The public option: how many of us remember when and why it died?

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 03:51 PM - Edit history (2)

When President Obama came into office, he immediately began work on two major fronts: an economic stimulus and an overhaul of health insurance.

At that time, we had a more liberal House and a more conservative Senate. The Senate, influenced by Ted Kennedy even in his last days, was the first to pass a bill. But the best bill the Dems could get passed with the necessary 60-vote super-majority was an ACA with no public option.

But that was okay, because the next step was for the more liberal House to vote on its own version with a public option. And then the two Houses, both at that time controlled by Democrats, were expected to work together in committee and reach a compromise; which, because the Dems were in charge, was expected to resemble the House bill -- with a public option. This was the plan when Barack Obama was running for President, and the pieces were falling into place.

But before that could happen, Kennedy died of brain cancer; and with him, the Democrats’ super-majority. And MA had a law that didn’t allow the Democratic governor to appoint an immediate replacement. Instead, an election was called for several months later, and Scott Brown, R, was elected to replace Kennedy.

That was when the public option died. It was too late for the House to strengthen its negotiating position by passing a more liberal bill, with a public option. It was too late for the House to fix ANY of the other problems that had already been identified in the Senate bill. The only possible way to get ANY bill passed was for the House to simply pass the exact version of the ACA that had already been approved in the Senate. The one that Ted Kennedy had midwifed.

Because by then the Republicans controlled the Senate through the filibuster and they wanted to bury the bill, not fix it.

So, in the House, Nancy Pelosi had to persuade dozens of liberal Representatives to vote for the Senate’s version of the bill, a version they never would have voted for otherwise. That’s how we finally got the ACA passed – a bill that, despite all its flaws, has already insured millions of Americans who didn’t have insurance before.

So it isn’t reasonable or fair to blame the President for the fact that he promised support for the public option and then ultimately pushed for an ACA that lacked one. The only way for him to have succeeded with the public option depended on keeping Senator Ted Kennedy, and the super-majority, alive. And that was too much even for President Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

House


House vote by congressional district.
Democratic yea (219)
Democratic nay (34)
Republican nay (178)
No representative seated (4)


President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010.
The election of Scott Brown meant Democrats could no longer break a filibuster in the Senate. In response, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel argued that Democrats should scale back for a less ambitious bill; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back, dismissing Emanuel's scaled-down approach as "Kiddie Care."[107][108] Obama also remained insistent on comprehensive reform, and the news that Anthem Blue Cross in California intended to raise premium rates for its patients by as much as 39% gave him a new line of argument to reassure nervous Democrats after Scott Brown's win.[107][108] On February 22, President Obama laid out a "Senate-leaning" proposal to consolidate the bills.[109] He held a meeting with leaders of both parties on February 25. With Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate's bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, instead.

Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill.[110] However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill.[106] With that option off the table, given that any bill which emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[106] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[107][111][112]
Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. However, the process is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill like the ACA in the first place; such a bill would have inherently non-budgetary regulations.[113][114] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well - suited for reconciliation."[111]

The remaining obstacle was a pivotal group of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who were initially reluctant to support the bill. The group found the possibility of federal funding for abortion substantive enough to warrant opposition. The Senate bill had not included language that satisfied their abortion concerns, but they could not include additional such language in the reconciliation bill as it would be outside the scope of the process with its budgetary limits. Instead, President Obama issued Executive Order 13535, reaffirming the principles in the Hyde Amendment.[115] This concession won the support of Stupak and members of his group and assured passage of the bill.[112][116] The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[117] The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[118] Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010.[119] The amendment bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30.

[boston bean]

1. I may be wrong, but Obama made them hold off on a vote

until after the mid term elections. That is when the birth of the tea party took place, officially, with all of those god damned town halls, screeching how frickin awful Obama care was and gave the republicans the upper hand and control of the house.

Scott Brown wasn't elected until the next January. With a promise of a vote to be the senator who brings it down.

Please let me know if my recollection is incorrect.

[pnwmom]

5. That wouldn't change anything. They ALREADY lacked the numbers to overcome

the filibuster as soon as Kennedy died. The only viable version of the bill at that time was the one Kennedy had already voted for. However, if the next election had gone differently -- if MA had stayed in the Dem column -- maybe we could have gotten the public option passed. But that didn't happen.

[boston bean]

14. as noted below, Kennedy's replacement gave them the sixtieth vote.

Scott Brown was elected in January, I believe.

If they had voted when they had the majorities, those town halls would have never taken place. And given the repubs the upperhand.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. But the law could not proceed as just a "Senate bill"

It had to originate in the House and the House had already passed a different version.

The media was disgraceful during that whole period because they kept incorrectly insisting what version of the bill was "the bill".

The House passed a bill in the spring of 2009 and the Senate passed a different version in November 2009. That Senate version was then amended by the House in the spring of 2010 and was sent back to the Senate to be passed again as a joint/reconciliation version not needing the 60 votes.

[boston bean]

19. Did the house version include a public option?

[BumRushDaShow]

21. By then no, it was too late.

You had people like fucking Stupak and his Democratic anti-abortion posse blocking the whole ACA because they felt the Hyde Amendment was not enough (if I remember there were something like 17 of them).

[boston bean]

23. I can't remember all the nuances, but I do clearly remember a vote

in the house being pushed out until after the mid term elections.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. There were 2 votes from the House

They had a vote on their own bill in 2009 and then had a 2nd vote on the Senate bill in 2010.

You can't argue unless you DO know "all the nuances".

Any bill dealing with "money" (taxes, budget, etc) MUST originate in the House. The House worked on and passed their own bill - spear-headed by John Dingell, who submitted some version every year, along with Rangell for Ways & Means. At the same time, the Senate worked on and eventually passed it's OWN bill (spear-headed by Kennedy & Baucus for their committees - Health/Labor and Budget).

Because the 2 bills were different, they had to be reconciled, and by then, changes were happening in the Senate while a group of anti-abortion Democrats were massing votes in the House to kill the whole thing.

