The "all-or-nothing" strawman

[ProSense]

Some people seem to be pushing the idea that the status quo is better than change that doesn't go far enough.

Who knew that it was better to have no health care reform whatsoever in 1994? Who cares if it took another 16 years to get to the point where it can be addressed again?

To justify the all-or-nothing approach, these same people are claiming that even significant progress (which includes a first-ever step) is worse than nothing. In other words, it's wrong because it's not perfect. They've latched on to the phrase "better than nothing" to cast progress in a negative light.

The thing is progress is always better than nothing. Progress means that there has been movement toward a goal. It does not mean lateral, backward, unnecessary, or any other move that doesn't represent advancement toward the set goal.

Stop spinning progress as "all or nothing."

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

[havocmom]

1. K&R

[MADem]

2. Progress IS incremental--that's what I say, too.

You have to be older to appreciate it. The "I want it all and I want it now" crowd are mostly younger and impatient.

[Cha]

3. It makes no sense

whatsoever to me so I'm wondering what their agenda is?

[bluestateguy]

4. HillaryCare in '93 had some flaws

But we as a country would have been vastly better off if HillaryCare had passed, as opposed to what we got instead--nothing.

[Ken Burch]

13. It was the RIGHT that killed "HIllaryCare", not the left.

There's never been any justification for blaming progressives for the failure of the Clinton plan. It was Clinton's wing of the party that killed it. Why are people reviving the "it's the left's fault" lie on that one?

[eleny]

5. The Constitution is an example of this

It's changed and so will whatever health care law goes into effect now. I may not like slow progress but that's the way our country works.

[Uzybone]

6. It is a sign of insanity, to say that no loaf is better than 1/2 a loaf or 99% of a loaf

it is also a sign of insanity to say that if we get a public option now, than that means we will never ever get single payer.

By such dumb reasoning, the civil rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964 were useless because we still have inequality in this country.

[Stevepol]

45. Doesn't this thread assume that a half loaf is actually what we'll get?

My feeling from what I've read is that, if a health care bill is passed, the result will actually very likely be WORSE than what we have now because of more onerous requirements for the poor etc.

So the premise may be "Do you want to have half of the loaf you already have taken away from you or do you want no loaf at all given to you but you can at least keep the loaf you already have?"

[eridani]

46. No loaf bloody well IS better than half a poisoned loaf

That would be a public option designed to sequester the poor and sick so that the shitstain parasites can keep taking money from healthy people and diverting it from being used for actual care. Mandatory insurance is worse than none at all.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/health_reform_failur.php

And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don’t buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up.

While the middle class sinks, the health reform law has buoyed our state’s wealthiest health institutions. Hospitals like Massachusetts General are reporting record profits and enjoying rate increases tucked into the reform package. Blue Cross and other insurers that lobbied hard for the law stand to gain billions from the reform, which shrinks their contribution to the state’s free care pool and will force hundreds of thousands to purchase their defective products. Meanwhile, new rules for the free care pool will drastically cut funding for the hundreds of thousands who remain uninsured, and for the safety-net hospitals and clinics that care for them.

[Old Codger]

7. Some change

Is better than nothing as long as we can keep the door open for more and better thing

[Oregone]

8. Thats how I feel about the civil rights movement in the 60's

They should of spent less time whining and more time enjoying their separate but equal water fountains. If those liberal color folk went with the incremental flow, by now they would probably been allowed in white schools. The bonus is that the Democrats would of saved up the political capital to implement single-payer by now. But noooooo. The damn straw man progressive crowd made us blow our load in the 60's and weve been impotent since.

[ProSense]

9. "They should of spent less time whining and more time enjoying their separate but equal water..."

You clearly don't understand the concept. See comment #6.

[Ken Burch]

14. The poster was simply taking the logic of the OP and applying it to other issues.

There's no way you can blame single-payer advocates for healthcare reform not having passed yet. The roadblocks are all on the right. None of them are on the left.

[ProSense]

17. And made no sense. n/t

[Ken Burch]

18. If we'd taken the same attitude on civil rights that people like you want us to take on healthcare

we'd still HAVE segregation.

