Feingold: Obama Responsible For Loss Of Public Option

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Feingold: Obama Responsible For Loss Of Public Option

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) formally announced on Sunday that he would support the Senate's final version of health care reform. But in doing so he cast blame for the loss of a public option for insurance coverage partially on the president's shoulders and urged House and Senate negotiators to re-insert the government-run plan back into the legislation during conference committee.

From the Wisconsin Democrat's press office came the following statement:

I've been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down. I continued that fight during recent negotiations, and I refused to sign onto a deal to drop the public option from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included.

But while the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform, and the cost of inaction is simply too high. This bill significantly expands coverage and helps protect Wisconsinites from high costs and insurance company abuses, such as denying or restricting coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The bill also improves a flawed Medicare formula that denies Wisconsin fair reimbursement rates, encourages the kind of low-cost, high-value care practiced in our state, increases access to home and community-based long-term care, and reduces federal budget deficits by $132 billion over the next decade.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/feingold-obama-responsibl_n_398658.html

[dkf]

1. Hmm the Head in the sanders don't want anyone to know the truth

[villager]

53. Truth is too dangerous when you're a Panglossian

n/t

[bluestateguy]

2. This has now been posted about 8 zillion times

We get the message.

[madfloridian]

6. First time I saw it. Glad it was posted. We need to know it.

[Judi Lynn]

131. Same here. It's important to Democrats. n/t

[bfarq]

8. It isn't important if "we" got tthe message

What is important if OBAMA is getting the message.

He has about 10 days to wake up and figure out just how badly he misplayed his hand. He needs to take it away from Raum Emmanuel and own this thing himself. Right now he has his party set up for a huge train wreck. He has between now and Conference time to figure this out.

It is pretty simple:

1) There aren't going to be any Republican votes in the Senate. Stop making compromises as if there were.

2) A mandate for OBAMA's BEST SUPPORTERS to buy insurance from these crooks without any other option is political disaster for Obama in 2012.

3) A plan that doesn't get the major benefits in voters' hands by summer 2010 is an electoral disaster for the Party in 2010.

The only way out at this point is to fix those problems in Conference and then be prepared to bust balls as necessary to get it through the Senate.

[FedUp_Queer]

18. Along those lines...

I'm just SHOCKED that Sen. Snowe is not voting for health care...SHOCKED I tell you. PLEASE, PLEASE someone tell me why I should vote.

[No Elephants]

56. Lots of reasons.

The corny, yet all too true, reason is that too many people have died for your right to vote, starting before 1776.

The other reason is that you do have the right to make your wishes known and you don't help yourself by not using it.

The course I would recommend: get involved in your state Democratic Party and make your voice heard early on in the primary process. Also, fight the Democratic Party's anti-democratic policies, like supporting incumbents, no matter what, and having Super Delegates who can overrule the will of the people.

If all else fails, write in the name of someone whom you know represents your wishes, preferably someone well known.

That way, the media and the Republicans can't spin and say people stayed home bc all the candidates were too far to the left or some such tripe. You get your say in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.

The more members of ANY community stay home, the more politicians are confident in totally ignoring them.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. Super delegates? That is what comes to mind when

people are angry about discriminatory and confiscatory law being made now? Really?
And our community votes at a higher rate than any other. Far more than yours, for example.

[tomp]

117. "That way, the media and the Republicans can't spin...

..and say people stayed home bc all the candidates were too far to the left or some such tripe."

That would be tripe and it is never going to happen, so your suggestion that it might is ridiculous on its face. In fact it is already occurring that ordinary americans are staying home because all the candidates are too far to the right.

Write-ins are great except they NEVER win. One's vote really only matters if one's candidate at least has the possibility of winning, or of shifting the results to make a point of one's power to effect the race. With the media and both parties so entrenched in rightist thinking, progressive candidates do not stand a chance.

Your faith in the ability of ordinary people to change the nature of the democratic party from within is belied by historical facts and suggests utter naivete or utter complicity with the corporatists.

the only options that are left (pardon the pun) are: third party or revolution and third party doesn't have a particularly good track record. your reference to 1776 is good, though.

[ooglymoogly]

118. +1 There is merit in what you say, but there are better options.

[bfarq]

138. I'm not worried about people here not voting

I have no doubt that everyone here will recognize that the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican, and we will vote accordingly, even if we have to hold our noses.

I mean, if we had any doubts, let me remind everybody that the worst Democrat, Lieberman, is going to vote for the bill and the best Republican, Snowe, is not. That's as clear cut as it gets.

That isn't the problem. The probably is the 20 million soft votes. How many of them were swept up by the historical moment or the true belief that Obama was a different kind of politician. We're going to lose a lot of them. Even if Obama had been true to all of the principles he voiced during the campaign, he would lose some support. That always happens. The way they have set up this health plan it is exactly what the GOP wants. Without having a clear cut value proposition (we STILL don't know what's in the bill) and benefits in voters hands BEFORE the election, this is a free ride for the GOP.

It is a blunder of monumental proportions.

And as for us activists, right about now, I'm not nearly as excited about hitting the streets to try to elect Obama and to give him a governing majority if this is my reward.

[Joe Chi Minh]

155. The fall in numbers might well be sufficient to embolden the Reps to

defraud the electorate again.

[pundaint]

158. What was once true no longer pertains.

The difference between parties in the sitting Congress is insignificant. "NO" and "WILL NOT INSIST" produce the same results. Democrats have the right platform, but we need to replace our elected representatives who will not deliver it, even with the biggest majority reasonable attainable.

[laughingliberal]

169. All very good suggestions. Thanks

It is hard to resist the siren call of apathy in the face of increasingly bad odds but resist we should. If history declares victory to the corporatists in America, let it not be said there were none sounding the alarm.

[tavalon]

75. Because it's your duty

Who you vote for, now, that's a choice. And it's especially important to vote in the primaries. And yeah, I know that not even half of the electorate votes but that doesn't make it right. If you're angry, and anyone paying attention is very angry, do civil disobedience (and not voting isn't civil disobedience, it's just dumb). Get out there and raise a ruckus.

[TheEuclideanOne]

106. The Democrats are just not trying hard enough. Conceding a few more things mighth help. Worth a try?

Maybe if we concede a few more items. Perhaps we could add a clause that says that all democrats must pay for the insurance of all Republicans. I say in the least, we should just approve all of her ammendments just in case. It might get her to vote for it, even if she did say that she would never vote for it under any conditions, regardless of whether she got everything she asked for. Heck, it is worth a try, right? :sarcasm:

[AlbertCat]

160. tell me why I should vote.

You have no right to complain if you don't.

[bjobotts]

25. Electorial disaster huh?You think we're gonna vote for Bushies to punish dems?

[bjobotts]

26. Repubs offer NOTHING but more disaster in every area.Sure we're gonna vote for them, RIIght

[bjobotts]

27. A handful of dems is not the dem party.We have 51 senators who vote for robust PO

[bjobotts]

28. It's the senate filibuster holding the nation hostage not the dem party.

[No Elephants]

64. Um ,the Dem Party could have abolished the 60 vote rules with 51 votes.

Or suspended them for one time only. Or gone into Reconciliation.

[bfarq]

140. Is that true? I thought rules changes requires a supermajority

of 67. Maybe somebody can clarify this because it was not long ago that the GOP threatened to abolish the filibuster rule and they didn't have 67 votes.

The big blunder here was in not structuring the bills from the outset so that there could be a legitimate threat of using reconciliation. With a true threat of reconciliation, they would have had a better chance of getting 60 votes without giving away the store.

Everybody talks about reconciliation as 51 votes. It is actually 50 votes because Biden breaks a tie.

I have a theory -- a very unpleasant theory. My theory is that in fact there are only about 15 progressive votes. 15 Democratic Senators with real principles. Had they cone the reconciliation route, they would have found out it was just as hard to get 50 as it is to get 60. My guess is that is the calculation that drove Obama to steer away from that course, because that would have been really humiliating -- more so that capitulating to Lieberman. Just a theory, but if there really are 50 solid progressive votes, I'd sure like to see those names. I'll give you Sanders and Brown. Got another 48?

[MilesColtrane]

152. I believe all that is needed for a rules change is...

one Senator to make the motion, Biden to rule that the previous existing rule did not govern the consideration of the motion for change, then a simple majority vote.