So the House took the Senate bill from 2009, amended it - without the public option - and barely got it passed (I think the vote was literally 218 - xxx). It went back to the Senate as a differently-named entity, where it now could be filibustered because of Brown. So the nuclear option was pulled out (which the rules at the time in the Senate indicated could only be done ONCE in a year), and the House-amended bill (without public option) was passed, but without needing the 60 votes for passage as a "Budget" bill (which were the rules of the Senate at the time outside of even cloture, which also required 60 votes). I.e., doing it this way allowed Senators to invoke cloture to start the debate but they did not have to vote YAY on the actual bill if they didn't want to (with the assumption that Democrats had at least 51 votes for passage).

Edit to add this fucking drama from back then - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/white-house-announces-executiv.html

Stupak even wrote an Op Ed in U.S.A. Today a couple weeks ago doubling down - http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/11/obamacare-stupak-hobby-lobby-birth-control-column/6264861/

This is part of the "nuance" just trying to get something on the books.

[boston bean]

34. I got to leave the house. And haven't had a chance to read

your entire thread. But wanted you to know, I am NOT arguing. I am discussing. Please don't make this into something it is not.

If I can I'll get back to this later.

[BumRushDaShow]

37. Okay

This whole topic was a nightmare while it was happening and I was glued to CSPAN & CSPAN2 for much of it. Not trying to be belligerent but I have seen so many put the blame for what was eventually passed on one person but it was a conglomeration of things.

[Stardust]

56. Excellent recap. It was too complicated for my brain to comprehend back then, but your

explanation brings it all into focus. Parliamentary procedure, unfortunately, just bores me.

Thank you.

[BumRushDaShow]

68. They pulled out every trick in the book

to get this thing passed. There were 2 bills that became law, an original one and an amended one (with the reconcilliatin) that replaced the original.

I always considered this a "framework" for something that can be greatly improved. The effort was to get something in place and once done, it would be difficult to dislodge (see the 54 times the GOP have tried).

[BumRushDaShow]

9. The final Senate bill became the nuclear option "Reconciliation" version

only requiring 51 votes - which comprised the House-amended version of the original 2009 Senate bill.

Since this involved a financial component, it had to originate from the House, so there were 2 things that passed at different times (one before Brown's election and the final one after, which didn't need his vote).

[House of Roberts]

10. The ACA was passed in the Senate at Christmas 2009.

Kennedy's appointed replacement provided the 60th vote. Scott Brown won the special election in January 2010.

[TheKentuckian]

39. This is correct. My recollection is there was the lame "Elections have consequences" line was thrown

around a fair bit on both sides as the rationale for there not being a real reconciliation vote, seemingly with some Blue Dog types threatening to bail if anything was changed as well.

My belief is they were getting that Baucus mark come hell and high water, by hook of by crook. It was ALL about that mark the whole fucking way with a shit ton of TeaPubliKlan amendments in exchange for jackapple shit.

This was the design the whole way, anything else is Fantasy, delusion, or lies.

Kennedy's passing provided a lame and convoluted excuse and came as no surprise. Of course there could have been a conference reconciliation but Democrats did not want one. There never were any Republican votes and Kennedy was not who voted for the final product at all.

The budget reconciliation was required for the somehow acceptable changes like taking out the Louisiana purchase and the Cornhusker kickback.

The "we had to vote for it verbatim" is a lie. The House had to vote a verbatim of the Senate Bill because the Senate and the President insisted that do under this "the voters have spoken" horseshit rationale rather than ANY legal compunction, they then we're forced to vote the "fix" bill passed via reconciliation.

[pnwmom]

102. The budget reconciliation was also used for taxes and increasing subsidies.

From Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well - suited for reconciliation."

[TheKentuckian]

121. That is what I said though I didn't mention subsidies but did use the kickback.

What is your point?

[pnwmom]

101. Yes, which didn't give the House time to pass the bill.

There were financial features of the bill they couldn't live with -- for example, they wanted higher subsidies -- which is why they eventually passed the bill in March but amended it through the budget reconciliation bill at the same time.

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well - suited for reconciliation."

[Zambero]

13. Wasn't if Joe Liebermann who killed the public option?

Well, any GOP Senator at the time had a role in opposition including newly-elected Brown, but Liebermann was an independent who caucused with Democratic majority in the Senate and a crucial swing vote. He was on record as favoring ACA but only if it did not include a public option, and at the same time his support was crucial to clear the way for passage. The insurance lobby in Connecticut had him in their pocket, and he steadfastly vowed opposition unless the public option was not included. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the White House eventually indicated that it would not insist on this provision, so it was excluded and cleared the way for the bill's passage with no votes to spare. I recall that given the circumstances, Harry Reid was required to do some maneuvering in order to get the bill to a majority vote, incorrectly referred to by Republicans as exercising the "nuclear" option.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Lieberman, Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln

they all opposed the public option.

What eventually became law was done as a "reconciliation" (nuclear option) "conference report" that engrossed the House-amended version of the 2009 Senate bill, but only needing 51 votes to pass as a "budget" related entity.

All money-related bills (since this had a mandatory fee/excise tax component) must originate in the House.

[Zambero]

28. Yes, Joe had ample help in killing the public option

The irony is that Lieberman had been the party's candidate for vice president in the 2000 election, when health care reform was at the forefront of the party's agenda, and years later even though he was in a position to make a difference, he went out of his way to enable a significant piece of progressive legislation to be severely water down. And since having the election stolen from him and Al Gore, he deemed it appropriate to position himself further right in the direction of the party that had screwed him over, endorsing McCain-Palin (I wonder what his ultimate take was on Sarah?) in '08, and taking an obstructionist stance on numerous occasions following Obama's election. The other three Senators were from conservative states and would have been expected to be lukewarm to a public option. But Lieberman as a Senator from a reliably blue state was at no political risk whatsoever -- he just did the wrong thing and for a host of probable reasons (going out of his way to cause grief for his "formerly fellow" Democrats, dislike of Obama, insurance lobby pressures).

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Lieberman became anti-Democratic establishment

when they didn't endorse him for re-election and pushed for Ned Lamont, who won the primary. Unfortunately the people of CT opted for Lieberman in the general and that was a day of infamy seeing how the following 6 years went down.

