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:
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.
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?
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.
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 ,â€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.
"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.
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.
And no one ever said 'kill him', that's been thoroughly discredited.
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
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
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.
Screw the Republicans, they did it to us for 8 years!
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.
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
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.
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.
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