If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Message discipline"

Atrios 2010-02-19:

The public option is a way to achieve both that and cost controls. Popular and good policy! Only* the skimmers and their minions in Washington don't like it. Pass it.

Atrios 2010-02-11:

Obvious Solutions

I appreciate sternly worded letters as much as the next person, but they don't actually achieve anything.

Doing away with the anti-trust exemption might? Also, single payer.

That was fast!

"Pass it," even though "we" don't know what it's going to be... Maybe the White House did a little advance work? Or Rahm left a dead fish in somebody's mailbox?

NOTE * Quite simply, that's factually false.

No votes yet


coyotecreek's picture
Submitted by coyotecreek on

That, IMHO, is the problem.

The public option is shit and should never get voted on. Single Payer is the only way to change the corrupt system - at least until the corrupters figure out how to game that one, too.

Submitted by Anne on

the public option, since we have no idea, even now, what it is.

But, golly gee - as soon as that letter from Michael Bennett, et. al. hit the wires, the usual folks at FDL had their now-typical Pavlovian response: "wonderful news," "how can we whip this?," "thank God they are finally listening to us," - you get the picture.

And not a single one of them - or any of the people doing the happy dance - could even tell you which/what public option these Senators were talking about - because all the letter asked Reid to do was to include "a strong public option" as part of a package to be voted on via reconciliation.

Now, there's talk of including "a" public option "if" the excise tax is also included. Yeah - that sounds like a good deal - cash for clunkers, in reverse. Oh, yay.

With Obama having created a commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan - I Hate Social Security - Simpson, to "look at" ways we can save money and "save" entitlement programs, there is no ficking, facking fucking way single payer will ever, EVER, see the light of day in an Obama administration; how can he ever cut and gut Medicare and SS and at the same time sign on to Medicare For All?

Argh - I am so sorry to be ranting like this, but I have Just. Had. It. with this entire process. Had it.

Yesterday, I got a "survey" from the DNC...oh, did I have fun with that. "Tell us what you would like the Democratic Party to do to make it a better party?" I told them. How would you rate the Obama presidency care reform. jobs creation, the economy...there was no bubble for "Shitty," so I had to settle for writing in "WORSE THAN POOR."

And then there was..."can you help us out by sending a contribution" HELL NO!!! Not One Red Cent.

Okay, I will go take some deep breaths now...

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

To be fair...

Open Left [applies pretty well to FDL, as well] answered all these questions:

They did a diligent post-mortem:

And they gave an earnest mea culpa for ignoring at least 25 warnings that the promised transparency was a total fraud:

Or did I just dream that?

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Now, there's talk of including "a" public option "if" the excise tax is also included.

yeah right, let us tax the remaining workers who have good health insurance and we might, just might, give you some unspecified public option. sheesh.

dblhelix's picture
Submitted by dblhelix on

Confidential Business Proposal

Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from access bloggers, I have the privilege to request your assistance to transfer the Public Option into your accounts. The above Public Option resulted from an over-promised fund-raising scam, executed, commissioned and paid for by various Democratic interest groups. This action was however intentional and since then the Public Option has been in a suspense account.

We are now ready to transfer the Public Option and that is where you come in. It is important to inform you that as civil servants, we are forbidden to operate a Public Option; that is why we require your assistance. The total sum will be shared as follows: Excise Tax for us, Public Option for you and 5% for fund-raising incidental to the transfer.

The transfer is risk free on both sides. If you find this proposal acceptable, we shall require the following documents:

(a) your banker's name, telephone, account and fax numbers.

(b) your private telephone and fax numbers —for confidentiality and easy communication.

(c) your letter-headed paper stamped and signed.

Please reply urgently.

Best regards

The Democrats

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

...I think I got this one in the email inbox again today.

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

TY for this, which is an inspired piece of writing.

Yep. Another scam.

Submitted by hipparchia on

you would think that, of all people, atrios would be one of the ones who are smart enough to see the difference between hacker's original 100+ million people joining a medicare clone that's available jan 1 2011 would be popular and would help control costs, but that the public "option" we're likely to get is not going to be popular and is not going to control costs.

maybe we should get somebody to go around checking all the electrical sockets at the white house for suspicious-looking plug-ins.

mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

come back to the internet. I can not believe the "public" option is still even being discussed. I mean, not by you all, clearly, but as a legitmate policy proposal by Atrios et. al.. Can anyone still believe that Obama or the Democrats are serious in any way at all about a public health plan to compete with private insurance? You would have to be either a complete moran to believe that, or a card carrying member of the Obama fan club. No one in their right mind believes Congress is serious about opening up public health care. No one. Further, no one likes the heath plan. Not liberals not conservatives. This should have been abundantly clear after the Martha Coakley fiasco. Why on earth would anyone urge "pass it"?

