Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are they talking us down now...softening us up to accept a lesser health care plan?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:31 AM
Original message
Are they talking us down now...softening us up to accept a lesser health care plan?
Reporters and bloggers are doing it. I have seen much about it the last few days. They are getting the word out that there will be no public option, that we don't need it anyway to have good health care.

Who is "they"? Not sure yet. Could be the centrists who control party policy. I don't know for sure, but I saved a few I have read. Bloggers get the word from on high and pass it along, certain ones do.

From a Huff post blogger:

No Public Option is Still Much-Needed Reform

There is a lot of anger from the left about what's being seen as Obama capitulating to the Republicans on Health Insurance Reform. During the campaign Obama favored a Public Option. Now, the Public Option appears in danger and many liberals don't think "real" reform is possible without it.

In a perfect world, I'm for the most progressive health reform possible. But, our world is far from perfect and politics is the art of the possible. There are 47 million people in America without health insurance and they don't care if it's a public or private option that provides it. They just want access to quality health care.

..."But if in the final standoff we get a choice between mandate-regulate-subsidize and the status quo, I would prefer to take mandate-regulate-subsidize.


Also Ezra Klein of the WP talking down the public option by pointing out that Dean did not include one in 2004... a rather puny argument.

He is in effect saying that if we do get a public option it might be terrible.

The goal posts have moved in recent years. And they've moved in the right direction. This year, Dean is, as he was then, on the left of the conversation, arguing fiercely and persuasively for a public plan, and more generous subsidies, and an array of other improvements. On Thursday, he threatened that Democrats who don't support the public plan will face primary challenges. That's a healthy threat.

But you can't survey the landscape or read the polls without recognizing that the finished product might be worse than many of us, including Dean, hope. But reading his proposal from 2004 is a useful reminder that it's almost certain to be far better than what we had imagined only five short years ago. That may not be success. But it is progress.


And here goes Matthew Yglesias trying to talk us down from our goals. Settle..is the message.

Where I stand on health care

But even though mandate-regulate-subsidize without a public option wouldnt be as good, I still think it would be an improvement over the status quo.

I dont think reform advocates should drop the public option; I think they should fight for it and try to bring practical pressure to bear on members of the Senate to vote for one.

But if in the final standoff we get a choice between mandate-regulate-subsidize and the status quo, I would prefer to take mandate-regulate-subsidize.


Notice the underlying theme...anything would be an improvement over the status quo. That is dangerous talk, because if there is nothing to force the insurance companies to compete things will go right back to where they were before.

Even Donna Edwards who won with much support from the netroots, grassroots, appears to be wavering. She is one who signed the letter saying she would not vote unless there were a public option.

From Firedoglake today:

Is Donna Edwards catching the Rahmflu

It was somewhat disconcerting when Donna Edwards would not confirm to the Hill this week that she would vote against any bill through conference that did not have a public plan:

Edwards, who signed the letter, declined to speculate on whether she would vote against a conference bill without a strong public option.

That's a long way down the line, Edwards said. I am talking about the House vote.

So Howie Klein asked her if she'd like to clarify that. Donna released a statement, saying she is "unequivocal, unwavering, and unapologetic" about supporting a public option. But:

It is important that we stay focused on getting a robust public option included in the House version of the bill-- nothing watered down. As a progressive member of the House of Representatives, I can't spend time guessing or speculating about what the Senate will do. I do know that if we don't do our work to get a strong bill out of the House, we wont be able to beg, borrow or steal a robust public option from the Senate.


Steny Hoyer went against his own Speaker of the House. She said there would be a public option, he said maybe not.

A day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that health reform wont get through the House without a public option, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Friday that the public option may have to go in order to get a bill passed.

Im for a public option but Im also for passing a bill, Hoyer told reporters on a conference call
. We believe the public option is a necessary useful and very important aspect of this, but well have to see because there are many other important aspects of the bill as well.

