Regarding the Public Option....we lost it because...

[HardWorkingDem]

Frankly, it was not explained or illustrated to the American people well at all.

I bet if I went out of my house and went door to door and knocked on ten doors and asked what it was, I'd get ten different answers.


The Progressives and Democratic Party did a terrible job in explaining what this part was and how it was to be enacted and what to expect from it.

[kenny blankenship]

1. Selling that was somebody's job.

But he couldn't run away fast enough.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. You'd get 10 different answers because it was 10 different things along the way. nt

[Larkspur]

3. The People supported the Public Option but the health insurance companies did not

and Obama listened to the health insurance companies, not the People.

[closeupready]

4. They did a terrible job at that because they never wanted it in the first place.

Kind of like the reason why registering to vote can be more confusing than solving Rubik's Cube - because it doesn't serve the interests of incumbents to recruit new voters.

[Vincardog]

5. We lost it because Obama and Rahm didn't want to piss of their big donors. What it hard to

understand about "you go to the doctor and the Government pays the bill?'

[uponit7771]

15. More "blame Obama first"....

[Armstead]

19. Maybe because he deseerves it..If he had at least tried, we woiuldn't "blame" him

[Vincardog]

23. If he didn't want the responsibility, why did he want the job? Did you see him fighting for anything

[uponit7771]

28. Not Obama's responsiblity to MAKE a sitting senator do anything and he can't any way

[Laelth]

35. Obama is truly responsible.

If he doesn't like this bill, then I look forward to his vetoing it--as he promised to do if it did not contain a public option.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[SteppingRazor]

6. We lost it because we never had it.

The public option -- Medicare for all or whatever you want to call it -- enjoyed, and has continued to enjoy, widespread public approval throughout this debate. The truth of the matter is that we have a widespread popular mandate, a charismatic president, a so-called filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House, and the public option STILL couldn't get through. What that should tell us is that there is some other factor, some unknown, that is not for this option, and is more powerful than Congress, the president, and the American people combined....

[vi5]

7. No, the people supported it...

Poll after poll showed that it was popular with a majority of people.

Therefore it was up to our leaders to fight for it (the public option and thus the will of the American people). They chose to not do that, or at least not do it with any degree of strength, fight or vigor. Either within their own chambers or within the media, pointing out how connected those oppossing the public option were to the insurance industry. Instead of trying to make nice with the Lincoln's and Baucus's and Nelsons there should have been democrats on every single political talk show every week pointing out how connected those opposing it were to the industry, and also how popular the idea was with the public.

Which makes it's failure an even bigger tragedy.

[90-percent]

11. Just because

Just because a clear and large majority of Americans were in favor of the PO doesn't mean we're gonna get it.

What do you think we are, after all? Some kind of DEMOCRACY or something? How quaint. We're doing full blown FASCISM now; the merger of Corporation and State.

Enjoy it, fellow peons!

-90% jimmy

[treestar]

8. You're right

I don't understand it that well or why it's so essential - or why it would be cheaper. Or even why Republicans have such a problem with it (other than their anything-the-government-runs-is-wrong dogma)

[EFerrari]

9. And yet the polls showed most people supported it.

We didn't lose it because it was explained badly, which might have been by design. We never had a shot at it in the first place. It was a con.

[HardWorkingDem]

21. I do not trust many polls...and do not believe most of the Public Option ones...

Where did any magazine or news show ever do a piece on "What is the Public Option"?


Zero....not only that, no one on the Dem side took much time to actually sell it or explain it. It was just not Obama, his staff or Congress, but most people. And I'm not talking to those that continued to preach to the choir.

[treestar]

24. They might have, and the M$M paid no attention

Anything policy-like is to "boring" for them. They only cover the power struggles and make value judgments on the people handling things - they are not there to inform, just to stir up controversy.

[EFerrari]

26. Is that true? I saw a number of them but I tend not to watch

cable shows like CNN. Moyers covered it for weeks. I think Frontline also did and NPR did.

But you're right, the WH didn't try to sell it at all, as far as I remember.

