Welcome to DCW

Donate to DCW

Health Insurance: Fighting the Lies (Updated 9/14/09)
House Forecast: 242.4 (-14.6)

Senate Forecast: 57.1 (-2.9)



2012 Democratic Convention
2012 Republican Convention
Primary Calendar
List of Key Nominees
Confirmation Hearing Schedule
Ambassador Nominations

Nomination Count
Nominated408
Confirmed339
Last Updated 3/12/10

Follow DCW on Twitter
A Guide to DemConWatch
Tags
FAQ
2008 Democratic Primary Links
2008 Democratic National Convention Links
DemConWatch Archives '05-'08
DemConWatch Speeches
Inauguration Information
DCW Store

HOME
Mobile Version


Search


Advanced Search
Contributors:
MattOreo
DocJess

This site is not affiliated with the DNC, DNCC, or any campaign.

Email us at




Blog Roll
Frontloading HQ
The Field
MyDD
Swing State Project
DemNotes
DemRulz

DCW in the News
AP
Politico
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
Wired
US News & World Report

Health Care: Why No Vote This Weekend, and What it All Means

by: DocJess

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM EST


Nancy Pelosi had hoped to bring the legislation to the floor today, but that's not going to happen. It appears the caucus is down about 10 votes, which is about 5% and way to high. As we mentioned yesterday, there will be no 676 vote. In addition, Anthony Weiner has dropped his insistence on a vote for any single payer system.

Pair this with the fact that Harry Reid won't even look at a floor vote until after the New Year

Does this mean that reform is dead? Depends on how you define "reform". The Single Payer activists will say that nothing but Single Payer is actual reform. The robust Public Option folks are waiting to see whether the final deal is robust, opt-out, opt-in or trigger. 

Back in February, I saw universal, single payer as dead.  In August, I believed that there was still a chance for some meaningful reform, and laid out the steps necessary to get it done. Specifically: 

The problem then, as now, related to crafting message, and being able to get Democrats to align. We have no point person, we have no message master, we have very few people willing to put skin in the game. We ALMOST had a shot at someone who could work with Congress, craft a policy, sell it, and carry the force of the White House. But no. Barring that, we needed the White House and the Congress to do things that were unpleasant for them. To take firm stands and risk alienating some morons citizens.

We needed our president -- the one who wanted ONE America instead of red America and blue America. The smart, nuanced guy with a commitment to legitimate basic change. The one who can speak so passionately. That guy. We needed him to stand up months ago and say things like:

  • I will not sign a piece of legislation that does not include a robust public option.
  • It is a moral imperative that health care be reformed in a meaningful way.
  • The crack-pot wing-nuts are lying to you. Are you really so stupid to believe the government would kill people? (OK, he'd need a better-crafted message for that last line.)

You get the idea.

We needed our Senate leadership to allow the HELP bill to override the Finance bill. We needed the leadership to accept the fact that we would never get a single Republican vote and for once, act monolithic.

We needed the House leadership to do better whip counts, and to tell the blue dogs that our tent, on the issue of health care, is just plain not that big.

But we didn't. We still lack a point person, a consistent message, and spine. 

There are, however, two things we can do. The first is to learn the lesson of this debacle, and the second is to apply that knowledge. Don't discount the "lesson" thing: one of the things Democrats have done, consistently, is to wallow in self-pity in defeat. Then we try the same things again and are surprised when we get the same results.

The primary lesson here is that there IS a Democratic base, and it is strong. The error was this inane commitment to moderation and bipartisanship in a polarized world that has nothing but contempt for the middle. Some people will yell and say I'm wrong: that the problem was overreaching. But they're the ones who are wrong.

If you want to take immediate action, McJoan at Kos has a list of who to call to get the Pelosi bill passed on the floor.  Tell these folks that moderation, or the Democratic form of the new verb "scozzafavaed", is NOT an option. Getting the Democratic Party to be the party it says it is in the platform is what this is ALL ABOUT. Pages 9 - 10:

If one thing came through in the platform hearings, it was that Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive healthcare. In meeting after meeting, people expressed moral outrage with a health care crisis that leaves millions of Americans–including nine million children–without health insurance and millions more struggling to pay rising costs for poor quality care. [...]

