Yesterday's bill got exactly as many Republican votes as Single Payer would've

[Cal Carpenter]

ZERO.

After all that 'bipartisanship' and 'compromise'.

Just sayin.

[quinnox]

1. too bad the Democrats aren't able to go that bold

Its a shame, there are a lot of conservadems that wouldn't vote for it either.

[EFerrari]

4. It was never going to be put up for a vote, remember?

The votes are simply besides the point.

[LostInAnomie]

2. It got a hell of a lot more Democrat votes than single payer would have though.

[democrat_patriot]

10. Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

There.weren't.enough.votes.for.single.payer.

This bill is better than the status quo.

[Cal Carpenter]

15. But why not?

And why do we keep playing this game when we know we're going to lose? ('we' meaning the citizens of this country)

It's easy now to say this bill is 'better than the status quo' because it will be several years before we really know. In rhetoric - 'affordable, accessible' it sounds great. But the fine print sucks. I'm not as optimistic as you.

[MH1]

118. there are a lot of provisions that piecemeal that "better than the status quo"

rather than a full, no bullshit fix to a broken system.

BUT it still means that many actual living breathing individuals WILL have things better than if this bill didn't become law.

THAT is why we keep playing this game - because some people do win.

[Zambero]

61. Yeah, remember Joe "I'll filibuster ya" Lieberman?

We were very fortunate to take as many seats as we did in 2008. Any less, and the Republicans & DINO tag-alongs would have been able to quash any bill. What passed yesterday was not the best bill possible, but probably as good as it was going to get this time around.

[paulkienitz]

132. the current bill seems to make a trade...

We've probably swapped some people having high premiums and others getting hosed and bankrupted, for everybody having even higher premiums in order to stop the hosing and bankrupting. For the shorter term at least, the total cost to the economy probably won't go down at all. So from a justice perspective maybe we've moved forward, but from a financial perspective we've gotten nowhere. And ya know... asking people to pay more so that somebody else can have justice doesn't really sell all that well politically. If we want to reap the political rewards for reform, we have to lower the costs.

[Hannah Bell]

142. "lower cost" = defunding medicare & cutting services.

[liberation]

71. Remind me again what the heck does the Dem party stand for?

What on heaven's name is the point of having a party with such a bipolar ideological make up?

We are celebrating because Democrats barely allowed to pass a very watered down Dem policy, which needed no republican support at all? What sort of logical dissonance can look at that situation and not only excuse it, but to proactively fight to extend the same system which is so contrary to their very own interests?

Seriously, can anyone provide a justification of what is going on? Apparently the Dems are controlling the executive and legislative branches of the government.... yet from a fairly objective point of view, the only policies being produced are of the moderate conservative to full on reactionary persuasion. I.e. regardless of which party is in power, a very similar set of policies, albeit not as extreme in the case of the Dems, continue to be pushed and enacted?


So all those years, we fought so hard to defeat the republicans, and now... we are nowhere near reaching an actual goal, now we have to fight conservative democrats. What is the point? There is going to always be a new "enemy" to fight in order to get an actual representation.

[truedelphi]

74. Right now the Democrats pretty much stand for fabuous

And breath taking three acts plays in the fabulously redesigned Kabuki Theater.

[Starry Messenger]

83. +100,000

[theFrankFactor]

104. Democrats = Lowered Expectations... and Lower and lower and lower and lower...

[liberation]

112. It is not the lowered expectations I have an issue with...

... it is the actual contempt towards liberals displayed by this administration that is concerning me more.

Because they seem to be rather effective when it comes to neutralize liberal policies. Funny that.

I have asked many times before: why would I as a liberal, support an administration which considers my ilk to be "retarded?" And why am I the bad guy for not feeling like supporting someone who does not only not care about my ideology but they are down right hostile to it? The level of entitlement by the DLC et al is not just galling, but the vitriol of their supporters is starting to drive me from ever supporting a straight Dem ticket ever again. I don't have self hate issues, so I will not vote to enable blue dogs.

