I don't disagree with any of this except the suggestion the democrats could have passed anything they wanted. The problem there is what did a majority of democrats "want" and was it a big enough majority to pass any thing the majority of democrats "wanted". It certainly wasn't in the Senate! I think you and Jem have confused holding a majority of Seats with a majority of votes on any particular issue. But of course holding a majority of seats does not guarantee a majority of votes. Therein lies a defect in your thinking I believe.
By the way, that Health Affairs rundown of the Public Option battle is thorough and accurate as far as I can tell. One thing left out is that the bipartisan bill that Baucus was trying to forge in the Senate did not include the Public Option. Baucus knows which side of his bread has the butter. Obama and Pelosi always favored inclusion of the public option, but they also recognized early on that they were not going to get it through the Senate. The votes weren't there to break a filibuster. Obama and Pelosi did what had to be done to get a Bill through both houses. It is a bad Bill and a Good Bill at the same time. Its major defect is that there are only quite ineffective cost control measures. And cost is at the very heart of the U.S. Healthcare problem.
You can say that Obama and Pelosi caved to the insurance industry, which in effect they did. But what they had to do, and what they wanted to do are not the same. They made the decision fairly early in the fight that something was better than nothing. I think they made the right decision, because had the ACA not passed in its fatally flawed form we would have been one step further away at this point from where we will eventually end up. It's inevitable, so why not go ahead and take a baby step toward the inevitable.
Last edited:
