At Last Liberals Get Angry

The 1976 movie classic Network is best known for the scene where deranged newsman Howard Beale (Peter Finch) persuades his viewers to join his rant, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" 33 years later, faced with the news that the Obama Administration was considering dropping the public option for health care, Liberals finally invoked their inner Howard Beale and got angry.

Liberals have been patient for a long time. We slogged through eight years of the Bush Administration, beginning with a stolen election. Then there were tax cuts for the rich that plunged the US deeper into debt. And who can forget 9/11, where Bush failed to protect us. Next his Administration let Bin Laden escape and bullied Congress into passing the "Patriot" Act. As if this wasn't outrageous enough, Bush quit looking for Bin Laden, invaded Iraq, and burdened America with six horrific years of war. We shouldn't forget Bush's failed response to Hurricane Katrina. And more recently, his Administration's lack of common sense that plunged the nation into the worst recession in seventy years.

Through eight nightmarish years, Liberals were remarkably well behaved: none of us carried assault weapons to Bush appearances, accused him of being a traitor, or shouted "kill him" at rallies.

All the while, Liberals yearned for change. Along came Barack Obama, who promised to put the White House in order and right the wrongs of the Bush Administration. Obama talked about changing the tone in Washington, reaching across the isle to Republicans. He said he was a pragmatist, that he believed "the perfect should not be the enemy of the good." Liberals believed in these sentiments, and so they cut the new President a lot slack. They had hope.

The Obama Administration's first major initiative was the Economic Recovery Act that Liberals believed was too modest, did not allocate enough money for job creation. Still, we held our tongues. Then came revelations about Bush Administration wiretapping and torture policies. Liberals believed an independent counsel should be appointed to investigate these outrages, but the White House held back arguing they wanted to look forward rather than backward. Again Liberals backed off. We expected the Obama White House to eliminate the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding sexual preference, but instead the Administration begged for time, said that more study was needed. Once again, Liberals acquiesced.

Then came health care reform -- the number one Liberal domestic issue. During the Democratic primaries, we understood that Barack Obama did not believe a single-payer system -- an extension of Medicare to cover all Americans -- was a viable option. Ever the optimists, Liberals backed away from our preferred solution, believing that we could get many of the advantages of a single-payer system if Americans were guaranteed access to a public option, a non-profit, insurance plan competing with those offered by health insurance companies.

Liberals believe an acceptable health care plan must have four components:

1. Provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans
2. Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
3. Cause no increase in the Federal deficit
4. Reduce health care costs

Theoretically, the President's proposal would accomplish all four.

Liberals have focused on the Obama solution for cost reduction: a Health Insurance Exchange that would offer citizens health care options, plans that offer a few different packages. The President promised: "One of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market [to] force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest."

On August 16th, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNN the public option "is not an essential part" of reform. Press secretary Robert Gibbs indicated that while Obama's objective of fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, the specific mechanism designed to do so -- the public option -- was up for discussion. Speaking at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, President Obama ad libbed, "All I'm saying is... that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform."

Liberals correctly interpreted these remarks to mean the Obama Administration was backing away from the public option, abandoning the best hope of reducing health care costs. And then a miracle happened. Liberals got angry.

For eight and a half years, Liberals have been patient and well behaved. We've been good citizens and steadfastly supported a government that often appeared to not care about us. Liberals have patiently listened to the opposition, even when their arguments seemed irrational. We've tried to negotiate with those opposed to health care reform, even when they shook their heads, stamped their feet, held their breath until their faces turned blue, and refused to consider any change to the existing dysfunctional system.

At long last Liberals have had enough. We're not going to compromise on the public option. We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore.

Comments

[ifwm]

"Through eight nightmarish years, Liberals were remarkably well behaved: none of us carried assault weapons to Bush appearances, accused him of being a traitor, or shouted "kill him" at rallies."

Bob, this has been proven repeatedly to be an outright fabrication. You are irrefutably factually incorrect.

So why make things up Bob? Is your point really THAT weak?

[vigilocanis]

You and a small minority of liberals may be mad and you say are not going to take it any more, but the problem is; the president is saying through his government speak, "I'm mad as hell and I'm 'probably' not going to take it any more." Meanwhile, conservatives and independents are more believable when their actions and words say that they are madder than hell, and they will not take it any more.

[darklylit]

Thanks for writing what I've been feeling for a very long time.

[jemborg]

Wow! I'm a freedom loving Aussie and I find this paranoia over decent pubic health care amazing.

We've had it for almost 30 years.

I've expounded on this in many of Huffo's threads but let me simply say... America you deserve better, do not believe the Conservative lies.

NB: It took two goes in my country to get universal Medicare established. The Conservatives got rid of it when they got voted back in. The Labor Party re-established it at the next election after that. And although they have undermined it every time they got back into power the Conservatives don't dare try to get rid of it again. What I am getting at here is you have to push HARD for it- it's NOT going to happen through bi-partisanship.