[Zambero]

138. We need at least 2/3 Dem majorities in both Houses of Congress

and a Democratic president, in order to get to the right place. Allow 10-15% DINO's to side with the Republicans on most important issues. A partisan majority doesn't necessarily guarantee control in today's ideological environment.

[laughingliberal]

14. Which should be highlighting the problem we have inside the party

Too many supply siders and corporate fellaters around, these days. Hopefully, some of the primary challenges like Halter against Lincoln will succeed. :thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

78. Yup

[theFrankFactor]

105. Precisely! It Has to Come From OUT HERE! From Us!

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. How do we know unless we tried?

I actually think single payer would be a winner in the House - it would be the bought & paid for Senate where it would lose.

[LostInAnomie]

24. You only get one bite at the apple.

A failed attempt to get single payer or the PO through would have been so costly politically we wouldn't have even been able to pass this watered down bill with a second attempt.

They had to make a choice. Pass something and improve it later, or pass nothing and not get another attempt for a generation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Bull.

You START with the best possible single-payer system you can devise. It goes into committee, gets hacked up, compromised, changed, and comes out looking like a STRONG PUBLIC OPTION - Medicare for all.

Failure to present a good workable plan in the first place is what left us squabbling about the POS that is going to the Pres for signature.

THERE IS NO FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS WE CAN ONLY TRY ONCE EVERY 25 YEARS.

But now that this is a done deal, they'll SAY it's been fixed, and it WILL be the end of it until the for-profit system collapses under its own weight, in about 20 years.

[LostInAnomie]

34. Haha... right.

They could barely get this watered down bill through the house. They only had four votes to spare. The 34 dems that voted against it didn't do so because they were to the left of the bill. If they could barely get this bill through the House, do you really think they could get a "STRONG PUBLIC OPTION" through there, let alone the Senate? If so, you are in dreamland.

There might not be a law against health care coming up every 25 years, but how often every 25 years do we control the House, Senate, and Presidency?

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Agreed. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

91. And we have a right-leaning Democratic Congress thanks to Rahm Emanuel

and his insistence on running Blue Dogs everywhere in opposition to actual liberals & progressives. The Ls & Ps could have won as handily in 2008 as the BDs, but that would not have worked well for Rahm's Neocon DLC game. The American Likud Party wins again.

[liberation]

100. How does that even make logical sense?

I am getting real lost with the twist and turns of logic here: The best we can hope for is to pass watered down legislation now that the Dems are in power, because they can't seem to get their act together and execute a common political platform. But not to worry, because things will get "better" later on, when it is not guaranteed that the Dems will have the same majorities, and thus making it even harder to push through even more watered down policies?


How does that even make sense initially? Do some of you comprehend what you are advocating?


How can I take at face value of those who tell me things will better and that "no we can't now because" when you guys were all chanting "yes we can" a few months ago? Why does hubris feel so entitled to the benefit of the doubt?

[theFrankFactor]

106. It's BULL SHIT! That's The Thinking (non-thinking) That Has Put Us Where We Are!

The facts?

1. DEMOCRATS SUCKED ASS AS A MINORITY
2. DEMOCRATS SUCK ASS AS A MAJORITY

3. REPUBLICANS KICK ASS AS A MINORITY
4. REPUBLICANS KICK ASS AS A MAJORITY

There. Stuff that in your crack pipe and smoke it!

There are people on this site that are actually Progressives, Liberals or at least Democrats in the typical sense of the word. But there's also this "New Democrat" this pussy assed, weak willed, self excusing, bunch of useless boobs that are all to happy to give themselves reach-arounds and applaud limp dicked last place as a win.

Might I go so far as to say... while my caustic rhetoric my make babies cry, being losers and excusers really does more harm to the party than any nasty name calling!

Butch up! Stop changing these corproDems diapers!

[Ticonderoga]

113. "New Democrat"

this pussy assed, weak willed, self excusing, bunch of useless boobs that are all to happy to give themselves reach-arounds and applaud limp dicked last place as a win.



