Republicans Have NOT Been Shut Out of the Process on Health Care Reform (UPDATED)
Ezra Klein makes what I think is an unassailable argument that the health care reform bill in Congress right now already does incorporate many Republican ideas:
At this point, I don’t think it’s well understood how many of the GOP’s central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP’s “Solutions for America” homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them — yes, you read that right — are in the Senate health-care bill.
Ezra then looks at each of those four planks and, in meticulous detail, shows how each one is already in the current bill. After demolishing the GOP lie that their ideas are not represented, Ezra concludes thusly (emphasis is mine):
On Sunday, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell responded to Barack Obama’s summit invitation by demanding Obama scrap the health-care reform bill entirely. This is the context for that demand. What they want isn’t a bill that incorporates their ideas. They’ve already got that. What they want is no bill at all. And that’s a hard position for the White House to compromise with.
The post is a must-read. You’ll find it here.
UPDATE: And here comes Eric Cantor to confirm that.
56 Responses to “Republicans Have NOT Been Shut Out of the Process on Health Care Reform (UPDATED)”
Obama needs to learn how to dominate the American public. They would rather have an effective and marketing leader who does things that hurt them than some effeminate academic who tries to muddle through the hard way.
Obama played by the book and offered republicans plenty, and yet he is still too far-left and he is still ramming things down people's throats. Nothing matters in America apart from narratives, appearances and symbolics.
But it matters little to me. A strong nation prospers, a weak one suffers. Same thing with the climate – either we are a worthy species that survives, or a degenerate one that will perish.
I'll take the bait.
I read Ezra's piece and what it appears to say is that most of the Republican ideas have been incorporated in some way. But, to use an analogy. Let's say the an unnamed President wanted to privatize Social Security and let's say that Democrats wanted the program to be “as safe as possible” and the unnamed president said, “Well, we've created the option to invest your money in government bonds so we've incorporated Democratic ideas”. Would you buy that? I wouldn't and neither do I buy Ezra's argument.
Republicans want insurance to be salable nationally across all state lines. Democrats (in the Senate bill only I might add) say that to the degree that some states can agree to sell things across state lines and under some circumstances to be determined in the future by the Sec'y of HHS, this would be permissible. I think we can agree those aren't the same outcome.
Obama made the same argument in his meeting with Republicans. Ideas generally come with scaling. If you can adopt an idea anywhere between 0 and 10 and I want 10, the fundamental question is how far you go toward 10. Obama seems to believe that even a 1 constitutes “adopting” an idea as does Ezra. It's a useful rhetorical device but not really a serious argument.
Now, if Ezra or anyone else wants to argue that Obama is at an 8 or 9 on the 10 point scale, I'm willing to listen but his post doesn't make that point really.
Finally, you must recognize that it's unclear what the final bill will look like and, despite indicating a strong preference in his own writing for the House bill, all of Ezra's examples are drawn from the Senate bill.
It's not clear to me that Republicans, given that they are in the minority, should expect many of their ideas to be adopted to a substantial extent. It is pretty clear to me that there's a difference between a directional nod and the actual adoption of an idea.
So like credit card companies, they can locate in the states with the weakest regulations and worst public protections. A race to the bottom. I remember when the GOP at least PRETENDED to care about states' rights.
What? That was it? Your one idea is to trash states' rights to deregulate insurance companies so they can screw us even more aggressively?
Green,
To be clear, I'm not arguing the merits of the policy. I actually oppose both the cross state line idea and the exchange on Constitutional grounds. Ezra's point was that Republican ideas are being amply included and I'm saying that's not true. You probably believe they shouldn't be. I'm a lot happier with that argument than I am with Ezra's.
I wish I could say, “You've gotta be kidding,” but it's not true. Nothing Republicans say surprises me anymore. You yourself wrote that you give Ezra an 8 or 9 on a scale of 10. I assume then you would agree that 80 to 90 percent of what Republicans want has been included in the bill. What do you want before you say that his point is correct, dude? 100 percent?
No Kathy, I wrote, “Now if Ezra or anyone else wants to argue that Obama is at an 8 or 9 on a 10 point scale, I'm willing to listen but his (Ezra's) post doesn't make that point really”.
The sentence seems reasonably clear to me, but, since you think all Republicans are stupid and you think I'm one, maybe you didn't read what it said but what you wanted it to say.
If you'd like a point by point rehash I'm willing to do it but generally, I'd say somewhere between 1 and 5 depending on the issue in question.
