72% want a public option and 85% think the system needs to be fundamentally changed. He thinks it's because such Dems are spineless. That fundamentally misunderstands the situation. To vote against something that 72% of the population wants indicates a Congress member isn't a panderer to public opinion. What it indicates instead is that they either:
- Actually don't believe in a public option, let alone real universal health care a la single payor; or,
- Are being paid enough by insurers and other folks who want the current health care gravy train to continue that they are willing to vote against what the majority of their constituents want.
Personally, I'd go with both. They don't believe in universal health care, and they know that their real constituents aren't the people who vote for them but the people who fund their campaigns and make sure they, their friends and their families are taken care of. And no, they don't think that's you, the voter and taxpayer.
They don't believe they won't be reelected if they vote against a public option. And given re-election rates of Senators, who are the people causing the most problem, they're probably right, aren't they? Their calculation is that voters are sheep and won't make them pay any real price for killing a good health care plan.
I'd say they're right. So given that they probably don't believe in universal health care, that they don't personally need it since they have good health care, that they get paid to vote against it and that they'll pay no price for voting against it, why shouldn't they kill it?
Advertisement
Seems like a brain dead calculation to me. I'm sure it does to Diane Feinstein too. As another entitled aristocrat once said "let them eat cake."