Sometimes our side sucks so bad....We blew it on Health Reform, plain and simple

[Armstead]

Even if the Democrats had an 80 seat Senate majority, and a majority of the House and the WH, we would still find a way to lose.

Health care reform was a classic example. Obama and the rest of them get us all psyched up. "Put us in office and we are really going to fix healthcare, for real."

So what do they do? They cave in to the GOP, they cave in to the DLC, they cave into the Conservative Blue Dogs...and they cave into the health insurance industry.

No let me change that. They not only caved into the health insurance industry. They gave the robber barons of healthcare a huge Christmas present wrapped up in a ;pretty red bow. Millions of captive customers, forced by law to buy their rotten products.

Oh sure some "reform." We ask the insurers to play nice....please pretty please.

Single payer? Forget it. Medicare for all? ha! A tame public option run by the government to at least keep the insurers honest and offer people a choice? No way!

Seeing how frustrated and beaten down and depressed the usually upbeat Sen Tom Harkin looked on television says it all. he went from being confident a real public option happen to having to bite his tongue while trying to put the best face on an obvioous defeat.

Corporate and ConservaDerms are catered to, their butts kissed royally to placate them.

Progressive and Liberal Democrats who wanted real health reform? "Be glad we let a few crumbs fall into your lap. Now, begone until we need you in the next election!"

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Pretty cynical, but still true, unfortunately.

[roguevalley]

26. a majority leader with steel you know whats could have beaten

ben whatshisname and the other quizlings into line by stripping them of all that they hold dear and exposing their allegiance to corporate money. I would have. Dancing around the imaginary christmas tree of bi-partisanship is so stupid and ill advised that it will be a central part of the study of Obama's admin forever. He fucked that up and didn't find another way sooner. Courting these criminals, lincoln and the like was completely unforgiveable. He should have pivoted right away when it was clear even to me sitting in the boonies in Alaska that they weren't going to change. Pisses me off in a visceral way that this didn't happen.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Yes, we are great with the ideas, not so good on the discipline and muscle to drive the change.

[Armstead]

17. That's it in a nutshell

[arcadian]

32. I saw somebody on here compare LBJ to Obama.

Saying that LBJ was able to ram his legislation through the Senate and why isn't Obama able to do that? You know why? LBJ's nickname was "Master of the Senate" he was President of the Senate for those many years. Obama can't do that, he doesn't have the experience. He really is a Washington outsider and he'll be the closest thing to a "President of the people" this country will ever get, even though he's being completely strung along by the corporatists.

[CTLawGuy]

75. he didn't ram anything throught the senate

he didn't need to, because the Republicans were not so radical that they blocked everything as a matter of course. MANY Democrats did NOT vote for Johnson's legislation, but it was ok, because many Republicans did.

[treestar]

90. Yes. We are so proud of not walking in lockstep

And not being cheerleaders and all that. But there's a time when you have to do it. That's the failure, but it's the same posters who celebrate not walking in lockstep who are complaining of the failures. Funny that.

[polichick]

3. Problem is, there is no "our side" - just two corporate parties. nt

[Armstead]

9. That's partly the fault of "our side" --- including thee and me

We have played along, swallowed their BS and not been able to get it together enough to sufficiently challenge the corporate oligarchs of both parties.

[polichick]

15. Not me - I've fought that crap for 30+ years. The hippies saw it coming...

...and I was fortunate enough to know my share of hippies, who were a bit older than me and very politically motivated.

[Armstead]

45. In my own way, me too...But let's fact it..We collectively screwed the pooch

Progressives have a very compelling case to make and it should resonate with a majority of Americans. It is in their own self interest.

But we never figured out how to sell it, and instead we let the corporate oligarchs (in both parties) gain the upper hand and feed the public a load of lies for the last 30 years.

We should have been smart enough to at least keep the scales more balanced so that liberalism/progressivism could have remained the mainstream position of a lot more Americans.

[polichick]

51. Since so many have tried, only to be stabbed in the back by those we've elected...

...maybe some sort of revolution is in order, as many young people believe - hopefully not a violent one.