Yeah well, there is nothing "new" about that.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

122. I agree: this whole thing is ass-backwards.

We would have gotten less votes with a better bill? I don't understand that. Americans are strongly in favor of universal healthcare and have been since TR attempted it in 1902. It's only business interests who are opposed to this bill, and the pitifully small yet unduly influential teabbagger movement.

[kenfrequed]

107. Proper negotiations

Require that you always ask for more than you are willing to settle for. The other side certainly understands this very well. And the republicans are very grateful for the DLC for selling out the public interest before negotiations.

[mistajefferson]

126. haha... right

Exactly!

[ClassWarrior]

141. The Dems began negotiations from a compromise position. Begin weak, end weak. Begin strong...

...end strong. If you're this lame at negotiation psychology, I'd like to sell you your next house.

NGU.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

93. Absolutely right.

Though I have to disagree on a small point - the for-profit system will not collapse. The history of economic reform in this country is a history of the capitalists changing just enough to keep the system propped up - the Populist movement, the Progressive movement, the New Deal - business interests allowed just enough change to keep their system going for the next 20-30 years, which you will notice is the span of time from one movement to the next. Meanwhile we are told that the boom-and-bust cycle is just a part of capitalism, as though that doesn't count as a strike against it. And notice that if any one of these movements had gotten everything they wanted, we would be a considerably more liberal country than we are today. But usually only those changes which benefit business interests in some way get through. The businesses party for thirty years, until things get so bad that we demand change, which they fight all the way, and ultimately all we have done is prop them up for another thirty years. So the system will not collapse under its own weight. If worst comes to worst, Congress will rush in to rescue it, under the guise of "reform" (this just happened to the banks.) The only way it will die is if we kill it.

Beyond that, you are absolutely correct. We should have started with something good, like universal single-payer, and worked from there. It's bizarre that we do not demand for ourselves the things we deserve, as do other countries with strong functioning democracies.

[liberation]

99. No, that is not how the real world works....

... you don't start a negotiation by asking much less of what you originally wanted, and expecting to make up for the request deficit later on in the negotiation process, when the other party will have much less incentive to compromise.

I am yet to see a single car salesman starting a pricing negotiation selling cars at a loss, by asking less than sticker prices, while expecting the customers to increase their offer to make up for the lost profit.

Because at a deep level that is what you "visionaries" of negotiation are claiming is the "proper" way of conducting a negotiation. Good grief, talk about suspension of common sense. Some people are trying real hard to see those "invisible" clothes this naked bill is wearing.

[Enthusiast]

79. It would have won.

[paulkienitz]

133. not in the senate... it might only get 20 votes (nt)

[bvar22]

36. So the REAL problem was NEVER the Republicans.

The REAL opposition to Single Payer, Medicare expansion, or the Public Option IS the Democratic Party.
I know where not to waste my time now.

[ecstatic]

38. Bingo. We're not all on the same page about which system is best

I think everyone acknowledges that if we were starting from scratch, SP would be best. But from there we disagree on the best way to reform what's going on now.

[paulkienitz]

134. am I the only one who thinks a strong public option would be better than single payer?

Competition can only help -- the post office didn't get priority mail service going good until fedex came along.

[ecstatic]

135. Yes and no. From the competition standpoint, it's

never fun for people to be subjected to a monopoly. On the other hand, the downside of competition between the government and private companies is that doctors and hospitals can shut out patients who rely on the government option (many do not accept medicare/medicaid).

[LostInAnomie]

41. What a horribly myopic take on the last year.

[HughMoran]

45. Thank god!

:whew:

[Zambero]

62. Today's Democratic party

Think of it as a great big tent with a lot of gaping holes (aka DINO's)in it. The GOP's sole purpose is to dump water on the tent, and as a result, whatever happens inside gets severely watered down.

[Enthusiast]

80. My sentiments exactly.

[HughMoran]

44. As it is we lost 34

It pisses me off!

[iamthebandfanman]

77. Yep

glad we agree our party is the problem nowadays, not the opposition party.

