Clinton tried to do Health Care from the top down with a democratic majority.. and lost

I have been reading so many posts over the last couple of months that if Obama would just get heavy handed with congress that we would get a bill through just the way we want it.

The truth of the matter is, we have been down this road before.. and the Clintons heavy handed it, just like so many want in here.. and guess what we got.. nada, nothing .. and then to top it off, lost our Democratic majority in mid-terms.

How ever you cut it.. we have never been this close before. The Obama approach has got us closer than anytime since Teddy Roosevelt spoke of Health care for all, or Truman, Kennedy, we have tried so many times.. and got nothing


EDIT: to cross reference another op who has some details on the bill that I do not have in here..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=11487&mesg_id=11487

Its amazing that President Obama has been able to push as much through as he has when you consider some of the Senators he has had to put up with.

This is actually an amazing bill, all things consider.

The problem is bigger than when Clinton took office and the Democratic Party is (very marginally) more progressive and less in the hands of special interests than it was back then (let me again emphasize the "very marginally" part). But most importantly Democrats have learned the lesson from 1994 and that lesson is that health care has to passed or they as a party are screwed. And the thing about it is that the conservadems in red states and red districts will be the first casualties. Anybody who believes that these people really want no reform are mistaken. The red state/red district dems need a reform bill to pass. They just want to make it look like they were against it or that they were very adamant about making the liberals compromise.

:thumbsup:

We could do it now with 50 plus one as I understand it.. Had to get the debate on the floor.. and we got that yesterday!

who shot down the bill because, like this one, it gave away too much to the insurance industry. Also, Hillary took her bill and plopped it down in front of Congress and told them essentially to pass it. So it failed. I still have hopes that President Obama will send the bill back until it's something he wants to sign. At least, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

This is from Wikipedia.. but it tell the story..

One of the most prominent items on Clinton's legislative agenda was the result of a taskforce headed by Hillary Clinton, which was a health care reform plan aimed at achieving universal coverage via a national healthcare plan. Though initially well-received in political circles, it was ultimately doomed by well-organized opposition from conservatives, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry. However, John F. Harris, a biographer of Clinton's, states the program failed because of a lack of co-ordination within the White House.<29> Despite his party holding a majority in Congress, the effort to create a national healthcare system ultimately died. It was the first major legislative defeat of Clinton's administration.<3><29> Two months later, after two years of Democratic Party control, the Democrats lost control of Congress in the mid-term elections in 1994, for the first time in forty years.

History so as not to have to repeat the failures.

That's why the economic team is full of the folks who got it wrong? And are continuing to make statements that credible economists (i.e. the ones who got it right, repeatedly) shake their heads in dismay at?

That's why instead of marshaling justifiable resentment against outrageous insurance company behavior to counteract the anti-government rhetoric on the right- in in his own party, Obama goes on TV and says "they're not bad people?"

And kowtowed to them in the process in much in the same way that the Clintons did?

Which is that you can neither pander to nor placate the right- no matter what you say- nor how often you attempt to "compromise." They're unappeasable and think only of such efforts as weakness.

The Clinton administration- and the Obama administration have tried that again and again- and all it's gotten them is watered down policy- or no policy at all- plus an unhealthy degree alienation among their own supporters.

Not very bright, IMO.

It was all the Republicans. They did exactly what they're trying to do now. Back then it worked. This time it won't, because Obama is too damn smart (I know, i know, it's bad that he's smart, i heard it too).

"Obama needs to grow a spine" meme:silly:

of talk radio, and the republicans.. that average people start to think that that is how things are done..

have a thought of their own.

the right wing makes up. Even when you point out that it is wrong.. she will go " oh well".. and then come right back at you and repeat it a different way.. I have given up trying to reason with her. I just walk away when she starts getting loud.

1. They are totally into the whole LBJ myth, without even trying to check the facts.
2. Let's face it: Many on the Left simply wants a Liberal George Bush. Barack Obama will never give them that, so it's better to destroy him.

Many on both sides opposed a First Lady , who they felt they had not elected "meddling" in health care. They also couldn't stomach the idea of a president who viewed his wife as his partner and didn't like the idea of "two for the price of one". Many people today would still find that unacceptable. I remember very well the contempt and even outright hatred directed at Hillary for "daring" to participate. First Ladies were supposed to pick out china or pursue "family oriented" causes.Fist ladies weren't supposed to exercise their brains on high powered policy issues, even if they were considered one of the top 100 lawyers in the nation. In fact, that was something to be frowned on and NOT applauded or appreciated.The men of congress concentrated on mocking Hillary for having "thunder thighs".It was a hateful period of time for congress and it hasn't changed much.The Stupak Amendment reminds us of how little progress we have made.

with that statement. But we had a Democratic majority.. and the republican minority with the insurance companies were able to stop us.. It is not a slam dunk deal.. But if I understand it correctly, because of last nights vote.. we can get this through on 50 plus one if we have to. We had to get it to the floor.. and they did..

