We “angry liberals” are outraged at what Politico is calling President Barack Obama’s push for health care reform — any health care reform — regardless of its contents. And is it any wonder why? This bill is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise.
Despite campaign-trail promises from Obama and a more recent pledge from U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the bill will not have a public option in it. Then, a compromise proposal that would have expanded Medicare to people as young as 55 was whittled away, after Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel personally asked Reid to capitulate to the petulant U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who represents insurance companies.
What’s still in the bill? A provision that requires us all to buy health insurance, which big insurance companies — not “angry liberals” — have been pushing for a long, long time. What’s not in it? A way to keep the costs of that plan under control. Natch.
Politico reports that even liberal senators who were saddened and frustrated by the vanishing of the public option may still vote for the final bill, because it’s better than nothing. But AlterNet writer Darcy Burner has a piece today that says maybe doing nothing is better than passing this soggy, watered-down, pathetic shadow of what used to be health-care reform. (We’re paraphrasing, but not by much.)
We’ve written before that Reid could only benefit by passing health-care reform with a robust public option, especially when the “2012″-like end-of-the-world predictions of Republicans failed to materialize thereafter. Ditto for Obama.
But if the current Senate proposal passes, Reid could very easily see a backlash. It was Reid who left Lieberman in the Democratic caucus, and for what? So he could obstruct them from inside their own meetings? And it’s Reid who’s considered the master of the Senate process, the ultimate back-room deal maker. For his sake, we hope Reid has one of those classic deals up his sleeve to outmaneuver Lieberman now.
Because if he doesn’t, especially for progressives (the non-Stockholm ones outside of Nevada, we mean) Reid may face the same conundrum that Burner outlines for the health-care bill: Vote for a loser, or kill the damn thing entirely.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 at 8:09 am and is filed under
Various Things & Stuff.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. By publishing a comment here you agree to the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the Online staff.