Nate Silver makes a number of good points about progressive strategy advocating the public option, such as this one:
The progressive bloc failed not because of any reputational deficiency on the part of the progressives but because their bluff was too transparent — they claimed to be willing to wager enormous stakes (health care reform) to win a relatively small pot (the public option). That would have been beyond the capacity of any poker player — or activist — to pull off.
This seems obvious to me, but it continues to elude the firebaggers and dead-enders at FDL.
FRIFL
In just over 24 hours we are likely to see 30 million Americans gain access to health care and millions more who are severely ill and will no longer worry about losing their coverage.
All this was done amid the biggest economic collapse in 80, 2 ongoing wars and a public fed up and deeply distrustful of the government.
This bill aint perfect, but given what it does (and puts in motion for the future) and given the circumstances; this will be truly a monumental achievement.
neill
glad we got nate fucking silver around to tell us all our mistakes… you know, so we don’t feel so bad about the god damn insurance companies throwing everybody and everything at the public option they could, as it was obviously the camel’s nose in the tent…
and the camel carried a wooden stake…
naw, it’s them damn naive hippies again, thinkin’ peace, love etc. what morons, indeed…
FormerSwingVoter
WAAAH YOU’RE PUNCHING HIPPIES WAAAAH
Bootlegger
@neill: I’ll pile on then, cuz the hippie smell is worse at the bottom of the pile.
Silver is only half right, the real fubar was not starting the hand with full-on socialized medicine and then negotiating to something more “reasonable”, like extending Medicare as a public option.
I’d personally rather have the single payer system but that was never going to happen.
dr. bloor
This. The inability of the diehards to understand that they have shit cards in the hole and that everyone knows it is staggering.
Violet
@Bootlegger:
Yeah, the Dems seem to start from “reasonable” and then give things up to make ConservaDems and Republicans happy. Republicans never do that. They start with pie-in-the-sky, wingnut-wet-dream legislation, and get to look all bipartisany when they move a few millimeters to the left. Dems should learn from them on that regard. Moving left doesn’t happen during negotiations.
dr. bloor
@neill:
I disagree. Anything that passed this time around, public option plans included, was destined to be so flawed that Congress will be revisiting it and revising it regularly in the years to come. I don’t particularly care for the bill, but it will suffice as the camel’s nose.
Bob In Pacifica
Okay, after Repubs make substantial gains in the fall because progressives stay home and don’t back the Stupaks of the world, let’s blame the Firebaggers for not being content with half a bag of shit. When the insurance companies continue to make huge profits, now guaranteed by the government, while our medical care continues to go to hell, let’s blame those firebaggers for not clapping loud enough.
When Nate Silver gives you common wisdom you should know that that’s not what’s important. It wasn’t that the bluff could be seen through. It was that there weren’t enough progressives, and there will never be as long as the system is beholden to big money. Otherwise, you might as well hold up Joe Lieberman as your shining example of democracy in action.
Notice the traffic going down on your site? That’s discouragement.
This isn’t reform, it’s the institutionalization of profit. I apologize for not clapping as fast or loud as required to save the imaginary creature.
mr. whipple
The question for me has always been, why did the House start with such a weak public option, and why did pols continue to ignore the consistent support of about 65% of the population for one?
dr. bloor
@mr. whipple:
I think this has always been more about the Senate than the House. The House could have passed single-payer, socialized medicine and we’d still be where we are today.
arguingwithsignposts
@Bob In Pacifica:
You know, they have ways to disprove that statement.
FRIFL
@Bob In Pacifica
The bill aint perfect, but there is merit to the argument that, given the sheer complexity of health care system, any attempt to fix everything in one fell swoop could be a big disaster. This bill does a lot of good and opens the door to future reforms (which will shut for another 25 years if this thing tanks). I understand the sentiment of wanting a complete overhaul “right now”, but the final product may be much better if we have time to evaluate what’s been done so far and start filling in the holes from there. I expect we’ll get a much better public option out of it.
mistermix
As Dr Bloor points out, bluffs only work when the other guy doesn’t know your hole cards. I’ll add that bluffing is generally overrated as a strategy in politics.
A few months ago, Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald announced a plan to primary Dems in safe D districts who didn’t have progressive voting records. I was actually excited to hear that, because it’s a smart strategy. It still is, but it apparently takes a level patience and an acceptance of incremental progress in the meantime that is far beyond Hamsher’s abilities.
You just can’t announce that what you want requires a multi-year strategy, and then throw a tantrum a year later when you don’t get what you wanted.
Brien Jackson
@Violet:
Word. Who could ever forget Dubya’s 2001 proposal to eliminate all federal taxes? Why won’t Democrats learn from the skilled Republican parliamentarians?
NobodySpecial
I’m just wondering which progressive will be at fault if this thing goes off the rails.
Will it be Hamsher, Dean, Kucinich, or a hippie to be named later?
Brian J
So now Nate Silver has decided to join Rahm Emmanuel’s Dark Force? Oh, the power of Rahm!
Davis X. Machina
No need to blame hippies.
Lynch, Capuano, DeFazio…
dr. bloor
@arguingwithsignposts:
…and last month’s spike was obviously attributable to the roll-out of Balloon Juice swag.
Toni
The problem is that they bet the whole house on a public option that was dubiously defined at best. Many in the progressive blogosphere wanted a public option that was tied to medicare rates that anyone could buy into. So if you didn’t like what your employer was offering you could ditch it and buy into a public option. That was never on the table in congress because the young healthy people would leave and employers would be stuck with the older sicker folks to insure and that would raise premiums exorbitantly leading to employers no longer offering insurance. A large majority of people who have insurance now get it through their employers, the idea that you can just dismantle the employer based system for everybody directly or indirectly is crazy.
The current bill does begin to dismantle insurance and employment, businesses with less than 30 employees are no longer required to offer insurance. If they don’t, they do pay some fee. Over time that limit can be raised.
So the only public options on the table were in the individual market which meant it would only apply to a few million people. The house couldn’t find the votes for one tied to medicare rates(never on the table in the Senate) when they passed their original bill so what passed was a public option with negotiated rates, which the CBO said would have 6 million people, save 25 billion dollars over 10 years and have slightly higher premiums than private insurance. So the public option became more an ideological symbol than an effective tool.
