Every day, calls to action arrive in my mailbox. Some of them make it onto this blog; most of them don't. And now, I'm questioning each one even more closely.
Take the Public Option Sparkle Pony
. (PLEASE.) We heard about nothing else for months and months. "Obama MUST include 'the' (whichever lame-ass version-du-jour the Dems chose to dangle in front of our faces) public option in the Health Whatever Bill!" No one seemed to care that Obama had specifically stated that there would be no Public Option, and that without his support, these efforts were doomed to fail. No, I was a horrible person for doubting the motives of Jane Hamsher and all the other "progressives" who were screaming that single payer was toast and our only shot was the Sparkle Pony. Guess what? We got neither the Pony, nor single-payer. What a great deal! And, even the massively corporatist Health Insurance Industry Bailout Bill is being hailed by our Republican friends as "socialism." Sure, it's socialism - if socialism means that I get to throw my hard-earned money into WellPoint's coffers month after month, just so they can withhold coverage for basic health care whenever they want to!
Thanks to the sound and fury generated by the "progressives", the Health Whatever discussion became centered around a choice between bad and worse ("public option or no public option") because the best choice, single-payer, was drowned out on behalf of the bad choice. Had they chosen to stand up for single-payer right away; had Moveon.org and Firedoglake and all the others pushed and pushed and pushed on behalf of Medicare for All, perhaps the efforts to move Obama and Congress to the left on health care reform might have been successful. Who knows? But at least they would have chosen their fight wisely, and emerged on the side of truth, justice, and the Lefty Way. They would have been on record as having championed the best choice. And isn't that what lefty activists are supposed to do?
You know what else sounds fishy to me? All the "Nominate Elizabeth Warren" hysteria. To be sure, I would love to see Elizabeth Warren in charge of just about anything, and I even did an Activist Wednesday post about her, and wrote the White House on her behalf; but now, the very fact of who is pushing this initiative is giving me pause. That's right; it's the usual "progressive" suspects. Why, I wonder, do they care so much? Could it be that they are, once again, making a lot of noise to distract us from the best choice, and getting us to focus on an either/or situation between bad and worse?
If Obama does nominate Warren, would he really let her be herself and fight on behalf of the people against the banks? Or would he hobble her by surrounding her with bankster yes-people? (Since Obama is, and always will be, a tool of the banking industry, I would chooes Option B.) Nominating Warren, then, would (thanks to Obama's corruption) end up being the bad choice. It would be worse if Obama didn't nominate Warren, since she did, after all, originate the idea of the commission in the first place and is clearly the best qualified for the position. (And plus, Chris Bowers might weep a little. The horror!)
It seems to me that once again, we have a choice between bad and worse being pushed by "progressives." Perhaps by focusing all of our energy on one person, the "progressives" are actually obscuring the fight we should be fighting: for REAL financial reforms a la FDR.
From a systemic risk standpoint, the two most important things that needed to happen were greatly increased equity levels (this would need to take place gradually) and a reduction in the “tight coupling” of the major capital markets firms. Right now, the top dealer firms are part of a badly designed network, where if one node goes down, it can bring down the entire grid. Neither was tackled in a serious way.
And neither will be tackled in a serious way, because "progressives" didn't demand it. During the Finance Whatever Sausage-Making, they were too busy concentrating on who was for it (Scott Brown!), who was against it (Susan Collins!), and how important it was to pass it no matter what rat feces it contained. Now that the Financial Services Industry Bailout has passed, they are focused not on its provisions and policies, but on the nomination of Elizabeth Warren. How very....interesting.
I have yet to get one single email about the proposed Smith-Lipinski legislation BlueLyon mentioned in her Monday post. But if I do, I have a feeling the framing will be similar: either this legislation doesn't pass (bad, because we still have the Executive Order and the Health Whatever Bill and the Hyde Amendment) or it does (worse, because, well, duh). Who is standing up and fighting for the best choice? Who is screaming "The Federal Government should fund abortions and birth control just like they fund all legal medical procedures and prescription drugs!" No one (except NOW, and even they have not been bold enough)! Not "progressives," not most women's groups, and CERTAINLY not the "new" feminists who have simply decided to stop fighting for women's civil rights because it makes female anti-feminists vewy, vewy angwy. Color me un-freaking-impressed.
