The difference between an adult and a 5-year-old

is that an adult understands that just because they want something does not mean that they are going to get it.

A growing segment on DU seem to have forgotten this fact of life. They think that because they did so much work to elect a house majority, a 60-vote Senate super-majority, and a Democratic president, that they are entitled to single payer health-care, and are "graciously compromising" when they "grudgingly accept" a public option. And when it becomes clear that there aren't even close to 60 votes in the Senate to pass a public option, they go ballistic. They scream, throw a fit, and then claim that they will vote for Nader, or no longer donate time/money to the Democratic party, or make similar such threats.

The main point that they miss is that in order to get 60 senators to vote for single payer, they need to elect 60 senators that support single payer .

Knowing that they cannot do this, they first cite some poll that shows that 99.99% (or some other such percentage) of this country is in favor of single payer. Of course, since Harry Truman's attempt at healthcare reform, Americans have elected close to 30 Congresses that did not support single payer. But that does not sway them -- the American People must support their policy perscriptions, reality be damned.

Perhaps realizing that this argument doesn't get anywhere, they try a different tack. They say that Obama, as President, needs to "act like LBJ" and force moderate Democrats to come around to his view. After all, all moderate Democrats who don't support Obama's view need is a little bit of arm-twisting and a stern-talking to. These Congressmen couldn't have possibly thought through their opposition (politically and personally) in advance, and be stubborn in their views.

To these people, the obvious coordinated attempt by the Obama White House to jettison the public option as an essential component of the bill is a huge surprise. They are shocked that Obama can't will his fellow Democrats into agreement. So they conclude that the whole problem is that Obama and the Democratic party aren't trying hard enough.

Their solution to this problem is not to support pro-public option Senators and oppose anti-public-option Senators. Instead, their solution to this problem is to punish the people in favor of the public option for not successfully forcing their colleagues to agree. In their eyes, if Obama and the Democrats are punished enough by losing control of Congress in 2010, they will work harder next time they get to power to force their unwilling colleagues to agree with them. Of course, it might take awhile for the Democrats to get control of Congress and the Presidency again. During that time, people might die due to lack of health insurance, and many will go bankrupt. But they are necessary casualties of the punishment agenda. No uninsured poor person should be given a subsidy that pays for private insurance, even if it would save their life. Such a life-saving reform package shouldn't be allowed to pass because subsidizing private insurance is inherently evil (despite the fact that there are several countries with universal healthcare run entirely through private, for-profit corporations). And besides, it wouldn't teach enough of a lesson to the Democrats in favor of more sweeping reform for not forcing their colleagues to agree with them.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

There is still an R majority.

Single payer proponents, realizing that there isn't a Single Payer majority, try to piggy-back on our Democratic majority to claim that they are somehow entitled to single payer healthcare. Even though a majority in BOTH houses are against single payer.

Maybe the solution to this problem of surprise is more civics education (specifically, what a majority means and what it does not).

Naivete about social change

As the remarks by critics of “Bait and switch” quoted above suggest, some “political yes buts” have a superficial understanding of how social change happens. They think it happens quickly or not at all, and they think it begins and ends in Congress.

This view of social change is often expressed in the mantra quoted above, “Single payer is not within the realm of possibility this term.” The implication is that if single-payer advocates cannot demonstrate that they have at least 51 percent of the votes lined up, they should retreat to the sidelines and watch the “political yes buts” do their thing. It implies that social change must occur within a single session of Congress rather than over the course of many sessions. It implies that movements for social change should, in the event that they do not have a majority vote locked up at the beginning of any given session of Congress, put their campaign in moth balls and forgo the opportunity to educate the public and build their movement through lobbying, testimony, rallies and all the other tools associated with campaigns to move bills in Congress.

In short, it implies an absurd Catch-22. To get the “political yes buts” to join them, single-payer advocates must show proof of having a majority of Congress on their side; but to get a majority of Congress on their side, the single-payer movement must build and wage a campaign relentlessly over many years in the face of active discouragement from the “yes buts” – and without pestering Congress with ideas unfairly characterized as utopian.

These demands, when they are spelled out, are obviously irrational. Universal coverage under a single-payer system is going to be difficult to achieve. The difficulty may be on the order of the difficulty of ensuring voting rights for women and civil rights for black people, to name just two examples of movements that took decades to accomplish their goals. If the leaders and supporters of these movements had accepted the Alice-in-Wonderland rules recommended by the “yes buts,” the women’s suffrage and civil rights movements would never have happened.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/08/reply-to-critics-of-“bait-and-switch-how-the-‘public-option’-was-sold”/

Brazil
Canada
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
Trinidad and Tobago
People's Republic of China
Hong Kong SAR
India
Israel
Singapore
Taiwan (Republic of China)
Thailand
Finland
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Australia
New Zealand

All these countries have a form of universal care. Of the few who allow private insurance to offer their product, that insurance never is allowed to compete directly with a weak or non existant public option. Those same few countries are having a problem controlling costs because of the existance of private ins.