[October]

92. Exactly.

And they had to work for the DEM votes they got!

[LynneSin]

116. Please, how dare you use logic & common sense with this

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

3. The real business of our government doesn't seem to happen

between the Executive and Congress any more but in meetings with lobbyists. The rest seems like so much theater. Bi-partisanship compromise, reconciliation, all of it.

[blindpig]

5. Theater...

and the marks suck it up. All done to insure that the final product was as business friendly as possible.

k&r

[spanone]

6. remember, Obama wasn't dealing with republicans...it was democrats threatening

[Cal Carpenter]

8. But there were Dems 'threatening' from the other side too

From the 'left' side, so to speak. Why were they whipped into shape, and not the others instead? Especially given that more americans wanted the public option or single payer or 'medicare for all'?

Who does the Dem congress work for?

[EFerrari]

13. More like Big Pharma and the insurance industry.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. but it got more Democratic votes than single payer would have

and I am a single payer guy

I am also a realist, we never would have gotten close to 60 in The Senate

[Cal Carpenter]

12. Well, how about the public option, if not single payer?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7982312&mesg_id=7982312

And how come all this 'realism' has to always land on the backs of US citizens when other civilized countries can manage to at least get health care for all? (that's a rhetorical question, I'm not that stupid. Just frustrated with this bill being touted as a win)

[Chulanowa]

65. Your argument has a flaw

Nothing is "landing on the backs of US citizens" - this bill is an improvement over what we had before. That is to say, it's an improvement over nothing. Unfortunately you and all the other "progressives" apparently would prefer that everybody have nothing, if you can't get the absolute perfect and flawless legislation you wanted.

It's not perfect, not by a long shot. But it's an improvement. Of course, the progressives aren't here to see things improve. They're just here to bitch about Obama.

[tomp]

67. that tired meme again. perfect and flawless, my ass.

you know, skinner has publicly disapproved of such posts. you're attacking the people making the argument (not to mention using a straw man while you're at it: nobody here has argued for perfection as you claim).

if you were honest, you'd note that many here feel this bill is worse than nothing. such an argument can be and has been reasonably made here, and ridiculing it only shows your mind and your argument, or lack thereof, is flawed.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberation]

101. Wow, it must be awesome to be always so right as to not require actual proof of your claims...

... "you are wrong because and that is that"... must have been rather impressive debating technique during elementary school. In the real world, with grown ups... not so much.

I found the rest of your post a hilarious exercise in what can be considered pure projection...

[Ticonderoga]

115. Don't you

have a Tea Party appearance you need to get start getting ready for Chul?

[kenfrequed]

111. Uhm...

Lets see... that is a fair number of logical fallacies packed in there.

We have False Choice and Strawman worked in as well as something of an Ad hominem. Is it possible you could just argue factually the merits of this reform package.

[mistajefferson]

127. 66

yup, you're right about all of that.

[Marr]

9. "I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted..."

Obama said it himself: "I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are — you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system."

This bill isn't the result of compromise between parties. It isn't even the product of compromise within a single party. He got just what he wanted: a PR win that doesn't cause any discomfort to the status-quo.

All the political games of the last year were nothing but theater, designed to bridge the gap between Obama's "brand" and the actual policies he favors.

[amborin]

22. Big PHarma is Elated! Obama gave them what they wanted!

[jgraz]

29. Big Pharma is "elated"? I think you forgot the 'F'

[leftstreet]

30. LOLOLOLOL

That took me a second

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

81. Mee too.

[eridani]

50. And YOU forgot the extra "l" n/t

[avaistheone1]

98. Bingo.

Obama never was committed to changing the health care system.

[liberation]

102. Exactly...

However, you gotta admit that the hand waving exercises by some of the proponents of the bill in this site are glorious. The level of denial and intellectual dishonesty of those trying to make this piece of shit bill into some political tour de force are starting to be up there with the leaps in logic the Bushistas displayed during the past 8 years.

The more things change....