[riffenberg]

Ok, I’ll try not to be too direct. You know not all govt. health care is equal? . Do you have to pay for supplemental insurance? I know a lot of people do pay extra in Europe. . Counted in the number of uninsured in the US are Mexican citizens ( un-documented workers) and foreign students. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have health care. We have free health care clinics and unlike many countries ,patients can not be turned away because they can not pay.. Around 83% of the public is happy with their health care. 93% were happy who had suffered a recent serious illness. Unless you call, “can you come in tomorrow” a wait, there are no wait times for surgery. Our 5 year survival rates for ALL types of cancer are the highest in the world. That’s because we spend more on testing and treatment .The stats.for birth rate deaths are skewed. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
and our ranking for health care is ideology driven by the WHO.
We don’t need to tear down the kitchen for a broken faucet. Our health care needs tweaking,not an overhaul. Ezekial Emanuel had a lot of imput into this health care plan. He is the author of ,”The Complete Lives System” and he lobbied hard to have it financed for implementation in the stimulus plan. The govt. would take control of 1/6th of our economy. We don't want it.

[jemborg]

Ok I'll try not to be too patronising...

"Do you have to pay for supplemental insurance?".... No.

If you want to here you can have PrivateHC , it's much better than the USA's because it has to compete with our excellent Public Option. I'm not surprised you have no idea how advanced a nation Australia is... considering you talk out of your backside. You obviously have no perspective on what happens elsewhere in the world. "We don't want it"... you do not speak for all your citizens chum... democracy remember?

I have American cousins so I know what goes on there, a healthcare system in crisis and held to ransom. You are fooling yourself mate, no-one in my country goes bankrupt from medical bills. Consequently our economy is rated as one of the best in the world at the moment, if not THE best. http://www.thestreet.com/story/10593457/australian-economy-grows-06-pct-in-june-quarter.html

Maybe you might have the best HC in the world, IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. However, don't delude yourself, it would only be marginally better than what other First World countries have.

PS: I just found out my wife is pregnant over a fortnight ago :) , two days after we went and had the first ultrasound, yesterday we had the second, all at no cost. We have complete confidence in our system.

[russianspy1234]

As soon as I heard about Obama backing off from healthcare reform, I went to http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/ and emailed him that if he fails to push this through by the next election, I will be voting republican. I suggest everyone does the same. I'd almost rather have someone who I know is gonna screw me over a little than someone who gives me lots of false hope.

[kemstone]

I completely understand the sentiment, but voting republican won't help. Of course we don't want to reward Obama or the democrats for selling us out to big industry, but that doesn't mean we should reward the republicans for fighting on behalf of big industry the whole time.

[mommadona]

WELCOME, EVERYONE

Plenty of room on the curb. Pick your space, take your place.

"Yes 'we' can!"

Just depends in who 'we' is - and the DLC has been wee-wee-ed, so Mr. POTUS - join US.

[johnashman]

What planet have you been on for the past 8 years?!? If the Bush years weren't angry liberal years, heaven help us.

And no one ever said 'kill him', that's been thoroughly discredited.

[Raster]

But that threat hangs by a slim reed: whether the House Progressive Caucus holds firm to vote AGAINST any House health care bill or House-Senate reconciliation bill that DOES NOT include a "public plan option." It remains to be seen whether they can stand up to the strong-arm tactics of Rahmbo-Hoyer.

[annieooo]

If you want to join the fight for public option go to firedoglake.com and read the articles by Jane Hamsher (who has been a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show). They give a LOT of insight into what is going on. Firedoglake is fighting a great battle for public option and they need all of us to join in the fight. It's a great website with great information and tools. Also - watch the Ed Show today to see Joe Madison (The Black Eagle) from XM radio and be listening to liberal radio shows and news shows for information about future marches and demonstrations.

http://firedoglake.com/

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/the-baucus-caucus-phrma-insurance-hospitals-and-rahm/

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/23/fdl-action-lets-whip-the-public-plan/

Robert Reich March on DC for Public Option on Sept 13:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26224.html#ixzz0Oem3ZDZf

[helloworld2008]

These people havent committed to a public option. Call them and tell them what you think!!

Sen Kent Conrad (D ND) 202-224-2043 http://conrad.senate.gov
Sen E. Ben Nelson (D NE) 202-224-6551 http://bennelson.senate.gov
Sen Evan Bayh (D IN) 202-224-5623 http://bayh.senate.gov
Sen Thomas Carper (D DE) 202-224-2441 http://carper.senate.gov
Sen Mark Warner (D VA) 202-224-2023 http://warner.senate.gov
Olympia Snowe (R - ME) 202-224-5344 http://snowe.senate.gov
Mary Landrieu (D LA) 202-224-5824 http://landrieu.senate.gov
Johnny Isakson (R GA) 202-224-3643 http://isakson.senate.gov
Joe Lieberman (I CT) 202-224-4041 http://lieberman.senate.gov (no)
Susan Collins (R ME) 202-224-2523 http://collins.senate.gov (no)

Sen Blanche Lincoln D AR 202-224-4843 http://lincoln.senate.gov
Sen Mark Pryor D AR 202-224-2353 http://pryor.senate.gov
Sen Mark Begich D AK 202-224-3004 http://begich.senate.gov
Sen Jon Tester D MT 202-224-2644 http://tester.senate.gov/
Sen Max Baucus D MT 202-224-2651 http://baucus.senate.gov
Sen Bill Nelson D FL 202-224-5274 http://billnelson.senate.gov

[ifwm]

I didi, I told them they were right to be against a public option.

