Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sorry I've just got to say it.....A Public Option would have avoided most of this crap [View all]questionseverything
(11,525 posts)138. we had plenty of votes to go to reconciliation in the senate
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Partys deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how its played:
.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Partys deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how its played:
.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
192 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sorry I've just got to say it.....A Public Option would have avoided most of this crap [View all]
Armstead
Nov 2013
OP
Would not have been perfect -- but would have avoided a lot of the present problems
Armstead
Nov 2013
#6
Even if there were a public option, the website still would not work. <- in it's present form, such
jtuck004
Nov 2013
#85
But they are already signing up for Medicare, without this so-called site. So it would
jtuck004
Nov 2013
#186
+1.. They could have lowered the eligibility age a little bit each year
SomethingFishy
Nov 2013
#106
I have to disagree. The public plan would provide a cheaper/better plan, nullifying the logic in the
grahamhgreen
Nov 2013
#156
Simply by persuading 1 senator with an ambassadorship, cabinet position or
grahamhgreen
Nov 2013
#158
Why has no Democrat stepped forward to take advantage of the hysteria with a
TwilightGardener
Nov 2013
#11
Some did but they got ignored or squashed by the "centrist" Democratic establishment
Armstead
Nov 2013
#15
Now is the time, then. Publicize it out the wazoo, and get Reid to allow consideration.
TwilightGardener
Nov 2013
#17
Lieberman and the blue dogs said no at the time. A Medicare for those 55 and above was thrown down
lostincalifornia
Nov 2013
#59
The reality was it wasn't going to happen because there were not enough progressives. Until there
lostincalifornia
Nov 2013
#139
Exactly. And one of the big reasons they gave for not pursuing it was it would behard to set up.
jwirr
Nov 2013
#35
Shouldn't be hard to set up, there are many excellent working systems throught the world
NorthCarolina
Nov 2013
#140
Public Option wouldn't have prevented web site problems... or cancelled policies
scheming daemons
Nov 2013
#55
Free healthcare for all paid for by 90% tax rate on those with incomes above $750,000
Pretzel_Warrior
Nov 2013
#63
no. I accurately said neither would have passed the senate. which is the point.
Pretzel_Warrior
Nov 2013
#66
Yes. I acknowledge that in terms of the make of Congress at that time...and its worse now
Armstead
Nov 2013
#71
hey, I'm agreeing. Need a whole lot more education of the public to get critical mass
Pretzel_Warrior
Nov 2013
#72
Too many in Congress and the WH get big $$ from the insurance companies to support this...nt
Clear Blue Sky
Nov 2013
#67
33% of CT Democrats chose Lieberman over Lamont, the Democratic primary winner.
1000words
Nov 2013
#80
Don't apologize, but talk to those Blue Dog Democrats, many of them no longer in Congress,
Liberal_Stalwart71
Nov 2013
#98
In polls, 71% of the public favored the public option as part of reform. Before the
wiggs
Nov 2013
#99
I've been trying to look at the bright side of what we got, but this is a reminder that democracy
yurbud
Nov 2013
#100
Or to hitch themselves to it. Now is the time to attack with a strong push for a public option.
grahamhgreen
Nov 2013
#159
The planet on which an America had a Congress capable of passing single-payer...
Orsino
Nov 2013
#188