It’s a shocking thing that a good public option from a budgetary point of view will mean a more progressive bill that trims more profits from the private insurance corporations. But the so-called ‘moderate’ ‘centrist’ ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats who pretend to be budget hawks are against the good public option. It’s obvious that they are concern-trolling the cost of the health care reforms. Their solution is worse for the deficit. No one honest argues otherwise. Therefore, the ‘moderates’ are caught with a conundrum. To protect the private insurance corporations they have to oppose the ‘robust’ public options being proposed by progressives. They have to oppose the real budget saving legislation in favor of crap that won’t save shit. That they lie about this is just an indication of how addicted they are to corporate campaign contributions.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
11 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Long overdue for replacement of the silly term moderate as applied to the blue dogs Democrats.
Typical Republican crap, once again politics over any sense of responsibility.
It seems to me that the state of the health care insurance reform debate is irrational and confusing. The Republican Party is intent on defeating any reform for political reasons, notwithstanding the need for reform, and to that end is introducing arguments which have nothing to do with the actual proposals currently under consideration. I would argue that the time has come to simplify the argument and co-opt Republican dissonance by offering Medicare to all Americans. This has the added attraction of softening the resistance of senior citizens by assuaging their fears that their coverage will be reduced, while painting the opposition into a corner by expanding an existing program which we are familiar with and which Republicans are on the record as promising to defend for their constituents. Simple, understandable and already supported by the opposition; what is the downside? Make them vote against Medicare to defeat health insurance reform.
I’m with you, frankk. Medicare for All(TM) is what I’ve wanted from the very beginning of this discussion of health care reform back during the primary campaigns. It would indeed be so simple to expand existing programs. Let it be voluntary so no one feels like they are losing their “freedom” to be scammed by private insurance. So many Repubs going on record in support of Medicare has left them open to this surprise attack.
BUT. I’m not sure that seniors would be assured by this expansion. Too many think that giving a service to others means taking service away from them. And they might be right about that because the pool of available doctors and other medical services is limited, especially in rural areas. There are cracks and potholes in the essential structure of health care delivery in this country. Medicare for All doesn’t automatically fix those problems.
But, hey, let’s start by getting you and me enrolled in Medicare! We’ll deal with the resulting problems as they reach enough critical mass to provoke changes.
Once again I must warn you that applying the Blue Dog label to the opposition plays into Mike Ross and others game. There are Blue Dogs who support the public option. There are “New Democrats” who are oppose the public option but are slipping under the radar by being labeled as Blue Dogs.
This isn’t about ideology. Or coalitions. It is about which members of Congress have succumbed to lobbyists for the healthcare industry or have conflicts of interest. Ross, for one, has a huge conflict of interest, a drug wholesaling company nominally run by his wife (he is a drugstore owner).
Focusing on the conflicts of interest and the shilling for lobbyists is more predictive than ideology for which Democrats are squishy on healthcare.
a fair and good point.
so lets once again take the high road and try and have a intellectual discussion about the blue dogs, the conservative dems etc.
bull- we are getting our asses beat. simple. nothing complicated. long ago, the goopers figured out that if tthey could countrol the major media they could eventually control the country and they have succeeded.
just reread the factcheck.org posting regarding the g-d lies that are all over the media and wtf. where are the rebuts? air america; progressive blogs; bull. the supporters of single payer or public option can’t even get space or time in the corporate media. simple.
at this point, the only avenue open is the streets and you can bet your cumulative asses that the media will control coverage if, and I do mean if there is a true citizens march.
fuggeddabowtit!
Well, I do believe the GOP failed. After all the propaganda spewed by the media, 77% still want a public healthcare plan. (AARP survey) The people are convinced. Even people in the Blue Dogs’ districts are convinced (see the survey of Jim Cooper (D-TN)).
This is now out of the GOP’s hands. The question is which Democrats are going to kiss the boots of their corporate donors instead of voting with their constituents.
There is a true citizens march coming up in DC September 13. And yes, the media will control coverage. But there are windows in the Congressional office buildings. And if the numbers are large enough, everyone but Americans will know that there has been a major turnout for healthcare. The facts do get out. The news does get out.
ok tar- see ya there (I hope)
lets see just how many of the good folks show up. I gotta tell ya tar, My legs are getting a bit tired. I have been marching and sitting in and getting my thick noggin banged since about 58 give or take. i’m permanently hoarse and i was hoping that i just might see health care for all before i leave the scene.
oh well, once more into the fray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the House rams through a Single Payer bill, which specific senators would we lose? Can we not get to 50 plus Biden?