HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Rilgin » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Thu May 8, 2008, 03:38 PM
Number of posts: 768

Journal Archives

I do not know what you are addressing

I am addressing your claim that President Obama did not campaign or run (whatever words you want to use) on the Public Option.

He clearly did. You can argue anything you want from that point. You can say he saw the light, he tried and failed to get it, he finally realized it was impossible to obtain. All these are possible arguments. I might disagree with some or all of these arguments. However, your argument seems to be there is no public option because he never campaigned on it so had no obligation to pursue it at all.

This is making up facts to support your opinion. Not a great proposition when other people were there and remember watching the debates where Obama ran, campaigned, supported, released policy statements (any other words you want to use to describe a candidates election stands) on no mandate and a public option and Hilary ran on a Mandate and no public option.

The rest of all of these debates are all opinion. BTW, if you just admit the basic facts, you can still use your unicorn and rainbow analogies (like in your response) no matter how dismissive of other people but at least you will not be making up facts.

Perhaps that would have resulted in same place

Some form of health insurance reform was inevitable.

If the democrats (in particular the Administration) had not made back room deals and chased the pipe dream of bi-partanianship with the republicans but instead had proposed a good public expansion of medicaire for all and had politically fought the opponents with back room and public pressure, maybe it would have failed ... and the compromise would have resulted in ... wait for it.... wait for it.... wait for it... the ACA. This bill was always possible as the end result of a political battle.

By chosing to take the long time republican plan as the basis of health care reform and not fight first for something better before compromising we lost the chance that we would have something that actually moved us in the right direction... single payer... medicare for all... public option.

Personally, I believe the political fight would have won. Until Obama started making the back room deals and made some policy choices that supported the status quo rather than made it clear he was for actual big changes, he was mobilizing millions to public rallies. Certainly the most zealot and secure republicans would not care but some of them might have found their shirt collars constricting enough to start worrying about their jobs.

Your claims are historically inaccurate

VanillaRhapsody, you are totally making up history. Our health care industry problems were a major public and policy wonk issue and the competing plans of Hillary and Obama were a big part of their respective campaigns. Their plans were similar but had some differences, mostly in the imposition of a Mandate and support for a Public Option.

Hillary's publicly released health care insurance reform plan had insurance reform such as as eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions but coupled that with a health insurance mandate and no public option. It was on her web site and in her materials and when reporters asked her plan, that was it.

Obama's publicly released health care insurance reform plan, had similar insurance reforms (elimination of pre-existing conditions) but explicitly had NO health insurance mandate and HAD a public option.

Not only were these plans broadly and publicly part of their campaigns, it was explicitly debated in the Campaign debates. Obama ran on No Mandate and a Public Option as a way to distinguish his plan from Hilary's.

We lost that campaign plan almost immediately when Obama got into office when it basically morphed into Hilary's plan -- imposition of a Mandate and No Public Option.

Some people here have the Opinion (asserted as fact) that nothing else was possible. It is always possible that Obama could not get more than the ACA which institutionalized the Insurance Companies in the provision of health care in this Country. However, his approach was the failed carrot of false bi-partisanship which did not work and left us with Democrats forcing a modified republican plan on the United States. At the time, he could have mobilized Millions of People to public rallies if he had chosen the alternate strategy of a direct political battle. It is only opinion that such a battle for a better health care system would not have worked.


This is the right answer IMO. We need to replace our current hodge podge private profit driven health care system in its entirety (ACA included) with a modern system.

Those of us unhappy with Obama believe that is what 2009 represented, our best chance in a generation to modernize our health care system. Instead, this opportunity was squandered and given away in private meetings with Big Pharma and Big Hospitals and Big Insurance and a proven wrong theory of carrot driven bi-partisanship. I wonder what would have happened if Obama had chosen the other path of directly mobilizing public sentiment (at that time he could have brought a million people to the Mall) to directly and publicly fight these entities and the congressional lackeys who would have fought for the status quo. We have some who assert as "fact" rather than "opinion" that it would have been impossible to get more than the ACA. This is clearly true with some congress critters but I really wonder what a real political fight would have given us. Again, some of us had the same opinion at the time that it was a "fact" that no matter what he did the concept of bi-partisan action was a pipedream.

Last a metaphor.

Those who constantly provide an opinion (again not fact as supporters sometimes assert) that the ACA (institutionalizing insurance companies) is a step in the right direction in getting to single player (getting rid of Insurance Companies) is like someone in the middle of the Country who wants to get to Canada (chosen deliberately) saying the best way to get there is to first drive towards Texas (chosen deliberately) but pointing out to the rest of us who are unhappy that they are driving slower than the right wing uncle in the back seat wants to.
Go to Page: 1