If this Healthcare Bill Doesn't Have the Public Option it's time to go Third Party

[steelmania75]

According to Huffpost, the Obama Administration is ready to abandon a public healthcare option. You can read more at this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/16/sebelius-public-health-ca_n_260511.html

My question is, why is the president trying to achieve bipartisanship? The GOP isn't going to vote for ANY healthcare reform bill. They'll help write the bill to make it complete shit and a waste, but they won't vote for it, you know why? Because they're DOUCHEBAGS. All they care about is regaining power in the White House, the senate, and the Congress. They're going to use the racist rednecks, and Fox News as a base to win in 2010, and 2012. But this shouldn't be about winning power, this should be about those 50 million Americans who DON'T have health insurance, and those who susposedly have health insurance, but it's costs are unbearable, and the insurance is not there when you really need it.

If the Democrats are unable to have a government-run public option, that'll compete with private insurers, and help drive down costs, and give care to those that can't afford it, or don't get good coverage from the shitty private health insurers, then I'm done with the Democratic Party. They've said they needed a majority in Congress, we gave them a whopping majority. They've said they needed a majority in the senate, we gave them a majority in the senate. They've said they needed to regain control of the White House, we gave it to them. Then they said they needed 60 senate seats to avoid GOP filibusters, we gave them 60 senate seats. And now they say they don't have the FUCKING VOTES IN THE SENATE TO PASS A DECENT HEALTHCARE BILL!!!! Well then do reconciliation, like the GOP did. Why can't they do that? Why can't they push the Democratic agenda like the GOP could? Here's why, because THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT US. All they're worried about is the donations from the fucking health sector.

[John Q. Citizen]

HR676 is up for a debate and full floor vote in Sept. It's better than Public Option

It's Medicare for all, single payer.

Why not fight for the best?

Reconciliation can't be used for health care. It's restricted to budget bills.

Clinton tried to get reconciliation for his lame heath care bill and couldn't for the same reason.

[steelmania75]

11. I thought single-payer was off the table

[Kitty Herder]

15. I'd rec. this post if I could!

H.R. 676 is the answer!

[dflprincess]

63. +1

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. Rec the post too... I bailed when I found out they were pushing the Mass. plan to end single payer

The Massachusetts plan (which many Dems now cite as a model even though it was pushed as a model of Reaganism by classic Reaganite Mitt Romney) was originally run the numbers by the insurance industry as a way of guaranteeing industry profits after the Baby Boomers retire and "staving off single payer". The lobbyists personally wrote the bill in think tanks with centrist Dems back in 2000 or so. These were the DLC, looking for something to do while Bush (who was then percieved as a lame duck) was in office. They ran the numbers showing how the best way to strengthen the private health insurance industry was to FORCE the uninsured to buy insurance, then offer a "public option" for the 5 or 10% who refused to buy into the EXISTING plans and programs provided by industry and who did not wish to be fined for not purchasing insurance from a private party -- these programs would be funded on the 5 or 10% level as programs of last resort or hood ornaments, like mass transit is funded by road lobbyists as "mitigation for those that need it".

[lib_wit_it]

69. We need to mobilize support for this--is anything being planned by any of the progressive orgs? If

not, let's encourage it.

[lib_wit_it]

73. Yeah, because the hysterical shrieking issues are on the table, Or off. Whatever they scream loudest

for or against.

Why aren't we screaming for single payer, if screaming is what it takes? Why let the RW mobs out-maneuver us?! Demand single payer. Settle, if we must, for a strong public option.

[WeDidIt]

1. He's throwing the base unbder the bus

Takes the meaning of "lesser of two evils" to a completely different plane, if you ask me.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. The base threw themselves under the bus when they so quicky and easily were sold public option.

Single payer works.

It's not some Repo style market based solution fad.

It actually works. It's been tried and it contains costs and covers everyone.

Why not the best?

[steelmania75]

14. I want single-payer, but isn't that option off the table, and I don't think we have the votes

[John Q. Citizen]

17. HR676 (medicare for all) is being scored by the CBO and will get a full floor debate and vote

in the house in Sept.

Fight for it and it's that much closer to getting done.

[steelmania75]

18. OMG, a bill that actually helps the people, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. OK, question, how do we get MoveOn and DFA to back HR676?

Or is it being offered as a sacrificial lamb by Reagan Dems who back the Massachusetts plan as a "party line" and want to marginalize single payer supporters as Green party style spoilers?

People say "the perfect is the enemy of the good." In this case that is almost literally true since the Mass. plan was written in an effort to "Stave Off Single Payer". I remember reading articles about it before it got passed in Mass.