[Scruffy1]

154. Very perceptive of you

maybe you don't understand the arcane paliamentary rules but you do get. Joe Lieberman, whose career is over is only providing cover for a whole lot of others. But I don't think its about money as much as we keep saying ti is. These people are for the most part die hard capitalists either Republican or Democrat and the idea of a non profit is anathema to them. Ben Nelson is a good example. I think he just believes that the profit motive is the Holy Grail. After all he got wealthy in the insurance business. Without insurance companies there would be a lot more starving lawyers too.
Filibusters in the sense most people think are gone and replaced by the sixty vote cloture rule to end debate and bring on a vote. This has been used by the Republican Party on over 70% of the major votes the last two years while the old filibuster was rarely used-primarily to stop civil rights legislation. The rule could be stopped by the "nuclear option" but that would open up all the rules and could take months. Also the majority party can just change the rule at the beginning of the session with a simple majority. The fact that they didn't do it and instead kissed Likud Lieberman butt showed me that they weren't going to give us a pony. To see this old slimeball claim he was worried about the debt after voting for constant wars and being the Chairman of the Homeland Boondoggle. The only reason for this POS being in office is that he represents Israel not us. And they have universal health insurance.

[bfarq]

168. It is mostly theater to give us the illusion that we have democratic government

If you will allow me, I'll take my theory one step further.

As argued above, the issue isn't that Obama can't get 60 votes. He couldn't get 50 votes for a progressive bill. The whole Democratic caucus is a bunch of unprincipled cowards, when only a few exceptions. Once the corporations peeled off Lieberman, Baucus, Landrieux, Bayh, Nelson and a few others they would be down to 50. From there they would just keep peeling them off because there isn't anything that resembles backbone until you get down to the last 10. So that is why Obama didn't go the reconciliation route.

But why not put some heat on Lieberman? You already answered that. He works for Israel, not for us. But think about that a little more.

Here's the thing. It is not a coincidence that Israel is calling the shots on our homeland security committee. Why hasn't anybody lifted a finger to try to change chairmen despite everything Lieberman has done?

The question answers itself. We can sit here and get mad about how things are happened, and with good justification. But it is all happening according to how the system is rigged.

[laughingliberal]

170. There is a rule of the Senate that says it takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. However

that rule could be changed by a majority vote.

I appreciate your theory but I disagree. I do believe the votes would have been there in the Senate for reconciliation. I believe Obama steered away from that course because he never intended any bill except the one he got. Just my opinion but based on observing every action of his from the beginning to the end. He not only did not stand up for some of the options which would have made the bill better but could not pass, he actively worked to defeat some which could have. One example is the effort of his administration to kill the reimportation amendment which was on track to pass before his involvement. His deal with Pharma and the insurance lobby trumped everything in this debate.

[laughingliberal]

172. Nuclear option information

Nuclear option
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the U.S. legislative tactic. See also, nuclear warfare.
In U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.<1>
The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances. <snip>

<snip> The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

If ever there was a time to use it, this would have been it.

[No Elephants]

58. How do you know? When was the vote on a robust public option?

Besides, the ones shoving anti-choice amendments into the bill while they shove out the consumer oriented provisions are not really getting punished by anyone, are they?

[katkat]

87. bjobotts

Dear Sir or Madam,

Wake up and smell the coffee. Obama could have gotten good stuff in this bill if he had used carrots and sticks, as other Presidents have done in the past. Instead he licked the boots of Repukes and Blue Dogs.

There is damn little difference between this administration and Bush III - a bad healthcare bill, torture okayed, Constitution stamped on, gay rights abandoned, women thrown under the bus, along with most environmental issues.

As far as I can see, ALL Obama has done right is a few relatively small environmental things, and that is swamped by the mandated unaffordable insurance provision that will affect millions in this terrible terrible bill.

So, no it's better to vote third party or write in than go along with this farce. Either we'll grow a true progressive party or we'll at least bring the temple down on the heads of those sellouts.

[AllyCat]

114. That's true and we know that, but many of the indie voters will vote pub.

And many progressives will vote Green or other.

[dflprincess]

36. I think a lot of people who aren't especially active

are going to stay home because they will not see any difference in the two parties. No matter who they vote for, they get screwed. And, sadly, that will hurt actual Democrats not just the Blue Dog/DLC scumbags who deserve to lose their seats.

[defendandprotect]

45. In my state a large number of votes are being cast by absentee ballot . . .

IMO, that may make it very easy for voters to cast some kind of a vote --

it might not be for Democrats, but it might not be a total drop out -- and

it might be a clear statement of displeasure with our right wing government.

The world didn't come pre-set with a two party system -- and as long as the

only competitition that the Democatic Party faces is from the near-fascist GOP,

then the Democratic Party will continue to move to the right.

We arrived at corporate/fascism because of the willingness to vote for "the lesser

of evils." It's long past time to change that thinking.

[No Elephants]

57. No, but Republicans and Independents voted for Obama in 2008, not only hard core Democrats.

And many members of the Democratic base are saying they will stay home in 2010 and/or 2012. I don't agree with that position, but hard core Democrats voting for a Bushie is not the only thing that can defeat Democrats.

[WriteDown]

111. And that's how the DLCer's know they have you by the short hairs. nt

[defendandprotect]

47. This is all a game -- pretense . . . the day that Obama eloped into the White House ...

with Rahm Emmanuel the corporate agenda was cemented in the administration --

Not only is this inaction on Obama's part -- it is purposeful destruction!!!

And when you look at how much would have been gained for the party itself in creating

a real universal health plan without corporations --

and how it would have benefitted the economy -- and created 2.3 million new jobs --

and saved money for our government . . .

and American lives . . .

Add that all up and you can see how sickeningly destructive it was on obama's party.

Purposefully deceptive and purposefully destructive --

:nuke:

:cry:

[howmad1]

125. And that is why, whoever the fuck is on the ballot........

....I will write in Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. Who gives a shit if a dem or rethug is elected. Their all a bunch of crooks who don't deserve my vote.

[defendandprotect]

159. Understand what you are saying . . . and ...

certainly the last 8 years of Repug destruction seems to have awakened the public....

Nader pointed that out once . . . basically saying that maybe we had to decend into

hell to understand what was really going on!!!

The problem is you have to live with the damage done in the interim!!!

Look at the damage of just those 8 years ---

IMO, liberals and progressives have to come together as a voting bloc ....

this is an overwhelmingly liberal nation -- hijacked by right wing thugs, assassins.

[suzie]

162. There are people too pure to waste their precious and important votes on voting for

against people who will do great harm to the nation.

In Florida, we've had to listen to the Nader voters whine about George Bush. Their votes did matter but in 2000 they were too self-important to vote for Gore.

However, they all re-registered as Democrats after the Debacle, and proceeded to tell the rest of us how terrible things were for 8 years and how hard we must work to get rid of George Bush.

When I read the "I'll never vote for Democrats again" kind of tripe, I think of all the people who said, "There's no difference between Gore and Bush."

Well, sorry, Naderites and all other ideological purists, there was and there will be in the future.

[defendandprotect]

183. Unfortunately, what you're repeating a lot of disinformation . . .

Here are some details which have long been understood, if you want to take the

time to read it --



Gore won no matter how you count the votes ...

Including Florida where a handful of votes decided the race --
1.

Other third parties took thousands of votes --
300,000 Florida "Democrats" voted for Bush --


More than 600 "illegal" military ballots were counted for Bush --

More than 3,000 "butterfly" ballots went to Pat Buchanan --

We had a GOP "false flag" riot that STOPPED the vote counting in Miami-Dade

County MANDATED by the Florida Supreme Court. No police interference.


AND, finally US Supreme Court Gang of 5 undermined the Florida State Supreme

Court ruling and gave decision to Bush.


HOW could you ignore all of this and buy the propaganda that it had anything to

do with Nader --???????????????????????????????????



As most of us also understand -- and as Danny Glover is now pointing out about Obama

in saying that there is little difference between Obama and Bush/see the article posted on

DU -- the Democratic Party is NOT now quite as corrupted yet as the Repugs with corporate $$.

Not yet -- but close.

But it certainly is corrupted and the road to overturning corporate/fascism is not by

continuing to vote for the "lesser of evils." We've been doing that for 40 years!!

When we say the two parties are the SAME it is not meant literally --

yes, there are differences still. But the main intent of corporates is to finally overtake

the Democratic Party and prevent it from being used as a tool of progressive reform or

progressive action and to make it as pro-fasdist as the Repug Party.

[workinclasszero]

101. I totally agree with you

But does the President realize these things? Does he even hear this point of view? I hope he doesn't learn the hard way that the DLC bluedogs have stabbed him in the back with this pathetic health care bill.

[saracat]

163. Stabbed him in the back? He is one of them and got what he wanted!

[bfarq]

175. Stabbed in the front, I guess

Somebody called a circle jerk and a knife fight broke out. Not a very welcome development.

