Sixty Three Percent. What does that represent? The most recent poll numbers on how many Americans would agree to pay higher taxes for better health care.
The telephone survey of 3,003 U.S. adults conducted by Thomson Reuters found 63 percent willing to pay for healthcare reform, though most also said they are happy with their own doctors, insurance plans and out-of-pocket costs.
Ok, that’s the good news. The republicans and Glenn Beck’s teabaggers are the minority by a 2 to 1 margin. The bad news? After Democrats spent the last eight months screwing around seeking “bi-partisanship” from the Party of Just Say No (as well as letting them control the talking points aired by major media outlets), and playing footsie with Insurance industry lobbyists hell bent on killing the public option, an almost identical majority of Americans don’t think that President Obama and Congress will finish the job that we elected them to do: Give us real, meaningful health care reform.
However, only 35 percent of those surveyed said President Barack Obama’s reform agenda and the debate in Congress will lead to better health service, while 41 percent said they would expect it to lead to lower costs.
Of course, if there were any rationality in this debate, we would be arguing about a single payer system versus a public option competing with private insurance. Instead we’re seeing time after time, the insurance industry losing the PR battle with the American public, but winning the only battle that matters: with Democrats in Congress, and particularly Democrats in the Senate. Unlike the unity and discipline the Republican party demonstrated in passing almost anything that George Bush or Tom DeLay wanted, the Democrats, as a party (I’m not talking about the Progressive Caucus here for whom I have the greatest respect) have shown themselves time and again to be willing to go against what the majority of Americans clearly want: cheaper, better health care that doesn’t cut off your coverage anytime it looks like you’ll really need it, that covers pre-existing conditions, that doesn’t have “donut holes” and high deductibles, that doesn’t waste more money on administrative costs than any other country in the developed world, that covers anyone and everyone, that pays for our prescriptions and doesn’t allow the Pharmaceutical companies to gouge us, that’s portable and not tied to the current job we have, and that doesn’t reward the CEO’s of major for profit Insurance companies for denying coverage to as many people as they can, legally or otherwise.
This poll is just further evidence that Democrats are throwing away their chance to lock down a generational shift in the political landscape by playing business as usual with lobbyists and the Washington Establishment (admittedly, often one and the same) and settling for the “status quo” rather than implementing the most fundamental promises that got so many of them elected in the first place. Millions of people didn’t urn out to vote for more of the same just with a kinder, gentler face on it in November 2008. They turned out to elect the party which claimed it stood for change, and especially change in critical areas that affect our lives, such as health care. If the Democrats pass a crappy health care reform bill that merely moves the deck chairs around on the Titanic but reforms nothing with respect to the way health care is delivered and paid for in this country they will have failed. Failed as a party, and failed as servants of “We, the People.” And for that failure they will get hammered in the 2010 midterms. If that happens, no agenda of change dealing with the severe crises we face regarding our economy, climate change, needed government regulation of the financial sector nor health care reform that actually helps people rather than pad the pockets of Big Pharma and the Insurance Companies wiil be possible. Indeed, the likelihood that Obama will be a one term President (or a two termer like Bill Clinton whose grand accomplishments were eliminating welfare, destroying the last of the New Deal protections with respect to our financial industry, and avoiding trumped up charges of impeachment) will also increase dramatically.
The Democrats have been a party without any real power for the last three decades because they lost their way. Too many of them came to stand for nothing other than grubbing after corporate cash to pay for their campaigns (yes, Democratic leadership Council and “Blue Dogs” I’m talking to you). They became the party who ran Joe Lieberman as their Vice presidential candidate, who mouthed platitudes about “feeling our pain” while turning around and holding out their hands for any crumbs corporate lobbyists were willing to give them after most of the cash ahd already been turned over to the GOP’s candidates, the craziest, most malign group of politicians this side of Orwell’s 1984. They were swept back into power on a wave of resentment at what republicans had done when they controlled all the reins of government, true, but also because they claimed they had learned their lesson, and that they would change the culture in Washington, that they would put the people’s business before the interests of Big Business.
Well so far, dear Democrats, I’m not seeing any real return on that investment I made in your party when I pulled that lever for Barack Obama, and every other Democrat on my ballot last Fall. And there are a helluva lot of people who feel just like me. You think we are going to keep making all those small (but numerous) donations to you if you don’t come through for us? Sorry, but no. Pass health care reform that means something or you will find your party back in the political waste land from which you so recently emerged, and will have given new life to your opponent, the crazy loons of the Far Right GOP, who less than a year ago looked like their party was doomed to irrelevance for at least a generation.
In short, Dems, read the damn polls. Stop listening to Fox News and its cadre of wannabe haters on talk radio. Stop listening to the sweet whispers of corporate lobbyists who tell you the only way to retain your power is to play ball with them and go back on your word. Show some spine, demonstrate you have those vaunted principles you claim you do, and give the American people (not the Billionaires and CEOs with their bonuses and golden parachutes) something we can believe in, something that benefits the vast majority of ordinary citizens, not the wealthy elites.
