Naomi Klein: Neoliberalism is to blame ...

[Rilgin]

103. Yes he said he wanted it. That is different than fighting for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/what-options-did-obama-le_n_394697.html

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.fullhttp://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.full

In the second link, it notes the fights in the Senate. Note that it references the House bills too. The first link shows what other steps of fighting could have been taken and I lost another link which had quotes from senators actually fighting in Congress saying they did not have white house support.

There are a number of issues in this area. First, its a vote counting decision. I can say, If i dont fight and roll over, I can pass a bill (regardless of its imperfection) 100% of the time. If i exert presidential honey and sticks and hold to my position, I am likely to get my bill 50% and no bill 50%. Last the compromise could have been done later in the reconciliation stage. There are lots of paths and someone who "fights" for something takes some risk of not obtaining it. You seem to want both to allow Obama to take the 100% path and still say he fought for something else. He chose a path that involved not fighting and not taking risk. Within that path, he certainly said he wanted a public option and tried to woo Olympia Snowe with a trigger that no one really wanted but he did not actually fight for the public option in the sense of actually risking anything or applying actual pressure.

The more important issue is one of long term results. Passing the imperfect ACA got a few years with some millions more people getting some version of insurance. It did not result in full health care nor did it solve the cost problem. Further, its in danger of being a Pyhrric Victory. Democrats do not look like principled actors and just keep losing elections from state house to congress and the ACA is likely to be swept away in favor of long term republican favorites like allowing every insurance company to incorporate in North Dakota and sell into other states avoiding regulation and eliminating lawyers from any role in the medical system.

I was and am an advocate for the simple both as a plan and politically as a strategy. I believe the Democratic Party would be in much better shape if they had actually fought for a Medicaire for all system and taken a long term view of obtaining it. I am not sure it would have resulted in a bill in 2009-10. However, I think the fight would have continued and used as a hammer in the next election cycle if Obama wanted to actually "fight". We have discussed the ACA but in the broader context, I think this is the problem with Triangulation politics. You may win an election but lose the war.