The "better than nothing" crowd doesn't seem to get how it actually works

[Political Heretic]

"We must support this now, even though its next to nothing, because its better than nothing. Then we can get more next time."

That's not how Washington works.

Better than nothing historically means we settle for next to nothing for a generation. The political will to do anything is completely lost once "something gets done." Politicians that don't want the issue and just want it to go away use a terrible bill as an excuse to say "look we've already done all this stuff, we need to focus on other things."

I've used this example before, just because it has been fresh on my mind. When FMLA was pushed through there was a strong argument for voting against the bill because it was insufficient, excluding any form of paid leave. Ultimately proponents said, this is all we can get in this round, but it will only be the first shot in a larger salvo and eventually we'll get there.

That was over fifteen years ago. Since there there has been zero movement to "go back" and add to the "foundation" of FMLA. Data on FMLA (and I have this in a powerpoint on family policy, somewhere) shows that the majority of people who could be eligible for leave under FMLA can't and don't take it and the number one reason given is that they can't afford to.

We need to rethink "better than nothing." Sometimes nothing is better than the wrong thing. Fighting down a bad bill leaves the issue unresolved, and it does not allow politicians to get off the hook by lying and distorting the virtues of a bad bill to their constituents.

Sometimes you can turn doing "nothing" into a rallying cry - by fighting against those who seek to deliver a death blow to actual reform and better bills. Doing "nothing" is actually doing something very important, which is refusing to allow Washington politicians off the hook and refusing to allow them to lie about the quality of a bill so that they can brush critical issues aside.

Sometimes a bill may be "good enough" - having sufficient benefits to make further holding out more harmful than helpful. But this is not one of those times.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yah! Fucking piece of shit Al Gore.

[Political Heretic]

2. Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. You might as well be demanding a pony. n/t

[Forkboy]

32. Considering the source it's a fucking treatise.

:)

[lindisfarne]

3. We don't have to CHOOSE to settle for nothing until the next generation - that's our choice. n/t

[Political Heretic]

5. As if our choice matters. 80% of America supports public option. A majority support single payer..

...at something like 60%. A majority would be willing to pay higher taxes for it. All according to Washington Post poll that's been out there for weeks.

You think that matters? What we CHOOSE often doesn't mean much of anything - particularly as long as we keep finding excuses to vote the same pitiful democrats (that should read as: not all democrats are pitiful but some are) into office over and over again.

[lindisfarne]

7. In your OP, you make the case that we accomplish something but not enough. If we can do it once

we can do it again to get more. It doesn't have to wait for the next generation.

Your reply to me seems to argue that we cannot accomplish anything ever -not what you said in OP.

Yeah, it's not easy, but it's a lot harder in many places to make change.

[Political Heretic]

12. That's not how it works.

In this system, what "we" can accomplish depends a lot on the momentum on an issue, which "we" don't fully control.

Passing the wrong legislation in the name of "addressing" the issue, kills the momentum. You keep saying that we can do that then get more, except for the fact that historically that's not how it works. Don't take my word for it, you go out and look at past legislative initiatives and see that in the overwhelming majority of cases, incremental policy approaches lead to decades upon decades of limited or NO FURTHER MOVEMENT on the issue.

I gave the example of FMLA precisely to provide a historical example.

I am not arguing that we cannot accomplish anything, ever. I'm arguing that in this system, its not as simply as just "choosing" to do something at any place and time. One of the quickest ways to make the job infinitely harder is to pass bad legislation that does next to nothing in the name of "addressing" a particular mandate. All momentum is lost. It is often better to keep the issue by voting down a weak bill than it is to pass a weak bill and lose all momentum for making serious progress.

[lindisfarne]

19. Except the "weak" bill may have enough support to pass, and when you try to add more, you lose peopl

It may be that you want more than the majority want.

Very often, a step forward will give people time to start thinking more along the way you do, and to assuage their fears about going further. In this case, pushing for more a few years later may very well be successful because people have adjusted to the change that the first bill caused.

[sisters6]

34. Obama should have been BOLD and demanded single payer from the start. Instead

he started off with a defeatist attitude and asked for a strong public plan. Look at where that got him!! Now he is begging for a public plan with the insurance companies in charge.