Hoyer says maybe no public option


Then there go the Blue Dogs playing follow the leader and announcing there may not be a public option. Slinkerwink covers it well in a diary at Daily Kos

You know where this started from? When Rep. Hoyer said that the public option would have to go for the passage of the bill in the House, it was a clear signal from Steny Hoyer to the Blue Dog Caucus in the House to get them to block the passage of the bill in order to strip out the public option.

Now, as if on cue, some of the Blue Dog Democrats are picking up on Steny Hoyer's message about the public option "having to go" for the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives:

The House's healthcare reform bill will have to be changed before it can even win a majority among Democrats, one centrist, Blue Dog Democrat insisted Friday.

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), who opposed the health bill on the Ways and Means committee, signaled that Democrats may not even have the votes to force through a preliminary health bill without any Republican support.

"And in order to get a majority even among the Democratic Party, we're going to have to change the way that House bill is formatted right now," Altmire said during an appearance on Fox News.


We worked and donated and voted and gave them a majority, a good one. Today at DU I saw a post that was talking about how if we get everyone covered and they can't be dropped by insurance companies...it would be good enough. Trouble is what is missing is competition. We won't have that without that government plan side by side with the private plans.

If the insurance companies are powerful enough and own enough Democrats to keep us from getting that option...then they sure as heck are not going to voluntarily lower prices even though they use pretty words.

We won't have a majority like this again...maybe not ever in this political climate. We should not waver.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. it's a conspiracy man.
watch out for the black helicopters!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, it is failure to use a majority when we have it.
No conspiracy, that is silly and not what I meant.

We have a chance at real change for the first time in decades...we should not blow it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
21. That's right. Despite the people's will (election results), R's are still in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. It looks that way to me.
Like they are still in charge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillwaiting Donating Member (591 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
49. It's not a failure to the politicians themselves if they never intended to implement a public option
It's all been theater for a very, very long time.

As long as a narrative can be constructed and ACCEPTED by the progressives and liberals, then legislation will continue to pass that benefit the corporations bottom lines at the expense of the overwhelming majority.

The "Business Plot" has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams...

The United Corporations of America has usurped the United States of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib_wit_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Demand Single Payer now! We never should have backed off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
46. Obama started from a weak bargaining position by
taking single payer off the table. now it seems he and dems are bargaining away the public option. what a mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib_wit_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Right, and it's either that he's not nearly as smart as I thought he was, or he just doesn't really
want to do what's best for the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm going to post the same post until I am sure all DUers interested in
health care reform have read it:

Here is why we have to have a public option. There can be no real reform without it. It has to do with economics, not political dogma.

Posted this before, but always at the end of a long thread:

The idea behind the health insurance companies was that they would create a pool of consumers to purchase health care services from providers at lower prices. Thus, insurance companies would take in relatively small monthly payments from many, many people and then negotiate low prices to purchase services from health care providers.

The problem is that, in reality, to create a pool of subscribers large enough to leverage good price deals with the providers while still managing the risks, an insurance company has to get a huge percentage of market share. If a company can't get a large enough market share, it can't compete.

Thus, mega-insurance companies emerge and dominate the market. Very soon, fewer and fewer companies are in the market and before long there is no or very little competition.

And without competition, there is no incentive for insurance companies to negotiate effectively with providers (such as pharmaceuticals), and a huge temptation for insurance companies to switch from competing in terms of offering lower prices to competing in terms of amassing huge profits and paying management huge salaries.

So, inherent in the whole idea of health insurance is the incentive to
1) create a huge pool of subscribers
2) get a monopoly or dominating share in the industry and thus abolish and avoid competition
3) take profits rather than give lower prices.

Thus, a monopoly on the health care insurance business is probably the only way to insure that people get good health care for a reasonable amount of money. In the health care sector, private companies can't work. They will always seek to grow, grow, grow in order to maximize profits. They will always deny care in order to maximize profits. They will eat each other up. They will spit out the lives of their customers.