I.e., his voters had "spoken", he probably figured he wasn't going to run for another term anyway, so he could "enjoy" his final term doing whatever the hell he wanted however he wanted.

[Number23]

110. I am loving your posts in this thread. My God, it is wonderful to read from someone who has

actually taken the time to figure everything out.

[BumRushDaShow]

115. I was following the hearings and the various iterations of the legislation

and continually yelled at the media for pronouncing some draft version of the bill as "the bill" - completely ignoring the process of how a bill becomes a law and the fact that both the House and Senate versions had to be the same.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. And yet he was rewarded by Dems.

Allowed to keep his committee positions, no?

Freaking traitor who screwed over the whole nation simply to express his pique at not winning his primary as a Dem, even when the party machinery went out of it's way to support him.

[pnwmom]

103. YES - but he had that power because of Kennedy's death.

[Scuba]

2. When did the Constitution change from majority rule to super-majority rule? I missed that.

[pnwmom]

6. It changed when they adopted the filibuster decades earlier.

[zeemike]

47. No it changed when they adopted the rule

That you don't have to actually filibuster, just say you will and the bill is tabled.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Just read Article I of the Constitution

U.S. Constitution › Article I
Article I
Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2.

<snip>

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

I know it's alot to have to read but...

[rhett o rick]

74. So what's your point? That the Senate makes it's own rules? And can dump

the filibuster anytime it has the votes to do so? The filibuster rule should have been dumped as soon as it became a tool of obstruction. It's a useful tool if used appropriately. But it is being abused and causing damage to the country.

[BumRushDaShow]

85. I absolutely don't disagree

But the narrative has been that what Congress did or did not do is irrelevant and it's all Obama's fault. The House and the Senate will do what they will do when they want to do it.

[rhett o rick]

107. I had to try to guess your point and apparently I got it wrong. So a second try

to guess your point. How's this, "It's not Obama's fault, Congress will do what they want." So I am confused. In my post I mentioned that the Senate could have dumped the filibuster if they were serious about passing the ACA. How is that blaming it on Obama?

And by the way, no one here says it's all Obama's fault. I think some here think he has some responsibility. Especially when, as a candidate, he said he would work for single payer. He should have recognized the obstacles.

[BumRushDaShow]

114. "And by the way, no one here says it's all Obama's fault"

There are numerous posts here describing what happened during the entire ACA debate process, complete with links, and these explanations have been summarily dismissed with the claim about "WH backroom deals" and other nonsense.

"Working for single payer" and actually getting something through when the chance is there but the legislators aren't all on board for that ultimate version, shouldn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water, which is what too many on DU want to happen.

And yes I do agree that the Senate coulda shoulda dumped the filibuster but they didn't. Their (Reid's) argument being that if the Democrats needed to block some egregious legislation that the GOP might want to ram through if control switched, then they would have had that stopgap to slow it. I.e., based on many decades of past history of the Senate rules, this type of filibuster misuse never occurred but as we now know, it became unprecedented under this President.

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. The Senate Filibuster goes back to 1806, and is Constitutional under Article I Section 5

Which gives the Senate and the House of Representatives the power to set their own rules. (A Filibuster is a rule set for the Senate by the Senate.) The filibuster was first initiated in 1806. The rules have been changed from time to time, in accordance with Constitutional Senate procedure.

The rules aren't perfect, and a have allowed Republicans to abuse them since President Obama was elected. For that reason, Senator Reid instituted some minor changes.

[leftstreet]

3. The Democrats HANDED that seat to Brown

They failed to support Coakley, who was a dubious candidate at best

Obama came into office with more political capital than any other president in our lifetimes

He squandered it

[pnwmom]

7. He didn't squander anything. He's gotten a lot done. n/t

[leftstreet]

8. But your OP asserts his hands have been tied

How can someone who doesn't have a super duper way big majority get so much done?

[Zambero]

22. One wishes that were true

The GOP, morphing into the Tea Party immediately after Obama was sworn into office, vowed from day one to use every possible means to obstruct Obama's agenda, and has done so ever since, essentially putting the Senate on filibuster auto-pilot. These people hate being out of complete control. No amount of "political capital" or reasonable compromise would have forced their hand. And the House GOP has been even more partisan and extreme. They have had countless opportunities to collaborate on legislation that has public support, such as immigration reform, but Speaker Boehner fears this caucus and refuses to allow votes. It's a miracle that anything has gotten accomplished at all -- ACA and stimulus were passed with no votes to spare, after which barrages of dark money and absurd talking points ensued ("failed" stimulus despite all evidence to the contrary, and "government takeover of health care" despite ACA being an expansion of private sector health insurance), paving the way for the 2010 mid-term debacle. Conservatives had their playbook ready in January of 2009, ready and willing to drag the economy down further so that blame could be placed on Obama. Yes, opportunities were squandered, but certainly not by this president.

[leftstreet]

29. Oh please. The Democrats created the 'tea party'

The spectacularly stupid health care 'town halls' gave both parties the public venue they needed to divide, conquer and undermine citizen desire for single payer.

Where were the town halls on the bank bailouts? Town halls on military escalation? Uh, wage increase town halls?

Guess I missed those

[Agnosticsherbet]

24. He passed the first national healthcare bill in our history, not bad spending of capital.

In the first two years, he saved the auto industry in the US, saving millions of jobs. He finished shutting down the Iraq war (a process started by Bush),

Those were great expenditures of political capitol.

He was unable to shut down Guantanamo because a super Majority of Democrats and Republicans passed laws that refused to allow him to shut it down or move the prisoners. That was an investment of political capitol that did not provide a good return, though I think it was worth the effort.

Once the New Congress took its seat in January of 2011, all the Political Capitol in the world was worth exactly dick. Political Capitol, like any monetary symbol, is worthless if the other side is unwilling to accept its value. If even elected Democrats are unwilling to accept the Presidents Coin, it had no value.