It must hurt REAL bad to know you have Congress and the White House, and STILL can't bully us.

You lost. Get over it and find a compromise without the dead in the water public option.

[NobodylikesHim]

Obama needs to remember what he promised when he was running.

Screw the Republicans, they did it to us for 8 years!

[chumleypotts]

The public option must be included at all costs. The democrats have the majority, but their spinelessness is appalling on this issue. It seems their only concern is the fear that in 2010, they will lose power, due to the predictable anger among independent voters who will almost certainly swing back to republican candidates at the polls. It is time our elected representatives begin to think more about their constituents welfare, rather than their own greedy skins. Government healthcare will triumph, and it will undoubtedly be much more expensive than is currently projected, and hefty tax increases should not be confined to the "rich", but rather across all spectrums of the pay scales. The burden will need to be shared by all citizens, be they rich or poor, in a proportionate manner, of course. Obama's campaign promise of no increased taxes under the threshold of 250k per year simply cannot be adhered to, and it is his responsibility to convince the American people that additional taxation will benefit us all.

[bps]

Let's just get it done. Republicans claim no member of their party will support health care reform. Who cares? So there's no bi-partisan "comprosmise". Again, who cares? We're the party in power, we're the "deciders", now let's just do it.

[Peter Turner]

Hummmm.

If anyone had shown up at Bush rallies carrying assault rifles or shouting "Kill Bush" they probably would have been arrested or disappeared and, fyou can bet your butt, they would not be walking around free today.

Thank God and Obama for real freedom.

And, yes you should be mad as hell and get a damn good health package with a strong public option. Help Obama break his chains by demonstrating that progressives are once again becoming a very real and organized political force.

[annieooo]

If you want to join the fight for public option go to firedoglake.com and read the articles by Jane Hamsher (who has been a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show). They give a LOT of insight into what is going on. Firedoglake is fighting a great battle for public option and they need all of us to join in the fight. It's a great website with great information and tools. Also - watch the Ed Show today to see Joe Madison (The Black Eagle) from XM radio and be listening to liberal radio shows and news shows for information about future marches and demonstrations.

http://firedoglake.com/

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/the-baucus-caucus-phrma-insurance-hospitals-and-rahm/

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/23/fdl-action-lets-whip-the-public-plan/

Robert Reich March on DC for Public Option on Sept 13:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26224.html#ixzz0Oem3ZDZf

[lgillooly]

No more BS. Forget Bipartisanship and get the job done. I know he inherited huge messes, but a public option or single payer are the only viable plans. Ask youself What added value do Insurance companies provide to your Health? Nothing
If we don't get this done right they will have more money and power to stop any reform. We all need to attend town halls and march in DC.
The next vital step is to have real campaign finance reform. Nothing will change if we continue to let our representatives essentially become lobbyists for Corporate Interests instead of working for their constituents.

[CountryB4party]

I would amend that next step. "Instant Runoff / Ordered Preference" voting is essential and would accomplish what campaign finance reform never can. It would allow people to truly vote FOR candidates, rather than against the greatest evil, without risking throwing the election to that greater evil.

For example: suppose there is a third party candidate running for mayor, or congress, and I'd like to vote 3rd party, but the Republican candidate is a right-wing nutcase & I wouldn't want to risk throwing the election to them, either. The system could allow me to vote with a ranking from 1 to X. For # 1, I put the 3rd party. However, if the 3rd party doesn't get enough votes to win, my vote instantly counts toward my 2nd preference.

That would elegantly & irrevocably change the dynamic and force ALL parties & candidates to be more accountable to voters. I really hate it every time the media talks about "both sides". Sorry, but, there are a helluva a lot more than just 2 ways of looking at things in this world.

[someotheroxford]

That's an awesome idea, but after listening to the stupid believing the lies of the lobbyists in the health care 'debate' I wonder if most people could even figure out how the instant runoff vote would work. Up till now, I never read such a concise description of it, and got it confused with a top-two primary (where the top 2 candidates go on to the general election, regardless of party-we have that in WA state now). Hmmm.

[StatMan]

Let's agree on one thing - you should not have an election system where you can HURT your preferred candidate by voting for them.

This can and has happened with Instant Runoff / Ordered Preference voting. Your guy loses because more people voted for him. If less would have voted for him, he would have won.

It's called the non-monotonicity effect and recently happened in Aspen and Burlington.

This voting method has been around or over 100 years, and is one of the worst methods out there. On the surface, it sounds cool, but there are so many anomalies that can and will happen.

Many cities who adopted URV are now switching back.

Educate yourself a little more:

www.tinyurl.com/IRVinSJ

http://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html

http://votingmatters.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/cary-nc-tries-irv-then-says-no-more/

http://www.aspendailynews.com/print/136163

[brklynivn]

Right on!