[lindisfarne]

43. Lots of non-single payer systems out there that work well. SP is not the only (nor the best) option.

[Vincardog]

55. IMO SP is the only (and the best) option to fix our current dismal health delivery system.

Please list all the many alleged systems that would give us universal coverage and lower costs.

[lindisfarne]

56. Germany's costs are lower than France's. Not SP but universal coverage. Please do the remaining r

research yourself.
France & Canada, both more or less single payer, are relatively expensive, compared to cost of health care in other developed countries (Although 86% of French buy supplemental insurance, so really not "single" payer, see PNHP's definition). Many of these countries have universal health care without being single payer (and in fact, "single payer" does not inherently guarantee UHC - it's all in how it's set up; there can also be significant co-pays (as in France).
(Another one: GB's NHS)

[Astrad]

58. I think you're splitting hairs

Single payer technically refers to health insurance that is run by the state for all citizens. What that specifically covers in different jurisdictions can vary a great deal but it always entitles all citizens to some form of basic coverage. There is also socialized health care where the medical contractors are, for the most part, employees of the state but universal coverage is also guaranteed. I am not aware of any health care system in the world, either single payer or socialized, that does not offer universal coverage to its citizens, although, as stated, what they specifically cover in terms of treatment can differ.

Regarding cost, given the fact that the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world, with many citizens still uncovered, and with health outcomes poorer than almost all the OECD countries, any model (socialized or single payer) from any of the countries you cited would be a serious improvement.

[lindisfarne]

60. I agree that there are various ways to improve the US system, including options other than SP -which

was the point of my first reply(#43).
There are many SP advocates who fail to realize that there are many ways to set up SP, and that in fact, it's not necessarily better than other existing non-SP systems in developed countries. They talk about "SP" as if it's one thing; it's not.

[Indenturedebtor]

26. History disagrees with you. The OP is right

Except next time they'll point to these half measures and say "look - public healthcare is bad. We told you so!"

Better nothing than a crappy something!

[BklnDem75]

29. Which history are you referring to?

Care to elaborate?

[Indenturedebtor]

63. FMLA, DADT, etc. Half measures with gaping loopholes

that remain unplugged.

[bluestateguy]

4. Thank you for sharing that idea

I have given it due consideration... and rejected it.

[Political Heretic]

6. And by doing so rejected historical reality.

Why am I not surprised.

[bluestateguy]

9. You know where I stand

nt

[Political Heretic]

13. I do. Without any historical evidence base.

[Occam Bandage]

15. I can't think of any recent political fights in which

the failure of a major, party-consensus reform effort resulted in a stronger bill being passed in the near term.

[Political Heretic]

18. I can't think of a near term example in which spineless democrats have ever triedea

To get a comparable time frame in which democrats controlled every branch of government you'd have to go way back....

[Occam Bandage]

20. So give me one in which Republican failure to pass a major bill resulted in a stronger law.

The Republicans certainly did fail to pass many bills as a result of failure to get their side behind a compromise bill. Social Security privatization and immigration reform were two biggies. Did either result in the Republicans passing a stronger bill later? Or was it the case that both resulted in the issues becoming untouchable until another President showed up?

I mean, seriously. You're talking about the "historical evidence base," but I can't even think of a single example of a major bill (one in which both parties were actively lobbying the public on the merits of a party consensus bill) failing, and having that failure result in a stronger version of that bill becoming law.

[Political Heretic]

22. This is a bait and switch.

I say, there's little historical examples of the "incremental policy" approach actually working in a timely manner.

You don't say, yes there is and here it is.

Instead you say, "Oh yeah, well there's little historical example of opposing a weak bill allowing a stronger bill to pass."

So just keep in mind that even if what you say is true, its not a counter argument to my point. It only means we are really screwed.

Now having said that, if you see my other response to you below, where I talk about the success or failure of one of these approaches is largely impacted by political momentum?

Republicans failed to get immigration or social security back on the table because there was little to no public momentum for either of their ideas on those things. It also wasn't an example of them voting down a weak bill so that they could fight for a stronger one - if they had tried that however it still wouldn't have worked precisely because those were fringe issues that their hard right wing was thrusting upon the American public.

They were not responding to overwhelming public mandate for either of those two issues. (Yes, immigration was a hot issue at the time, no there was not a public mandate for the kind of "reform" they were touting.)

In this case, one of the legs of the Presidents campaign platform was a green economy. He was elected with a sizable majority in part because of that platform. The context in which this bill comes up is slightly different than the context of the examples you give.