[Armstead]

54. I prefer the term "rebellion" -- but yes that's what we need

We have to stop falling for the blackmail that "You have no otehr choices."

If people like Obama are going to promise change, we have to make it clear that they either deliver, or they don't get our support next time -- and mean it.

Meanwhile, we have to find and build up the political base for real leaders who honestly mean it.

[polichick]

58. Here's one group that's doing good work:

http://www.progressivemajority.org/

[polichick]

49. delete

[Smashcut]

81. Exactly.

We need to stop pretending there's actually a real "battle" taking place here between the two parties. It only serves to further disguise the truth that both "sides" now ultimately benefit the same interests.

That isn't to say there aren't real, genuine and principled liberal Democrats left in office but honestly you can count them on two hands at most.

[jgraz]

4. "We" did not blow it. Our elected non-representatives blew it.

And no, they're not "our side".

[Armstead]

16. We blew it by electing them

[jgraz]

19. Not sure what the alternative was.

:shrug:

[Armstead]

47. That's our fault by not finding and supporting alternatives

[jgraz]

65. I think we did our part. We just need to keep doing it.

And not supporting those that don't support us.

[Armstead]

70. That's been the key for a long time -- but we still allow ourselves to get blackmailed

The core, IMO, is that we have to stop accepting the phony argument that we "have no choice" but to support politicians who do not share our views or interests because the alternativeb (the GOP) is so much worse.

We do have a choice.

So i agree with you, but we;ve got to mean it at some point instead of reflexively accepting crumbs.

[jgraz]

72. I've meant it for a long time

We're just not allowed to use this site to advocate voting for third-party candidates.

[rudy23]

5. There are two sides to our side, and our side of our side lost to

the President's side of our side.

[ShortnFiery]

6. We didn't stand a chance to begin with ... we have neither money nor connections.

We're screwed in a nation that's morphed into essentially a right-wing corporate duopoly.

We, the average American, have NO POWER.

[Garam_Masala]

55. I don't think Obama is part of that duopoly..eom

[Orsino]

7. The powers arrayed against us were too strong...

...for the few of us who care to win a better compromise.

[uponit7771]

8. The bill is out of committee already?! You know you hear whining when something isn't actually been.

...proposed yet.

FYI The joint commitee bill is the only one that matters...

Thx

[waterscalm]

11. True, yet is is weak and could get weaker. Stay tuned.

[Armstead]

12. I hope that a last minute surprise proves me wrong....But I'm not holding my breath

The public option keeps getting weaker and weaker fading and fading away.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. It's not our side, it's the traitors.

[Armstead]

14. Mixed with our own ineptitude

We should not have allowed things to have devolved to this sorry state.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Flesh that out a little.

No matter what we'd have done, we'd still have Lieberman.

[Armstead]

36. I mean in a bigger sense

If the true liberal and progressives could get their act together, people like Lieberman would be irrelevant. In fact he would be a Republican, where he belongs these days.

The fact that the Democratic Party is kowtowing to its most reactionary forces -- and the so-called moderates like Obama are so lily livered -- says that on a fundamental level all of us have failed by allowing the wrong people to get and hold power.

[saracat]

13. This was obvious when Obama and the Dems took single payer off the table.

We might have been able to negotiate down to a PO , instead we will have mandates for nothing.Guess those back door deals wefe "real" Even CNN mentioned them to day.Now we know why the Prez was always lukewarm on the PO. He knew it wasn't gonna happen.

[waterscalm]

87. Yes, we started from a weak bargaining position and steadily went downhill...

Now the PO is dead.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804388.html?hpid=topnews

Senate may drop public option




By Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Democratic Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to drop the controversial government-run insurance plan from their overhaul of the health-care system, hoping to remove a last major roadblock preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber.

In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.

The announcement came after six days of negotiations among 10 Democrats -- five liberals and five moderates -- appointed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to work out differences between the two camps on the public option and other pressing issues. Appearing in the Capitol with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the liberal faction, and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), representing moderates, Reid hailed the deal as a broad agreement that has the potential to "overcome a real problem that we had" and push the measure to final Senate vote before Christmas.

