Blue Dogs & DLCers, what are the best arguments AGAINST a strong public option?

[yurbud]

Most of your naysaying here seems to revolve around what is politically possible and expedient, but I hear few arguments on the policy merits of just tinkering with the for-profit private system, and most of those who want to stick with for-profit system never mention real controls on pricing, profits, and percentages of premiums that can be spent on overhead.

Nor do they mention the very real threat that any reform based solely on the private system will have its best features for the public relentlessly lobbied against until they are watered down or removed even if they make it into the final bill this time.

It seems the only ammo you have is borrowed from the far right: the miracle of markets and the horrors of socialized medicine in the near-Stalinist France, Britain, and Canada.

Even a lot of conservatives have noticed after the bailout that there's a thumb on the scale at the market, and anyone who has traveled to one of those countries with socialized medicine or even talked to someone from one has wished they lived in those countries rather than been horrified.

So what is your best shot?

[MNDemNY]

1. The preservation of the Insurance Industry Profits, silly.

[rudy23]

2. To get them to answer, you have to start a thread criticizing Obama or the unrec feature

They're not here for honest debate, they're here to ruin a progressive website.

[MNDemNY]

4. They are "cutting and pasting" as fast as they can!

But they must await the "memo" before responding.But I think it will go something like this: We simply do not have the votes to pass a plan with a PO, so we MUST take what we can get! Something is better than nothing! gobama?

[harun]

3. It promotes inequality, they know it must be good if it promotes inequality.

(of course MNDemNY, got it right in post #1.)

And to clarify, they are against the PO because it PROMOTES equality.

[pampango]

5. Those of us who prefer a National Health Service like in the UK wonder why you would settle for

any "public option" insurance plan. Is it because it is intrinsically better than an NHS-solution or because it is more "possible" ("politics is the art of the possible')?

[yurbud]

9. Possible plus would likely lead to a public only plan as public sees it's more reliable

and only screws you on accident instead of on purpose.

[BzaDem]

6. You are building up and attacking a strawman.

I have not seen anyone on this board that doesn't want a strong public option at the very least.

The main argument seems to be those who understand our system of government and the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, versus those who think we can enact laws by dictatorial fiat.

For those in the first camp, there is a second argument, which is, given that we can't pass a strong public option out of the Senate, is it worth doing anything else? That is indeed a policy question.

And I think the answer is pretty obvious there. Do we ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, essentially end medical bankruptcies, insure 30+ million people, and enact a whole host of regulations on the insurance companies? Or do we not do these things?

For the most part, the ones that say we should not do these things do not have pre-existing conditions. Yes, there are some (very vocal) exceptions. But I have found that on DU, those with pre-existing conditions are FAR more likely to support this bill than those without. That should tell you something.

As for repealing the regulations/insurance reforms/helping the uninsured, that would be just as hard as passing them in the first place. It would take 60 votes in the Senate to do so (along with a Republican president). That would never happen.

[rudy23]

8. And why is there a "60 vote threshold" in the Senate? Blue Dogs perhaps?

Maybe because DLC Democrats will filibuster their own party to make sure there's no real public option in the final bill?

[BzaDem]

10. Joe Lieberman alone can kill the bill.

And the Democrats tried everything there. They nominated a different candidate and the Senate leadership campaigned for Lamont. Yet Lieberman still won.

So yes. Lieberman/Nelson/et al will indeed filibuster their own party to make sure there's no real public option in the final bill.

[sendero]

82. And a REAL leader..

... would send the message to Lieberman that if he opposes this bill every possible legal negative consequence will be on his head. Immediately.

But we don't have a leader.

[PassingFair]

85. "the senate leadership campaigned for Lamont"....

:rofl:

Half-assedly!

He should have been STRIPPED of his
committee seats, and that should have
been made CLEAR DURING the campaign.

