Politicians need to take egos out of this....WE need to....I need to

[Armstead]

Yeah, mea culpa. Once again, despite my best intent, I have become a torrent of raging ego and id, hunkering down in my positions on health reform, churning out angry vitriol here and attacking anyone who disagrees with me.

Chances are, you have too, in your own way.

And unfortunately, I think our fearless leaders in Washington are doing so too.

We've reached the point in this process where we are in our respective corners and put labels on each other and ourselves. And we have all adopted our pet phrases. Obama lover. Obama hater. Leftbagger. Insurance stooge. Pragmatist. Apologist. Head-up-ass socialist....etc.

Nobody REALLY is trying to find middle ground and we aren;t listening to each other...Instead we follow whatever stereotype we have chosen. Pass the bill. Kill the bill. Tinker with the bill but don't touch my particular sacred cows.

We're afraid to admit that, maybe we're wrong -- or not 100 percent correct -- on this or that. We won;t open ourselves up to the possibility that the other person may have a valid point.

This is nothing new on DU. Whenever there's an election or some Big Issue, we tend to fall into battling little camps.

But when it happens in Washington the stakes are much bigger. And it is looking like it is. The White House is pushing to pass this bill. Opponents are pushing to halt the train or slow it down.

The usual dynamics of negotiation and compromise break down.

The damage is that we get swept up and do something we are likely to regret later. (remember Iraq?)

What am I suggesting. Dunno. But I wish we'd all take a deep breath at least, and that Congress would do likewise.

There is a common purpose here. I just hope we don't our respective egos get in the way of clarity.

[Zodiak]

1. Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of 90% of DU

Everyone seems to feel that they should be able to say anything, engage in any level of sophistry, cherry-pick any evidence, etc. in the service of "their side". I find people's responses to well-constructed arguments (without name-calling and vitriol) to be no more than the reaction of a pre-schooler to a person in Jr. high. Name-calling, taunts, ad hominems, etc.

Meantime, no real discussion takes place...no issues are really discussed, and everyone starts to hate each other.

That is par for the course here, and not many have enough self-discipline to break the mold.

If you feel you have not lived up to your standards, then please start doing so now. Behavior, good or bad, is infectious.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Here's one idea

America doesn't need this done by Christmas. We've been waiting 50 years, 50 days barely matter. I know that the Republican Party is using delays as a tactic to kill all reform and hurt the Democrats. But we can't reflexively rush to completion now just because the Republicans say we shouldn't.

I am not saying that Democrats have not taken enough time to work on this. If we could have worked out a good political deal 15 weeks ago that would have been great. It's the final product that counts most to me, not the timetable. Sooner would have been better, but not at the expense of not ending up with the best reform possible.

We should waste no time negotiating with Republicans. No matter how John McCain lies, he does not stand with Howard Dean. We are not suggesting this bill be killed so that we can return to square one and work out "a bi-partisan solution". Republicans lost the right to further input when they chose an obstructionist stance with no solid proposals of their own. They gave up their voice when they admitted they would use that voice in this matter as a tool to take down Obama.

No, we should lift the self imposed Christmas deadline IF it will take us longer than that to find a Democratic solution to HCR we can literally live with. In the long run any political damage a few more weeks slippage in the time line may bring would be dwarfed by the damage of getting this thing wrong for the American people, and getting it right will bring political dividends, even if that takes longer than we wish.

[MNDemNY]

4. Fine, but this bill, as it stands, whether the House or Senate version, MUST not pass.

[FrenchieCat]

6. The bill not passing by Christmas will be heralded as a great big loss,

by the media,
and will very possibly halt any possible momentum.

I am not willing to advocate for this,
as the end results are very iffy.

I think you are wrong on this,
in that the final results are not final at all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Yes it will be

And that won't be the first or the last time that the media heralds this or that as a great big loss for Democrats. Between now and the November 2010 elections the media will herald a dozen different things as a great big loss for Democrats WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE.

The business of America is too important to conduct based on avoiding opportunities for the Media to declare something a loss for the Democrats. The media loves a roller coaster ride, they need ups as well as downs in order to generate constant excitement and interest. One day Obama will be on the ropes, the next day he will be rising up from the mat. Most days he will be on the ropes because that is their true bias, but they need him to recover also so they can knock him down again.

I don't favor delays Frenchie, I accept them if those delays allow for a better bill to emerge, or perhaps for agreement to be forged on a strategy for two bills instead with one going through the reconciliation process.

Whatever the media says about failing to meet a Christmas deadline will be old news when the time comes to cover the HCR package that finally goes into law, whether that is on January 10th or March 15th. Democrats have the ability to make their own momentum - Christmas can't kill it if they get it together among themselves (there really are less than 100 key players in Congress who need to work this out) and emerge with something they can proudly sell to the nation. The product is the bottom line, not the salespersons or their work schedules.

[bigwillq]

13. You can't really put a timetable

on bills like health care. One sets themselves up for "failure" when they do try to do that, no matter which way it turns out. When the bill gets done, it gets done. I would rather have a decent bill than one that gets passed through just so it can meet the deadline.

[AllentownJake]

3. There rarely in life is a middle ground

One side wins the other loses.

Game theory is great, however it goes against every single possible human impulse which has been developed for survival over 500,000 years.

[Armstead]

5. There are partial wins and losses and mixed bags

I generally agree with you. But in cases like this it is n ot totally cut and dried.

For me, taking Medicare for all or Medicare for 55-65 was a big loss. I hate mandates without that. But there are other things in the bill I like.

So if the bill were to pass without Medicare for all, and without mandates, it would be a partial loss in my eyes. It doesn't shut the door to doing better later.

If they go with mandates, I'll be more disappointed. Maybe some consolation in otehr aspects, but not much.

In other words it's completely either/or.

....or maybe it will be if everything i wanted is gone and everything I didn't want remains.
Its messy for sure.

[AllentownJake]

7. To me that is a total loss

because the mandates will stay when the opposition wins again, and they will win again, and the subsidies will go away.

It is a lot easier to end a subsidy than it is to end a government agency.

[Armstead]

9. I agree with you ,,,,However my point was about this process

People seem determined not to jump off the particular dot they are standing on. Since this is not dems vs. prpubs. there is some room for negotiation.

It's like the response to Dean. he has come out with a very sensible proposal, but he has been cast as someone who is trying to "kill the bill: and gotten dumped on. Maybe of people listened instead of jumping on him, we could all step back and take a little more time to do it better.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I agree that Howard Dean has a point......

a good one at that....

But I also think that we need to proceed with this,
and I do believe, based on history, that this bill can and will be changed....
starting within the process of reconciliation and moving on from there.

[AllentownJake]

11. The White House is under siege conditions right now

The economic data still sucks despite a full year of intervention.
The Healthcare debate that was supposed to be 2 months has lasted longer than the primary vs. Hillary
Labor is fucking furious right now that the anti-labor democrats have power in the Senate and House
Than there is the entire world can blow up at any moment in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, or Eastern Europe.
Geithner's idea on finance are turning out to be completely foolish and his decisions earlier in the year are biting them in the ass now. (Firing him before 2010 isn't a political option)

Howard told the truth, at a bad time. Since they are sitting in a bunker with shells going of all around them, they misfired, and created, another problem.

[jmondine]

12. I agree. Take Lieberman out of this.

[Mithreal]

14. Good op