"Not everyone is going to agree with every piece," Reid said. But when asked whether the deal means the end is in sight after nearly a year of work on President Obama's most important domestic initiative, he smiled. "The answer's yes," he said. ....:puke:

[prolesunited]

20. I think your problem is in interpretation

You paraphrase that Obama promised, "Put us in office and we are really going to fix healthcare, for real."

Single payer? Forget it. Medicare for all? <-- Show me where Obama *ever* offered this. It was never on the table. I believe in holding politicians accountable, but you can't hold them to things they never promised.

A tame public option run by the government to at least keep the insurers honest and offer people a choice? No way! <-- I haven't seen an actual bill reach Obama's desk. Have you?

Do I think Medicare or single payer is the way to go? Sure. Do I think Obama promised that when I voted for him? No.

If we don't pass anything, we are screwed. If we pass something, we can get the ball rolling. Look at the history of Social Security and Medicare. The started out far from perfect but created a foundation on which to build.

Hold out for perfect and we're never going to get it. What we are going to get is the GOP in office. And, yes, Virginia, there *is* a difference.

[Armstead]

39. They failed to even deliver on modest promises

No I did not expect a rush to a single payer system. And, no, Obama did not promise that.

But they failed on even a modest idea like a public option. Instead they have delivered something WORSE than what we started with, in some respects. Forcing people to buy private insurance, with no price controls. A few concessions to "charity care" for a small segment of the population in return.

I would have a lot more respect if Obama and the other weasels had been honest from the beginning, and only promised to start with some controls to begin rein in cost and increase access. My expectations were low enlough to be able to say "At least that's a start."

But they did promise major health care reform.

And instead of improving the situation they will make it worse politically and socially with a hobbled together mess that will alienate more people than it helps or satisfies -- on both sides.

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. They did NOT CAVE IN!!!

They're executing the plan. Their plan.

[Armstead]

35. With some you are correct...I don'tt apply that to all of them though

I don't want to paint with too broad a brush.

yes, there are too many corporate/CONservative democrats who call the shots. Those dickheads would be happy if there were no health reform.

But there are some good ones who fought hard but were overcome by the power of the weasels.

[Garam_Masala]

57. Ahhh...the famous 3-dimensional Chess!

wait till the game ends before y'all have a cow.

[Cronus Protagonist]

67. Well, we could do that, but perhaps it would be better to influence the outcome

Rather than waiting for the Democratic "leadership" to snatch defeat from victory one more time.

[Eric Condon]

63. You're right. They're not "caving" to the GOP or the DLC.

They are doing exactly what they were put there to do, which is follow the orders of their corporate masters.

We liberals often frame it in terms of the Democrats "compromising their principles," but they don't have any principles to compromise. Their job, just like the Repukes, is to enact corporate-friendly legislation, not to serve the people.

[SpartanDem]

22. It's so great that they oppose it

As for the characterization Americans would be held captive we're much more captive now because they can hold pre existing conditions over peoples head. Forcing people to stay with companies they don't like for fear that no one else will cover them

If I told you that within one year a bill would pass eliminating pre existing conditions, no lifetime expense caps, set minimum coverage standards, caps on out of pocket expenses, minimum amount that must spent of medical care you'd say I was dreaming.

[Armstead]

42. If they had not sold this as the be-all and end-all, you might be right

If the democrats had said we're starting by dealing with the worst abuses of the insurers, as a start to real reform, then I could have lived with that.

In fact, that would have been a smart strategy politically too, and gained more popular support for the concept of real reform.

But instead they have set it up as the Final Solution, and precluded further reform -- and made many people suspicious of any future reforms. They have made it worse by forcing people to buy private insurance and leaving us at their mercy.

[Garam_Masala]

60. so where is the cap on cost of premiums?

do you think for a minute that the insurance industry won't jack
up our premiums sky high with the additional mandates?