[yurbud]

11. Turn it around: why should a MINORITY of Democrats in Senate block what public WANTS?

They are NOT representing their constituents since poll after poll shows people across the nation want at least a strong public option that let's them ''opt out'' of private insurance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/montantans-not-backing-ba_n_265477.html

http://www.laprogressive.com/2009/09/22/new-study-public-option-popular-in-blue-dog-districts-across-nation

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/abc-news-poll-more-americans-prefer-public-option-to-bipartisan-bill-.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/poll-even-republican-voters-favor-the-public-option.php

They are the minority, and they are voting the way a minority of their constituents (though not their donors) would want them to.

What do you suppose the DLC would do if progressives were in the minority? Wouldn't they heap them with the same scorn and contempt and call them insanely dangerous socialists as the GOP does?

[fascisthunter]

16. and yet, no answer to your question

I'm through with DLCers.... they are liars, and are only here to destroy progressive/liberal politics. As of now, those names will be on ignore...

[treestar]

12. +1000

They are simply trying to say if you don't oppose any reform at all without the public option that you are against the public option. I loathe that kind of accusation from freeps and loathe it even more from here on DU. It's not an honest debate. I expect more from the left than the right on this.

[HamdenRice]

13. Excellent answer -- considering there are no "blue dogs" or DLCers on DU it was a laughable OP

And your answer is extremely well thought out and fairly summarizes the various positions. Your observation about people with previously existing conditions is particularly acute, and it's obvious that the purists wish we would all just go away and die, or be sacrificed on the alter of single payer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8747753&mesg_id=8747753

[MNDemNY]

14. No "DLCers" on DU, that is really funny!

:rofl: And for you "impurists" Just How bad can the bill get and still get your support? How about if it only helps 6 guys in wyoming? Better than nothing, right? This bill is shit, not worth passing.

[dionysus]

29. i can only name 3 out and out DLCers on here, there's really only a few.

:shrug:

[MNDemNY]

32. That's like "there are only a few roaches."

:P

[dionysus]

48. the DLC has never had any real support here, nor should it. but they few that do show

here are allowed to post, just as the people who constantly shout that the entire democratic party, minus one backbencher, are sellouts. it doesn't mean i have to like either of those groups.

[MNDemNY]

58. I never accused you of any of that.

[dionysus]

75. i know you didn't. some here do.

[rudy23]

69. You guys are the ones who pushed the talking points tying all progressivism to Kucinich.

Why wouldn't you---he's the goofiest person you can use to brand us with! He's most susceptible to your CONSTANT ad hominem attacks because he's short, funny looking, and came out saying he's seen a UFO.

Is Dennis Kucinich the only "backbencher" (I'm sure you got points for that one) who supports the public option in Congress? Are Kucinich supporters the only voters who support the public option? Or was it more like 65-70% of the voting population?

The fact that you will play fast and loose with these facts, and will never pass up an opportunity to try and brand us with Kucinich slurs, tells me you are pushing some sort of New Democrat/DLC agenda on here.

[rudy23]

15. Is that the new company line? This place is riddled with Blue Dogs and DLC'ers.

Nice try.

[HamdenRice]

17. Link? I don't recall anyone supporting the blue dogs or DLC

But of course if you're the paranoid type you can accuse anyone of anything. That's why my favorite response to such paranoia is "why do you support the slaughter of baby arctic seals?"

If you can accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being anything you want, then the same can be done to you.

[MNDemNY]

18. Will you support this bill with out a PO??

And, Will you support a HCR bill with Stupak-Pitts language inact?

Will you dare to even answer these questions?


Or, are you going to hide the fact that you may be a suppoter of the "blue-dogs"?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rudy23]

19. Not accusing you of being "anything I want." Accusing you all of being exactly what you sound like

Progressives who are drawn to progressive websites don't come out to support concessions on an already compromised health bill, and they don't start 50 curse-laden threads attacking Dennis Kucinich and "the left of the left" to do it.

