congress is a bunch of colleagues who are supposed to be serving the common good. Republicans screwed it up. They had an opportunity to do something that would have been well remembered and they blew it.

If as time goes on and Obamacare evolves into something that is as much a holy grail as social security. Their brand can only claim credit for opposition. They made sure that evolution is full of barriers. But, it may still happen.

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Yeah, instead we dicked around for a year with "town halls" that allowed the tricorner hat crowd to

Yell incoherently in front of CNN cameras.

To call it a blown opportunity is a giant understatement.

[leftstreet]

188. +1 Staged bullshit n/t

[merrily]

200. The public option was dead long before the town halls.

By the time of the town halls, Obama was already scolding rank and file Democrats over the public option, calling it "a sliver." As for single payer, he for some reason characterized it by saying something like "You don't want the government handling health care (not "government paying for health insurance, but government handling health care. (Then, he snickered and said, "like the Post Office," thereby hitting two things liberals wanted at once--and not very, um, accurately, either.)

[merrily]

213. The idea that DU knows more about the workings of the Senate than Harkin is laughable.

So is the idea that the public is told everything and everything that the public is told can, and should, be taken at face value.

Posts based on those notions are evidence of either heavy self delusion or outright dishonesty, or both.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

285. I'm sitting here, chuckling, thinking the exact same thing.

If Obama wanted single-payer to pass, he would have put a Frank Underwood on it. But that's just not his style. Or maybe it is, only his attack dogs targeted "the professional left," not Republicans. Funny, that.

[99Forever]

222. Seems to be a case of...

... no shit, Sherlock.

But like always, us dumbassed liberal, professional leftists, were ignored because "the serious people knew better."

And they wonder why they don't get voter turnout.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

227. Not.helpful (and not true)

What does it say that we barely got ACA passed (without a public option)? No, the votes were NOT there.

[Leopolds Ghost]

229. Shh. Don't remind DU activists that a public option was considered an absolute backstop

Now, four legs bad two legs good, if you lament the loss of a public option which Democratic activists were assured would be in the bill, thus being the only thing that made an individual mandate palatable (even though Washington Monthly established in interviews with Daschle years ago that the public option was always intended to be a fig leaf to protect the insurance lobby, since it would be funded by fines on people who cannot afford mandatory insurance (!!) I.e. there would always be less money for a public option than people with no option to afford mandatory privatized health care.

And now we have proof from the Clinton's creepy aides that it was always a scam on the "stupid" American people to protect the insurance lobby by fining people for not having private insurance (and the Washington Monthly went further back in 2006, pointing out that not only was the public option always a bait-and-switch designed to fool liberals into voting for the bill, but the mandatory privatized health care itself was explicitly stated (By Hillary, Gingrich, Daschle and others) to be necessary to shut down the movement towards single-payer, which the Clintons and the health care lobby agreed was unacceptable.

[liberal_at_heart]

232. +1000000

[merrily]

279. And it worked.

Whenever government sees possible trouble on the horizon from a good number of Americans, it throws a bone, even if it takes it back later, like most of the New Deal and the Great Society.

[Leopolds Ghost]

288. Which is why I can't support Hillary Clinton

Because of what she and Daschle said in the pages of the Washington Monthly about working with people like Gingrich and Romney putting a stop to single-payer ten years ago. Working with the health insurance lobby back when nobody else cared about the issue (because they were the ones who were hurting, according to conservadems.) That, and her position on foreign policy and basic civil liberties issues (NSA spying, etc.)

By implementing the sort of HCR that her team foisted on the Obama administration (who promised no individual mandate). Remember these are the same people saying an employer mandate would be unfair. Because corporations are ten times more people.

[merrily]

289. No argument here. I have a number of reasons not to support her.

[libodem]

234. Right on!

This insurance exchange is bullshit.

[Jesus Malverde]

275. “We had the votes in ’09. We had a huge majority in the House, we had 60 votes in the Senate,"

Did he really go there and lay it out for all to see.

[merrily]

278. And, we had the Oval Office.

We are not likely to see that combination again any time soon.

Hi, Jesus!