There is one other group you forgot to mention: the American people. They will be overjoyed if Congress is able to stop BHO's march towards socialism that would create another entitlement program that would deny vulnerable seniors the care they need.

if any clown 'liberal' wants to explain to this dfh leftist what's left in the 'reform' of health care after 'public' goes bye-bye... i'm all goddam ears (or peepers, anyway).

let's hear the plan, big spenders...

I'm guessing, but maybe Obama decided that its smarter to live to fight another day than to go down with the ship. We lost Congress in '94 after the electorate decided that Clinton overreached, and I wonder if Obama is seeking to avoid a similar fate.

If we don't get a public option, its not Obama's fault. Its the fault of the people who elected the conserva-Dems in the House and the Senate. And its the fault of any voter who allows themselves to be mislead when there are so many opportunities to get the facts.

At the end of the day, we have to find a way to change hearts and minds.

If a watered-down version of healthcare "reform" passes, the next Republican meme will be to bash the Democrats for failing to pass meaningful healthcare reform, despite having a Democratic president and both houses.

Are Democrats prepared for that?

"...if there's no public option, and if liberals withhold their support, reform will die.

So if I read that correctly, 'health care reform' will die if and only if Progressives are against a bill that does not have a public option. Okay.

But would such a bill really represent reform if a public option is not in it?

As Krugman wrote, if the bill does not have a public option, there sure as hell had better be a boatload of other measures in it for it to be anywhere near acceptable. I suppose that's what's going to happen--no public option, but a bunch of other changes to the status quo that will inevitably be labeled 'better than what we have now.' I suppose that's something.

But the real thing that gets me is the fact that so many people and interests are against the idea that all people should have access to health care.

I mean, how low have we become if such a contention is even debatable?

Looks like the corporatocracy has won another one. If we can't do this with the kind of majorities we have now in Congress, and with a huge vote margin for President who ran on health care reform--suggesting that people want it--then we can never do it. That's sad. Very sad.

The public option was supposed to be the discipline for the private insurance companies, although that was never likely to be very effective. Might we in fact be better off with more direct controls? After all, BHO can argue "well, I wanted to do it through competition with a public option, but since you don't want THAT, then we have to have THIS.

Chris,

The winner gets to write the history. Clinton was seen as overreaching mainly because he lost and his bill didn't even get voted on. Had he won, the 1994 elections might have been far different. Congressional Dems' lack of guts led to that defeat, not the Clinton effort.

Obama does have the problem of having a big tent party. What is his fault, though, is the constant signalling that he's willing to be rolled; that he won't stand up for anything. To him, compromise is how much he can give away and not receive anything back for it. I'm starting to belief that he really wants a watered-down useless bill; he just wants to be able to blame someone else for it.

A.B.O. in 2012.

Yes, God forbid make any real changes to the "best" healthcare system in the world--with 50 million uninsured and hundreds of thousands who go broke, bankrupt or die because the insurance they thought they had won't cover them-or drops them for whatever reason.

Krugman his right--start actually looking at healthcare in other western countries, and look at polls in those countries on satisfaction with their systems, not random anecdotal stories sponsored by the insurance industry.

The person above is also right, I don't see the Dems getting a much bigger majority, so if they can't do it right now then we're screwed.
Didn't think our healthcare situation could get much worse, but I'm afraid that's what's going to have to happen before people are willing to look at reality and facts--not ridiculously absurd propaganda.

BTW, the real Al no longer posts here, does he?

The recent "Al" efforts appear to not even be trying.

terraformer says: Looks like the corporatocracy has won another one. If we can't do this with the kind of majorities we have now in Congress...

The corporatocracy is definitely winning the skirmish over the public plan. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

But what kind of majorities do we have now in Congress? Yeah, I know, the Dems have 60 Senators. But that assumes a fundamental unity to the Democratic Party where there is none.

The inability of our public discourse to deal openly with the reality that the Dems have two distinct parties-within-a-party (the Progressives on one side, and the Business Dogs on the other, with a certain number of Congresscritters floating back and forth between the two camps) is a real problem.

We don't have 60 Senators who genuinely desire health care reform. We seem to have 50, but that's not the key number. I'm sure a goodly number of the Business Dogs wish it hadn't gotten anywhere near this far in the first place, but feel that they at least have to pretend to want some sort of reform.

This is not the "change" I voted for in November.

Howard Dean thinks they're going to go the reconciliation route and tell the blue mutts to go f*** themselves. I hope he's right. "Good luck campaigning next time around, boys!"

You're (and Howard Dean is) correct about the repubs. They want to see Obama go down at whatever cost. It's scorched earth all the way down.

The public option is the ONLY way the drug companies can be reigned in. Europe pays these companies 33% what we pay for the same drugs. Why? Because the whole country negotiates as one. "We'll pay this or buy from Canada, India, etc."

Coops will have NONE of this bargaining power.

Oh, and I also agree that Obama and the Dems have appeared spineless on this, and totally blew it on controlling the terms of the debate. Not surprised at congressional Dems in that regard, but very disappointed with Obama.
If it's a crap watered down bill, I'm not voting for any of them again. None of them.
You've almost brought me to my knees Naderites-I'm seeing fewer and fewer differences between the two parties on major issues like this.
In fact, there is no more important issue, and the Dems allow themselves to get rolled with completely false propaganda. PATHETIC.

no public option means no regulation of insurance companies;

meanwhile, provisions in the current plans discussed in congress have to do with "eliminating waste" -- some of which obama refers to as some kind of ins comp double-dipping on medicare.

bottom-line, suckers:
obama and congress are gonna stop the public option and reduce the coverages of medicare and medicaid -- all to the benefit of the insurance companies.

i know, i know, it is sooo hard to believe that progressives are being betrayed by their good friends in washington -- it is such a rare occurrence.

Howie @9:56--

You're mistaken. Clinton's failed health care proposal had absolutely nothing to do with our loss of Congress in '94.

We lost control of the Congress because Clinton WON when he got his first budget passed. This budget raised taxes for a few in the upper tax brackets, and the corporate media advertised it as a tax increase on all Americans that would send our economy into a tailspin. I remember it like it was yesterday, and Clinton himself has repeated the statement that Dems lost their seats in '94 because of their "courageous votes" to reduce the deficits.

With regard to the present day situation, if you know how Obama can get Nelson, Baucus and Conrad to vote for cloture to end a filibuster on a bill that contains a public option, then you need to tell someone.

I'm with Krugman and others on this, that without a public option it better be one helluva reform bill. I want a public option because I think it is a small step towards a single-payer system, I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't see it that way. But there is a lot of reform to do without it, it's also possible that it could come at a later time, independently.

The bottom line for me, personally, is this-- we need health care reform. We need it now. If it doesn't happen this year it won't happen for another 10 years or MORE. In that time the system will only get worse. Health care insurance companies need to be radically reformed and regulated NOW, with or without a public option.

We can't afford for nothing to happen-- politically it will be disasterous for Obama, for dems, for the country. If health care reform fails the way it did for Clinton, we are that much closer for a GOP power clawback-- and look who is in charge of the party right now. Truly frightening.

By the way, I really wish that Michael Moore's "Sicko" would get re-released into theatres right now. Where are people's insurance horror stories, why aren't those front-and-center of the debate right now? People denied coverage, denied care, and getting sicker, losing everything, or dying as a result. Where is our poster child for the immoral policies of the insurance companies?

NO PUBLIC OPTION = NO SECOND TERM.

I support a public option but am not surprised that it is going down in the name of "compromise". I am surprised that it appears to be happening in August, and with no obvious quid from the Blue Dawgs and the Senator Conrad contingent in exchange for this pro quo.

If the WH is just openly signaling that their willing to cave on the public option but hasn't worked out some deal that will bring the "centrist" on board while simultaneously getting something to keep progressive congressional delegation happy, then this is a desperation move, and this administration is in serious trouble.

For my part, I think community standards, doing away with the pre-existing condition cherry picking by the insurance companies is something worth doing. Even that might turn out to be bridge too far. How depressing would that be?

Paul Krugman speaks to me in his August 16th commentary. Fear, misinformation and despicable strategies mark the obstructionists, and they are winning!

A public option is something BIG MEDICINE FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS fear more than anything else on the planet! Their push back is insidious, using the unassuming to assault town-hall democracy. BMFPC has its elected agents aiding and abetting avarice over health care for Americans (Read Senate Finance Committee)!

I don't endorse condone or accept the tenets of socialism, but I do support a public option in health care that would keep our BMFPC accountable and more profitable by forcing them to begin the good old fashion capitalistic way of earning a living - competition! -Kevo

John McCain ran on the so-called Patient's Bill of Rights in 2008 and he had about as good a record as any Republican on health care (still not good) and that bill did jack squat (and not just because it never passed). Passing a bill with a health insurance exchange, strong insurance regulations, additional subsidies for low and middle income people, a national co-op and an IMAC board is a huge win for Dems when the GOP is proposing...health savings accounts.

Chuck Schumer has been talking about co-ops being acceptable if they did the same things as a 'public option' so don't be suprised of the conference committee does some kind of semantic game and simply relabels 'public option' as 'co-op'. I'm pretty sure the press won't be able to explain away the nuance and that might be just the kind of fig leaf these mewling conservative Dems need to do something right for a change.

zoe--in addition to those many horror stories, Moore also traveled to several other countries such as the UK, France, Canada, and even Cuba(where a group of Americans received all the care they needed but were denied here).
All the people he interviewed, and he would literally stand in hospitals and other places and ask random patients, were satisfied with their systems.
We're getting almost none of that information in the current debate. Which is just how the for-profit insurance industry and their whores in congress and the MSM want it. When it comes to info on foreign health care systems, we are experiencing a N. Korean-like media blackout.
I would like to see a lot more of it on progressive blogs as well. HINT. Sometimes if there's enough talk on sites like this, it seeps out to the MSM and general public.

> We lost Congress in '94 after the electorate
> decided that Clinton overreached, and I wonder if
> Obama is seeking to avoid a similar fate.

The returns from the 2006 and 2008 elections seem to show pretty clearly that the American people want significant change. If Obama and the Democratic Congress UNDER-reach on the health care bill it seems to me quite possible that that underreaching will lead to serious consequences in 2010 and potentially for Obama in 2012. I can tell you flat out that the members of my spouse's 2008 canvassing team - who put in thousands of hours during the election - are NOT happy with Obama's actions over the last few months.

Cranky

uh, kevo, i've always wondered abut this:

are americans so stupid about socialism because we are such a war-like country (you know, the uktimate "competition")...

or

Is the US a war-like country because Americans ar so stupid about socialism?

inquiring mind...

Well, the Democratic Party leadership continues its long tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Now they've managed to screw up Health Care Reform. It's taken Obama less than a year to go from the audacity of hope to the spinelessness of nope. What we are seeing is the latest example of a White House legislative strategy based on appeasement. We saw it with the economic stimulus debate. The president caved and caved and caved again,in hopes of getting Republican support. That got him three Republican votes in the House and zero Republican votes in the Senate. Obama has followed this strategy with every other issue, including health care reform, to similar effect. He has shown himself unable or unwilling to lead the nation, or even his own party. With majorities in the House and Senate, and a strong electoral mandate, he has allowed the conservative opposition -- including conservative Democrats --to set the agenda and frame the terms of the debate. The only groups he seems willing to confront are his strongest supporters, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Indeed, his main achievement has been to alienate -- perhaps permanently -- this segment of his base. And with each capitulation, with each abdication of responsibility, the president becomes weaker, the next concession becomes easier, garnering political support becomes more difficult, and defeat becomes a foregone conclusion. Obama may still be personally popular, but, eventually, this too will erode -- around the time of the next election -- as people start to ask themselves what he has actually accomplished. This may well be the beginning of a Potemkin presidency, with an essentially powerless chief executive locked into lame duck status for the next three years.

Damn those liberals, always wanting what's best for the American people! Don't they know they are costing the Democrats campaign contributions.

I say purge the party of the liberals and progressives! Time to have one big wingnut party -- makes it easier for lobbyists, makes it easier for Fox News and MSNBC (they can have Olbermann and O'Reilly reading off the same script), makes it easier for bloggers.

Time to primary people like Barbara Boxer. Maybe Baucus can move to California? I'm sure Rahm Emanuel is working on something like this right now.

"I also agree that Obama and the Dems have appeared spineless on this, and totally blew it on controlling the terms of the debate."

You guys don't seem to be paying attention. We're not losing this debate because elected officials are spineless. We're losing because a large chunck of the electorate is spineless. They're spineless, in large part, because the traditional media is lying to their viewers/constitutents.

Take the recent meme that Obama is collecting an enemies list. This lie was based on a benign request on the White House blog to send in false rumors for the White House to debunk. I watched John King repeat this "enemies list" nonsense as fact on CNN. My local paper repeated this enemies list as fact on their editorial page.