[HamdenRice]

22. So anyone who makes fun of Dennis "UFO" Kucinich is a blue dog?

So you seem to be saying anyone who recognizes the reality that Dennis is a kook must necessarily be a blue dog? How about some people just realize that he's a nut case and a grandstander who gets nothing accomplished -- regardless of our political leanings.

If you don't recognize Dennis is a nutjob, then you must support the slaughter of baby arctic seals for their fur.

[dionysus]

30. i didn't know u were teh DLC!!!!11!!11!!

:rofl:

[rudy23]

35. Here's DLC bot number 2!

Calling me names isn't going to erase the clear, valid perception that DLC supporters are here to stir up shit and nothing else.

Is denial the next step of the strategy? How utterly chickenshit. At least stand up for your beliefs--don't run from what you are like a coward.

[dionysus]

36. or, you're fucking clueless because i'm not DLC. look up my posts going 8 years back.

you operate from this bizarre frame that anyone who isn't down with the travelocity gnome is a DLCer.
:shrug:

[rudy23]

39. Your posts from this year are DLC talking points, one after another, down to the Kucinich bashing.

What a cowardly, tone-deaf strategy you are employing.

Oh, and guess what---the DLC's been around a lot longer than this website. Being here 8 years ago is no cover. It's not like I'm accusing you of being a Russian spy, you're pretty out front with your leanings, and bashing of even the most moderate Progressives.

[dionysus]

45. LOL

:rofl:

you've gone around the bend with that one...

[HamdenRice]

62. "Calling me names"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dag, some people are utterly, hopelessly bereft of any sense of irony and any self-knowledge of their own actions and words -- even if written just minutes ago.

OK, I now know you are completely lost.

:silly: :crazy: :silly:

[rudy23]

65. No, I'm just not going to sit here and take it while you guys throw shit and deny it.

You're here to chase people like me away from this site, or to intimidate us, and I'm not going to let it happen. The Blue Dogs, or New Democrats, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves are not going to run us out of this party. It's already backfiring on you---now people know exactly where President Obama and Rahm Emanuel's political team stands on Progressive values. They will directly attack us, brand us, and attempt to marginalize us, and your shitflinging is part of the proof. This reflects very poorly on them.

[HamdenRice]

68. Dude, get a grip. The OP starts out insulting people, which you then continue

You have no clue of an inkling of self awareness.

You think I'm "here" to chase anyone away? You're way off the cliff in paranoia land. You think Obama sent me here as a sleeper cell 5 years ago to wait for you to show up so I could chase you off?

:rofl:

:silly: :crazy: :silly:

That's stark raving madness.

[rudy23]

31. "Ad hominem. Strawman. DLC rantings. Denial of DLC rantings. Poop throwing."

Good to know the checklist is in tact.

Really, don't you think you're making the DLC look worse, coming over here onto a progressive website to throw shit? Now it's going to get out that the DLC is trying to screw up their own base's grassroots efforts, then denying that they ever did it.

You are hurting progressive causes. Directly hurting them. I hope you're happy with your role.

[dionysus]

38. or, you look like you believe in UFOs when you have to accuse eveyone who disagrees with you as a

paid DLC agent. it sounds, you know, paranoid.

[rudy23]

41. Why do you prove my point by going to the Kucinich card every single time?

Does it earn you "points" or something every time you do that?

[dionysus]

44. it's an anology to believing in tin foil type assclownery.

:shrug:

[rudy23]

47. Hear that, DU? Supporting Kucinich, and his take on this health bill is analagous to belief in UFOs

This is what the New Democrats are trying to push on us.

[dionysus]

49. keep trying.

[fascisthunter]

73. Rudy nailed you both

[dionysus]

76. what, by pushing the line that we're paid DLC operatives? seriously that's paranoid and stupid.

:shrug:

i was arguing with DLCers on here 6 years before you even joined DU.

[MNDemNY]

20. hammie?

[Occulus]

52. Like HELL there aren't any here.

One of 'em has a painting of a blue dog AS HIS SIG PIC!

