The Rejoicing to begin debate on health insurance reform is premature

[t0dd]

Sure, today we have 60 votes, and the process moves forward, but Lincoln, Landrieu, and Liberman have all promised to oppose the vote to end debate if the public option remains in the bill. They want a public option with a trigger to bring Snowe and Collins on board or no public option at all.

If Reid caves on his promise, it won't be entirely his fault. Given his track record, it's amusing we even got this far. I think most of the blame falls on the White House. Even after Reid announced his intentions to insert an opt-out public option, the White House expressed reservations; the Administration never once tried to capitalize on the momentum. Many of you will say it was to avoid a repeat of 1994, but the reality is there has been a supreme lack of leadership this entire process. Obama's ineffectual pragmatism in just observing the debate from a distance enabled the DINO narcissists to water down the bill beyond recognition. The greedy Max Baucus held the Finance version of the bill hostage for weeks, only consulting with those Senators that have benefited most from insurance contributions. Single payer was never even on the table because the Republicans adamantly opposed it.

It would have been reasonable if we started out with single payer and compromised from there; given the political climate, that would have been expected. But what do we have now? We have a public option that states can opt out of that will only affect 2% of the population after 2014, and it's likely we won't even get that. We have an individual mandate for people to purchase "coverage" from the same greedy corporations that have already threatened to raise premiums if "reform" passes. We have regulations that the insurance cartel will find new ways to evade; they'll continue their indefensible murdering of poor Americans in the interest of profit increase any way they can. Millions will still be denied coverage (and this excludes illegal immigrants for all the Lou Dobbs fanboys out there). None of this is reform in any sense of the word.

So save the celebrating because Lincoln and Landrieu were kind enough to allow discussion on this legislation. As debate moves forward, assuming they have any interests beyond those of their insurance masters is unwise. These people are vile, horrible individuals that need to be ousted from the party. All we can do at this point is hope the few liberal Senators not beholden to big business save us from this worthless bill; otherwise, the "W" we end up with will only delay the hope of true reform for many years to come. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but, to me, this isn't change; this is dressing up the status quo to make the 2010 elections more bearable.

[Politicub]

1. We have to start somewhere. It's the furthest HC reform has ever made it in congress

with a bill from the House and debate set to start in the Senate.

I'm of the mind that this imperfect bill will be the start of the long process of HC reform that will take many congresses to get right. Social Security and Medicare had many issues at first, but now they're untouchable national treasures.

[Cleita]

2. Considering there is no real public option in the bill, that shouldn't be

a problem.

[kentuck]

4. But there is the possibility of a real public option...

If the possibility is there that everyone can take the public option if they want, whether they do at the present time or not, is an important option. Naturally most folks will want to keep what they have at the present time... that may change.

[Cleita]

5. Only if there is a Trojan Horse lurking in there and I'm hoping for that. n/t

[kentuck]

3. But it doesn't need 60 votes to become law...

It only needs 50 votes plus the VP. Ten Democats can vote against the public option and it could still become law.

[rhett o rick]

6. True but before you vote on the law you must stop the debate and that takes 60 votes. nt

[orwell]

7. I disagree with much of your post...

...I think the confusion lies in what we each see as leadership.

I think we all became used to the Con model of "My way or the Highway" leadership. That is the model as practiced by Reagan, Bush I&II, and as far as healthcare, Clinton.

Obama follows a Constitutional model. He is allowing the legislature to write the laws. He sets the agenda and the desired goals. That is what an executive should do.

We have become so used to a broken government, we can't see what is unfolding in front of us - a return to the proper Constitutional roles of the three branches of government. This causes impatience and hand wringing on the left and outright hostility on the right.

Legislation is messy. Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln are balancing the interests of all their constituents (including in Nelson's case a large group of insurers in Nebraska.) That is what they are supposed to do.

Very little opprobrium sems to be heaped on the Republicans who are the real reason for the deadlock. By voting en masse to kill anything that comes from the other side of the aisle, they have ceded the debate to the Democratic Party. The Dems are acting responsible by balancing all the wings of the debate, left right and center.

The Dems effectively must represent the entire country, not just their own party. Of course they will get little credit for this from a public that is angry and looks to turn the anger on someone. As the adults in the room they get all the blame.

It doesn't help when we here at DU join the chorus.

It is not constructive in the slightest.

[inna]

8. KR

Excellent post!

[IRemember]

9. k & r nt

[uponit7771]

10. "I think most of the blame falls on the White House" big fuckin unrec on this one. What the fuck was

...the WH supposed to do to "capitalize" on this without the haters coming out on that too?!?!

There are a number of dems and KKKons who want Obama to fail, they've made their voices hear loud and clear.