[chill_wind]

23. The long and the short of it. K & R. n/t

[salguine]

24. They didn't blow it. They did exactly what they intended to do. They don't give

a SHIT about you, or me. or anyone else except the Wall Street orges to whose asses their lips are permanently affixed. They never intended to give you health reform. An 80 seat majority won't give you any reform because the Democratic Party in Congress, at large, is in hock to exactly the same corporate interests the Republicans are. The whole thing needs to be burnt down to ashes and started over.

[polichick]

25. "Change you can believe in" turned out to be the usual campaign con job...

I'm just afraid that all those new voters will be turned off for a very long time, leaving us nowhere.

[freddie mertz]

31. We may have lost an entire generation of new voters...

Thanks to the incredibly bad performance we have seen from the president, right on down.

I think people thought they were electing a leader..

I am not even sure how to describe what we got instead.

[CTLawGuy]

77. nice constructive criticism

but that's ok, no one will care on "Democratic(?)" Underground.

[Garam_Masala]

61. yap, and to rub salt in the woulds, they will keep their own Cadillac plan

paid by the tax payers.

Just tell me one good reason why the politicians can't be required to
sign up on their creation...the public option?

[phleshdef]

27. You know damn good and well if Obama could get a better bill, he would fucking sign it.

The Democratic part is not the Liberal party, its the party that liberals normally associate with, but its not exclusively about liberalism. Thats not Obama's fault, thats not even Harry Reid's fault. There are non-liberal Democrats and the rules of the senate are what they are. You can't get a better bill out of the current makeup of the senate, it doesn't matter WHO was President, it can not happen.

[Armstead]

34. iT IS supposed TO BE THE LIBERAL PARTY -- If not, why the hell bother?

This fucking cop-out that the Democratic Party is not the liberal party is why we are in such a mess. And it is an excuse.

The Republicans are the conservative party. The counterbalance to that is supposed to be a liberal party.

That does NOT mean there should be no place for moderates or a "big tent" in either party.

But the basic cast for a two party system is one party represents the conservative half of the spectrum and the other represents the liberal half. Ultimately that creates a healthy balance.

BUT THAT DOES NOT WORK IF you have one party with a clear ideology, and the other has no fundamental principles.

Continuing to pander to "democtrats" who do not share a basic liberal ideology is a recipie for disaster -- both for society and for the Democratic Party.

[freddie mertz]

38. He should have started by promoting a better bill HIMSELF.

His passivity on the details is in large part to blame for this catastrophe.

[phleshdef]

66. If it was the role of the President to tell Congress what to do, we wouldn't need a congress.

[freddie mertz]

85. So, you are saying the president has no leadership role in relation to...

What his own party does in congress?

That's just not true.

[freddie mertz]

28. I've totally given up on it. And it was my number 1 issue.

But this "process" has been such a disappointment, such a disgrace, such an abject failure, that I feel I can't even be a Democrat anymore.

After 56 years.

I have fallen from the "high" of November 2008 to the lowest pits of disgust and despair.

[polichick]

29. How do we keep the new voters interested?? I felt that with a new generation...

...of voters, we had finally reached critical mass and could create real change. Now I think Obama's campaign was a big con job.

If we lose the new voters, there will be a lot of wandering in the wilderness for progressive Dems.

Maybe the answer is a new party.

[freddie mertz]

30. Unless things change drastically, I have no idea.

"Change we can believe in" has morphed horribly into an even worse than usual image of "business as usual."

The naked face of corruption and a government purchased by special-interest money and the usual military-industrial cabals has never been so publicly displayed, in all its dysfunctional glory.

This keeps up much longer, and Obama and the Dems will be gone in 2012.

After that, a new party may become a necessity.

[polichick]

33. Maybe liberals can unite with those on the right who are sick of war...

...sick of corporate America and sick of the Fed. Funny how we now have a few things in common.

[freddie mertz]

37. I am not really interested in the Ron Paul types

Too clueless or worse on issues of racism, gay and women's rights for me, anti-science, etc.

None for me, thanks.

[polichick]

40. Yeah, they really have some throwback ideas! nt

[freddie mertz]

41. Right. So why even discuss them?

They have their niche.

Some are part of the teabag community..

I ignore them.

[polichick]

44. I mentioned them because the only way to beat corporate politics is...

...to build a coalition.