What is unique here in the US is we have a well off wing of the "progressive" party, the political yes-buts described above, who works 24/7 as corporate apologists thinking up every reason under the sun we can't have some form of universal care. Including the meme that it is the "perfect" option.
It is not perfect anywhere, what it is is fair, which is why you will never see our for profit corporate insurance ins. vultures picking at the half dead carcases of anyone in the world but americans.

THANK YOU.

My beef is with those who want to give control of Congress to Republicans in order to "teach Democrats a lesson."

Center right, repub lite.

If we had real progressive democrats representing us this piece of crap legislation wouldn't exist.
We would instead be taking the next logical "incremental" step and expanding medicare to all.

We have so-called Dems being just as obstructionist as any Republican. For all intents and purposes the Republicans might as well control Congress for all the good its doing us in this arena.

If you think those who don't share your perspective are really like "a 5-year-old", then I have a death panel for you to sit on.

I can see that your point is to not punish those who are already with you, but you have an ironic way of expressing it.

And it doesn't consider the possibility that maybe those "already with you" are not necessarily "with you", and could use a little arm twisting.

shows they can not debate beyond the level of a five year old--despite the fact I would basically agree with their argument, if not distracted by their rudeness.

We can ensure that some robust public option is included in the reform package. Even if it doesn't get us our pony right now, a real bill will get us closer.

The whole "I want a pretty pony" metaphor is part of the same infantilizing mockery that was wrong in the OP.

And I am not going to go around "acting nice" and pretending that is a legitimate point of view.

You are insulting those who are trying to defend against it... What exactly is your goal? Disruption seems far more likely.

Not supporting pro-public-option Democrats in 2010 (and Obama in 2012) to "teach them a lesson" is trying to "defend" our country? Those are the only people I am insulting, and they deserve to be insulted. As far as I'm concerned, they are the disruptors and should look at the name of this site before they continue posting on it.

Rather than globally to a progressive community of nearly 145,000 registered users and countless hundreds of thousands of others.

last I checked, a "segment" does not mean the whole. I think it's pretty clear what group of people I'm talking about.

support it.

But for people who will vote against our party in order to "teach it a lesson," I am not going to sugar coat what they are trying to do.

People who have said that deserve to be called 5-year-olds.

Just because you don't like one part of a presidency doesn't mean it would be a good idea to hobble it so nothing else good can happen.

We have politicians who refuse to listen to their constituencies and consider their continued reelection as proof that they're doing the right thing. No politician has a right to any vote from any citizen and until you learn that the politicians will continue to do whatever the fuck they want while stepping on your ass to do it. And you'll continue to vote for these people to continue spitting in your general direction and even send money to help them continue to do so. Yet those who voice their displeasure are likened to kindergartners without having any better idea on how to get our politicians to listen to us.

What's your big idea?

That's right. You don't have one you'd rather call people names.

Day after day I see such nastiness here, people being called names and the ugliest insults over the slightest disagreement. I will be looking at you and the other finger-wagers in this thread to take issue with the really ugly shit from here on out.

The only reason I wish the OP didn't put the 5 year old thing in there is because of so many, like yourself, who will completely ignore the point of the post in order to get soap-boxy. Just like our corporate media, focus on the minutia and ignore the topic at hand. 5 year olds? No, more like true products of the worst of our environment.

Sad but not terribly surprising.

Julie

We have a winnah!!

All they need is 51 votes in the Senate. Since when did filbuster mean "I'll say the word 'filibuster' and that'll be equal to actually filibustering"?

Let the opponents of genuine reform hold the floor for weeks until they all drop or the people get tired of them. This gentlemen's agreement about cloture does progressive causes no good. When we're in the minority, the right rolls over us; when we're in the majority, the threat of filibuster makes us curl up and die.

Any wonder people are frustrated? It has nothing to do with being adult. It has to do with counting on your fingers and coming up with 51 and wondering why that's not enough.

Candidate Obama campaigned on change. He promised a whole host of things, from dropping DLDT upon assuming office to having a transparent administration to being the advocate of the middle class to ending illegal surveillance and illegal detentions and to fixing health care. He's done none of these things, and hasn't even tried hard. As a candidate, he was the most convincing orator in a generation or two, but he's put that skill on the shelf.

Instead, as president, he gifted the bankers $13 Trillion in loan guarantees over lunch at the White House (and zero new regulations on their operations) while the rest of us got a finger-wagging lecture on personal responsibility.

When FDR fought for something, he fought for it. Not so Obama and his merry band of Wall Street cash-fueled DLCers.

Maybe you voted for the above and were expecting it, but I did not. He must be held accountable, now and in 2012 - as Dr. Dean said, we need more change.

