AND THEN WHAT?. - (Concerning This Week interview this morning).

[Mass]

I think Steve Benen asks a really good question.

Rather than wondering whether Kennedy would have cut a deal, should not the question be "What deal"

On ABC's "This Week," it appears the question of the day is WWKD -- what would Kennedy do?

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told ABC's This Week that the late-Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- who long supported the public option -- would compromise on health care before altogether abandoning the possibility for reform this year.
...
Kerry and Hatch think Kennedy would have dropped the public plan to strike a deal. Maybe, maybe not. But the question badly misses the point -- what deal? Which Republicans are ready to support an ambitious reform package if Democrats agree to drop the public option?
...
We're hearing an awful lot about the "quid," with no talk about the "quo."

I agree with Benen's question, and I think this is a much more valid one than the one people are trying to push around. A negotiation is about both sides giving something in. What are the Republicans give in?

I think that Kerry tried to get to that in the interview, asking which Republicans will come to the table, but I do not have the transcript, and, in any case, it was stuck in between Steph and Hatch who were insistent to drop the public option NOW. What is it that the GOP is ready to give up, because, if there is nothing, there is no point to negotiate with them.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. The public option IS the compromise

Single Payer is what we SHOULD do, because it makes the most goddamn sense in every possible way you look at it. Allowing the insurance criminals to continue to exist AT ALL is the compromise. Allowing them to continue to control the picture, or putting it entirely in their hands (i.e. Romneycare) is not.fucking.acceptable.

[jannyk]

2. +1

[silverweb]

3. Absolutely agree.

NO MORE COMPROMISES!

[Inuca]

4. The public option is A compromise

I want it. Hell, I want single payer. I really do. But would a system where out-of-pocket expenses are limited, access is universal or at least close to, no pre-existing conditions BS, etc. be better that what we have now? WOULD IT?? And if the answer is yes, is it worth saying NO to all this because thepublic option will not be part of it and then wait who the hell how long until ANYTHING happens? What if there is no public option but the health insurers are very tightly regulated (the Dutch model that works pretty damn well from what I know)?

Apologies in advance for the "shouting" but while most people around here are afraid that we will not get something meaningful because the the dems will compromise too much, I think I am more afraid that we might not get ANYTHING because some dems (in Congress and otherwise) are not flexible and imaginative enough.

[Mass]

5. I agree wholeheartedly, but this was not the point here

The point is that there is nobody to negotiate with, therefore, any concession made just weakens the bill for nothing.

This is why I was opposed to not including single payer. If nobody is ready to answer when you compromise, what is the point of a compromise.

Where will the Republican be ready to talk? Never is my guess.

[Inuca]

8. Agree about the point, I was responding to the post above. Also

about who to compromise with (if it comes to that): the centrist democrats and a tiny, tiny number of sane republicans of reasonable good will (though I am not sure who that includes in the Senate besides Olympia Snowe, but I am pretty sure she can be talked with in a meaningful way, as long s she is not asked to fall on her sword)

[Mass]

10. First, remember that some people on DU do not care about the outcome. They care about scoring

political points against Democrats.

This said, what we have seen until now is totally in what Benen describes: democrats taking thinks from the bill without counterparts. We take single payer and they dont offer anything. We take tax on the wealthy off and they do not offer anything. They ask that the public option is taken off the bill and they do not offer anything, and I am talking about people like Snowe and Landrieu here.

Can we start to say that there is nobody to negotiate with. They are people asking to water down the bill, and this is not the same thing.

[Laelth]

6. Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance cabal.

Let's insist on the eradication of it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ProSense]

7. Benen mischaracterizes what Kerry said, and then asks the same question he did

STEPHANOPOULOS: These insurance reforms, you can't be denied health care if you're sick. You can't get thrown out if you're sick. A lot of Democrats, Republicans say that maybe we should have this individual mandate, to require people to buy insurance, to couple that with reforms.

Bill Bradley points out today, I think it was in The New York Times, that, you know, maybe they should include some malpractice reform as well. Are they -- those three things the building blocks of a deal?

HATCH: Yes, they really are. You know, Democrats have been unwilling to take on the personal injury lawyers. And look, there are cases that really deserve huge rewards, huge judgments.

We've got to find some way of getting rid of the frivolous cases, and most of them are. Most of them are brought...

KERRY: And that's doable, most definitely.

HATCH: Yes, and that's doable. Most of them are brought to -- you know, to get the defense costs. They know that once they bring them, the insurance companies are going to have to pay their defense costs rather than take a chance at a runaway jury.

But it's not just that. It's the other elements you've been talking about too. Those are three very important...

STEPHANOPOULOS: And then if you add some subsidies to that to move towards covering more people...

KERRY: Yes, which I think we have some -- actually, I think we have some flexibility on as to sort of the rate and manner in which you do that. So I think that there are ways to do this, George.

As a member of the Finance Committee, I've been part of this discussion, though many of us would like to see it broadened in some ways. I'd like -- I mean, you know, my question to Orrin and to others is, you know, who is the Republican? Who are the Republicans, plural, who are prepared to step up and do as Ted Kennedy would have done here?

link

[Mass]

11. No, he does not. Kerry asked who was at the table to negotiate, which is another good question.

What Benen asks is what are we ready to drop and against what, which is a different question, and, IMHO, a lot more relevant.

Some here want a bill, any bill. Others want no bill but a perfect bill. I disagree with both sides as I do not care about who scores the political points. I care about the outcome: a bill that is useful and makes people's life really better.

[masuki bance]

9. Why should we care? We do not need any repugs to pass a bill. nt