[polichick]

52. Check out the Dems who have signed on to Paul's Fed bill...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207

[freddie mertz]

69. Issue specific alliances make sense.

But that is a long way from forming a new party with them.

[polichick]

71. We don't have to form a party, just work on the issue of tossing out...

...corporate politicians.

[taught_me_patience]

89. Younger workers are going to flee this party in droves

Most of us believe SS will not be available by the time we retire (or the eligible age will be 87)
We will shoulder the tax burden of the endless wars
We will shoulder the tax burden of the bank bailouts
We get to live with 0% interest rates... making building a nest egg nearly impossible
We're forced shoulder the extra Medicare tax burden (if they lower the age to 55)
We get to live with endless "jobless" recoveries
We'll shoulder the burden of a hopeless energy policy, built around a dwindling resource
We get to watch Obama shower home owners (most of us younger workers still rent) with tax breaks on interest, buying, and fixing homes, while we get shit.
We face the prospect of higher taxes to deal with an insane deficit
We'll be forced to purchase health insurance from the private companies that created this mess, with no public option, or be fined.

Yeah... younger voters basically got kicked in the balls.

full disclosure... I'm 31.

[Writer]

43. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. n/t

[Armstead]

48. its in front of your nose

[Writer]

50. No, it's not.

Your assertions do not translate into universal truths.

[Armstead]

53. You are going to play that old game? "Show me the proof"..."Your proof is not good enough"

I've had enough experience with that little game played by rightwingnuts and by conservative democrats.

Demand "proof."

Send the otehr person on a wild goose chase to locate and put together the evidence to "prove" it.

Then deny that the evidence is real. Use your own unproven assertions as evidence.

If the other person is naive enough to think there is actually a debate going on, just rinse and repeat until the other person gives up in frustration.

-----Sorry, I'm not playing.

[Writer]

56. Yes, I'd like to see empirical evidence for your claims.

And it's not a game, it's the scientific method. It's rational Enlightenment behavior.

But I forgot that people typically don't ascribe to reason. They simply emote enthymemes and specious narratives.

You're not playing because you only have your knee-jerk assertions. You don't have evidence. You're just emoting and fanning flames.

Booo. :thumbsdown:

[Armstead]

62. No it's because your "empirical assumptions" are just as "knee jerk" as you claim mine are

Your "rational" enlightenment behavior is based on a set of assumtions.

That's fine. Most people are that way. Me too.

But people like you are unwilling to admit that certain sets of principles and "leaps of faith" are part of how we interpret reality and "hard cold facts."

I have seen a lot of empirical evidence for my original contention. But to you, if they do not jibe with your own preconceotions, you will dismiss them.

It's a circular strategy, because you are not going to change your mind. You merely want to put up a brick wall rather than actually having any kind of give and take dialogue in which both sides might actually change their opionion.

[Writer]

64. You're right, but you're still not defending your argument with evidence.

How do I know whether you're basing your claims in reality or in only the perception of that reality?

[Armstead]

68. Okay, here is the chain of events

The biggest mistake (or deliberate strategy) was in putting together a "sweeping package" of "reform" before anyone really knew what that meant.

This to me is screwing the pooch on an important issue. It could have been handled much better in any number of ways. The Democrats could have taken a smarter approach by either sticking to real reform and meaning it. OR by first addressing the worst abuses as the starting point for a longer campaign of incremental but meaningful reform for the long term.

But they presented it in a way that precludes further reform.

Single payer Universal healthcare was taken off the table from the start.

Okay. That would be (IMO) the ideal -- and practical -- solution to this mess. But we can live with a compromise that moves in that direction.

So as a "comprimise" the idea of a public option is put out there. Many liberals and progressives swallow hard and accept that as the best we can get.

But then, the public option is steadily eroded and weakened to placate the Blue Dogs and DLCers and possible republican votes. Triggers, opt outs, narrowing down eligibility..etc.

Meanwhile, they give the gift of mandated coverage to the insurance companies.

