Despite many flaws, it doesn't make sense for Dems to lobby for the Senate health bill's failure

[bigtree]

I'm deeply concerned that the 'public option' is too weak in the House bill and even more tainted in the Senate with their 'opt-out provision. I posted some analysis here which highlighted my objections (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7047453) and the non-response to my thread was typical of a community which (in the majority) isn't in any mood to lose on this one.

Given the nature of the opposition in Congress (which is basically nothing but industry whores looking to derail the legislation by hook or crook), there really isn't going to be much of a Democratic base of support there for holding this thing up just to provide what (I think) reasonable critics want to see in the bill. The lines in Congress are now drawn between republicans (and a few idiot Dems) who are working to see the bill fail or severely weakened and Democrats who have struggled (and compromised) valiantly to move health insurance reform forward.

It's hard for me to see how anyone who cares at all about reforming health insurance and providing access to coverage for the millions without it can stand anywhere near most of those in Congress who are working to undermine and defeat this legislation. Take some time to watch the Senate debate and I think folks will see that there really isn't going to be much of a middle ground there to tweak the legislation and make it comport to every progressive wish and whim, no matter how I personally wish there were. The battle lines have been drawn and its time (at least for our Democratic senators) to choose where they stand; with the republican opposition or with Democratic reformers.

As I said, I've got plenty of problems with how the legislation has been drafted and problems with what passed out of the House. I still think there's room to lobby for the changes we want, although I'm less convinced there's anything significant that the Senate can do to accommodate those changes as they move the bill forward to passage. Most of the fight there is going to center on blocking killer republican (and DINO) initiatives and amendments and that effort needs and deserves our full support. The senators who are working to move this bill forward need and deserve our full support against that opposition. That's not the fight I would arrange if I had a magic wand, but it's the nature of the politics right now in that body.

I will lobby hard against the republican effort to derail this legislation, while, at the same time, lobbying legislators to strengthen the provisions I have problems with. I would hope that some of these objections I have can be hammered out in conference when they reconcile the two bills, but that can't happen if the opposition somehow succeeds in blocking the Senate legislation. This should be the fight of a lifetime and I relish the opportunity to stand with our Democratic legislators as they advance this historic bill.

[nevergiveup]

1. Very good post

I totally agree. This is the "fight of a lifetime" and many folks lives will depend on it.

[tekisui]

2. I agree.

[Fading Captain]

3. At what point do we fight for the party?

At every turn, Democratic Party apologists tell us we must stand with the DP because they are better than the alternative.
Sign NAFTA and decimate the manufacturing sector, destroy unions, and shoot the working class through the heart? Gotta stand with Bill Clinton.
Vote to give Bush authority for war in Iraq? Gotta stand with the DP in the house and senate.
Create a crappy health care bill that will force Americans (who obviously can't afford it, or they'd have it) to purchase health care insurance from a private insurer? Gotta stand with Obama and the Dittocrats.

Fuck that.
You can be a Dittocrat if you want.
The party can represent me, or it can represent corporate interests.

Let me tell you, this will be the death of the party. Economy is shit. Jobs are scarce. People are losing their homes. The deficit is out of control. The ARRA has been poorly managed. And now the President sided with insurance companies instead of the poor.

Fuck him. And fuck any Dittocrat who tells me I have to line up and support this shit.

[bigtree]

5. look at the lines drawn in the Senate

There's plenty there to fight against, if you're interested in health insurance reform. But you won't see much opportunity in the Senate debate that's going to ensue to advance whatever fine ideals and initiatives you support for health reform. Most of what you'll see are enemies of reform working to set the progress made so far way behind where most Democrats (and Americans) have demanded. I wish the battle was different there, but it's really a question now of whether we want to move health reform forward, or to allow industry whores to set it on its tail.

We work for changes in conference and beyond. I hope you find a way to stand with our Democratic legislators in the Senate battle and I look forward to pursuing changes we want as both houses work to reconcile the two bills. But we won't get that far if we allow the enemies of reform to kill the Senate bill.

[BeFree]

6. Tough guy, eh?

You so bad..... the world should just follow you?
Politics don't matter, and democracy is to be denied?

Sorry, you Fail.

[derby378]

17. The last eight years were all about politics and following this one guy - in the White House

And there's a lot more Democrats who feel the same way FC does than you might be willing to admit.

[BeFree]

19. lot more?

Yeah, I know.
But they are all pretty much useless.
With that kind of attitude nothing ever gets done.
Just like the last 8 years of nothing.

We are not a singular force that can have our way with everyone.
But we could be if we only worked together.

[Kermitt Gribble]

22. Keep defending a broken system

and you are part of the problem.

[BeFree]

24. Your answer is?

Just attack me and hope all turns out swell?

I hate the system. But it is what it is.
I can easily cast stones.
But I try, instead, to work within it, to reform it from inside.

