Did Democrats ever support the public option?

[Ardent15]

"The public option’s death has been officially announced. The trajectory of this debate has become one of the strangest political sequences I’ve seen (and I’ve been follow health care obsessively for about a year now). The pieces just don’t fit. The Democratic Party’s rhetoric doesn’t match its actions.

Democrats had us believe they wanted the provision when they had 60 senate votes, but just didn’t want to “go there” with reconciliation. But now they have to, and as Ryan Grim points out, enough Democrats have gone on record declaring their support for it, making it “a matter of will, not votes.”

Yet they’re not even holding a vote on it. What’s the harm? You put forth an amendment, get them all to go on record, and if it has the votes you move forward with it; if it fails, so what? Move forward with the rest of it. It seems that the only conceivable explanation for refusing to hold a vote is that Democratic leaders don’t want it. It’s becoming clearer that its death has nothing to do with Republicans.

Ezra Klein notes one benefit to Democrats if they get this done:

But the proper way to decide this is with a vote. Sen. Bernard Sanders has promised to bring the public option up in an amendment to the reconciliation package. Good. And if it passes, then Republicans can take a good, long look in the mirror and ask themselves if forcing the Democrats to use a reconciliation strategy rather than compromising to make the bill friendlier to conservative insights was really such a good idea. I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if relentless obstruction imposed policy costs on Republicans.

More important is the fact that 60 percent of the general public wants a public plan. It’s an overriding priority for progressives and would enormously galvanize the Democratic base, making November considerably easier on them.

But Ezra is right; this would also be a powerful political message to send to Republicans: We tried like hell to compromise for 60 votes, you completely refused to play ball, so now we passed a more progressive bill under reconciliation. Suck it up.

Also, Sanders isn’t a Democrat so it’s telling that he’s the one senator even considering bringing it up for a vote."

http://trueslant.com/sahilkapur/2010/03/13/did-democrats-ever-support-the-public-option/

[DJ13]

1. No, it was just PR to keep the masses entertained

.....while crafting the most pro-insurance legislation they thought they could get away with.

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for handouts and petty amusements that politicians use to gain popular support, instead of gaining it through sound public policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

[ananda]

2. The good ones did.

The corporate whores didn't.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. The Democrats supported it.

The DLC'ers and BlueBalledCowards never did.

[Greyhound]

4. I think we have to distinguish between 'Democrats' and the Democratic Party's 'leadership'.

Democrats overwhelmingly support single-payer, public options, and open MediCare, but it is the so-called leadership that determines how and what will be allowed into the discussion. That's how they've manipulated this and every other important issue for decades if not ever.