[dionysus]

77. yes, he's one of the few that i am aware of. and how many posters here agree with him? hardly any.

[yurbud]

67. again you've got it backwards: the Blue Dogs & DLC would let people die to preserve corporate

profits.

Why do you say no blue dogs or DLCers are here?

Or are you implying that no elected blue dog or DLCer would bother to post here, that they have no actual base of ideological support, and therefore only paid shills would vote for them?

In that case, I agree.

[Political Heretic]

51. The bill as written does not do half the things you think it does.

And I think the answer is pretty obvious there. Do we ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, essentially end medical bankruptcies, insure 30+ million people, and enact a whole host of regulations on the insurance companies? Or do we not do these things?

It does not ban discrimination based on preexisting conditions. It says it will at some future point ban that discrimination - but not until 2014. Which mean nothing changes now, and there's plenty of time to prevent that from happening in 2014, after public attention is turned away from the issue. This is always why certain things are not enacted right away in legislation - its because the plan is to never enact it at all.

End medical bankruptcies? FAIL. Thanks to the decreases in subsidies in both the house and the senate below the insufficient subsidies that were in the committee versions of the bills, working class americans teetering in poverty will still not have the effective means to afford insurance, or rising premiums (for which there is no effective controls in these bills)

A whole host of regulations? Nice generalization. There are next to ZERO substantive regulations included in these bills.

[Better Believe It]

63. You're wrong. 51 votes are required to pass legislation, not 60.

And if the Republicans want to filibuster against a strong health care bill, let them!

If fact, make them filibuster on the Senate floor until they run out of gas. All filibusters end.

Do you have a problem with that?

[FormerDittoHead]

7. I have a mind that's open - so here's your answer...

I want socialized medicine where the doctor's education is free and they're employed by the state.

I want single payer.

I want a public option open to all, even those with insurance.

OK. Now with that out of the way, I can avoid the "you're not with us you're against us!" replies...

The logic behind not having a strong public option is that, with the current bill, the only people who would go for the public option are people who are unemployed or have been rejected by private companies because they would cost too much for the company.

The people able to, and choosing the public option wouldn't be able to pay as much into that system as they would need to take OUT of the system.

The result of this would make the public option plan basically become a welfare program.

And we can't have that because if you can't pay for your cancer treatments, you deserve to die a painful death.

So now you know the logic.

[yurbud]

71. that makes sense.

[ItNerd4life]

23. I'm a blue dog Democrat and proud of it.

Here's a few things to consider:
A public option is supposed to bring more competition; thus competition is good.
Our current system doesn't have competition. It's an oligopoly in each state, because of the laws. If competition
is good then remove the state restrictions (like a federal program would) and allow companies to compete across states. Remember,
competition is good so allow competition to happen. Supporters of a public option are hypocrites when they say it will bring more competition.
It won't, it only adds 1 more competitor to each state. Still an ugly oligopoly.

Why don't we have a program for healthcare like we do for food production? Competition produces the food, government has a safety net to
help those who can't afford the food. Why not have a safety net for those who can't afford insurance?

Consider eliminating the need for insurance the way it is now. Allow people to have health insurance savings accounts, insurance is only there for catastrophic insurance.
Insurance can not have pre-existing conditions clauses. Insurance can't have a 'max' payment amount.

Bring true competition into the structure (like exists for food) and you will see a dramatic drop is health care prices. People will start going to doctors because of cost, price, location, etc. Not because the doctor is in their plan.

I'm a liberal, I'm open to suggestions instead of just having the government do everything.

[cark]

24. +1 Current plan is not reform

This reform is more of the same. Lets actually change the way health insurance works. Let the vast majority of people who are capible of providing for themselves use their power of individual comsumerism to lower prices. Let the government offer a major medical plan to those with pre-existing conditions or those that can't afford it. Don't hide these costs in everyone else's healthcare premiums.

[dionysus]

34. "individual consumerism" won't do anything to lower prices, it's a rigged game.