How do those who oppose a public option or a government-run single payer plan hope to circumvent these facts of business life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Very good explanation.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. Dean is on Face the Nation tomorrow. Hope he does not back down.
I hope he remains firm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. Me too. I think he will, since he's not in the administration
Plus his ENTIRE website revolves around public option.

I hope he does his usual fantastic job of telling people why we MUST have a public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
7. The Capitalist Pigs were nearly dead ...
but with bi-partisan efforts the politicians saved the public from exercising their option.

The media will breathlessly report ... with a bigger paycheck in their hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. Yes, that is exactly what is happening, and when it does
the usual suspects will be here in our faces, screaming that the plan is actually the greatest thing ever and exactly what we wanted and anyone who thinks that a corporate giveaway is not reform secretly loves Sarah Palin, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. And when in the end it fails the republicans will blame Democrats
for incompetence and they will be correct. Democrats are allowing Republicans to fill the bill up with Republican amendments that from our knowledge of history we know will fail to do what needs doing and we do this so we can get one moybe two Republicans to vote with us..A bad bill is NOT better than no bill at all..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. It's more productive to be Obama's enemy than his friend.
Bill Clinton was the same way, and it used to be so frustrating.

Clinton would knock his friends down into the dirt in his rush to make sweet, sweet love to those who despised him. He always seemed to think that if he just gave in one more time, they would finally love him.

Meanwhile, Clinton's friends, the ones who actually got him elected, had to make do with a handjob now and then.

Obama seems to have this condition even worse than Clinton did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. It will not fair well for Dems if they don't provide single payer or at least a public option
straight, no chaser.

These elected jackasses want to play games with the lives of humanbeings.

No, it will not fair well at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
10. I think your reading of the political climate is accurate.
I share your frustration, and I agree that "some reform" is not enough. In fact, it will make the situation worth if we merely bail out the health insurance industry by giving them 50 million new, paying, and subsidized customers.

However, I can not agree that we won't again see majorities in Congress like the ones we have now. In fact, I expect the Democratic Party will pick up 3 seats in the Senate and between 3-6 seats in the House UNLESS Congress passes a disastrous "insurance reform" bill. At this point, I would rather do nothing than to pass any of the bills under consideration in Congress. 2011 might be a better time to get real reform.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
11. Yes, but there is an irony involved.
You cannot hear the number of people backing away rhetorically from "public option" without drawing some conclusions:

We have Sibelius,(ok, they tried to walk it back, but it was a definite trial balloon), we have Hoyer,

We have Obama calling it a "sliver", "suspenders"(when something else is the belt)and saying "I still think it's a good idea" - Why not just say "It's a good idea"? "I still think" is the preface for "other's don't".(And we know how willing he is to 'compromise' to the wishes of others) Why is it now just a good idea and not the centerpiece of reform like it was previously?

The phrase "non-essential",

the 'surprise' from the White House that the "left of the left" is so wedded to public option

Oh, yes, the knives are out for public option.

The irony comes in the fact that as poor a job as has been done so far, the concept of public option has been SOLD to the majority in a positive way and to a minority in a negative way.

Most Dems know it WAS the compromise and anything less is unacceptable. There will be no cost containment without it. Romney care (mandated private healthcare alone) is not working in Mass and there's no reason to think it would work nationally. It's a stopgap measure designed to protect the profits and structure of the existing status quo.

We KNOW we need : Public option and drug price negotiation if we are going to get anything that is close to real healthcare reform. Anything else in my opinion is close to being a complete sham.

The White House is far more responsible for reform being downsized than most realize.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13healt...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shellor1 Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
15. They're politicians
Keep in mind that Obama and the dems are first and foremost: politicians. What do politicians want? To get re-elected, that's what. When they see something that might interfere with that, they tend to waffle.