Stand and deliver. Now, when it counts. Or be ready to pay the consequences. For we won’t turn out for you with our money, our activism or our votes a year from now if this is all you have to offer us. And that’s not a promise brothers and sisters, that’s a threat.
When we make this statement, it is a statement of the mood of the base that worked for Obama in 2008 and hasn’t seen much of the agenda passed or much of the executive changes made.
But we should be clear about what the consequences of this are. If Democrats lose control of either house of Congress in 2010, the difficulties we have now will be multiplied; obstruction will increase; we will be back to old stalemated Congress. If Democrats lose the House (a somewhat unlikely prospect), expect President Obama to start being hounded by investigations for impeachment like Clinton was. Two topics — the birth certificate and mutiny in the military. Both are bogus. The resignation Republicans most want is Valerie Jarrett’s, who has more influence with Obama than Rahm does. And then the GOP will find, invent, or entrap Obama into an excuse for impeachment all of which will not get him out of office but will tie him down for two years and allow the GOP to have a winning candidate in 2012, even if that candidate is named Michael Huckabee or Sarah Palin.
Contrariwise, if Democrats gain seat even as progressives sit out, we’ve shown ourselves to be an empty threat again.
Either way, the totally sitting on our hands tactic loses.
What wins is picking up currently conservadem seats with more progressive candidates in net-positive Obama districts. Allowing the conservadems in net-negative Obama districts to lose. And picking up seats from Republicans in net-positive Obama districts. But to do that, we have to brand the GOP and the conservdems with (1) the failure of healthcare to pass or (2) the failure of the healthcare bill to be other than a giveaway to the insurance companies.
That requires that we have at least 40 real progressives in Congress who will play hardball. And that requires a larger number of progressives calling these members of the House and Senate. So stop pouting about the absence of single-payer and call to make sure that we get no worse than a strong public option by insisting on their voting no on any bill that does not have a strong public option.
The insurance companies are opposed to a strong public option because it puts them in a bind: lower their profits or see the public option become single payer by default. It is not a Trojan horse as Republicans claim; insurance companies can compete if they want to, just not with obscene profits. And it is not toothless.
Most importantly for us, it does not slam the door on getting single-payer in the future. Either a bill without a strong public option or failure altogether will slam that door for another generation.
So the focus until Christmas is on solidifying those 40 progressive House members in their stand. And if they don’t stand solid, then they are the ones you primary to get a real progressive, and the ones from which you withhold your support. But if that comes to pass, we are seriously in worse shape than we realize.
So. Basically, Congress is a puppet show with various corporate power blocks pulling the strings. As voters, we can select the Financial/Infotainment block that wants to rob us and grind us down into wage-slave zombiehood. OR, we can pick the Military/Fundamentalist block that wants to regimen us into a Holy Crusade of perpetual war. It all comes down to how we want the American Empire to end — with a bang or a whimper?
In other words, threatening the Dems with consequences is like saying, “Hey, let’s see what happens when we let the Repubs re-gain control?” It always comes down to the choice between the lesser of two evils…
Yep, it does. That’s what freedom is finally about. Or a choice of the greater of the two goods.
The only difference is in how that choice is expressed. It could be “obey the idiot” or “get tortured or killed”.
Right now the choice of the lesser of three evils comes down to “call progressives in Congress to ensure they stand firm on not passing a crappy bill”–which means a bill with a strong (but not perfect or universal) public option)– or advocating that the bill be killed — which means 1994 revisited — or doing nothing, which allows a bad bill to be passed — which means a gravy train for the insurance industry and the members of Congress who hijacked reform and an even worse healthcare problem, which will bear the label “Democrat bill”.
I should have added a sarcasm tag. I get so frustrated with people wanting to “threaten” the Democratic Party with the “consequences” of withholding our support. I think it’s called, cutting off your nose to spite your face. Obviously, the better choice is continuing to work for more and better progressives… and weekly phone calls to Kay Hagan’s office.
Yep. Kay is now strong on the public option. Not sure if she’s strong enough or senior enough to threaten to block a bill without one.
NC progressives have been conducting a pretty consistent campaign of communicating with Hagan.
The creative juice is ebbing rapidly out of the American culture followed closely by common sense. The real tragedy is that this sickened nation has so many nuclear weapons in its arsenal plus the means to deliver them so swiftly. I expect this country to start using nuclear blackmail to prop up its falling dollar because when that goes, the party is over.
i am so tired of hearing and reading the bullshit. we humped our asses and spent alot of hard earned money to get the “strength” in todays congress that has apparently failed us. so, what is the answer. realistically, it boils down to less than “five” pieces of shit and that means that if our coming election cycles should use a laserlike focus on putting up and supporting viable alternatives to these five pieces of shit! how about that? go after the traitors. even if we only succeed if removing one or two, the rest of the weak-kneed scum might get the message. we put them in and we can remove them.