We only ended Jim Crow by saying "all or nothing"

Compromise never benefits the poor or the powerless.

[ProSense]

22. Do you know what you're talking about?

If the all or nothing crowd had its way, there would have been no Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or any of the previous bills), after all the voting Rights Act would come later. In fact, it continues to be strengthened.

So why not wait until we have a perfect Civil Rights bill instead of tinkering with it?

[Ken Burch]

24. There were only minor compromises on the Civil Rights Act

There was nothing comparable to the "no public option" language(which, if left in place, means nothing progressive can happen on healthcare, since private insurers can never BECOME humane or progressive, because "no public option" this year means no public option forever.)

[ProSense]

27. What?

The Voting Rights Act

The EEOC's mandate is specified under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964<1>, the Equal Pay Act<2>, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act<3> (ADEA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act<4> (ADA).

18-Year-Olds Get the Vote.

Language Minority Voting Rights.

[Ken Burch]

30. There can't be that kind of future gains on healthcare.

A weak bill at the start locks us into weak half measures forever. Incrementalism can't work on this one. Especially since we won't have any real progressive power after the first two years of the Administration(all Democratic administrations die after the Congressional midterms).

[ProSense]

31. Nonsense. n/t

[kenfrequed]

53. Uhm

A bill that locks in corporate welfare and forces us onto these plans is not a good thing. Minus, at the bare minimum, a public Option it is not healthcare reform at all.


Worse still if it is designed to fail by way of the repukes then we get a 'legacy of failure' argument usable in the future when they ressurect their stupid 'government can do no good' argument again.


Additionally a bad plan will head off every good idea we have for at least ten years.

[Bjorn Against]

10. The problem is that too often the "compromises" are worse than what we had before

What I want is single payer, I would accept a public option as being a step in the right direction but if there is no public option there is nothing. I have listened to politicians promise us "affordable health care" for years, but the more they promise the more expensive health care gets. They promise to change the system and it always gets changed in a way that ensures more profits for the insurance industry and HMOs and more ordinary people who can no longer afford health care. We have had enough and we are going to keep demanding single payer until we get it. If we get a public option we will celebrate a step in the right direction even if it is not totally what we want, but if we don't get a public option then we will hold all of those who refused to compromise accountable. Make no mistake about it, it is not us single payer advocates who would be willing to accept a public option that are unwilling to compromise. The people who are unwilling to compromise are the people who are refusing to give us any sort of public option whatsoever.

[TheBigotBasher]

20. I would have to agree

Far too often the compromise is worse than nothing but people have to just pray it works. The final compromised version of the stimulus bill contained far too many badly focused tax cuts and not enough stimulus spending, we knew that, the House knew that, the President knew that, Harry delivered a runny mess, which we hope works. If it does not work then who takes the blame? Not Harry. Not the Blue Dawgs.

This is the same for healthcare. The House may vote through the most perfect plan ever, by the time it gets through Harry Reid and the Republicans (I have yet to work out who is worse), it could end up being BUPA care, the "non-profit" private sector care available in the UK, which covers almost very few. Whereas BUPA in the UK provide an element of competition for the State, the BUPA equivalent in the US would be used to exclude single-payer health care entirely. Once in there would be no further push for reform at all. The Republicans and the DLC can continue to happy clap their 3rd World standard overpriced and inefficient system for the next 5 terms.

[DJ13]

11. When the proposed "reform" is little more than insurance co. welfare

We WOULD be better off with no reform right now.

I would have thought people wouldnt want to get burned twice by the same assholes that gave us the Medicare drug bill.

[truedelphi]

52. Thanks for that common sense.

If we have waited for sixteen years to have something done about health care - then let's wait another month or two to get some REAL HEALTH CARE.

[Ken Burch]

12. It was the right wing that killed healthcare reform in 1994, NOT SINGLE-PAYER advocates

It's been proven over and over again that the left was not to blame for that.

Stop attacking people who weren't the problem.