Political Capitol, like the Bully Pulpit, is enormously over rated. Republicans clearly don't give a damn what general public thinks. They get away with what they do because they make a majority of the people who vote in their district happy. A representatives beholding to only a few voters in his district happy is, as I see it, one of the flaws in our system. It made sense at the time, but not anymore.

[leftstreet]

27. No, that was Medicare. ACA is a for-profit bill n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. Medicare was not a national healthcare bill. It was Seniors only. The ACA remains the first

successful national healthcare bill to pass. (A bill that is technically all inclusive.) It is not the best bill that could have been written though having watched closely through the process I think it was the only one that could have passed in the House and Senate that voted on it.

There were never the votes in the House or Senate for Medicare for all, or even the Public Option. I would hope the system evolves in that direction.

In my opinion, our energy would best be used to push ideas to make the ACA better.

[leftstreet]

33. IT. WAS. NON PROFIT. n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

35. WHICH. MEANS. EXACTLY. NOTHING. PROFIT. OR. NON-PROFIT. IS. IRRELEVANT. IN. NATIONAL

health care. It is just the vehicle used by a nation to provide the service.

[treestar]

76. Nobody forced those voters to

Replace teddy with a stupid Republican. They made their own damn choice.

The democrats get blamed for every loss as if they should win every election if they were only magical enough.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I also blame the strutting Baucus and power-drunk Lieberman

who both forced the "this or nothing for the next couple decades" scenario.

Hopefully one day, an "Affordable Healthcare and Patient Protection Amendments Act" will be developed to add a public entity option into the exchanges.

[PoliticAverse]

11. That scenario was necessary because Reid didn't reform the filibuster. n/t

[brooklynboy49]

15. I must have missed these

Was the back room deal with big pharma causally connected to Kennedy's death?

Was the failure to at least propose single payer causally connected to Kennedy's death?

Was putting Social Security on the table, when it hadn't even been sought by the Republicans, causally connected to Kennedy's death?

Was the failure to include a Medicare buy-in causally connected to Kennedy's death?

I could go on, but won't.

I don't dispute the accuracy of the description of the course of events set forth in the OP. I am merely pointing out that, IMO, we have been saddled with a weak and naive president whose number one priority during his first term was some lofty goal of civil bipartisanship. Which, of course, wasn't achieved. And a golden opportunity was blown. We never would have gotten single payer at this point in our history, but you put it on the table as your starting point and negotiate down from there. You also grease the skids by getting it into the public debate, making it easier to implement five or 10 years from now. And you don't let Lieberman singlehandedly sabotage the Medicare buy-in.

But the deal with big pharma? Unforgivable. Putting SS on the table? Even more unforgivable.

There is a "D" after Obama's name, isn't there?

Coulda fooled me.

P.S. Yes, of course he's infinitely better than McCain or Romney would have been. But, that begs the issue(s).

[BumRushDaShow]

25. Interesting how he managed to move the ball on it

when others couldn't for 100 years.

It was not just something that Ted Kennedy wanted as a legislative achievement but also something that John Dingell, Jr. (and his father John Dingell Sr. before him) tried to get in place over those 100 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/24/how-i-made-john-dingell-cry/

The current Old Age, Survivor's, and Disability Insurance Act is not the same as that passed in 1935 and what was passed and signed in 2010 for the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act will not stay the same either.

[zeemike]

57. Not so surprising to me.

A bill that mandates people buy private for profit insurance...what is not to like in that?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

46. OfCourseHesbetterthanMcCainorRomney...

is going to be my new username.

I see you've learned before your 100th post that it's an "all good" or "all bad" world here.

[pnwmom]

104. When did Obama campaign on single-payer? Why are you blaming him for not

proposing that? Didn't Bernie Sanders introduce a single-payer bill?

[Walk away]

18. Honestly, Barack Obama is my FDR....

I remember how grateful my family was to Roosevelt even decades after his death. The programs he made possible continued to change their lives for the better. I believe the Affordable Care Act will finally be on a par with Social Security and Medicare when we regain the political power to improve the law as it was always intended.

That isn't going to happen without support and co-operation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. Maybe we can win both house in November?

would that make a difference

[BrotherIvan]

31. So where on your timeline is the time the leader of the party picked up the phone

And threatened not to support blue dogs who didn't vote for it? They really got in line after that didn't they?

I also must have missed all the speeches where the ACA, including a public option, was explained to the public so they could support it. Over and over how important the public option was. Getting the huge public support on his side to make sure Congress passed the bill that the people wanted. Pure magic.

The Democrats really came out big guns during all that campaigning they did in the midterms and explained the bill to the voters. Because they really wanted to win the midterms! Never seen so much fight!

But unfortunately, one person died and it just all faded away...

[BumRushDaShow]

38. The M$M focused on the "sausage-making" of how a bill becomes a law

which drowned out any of the bullet point BENEFITS that WERE repeated over and over.

Every time someone lists these SAME bullet points on DU (e.g., no pre-existing conditions rejections, kids stay on insurance until 26, etc, etc)., they eye-rolling commences and the complaints vomit forth about "blue links" and other nonsense.

It's been put out there but the whole subject of "insurance", is not a cut and dried subject - that goes for any insurance (car, home, life, etc). But what is different is that this is on a national level (where the rest of the insurances are state regulated), so there ends up being TMI.

Even if there were a public option, a person would STILL have to fill out some damn form and select something. And if there were Medicare for All (which is what I prefer), you STILL have to fill out a form.

[TheKentuckian]

41. The same one filled out for a Social Security card should work.

"Filling out the form" is the least of the concern, though easy access to a clear and understandable form is important.

What the form gets you and how it is funded matters a lot more.

[BumRushDaShow]

53. I agree

but trying to get people to actually do it takes a herculean effort regardless. There are millions who "fly under the radar" as not having had to fill out any forms at all - whether driver's license, voter registration, income taxes, etc., and they have to be hand-held to do so.

However just like the current Medicare doesn't cover everything, that must be factored in somewhere to make up that extra 20% if such were to be used for single-payer.