Faisal
The good news is they’re moving the Overton window. The bad news is they’re trying to put it where the garage door is now.
snarkout
The “start with single payer” argument just doesn’t work, because Republicans can count noses as well as I can. Is the argument meant to be that nobody needed to maintain the fiction that Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman would vote for single-payer because it could be done under reconciliation? Because I think that puts Claire McCaskill, who is obviously a gifted politician but is also a dim bulb who was scared of the public option, as the median vote. So what you’re counting on is the Republicans to believe that nobody will gum up the works protesting the procedural games, Claire McCaskill will vote to set up an NHS in America, and that Nancy Pelosi — who is a genius nut-cutter, but is having a hard time wrangling the votes for even this anodyne first step — could manage to pass it by a one- or two-vote margin. Seriously, this is supposed to be a credible threat?
I wish people had coalesced around Schumer’s strong public option, which I think represented the outer boundaries of what was credible to pass in this Congress, and I wish that people had taken Ron Wyden’s work more seriously, because I think he had a better vision of how to wean America of its dysfunctional state of employer-based insurance. But you get to bluff about your hole cards; you don’t get to bluff about whether you’re playing poker or Candyland.
NobodySpecial
@Davis X. Machina:
A hippie must be punched, of course.
snarkout
Bah, exiled to moderation. I wonder if it was calling Nancy Pelosi a “genius nut-cutter”?
eastriver
I disagree with the thin notion that the public option was a relatively small portion of HRC. That’s seems to be history revision along the lines of ‘Nah, I didn’t bang that Danish lingerie model last night because she really wasn’t that hot.’ Yeah. Right.
Corner Stone
Listen, Cole and DougJ already troll their own site for their amusement. Et tu, mistermix?
snarkout
And not that there’s any point arguing with Brien, but the Republicans have a systemic advantage; until the Democrats assumed power in the Senate, you could always cut taxes via reconciliation, and I guarantee you that it’s easier shaking up a few Democrats like Allen Boyd willing to destroy the social safety net in America in exchange for lower taxes on the rich than it is to convince Max Baucus to anger his backers by supporting universal Medicare.
dr. bloor
@eastriver:
No argument that a bill with a PO is better than one without a PO, although I think the point is that anything that had a chance of passing this time would have been an incremental gain at best. Sure, it’s better to have finished five miles of the marathon than three miles, but the majority of the work was always going to be ahead of us.
Blue Raven
I have a friend who is so doctrinaire about health care reform, he’s being pissy about Kucinich’s backing of the current bill and refuses to admit the bill does anyone any good at all. He’d scoff at Silver’s description of him, but it fits perfectly from where I sit. If it hurts too much to read his words, you may want to check your medicine cabinet for patchouli (and by hurt I also mean, “if you recoil and your first reaction is to scoff at it”).
Bill E Pilgrim
Meh.
Nate Silver’s post contains some valid points but also some easily disproved Villager talking points:
The batting average of Progressives is low, it’s true, but to say that this is because “the position of the Blue Dogs is usually closer to the median voter” is classic Beltway nonsense. Polls showed a strong majority who were in favor of a public option for example, yet to common DC wisdom, this was a “far left, progressive” position.
Conservadems are closer to some voters, not to others, but the idea that they’re “the center” of the country is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be debunked. The extreme right-wing slide of the relatively small percentage who are still Republicans has skewed everyone’s thinking to the right, as the public option example proves.
I think Greenwald has a better take on the same subject.
Blue Raven
@Bob In Pacifica:
Almost forgot… here. Have a Kleenex to clean up after those crocodile tears. Did you use Va-Po-Rub or are you an actor?
scav
Oh goody, pre-emptive Monday night quarterbacking. Ah well, fight fair and enjoy yourselves.
Ailuridae
@Blue Raven:
You probably don’t realize this but your friend likely posts here.
homerhk
I do wish that people who are voting for this bill, and therefore indicating a preference to it rather than the status quo, would stop fucking saying that the bill isn’t perfect or pointing out its flaws. That’s just another way of saying what you’re against rather than what you’re for. And also, can anyone at anytime give me any example of any law passed by any government in the world that is ‘perfect’? By definition it is not achievable. So, I’ll say I’m for this bill because it gives healthcare access to 32 million more people, because it does serious things about cost containment, because it provides pretty generous subsidies to those too poor to purchase insurance and more than that because it enshrines the concept that the US government has to look after all of its citizens and not just those with money, that healthcare is not only a right but that the provision of healthcare to the country is actually a good thing for the country financially and because government can be a force for good in people’s lives. Plain and simple.
WereBear
Just watched the President give an extraordinary speech on Youtube. “The Time for Health Care Reform is Now.”
I think he is right, and what we hope to get accomplishes what we have spent decades reaching for.
/aproudoobot
Karen
@Blue Raven
It’s so easy to be a purist when they’re not the one who has no health insurance. The “hippies” and firebaggers are sacrificing the people who need the HCR the most. How generous of them.
It’s those people who give the liberal Democrats the “elitist” reputation. They are the people who really can’t identify with the people as more than just a concept.
They’re the people who would protest a business in their city that provided 100 jobs but would bring more traffic there = more polution.
They haven’t realized that being pure is a luxury. When you’re without health insurance, that matters much more than their ideal.
Brachiator
@Bob In Pacifica:
Problem One is that progressives, like their fundamentalist doppelgängers on the right, totally misjudge their importance and influence. And, like the fundies who think that marking a policy as Christian or family values is everything, progressives believe that anything they sincerely believe must be the obvious solution.
But progressives never had the numbers nor a coherent argument, let alone an effective plan for getting a public option implemented.
Problem Two is that progressives need to stop whining about how the man is keeping them down. Big Money is not the only thing holding you back. You got a freaking Democrat in the White House. It ain’t everything, but it’s a far better position than in the past.
Problem Three is that progressives need to learn to recognize that a partial victory is still a goddayum victory.
Oh yeah. Nate Silver: Great (absolutely great) statistician. Indifferent pundit.
patrick II
I don’t think the public option is a small pot, so I disagree with Silver’s basic premise. This bill uses regulation to keep insurance companies in check, and while regulation can have some power, they can be weakened or, when a republican is in office, or ignored. Check out the fda or most environmental regs while Bush was in office.
As much as I dislike Lieberman, he was right that the public option was the camel’s nose under the tent. Creating real competition that stood outside of private health insurance was the best, and sometimes I think only, chance to bring costs down in the longer term.
Having said all of that, I would still vote for this bill, so my progressive reputational deficiency still stands.
FlipYrWhig
This is so fucking stupid to have to go through again and again. The public option is a good idea. People like the public option. But there are a lot of Democratic politicians who genuinely, truly believe that the government should not create and administer what is essentially a new insurance company. Why do they believe this? Because they’re conservative when it comes to the role of government. Should they be? Fuck no. How is it substantively different from other government programs relating to health care? Seems like not much. But _that’s what we’re dealing with_. “The Democrats” weren’t going to start out by demanding single-payer and then cleverly compromise down to something else because “the Democrats” as a group _don’t support it_.
neill
@ dr.bloor
Yep, I hope we got us a camel’s nose in this crappy bill.
But the public option looked like a good wooden stake… and god damn it, there’s absolutely no reason for the insurance companies to exist. They are indeed just vampires.
NobodySpecial
@Karen:
Of course, there’s people like me who don’t have and can’t get health insurance, that are gonna get curbstomped by the premiums because the Senate bill doesn’t provide subsidies big enough to allow folks living paycheck to paycheck to actually USE this insurance, but that’s ok, because you’re punching your hippies and you feel good.
homerhk
@nobody special – if you’re living paycheck to paycheck the subsidies are pretty good – i obviously don’t know your financial situation but from what you say at the very least there will be difference with this bill because now you CAN get insurance – i.e. you can’t be prevented from doing so. isn’t that progress?
media browski
Mistermix, I think I love you.
@neill: Thank you for epitomizing (spoofing?) exactly what the problem with FDL is.
Malron
@Bob In Pacifica:
…then we’ll have all the proof we need that they’re the same self-absorbed, bomb-throwing, tone deaf Manic-Progressives we claimed they were for the past few months. The thing is, in spite of all the kicking and screaming from the Jane Hamshers of the Left, true progressives recognize what’s really at stake. Your predictions about progressives staying home in November are about as accurate as those sage prophecies about Hillary voters abandoning Obama in November 2008.
Look around you. Every progressive leader and organization is signing on to support this flawed bill because they recognize that with all its warts its still the largest deficit reduction package since 1993 and the biggest step toward socialized medicine since Medicare. If you’re still spewing Hamsheresque gibberish when we’re just hours away from historical reform then its obvious your goal has been about winning ideological battles and not about actually trying to help people.
eric
@Bootlegger: that was DOA…if the right wing and the MSM can call this plan soshulist, they would have killed obama before he got out of the gate. Bottom line: in the US political-MSM system, the inititial conditions are neo-liberal to neo-conservative in all the bad ways of each. Medicare for all will come.
Joel
@neill: if you were right, why is AHIP funneling tens of millions of dollars through the Chamber of Commerce to attack supporters of the bill?
the answer is that you’re wrong.
HCR trading at 82 on intrade right now. I’ll believe it when I see it, but I’m hopeful.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Brachiator:
Do people here realize that most progressives are in favor of this bill??
I guess I can answer my own question, looking at this post. Yes, some support it with reservations, but hell who doesn’t have some of those? It’s a pretty small group right now who are actively against it passing, and characterizing all progressives as being among that group is absurd.
This is a strange blog. I find myself thinking “Well, I don’t approve of its anti-“progressive” punching policy …..but I do approve of its wingnut punching policy!”
Anyone who misses the reference there needs to take a deep breath, but then I think we all do.
Ailuridae
@NobodySpecial:
Err, bullshit. And even if that were true the subsidies are significantly enhanced in the House’s patch fix.
And if you really can’t afford the care apply for the waiver.
eric
@Brien Jackson: because the MSM wont let them. See Ensign Scandal.
Allow me to use all caps: THE ENSIGN SCANDAL IS WORSE THE EDWARDS AND SPITZER COMBINED AND NOT A SINGLE WORD FROM THE MSM, AND THE POST IN PARTICULAR.
think about that and apply to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid proposing single payer. If you cant see what would have happened that you are being dishonest. I hate the system and I am farther the Left that most everyone here, but the “system” sets up initial conditions that can;t be ignored.
Karen
@NobodySpecial
Thank you for putting words in my mouth,.
Silly me, I thought that if someone had nothing they’d rather have something to start with. I thought with Arizona dropping their CHIP and 310,000 childless adults off Medicaid that it was important to have something.
But that’s ok because you’re a purist who would rather shoot for the stars in a climate where we get Conservadems in Red States because they’re the only ones who win. In this era, Lindsay Graham is the MODERATE one. With those statistics, you really think there’s a chance in hell they will vote for the public option right out of the gate? If at all? The votes are not there.
By the way, I’m not a hippie puncher, so sorry to disappoint you. I’m pragmatist. And I’ve got RA so I know how easily I could be screwed if I get fired and have no health insurance. So don’t start making me the villain if I know you can’t get anywhere without compromise.
eric
@Bill E Pilgrim: Progressives lose more because of the geographical isolation of the truly large voting blocs of progressives. This matters most in the Senate where the progressive voters of NY and CAL get you four senators, and even then those states do not send truly progressive senators because of the interests and money of the massive industries in each state (financial and defense).
Just look at how hard it was to legislate and ENFORCE civil rights in the US.
progressives can be strong forces in pockets of the US, but not enough places to bring sizable senate blocs of votes.
dan robinson
firebagger.
I like it.
The current plan is a first step. I favor torching the insurance companies, but we need to do this is pieces. Ten years from now, there will be another course correction when the benefits from the current plan are evident.
There is a much larger question about the nature of capitalism that needs to be answered, and we are not in a place where that question can be answered.
gwangung
Some of us who WERE hippies and are still working in progressive groups resent the term “hippie punching.”
Wrangling about means is not hippie punching.
NobodySpecial
@homerhk:
Problem is twofold for me specifically.
One is that I have bills that have to be paid, and I’m trying to work my way through college at the same time. As it stands right at this minute, I’m barely above water – I can’t afford a catastrophic event, and the bills I have to pay leave me very little to put back to prepare for that event. If HCR went into effect tomorrow, I’d be choosing between an exemption which I don’t really want or college that I really do.
