TPMDC
The Public Option Lost Today, But Future Fights Could Be Less Daunting
Brian Beutler | September 29, 2009, 6:06PM
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Share
Send to a friend!
The spin war is on to frame today's losing public option votes in the Senate Finance Committee. And though no reformer can honestly say today's news was good news, they're also on perfectly safe ground saying that today's news was expected, and that the public option is in no worse shape today than it was yesterday.
What we now know for sure is that conservative Democrats' opposition to a public option tied to Medicare runs significantly deeper than it does to a public option that uses negotiated rates. From a set that often bows to Republican attacks on big government, that's not a big surprise, though substantively it makes a big difference.
We also know that none of the Democrats who voted against the modest public option proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) say they're dead set against the public option in general--they have concerns sure, but, as always, they reverted to the dodgy explanation that they don't think a public option can survive on the Senate floor.
And therein lies the hope for reformers.
If Conrad, Baucus, et al are right about that, it means that there are members of the 60-large Democratic caucus threatening to join a Republican filibuster of a health care bill that includes a public option. As far as reformers are concerned that's a problem for Harry Reid and President Obama to solve--and they'd better solve it.
But even if these senators are just making excuses, or they still need more time to think, they won't be able to hide much longer.
Soon, Reid will have to decide whether or not to import the HELP Committee's public option into the package he brings to the floor. If he does, it would completely shift the onus on to the skeptics. As it stands liberals are forced to make the push for the public option; if Reid adopts it, conservative Democrats would be smoked out: either they'd have to accept it, or come out strongly against it by voting with Republicans to strip it, or by filibustering the entire bill.
But he probably won't do that. So what then?
Assuming he doesn't (a safe assumption) there will be more amendments, and, soon enough, the entire Democratic caucus will have to go on the record anyhow. That will be a key test.
And to take things one step further still, if a public option is not in the final bill that passes the Senate, Democratic leaders could still adopt one in negotiations with the House of Representatives. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but if they do, then conservative Democrats will have to decide yet again whether it's worth tanking the entire reform project over the inclusion of a fairly modest provision.
That's a lot of choke points, and a lot of pressure on public option skeptics. So while it's much too early to predict what will happen, it's also extremely premature to say the public option fight is over. As you can see, there are much more favorable battlefields ahead.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Palin Advocates War With Iran After Apparently Misunderstanding Buchanan Column (VIDEO)
- Jon Stewart: Obama's Teleprompter Is No Match For Palin's 'Mavericky Notecard Hand-Scribbled Buzzwords' (VIDEO)
- Colbert: 'Sarah Palin Is A F--king Retard' (VIDEO)
- At A Whole New Level
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- Backhanded Compliment
- What's the Deal with The Ryan Budget?
- Gibbs Mocks Palin And Writes Shopping List On Hand (VIDEO)
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Compares Job Losses Under Presidents Obama and Bush
- Gibbs Mocks Palin And Writes Shopping List On Hand (VIDEO)
- Palin Advocates War With Iran After Apparently Misunderstanding Buchanan Column (VIDEO)
- House GOP-ers: Start Over And We'll Come To The Table. White House: No.
- Bachmann: 'Wean Everybody Off' Social Security And Medicare
- Ben Nelson Helps GOP Block Obama NLRB Nominee
- Jon Stewart: Obama's Teleprompter Is No Match For Palin's 'Mavericky Notecard Hand-Scribbled Buzzwords' (VIDEO)
- Allegations Against Leader Cause Turmoil In CA GOP
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- Super Bowl Commercials Throw Women to the Wolves
- Deconstructing Rush Limbaugh
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Indie Pro
September 29, 2009 6:31 PM
September 30, 2009 NY Times
Senate Panel Rejects a ‘Public Option’ in Health Plan
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Aides to the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, say that he will not include a provision for the public option when he combines the measures coming out of the finance and health committees.
***
The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also opposes a public insurance plan. But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards.
Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. “They wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else,” he said. He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee.
Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”
After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.