And when you have a myriad of interests who mass voting blocks who can make or break something, the juggling can become nightmarish. Thus the hoops that had to be jumped when Stupak threatened to torpedo the whole ACA (whether with public option or not) because of his and other Catholic Democrats' interests.

[TheKentuckian]

72. I don't agree with Medicare as our model. The entire urge to do so is about marketing

and piggybacking on a popular program but structurally and coverage wise it isn't at all what we need.

I get the attraction of the easy pitch but what ends up pitched is 80/20 with a boondoggle of a drug plan and no out of pocket limit. I don't think that is really the goal.

I'm more a Community Health/VA/Tricare for all model if we must go off of something already in place and I do mean a really uniquely American system that would allow a choice to use public services or utilize single payer insurance (perhaps with copays) to pay for private care. Essentially setting up a semi - competitive system to keep public and private producers honest and effective, maintaining choice while eliminating a parasitic industry and loosening the grip of for profit providers somewhat.

[BumRushDaShow]

89. The push for "Medicare for All"

from me is not so much regarding what all the provisions are currently, but the fact that there is already a "government-run" system "in place" that can be updated and tweaked (with respect to types of coverage, etc), where people can be phased into it (by gradually dropping the age range for applying).

If you go with the Tricare model for the drugs (using competition), then that can be added into it.

I think the whole idea was that since the government-run option would NOT be done "for profit", then the "premiums" would ultimately be less, eventually driving down the costs charged by private insurers unless they can show they offer more "bang" for their higher "buck".

But this was most likely why it was fought against and failed because there was no way private could compete with public based on the fee-for-service model, and still try to generate a large profit.

[BrotherIvan]

49. I believe the eye rolling comes from the fact that while those bullet points are good

They do not go nearly far enough.

I support the ACA's many improvements:

Pre-existing conditions
Out of pocket maximums
No lifetime caps
Kids on insurance
Subsidies for low income people

But the biggest problem is that we are still dancing with insurance companies. They are in the business of denying care. That is how they make profits. Their business practices are despicable and they are now forever entrenched within the system. There is no cap on premium costs and my insurer, whom I have been on the phone with all month long, has on their hold loop a message saying that ACA premiums are set to already go UP later this year.

As I said on another thread, my insurance went up every quarter beginning in 2008 when the ACA negotiations started. It went up from $180 to $476 this year because there are no safeguards in place for price gouging which is exactly what they are doing.

And now, there have been many articles and people are finally realizing that the networks for ACA plans is so narrow, they cannot find a doctor in their area. There is going to be a provider crisis and the insurance company is ensuring that it happens. I was told I can't use my insurance out of state. I am not covered for emergency hospital use out of state! Which means, you guessed it, I will enter the ER as an uninsured patient (I travel for work). These policies, the more people try to use them and figure out all the restrictions and loopholes the insurance companies have written into them will see that these policies are pure junk.

But rewriting history and saying it's all because Teddy Kennedy died and that this wasn't the biggest fumble by a super majority party, or worse yet, the classic instance of taking a dive, is disingenuous at best.

[BumRushDaShow]

61. I and many others on DU agree that "insurance" is out FOR PROFIT

They want to take your $ and not pay it out. THAT is their business model.

But since the U.S. refuses to embrace "socialism" and instead has professed and adopted "capitalism", then one has to work around it. It will probably take another hundred or more years for the U.S. public to see the values of socialistic care and policies for entities that should have NOTHING to do with "business" - health, education, and government. These 3 should never be operated "for profit".

Meanwhile having something (that can be updated as time goes on) rather than nothing, is preferable.

But you have also "rewrote" history by because there were many other things going on with this including fucking Stupak and 16 other Democrats blocking the ACA (public option or not) because of their anti-abortion stance in the House. "Big" legislation is always an ego thing and some like to be attention-getters.

So folks need to go back and really look at what happened during 2009 - 2010 and push to have meaningful changes made to it that will eventually have it transition to a single-payer system.

[BrotherIvan]

73. As I said, most people hate their insurance company

The idea that we couldn't sell a Medicare buy-in is pure bunk. They didn't even mention the word. People for the most part are very happy with Medicare. By showing the massive cost savings because of bulk purchasing, highlighting the doctors who would support it (the majority as I understand it) and the very low overhead, they could have gotten massive support for it. They didn't even try. Why?

The oft-cited helplessness in the face of Blue Dog/Republican obstruction has been shown time and again to be untrue. When the administration wants something, they get it. It's weak sauce to say the President and Democrats have been powerless at every turn. (When Reid had chances to change the filibuster rule, he didn't.) I don't understand why that talking point keeps getting used so often when so many are obviously not buying it.

[BumRushDaShow]

92. "They didn't even mention the word. "

Who is "they"?

Conyers introduced a "Medicare for All" bill (H.R. 676) back in 2003 and along with his H.R. 40, kept re-introducing it every year. He is still putting it in (latest version - http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/676). The concept gained even more attention after Michael Moore's "Sicko" (the DVD that I have) released, underscoring that something like that HAD to be done.

All of this was out there and was blocked by conservadems. Yet the DU narrative has been that it's "Obama's fault".

Again revisionism.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

52. No No No, you got it all wrong...

Obama used his bully pulpit to whack Dennis Kucinich.

[Doctor_J]

129. A simple phrase

We will join the rest of the industrialized world in ensuring that all of our citizens have health are, without middlemen, from conception to death. Never again will Americans be without health care.

Over and over and over...

[polichick]

40. And then there's this version of the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-real-reason-obamas-pl_b_473924.html

"The reason Robert Gibbs gives for President Obama's health care plan not including a public option -- that despite majority voter support, it can't get 51 Democratic votes in the Senate -- doesn't hold up. The real reason is that Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no meaningful public option."

SNIP

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

[ProSense]

42. And yet

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

...that theory pushed by lobbyists fails the reality test.

Obamacare also improved the Medicaid drug rebate program, which is one of the best.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024695694

[polichick]

44. A WH deal early on explains the lack of support - and the WH going after...

public option activists who ran ads against Blue Dogs.

[ProSense]

51. Nonsense. The reality simply counters that.

The Medicaid drug rebate is in the law.

