Public Option or bust! How Obama can go against 90% of his party

[European Socialist]

is beyond belief. It needs to be forced on him for his own good.

[cliffordu]

1. Maybe that's what he really wants.

:shrug:

I don't know anymore.

[dysfunctional press]

31. well... he's supposed to be our "Leader"...

not a 'follower' or a 'stand-by and watcher'.

[gateley]

2. Go for it. nt

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[Radical Activist]

4. Because "bust" probably means health care dies as an issue for another 15 years

just like last time. Would you rather get major health care reform and keep fighting for the public option, or get nothing and let the Republicans win? Seems pretty obvious.

[jgraz]

5. Nope, things are too fucked up for that.

But... if they can just push through a couple of legislative band-aids, then they and their lobbyist friends are singing all the way to the bank.

[Radical Activist]

16. That's the kind of positive attitude that always leads to victory!

Most changes come a step at a time. Thinking that compromise is failure...it's fatalist and foolish thinking. It will lead to more progress.

[jgraz]

18. What evidence do you have that this bill will lead to more progress?

Anything?

[Radical Activist]

24. Because that's how success and momentum work.

Reform won't seem impossible once the dam breaks.
What evidence do you have that it won't? Other than your own defeatist attitude?

[jgraz]

26. So, in other words, you have nothing but lame platitudes.

When's the last time a piece of incrementalist legislation led to more and more progressive reforms? Don't Ask Don't Tell comes to mind, and you see how well that worked out. 17 years later and there's still been no tangible progress.

OK, I gave you an example supporting my viewpoint. Your turn. And try to come up with something more recent than the LBJ or FDR administrations.

[Radical Activist]

29. So, in other words, you have nothing but lame platitudes.

Your limitation is pretty funny. Do you mind telling me who the liberal Presidents are after LBJ and FDR that I'm supposed to use for my examples? Oh that's right, there aren't any liberal Presidents since LBJ. Of course, you know full well that there are many, many examples from both of those Presidents which prove my point. That's why you included that exception, because you know I'm right.

Howard Zinn had a much more optimistic view about the march of progress than you do.

[jgraz]

32. My limitation is there because the level of corruption is qualitatively different today.

Back in LBj's time, there was a chance that you could convince legislators to work for the common good. Now, they won't do anything unless they feel their seat is on the line.

This ridiculous health insurance bailout will likely fool some of the people some of the time, which should be sufficient to kill real healthcare reform in our lifetimes.

[eridani]

27. Of course. We all know that Social Security started out as a mandate

--to invest in the stock market for retirement under penalty of being fined by the IRS.

[leftstreet]

6. Only 15? I thought it was 20...or was it 25...

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

13. Last time it was 15.

So it's not unreasonable to think it will happen again.

[European Socialist]

8. Seems pretty obvious the votes are there. Am I missing something?

[Radical Activist]

14. Apparently so.

Changing the rules would be nice, but it still takes 60 to pass the full bill for now. Pressuring the Senate is more important that moaning about Obama. The Senate is the problem. Obaa isn't the tooth fairy. We're the ones who need to pressure Congress.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. And corporate mandates means it dies as an issue FOREVER.

But never mind the death of the issue. The deaths of millions who will STILL be fucked over by corporate crimerica are the true problem.

[Radical Activist]

17. And if people feel the squeeze

they will respond.

[Jakes Progress]

20. Where have you been?

We've been squeezed for years. We have responded. Nothing happens.

[Radical Activist]

23. We responded.

The people sent Obama to the white house by a big margin and put 60 Democrats in the Senate. Now it's time for the Senate to do what they were elected to do. The sad part is that so many leaders of the left are content to moan about Obama instead of doing real organizing to get movement in the Senate. People are responding everyday demanding reform.

[rhett o rick]

30. This is not like "last time". Most Americans are very verbal about getting a decent

bill. If it gets killed, they wont go to sleep for 15 years. On the other hand, let Congress get away with a crap bill and Congress will go to sleep for 15 years. There wont be the public attention we have now. "Just settle for this and we will fix it later," yeah and the check is in the mail.

I am not saying, start over, I am saying add a real PO. If the Blue Damn Dogs kill it, then they will have to answer for killing the bill.

[ProSense]

7. " 90% of his party"? Can you list the Democratic Senators who are opposed to the current bill?

How about the House Democrats?

The President said the public option doesn't have the votes in the Senate. Do you anticipate that it's going "to be forced on him" by the Senate?

The pretense that this is all about what Obama wants is ridiculous. If the Senate wants a public option, then it's up to them to make it happen.

[Renew Deal]

9. What else have you forced on people for their own good?

:scared:

[European Socialist]

10. The PO was his idea--I want to force it on him.

[SnoopDog]

11. It's more of a case of Obama going against humanity...

To continue to allow middlemen to administer our health care is immoral.

And is is all about greed. They make their profit on the pain and suffering of human beings.

It is barbaric.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. +1

:thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

19. Pretty much. nt

[Jakes Progress]

21. 'Pends on who he thinks of as his party. nt

[Vidar]

22. K&R.

[European Socialist]

25. Nancy Pelosi said it best--The health Insurers need to play on our...

field instead of us playing on their field.

[t0dd]

28. K&R