On dealing with obduracy …

A very important part of serving on a public committee is learning how to deal with the recalcitrant, the obstinate, the obdurate.

Equally important is understanding when consensus has been achieved and the time to move ahead with a decision has arrived.

We have reached (I’d say long ago passed) the point of consensus on changing health insurance in this country and now is the time to deal with the obdurate and simply move on with or without the obstructionists.

As I pointed out in this recent post, the People of the United States are massively in favor of a solid public option, and support for this public option spreads across age, economic, racial and political bounderies.

Despite this the Democratic “led” White House and Congress still appears to want to reach some form of agreement with those who brought us lies about non-existent “death panels”, non-existent reductions in Medicare services, non-existent medical decisions being made by government and more. (Their latest rendition, which has nothing to do with health insurance reform, is a claim the VA has published a booklet that encourages frail veterans to end their lives quickly rather than live on … total bullshit … read it for yourself).

What the Democratic “leadership” refuses to accept is consensus. Consensus is not about 100% or close to that agreement. Consensus is that point where there is enough support for something that a decision to move on or not can be made and action can be taken on that decision.

This is not the same as a simple majority, although it could be just that. People may not be comfortable pushing someone who disagrees into a corner, and often times even those who disagree will accept a consensus decision and help to make that decision evolve into successful and fruitful action.

We have that political consensus in the United States when it comes to both health insurance reform and the inclusion of a solid public option. The polls prove it! People are ready to say yes and move forward.

Once we realize the consensus is there to make changes to our nation’s health insurance industry (including a strong public option), the next step is how do we deal with the obstructionists, the obdurate, who have as their only goal the desire to stand in the way of 77% of us United Statesians?

Simple … we move on by them, and they will come along because they have to. We’ve tried asking them to stop lying, but, as evidenced by the latest claims over what the VA has (actually hasn’t) been telling the nation’s vets about end of life care, that won’t work.

Hell, the US Senate tried throwing 77% of the nation overboard just to offer these obdurate obstructionist Republicans a washed out, faded version of the public option under the guise of “co-ops”. This hasn’t worked.

No amount of give and take will satisfy … the sole purpose now behind the Republican Party and it’s allied army of obdurate obstructionists is to stop health insurance reform … period!

The public supports health insurance reforms that include a robust public option, and according to House Speaker Pelosi the House of Representatives can’t pass a bill without a public option. The Senate can certainly dig up 51 votes to pass a good solid public option along with other health insurance reforms.

The consensus has been reached, and the time to move past the obstructionist and obdurate is here. Sure they will be kicking and screaming, but they will come along because they really have no more options.

All that’s left now is for the Democratic “leadership” to realize all the above and act responsibly.

3 thoughts on “On dealing with obduracy …

  1. There are 3,300 lobbyists who have lined up to work on the issue that is six lobbyists to every 535 members of the House and Senate. Reading that one has to suspect that more than a few Democrats are saying “block me please”  

  2. There never will be. And that’s OK. I think that’s a highly over/mis-used term.

    Consensus is not compatible with the “kicking and screaming” of some, and I think the more subtle message behind the “we must always have consensus” is the same behind the we-must-have-bipartisanship. I know that’s not what you’re saying, but I think the romanticization of, and skewed use of, the idea of consensus feeds that mindset in the long run.

    Obviously, I could never be a quaker.

Comments are closed.