TPMDC

Dems See Political Upside to Republican Obstruction on Health Care

Brian Beutler | September 15, 2009, 12:36PM

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Read More

Budget Reconciliation, Democrats, Health Care, Max Baucus, Republicans

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

Though Democrats are prepping a procedural contingency to advance health care reform legislation without any Republican votes, there remains an overwhelming desire among party leaders to pass a bill with 60 votes (most likely 59 Democrats and Olympia Snowe)--but that's not just because Democrats are squeamish about going it alone, and concerned about the technical complications. Some think there may be an upside to exhausting all options.

"We've come this far, so we're going to try this to the bitter end," says one Senate Democratic aide.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) will soon unveil a draft of the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill and, with the budget reconciliation bill set to move forward in mid-October, there's a premium on getting Baucus' plan out of committee swiftly.

Already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to cancel a week-long October recess if Republicans slow things down in committee and on the Senate floor.

"We won't miss the window," the aide said. "Everyone's cognizant of it."

But though time is of the essence, and some on the left are anxious for Democrats to move forward without Republican support, there could be an undiscussed political upside to doing things this way.

"There's a strategic and a message value to letting this play out on the floor for the American people to see," said another Democratic aide. "Especially if this plays out on the floor and Republicans try to kill the bill. [That] would make it easier if we had to come back to a reconciliation."

"We're not losing time by having the debate on the floor and letting the American people see: this is what they're for, this is what they're against, and then if we have to come back we have to come back," the aide added.

Some have noted that Democrats regard using the filibuster-proof reconciliation process as a tool of last resort because they want to have political cover for themselves. But interestingly, they also see holding off as an opportunity to put Republicans on the spot. A little disinfecting sunshine ahead of the 2010 elections, maybe?

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

Mark Your Calendars: Thursday Is Tea Party Recruitment Day

Dems Add Entitlement Reform To Packed Agenda Ahead of 2010 Elections

Sarah Palin: Hero Of Talk Radio Listeners -- But Anyone Else?

Friends In High Places: The Salahis And The Famous People They Take Pictures With

Join the Conversation!

78 comments

Recommend Recommend (3)

September 15, 2009 12:50 PM

So the MSM/GOP lie machine tells you that you are actually happy with your coverage?

Sort of a fatal blow to that rightwing/industry meme:

Employers are planning on slashing your coverage in the coming year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091501175.html?hpid=topnews

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 12:59 PM

This Health Care debate has totally spiraled out of control, and evolved into something much deeper. Check this out:

FROM THE ARTICLE: "Danger!"

First there were the out-of-control summer Town Hall meetings that quickly swelled to shouting matches and often ended in fisticuffs. Then people started showing up to these Town Hall meetings carrying guns. Next up, an Arizona Baptist Minister said he was praying to GOD for Michelle Obama to be widowed, the Obama children to be made fatherless, and for the President to die. Then, conservative parents said they'd rather keep their kids out of school than allow them to hear the spoken "brainwashing" of President Obama. Last week while the President was speaking to a special joint session of congress, Republicans used the opportunity to openly ignore, boo, hiss, and even tell Mr. Obama "YOU LIE." And over the weekend during a "Tea Party" march on Washington, protesters angrily shouted that President Obama wants to purposely ruin the country with socialism and that "Muslims are taking over our country." Hmmm.... ` There's a danger brewing just beneath the surface, mainly fueled by conservative talk radio playing on the ignorance of fear. It's a danger many are whispering about, but few want to openly talk about. Yes, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. But what has happened to the mentality of a country where a fellow lawmaker can lose all decorum and home training, to blatantly disrupt a presidential address by calling the leader of the free world a liar? Or worse where a Baptist minister can freely call for the death of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?? Or where usually sane people have somehow convinced themselves the President is a Muslim and wants Muslims to take over the country??? (Is "Muslim" really code word for "BLACK"?)
FULL STORY: http://okwassup.blogspot.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:02 PM

I take what Reid says with a grain of salt. He is so wishy washy

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:08 PM

"We're not losing time by having the debate on the floor and letting the American people see: this is what they're for, this is what they're against, and then if we have to come back we have to come back," the aide added.

ROTFLMAO! This from the same crowd of politicians who were "taken aback" for the entire month of August by what people were saying?

Seriously?

Sure, one might think Republicans would eventually run out of batshit crazy things to say, but one might also think August never happened.