As near as I can read it the Senate bill permits in a limited way some Republican ideas but doesn't require any of them as it requires on a whole host of other points. That seems a long way short of 8, never mind 10.
Holy inaccurate title batman!
Let's be honest, when the republicans were governing, their attitude toward the democrats was we have a mandate, we will do whatever we want, get used to it, that's the way it is. When the democrats are governing (even when they are elected with a real mandate) they are supposed to go to extraordinary lengths, comparatively speaking, to accomodate republicans or they are not “biparitsan” and will be accused of trying to ram through legislation. Seriously, how many people don't see the hypocrisy? The healthcare debate is no exception to that, neither is economic policy (and btw, what about that 50 year plan the R's have to address the deficit?). By now the democrats really should be ramming through legislation, but of course that would be too mean! Too funny..
JSpencer,
Say what you want about Ryan's plan (I assume that's the subject of your second to last sentence), at least his numbers add to zero, which is more than I can say for any other plan I've seen.
Sure Steve, let's settle for 50 years then, clearly it's the best idea going.
C'mon, let's be serious here, Ryan's plan is pretty sad. If that's the best we can do then we really deserve to go down the tubes.
Getting back to the “bipartisan” aspect of HCR, did you look at that statement from Eric Cantor's office? I don't think anyone but a blind loyalist could read that with a straight face. A little more honest and a little higher bar would benefit us all.
What I don't understand about the most of the Republican plans is how will they pass a constitutional test. Tort laws and insurance regulations are I believe other right granted to the state. I haven't heard this issue being addressed so maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps the single payer option is the best route and maybe the only feasible way to go. I am at heart a Pragmatist and if it works I don't care if it is a
socialist program or not. I don't consider Canada or the European countries socialist just because they have some socialist programs.
I would like health care reform but have been deeply concerned about the current bill and the manner in which it has been rushed and the lack of transparency. From the outside it looked like a bunch of sharks in a feeding frenzy. My vote is for starting over and creating a bill that works and helps the people not the politicians, corporations or special interests. I don't know if that will ever happen but that is my hope. Surely reasonable men with good intent can come up with a solution to this complex problem.
I'm also with Teddy Roosevelt in abolishing private funding for political campaigns. Maybe that would help in getting our politician out of the pockets of special interests and make it easier to get a Health Care bill.
Cantor's statement was.
I don't like the current bill. I'm happy to negotiate if we start from zero and actually include some of my ideas. It's posturing pure and simple and that's how I took it. But if you want to take it literally, then yes, it's a bit silly.
Regarding the overall budget balance, show me another plan that has a zero anywhere and we'll talk. You see, it's easy to shoot at any plan that has to deal with the situation we're in. All involve pain and some radical changes.
I agree the timeline on Cantor's plan is too long. I also believe it hits Medicare too hard and SS not enough and doesn't hit the beneficiary (as opposed to cost/beneficiary) side of the equation hard at all.
Finally, the tax plan won't generate the projected revenue. Still and all, it's hard to argue with until there's an alternative.
Personally, I don't think you need to privatize Medicare or SS but I do think you need to sharply limit or eliminate benefits to seniors with wealth. As an example, the top 20% of senior households have a net worth of over $500k. Should they really be receiving Medicare and SS benefits when they have the ability to pay for it (average cost $25K) for 20 years?
So, as I've said before,
Means test all entitlements to the top quartile of wealth
Cut 50 to 100 billion from defense
Let the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire for everyone
End corporate tax subsidies
Freeze all other spending until balance is achieved.
I like my plan better than Ryan's but I like his better than the President's budget which projects trillion dollar plus deficits from 2020 til the collapse of the dollar.
If you have an alternative proposal, put it out there. Or, if you prefer, just keep taking shots but know that it doesn't get us any closer to a solution
Seriously, how many people don't see the hypocrisy?
I see it clearly, that is why I'm an Independent. I have been voting for over 40 years usually for the lesser of two evils.
Newcat,
By what twist of logic do you conclude it's unconstitutional to have a Federal mandate to sell insurance across state lines but it would be Constitutional to have a single payer health care system.
As I read the document, it's pretty hard to argue either is constitutional although the ICC applies more directly to regulating insurance than it would to providing services. I'd argue either both are OK or neither is but arguing one's OK and the other isn't is pretty tortured.
wow. I would have clicked 'like' on that comment several times. I agree with you on health care reform and electoral funding.
