Progressives Should Vote No on Obama's Health Care Proposal (if it doesn't have a public option)

[Better Believe It]

Progressives Should Vote No on Obama's Health Care Proposal
by Cenk Uygur
Host of The Young Turks
September 3, 2009


This is an enormously disappointing day. Obama is not playing chess. He doesn't know something we don't know. It is exactly as we had feared. He did make deals with the private health care corporations. They would never agree to deals with a public option. He picked Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff because politics was his primary concern, not policy. He never intended to do the public option. It was all a joke.

I'm sure Rahm Emanuel thinks there is nothing to lose by angering or disappointing the left. He knows they're not going to vote for lunatic Republicans. So, he figures they can get political credibility by attacking the very people who put them in office. Classy. Except, I think he has miscalculated a little.

I think the Obama White House is doing untold damage to its credibility here by scheming against the centerpiece of healthcare reform - the public option. We're not unreasonable; we get that compromise is necessary. And there are many things we are willing to compromise on. But the public option is the very heart of reform. If you don't have it, it turns into a large boondoggle for private insurance companies to make even more money.

So, the only hope that remains is the progressive caucus in the House. They must vote no. Without a public option, this whole thing is a joke. The private insurance companies will make even more money, the deficit will go even higher (with subsidies we're shoveling over to those same companies to cover the previously uninsured) and our premiums will continue to go up. The average American will get little to nothing from this so-called health care reform. But, of course, the private health care companies will make a fortune.

If they vote no on Obama's weak sauce bill, the world will come down on them. Rahm Emanuel who is scared to death of fighting Republicans will relish beating up on progressives. He's a lion against liberals and a pussy cat with Republicans and lobbyists.

Of course, the media will go along and say that it was the progressives who killed the bill when not a single Republican would have voted for it under any circumstance. They have to withstand this barrage and show what they're made of. Is there anyone on the Democratic side who is actually willing to stand up for principle? We're about to find out.

If the progressives buckle on this one, I can guarantee you that this kind of appeasement will only encourage Republicans to do these same tactics all over again on every issue. And Emanuel (Obama's Cheney) and the rest of the White House will run for the hills every time and we will get absolutely no change in America.

----------------------

- While I don't agree with all of the views expressed in Uygur's article, it certainly does reflect the views of a growing number of disappointed liberal and progressive Democrats and independents and needs to be read if you want your finger on the pulse of liberal thought. - You can read his full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/progressives-should-vote_b_276097.html

[Cant trust em]

1. I agree. If Obama doesn't insist on a public option then they need to.

This is what they are there for.

[msongs]

2. hmm if the blow republicans policy delivers a phony health plan it deserves to die nt

[Laelth]

3. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Generator]

4. Well duh

But apparently only the progressives ever have to compromise. The "blue dogs" can stick a shiv in his back and he keeps offering them more.

[Thrill]

5. Obama doesn't have a healthcare proposal

[Baltoman991]

6. Of for fucks sake!!!

Obama is writing nothing. The progressive caucus will be getting a bill written by people they spend every work day with, other congress folks.

But I know I know, you, Huffington, Cenk and the rest think Obama proposes verbally, writes and passes all bills on his own.

What utter bullshit. When the fucking Democrats lose in 2010 and lose more in 2012 none of the fucking fools bashing Obama at every turn should open their fucking mouths as they're helping in getting the right wing message out loud and clear and it's that Obama is a complete failure.

[inna]

8. huh?... are you sure you're posting on the right board?

kr for the OP, btw.

[Baltoman991]

10. Yeah, I'm sure

I'm posting on the right board. Perhaps it's you and the OP who are lost seeing as how all you do is bash and slam Obama at every turn.

This is Democratic Undeground, not Slam Obamaground. And yes, it's slamming, not criticizing.

How the fuck can the caucus say vote no on Obamas bill if it doesn't contain public option? He doesn't write fucking bills but I'm pretty sure you and the thread starter know that but in keeping with the tradition, it's posted just to get another shot in at Obama.

[ihavenobias]

17. Let's get something straight here.

There is a HUGE difference between criticism from the right and criticism from the left. The RIGHT "slams", and they intentionally distort, lie and fear monger to score political points, etc.

You can disagree with those of us who both criticize (and praise) Democrats depending on the situation, but please don't be very clear on the motives and reasoning. As someone who raised and donated money this last election cycle along with being a precinct committeeman (and phone banking, canvassing, writing pro-Obama/anti-McCain email templates, etc.), I really resent when someone tells me I'm an uncritical basher of the administration.

PS----I want to know why the Cenk haters are so silent when Cenk strongly defends Obama? Look at the third video below. Watch the first minute and tell me that the guy hates Obama and wants to bash him for no reason, etc.

[Phx_Dem]

7. Really?

You think we should throw any reform out because we didn't get all we want? All those people who are being denied every day because of pre-existing conditions and all the people who are getting their policies cancelled because they dared to get sick? Fuck them. We didn't get the public option we wanted so fuck you.

Really?

If Ted Kennedy had compromised with Nixon, Clinton would have had a platform from which to work. And if that were the case, he might have been successful in pushing through additional changes. And, if that were the case, we might be looking at passing ae single-payer option today instead of starting from scratch. Haven't we learned anything at all?

If we don't get everything we want, we should just throw a bomb and blow the whole thing up so no one gets anything. The people who just got diagnosed with cancer can prepare to die because we're too proud to accept anyting less than a public option. Really? You think that?

That's just sad.

[Better Believe It]

9. Many more will die if the private insurance industry and drug cartel get their bill passed.

[Phx_Dem]

12. No. That is the most ludricus argument I have ever heard.

Better than many more should die than just some because YOU didn't get exactly what you want. They will, absolutely without a doubt, have some type of option for people who currently are unable to get insurance. You can take that to the fucking bank. But you think we should turn it down on behalf of all those people who currently have nothing because it's not the public option that you want? How selfish can you be? And how dare you decide that on behalf of people who have nothing.

I think we will get a public option, but to veto a bill that is good as far as reform regulation goes, would be a disgrace.

[Better Believe It]

15. So you trust the insurance and drug industry to throw a few crumbs your way ....

and for that you'll get on your knees and thank them for their kindness and public spirited citizenship?

Hey .... don't you really understand when you're being taken for a ride? Don't be so naive!

[Phx_Dem]

16. No, I don't. I trust the Democrats to put a bill through that regulates

them, just like I want corporations regulated by environmental (among many other) standards and rules.

I want a public option, but I do not want to throw away a reform bill that regulates insurance companies if we can't get a public option.

Voting no on an otherwise good bill regulating pre-existing conditions and the other issues, would be doing exactly what you're arguing against . . . allowing the insurance companies to continue doing whatever the hell they want. I am not for that.

[Inuca]

14. A big THANKS for the sanity n/t

[GivePeaceAchance]

11. Agree.

[damntexdem]

13. Obama should vote no if it doesn't have a public option -- and his vote really, really counts.

Because a veto would not be overridden in Congress.