In addition, you've seen the studies where there are multiple Republicans for every Dem on TV. You've seen the studies that show that the limited Dems that are on TV are primarily conserva-Dems. Relatively speaking, progressives on major network/cable news are hard to find, and they're usually substantially outnumbered when we do find them.

At the moment, we're outgunned. It's not Obama's fault. We have to figure out how to overcome a traditional media that has become a right-wing media. We're making progress, but there's obviously more to do.

NO PUBLIC OPTION = NO SECOND TERM.

This is incredibly myopic, if Obama loses in 2012 it'll be because a right-wing loony republican will have won. (President Palin? President Romney?) That will put us in a better collective position how exactly?!?

Let's not bite off our noses to spite our faces, ok?

I don't endorse condone or accept the tenets of socialism, but I do support a public option... -kevo

Exactly! This country should eschew socialism! Well, except for a public option...oh, and firefighters and police. And roads. And education. And there should be some sort of retirement safety net for the elderly. And we should provide health insurance for them and our soldiers as well. In fact, we should even have a socialized military so we don't have to keep hiring mercenaries to defend us. You know, we should look at things, and any time the goal of making a profit conflicts with the stated goal of the industry, we should socialize it.

But other than all of those times when socialism is great and conducive to a productive society, fuck those socialist commie fascist bastards.

You ask the important question, Steve. Just what has the White House obtained for pulling back from the Public Option?

That needs to be discussed more, because I'm certain that they simply didn't do so for nothing.

IF/WHEN Obama walks away from the public option...REPUGS will just step up their opposition to the CO-OP idea because, to hear them tell it, it's just public option watered down! They do NOT want reform as you've noted...but my dissolution with Obama is getting stronger because he is NOT leading on this effectively to counter the sound bytes and talking points of REPUGS and CORPORATE CELEBRITY DRIVEN MEDIA!!!

At the moment, we're outgunned. It's not Obama's fault. We have to figure out how to overcome a traditional media that has become a right-wing media. We're making progress, but there's obviously more to do.

Their lie-and-scare tactics work far better than our promises of reform and change. So how do we change the tone? Change the direction of the debate? We need a poster child/children that poignantly addresses how broken our system is...not sure why the Dems didn't have that lined up in the first place, but there is still time.

The GOP is only in it to kill it- and destroy Obama- and we have to fight back or we will lose this, potentially lose everything.

"This is not the "change" I voted for in November."

And your vote is all-powerful, I suppose. Too bad there's people out there who won't cooperate.

I don't recall the public option being an issue in the election. Obama's position on health reform hasn't changed all that much - if anything he has moved closer to the universal coverage ideal.

Health Care reform is a long hard slog - FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton all tried it and couldn't get it. If it were easy we would have done it 60 years ago. We're not going to get everything we want on the first round. I like the public option idea, but if we can get meaningful reform without it, it's a first step. Let's not let the perfect drive out the good.

If we turn on our own side, all we will do is let the conservatives back into power for another decade of regression.

James Obama Carter

Chris: I'm guessing, but maybe Obama decided that its smarter to live to fight another day than to go down with the ship.

A slippery slope that propels him towards looking toothless and spineless.
When you jettison your principles you emasculate yourself.
MSM will trumpet his failure...
Russ and Bill and Glenn will hoot like vandals...

What is the political cost of such emasculation?

The party will lose the midterms much more than Nate Silver is currently predicting. There is one thing you can say about American voters: They prefer strong and wrong leadership much more than leadership of the weak and vacillating kind. Bush's dumb gut won in 2004.

Can you say Waterloo? I can.
Jimmy Earl Obama will have less than nothing in the bank if he sells his values short.
That's just basic politics. It is blood sport.
You either show some valor or cash in your chips as a loser.

I won't be there for the Dems in 2010.
Or 2012. This is last cave-in I will abide...

Obama is one man up against an incredible machine that does nothing but manufacture lies and outrage-- he cannot do this alone and it is naive to believe that he should be able to.

It's time for us to fight back and fight back smart.

We're not losing this debate because elected officials are spineless. We're losing because a large chunck of the electorate is spineless. -Chris

It's not Obama's fault. -Chris

Yeah, Chris is right. Couldn't possibly be the leader's fault; the result of a piss poor messaging campaign and an unrealistic commitment to bipartisanship. No, it's the people. It's their fault. Why, all they did was elect Obama and give him overwhelming majorities in both houses. Fuck those lousy people.

There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader. − Alexander Ledru-Rollin

Chris,

I concur that the budget vote was a factor in the 1994 defeat, especially around the margins; that is that people who won close in '92 and voted "yes" got blown out in '94. I am much more willing to accept the "overreach" meme on the budget than on healthcare despite the fact that the budget vote was the right and responsible vote.

However, undercutting your President and making him look weak, and Congressional Dems did on health care and other issues during 1993-94 also played a not too small role. In fact, the undercutting extended to the budget vote as politicians like Bob Kerrey made a big show of denouncing the bill then voting for it. The one vote win didn't look like one that night.

The bottom line is that the GOP generally supports their President legislatively, and Dems do not. And if it weren't for the war, we'd still be losing all the national elections.

As far as the Bluedogs go, the vote against cloture should COST them something. If they were Republicans in a GOP-run Senate, it would. But we are weak Democrats and it won't. Reid will probably praise their hard work and Obama will give them the Medal of Freedom.

A.B.O. in 2012

Those who see this as the make-or-break moment for the dems, who will abandon Obama if we don't have a public option, where are you going to go exactly? Rationally speaking-- going 3rd party or dropping out of political action altogether-- how does that move us closer to a more progressive country?

Anyone who thought this was going to be easy or done without one helluva fight was kidding themselves and/or they're too young to remember the Clinton years. It's only 1 year into Obama's 4-year term, the demonization of Obama is only going to get uglier. Standing by Obama, standing up for ourselves and our beliefs, is the only way we're going to progress at all.

if there's no public option, and if liberals withhold their support, reform will die.

I hope this is true, because without a public option it is dead already. If Obama and his wimpy Democrats blow this, I'll go with Nader next time, since voting Democratic doesn't seem to make any difference.

Kuyper @10:27 has got it right.

One more thing, if liberals don't eventually tell the party and the President that we won't just accept any piece of cr*p they toss us and pretend it's steak, they are just going to toss us cr*p everyday.

These guys are going to give us a bill that does nothing and call it a win.

We should know better.

zoe, there's a dif between reading what blundering idiots the Dems are... and the Messiah of Hopey-Changey is starting to look like, and giving up.

there may be some good effect in the very reading of the riot act to these clowns, that it looks like they are going down. and it does look to me like the obama admin. is playing right into a slightly-more-wacko than the contract-out-to-kill-america script of newt gingrich (the future of the republican party and the us of a) buncha repugnants, circa 1994.

read yer history... look at what's happenin'

look at how they are blowing it the same way Big Dawg the original triangulatin' failed presidency blew it....

mad as hell? hell yes. givin' up -- never. but these bozos, now includin' barack, are a dime a dozen.

I don't recall the public option being an issue in the election.

The public option was part of Obama's campaign platform, as Kos noted today--

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

We come to this blog everyday to see evidence of how the corporate media undermines the debate by dissiminating misinformation and limiting the debate by how they cover it, what they cover and won't they don't cover.

Coverage during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq is an example. Especially when you compare coverage, or lack thereof, of the protests against that war versus extensive coverage of the Teabaggers' protests.

Conrad and associates reflect the views of their constituents. It's up to us to hire and fire representatives in the House and Senate who reflect our views and find a way to influence others to do the same. We put them there.

I blame the media, and I blame us.

Howard Dean said this morning that the strategy is to let Conrad get this out of the Senate Finance committee without the public option, and then sticking it back into the House version and using reconcilliation to run it past the obstructionists, who, as he said, "aren't going to vote for health care/insurance reform in any case, for any reason."

He was also complimentary of the Blue Dogs, which while I suppose he means, is also part of the strategy: give them some credit for "making the bill better for small businesses", etc. to better assure their votes in the House and on the final version. Like it or not, we need all Democratic votes on this. As with FDR's massive Democratic majority, it will erode with time. The same sort of spittle-flying, red-faced obstructionist mentality was in place then, by the way, and he lost Dem. seats in Congress by the second and third terms. It will happen.

But there are some other things that need a majority to pass, after Health Care, so let's not forget the big picture.

...where are you going to go exactly? -zoe kentucky

"It makes no difference which one of us you vote for, either way your planet is doomed! DOOMED!!!". -Kang

It's true, we are aliens! But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. -Kodos

That's a resoundingly good argument, zoe kentucky. Battered Democrat Syndrome.