D.C. The land of the waffle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
16. They better not waiver (the Progressive Caucus). I wrote they drew
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 09:17 AM by mmonk
a line in the sand in my blog : http://americancommentary.wordpress.com / and I expect them to hold firm. If they don't, it will be Democrats that defeat healthcare reform. I intend to vote or not vote in 2010 depending on whether we have a positive outcome or another betrayal of the hardest working group for the Democratic party and Democratic Party ideals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. I agree. BTW nice blog.
If health care reform fails, we have our party to blame.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
17. This entire dog and pony show was conceived to get us to accept a few minor
tweaks to health care insurance and allow the "democrats" to claim it was actual health care reform
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
18. There are 47 million people in America without health insurance and they don't care if it's a public
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 10:04 AM by kenny blankenship
--or private option that provides it."

Classic "begging the question". Textbook.

If it is assumed that 47 million people want health insurance under our private for-profit regime of healthcare delivery rationing, then there must be some reason why they don't have it already, yes? Could it be that the nature of a "market" based system to price a good out of the reach of some in order to maximize the profit margin of the seller? Just say "Yes" because any Econ 101 student knows and is taught this. The equilibrium of supply and demand dictates that some margin of buyer demand just doesn't get met because it can't chase the bid upwards to satisfy the seller. So those 47 million uninsured may not have an ideological preference between public and private, but if they care about ACTUALLY getting healthcare they need to recognize the public sector and govt. intervention is the only way they're going to get it. The whole point at issue is the failure of the private option to provide for the health care coverage of 47 million people, who either have insufficient funds for basic insurance, or are deemed a threat to the profitability of the insurance company. Saying that these people don't care whether they are covered by a private or public option and therefore the private option is "just as good" as the public option assumes the private and public models are equally suited for the task, which is belied by the most basic fact: 47 million people are shut out and left to fend for themselves by only ONE of these models, the private for-profit health insurance racket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Depending on future presidents and Congress to regulate
health insurers and keep costs down while insuring everyone will work like when Republicans got rid of Glass-Steagall and Clinton signing it away did for the mortgage market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
19. They're not softening us up. They're flipping us off.
Next they will order us to bend over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. Yes, they are telling us we are not really important right now.
I realize it is a massive job to run this government after Bush got through tearing it down, but the Democrats must stop denigrating the views of their base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
44. Except for the stem cell decision, I see nothing about this Admin$tration
That is not about flipping us off.

Mon$anto people ruling at the Ag Depratment and at FDA.

The trillions spent for Wall Street, by Geithner and Bernanke. with taxpayers and taxpayers only being liable.

The decision to allow the RW whack jobs to bring their GUNS to town meetings. (You don't get to bring your gun to a Federal, State or County court house, no materr where you live in this nation. And you shouldn't have the right to bring them to a public meeting either.)

It gets worse each day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
22. Kent Conrad, Democrat, says no public option in the Senate.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090823/POLITICS03/9082...

"Washington -- A senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee said today that "the public option does not have the votes" to pass the Senate, underscoring the high-stakes political battle ahead as President Barack Obama tries to reform the nation's health care system amid a backlash in Michigan and across the nation.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., made his prediction that Senate Democrats couldn't reach a filibuster-proof 60-vote margin for a public insurance option on CBS television's "Face the Nation."

Health care reform dominated the Sunday talk shows, as a showdown nears in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week she wouldn't be able to pass a bill in the House without a government-run option.

But in the Senate, Conrad came up with a compromise idea -- co-ops that would offer a non-profit, consumer-run alternative to the controversial government-run proposal. Conrad is a senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, which is working on the bill that the Senate will weigh.

"It's the only alternative that has bi-partisan support," Conrad said. "And if we're going to get 60 votes, we're going to need bi-partisan support."

Selling us out for bipartisanship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Boy he really revealed something MAJOR
He considers 60 votes "bi-partisan". He is as good as saying some Dems consider themselves Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. It's upsetting.
I am getting so tired of that word...bi-partisan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. Video up. It was good to see one Democrat stand up for real change on FTN today.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 01:20 PM by madfloridian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
29. Of course. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
30. i sense a lubrication
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
31. I hope they know that millions of us just won't go to the polls in 2010.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Or volunteer--I hope that they get enough money from their corporate
masters to pay people to make the calls and canvass. If there is no public option--and a robust one at that--I will vote 3rd party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
32. Mandated Private Insurance that is unaffordable won't work

It will be too expensive for many Americans to afford.