[JustAnotherGen]

124. Well said bfarq

:-)

I will be LIVID if WHEN I leave my current position to give it all to my own business (June 2010?) I'm mandated to buy health insurance for me and potential employees from businesses that have proven TIME and AGAIN that they are:

Unethical
Rigid
Unable to meet their agreement they made with their customers
UNWILLING to meet their agreement
Deliberately and Maliciously rip off their customers at their customer's expense.


I use the word customers for a reason . . .

These people are not in health care. They do nothing for the patient. They just stand in between me and my physicians, physician's assistants, nurses, pharmaceutical chemists and biologists - and screw us all.

I live in central nj - I'm friends with a man whose brother was one of the lead scientists on Enbrel (a miracle drug for people with A.S.) - and I guarantee my friend's brother decided to put his biochemistry degree to use to HELP people. It sickens him how much the drug costs - and like him - accuse the health insurers for putting the 'system in place' that exists today.

Now will my President please wake up and realize - the Republicans are in this for longevity and distance. You can't argue with stubborn stupidity. At this point they are behaving like terrorists defending the rights of the Health Insurers to cause harm to the American people as a mass. That said, President Obama. Please stop negotiating with Terrorists!

[patrice]

143. Let us pray 1st that some Senators have actually handed Rahm their balls & 2nd that

the pResident is willing and able to bust them.

[dnricci]

144. A Theory

Just like everyone else, I am pissed at Obama over the lack of leadership he has displayed on this issue. I only have one theory about what he might do to salvage this, and God I hope he does it. What is he vetoes the bill that comes to his desk, and sends it back to congress for reconciliation. He says, "I gave congress a chance, they didn't do it. Here's what I want, medicare for all, now put it through."

While the odds of this are pretty much zero, it would restore a great deal of faith, but I unfortunately don't see that happening.

[defendandprotect]

46. And, first time I've seen it -- what you're really saying is you don't the report . . .

I don't like it either, but probably for different reasons --

Obama should be exposed for the destruction he's done here --

[omega minimo]

49. good

[Christa]

98. New to me as well

Thank you, Kpete, for posting.

[ooglymoogly]

121. Is it burning your eyes to see this? nt

[rhett o rick]

129. So did you kick all 8 zillion posts? nt

[LWolf]

141. Yet it is "Late Breaking News."

If it had been posted 8 zillion times, it wouldn't be in this forum.

[patrice]

142. I trust the breadth and depth of Feingold's perspective, so I needed this. I'm glad I didn't miss it

[DJ13]

3. CYA for his vote?

I bet there will be several others trying to point fingers in the next day or two.

Wont work, this will become another of those votes that defines our party, like those who voted to invade Iraq.

[girl gone mad]

9. Sold out again.

[defendandprotect]

48. That, too ---

This is a win/win for the right wing ---

It makes the GOP look correct because the bill is garbage --

It destroys the Democratic Party further rather than enhancing it as a true

national health care bill without corporations would have done.

It deprives our government of meaningful savings on health care --

It deprives us of job creation that a true, compassionate bill would have created.

And it reinforces our enemies -- corporatism -- with our money!!! $600 Billion/$800 billion!!!

Very destructive work by Obama and I would guess Social Security, Medicare and abortion

are all up next!!!

[Wardoc]

55. Correct on all counts. I think the thing that burns me the most is...

... that this bill is passed in OUR name. :argh:

[defendandprotect]

149. A Christmas present for the "for profit" health care industry . . .!!!

[naaman fletcher]

4. Without the public option this bill is worse than the current situaton.

It is just a bill to guarantee the insurance companies that everyone must be their customer. Now, it will be such a disaster that it will speed up the call for single payer health care, so if that is the plan then perhaps one could argue that this is a good bill, but on a stand-alone basis it sucks.

[TomCADem]

7. Republicans Have Repeatedly Said That We Should Start From Scratch...

and push for a bi-partisan bill so that there will be real reform. However, I have my doubts that the Republicans are sincere in this charge.

[Jamastiene]

39. Yeah, the Republicans have COMPLETELY different ideas of how to handle this.

I'm kind of glad the Republicans STFU. It's bad enough that a few conserva-"dems" were making demands. It would be worse if the Republicans had started making demands.

[Enthusiast]

60. The Republican objective

is to hurt President Obama and the Democrats no matter how badly it damages the country.

If the GOP returns to a majority consider the possibility of war with Iran in your future. The need to vote is greater than ever. We must elect more progressive candidates.

[No Elephants]

63. I can remember when we thought we would not have to worry about war in the Middle East if we elected

a Democrat.

Proabably the real eason why we don't have to worry about war in Iran is that our troops are already spread way too thin in Iraq, Afghanistan and (shhhh) Pakistan.

[Jackpine Radical]

109. "the possibility of war with Iran"

Rahm has a plan to head off this threat from the right. He's gonna go to war with Iran.

[Enthusiast]

182. That would be

"becoming the right". I guess that would stave off the threat, lol.

[No Elephants]

66. Republicans are insincere. Film at 11. What does that have to do with Feingold's comment, or

with whether this bill is bad?

[roguevalley]

22. I don't see how forcing everyone to buy this monopolized crap is

constitutional.

[Psephos]

31. Bill translation: "Hand your cash to insurance cos and pharma, or IRS will bust your chops."

Employed but uninsured and don't want to/can't buy insurance?

Pay a $1000 fine. Because that's cheaper by many thousands of $ per year than paying the Danegeld.

In other words, it will be a tax on being uninsured if you don't meet the poverty criteria.

Time to dust off "Not In Our Name" and put it back to use. Along with the torches and pitchforks.

[Dragonfli]

132. The Street Translation :

The Insurance Companies want to run a health protection racket that requires everyone in the neighborhood to pay up or they won't get to see a doctor. If you do not wish to pay Vinnie for "protection", Uncle Sam will provide the muscle to force you to pay.

These thugs don't treat illness, dress wounds or perform medical tests, but you have to pay them anyway, and just like any gangster running a protection racket, they provide no service yet you are under threat to pay them as much as they want, according to their terms or get your legs broken.

Anyone that would promote such an idea has nothing honest to defend it with because it is vile.
I question the motives of any apologists that would try to argue me into promoting an agenda that will directly cause harm to myself and others. I am not a republican, I care about people and don't agree with selling them out and myself with them.

Fuck them and their anti-working class pro-corporate agenda.

[Psephos]

139. well said n/t

[sabrina 1]

167. Perfectly said ~ and I'm still trying to grasp

how any Democrat could support such a racket. And even more, how anyone calling themselves a Democrat, or Progressive or whatever name we have been bullied into using these days, could act as apologists for it.

I've more than you use the term 'protection money' and don't think the Republicans won't be using it also. Check out the studies done on the smaller version of this kind of system in Massachussetts, especially what is happening to those who cannot pay. The fines have gone up. They started out three years ago around $750 then increased to over $1,000, now they are expected to go up again.

The cynical use of the IRS to collect, what is an exorbitant sum of money to the working poor, is simply Machiavellian. I would really like to know whose idea that was. Soon, we will see people jailed as a result of this bill.

But YAY, killing two birds with one stone. We get to fill more jails with the poor, whose main crime in this country, is simply being poor. Democrats did this. I never thought I'd see the day, and with barely a whimper from anyone. Democracy really isn't a viable system of government in a country like this which glorifies money above all else.

Did you notice that even those who speak out against the bill, have had very little to say about 'Mandates'. Obama once called these fines 'unethical'. Where did that guy go?

[Dragonfli]

178. I don't get it either, It will hurt many, but I know why the TV liberals don't bring up the mandate.

Where I live, and where I work (it changes because I work as a carpenter, and run into many other workers on many jobs) people only know what they hear on TV in general, They ask me questions tho because they know I am a policy wonk and do the research, many of them were convinced by me to vote Obama and are a little pissed at me right now but that is another conversation.

The ones that don't have insurance have been on pins and needles worrying about what it will cost them (they realise nothing is free and they want the coverage many once had, but had to give up because of the cost) and many people are working much less and for the same money(per/hr) they made 5 and in many cases 8 years ago (while all their bills have gone up. They once were middle class but are having trouble just making the rent or mortgage these days and don't know where the money will come from.

The questions they are asking are "do I make too much to get help from the gov't" and "if so,how much left will I have to try to come up with" The biggest question has been about co-pays, they know damn well they would have to give up food or skip a gas bill just to cover a small co-pay even if they were covered for free so what seems like small money to politicians is money that they have trouble even coming up with as NO MONEY IS LEFT OVER NOW after bills are paid and often the bills fall behind in the slower winter season, in short, they have lost all or most discretionary income.

They make too much to get medicaid, but the cost of their living is at least twice what those numbers claim is possible, so I doubt they will get much if any help , but I try not to tell them that until we know the final numbers for qualification.