Let's look at this very simply--If the Repubs controlled the WH and congress with a filibuster-proof majority, what do you think they'd be doing right now? Exxon would already be drilling on top of Mt. Rushmore and Repubs wouldn't give two shits what anyone said or did.
Oh, and healthcare reform would mean requiring everyone to buy the for-profit plan from whatever regional monopoly controlled your area. And they wouldn't be required to actually cover anything. That would be socialism. End of story.
They sure as hell wouldn't be "negotiating" with the minority Dems and letting them set the terms of the debate.
I'm not saying that Dems should behave like Repubs. I just don't understand what the point of a majority is if you're just going to let the minority control things anyway.

If there is no public option then I won't have health insurance. It's that simple. I don't trust for-profit insurance companies to continue my coverage if I actually get sick and need it, and I won't give them any of my money. If I get sick in the next 25 years before I'm eligible for Medicare, then I either go bankrupt or die, perhaps both. Hopefully the "reform" without a public option will help lots of other people.

Let's not bite off our noses to spite our faces, ok?

It's the real liberal/progressive's only diet, like koalas and eucalyptus leaves. They exist to lose -- lose elections, lose legislative battles. If you win, it's because you compromised, and if you compromise, they throw you out of the treehouse.

Only defeat is pure.

Hey doubtful, the socialism I was speaking to is when everything is subordinate to the state, and the state apparatus mandates all for everyone.

Public services are community based safety-focused resource sharing. They are social because they operate in the public domain. Such civic services have been good since the days of Ben's foresight to put together a volunteer fire brigade for Philadelphia back in the day, and as the privatized fire fighting firms proved corrupt and ineffective, communities through municipal jurisdiction in the late 1800s took the reigns to offer better public safety.

The public option is not a socialistic end all, but rather one component to a sophisticated economy that would help sustain existing private competition, while offering Americans a policy that would drive health care cost down!

Oh, and Neill, for your two questions above, I'll defer to F.J. Turner. -Kevo

Appropos of a thread from yesterday on the Obama political approach, a.k.a., counter-attack, and a few comments above, Obama lets out more rope for the dopes, especially those in the MSM.

"I'm not saying that Dems should behave like Repubs. I just don't understand what the point of a majority is if you're just going to let the minority control things anyway.

But aren't you implicitly arguing that the majority can ram stuff through without concern for the minority, just like the Republicans did-- and would do again, given the majority?

I'm not for paralysis due to misguided bipartisanship. But I do see a political value of being, and appearing to be, the more mature, reasonable of the two parties. The majority of the country voted for moderate-Left approaches, and clearly has been appalled by the extremist, partisan nature of DC for a while now. We need to keep that in mind, unless we want to lose the majority pretty damned quickly.

So. Has everyone here made their BLITZKREIG phone calls and sent their emails to their Washington politicians today? If not....TICK TOCK! Time's awastin'! We need to tell them these things instead of just venting on blogs.

I'm not surprised. Has Obama ever taken a strong stand on any difficult political issue in his entire career...and actually seriously done or accomplished anything? He's flexible on every issue you can name, from wars abroad to gays in the military to even his place of worship. He doesn't care about single-payer; all he cares about is his ego and getting elected.

Oh, and Neill, for your two questions above, I'll defer to F.J. Turner. -Kevo

that's some kinda romantic, second-rate social historian you got there, kevo... but i guess i don't appreciate the "taming of the wild" motif so much. i gots a problem with the CO2 resultin' -- not to mention the narcissism...

Progressive Democrats: As the process has unfolded this year, the public option went from being a liberal wish-list measure to becoming the liberal make-or-break measure. There's a real risk that the left will balk at the reform bill -- no matter what else is in it -- if there's no public option, and if liberals withhold their support, reform will die.

"It's better to vote for what you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it." -- Eugene Debs, 1912

I see where the House Progresssive Caucus has announced that if the final bill doesn't have a public option, they will vote against it. Good for them!!

If Obama goes along with the killing of the public option, his enemies will know they can safely ignore him on everything else, and he will effectively be a "lame duck" - and a one-term president - from that point onwards.

Davis X. Machina,

Why is it when Blue Dogs and Republicans make demands and draw lines in the sand, they're just compromising, but when progressives do the same, we're inflexible defeatists?

I've always felt that efforts to deal with the skyrocketing costs of health care should come later, after we get universal coverage. Once coverage is universal -- which can be achieved by (a) preventing insurance companies from off-loading people at risk of needing care, (b) making it a universal (mandatory) requirement, and (c) providing the subsidies required to enable people to pay for it -- it will be like Medicare. No one will ever be able to take it away.

THEN we can worry about cost containment.

Sorry, chris, you're wrong. If we don't get a public option, it is Obama's fault, for not displaying some leadership and political courage to fight for the principles on which he campaigned for the office.

As I noted above, it won't matter if he "lives to fight another day" because once they know they can oppose him on this,they'll oppose him on everything. Clinton may have gotten re-elected in 1996, but he got nothing he campaigned for from Congress once he was defeated in 1993-94 on health care.

If Obama wants to accomplish anything, he has to accomplish THIS and if he doesn't nothing else matters.

I believe the fastest way to lose the majority is to allow the Republicans to honestly tell voters in 2010 and 2012 that the Democrats squandered their majorities without passing needed healthcare reform. That is coming. Get ready.

Even though the GOP is 100% behind the screamers and deathers, they will shift gears and turn this around as a Democratic failure, and pretend like they never were against it. They will act like the Democrats failed to bring the Republican ideas into the mix, and this will put Dems on the defense again. The outraged idiots who are showing up ranting about the evils of socialist medicine will be duped into a new outrage: blaming Democrats for failing to fix the country's broken healthcare system. It will be a through-the-looking-glass moment for anyone who has been keeping score.

I don't think the Democrats are prepared for what will be the next phase of the GOP's campaign. Nominee Sarah Palin will be crowing on the GOP convention stage in 2012 about how the Democrats failed to provide true healthcare reform for the American people. Sick.

Chris: you REALLY don't get it. The reason there is no Democratic support out there on this is because of the FAILURE TO LEAD in the White House! I call around the country for the DNC, and this past week I have gotten an earful from strong Democrats everywhere are totally pissed at the White House. There has been >i?nothing from Organizing for America, they have nobody out in the field coordinating anything, and then people who worked their hearts out a year ago look at Obama being such a pusillanimous twit on the issue and they ask themselves why they have to go knock themselves out for a guy who won't do anything but roll over.

You need to remove your head from where you're keeping it, get out of your political fantasy-land, and check reality, kiddo. The people you're defending are the guilty parties, not the people you're attacking.

The biggest mistake the WH did was learn the wrong lessons from the Clinton hc reform effort-- that bill was torn apart because it came down from the WH. This time around Obama put it on congress to craft the bill, only they failed to do it before the recess so now the GOP is working to tear it apart and at the very least have the parts they hate the most-- public option-- stripped. But what they didn't prepare for was that no matter who put the bill together the GOP is going to lie, lie, lie to kill it and try to destroy Obama's future as well.

Who's most at fault right now? Certainly Obama and his lack of a clear message, although he still has time to wake up and turn that around and knock some heads together. The bigger failures are the MSM that only reported where people were screaming at each other and the dems in congress for not having any meaningful leadership. Pelosi and Reid should be replaced after this fight is over.

Dems are a very hard coalition to build, we do have a "big tent," and unlike the GOP we have very strong factions with very different constitutencies and agendas. Regardless, if this effort fails as a country we will all pay dearly-- the GOP will get back in power and we can kiss this country's future goodbye.

I will be severely disappointed if the promised health care reform doesn't contain significant, you know, reform... and it has seemed to me that the public option is the strongest feature to rein in the insurance machine.

But, part of me wonders if just maybe Obama has a plan that hasn't fully unfolded. How many times during the campaign did the armchair strategists doubt the tactical approach, only to find out that they had a better long view than we did.

Any possibility that there's a strategy at work here, not just capitulation? I'm not trying to be an apologist, I'm just asking.

Why is it when Blue Dogs and Republicans make demands and draw lines in the sand, they're just compromising, but when progressives do the same, we're inflexible defeatists?

doubtful - I'm not Davis X. Machina, but my answer would be: if both sides have a strong interest in reaching a compromise, then both sides' lines in the sand would deserve the same labeling.

But the progressives really, really want health care reform, while the Business Dogs would be happy to see it go away. The possibility of no bill is, for the Business Dogs, a feature rather than a bug. So whatever they'll agree to is, in effect, a compromise.

For us, a line in the sand is like pointing a gun to our own head and saying, "one false move and we blow the librul's head off!" We wind up with the same nothing that we've been decrying for eons. That's self-defeating.

short fuse: "Any possibility that there's a strategy at work here, not just capitulation? I'm not trying to be an apologist, I'm just asking."

It occurred to me, as well. Maybe that strategy includes firing up the grassroots to blitz their Senators and Representatives to grow some balls on this. Have you made your calls and emails today? Even if there is some mysterious grander plan that we aren't aware of, they still need the continuous cattle prod no doubt for chakllenges to come. Make your calls! Send your emails! Do it TODAY!!!!!

I have a pre-existing condition which requires medication. I can't get health insurance though my partner because we're gay, can't get married, and our state doesn't mandate DP healthcare benefits so companies won't provide them. The VA has turned me away because I'm not a retiree and don't have a disability rating. If I lose my job (which looks more and more likely) or my insurance company drops me or jacks up my premiums thanks to no regulation I am fucked.

I need a public option.

I suspect the phone lines in the West Wing and the congressional liaison office are going to be ringing quite a bit today.

I've been calling the WH for hours to register my extreme anger & disappointment. The lines are constantly busy. I hope this is a good sign.

So co-ops are the flag du jour to see who salutes. Government run co-ops are the same as the public option. They are presented as non-profit, but they are also subsidized by the government - our tax dollars. Co-ops are like Federally Funded Research and Development Companies (FFRDCs); they are mandated by the government for federal agencies to use, and are mandated to be non-profit. They do the same thing as private businesses; but because they are subsidized by the federal government - your tax dollars - private businesses cannot compete for those same niches. Further, because they are mandated to be non-profit, what comes in must go out to equal zero. FFRDCs are the most expensive contract "option" that federal programs encounter, but are further subsidized by our tax dollars. In other words, co-ops are still the public option under a different name.

Let's face it democrats that voted for barac are government dependent by definition. they have no skin in the game. they tend to be acorn welfare parasites, UAW (unemployeed auto worker), an college pot smokin kids who never held nor will hold a job in their life. look the stockmarket was they highest ever under Mr. George Bush. Mr. Bush had to go to war. Remember the gorillic memo. we had the terrorist dead to rights but clinton told the FBI and CIA not to share information. The end result was 911. Bush then had to go to war for the heart and soul of america. While he did this the very same whiny democrats that caused 911 cried and blamed Mr. George Bush for their incompetance.

First, progressives are not progressive; they are regressive. Second, since they seem so secular in their beliefs; must they not also believe more in evolution vice creationism? And, if they believe in evolution over creationism; then them must believe in survival of the fittest. Clearly, their is a problem here, because the regressives believe that only government can take care of us, because we are incapable of doing that on our own. So, what is it; either we can or we can't survive on our own. Personally, I believe in survival of the fittest; and that means if I have the wherewithal to survive; i.e., money, health, etc., I survive. If I don't have one of those, the chances of long-term survival are reduced accordingly. But, I accept that; the strongest need to survive to perpetuate the species. Don't PETA backers believe that 'dumb' animals are on par with humans? That's how dumb animals survive - the fittest/strongest - without human interference. Consequently, if one does not have the capacity to survive, either fiscally or physically, one dies. Hey, that's the Oregon way; which is the what H.R. 3200 supports. Has anyone heard of H.R. 3400? I wonder why there is very little mention of it - hmmmm.

Angie, that was beautiful!

Could you break down the percentages of

welfare parasites

UAWs

pot smokers

of the 69,456,897 peeps who voted for Obama/Biden?

It'd be great if there were, say, 40 million pot smokers, y'know.

Davis X: Exactly!

Angie, wat da fuck is rong wid collig, pray tale

I'm with joejoejoe and Dr. Dean. Just get this damned thing out of the Senate Finance Committee. Say whatever you have to in order to get Baucus to s&%t or get off the pot. There are plenty of other bills and House/Senate reconciliation or whatever they call it.

We're a fer piece from a bill ready for an "up or down vote."

Once it's past Senate Finance, Reid will have the power (if not the balls) to tell Baucus and Conrad to go farg themselves because this is going by budget resolution and they can threaten to vote against it all they friggin' want.

doorway relief originally evaluationit printout keller byproduct results persuade place