Signs of a pulse:
a very faint one!
I was at this point one year ago when I saw Obama cave-in on FISA and fully support Bush’s corporate bailouts without any reform.
But . . . I got suckered into voting for Obama, I suppose, to give him a progressive mandate and to “make him do it.”
I really regret voting for him and the other Democrats and should have stayed with my original decision (I was planning to vote third parties).
The only thing that will bring this country back from the brink is for liberals to stand up and fight. That means taking risks and being willing to have the same Clinton and Obama triangulation fans whine about how we are the real enemy and are helping to elect Republicans (isn’t it funny how Obama fanboys save their true political outrage and attacks for those on the ‘far’ left–they play pussyfoot with conservatives).
The only way real change comes to this broken system is following through on your threat. It’s apparent to me liberals are being taken for suckers and the only way to achieve long-term success will be for liberals to leave the Democratic party.
Working for better Democrats is like a beaten wife promising to only focus on the positive attributes of her abusive spouse. It’s a fundamentally broken relationship.
You really ought to consider American federal elections of a zero-sum game. Either we get DeLay/Santorum/Cornyn/Boehner/McConnell or we get something ten jillion times more sane.
I’d really like to find a way out of this trap, but I haven’t found one. A splintering of the Left is certainly not the solution (see Kennedy v. Carter and Nader v. Gore).
The best solution I have is to pummel the Right down to a tiny rump and let the Yankee conservatives figure out a way to become relevant again.
Well, this is our main disagreement. I believe we need fundamental change and the only way to do that is to use different political tools than we have been using. And while I acknowledge a third party is ‘radical’ change, it’s not unheard of in American politics (e.g. Whigs–hell, Perot got almost 15%).
I don’t expect to win the next election–I want to win long term policy battles. The names of the parties are irrelevant. Focusing solely on the next election is the trap. Getting out of the trap involves not being scared of losing and focusing on winning policy victories.
For e.g., on health care, if Democrats would have fought for single payer health care, Medicare for All, and been defeated, they at least would have won a huge policy victory. More Americans are paying attention to health care policy this summer than probably ever, they want change, are hungry for it really, and thought that it was their turn for a bailout like Obama’s friends on Wall Street already got. The Democrats could have used it as an opportunity to explain and teach and to demonstrate they are fighters for the people’s interests while the GOP is full of know-nothing corporate tools. It would have cemented the terms of the POLICY debate for decades, even if it didn’t result in legislation.
Your argument is the same excuse I’ve heard over and over the last few years. The Democrats were riding a wave since 2006 but we were told they couldn’t enact liberal policies until they got to 60 Senators–they needed to keep their powder dry. Now 60 isn’t enough and you want more time to whittle the rump of the Republicans down further. We have always had the 30% deadenders in this country and by focusing on them you let them control the debate. Your approach empowers this rump party and spending your time on getting the rump down from 30% to 20% is just not a very good use of your political capital.
I do agree that the Presidential race is the one race where maybe 3rd parties should be treated differently. It is a zero sum game and it’s the one office all Americans vote for–so people like me should expect the president to be a bit more centrist. But . . . . it’s such an important office, and high profile, that a viable third party needs to run someone there. It’s a way to bring attention to the party and it is hard to start from lessor offices and build up to higher offices.
So I will gladly vote for a liberal candidate for president that only gets 10%. We need to do something different. I’ve tried working within the Dem party for over 15 years and it’s not working. We NEED ANOTHER APPROACH. Your approach of voting or Democrats no matter what is doomed to fail–they know this and are taking liberals for a ride.
maybe the method is “targeting”. as i commented above, the finance comittees vote is a perfect example. there were only a small number of faux dems that voted against the public options. they shoud be targeted. targeted immediately for ads in their states and continuing the attack them publically.
i remember the use of response teams in the last pres. election. these were a sreies of targeted attacks used by the obama camp and they apparently had an affect. i think the concept has to be refined but maybe, just maybe an awareness will develop that the concept of- once your in you can forget who put you there- will end. i don’t think that the baby has to be thrown out with the bath water.
Yeah, targeting would be good. But the party is doing its best to stop that from happening and making it hard to do.
That may be why Obama is steering all the attention to the Senate Finance Committee.
These guys and gals are relatively safe and do the Democrats dirty work relatively unmolested by the hoi polloi–in most cases their elections aren’t coming up for years and most of us will be moving on to the next battles, war in Iran or Venezuela or worrying about the next wave of economic depression. It’s a big game designed to frustrate us. They have no intention of taking us seriously.
I think it’s pretty clear Obama would not support targeting Dems. But they should be targeted.
Steven D: Allow me to advise breaking your article up into more paragraphs to make it easier to read.
Done. I left out some html code where I intended to put a paragraph.