Secondly, I have what would be claimed as a preexisting condition under today’s system – I have sleep apnea. Unfortunately, you can’t get the equipment to fight it without an official diagnosis, but you can’t get an offical diagnosis without a sleep study, which costs a few thousand dollars I don’t have. HCR won’t help with reducing that cost, so I’m stuck, because paying for that insurance will reduce my ability to save the money for that sleep study, assuming I can. (I’ll also note that in the last decade, household wages have declined, and I’m not betting on them doing any better than holding their own in the lower tax brackets where I am over the next decade.)
The subsidies in the Senate bill are … ok. But there’s a big hole in there in the 20-30k range for single people where I fall, and I’m betting there’s a lot of people in that range that are going to be in a similar situation to me. They get screwed, and it’s always been known that some people were going to get screwed, but it gets even worse when someone like Karen starts mouthing off about how I’m kicking poor people in the head simply because I’m not happy with this bill simply because of it’s known and admitted flaws.
Kryptik
Honestly, I’m just sick of the whole process, the whole “debate”, and just want them to pass some goddamn thing that can at least stem the tide.
I just can’t help but tear my hair out at the reality that to do anything progressive, even if the country agrees with it on principle, will take years of relentless campaigning, ridiculous luck, and years of planning ahead that banks of somehow, someway getting more and better dems into Congress, barring some freak issue that will be used as an albatross on lefties as a while…
While conservatives simply bark, and they get bullshit spewed as gospel truth within the week thanks to Rush, Beck, and millions of gullible assholes, and a media with an aversion for calling a lie a lie unless it comes from the left.
There’s just so little goddamn point to being a left-winger these days, because even if you play the long game, the game is fixed and looks to be fixed for decades. Patience is all well and good, but that’s only if you can be promised that there’s a good chance you’ll succeed in the end…rather than getting your legs clipped by the refs at the 1-yard line AND called for unnecessary roughness…by the same goddamn refs who clipped your knees.
Ailuridae
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Do people here realize that most progressives are in favor of this bill??
I think so. A lot of the frustration is with a media frame that existed for a while after the Senate bill where you would have some typical Conservahole calling the plan socialism and some firebagger lying about its contents and saying its a huge corporate giveaway and Dylan Ratigan would be interviewing the two of them and talking crazy. Add in how insular the blogger world is and it just gets amplified. There may have been a lot of reasons to like
A lot of people type stuff like this but I don’t think this is a great bill either (just a very good one.) The only time until now that I have been particularly happy with what legislation might pass was during the Medicare buy-in for those over 50/55 phase.
And like with ARRA I wanted a bill 150% the size with only payroll tax cuts and fully 40% in aid to states. And, yes that would have been much better. But I am still happy U-3 is hovering around 10 and not at 12.5% or whatever.
NobodySpecial
@Ailuridae:
Notice I said “The Senate bill”. I don’t believe anything passes reconciliation in the Senate, especially the House patch fix. I trust those bastards to do exactly nothing.
Secondly, applying for the waiver leaves me exactly in the same position I was in before HCR. You’re not impressing me when you’re telling me the best bet from Democrats passing health care legislation is to run from it because getting caught by it is worse.
But it’s ok, you’ve probably got insurance anyways, right?
The Moar You Know
I’ve had to punch a hippie before. It is not as satisfying as one might think.
This:
and the rest of eric’s post needs to be beaten into the hippies, self-styled “progressives”, firebaggers, and all the rest whining about HCR.
YOU, OBAMA, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE DEALING WITH A RIGGED SYSTEM.
And that system is rigged for “progressive” failure. Thankfully, for once the people we’ve elected to higher office in this country are smarter than the idiots who put them there. They are dealing with the reality of the situation and getting the best bill that is possible given that the system is rigged for them to fail.
The Moar You Know
@Kryptik: Yep, those are the conditions. Deal with it.
Joseph Nobles
There is no Stupak deal, never was. GOP ran with a forged memo, FDL ran with a rumor, same difference.
Berto
The progressives were screwed from the get go. Obama negotiated away single-payer, a public option, and drug re-importation in his closed door meetings with big pharma, before the progressives were even invited to the table.
As the esteemed Mr. Cole would say, “Half a crumb is better than no bread at all.”
Pass the damn bill on Sunday. Then start fixing it on Monday.
Ailuridae
@NobodySpecial:
I’m in the individual market and while I have something called “insurance” at the moment its only of any use to me if I had something unfortunate but not recurring like a car accident. If I were to get cancer I would likely be subject to recission pretty quickly.
It sucks that you’re in the 20% of the currently uninsured who won’t receive any help (again, I’m still skeptical of your claim) but that’s a really shitty argument for why not to help the other 80% of people.
And this
Notice I said “The Senate bill”. I don’t believe anything passes reconciliation in the Senate, especially the House patch fix. I trust those bastards to do exactly nothing.
is just silly conspiracy theory stuff.
ajr22
I don’t even buy the argument that if they started with socialized medicine they could have moved toward a public option. The idea that the government in one bill is gonna erase the insurance industry and totally change the medical system in this country is just a dream. They should have pushed hard for medicare buy in at 55. I think this could have changed the debate, and it would have been easier to push back against all that socializm crap.
NobodySpecial
@Ailuridae:
/sigh.
I don’t know how many threads I have to tell people that I’ve never said to kill the bill in before someone finally reads it and gets it.
I don’t know how many people I have to call to support this bill before someone finally says ‘You know what? Just because he doesn’t like this bill doesn’t mean he’s Jane Hamsher in blue jeans.’
I don’t know how many times I have to give MY testimonial before someone will finally get the idea that I may not be lying about myself so I can put them and their grandma in a wheelbarrow and dump them off a fucking cliff.
And at this point? I give up. I’m hurting myself here for YOUR FUCKING BILL AND I’D LIKE A THANKS RATHER THAN A FUCKING SLAP. That too much to ask? Or do you need blood too?
And as far as the Senate not passing anything? No conspiracy needed, basic incompetence is rife there. Reid and Co. could fuck up a wet dream.
Tom Hilton
The other problem with the whole public option push–with choosing the public option as the hill to die on (or, for the non-Firebaggers, pretend to die and then get up and wander sheepishly off stage)–is that it really was more about the progressive brand than about progressive outcomes. In terms of material impact on real people, the public option was far less important than any number of features that are in the bill now (subsidies, community rating, rescission & pre-existing condition provisions, etc.)–but they latched onto it (rather than more important parts of the bill) because it’s an idea that’s labeled ‘progressive’.