Now to get to the point that has taken way too long. MOST OF THEM DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE MANDATE they remember (if anything) Obama saying he wasn't for it.

When I tell them about it they go through the roof (with no exceptions as yet)! They can't afford the coverage, the co-pays, or the poor tax and one laborer named Jason (a decent young man who just had his first child) actually came up with my comparison when he said, "FUCK THAT, It's A God-Damned Protection racket and Uncle SAM is gonna be the one to break my legs because I'm Broke!"

That is why they don't mention it.
They know their basic constituent does not follow much other than Sunday TV and I believe the think they will not realise it until it kicks in well past two elections.

Get it now?
It may even work if people like you and I do not inform the not so policy wonkish.
At least, that is my theory why you seldom hear "mandate with fines collected by IRS" on the TV and seldom will.

[sabrina 1]

179. Thank you. First thank you for understanding how

this will affect people like those you mentioned. My BF had a small business, he was a ceiling and drywall contractor. Really good with a great reputation. He could not afford healthcare, nor could any of the guys who worked with or for him. They just paid the doctor if they had to go for an injury or whatever.

All wanted coverage, which is why this garbage, first perpetrated by the rightwingnuts, and now by Obama himself, that those who are not covered are just being selfish and as Obama said (I think this is where he lost me completely after years of hearing it from rightwingnuts) 'they are a burden on the rest of us'. Playing class war games! Trying to get people at each others throats. I KNEW that the Fox News/Limbaugh crowd did this, but I never, ever dreamed I'd hear a Democratic President say it.

People keep blaming Obama's advisers for what is happening with this bill. But when I heard him say that, I KNEW finally that he was pushing the madates and the hoping to diminish any sympathy for those who might get fined, and/or end up in jail. Because they 'deserve it, selfish bastards'. That was the last straw for me with him. It is such a lie. A lie the right has been pushing for so long.

It's a lie when they say 'this bill will provide 30 million previously uninsured with coverage'. And they don't say how. In fact, when someone first said that, I actually thought it was true and was ready to support this bill.

I'm surprised the Republicans haven't used it. I would think they'd know the harm this would do to this bill if the people knew that the IRS is now a collection agency for Private Insurance. I can't think of anything less democratic than that. But then, this is a Republican's dream. They are off the hook and don't have to do it themselves. So, I suppose they are silent because they agree with it. It's their kind of thinking 'make those lazy bums pay for their own healthcare, I don't want to pay for them' and Obama agrees.

And thanks for mentioning the co-pays, that never gets mentioned either. It will make their coverage useless. All they will be doing is donating money to Private Insurance. I can see a revolt against this once the facts trickle out to people who normally get their news from TV, as you said. So, yes, I agree with you. I did wonder why it was never mentioned.

Well, I will tell everyone I know so people know what they are facing and can prepare for it.

What I'm hoping is that there will be a huge backlash and people will just refuse, as Keith Olberman said he'll do, to pay this protection money (thanks for that, I'll use it if you don't mind). Btw, he gets credit for being one of the few who did make a big deal over it.

We are screwn, as someone else said. And we had so much hope :-(

[Jefferson23]

5. Yea, we know Feingold, Obama was hands off, but don't vote for this crap.

[sharesunited]

10. Constitutionality of the mandates must be tested in a court challenge.

When the mandates are struck down, a public option or Medicare buy in will have an easier time.

[FedUp_Queer]

19. On what basis

does the constitution forbid a mandate?

[sharesunited]

23. The challenges will likely sound in the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments.

Freedom of association, due process, and equal protection.

[Jamastiene]

41. I've heard talk of it being challenged based on the 4th too.

Somewhere I read this bill will give all judges, law enforcement, and all branches of government our private information, negating the need for warrants to get it. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but if it is, someone will take them up on that too.

[No Elephants]

67. Good luck getting around the SCOTUS's rulings in the 2005 Kelo case.

Even the Republicans disagreed with that case.

I understand that was an eminent domain case, but it speaks to how government power may be used against citizens on behalf of a private entity in order to accomplish what the government deems a public purpose. True, eminent domain is different, but I don't expect the Roberts court to deprive government of power in a way that drives government toward single payer or a strong public option. I could certainly be wrong, though, and I hope to heaven I am.

[sharesunited]

134. Prohibiting government from forcing purchase of private insurance gets us closer to single payer.

You can tax the People to cover them, but you can't compel them to transact privately.

That's the way I see this going.

[golddigger]

82. If I'm not mistaken. The Tenth Amendment also applies.

[sharesunited]

135. How could I forget?

If not enumerated in the federal government, it is a power held exclusively by the states or the People.

Power to do or don't do as we see fit.

Transact at will. Or not.

Nice Catch.

[Abq_Sarah]

32. I've read the constitution and I can't seem to find that clause

That requires citizens and legal residents to purchase a product from a private company or face IRS fines or possible jail time.

I'm a small business owner. If we can be forced by law to give money to health insurance companies, why not force every person to purchase the services provided by my companies and others like it? Don't you see the problem with this?

[No Elephants]

68. I agree, but try reading the Kelo case for how the current SCOTUS may view it.

[Abq_Sarah]

148. Kelo was a bad decision

And I can easily see them making shit up on the bench. What's even more galling is we can't even blame the right for that.

[fascisthunter]

146. Forget about the Constitutionality.... it's fascist

to force Americans to pay for a service by any private industry.

[SergeStorms]

71. Then wouldn't Social Security and Medicare...........

go right out the door if mandates are struck down? They're mandates as well. There won't be anything left to buy into, will there? The GOP will be in hog heaven, Social Security GONE, Medicare GONE, health care reform GONE. And all of that money freed up for the corporate raiders to steal from the American taxpayers. I doesn't seem to me that a SC challenge against mandates would be beneficial for Americans. Wouldn't we be throwing the baby out with the bath water on that, or am I missing something? :shrug:

[No Elephants]

74. Government's mandating that you buy something from government is very different from

government mandating that you buy something from private companies.

Government can also tax you. Whether it can tax you more for not buying from private companies is another issue. IMO, it should not be able to, but the Republican SCOTUS may think differently. See Replies 68 and 69.

[SergeStorms]

180. OK.........

thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that these mandates were that different. I was thinking of we gave the GOP an opening to do away with mandates they'd take it (as always) too far. Thanks again. :hi:

[fascisthunter]

147. A mandate that is tied to the Solution of Americans helping Americans

is CONSTITUTIONAL(, and a big difference between that and paying for a service by a private industry. To NOT have a social programs you mentioned would put us right back where we were before the Great Depression... fun times huh? There's a very good and practical reason for social programs that most greedy self-centered people ignore.

"Preamble Note

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

Forcing people to buy a service that denies you service due to any reason this provider decides is not helping society or the person who has to pay for a service they are rejected from having. It helps the private sector and no one else. In fact, it's forcing Americans to pay out of their ass way more for what it would cost the government and tax payer.

HUGE DIFFERENCE!

[SergeStorms]

181. Thanks for the clarification........

I was just worried that if the GOP were given the idea that they could strip every mandate from our government that.........they would. :shrug:
I don't want to give those bastards an inch of rope to work with. :hi:

[fascisthunter]

184. I hear ya man

have a Merry Christmas or Holiday... we all need it.

[ectingley]

11. Health Care

Obama doesn't have the power to do more.  Let's all accept
this as a tiny first step and see what happens.  This is
politics, the art of the possible. 

[mikesm]

15. The art of the possible is not what we voted for!

That's what the folks invested in the status quo always say - "we did the best we could and this is what's possible." Where were the Presidential news conferences going direct to the people? If the WH and Reid were throwing billions of dollars to the blue dogs to get them to vote for this, why not throw them billions of dollars to vote for single payer?

I've never really participated in this kind of forum before, but this sellout got me motivated to find like minded people to share my pain with. But I know if we called up Feingold and the rest and told them that we were no longer going to write checks for those who settle for "the art of the possible", then this bill would die!

[Left Coast2020]

16. Then we should be out in the streets

of Washington and express how pissed off we really are--while at the same time finding ways to get rid of Liar-berman, Nelson, Backass (a total whore), Lincoln, and Landrieu.

[No Elephants]

70. We should be. And we should have planned ahead to be there NOW because

they've been talking about a vote before Christmas for weeks.

Did we? No.

We are sheeple and therefore we deserve whatever we get (or don't get).

[bertman]

21. Welcome to DU, mikesm. A big part of the problem is that it's so much easier for these

elected officials to get humongous checks from fabulously wealthy corporations than it is to raise the same amount of money from working folks. Plus, the incumbents know that going against the corporations means that they will face huge, well-funded opposition not only from the corporate donors, but from the Corporate Democrats like the DLC.

