WI: Barack Obama Assassinated During Health Care Debate

Swiffness

Ameise said:
I presume you mean 'right' as in 'right-wing'? Is there really a need to explicitly interject your own political bias into your statemets?
Click to expand...

lol wut? Nah, you misunderstood me.

I'll provide full context:

I was referring to when Joe Lieberman used a filibuster threat to shoot down the very promising trial balloon for a age 55+ Medicare buy-in in December 09. Said trial balloon had widespread public support from both Blue Dog senators and the Netroots Left as a favorable compromise in lieu of the Public Option, no small feat in late 2009.

The Public Option was the Great Schism in the Democratic Party during HCR. The internal debate between idealists and pragmatists got UGLY on sites like DailyKos & Democratic Underground. (you can probably guess which side I was on)

Ultimately, it became somewhat overrated by its proponents - the House had the strongest, most "robust" version, yet the CBO said even that version would likely only have a few million participants - hardly the panacea many supporters imagined. Still, there was heavy demand that Obama make a PO non-negotiable for HCR under threat of veto. It became a litmus test for whether or not HCR would be "progressive" enough. To the point where there was a serious contingent of liberals who went as far to say it wouldn't be worth it without a PO and actually wanted to "kill the bill" when it went down - Howard Dean was one of them! It was a really bitter pill to swallow for many. That's why getting Kucinich on board for the final crucial vote in 2010 was BIG NEWS - Nixon went to China.

The thinking was that w/o the PO, HCR would be little more than a "bailout" to insurance companies and entrench them even further. (nevermind the platoons of new regulation for said insurance companies or subsidies to poor people like myself)
 This, as Chris Matthews angrily explained again & again was the textbook method by which Democrats had FAILED to pass comprehensive health care reform for generations - demand something, draw a red line for it, and when you don't get it...spike the whole thing. Just like when Ted Kennedy turned down Nixon's offer of universal health insurance.

When Lieberman came out against the Medicare buy-in, that effectively killed any hope for both that and any Public Option. Harry Reid was attacked savagely for acquiescing, but he simply had no leverage over Joe because he needed every vote.

This came despite Lieberman not only campaigning in the past on Medicare buy-ins......but publicly supporting the idea a few months earlier.

It was rather obvious that he was doing it to spite a resurgent Left that had almost thrown him out of office.

Ezra Klein - not exactly a Trotskyist firebrand mind you - famously characterized it thusly:

To put this in context, Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.

snip

Reid could also try and find another compromise, but it's not clear there are many of those left. And at this point, the underlying dynamic seems to be that Lieberman will destroy any compromise the left likes. That, in fact, seems to be the compromise: Lieberman will pass the bill if he can hurt liberals while doing so.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/joe_lieberman_lets_not_make_a.html
Click to expand...

NY Times:

And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals...

snip

Some Democratic senators who have discussed the health care proposal with Mr. Lieberman have said his positions are inconsistent and at times incoherent.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/lieberman-the-fallout/
Click to expand...

So yeah, maybe a national tragedy butterflies away Lieberman's intransigence. Maybe.
 

Ameise

Swiffness said:
lol wut? Nah, you misunderstood me.

I'll provide full context:

I was referring to when Joe Lieberman used a filibuster threat to shoot down the very promising trial balloon for a age 55+ Medicare buy-in in December 09. Said trial balloon had widespread public support from both Blue Dog senators and the Netroots Left as a favorable compromise in lieu of the Public Option, no small feat in late 2009.

The Public Option was the Great Schism in the Democratic Party during HCR. The internal debate between idealists and pragmatists got UGLY on sites like DailyKos & Democratic Underground. (you can probably guess which side I was on)

Ultimately, it became somewhat overrated by its proponents - the House had the strongest, most "robust" version, yet the CBO said even that version would likely only have a few million participants - hardly the panacea many supporters imagined. Still, there was heavy demand that Obama make a PO non-negotiable for HCR under threat of veto. It became a litmus test for whether or not HCR would be "progressive" enough. To the point where there was a serious contingent of liberals who went as far to say it wouldn't be worth it without a PO and actually wanted to "kill the bill" when it went down - Howard Dean was one of them! It was a really bitter pill to swallow for many. That's why getting Kucinich on board for the final crucial vote in 2010 was BIG NEWS - Nixon went to China.

The thinking was that w/o the PO, HCR would be little more than a "bailout" to insurance companies and entrench them even further. (nevermind the platoons of new regulation for said insurance companies or subsidies to poor people like myself)
 This, as Chris Matthews angrily explained again & again was the textbook method by which Democrats had FAILED to pass comprehensive health care reform for generations - demand something, draw a red line for it, and when you don't get it...spike the whole thing. Just like when Ted Kennedy turned down Nixon's offer of universal health insurance.

When Lieberman came out against the Medicare buy-in, that effectively killed any hope for both that and any Public Option. Harry Reid was attacked savagely for acquiescing, but he simply had no leverage over Joe because he needed every vote.

This came despite Lieberman not only campaigning in the past on Medicare buy-ins......but publicly supporting the idea a few months earlier.

It was rather obvious that he was doing it to spite a resurgent Left that had almost thrown him out of office.

Ezra Klein - not exactly a Trotskyist firebrand mind you - famously characterized it thusly:



NY Times:



So yeah, maybe a national tragedy butterflies away Lieberman's intransigence. Maybe.
Click to expand...

Now I'm even more confused by your statement of 'right'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top