[kenny blankenship]

11. Yeah, but they would have accused us of socialism

[leftstreet]

17. Interesting that meme didn't work to keep Obama from getting elected

hmm....

[tranche]

18. But it got a lot more Democratic votes than it would have.

Just saying.

[Orsino]

33. QED. n/t

[LWolf]

19. Too bad the president wasn't willing to lead his party in the right direction. nt

[kath]

46. yep - his lack of leadership was utterly pathetic.

[upi402]

20. except for the DLC "Democrats" we voted in

Maybe we should primary DLC Dems out at any cost. What's the difference?

[spanone]

21. unfortunately President Obama had to compromise with democrats.

[mdmc]

23. but single payer would not have gotten the votes of the corporatist

so it would not have passed..

[tedzbear]

55. Bingo!

Both the GOP and the Demos depend on corporate $ to get elected, plus there's corporate lobbyists to constantly remind them of it. Notice that the health care stocks all went up today which proves who really benefits from this health care charade.
The Democratic Party of today is not the same party we had under LBJ and the Great Society.

[Greyhound]

25. You weren't supposed to notice that. The theatrics are necessary to maintain the illusion of choice.

You'll upset the converts...

[mikita]

88. +1 n/t

[mistajefferson]

128. 67

YOu're right, we don't want that. :S

[sabrina 1]

26. That was always just an excuse. Which we didn't buy

It was a stupid excuse basically saying that having all three branches of government under your control, means nothing when you want to get things done. It never made sense, but some people bought it.

The next excuse didn't work either with people who are not blinded by partisanship. 'We can't use reconciliation in this situation'.

[Uncle Joe]

27. That's because the Corporatist Party knew it could obtain two primary goals by

having the Republicans sit this one out.

1. "We the People's" government to promote and subsidize in to perpetuity a particular as opposed to "general welfare" benefiting a dysfunctional, illogical, immoral, redundant, fiscally irresponsible industry in to an ongoing feedback loop sending vast quantities of cash back to the Congress in the form of lobbying proceeds and to the corporate media in the form of commercial advertising money.

2. To hide the Republican wing of the Corporatist Party's fingerprints thus giving them a strong dynamic to regain their political momentum with their base and some Independents while dampening Democratic moral, thus aiding a Republican return to power and insuring corporate dominance over the American People in to the foreseeable future.

There was never any intention for the Republicans to actually negotiate in good faith on the substance of the bill, had they done so, the bill would have been more progressive than it turned out, and this would have reversed the decades long progression of corporate supremacism over the American People and their government.

Thanks for the thread, Cal Carpenter.

[jgraz]

31. The Democrats are still playing 90s politics

Someone needs to clue them in that there are more sources of information than three network news broadcasts. It's harder to fool most of the people most of the time.

[DefenseLawyer]

32. If you actually think the Democratic leadership or the President wanted single payer

but were somehow thwarted by the Republicans, you might need a mental health evaluation.

[Captain Hilts]

82. "Health insurance companies perform an important role." Prez. B. Obama. nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

35. Sing it loud and proud brother!

While there are legions of DU'ers it seems that are completely willing to give the Obama folks a pass for this corporate welfare bill and forgive the lies, the fact remains that it was never the GOP that Dems feared - it was oceans of corporate money. The reason there is no PO is because the health insurance industry was the constituency being PROTECTED by Obama and the Dem leadership. The whole thing was an ugly, messy con job. That being said, I am willing to play Charlie Brown for a little while longer and hope that the Obama folks do not pull the football away again. Or, is that the scorpion and the frog thing? Either way, I will still play ball for just bit longer with this President.

[Unvanguard]

37. But far more Democratic votes. It was a close thing even as it was.

It was never a matter of needing Republican votes, but of keeping the conservative Democrats in line.

[New Dawn]

40. And now we live underneath the fascist Individual Mandate as well.

[glitch]

42. You betcha. But how would single payer have bailed out the insurance industry?

The thing speaks for itself.