[Kermitt Gribble]

26. I didn't attack you.

Your labeling people that speak out against the corruption as 'useless' (as you did to post #3) is an attack. Tell me, what is actually useless? Someone who speaks out for what they think is wrong, or those who stick their head in the sand, go along to get along, and claim they're 'reforming it from the inside'? So, since you're on the inside, you must be a congressperson?

[BeFree]

27. Go back...

...and read it all again.
Apparently for the first time.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

ETA: It was post 19 where I claim that Dems who have no answers just blame are useless.
I stand by that. The problem is they make it harder to get anything done.

[Mithreal]

30. "Sorry, you Fail." "Tough guy" Those feel like stones to me

The system includes people screaming at it to change and you threw stones at FC who wants better?

I read a book recently. They Thought The Were Free. Many used the excuse that they could effect change from inside the system. With a name like BeFree and your posts I am reminded of people in that book.

I agree we do need to infiltrate our local Democratic Party and work to change from within.

However, it is very ironic you say "Just attack me and hope all turns out swell?" You win +1 irony today.

[BeFree]

32. Awww...

Just look at FC wrote... look at it.

Yeah, I threw stones at his words. I hope it hit hard, too.

And what do you bring?
Throwing stones at me.
You figure by throwing stones at me all will turn out swell? Gawd.

Go look at what he wrote and tell me is doesn't piss you off a bit.
If it doesn't, you must not care about the DP as much, either.

[Mithreal]

34. BeFree, Awww? Those were not stones, a mirror maybe yes

Think FC doesn't care about the party? From the post I would say he or she cares very much.

Dittocrat and offensive words toward Obama? Is that what set you off? So ignore the offensive, just for a sec, and see if the points presented reflect reality or not. Anger can make people say things they don't mean, but I see substance in that post that is obvious to most of us. Is an insult to the President worse than what NAFTA has done?

Here is where I always get confused. It seems we often live in an inverse world where words can be more insulting than action. Which is the bigger insult, socalled free trade agreements or dittocrat? I guess if you think you are being called a Dittocrat and never have to worry about losing your job then words would be more offensive.

[BeFree]

36. Sure

Hell, I could spam this board with facts.
Just about anyone could.
Most of us choose not too.

I'm here to encourage, not discourage.
Not to bitch and moan, but to inform and be informed.
So when drivel like that is posted: screw it. Flame it.

[Mithreal]

38. How is "flaming", encouraging people? There is a flaw in your logic.

Your posts seemed more like what you claim to hate, not enlightening, but annihilation.

FC's post had substance and you chose to ignore it and you ignored the points of my post entirely.

[BeFree]

39. Oh

I flamed his discouraging words, yes.
I'd do it again.
If you can't see why, well, you can't see why.
No big deal.

Actually FC might come back and discuss this?
Is there even a chance?

Sorry for ignoring your attacks.
Did you have something else to say?

[Mithreal]

40. Actually I was hoping you would see them as constructive

but never mind.

You're slippery I will give you that.

[BeFree]

41. You want me to change?

You are hoping you can deconstruct me and make me more in your image?

Shoot, dude, I'm just a blindly rooting dittocrat.
Why spend all this time on me?

[Mithreal]

42. Change you? no. Change the discussion? maybe.

You seem fully aware of what you are doing.

I don't know you but I do know the idea you propagated.

And the other DU'er may be away or have you on ignore. Is that really so hard to comprehend.

[Kermitt Gribble]

35. There's your problem.

When the party changes it's ideals, you can't expect people to change with it. People vote for a party or politician because they identify with their ideals, not because they pick a side and like to root for that side. Blindly rooting for 'your side' defeats the point of a democracy.

[BeFree]

37. Eh?

Now were all blindly rooting?

Thank Gawd we have yall to tell us how f'd up we are. Gawdamighty!!

[Fading Captain]

44. That's about right.

You want my vote? My money?
Then if you say you're with me when you ask for it, you better say you're with me after you got it.

If not, fuck off.

The problem with Democracy is not with people who expect much from their representatives. It's with people who expect too little.

[placton]

15. O Captain My Captain

How can you criticize Spineless Leader and his Crew of Jolly Corporatists. Just shush and take the medicine.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. +1

:evilgrin:

[bigtree]

20. personally

I think most of the criticism of the president and Congress here is healthy and meaningful. It's no sin to disagree.

[ixion]

4. balderdash

It is easier to introduce something into a bureaucracy than it is to remove it. Evidence: the DHS, a bureaucratic fascist labyrinth that will be almost impossible to extricate.

The bill as it stands is a windfall for insurance companies and a nightmare for people as they are forced to buy over-priced insurance. I really don't see how that is a) reform; or b) a good thing.

[bigtree]

8. well

. . . the status quo is the biggest 'windfall' for insurance companies. The reforms in the legislation will disrupt the status quo and make it more possible for Americans to confront the industry and demand they accommodate our will.

[ixion]

12. hmmmm

I don't see that. From everything I've seen, it will cost me several hundred dollars more per month than it does now.

It's the insurance industry and Big Med that needs reform, and this is not doing it, in my opinion, therefore it should not be passed.