That's a nice fairy tale those Dem insiders are telling themselves, given just how poorly they responded in August.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:50 PM in reply to CT Voter

Actually, it is just like August never happened. Despite the right wing theatrics and media obsession with a bunch of nuts at town halls, healthcare is exacly where it was before the August recess. In fact, it's in better shape.

The only thing the Republicans got out of this was more people realizing they are comprised of loons and racists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 15, 2009 2:12 PM in reply to FreeRider

I mostly agree with you (hence my frequent resort to "you realize Congress isn't in session?" snark when people were demanding immediate action. But, actually, I think things actually moved backwards for the Repbublicans a little bit and they're only now noticing.

Our side's setback came when they missed the White House's deadline to have a bill out of both houses before the recess. They were pressing that because the were fully expecting a tidal wave of stupidity over the recess (because we get one every August). What caught them off guard was the form. They were expecting commercials and media blitzes. They weren't really expecting the astroturf side to be the opposition's main weapon.

The end result, has been about the same, however. Because people who disagree or are demographically different from themselves are basically invisable to Republicans, they genuinely believed they'd mustered a display of resurgent power that had given them the whiphand. As a result, they strutted back into Congress convinced that they'd scared the spine out of the Democrats with their well-orchestrated display of what Real Americans were thinking. Hence Senator Cracker's demand that the boy show some "humility" and the shocked, amost stunned, reception they gave the speech and Lindsey Graham's post-speech concern trolling about "a complete disaster."

Because they missed an important point. In the end, what they really accomplished over August was to show everyone else in they country that the Republican Party is is completely captive to people who are stupid, crazy and angry. And, somehow, the idea of letting stupid, crazy, angry people dictate the terms of the debate started seeming like a dumb idea to a lot of folks who really hadn't gotten the point up to that time.

And the result is that, notwithstanding all the endless progressive handwringing and raging about sell-outs and reduction of the public option to something that's a bizarre cross between a religious relic a piece of litmus paper, we're are now somewhat ahead of where we were at the end of July, though still somewhat behind where we should have been at that point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Lord, I hope you're right. On my worse days, I am just not convinced that most Americans are anything but stupid enought to fall for it all. There is so riding on this...not just healthcare but other aspects of the agenda and 2010. If we can get healthcare through, the midterms will look a lot different than many are now predicting. As I read elsewhere, it's a classic prisoner's dilemma for centrist Dems. They need healthcare to pass for their party to remain viable but they want it to pass without their vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 3:05 PM in reply to TaraV

That's certainly how they see it, but polling consistently says their constituents want real healthcare reform. We keep assuming they somehow misread their constituencies, but that doesn't make sense. The tragic alternative explanation -- the only one left -- is simple, outright corruption. Defined as choosing the bribe over the welfare of their districts. Presumably they believe they can keep their jobs through big ad spending and the short memories of voters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:17 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Cosigned, from the diagnosis of the August woes, to the histrionics, to the media malpractice.

You can draw a line from the unveiling of the WH budget, to the House and Senate HELP bills, to the president's speech, to the groundwork for reconciliation if necessary.

The outliers are Max Baucus and the constant pronouncements of the death of health care. All of which lead one to conclude that the noise surrounding the debate has been largely irrelevant to the politics in Congress and the strategy to getting a bill through the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

runfastandwin

September 15, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Shorter version: they overplayed their hand, and now they are about to lose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 15, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to runfastandwin

Well, yeah, if you want to go being all laudibly concise and stuff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Well said.

And I agree, though I might nuance the dance (ha!) a little differently.

I did get tired, though, a long, long, long, long time ago (to quote "Sayuri" in "Memoirs of a Geisha") of the smug elitists who know all that can be known, and tons that which can't be known, so tell us all what the future will be.

At this point, of course, there are still some five pending bills, total, and yet we get a steady stream of alarms, whines, screams, squeals, bashings, demands, dire warnings, hand-wringing, hand wavings, chewing of hats and knawing of fingernails -- though not so far reports of suicides or homicides -- about the contents of THE BILL.

I would much prefer to stick with, "We don't yet know," than to be constantly put through the roller coaster snowball ride that only leaves everyone, in addition to as uninformeed as before it embarked, exhausted with all the bothersome blather.

Ke se ra.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 2:47 PM in reply to FreeRider

Despite the right wing theatrics and media obsession with a bunch of nuts at town halls, healthcare is exacly where it was before the August recess. In fact, it's in better shape.

