Is/Was Single Payer and/or Public Option really DEAD ON ARRIVAL in Congress?

[Land Shark]

In a long 72 page policy review on prescription drug coverage, over the last FOUR DECADES the top key factors explaining the pushes and pulls of policy change included this:

"ideological conflict between those seeking to expand the traditional Medicare program and those preferring a greater role for private health care companies." http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/A-Political-History-of-Medicare-and-Prescription-Drug-Coverage.pdf

It's been the same conflict dynamic between public health care vs private corporations for 40 years, and it's squarely at issue again today.

But now we have a Democratic president, we have about 60 Democratic Senators, a clear majority in the House. In sum, the political situation appears better than ever.

And despite these rising tides for public health care forces who've fought to slowly increase public health care over 40 years, we're told now that Single Payer and/or the Public Option are dead on arrival. How did a team that fought for increases over 40 years suddenly get terminated at a high water mark in its prospects?

Not only is the situation described as "Dead on arrival," but the details of the bill command that we must hand complete victory to private insurance, in the following way: Dollars that are public health dollars will be counted as public health care dollars and collected as such via taxes, yet just handed to private insurance company.

That's capitulation, followed by payment of tribute.

But I don't think the Democratic rank and file capitulated. Only their "representatives" did.

The problem for the representatives is that the only legitimate source of power, the only source of just power, is the people. ("Forming their just powers from the consent of the governed" para. 2 Decl. Independence)

If anyone ever suggests something like Dead on Arrival or even dead now, I'm going to ask them how that can possibly be LEGITIMATE. I may or may not contest that that is the "way it is." I'm dying to know what makes that RIGHT? How does it make any sense on the level of Democrats OR Democracy?

[Edweird]

1. Most likely. Considering how "I'm getting 95% of what I want" means

his campaign promises were blatant bald faced lies. There simply isn't any logical explanation other than this was the intended outcome from the beginning.

[ThomCat]

5. Exactly. Obama never fought for real health care.

he sat back and had everyone else scramble without leadership, and watched as Lobbyists emerged as the most powerful players. Then he stepped in and began talking to the most powerful players, giving them whatever they wanted in exchange for them giving him something he could claim publicly was a win of some kind, even if it really wasn't.

His leadership style seems to be to let other people work things out, so he can then ask them to work with him to build a win-win scenario after they've hashed out their positions already. Then, because they other side is already entrenched, if they demand 95% of the win and his win is a shallow and hollow thing, it's really pathetic to call it a mutual win, but that's what he does.

It's no wonder that more and more commentators are commenting on his political weakness. He comes across as a political coward with no core values and no respect for the people who should be his base.

[chimpymustgo]

26. This was the intended outcome. Tragically. And we were fed bald-faced LIES.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Considering where we are and what HCR has come down to

I'd say yes. We have a strongly corporate-friendly bill and we've only gotten this far by managing to hold on to enough Senators to thwart the GOP's obstructionism and it could still fall apart if any of the Dems decide to throw a temper tantrum about something or other and join a GOP-led filibuster. Unfortunately, we're probably going to need more progressive Dems in the Senate and/or some major revisions to the rules governing filibusters before we can even get a public option. :shrug: Fortunately, Baucus, et. al can't stay in the Senate forever nor can the status quo be maintained indefinitely. At some point, I believe we will join the rest of the civilized world and get Single Payer as well but, unfortunately, there are a LOT of people whom still need to be educated before it can happen.

[2 Much Tribulation]

6. Republicans passed "Medicare Part D" so-called "insurance" coverage, now Dems pass same formula??

Effective 1/106 though passed in 03, as soon as it was passed the total PAYOUTS by private health insurance has averaged 0.9% for the three years 2006, 2007 and 2008. See Table 12: Private Health Insurance Premiums, Benefits and Net Cost, Selected Calendar Years 1960-2008, page 15 at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

The above link shows:

Under the Annual Percent Increase table for Private Health Insurer Payments, Private Health Insurers Experienced the following inflation rates in the total amounts they paid for Prescription Drugs:

2006 0.4% (zero point four percent, less than a half of a percent)

2007 1.7% (one point seven percent)

2008 0.7% (zero point seven percent)

TOTALS 2.9% total inflation in total prescription payouts for private insurers, while pharmaceuticals absolutely skyrocket in price

[dflprincess]

3. Single payer certainly was

advocates of it weren't even listened to. So much for "listening to all sides".