[HardWorkingDem]

30. And even though those are great shows...

how many people really viewed them?

I think a Time or Newsweek cover story would have been best. The concept of a Public Option just was not fleshed out in the very important early stages and that led to confusion and demonization of what the concept of a "public option" would and could be.

[EFerrari]

31. Or as my inner cynic thinks, it was used as code to keep the left

under control until things were pretty far along. But I am having an Attack of the Ten Foot Cynic so take that with a pillar of salt. :)

[DrToast]

10. By that logic, health care reform should have failed because nobody understood that either

No, we lost the public option most likely because Obama had a deal with the AHIP that it wouldn't be in there. Sorry you knocked on doors for it. Although you did your job--the public supports it.

[uponit7771]

14. More "blame Obama first"....

[lapfog_1]

12. We made it too complicated, and the leader of our party

didn't explain it.

Which is why "Medicare (buy in) for all" would have been a better idea. Easy to explain, people like it. etc. etc.

No "death panel" bullshit, no "government takeover bullshit (except of course, it sort of DOES!! hahahaha).

The senior would have liked it. No more "Medicare cuts" bullshit.

And, in the time of massive deficits, we probably would have had to go "buy in" rather than taxes. But fine, get Medicare for all as a buy in OPTION, that puts the camels nose, front feet, and first hump into the tent.

[uponit7771]

13. Even if it was supported by 99% of the public Lieberman & Nelson would've voted against it...

...and not cared because their seats aren't up.

Again, "persuasion" doesn't work when you have nothing a person needs or wants

[stevietheman]

16. ... we haven't elected enough Progressives to Congress, esp. the Senate...

and this President is good at math. I really do think it's that simple.

[Clear Blue Sky]

17. the leader of the party didn't explain and sell it to the public.

[Umbral]

18. The Progressives wanted Single-payer...

It was up to the compromisers and appeasers to articulate the 'plan', but it seems apparent they didn't really want a public option either. Maybe that was the plan - force the left to fight for a system they didn't really want and blame them for not fighting hard enough when it failed. I know I've heard that argument made.

[Enrique]

20. it had more than enough public support

it just couldn't pass the ridiculous 60 vote threshold in the Senate.

How could we have gotten past that? I think if we had a president who was COMMITTED to it, not just supportive, and certainly not opposed, as Obama is, we could have done it. I think with the right president we could even have single payer, because the public support is there and the arguments against it are weak.

[jgraz]

22. It was a con job from the start

There was never any intention of delivering the Public Option. It was just there to keep the left quiet while the Dems gave mouth love to their favorite corporate sponsors.

[bvar22]

25. Yes.

The Public Option was just a shiny object to distract the peasants while the treasury was handed over to the Health Insurance Cartel.

For a while, I though they might give us a crumb, but NO.
A crumb is too much for these greedy bastards.
They are going to TAKE IT ALL, and the "Centrist" Democrats are In on the Scam. (including Obama).

[Barack_America]

37. +1.

Just a shiny thing to distract the progressives while the real deals were hammered out.

[elana i am]

27. we lost it because of these assholes

[jgraz]

29. Useful idiots

But if we'd gotten a molecule of real leadership from the White House, these idiots wouldn't matter one whit.

[AlinPA]

32. Lieberman and Nelson. Bayh, Baucus, Dorgan and Landreiu didn't help either.

[EFerrari]

33. I reread your OP and thought, this was put out so early in the new admin,

during the honeymoon, I think a lot of progressives and Democrats were waiting to take their cue from the White House. And that obviously didn't work.

[Laelth]

34. I beg to differ. I don't think the P.O. was every really on the table.

We were baited and switched. Obama is getting the bill he intended to get all along.

If he's not, and I am wrong, I look forward to the President vetoing this bill, as he promised he would if it did not contain a P.O.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Jennicut]

36. People were for the public option but against the bill. I think some in the public

are idiots but hey, Bush won two terms too.
The President was inexperienced as well. And we have Conservadems in the Senate. Pretty much sums it up for me.