I agree with your sentiments and have sent many emails to my Senator who is a Democrat. If I say I'm not going to contribute because of this issue and she goes against my wishes, do I have any leverage whatsoever on the next big issue that I email her about? But when that lobbyist from United Healthcare or Cigna stops by and says please please vote for our bill and we'll see that you get $500,000 for your upcoming campaign, she knows that she can milk the lobbyists from Goldman Sachs on the NEXT bill, and the lobbyists for Exxon on the NEXT bill--meanwhile, I'm tapped out.

So much for democracy in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Third Doctor]

24. Apparently

this is the land of the heartless and home of the paid. Wagering human lives for a profit margin is disgusting and sadly a large part of the population thinks it's fine until something happens to them.

[bertman]

33. It's been the "land of the heartless and home of the paid" for quite some time now.

I'm hoping we can stop that trend in its tracks, but it's gonna be a long, hard slog.

Welcome to DU, Third Doctor. I don't believe I've seen one of your posts before. You are surely right that most of us don't empathize until it happens to us--or at least someone we know well.

[Joe Chi Minh]

157. Are all the DLC that venal and meretricious? I'm not denying it, but if it is,

the case, even given the politician's defining naked, personal ambition, it would be a sorry thing.

[clear eye]

166. Link to main single payer activist site (if anyone cares).

There is a lot of talk about getting out on the streets and lack of plans for the same. There are people doing that very thing now, and planning for more in the future. If you want to put your feet where your typing fingers are (o.k., poor metaphor) go to:

Mobilization for Healthcare for All's list of local networks, make contact and see what you can join in on.

Of course a massive demonstration in DC in the next few days before the final vote is impossible. It's hard to blame anyone because most (although not all) Democrats and other progressives were hoping to be able to support the final bill until a couple of days ago, so weren't ready to sign up to go on busses or arrange for carpools to DC. Some of us veterans saw the direction this thing was taking almost from the start, but nowhere near enough of us.

Also, phone calls, emails, and faxes may not seem very effective, but they are better than nothing.

[dflprincess]

37. Sadly, we can't write checks big enough to influence them (n/t)

[No Elephants]

62. Something is not true simply because you post it. The guy who is both the

POTUS and the head of the Democratic Party--and who WAS a very popular President when this clusterfuck started--has a lot of power, especially among his fellow Democrats. And, with all due respect, I think people like Feingold, the House Black Caucus and the House Progressive Caucus, the Senate Majority Leader, and others, may just understand how the process works and the President's role in it and they all chided him for inaction and/or begged him for more action.

As far as the "tiny first step," things will get better in the future, that is more unfounded baloney. Democrats have an overwheliming majority in the House, most of whom are members of the Progressive Caucus, the Democratic Senate Caucus has 60 Senators and a Democrat controls both the Executive Branch and the Democratic Party. When this process started, they had 80% public support for a strong public option, too.

If, with all that, the best they managed is a "tiny step," what on earth suggests that the future, when Democrats will have less than that, is going to be brighter?

The truth is, when this process started, Democrats had the best chance anyone has ever had to get an excellent bill passed. They not only failed, but they did so in a way that made them look ridiculous and ineffectual.

Another country would have rioted over a bill like this. We say untrue things to avoid having the people responsible for this bill criticized.

Democrats need to stop making unfounded excuses for the people they put in office and start holding them accountable.

[pattmarty]

104. WHAT???????????????????

[eridani]

12. Makes people 50-64 second class citizens

Taxes union-negotiated health care benefits
Forces us to pay outrageous prices for drugs
Has no cost oontainment--insurance fuckers can keep screwing us with today's unconscionable rates as long as the percentage increase slows.

[Abq_Sarah]

13. Nonsense

The fault belongs to Reid and Pelosi.

[Confusious]

20. Reid Pelosi AND OBAMA

Like it or not, he OWNS this stinking pile. And if he didn't want to OWN it, he should have opened his damn mouth.

But, here's the thing. He wanted this stinking pile to turn out the way it did.

So in the end, he BOUGHT AND PAID for it, with our dime, and stinking mandates.

[bjobotts]

30. You're right except the future holds more ins regulation coming.You'll see.

Once the whole bill passes certain amendments can then be passed via reconciliation. This is far from being over. Necessity demands more reform and it will come. This bill is only the start...the first in 40yrs. This tree is part of a much larger forest. Judgment should be reserved until after this bill is passed and we see what happens next.

[No Elephants]

78. Please see Reply 63.

I am not ruling out that this bill will get better before Obama signs it. I very much doubt, though, that Democrats are going to improve things much any time soon after it passes, though. Hell, they even knocked the monopoly provision out of the bill.

A number of Republicans insist that Bush will, in the future, be deemed one of the best Presidents ever. That statement is a lot like yours. It cannot be proven or disproven by anyone who does not have a crystal ball, but most past evidence does not support it.

[No Elephants]

77. Of course. Feingold understands nothing about legislation. And Obama is never responsible

for anything. Please see Reply 63,

[katkat]

90. don't bash Pelosi

She's actually the only decent one in the leadership pack.

[orwell]

14. What a moron...n/t

[tiredtoo]

17. After further review

I have decided to voice support for the bill. I am sitting here at 11:50 pm watching c-span and all the repugs are still fighting with every breath they have against the bill. I even got an e-mail from someone asking me to email or call my senators at this late hour and ask them to vote against the bill. Stop socialism now or something in that order. Well I figured with all the repug dislike of this bill it has to have something good for us common folks.

[No Elephants]

76. Sorry, but that is very poor reasoning. That's like saying, "If everyone is

criticizing him, he must be doing something right."

The Republicans decided before this bill even took form that they would object to everything Obama tried to do, especially health care. So, their opposition says absolutely NOTHING about the contents of the bill.

This bill is a transfer of wealth to an industry that is already obscenely wealthy--and it got that way by gouging Americans, then letting them die.

Does it have ANY shred of something good? Well, pre-existing conditions, but the insurers can charge a bundle. I am happy to take the word of Dr. Dean, who not is not only a physician and a Democrat, but also wrote an entire book on this subject.

Or, you could look at the records health insurance stock prices broke last week, when it REALLY started looking as though this bill would pass. That should tell you who the main beneficiaries of this bill will be--and it ain't John and Jane Q. Public (unless, of course, they own stock in health insurance companies).

[katkat]

92. tiredtoo

The Repukes realize when people find themselves mandated to pay huge sums to the insurance companies, they will remember (or be reminded) who passed this bill and who fought against it.

I'm sure the Repukes want this bill in its current form for their masters, so for them it's win-win, since they can't stop it any more than we can.

[wial]

29. perhaps the biggest misunderstanding in the past few years

is the idea Rahm Emanuel deserved the credit for the victories in 2006. From my perspective, he might have worked hard along with the rest of us, but it was almost all a grassroots, netroots effort.

The sudden collapse of the Howard Dean campaign prior to that made them think we don't need to be taken seriously.

Maybe they'll get the point when they discover in 2010 they've lost our support, but let's try not to let it come to that because the GOP remains deeply ignorant of real issues and incompetent at an epic scale.

How can we discipline the DLC (and their corporate handlers) without letting even worse people back into power?

Answer is simple enough. Kick them to the curb in the primaries. Failing that, beat them in the generals by electing people like Bernie Sanders.

[democracy1st]

34. K & R

[Azathoth]

35. Sure Russ, if only Obama had tried just a little harder, that woulda changed Holy Joe's mind

Even Paul Krugman is calling bullshit on this "if only he tried harder!" whining.

[clear eye]

40. Watch this week's Bill Moyers Journal. It's still online.

Bob Kuttner & Matt Taibbi talk about early behind the scenes deal cut w/ Big Pharma, and a President missing in action when the time came to to twist the arms of Dems who were acting like loose cannons about the public option. Google Pres. Lyndon Johnson and the creation of Medicare to see how a President acts when he really want something passed that upsets a big special interest. The only meetings Obama held were to make deals w/ those who wanted to weaken the bill, and ride herd on more progressive Senators to demand they stay on board no matter how bad the bill is for individuals.

Krugman did the same thing w/ the bank bailout when others were calling for Congress to hold hearings w/ prominent economists not directly connected w/ Wall Street. He said the bill was pretty bad but Congress had to vote for it right away, anyhow. Look how that turned out.

BTW, I put put people on ignore who accuse those they disagree w/ of "whining". If it's the only way you know how to argue, I'm not interested.

[No Elephants]

86. Yes. And the week Moyers interviewed Potter, too. Links to transcripts....

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/transcript4.html (December 18)

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/transcript1.html (Potter)

[ima_sinnic]

59. do you also believe the myths about unicorns and rainbows?

yeah, "it's all joe lieberman's fault."