They have it in MA, and my middle income sister can't afford the mandated group insurance of 1,400 dollars a month for her family of three.

I don't know what people are thinking - mandated private insurance from the very companies that bankrupted the current system....

There is no public option, though. Not in any of the current bills, just a watered down political gesture.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. If there is no income, there will be no buying of insurance.
It's pretty bad to require it from people who have no money.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. There will be a firestorm if there is no robust public option
The town hall right wing out cry will seem like a whisper. The defeat of the Democrats in 2010 will be icing on the cake. What do they think will happen when we neither volunteer or show up at the polls? I am over this. The Democratic leadership has to put up or lose and lose big in the upcoming elections. Obama's numbers will make Bush IIs look great.

The fact that Obama is losing at the polls is due in large part to the defection of his core base.

Perhaps we need to be sold out on health care reform in order to finally turn on all corporatists, no matter what their political label!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Well John McCain was "smiling like the shark he is" on ABC this a.m.
He says Obama is doing good with foreign policy..he had no complaints. Stephy pressed him: "You have no complaints with the President's foreign policy." McCain smiled his shark smile again and said: "Not now, I don't."

I'm sure McCain has no problems with Obama's "Health Care Plan" ..."Now"...he doesn't.

When it's "ONE PARTY" who could complain? Certainly not President "Shark Smile?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
36. I already told them, they don't they lost my vote permannently
period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
37. Yes..they are...and we better SUCK UP and ACCEPT IT...because NO Health Reform
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 06:34 PM by KoKo
is worse than what we have now.

It will be sold that way and we better "Suck it Up" and get with the program or we will forever be known
as the "Crazy Left" who wouldn't accept the "Compromise" along with the equally "Crazy Right."

Progressive Dems lumped in with "Birthers, Gun Crazies, Deathers and the rest of the Beck, Limballs and the rest of them. Thom Harman, Mike Malloy, Sam Seder and Cenk folks are CRAZY LEFTIST...and "Code Pink" had guns concealed in their Pink Tu Tu's.

Yeah... it's what it is. SO DEAL WITH IT!

:sarcasm: EXTREME :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
39. "You know where this started from?.....
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 07:15 PM by George II
....When Rep. Hoyer said that the public option would have to go for the passage of the bill in the House"

Representative Hoyer never said that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
40. If they mandate private coverage without MASSIVE reforms
(banning deductibles, limiting premiums to a certain percentage of household income, banning rescission, keeping premium increases at or below the rate of inflation, banning age discrimination), then I can live with it.

I could absorb the actual PREMIUM for my current insurance. It's the deductible that is making most medical care unaffordable for me.

If there are no reforms and we have a Massachusetts-style "reform" jammed down our throats, I will commit civil disobedience by dropping my private insurance, and I urge others who can do so without jeopardizing their health to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
41. the "lesser" is adequate reform started shortly after Inauguration, it
didn't just start recently. Many of us who work in health CARE, and/or have studied it for years, know the difference between getting what is needed and what has been proposed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mustardman Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
42. Huffingtonpost sold out awhile ago
In their efforts to become more mainstream and tap into some of the passionate reich wing hate that Faux benefits from, Huffingtonpost isn't really all that liberal oriented anymore. Half the articles now either have very misleading headlines or quote articles from Washington Post/Wall Street Journal which shill for the reich wing all the time.

