Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Elimination of ‘Public Option’ Threw Consumers to the Insurance Wolves [View all]woo me with science
(32,139 posts)95. How corporate Democrates colluded with Republicans to trash the public option:
The Democratic Partys deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just cant do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesnt have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
This is what the Democratic Party does; its who they are. Theyre willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as theres no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bushs eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bushs habeas and interrogation abuses (Gosh, what can we do? We just dont have 60 votes).
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, its Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, its Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and breaking with their party to ensure Michael Mukaseys confirmation as Attorney General; then its Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then its Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they cant blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they dont need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just cant do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesnt have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option Rockefeller is suddenly inclined to oppose it because he doesnt think the timing of it is very good and its too partisan. What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldnt pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he would not relent in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just dont have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that theres a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
This is what the Democratic Party does; its who they are. Theyre willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as theres no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bushs eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bushs habeas and interrogation abuses (Gosh, what can we do? We just dont have 60 votes).
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, its Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, its Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and breaking with their party to ensure Michael Mukaseys confirmation as Attorney General; then its Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then its Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they cant blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they dont need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Elimination of ‘Public Option’ Threw Consumers to the Insurance Wolves [View all]
RiverLover
Feb 2015
OP
Yes, we have to pay. Insurance companies sustain no losses in real life situations like the free
DhhD
Feb 2015
#69
How corporate Democrates colluded with Republicans to trash the public option:
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#95
I think that may be one of the reasons why it works for so many of us here in MN. We had already
jwirr
Feb 2015
#4
and then they wagged their fingers and told us that supporting third parties was what got
MisterP
Feb 2015
#28
I remember the standing ovation and the Committee Chairs he received from the Party
sabrina 1
Feb 2015
#79
because organized labor is doing so well because of that history; it's dead, jim
ND-Dem
Feb 2015
#50
If he were a friend of labor, he would not have stood in the way of a public option.
merrily
Feb 2015
#77
Even with the single payer option, it was never healthcare reform, just health insurance reform.
Amimnoch
Feb 2015
#15
"Anything else is double-dipping the middle class and a free handout to the insurance industry."
Amimnoch
Feb 2015
#96
What happened is the growing influence of Citizens United and a massive voter suppression effort.
Enthusiast
Feb 2015
#57
Lieberman was never going to let a public option through the Senate. That slimebag even
geek tragedy
Feb 2015
#27
If they know the Dems are going to coopt their ideas out of fear, then they will keep pushing their
cui bono
Feb 2015
#48
The ACA could be more accurately described as the Single Payer Prevention Act.
Enthusiast
Feb 2015
#58
Why, of course it did! And the Public Option would've been sabotaged anyhow
RufusTFirefly
Feb 2015
#38
A health care plan that include a robust Public Option had no need for a private insurance industry.
Enthusiast
Feb 2015
#51
19 million covered, according to Mother Jones. You think they should walk away from the ACA?
Hekate
Feb 2015
#88
Wasn't the public option the compromise with those of us who want single payer?
hootinholler
Feb 2015
#97