[ProSense]

15. So if 1994 reform was good, why isn't the reform now,

which goes a lot further, not acceptable?

"Stop attacking people who weren't the problem."

People who want all or nothing, and would prefer to see reform derailed, are as big a problem as those who want to protect the status quo.

[Ken Burch]

35. If a public option is barred now, a public option is barred forever.

That bell can't be unrung.

And we'll be weaker in Congress for the rest of the Obama era, so this is the only chance there will ever be.

After this, it'll only be retrenchment.

[Uzybone]

16. where are you getting the idea that anyone is blaming the left for Healthcare in 1993?

are you reading the right posts?

[Ken Burch]

19. That's what the OP is saying.

That's the premise of this thread: that's we'd have had healthcare reform in the nineties if it weren't for people to Clinton's left.

(the truth is, no one ever pressured Clinton on the left on any issue. Ever. All progressive Dems of any national stature were silent sheep for eight years.)

[ProSense]

23. No, that is not what the OP is saying. n/t

[Ken Burch]

25. The truth is, it's the DLC crowd that's bottled the reforms in committee

There's no way that silence from the left would change that.

And if the left went silent this year, like you want, that would force us to be silent forever. Nothing can be built on in the legislation as currently written. It makes any advancement impossible.)

[ProSense]

29. You insist on making this about the left.

I am the friggin left.

This isn't about silence, people can say whatever the hell they want to.

The point...the fact is, that all or nothing is ignorant in the face of a real chance to make progress.

[Ken Burch]

32. This THREAD makes it about the left.

And we'll be the last ones supporting healthcare reform when all the "bipartisans" kill this bill after watering it down to nothing(which they've basically aready done).

Incrementalism is no longer the path to change in this country.

[ProSense]

33. No it doesn't. n/t

[cascadiance]

50. So were you happy with the public campaign financing that we have in place now?

McCain-Feingold and other efforts were also watered down with compromises that makes them basically useless too. And other bills have been buried in committee. Sometimes you have to be FIRM and remind those old status quo recalcitrants ignoring the will of the majority of the people that elections have consequences, and that the people's will now needs to be implemented.

And since we do have in place what is called "public campaign financing", many out there feel that we don't need anything more to be put in its place, or falsely conclude that the current rendition shows that is isn't worth pursuing... By putting in place an overcompromised or toothless health care reform bill, the same problems will happen later with it too, which is what the insurance and pharma lobbies are counting on.

We also need to be firm about newer public campaign finance reform, which might be the only way to help us really get serious single payer reform going too.

[Cleita]

21. Well, with that attitude the ordinary working shlub will get nothing.

The corporations will get all. Good work!

[ProSense]

26. What do they get without reform?

Most people recognize that the insurance companies are the problem.

Claiming that supporting reform is the same as supporting the corporations is a huge strawman.

Thanks for proving my point.

[kenfrequed]

47. Nonsense.

Most people recognize that.

Most of the finance committee did not, and many legislators also do not.

The Strawman is the one YOU make of the left. You take one possible result of an acrimonious debate that is not actually a position or argument made IN FAVOR of universal single payer healthcare, but of one crtique by the left of allowing the insurance companies to dictate the form of healthcare reform.

Is it unreasonable for those of us on the left to point out the troubles of working too closely with them or giving into the insurance industry too much? It is reasonable to ask the form of the "reform" that will be coming down the pipeline.

An incremental step forward is only a step forward if it is going in the right direction.

[bvar22]

58. +1...Nailed It

:patriot:

[Peacetrain]

28. K&R .. truth to power..or those who think they are a power

;)
Edit to add.. Those who would rather have complete failure than half the way to a complete victory, can have their complete failure.

[rucky]

34. How often does legislation get fine-tuned after it passes?

The strawman is that people demanding "more and better" are "all or nothing" and I don't see people suggesting it. I see advocates engaging in a debate as part of a negotiation process - in hopes that we end up with something closer to perfect.

Reality is you get small windows of opportunity for progress, and if you begin compromising before you even start the negotiation, you're going to end up with less.