That led to a distorted view of the whole, e.g., the lunatic notion that the most substantively progressive legislation in 40 years is a ‘shit sandwich’ for progressives.
gwangung
There’s another thing to do about that: start getting more progressives elected.
Unions still have clout (even though it’s declined a lot). I don’t think progressives are at even the lower level of influence that union have.
Ailuridae
@ajr22:
I don’t even buy the argument that if they started with socialized medicine they could have moved toward a public option.
Of course you don’t. And is speaks to Nate’s point as the claim that you want to replicate the NHS in America might (and I mean might) have the tepid support of a dozen house members. A claim to replicate true single payer like Canadian Medicare likely wouldn’t get 50 votes (not that what Grayson is proposing while awesome is much different that paying for everyone’s care out of a common well). I’m hopeful Grayson’s effort will get into the high 160s but doubt that will be the case. Where the public insurance advocates are right is that the negotiations started at the wrong point; it should have always been a Medicare buy-in plus private insurance reform. Americans love Medicare. Lesson learned.
Its no different than selling property. Say your property is worth 125K and you have an interested buyer. Responding to his or her offer of 100K with 16 million doesn’t give you any added leverage it just makes you look like a fool.
Tom Hilton
@gwangung: This.
@Ailuridae: Also, this.
jenniebee
What that quote at least doesn’t grasp is that there are at least two audiences and two groups of progressives in play here. Nate is looking at this entirely from the point of view of the actual negotiators, which FDL and GOS patently aren’t. There is no way that Rep Weiner was going to convince other reps that he wouldn’t take anything, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the DFH’s could have played the madman with the Blue Dogs (easy sell to Blue Dogs IMHO that the DFH’s would be willing to sacrifice a conservadem seat in the name of principle – see: Nader, Ralph) and it’s a shame that instead of the progressive movement uniting on a message of Medicare for all or we will primary you back to the stone age, we got into an internecine catfight about where the compromise line should be drawn.
Just thank your lucky stars that Hamsher pulled her punches on this one, is all I can say. If she’d really wanted to take it down, she could have put more focus on the individual mandate instead of the public option, and the single most unpopular part of this legislation (at least outside the confines of Wellpoint HQ) is going to be the donut hole on that individual mandate.
Tom Hilton
@jenniebee:
And here’s the problem with that: the Blue Dogs don’t care. Most of them aren’t actually that interested in healthcare reform in the first place, and most of them have internalized the idea that passing it will hurt the Democrats more than not passing it. Most of them wish it would just go away.
“You want to kill the bill? Okay, well, that’s too bad, but…hey, go ahead.”
Ailuridae
@NobodySpecial:
I have no idea why anyone would assume you wouldn’t want the bill passed when you claimed the following:
Of course, there’s people like me who don’t have and can’t get health insurance, that are gonna get curbstomped by the premiums because the Senate bill doesn’t provide subsidies big enough to allow folks living paycheck to paycheck to actually USE this insurance, but that’s ok, because you’re punching your hippies and you feel good
Now given that little bit of histrionic nonsense I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that you are arguing for a straw man that the House will pass the Senate bill and then Harry Reid is totally going to roll Nancy Pelosi. And you are worried under that bill you will be “curb stomped” despite being able to just take a waiver if your situation is as you say.
Ms. Wankerl
@John Cole
Okay, so the progressives should have said “Single payer or bust!”
This is what many of us have been saying all along.
BTW, this argument ignores the elephant-sized bag of insurance industry bribes in the room. Trying to convince a Blue Dog to vote for public health insurance is like trying to convince a mafia judge to send his goomba to jail. It can’t be done. That’s why they were bought off in the first place.
Dee Loralei
@NobodySpecial: Thank you, for your work in supporting the bill especially since it leaves you in a bad place. Geg also has worked towards it and it makes things worse for her, if I remember correctly. So thank you Nobody Special.
Ailuridae
@Ms. Wankerl:
Reading comprehension is not your forte.
MikeMc
@jenniebee:
“Just thank your lucky stars that Hamsher pulled her punches on this one”. That isn’t, actually, true. She wanted to kill the bill. So much so, in fact, that she hitched her sled to one of the biggest conservative stooges in the game. Jane Hamsher has no juice. Outside of the liberal blogoshpere no one knows who the fuck she is. That is the exact reason she ran into the arms of Grover Nordquist. She’s a little fish that dreams of being a big one. She’s a completely self-involved bullshit artist who hopes to parlay this dust-up into more hits for her site…maybe a TV gig. God knows cable news loves when Dems bash Dems or Repubs bash Repubs. She knows the game
wrb
Conservadems who really didn’t want the bill were never going to be swayed by progressive threatening to kill it. They were going to be grateful for being given someone to blame.
It has been patently obvious all along.
Jane etc. were using Cleavon Little tactics: Gun to their own heads, “Pass the public option or the Firebagger gets it!”
So shoot already.
And they didn’t think they were comic actors.
NobodySpecial
@Ailuridae:
That comment was based at Karen at #35, who pretty loosely paints all those who dislike the bill as being limousine liberals who have insurance and don’t mind throwing people under the bus. Needless to say, I’m about as far away from that description as you can get, but I’m not happy about this bill for a specific reason which I’m not lying about.
I’m saying that I don’t believe Reid has control of his caucus. That’s not hard to believe given he’s failed at this once already in this debate. Hanlon’s Razor applies for me.
And yeah, as I mentioned above, I could really use the insurance, as much as it’s going to hurt me and reduce my ability to deal with an emergency. I really really really dislike the idea that the best solution is the status quo, though. That’s not exactly what I was looking for when I was out canvassing for Obama.
NobodySpecial
@Dee Loralei:
Thanks, Dee. It looks like a passer if Bean’s fallen into line.
Karmakin
“Insurance industry bribes” my ass.
It’s simple. Politicians are not going to do anything that jeopardizes the retirement funds of the upper-middle class “swing voter” that most politicians see as their core base…because they come from the same background.
This isn’t about bribes, this isn’t about corruption.
This is about entitlement.