More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=3&hp
***
according the Congressional Budget Office. Rockefeller's package would have shaved $50 billion of the bill's cost over a ten-year period. Tying it to Medicare rates over the duration would save more than $100 billion over that time window, according to the CBO.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/29/first-public-option-amend_n_303228.html
and it still didn't pass.
***
The pharmaceutical industry could see an increase of approximately $115 billion over 10 years in U.S. drug sales as a direct result of the Senate Finance Committee's health reform legislation - at least by one way of slicing up the numbers used in economic analyses underlying the bill.
That calculation is based on how the Senate Finance Committee explained the rationale for the specific fees due from each health care business sector that stands to benefit from expanded health coverage.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., unveiled details of the legislation, America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009, in the form of a "chairman's mark" on Sept. 16.
According to Democratic Finance Committee staff, members believe three major industries will experience "significant expansion" in the form of "new customers" that will be created by the committee's health reform bill: insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals.
***
Perhaps Reich is correct, Obama has all ready made this deal (no PO), and as the leader of the Democratic Party...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
September 29, 2009 10:56 PM in reply to Indie Pro
No wonder Obama was conveniently out of the country for the Finance Committee vote today. He didn't want to be asked any "inconvenient" questions when the two PO amendments went down in flames.
I believe you Indie Pro. I think we've been sold down the proverbial river by our new "Saviour" President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
September 30, 2009 12:15 AM in reply to willia451
No Rahm Emanuel sold you down the river in his "unique" "brilliant" negotiating ability.
That's what you get from an investment bankers mind hive.
I still don't understand why you can't all see this.
Single payer, and the public option will have a an immediate short term nuclear bomb on wall street. Those who are currently in deep will be obliterated, and Rahm Emanuel will fight tooth and nail to save his buddies a few billion at the expense of a few thousand dead kids, and a few million votes in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
September 30, 2009 6:48 AM in reply to rbeats
And Rahm works for.............?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
September 30, 2009 9:27 AM in reply to rbeats
So call the fools..let them know what you think because their aides might read you r posts but you can be sure that the Senators pay no attention to anything that does not come from constituients ---1.800.828.0498!
Reid must go along with Baucus. conrad, and lincoln...Shameless pandering to the wallstreet bankers -who will have a meltdown if the PO passes- and corporate HC whores!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
September 30, 2009 1:33 AM in reply to Indie Pro
So when's the march on DC!
Some inspiration:
D-Day (Bruce McGill): War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter (Tim Matheson): [whispering] Germans?
Boon (Peter Riegert): Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 29, 2009 6:53 PM
Yeah, well, here's the thing. If the Democrats mess this up they will be carved up in the next election. In fact, they will be lucky to avoid a party schism. Think about it: after heath care reform comes energy/climate change, which will make HCR look like kid stuff. Oh, and then there is the Afghanistan War which as to which Democratic opinion is teetering. If Obama abandons the base on health care, he will fail on energy, and he can forget about getting even a temporary mulligan on Afghanistan. That spells doom for Obama and the Democrats. I expect they -- and Lincoln -- will realize this.
They say that hope springs eternal. But if the Democrats fuck this up, the well is dry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
September 30, 2009 8:35 AM in reply to wbgonne
If they fuck this up? What makes you believe they actually care and that this isn't just a big farce? Their whole shtick is based upon the non-rich believing that they are their party. Despite their actions proving over and over again that they are not. And then these pages are filled with their devotees like priests for a long discredited religion braying that we can make them bluer, gosh we got close so victory is at hand, we're going to the promised land.
Goddamn they'd be laughable if they weren't supporting malignancy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
September 29, 2009 7:02 PM
Congress Matters is a bit more cynical on what happened today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 29, 2009 7:23 PM in reply to mcc
Thanks for the link. This is so totally on target:
"But the most probable future for that fight is that the vehicle that goes to the floor in the Senate will, like the FISA bill a few years ago, have as its baseline all the conservative preferences, with the progressive preferences on the outside, fighting to get in. And in all likelihood, that will also mean facing the "painless filibuster," that is, an agreement among the parties that any public option amendment will require 60 votes to succeed. Then the public option amendment will pick up about 54 votes or so, fail, and we'll all get e-mail newsletters from Senate Democrats talking about how hard they tried."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
September 29, 2009 8:27 PM in reply to bluebell
I've read their take, but I disagree with the analogy to the FISA fight. One, the Democrats have a bigger caucus than they did a year ago. Two, health care is not FISA, in terms of what it matters to the party, the visibility of the debate, and the power of the constituencies behind it. Three, a Republican White House does a lot to set the baseline of what Congress deliberates.
