About this "Half a loaf " bullshit---

[Atticus]

Half a loaf is not always better than none and, besides, that's not the proper analogy. Let's phrase it this way: If you have to jump across a 15 foot chasm to escape death, is it "acceptable" to jump 7 feet 6 inches? Have you "accomplished" anything by jumping half way across? Are there degrees of "dead"?

Sorry, friends and neighbors, but the noise out of the Senate about this "bipartisan" compomise that abandons the public option is not just disheartening: it is obscene! I think it is time for what I still believe to be the liberal base of the Democratic Party to double down on this issue. We EITHER pass the public option health care legislation---with 51 votes in the Senate in a reconciliation bill, if necessary---or we pass NOTHING and hang the failure around the necks of the health insurance whores in both parties in 2010.

It is abundantly clear that the strategy of the corporate coalition to defeat healthcare reform is "Let's just make shit up!" Over the past several days, I have read that anyone over 70 will be allowed to die if they have an "expensive" illness under the "Obama socialist plan". Also, I've read that it will be illegal to BUY healthcare not covered by the "government insurance" because "the liberals say that would be 'unfair'". And, more---and, more---and, more. Hundreds of millions of dollars buys a whole lot of lies.

Seriously,---the public option is definitely "on the table". Let's "let it ride". If we abandon this vital heart of true reform, we're just betting against ourselves. Now is the time to "hold 'em", not "fold 'em".

[ColbertWatcher]

1. 2110?

You still have time to edit your post to correct the year.

FYI.

[Atticus]

4. Thanks, My finger stuttered! nt

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Here's a thought experiment....

When Social Security was brought in in '36, it excluded agricultural workers and domestics. They weren't added till '55. (The 1955 version would not have passed in '36, frankly, because those domestics and agricultural workers were disproportionately black and Latino.)

In the intervening 19 years a large number of people grew old, but not in poverty. Death benefits got paid, and survivor's benefits got paid. A lot of misery and suffering was averted.

But the '36 bill was a bad bill on its face. A racist bill.

You're a legislator in '36. The SS bill that became law comes up for your vote. Do you vote it up or down?

(Note there is no third vote. This is a bill.)

[Uzybone]

6. not to mention the civil rights acts of 1866, 1871, 1957 and 1960

the OP would have called them all half loaves not worth voting for by this logic.

[Atticus]

9. An interesting response.

Your analysis is somewhat compelling even though it employs the classic "20/20 hindsight". You are obviously pretty well informed about the history and development of the social security program. But, I wonder---were nearly 3 out of 4 Americans in 1936 in favor of a more expansive and inclusive social security bill? Because, as I understand most of the recent polls, that's the break-out on how many favor a public option.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. It doesn't matter what the people wanted...

...because only Congress could pass the necessary legislation. And Congress was mobbed up with soon-to-be Dixiecrats, and Republicans. In the depths of the Depression this was the bill that came out of the committees and onto the floor....

[Atticus]

15. And, I'm hoping that TODAY---

it DOES matter what the people want. We're supposed to be the party that, at least most of the time, cares deeply about that sort of thing. Some times---and I think now is one of them---we need to seek no further justification for our position than Wilfred Brimley's all-purpose homespun philosophy: "Because it's the right thing to do."

[Atticus]

13. See my response to Reply # 2

I think you're argument is a modified "Let's keep our powder dry!" approach and we've been there done that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Not. Fucking. Acceptable.

Anyone who votes for some corporate enabling piece of shit bill should be immediately arrested for treason against the American people.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Article III, section 3: "Treason...

...against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort."

Tell me again how hyperbole helps the cause...

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. You don't think this qualifes as war?

These fucking sick corporate blowing bastards have been waging war against the American people for goddamn near 30 years. And they need to be held accountable for that. NOW, before they can do any more damage. And apparently more damage, irreversible damage, is exactly what they have in mind.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. No. It's not war. It's politics. The guy who's your icon...

...knows the difference.

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. And after all he did for this party, he got shafted, didn't he?

I agree with Dean about 90% of the time. I even went along with the Public Option (his version, not the various watered down DLC attempts) despite my preference of the HR 676 model.

But if these treasonous bastards won't accept (at least)the Dean plan, then FUCK THEM. Because they are deliberately choosing to ignore their entire job descriptions (i.e. representatives of Government FOR the people, OF the people, BY the people.)

[sandnsea]

5. I have subsidized insurance

Anyone fighting it is a fool. It doesn't matter if it isn't going to work in the long run, it'll save lives in the short run and that's all that matters.

[Iris]

8. maybe it's the difference between half a loaf of pumperknickle and half a pinched loaf

I'm even grossing myself out but I couldn't not post it

[gratuitous]

16. Yeah, I'm sick of this quest for the chimera of bipartisanship

We the People (I've heard that phrase before, where was it?) elected overwhelming majorities of Democrats and a Democratic president because we're through with the Republicans, at least for a while. Maybe a long while. Maybe forever. We installed these big majorities with votes from all over the nation because we want the platform the Democrats ran on. We want that universal health care. We want different economic policies, different environmental policies, different foreign policies. We're done being scared by the Republicans, and we want to spend our money on something besides war crimes.

Get with it, Congress. The Republicans don't have a plan besides saying "no" to everything. They can either get on the train or get run over by it.