I agree totally. Was it John Stewart who said (paraphrasing): the only time the GOP can win a debate is when Congress is on vacation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Beetlejuice

September 15, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to FreeRider

Exactly. It turned out to be an oh-$h1t moment like in the movie Tora Tora Tora when the Japanese realized there were no flattops at Pearl Harbor ... they just started a war they couldn't win.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to CT Voter

"That's a nice fairy tale"

- I don't believe for a second it's a fairy tale. Spin (and leaks) are never fairly tales, there is always a specific calculation involved.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to Lalo35adm

Sure. And it can also always be predicted what the response to the leak will be.

Not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

drwu

September 15, 2009 1:21 PM

Reid, Hillary, Obama, Baucus, Joe the Heckler--are not the issue or the problem. The health care industry is the problem--they like their business model fine-- insure who they want--the healthy--and deny coverage to all others. They also pay top-dollar to make sure our politicians see things their way. Can the media be far behind?

The Obama "health reform" will deliver 30-50 million uninsured to the private health care industry. The government will subsidize these folks. The money to pay for all this will come out of the hide of Medicare patients--their services and payments will be reduced.

Result--insurers rake in more billions and the government foots the bill. Big, socialized government is OK as long as it takes from the poor and gives to rich.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:28 PM

I thought Healthcare Reform was too important for playing politics?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:39 PM in reply to Indie Pro

But interestingly, they also see holding off as an opportunity to put Republicans on the spot.

That's right Indie. Letting Republicans spend all summer getting themselves way out on that limb where they can't crawl down or climb the tree is going to leave the GOP in a no win situation.

Their teabagger base has made it clear they'll flip out if they support any health care reform and Dems can cut the branch off by passing it without them. They'll be seen as traitors by the base if they concede and losers by everybody when they fail to stop reform.

They've played politics very badly on this one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to markg8

When you've got the media debating whether Joe Wilson was right or wrong to call the President a liar, and treating the Teabagger leader who called Obama an Indonesian Muslim welfare thug as worthy of discussion, well, I'd have to say that the Republicans, so far, haven't played this that badly, at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to CT Voter

You act as if Republicans making asses of themselves is a bad thing. Keep in mind that the American people think very little of the GOP these days and even less of the media.

From Benen yday:

The latest Washington Post poll, asked Americans who they trust more to handle health care reform. A 48% plurality sided with President Obama, 36% prefer congressional Republicans.

A CBS News poll taken two weeks ago asked, "Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think has better ideas about reforming the health care system: Barack Obama, or the Republicans in Congress?" Half (50%) of respondents backed the president, only 23% sided with Republicans.

And for that matter, an NBC News poll taken in mid-August asked, "Do you generally approve or disapprove of the way that Republicans in Congress are handling the issue of health care reform?" A 62% majority said they disapprove of the GOP's handling of the matter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 2:02 PM in reply to markg8

No, that wasn't my point. Your argument is that the Republicans have played this very badly. My point was that when you've got crazy lunatic people not being laughed out of the political arena, well, Republicans are playing this pretty well, actually.

You had a mainstream conservative label Obama an Indonesian Muslim welfare thug last night on CNN. The fact that such a person was invited in the first place indicates how pervasive this lunacy is.

And these numbers:

The latest Washington Post poll, asked Americans who they trust more to handle health care reform. A 48% plurality sided with President Obama, 36% prefer congressional Republicans.
?

Sure, it's better than an even split but given the sheer outright batshit craziness that elected Republican officials are signing on to? It's not terribly great news that 36% still prefer said loonies.

That's more than the 28%ers who still love Bush. As I said, they haven't played this that badly at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 2:59 PM in reply to CT Voter

So you're assuming that the devolution of journalism into reality-show spectacle is the result of a GOP strategy? I wish I agreed, because that might be fixable. But I can't credit the Republicans directly with the decline of the media. Nor can I see a way for the liberal/left side to take as much advantage of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to DaveW

Nope. They're taking advantage of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:05 PM in reply to CT Voter

"a mainstream conservative label[ed] Obama an Indonesian Muslim welfare thug"

Only a troll would view a person who asserted such batshit nonsense to be "mainstream".

Unless the "mainstream" to which referred is in the middle of an entirely different ocean than any of the oceans on this planet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to JNagarya

For someone lamenting the decline of civility, this is an uncivil comment. Even though you apparently weren't interested in why I made such a statement, in the interests of civility, I'll explain.

