The Bottom Line on Health Care

Slinkerwink at dkos and Jane Hamsher/MoveOn/ActBlue have all been making excellent progress in confronting Dems that haven't been on the right page. That's constructive, and I'm supporting those efforts.

I'm just not buying that OFA can turn us off and on like spigots.

Educate yourself. Think for yourself. Be yourself. Act for others.

*I realize this isn't fair to blood-sucking leeches. Blood-sucking leeches may be the only form of healthcare we get if "healthcare" corporations get their way.  

Health Care Reform is THE issue that pulled me into political activism and this article helped reaffirm what I already know. I do want to remain hopeful and optimistic, but at what cost?

Dem. Congress, which is still bought and paid for by lobbyists, STILL has no backbone and/or integrity and is about to botch it. Messaging and framing the argument were flawed out of the gate, almost as if they really didn't want reform or their communication peeps are incompetent.

I'm officially done fighting for these watered=dwpmn bills that will not help my situation in any way (since I cannot buy into the public option because my employer offers shitty, expensive health insurance)and will only support a policy and/or candidate that has the integrity and courage to stand behind a single-payer system. This debauchery points to the bigger problem: campaign finance refrom, which I hope folks will use to help push this forward when the dust settles on the operating room floor. Putting a dysfunctional and corrupt system in charge of fixing one that is equally dysfunctional and corrupt is compleely absurd.

Amen...

"For every political action, there is an equal but opposite satiric reaction." Political Fallout: http://www.political-fallout.blogspot.com/

As for the President, he has made some poor political choices...but so have the Democrats in charge of Congress.

Here's what they should have done.  Instead of having 5 different 1000-page bills in various Congressional committees, President Obama should have championed two simple reforms:

1.  Deal with the issue of purchasing health insurance across state lines (or lack thereof).

2.  Deal with the pre-existing condition issues with coverage (or lack thereof).

Why do these two things first?  Well, #1 would pass with huge Democratic and Republican support.  #2 would probably be a little less popular, but the bill would ultimately pass.  And then you have your first and second (easy) victories.  The bills would have passed in one month, been signed into law, and health care reform would have been on its way with one important difference than where we are today:  Barack Obama would have a political win notched in his belt.

This is not a "Go big or go home" situation.  I know I'm playing Monday morning quarterback, but it was a serious political miscalculation.

Congress should have started small and non-controversial, to get the ball rolling.  Instead they put all their eggs into the one basket of "all encompassing health reform in 2 months."

Mistake.

Anyway, they did this in a sense by expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program in January.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

Again, I'm being a Monday morning quarterback, here.

I'm just saying, Democrats in Congress would be in a lot better position right now, had they done what I suggested.

Lumping in the uncontroversial things with the controversial things clearly isn't working.  Lumping everything together allows for the clouding of major issues (death panels, anyone?), and ultimately hinders any reform whatsoever.

I'm a firm believer in springboard politics, where passing successful legislation is a lot better than not passing legislation.  I argue that it is well worth passing the uncontroversial things early for several reasons:

1.  The boost given in polls is well worth it.
2.  The label of "the same old Washington" is avoided, mainly because something of substance has been achieved.  A big reason I think many people are upset is because nothing has been done, and there are several things that could be fixed VERY easily.
3.  In the realm of public opinion, you now have "capital" for lack of a better word...and you can use it...plus you might be on a higher road than the opposition, due to your success.

I guess I was too strong in faulting the Democrats for their strategy.  However, I still maintain that the way they handled things this summer was unfortunate, and that successful legislation can easily springboard to more successful legislation, while legislative failure (i.e. where we are right now) can more easily lead to legislative failures.

Running under a banner of hope is dandy, but running under the banner of (worthwhile, quality, and popular) success is superior.

Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that success for Obama is compromising on key issues.  But I am suggesting that Obama could have important, quality, non-controversial, and widely popular reform under his belt already.  But at this time, he does not.  Which position is more desirable, where he is now, or where he would have been had he done what I outlined above?

We have a chance at this after waiting for 16 years since the last attempt. People don't understand that the mandates are part of what makes the plan affordable for everyone. Besides, young people, who tend to feel immortal, do need some basic health insurance and don't quite get it as a rule.

We need leadership, and we need it pronto.

Educate yourself. Think for yourself. Be yourself. Act for others.