In my opinion Arianna Huffington is a hypocrit. She goes on any news show that will have her and bashes Obama just about every chance she can get while offering NO solutions of her own. She may know something about economics but seems quite naive as to how things get done in Washington. Lately she has been bashing Obama for not getting the message out about healthcare. The reality is a LOT of the blame rests with the media including her website which often whores out the well proven lies of the reich wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
43. Isn't it obvious to everyone that all we need is a mandate to buy from the Big Insurers
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 07:54 PM by truedelphi
I even took the time to listen to Obama himself, in this week's radio address, and he was careful to lay out that the public option is only a consideration.

He made it sound quite superfluous.

And since I am a Dem, and I am on Democraticunderground, I will just say, "Gosh am I glad I am an American, and boy am I glad we will have that mandate."

After all, if Goddess had really wanted me to have insurance, I would have been born in France!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. Yeah, the one thing we know for certain will be in any bill is an individual mandate
that tells us all we need to know about the real motivation behind this legislative clusterfuck. Anything else is "maybe" or "probably not". This is about shoving fresh meat into the insurance industry maw.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. And it is probably genetically modified fresh meat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
45. Yes on CNN today in the last word
PO is controversial... WHO KNEW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Markbooker Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
47. yes they are
they're talking down...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberblonde Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
48. Go read Taibbi's latest...
And you'll realize the "public option" is now a wolf in sheep's clothing. The concessions made to Blue Dogs over not tying costs to Medicare mean it will now cost as much as private insurance - which makes insurance companies happy.

So I'm rethinking my support of the public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. "So I'm rethinking my support of the public option."
As I see it the only firm reason to support those still fighting for something called the public option is that maybe maybe some years down the line it can evolve into something better. It will surely start out dysfunctional since reimbursement is being forced to not compete with private insurance, as you noted, and also because the public at large will not be allowed to opt-in to the Public Option. It will be a shit sandwich - expensive in itself and unable to lower costs for those on private insurance, which was kind of the big selling point of the PO originally. But MAYBE it can be improved later on once it has existed for a time.

The other reason to continue support of the PO idea is that once it is declared a failure in practice, America will be moved to do REAL healthcare reform and enact Single Payer over the dead bodies of insurance company lobbyists. We will have exhausted every alternative to Single Payer and there will be no more excuses. As Churchill said, Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. There is always the chance, though, that the failure of the Public Option to deliver on its promises will be used effectively to rule out any further government based reforms to health care delivery. It's a gamble. However, all options at this point are shitty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #48
56. Sad that the few crumbs thrown are way are now
Under the bus!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
50. Yep. Just as if we are too stupid to get it. Wait.
It seems we are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
51. Get ready for that to be the talking point that dominates DU.
Because there is a sect of people who don't believe its really about the best policy for the American people - they believe its about cheering on the president devoid of any analysis of policy.

There seem to be two broad schools of thought here. One school says that the Democratic party is the answer first, and then based on that assumption seeks to interpret everything that is done, that Democrats have a hand in, as "good" in order to fit that narrative - and become very agitated and down right obnoxious whenever challenged to look at policy from the perspective of the American working class....

The other school starts with consideration of the American working class first, and evaluates all Washington politics by evaluating how policy effects the bottom 80% of America that is not "rich" or the bottom 90% of America that is not super-rich, and by evaluating whose interests are being served first by Democratic or Republican politicians and their agendas.

The former school is more than comfortable with the working class being a second thought, and with interpreting policy that serves the super wealthy privileged interests first as a good thing, because some benefits may "trickle down" to ordinary Americans.

The latter school is only comfortable with policy and puts the majority working class Americans first, and is more than comfortable criticizing any politician, regardless of what letter they have after their name, when they support policies that exploit the working class or oppose policy that primarily (not secondarily) benefits the working class.

The former values Party loyalty and tolerates very little self-reflection. It's party first, with interpretation of anything the party does as "good" by definition to follow.

The latter, values the working class first, and aligns itself strategically with a party only insofar as that party puts the working class first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. You may enjoy theGreenwald vs Greenwald post up
Edited on Tue Aug-25-09 09:56 AM by truedelphi
Over at tinyrevolution.com

Sorta says what you are saying about being cheerleaders for a President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC