The Republicans may be both irrelevant and impossible on the health care issue, but Wyden is right if "bipartisanship" means bringing aboard moderate Democrats. Because they do indeed have the ability to sink this ship.

The Democratic Left had better realize that if it doesn't accept some, but not all, of its single payer nirvana, it may end up with nothing at all. And 46 million Americans will continue to lack health insurance.

Remember, once "something" is in place it will remain in place even if Republicans come back to power in a couple of decades.

Sen. Wyden has accepted the self defeatism that infects a lot of people in this debate. Even here, every time the Wyden (Full disclosure, I didn't develop any websites for him) plan was discussed we've heard the local punditocrcy dismiss single payer as...not gonna happen....Get real...get what we can this year...incrementalism is the way to get where we want....

I wonder what FDR would have said (or maybe did say) to those around him who urged him to phase in Social Security as a voluntary program.

While I'm mainly an incrementalist when it comes to change of "big policy", this is simply not an area that's open to incrementalism. Either we have a strong, lean, well functioning public option or we don't.

And frankly, come to think of it, a public option is incrementalist. Single payer is what we should be doing.

The only way we're going to have real reform is for the Democrats to vote as a block, with or without Republicans,for strong public option AT LEAST.

Watering down health care reform for the sake of "bipartisanship" cannot be allowed to happen. When are the Dems going to learn that no matter what concessions they make, no matter how bipartisan they try to make this, the GOP is still going to drag them and the entire health care plan through the mud every chance they get.

The issue of health care is too big and too important to millions of Americans to be derailed by 40 people. Wyden and the rest of the Blue Dogs need to smarten up about this and get behind the public option (and single payer!) today. Not someday, not with a trigger option, not if the GOP feels like it. TODAY.

If they choose not to, Senate Dems could find themselves with much eroded support come re-election time.

What I don't get is why politicians don't realize that over the past 2 years, the only consistent trend has been for Republicans to instantly and consistently take contrary issues to the Democratic agenda. The Republican party, now that their ideas are on the outs, have simply focused on fighting and have forgotten the reasons why they are fighting. Even when taking the other side on a particular issue would hurt them, they do it anyway because it's about being contrary and fighting, not about doing what's right. And that's the real reason why bipartisanship is pointless...you never let a drunk goad you into a fight that you're not going to get anything out of, and that the drunk himself has no idea WHY he wants to fight. All that ends up happening is both sides get hurt, instead of one side learning a valuable lesson.

@Crim Justice Person You ask an interesting question about FDR and Social Security. The historical truth is that he was pushed by the Democratic (and democratic) left to do this because of the popular support lining up behind Dr. Francis Townsend's plan for old age security, a quite inventive plan that involved everyone over sixty getting $200 each month but having to spend it completely within the month. There were other provisions as well. FDR recognized that this was populist dynamite but probably fiscal unobtanium, charged the estimable Frances Perkins (Secretary of Labor) to head a working group to make a better plan and head the Townsend Plan off at the pass (pun intended). How Frances Perkins came up with the structure of the the present Social Security is quite an interesting story involving tea at Justice Jackson's house, and is told in her biography by Kirstin Downey, I believe.

There were other plans as well, by Upton Sinclair, by Huey Long (of course), and by the Communists in various flavors. The point is that it happened because FDR was pushed from his left. FDR used to regularly meet with groups and have policy discussions, agree with them in principle, and then say, "Fine. Go out there and make me do it!"

At least we could tell who the Democrats were in those days, for the most part. They were the ones talking about the "malefactors of great wealth."

"The Democratic Left had better realize that if it doesn't accept some, but not all, of its single payer nirvana, it may end up with nothing at all. And 46 million Americans will continue to lack health insurance."

Compromise and "bi-partisanship" have their virtues, but they are not absolutes. How much should a person or nation compromise? Make, for instance, Faustian bargains and sell their souls? And, what about "bi-partisanship"? Does that mean a partnership with evil is okay?

I think the whole argument over a "full, and robust public option" or whatever the blogosphere calls it is kind of a red-herring. Yes, I think there should be public plan and I do think that government can do it well and provide a good competition for private insurers.

However, that said...I think the REAL heathcare debate needs to be over the nitty gritty details of coverage. How do we structure provider payments? How do we encourage the use of primary and preventative care? How do be employ a shared financial responsibility? Do we set up up a national standard of care and treatment for certain high incidence conditions with proven effective and cost-efficient outcomes like Oregon has with the prioritized list? How much should good health care cost? How do we let states experiment with autonomy over health care while providing good national financial resources and incentives for developing good care models? How much responsibility to Americans have in self-managing their health, i.e. diabetes, smoking, obesity, and should there be financial incentives for people who take regular care of themselves?

These are some of the REALLY HARD questions that the Oregon Health Fund Board has asked over the past 2 years and Senator Bates and then-Senator Westlund asked with interim committees and commissions for 5 years previous. These are the tough nitty gritty health care questions that will help redefine a functional American health care system.

I'm glad health care reform is on the national stage and that people are talking about the issue. It's just too easy to get fixated on issues that, while important, aren't the whole enchilada.

Finally, it's unfortunate that Wyden is stuck in a rut: needlessly compromising during a time when no compromise is necessary or beneficial. Someone in Congress needs to offer him a way out, a token triumph, to save his bacon. If he doesn't take it, as much as I love the guy, he should be hung out to dry.

My 2 cents.

I agree Joe, kind of like the fear mongering of Jack Smith above. Most everybody's gonna die... unless you stick with Obama because he's doing a brilliant job -- stick with him while he declares a state of emergency in order to... ah yes, rescue us. I agree, but I think the republicans AND democrats are running around like muppets. GOPuleeze,

happily independent, Cheers ;-)

When you have the majority of people at a Merkley town hall meeting in Hermiston saying they support a public option, you know the Democrats/Obama have completely blown it. They should have started with single payer and compromised to public option. They're all in the bag.

Senator Wyden has spent a great deal of energy on his own plan, which has indeed garnered some Republican support. I can understand his reluctance to walk away from it. However, if he allows his personal feelings to interfere with the important task at hand of ramming through real health care reform, he should feel the heat, big time.

The country is already bipartisan on this - over seventy-five percent of The People want a public option in healthcare provision, not to mention it is one of the United Nations Declared Universal Rights. The Republic Fascist Party wants America, wants our newly elected President, to fail, so their obstructionism and disinterest in a bipartisan solution is at least understandable. Our Senator Wyden though... I can only wonder how much money the insurance companies are into him for? Time to show Senator Wyden the door.

The republicans will vote against whatever the Congress passes. No matter what is in the bill. It's just in their genes and they can't help it. It's what they are going to do.

The Democrats need to just get on with it and pass what is needed and what people want. The republicans in Congress are the equivalent of those solitary Japanese soldiers they used to find on isolated islands in the Pacific, still fighting WWII years after it was over.

David Broder lives in a fantasy world, BTW.

I am a Republican and not surprisingly, I am a staunch opponent of any plan to shift control of our healthcare system to the federal government. Of all the issues on which I disagree with liberals, this one perhaps more than any other makes me question the intellectual honesty of those who advocate for such a profoundly bad idea. That being said, Republicans (myself included) are not relevant in the marketplace of political discourse any longer and I certainly understand the desire of those on the fringe left to seize this opportunity to impose a host of left wing policies...there is really nothing anyone of opposing viewpoints can do to stop it so why not go ahead and get it done? Just keep in mind that it was precisely that kind of thinking that got the GOP where it is today...the with us or against us mentality that labeled those who dissented (you guys) as bafoons and turned a deaf ear to everything you had to say. The left now holds far more power than the right ever did...and while you all may relish it, tread carefully...or you too may find yourselves as powerless and voiceless as those you now seek to silence.

"However, that said...I think the REAL heathcare debate needs to be over the nitty gritty details of coverage. "

The REAL debate needs to take place before a NON-PARTISAN commission. Most of what we are getting from Congress just now are insurance corporation talking points relayed by politicians taking (legal) bribes for their next re-election campaigns.

BO doesn't take a stance on the issues of the day.

Except for when it does.

Some Choice Words for the 'Select Few'

Maybe public option/single payer democratic voters need to strike.

Starting in 2010, no donations or volunteering for any elected official who didn't support single payer or vote for cloture to send a single payer plan to a vote.

Our leader, Pres. Obama says this is the single most important issue of our time. It effects our economy, our health, our future. That seems like its important enough to sacrifice some congressional and Senate seats to Republicnas.

Can you imagine if the Dem office holders were on notice that as of Jan. 1, 2010, they wouldn't have any more volunteers or contributions from the party regulars? No oneother than paid staff showing up at their campaign headquarters?

Republican candidates may be able to survive financially from business contributions and fom major donors. I don't think Dem's can.

This is an area where clearly the voters are way ahead of the politicians. (Because I beleive the pols listen to their lobbyist friends more than the common voter)

Pols won't make the major leap to public option until its clear that the status quo is more dangerous to their careers than the risk of change. Strikes are effective. Make a point. And are in the tradition of the party.

Seems to me, "bipartisanship" will have been achieved if we can get most or all Democrats to agree on any particular issue. They're doing a fine job of being their own opposition party these days.

As for the Republicans, they're pretty much at war with the United States Government until such time as they can inherit some of the rubble. If the Democrats have anything to do with them, they'll get a reputation for negotiating with terrorists, and if you support the idea of Democrats reaching out to them in the face of their unmitigated hatred and opposition to ANYTHING that might work, you might want to ask yourself why you don't make your dinner out of equal parts food and poison, you know, for balance.

Confucius says, "Do not reach across aisle with remaining arm."

"BO doesn't take a stance on the issues of the day.

Except for when it does."

Except then.

"Our leader, Pres. Obama says this is the single most important issue of our time. It effects our economy, our health, our future. That seems like its important enough to sacrifice some congressional and Senate seats to Republicnas."

Otto von Bismarck, a very conservative Prussian, recognized the importance of a national program for rearing healthy citizens. That was in the 19th Century - over a hundred years ago. Winston Churchill, another staunch conservative, joined with British socialists in promoting a national health plan for reasons similar to Bismarck's; that is, healthy people were essential for a strong military and economy. That was over 60 years ago. When it comes to doing right by the people instead of corporations, American leadership tends to be considerably behind other nations, but as Churchill noted after trying all other options Americans usually get around to doing the right thing. (The Brits freed slaves in their empire in 1807. Americans freed their's (sort of) in 1865.)

2009 may be a little early for the United States to join the league of humane nations with national health care plans, but given the chatter around the nation there is a good prospect we will get around to it this century.

"Our leader, Pres. Obama says this is the single most important issue of our time. It effects our economy, our health, our future. That seems like its important enough to sacrifice some congressional and Senate seats to Republicnas."

Why sacrifice Democratic party seats to the marginally worse Republicans? There are many independents who would do the right thing.

Boats...Blue Oregon never takes a stance. The writers do. Constantly, in fact.

A distinction without a difference.

@TA

Bill Moyers show last night touched on Baucus and the fact that his last two Chiefs of Staff are now insurance industry lobbyists and that could have something to do with his positions.

It makes me sick to my stomach to watch Obama and the Democrats sacrifice bold progressive policy in the name of cooperation/bipartisanship. Republicans are like legislative terrorists and you don't negotiate with terrorists. Bush isn't one of the worst Presidents ever because the way he bulldozed legislation through, it's because his policies/ideas were horrible. Dems must stop cooperating and pandering to these losers and begin to do the job we put them there to do.

If Wyden is a "relatively progressive person at heart"; I have to ask: relative to what?

I'd bet Wyden has never voted against a free-trade agreement. Fifteen years of JwJ alerts to call Wyden's office to encourage opposition to neoliberalism resulted in his staffers always saying "Ron's a free-trader...".

And at a recent JwJ rally at Shrunk Plaza, it was pointed out by JwJ staff that Wyden has reaped $400K contributions from insurance, pharma & private hospitals over the course of his career.

About 15 years ago I had a chance to speak with Wyden. I asked him, "Why can't we have Canadian-style single=payer?" He replied, "I think we need the competition between the insurance companies" (he neglected to mention that insurance has a federal antitrust exemption and that in many markets one private insurer dominates).

Ron Wyden and his ilk are what is wrong with the Democratic Party!

If Wyden is a "relatively progressive person at heart"; I have to ask: relative to what?

I'd bet Wyden has never voted against a free-trade agreement. Fifteen years of JwJ alerts to call Wyden's office to encourage opposition to neoliberalism resulted in his staffers always saying "Ron's a free-trader...".

And at a recent JwJ rally at Shrunk Plaza, it was pointed out by JwJ staff that Wyden has reaped $400K contributions from insurance, pharma & private hospitals over the course of his career.

About 15 years ago I had a chance to speak with Wyden. I asked him, "Why can't we have Canadian-style single=payer?" He replied, "I think we need the competition between the insurance companies" (he neglected to mention that insurance has a federal antitrust exemption and that in many markets one private insurer dominates).

Ron Wyden and his ilk are what is wrong with the Democratic Party!

I think Wyden has shifted a lot since moving to the Senate. He seems to think a lot more about the beltway and connections there than the people of Oregon. He has been a real drag on any forward movement in health care. His lack of active support for the public option is not incidental. And his attempt to bring Rs on board simply amounts to capitulation. The GOP has made it clear, it wants health care to fail, it wants Obama to fail, it wants the Dem Congress to fail. They are seeing 1993 all over again. They shoot down health care and they recapture Congress. That's their agenda. I will be surprised if a single one of them votes for health care. They have been bought and paid for by the corporate insurance industry.

"It makes me sick to my stomach to watch Obama and the Democrats sacrifice bold progressive policy in the name of cooperation/bipartisanship."

What do you expect? A few weeks ago Dick Durbin said that the banks own the senate. This was only partially true. The banks share ownership of Congress (both houses) and the White House with the medical-insurance-pharmaceutical (MIP)and the military-industrial complexes and the Israel lobby. Party affiliation makes absolutely no difference. To paraphrase an old saw, the politicians can't see the people for the lobbyists.

The Democrats never had a "bold progressive policy" to sacrifice. The only policies they ever had were what their campaign donors wanted.

Josh Kardon: If you are monitoring this site, please advise us how much Wyden has taken in campaign donations from the insurance corporations and individuals working for these corporations since he has been in the Senate.

Thank you, Carla.

"I'm not especially interested in a "let's beat the shit out of Wyden" thread. It doesn't seem terribly productive. "

A friend of mine once held public office and did a lot of good, but then along came a vote and a group he'd always supported (regardless of the political job he had at the time) said "vote with us or we will forget we ever knew you".

That was mentioned as one of the factors of my friend retiring from politics. Someone that friend and I both knew way back (we were friends but not all on the same side of a major primary) quit politics cold turkey because she got fed up with such stuff. "These people are 5% of the voting public at best, yet they think they decide who wins elections. Actually, it is the other 95% of the the voters who decide elections", she said.

I know Wyden is not pure enough for some bloggers and others, but consider his whole record. I'm tired of hearing that the first Democrat elected as a Senator from Oregon since Wayne Morse (remember all those years of Hatfield and Packwood?) has to live up to the wishes of every activist or they will forget they ever knew him.

Reply to Carla Axtman and LT: to embrace the ideology of "free trade", one has scuttled the very basis of the Democratic Party. This entails providing portability for capital at the expense of manufacturing and farm labor and also of the environment.

Therefore, LT, it is not "one issue" that is implicated by Wyden's stance.

If Wyden gets tired of criticism and decides to quit, we'd be better off.

@Carla Carla said: "I'm not especially interested in a "let's beat the shit out of Wyden" thread. It doesn't seem terribly productive. "

Carla, I call bullshit.

No one is beating the shit out of Wyden personally. To my memory, no one has questioned his personal character, honesty, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family heritage, etc. No one has accused him of taking a hike on the Appalachian trail.

Everything has been focused quite specifically on his policy choices.

I can see why that is grating to many of the mainstream Democrats because, frankly, what I have observed is that when there is specific criticism of specific policy choices the usual tactic is to ignore or belittle it . . . mostly the former.

In this case, the criticism is so sustained and so widespread, national in scope, that it cannot be ignored. We do however get some of the belittling (the "digby of California" remark or the beating the shit out of Wyden is unproductive meme).

Let's examine the ways in which Wyden, as emblematic of the Democratic party, has not been moving the ball in the direction I had hoped.

I want health care recognized as a human right, paid for by my tax dollars, and not unduly influenced by whether I am rich or poor. Wyden's plan, as analyzed throughout this thread, is not a step forward and may be a step backward.

I want a solid K-university public school system paid for by my tax dollars and available to all. Oregon has not even one first tier university, much less public university, and its K-12 system is legendary for its precarious situation. Its Portland system has cascading inequality because of school "choice" (racism) and the Democratic party is backing tremendously regressive charter schools and merit pay.

I want the end of the American imperial project and "defense" spending drastically scaled back. On the day of McNamara's death (may he burn in hell!) the Democratic party was poised to approve more troops for the bottomless, vectorless pit that is Afghanistan.

I want to begin to heal the damage to the earth and to create a sustainable way of life. The cap-and-trade bill that is in the works now has largely been abandoned by real environmentalists as worse than nothing, and a giveaway to large coal mining corporations.