The individual in question has been a guest on Anderson Cooper's show for two nights running. (perhaps even on Monday, but I didn't see the show). After Tuesday's performance (the Indonesian Muslim Welfare thug performance), he was back on Wednesday.

I would consider Andersoon Cooper and CNN to be the epitome of mainstream, not the fringe. So while it might be comforting to consider this individual just part of the frothing fringe, he's being treated as if he's a legitimate actor in this circus. As mainstream, in other words.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 4:36 PM in reply to CT Voter

Being TREATED as mainstream does not make one mainstream.

But I suppose if I were civil, I'd go along with the misrepresentation -- the LIE -- that such a characterization is true, even though it isn't.

Apparently you don't get it: the fringe is a one-note song: incivility. That is all they understand. Until they get a taste of their own medicine -- in the only terms they understand: THEIRS' -- they won't have the opportunity to learn the unpleasantness of it, therefore won't have the opportunity to change their tune/tone.

And as one who is at least as often as anyone else subjected to their verbal abuses, even when I'm being civil, I don't respond in terms which they falsely perceive as "weakness". Instead, I respond in terms they do understand -- but with the addition of SUBSTANCE.

If you don't like it, or are so confused that you don't get it, or are deliberately dense in effort to push a failing approach, then you're welcome not to read anything I post, because I guarantee that at times such will burn one's fingers to the elbow if one is a troll/fringe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to JNagarya

I find it very amusing that you continue to label me a troll.

You can insist that the fringiest of fringe is but a one-note song, or whatever metaphor you choose. And I will insist that until the non-fringe start showing up and denouncing the antics and blasphemy of the fringe, the fringe represents mainstream conservatism and Republicans, and the non-fringe on the outside, looking in.

As for the warning about not reading what you post? I've always enjoyed your comments. These comments? I guess I'm just too dense, as you point out. You appear to think I'm some sort of double-agent. That I'm actually a fringe winger, making an argument why that asshole on CNN is actually mainstream. I think that asshole is precisely that: an asshole. Until decent conservatives and Republicans stand up and denounce him, though, I'm simply going to assume he's the mainstream.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 6:06 PM in reply to CT Voter

The far-right lunatic fringe is not mainstream -- though they falsely insist they are.

And you falsely insist they are.

Troll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to CT Voter

Wait. Let me get this straight. So because the media is discussing all of the ways the Republicans have devolved into a fringe party, Democrats should really be scared now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 15, 2009 2:21 PM in reply to FreeRider

I think CTV has a point. There was a time when batshit crazy was treated as...well...batshit crazy. MSM wouldn't give nuts like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann any notice whatsoever. Yelling "You lie!" at a Presidential address was beyond the pale. But there's been a renormalization of crazy. It's now treated as just another point of view - as valid as any other. How can there be a real debate about issues when whackos are treated seriously?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

Thanks for expressing my point more succinctly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 3:06 PM in reply to CT Voter

I don't think media (except for TPM) pays any attention to Bachmann at all. In fact the Twin Cities papers ignoring her radical views was the major complaint of those who oppose her. And Palin's shelf life is about up. I doubt she'll be taken seriously as a candidate for any office again no matter how often the cablenets put her on teevee. Remember when Guiliani was going to win the nomination through most of the fall and winter of 2007? Even Republicans can recognize an empty suit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to markg8

Radio shows pay attention to her, and Fox News.

Look, forgive me if I sound chicken-littleish. I'm just not as convinced (as much as I would like to be) that Republicans have figuratively stepped out on a branch and are about to be sawed off.

August was nuts, and September isn't improving all that much. President Obama was able to turn the debate around to good effect. However, he can't be pulled out there to squash every additional crazy sure to come because at some point, he's going to stop being effective. And what August (and so far "You're a liar" and "The president is an indonesian muslim welfare thug" September) have done is to seriously warp our perceptions of (and possibly ability to deal with) crazy. That's why I think Republicans haven't been doing too badly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:36 PM in reply to CT Voter

I think the longer it goes on the more desperate they get. The more desperate they get, the crazier they sound. Not just to you and me but to everybody. That's why I don't think they're doing very well at all. And the poll numbers bear it out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 15, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to markg8

The poll numbers bear one thing out: the R's have thrown so much shit into the air that the majority of the people are confused as hell. This, of course, was the plan all along. They certainly couldn't argue that reforming health care was a bad thing. This may, at last, come back to haunt the R's when people realize they've been scammed, but it also may come too late. We'll see.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to markg8

I have a friend who doesn't read TPM, but knows all about Bachmann from cable. (Not to worry: he see's that she's stretched "bonkers" to cover whole new acres of territory, and he isn't even a psychiatrist.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 15, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to CT Voter

There's a lot of that going around.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 3:08 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

You're right. The crazies are given platforms they shouldn't have but so what? I still fail to see why Democrats should be hand wringing because people who should be in mental institutions get to make fools of themselves on TV.