Zipperupus
@Bill E Pilgrim: The average blue dog is closer to the median voter. I know the majority favor the public option, but overall the voters are much more strongly in favor of deficit reduction. That is an Achilles’ Heel for progressives. The median voter wants their cake, but doesn’t want to pay for it via taxes and fees. This is across the board.
And that is why the polls need to be analysed instead of cherry-picked by agenda racketeers. There is still a mountain of propaganda gripped by the voting majority that needs to be stripmined. The difficulty with this is the attention span and focus of the average citizen. Very few Americans, even informed ones, take the time to piece more than one string of ideas together at a time.
Let’s take the Public Option. The vast majority of Americans favor Pay-Go. The same vast majority also believes that deficits are inherently bad, especially during economic times. This may not be correct, but the level of disinformation about the deficit is staggering. Therefore, there was an immediate straitjacket tied to HCR. Any proposal must be deficit neutral.
That is one big and overlooked reason why Single Payer was never on the table. The same goes for the PO. The PO was immediately on the chopping block because its effectiveness correlates to its cost. Ideally, the Dems (esp Obama) should have sold its long term benefits to the public… But they didn’t.
So, Nate is correct. The average dipshit Blue Dog is very much in the image of the independent middle voter. Too dumb to live. Moving the Overton Window is going to be difficult when Dems across the spectrum can not discuss the budget rationally.
Of course, this all means that we have to reform the MIC. Historically, the MIC is the product of Truman. Wrap yer noggin around that.
Tom Hilton
@NobodySpecial: Are you under 26? If so, would getting on a parent’s coverage be an option?
NobodySpecial
Not in terms of what government can and should be doing for Americans. The Pew Center has been doing these studies for a few DECADES now about how much federal spending there should be on various programs. Americans consistently want MORE funding of ALL social services and government programs with two exceptions: foreign aid and space exploration.
Please quit sharing myths. Stupid people might believe them.
NobodySpecial
@Tom Hilton: 39. No help there.
EDIT – I’ve looked at this pretty deliberately for a few years now, since my brother was diagnosed with diabetes. I’m clean of everything so far with one exception – I had a growth on my tonsils that was removed after it was discovered. Fortunately, that was just a virus. But every insurance company I’ve contacted has treated me like I have leprosy and AIDS combined.
MikeMc
@NobodySpecial:
“I’m saying that I don’t believe Reid has control of his caucus”. Is this a serious statement? He got all 60 democratic Senators to pass a Health Care Reform bill. Putting aside how you feel about the cat personally, in this political environment, that hardly feels like he’s lost control.
NobodySpecial
@MikeMc: Remember when he tried to put the PO in? And remember what he had to do to GET those 60 for what finally came out?
No, I fully expect that SOMEONE will fuck it up just for the grins. That way if I’m wrong, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Ailuridae
@Zipperupus:
No, no, no. Now Americans may have misunderstood the deficit effects of the public option through a willing smear campaign. But the public option itself is a substantial deficit reducer. They may have been misled about the cost of the public option or a Medicare buy-in but they couldn’t have objected to the deficit related cost.
eemom
@Bob In Pacifica:
“Notice the traffic going down on your site? That’s discouragement.”
I do believe you’re parroting yet another Hamsher “talking point.”
Gee, if traffic is going down on FDL now that every other “progressive” in the known universe is pushing for passage of this bill because they understand that the consequences of not passing it are catastrophic, and they actually CARE about those consequences……what might that tell us?
I don’t know its traffic stats, but I have noticed that the crowd of regular commenters on FDL has whittled down to about 50 die-hard Jane-worshippers. Cuz anyone who doesn’t love them their Jane has either been banned or fled in disgust.
mcc
I had a comment in Nate’s thread I sort of liked, so I want to repost it here. Nate has a tangent in his post about why “the progressives” failed to get a public option, but the unions got their concessions on the excise tax. He says:
I think he’s put a finger on something very interesting here, but misses the point a little.
One minor thing I would like to draw attention to is that the unions’ concession of a 7-10 year delay in the tax (this, not the excise tax threshold, was the unions actual concession) is sort of on scale with an entirely ignored concession that public option advocates did get in the bill: the government-administered/nonprofit OPM/FEHBP option. The OPM plan is not the public option, and does not do some of the important things the public option would (long term path to single payer). It does accomplish SOME of the important things that the public option was sold as doing (the OPM plan does just as much to control costs as the public option in the House bill, and it provides an escape from the commercial insurance market as mandate-spooked KTBers claim to want). In terms of underlying goals accomplished I would argue it is as “linear” a compromise as the unions’ excise tax breaks.
More importantly though I think if you look closely at why the unions got their concession and single payer / public option advocates didn’t get theirs you’ll notice something interesting, and it’s not exactly the “granularity” thing Nate talks about. I think maybe the real difference with the unions is that the unions went in with a GOAL– we do not want the excise tax to stomp us flat when it interacts with quirks in our locked-in contracts. They did not care so much about the specific provision of the millionaires tax vs the excise tax, they just wanted to achieve their goal and therefore could listen to (and eventually got) alternate paths for achieving their goal. We as public option advocates however went in specifically with a provision we wanted in the bill, and the goal that provision was meant to serve changed every couple of months (it is to reform the insurance industry, no wait it’s a cost control, no wait it’s about the mandate). Instead of a problem we wanted to solve we had a solution we wanted implemented, and so by definition we couldn’t look for alternate solutions, if we compromise and go with an alternate solution by definition that means we’d lost. So when our preferred solution turned out not possible to fit into this particular package of reforms we had no place to fall back to, the only options were to either give up and say oh well, we’ll try again next time; or go crazy.
Anyway as far as all this stuff about what the democrats SHOULD HAVE done seven months ago from people who are absolutely, 100% convinced that it would have gone so much better if only they were running things is I think increasingly pointless to discuss. You know what? The Democrats got a bill to the point of passage, you didn’t, and since most of the people holding on to these complaints have made it quite clear you care more about whether the public option goes in than whether the bill passes at all I don’t think you would have got a bill passed if you were running things. I can’t really take your claims to know the secret special magical negotiating technique very seriously: After all, you’re right now specifically saying that you believe you got entirely, 100% ignored by your own party in the health care debate. If your negotiating skills were so awesome that wouldn’t have happened.
eemom
aw, look…….isn’t this cute? She’s taking credit for killing the “Stupak deal.”
