Skip to main content

I have run out of reasonable arguments for supporting this bill particularly the idea of future improvement. I don't see how this is the case when this bill makes insurance companies stronger. Then every supporter of the Senate bill including presidents Obama and Clinton argue that if health care is not passed now it will never be attempted again. I don't know that either.

Having said that I am not ready to oppose this bill.

My only reason to not oppose this bill is to avoid Lieberman's real goal from being achieved. His goal isn't to sink the bill. It's to sink Obama.

This bill makes insurance companies and their future influence in politics bigger. I don't see how this sort of framework is something that we can build upon. It is even weaker than the Snowe compromise. Now I don't think we as liberals should overreach but every time that we have been fearmongered into doing something because all hell will break loose we have regretted it.

Iraq war

Despite the lack of sensible arguments from the White House and from the supporters of the bill a very real question that needs to be asked is whether we have lost faith on Obama. Because sinking this bill will sink Obama. The only reason I am not sure I oppose this bill, is that I can't bear to see the Bohner, Lieberman and Drudge bask in "liberal demise". I know this might not be persuasive. But it is how I feel.

Has Obama sold us out? I don't like his financial team or his civil liberties record with Bush DOJ, but in terms of actual policy is this lack of progress Obama's fault?

Or is it the conservadems like Stupak, Ross, Nelson and Lieberman?

Do you really believe that if Obama had a liberal majority he wouldn't push for more? Do you really believe that if he had interfered with the Senate more Lieberman would have changed his vote?

If so sink the bill and Obama with it.

I am not ready to go down that path yet. I am open to reconciliation, but I am not open to seeing Lieberman achieving his real goal which is to sink Obama altogether. Like I said this might not persuade the technocrats or those seeking details.

But I am not ready to see the Obama policies go down. Then again I am not that far off and understand if you do.

Originally posted to ystasino on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:36 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There will be no choice. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tyto Alba

    Insurance is bankrupting the country, and this bill does nothing to lower health care as a percentage of GDP.  In fact it exacerbates it.
    The whole problem is contriving a system that keeps private insurance when they fill no real need in the system. No one would go and build a system like this from scratch. Get rid of them and you just saved 18 percent or so of the cost,  streamlined the process greatly, provided more health care and eliminated 60 percent of bankruptcies.

  •  Okay, when was the last time progressive got (3+ / 0-)

    together and decided to reform something, but then postpone that reform for later days before they didn't have a good entitlement program?

    I can't think of any example. So, let us kill it now and then craft something better and from scratch late is a fantasy. There are no examples that support this proposition.

    Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 03:45:41 PM PST

    •  I just heard Joan Walsh (3+ / 0-)

      make that exact same case on Hardball.  She said that she's been asking around if there was ever a case of progressive legislation that was scuttled to come back better, and there's no evidence of it being possible at all.

      At all.  

      I would be delighted for an historian to show me I'm wrong.

      Earns no money here for blogging, commenting, or driving traffic to any web site.

      by mem from somerville on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 04:40:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who is Joan Walsh? It doesn't matter. Yes, that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mem from somerville, ETF, sciphile

        is a fair question and i can think of any example really.

        Those who argue for the-all-or-nothing will get nothing.

        Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

        by Mutual Assured Destruction on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 04:45:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She's at Salon (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mutual Assured Destruction

          Earns no money here for blogging, commenting, or driving traffic to any web site.

          by mem from somerville on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 04:48:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Joan was just on again (3+ / 0-)

            on the Hardball rerun, so I caught the text this time (transcription errors mine):

            I am actually on this with you, Chris. I believe strongly in the public option, I'm furious with the White House, I really don't think that they pushed for progressive provisions in the bill. However, I do part company with my friends on the left who are saying kill the bill. I think that, you know, history shows us....I've asked people repeatedly: give me 1 example of a progressive reform that was killed by liberals for being not liberal enough, that later passed in a better form.  And nobody has given me one.  Whereas, we improved Medicaid, we improved Medicare, we improved Social Security to expand it to more people. Many problems with this bill, but we can't kill it.

            Earns no money here for blogging, commenting, or driving traffic to any web site.

            by mem from somerville on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 05:03:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This Lieberman hate fest is nuts... (0+ / 0-)

    There are 535 total representatives and Senators, and one president.  All of them had a hand in this mess of a bill.

    The Medicare buy in was never thought out, or even scored by the CBO or other agencies.  Or if there were preliminary feedback to the WH it was that it wouldn't work.

    That's what Lieberman articulated.  He stopped something that never would have happened.  And now he in favor of a compromise, one that is acceptable to the President.

    The hatred of this man is pathological, and stinks to high heaven from this enlightened web site.

    •  That's stupid. Lieberman enabled Bush big time, (0+ / 0-)

      and now he's switched his positions on HCR compromises over and over to make a poison pill bill.

      You know it. You just want no HCR.

      Your defense of the most disgusting Senator in the entire Capitol is pathetic.

      •  absurd response..... (0+ / 0-)

        there is a ton of things wrong with this bill that have nothing to do with Joe Lieberman.

        Ben Nelson is actually demanding a clause that is reprehensible to every pro choice individual, yet how much hatred does he receive.

        And we are talking about HCR, not his previous positions.  And it really doesn't matter, he was elected by his state and has the right to be an independent agent.

        •  Lieberman agreed to the medicare buy in (0+ / 0-)

          before he killed it. Lieberman can do as he likes, but he hasn't a shred of honor nor integrity, nor is his word good with any Senator let alone any American. Yet you think that is grand and okey dokey.

          You don't want the medicare buy in because it would cost money.

          You don't want HCR because it would cost money.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site