[bigtree]

13. the cost to you

. . . is no small matter. If that's the case, it's understandable why you would want this bill to die.

But as for reform, the debate and the political equation in Congress is shaping up to a battle against those who want to stop reform in its tracks and those who want to advance it. I wish we had a debate going on between those who would allow you to be charged more for your insurance and those who wouldn't, but that's not the debate that's going to occur in the Senate.

[Kermitt Gribble]

23. Not necessarily.

What will generate more profit? The status quo - where the ins cos can deny care, cancel policies, and raise rates at their whim, or this health care reform bill, where the ins cos can dump the sickly(read costly) on to a 'public option', still raise rates at their whim, and gain tens of millions of new, healthy clients who are forced to buy their services? I'm sure the ins cos have weighed their options carefully.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. This is not the DU line.

All correctly oriented cadres know that.

[bigtree]

9. the Senate debate

. . . should make clear where Democrats should stand; with some really creepy cretins or with the responsible and diligent legislators in our party looking to advance reform.

[pampango]

14. Not sure there's a "DU line", but you're on the right track. Despite 95% of House Progressives

voting for the HCR bill and 99%+ of the republicans voting against it, some of our "cadres" portray it as an "insurance bill". Obviously, neither our progressives in the House nor the repubs would agree with this assessment or they would have changed their votes (unless the republicans are just playing 3-D chess and toying with us ;) ).

The other irony is that our "cadres" can only hope that republican senators plus Lieberman and a few conservative Democrats can successfully filibuster or otherwise kill HCR in the Senate. It almost worked in the House with repubs and Blue Dogs almost defeating the HCR bill.

I suppose there is a history of "cadres" agreeing to temporary tactical alliances with traditional RW opponents, e.g 1939. That ended well in 1945 (in the sense that the "cadres"' side won), particularly if you overlook the carnage between 1939 and 1945. Perhaps a temporary alliance now with republican Senators will be successful in the long run, even if it produces continued health insurance "carnage" in the short run.

[leeroysphitz]

10. I agree with the thread title.

It doesn't make sense for democrats to kill the bill. It does, however, make sense for us progressives to kill it if possible. It's a corporate give away of epic proportions.

Every one must, by law, opt in but the insurance companies do not have to rescind their onerous "previously existing condition" exemptions until 2014?

F@ck that! The bill is shit. It makes things worse for working families and that is the bottom line.

Kill it quick before it breeds.

[bigtree]

11. Hopefully we can change that in conference

I actually think progressives have a good chance to exercise their clout in reconciling the two bills. They won't get that chance if the Senate bill fails.

(I changed the title to include 'Senate'. We'll cross the conference bridge when we get there.)

[placton]

16. ahhh conference ... right next to fairlyland

and rainbow brite's kingdom?

[bigtree]

21. kick

[joeybee12]

25. The ONLY reason to get this passed is because passage is a POLITICAL victory..

...The MSM does not report and does not know or care what is in this bill...but if it passes, they will report it as a win for Obama, if it fails, they'll call it a devastating blow to Obama. The bill is crap, pure and simple, but because of the shallowness of the MSM, none of that is being debated, just whether it will pass or not. The MSM is essentially an impediment to democracy, beacuse people can't make informed decisions unless they are informed.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. When the strongest arguments in favor all start with 'it is flawed'

or 'it is not what we wanted' but...this is when you know the politics have been fucked up. The bill sucks, but the other side hates it so we should like it. That is your argument. And as an argument, it sucks more than the bill does. Just saying. Imagine if we had a bill that even a small majority of our Party actually liked. Instead of even the supporters needing to be apologetic and filled with rationalizations. Imagine if it was really worth the passions of the voters.

[bigtree]

29. heh, well

. . . I never get exactly what I want out of Congress and I don't really expect to. They play their own game up there.

This is a political process and the Senate debate will be the next step in that process. Then comes the conference which reconciles the two. Some bad out, some good in. I don't see anything in the two bills which would make me advocate stopping the process in the Senate, with all due respect to your disagreement.

[AllentownJake]

31. This bill has passed

Everything from here is a formality baring a last minute betrayal of Lieberman, which is always a possibility.

Conference committee will be more interesting as they have to iron out the differences between compromises made in the house and senate, and find something that can pass both legislative bodies.

[bigtree]

43. the value of the Senate is in the drawn out debate

The conference is valuable, but until they bring a reconciled bill up for vote (won't come to the floor unless they can count the votes from where they sit) they'll be wheeling and dealing in private. The Senate debate has the potential for shifting the political momentum, one way or the other.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[cornermouse]

45. Give the fact that the insurance industry will have

increased profits due to new enrollees and therefore more money (ours) to fight any changes that we try to make, I'm afraid it is just a little bit naive to think that the left will be successful in trying to improve the legislation in our favor.

[tooeyeten]

46. citizens best wake up

and get involved, their lives and their childrens' lives depend on it. Insurance execs are not interested in their health or their care, and they are paying $1million a day lobbying to prove it.