A Little-talked-about Point from Rachel's Show last night with Bernie Sanders

On Rachel's show, they discussed that the Healthcare bill may be broken up into passable chunks so they can avoid the Byrd rule and use the 50-vote option. They would pass the easy stuff first, like no pre-existing conditions, no insurance caps, no discrimination, etc. Then they would work the public option part into a budget-based bill that would bypass filibuster and allow only 50 votes to pass. Sanders seemed to think this was the best strategy as you would get things moving in a positive direction, the public would respond well to the reform up front using that momentum to pass the public option. If so, places like DU and Kos are going to have to be patient and not lash out at the administration for caving or backing down. It may appear this way initially, but it's how they are actually going to ram this bill through. It will appear at first as if the Republicans/Blue Dogs won, but we will end up with the public option as originally put forth in HR 3200.

I am beginning to have my doubts.

I sense the badge of an accomplishment is more important that real reform via the public option.

Patience. And don't believe the hype of anonymous "White House official" sources.

:headbang:
rocktivity

You sure are quick to jump into any health care thread with negative nancyism.

The White House supports a public option. Sanders is probably correct about how it's going to pass. And you aren't "beginning to have . . . doubts" - - you're well into the doubting cycle.

Am I not allowed a personal opinion? And I am not alone in this doubt, by the way.

But your drive-by, one-sentence perspectives in every! Single! Health care thread! are curious, to say the least. And believe me, I get it, as does any other regular consumer of your posts - -you doubt the Democrats' will on this. I have more faith in the president than you do, and I also am willing to be patient with the legislative process. Obama has been in office for seven months. He is nevertheless attacking, rather immediately and courageously, the ridiculous and ginormous inequity that is the nation's health care-for-profit industry. I'm inclined to let things play out a bit more before concluding that all is lost.

I am not concluding that all is lost. Rather I think this is the time for us to insure the admin and congress KNOWS we want a public option - if not single payer. I am not willing to let things play out while watching the R's make continued headway into completely stalling any reform. Lies continue to be spread and the polls indicate waning support. I want to see the admin fight for reform - I don't see it. Rather I see increasingly mealy-mouthed comments at every event.

The PRESIDENT HIMSELF made unambiguous comments this week, on more than one occasion, indicating his support for a public option. I couldn't disagree more with your perspective.

For the most part, the media have spun this whole issue the wrong way. I wouldn't be surprised if Gibbs' standing instructions are to say, effectively, nothing. Jumping to the conclusion that this is a sign of a lack of commitment is missing the mark IMHO.

I appreciated your personal anecdote (in the post below). I just wouldn't be so concerned at this stage.

This reform offers me very little, if anything. My wife and I have a very satisfactory policy - and we have it for life. The deductible is a tad high - but well within reach and not an issue of concern. Insurance is not something I lose sleep about - not do I think I ever will.

I really want this for those 50M who have none. I want it for my son and daughter should they even need the added reform. It will probably end up costing me more in taxes - but I am more than willing to pay the increased $$$$$.

I believe in the public option. I have lived abroad in several other countries where the public option is the way of life. This is the right thing to do.

I do not sense a similar commitment from the admin. I sense this is little more than politics.

on edit - let me add that this lack of commitment (my opinion of where things are) bugs the poop out of me.

that I wondered whether they had the will to fight for it. I doubt it.

going back to the election of Kerry and before.

the finest example of a Democrat I can think of.

The fact is that 2004 was never going to be an easy win. The fact is that in Dec 2003, Bush was polled beating both Dean and generic Democrat by double digits. If it was Kucinich you prefered, he might have lost worse than McGovern did. Kerry came very close to beating a wartime President at a point where 59% of people answered that the country was going very well or fairly well. This in spite of a media that condoned a character assassination. Had there been an adequate number of voting machines in Ohio, he would have won.

Kerry, by the way, had a more solid liberal record than Dean or any other 2004 candidate.

I have faith in a man when he tells me something with the convictions that President Obama told me with when he said we will get a comprehensive healthcae for all americans. I believe him and I'll be patient.

Thanks. You encourage me. :-)

You to me :-)

who have patience and confidence in the man we elected to do the formidable job he's undertaken.

Many who do not look for every negative piece of crap from corpopratemedia to highlight why the Pres has betrayed them.

That's the only question I have. I've got no problem with telling insurance companies that they can not exclude people for pre-existing conditions, but they agreed to do that only if they get the individual mandate (and I am fervently opposed to that mandate). I want a robust public option before Congress makes it illegal for me not to have insurance. Otherwise, no deal.

And I will so advise any politician that will listen.

:dem:

-Laelth

not before.

BUT seeing is believing, that ploy could go a long way towards temporarily killing the opposition but it can also be used to get the heat off for now and leave them with the ability to slough off the bigger more important piece of "HEALTH CARE" reform with little pieces of "HEALTH INSURANCE" reform by pointing at all the "GOOD" stuff they already have done.