Obama fought soooo hard--I mean, I remember all those eloquent speeches, those passionate messages to the nation about the details of a public option, AFTER he ensured that single-payer advocates DID "have a place at the table" and met with doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, etc. to find out exactly how that could work--and he explained that as well as a "public option" in detail--the way it would boost the economy, the way it would help to curb the wasteful, greedy corporations, the way it would be funded (by a very slight increase of wealthy people's taxes, since they pay hardly anything now), the way it would make health care truly affordable and available to all--I remember how he went on a major cross-country trip that was so well-publicized and so talked about you had to be in a coma to miss it, the crowds in the arenas--those same young people who got him elected, who came out like an army because he had defined it and shared his vision of it so compellingly and so sensibly ...

And he worked overtime behind the scenes, twisting arms, using his political capital and bully pulpit to remind congresspeople who might or might not be endorsed in their next election, stuff like that ...


NOT

quite the opposite, actually. Maybe we should blame Max Baucus, eh?

Why aren't we just shutting up instead of believing a "clever" slogan like "Yes We Canà" after all? Since he's ripped off so many of Howard Dean's ideas already, I guess he's going to wait until 2012 to bring out "People Powered Obama" and hope nobody remembers who first thought of it or how his last empty slogans meant shit.

[Azathoth]

65. Yup, it's Joe Lieberman's fault

The Senate kinda works that way. One dude with a vendetta can f*ck over the entire country. And sadly, I don't think "arm twisting" from Obama would have had much effect on Joe, considering he ain't a Dem in the first place.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to throw a juvenile tantrum and delude yourself into believing that if only -- Oh, if only! -- Obama had staged a multi-million-dollar cross-country Peoples' Revolution Extravaganza stadium tour complete with elephants, lions, flamingos, and a circus troupe courtesy of Cirque de Soleil, why that would have magically melted the hearts of Holy Joe and Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. It's so much easier to convince yourself of that, isn't it? Sort of like convincing yourself that the election was "stolen" every time a guy you don't like wins. So much easier than facing the hard truth that you just didn't have the f*cking votes to get what you wanted.

[ima_sinnic]

69. I wonder what would have happened in 1963-64 if LBJ had had such a laissez faire attitude?

Before being passed into law about one year after the then-president, John Kennedy, introduced a bill into Congress, it was mightily obstructed, including an early attempt by a racist Democrat from VA to tie it up in committee and a more than 50-day filibuster by Republicans. It is widely known and acknowledged that LBJ's use of his bully pulpit as well as his influence on voters' opinions because of his wide publicizing of the need for the bill--even with the wildly unpopular potential for forced integration (you do remember the "bussing" thing, right?) and the blatant racist politicians making a big point of resisting the legislation, passing out axe handles for beating black people with and calling out squads with high-pressure hoses to bust up demonstrations--

well, blacks and other minorities would still be riding in the back of the bus in your little lalaland, where the most powerful person in the most powerful country in the world really has no influence over anything that happens in Congress, because a few obstructionists would have "made it impossible"--THAT would have been a fact if nobody was breathing down their necks.

I guess some presidents are just stronger, more experienced, and more influential than others, eh? Next time a candidate is criticized as being "too inexperienced," I'm going to pay attention.

[Azathoth]

80. Your history is a little faulty (no surprise there)

(1) The filibuster was led by DEMOCRATS, not Republicans.

(2) LBJ had something like 67 or 68 Democrats to work with in the Senate, not 59 like Obama does.

(3) Despite all his famous "arm-twisting", he didn't get a single southern Democratic vote in the Senate.

(4) The votes that pushed it through came from northern Rockefeller Republicans. In other words, LBJ had the benefit not just of a Democratic supermajority, but also of having a minority party with a sane faction that came from northern states where civil rights was not a four-letter word. Even then, the final bill was a compromise.

(5) The real "public pressure" didn't come from LBJ but rather from the civil rights movement, especially MLK. Get back to me when there is a public-option movement comparable to the civil rights movement with a leader comparable to MLK. In fact, get back to me when you can come up with any valid historical comparison at all.

[ima_sinnic]

83. awww, everybody & everytning is soooo against what Obama "wanted"

or were they?

keep telling yourself how he was thwarted at every turn even though he sooo "passionately" wanted a public option.

he got what HE wanted, all right--it's just not what WE wanted, but "we" were nonentities beginning on 11/05/08, the day after our vote had been charmed and swindled out of us by the meaningless slogan stolen from Howard Dean of Yes We Can. After that, the only people who mattered were the CEOs on Wall St and of pharmaceutical co's, insurance co's, weapons mfrs, etc. ad nauseum--you know, the haves and have-mores? those champagne glasses have been clinking for a couple of days now, in Cuban-cigar-smoke-filled rooms. His "campaign chest" overfloweth!

[No Elephants]

89. Your history is faulty too.

Some Republicans voted for the bill, yes, but not enough to carry it. Democrats, other than Southern Democrats carried it. The vote split along regional lines more than it split along Party lines.

And plenty of pressure came from LBJ. The public in general was not for equal rights. African Americans certainly were, and liberals of both parties. And, the assassination of JFK played an important role, too. ("HE would have wanted it this way.")

LBJ was working against racial bigots, though. Not exactly comparable to something that had very strong public support from folks all over the country until Democrats failed to pass anything for months. (Though I do appreciate that you are not the one who claiming the two situations are comparable).

Please see also Reply 63.

[Azathoth]

97. Actually, my history is impeccable (or at least reasonably accurate)

The civil rights act went through because of support from the Rockefeller Republicans. The entire southern block of Democratic senators opposed it to the bitter end. If LBJ had had to rely solely on his own party for support, the civil rights act as we know it would not exist, and that's really the bottom line.

Lieberman made it very clear that he wasn't interested in what the people wanted or even in what the insurance companies wanted. He flat out admitted that he was doing what he was doing in order to stick a knife in the collective back of his political enemies. You're not gonna "arm twist" a guy like that, especially when you can't even threaten a primary challenge. The idea that Obama could somehow have "willed" him to change his mind, which many around here now seem to be taking as an article of faith, is ridiculous and self-deluding. Progressives are quite simply having a temper tantrum because Obama did not validate their obsession with the public option by launching a massive campaign and threatening to sink the entire bill if that one provision was removed.

[No Elephants]

94. No. The people were already in favor of a strong public option. Please see

Replies 63 and 86 as to what could have been done and is routinely done.

[jonestonesusa]

136. It's a virtue to admit when you're wrong - as in the history points brought up.

The history points were made well about both the strength of the public movement in favor of Civil Rights and the fact that the minority party actually had enough crossover votes to make passage possible, unlike today. Irrefutable points. If we had a stronger grassroots movement and a minority party with a wee bit of vision, it would be a significantly different climate. President Obama could still have been more actively involved in the health care debate - I agree with you and most of the board on that - but it's still true that the social climate is significantly different in 2010 vs. 1964 - in 1964 we were better prepared for a paradigm shift on civil rights. Obama needs to reread his history too, listen to liberals and idealists in his own party, and let himself be transformed by strong public need and a governing vision - these things also happened in the course of the JFK presidency (also a very young man when he was elected) and of course, LBJ had his own significant moments of personal growth as well before the civil rights bill.

[freddie mertz]

103. We'll never know, will we? Obama gave up all his cards before the game even started.

He either didn't want the public option in the first place (in which case he lied) or didn't care about it one way or another (in which case he lied).

Take your pick.

[LaPera]

38. Obama got exactly the bill he wanted & Lieberman helped him get it!

Obama & Emanuel maneuvered it perfectly, with Snow, the blue-dogs & finally at the last minute, Lieberman...They knew all this and how it would come down, just like they should of and maneuvered accordingly, with WH leaks & denials and finally pressure to make Lieberman's concessions.

No wonder why old Lieberman still has his chairmanship.

Obama the DLC corporations man - The banks, insurance corporations, weapons makers, (war mongers) corporate military profiteers, media conglomerates, coal & oil industry all come before the people, especially the progressives, but Obama never fails to toss the workers a few crumbs as their taxes go predominantly to the corporations, certainly not the people.

Now we see why Obama never fought hard for the public option, he just walked away gave the public option some lip service and then just let the senate negotiations get out of hand...

Obama got exactly the bill he really wanted....it doesn't hurt (but helps) the insurance companies and there's some crumbs for the people....

This what he does...a complete turn around of what he campaigned for to get that huge progressive voting block and then, yes, tosses us some crumbs each time, but sometimes not even that!

Obama just slid the bill right on by the Democratic progressives, they wouldn't pay much attention nor really care as long as a bill, any bill Obama said was good we'd accept it and he knew we would be cheering at the photo-op signing of the bill and then at State of the Union address next month in which Obama will call the bill health care "REFORM"!

