To all of you DU'ers who think we should have gone for single payer ... andit had a chance

[Windy]

On what FACTS do you base your assessment?

The dems don't have the votes for its passage, period! A little reality!

We have Conrad, Lincoln, Landrieu, Bayh, Pryor, Nelson who have made no bones about the fact that they don't feel confortable with a public option. Then we throw Lieberman in the mix and add the fact the Byrd is ill.

If we get it through with opt out, we'll be lucky. Single Payer had NO CHANCE AT ALL and would have been a wasted exercise just like Clinton's past effort failed.

Who's fault is it that we have to deal with Blue Dogs? Try the constituents of their states that elect them!

Its too damn easy to blame Obama! Instead of crying about the demise of single payer, get on the phone and write letters to the hold outs to apply pressure on them to allow debate on the bill at minimum and ask them not to join a republican filibuster.

[tekisui]

1. If the Democratic leaders had any backbone

or weren't as compromised as the blue mutts, they would have forced the corporate shill mutts to play liberal, or lose their jobs.

The leadership could own the mutts, but are too weak. I would have rather seen hard-nosed action and results, even risking losing the majority, than the weakness I have seen now.

They are still risking the majority, only with little liberal action.

[joeycola]

2. We will never know will we windy since the WH and many in congress had weak backbones

from the start.

[Shagbark Hickory]

3. Errrr. Try again. It's not their constituents. It's the campaign contribs that bribe them N/T

[havocmom]

7. Voters (constituents) share some blame. They don't pay attention to who owns 'their' reps to D.C.

The voters are the ones who fall for the expensive PR campaigns instead of paying attention to what their elected officials actually do. Too many watch FOX and believe what they are told because it is so much easier than actually reading, thinking critically, grabbing understanding of motivation from the many clues that are out there on all these pols.

Yes, serious campaign reform would help. But getting the voting public to start doing their part in our representative democracy would help more. And the latter would probably make the former more likely.

[RKP5637]

10. Exactly!!! Excellent Summary!!! The propaganda and misinformation in this...

place is staggering. What I find incredible are those that blindly lap it up taking a sound bite as the absolute stunning truth from distortions, such as Fox News. Megabucks behind spewing lies and distortions 7x24.

Hopefully, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact they might have to think once in awhile than blinding following robotic paths.

As long as much of the citizenry thinks ignorance is something to be proud of the nation collectively is on a disastrous path.

As the rest of the world moves forward, this country will eventually be left in a vast wasteland. Today there is strong competition in the global marketplace and more, none like the US has seen.

And as you say, it all starts with the voters having to investigate and think than falling for slick/sick PR campaigns. Much of the general public is often asleep at the wheel until it smacks them in the face, then they say WTF, and then it is too late!

[redqueen]

45. They share a LOT of blame, IMO. (nt)

[bvar22]

49. Who "owns" Obama and the White House?

[LaydeeBug]

4. The FACT that if WE lead, the critters will follow. nt

[Windy]

5. You are divorced from reality.

Check the voting records of those same senators during the Bush administration... they were in lock step.

And to the poster who said "dem leadership can remove the blues from their jobs", really? I believe in a representative democracy, the only way to remove a senator from his position is to vote him/her out!

Yes, you can take away their committee chairs, etc... but you cannot take away their senate seat because you don't like the way that they vote! 5 or 6 corporate shill senators hold all the power unfortunately and they know it.

[LaydeeBug]

59. And you crack yourself up to be an omniscient DEMAGOGUE.

EPIC FAIL.

[RKP5637]

54. Absolutely True if lobbyists and corporate influence/control were eliminated. n/t

[enlightenment]

6. You know what, Windy?

There is a big difference in believing we should have gone for single-payer and believing it would pass.

The FACTS for believing the first are crystal clear and have been reiterated many times on this board and other places.

Most supporters of single payer do not believe it had a chance after it was summarily dismissed early in the game - after it was not even given a place at the table . . .

It is impossible to say, at this point, if it would have had a chance, had it been given a fair hearing and support. If you would like to prove that it would never have had a chance, please do so - but please give some FACTS to support your conclusion.

It is becoming very, very easy for some DUer's to try and deflect blame for the watered-down health insurance 'reform' currently wending it's way through Congress on someone or something else. The Republicans, the Blue Dogs, the Lobbyists . . . even DUers who recognized early on that the most effective, cost-controlling, and equitable solution was going to be held up as some pie-in-the-sky fantasy rather than a real solution to a real problem.