As near as I can read it the Senate bill permits in a limited way some Republican ideas but doesn't require any of them as it requires on a whole host of other points.
I frankly don't understand how any reasonable person could conclude the above, but obviously you do. I still think the problem with your reading is that anything less than 100 percent of what Republicans want, with no modification whatsoever, is, to you, a “limited” inclusion of Republican ideas. That's a pretty astounding definition of bipartisan, especially when Republicans are in the minority.
Having said this, it's all pretty much a moot point whether the health care reform bill includes Republican ideas in a “limited” way or in a significant way, because even if they did get 100 percent of what they wanted, it wouldn't change anything, because the Republican position is that the bill has to be scrapped. no matter what Democrats do. It could not possibly be more clear at this point that Democrats have been negotiating and are continuing to negotiate for a bipartisan solution on passing health care reform with a political party that doesn't want to pass health care reform at all.
So Kathy,
I assume you accept my correction of your earlier point as a misinterpretation. Since you asked, let me tick through Ezra's points.
1. Interstate competition…a 10 would be that the state restriction is eliminated (even though personally I think this is unconstitutional). A 5 would be a mandate that multiple states pursue a policy of developing such a multistate option. A 3 would be providing permission to states to pursue it if they want to and if the Sec'y of HHS approve. A 0 is saying no. So I give it a 3.
2. Allow individuals to pool purchasing power…a 10 would be to eliminate all restrictions on individual and small business pooling. A 5 would be creating a government program that allows pooling and purchasing power. A 3 would be allowing such a pooling to happen and a zero would be saying no. So I give it a 5
3.Give states the tools to experiment…a 10 would be to allow states to do whatever they want and provide the tools to measure across. A 5 would be to allow states to experiment within certain guidelines but without approval. A 3 would be to allow states to experiment if and only if they can prove to the satisfaction of HHS that their plan is better and a zero would be no exceptions…another 3
4. Tort reform. A 10 would be loser pays or some other approach. A 5 would be administrative or expert judges. A 3 would be limitations on punitives. A zero is nothing. This is a 1.
5. Employer deductibility. This was a McCain item and not a Republican one and the Senate bill is swiss cheese on this provision and (according to the rumor mill) getting worse.
6. This is a strawman that Ezra invented. He's a clever chap. It gets a NA as a grade.
So I think there are a lot of shades of gray here and the Senate bill is pretty close to the floor. The house bill (which neither you nor Ezra comment on despite the fact that both of you from other posts seem to favor it) would basically score a zero pretty much across the board.
It's kind of funny that you think what you do. The finance committee bill unamended would have passed the Senate with at least a few Republican votes but wouldn't have passed the House. Would that have been Republicans' fault as well?
I assume you accept my correction of your earlier point as a misinterpretation.
I have no idea why you assume that. I don't accept it, and in fact with that long list of “ratings” you show that I was right about what it meant.
And regarding those ratings, it's obvious that you also believe less than 100 percent of what Republicans want, on their entire health care reform “plank,” is not bipartisan. This is a bizarre delusion, and you are only the most recent Republican/conservative to endorse it.
When the democrats are governing (even when they are elected with a real mandate) they are supposed to go to extraordinary lengths, comparatively speaking, to accomodate republicans or they are not “biparitsan” and will be accused of trying to ram through legislation.
Of course they are. Bipartisanship was Obama's platform, and in the wake of the Bush administration voters were keen to vote for it. Democrats did indeed have a real mandate.
Interstate commerce is not a normal state right, and shouldn't be confused with normal state rights. It's actually a far more disputed issue than that.
From article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
….
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Wikipedia gives a good overview of some of basic disputes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
But this link better explorers and explains the controversies, different possible interpretations, and cases that have defined where the law sits now:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrial…
And of course, I have to link to the federal law that allowed the states to restrict “the business of insurance”, which is the real reason why health insurance isn't sold across state lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran-Ferguson_Act
Obama wasn't the only president in recent history to promise bipartisanship. As you may recall, George Bush did that as well, although in his case it was empty rhetoric. At least Obama is trying – not enough for the R's and too much for the D's it would seem, but certainly more effort in that direction than the last administration.
Basically Medicare has already passed the test and I see single payer and Medicare as being very similar. I know of no such equivalent when it comes to insurance. That said I did say that maybe I was wrong so anyone can feel free to enlighten me.