[Occam Bandage]

24. It's not a bait-and-switch, and it is certainly a counter-argument.

The problem with your argument is that it is something of an appeal to consequence: Accepting a 'weak' compromise bill results in only very small amounts of change, and so we shouldn't do it. However, politics is very rarely a question of whether a proposal is a good idea per se; it's a question of whether a proposal is a better idea than the alternative(s). All that's necessary to defeat your argument is to demonstrate that following your proposed course of action is likely to be inferior to following my own. If we each accept each other's points, then we have "some change for the better" versus "no change for the better," and while it may be true that we are really screwed in that case, our being screwed is not really relevant to the immediate discussion.

Yes. I do see that you strongly believe in political momentum. And I still believe, absent any modern-era examples to the contrary, that the defeat of a bill results in the complete loss (rather than the preservation) of any momentum that issue might have ever carried. People may still feel the same pressures that caused them to consider the issue important, but the issue is effectively dead as a means of addressing the pressures concerned.

I'll accept that there was no "public momentum" for Social Security reform, but creating public momentum is the job of a President. Bush had strong majorities in both houses, he had just won the White House, and the media was still extraordinarily friendly to him. Political analysts of all stripes were saying that the Democrats were moribund for a decade at least. Bush's plan for an "ownership society" was hailed by political strategists across the spectrum as the beginning of a movement that the Democrats would be little able to resist, and while the public was uncertain, it was at least showing a willingness to listen to the discussion. We all know how that ended; the movement didn't last two months. The Republicans promised to try again the following year, but feelers were greeted with derision in Congress and cold indifference among the public. That is the first of two points I believe are clearly outlined by the twin failures of Bush's second term: the President's bully pulpit may be powerful, but most often it can only push an issue once.

The second point is demonstrated by immigration reform. The public was strongly interested in this issue. There were rallies across the nation for both sides. Right-wingers were so hyped up for reform, they formed vigilante societies in anticipation. Issue groups ran ads everywhere. Everyone wanted something to get done. But yet nothing happened at all. Why? Because while everyone loved the idea of immigration reform, there were few specific proposals that could gain majority public support--and the few that most everyone did like were so underwhelming that it would have been embarrassing to pass them by themselves. As a result of the public momentum for reform, everyone refused to settle for anything but major reform. But, of course, major reform couldn't happen, because nobody could get behind any particular plan. The lesson, of course, is that demand for reform is not enough by itself, and that demand for reform is not equal to demand for any particular type of reform. Even demand that seems quite focused (a public option, say) can turn out to be far more fractured than it first seemed. And once the issue becomes linked (and linked for a political generation) with a specific bill, it might well turn out that the wave of support you were planning on has disappeared and disappeared for good.

[Political Heretic]

27. I have to admit right up front I don't have time to read all of that now.

I'm out the door... but I will try to come back and read it later, since this has been kind of a good back and forth.

[stevenleser]

28. That is very well said.

I think your argument is stronger than the OPs by far.

The first thing that must be accomplished is that everyone must get good health insurance.

The second thing that must be accomplished is that the reasons the insurance companies are using to deny care have to be made illegal in most cases.

If we achieve those two items, we will have a minimally successful outcome.

If we hold out for more and fail to pass anything at all as a result, we can probably say goodbye to anything for a decade or more.

Now that I have said all that, I am very pissed off that we have 6-9 Democratic Senators that are thinking about balking on a public option when there is a massive amount of support for it, but there it is.

[Political Heretic]

75. Wanted to get back to this.

I feel like not saying anything is like I'm running away. Unfortunately I've got too much stuff going on right now to get into this.

So I want to say that, it is clear that you make some very important points. I don't think you're all wrong and I'm all right, not by a long shot. I think its complicated.

In fact if anything, what I think I've gotten out of this exchange is a reminder of just how hard it really is to get things done in our system.

Certainly examples like I gave for FMLA are true - sometimes the "better than nothing" options means we never get anything else, at least not for decades. On the other hand, you made very good points about the fact that holding out also has clear examples of how that doesn't necessarily work. Especially, as you illustrated, when something represents a major administration policy position on which the very political capital of the administration rests.