[stevenleser]

36. All the time. In fact, that is mostly what congress does.

Very little of what they do is completely brand new.

[ProSense]

37. A few examples:

The Constitution, this and this.

Oh, the "all or nothing" crowd exists

[TomCADem]

48. Um, How Often Is Legislation Left Alone After It Passes?

That is the real question that should be asked. Most of what Congress does is tweaking existing statutory schemes.

[zulchzulu]

38. Spot. On.

Any new legislation that needs to make change has to be incremental... in a democracy.

If we lived in a dictatorship, certainly change would come a lot faster. And if you agreed with the dictator's stance, you'd be giddy.

[Bjorn Against]

39. What if the people in a democracy want a big change?

The polls show the majority of people support single payer and an even larger majority support a public option. Democracy is not always about incremental movement, sometimes people want more than incremental movement and then democracy demands that big changes are made. I don't understand how you could compare a change that the majority of the people want to the stance of a dictator, especially when that stance involves providing ordinary people with health care.

[Hutzpa]

41. Very good point n/t

[zulchzulu]

42. Reality vs. Purity

Purity never wins against realiity.

The "purity" of saying we all need to have one "Single-Payer halth system" sounds great.


Only things forwad...

[Bjorn Against]

43. Neither reality nor purity are what you say they are.

People are not "purists" just because they stand up on issues they believe in, and reality does not have to be what the politicians tell us it is.

[Hutzpa]

40. I would like to see a single payer

as in Britain, but if we get public option it would be a step up from
whats available now., not the best option but far better.



:think:

[quakerboy]

44. Progress is good

And I would settle for some progress.

But there are some things we can do that would result in one step forward and two back. And that is not progress.

Or to put it another way, if you give a giraffe a long neck before you give him a way to deal with the blood pressure issue, he dies when he tries to eat.

[bvar22]

49. Your OP is The Strawman.

I simply will NOT support a bill that will make things worse cloaked in the language of "reform".

SEE: "Prescription Drug Benefit", George Bush for a great example.

Since a final bill does not yet exist, it is impossible to judge, but things don't look good.

I currently STAND with those demanding Single Payer.
This is the WISE position until the details and Fine Print become available.
I can't believe that there are people lining up behind a vague Public Option when not a single one of them even knows what the Public Option means. The Public Option YOU are already praising does not even exist yet.
How can you support a bill that hasn't even been written?

"Incrementalism" is an incredibly poor argument here.

Passing a BAD reform bill will postpone any chance for REAL reform for a generation.
It will allow the corrupt wing of the Democratic Party to pat themselves on the back and declare "Victory" while shoveling $Trillions to the Health Insurance Industry.

[ProSense]

55. "I simply will NOT support a bill that will make things worse cloaked in the language of 'reform.'"

Yeah, because progress makes things worse. Let me repeat for this for you:

Progress "does not mean lateral, backward, unnecessary, or any other move that doesn't represent advancement toward the set goal."


Also, do you even know what strawman means?

[bvar22]

57. Yes.

You framed those who are NOT actively supporting a bill that has not even been written yet as supporting the Status Quo.

Exaggerating your opponents position, and then shooting it down is the EXACT definition of a "Strawman"...
AND that is exactly what you did in your OP.

Ultimately, I will settle for a viable Public Option that meets some very specific conditions.
But until that time, I actively support HR676 (Medicare for ALL) which has 93 co-Sponsors in The House.
So NO. I don't support the Status Quo.

I REFUSE to jump on the bandwagon for something that doesn't exist yet.
Does the expression "Buying a Pig in a Poke" mean anything to you?

You don't have the first clue what The Public Option will be. No one does.
How can you rally support for something that in all probability will be like Schumer's Proposal that is a GIFT to the Insurance Industry and merely labeled a Public Option. Schumer's Plan will make the Public Option so bad that that it will FAIL in 2 - 3 years.....and THIS is what you are willing to sign on for?

