Which group (or person) is most responsible for impeding meaningful healthcare reform?

[HughMoran]

I'm not sure how DU will answer this - very curious - who is most responsible for impeding meaningful healthcare reform?

[Cant trust em]

1. Being that there are 40 RRs, I have to put most of the blame there. nt

[rurallib]

2. I would be curious why anyone would vote that Obama is the block?

[HughMoran]

4. To make a point

They don't really believe that - at least if asked to be 100% intellectually honest they couldn't possibly believe something so entirely ridiculous. "a combination of all 3" or "DDs & RRs" is the correct answer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. To disrupt.

[librechik]

6. Because Obama is keeping his pledge to the parmaceutical industry and other "stakeholders"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

instead of the people who elected him? Just maybe? Things could have been different if he had shown leadership instead of buckling. IMO, he had an opportunity and wasted it. There's potential there, but he has not shown it in this issue.

[HughMoran]

8. So according to his detractors: Obama wasn't involved enough, but he caved to industry

My head is numbing at the hypocrisy of those who would say such nonsense.

None of it's true and anybody who says differently is being dishonest to make a point.

[ieoeja]

11. Don't blame librechik, it is *your* fault librechik feels that way.

Had you pushed librechik harder, then she would agree with you that blaming Obama for what the Conservatives do is no different than, say, blaming HughMoran for what librechik does.

So clearly it is your damned fault. Stop trying to blame it on librechik!

[noiretextatique]

3. insurance industry and its blue dog and republicon lackeys eom

[vi5]

7. Enough blame to go around.....

But whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Republicans are in the minority. If the dems had a cohesive vision, solid leadership, and were aggressive in selling their agenda to their colleagues and the American people then those republicans would be meaningless.

-Obama doesn't deserve the lion's share of the blame but I also don't think he was forceful enough right out of the gate in selling his message and being crystal clear on what he would or would not do. This allowed too much room for interpretation and the perception of being willing to cave and/or compromise right out of the gate. Also, given that at this point Leiberman is one of the biggest issues and roadblocks, Obama deserves a good chunk of responsibility for his whole "forgive and forget" approach after the election betrayal.

-The Dem leadership who are obviously the ones designing and shepharding this through their halls obviously bear the lion's share of responsibility. Signalling their willingness to bargain away so early in the process sent the wrong message and the wrong signals.

-Not a solid enough media presence on the part of strong, articulate, pro-reform dems. And once the conservadems started drawing lines in the sand and playing my way or the highway, the pro-reform dems should have started doing the same and stepping up their game.

[HughMoran]

19. I agree - plenty of blame to go around

I'm somewhat puzzled at the blame Obama get for Lieberman - what alternative scenario would have Lieberman playing ball?

Also, if "willingness to bargain" still doesn't get 2-3 Dems at all, how would "unwilling to bargain" have made the insurance companies spend any less time manipulating Lieberman et al against reform? It's easy to second guess after what has happened, but there's a nearly 0% chance that what you've suggested would have made a whits worth of difference. It's easy to intellectualize about this issue, but these blue-dog no-better-than-Republican trolls weren't going any where. Why do people think that "magic wands" exist? The only reason we've made any progress at all in this is because the Dems signaled that they would be reasonable in negotiations. They got people to invest time and effort into the process so that they would feel invested in it's success. THIS is why Obama is NOT trying to upstage the Congress. It's so simple, yet hardly anybody on DU understands basic political calculation. Rigidity and signaling "my way or the highway" only works for Republicans as they are jackbooted lockstepping thugs, this technique does NOT work for the party that actually thinks before it acts and where a LOT of input is expected from many different factions.

:think:

[vi5]

21. I'm not looking for magic wands or claiming they exist...

...but politics is rough sport, plain and simple. It's basic negotiation. And the fact is that you don't start from a position of compromise. You start from a "This is what I want. I want all of it. I will only settle for all of it. Now let's talk." then from there, yes it gets whittled down and yes you make concessions. But when you start from the prone position and starting with the emphasis on compromise rather than the emphasis being on a good bill you're going to end up with even less. And that's what Obama did and that's what the Dem leadership did. They started with the emphasis on bipartisanship and compromise rather than starting with saying "We have a democratic president, a democratic house, and a democratic senate. Let's get a good democratic bill." and then making concessions to the people who proved themselves willing to negotiate in some semblance of good faith. But what happened was from the outset all signals were that it was more important to get a bipartisan bill and more important to get republican votes just like with the stimulus. So that signalled to the moderate dems that they could wield a cudgel as well.

There is something between what the republicans did when they called the shots which was run roughshod over everyone, and what the dems are doing which is expecting everyone to get along and come to a compromise just because they asked nicely.

Bottom line is that they didn't need to be rigid and signal my way or the highway but they all needed to be much more aggressive and play much more offense than they did and much more than they have.

