Health Care Reform: The post you didn’t see
Stlo7 referred to discussions that we had regarding “killing the bill”.
Here is the post in question:
Let’s talk about that “Public Option”, or should we now call it a “Trigger Option”?
The bill that came out of the house sucked. The public option was weak, US citizens will be required, by law, to purchase insurance from corrupt, private insurance companies and don’t even get me started on the Stupak Amendment.
The bill that will come out of the senate will probably suck even more. The public option will most likely become a “trigger option”, meaning, at some nebulous time, if the insurance companies don’t live up to their end of the bargain (no denial of coverage, no pre-existing conditions) then a public plan of some nebulous proportion will be enacted by some nebulous department of the government.
FDL has a very long and extensive piece up about, “What if?” About reflexivity and how the Democrats shot themselves in the foot when “Medicare for All”, or as we like to call it, “Single Payer”, was removed from the discussion.
It’s a long read, but explains very thoroughly what happened and who is to blame, and it’s not the Republicans.
….I wanted to make it clear that progressives contributed vitally to the outcome we have now, by their choice to enter the reflexive process of getting the PO through the legislative process, while accepting as their goal trying to get the best PO-based plan they could at each stage of the process. As soon as they committed themselves in this way, they committed themselves to defeat and failure. They could have created a different social reality by just insisting on Medicare for All and refusing to enter negotiations on the type of PO that would be accepted as a compromise until the very last stages of the process. But they didn’t try this, because they were afraid of working against their new President, or of being marginalized as ideologues, or of engaging in a protracted conflict with their fellow Democrats.
Here’s Dan Maffei’s statement from Nov 7th:
“Health care reform is critical for the economic future of our country. We know the status quo is unacceptable and bankrupting individuals, businesses and all levels of government. While this bill is not perfect, it is necessary that we pass it so we can begin to fundamentally reform health care.”
“Less than perfect”? Recall that Maffei favored “Medicaid for All” during the campaign, yet, when it came time to push for that option, he settled for less than perfect.
“I am so proud to have joined many of my colleagues in making history and moving health care reform closer than ever to reality,” said Slaughter. “Since the time of Teddy Roosevelt we’ve been talking about making our health care system more accessible and more affordable to Americans. I was proud to vote for this historic legislation because I know all the wonderful things it will do for all of you.”
“Closer than ever to reality”. Remember, Medicare part D was considered health care reform. Doughnut Hole? She also allowed a bill to pass which allowed a woman’s right to choose to be set back decades- Stupak Pitts is very much a part of the bill for which Ms Slaughter voted.
I invite you to read the entire, lengthy, piece, so you will see how we spiraled downward so quickly and how we are moving forward by going backwards. I will leave you with the conclusive point:
The right lesson for progressives to learn now is that the present bill must be killed, because it is a terrible bill which makes the future worse, as I’ve argued here, here, here, and here. And, once it is killed, progressives also need to forget about advocating for the PO. The PO is not a goal, it is not something that can stand alone as an ideal that will excite people. It is a second-best tactical solution that we can accept only as an outcome that emerges at the end point of the legislative process, and only if Medicare for All, after all of our most intense efforts, can’t get through that process.
We cannot seek the PO in the context of an incremental legislative process, and expect to be successful. We must seek and work for, and move heaven and earth for, only Medicare for All, whether we believe we can pass it or not, and then, if we do fail to pass it, we must be prepared to use the desire of others for any reform bill, to compromise just once on a *Jacob Hacker-type public option, without entering a multi-stage de-generative reflexive process that will kill the PO as an instrument for getting to Medicare for All.
(*Jacob Hacker link provided by me)
And from another post, by the same author:
…this is an immoral bill, and it is so because it is inadequate to end the fatality, bankruptcy, and foreclosure problems resulting from the health insurance non-system. This issue is beyond pragmatism. It is beyond expediency. It is beyond cleverness. It is a clear moral issue. The Democrats have had the opportunity to solve these problems with Medicare for All, their response with this laughable bill that they call “a historic achievement,” signals the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.
This makes sense to me. (And please note, that these are MY views, alone and do not reflect the view points of anyone else posting at RT)
What do you think?
Related posts:
The idea that the Dems could easily have gotten everything they wanted just by insisting on “Medicare for All” is fantasy tripe of the worst kind. Taking a position and refusing to negotiate would in NO way alter the bottom line political reality of having to get 60 senators on board to pass anything. No Republicans were going to vote for any of these plans, and that leaves us talking with the same guys who are being intransigent right now: Nelson, Lieberman, et al.
Sorry Adama - the ship sailed when the Democrat caved before they started to negotiate.
You did say that no Republicans were going to vote for Health Care - then why was the Senate, the President hell bent on getting one to vote for Health Care.
Seems like a waste of time.
Adama,
I want to sell my house. I would, Ideally like to get $300,000 for it, but in truth, I would accept $275,000. Which number should I start with for the asking price, hmmmm?
I don’t think the Dems would have gotten everything they asked for, but they could have gotten a public option as a compromise if they had started out with the asking price of single payer. You take a strong position and negotiate from there. You don’t start in a compromised position, because, as you see, you then don’t get shit. It’s not rocket science.
Why settle for 275K when you can simply pay someone to take the house off your hands and be content in the success of getting rid of the house?
One more thing - this post was originally written BEFORE tossing the the public option and the Medicare buy-in overboard. At the time this was written I was still “OK” with passing something but tossing both of those options overboard and getting nothign in return - well too far for me and I crossed the bridge.
As I have pointed out previously GWB passed a lot of bills with 55 Senators.
http://rochesterturning.com/2009/12/15/health-care-more-on-why-stlo-is-pissedaravosis-nails-it/
There will never be a public option if DINO senators like Nelson, Landrieu, and “ohn–jee weez… no we can’t do that” Lieberman Insurance-Corrupticut are allowed to dictate the policy. 60 votes my finger. “Bipartisanship” my butt. They want to fillibuster? Let them until they collaspe from exhaustion, then RAM it all down their throats with reconciliation, like Johnson did with civil rights and Medicare. Obama (and senators from Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico) were elected because they were liberals who had a vision, who took a stand, spoke their mind, and told it like they saw it. I did not donate hundreds of my hard-earned dollars and spend hours in the freezing cold and broiling heat to elect these people, to have it all given away so there’s “bipartisanship”. If people don’t like progressives, they shouldn’t have voted for them.