What I think we have is a serious problem - which is that it is frequently true that "better than nothing" reform does not lead to more reform. But, it is also the case that holding out for "best" reform also frequently leads to nothing. To me, I would think this should lead people to a deeper discussion about the nature and state of our political process itself.

One of the biggest issues I think we face is that often I think no one next to no one in Washington - not republicans or democrats - want dramatic change. The status quo works for them. It keeps them in power and privilege. Why rock the boat? That seems to be the most ominous problem we've got.

[Oregone]

8. Good Post

[Occam Bandage]

10. Sure. And demanding more than "better than nothing" can give us nothing for a generation.

We get one shot at each issue. Only one. It's not one bill signed into law on each issue, it's one attempt to pass one bill on each issue. If that bill fails due to inadequate Dem support, as health care reform did under Clinton, then we get nothing at all for a political generation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. No, one of the first principles of bargaining is to ask for more than you

think you can really get. Then compromise, if necessary, from there.

Don't START by compromising. Start by being "unreasonable." Then when you make concessions, you will still end up with something close to what you really want, and the other side will think they've achieved a great victory.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Obviously so. That's why, on every issue so far, Dems have proposed versions of bills

that they are perfectly aware have no chance of winning adequate support. You're confusing House/Senate sausage-making with public fights over passage of high-profile consensus effort bills.

[Political Heretic]

16. That's also not how it works.

Keeping the issue keeps the momentum. Health care failed because Democrats were no more serious about doing it than Republicans were. It's that simple. You're right that we can't get anything done if our representatives are never serious about doing it.

But, if they are, then what we see over and over again is that incremental policy approaches fail to accomplish their goals for a variety of reasons. Voting against a next to nothing bill when there is momentum to address the political issue means keeping the issue rather than giving it up, and when something is unresolved it builds tension and momentum to resolve it - IF political representatives are sincerely willing to fight for it.

When no one actually wants the isssue, and when everyone wants to pass whatever will "look" like action without actually doing anything substantive, then we're all screwed no matter what we do.

[Occam Bandage]

17. The earnest naivety just drips off your posts.

By the time a bill enters the period in which the parties attempt to harness the public opinion, it represents the one and only attempt a given administration will have to address the issue the bill is meant to address. Failure does not result in the issue "keeping momentum," it results in the issue being abandoned as a toxic failure. That impression calcifies, and the issue is dead until another administration is able to reframe the issue and approach it from a new angle.

[Political Heretic]

21. Well I do this for a living.

So say whatever you want.

I don't believe that it is correct to say that public opinion is only assessed after one and only one attempt and administration will have to address an issue. It's also not correct to say that the administration only has one shot.

I understand the point you are trying to make. We've all see some major policy initiatives of administration's fail and then not resurface. Often that failure comes with a big political cost, loss of public support, etc. That can happen. However that's not the only thing that has historically happened, and it's not the only possible outcome.

Much of whether that happens or not depends on the level at which the issue is a public priority. There are "seasons" when the public wakes up and pays attention, and during those seasons it is better to seize on the momentum by fighting for a good bill, than it is to give up all of that public capital by wasting it on a bad bill.

There are other times when a policy initiative is a priority of the administration but not as high of a priority for the public, in those instances public support is weak at best. Failing to pass something can be a death knell altogether in those instances.

The problem is when people start arguing that it is always the case that we much take whatever weak, ineffective bill is proposed because it is the only thing that can be passed. There are times when that is the worst choice, not the best one.

Incidentally, the consequences of bill failures also depends greatly on why it failed. One party refusing to cave into a weak bipartisan bill does not have the same effect as One party attempting to pass their bill and having the other party defeat them. They are slightly different, and a lot of it has to do with how it is politically framed. There is an opportunity to frame holding out for a better bill in a way that captures public momentum on the issue and applies pressure to those hold outs who are resisting the initiative on spec.

[Occam Bandage]

23. It's fine if you think that there are second acts in politics,

but claiming that dead bills resulting in stronger bills is how things "actually work" is simply delusional. It seems you're walking back your tone at least; you've gone from brashly asserting that failure of a bill results in "sustaining momentum" to the somewhat less impressive claim that the catastrophic failure that a dead bill generally represents is "not the only possible outcome." Nothing fails like failure, and linking a bill to an issue is part and parcel of any attempt to pass or defeat that bill. If a bill has survived long enough to be linked to its issue, then any hope of a second act has slipped out the back door.