Finally, we have yet more choices between bad and worse coming up. If the Tea Party didn't exist, the Democrats would have had to invent it. (Hmmmmm....) How else would any of us who are completely over the PFKD, be considering pulling the "D" lever this year? In Nevada, we have 19th-century throwback Sharron Angle, who wants to re-instate Prohibition, among other charming ideas. Would you really want her representing your state? No? Then you'd better vote for Harry Reid, that odious, milquetoast DINO who has effectively led the Democrats, uh, NEVER, in opposing the Republicans. Reid is bad, but Angle is worse.
I would urge you all, as lefties or left-leaning Independents or whatever you all call yourselves (Green Commies? Socialist Democrats?), to think for yourselves. Don't jump on the first petition that comes your way, the way I sometimes have done. Change the dialogue. Don't fall for the false dichotomy between bad and worse. Espouse the best choice at all times. You may not win right away, but at least you won't be choosing your fights...poorly.
- madamab's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
thuggyBear
I would prefer the Public Option to single payer, actually, so long as both options were available to all.
Would you want to outlaw Fed Ex and UPS? Having just the USPS would suck pretty hard. Not having the USPS would suck even worse.
The market for heatlh care is like the market for shipping why?
And your preference is based on what? Single payer means just that. It has no necessary impact on your choice of doctor, if that is your concern.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Theories
I know the theory is with more people, many of them healthy, in the pool that you would not see the problem with funding in Medicare that we have today. Here's the problem, theories don't always pan out.
A public option didn't need to play out like it did. It could have been defined instead of some vague notion.
I assure you a public option with a 10% threshhold(similar to Medicare's constituency)that was federalized(to create uniformity in standards or forms and more easily reach that 10% threshhold) could have had the potential to dowhat single payer would likely do.
The problem was the pitchmen. They never did anything other than call it a sparkle pony. Oh and let's not forget the craven cowards in Congress and the WH who were to askerred the right would call them mean names or horrors socialists for pushing a government option(which is the same reason Democrats like Pelosi took Medicare for All off the table or at least that's what they say. Personally I think it has to do with therentiers with deep pockets).
The sparkle pony was a classic bait and switch...
The first version, later called the "robust" public option, was actually somewhat appealing, as you say. It had the potential to be a reasonable substitute for single-payer.
Once people were suckered in by this "robust" public option, the Democrats steadily whittled it down to nothing, but still called it the "public option," so that "progressives" would stay excited about it and keep whipping for it.
If that whole series of events wasn't proof of the death of movement leftism in America, I don't know what would be.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Well, if single payer ever comes to pass,
we'll make sure to put you on the list to get your very own Public Option Bumper Sticker - we might even make sure you get the one that sparkles AND glows in the dark; we'll follow up in a year and you can tell us how it all worked out for you.
Medicare for All (single-payer) would allow you to supplement
Your public insurance with private insurance, just as it does now. There are plenty of companies that offer extra insurance for those on Medicare, and the federal government doesn't penalize people for purchasing that insurance.
So, if you want to improve Medicare's coverage, single-payer would allow you to do so. Thus, there would be no need for any "public option."
(By the way, Lambert - I know why people's handles show up as the subject line of the post sometimes. The software currently makes your handle the subject line by default. If you are paying attention, you go in and change the subject; if you're not, then the handle remains in the subject line.)
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Exactly...
Which would be essentially identical to the Canadian system, as I understand it
I don't want a "public option". I want a "private option" ;-)
That's what we asked for: Medicare (Expanded!) for All...with a
Robust Private Option. Everybody in, nobody out.
