Medicare 1965 for instance contained about 2/3 Republican/AMA ideas -- though these initially had been intended by their conservative backers to be the only elements of, or a substitute for, the final medicare bill.

The problem with the Obama legislation is that with the early backroom dealing with PhRMA and the health insurance industry, we probably did sacrifice too much at the outset and at a time when Obama had political momentum and could have stood firm against such deals and gone for a much more robust bill.  

It's something like if, following the huge Dem landslide win in 1964, the primary dealmaker for Dems (Wilbur Mills or LBJ) decided to just try to get the sort of modest deal that was available prior to the election.

My concern is that the failure of allegedly progressive members of Congress to stop the rightward movement, much less move it one inch to the left, and the "victory" now being gloated over by the WH and the Democratic leadership, will set the pattern for whatever else is on the agenda.  

And there's a lot there, from financial industry reform, to immigration, and (cue dramatic music) entitlements.  There's a commission now, co-chaired by the biggest Medicare and Social Security hater ever - Alan Simpson - hand-picked by Obama.  Is that all about "balance," a desire to hear "good ideas," or is it the first step in a campaign to "reform" these programs in the interest of the Republicans' favorite subject: deficit reduction?

Am I the only one who wonders why the Democratic caucus cannot seem to see two moves ahead, and will just putz around until the conservative direction is firmly established, and their mission becomes less about changing that direction and more about doing what they have to do to give Obama another win?  

Nobody think Americans should shirk their responsibility.  Medicare for All for example, increases taxes, it just doesn't mandate the public by a private insurance product.