Industry lobbyists worked closely with centrist policy wonks (mostly Dems, Republicans wanted no change to the current system and bush was seen as a lame duck anyway) to calculate how many people would accept a fine, how many would be forced into the current marketplace and how many people who would otherwise be fined would be placed into a "niche market" public option instead... as a means-test for people who would otherwise face a stiff penalty for not having health insurance. Which was then carefully calibrated so that the fines would pay for just enough "public option" candidates to cover the few people too inelastic to be forced into the existing pool of private health plans, which the plan was designed to expand, not reduce. By making demand inelastic you increase the capitulation price people are willing to pay for health care, thus more people buy insurance at existing rates, expanding the pool and allowing them to "decrease the cost of health care for existing, high risk customers" i.e. Baby Boomers. Many of whom assume the problem of the uninsured is that they are freeloaders who are raising the cost of people already on health care, and some folks can't imagine why anyone would not buy health insurance unless they were truly impoverished, because demand for them is inelastic: they are at or near retirement age and grew up in an era of large employers offering in-house health benefits with no expectation of choice. I mean, do homeless people get fined if they don't qualify for public housing? I bet you if they had any money, they would be... by our predominantly DLC mayors and city councilmembers.

[Laelth]

58. Excellent post. Thanks. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[John Q. Citizen]

59. I would think that if the public option is dead that HR676 becomes the only game in town.

Dean has already said that no public option = no reform.

Both murtha and Kucinich have said that there may be no bill sent to the president (The house progressive caucus has already said that they won't vote for a bill without a public option)

So perhaps by Sept they will be on board.

There are 90 something co-sponsors in the house for 676 I believe.

[yodermon]

64. is it really getting scored by the CBO? I've been looking for a link on that

and haven't had much luck. :hi:

[drm604]

2. Yep, splitting the vote will solve everything. Not.

What we need to do is successfully run real progressive challengers in the primaries. We need to all get involved with our local Democratic party and change it from there.

[WeDidIt]

9. I honoestly believe doing NOTHING is a better solution

than any bill with no public option.

That makes McCain's stance better than what Obama is giving us.

[murdoch]

43. The communists in Western Europe...

In France in the 1950s the PCF was the *largest* political party.

In Italy PCI probably won the 1948 election, despite massive and open US interference in the election. Even as late 1976, the communists came close to being elected (lost by <5% to the Christian Democrats - 38% to 34%. Over half the vote were for parties which had the hammer and sickle in their emblems).

The communists were never elected to power in Western Europe, yet they had a major effect on how the governments were run. The capitalists were willing to give up a lot when the prospect of their parasitism being eradicated looked possible. In the US you have mealy moused Democrats giving in to everything. If most of the communists in Europe were sell-outs to the capitalists, what do you think the DLC New Democrats are?

[drm604]

44. What do Communists have to do with anything,

and did I say anything about the DLC?

I say that we need to get active and move the Democrats to the left and you tell me about Communists and the DLC. I'm not understanding your point.

Are you likening Democrats to Communists? That's a right-wing frame.

[keep_it_real]

3. No public option no 2nd term

[texastoast]

6. And that will make things all better by . . .

:shrug:

[keep_it_real]

7. We get us a president who will get us a public option

[texastoast]

16. By splitting the vote??

Riiiiiggght.

[drm604]

40. Please explain your plan for convincing a Republican president to fight for the public option.

We'd all love to hear it.

[Thothmes]

46. Ya, Jeb or Mitt, or maybe Sara

[DCBob]

50. Would that be President Sarah Palin??

[WeDidIt]

10. Maybe handing it back to the REpublicans will get the piece of shit repealed

because if there is no public option, what they put up will make matters WORSE.

So yeah, no public option, no second term. It'll take about 6 months of REpublican rule to roll back the piece of shit we're about to get stuck with.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. So if we get some good things out of it

You won't mind the Repukes repealing it once they get back in charge? Stuff like portability, not being able to be denied for pre-existing coverage, etc? Whatever ultimately passes may not be pretty but even getting a few good things out of it would be manifestly better than nothing and we can always go back and keep tweaking it- if we remain in power that is. I have a feeling that we'll get something better than what everybody else is worried about right now. The whole thing isn't even over yet, so why is everybody already hyperventilating? You go ahead and vote third party and help the Republicans slide back into office. I'm sure that they'll get to work on single-payer health care reform right away and we may only have to wait another 16 years to try again. :eyes:

[WeDidIt]

23. Nothing good can come from mandated coverage and no public option

So yeah, whatever it takes to roll that shit back, I'm up for.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Ummm...why would the GOP roll mandates back?

methinks that they would want to keep those. Anyway, nothing has been settled regarding mandates.