[ThomCat]

7. It was sickening that Obama too this approach to start things.

He gave huge concessions to get the insurance industry to the table, but would not allow advocates of real health care reform to come to the table at all. That killed any chance of real reform before negotiations even began, and he had to know that. That had to be his deliberate intent. If not, then it is a clear sign that he's an incompetent negotiator. :(

It's even worse because there was no need to bribe the insurance industry with so many huge giveaways to get them to the table. They were not going to stay away. They would have shown up with just a simple invitation.

Worse, Insurance Industry reps didn't even need to be at the table at all. Government has regulated many industries many times before and does not need any industry at the table giving permission for anything. usually it is politicians and experts in the relevant field. That should have been doctors, experts in public health, and many of the people who were excluded. Health care reform could have happened very well with the insurance industry finding out about it on the evening news like everyone else.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. They listened to the single payer advocates.

For about 15 seconds before having them arrested.

Fuckers.

[murphyj87]

4. Only if....

Single payer is not in this bill and never had a realistic chance to be (not to say that it shouldn`t have been). The public option is only dead if a line is not drawn in the sand telling Members of the House, Senate, and the President that campaign financing, campaign workers, and votes are being withheld from them in 2010 and 2012 if the public option, Medicare buy-in, and monopoly withdrawal are not all in the bill. If Democrats (the people, not the politicians) want to not let the insurance companies win, as they are in the bill as it appears now, that line in the sand must be drawn and the Democratic politicians must be held to account.

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. It's not right & it doesn't make sense....We've go to stop it.

K & R


Thanks.



:hi:

[highplainsdem]

10. K&R

[BzaDem]

11. Fighting for 40 years and being at a "high water mark" doesn't necessarily mean success.

After all, if you fight for 40 years and raise the number of people supporting a program from 10 to 30%, and you are now at your high water mark, I don't think equals "success" in any sense of the word.

You keep saying that representatives voting against Single Payer (as good an idea as it is) is somehow a treacherous act in defiance of the people. Where do you get this information? Do you have a poll from Gallup or some other reputable pollster that shows that a majority of a country specifically supports Single Payer healthcare? Surely, if the people wanted it so much that an act of voting against it would be treasonous or illegitimate, you would have some polls by reputable pollsters that back your claim up.

[Land Shark]

16. True. But it doesn't mean near-extinction or capitulation; Did you read the post?

[Starry Messenger]

12. It isn't right.

I'm not sure they care about it being legitimate. If anyone does ask, I'm sure the reaction will be to fudge the position that we're considering legitimate. Whenever anyone tries to argue for justice here, you get 10 different people arguing semantics. I have a feeling that comes from pretty high up these days.

[Unvanguard]

13. If that were actually the battle, we would have had universal health care long ago.

But we don't.

The fact of the matter is that a large portion of this country--politicians and ordinary people alike--is going to be decidedly hostile to any large expansion of the government's role in the economy, regardless of how it relates to private insurance companies. This political reality meant that to get anywhere at all, those inclined toward health care reform had to get the support of people virulently opposed to single-payer or a strong public option--thus making those proposals DOA.

[unc70]

17. You just market it as health care vouchers and they would love it

These vouchers can be used by individuals to acquire health insurance from a public option plan or from equivalent-benefits plans offered by the insurance companies. Everyone receives a voucher, the costs paid from the general funds. Federal taxes would be adjusted in various places, essentially replacing the current employer-paid systems.

[Unvanguard]

24. That's basically what it is, though, and they don't love it.

Perhaps because it incorporates substantial (and necessary) regulatory components, too. Perhaps because, while the government has long been recognized as being responsible for educating the public, the government is not recognized as being responsible for providing for the public's health care.

[Land Shark]

21. Frame it as "Caring" about fellow citizens through "Health CARE" and its much more powerful

Opposition to "big guvmint" or "expanding guvmint" carries no downside, but if it is literally about caring for the lives (via health) of one's fellow citizens, the vote on whether or not one cares will weaken opposition, and for those that remain opposed, it EXPOSES them in a vulnerable way for them, whether they realize it or not. Defending the position "we don't care about you or your health" is hard to do! Opposing "big guvmint" is easy to do by contrast.

[Unvanguard]

25. The problem is that the framing can go in the other direction.

And quite successfully too, given our dominant "rugged individualist" ideology in the United States. Hence the "death panels" rhetoric and the general sense among so many conservatives that if we become dependent on the government the government will start pulling the plug on us.