[marshall]

43. The bipartisanship was WITHIN the party

Between liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, pro-life Democrats, Dixiecrats, whatever you want to call them. Once the Republicans are dead and buried we'll just divide up and form our own two party system.

[branders seine]

47. ah. politics hides a world of sins.

and it trumps policy whenever our overlords want it to.

[dajoki]

48. K&R

[Edweird]

49. Don't forget 'including republican ideas'.

[pundaint]

51. We may not get what we vote for, but if we vote a second time for the same people

we deserve what we got. I didn't vote for, nor will I deserve, forced involvement of for-profit health insurers between me and my doctor.

Incumbents who begin by dismissing my issues do not choose to represent me.

[ibegurpard]

52. The compromises were never intended to garner Republican support

They were to garner corporate and industry lobbyist support.

[cynatnite]

53. Single payer wouldn't have passed...that's reality. n/t

[Roland99]

54. Fuckin' A!

[Canuckistanian]

56. "Bipartisan" these days means negociating with Blue Dogs

The GOP has lost ANY relevance to the reality-based world.

[inna]

57. *EXCELLENT* point.

I've been saying it for months - Obama could actually be practicing truly progressive policies, and the fallout from the right wing would've been exactly the same. They'd still call him a "radical socialist" or whatever nonsense they call him now (despite him practicing pro-corporatist, center-right policies).

[SlingBlade]

58. K & R That !

[Joey Kidd]

59. K&R

What a waste of time and effort. :(

[newtothegame]

60. Self-delete

[colsohlibgal]

63. Bingo!

Indeed,Republicans did not stop single payer, the democrats did.....led by Obama. After all centrist watering down is "sensible" - in his own words. Change we can believe in - not quite.

[grahamhgreen]

64. Begs the question - do the rest of the dems really want our vote?

[Individualist]

66. K&R

[gtar100]

68. That really is the kicker, isn't it.

They compromised for nothing. Like it was all a big show.

[stopbush]

69. The Senate version would have never gotten the 60 votes needed with a PO,

let alone single payer.

You forget that much of the compromises made in the Senate version were made to get conservative Ds to vote for the bill.

The fact is that R votes were irrelevant to this process at every step of the way. That's obvious as the whole thing passed without a single R vote in either house.

[NYC_SKP]

72. It's sad.

Could people be so dense as to not be able to grasp the two bodies and their separate rules and rulings (senate vs house)?

You're absolutely right.

This flawed but important legislation was scarcely, only barely, passed and there's really no way we could have gotten much more good in it.

Sad, but true, and so obvious to anyone who paid attention and knows how congress works.

:patriot:

[newspeak]

123. If the president and the democratic party had introduced the most

progressive bills--health, job creation--and PR'd the American people. Repeated over and over again how they were going to help mainstreet over wall street, going to relieve their hardships--and the repukes went against every bill for the people--it would be the repukes who'd be in deep doo-doo. Some of those progressive ideas would have been passed--but the important part would be that the people would see who was really hindering the process of helping the people and changing the economy. By not bringing in sweeping reform and catering to the status quo, I believe that it hasn't helped the democratic party. Now some are saying, but they wouldn't pass medicare for all or single payer--true--but the people would understand who is hindering the process and who was on their side instead of monied interest. Sometimes you have to lose some to win it all.

[PinkFloyd]

73. Not only that but states also couldn't sue over the new bill

Several states plan to sue because they feel their rights have been violated by the individual mandate. They could have gotten around that by just having medicare for everyone and doing away with the health insurance companies altogether.

[watajob]

75. I agree with you, sir ...

... but it appears we're swimming upstream now as any mention of the negative aspects of this bill get you branded as "unappreciative" or "uninformed".

[Skittles]

76. that really slips by a lot of people

but the fact is, Obama never wanted single payer or public option - it was all bullshit

[RBitt]

84. this is it?

they sold out. they all suck. Nader was right, not a dimes worth of difference.

[quaker bill]

85. True

but it got more Democratic Party votes than single payer would have. Just sayin'.