This is what cable news does. Big shrug.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 15, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to FreeRider

I don't know about hand wringing, but when crazy has been renormalized to be just another point of view, any real debate about issues goes out the window.

If you want an example of the result, just look at Arkansas. Polls show large majorities of the population to be in favor of all elements of the plan - except when Obama's name is attached to it. Then it becomes death panels and socialism. It's crazy for Arkansans not to be beating on Blanche Lincoln's door demanding that she vote for HCR, but crazy is now accepted. And Arkansas isn't unique. On any rational basis, the House bill with a strong public option would be a slam dunk. But it's not being decided on a rational basis anymore.

This is not the way to run a democracy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Pelosi Stands By Public Option: We Won’t Pass The ‘Private Insurance Profit Perpetuation Act’

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/15/pelosi-potter/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 15, 2009 2:20 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Okay, wait, I'm confused. I the chicken entrail scrutiny of her last comments indicated that the public option was doomed again. Or was that yesterday? I'm having trouble keeping track.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 15, 2009 2:42 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

That was yesterday AFTERNOON. Yesterday morning she was foursquare behind it. The time cycle for these stories is getting shorter and shorter. It can't be long now before they merge into one story: "Pelosi abandons public option, insisting on its inclusion".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

let's not pretend you care one way or the other. As long as something passes is all that matters to you, regardless of what it is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I believe that the "hand-wringing" by Progressives over the public option is precisely what has kept it alive. A lot of people have sent a lot of time and money trying to establish the "public option is dead" as gospel. And it might have worked if not for the push-back. I don't know how it will end but good on us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:18 PM in reply to wbgonne

I agree.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to wbgonne

I half agree. Progressive activism over the public option helped keep the issue from being swarmed by a hostile press and a bureaucratic malaise, but much of the energy spent ginning up outrage burned off as wasted heat and was misdirected at the president when it could've been going to the Senate. Plus, much of the intensity was fueled by baseless media speculation.

The fact that support for a public option ceased to be the gauge for true blueness as much as one's willingness to vote against the final bill or threaten a veto without it showed how narrow the discourse became over the absence of real news during the August recess.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to fbacon2

Fair points. Welcome to the internet age, better and worse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to fbacon2

I'm not sure what you mean by true blueness. For me it is about, "one's willingness to vote against the final bill". What else is there?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Seems like we do understand each other. I just don't agree that demanding a veto threat was a good tactical move nor was it something the WH should've entertained.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to fbacon2

I don't disagree with you there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 15, 2009 4:45 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Wow! It's like you can see into my very soul! Why are you wasting your talents here when you could be earning real money reading minds for the Psychic Friends Network?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

yeah, we've never discussed this issue on here. I've never seen your dismissive comments to others. It's all psychic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 5:05 PM in reply to Indie Pro

There is a general consensus in this forum that the public option is very important, but there is sincere disagreement over whether it is essential. Perhaps a diabetic or someone else with a serious illness who cannot get insured or risks losing their current insurance can see urgently needed benefits in this legislation. Our industry collapsing from the weight of rising health costs need this legislation, our economy as a whole will suffer from the effects of inaction. Likewise, the burden of the mandate depends tremendously on the details. So people can reasonably disagree on the immediate essentiality of the public option. That is a far cry from these same people supposedly embracing anything that passes one way or another.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

September 15, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum

Logic. Reason. Stop that this instant!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 5:23 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

if you cared about logic or reason, you wouldn't post things like:

(cover your ears, true blues, cause I'm about to say a dirty word) compromise to get those last few votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum

if you know that there is a general concensus on this site, I bet you've read many of the comments and posts that argue why a public option is needed. A public option better than what is currently offered, even.

arguements made by Krugman, Reich, Kaiser Health, etc.
plus many comments by others on this site and me.

I bet you know the undue burden the mandates will place on individuals and businesses. How the mandates are throwing money at a problem, but not really fixing it.