We'll have to see what happens, won't we? I've never believed any of this was preordained, but the direction of the bill through the Senate hasn't strayed too far from script. At some point, the Dems will face a moment of truth, but we haven't got there yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
October 1, 2009 12:01 AM in reply to fbacon2
David Waldman has been watching Congress for a long time, a good chunk of it very much from the inside as a Congressional aide. I have no doubt that he's already taken those considerations into account... and discounted them.
Several more grafs in his post bear quoting, for those who don't follow links.
Indeed, we have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
September 29, 2009 7:10 PM
Yeah, Chuck Schumer all but declared VICTORY just now on Hardball! He was smiling and happy. (This came after Matthews talked about the option being dead and a graphic on-screen image stating "ublic Option Defeated")
Is there an award for "Most Delusional" Senator?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 29, 2009 7:16 PM in reply to theWalrus
He's not delusional. He just believes we are stupid. This has worked so often in the past that they believe it will always work. They stage a faux fight on an issue that matters to the base and then they are SO SORRY when their faux fight fails as planned. It's just a complete act. That's why I say, don't stop with Blue Dogs. Hold them all accountable for the outcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
September 29, 2009 7:29 PM in reply to bluebell
Umm...I'd love to. How?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 29, 2009 7:44 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Don't vote for any of them. Until progressives make them pay a price nothing is ever going to change. I could handle it for years, for decades even, on minor issues -- but we cannot continue to lose every single major fight and just lie down and play dead. I don't believe this b.s. about not being able to get the votes. If they can't strong arm those Blue Dogs, buy them off with some pork, whatever, they're every bit as much of the problem because they let them get away with it. Yeah, I know the same old song, we have to be real sweet to Blue Dogs because the poor darlings have tough states, boo, hoo, but this is a signature issue for the party. This is the holy grail. You can cut them some slack on a damn for some dumb river in Nebraska but you cannot let them continue to undermine whatever the party might stand for if it was able to stand for anything which it hasn't been able to do for 30 or more years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 29, 2009 9:10 PM in reply to bluebell
Sounds like the strategy that was used in 2000. Worked so well too. I put some of the blame on those Nader assholes as culpable for the Bush disaster -- torture, lies, Katrina, all of it. Just of bunch of holier-than-thou assholes with blood on their hands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 29, 2009 9:16 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Listen, Froggie. The point of achieving partisan dominance is to DO THE THINGS YOUR PARTY STANDS FOR. If you don't, you have no business being in the politics business. The Democrats for decades have stood for real heath care reform. Should they forego a public option, they will have failed utterly and, whatever your predilections, I assure you that the Dems will be finished as a political force. There WILL be a third party and I will support it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 29, 2009 9:21 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
What difference does it make? Same wars. Same corporate welfare bills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
September 30, 2009 8:41 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Here's another misinformed idiot blaming Nader for Bush. These people are as bad as flat earthers. Do some research about what happened in Florida and find out what really happened. Don't swallow the nonsense the duopoly pukes out, they do not want a third party to have any viability and will fight tooth and nail against it even to the extent of lying.
