[WS:] This is a good argument, but it also begs a larger question. The dynamic you describe has been in place from the start, it has not just developed. So the fact that the progs embarked on a strategy that was bound to make them cave in suggests that they were either clueless (which I find hard to believe) or that they knew the outcome but pretended that a different outcome was possible.
AFAIK, since 1945 the health care reform in the US is a history recurrently repeating itself as farce and following the same scenario - reformers proposing a timid reform with byzantine architecture and shrouded in incomprehensible technical mumbo-jumbo, then the opponens mounting a fierce counter-attack making passionate appeal to populist sentiments and either thwarting the reform altogether or reducing it to insignificance. The only exception to this cycle was the passage of Medicare - which unlike other efforts aiming chiefly to help a narrowly defined means-tested groups, was a universal benefit albeit available to people in a certain age group.
So the real question is why did not the progressive Democrats learn from history and replicated the strategy that had some success, but instead repeatedly followed one that failed? I have a strong suspicion that the reason of that is that most Dems (with a few exceptions) did not want to pass a universal program that works but instead engaged in what Congress has been doing since the beginning of the republic - distributing patronage while paying lip service to the need for genuine reform.
Quite frankly, the main gain of the current effort that you suggest, the 30 million insured, could be accomplished with much lens fanfare by simple extension of Medicare eligibility and with far less pork going to inscos and far less damage to the middle class than the current effort may cause. I have a strong suspicion that after the dust settles, the changes of the status quo will be minimal or for the worse - the inscos will make like bandits and will still be able to circumvent attempts to restrict their current practices, the people who are uninsured will remain effectively uninsured (by carrying a nominal insurance that offers very limited coverage), people who currently have insurance will see their coverage deteriorating due to cost cutting measures, and the people who brought us that deal will be asking for more "contributions" to wage another wave of "reforms."
So again, why did no the progs purse the extension of Medicare that could have a very different outcome and require far less effort to pass? Did not they know that they course they took failed in the past was bound to fail this time?
Wojtek
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:34 AM, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> There's nothing wrong with holding out for a deal and ultimately relenting
>>> when it is not forthcoming.
>>>
>>
>> The Blue Dogs, etc., threatened to vote no and meant it. They got what
>> they wanted. The pwog never do, and never do.
>>
>
> What kind of comparison is that? The Blue Dogs are credible when they
> threaten to vote no because what do Blue Dogs care about people getting
> health insurance? The pwogs and their donors and constituents do care -
> that's the reason they caved. In a game of chicken, the BDs have nothing to
> lose if the bill fails, whereas progressives could lose a lot. If the
> leadership threatens the BDs with the prospect that the bill will fail if
> they vote no, they can just reply "so what?" The progs can't do that.
>
> It's fine and admirable to attack a bad health care bill, fight to replace
> it with single payer, fight to make it less obnoxious, call it a turd, etc.
> I've been calling it a turd too. But in the end, the progressives got
> maneuvered into an up or down vote where they would kill the bill for good
> if they voted no. Just to clarify, if the bill passes 30 million people get
> health insurance, if it fails, they don't. You seem to think it's obvious
> that for an earnest liberal killing the bill is the best thing to do, but
> that doesn't seem so clear to me. Obviously, if the bill had been expected
> to pass by a margin of 100 votes, the progressives would be facing no
> dilemma at all and they'd all vote no.
>
> My point is just that criticizing the progressives for their final vote is
> mis-specifying the source of the problem. The problem isn't that they're
> voting this way. The problem is that they were fated to vote this way given
> the relationship of forces a the outset.
>
> SA
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>