Paul Begalia: Progress Over Perfection (in other words progressives back down on health care)

[WI_DEM]

I am a proud progressive Democrat, someone who believes affordable, quality health care is an economic necessity and a moral imperative. As a longtime Democratic political strategist, I am skeptical, at best, of the Washington elite's worship of bipartisanship -- as if the truth always lies halfway between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore.

And yet I think my fellow progressives ought to give Max Baucus and other members of the Senate Finance Committee a little breathing room as they labor to produce a health-care bill that can garner enough votes to pass the Senate.

Progressive politics is, in my view, a movement, not a monument. We cannot achieve perfection in this life, and if that is our goal we will always be frustrated. The right has far more modest goals: At every turn, its members seek to advance their power and protect privilege. I've never seen the Republican right oppose a tax cut for the rich because it wasn't generous enough; I've never seen them oppose a set of loopholes for corporate lobbyists because one industry or another wasn't included. The left, on the other hand, too often prefers a glorious defeat to an incremental victory.

Our history teaches us otherwise. No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt's original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy. FDR's Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn't work, you got nothing from Social Security...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081202575.html

[stray cat]

1. Nothing is better than something imperfect!

:sarcasm: Isn't that the progressive way? Of course, sick relatives could get coverage with the reform even without the public option but who cares about them when there is a principle at stake. And yes I am in favor of a public option. I think reigning in the health insurance abuses of people is also an important goal.

[grantcart]

2. As long as there is a robust public option Max can have all of the breathing

room he wants.

[edhopper]

3. And without a robust public option

it isn't progress at all.

[grantcart]

4. not for the people it isn't

[Selatius]

5. What happens if the public option turns out to be, pardon the pun, a cripple?

What then?

[CrownPrinceBandar]

8. I want to know the answer to that question as well..........

if we don't get a public option, what are we gonna do?

[Jennicut]

6. He does have a point that Social Security did not start off being what it is today

Its funny but many Rethugs think incremental change automatically means we will eventually have single payer and that is the "goal" of Obama. My father told me this yesterday. I had to laugh because at DU we think its basically not much change at all. If only the small public option we may get would eventually turn into single payer. LOL

[vi5]

7. "Enough votes to pass the senate" is 50...

....even without Kennedy and Byrd there to vote and without Baucus we have more than that.

Make the republicans fillibuster and stop trying to play nice with them.

[ncteechur]

11. Lawrence O'Donnell did a great piece the other night on why reconciliation is not the best way to do

this.

[vi5]

12. I'm not talking about reconcilliation....

....I also agree that's not the right way to do this. Something this big needs to pass in an actual bill that is voting on it.

The way to do this is to get a bill which you can at least get around 55 votes for (this accounts for Kennedy and Byrd not being there, Baucus not voting for it, and maybe 1 or 2 others) bring it to the floor and make the Republicans fillibuster it.

Publicize every good thing that is in the bill and then point out how Republicans are fillibustering it and don't want american citizens to have those things. Make them put up or shut up.

[ncteechur]

13. Well you've got to have a bill to exit the committee first.

[OHdem10]

9. I believe No bill is better than a bad bill.

Since this is Insurance Based, not to have public option, will make
it a Republican Bill and we will be right back here with more
problems than ever--in 2years. It simply cannot work for the American
people, therefore it will fail, from this Liberal's point of view.

[ncteechur]

10. He is absolutely correct. And if you think that no bill is better than an imperfect bill

then you must have health insurance and not be in a position to worry. Is single-payer best? Absolutely, but single payer will not pass the Senate. It simply will not. Will a public option be included? I certainly hope so. But what if it isn't? It is easy to punt it down the field if you have insurance.
Those that do not cannot wait. For me, the top components are:

No pre-existing conditions excluded.

Price controls so that premiums cannot go up for specified periods of time and them at very controlled levels.

Absolute portability.

It covers most all of those not covered.



Sure there are other elements I think should be in the bill, but are they deal breakers? Is the first intention to stick it to insurance companies or to cover the uninsured. They are not necessarily exclusive but if you have to choose, make sure you choose for the right reasons.

[TheKentuckian]

15. I'm with you. I think we can advance the ball SOME with real regulation.

No public option would burn me up pretty bad and a weak one would leave me quite disappointed but that doesn't mean nothing meaningful to a lot or even most people has passed. I'd prefer single payer so we can kinda move on from this and have something done but to pretend we don't have some very serious entrenched opposition and a lot of citizens that would fight tooth and nail not to give up their plans too.

I always figured that even a robust option would be uphill as all get out. The Single Payer purists just flat out don't get the amount of opposition out here, even in the public. There is certainly precious little demand for private insurance to be shut down or a clamor of people that are ready to trade what they have for even something like Medicaid. It's not there. Some will even say they'd like a single payer but in the next breath will tell you they want to keep their plan.

I think Single Payer absolutist are doing a lot of projecting. I think they are right on the goal but are projecting their desire for this type of system on people that aren't anywhere near onboard.

[Individualist]

14. Progressive Democrat?

Begala is a DLC tool.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=296&topic_id=6089&mesg_id=6095

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=121

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/paul-begala-and-james-carville.php
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/rwallnerny/howard_dean_vs_the_dlc_a_battle_for_the_soul_of_the_party.html