Skip to main content

View Diary: I'm sorry, Kos frontpagers, but the individual insurance Senate deal is crap... and you know it. (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the reality is that positions that poll very (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    well, often lose their some of their appeal once the debate starts. It happens to the right as well as the left. Privatizing social security did much better in the polls until Bush unveiled it. And to mention a couple of other epic right wing fails, Amendments to allow organized school prayer and another to ban flag burning. Both were very popular in the polls until our side started pointing out problems with it.

    Once the Republican started their rhetoric about government take over of one fifth of the economy, many people who thought a public option was cool got scared away from it.

    We have to change the term of the debate, and stop letting the GOP capture the narrative. That is easier said than done, but I believe we've made some progress. Like I said above, we have already changed the terms of the debate on health care. But there's a lot more work to be done, and many rivers to cross.

    Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

    by RhodeIslandAspie on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 10:53:55 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The public option never lost public support (6+ / 0-)

      it was killed by politicians not a lack of support from the public.

      Like I said above, we have already changed the terms of the debate on health care.
      When the debate is about single payer vs. what we have now I'll believe this is true. As it is the GOP terms of the debate are now front and center. They invented this program.
      •  But when the other side terms it (0+ / 0-)

        a government run company, support drops.  Public option/government run company - it's just words, but phrasing is very important when it comes to seizing the narrative. With well informed voters, this crap doesn't make much difference, but with the low info voters, the wording is important. It's really a sad commentary, really. But the Republicans are masters of the buzzwords. They didn't have to even win a majority of the people to their side against the public option, just increasing the opposition is enough to spook enough Democrats against it.

        I do agree that we were too quick to drop it, thank you Mr President. There's nothing that encourages the other side more than a show of weakness.

        Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

        by RhodeIslandAspie on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 11:33:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Public perception had zero to do with the lack (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          magnetics, SoCaliana, akmk, Sunspots

          of a public option in the health care bill. It was killed by politicians and its removal from reform had nothing to do with public support for it and everything to do with conservative politicians killing it to support insurance companies. The fight was never about PR, it was about the industry owning too many politicians.

    •  Very empty words (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      magnetics, Sunspots
      Once the Republican started their rhetoric about government take over of one fifth of the economy, many people who thought a public option was cool got scared away from it.
      So because Democrats instantly crumble from any kind of Republican rhetorical bullshit, that made the public option unworkable "in reality"? You're comparing Bush's proposals to privatize SS to the debate for single-payer? Seriously? Have you seen the polls for what people want to be done with SS? Hint: It's not privatizing it.

      How have we "changed the terms of the debate" when the primary goal of the ACA is to keep the health insurance companies in business? Wouldn't changing the debate be arguing for single-payer?

      You know, that thing that the Democrats just won't do?

      Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

      by Boogalord on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 11:37:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly my point. (0+ / 0-)

        When simply thrown around as policy discussion, it was more popular that when he actually put it on the table, particularly when there was an organized opposition - us - who were ready to pick holes in it. They never knew what hit them.

        Single payer is what we all want. But simply getting any sort of commitment was a struggle. The baseline in our country was to have no guarantee except to elderly and the very poor, and even the latter had been under heavy attack from the right. The Republicans opposed what we put on the table, even though it was originally a Republican proposal, proving there were never serious about any sort of health reform. Over their dead body would it be passed they told us. It has been passed, and they are still alive, somewhat.  And they have still have their bi-weekly attempts to repeal it.

        If it is such a reactionary plan, why have these reactionaries opposed it so vehemently? If they honestly believe the ACA is as attrocious as they say, why not let it be and let it fall apart on its own? Because the ACA, bu its very existence as I said, has changed the terms of the debate. So, what if it is not perfect? If the American people have a choice between scrapping it or coming up with a better plan, what do think that will be? The Republicans know that the next step will be a single payer plan. They are on defense for a change instead of us, and I like that.

        Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

        by RhodeIslandAspie on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 12:30:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the lesson is, we can never actually propose (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shadowmuffin, Sunspots

          anything that's actually good, because then the Republicans will try to poke holes in it?

          Single payer is what we all want. But simply getting any sort of commitment was a struggle.
          Yeah, it was a struggle to get commitment from the D's. Yes, the R's would scream bloody murder. Yes, the Dems would have to vigorously defend their (tremendously popular) position in the face of strong opposition instead of instantly assuming the fetal position.
          Because the ACA, bu its very existence as I said, has changed the terms of the debate.
          I don't know what this is supposed to mean, and I definitely don't see how locking everyone into buying private insurance is the logical step to single-payer healthcare.

          The R's oppose the ACA because they hate Obama and everything he supposedly represents. Obviously. The only way the ACA has "changed the debate" is in calling out the worst of the insurance industry's practices while working very hard to preserve the private system as a whole.

          I don't see any Democrats arguing to single-payer.

          Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

          by Boogalord on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 01:30:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's not how I remember it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      schumann, Sunspots

      I don't recall support for a public option ever wavering in the polls.  What I do remember is politicians dancing around the edges of a very popular idea that they did not want to either support or come out against.  As I recall they never had a vote on the Public option in the senate to protect Democrats from having to go on record.

      Voting for Democrats gets us movement on social issues like marriage equality that doesn't negatively impact and corporate interests, but with our current system of government the terms of debate aren't all that important as far as things like getting single payer goes, because there really isn't that much our elected officials want to debate on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site