Thanks for mentioning Teddy Roosevelt. A great American and a fine republican role model. To bad we don't have a 21st century version of the guy. He'd get my vote.
Thanks. You've just met your first Right Wing Socialist. That is why I consider myself a moderate I piss everyone off.
Obama wasn't the only president in recent history to promise bipartisanship.
All politicians promise it, but Obama promised it hard enough to convinced people of it. That's one of the reasons I voted for him. So yes, people have elevated expectations, and I agree with you that Obama is trying.
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi didn't get the memo about the mandate, nor did virtually anyone else in Congress. Nancy's constituents don't want bipartisanship, bless their left-leaning hearts. They want the government to spend and spend and keep spending until all injustice is gone from the world. Republicans have their own constituencies and their own agenda, and accommodating Nancy is low on their list of priorities.
Congress is technically a separate branch of government, so one can't directly blame Obama for its members' behavior. But it seems clear he has not been an effective enough cat-herder to deliver on his campaign vision.
The recent vote on the deficit commission proves, in my opinion, that Republicans are voting more on politics than on principle (take your “it's about time” shots if you must:)). So I don't dispute that even if Republicans got most of what they wanted, they would still obstruct. However, I think steveinch has it right to point out that a nod in their general direction is not the same as full adoption of their policies, and there is a big difference between the two.
In addition, I'd argue that it's a mistake to view health care reform as just the sum of a bunch of policies. Even if it were, it would be a reasonable argument that whatever good things are in the bill are cancelled out by the bad. But even that argument fails to realize that reform is more than the sum of the parts. Democrats remind us of this when they tell us that you can't end price discrimination without an individual mandate, for example. All the policies work together for better or for worse, and so you generally can't just single out individual pieces without talking about how they interact with the whole. And that goes for the supporters and the critics of the current reform proposals.
Regarding the question of whether Democrats have been bipartisan “enough”, I think it's kind of a silly, unanswerable question. How much should one party have to work with the other? The answer is simple: however much the voters want them to. The “well, the other party worked with us this much, so we'll work with them only this much” argument is irrelevant because the public doesn't support one party the same as the other, or for the same reasons. So, the Republicans will continue to argue that they have been left out, and the Democrats will continue to argue that Republicans are being unreasonable, but in the end the public decides who is being irresponsible, and so trying to judge the question by any other measure is pointless. Right now, the voters seem to be siding with the Republicans on that question, so if the Democrats want to continue down the “but we've already done enough” road, they do so at their own peril.
Kathy,
My earlier post which maybe you didn't read was about you misquoting me which you did when you said I believed that Republicans were getting 8 out of 10. As you can see from my subsequent post, I don't. I didn't say anything about needing to get 100 percent. I said there were many shades of grey and if what was offered is a pretty light shade of grey (assuming the democratic solution is white). You are free to disagree and to launch personal attacks but the basic point stands. What a bipartisan solution is depends entirely on where you stand on the issue in question. Compromise is a shades of grey discussion and everyone has to draw the line somewhere.
I get you don't like where Republicans are drawing the line. I would expect nothing different from you. But the fact that you and Ezra perceive this great spirit of compromise doesn't mean who people who see the issue differently will see it the same.
Thanks ProfE. Useful links. I guess my point is that the original language is far less expansive than the SCOTUS has made the approach over time. I think the Court has gone so far from the original language, little by little that the current interpretation bears no resemblance to the language. I say that not as a matter of judgment, just as an observation.
More broadly, I think the point should apply consistently
Adel,
I largely agree with your post. I'm actually not arguing that they haven't or have, simply that Ezra and Kathy's assertion that it's obvious on it's face that Democrats have bent over backwards is not true. I'm not sure I expect bipartisanship and when someone promises it, I don't believe them.
Maybe the only place I disagree with you is on the deficit commission. I agree that Republicans were craven on the bill but the 45 nay votes were equally split between the parties (22D and 23R if I recall the roll call correctly).
With the president endorsing the plan, the fact that there were less than 40 democrats that voted for the bill is just as discouraging to me. After all, Harry Reid held the caucus together on HCR which was pretty darn unpopular but couldn't hold it for the commission.
Again, I'm not arguing the superiority of one side. I'm a bit more in the “a pox on both of your houses” camp.
I agree, especially on the “pox” part.