Then the public option is further narrowed down. Some Congressional Democrats fight hard for a robust public option. But they are dismissed and undermined by the leadership n favor of kowtowing to the conservatives.

Obama, meanwhile, behaves like anything but a leader or supporter of a real public option. he tells progressives to pipe down, while he courts the conservatives. he refuses to put his considerable clout behind the fight for a real public option.

Liberals and progressive advocates are forced to beg for crumbs. You should have seen Tom Harkin on television yesterday. He was obviously feeling totally beaten down.

Thus -- barring a miracle -- we are going to get reform that will perpetuate the bad system we have, will allow prices to continually be hiked, forces people to buy insurance they can't afford and will poison the well of public opinion against future efforts to being about meaningful change. In return, we will beg the now more powerful insurance companies to be a little nicer -- but without much enforcement of that.

[Writer]

73. Thanks... give me a bit so I can finish this paper.

And I can go over what you've written.

I have an 18-20 page paper do at the end of the week... and it's NOT on Obama! ;)

[freddie mertz]

74. It IS in fact a game. We've all seen what has transpired.

No need to back it up with links.

It's public knowledge.

[Vinca]

46. If Medicare is extended downward, we will need to keep working

for a larger majority to open it all the way. We will get nowhere with the faux Democrats . . . they've got to go.

[xchrom]

59. if the left could get as angry about other issues as we do about war --

we could drive alot of votes in the house and senate home.
past war though -- we run out of steam.

it happened in the seventies -- when they did away with the draft - oy -- people had other things to do than to care about the war on poverty, justice, etc

[David Zephyr]

76. Yep.

What a wasted year of opportunity.

[Armstead]

80. If you say that......I take it seriously

[CTLawGuy]

78. you have to remember

that the Rs are OPPOSING and FILIBUSTERING everything as a matter of course. This has never happened in history. Controversial legislation used to pass the senate with less than 60 votes. Rs used to have somewhat reasonable people in their party. Obama is being forced to shoot the moon among members of his party to pass any legislation because of the Republicans.

Can you imagine if LBJ had been forced, over uniform R opposition and filibuster, to make the civil rights act palatable to southern dems in order to pass it? Forget it. Not even he could have made that work.

And the kicker is, in implementing this strategy, the Rs are trying to make Dems (and others) disillusioned with their party so that the Rs can roar back into power a la 1994.

It's like those "magic eye" pictures from the 90s. You have to look behind what's going on, in order to see what is REALLY going on.

[Armstead]

79. We could force the issue

There are ways around that, including the reconciliation process.

The problem is not the R's...It's the anti-reformers among the D's

[CTLawGuy]

84. no, the problem is the Rs

the founders didn't envision a government in which half the representatives refused to govern.

[PVnRT]

86. Huh?

"...the Rs are OPPOSING and FILIBUSTERING everything as a matter of course. This has never happened in history."

Richard Russell and, sadly, Robert Byrd, led a filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, when it finally passed, it was the first time a civil rights bill had passed over a filibuster.

"Can you imagine if LBJ had been forced, over uniform R opposition and filibuster, to make the civil rights act palatable to southern dems in order to pass it? Forget it. Not even he could have made that work."

Everett Dirksen and Hubert Humphrey crafted a "compromise" bill that weakened enforcement of the act on private business to try and shave off enough votes to break the filibuster.

[treestar]

91. So true

The repukes get more and more unreasonable. They are relentless in getting their way. Us, not so much.

Not one repuke ever complained about being "disappointed" in bush and cheney. You never heard them holding their feet to the fire. Or threatening to vote for the libertarians or some other far right wing party.

They just wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like that.

[yurbud]

82. and it wouldn't have taken much to twist the arms of the blue dog minority

threaten to take their chairmanships or tighten ethics rules so they couldn't run off to be lobbyists, CEOs, board members, and consultants when they leave office, and they'd get right in line.

[JCMach1]

83. We failed due to lack of leadership... instead Obama approached the problem

like a community organizer... :(

Health Care needed a top-down approach, not bottom-up.

[Odin2005]

88. I SOOOO want to strangle the Blue Dogs.

Who's with me? I got a garrote.