[WeDidIt]

25. Republicans will promise to roll back the Obama agenda

and a health care bill with no public option will be one bit of the Obama agenda I am willing to give up ANYTHING to see rolled back.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. Health care won't be the only thing of Obama's "rolled back" if they regain control

You can count on that. Hope you're looking forward to another 4-8 years of Bushian *economics* or worse? Geez.

[WeDidIt]

33. I'm willing to give up everything else

in order to make sure any piece of shit wihtout a public option is rolled back.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Wow!

What a gauntlet to throw down.
:wow:
I hope your apparent lack of concern about (extreme) Republican indifference to the needs of anybody who isn't one of them doesn't catch on around here or anywhere else.

[BzaDem]

35. At what point do you become personally responsible for the deaths/bankruptcies of the status-quo?

Normally, I would say people with your views are irrelevant, and I would feel good knowing that our political system prevents people with your views from holding much influence. But to the extent that you actually influence others that might stop a major improvement, you become accountable for all the negative outcomes that come along with your views. You have no moral standing at ALL to complain about the healthcare status quo if you refuse to change it in any politically feasible way. While some would say that you are no better than the Republicans, I (and many others here) would say that your views are FAR worse for our country than those of any Republican.

[WeDidIt]

37. What has changed?

Where's the difference?

We're still in IRaq. We handed trillions to Wall street. We're about to hand trillions to the insurance comapnies.

What's the fucking difference?

[BzaDem]

38. I don't know, maybe affordable health insurance for everyone?

If people like you fail (as I expect they will) and we actually get healthcare reform, it will have subsidies to people that pay for health insurance above a certain modest percentage of one's income. Maybe the end result is that the Government will be overpaying insurance companies. But at least everyone will be able to have affordable insurance. Due to our progressive tax system, it will be the very wealthy that are paying for most of it, and eventually there will be pressure from everyone to lower costs. At least at that point, everyone will have access to affordable health insurance and "not insuring everyone" will no longer be a viable option as it is now.

[WeDidIt]

39. That will NEVER happen without a public option

All we will get are insurance company death panels, the lining of insurance company pockets, and a worse system that bubbles up until it bursts.

[BzaDem]

41. That is an absolute falsehood.

Subsidies for insurance (private or public) and whether insurance is private or public are two completely different questions. The Netherlands has an entirely private, for-profit insurance system and yet everyone is covered. I am not going to continue to waste my time conversing with someone says things that are just as true as what Sarah Palin says on healthcare.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Are individuals in Netherlands fined for not purchasing private, for-profit care?

That's the argument people from Singapore use when they come on-line and demean America for wasting its time on civil liberties, when a perfect society can be legislated like that by criminalizing noncompliants. Oh yeah, and they'd vote Republican here in the States if it weren't for social issues. That's where we get the DLC, from the "Singapore style" yuppie vote. People who want to legislate away problems by criminalizing the poor.

Not everything about the EU is sunshine and roses. Many folks in Europe cannot fathom our obsession with first amendment protections that do not comport with European traditions, or right to privacy on various issues, including health care.

[Leopolds Ghost]

48. The only GOP who has any pull left is Romney, a Reaganite who supports mandates, so...yeah.

He wrote the current "Massachusetts plan" being advocated, after all.

Republicans may bitch and moan about free enterprise and Freeper-style RW libertarianism,
but at the end of the day these are just Overton tactics designed to massage the Democratic
bill into something that is acceptable to the Industry. By setting up the backwash as an
"apres moi, le deluge". And the newly elected Dems have no wish to antagonize the Industry.

In fact, whatever increases Industry profits and reduces the number of uninsured people
(even if it requires fining them into purchasing existing plans currently on offer)
will be taken as a metric of success. The Republicans are the party of Industry,

and all the argument about "socialism" is a side show to make sure they get
National Socialism instead, or some bill where the Industry comes out ahead in some way.

If it hurt the Industry in any way, even elected Dems would condemn any bill as a failure.

If it threatened people to drop off the welfare rolls, or join the insurance rolls, then
any bill will be praised as a statistical success: the operative statistic rose, or fell.

Even if it were the strip mining industry, a bill that stops MT removal has to ensure
that the Industry profits even more thru tax breaks or what not... profits must always
increase thru gov't action, but individual liberties may decrease to nothing unless that
individual is a corporation, of course...

[John Q. Citizen]

19. It's called accountability. I know Dems have a hard time with the concept. But it's why we always

get fucked.

Because they know there is no cost for fucking us.