As for Lieberman, it's not even as much the specifics of the healthcare issue as it is the fact that he is basically being rewarded for betraying Obama and betraying the democrats at every turn. The democrats are in the majority and yet he gets to keep his committee chairmanships. Forget the fact that it sends a signal that this type of behavior is o.k. and others can feel free to take advantage of Obama's need for bipartisan concensus. The bottom line is that there is someone on these committees who is a dem and who wants to be and stay a dem and who is voting as a dem as part of the democratic caucus who is not getting that position because Lieberman has it. As I've said before it's absolutely pathetic and weak to allow someone to benefit from the democratic majority while stifling their goals and their legislation at every possible turn for his own benefit. No, it wouldn't necessarily make him vote the way we want, but it sure as shit would show him that there are no rewards to be had for preventing our progress.

I hated the way the repubs governed, but I'm getting tired of the naivete of people who think we can govern and be effective by being the nice guys. It's just not how politics works any more. Those days are long gone. So for us to sit here and say "Well, we won't get anything done and our bills will be ineffective at best and even more detrimental to the american people at worse....but hey at least we can all pat ourselves on the back for not being as bad as republicans is just naive as all hell." What success are people going to feel invested in with this? Even the few things that were good about it (things like the elimination of lifetime caps) are being undermined by other measures (the allowing of annual caps) or in a lack of emphasis on enforcement. So what sterling success are we all being invested in? The american people are going to hate this bill just like they hated the stimulus and like that, any modicum of good measures and positive changes are going to be so outweighed by the negative impacts that nobody is going to give Obama or the dems any credit whatsoever because they'll be too busy hating what was put through.

As always I'll be happy to be wrong, but something tells me I won't be.

[HughMoran]

22. I disagree on each of your points

& I'm nearly certain that you will be proven wrong on most points as well.

1) no amount of posturing or "asking for everything" would have changed Nelson, Lieberman, Baucus, Bayh, Landrieu or Lincoln. Belive what you want, but they are conservadems and would have killed heathcare instantly if it was single payer.

2) I don't think Lieberman should have committee chairmanships either, but that's not relevant to the healthcare debate. That's a diversion on your part. He wasn't "rewarded" for something he hadn't done yet - namely stick healthcare up our asses. Now if he's still on committees after this latest shiv in the back, then I'm going to be infuriated.

3) No, an eye for an eye thinking just leaves everybody blind. Politics was not like this when I was a kid and somebody has to be the better man (woman) & raise the debate to a higher level. Fuck acting like the enemy - they win if we do that.

[vi5]

24. We'll see.....

I'll be happy to be proven wrong by having a great healthcare bill passed that truly reduces costs and covers a lot of people and stops the horrid practices of the insurance industry.

But since I"m assuming based on your third point that you believe we should strive for a higher idealism than simply giving in to simple base instincts you'll agree that we should be striving for better elected representatives and therefore should not just vote for democrats because they are the lesser of 2 evils. Because if I'm expected to be an idealist and take the high road even if it means bad things for myself, for my family and friends, and for the country in general then that means I'm not going to vote for someone just because it's more pragmatic to get democrats elected.

I'll also look forward to some infuriated posts from you when Lieberman continues to keep his positions of power after this latest debacle.

[HughMoran]

25. You still don't understand

- no amount of "ask for more" was going to get this Lieberman troll to support a good healthcare bill. Your post-mortem analysis is useless IMO - it's easy to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work out as planned.

- you've completely missed the point about setting the tone - Obama is and will continue to do that - no matter who gets elected. I don't give a crap about any grandstanding about who you vote for either, it won't make a whits worth of difference in the end unless you can get others to see things your way. Based on the arrogance of many of the "my way or the highway" attitudes here, it is clear that these sorts know nobody will follow them based on the self-defeatism built into the intransigent argument.

- I'm calling Lieberman's office today to give him a piece of my mind - will you?

[Individualist]

9. DLC and their neocon pals

[Fumesucker]

10. Who took single payer off the table before negotiations even began?

I think I know the answer but I'm really not sure..

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. Anyone that voted for someone other than DK.

[Fumesucker]

14. Nice dodge.. Kudos n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

16. Truth.

Or did Obama, Clinton, or Edwards advance a single payer system?

[Fumesucker]

18. I wasn't aware that Kucinich was a candidate in the general..

You learn something new every day on DU..

BTW I like the Kookinich myself and was a supporter in the primary.

[Odin2005]

12. BLUE DOGS!!!

:puke:

[LostInAnomie]

15. It's the Blue Dogs.

The Repukes don't have enough Senators to block anything without the collusion of a few scum bag pieces of shit from our side. It's the Blue Dogs that are destroying any chance this thing had.

[WI_DEM]

17. If we get meaningful health care reform then Obama gets the credit, if we don't he will get the

blame. That's the way it works in politics.

[HughMoran]

20. The dishonesty of those who would blame Obama alone for this is telling

All that talk about "intellectual honesty" a while back was more than just an exercise in poll taking.

I was going to start a poll asking how many people act out on the internet because they can't do this in their real lives. I was also going to do a poll where I asked if people were deliberately dishonest in polls to "boost" their "team" on DU. I didn't because I already know the answer from this poll. Sociologists are writing books as we speak on how humans interact on the internet versus real life. It's a fascinating topic.

[OneBlueSky]

23. it all starts and ends with the insurance industry . . .

the politicians in DC are merely their mouthpieces . . .

[Cerridwen]

26. +40,000,000 - new customers, that is. What OneBlueSky said.

This is all for, by, and about the insurance industry.