[cark]

55. Unrig it.

The current reform is doing nothing to unrig it. Why wouldn't individuals spending their own money on their own care help to 'unrig' the system. I know would be scrutinizing every dollar I spent on each visit if it was coming out of my account, instead of just handing the bill to my insurance company (or govt) as it works now. If everyone was doing this don't you think this would have a dramatic effect on prices and transparancy? I do.

[dionysus]

57. i think they'd pull your coverage asnd send you packing.

[Zodiak]

26. Do you know why moving across state lines is a Republican plan?

So the companies can all move to the STATE WITH THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS INSURANCE REGULATORY LAWS and then sell to the rest of the country. This is why so many insurance companies (outside of health insurance) and banks are housed in CT, NE, and SD.

Your idea will not improve competition. It will instead start a race to the bottom and ALL of us have to live with the consequences.

And your healthcare savings accounts will mean jack squat in a country with a ZERO SAVINGS RATE! (look it up). If you have no money, you cannot save any money. In fact, asking people with no money to save or suffer is fucking heartless.

Oh, and by the way, liberal and blue dog are mutually exclusive. A liberal is not reflexively against the government doing right for its people just because it is "the government". Only conservative ideologues feel that way, which is why blue dogs are NOT liberals. In fact, blue dogs are ideologues because the ONLY objection they have is that the PO is "government run" as if that makes it automatically bad (a sure sign of being an ideologue).

[dionysus]

33. i agree with some of your post but they "across state lines" shit is a scam, to me

[Political Heretic]

54. You're not a liberal by any definition. Since blue dog and liberal are incompatible.

And since you can so comfortably spew republican bullshit like touting the saving power of medical savings accounts (which don't do dick for the poor) and since "liberals" aren't asking the government to "do everything" though that is the common right wing bullshit talking point.

[optimator]

25. we are way passed the point of hypotheticals and debates

whatever happens is outside of our input, no matter how logical or ethical or practical.

[dusmcj]

27. it would offend a demographic minority and we wouldn't be 'inclusive'

[yurbud]

83. the minority that has stolen all our money?

[dusmcj]

86. yeah, those cocksuckers and the morans who wannabe like them sumday /nt

[dionysus]

28. there really aren't any blue dogs or DLCers here, but you cling to that thought if it makes you feel

better.

[rudy23]

37. Why would the DLC'ers admit they're DLC'ers? It would go against the whole chickenshit strategy!

How many wolves stand up and say, "Yoo-hoo, I'm just wearing sheep's clothing, but I'm really a wolf!"

[dionysus]

43. dude, seriously. the DLC isn't sending people to infiltrate a god damned message board.

what i HAVE seen here, although you may not have been here long enough to recognize it, is a bunch of people who were hard-core backers of uber-DLC candidates who lost, poorly re-inventing themselves as uber-liberals just to attack obama from the left. and i'm not talking about you.

[rudy23]

50. Why wouldn't they? Every corporation has viral bloggers! It's cheap and anonymous.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/23/political_bloggers_fear_publicists_will_infiltrate_sites/

Look, this has been going on since 2007. Viral blogging was a key component of the 2008 election. Why wouldn't Obama want to control the message from the left? He's already shown that going against the left is going to be a key component of his administration. Why not pay a gaggle of poli sci grads $9 an hour to go throw shit on the three biggest lefty websites so the whole "revolt from the left" isn't speaking with one clear voice on the internet?

[dionysus]

56. probably because if you add the registration of all 3 boards combined you've got .0001 percent of

the population?

despite our differences, you do realize politic junkies are a miniscule amount of people, right? despite all the drama, bitching and moaning on a political message board is pissing into the wind. i doubt they'd even consider sending peopel to DU.

[rudy23]

61. So? It's a large chunk of the blogosphere. CBS news only represents .00000000000001% of the pop.

But their influence greatly outweighs the numbers. Are you saying that the blogosphere as a whole has no influence on how we perceive the news? Then what are you doing here? Why do companies hire any viral bloggers at all?

