Dean needs to stop this. He knows very well the political reality of the health care situation. He showed that pretty clearly when he ran a primary campaign promoting universal health care that was similar, but ultimately worse than the current bill.
He also endorsed the Senate Finance Committee's version as reforming health insurance, albeit hesitantly due to its lack of a public option. Although the current Senate bill doesn't have the public option either, it is definitely better than what came out of the SFC.
Dean's shenanigans are just as tiring as the centrist Dems, but he isn't providing any substantive ideas and has no actual input in the process.
I hope that what he is doing now is simply an attempt to raise a fuss to prevent the further watering-down of the bill (the reverse of which led Lieberman to request the removal of Medicare buy-in) , rather than any sort of genuine opposition to health care reform or the Obama agenda.
No sustantive ideas or actual input? He says he wants to expand Medicare to cover all and do it through reconciliation. It's the OBVIOUS answer, because it's the most logical and simplest. It covers everyone, sends costs down, and cuts the insurance companies out of the loop.
If Dean doesn't have "any sort of genuine opposition to health care reform or the Obama agenda", then I'd be terribly disappointed. The Obama agenda: more war, handouts to insurance companies, opposing cheap meds to keep big pharma's profits up, not doing anything about gays in the military, making fun of people who want drug reform, shutting the left wing down on every issue, and general arrogance, dishonesty, and weakness.
This "reform" means the end of a viable left in the United States; the Democratic Party is certainly no longer the party of the poor. We elected a candidate that we thought was about as left wing as could be electable, and it turned out he's almost as right wing as his predecessor. Good news for him, it turns out a helluva lot of Democratic members of congress are just as right wing as he is. So now he can pass this farce in order to score cheap political points; isn't that what Bush did? Hurting the country to further his electoral prospects? Where is the difference here? If Dean adamantly opposed one of them, why the hell would he not oppose the other?
Yes, Obama has clearly "shut the left down on every single issue," including
tobacco,
fair pay,
child health insurance,
stem cells, and
hate crimes.
Not to mention the stimulus and what will be, if not perfect, amazing progress on health care.
Liberals seem to believe that Obama's election would suddenly cure the ills the US has faced. He has already spread himself as thin as it gets. How could he have done all this and repeal DADT and withdraw from two wars and fix the immigration system? It has been one year, calm down and let the man work. Your lack of any perspective is stunning.
Meanwhile, on health care, using reconciliation to pass the idea Dean has proposed would: a) not necessarily pass and b) take too long. Not to mention, half of the bill would be gutted. This may be an ideal situation for Dean, but it is anything but politically viable. This is not a genuine or substantive idea at all if it can't pass.
Would you care to explain how expanding health care to 31 million people is a farce only passed for political motives? While you're at it, how are subsidies for the poor to buy health insurance and a further expansion of SCHIP anywhere near President George W. Bush?
Your hyperbole is nice and probably cathartic, but it misses the mark in a superb fashion.