Goddamn people, do some reading beyond dumbocrat press clippings...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
September 30, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Um, MARCH!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
September 29, 2009 7:11 PM
Does Schumer know something we don't, like Nancy Pelosi will insert the Public Option into the House bill? (maybe I'm delusional but still hopeful)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 29, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to traitorjoe
I GUARANTEE their will a be a real public option in the final bill. Neither Obama nor the Dems are suicidal and that's what they will be doing if they jettison the PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
September 29, 2009 7:25 PM in reply to wbgonne
I admire your confidence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
September 29, 2009 8:22 PM in reply to traitorjoe
She doesn't have to insert it. There's a public option in all three of the House bills, and they have the votes to pass a final bill. The final House version will have a public option. The question is, What happens next in the Senate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 29, 2009 9:11 PM in reply to fbacon2
As soon as this bill is out of that horrid committee, it is time for Obama to stop being a spectator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rashomon
September 29, 2009 8:09 PM
I just would like a good bill to get to the floor so it can be voted on. Let's see where the Democrats stand. A lot of folks busted their asses so the Democrats could control the House, Senate and White House. If all we get out of the Democrats is the inability to craft a good bill for fear of a filibuster then clearly we put the wrong people in charge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nerox3
September 29, 2009 8:25 PM
If the reform has mandates and no public option the democrats will lose seats for sure as they will own every rise in the health insurance rates, every decrease in coverage, every copay. The hate that the insurance companies currently feel will be completely transfered to the Dems as they are the ones that took away the individual's option to say "F- it, I'm not going to pay the crooks."
And all this battle to include a public option and how the Republicans are responsible for the lack of choice will be forgotten. The fact that mandates is a Republican idea will be forgotten, with out a public option the HCR will be viewed as a failure by everyone who is healthy (ie., the majority) and doesn't feel they are getting anything out of the reform except higher costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
September 29, 2009 8:28 PM
Let me get this right, the three demagogues are telling us a Public Option cannot pass because they will vote against it. They are not waiting for terrestrials who they cannot know how they will vote, its THEM, their three stinking votes they cast to kill the bill!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 29, 2009 9:24 PM in reply to FebM
Hey, it makes prefect sense in an alternate universe kind of way. I won't vote for it because it won't pass because I won't vote for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
September 29, 2009 9:52 PM in reply to wbgonne
Exactly my point! Baucus has confirmed if there are 59 Dems supporting the PO it will fail because they are NOT 60, and he certainly cant be expected to be the 60th
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
abek
September 29, 2009 9:00 PM
I think Liberals who talk about walking away from the party or not donating to the party because they don't get everything they want in the bill are stupid and seldish. Look Healthcare was never going to be solved with one bill. What liberals should be focused on is getting more prgressives elected. There are 5 Republican senators that are stepping down, 3 of them from states that are trnding blue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 29, 2009 9:10 PM in reply to abek
Bullshit. This is an historical pivot point and the Democrats have as much control as they are ever likely to have. If the Democrats can't even enact the puny public option then health care reform will fail calamitously and the Democrats -- for whom this has been their signature issue for decades -- will prove themselves frauds. Try running on THAT platform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 29, 2009 9:11 PM in reply to abek
I'm totally for getting more progressives elected. What does that have to do with electing Democrats?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 29, 2009 9:14 PM in reply to abek
Totally agree. After 2000, and all the gruesome results of that debacle (torture, to name one), anyone talking about walking away from the fight to go sulk in the corner is basically a selfish, childish asshole.
Kos & co have the right idea: Primaries. Make the party bluer.
We are very close to winning here. If we come up short, it is just barely. No reason for a quitter's attitude now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 29, 2009 9:22 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
No. If the Democrats can't do this now -- with a Democratic president, an overwhelming advantage in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, then they are useless. And you are absolutely deluding yourself if you believe MORE Democrats will be elected after they fail on health care reform. No. They will be quite rightly thrown out as ineffectual, corrupt bums. It will be high time for a third party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
September 30, 2009 1:02 AM in reply to wbgonne
Yeah. Another third party to throw onto the dust heap of history three-five years from now. I don't buy the perennially heads-up-ass threat to vote for a third party in order to prove oneself ineffectual.
I wish those who repeatedly shoot themselves in the third-party foot would use a real gun and change the direction of their aim.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ranger11
September 30, 2009 2:28 AM in reply to JNagarya
Yeah, this third party stuff is real bullshit. I'll be dead and buried in my grave and I'll still hear the shouts for a third party that will never come. I'll believe a third party when I see it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
September 30, 2009 8:30 AM in reply to JNagarya
Just keep wasting your vote then on dumbocrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
October 6, 2009 2:10 PM in reply to T Groan
One can vote for someone who has a chance of being elected. Or one can vote third-party -- for no chance to get elected -- and therefore waste one's vote.