[polichick]

54. Well, I'm not surprised you would see it that way.

[sabrina 1]

81. Unfortunately we were right there during the reality.

Watching every step along the way. Medicaid is now handled by the Private Insurance Corps. Iow, privatized. They get to dip their greedy hands into the Public Fund, take out about 20% in the process, before paying the bills it was intended for.

20% or 3% if the Govt handled it? Seems like an easy choice to me, IF the people are the concern, not the middlemen who do what in terms of providing HC? Seems like something well worth fighting for.

[ProSense]

83. BS.

"Watching every step along the way. Medicaid is now handled by the Private Insurance Corps. Iow, privatized. They get to dip their greedy hands into the Public Fund, take out about 20% in the process, before paying the bills it was intended for."

The Republican-governed states have gotten temporary waivers. This is an attempt to ensure that people don't die because their state leadership sucks.

The law mandated 100 percent federally funded Medicaid expansion. It was the SCOTUS ruling that set up this disaster.

That's the reality.

[sabrina 1]

91. And who is handling Medicaid payouts now?

[ProSense]

93. What the hell are you talking about? Your claim about the law was wrong. n/t

[sabrina 1]

106. I asked a question, no need to get angry over it.

Airc there was a lot of debate over how MUCH Private Ins Corps could take from the Medicaid. Initially they were talking about 30% but there was so much opposition to so much of the Public Fund going for profit, they had to reduce it to around 20%.

I remember some good Democrats at the time, arguing against ANY of that fund being used for profit.

[BrotherIvan]

60. This fairy tale rewriting of history won't work

The public option was killed early on. If we allow this fable that one or two blue dogs and Lieberman were invincible, and that the most popular, supported new administration in modern history was powerless to stop them, we are spreading the lie. Once again we have the question, was it intentional or incompetence? Looking at the further actions throughout the last six years, I think we're starting to see the full picture.

[BumRushDaShow]

65. Read this

and stop posting revisionist bullshit.

http://swampland.time.com/2009/03/26/max-baucus-and-the-public-plan/
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/09/29/170973/baucus-option/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/health/policy/30health.html?_r=0

I know many on DU prefer Chavez-like dictators so the idea of dictator-imposed passage of legislation is apparently par for that course.

[former9thward]

43. To date there is no evidence that the ACA has "insured millions of Americans

who did not have insurance before."

Only 19 percent of those who have paid a premium were previously uninsured. Among those that the administration is touting as sign-ups, only 14 percent are previously uninsured enrollees: approximately 472,000 people as of February 1.


But on a recent HHS conference call, Obamacare implementation point man Gary Cohen was asked the key question: how many of the people who have signed up for Obamacare were previously insured? His response: “That’s not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/08/mckinsey-only-14-of-obamacare-exchange-sign-ups-are-previously-uninsured-enrollees/

[ProSense]

55. There are

"To date there is no evidence that the ACA has 'insured millions of Americans who did not have insurance before.'

...about 8 million people who were previously uninsured and don't have to pay premiums because they qualified for Medicaid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024697984

Blow By Blow: A Comprehensive Timeline Of The GOP’s 4-Year Battle To Kill Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024714088

[former9thward]

94. 48 Million Americans Remain Uninsured, Census Bureau Reports

From the Census. 2012 is the last year with hard numbers.

The rate of uninsured Americans dropped slightly for the second consecutive year in 2012, from 15.7 percent to 15.4 percent, largely a result of more people enrolling in Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday.

The closely-watched report found that about 48 million Americans were uninsured in 2012, down from 48.6 million in 2011, a change the agency said is not statistically significant. The report is the last look at the uninsured before the major coverage expansions of President Barack Obama’s health law take effect in January.


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/september/17/census-numbers-uninsured-numbers-remain-nearly-unchanged.aspx

[ProSense]

98. You're posting a the 2012 census to show that the 2014 law isn't helping millions? n/t

[former9thward]

109. I am posting hard numbers not guesses and estimates.

You would rather go with guesses. That is up to you.

The administration knows its guesses:

But on a recent HHS conference call, Obamacare implementation point man Gary Cohen was asked the key question: how many of the people who have signed up for Obamacare were previously insured? His response: “That’s not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way.”

[gollygee]

127. Hard numbers from before the ACA don't really say anything

about what's happened since the ACA.

[former9thward]

133. Those are the only numbers that exist.

The quote in my post shows the administration has no idea what the numbers are.

[JayhawkSD]

45. Dems protect Republicans from their own ineptitude.

How many times did Harry Reid not bring a bill to the floor because he did not have enough votes to pass it? I submit that if he had brought some of them to the floor and let the Republicans vote them down, and then announced that Republicans were standing in the way the public would be a lot more fed up with Republicans than they are. If Reid and Pelosi had stood their ground and vowed to let health care reform go down in defeat rather than weaken it by including Republican demands, and let it be voted down a couple of times to the tune of public outrage, Republicans would have paid a price. Democrats, Obama chiefly among them, have spent far too much time placating the Republicans and have weakened far too much important legislation. The continual giving in to blackmail has not served this nation well.

Democrats whine about haow Republicans have "blocked important legislation," but in fact, they have done far more damage in the legislation they have not blocked but have weakened. The "stimulus bill" that was something like 40% tax cuts and far too small to be as effective as it needed to be, so that the best that Democrats can say of it is, "Well think of where we'd have been without it." The "health care reform" bill that allows states to opt out of providing Medicaid for their citizens and had no public option. Those are things that the Democrats agreed to.

[ProSense]

48. Not even

But before that could happen, Kennedy died of brain cancer; and with him, the Democrats’ super-majority. And MA had a law that didn’t allow the Democratic governor to appoint an immediate replacement. Instead, an election was called for several months later, and Scott Brown, R, was elected to replace Kennedy.

<...>

So it isn’t reasonable or fair to blame the President for the fact that he promised support for the public option and then ultimately pushed for an ACA that lacked one. The only way for him to have succeeded with the public option depended on keeping Senator Ted Kennedy, and the super-majority, alive. And that was too much even for President Obama.