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/stupak-deal-is-dead-obama-executive-order-on-abortion-on-the-table/
Shorter Hamsher: “I’m a player, dammit! I’m a PLAYER!”
Tom Hilton
@mcc:
I think this is absolutely right, and it’s related to what I said earlier–that the public option was more about the progressive brand than about progressive outcomes. Either way you put it, I think it’s a huge glaring strategic error on the part of the public option advocates.
Ailuridae
@eemom:
I like that Jane has no problem claiming herself a progressive and then having all sorts of gender and ethnic issues. That’s charming.
MikeMc
@eemom:
Her ego is fucking epic! I have never come-across anyone on liberal blogs more impressed with themselves.
Brachiator
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Point taken.
I’m not simply punching progressives. But I tire of the presumption that progressives are inherently on the side of the angels.
One problem pushing health care and other policies forward is that many progressives refuse to re-examine the assumptions behind their favored policies, believe that they don’t have to convince anyone else that their policies are correct, and expect the Democratic Party to reflexively ask, “Dear, Wonderful Progressives. What do you want and how soon can we do it for you?”
In this way, the worst progressives are exactly like the fundies. They presume that they are the base, the whole base, and nothing but the base, and that everyone else is just supposed to fall into line behind them.
This is probably true. However, the problem is finding the money to pay for all the social services and government programs that people think they want.
Hell, I want a pony and a unicorn. This doesn’t make the federal government a wish-fulfillment program.
RE: The progressives were screwed from the get go. Obama negotiated away single-payer, a public option, and drug re-importation in his closed door meetings with big pharma, before the progressives were even invited to the table.
Amen to that!
Tom Hilton
@eemom: Awesome. You almost have to admire the chutzpah.
Jane: “THEY HAVE A DEAL TO PUT THE STUPAK LANGUAGE IN!!!!1!111!”*
Reality: um, no–actually the Speaker told Stupak to shove off.
Jane: “FDL KILLED THE STUPAK DEAL!!11!111!!”
Hey, if the Bush administration could create their own reality, why can’t poor idiot Jane?
*Even her own post, if you read the whole thing, didn’t actually say this; her ‘scoop’ was that there was a deal to have a separate vote after HCR, which Stupak might or might not have won. Also completely wrong, but not what she was claiming in the headline.
Corner Stone
@Brachiator:
This sounds a little like a strawman to me.
Coming from my position on the spectrum, it’s a lifetime of doing exactly that – re-examining the playing field, attempting to convince people, and never-ever expecting the D party to ask me what I want (or if they do it’s never more than a stunt).
So I see your caveat of “many” in the description but I think this is just wrong, IMO.
Corner Stone
@Tom Hilton:
You seem to be fixated on the idea of “branding”, here and in a couple previous threads.
Nothing I’ve seen actually supports this theory, or insult or whatever it is.
Corner Stone
@eemom:
Hmmm…
Corner Stone
@NobodySpecial:
I’m a little fuzzy. What did they do to get the 60 needed?
Corner Stone
@mistermix:
Couple things. Good negotiating always involves a little bit of the bluff. That assumes that involved parties are open to compromise and working through to a deal. If they aren’t then that isn’t negotiating and rarely happens in politics. IMO, most deals/bills get negotiated down to some level.
Also, in high stakes poker the best players rarely play their cards. They play available information. Exposed cards on the board, position, chip stack, knowledge of their opponent, etc.
So Nate’s analogy is shit, as usual. Good bean counter, bad interpretation of outcomes.
In high stakes poker sometimes the best move is the all-in. It’s designed to put the most pressure on your opponent to make the decision. You’ve made yours, now they have to do the calculus and read the environment.
In this case, it was obvious to all parties observing that the WH was most desperate to make a deal. IMO, they *had* to have something, anything, get done so they could call it a HCR deal. Individual legislators had plenty of cover if a deal didn’t happen. The Obama administration would end up the big loser and take it right on the chin, at least politically.
In this case, the Progressive caucus didn’t have to be holding the best starting hand to win. They just had to look at the board and understand the WH didn’t have a made hand, then shove their chips into the middle.
Corner Stone
Damn. Used the dreaded p0k-her word and am in mod.
MikeMc
@Brachiator:
I agree with most of what you wrote. Still, how do we get more progressives elected? In some places in this country liberal progressives would have a pretty steep hill to climb. In this country there are plenty of progressives to get one through a democratic primary, but they don’t always make it through the general. Ned Lamont would fit this mold. Also, I believe, we pushed Lamont to his primary victory in Conn., but did we hurt him the general? He became a celebrity on liberal blogs, but that doesn’t always translate to state level popularity. Does it make un-informed voters suspicious? Did we freak ‘um out when we fell on their state in pretty high numbers and trashed the guy they’ve known for a couple decades. I think the same thing happened to the teabaggers in NY-23. The conservative right was able to de-throne the rino, but lost the general to a democrat for the first time in more than 20 years. I think NY voters wondered who is this guy and who are all these people? In both cases, a point was made, sure, but loss is a loss.
snarkout
@Corner Stone:
Aha! That must have been my problem in 21. Thanks, now I know.
Ailuridae
@Corner Stone:
Also, in high stakes poker the best players rarely play their cards. They play available information. Exposed cards on the board, position, chip stack, knowledge of their opponent, etc.
So Nate’s analogy is shit, as usual. Good bean counter, bad interpretation of outcomes.
That’s a charming little spiel you gave on poker and specifically using it to debunk Nate’s point. Nate who, you know, actually made his living playing high stakes poker.
In high stakes poker sometimes the best move is the all-in. It’s designed to put the most pressure on your opponent to make the decision. You’ve made yours, now they have to do the calculus and read the environment
Jeebus. Sometimes I wish poker hadn’t grown so popular so I wouldn’t have to read stuff like this.
The negotiation wasn’t ever between the progressives and the White House. It was between the progressives and the substantial portion of their own caucus who are effectively what would amount to the center of any other industrialized nation’s conservative party.
NobodySpecial
@Corner Stone:
Nelson’s deal, for one. Landrieu’s deal, for another.