[penndragon69]

86. To hell with the MINORITY party.

They won't vote for anything, anyway so let's do whats right
and forget about them.

[Lerkfish]

87. good point

[WeekendWarrior]

89. Posts like this show a FUNDAMENTAL failure to understand the politics

of this situation.

1. Single-payer would not have passed. Period. Enough Democrats would have voted against it to kill it.

2. The WHOLE POINT of reaching across the aisle for bipartisanship was to give the Republicans room to completely destroy themselves. Which is exactly what they did.

I would have loved for the Dems to ignore the Repugs and pass single payer. But based on the composition of the Democratic party today, it never could have happened. Instead, Obama, a BRILLIANT politician and tactician, has made the Republicans look like complete schmucks right before the November elections.

[Cal Carpenter]

94. You've infered quite a lot about me from a statement of observation

My point of this wasn't to imply that single payer could have/would have passed.

I suppose, if you are that interested in my intentions, it was to broach the topic of WHY it couldn't have passed. WHY the Democratic party, while in control of the house, senate, and white house couldn't or wouldn't accomplish what dozens of other countries have successfully achieved. A truly affordable health care system for all.

IMO, that is something we all need to think long and hard about and stop accepting the answer as inevitable and unchangeable. Because if this is the best we can do, that's pretty fucking sad, dontcha think?

As for your point #2 and last paragraph - Let's hope people realize that that mentality is part of the problem, not the solution. The longer we justify legislative mediocrity by invoking 'what about November?!', the longer we will face such mediocrity.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. The quest for bipartisanship failed entirely

All the 'including Republican ideas' and all the time wasted on Snowe and other Republicans was a waste of time and energy. Obama's grand quest for Republican support failed to deliver so much as one solitary vote, and it took a year.
So if nothing else, perhaps we can mandate an end to the constant praise of Republicans and the constant scolding of Democrats. I do not want to be told that Chuck Grassley is an honest broker. He's not. And seeing as the heaps of praise lead only to more ridicule and of course, no votes of support, the whole routine is stale and pointless.

[branders seine]

95. the policy was fixed in February of 2009.

Everything since then has been a political show. The Amercan people have completely fallen for the lies from both sides. Keep in mind, the bill that passed is basically identical to the bill written by industry lobbyists for the rapublicans.

[rhett o rick]

96. Has the list of no voters been posted? nm

[wryter2000]

97. Unfortunately, we had to compromise with members of our party

Pitiful, but we couldn't have gotten anything better because of Democrats.

[liberation]

103. So the question has to be asked:

Why on earth should we support the Dem platform, since it is not interested in supporting us?

Other than "there are not as bad as the GOP" I just simply fail to see any clear value proposition of the Dem party if liberals also have to fight them in order to get the legislation we need.

When the GOP is in power, we have to fight them tooth and nail. When Dems are in power, libs have to fight them tooth and nail, but we libs have to support the Dems because they are not as bad as the GOP. That is not making any sense whatsoever. You know why? Because in the same sense I notice liberals have to fight for every crumb, regardless of whether the GOP or the Dem party are in power. A funny thing just occurred to me: them conservatives don't have to fight much in order to get their perennial 5 course meals. Funny eh?

[elocs]

108. None of this was ever about Republican votes, but getting enough Democratic votes

to pass. Evidently this is a difficult concept.

[Lex]

110. +1

[Cal Carpenter]

119. No actually it's glaringly obvious

and maybe we can discuss it with intellectual honesty instead of this 'it's better than nothing' or 'it's the best we could possibly do' bullshit.

What does that say about the Dems, that this is the best we can do? When we are in charge of both chambers and the WH? When we didn't even need any repub votes in the house? What does it say about the dems that for months we've been hearing 'we have to compromise' and 'we have to be bipartisan' when it's so obviously a load of shit?

This was the best we could do?

Why won't anyone really talk about this? Why do we have to talk around it like its a political football game?

[elocs]

129. Yes, it is the best we could do. Just because you call it bullshit does not make it so.

We have a starting point. Neither Social Security nor Medicare were what they are today when they first were implemented.

[Cal Carpenter]

136. Yeah and we fight year after year not to let

them get totally stripped down and privatized.

This is a mediocre starting point that is destined to fail or, at best, remain mediocre. History doesn't prove otherwise. Gains made in the New Deal have been eroding ever since. Job Security? Pensions? Reasonable benefits and hours per week? They've become (or are becoming) a thing of the past. How anyone can argue that starting from a point of relying on privatized health insurance with very little enforceable regulation is beyond me.

This bill is a joke. The joke is on all the American people. As usual.

Meanwhile our health care costs per capita are going to continue to be absurdly high compared to other countries with much better measurable outcomes.

Yeah, I call it bullshit, I'll continue to call it bullshit.

[craigmatic]

109. yea too bad it got more democratic votes than single payer would've

[Spike89]

114. Politics are not black and white

Geez, to hear some people on here, you'd think progressives had been firmly in control for at least a generation. Politically, we've skewed far right of the general populace since at least 1980 and just came out of 8 years of Bush. We did NOT gain a majority of progressives in the last election--we purposefully ran blue dogs in places where they had a chance to unseat rabid dog repugs. You can say that they (the Blue Dogs) are "just as bad as republicans" but that isn't true.

You don't repair 30 years of political damage in one election, and you don't face a constant, smooth curve of improvement either. To get us back to a left-leaning political environment will sadly take most of a generation.

[Romulox]

117. Good Cop/Bad Cop ring any bells? nt

[Overseas]

120. That was my 1st reaction too. My Pollyanna Take for today is the prolonged exposure of GOP insanity.

PERHAPS

-- The prolonged exposure of the GOP demonization of any good government, even basic compassionate healthcare, in such a public manner would finally give our Democratic legislators courage to act as though they understood why we voted the GOP out of office.

-- The public exposure of the GOP having been invited in to comment, pampered and courted again and again, and still refusing to vote for compassionate healthcare reform may have been necessary to penetrate our conservative-dominated media.

-- Exposing the crazy GOP ranting against basic compassionate reform may remove the stupid "Blue Dogs" excuse that they need to vote at corporate direction because they come from conservative districts. Will the Blue Dogs still want to ally themselves with the crazy rantings of today's GOP?

-- Doing what I hated by weakening the bill with Republican ideas, only to get zero GOP votes, thereby exposing the many Republican leaders voting against ideas they themselves had espoused, will penetrate our now very conservative mass media and reach the millions who voted out the GOP in 2006 and 2008.

-- The shield for conservative Democrats siding with corporate interests, the need to be bipartisan, has been promoted heavily in our conservative mass media every time Republican mismanagement has led to Democratic leadership being voted in again. The bipartisan lie has been promoted on very many fronts-- with editorials, conservative rants and push polls to get the public to dislike "all the arguing in Washington"-- especially before Democrats are voted in again. So President Obama nobly extending the bipartisan olive branch again and again, netting the Big Zero, may have penetrated through our very conservative mass media to millions of voters, reminding them of why they voted out the GOP.

[Richardo]

121. And how would the Democratic votes have compared?

[swilton]

124. Thanks for reminding us so sweetly and succinctly!

[mistajefferson]

125. Yesterday's bill got exactly as many Republican votes as Single Payer would've

Hmmm....now that's a great point.

[Mass]

130. They got Nelson and Lincoln, who are Republicans in all but name.

I'm not familiar with the House, but I bet they got some of the equivalents of those two.

[shraby]

131. Single payer/universal/medicare for all just wouldn't have

garnered the votes in the Senate...yet. It will though same as all the other social programs the Dems have put together for everyone.

[TBF]

137. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

:kick:

[Cal Carpenter]

139. Heh

That's okay. I can't believe it got so many as it is. I bet it got a lot of unrecs too...

Thanks though!

[maryf]

140. ditto here

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Great stuff, thanks Cal Carpenter!!!