I guess I should say instead that many (but not all) Republicans are voting on politics more than principle (although the same can be said of Democrats in many instances). There are many Republicans that think preventing any possibility of tax increases is even more important than reducing deficits, particularly in a recession. And if that is their position, then I can see voting against the deficit commission. However, I can't see any principled rational for those who supported the commission but then abandoned it later. And those who voted against the commission should not now be complaining about Obama's deficits. So that takes care of most of the Republicans I think.
Yes, many Democrats voted against it too, but Republicans say they are the party of fiscal responsibility, and that they learned their lesson. This was their chance to prove it and they failed.
But the fact that you and Ezra perceive this great spirit of compromise doesn't mean who people who see the issue differently will see it the same.
Wow, no kidding! My point, though, which you still don't seem to get, is that
1. The word “compromise” has an actual dictionary definition — and getting 100 percent of what you want ain't it.
2. The phrase “elections have consequences” means something (although it may not be in your standard dictionary or mine). And expecting to get 100 percent of what you want when you are in the minority is not reasonable by any objective standard.
3. Democrats have given up far, far, far more than they have gotten in return in terms of concessions. The Republicans have gotten 80 percent of what they want. They want 100 percent. And then they want to kill the bill anyway.
4. You can disagree with the above, obviously, and say it's not true — but that does not mean that, by any objective, rational measure, you are correct.
And that's it for me, as far as this particular back and forth. I'm done.
I don't think the public gives a Bronx cheer about whether Congress has been bipartisan enough. I don't believe that Americans care about that at all. Americans, the public, voters — however you want to refer to them — care about results. They care about results, AD. That's what they want, results. If they get the results and the results turn out to be good, no one outside Washington, D.C. gives a rat's tuchas whether the process that led to those results was bipartisan enough.
“Americans want Congress to be bipartisan” is a political talking point for both parties, it does not reflect the reality of how real ordinary Americans think.
I agree. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The argument about whether Democrats or Republicans are being bipartisan enough is pointless. The public cares about results. But not only past results, but future results as well. They vote for the person who they expect will deliver the results they like more, obviously. Which is why the trend of the voting public toward Republicans candidates is significant in these discussions. The debate about which side is being more partisan is really just a psuedo-debate that takes the place of the obviously underlying question: what is the best result and which side/candidate is more able to deliver it?
Strange idea of a bipartisan approach, when moderate democrats join with republicans to oppose the legislation. I guess thats what you call a true bipartisan effort created by the Progressives, they got people from both parties to join in opposition.
Don't worry Kathy, I get it. The R's got 80 percent of what they want because you and Ezra say so. A list of the shades of gray that are possible means little to you or to him.
In fact, all both of you do is assert with no analysis.
Good enough.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Republicans Have NOT Been Shut of the Process on Health Care Reform: Ezra Klein makes what I think is an unassaila… http://bit.ly/bkWjWF...
If I remember right, when the original bill was being drafted, it was a bipartisan approach: both Republicans and blue dog Democrats were shut out.
Bingo.
Wrong, Elwood. You're forgetting about those months and months and months of Max Baucus and his committee, as well as several other committees, rewriting the bill to make it more conservative.
Oh I remember all the attempts and different variations that have been made, but the tone was already set. From bad beginnings. . .
Oh, you mean like from the Democrats having compromised on single-payer (by agreeing to drop it for a public option) even before the negotiations began? I so understand what you mean by the Democrats' “tone” having made it impossible for Republicans to compromise from the start, Elwood. Democrats did not cave in totally even before the negotiations began. That set the tone, and that was it, man. Bipartisanship was doomed.
You are funny, you know that?
Some Democrats. There was never any chance of passing it in the first place. It's an old maneuver called the take-away: you add something that was never in the deal in the first place, then ask for a compromise in order to take it back out again.
It's an old maneuver called the take-away: you add something that was never in the deal in the first place, then ask for a compromise in order to take it back out again.
There was nothing “added” to the bill to be “taken out,” Elwood. Single-payer is what health care reform advocates in and out of Democratic administrations have been trying to get for 60 years. They've never been able to because of the enormous power of the insurance industry and the GOP, which supports that lobby. Rahm Emanuel took it off the table before negotiations in Congress even began. He made a deal with private insurers that in exchange for shelving single-payer, the industry would not oppose a public option. So there was no single-payer to take away because it was never allowed on the table to start with. In other words, it was never in the deal in the first place because Rahm and other conservatives in the Obama administration kept it out of the deal, period.