They require a supportive Congress. FDR had one. Obama doesn't (for some of his plans, like DADT/public option).

I voted for Obama to try to achieve what he claimed he would strive for. I did not expect him to dissolve the legislative branch and enact policy by fiat. Apparently, some people did.

- Dropping DADT upon assuming office: toss-up - he could use an executive order as Truman did to integrate the military, but might have reason to not do that. But even if he didn't go the executive order, he could at least try. He hasn't.

- having a transparent administration: that's all Obama, no Congressional support involved. One of the few things he actually fights for.

- being the advocate of the middle class: $13 trillion in loan guarantees for bankers, finger wagging for the rest of us - all Obama.

- ending illegal surveillance and illegal detentions - all Obama, he's figting for these tooth and nail

- fixing health care - he certainly could have tried hard on this, channeling LBJ. No congressional Democrat should be able to sleep without nightmares for tripping this up.

Obama did not promise to end DADT via executive order. After attacking Bush relentlessly for ruthlessly expanding executive power and ignoring the law, he would be quite hypocritcal to do this or to "try" to do this.

Having a transparent administration: this is such a vague statement that I don't even really know what it means policy-wise. Obviously Obama is not going to release the locations of our nuclear weapons in the name of transparency. There is always a line, and it is complicated and ambiguous (not simple and easy).

Most of the bailout money came under Bush, not Obama. That money saved our country from another great depression. Giving all of that money to the middle class would not have saved our country from another great depression. NO serious economist disagrees with that. There is plenty of disagreement over how it was spent and what kind of regulation should be enacted, but not over the need for a multi-trillion dollar bailout to the banks.

You are correct that Obama has within his power to end illegal surveillance and illegal detentions -- that comes within the powers of the President. However, the FISA bill made the current surveillance legal, and the Supreme Court (while placing significant limitations on the executive) ruled that holding detainees at Guantanamo without a full jury trial is legal.

What could Obama possibly threaten someone like Ben Nelson with? His constituents are probably more than 2-1 against the public option. They certainly voted against Obama by a huge margin. That's all that needs to happen to kill the public option -- one Democrat voting against it. Obama putting on a mask that makes him look like LBJ isn't going to change reality.

of don't ask, don't tell... That work should have started long ago, it will start when I take office." Where's the beef? All we have is a DOJ brief comparing gay marriage to incest.

Being transparent is pretty obvious. I doubt if many people would disagree that Obama's administration is the second-most secretive in memory.

Obama could have nationalized the failing banks, as has been done with great success in other industrialized countries. He could have forced the same conditions on banks that any other private investor would have - seats on the board, market-level interest rates, etc. Instead he chose to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

Obama should be barnstorming through Nebraska and similar states, fighting hard for Medicare for all. As a candidate, that's what he would have done.

:rofl:

As for bank nationalization, I agree with you. However, so far, Obama has succeeded in avoiding a great depression (or something similar) without nationalizing the banks, so I am giving him credit where credit is due. As for privatizing profits, the shareholders of the failed banks were essentially wiped out.

For DADT, he again needs a willing Congress, and right now not a single bill has been introduced for Obama to support. The DOJ brief was completely independent of the White House. (After all, were we not just recently fighting Bushco for politicizing the justice department?)

And again, as far as transparency is concerned, I can't really comment with such vague statements. I would have to look at individual decisions, and so far, the ones I have looked at seem to indicate to me that Obama was correct.

Dissolving that fucker is a good start. To the barricades folks, the politicians don't give a fuck about you if you don't have any money to give them. At this point revolution in the French style is the only solution for me. And spare me the name-calling I ain't interested. Politics in the American style clearly does not work for Americans.

Painful truths about the ways of the real world. Expect a couple hundred unrecs.

Julie

Not once in your verbal flatulence did you mention who really elected those 30 Congresses -- lobbyists with money. Until you learn to tell the difference between what lobbyists want and what people tell pollsters they want, there's really no need for you to fart into the ductwork.

And they haven't. At least, they haven't to the extent that Single Payer does not have close to a majority of support in this Congress or in the last 30.

...and one that is not, can often be found in how the argument is framed.

Entitling one's post "The difference between an adult and a 5-year-old..." and then expecting those you are calling 5-year-olds to listen to your argument? Now that is infantile.

The insult towards those who dare fight for single payer was unnecessary.

is to throw it on the ground and stomp on it. An adult apparently has to ask for permission.

Apparently your position is that we're supposed to see that corporations own the Senate and go "ah, well...better luck next time." Forgetting, of course, that THEY control access to the whole shebang? What happens when we try to get an anti-status quo politician elected? The party shuts them down in favor of someone who LIKES the bloated fucking leech.

Bah. No wonder we're fucked. We've got too many people who think that expecting our congress-critters to work for us rather than for Blue Cross is expecting too much.

And, voting for "more of the same" because it has a (D) behind it is off the table for some adult voters.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams