"A more productive use of the left's time would have been to fight for greater subsidies and greater insurance regulation in the final bill, rather than waging a Quixotic fight to save the public option or introduce a single-payer system. As it is, the former goals can be fought for the future *if* the bill passes."
Oh, I see....so you really do think that that wasn't what liberal Dems weren't fighting for to begin with in the original bill??
Secondly....maybe it might have slipped by you, but the "public option" -- framewise speaking -- was always nothing more than a ruse to drag liberals by their fingers. The "public option" that was ultimately passed by the House was merely a crumb token of what was originally proposed in the House "tri-committee" bill...and even the latter was in itself a crumb compared to what was originally billed as the "public option" by HCAN lobbyist Jacob Hacker a year ago. Kip Sullivan of the Physicians for a National Health Program blog has documented the full sad story:
Kip Sullivan: "Bait and switch: How the 'public option' was sold" http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/
Thirdly....do you really think that if all the liberal Dems and their stooges in the blogosphere had ratched down their concerns and attempted to settle for "increased subsidies" and greater regulation, that that would have subdued the Repubs and ConservaDems/Blue Dogs any less?? If you believe that, I have some desert in South Louisiana that I'll sell you. Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson would have been just as opposed. Be that as it may, the underhanded tactics of Barack Obama in taking Big Insura's money and making deals under the table would have killed even that incremental attempt of reform.
Also...it should be noted that poll after poll clearly showed that the general public (at least those not totally taken by Teabagger ideology) overwhelmingly supported the concept of a "public option" and far-tighter regulation of insurance companies....and probably would have, if given a fair explanation of what single payer would do, supported the radical notion of a single payer program. Hell....at the very least, the private health insurance companies are so despised and hated by the general public that even an outright socialized/nationalized health care system
would get decent support. Why settle for crumbs when you can own the whole darn baker's shop??
I have a better idea, Somebody: how about we create a popular Left that actually promotes Left political policies, rather than depending on liberal Dems for crumbs that can be snatched away in an next political cycle? Relying on conservative Democrats certainly hasn't worked so well, hasn't it?
Anthony