If your claim is now "Congress shouldn't push for compromise bills if it seems likely that the public might soon be convinced to support a stronger bill," then that's a perfectly reasonable statement, but one that has absolutely nothing to do with our roles as citizens/voters/activists. Our role is not to decide what Congress pushes into the public, but rather is to help guide how that push is received. I stand completely by my claim: LW support for a compromise bill that Congress is pushing is likely to result in little change for a generation; LW opposition to the same bill is likely to result in zero change for a generation.

[eridani]

30. If you want a kitten, you need to ask for a pony

Why this bullshit of the opening bid being the minimum that you will accept? I'd sure never ask any of these people to advertise a used car for me.

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. K&R - Imagine if, in 1965 instead of Medicare we had mandated that elderly buy private insurance..:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5943857

[Senator]

33. But more importantly -- to them -- there's no electoral payoff for Obama/Dems

The "beauty" of engineering the BTN increment is entirely a beltway/political junkie drama (sorry, not drama). This level of "success" is entirely lost on the public/electorate. They only react to results.

The chance that the public option will become a "change" people can see in the short or even medium term is rather low. More likely it will translate similarly to the medicare drug benefit that the bushies claimed as a triumph, but the public saw for what it was -- limited help for a limited cohort.

You know, better than nothing (I suppose).

--

[sisters6]

35. Your post reminds me that we settled for DADT. Look at where

we are with that one--years later.


You are spot on--. Settling for less is NOT the way to go--but the WH and Congress seemed to be settled in that mentality. John Kerry's wishy washy response to a public option proved your point.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. Can you give an example where by torpedoing a "good enough" bill we got a great bill quickly?

Via Legislation?

[lunatica]

37. Admittedly I'm confused. When did we ever get anything more by voting it down

Voting against the war funding didn't do a single thing to stop the war. Putting pressure on the politicians by marching in the millions by the citizens of the US, Britain and the "coalition of the willing" countries didn't even slow the momentum the politicians and the media had built up. They didn't even bother to notice.

If it's a good plan it gets trashed before it even leaves Committee.

On the other hand, the civil rights we have today came in increments, whether it was over a long period of time or not. If women had held out for that equal pay for equal work thing we'd still be in the kitchen.

[Faryn Balyncd]

42. Your analogy about war funding seems to support the OPPOSITE of your presumed INTENT - - - :

While you are correct that voting against war funding did not stop the war, the reason that this is true is solely because there were enough so-called opponents of the war that voted to continue funding for whatever reason. If those that knew the war was wrong had voted their convictions, the war would have been de-funded and ended.

How you inverted this reality into an argument AGAINST sticking to principle is remarkable.

Then you say that if a plan is good it "gets trashed before it even leaves Committee", which is unfortunately often true.

But how this supports voting FOR such flawed, counterproductive bills is beyond confusing.

With civil rights, the incremental gains were in fact gains. Voting for them did not advance the cause of the bigots. Voting for these gains simply advanced the cause of civil rights, albeit incrementally.

But today we are dealing with proposals that will not be incremental gains. but victories for the forces we oppose, disguised as "reform".

The bill that is forming in the Senate Finance Committee appears to be such a bill. A bill that is being formed after initially excluded Single Payer advocates, and which appears likely to produce a bill without a genuine public option.

Any such bill, unlike civil rights legislation, will most definitely NOT be an incremental gain.

Such bills that consolidate the power of the insurance industry are absolute defeats for our cause if passed.

It would not only make genuine reform more difficult, but it would, as the OP points out, likely take actual reform entirely off the table.

[cornermouse]

38. k & r.

[rasputin1952]

39. Anyone who has followed political history knows that everything

takes time in the political world...the only exception is when it comes to declaring war after an overt attack.

Some things take more time than others, particularly in societal changes. people are in comfort levels and resist change whenever it pops up. Increments, it's always increments.

In virtually everything that becomes law, unforeseen snags pop up, (although some are intentionally placed into some legislation), when the proposed law is based on social change, the progress is slow indeed. Not until 1920 were women allowed to vote, (the exception being a few state-wide instances of female suffrage).

It has always been this way, probably always will. I don't like it, but it is a cold, hard reality.