We've been taken, again.

[Azathoth]

50. Ah, so Obama wasn't weak. He was actually a Machiavellian mastermind controlling everyone

from behind the scenes in order to serve his DLC/corporate/Goldman Sachs/illuminati masters! It makes perfect sense! :crazy:

I tell ya, watching the Left suicide itself like this is a harrowing experience.

[ima_sinnic]

61. yeah, I can tell how "harrowing" it is for poor widdle you

your distortions are duly noted. Luckily you're not part of the suicide pact, eh?

[ima_sinnic]

72. +++1 you nailed it

[soryang]

174. Exactly!

As a financial sector protege, he is a machiavellian tool of the Friedmanite ideologues. He's doing more to privatize war than Bushco! No health care reform can be a direct pay system because this diverts funds (insurance premiums) from private corporate coffers and by extension from Wall St. There is no way they are going to give up billions to direct pay health care plans. If you have trouble with your private insurer, you will have to do what you did before, hire a lawyer to sue them. But you won't be able to because you will be bankrupt. Maybe you could go on the medicaid rolls.

To campare the senate plan to the achievements of social security or medicare in the past is fraud pure and simple.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

42. Obama's lack of leadership is still shocking to me.

I don't know how he'll be able to look into the camera and tell us what a great job he did.
As much as I hated the guy that called him a liar, I would have to bite my tongue if I were
in the audience.

[katkat]

88. EmeraldCityGrl

I'm thinking of getting a tshirt:

I'm a Democrat, and I apologize to Joe Wilson

[defendandprotect]

43. Another backing for "lesser of evils" . . . and it's foolish . . .

[defendandprotect]

44. This was, of course, obvious . . . and very destructive by Obama and forces in White House ....

the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle.

But that's what the right wing -- corporatism -- is all about -- destroying.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

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

[yurbud]

52. k & r

[midnight]

54. President Obama was for public option now he isn't.

Sen. Feingold want's the voters to know the President is the one in charge of this bill. The President needs to explain to the voter why he gave the insurance co. a sweet heart deal?

[tavalon]

73. Welcome to the underside of the bus, Senator Feingold

I trust you've met Dr. Dean before? Sorry, it's so crowded under here. A lot of us have started, to, um, have doubts.

[pampango]

79. Agree on both - support for the bill & responsibility for loss of PO. If Feingold and Sanders

vote for this, they must think it's better than nothing or starting from scratch. And if Obama had fought for the PO, while that doesn't come with any guarantee, it would have had a good shot at surviving.

[No Elephants]

84. Obama controls the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party right now controls

campaign money, federal money (for the jobs and pet projects of the voters back home) and the Democratic Party stars who show up in home states and campaign (see, for example, Lieberman's primary race against Lamont). The Democrats also have a HUGE impact on public opinion, being able to command almost any kind of talking head show or interview, etc. they want.

If Obama and the Democratic Party had put muscle into this, there is no reason they could not have had a meaningul public option. Just look at what they did to the reimportation of drugs bill, and how fast they did it.

this "Democrats are so weak right now, they are powerless against the Blue Dogs and Republicans" tune is ridiculous, although this kabuki theater clusterfuck has weakened them.

See also http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/transcript4.html

On edit: Forgot to mention: Obviously, Democrats also now control committee assignments and chairs.

[pampango]

93. Not sure how much Obama can lean on Sanders, since he not a Democrat. You don't give Feingold

much credit for having a progressive backbone. Maybe you're right.

[No Elephants]

95. Does Sanders chair anything? Does Sanders sit on any important committees?

Do the people in Sanders's state need federal money for anything?

If no one leaned, I don't know how to explain why people like Weiner, Sanders and Feingold suddenly dropped their opposition. While Feingold has not been as vocal as, say, Dean or Jay Rockefeller, Sanders had been all over MSNBC opposing this bill and, as late as December 15 was saying, let's just pass Kennedy's bill. (If you recall, Kennedy's bill had a public option.)

You seem to give Obama and the Democratic Party and leadership, holding all the power they currently do, much less credit than I give Feingold. But, I don't think you're right.

[pampango]

99. I guess we're the battling givers-of-no-credit.

:)

I just don't think Sanders is so worried about his seat that he would support the bill (not love it) if he thought that killing it and starting over was better for HCR.

"I don't know how to explain why people like Weiner, Sanders and Feingold suddenly dropped their opposition". As with most legislation, politicians argue and lobby to get what they want in legislation and try to get as much in as they can. When a final bill emerges each has to decide whether it resembles what they wanted (since no bill will ever be totally what an individual legislator wants) to vote for it.

If the bill is too much different in a bad way, he or she will vote against it. If it is close enough to what they want or they decide that getting nothing is worse than the actual bill for some reason, they will vote for it.

Will they get lobbied from the administration and others to support this bill? Sure. Will they get lobbied by those opposed to the bill to vote against it? Sure. Does that mean they throw their principles out the window on every vote? If so, why should be bother to support alternative progressive Democratic candidates, if their principles don't matter because they are going to abandon them as soon as the administration or someone on the other side lobbies them. If Feingold and Sanders can't stand heat, who can?

Basically, when progressives in Congress vote for something that every republican votes against, I try to give the issue a second look and see if I can give those progressives the benefit of the doubt. In the House many here didn't like their HCR bill (until they see what a really stinky HCR bill looks like now) thinking House Democrats caved on everything, even though 95% of the Progressive Caucus voted for the House bill and 99% of the repubs voted against it. Now it looks like the Progressive Caucus might have had some clue after all about what it was doing.

[No Elephants]

81. Late "converts" to this bill include Sanders, Feingold and Weiner. Wonder who the WH

and the rest of the Democratic leadership REALLY leaned on?

[ima_sinnic]

85. really--instead of using his bully pulpit on repukes and blue dogs--

well, we get the picture now.

[INdemo]

91. No.....Its Emanuel

He is over his head as Chief of Staff..He does not have a clue as to how to push legislation through.

[No Elephants]

96. Emmanuel, Mr. DLC and New Democrat? This bill is tailor made for him.

Please see the transcipt for this weekend's Bill Moyers' Journal. I linked it in Reply 88.

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

102. 2 Points

One - what comes out the conference committee may look quite a bit different then the Senate version.
Two - Everyone is assuming because it passed the Senate the final version will pass the House. It only passed the House by 3 votes. All it takes is a few progressives to change their votes and the law will not pass. I would like to see some progressives in the House say - No public option or no medicare expansion and we are not voting for it. If useless blue dog senators can do it so can progressive house members.

[FarLeftFist]

105. FEINGOLD: STOP POINTING FINGERS

Yes, we all want a public option. Obama had been very vocal about it. Unfortunately these "NO" vote senators were not budging. Unless you want this debate to last until 2012 compromises must be made.
This is not the end of HC reform, it is only the beginning. If Obama wasn't so adamant about reforming HC none of you would even be in the position your in to pass historic legislation. Our senators would still just be getting paid with our tax dollars to DO NOTHING. That's the republicans job. Stop pointing fingers, we didn't see you trying to twist some arms in the senate. Maybe it was your fault Feingold, maybe your debating skills aren't up to par enough to sway the jury.

[ima_sinnic]

107. can you provide links to where Obama was "very vocal" about a public option?

thanks. I must have missed that.

[FarLeftFist]

108. Just a quick google search before I go to work, don't have time to list them all

Could he have been more vocal? Probably. Are 30 million people uninsured? Yes. Was the senate willing to compromise? No.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64529-obama-working-on-getting-public-option-votes-in-senate

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-06-obama-aflcio_N.htm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/president-will-make-case-for-public-option-wednesday-night.html

[freddie mertz]

110. Weak, qualified, vague, ready to give it up.

That is what every one of those links makes clear.

I am sure Max, Joe, and Ben were paying close attention.

[ima_sinnic]

115. the first one is just someone "saying" he's "working hard on it"--that is not "evidence"

The next one, USAToday, is a report on a speech he gave in Ohio--he mentions that he "continues to support a public option," but it also notes that he wasn't going to "tip his hand" about what he'd talk to Congress about. Notice he used the term "government option"--a nice subtle way to raise the ire of teabaggers. It doesn't say anywhere that he went into any details about what a "govt. option" really MEANT in the speech, or how it would really work, let alone use his well-known skills in oratory and persuasion to focus on that and get the crowd really wanting it (everybody who's even simply googled "marketing" knows you have to first make the buyer aware of a need, usually through fear in some subtle way, then describe how the thing you're selling is going to fill that need, from every angle), so they would be excited about it to their neighbors, call their congressmen, write LTTEs, and be equipped to respond to the moronic distortions of the teabaggers. Of course, it might not have been mentioned in the report--I'm sure the speech can be found, and I predict there is nothing like that in it. So I don't see any evidence of being "very vocal" there.