[texastoast]

22. Get active

Be at the county party meetings and be loud. Bring your friends.

AND threaten with a progressive party. Let the noise be heard. The DLC needs to hear it.

I've been supporting the Committee since shrubbie went into office. I'm about to pull my monetary support because of this very issue so I can support progressive candidates early on who will likely get a chance to run with the Dems, BUT I'm not going to stop raising hell until the centrists in charge get the message. Go to the meetings.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. I do. I'm a Dem precinct captain. I'm working with Montanans for single payer.

I never fell for the public option because I don't support Repo style market based solutions that give the insurance industry a trillion a decade in extra tax payer monies.

But it's surprising how many Dems like that Repo idea. i always thought it sucked. And I always knew that the bait that it would 'lead to a single payer system' was phony.

I also know that the insurance companies and the White House have been working hand in glove from the start. This was always the deal. It's no suprise to me. I've been looking for that piece by Donna Smith she wrote a couple of months ago predicting this exact situation.

I want to repost it so people can see that this was completely predictable and in fact was predicted.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. Go for it, Man! You should get lots of support because Montana is a Populist State

civil libertarianism + support for public programs that benefit everyone equally and fairly

instead of government dictating winners and losers in the "free market" system that is rigged to ensure current winners never lose (or else they get bailed out).

who the government should penalize for not having health care... which is practically legislating winners and losers (the winners can afford health insurance already: the losers will have to match the price the winners are already willing to pay: the gov't would fine those who refuse to play the game.)

[lib_wit_it]

68. Too true--and why. even in the minority, Repukes hold so much sway.

[quiller4]

4. Go if you want but don't insist that others follow. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[KittyWampus]

8. sigh, why throw in the towel before the fight has really begun?

[GCP]

13. Because every time we turn around, there's another admin official backing down

On something else.
I am so sick of the spinelessness of Obama and the dems.

[crazy_vanilla]

12. I am very, very disappointed

Was it all too good to be true? I had such faith in the President, being so super intelligent, that he will make it work.

[DutchLiberal]

21. Again?

Don't want to sound rude, but I've seen threads like these a thousand times on DU. And eventually, we (you) all will vote for the Dems again, because the Reps are much worse. That's why we need the Republicans back on track again to regain their place as a normal conservative party. Because the only chance you have of the Democrats turning left again, is when they are forced to when they have to differentiate from the Reps. The Dems are now holding the position formerly held by the Reps: a party for big business, corporate america and the wealthy.

[CKennedy16]

28. Its now or never

Dennis Kucinich 2012!!! Sadly, I fully understand those who believe we shouldn't vote 3rd party. Then again, I'm SURE if we just vote 60 Dems into the Senate with a Dem in the executive branch, everything will be okay!!! :sarcasm:

[scheming daemons]

26. if liberals vote 3rd party, they guarantee GOP rule

i swear, some people are so reactionary, that it makes them forget simple math.

Bottom line: if the folks who voted for Obama in '08 split into two, get ready for Speaker Boehner and President Palin.

Don't be retarded. Going third party makes all of your legislative wish list items LESS likely to come true.

Some people really don't understand basic math.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. Exactly

What do people think that they are going to gain with making it EASY for the Repukes to get back in power in 2010 and/or 2012? Did sitting out in droves in 1994 make things better for us and our country or help us gain ground on the issues? Did it help things in 2000? 'nuff said! :eyes:

[Speck Tater]

31. So our third part plus the radical right's third party brings us to 4 parties. That'll work, NOT! nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. Works fine in every REAL democracy around the globe, which the US hasn't seen much of, really.

This is a republic, not a democracy.

Israel knows how it's done, they're an example of democracy even for Palestinians who otherwise hate the Israelis.

[EndElectoral]

32. Without the public option the Dem party wil be split irrevocably.Some lines in the sand need drawn!

[Skidmore]

36. Oh, hell, let;'s just crown Ralph and be done with it.

Or how about LaRouche? Let's dig out ole Perot.

Go ahead. Shoot yourselves in both feet after you kneecap everyone else.

There is not one viable 3rd party out there right now. Certainly not one that I would recognize as legitimately anything I would want to embrace.

[HughBeaumont]

42. We already have three parties to choose from:

Democratic (free market moderates who are ashamed of sharing the big tent with progressives)
Republican (neo-fascist Randians who think everything is about making a buck)
Libertarian (neo-fascist Randians who think everything is about making a buck, minus "teh Jesus")

Progressives have a voice that's treated as comedy. Head-patting material. "Oh you silly lib. You'll grow up someday and see that everything is about making a buck. And Jesus. Go back to the library now . . ."

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. You forgot Reagan Dems (DLC plus Pocketbook "Progressives")

Who casually endorse anything MoveOn.org says but vote their pocketbook when the going gets tough.

They're also pretty damn racist and classist,
but Obama's inroads among this group has mitigated or obscured that somewhat.

They are basically Democrats who support the social platform and nothing else. They agree with 99%
of what Reagan believed, and 50% of what Gingrich believed (see: DC gov't current support for ending
Welfare on "moral as well as budgetary grounds") but they are too historically ignorant to admit
they're Main Street Republicans who'd vote for Mitt Romney if they lived in Mass. at the time.

The Dem party is currently chained to this group (which is completely separate from the Yellow Dog
Democrats) because the 2008 electoral coalition map is identical to the electoral coalition formed
by the pseudo-progressive, free-market idolizing Main Street Republicans 100 years ago.

I wouldn't be surprised if all we're seeing is a party realignment change to the status quo
of the Gilded Age: Main Street Republicans representing urban areas and the North and West,
advocating a state-subsidized big business, free market, technocrat approach, versus Jacksonian
demagogues representing the south and midwest advocating a RW libertarian approach, with
Populists and Progressives sitting on the sidelines.

[lib_wit_it]

72. Damn, that's really depressing, but so true.

[WI_DEM]

45. I would say 50% of DU has voted third party in the past and it hasn't gotten us anywhere except Bush

[MzNov]

55. Progressives en masse sign up for Green Party now

watch the Dems start peeing in their pants. They'll get the message. Just ask Arlene Spincter...

A large voting block suddenly disappears to another party. Of course it would work.

[Zix]

56. I'd just like to point out th massive irony of a BUPA advert at the top of this page.

Unhelpful, I know.

[CANDO]

57. We've poured our hearts, minds, and souls into getting power.

Now we are there and what do we get? Kicked to the side of the road. I'm fed up and god damned pissed off! In all my life I've never seen such cowardice. Do these people think for a second just what the Repugs would do with just a one vote majority? We saw how Bush handled his "mandate", razor thin election margin in '04. Obama is given a landslide and all he's concerned with is forming a consensus with pit vipers who just want to sink their fucking fangs into his veins. I'm really pissed off. Fucking hate to admit it, but people who say they are both part of the same corporate party are correct.

[Kansas Wyatt]

60. The worst part about it is...

The Democrats take a shit load of union money and support, but end up towing the line for Corporate America in the end. The Democrats left working people a long time ago, when they decided to dig in and fight for their personal Chic Special Interests, while deferring to Corporate America's lawyers on anything that may help working people.

Working people only get Chump Change Token Efforts from the Democratic Party, which controls the Government and should be pushing back all the Corporate America oppression of the last thirty years. But oh no, they claim they have to act more Republican... Which is NOT what the people voted for.

[CANDO]

61. Spot on you are!

I'm a 20+ year Teamster and I'm damned fed up with the Dems just giving lip service to keep the cash flowing. I don't expect they'll do squat on EFCA either. We are truly fucked. It will be nearly impossible to get people to come together and form a viable 3rd party. We're deliberately split up on so many issues just so they can keep control.

[Kansas Wyatt]

62. The unions should be doing the same thing that Corporate America does.

Unions should be saying this to Democratic politicians...

'We cannot continue sinking a boatload of money down the shit hole, when we see nothing meaningful in return. Chump Change Token Efforts are not going to cut it anymore, if you want our money and our help getting out "your" vote.'

The Democratic politicians would be shitting themselves in fear, and they would rapidly represent working people again.

[FatDave]

65. Voting for a third party will just ensure victories for republicans.

Is that what you want? Put republicans back in power so you can feel ideologically pure? Oh sure, we'll end up a 3rd world country run by fascists and the American royalty of wealth, but at least you didn't compromise your ethics.

Take all this angry energy and help fix the party you've got.

[WeDidIt]

70. Rewarding Democrats for failure will only ensure more failure

and more Republican victories.

Catch-22.

I'd rather punish the Democrats for failure so next time they try to win.

[FatDave]

71. Punish them with primary challengers.

Even in the presidential race, if need be.

[mzmolly]

66. I don't generally unrec. but promoting third parties vs. running

Dem against Dem in the primaries led me to.

[quaker bill]

67. It is never time

to go third party. You are vastly more effective sitting at home on the couch. Been there, done that, and even got a tee shirt.

The only politicians that are in fact more disappointing than those we elect, are those who lose. This is particularly true of those that never had a chance of winning in the first place. Of the great many ways people waste time and money on self-adulation, third parties rank at or very near the top.