[lunatica]

40. I agree with you on everything except the war on overt attacks

Grenada, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan (technically the government itself didn't attack us)

As a matter of fact all wars after WW II were wars of expediency and convenience for the US. Even the war with Mexico was when they attacked a group of Americans on their own soil. The fact that Americans think differently is a testament to the power of manipulation by the government to whip up Patriotic jingoism to a real raging lather.

[rasputin1952]

45. All of those took relatively longer than entering WW's I & II...

simply because they needed some different tacks on how they were approached through Congress; basically bypassing Congress and using the "police action" scenario.

They were all presidential actions, not declarations of war, which can only come from Congress. Bypassing Congress has a long and storied history.

Actual legislation is a long process, involving compromise, demands and retreats. As a Shop Steward for Local SEIU 6, I spent many an hour involved in a similar process, it is ugly, but when done, the benefits can be great, but it takes a tremendous amount of stamina, and knowing where to draw the line.

[cornermouse]

41. Then I guess Congress had better get busy

composing a resolution that that insurance should be affordable. Next year, we can pass a resolution that everyone without access to healthcare should have health insurance since we're going to do it in small increments. The year after that we can forget all about it because voters will be sicker, tired, and angry and will go to the polls and the democratic party will lose their majority.

The democratic party is in serious trouble on this issue. They can't afford to pretend it doesn't exist.

[rasputin1952]

46. The D's won't, and the R's recapturing either House are pretty slim

at best. They are in complete disarray...but progress must be made, I truly hope the D's find their spine and get things done, the R's, are just doing what they do best...acting as spoilers. The biggest problem they have at this point...no plans at all, just empty rhetoric.

It is indeed imperative that things get done, if they get serious motion, the GOP will be even less of a shell of a party than they are now...:hi:

[cornermouse]

48. I've been watching and the GOP is working hard to regroup.

Once they sort things out and look for an actual leader to fill the current gap they're going to be back.

Locally, the republican voters who I work with and who crossed the line and voted for Obama are madder than little wet hornets. The democratic party won't be getting their votes in 2010. On the other side of the coin Obama's walked as far away from his liberal base of voters as he can. The democratic party is in trouble.

[cornermouse]

52. One other thing that you might or might not want to factor in.

My disabled adult child is on medicaid. I tried to get health insurance for him due to the fact that doctors pretty much refuse to see medicaid patients but failed because the insurance company refused to enroll him. I'm not alone in this predicament. Even if it passed as is before it gets watered down even more, Obama's "bill" will do nothing for him. My child will continue to be left out in the cold as far as preventive care. His access will continue to be limited to ERs and acute care clinics. The only thing that would have worked was single payer universal healthcare, which if we got out of the mideast and started taking care of ourselves instead of people who want us anywhere but where we're at, would be possible.

I stand by my assertion that the R's are well on their way to regrouping and presenting a serious threat to the democratic party maintaining the majority in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Underestimating the opposition is a common mistake that I, at least, would prefer to avoid.

[rasputin1952]

67. First and foremost...I truly hope that your child gets the care he needs and deserves,

one of the things I've been fighting for is Universal Health Care...everyone gets the treatment they need.

I've been watching the R's closely, and they are tossing out all kinds of talking points, virtually all of them w/o credibility. It should take them more than one bi-annual election to make a comeback...they really have nothing, and they know it.

The real problem is the D's in Congress not telling the R's to go to hell, and just pass legislation that is necessary...including getting out of the ME. In the 5+ months the president has been in office, he has actually done quite a bit, although none of it has been huge in the grand scheme of things. I think there will be some very serious stuff coming down the pike, a lot will do w/how the D's in Congress react and if they can deliver.

I cannot see a GOP upswing in the future, I can see more lackadaisical fear-mongering, but not much else...:hi:

[LWolf]

44. K & R nt

[WeDidIt]

47. Nothing is better than no immediate robust public option

That's the honest truth of the matter when it comes to healthcare.

IT would be better to do nothing at all than to do what is being proposed with no robust ppublic option.

[KittyWampus]

49. It isn't "next to nothing". Your ignorance is pathetic.

[jefferson_dem]

50. +1

An embarrassingly ignorant illustration of reductionism.

[johnaries]

51. Actually, if you look at the history politics

if a weak bill doesn't pass, then that fact is always trotted out again whenever the issue is raised again. It is then DOA.