Enjoy your parade of the ill informed cheering for a "Public Option" that so far only exists in your imagination.
I'm waiting for the facts.
Until then, I am fully supporting the BEST Bill currently in Congress that will provide REAL REFORM. HR676

[ProSense]

60. "You framed those...NOT actively supporting a bill...not...written yet as supporting the Status Quo"

No, that is your frame. Those not actively supporting a bill not yet written is not the same as those who are demanding all or nothing.

"Enjoy your parade of the ill informed cheering for a "Public Option" that so far only exists in your imagination."

Now there is a straw man. That is a silly characterization of advocacy for the strongest possible public option. This is the problem, you are so caught up in your disgust that you have to label everything mindless cheering.

"Until then, I am fully supporting the BEST Bill currently in Congress that will provide REAL REFORM. HR676"

The crazy thing is why you are attacking the OP as if someone demanded that you support one bill or another. You are free to support whatever you want to, I understand that.

That doesn't change the fact that "all or nothing," which means derailing anything that doesn't go as far as single-payer is moronic.

Nothing said in the OP precludes anyone from advocating single-payer.

[noiretextatique]

56. excellent post

notice the difference between what's happening in iran and what happened here in 2000. the majority of americans accepted a coup by judicial fiat. this notion that change takes time is absolute bull.
when disaster strikes, we don't react in increments...we send in fema and the national guard. health care in this country is a disaster that needs major reform now.

[bvar22]

59. You are absolutely correct !

Medicare was NOT established "incrementally".

Social Security was NOT established "incrementally".

The Civil Rights Act was NOT established "incrementally".

This is the BEST chance in a generation to actually establish True Health Care Reform...

...and the fucking "Centrist, Incrementalists, Half-Republicans" are going to blow it for everybody!

Yes We Can....settle for less!
What the rest of the Civilized World has managed to do is just too hard for Americans.


"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

[ProSense]

61. Ah, there you are

equating progress with natural disasters, war and revolution.

Health care is in crisis, but what does advocating all or nothing mean if the end result is nothing?

[noiretextatique]

62. all or nothing is a false premise

the question is: can we solve the problem or not? most reasonable people seem to believe a single payer system is the only way to solve the problem. and the problem is that millions of people don't have access to health care...i do consider that a disaster. what good is progress if the progress doesn't solve the problem?

[ProSense]

63. Then maybe those basing their opposition to any bill should stop using it.

I didn't invent them.

Still, thank for indirectly making my point: all or nothing is silly.

"...what good is progress if the progress doesn't solve the problem?"

Not sure why you think anything in the OP conflicts the point you're trying to make. Still, it's not progress if it doesn't solve the problem. I stated that clearly in the OP. Progress, movement toward a goal, solves problems, and problems are always being discovered, necessitating more solutions. That's how progress works.

[noiretextatique]

67. tom tomorrow gets it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5955396

[ProSense]

68. The public option has been eliminated?

It's a cartoon.

[WeDidIt]

51. Yeah, "Bankruptcy Reform" did a lot, didn't it

For teh Credit Card companies.

"Healthcare Reform" with no public plan option will do the same for Insurance companies, so yeah, the status quo is better than change that does the opposite of what it should do.

[ProSense]

54. We, as in progressives, were working toward bankruptcy reform?

I see people cannot distinguish between a goal we're working toward and other goals. Progressives weren't working toward the goals achieved by DADT or DOMA. There are a lot of bills not supported by the collective progressive left. Republicans introduce them all the time.

This is the reason I specifically stated "Progress means that there has been movement toward a goal." Was it necessary for me to clarify that I didn't mean every goal, or Republican goals?

[chaska]

64. "Nothing" beats dogshit everytime....

If we get dogshit, we've got it for decades. So nothing IS better. We can try again when the rioting starts.

[ProSense]

65. Yeah, but

progress is not the same as dogshit.

Why post nonsense?

[Jennicut]

66. You are so right Prosense

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater just does not seem logical or sensible to me.

[Ken Burch]

69. Can we compromise and throw half a loaf in the bathwater?

The loaf will be soggy, but so what? The baby has no teeth.