Progressives could have killed Obamacare

[Enrique]

easily.

Toward the end, it looked like Kucinich was in a position where he by himself could have killed it during a crucial House vote. Obama took him on a trip on Air Force One and Dennis came around.

By voting for Obamacare, the house progressives seriously caved. They had put out a letter pledging to vote against anything without a robust public option, but they ended up voting for legislation without any public option, robust or otherwise. They didn't even get any of the lame compromises to it like the trigger, the co-ops, the Medicare buy in. Nothing. Obama, Baucus, Lieberman, Nelson, got what they wanted and the progressives got zip.

But that's politics. You win some, you lose some. My point is to remember what happened. Part of politics also is that if one party gives another party something they want, the other party might feel some sense of repaying the favor in some way?

[Demeter]

1. Nah! Let the Tea Baggers Do It!

Much cleaner and cheaper that way. And a two-fer!

[ProSense]

2. No, the bill passed

224 to 206

In fact, it appears some people switched to yes after the reports, which indicated 219 to 212.

Also, the assumption is that the Progressive Caucus wanted to kill health care reform. There is no indication of that. They bargained hard and got some wins.

[Enrique]

3. right, the progressives caved, like I said

maybe Gibbs should be saying "thank you".

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/letter-from-house-progressives-to-obama-on-public-option/

(...)

Public opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Americans want the choice ofa robust public plan and we stand in solidarity with them. We continue to support the robust public option that was reported out of the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor and will not vote for a weakened bill on the House Floor or returning from a Conference with the Senate.

Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable. A plan with negotiated rates would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal ofproviding choice and competition to keep rates down. The public plan with set rates saves $75 billion, which could be lost ifrates are negotiated with providers. Further, this public option must be available immediately and must not be contingent upon any trigger.

Mr. President, the need for reform is urgent. Every day, 14,000 Americans lose their health care coverage. We must have health care reform that will effectively bring down costs and significantly expand access. A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs. We cannot vote for anything less.

(...)

[kirby]

4. Spin, Spin, Spin...they caved...

They thought something was better than nothing and they held their nose to vote with their party leader. This was despite numerous public pronouncements and declarations that they would vote no if there was no public option.

[ProSense]

9. "They thought something was better than nothing and they held their nose to vote"

Really?

Really?

[kirby]

10. Those are not what I would call 'ringing' endorsements...

"There is no doubt this bill has flaws. Many of us would have preferred a single-payer system or at least a public option." ...

"In that light, I could cast no other vote today. Our status quo is simply unsustainable" ...



What else are they going to say when they voted for something that was better than nothing?

[jefferson_dem]

5. Sure. Progressives could effectively kill all sorts of progressive reforms.

But why would they want to?

"Obamacare"?

[Enrique]

6. because we're on drugs and we're never satisfied

we're the professional left and we're screwing everything up for Obama.

Except that we vote for every single thing Obama wants us to. (Except for hiding the detainee photos, which really pissed of Obama).

[bornskeptic]

7. And thousands of Americans along with it?

For real liberals a bill making the same insurance carried by members of Congress available to all Americans at an affordable price is a good thing. The mindset of those who, claiming to be progressives, seem to care more about the (remote) possibility that insurance companies might increase their profits by 5% or so than about the millions who will be protected from bankruptcy or death is a total mystery to me.

[sandnsea]

8. The House is not the "professional left"

The "professional left" can barely organize a protest a couple of times a year, let alone a campaign to win a congressional district every two years, and then run a successful DC office and numerous local offices, and get any legislation through the House.

[Phx_Dem]

11. Which is exactly why I'll never vote for a progressive.

At least Kuchinich came to his senses, but he could just have easily derailed the entire bill. Russ Feingold is another prime example of someone who wants to take his toys and go home if everyone doesn't play his version of the game.

Politics, like life, is about compromise. It's a wonder any progressives are married since they find compromise so abhorrent.

[Uzybone]

12. Nonsense

Do House progressives compare Obama to Bush?

Gibbs is talking about the nutjobs on the interent/cable news shoutfests who think they are the "base"

[FrenchieCat]

13. and?

31 million and some change thank progressive for not killing health care....

(Obamacare is a freeper term)