The choice is yours.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
September 30, 2009 8:58 AM in reply to JNagarya
Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
October 6, 2009 2:12 PM in reply to wbgonne
Show me a third party that didn't end up on the dust heap of history, because replaced by yet another third party that would end up on the dust heap of history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
September 30, 2009 8:38 AM in reply to wbgonne
Don't listen to the idiots that still believe in the dumbocrats. They've drank too much kool aid.
'Change you can believe in', gosh what a bunch of bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 29, 2009 9:25 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Oh, I'll gladly primary incumbent D's but don't expect me to vote for any incumbents in November. If they can't deliver on healthcare, not one of them is getting my vote. So I hope there are some nice new faces out there. This isn't any issue. This is the most important issue. If they screw this up they don't deserve to represent a precinct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NorCalNative
September 29, 2009 9:53 PM
Working for 60 votes in the Senate is a recipe for disaster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
niw
September 30, 2009 3:49 AM
Nothing will make the republicans more happy then to see democrats spit on Sen. Kennedy's grave by shutting down the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Heretic
September 30, 2009 5:11 AM
If a bill passes that has a mandate but no public option, I will vote my centrist Democratic congressman out of office next year. I would rather have nothing than some window dressing victory that benefits only big biz and hurts everyone else. What good is banning pre-existing condition rules if you still can't afford the coverage? Maybe this will all work out in the end, but if Obama turns out to be the rat's ass I always thought he was, this will indeed be his (and the Dem's) Waterloo. It is crazy that the Dems have learned nothing from the years of Repug dominance. It's all about the base, stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
September 30, 2009 7:12 AM
Everyone needs to face facts. And stop calling one another stupid, a quitter, delusional, etc.
The facts are the facts. And they are indisputable.
We have:
256 Democrats in the House
58 Democrats and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats in the Senate (that's 60).
A Democratic President.
And we can't even get a watered down PO out of the Senate Finance Committee.
What does that tell you? It tells me more and more Democrats is not the answer.
Michael Moore is correct.
Vote for candidates based on their stand on the issues. Not based on Party.
If a Republican is FOR a viable public option and true HC reform, vote for them. And support them with $$$.
If a Democrat is against a public option, do not vote for them.
If a third party candidate is for a viable public option and true HC reform, and the democrat and republican is against, vote for the third party candidate. And support them with $$$.
Party loyalties (since we have so many dems voting against the PO even today) don't mean much in relation to the issues we care about. Obviously.
So, facts are facts.
The problem is not democrat vs. republican. Its corporate control of politics and politicians.
Thats the real roadblock to get out of the way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 30, 2009 11:03 AM in reply to willia451
hear, hear!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
September 30, 2009 8:28 AM
It's amazing when you listen to or read the words of the democrat devotees. Loss somehow equals victory or is close to victory and victory is around the corner. Just keep believing....
They're like crack addicts. I'm afraid their opinions are as unassailable as those of the teabaggers. They act, in many ways, identical to the Bush Devotees during the last mis-reign of this country.
It will only be after enough people wake up and realize that neither of these two parties have their interests at heart that real hope and change can be established and yes, change you really can believe in (not the faux nonsense our current president campaigned on).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wordie
September 30, 2009 11:10 AM
What I want to know is what progressive organization is organizing a huge public outcry against what the Finance Committee just did. Why is it that the Republican fringe has set the agenda on health care reform, yet there's no similar organization on the Dem side, even though some polls say that as many as 65% of Americans (not just Dems) want the public option? I'm writing letters to my legislators, posting online, and I've even attended a couple of protests, but that doesn't feel like it's been enough. I feel isolated and ineffective somehow and it surely seems there should be more vocal and obvious organized support for the public option.
Maybe if there had been more public outcry we would have seen a different result?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?