You don't know me. You don't know most of the people on DU, I suspect. You have NO IDEA what I do in terms of contacting Congress any more than you have any idea what most people do. I don't believe we're required to report in after every email or phone call.

I don't know you, but I do know one thing about you - you are another who wants to find someone to blame, so you're pointing your finger at people who disagreed from the start with the model of reform that was supported by the White House.

Get over yourself. Stop telling other people how to feel and what to do.

[Roland99]

9. +infinity!

[Bluenorthwest]

12. !

[jtrockville]

14. ^ this

How can a solution be evaluated if it's banned from the discussion (as single payer was)? I might be able to support the alternatives IF single payer had been allowed to stand or fall on its own merits.

[HughMoran]

17. Of course it didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing - right from the git-go

Only someone devoid from reality would make such a purist argument. You get over yourself and your 'reality'. It's closer to insanity if you ask me...

[Junkdrawer]

18. +1 Building in a 30% to 50% inefficiency into our system WHILE...

we are in the middle of the most pressing economic crisis in our history is INSANE.

[redqueen]

38. "It is impossible to say, ... if it would have had a chance, had it been given a fair hearing ..."

Do you think the M$M/Insurance Industry tag team would have gone easier on the single payer stuff, and allowed a 'fair hearing'?

Do you think the Blue Dogs would be more amenable to single payer, given that they can't even seem to get behind single payer? This isn't about ideas, this is about their wallets. It has nothing to do with fair hearings and support. Nothing.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

41. infinity+1

The OP is clueless as to how politics works. The mistake was made in not demanding single payer from the beginning and then compromising with a robust public option. My representative (Bill Foster) heard from me so many times the woman who answered the phone recognized me as soon as I started talking.

Some of us were demanding single payer from the beginning because some of us knew that demanding single payer would get us robust public option. The OP is not only clueless but trying to defend an indefensable point.

[ipaint]

8. There may be no "proof" single payer could be achieved

in the first try but there is plenty of proof in the recent past that half assed bipartisanship gets us worse than nothing everytime.

Nafta, welfare reform, deregulation, trickle down, unnecessary wars etc. All failures for the american middle class and below. All achieved through bipartisanship and meeting in the middle.

There is nothing in the current reform that is any different than the past failures including the recycled arguments against doing what is right.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. They screwed the pooch by coming hat in hand

while holding all the cards.

[valerief]

13. The Mafia could have gotten it done. Things get done when you're motivated.

And we didn't have to know how it got done as long as it did get done.

Instead those tactics are being used to prevent us from getting single payer.

[HughMoran]

15. You're right

The people that say those things are looking at the situation from a purely 'right' versus 'wrong' perspective. Of course single-payer is the better option, but the actual elected officials we currently have make single-payer nothing more than a pipe dream.

[tomp]

16. the public option in its current form is unacceptable.

it is designed to fail. it will not help anyone in the long run.

so we end up with a bill that's crap and all you can do is attack the people who wanted better.

the only thing that the failure of single payer shows is THE FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

what an obnoxious post.

[HughMoran]

21. yes, what an obnoxious post

...typical of your arrogance, no doubt.

[tomp]

58. wow, so clever. nt

[HamdenRice]

19. You're exactly right. It's almost impossible to vote to take away stuff from people

which is what single payer would have required.

A plurality of people in the abstract wanted single payer. But to enact single payer would have required the "gubmint" to take away private insurance from tens of millions of people, many of whom didn't want to give it up. Taking private insurance away from millions of people was politically impossible.

One mistake the left consistently makes is to rely on the theory of "false consciousness." Their argument for taking away private insurance from people who wanted to keep it is based on the idea that people who wanted to keep private insurance don't know what is best for them and ultimately would be better off in a purely public system and that therefore we don't have to take account of such people's "false consciousness."

Well, politics doesn't work that way. There is zero chance that under any set of conceivable political circumstances, even a Democratic supermajority, that Congress could have taken away private insurance from those who wanted to keep it -- especially not from an angry, frightened, determined and quite large minority of voters.

[Captain Hilts]

20. The point was to start the debate further to the left. Not to give up a bargaining chip before

we even began.