How mandates are not univeral heathcare, but a giveaway to the insurance industry. How many middle income familes will be left out of subsidies and yet forced to buy policies that will fail them. How this legislation, especially what the Senate Finance Committee is proposing, could bankrupt familes.

But none of this has to do with Steve going around talking about "handwringing" liberals etc.

but thanks for linking that silly post one more time. I never tire of its long winded uselessness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 6:13 PM in reply to Indie Pro

here an interesting compromise:

1. REGULATE INSURANCE RATES
2. PUT A TRIGGER ON IMPLEMENTING INDIVIDUAL MANDATES UNTIL INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE AFFORDABLE
3. GIVE MEDICARE THE POWER TO NEGOTIATE FOR LOWER DRUG PRICES
4. ENSURE THAT DENNIS KUCINICH'S AMENDMENT ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL STATES TO EXPERIMENT WITH A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM STAYS IN THE FINAL LEGLISLATION

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/admit-it--a-robust-public_b_287702.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

September 15, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Actually, I put the public option angst into the "shiny object" category rather than handwringing. The handwringing would be the endless scrutiny of public utterances of this or that official for the slightest deviation from the words used in previous utterances and the inflation of such deviations into incontestable evidence of some momentous political shift. That's silly and tedious and people are pointlessly wearing themselves out--and misdirecting energy--because of it.

Look, I am for the public option. Really. I think it is would be a good thing and a helpful mechanism for providing some additional competition for places like North Carolina where one insurer controls more than half the market and two control close to 80%.

But I also think it's gotten to the point that people are talking about it in that same empty-eyed, mystical, mumbo-jumbo way that Christian fundies talke about the "Blood of the Lamb" and wingnuts talk about "the free market" It's become policy that must be right because it fits on a bumper sticker, the magic panecea that cures all social and economic ills by means more divine than systemic.

And, even more annoying to me, is how some have pretty much forgotten what it was supposed to do and are ignoring what's in the strongest bill in Congress and have, instead, turned it into the latest of the endless succession of mindless purity tests for whether or not one is a sufficiently goodthinkful bellyfeeler of the Principles of Ingsoc.

I have a deep-seated aversion to dogma and my normal response to dogmatism is sarcasm when I'm at my worst. When I'm at my best, I go with a faux-humble request that people reexamine their assumptions in light of prevailing reality.

Here's that. People seem to be loading a lot more freight onto the rather modest public option proposed by, say, the House or Senate HELP bills than it can possibly bear. They seem seem to be contending that the workability of insurance reform is entirely dependent upon our having it notwithstanding the fact that there is at least one country that somehow seems to have delivered decent, affordable universal care with private insurance alone.

So yes, notwithstanding your mindreading, I do want the bill to have a public option in it. Yes, I even care about it. But, no, I'm not willing to throw out everything else that's in this bill if I can't have it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 6:24 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

let me introduce you to your dogma:

But I also think it's gotten to the point that people are talking about it in that same empty-eyed, mystical, mumbo-jumbo way that Christian fundies talke about the "Blood of the Lamb" and wingnuts talk about "the free market" It's become policy that must be right because it fits on a bumper sticker, the magic panecea that cures all social and economic ills by means more divine than systemic.

And, even more annoying to me, is how some have pretty much forgotten what it was supposed to do and are ignoring what's in the strongest bill in Congress and have, instead, turned it into the latest of the endless succession of mindless purity tests for whether or not one is a sufficiently goodthinkful bellyfeeler of the Principles of Ingsoc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 10:29 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I respect your opinion but I think you are wrong: the public option is crucial for real health care reform. Without it, the legislation is shaping up as little more than an insurance mandate. Without a public option, there will be no meaningful systemic cost-containment. (Do you really think that price controls would be acceptable if the public option is not?) In other words, without a public option the health care legislation will fail and that would be a disaster on many levels, including that the chances for meaningful energy/climate change reform will be greatly diminished if Obama and the Dems can't even manage to include a public option -- -- which was already a major compromise on single payer -- in their health care legislation. The public option has ALWAYS been the focus for the health care industry. They know how significant it is.

The vehemence you correctly discern is due primarily to the fact that many people see it just it that way. In addition to that, Obama himself has repeatedly and insistently said that the public option is vital and it seems quite odd and is extremely frustrating that the public option was declared DOA even though the Democrats control the government almost completely now and that is highly unlikely to last very long.

The time is now. There is an urgency about this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jason everett miller

September 16, 2009 9:51 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Especially when "killing" the current mediocre public option might get a "bipartisan" bill to Obama's desk, which is a bigger win in my book than falling on his sword over this.

I think it is even smarter tactically. Put in a brand new public option as a lightning rod for all objections as well as obstructions, only to "compromise" at the 11th hour as a way to line up moderate republican votes.

Following that fantastic victory, the public option could be reborn as substantive Medicare reform. No new programs, just a common sense way to fix the public option we already have in an effort to keep it sustainable.

This seems like an easy plan to sell to moderates of both parties as well as independents - the silent majority in other words - but perhaps I am missing something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum

Oh yeah!? Well, I think them there just might be fighting words!

Might if I could figure out what you said.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro

That's true of all of us. Alas, you're the only one who has the truth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Maybe we're back on the "collision course" story?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SleepinJeezus

September 16, 2009 10:07 AM in reply to Indie Pro

What we have had from the start of this "debate" is a GOP who has been steadfastly opposed to the public option or any other provision that would limit the Insurance Industry's ability to maintain rapacious profits. In the Dem Camp, there has been a friendliness to the public option, but a wholesale unwillingness to fight for it.

All you really need to know about this is that BOTH positions (GOP and DEM) are guaranteed to keep the money flowing from the Health Insurance Industry into both camps. Everybody Wins! Right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:00 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Two or more persons is politics. Whether in the bedroom or in Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Two or more persons is politics, whether in the bedroom, or in Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 2:29 PM

Well, we can't do anything without President Olympia Snowe, of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

synchronicity

September 15, 2009 3:12 PM

I may join the republicans in trying to kill the bill if the democrat senators don't start fighting for a public option with no 'trigger' (a scam and insult to our intelligence) if the bill still includes mandates for purchasing insurance.

Forcing me to buy private insurance is a deal breaker and a huge cash giveaway to the same companies that brought us the status quo.

A bill without a real public option that includes mandates will be the biggest failure the democrats could accomplish. It will result in a huge political loss for the dems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 3:58 PM

Dem upside = (1) Blame republicans if no healthcare reform passes (2)If no healthcare reform passes there will be no damage to their benefactors (insurance companies, big pharma, AMA). Whew, they can breath easy!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 12:04 AM in reply to T Groan

You're joking right? That won't work considering the Dems control congress. Instead they will look effete and ineffective.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 4:17 PM

Awesome. Congressional Dems just might do this thing right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

runfastandwin

September 15, 2009 4:31 PM

It doesn't matter what is in the bill, once it passes the Democrats can claim victory and move on. By the time anyone figures out if it works or not, it'll be 2020, and no one will remember any of this. And it WILL pass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to runfastandwin

Most of us don't actually want a bad bill. I mean, to me, an individual mandate with weak subsidies, no employer mandate and no public option is a GOP dream. "Look at the tax increase these liberals implemented!"

No way. If there is no public option, there has to be a strong employer mandate. If there is no public option and no employer mandate, forget it. Just try to abolish certain predatory practices like rescission and p/e limits.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 15, 2009 5:14 PM

Don't trust them one iota

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 8:10 AM

Congress has done an excellent job of ignoring the treasure trove of experience available from the industrialized and developing countries with superior (and per capita cheaper) health care systems. Why is that?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 12:09 AM in reply to eggroll

Surely you jest. Are you posing that question because you really don't know the answer? American exceptionalism prevails most exceptionally in the hubris of congress. It begins (and ends) with the thinking that Americans know better than anyone else and to find fault with everyone else's system as if it's a valid justification to do nothing and remain with a non functional system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Follow us!

PollTracker

Obama

Approve 51%, Disapprove 41%
Nov 30 Gallup
Obama

Approve 47%, Disapprove 52%
Nov 30 Rasmussen
Obama

Approve 51%, Disapprove 41%
Nov 29 Gallup
Obama

Approve 49%, Disapprove 42%
Nov 28 Gallup
WI-GOV

Barrett (D) 41%, Neumann (R) 39%
Nov 27 PPP (D)

Most Popular

Viewed
Rec'd
Commented
On Digg

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

TPM Top News

Why An Alleged Cop Killer Really Matters For Mike Huckabee

Obama Issues Orders For More Troops In Afghanistan

Bachmann: Before Obama, The Private Economy Was 100% Private

Dem: Bush Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War