What is this "maybe we need more republican rule for the people to really wake up" argument?

[BzaDem]

I have seen several people argue that if we don't get a public option, we should pass no reform. These people know that doing so will probably cause huge gains in 2010 and maybe 2012, and they acknowledge this. They say that this is a good thing, because it will cause people will "wake up" or "take to the streets" and cause single payer magically to get enacted. I don't understand why people keep making such a specious argument.

For the past 70 years, presidents have tried and failed to enact healthcare reform. Close to 30 Congresses failed to pass single payer or a public option. Was there a groundswell of supports for liberals? No. After 8 years of Reagan, was there a huge swell of support for liberal causes? Nope. We instead got G.H.W. Bush. Finally, people decided it was time to switch parties, and Clinton was elected. He failed to get healthcare reform at all, and Republicans take control of Congress. Then, was there a huge swell of support for liberal causes? Nope. Republicans retained control of Congress for 12 years.

We now have Obama and a Democratic Congress. Let's say that the choice is between passing reform with no public option or no reform, and we choose no reform. Republicans take control of the house in 2010, and dwindle our Senate majority down to 2 or 3 seats. Will there be a swell of support for liberal causes in 2012? Even if there is, we will be defending twice the number of Senate seats as we will be fighting for. Even if we win close to every one (!), we still will probably have fewer than 60 seats in 2012. The more likely event is we keep a razor-thin majority or we go into the minority (even if Obama wins). In the best case scenario, it would take us years to get to around 65 seats, which would be required to get a public option. By that point, people will tire of Democrats in the whitehouse and we will probably have a Republican president.

My best explanation for why people float such a dumb argument is cognitive dissonance. There are two facts that (to some) cause a tension: they *really really really really* want a public option, and that they are not going to get a public option. This tension causes people to just invent some "swell of support for liberal causes after more republican rule" fantasy scenario. That's just my guess. But if anyone has any other ideas as to why this argument keeps coming up, I would love to hear them.

[Skittles]

1. we cannot afford more repuke rule

look what 8 years of bush did to America - give 'em more time and they'll finish America off and pick at its carcass

[Chulanowa]

2. The truth is...

Most people don't give a shit. Seriously, they don't. The huge problem with democracy is that "the people" are, for the most part, ambulatory meat packages waiting for a tiger to drop by for dinner, and nothing more. There is a severe, and possibly genetic lack of give-a-shit, not just in America, but through the world. You want to talk health care? Well, here's how it goes. Whoever gets the last word wins the public, because for the most part the public is inane, inattentive, and just doesn't give a shit about anything beyond their immediate eat-shit-breed life cycles.

Ergo, we could have fifty years of Republicans wiping their asses with everyone's hair, and so long as htye kept talking about how evil the liberals are, and so long as the liberals lay down and take it, then that's what the truth will be to the public.

[abq e streeter]

3. sad but a lot of truth there

[still_one]

4. If you assume that passing reform guarantees us victory, that is a sure way to lose

Today it was said one of the bills had up to a 3800 dollar fine for anyone who "can afford" health insurance, who doesn't get it. Of course they determine who can or cannot afford health insurance. I doubt that will go over very big with the American people on ALL sides

As dumb as Congress would like to think the American people are, the fact is that they realize that it was the American people who paid trillions to bail out the financial system, which might have been justified if there was some accountability, but instead there was none, huge bonus amounts were paid to people who created the crisis, and not one of these institutions has been broken up. In other words, they are still too big to fail

As dumb as Congress would like to think the American people are, a trillion dollars has been spent on a war based on a lie

Now Congress is telling us, their public health insurance is OK, but not ours, it is TOO costly.

Please educate me how the Congressional Democrats protected us under bush?

A significant number of Democrats voted to go to war, without checks and balances

A significant number of Democrats voted for the patriot act

In fact enough Democrats rubber-stamped anything that the bush administration sent to them

You are worried about 2010 or even 2012. It is way past due for Democrats to stand for something. The worst thing that could be done is pass a half-baked healthcare bill. If you don't think that would be hung over the Democrats neck, you are sadly mistaken

[BzaDem]

5. You simply are ignorant of how the bill works.

People who make a fair amount under 400 percent of the poverty line (88,000/family) get LARGE subsidies to purchase health insurance. People under 133% of the poverty line can join Medicaid without paying a dime. Those who make over 400% of the poverty line can afford insurance or the fine if they choose not to get insurance.

The worst affected would be those from about 300% to 400% of the poverty line. However, the mandate ONLY takes into effect if the cost of a plan on the highly-regulated insurance exchange exceeds 10% of one's income. Even under a single-payer system, the additional taxes are close to 10% (though somewhat under this amount). So it will not bankrupt or even significantly hurt anyone. It is simply a nudge to get people to purchase health insurance.

[still_one]

8. Fine, but it still does not detract from the fact that Congress has spent trillions on wars

and the financial crisis WITHOUT oversight, yet many in Congress have a problem with 1 trillion dollars over 10 years for a public option?

Something is terribly wrong with that picture

[TheKentuckian]

6. I think this Baucus bill is crap and should be shot down or at least sent for rework

but that doesn't mean we should pass nothing but it is against the party's and the country's long term interests to pass a bad bill. What we need is even just a hand full of Senators to hold the line so we can at minimum, get a better deal for the people.

Blue Dogs have become over powered to the point that the tail is wagging the dog. It is one thing for them to counter balance the left to a degree but is a horse of another color for them to just negate the majority in the caucus as well. Public option is on the Broadway and Main Streets of the Democratic Party and it would seem to me that this minority caucus must bow to the overwhelming majority but instead they are allowed de facto leadership positions that transform Democratic initiatives into whatever is acceptable for them.

Everything they do is seen through the prism of their low population state realities or from the perspective of their big business contributors. These people ignore the needs of the majority of the party and the country. What perilous stupidity to burn the people in high population cities and suburbs when they are our base? Middle income people aren't going to vote for us when we give them higher premiums for lesser coverage, especially in a broader context of the GDP getting eaten up, continued non-universal coverage, and another trillion on the books for an ineffective program.

We have taken on an obligation to lead and we should not do so poorly. We must do something that is a game changer to enact effective legislation here because nibbling around the edges of the status quo just doesn't change the trajectory of where this thing is headed. It doesn't have to be single payer or a public option but would the craven be any more interested in removing insurance's anti-trust exemptions so that broad and enforceable regulation can be put into place? What mechanism can be constructed to override all the different state laws that dictate how these companies operate?

This is a bribe not meaningful reform. The insurance companies aren't being made to sacrifice or change squat that they aren't being paid for in full and Democrats are expected to lie down for it in the name of guilt. Pass a mainstream Democratic bill not a wealth transfer to companies that have acted in bad faith for generations.

[BzaDem]

7. The blue dogs have ALL the power.

The blue dogs would be more than happy if healthcare reform wasn't even brought up. What is so hard to understand about this? Progressives will not be able to ignore them until they get 218 seats in the House.