The American people understand that good health is the foundation of individual achievement and economic prosperity. Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children’s education, workers’ productivity and businesses’ competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable.  [...]

Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

Imagine if we'd stuck with that, unwavering, from the start. It wouldn't have bought us the Single Payer the true progressives want, but it would have been an interim solution that would have saved lives and avoided suffering. 

The only way to get there now is say that NOT agreeing is a deal breaker for whether or not someone can run for office as a Democrat. They can still call themselves a members of the party, but if they want financial support, or votes, they are going to have to BE Democrats. 

If that approach is implemented, the Pelosi bill comes to the floor and passes. If so, it puts Harry Reid and the Senate blue dogs on notice, IN AN ELECTION YEAR, that being a Democrat. An ACTUAL Democrat is the path to reelection. It will lead to a stronger party, and better government.

If we stand as a party, on our platform, we win this battle and emerge stronger, having learned the lesson of unity and walking the talk. If not...

DocJess :: Health Care: Why No Vote This Weekend, and What it All Means
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
i'm confused (0.00 / 0)
you seem pretty fatalistic about this. the discussion is still moving forward, is it not? where are you getting this info (and updates) about the 10 rep deficit?


Antigravity (0.00 / 0)
Heard it last night on MSNBC - about being down 10 votes. Lawrence O'Donnell said it, but I can't remember on which show.

I've BEEN fatalistic about this for months, but have been trying to keep the most positive thought I can in my head.

Wrote it, pre-posted it, left for the day, came home to hear they're debating.

I stand by my assessment, however, that there is a lesson here about having a solid message and a point person and sticking to the ideals in the platform. Win or lost this one, THAT will help us in the future.  


[ Parent ]
follow up (0.00 / 0)
look i hate to be an ass about this, but after spending quite a long time investigating (precisely what i have prefered to avoid by checking here to get the basic news of goings on) i have come to the conclusion that this is a misleading (and possibly flat-wrong) post.

maybe it looked that way when you wrote it, but certainly not when you posted it.

i have been coming here for a year and a half now to gather great fact based news and get a flavor of basic goings on. you guys have been great on a number of under the radar stuff, but posts like these are way off that track.

i would just appreciate not mixing a passionate post like this with one aiming to inform your readers. start them with conditional statements, not 'this is the deal', etc. please.

it used to be these kind of posts balanced out the informational ones, but now it seems they're (falsely) substituting them.

in any case, thanks for all the insights and again sorry for being so critical (it's only because i value the site)!



Antigravity: It's a timing thing.... (0.00 / 0)
Most things will stand the test of 12 hours. I don't have the ability to post all day -- normally, I am done posting by about 7 in the morning, and things launch after that.

I normally don't check the site again (because of other commitments) until late afternoon, and often not until 4 the next morning.

Therefore, while the vote might have been back on by the time the post launched, it was NOT on when I put it up to "future post" at about 5 in the morning.

And if you think about it, even if Pelosi's bill passes in the House, it's not over. There is a Senate bill which Harry Reid said probably won't come to the floor until next year (albeit, he could back track on that if the House bill passes overwhelmingly) and then a conference committee.

I still contend that sticking to the platform, sticking to the ideal of health care FOR ALL, with subsidies for those who need it, and a robust public option, is the only way to "win".

If the bill, in the end, becomes a law with a 5 year trigger, what have we bought?

And as for the overall criticism - As someone who gets up at 4 in the morning at least 6 days a week to research, write, post, and then go do the work thing, the family thing, the local political things, and occasionally the sleep thing: I get a lot more right than I get wrong. I admit and correct when I make factual errors. I try VERY HARD to find things that other people leave under the radar, to be informative, to be interesting, and to get the facts out.

It's not easy, it's not always fun, but I try.  


[ Parent ]
Add the date and time (0.00 / 0)
One solution to the problem would be to type the date and time at the top of your articles since they are put on a timer and not immediately posted. Just a suggestion.

