The Nation comments....

[kentuck]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/478714/public_option_rejected_as_key_dems_abandon_reform

<snip>

Some Democrats tried to fight back. An unusually-impassioned Rockefeller told the committee that a counterbalance to the insurance industry was needed because "they're getting away with banditry and they revel in it." Massachusetts Senator John Kerry argued, correctly, that the insurance corporations and their amen corner in the GOP caucus were blocking even a modest public option because they were frightened "that Americans might like a competitive plan that is paying for itself?"

But those arguments were not sufficient to unite the Democratic caucus. The "no" voters were generally embarrassed enough to make excuses – North Dakota's Conrad highlighted flaws in the reimbursement scheme proposed by Rockefeller.

Embarrassed or not, the Democrats whose votes mattered most still voted "no."

And that's the bottom line.

Without essentially unified Democratic support for a public option – especially on key committees in the Senate – healthcare reform will not advance.

What we will get, at best, is insurance reform.

That's a little bit of change.

But it is not "change we can believe in" – let alone change that reformers will get excited about.

[WCGreen]

1. change you can shrugg your shoulder and say Ehh, who knew...

[rockymountaindem]

2. That seems like an unduly dismal assessment

"Without essentially unified Democratic support for a public option - especially on key committees in the Senate - healthcare reform will not advance."

What about the HELP committee? They've got the public option. It's in every bill offered by the House and there's still a chance that Kennedy's bill could get a floor vote in the Senate. Finally, there's the not-so-small matter of the conference committee which will have to reconcile all these bills, the majority of which (all but one) have the public option in them. This isn't the end of the road. Still, it seems characteristic of liberals to bemoan our fate at every opportunity just as certain other people on the other side see every disappointment as a sign of God's wrath.

[kentuck]

5. The most important matter is not that are against the public option...

It is that they may vote against bringing it to the floor for a vote. Democrats believe in democratic votes. If they vote against it in that manner, they cannot continue to call themsleves true "democrats", with a small "d".

With Senator Byrd in such ill health, and with a couple or three "Democrats" who will not commit to a "public option", and with the lack of success in getting even one Republican to join us in the fight for health care, it is a touchy matter.

There is a big difference in voting against a bill that you might disagree with and voting with the Republicans to keep it from coming up for an up or down vote. That is something that cannot be forgiven. They will have to face either a Democratic primary opponent or they will have to go down to defeat to the Republican that runs against them in the general election. We only have to organize the liberals and the Democrats for the public option to not support these traitors to our Party.

[babylonsister]

3. This is annoying coming from him. So all is lost? I'm not that

ready to agree.

[Fridays Child]

4. I'm not settling. I can't. It's that simple.

[regnaD kciN]

6. Sorry to disagree with The Nation...

...but it's not merely "a little bit of change" to force everyone by law to pay huge private insurance premiums or fines for not doing so. That's the very opposite of a "little bit" of change -- it's like describing the Bataan Death March as a "physical-fitness outing."