I want an essentially free or very low cost public transit system. I have to say that we're doing well above average in Portland here, although the debate is not on whether to abandon fares, but whether to abandon fareless square. As always, the Democrats are on the defensive.

I want an essentially free or very low cost broadband access for all taken out of the hands of corporations. This is not even on the table, for the Democrats cannot think a sentence that does not include the word "corporation."

Most of all, I want the end of corporate rule. I want a real democracy where people, not money, create the rules under which they live. For Democrats, this is the real "thinking the unthinkable."

So, to connect this back to this thread . . . those of us who vote Democratic want change, want hope, want more than shuffling the cards and ending up with the same winners and losers. Ron Wyden's health care proposal is the apotheosis of keeping the corporations in charge and sticking to the workers in the end.

Carla, what part of that last sentence is unintelligible?

Look: the Democratic Party cannot have it both ways with me. If they don't want my vote and monetary support and volunteer energy, fine. Just admit that they are not going to move the country to the left.

Then they have no right to complain when someone else runs who will.

Wyden can begin to move to the left or get out of the way for someone who will.

Carla, you began your post by quoting Digby (approvingly, I think) on bipartisanship). You argued that bipartisanship was a mirage, an "anvil," and I agree, and you counsel Wyden against trying to further compromise any health care deal to include several Republican votes because (a) any such effort is unlikely to succeed and (b) even if it does succeed, the costs will wildly outweigh the benefits.

I'm with you so far.

But then (in my reading of your post) you say two contradictory things.

You say Wyden is a relatively progressive soul at heart. (Maybe you mean "for a U.S. Senator?)

and then you say:

"The people of the U.S. are way ahead of you."

I believe the second statement is true. But that is because the first statement is false.

And, respectfully, that is what it has to do with your point about bipartisanship.

All in my admittedly subjective opinion, of course. But nevertheless it's one that I've thought long and hard about. Largely because I spent many years self-identifying as and striving towards "centrism," including when I first began reading and commenting here at Blue Oregon.Perfect golf swing

I believe Ron Wyden is a liberal, not a progressive. The difference? Liberals work for what is "good for people" with out challenging the prevailing powers. Progressives will support radical [as in root] change when it appears to be the sensible way to make progress.

When a liberal approach is taken to issues that require radical restructuring, the result is often complex and expensive programs and bureaucracies that create as many problems as they solve.

The bipartisan organization Morticians for Healthcare Reform is a great example of what can happen when people from both sides of the aisle work together on their mutual interest.

MFHR has put considerable time and effort into lobbying their respective legislators to move them in a direction that MFHR President Vincent Price and MFHR VP Bela Lugosi agree ‘…will save our clients from paying the higher costs of dying at a later age……’

Mea culpa (somewhat): Wyden has actually voted against free trade on three occasions, when conditions in the country of the proposed partner were particularly egregious.

He usually supports the concept of free trade and usually votes for it, though. He was one of very few Dems to support CAFTA. And he supports the fast-track trade authority, which prevents Congressional input into conditions of the proposed agreements (so when Wyden says he wants labor and environmental standards, that comes along with his acquiescence to silence himself on these matters).

Wyden: lackey of private insurance and Pharma (he voted for Tom DeLay's Medicare Part D, which is nothing but a subsidy of Pharma's outrageous profits); neoliberal in economic philosophy (trade); and a major AIPAC lackey.

Please get fed up with the criticism and resign, Wyden.

Anyway, what is the point of even considering bipartisanship when it comes to the haelthcare debate?

If a person is currently covered only by Medicare Part A or Medicaid, it's very difficult to find a physician.

So, even if we get a strong public option, run somewhat similarly to the public plans we now have, it will mean major money needing to go into them in order to make them viable, so's that the fees are high enough that doctors who now prefer private patients will accept the public patients.

And we save no money but do support a structure which reinforces the outrageously high cost of healthcare.

And that's even with a strong public option. And bipartisanship won't allow a strong public option.

The debate is so far away from where it needs to be! And bipartisanship will only move it farther in the wrong direction.

[Off-topic comment removed. Use Google to find what you're looking for. -editor.]

<h2>I can’t imagine anything more important, to any entity’s efforts to solve its problems and improve itself, than having respect for the conflicting views of its constituent members, and being able to incorporate those varying views into an optimal solution or approach. Unfortunately, at least in the current political environment, I am concerned that this principle may not be in operation.</h2>