Fuhgeddabout ObamaCare, his Big Health Insurers' Profit Protection Plan. What a waste of legislative effort. But it's what Obama wanted -- or was told to want. It's definitely what he negotiated behind closed doors for.
Sheesh -- we coulda hadda contender! With savings of $400 Billion a year through single payer, we could have had comprehensive care from dollar one, with vision and dental.
But, hey, who needs to see: We might notice what Obama and the Corporatist
Dems are actually doing! And dental? No teeth, the better to get us oldsters to hurry up and die.
(Gov. Chris "Can't RaiseTtaxes on the Rich!" Christie here in NJ has cut all funding for women's health centers. Repubs are big on the hurry up and die plans -- I just didn't realize Dems were as well....
Oh man, JB...
Talk about a choice between bad and worse: Jon Corzine and Chris Christie.
Christie is such an evil, hateful little twerp.
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Why the Public Option will be like USPS
See here.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Ah ha....
I now see where this meme came from.
Excellent post, BTW. :-)
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Since that post
I've learned that a deal between FedEx and USPS exists where USPS actually delivers the FedEx packages to really out of the way places. So without USPS, FedEx would either have to make those deliveries itself (raising rates) or not be able to deliver to parts of the US. But always remember, it's the USPS that sucks because it can't seem to pay for itself. Hmmm, I wonder why?
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Smith- Lipinski pisses me off
Lipinski sailed through with 77% in his primary. Where the f- were the women's groups with boots on the ground to defeat this putz?
I am so sick of after the fact outrage.
Every single one of the people who voted with Stupak should have had a primary challenger and the help of women's orgs. Every. single. one.
If women's groups want to be takenseriously they need to do better than whining after the fact.
You're Right!
HiYa, madamab, I agree with your take on everything in this post. I think the extreme focus on Elizabeth Warren's appointment right now is distracting. Sure it would be good if she were appointed, but the downside is that she can be hobbled and if she were, she'd have to resign in protest. On the other hand, if she's rejected by Obama now, she could become the center for a third party movement over the next few years, and, I think, would be much more valuable in that role than she would be serving in a corporatist Administration.
The more important question, however, is why progressives aren't focused almost entirely on jobs, jobs, jobs, right now. The Democrats need to be pressured to pass a program that will work before the election. Warren's appointment isn't important enough to serve as a cause celebre for people to stay home in the fall and cause the Dems to get beat, But the jobs issue is.
So, if the progs really want to apply the pressure and launch a credible threat that says do this now or else. the issue has to be jobs and the slowing down of the economy again. The Democrats have to be put on the spot about that.
Agree with you 100% on jobs, jobs, jobs...
And it's reallllly obvious that politically speaking, any Party that creates jobs will be heroes of this decade.
It's so obvious that we have to wonder why no one is doing it or pushing for it - Democrats, Republicans or "progressives."
There is literally no excuse. We have a combination of a crappy economy, an oil catastrophe in the Gulf and a great popular enthusiasm for going to alternative sources of energy. This is a time in our history in which any real leader would be chomping at the bit to institute sweeping, FDR-like changes.
That anyone would continue to defend Obama in this climate, to me, is just unconscionable. We need to push for better choices, not to defend "bad" because we're afraid of "worse."
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
My feeling is that Elizabeth Warren is - or would be -
to the Consumer Financial Protection Board what Dawn Johnsen was to the Office of Legal Counsel; if she's nominated, it will be the nomination itself that will be held up as a proof of Obama's serious concern for us little people - and if it gets deep-sixed in the Senate, or just dies a slow and quiet death, while the Board itself hovers in limbo, oh, well - they "tried!"
If, by some, quirk that would likely be related to an election-eve ploy to sucker people into supporting Democrats. she should be nominated and approved, I suspect she will be so hamstrung that she will end up resigning in protest.
If there's one thing we should know by now, it's that it's all about the show: make sure it sparkles and we morons will be so dazzled by it that we won't notice there's either nothing really there - or - there's something there, all right, but it's a big, stinking pile of crap.
Really sick of it. :-S)