[HamdenRice]

22. I disagree. That would have been a disaster.

First, it would have scared people who have private insurance and want to keep it. You would have lost that part of the electorate.

Second, using bargaining chips often backfires. The idea of starting with single payer and then backing off to public option would have allowed the right wing media to characterize the abandonment of single payer as a defeat, and the entire reform effort would have gone the way of Clinton's.

I fail to see how an initial defeat would have led to victory.

[HughMoran]

25. It would have been a failure of epic proportions

I can't imagine, after seeing what passes for "Democrats" these days, that any thinking person would imagine that a proposal that simply "shut down" the insurance companies in a time of near-depression had even a slight chance of not being a total disaster.

[HamdenRice]

30. It would have been town hall/teabaggers ^2 nt

[Captain Hilts]

26. I was scared that insurance companies had a seat at the table. Only SP would have balanced that. nt

[HughMoran]

34. At least Obama never said he would do it differently when campaigning

"Obama said: "We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.... It's become clear that some of these companies are dramatically overcharging Americans for what they offer.... We're not going to get change unless we can overcome the resistance the drug companies, the insurance companies, the HMOs, those who are making a major profit from the system currently. Now I think all these industries have a roll to play.... We want to listen to what they have to say. They should have a seat at the table, but they can't buy every chair.""

[Captain Hilts]

39. And the WH made the secret agreement with PhRMA last summer, and now PhRMA is biting them

in the butt by financing the ad campaign against HCR.

[HughMoran]

43. I see 90% pro-reform ads in my area

So apparently their ad campaign hasn't effected me very much. I'd say pro versus against are 10:1 here.

[Captain Hilts]

I don't have television right now, so I have no clue how that campaign is going. nt

[enlightenment]

46. Yes, Hamden, we're currently watching how

using bargaining chips backfires - and how the right wing media characterizes the efforts to scare people.

Funny how it's not single-payer that's the boogieman - but the public option.

[CrispyQ]

23. Starting from a compromised position (the public option)

showed that once again, democrats are weak, ineffectual & severely compromised by corporate money. First they told us we needed the House, so we got them the House. Then they said they needed the White House, so we got them the White House. Then they said they needed a filibuster proof Senate, so we got them their 60 votes. And yet, they started the health care debate from a compromised position. What the fuck? With that kind of majority, the repubs would be shoving their agenda down all our throats, bipartisanship be damned!

Maybe SP didn't have a chance, but if we had started the debate from there, our chance for a strong public option, instead of a watered down version where only 5-10% of the public is allowed to participate, would be much better.

In the movie "The American President" the President tells the Annette Benning character that they don't have the votes for key environmental legislation. She responds with, "How do you know until you've put the full weight of the presidency behind it?" Obama has not put the "full weight of the presidency" behind HCR, so we'll never know what would have been possible.

[RKP5637]

27. Your logic makes a lot of sense to me!!! n/t

[Captain Hilts]

28. We wouldn't have started the debate at SP, but if Ins. companies were at the table, SP advocates

should have been there too.

[grahamhgreen]

35. EXACTLY! nt

[mmonk]

24. I believe you start out with a progressive position, not a conservative position

which is what giving taxpayer money to Wall Street Corporations for money is. Maybe we could have ended up in a better place if the party started with single payer and then compromised instead of a corporate interests bill. But I know the political battle between the two parties is for campaign money and war chests and I'm not naive enough to believe different. I do believe that progressive Democrats prefer a different system but not the party apparatus. American politics runs on special interest money these days, not the best interests for the people.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. unrec

.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Instead of blaming single payer advocates for Obama's inability to consider all solutions,

perhaps you should take some meds.

You know, from the big pharma companies that give Obama and the Dems the big bucks to do what they want them to do.

There. Now don't you feel better?


edited to add- "Sellout" Side effects may include bribery, corruption, tax-funded health insurance company bailout, and voter back lash against corporate owned Dem leaders. "Sellout" is a market driven solution and is not intended to be taken in conjunction with social reforms or civil rights movements. Ask your doctor if 'Sellout" is right for you.

[slipslidingaway]

32. Even if we started with the PO, look at the message we sent to the for profit...

companies when SP advocates were excluded from the beginning. I know one person got a last minute invitation after a planned protest.

People are told that the Dems are fighting the insurance companies, look beyond what is said and watch who is invited to the WH summit, called upon to speak and who are left outside the gates.

President Obama calls on Karen Ignagni of AHIP to speak on HC reform at the WH summit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=328837&mesg_id=328837

Imagine if P. Obama had called upon Dr. Maria Angell to speak at the WH summit instead of Karen Ignagni, members of Congress might be pleading for a public option.

[grahamhgreen]

33. WRONG! You start with single payer and NEGOTIATE to PAY OR PAY CRAPSURANCE! DUH!

Then you have people excited about the health care reform - not an insurance company boondoggle - the bill is STILL NOT ONE I WILL ME ASKING MY CONGRESSMAN TO VOTE FOR!

There is NO WAY anyone in any state should be forced to buy private insurance under the penalty of law.

IT IS A TAX THAT GOES TO A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT GUARANTEES TO HEALTH CARE WHATSOEVER.

Clinton's bill failed - like this one may - BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH!

IMHO....

[slipslidingaway]

36. Over 60% of the people wanted a national system similar to Medicare...

what happened ...The public option campaign began.

[HamdenRice]

42. What would you have told the 40% who didn't want it?

That's the point in this kind of political issue. It's not just what you're giving, it's what you're taking away.

It was politically impossible from the beginning.

[slipslidingaway]

47. You sell the idea instead of silencing it - the Dec 2007 poll showed 65%

in favor of a national HC system for everyone, paid by taxes.

From there you build support, educate people, explain the choices, use estimates etc.

Or you compromise and push for a national system that Everyone pays into and, although this is would not be my preference, you allow people to purchase insurance that duplicates the coverage of the national system. The majority of people would not do so, but it allows those who can afford to do so a choice, while still contributing to the national system.

A mix of the Canadian and UK system - uniquely American.

:)

[BREMPRO]

37. agreed. it was never politically viable out of the gate

several additional points:
1. a public option is a good step towards acclimating Americans to a program that could be expanded if it works (ie lets make sure the PO is viable and not easily killed by the Ins. lobby) The CBO scored the PO as SAVING money, so if it works, we can argue down the road for expansion.

2. an estimated 30% of our health care overcharges are caused by "fee for service" incentives- nothing to do with insurance. There is within the bill more authority for the Sec. of HHS to evaluated comparative effectiveness. Problem with making this a hallmark of the bill is you would alienate other key constituencies- doctors and hospitals who make profits on this model. The calculation has been made to demonize the insurance industry to get a bill passed. i believe this is a practical strategy to keep a plurality of stakeholders at the table.

3. 80% of Americans polled that they were satisfied with their health care(even though most would like the cost lowered) . You can't say to them we are radically changing the way you pay for your health care to a purely govt. run program without concerns and push-back from the public and giving the opposition ammunition to shoot it down using the majority in their favor.

4. The outright elimination of an entire industry in one fell swoop would have been very disruptive to employment, 401k's, and the health care system as a whole. The radical transition would be rough and criticized at every misstep. A govt. takeover of a private industry would also give ammunition to the Obama is a socialist crowd- not a politically good move.

5. Single payer took Canada (a much smaller and less divisive and less individualist country) 37 years to accomplish. It's not realistic, given the power of stakeholders and our divided political climate to expect us to do it in one legislative session.

[redqueen]

40. I think we should have gone for it... but I know it never had a chance.

I call often to push Weiner's amendment. (Toll free at 800-828-0498... in case you'd like to do the same. :))

But I know it doesn't have a chance. Not only do we have too much $$$ in DC... but the public isn't in agreement about it. We have support for a public option. IMO we're damn lucky to have that.

[slipslidingaway]

50. But why is their support for a PO? Mostly because it was marketed to the people...

and sometimes even falsely marketed, when people were told to think of the public option as 'being like Medicare.'

Thanks for the reminder about Weiner's estimate, the Dems still have not pushed for a score.

:(

I posted about the polls here...

The Power of the Word Medicare -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6365319&mesg_id=6365319


Medicare was open to everyone 65 and older, the government did not give subsidies to people over 65 to purchase private insurance, therefore knocking out the competition.

Medicare had a ready pool of subscribers which allowed them to negotiate prices with providers, the public option has no such ready pool as people can chose to purchase from a private insurance company.

Over 90% of seniors were enrolled in Medicare by the end of the FIRST year.

Obama says that just over 3%, according to the CBO estimate he quoted, would be enrolled in a public option by 2019.