...keeping Kennedy's seat could have saved the public option. The fact is that the bill had to be passed via reconciliation because of conservative Dems, three of whom (Lincoln, Nelson and Pryor) voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00105

[JaneyVee]

50. Don't forget Joe Lieberman who vowed to

VOte against a public option and endorsed McCain.

[Hekate]

58. Thank you

[FreeJoe]

59. The irony is...

...if we had passed a public option and then offered to repeal it in favor of a Republican alternative, that alternative would probably look a lot like what is now called Obamacare, although they'd call it something like National Romneycare.

[Cleita]

62. Don't forget Max Baucus, a Democrat, firmly in the pocket of the for profit health care

industry, who more than anyone IMHO, has the blame for killing it.

[dmosh42]

80. You have the correct answer for why the 'public option died.....

I remember Bill Moyers saying on his show, while showing a picture of Baucus running the committee, to look at the woman sitting just to the left of Baucus. She was the main representative from the health insurance industry helping him to 'write' the wording to the health bill. Yes, the Dems had a few of their own ready to sell out for lobby money and block any bill with a public option.

[rocktivity]

63. The public option was never real

I knew that once I read this about super secret negotiations with the insurance companies that even Edward Kennedy was in on:

Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3749535


rocktivity

[SheilaT]

64. My recollection is that the public option was taken off

the table very early on. The rank and file everywhere was totally outraged, but it was a done deal.

[BumRushDaShow]

70. Read the links at post #60

That was Baucus', who ran the Senate Finance Committee.

Add this to those links -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/30/736942/-UPDATE-Split-Between-Kennedy-and-Baucus-On-Public-Option

It's an interesting recap as it was happening.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

66. Didn't you guys tell us Obama never wanted the Public Option? Isn't there video?

In his own words.

"I never campaigned on the Public Option."

What was the point of this thread...???

[NCcoast]

67. This is where I get so angry at the deterioration of our 'representative' government

As I recall, at the time of the passing of the ACA public support for a public option was somewhere in the range of 70-80%. But Obama, Pelosi and Reid kept tossing it back and forth to one another like a hot potato, each blaming the other for not being able to include a public option in the bill.

The bottom line was that congress had been bought off. As I believe Rachel Maddow put it at the time, the public option was as popular as 'free beer'. That's why publicly funded elections is an absolute must first step toward reclaiming representative government.

[ProSense]

69. How to strengthen Obamacare, courtesy of the Progessive Caucus.

How to strengthen Obamacare, courtesy of the Progessive Caucus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024702695

[Hoyt]

71. Truth doesn't matter, we gotta blame it on Obama.

Truthfully, if a public option had been enacted, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the premiums would be 7 to 8% less than private insurance premiums.

I don't think that would be enough to stop people from griping -- most people griping about a $500 monthly premium, would still gripe about a $460 premium. They'd just have to find something else to blame Obama for rather than using the public option.

[treestar]

75. Very ironic since it was Teddy's issue

Lieberman is also to blame. And Massachusetts They replaced teddy with a Republican.

[Loudly]

77. That doesn't prevent Democratic candidates from campaigning on Medicare for All.

If they don't want to be crucified in November, that is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. I remember, two days after that I went to the USPS and re-registered as an Independent

and do not intend to go back.

It was done in protest, these days it is a matter of work. I might add, I was not alone.

[mike_c]

82. thin sauce....

The 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to mention, amidst all the discussion about why we can't have nice things, something is better than nothing, politics is the art of the possible, and the need to make progress in baby steps is that every other major industrial democracy on Earth simply did it, in one form or another. With regard to health care for our citizens, American exceptionalism seems to mean "we're the only ones who can't find a way to do this."

There are, of course, two gorilla's in the room. The other one is the vast and parasitic health insurance industry which produces nothing of value, adds nothing to health care delivery, and exists primarily to suck profit out of sick people. They're vampire middle-men who fuck up our health care system beyond belief in order to enrich themselves and their share holders. We not only let them do this, we expect it and facilitate it. Our political leadership serves their interests before they serve the broader needs of their constituency. The ACA contains no public option because its primary purpose is to preserve the profits of the parasite class if we're going to require them to be just a little more egalitarian about providing services to poor folk, at least until they figure out new and better ways to deny those services or to suck the economic life from recipients a little harder.

The rest of the world either laughs at us, or shakes their heads in wonder. Why does the population of the most powerful and wealthiest democracy on Earth allow their parasite class to ruin the health and welfare of a significant proportion of the population, when most similar nations simply solved that problem with some form of socialized health care delivery? All of our circular arguing ignores this simple truth-- most other countries with the means to do so have just done it. It isn't hard. It certainly isn't impossible.

[Cleita]

84. This should be an original post.

[ProSense]

86. Simply nonsense.

The ACA contains no public option because its primary purpose is to preserve the profits of the parasite class if we're going to require them to be just a little more egalitarian about providing services to poor folk, at least until they figure out new and better ways to deny those services or to suck the economic life from recipients a little harder.

The primary purpose was to provide access to the millions of uninsured Americans, more than 17 million of them Medicaid eligible.

The law brought reform, banning predatory practices like dropping people for pre-existing conditions, increasing the MLR and mandating an essential benefits package, which includes preventive care.

[leftstreet]

100. +1

[polichick]

105. "It isn't hard. It certainly isn't impossible." The hard part seems to be...

getting people in the U.S. to expect more from their government - and then to demand more.

[cui bono]

119. Exactly right. We can see it right here.

Rather than accept criticism too many people defend anything and everything just as it is/went down, insisting that that's all that could have been done. Problem is that that is not provable since there was never any effort to try for more.

There was never any effort to actually get the public option. Why was Baucus the architect of the ACA? He was against the public option from the start?

The Dem Party isn't going to try for more unless the people demand it. They don't have to. They are doing what they need to do to keep their careers. And to many people accept it and actually believe or at least contend that that's all we could get.

