How can the democrats support healthcare bipartisanship in this political climate

[Juche]

I know it is kosher to claim your opponents are motivated by bad traits and that is a debate tactic that is used heavily in politics (ie 'they' are motivated by stupidity, or ignorance, or greed, or something bad) and I know that is partly why political discussions are just shouting matches.

But seriously. Take the GOP argument against a public option in healthcare. The entire argument against it can be traced back to this.

"A public option violates our belief that the government can do nothing right and that it should have no role in helping people outside of a narrow range of issues (military defense, legal defense, etc). A public option would be so popular among the public that if allowed to choose it, so many might choose it that it would destroy private industry".

When you cut through all the hyperbole, bullshit and arguments the GOP is making that is the entire crux of their argument. That is why they keep saying things like 'crowd private insurance out of the market'. The fear is a public option would be so appealing that people would abandon private insurance for it. Studies have shown a public option would be 20-30% cheaper than a private option due to negotiating power and lower administration costs.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/public-option-in-health-care-reform-why.html

Enter the public insurance option. It doesn't replace the insurance individuals already rely on. But it provides an alternative. It lets them make the decision. It's the health care equivalent of being pro-choice. And it thus serves two purposes. The first is to act as a public insurer. To use market share to bargain down the prices of services, much as Medicare does. To lower administrative costs. To operate outside the need for profit, and quarterly results. The Commonwealth Fund estimated that this would result in savings of 20%-30% over traditional private insurance




A savings of 20-30% can add up. A family might spend $12,000 a year on health insurance premiums, but a public option could do the job for $9000-10,000 a year, which would save the family $2000-3000 a year for money for other bills. So yeah because of that many people will pick the public option.

I am having trouble finding the study, but there was a study out finding that by around 2020 around 110 million people would've joined the public option, leaving another 100 million with private insurance and another 100 million with other public insurance plans (medicare, medicaid, va, SCHIP, etc). So the fear is that by that point with 2/3 of the public on public insurance the government would just go for single payer and totally push private industry out of the running.


But the entire argument of the GOP isn't that a public option isn't in the public's best interest. It is that a public option isn't in the best interest of their ideology and that if the public are given freedom (meaning freedom to choose a public option) they may use that freedom to do things that threaten the GOP ideology (the ideology that government is bad, has no role in civic life and does nothing right). I know that dems can and do do the same thing (put ideology above country and oppose legislation that can help the country but hurt their beliefs or constituents) but why do you want bipartisanship with people who think that way of any party? What can you possibly gain? That is the attitude of a dictator. A dictator says 'we need to take away people's freedoms to read whatever books and websites they want. If they are given the freedom to do that they may use their freedoms to engage in behavior that threatens our ideology'. As a result islamic dictatorships ban books and websites that threaten islam. Secular dictators ban books and websites that threaten the validity of the regime. Are republicans as bad as 3rd world dictators? No. I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying the argument they are making is fundamentally just an argument that you'd find in a dictatorship. Take away people's rights and freedoms because they might use them to do things that threaten your (meaning the political leaders) beliefs and interests.


Again, I know its kosher to claim your opponents are motivated by bad traits and all. And I know that is partly why politics is so polar. But I really can't see any good motives in blocking a public option. The entire argument against it is that it will work too well, save too much money and as a result tons of people will choose it if given the freedom to do so. So people have to have their freedoms taken away because they might use them in ways that make the ruling class uncomfortable.

What good can come from bipartisanship in this scenario? I honestly can't see any. Just ram it down their throats with budget reconciliation, 50 votes in the senate and the VP as the senate tie breaker. That is how Bush got his tax cuts in 2001 passed.

[Oregone]

1. Because being bipartisan with assholes is an excuse for not delivering...

...on something that would also hurt your own campaign contributions.

This bipartisan rap is just a smokescreen for a bunch of people wanting to do nothing, but create the largest perception of them doing something.

[leftofthedial]

2. the LAST thing any of them wants is actual change

now that the tried-and-true "not enough votes" lie is gone, "bipartisanship" is the latest way to keep from doing anything that might piss off our owners.

[Juche]

3. Hadn't thought of that

You are right. The same thing will happen with EFCA. Even if after 2010 we have 64 dems in the senate, I fear they will find a way to screw it up.