[omega minimo]

53. It's "not worked" that way for decades now. That's why we have corporate government.

[depakid]

54. FMLA is an excellent example

of legislation that proved largely ineffective in solving the core problems -and from a long term perspective, may have made matters worse (in a variety of areas) by taking the issue(s) off of the table.

[quakerboy]

57. +1

sometimes the "something" is actually regresssive and moves us in the wrong direction, or provokes a reaction that moves us in the wrong direction. If we take one step forward and 2 back, that is far worse than standing still.

[and-justice-for-all]

59. thanks, but I get it just fine....

and I will happily take this bill..

[ProSense]

61. Yeah, it was better to have no health care reform whatsoever in 1994.

Who cares if it took another 16 years to get to this point.

"We need to rethink 'better than nothing.'"

No, we need to stop spinning progress as all or nothing.

Progress is incremental. It isn't synonymous with revolution. The seemingly perfect bill (if it exists) will still be open to finetuning.

[depakid]

64. We DID get some piecemeal health care reform in Clinton's 1st term

HIPAA, and federal mental health parity- which quickly sunsetted out.

[ProSense]

66. The nonsense never ceases.

"which quickly sunsetted out."

Face facts, all or nothing is BS.

[depakid]

68. Careful now

You're writing with someone who worked for YEARS trying to get it put back in place after it sunsetted out.

It was only in effect from January 1998 to September 2001

Oddly enough- Bush said that he would sign it early on- but did the Dems listen when they got power again?

Nope. They did NOTHING to advance the legislation.

The only reason we have federal parity now (and limited parity compared to many state mandates) is because it got tacked onto the bank rescue bill last year as the economy crashed.

Remind me sometime and I'll relate an incident with Gordon Smith's office on the matter- some 7 months before his own kid committed suicide due to clinical depression.

[ProSense]

70. You are proving my point.

Evidently the "piecemeal" change was important (my point) enough for you to fight for it once it was sunsetted (not progress).

[depakid]

71. No, not a damn thing happened in Congress until "fortune" shined

absent that opportunity, the Democratic "leadership" wouldn't have done shit to this day.

This summer presents another opportunity. Will the Dems blow it yet again?

Ball's in their court- we'll see if the administration has what it takes.

[ProSense]

72. You're not even making sense

related to the point I made. If you want to rail about inaction do so, but that has nothing to do with my point.

[depakid]

73. I'm saying there's a big difference between getting something SUBSTANTIAL

and getting a bunch of piece meal crap.

I'm also saying that's EXACTLY what Republicans and their corrupt Democratic allies in the Senate will feed to Americans given half the chance.

[Cherchez la Femme]

62. Yep, Mom & Dad always told me

'if you can't or won't do anything well (the correct, thorough way) don't bother doing it at all'

To this day I hate half-assed work. Why put forth the effort to do it crappily when it can be done properly with the same or just a little more work? It'll be finished forever and something one can be content with, if not downright proud of.


When it came to advice about life, I gotta admit, Mom & Dad were always right.

[bigwillq]

65. Better than nothing is why

we're in a mess on some many levels. :mad:

[mvd]

69. Sometimes something is "better than nothing," and sometimes it's not

A public option, even though I want a single-payer system, is better than nothing. But a plan without a public option that requires coverage might be the same or worse.

[quaker bill]

74. The "all or nothing" crowd fails to understand

that most times when you demand all, you get nothing, and you end up living with nothing for decades. See Clinton - healthcare reform - 1993.

Most times, when you pitch your political tent, fight the big battle and lose, politicians will not go near the subject again for a very long time. Why is this so? Politicians do not like to be seen as losers. Except for those in the safest of seats (Kucinich, and a handful of others), losing a big battle can cost a politician his / her career. Politicians are, as a class of people, risk adverse, there are very few exceptions. There are very few exceptions because those who have taken considerable risk have lost an election as a result and therefore never got to a place where we would know of them.

Perhaps their career ended at the city council or the state legislature, but they were culled from the herd somewhere along the way. Almost all the risk-takers are well out of the mix by the time you get enough experience to run for a federal seat.

So it is true, if you settle for "we have a program for that" legislation, the "program" will be underfunded and have no teeth. Little change will result. But, you can argue for teeth and funding to make existing "programs" more successful. However, if you go for the full bore program with teeth and funding, you will likely lose, and have literally nothing for decades. You cannot argue to strengthen a "program" that does not exist.