[idendoit]

87. I'm always surprised when I'm reminded of how...

...close the ACA came to not passing. How much longer before we can finally eliminate the middlemen and finally get universal health care, like the rest of the first world nations.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. I think it died on election day 2008. Candidate Obama said he would not

sign a bill without a strong public option and he said the individual mandate was a stupid idea until he was elected, then he instantly reversed both positions.
As President he never once advocated a public option. He had already cashed that ticket.

[ProSense]

90. That's

"As President he never once advocated a public option. He had already cashed that ticket."

...inaccurate.

Obama Demands: The Bill I Sign Must Include Public Option (July 17)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8591389

Dingell: Obama Made the Public Option More Viable with This Speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8641269

[sulphurdunn]

95. The public option

was never anything but a campaign ruse. It died for all practical purposes the minute the 2008 election ended. The health insurance industry would have never supported the act with the public option included. Kennedy's death and Brown's ascension merely gave the democrats an easy out by avoiding having the blue dogs kill it. Even after Kennedy's death, and the democrats virtually handed his seat to Brown, it is difficult to spin a narrative in which the party still in control of all three branches of government was thwarted on such a massive social program as the ACA by the threat of a republican filibuster. The public option died because the democrats were perfectly willing to hand the republicans veto power over it and then wash their hands of it. The irony is that it cost them the House, and the American people have been paying for it since.

[backwoodsbob]

96. the public option died

behind closed doors in a room full of WH staffers and Insurance Execs

[GoneFishin]

97. It was crystal clear to me by the Reid, Pelosi, and POTUS tap dance number that they had no

desire or intention to support a Public Option. Their lips said one thing while their actions said something entirely different. Finding out later that POTUS had already sold us out to the industry lobbyists simply provided me with the answer to "why?".

-------------------------

" that despite majority voter support, it can't get 51 Democratic votes in the Senate doesn't hold up. The real reason is that Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no meaningful public option."

[NCcoast]

113. Ding ding ding... we have a winner

[Damansarajaya]

117. Agreed. nt

[cheapdate]

99. Thank you very much for this.

I remember. How could you not? It was only five years ago. The senate finance committee under Max Baucus had been holding hearings on health care reform for almost a year when Barack Obama was elected. They were able to produce a draft bill within weeks of Obama's election.

[JoePhilly]

108. The increase in attacks on the ACA are due to the 3/31 date approaching.

Once that date passes, its game over.

The folks who really want it dead, know that after that date, its over.

They're getting their last rants in.

Your OP gets the details right, but most of them think Obama had a super majority for 2 entire years. You can explain the numbers, and the procedures 1000 times. They don't care. They'll never get it.

But soon, states will start to add public options. And another outrage will die.

[freshwest]

118. +1,000. And the ACA provides the option for it. VT is doing it, PBO or ACA isn't stopping anyone.

[Capt. Obvious]

111. I'm surprised you still haven't edited your OP

since I'm pretty sure others have pointed out that Kennedy was replaced by a Dem until Brown's election, preserving the supermajority.

[pnwmom]

112. I did. Did you read the WIKI article? n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

126. Interesting. It still says, Kennedy died

and MA law didn't allow a replacement pick so we lost the Super Majority.

Did those 4+ months that Paul Kirk serve not happen?

[Damansarajaya]

116. Pres. Obama could have taken the fight right to the American people.

I was part of his Obama for America corps, just waiting to get called up.

Nothing happened.

The promise that Mr. Obama repeated before and after he was elected, that any bill he signed must have the public option, was abandoned.

[Doctor_J]

131. That's what should have happened

and then you just beat the drum "55 million Americans without health care", endlessly until the midterms, and the turnout is even greater than in 2008.

The fix was in. I was just too starry-eyed to realize it

[cui bono]

120. "it was too late"

It most likely wouldn't have been too late - if it even was - if there was ever any real effort to get the public option.

There was zero talk of single-payer. Basic negotiation tactic is that you ask for more than what you want then you settle for what you can get. No one asked for single-payer. Not only that, single-payer advocates were never invited to the table. Or to any secret back room meetings. But guess who did get secret back room meetings? The insurance companies. The WH denied these secret meetings until they could no longer, then they had to finally admit it. Do you think the insurance companies wanted the public option or did not want it?

Secondly, the public option was barely even fought for if at all. Neither Obama nor the house Dems took to the people to explain the public option, not even to explain most of the ACA, leaving the R's to frame the issue and keep the Dems on defense. Dems just don't know how to play offense which has to make one wonder if they really even want to.

Then you have Rahm Emanuel telling the left to fuck off.

We'll never know for sure if the votes were there for the public option because the people were never rallied about it. Had Dem leaders spoken out about it and informed the people about it most likely there would have been phone calls and emails pressuring their representatives to demand the public option be in the bill.

[Demo_Chris]

122. Cool story bro...

The REALITY is that Obama got exactly what he wanted: MANDATES and taxpayer subsidies paid to private companies.

[Cha]

123. Thank you for this detailed report on the timeline, pnwmom..

But, those who are dead set on blaming Pres Obama for Everything will still be ignorantly whining away because that's what they do.

[LiberalAndProud]

124. I am aware that post #124 on a thread gets about 3 views.

Still. About the public option, I have this to say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-the-public-option/
A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died.

The article is worth reading for a lot of reasons.

[grahamhgreen]

125. We only needed Lieberman. You can't tell me there was nothing we could offered him that would have

Got us his vote.

That or have Obama call for a march in Washinton.

[Doctor_J]

128. The campaign promise was a lie. Lots of good posts in this thread

mike_c, BrotherIvan, GoneFishin...

The president never intended to fight for a PO - he took lots of Big Insurance cash for his campaign. That was a very smooth lie though. HIs campaign won some sort of marketing award for 2008. He managed to convince lots of Dems and casual/new voters that his reign would be a major change from other recent ones. Of course we have seen that he is just another corporatist hack.

[Puzzledtraveller]

130. Nth dimensional chess

Just wait.....

wait some more.......

keep waiting, please...........

Hold on, it's going to be good............

Just a little bit longer...................................

[Vattel]

132. Given that the President didn't even try to fight for the public option,

saying that he couldn't have won such a fight is a bit speculative.