50 now might be slightly easier than 60 was back then, but I assume nothing passes the Senate because it’s almost impossible for ANYTHING to pass the Senate right now. The R’s are all about NO and about ten of the D’s would have no problems asking for Reid’s daughter in slavery for their ‘Yes’.
Corner Stone
@snarkout: In blackjack you should maximize your potential return by playing an odds based strategy and changing your betting structure according to available info.
It’s largely formulaic if you want the best chance at long term returns. Not a lot of of negotiating involved, and the dealer doesn’t care what cards you’re playing.
Or so I’ve been told.
Corner Stone
The negotiation was internal to the Progressive caucus?
The 60+ that signed a letter saying they wanted certain provisions or they wouldn’t vote for HCR?
Comrade Kevin
@Corner Stone:
What a stupid question. The Democratic caucus.
Tom Hilton
@Corner Stone: well, maybe you have an alternate explanation for why progressives chose the public option as their hill to pretend-die on, instead of any of the half-dozen other parts of the bill that have a greater positive impact on real people.
To me, it looks like they were excessively attached to the public option because it’s identified as ‘progressive’. I’m open to alternate explanations, though.
Corner Stone
@Ailuridae:
So…is what I said incorrect or are you just trying to shit on this thread some more?
Well, I wish you’d quit calling people liars when they’ve spent exhaustive amounts of time researching how they will be impacted in the future, then putting words in their mouths after calling them liars. I’m sure you know what’s best for them.
But, meh.
Ailuridae
@Corner Stone:
Sorry. It was between progressives and members of the Democratic caucus who would be the center of another industrialized nation’s conservative party.
So yeah, the PCCC and others had nearly 70 people sign on to a pledge that insisted on a public option in the House bill. And then to get something out of the House there were only 150 more votes required many of which would need to come from people who are, in a normal nation, pretty conservative and rather suspicious of government.
Tom Hilton
@Corner Stone: I so want to play poker with you. Bring lots of money.
mcc
@Corner Stone: He meant the democratic caucus. The negotiation was within the Democratic caucus, between the CPC and the Blue Dogs (and the equivalents on the Senate side). And the CPC ultimately had less negotiating power. That letter signed by 60+ CPC members saying they wanted certain provisions or they wouldn’t vote for HCR? Yeah, those provisions weren’t even in the original House bill. And all but two of the CPCers voted for the House bill anyway.
Ailuridae
@Comrade Kevin:
Thanks.
Corner Stone
@Comrade Kevin: Not a stupid question, and if your answer is the actual answer then his original quibble is the stupid part.
The Progressive caucus and the Blue Dog/Conservadem Caucus are two very different negotiating parties with different desired outcomes.
They are, or should be, playing different c@rds at the table considering there aren’t any Republicans seated.
You’re not very bright, are you?
kc
It’s a little early to start gloating.
Corner Stone
@Tom Hilton: Maybe they thought it was the piece that would do the most good?
mcc
I want to nitpick at this. The letter in question wasn’t about a public option in general, it was about a robust public option. The letter as I understood was in part a reaction to Pelosi brokering a compromise that would have watered down the public option by delinking from medicare. The letter text demanded an adequate public option in the final bill and specifically rejected a negotiated rates public option, such as was in the version the House passed the first time, when describing what they considered acceptable.
I stress this because I think the inability even fairly early in this debate for progressives to keep to what were at one time make-or-break core negotiating positions even in the House, which is both assumed to be more progressive than the Senate and has easier rules for passing things, says something about how strong or weak the negotiating position we as progressives are working from with the current Congressional makeup.
Brachiator
@Corner Stone:
RE: many progressives refuse to re-examine the assumptions behind their favored policies, believe that they don’t have to convince anyone else that their policies are correct, and expect the Democratic Party to reflexively ask, “Dear, Wonderful Progressives. What do you want and how soon can we do it for you?”
It shouldn’t. For example, when the health care debate was going on, I watched an episode of Bill Moyer’s Journal with a couple of progressive activist guests. They discussed the history of single payer and insisted that it was the best way to go. But they never explained why, nor did they mention the inconvenient truth that other countries with universal health care use methods other than single payer.
Here in California, there are a number of politicians, including Sheila Kuehl, who have previously gone on the record with a “single payer or nothing position,” as though single payer is as much an immutable truth as gravity.
It’s much the same with other progressive positions. Much of this stuff has become received wisdom. It may take a new generation, unencumbered with the burden of old ideas, to come up with a new progressive agenda.
MikeMc — I agree with most of what you wrote. Still, how do we get more progressives elected?
This is a good question, and I confess that I don’t have a good answer for this.
Corner Stone
@mcc: Just who were different factions of the D party negotiating against?
There weren’t any R’s at the table.
And according to Nate’s posts’ scoring/ranking the R’s were irrelevant.
In that case, it is my contention that the Progressive Caucus should have been playing it’s own money against the WH, not other factions at the table.
Tom Hilton
@Corner Stone: if they actually thought that, then the question becomes why they thought it, when it isn’t actually consistent with the facts.
Tom Hilton
@Brachiator:
Or a President committed to progressive outcomes but not necessarily to progressive means.
mcc
They were negotiating against each other. I do not think I understand at this point what if anything exactly we are disagreeing about.
Corner Stone
@Tom Hilton: I’ve never actually played c@rds before, other than Go Fish and Crazy 8’s.
Would you be willing to teach me?
Corner Stone
@mcc: Not sure we’re arguing.
I’ll say this – I think some here are making the case for the outcome we see about to be voted on. Outcomes, not the negotiation parts.
I’m commenting on mistermix quoting Nate about how negotiations went wrong for some faction of the D overall caucus.
That’s all.
Comrade Kevin
@Corner Stone: I’m not very bright? You’re the one who was incapable of understanding a simple English sentence.
Corner Stone
@Comrade Kevin:
Now STFU little man.
I’m too busy watching HCR getting done to pay any more attention to your moranic stupidity, you fucking clown.
Cat
Just in case anyone ever reads this post again, but if you look at Nate Silver’s poker posts you realize he’s not actually that skilled of a poker player.
If you never risk a huge stack to win a small pot with a marginal hand you will never get someone else to stack off when you have a monster hand in a tiny pot. Its called the meta-game and Nate didn’t know how to play it last year during the primaries and it looks like he still doesn’t.
I imagine he plays mostly online at medium stakes with a lot of other mathematically minded players.