That was a HUGE hurdle we went over yesterday..

edit for misspell

as well as restore the anti-trust removal, along with making the denial of coverage for preexisting condition elimination immediate, it really isn't worth much. It is just making a point. Sort of. It isn't real reform. People will be angered if they don't benefit by it.It is , as they say , a stepping stone. But there is no guarantee they will ever make it better. But we have to see what they come up with. Right now, it is just a talking point.

All legislators are inherently conservative - that is, they will almost never change their views and positions, for the sake of keeping a "winning streak" going.

So when we go to the table with the same fuckers we had in the early 90's who shot it down, what the fuck do we expect?

We coddle them and consider them part of the big tent. We actively recruit them as in the case of Casey in Penn, and Heath Ledger in Congress.They are respected far more than any women's rights.

We have a pro-life candidate running in my state for the Leg, and a politcal operative I know told me it was "smart idea". I said, and meant it, I would rather lose that seat. These people frequently don't vote with the Dems on other issues either.

But I agree that the way that Bart Stupak fucked us over was extremely disconcerting. I'm all for allowing pro-lifers into the party when it's necessary because their districts will never elect a pro-choice candidate. However the Democratic Party is a pro-choice party and pro-lifers who join the party need to understand that they are welcome in spite of their views on that issue, not because we are open to their views.

and misreading a previous situation and contending that it's analogous when in fact it in many ways it may not have been.

Facts aren't good for the Anti-Obama narrative, therefore they're really not welcome here.

sounds more like sycophantry in your case.

just as not every criticism can be categorized as anti-Obama narrative- at least, not unless you're behaving sycophantically.

and there's enough fooking anti-Obama narrative around here to insure the poster's validity.

STILL suck and things never change. as long as insurance companies are in the mix for profit we are just moving deck chairs on the Titanic. THAT's "the facts" as much as the OP is "the facts". :crazy: :silly:

Remember too that:

1. Clinton was not the first to go balls to the wall for HCR. We've been trying for 100 years!!!!!

2. After Clinton failed we couldn't bring it up again for 15 years! If this is defeated this time, that means we won't get to even talk about HCR legislation in congress until 2024.

Can you go another 15 years paying for insurance that doubles every 4 years or so and pays for nothing?

I hate republicans.

the for profit companies.

Here we are again, saying that we need to take on the insurance companies and then inviting them into the people's house.

:(

Every jot and tittle came through the administration. That was top down.

That is quite different from asking the President to rally people behind the change and talk to lawmakers. Even if he is loathe to heavy hand them, he can still do something. There is a separation of powers but not persuasion.

LBJ was not a myth BTW. He was involved with legislators, and they knew exactly what he would and wouldn't do. He didn't play, and they knew that he would remember what they had done. He was willing to sign away the South when he signed the Civil Rights Legislation. It was that important to him.

I have seen all carrot and no stick. I wish dealing with Congress could be a mannerly process. It ain't gonna happen. The Dems are all over the place because nobody is willing to try to round them up.

They want something. Landrieu and Lincoln have proved that. However, people who are on board are getting screwed over because they are giving up leverage. Bernie Sanders is the only Progressive starting to play that game.

If they want something, the converse is true. There is something they don't want. It may be a cut here or there in some program or a lost earmark for their state. Something will move them off the dime. However, since there is no stick, Landrieu and Lincoln will continue to demand whatever at every step of the process. They wouldn't be so quick to play that game if there was a negative to it when they have pushed too far.

Landrieu and Lincoln are holding out for leverage in terms of shaping the legislation because that's what they need to do in order to get re-elected. The Democrats from liberal states, however, don't need to do that. Therefore they will vote party line because that helps you get moved up the leadership ranks or helps when you are trying to win a presidential primary.

Bernie Sanders isn't going to get a leadership position as an independent socialist and he sure as hell isn't going to be President at his age and therefore he is getting into the legislation shaping game as well.

..... so much so that we cannot appreciate how far we've come and how close we are.

As always, well said Peace!

We need to get behind this with everything we have. Nothing's perfect and it's truly astounding that so many people want it to be.

gets it done. OFA, baby.

Lets not lose it all, even if we have to take it in pieces..

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/67295-bill-clinton-learn-from-94

"Democrats said Clinton was frank about his missteps during the 1993 healthcare debate, telling them he regretted not adequately explaining to the public the impact of Senate filibusters and the need for reform.

Clinton called on Democrats to be ready to compromise, something his administration was criticized for not doing in 1993 and 1994. By contrast, Obama has been flexible — some critics say too flexible — on the ingredients of the bill he hopes to sign into law."

This is also a good read

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/11/cant_we_celebrate_a_little_on.html