[Land Shark]

27. I'm very very cool and comfortable with that, Then we know what the REAL issue is.

Surely we can't expect a mere framing to convince and totally disarm the other side. Instead, it is just the most, or a most, advantageous vantage point from which to make arguments and win debates, either gradually or decisively.

THe "Death Panels" rhetoric. WTF? Under the care frame, the "rugged individualists" not only don't give a rat's ass about health care for others, they (by opposing such care as a practical matter for many tens of millions) HAVE PULLED THE PLUG THEMSELVES.

Again, a frame only gives an advantageous perspective from which to craft counterarguments, counterattacks or responsive ideas, like the above (which is off the top of my head, yet tilts in our favor, I submit)

[leftstreet]

14. K&R

[donco6]

15. Once the insurance corps eliminated any possibility -

they totally backed off their opposition. No commercials; no teabagger busloads assaulting DC. What's that tell you?

[Land Shark]

20. Yes, that tells me something, as you say. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

18. SP was dead in the womb. There were never even close to enough votes

to springboard from to legitimately push the idea. There was no fucking way it could pass even if Obama turned into LBJ, TDR, and FDR rolled into one flesh and twisted every arm a dozen times.

I thought a real public option was possible but apparently the party decided on a misinformation campaign. Hell, even Baucus was all for it and sending out color flyers on a medicare like program for all Americans but that was a lie too.

It feels like the whole deal has been a scam and nothing was really possible. Not even anything serious as far as market based reform, its all been a big show to funnel more wealth to big insurance and to prop them up.

[Land Shark]

19. Only maybe. Sometimes, on a hot ethical issue, when forced to take a vote, reps will change

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: People have often said a transparent count of the votes doesn't have enough support in Congress (!). But if a vote were actually had, to go on record favoring a non-transparent computerized vote count when this issue is squarely presented forces the representative to take a real serious risk, because non-transparent secret counts are unaccountable, and who can favor unaccountable elections???

Similarly with single payer, it's one thing to say "that would be great, but there's not enough votes in Congress," but if a vote DOES come up, then there will be a record and accountability concerning who cares about their fellow citizens' health, and who doesn't and is willing to have them hit the streets. Even if only a small minority of citizens care about single payer, they tend to care highly and the representative will alienate 5% or 25% or more of the citizens, spotting their future opponent a very substantial lead. Because of this dynamic, even if only a minority supported single payer, it would be "gut check time" for representatives on a vote and there's no basis to think that a defeat of single payer is GUARANTEED. What people do and say essentially "in private" (and these speculations about chances of passage are "private" in the sense of being unaccountable to this single payer group I assume for sake of argument is only a minority" because there's no real accountability for such speculations, both those for and against single payer don't use this speculation about passages AGAINST the representative)

Thus, a real vote assuming it squarely presents the core issue, or assumimg the "minority" I assume above SEES IT THAT WAY even if the issue is not squarely framed in Congress, can turn out differently than one might suspect. This is why a straw poll of Congress based on hallway conversations or telephone calls and the like does not really predict the actual outcome of a vote IF that vote is on a core issue of political values.

Too often, votes that constitute the "touch choices" they campaigned on as ready to make are in fact avoided through the subterfuge of saying "there's not enough support in Congress now"

[closeupready]

22. Without campaign finance reform, Democrats on the take will simply continue compromising the interes

interests of those they purport to represent - Americans.

But I am very pessimistic that we will ever get campaign finance reform because it well serves the interests of everyone involved in that crookedness except Americans who are not wealthy.

As you can tell, I am getting very weary of seeing this kind of thing happen over and over and over.

[Land Shark]

28. The "reform" being pushed for, as you know, is throwing out all reform (Citizens United) n/t

[xchrom]

23. Recommend

[Capn Sunshine]

29. Let this demonstrate the power of the corporations to you then

because as an entity they are spending 1.5 million per day to fight the Healthcare bill we do have. Not counting the money to finance the Teabagger movements.

You thinkjust because you have a temporary majority you can fight that?

The answer is obvious: Public finance for elecetions and a ban on lobbying.

But no one is talking about THAT.

[dionysus]

30. yes, because too many folks are bought off or influenced by dough.

there's only a handfull of senators that would support single payer.

this can only be solved if there are massive efforts to educate non-voters.