5 ms·

The single-payer option was quickly dropped by the Democrats in Congress. Their sponsors (the health-"care" industry) did not like it.

by jazzyk 9y ago

albinofrenchy 9y ago
It was dropped because it was politically impossible and it wasn't worth burning political capital on it. Even just the public option wasn't able to gain traction; single payer was never going to happen in 2009.
- jazzyk 9y ago
  Strictly speaking, it was politically possible - the Democrats had majority in both the Congress and the Senate. Public option is a great solution, because it does not prevent the people who prefer (and can afford) to pay for private services from doing so.
  - albinofrenchy 9y ago
    Not really, they only had a filibuster proof majority for a very short period of time -- http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-real.... And that is counting Lieberman as a D; a person who backed McCain for president and who later personally killed the public option. I do think we will get to the public option at some point. It just makes too much sense not to and would strengthen the healthcare as a whole while allowing people more choice.
    - enraged_camel 9y ago
      Public option is unlikely to happen in the near future. Too many people start frothing at the mouth and yelling "socialism!" every time it is proposed.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  I would just note that "...it was politically impossible" and "the Democrats were never serious in saying they wanted it" are two ways to frame the same reality. Both are true. Take your pick.
  - albinofrenchy 9y ago
    I'm not saying any democrats at the time were willing to go all in on it, but the two statements would only be two ways to frame the same reality if democrats had the ability to make unilateral decisions in the senate. They never did.
    - joe_the_user 9y ago
      The nuclear option - changing the rules to allow majority votes to override a filibuster - has existed in potentia for a long time. The republicans have used it lately for things they consider crucial to their agenda. If the democrats wanted single payer and considered it crucial to their agenda, they could have done that. Of course neither of those "ifs" are true and we can use the lack of action to judge this.
      - albinofrenchy 9y ago
        > If the democrats wanted single payer and considered it crucial to their agenda, they could have done that. And then watched it get blown away by next congress as soon as the GOP gained 51 seats to do whatever they want. Blowing away the fillibuster is an awful, terrible, no good idea and there is almost no legislative agenda which would validate it. And to be clear, the GOP senators were and still are slimey bastards for basically everything they did leading up to Gorsuch. It should have never been done. They will almost certainly regret it as soon as they lose the senate.
- dboreham 9y ago
  As I recall, the rough idea was to adopt a Republican plan (RomneyCare) in order to achieve bipartisan support (and "stake holder" support). And then it became the evil spawn of the Democrats...
dankohn1 9y ago
Joe Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option. He was able to do so because he was the 60th vote the Democrats needed. Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_death_of_the_public_option.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_deat...
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  If the democrats were serious, they could have deployed the "nuclear option" on this (suspend Senate rules). But of course there was more than one person's objection going on.
  - dankohn1 9y ago
    There are far less than 50 votes from either party to suspend the 60-vote filibuster rule because it gives more power to each individual senator. By contrast, Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option.
    - joe_the_user 9y ago
      Ipso facto there weren't enough votes to suspend the 60-vote in the health care case. But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule. So the rule is available for things that a strong party consensus. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-...
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule No, as your source accurately states, he was confirmed after a vote to abolish the rule for Supreme Court nominations.
        joe_the_user 9y ago
protomyth 9y ago
Well, if it works anything like IHS[1], then the system would run out of money before the end of the fiscal year and then you end up paying for it anyway or not getting the treatment. I find people who say "but it will be different for us" to need some proof from the US and not other countries. 1) Indian Health Service - the US agency tasked with providing and paying for Native American health care on reservations or "health service areas". http://www.richheape.com/american-indian-healthcare.htm http://www.richheape.com/american-indian-healthcare.htm

The single-payer option was quickly dropped by the Democrats in Congress. Their sponsors (the health-"care" industry) did not like it.

by jazzyk 9y ago

The single-payer option was quickly dropped by the Democrats in Congress. Their sponsors (the health-"care" industry) did not like it.

albinofrenchy 9y ago

It was dropped because it was politically impossible and it wasn't worth burning political capital on it. Even just the public option wasn't able to gain traction; single payer was never going to happen in 2009.

jazzyk 9y ago
Strictly speaking, it was politically possible - the Democrats had majority in both the Congress and the Senate. Public option is a great solution, because it does not prevent the people who prefer (and can afford) to pay for private services from doing so.
- albinofrenchy 9y ago
  Not really, they only had a filibuster proof majority for a very short period of time -- http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-real.... And that is counting Lieberman as a D; a person who backed McCain for president and who later personally killed the public option. I do think we will get to the public option at some point. It just makes too much sense not to and would strengthen the healthcare as a whole while allowing people more choice.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    Public option is unlikely to happen in the near future. Too many people start frothing at the mouth and yelling "socialism!" every time it is proposed.
joe_the_user 9y ago
I would just note that "...it was politically impossible" and "the Democrats were never serious in saying they wanted it" are two ways to frame the same reality. Both are true. Take your pick.
- albinofrenchy 9y ago
  I'm not saying any democrats at the time were willing to go all in on it, but the two statements would only be two ways to frame the same reality if democrats had the ability to make unilateral decisions in the senate. They never did.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    The nuclear option - changing the rules to allow majority votes to override a filibuster - has existed in potentia for a long time. The republicans have used it lately for things they consider crucial to their agenda. If the democrats wanted single payer and considered it crucial to their agenda, they could have done that. Of course neither of those "ifs" are true and we can use the lack of action to judge this.
    - albinofrenchy 9y ago
      > If the democrats wanted single payer and considered it crucial to their agenda, they could have done that. And then watched it get blown away by next congress as soon as the GOP gained 51 seats to do whatever they want. Blowing away the fillibuster is an awful, terrible, no good idea and there is almost no legislative agenda which would validate it. And to be clear, the GOP senators were and still are slimey bastards for basically everything they did leading up to Gorsuch. It should have never been done. They will almost certainly regret it as soon as they lose the senate.
dboreham 9y ago
As I recall, the rough idea was to adopt a Republican plan (RomneyCare) in order to achieve bipartisan support (and "stake holder" support). And then it became the evil spawn of the Democrats...

dankohn1 9y ago

Joe Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option. He was able to do so because he was the 60th vote the Democrats needed. Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_death_of_the_public_option.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_deat...

joe_the_user 9y ago
If the democrats were serious, they could have deployed the "nuclear option" on this (suspend Senate rules). But of course there was more than one person's objection going on.
- dankohn1 9y ago
  There are far less than 50 votes from either party to suspend the 60-vote filibuster rule because it gives more power to each individual senator. By contrast, Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    Ipso facto there weren't enough votes to suspend the 60-vote in the health care case. But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule. So the rule is available for things that a strong party consensus. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > But that's not always the case - Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by a vote to suspend the 60 vote rule No, as your source accurately states, he was confirmed after a vote to abolish the rule for Supreme Court nominations.
      - joe_the_user 9y ago

protomyth 9y ago

Well, if it works anything like IHS[1], then the system would run out of money before the end of the fiscal year and then you end up paying for it anyway or not getting the treatment. I find people who say "but it will be different for us" to need some proof from the US and not other countries. 1) Indian Health Service - the US agency tasked with providing and paying for Native American health care on reservations or "health service areas". http://www.richheape.com/american-indian-healthcare.htm http://www.richheape.com/american-indian-healthcare.htm