The basic benefits were automatically available to everyone over 65 and financed by an increased payroll tax.

It did not have to be self-financed in contrast with the current public option bills.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/16/tom-price/medicares-history-public-option/

...Here's how an April 8, 1965, report in the New York Time's described the plan:

"As revised, the bill provides the basic hospitalization and nursing care benefits originally proposed by the administration while covering major doctor bills and many other medical expenses under a supplementary insurance program in which participation would be voluntary.

"The basic benefits, financed by increases in the Social Security payroll tax, would be automatically available to persons over 65. The additional coverage would be available to those over 65 who enrolled in the voluntary plan and paid premiums of $3 a month. Half of the voluntary plan's cost would be financed by federal subsidies of about $600 million a year from general tax revenues."

Johnson signed the Medicare law on July 30, 1965, and the program's aministrators began an intensive recruitment drive. At the end of the first year, participation was up to 93 percent of the elderly, according to The Politics of Medicare , a history by Theodore Marmor.


As we reviewed the history of Medicare, we noticed that legislators and policymakers drafting the legislation seemed to assume that Medicare participation would be very high. We could find nothing implying that Medicare coverage would compete with private insurers in paying for coverage...

This is markedly different from today's debate and discussion about the public option. Obama has said the public option would be one among many insurance proposals from which people could choose, and that it would be a backstop to keep private insurers honest. He also said it should not be subsidized by other tax revenues but pay for itself with customer premiums..."

[TreasonousBastard]

44. And don't forget that single payer is a stupid idea anyway...

Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, public health hospitals, Indian Health Service...

None of them are working as well as their proponents seem to think they are-- they don't save that much money and/or the health of their clients isn't any better than other insured people.

Asking 435 not terribly knowledgable or interested congresscritters to come up with something good to replace the mess we have while completely changing the coverage of over 200 million people, is doomed to failure.

[paulk]

48. it's about leadership

Obama advertized himself as some kind of super leader, the one capable of changing people's minds, getting the votes, changing politics!

He never even tried.

[slipslidingaway]

51. Policy is set from the top and at the outset those who challenged the For Profit...

companies were silenced.

:(

[CrispyQ]

56. "He never even tried."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

He gives a pretty speech, though. :eyes:

[sendero]

60. Sadly..

.... that seems to be his only talent.

[bvar22]

52. Already making excuses....

...and blaming The Left.
How nice.


We will NEVER know what would have happened if reform had been packaged and sold as simply lowering the age limit for Medicare to 50 because of high unemployment and lack of job opportunities for this age group. That REALLY would have opened the door to Single Payer, and would have sold well to most of America.

One thing we DO KNOW FOR SURE:
Starting the effort from a "Centrist" (1/2 Republican) position HAS been a recipe for disaster.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[rucky]

53. How do you prove a negative?

It was never mass-marketed as a possibility. How are people supposed to buy a product or an idea that's not even for sale?

[PVnRT]

55. Blah blah blah, liberals are stupid, don't blame Obama, blah blah blah

Please provide a list of those things that NEVER HAVE ANY CHANCE EVER LIKE OMG OF EVER HAPPENING so that we silly latte-sipping Naderites know what we're supposed to support and what not to.

[NNN0LHI]

57. Blue Dogs are the only reason the Dems control both houses of Congress

The Republicans tried going the route of getting rid of all their moderates and look where they are at now.

Don

[mdmc]

61. I want all that corporations don't

jah!

[Laelth]

62. It still does have a chance.

Canada got single-payer state by state. California will probably get single-payer in 2011 if the Federal Government will allow it. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The California legislature has already passed the bill twice. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new Federal law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

Instead, Obama seems bound and determined to prevent single-payer from being enacted, and I have a big problem with that.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tippy]

63. "Try the constituents of their states that elect them! "

Hold on... assessing blame....Here in TN we have 9 Congressional.. Districts R's hold 4 and Dems hold 5

All the Dems have several years in the House with one exception our newest Congressional critter will be running for his third term..All were REAL Dems when first elected...once the DLC got it's start we saw their votes changing...Currently TN has only one Democrat representing The entire State. Since R's took control of the State Legislature in the last election. Dist's will
be re-drawn after 2010....Those Blue Dogs are going to be on the outside looking in...So will "we the people"

When we Moved here in 92 TN was a Democratic State...