In the third article, "Gibbs says the President will make the case for a public option in his speech to Congress on Wednesday but he won't issue a veto threat if it isn't in the final package."

that's all I needed to know, thanks, just confirms what I've been saying all along, he "made a show" of being "very vocal" about an unexplained, undetailed "public option," but it was never anything he REALLY wanted. He made sure Gibbs "reassured" everybody that it wasn't a deal breaker or anything, just a nice-sounding bone he threw to the public while reviewing exactly how much his "war chest" could expect to make from that effort.

[AllyCat]

113. While I agree with Feingold, I am disheartened he will still vote for this bill

I don't think anything is ever going to get fixed in this law later on. This gives insurance so much power they will not be ready to give up anything "later". I want them to fix this or kill it. They won't do either and many of my friends will be required to buy terrible insurance they can't afford. People with pre-existing conditions will be "offered" a policy they can't afford with huge deductibles. This bill won't help most of the people who need the help. Yet Feingold will vote for this any way. I'm hanging my hopes on Burris to stop this monstrosity.

[FarLeftFist]

120. So is Feingold a hypocrite, an attention whore or....

A liar.

[freddie mertz]

161. You guys are so CRAZY!

He's made a decision based on the options before him.

I don't judge him for that.

I blame the administration for this mess, not the senators who tried to get something better.

[AllyCat]

176. I'd say they all are at this point. All 100 of 'em

[DisgustedInMN]

116. I suggest you take a reality break.

Obama has been almost silent regarding the PO, and as is linked elsewhere, during the debates with H Clinton OPPOSED mandates. I not only voted for this guy, I carried water for him in our CD Caucuses here, and have defended him even when I wasn't really behind something he did. This has opened my eyes, WIDE. Barack Obama is just another run of the mill, corporate politician, willing to say anything during the campaign to get elected, and equally willing to turn his back on those of us that put him where he is, without batting an eye.

THIS IS NOT THE CHANGE I WORKED FOR.

Be advised Barack Obama, there are MANY, MANY others just like me, and we will NOT forget that you sold us out.

[FarLeftFist]

119. OK, so your all right then...

And killing the bill will ensure the Dems will will in 2010...Riiiiight. Let's just keep the status quo and let the insurance companies keep denying people with pre-existing conditions and dropping coverage of others. Oh, and the 30 million...who cares about them too right? Kill the bill=RW rhetoric. Just like every other bill before this there is room for improvement. We have to fight for every inch and every victory as we try and progress America forward. I believe we will see a public option in the future. Just like the republicans I doubt many of you have even read 500 pages of the 2000 page bill. There is alot of good in the bill that will change people's lives for the better. But I guess "killing" the bill will make most of you happy.
That is until you have a republican majority in the house and senate, then you will be on here complaining about that too, and those inches we fought for will be taken hundreds of feet backwards. It is not the President's job to strong-arm people into casting a vote their conscience doesn't believe in. We know after months of debate these senators were not budging on the public option, so what is your solution for making the impossible happen in the senate? Reconciliation won't allow a public option to be used, so I would love to hear your strategies of passing legislation including a public option. Please share your secret, then immediately email it to the WH.

[ima_sinnic]

122. lol! you actually use "conscience" as a word applying to people in Congressf

I won't be on here complaining about a republican majority in the house and senate, which in effect we have now anyway, because I just won't give a rat's ass. The system is corrupt and broken and only functions as an enabling agent for legalized corporate plunder and funnel for tax dollars to private coffers. The "republican majority" we're all being held hostage to could be the coup de grâce, the final eating away of the foundations by the putrid core spreading outward. so let it fall, because it's going to anyway, and I'd rather it was sooner than later.

[FarLeftFist]

127. I don't see your point. Every progressive senator has signed on to this bill.

So are you believing foxnews talking points or RW rhetoric? Corporatism isn't bad, unregulated corporatism is. Corporations employ a lot of our citizens. This bill does a lot to regulate their business practices. I am a realist that knows this country functions as an enabling agent, knowing that, it's good to finally be able to hold some of their practices actions accountable, which this bill does. It also leaves the door open to further improvements. This isn't the end of HC reform, this is the beginning of HC reform. Like I said, I believe we will have a public option in the future.
Vote for more progressive senators. This bill does do a lot of good too, even put's us on a path of being able to implement a public option. A non-existent bill won't.

[BootinUp]

165. +1

When I see some intelligent discussion on DU I try to point it out.

:)

[DisgustedInMN]

123. I'll pass on the browbeating, thank you very much.

And I'm tired of no balls excuses being made for the guy I was led to be bringing "Change You Can Believe In." I was played for a fool and it PISSES ME OFF, and it WON'T happen again. You insulting my intelligence sure as fuck won't change that.

Mandating participation in unaffordable, private, for profit scams with punitive measures for not, ISN'T "covering 30 million people." It's rape of those that can't defend themselves.

[FarLeftFist]

130. Sorry you felt insulted.

Not my intent. I didn't realize you felt you were played for a fool. I am an anti-republican, so I don't have too much of a choice on election day. I am against every principle the GOP stands for. I'm just a realist that knows politics is just a brand.

[DisgustedInMN]

133. Correction

I didn't "feel" I was played for a fool, I was. Won't happen again.

[JohnWxy]

112. The estimate of savings loss is very conservative. It doesn't estimate how much cost increases by

Insurers would have been avoided with the threat of losing customers to the Public Option being present to keep For-Profit Insurers honest.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see cost increases (that would have not occurred had the PO been in there) of 5 times the estimate of 'hard' savings mentioned in article (over the 2010-2019 period).

Recommmended.

[SandWalker1984]

126. Senator, if you vote for the bill, YOU own it!

I received this email from firedoglake today:


The Senate's health care bill must be killed.

It is an ungodly mess of errors, loopholes, and massive giveaways. When the American people find out what's actually in this bill, they will revolt. Congress and President Obama have no choice but to do better for health care than this bill.

Sign the petition: the Senate health care bill must be killed.

How bad is the bill?

Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations -- whether you want to or not.

If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.

After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.

Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits -- like an end to discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions -- until 2014 when the program begins.

Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.

Grants monopolies to to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.

The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of 4 will rise an average of $1000 a year -- meaning in 10 years, you family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

I could go on, but it should be clear: this is not reform. This is a con job.

Sign our petition: kill the Senate bill. http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/killthisbill?source=email&subsource=122109


Make no mistake, we need health care reform. But the Senate's idea of reform is a disaster, and will make things far worse than they are today.


We will continue to fight for real health care reform. Now, we must kill this fake reform.

Thanks for all you do.

Jane Hamsher

Firedoglake


P.S. Please, after you've signed, forward this email to your friends, family, coworkers - anyone you know. It's critical we act fast to kill the Senate bill, and we need everyone we can on board.

[mzmolly]

128. I could swear various Senators opposed the public option

and we had to get them on board to prevent a filibuster?

[thelordofhell]

137. I guess Russ wants the Executive branch to make the law?

Is he advocating for the Unitary Executive?

[newtothegame]

145. I am so offended at this...

Alot of people spent alot of time making really cool collector's plates and t-shirts for this President's historic election, and now you're ruining it...

:sarcasm:

[RollWithIt]

150. This just doesn't pass the smell test.... Obama doesn't CONTROL the Hill...

He doesn't control how people vote. He doesn't control the Ammendment process. He can come on, give a speech, or have a breakfast with the politicians on the Hill but it's not possible for him to force anyone to do anything.

[Bleacher Creature]

151. Shhhhhh!!!!

You're going to ruin a perfectly good hissy fit.

[Lorien]

153. BushCo sure did. nt

[high density]

164. Well Obama isn't Bush NM

[Fire1]

173. Not according to many of the experts on this board!

I guess he could have hog tied 'em and put a gun to their head!:sarcasm:

[Phlem]

156. So, I'm thinking

There's really no left and right as the underlying agenda doesn't seem to change no matter who's in office. Democrats and Republicans are just puppets for us to pit each other against and not focus on the what's really going on. They're puppet actors in this political soap opera we call government.
And the wheel goes round and round.

Just an observation, doesn't mean I know shit about anything.

-phlem

[Fire1]

171. That's right, Russ. You've got to take tthe good with the bad.

Nothing is perfect and it's a damned sight better than what we have now.

[truthisfreedom]

177. I think it's a tactic. I think Obama wants to get the bill signed in any form at all,

then let the word get out that it's a bad bill, and modify it over time to get what he really wants. It's a massive boost for Democrats if he can get it passed at all, and the 'pubes know that. And heads will 'splode all over the place if he rams it through.