“It's an old maneuver called the take-away: you add something that was never in the deal in the first place, then ask for a compromise in order to take it back out again.”
That's exactly the case for “single-payer” in whatever form (Medicare for All), this previous year, as would be the case now. It was rejected by Dem leadership and many Dems from the start because they knew the public would reject so radical a position or “reform” attempt, and radical it has been, despite what many of us may think of it if we view it dispassionately (and independently of what we think of the Dems).
Note the position the Dems are in now, with a year of misconduct (not limited to health care), a year of notoriety which has eroded their position and their strength noticeably. (It even has Republicans possibly believing in their own revival — possibly.)
I'll say it again: some Democrats. It doesn't matter for how long, it's not something that they could do. Period. The only “single payer” that could be achieved has already been achieved: government payer, which is right about 50% of the market and growing. Nobody lost anything because they knew they couldn't pass it, regardless of the lobbying, and they knew it. It's been nothing more than a talking point this entire time.
Without the blue dogs they do not have a majority, and the blue dogs wouldn't have gone for it. What about that don't you understand?
Nobody lost anything because they knew they couldn't pass it, regardless of the lobbying, and they knew it. It's been nothing more than a talking point this entire time.
In other words, something that a significant portion of the population wants and that health care reform activists in and out of government have been working for for years is meaningless to a discussion of Republican/conservative influence in shaping health care reform legislation — precisely because Republicans and conservatives oppose it. Republicans can keep single-payer out of any health care reform bill and that very reality that Republicans will never have to compromise on or concede that point means that single-payer doesn't count as an example of how much of the Republican agenda is reflected in the House and Senate bills. Democrats have conceded single-payer as a possibility, ever, which means that Democrats begin any negotiations from a one-down, already compromised position, and that's not an advantage for Republicans? The public option IS, whether you think it is or not, already a huge compromise, and the fact that no single payer will always be the starting point for any bill, which of course means that any public option plan can also be bargained away because that is — falsely — assumed to be the starting point for negotiation, makes single-payer hugely significant when talking about compromise and concessions. It's a permanent concession.
The fact you sneer at that notion just shows what an incredibly partisan, right-wing lens you use to view this entire issue.
Is there something about this that you don't understand? In truth, I'm sure there is, given that a policy goal liberal and progressive Democrats hold so dear, does not even exist for you as something that could be compromised on. You approach this entire discussion with half of your vision impeded.
Without the blue dogs they do not have a majority, and the blue dogs wouldn't have gone for it. What about that don't you understand?
The “blue dogs” opposed the public option, too. Any kind of public option. And so, indeed, there is no public option at all in the Senate bill. But Democrats haven't given up anything, right? Republicans haven't gotten anything, have they?
You do understand that without a majority, you're not going to pass the law, right? You're not going to what you want any more than I am (which is quite a bit different than anything possible in congress from either party). Maybe HuffPo and DailyKos readers believed this lie, but no one else did. It doesn't matter how close the progressive Democrats thought that they were to their ultimate goal, they aren't there yet. We're not talking a “supermajority” even, but a simple 50% — not in congress, not in the polls.
Sorry, but regardless of what you've been told, it wasn't given up for a compromise from anyone. They couldn't do it in the first place.
It doesn't matter how close the progressive Democrats thought that they were to their ultimate goal, they aren't there yet.
Well, no kidding, but this argument between us started when you wrote the following: “If I remember right, when the original bill was being drafted, it was a bipartisan approach: both Republicans and blue dog Democrats were shut out.”
In other words, a sarcastic way of saying the approach was not bipartisan because both Republicans and “blue dogs” were excluded. I disagreed with that, because, well, it's flagrantly untrue, and off we went. Now you're telling me that Democrats can't reach their goal because the “blue dogs” have so much power. So basically you're making my point for me. Democrats have compromised and conceded to beat the band, but they still can't pass the bill because it's not compromised enough for the “blue dogs.”
Of course, Democrats could pass the bill by just adopting the Senate version or by using reconciliation, but so far they have declined to do that.
You were the one that went off on the single payer tangent. What you're trying to say is that the progressive Democrats were compromising with the people that they wouldn't allow in the room, then it became even more bipartisan after the first draft. I'm saying that excluding them from the initial session was a pretty blatant blow-off that put both groups on the defensive. It's not that complicated.
No, it's not at all complicated. Republicans were allowed in the room from the start; single-payer is just one example of how Democrats started compromising even before anyone was in any room.