Some of these "liberal" bloggers seem to be liberals only as an academic exercise. They seem more concerned with future meet and greets with the economic advisor of the least powerful vice president since Dan Qualye. How totally pathetic.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

For a great many people, truth is whatever the tribal elders say it is.

Chris, Jane, Saint-Doctor Howard, and MoveOn get sold, so to speak, on "PO"

Other A-listers give their proxy to the above. After all, they're the good people. They must know, and they must be pushing it for a good reason.

Rank-and-file progressives and "progressives" give their proxy to the above. After all, they're the good people. They must know, and they must be pushing it for a good reason.

coyotecreek's picture
Submitted by coyotecreek on

Some bill with pass and in the language will be the words "public option" - nothing else, just those two little words.

Then Obama and the Dems will be able to say they passed something calling for a public option...aren't we wonderful!!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

The public option is a cash cow to the blogosphere and the candidates "pushing" it. That's why it won't die. Certainly, it's not the WH pushing public option right now, it's usefulness - taking energy from single payer - has run its course. The WH has no interest in it and it will not be in any bill coming out of this WH. And since the WH is the one putting the bill together,* then there is virtually no chance any kind of PO will be in the bill. Something the access bloggers are either too blind or too dishonest to say. The only remaining issue is whether enough House Democrats will hold their noses and vote for whatever POS the WH puts forth. Notice how the "whipping" being done by the access bloggers doesn't go to this issue - it isn't to get people to vote against the bill if it doesn't have a public option, it's only to get them to say they would vote for a bill with a public option (at least that was my reading of the few pieces I've seen). If they were at all interested in flexing any kind of progressive muscle, they'd be encouraging people to kill the bill unless it had what they wanted in it (and they'd demand more than some puny PO, but that's another matter). They aren't. Which is why I think the entire thing is a fundraising kabuki.

* Because, as has been said before, whatever healthcare "reform" happens, Obama owns it.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I just got another email from about how I should call Schumer and thank him for yet another empty promise to support the Public Option Sparkle Pony! Which he reneged on before! And will renege on again! And oh, please send money!

Am I surprised about Atrios' turnaround? Hellls to the no. This is all a coordinated putsch to get "progressives" all riled up about how our team rules, and the Republican team drools.

Funny, I don't seem to have anyone to root for. Neither of the teams seem to be playing for me.

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm kind of getting used to it, though.

It can be more fun watching the game when you're not rooting for either team, I have found, to my surprise. You actually watch the game. (And by "you", I mean "me", of course.) And so in politics...

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

okay, sorry bear with me.... fun with words

but there is this Brit usage- "barracked" (verb, intransitive)- which means among other things to be scoffed at.

I went searching for an "official" def. on the internet, and couldn't find anything that quite matches my experience in that usage (I lived in the UK for 10 years). The MW link is below, but you have to click though to #3 entry to see.

The usage I am familiar with is essentially "we've been barracked again" = "we've been fucked over again".

Too bad there's the extra "r" there, because otherwise, it would be the perfect verb.

Submitted by lambert on

We can't know... But... 8 days?!

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

that's really all you need to know. i don't think Duncan is fishing for a job, or more money for himself, but i think he wants to keep his access. i was shocked, frankly, to see him use "single payer" in that original post and i said so at the time. i missed the backtrack, but i'm not surprised. frankly, i sort of don't even blame him. his livelihood is tied to access, it makes sense he would protect it.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"frankly, i sort of don't even blame him. his livelihood is tied to access, it makes sense he would protect it. "

Submitted by jawbone on

find econ info, mostly focused on the US, but I don't know where to go to find the kind of coverage Bernard did. Econ, foreign affairs, Middle East. And he did it in almost every instance I can recall with hard facts.

I still miss Billmon, but he actually retired. Some just retire in place.

I think both Bernard and Billmon burned out from overwork.