[dionysus]

74. if you want to continue to lie about me, go ahead if it makes you feel better.

:shrug:

[debbierlus]

40. The brillant counters I receive to my arguments against this proposal sum up to two thing

I hate Obama & the dems.

Something is better then nothing.

People feel so disempowered that they will get ANY change and many are so desperate just to be able to BUY insurance (not realizing that being allowed to purchase the product is a far cry from gurantee of health care coverage), they will take anything they can get.

Even if it empowers and revives the very system that placed them in this horrible situation to begin with...

Until people DEMAND real reform and stop placing the politician and party over policy, we are screwed.

Where is the leadership going to come from to accomplish this goal, I don't know...

[Zodiak]

42. You forgot this one

Government run healthcare is bad because the government runs it.

(this is the classic Reagan ideology, but don't tell them that...they think they are being "pragmatic")

[yurbud]

84. I don't think people are placing the politicians and party over policy--politicians are placing

profits over people.

[county worker]

46. The argument I heard yesterday against a public option is that it would be unfair to insurance

companies. They would have to compete with the government who could offer cheaper insurance and better coverage.

Yet in a few cases they say we should privatize Medicare because the market can do a better job of providing scarce resources than the government.

So which is it?

In reality there is the conservative ideology that is like religious dogma. It is taken on faith like the Nicene Creed.

[ecstatic]

53. I'm not a DLCer or Blue dog, but a potential argument could be

that the best doctors won't accept it anyway (just like many don't accept medicare /medicaid). I think many people would have better odds of having the doctor of their choosing accept a private plan compared to a public plan.

[county worker]

59. Doctors also will not contract with private plans if they do not reimburse them enough.

Most private plan reimbursement rates are some percentage higher or lower than Medicare rates for procedure codes. If doctors who negotiate with the private insurance companies cannot get the rates they want they will not contract with that payer. Many "affordable plans" are companies that pay less than Medicare and many doctors refuse to accept their plans. They still bill the insurance but the patient pays the difference between what the insurance company pays and what Medicare pays, sometimes more than what Medicare pays.

[ecstatic]

60. Yep. I needed surgery and the doctor I wanted (one of the best in that field)

did not accept BCBS. I was thinking "Are you f*cking kidding me?" They're like the biggest insurer in GA but that opened my eyes to the issues. I'm paying hundreds a month and can't get anything done. Maybe I should just dump the insurance and use the emergency room like everyone else.

[county worker]

66. I was a controller of a medical clinic until a few years ago.

One year we refused to contract with any insurance company unless they paid Medicare plus 2%.

[yurbud]

70. that's an easy fix--don't give them the option. sort of like the issue with tying public option

to medicare reimbursement rates. If rural reps are pissed because it means their local hospital is underfunded because so many in their district are on Medicare, raise the reimbursement rates a bit to get them in the tent. It aint rocket science.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Delete. Dupe.

[Shagbark Hickory]

64. They claim that it will lead to a single payer system and they say that's bad.

That's as close to an answer as you're going to get.
I doesn't make sense though because on the one hand they're arguing that the PO would not lower costs and not do this and not do that while on the other hand they insist it will end the private insurance industry and lead to some awful canadian system where everyone can go see a doctor but people sometimes have to wait in queues if they go to a walk in clinic or ER

[Odin2005]

72. There are still DLCers and Blue Dogs here?

I thought they all left. I haven't seen WyldWolf in ages.

[dionysus]

81. ding

[MisterP]

78. "empty slogan, cliche, cliche, accusation of teabaggerism, Orwellian statement, unsubstantiated

electoral math, cliche"

[Warren DeMontague]

80. "Because I'm funded to the fucking gills by the insurance industry"

I mean, whether they'll admit it or not, that's the argument for the pols.

As to the arguments of any actual Democratic voters who don't support it, really, I don't think they exist.