[ Parent ]
ok (0.00 / 0)
thanks for responding, DocJess (twice! sorry i didn't see your first one as i was probably writing mine). a couple of thoughts:

(1) i didn't realize there was a time delay, makes more sense now.

(2) i recognize that i'm the lazy one here. you're doing the work.

(3) but i don't think i stated my point clearly enough. my contention is not about getting it "right", it's about mixing opinion with news. have opinion posts. have informational posts. mixing the two just seems to me to lead to confusion and frustration as evidenced here.

you had here, as far as i could see, a political news blog. one focused on certain aspects of politics.

but posts here are now more like those of a personal blog. it just seems disengenuous to serve both goals.

(4) but i'm a squeeky wheel here i imagine. you guys put a lot of effort in here, and i commend it.  


[ Parent ]
.... (0.00 / 0)
Antigravity.. I completely understand your view, and agree that maybe a time stamp might have helped in this case.  I read alot of the same articles saying there wouldn't be a vote today this morning...

As related to opinion information...As DocJess is a Doctor and a VERY passionate healthcare advocate, I would bet that her posts are seething with passion about the lack of direct leadership and solutions that are ACTUAL solutions in the healthcare debate.  Since this is a BLOG and not really completely a news source, I feel that opinions are not only expected, but understood as part of the platform (though I may be completely off base there).  I use this site as a source of progressive information, but since I understand this is a blog, I take both the actual news and the opinions, mixed with information from other news sources and make my own viewpoints on it.  The wonderful people who post here are using this as both an outlet for news, and reflection of that news.



[ Parent ]
Your list (0.00 / 0)
I'm looking at the list of things that you said in August had to happen.

President Obama definitely said that the crack-pot winguts were lying to us. He said that in his speech to Congress; he reinforced it by his treatment of Fox News.

The idea of a moral imperative was more muted, but it was there.

He did not draw a line in the sand on the robust public option.

So maybe 50% of what you laid out for him?

For the Senate, you said

We needed our Senate leadership to allow the HELP bill to override the Finance bill. We needed the leadership to accept the fact that we would never get a single Republican vote and for once, act monolithic.

Pretty close. They certainly leaned closer to the HELP bill than the Finance bill. They gave up on getting any Republican votes and asked for the Democrats and independents who caucus with them to act monolithic on cloture.

And the whip counts in the House? It looks like they may have done it. The Stupak amendment is just about to pass, even as I sit here. And that presumably happened in order to get the votes they need on the overall bill.

So I'd say your prognosis was right. Most of the things you said had to happen, happened. Because some of them didn't, the reform is more watered down, but we're getting a lot more than if those things hadn't happened.

Tonight's still in question, and then after that the Senate. But I feel like we're gathering a little momentum.


Your list (0.00 / 0)
I'm looking at the list of things that you said in August had to happen.

President Obama definitely said that the crack-pot winguts were lying to us. He said that in his speech to Congress; he reinforced it by his treatment of Fox News.

The idea of a moral imperative was more muted, but it was there.

He did not draw a line in the sand on the robust public option.

So maybe 50% of what you laid out for him?

For the Senate, you said

We needed our Senate leadership to allow the HELP bill to override the Finance bill. We needed the leadership to accept the fact that we would never get a single Republican vote and for once, act monolithic.

Pretty close. They certainly leaned closer to the HELP bill than the Finance bill. They gave up on getting any Republican votes and asked for the Democrats and independents who caucus with them to act monolithic on cloture.

And the whip counts in the House? It looks like they may have done it. The Stupak amendment is just about to pass, even as I sit here. And that presumably happened in order to get the votes they need on the overall bill.

So I'd say your prognosis was right. Most of the things you said had to happen, happened. Because some of them didn't, the reform is more watered down, but we're getting a lot more than if those things hadn't happened.

Tonight's still in question, and then after that the Senate. But I feel like we're gathering a little momentum.





Menu


Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Make a New Account
Currently 4 user(s) logged on.



Subscribe to Posts

DemConWatch on Twitter


View blog authority

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics

custom counter

Who links to my website?

Powered by: SoapBlox