so lieberman is the only 'dem' who is (4.00 / 2)

categorically opposed?  somebody has gotten way too close to mccain and graham.  if his azz doesn't vote for cloture, the netroots will have won the biggest moral victory imaginable.  but it would be a terrible day for the country.

---

by: seabrook @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 17:45:22 PM UTC

what about pushing choice? (4.00 / 1)

a question-should progressives push not just a strong pub plan but choice? see the sen help plan denies choice. if u dont like your employer's crappy insurance u have no way out. u cannot opt into another plan if u want. obama has said u can choose whatever plan u want if u dont like it. ezra mentioned this too.

---

by: art3 @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 18:18:01 PM UTC

Very good point! The trap doors and hidden fish hooks are what is meant by the phrase "its all in the details" (0.00 / 0)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 19:12:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

choice is critical (4.00 / 2)

its something that needs to be addressed. lots of folks are exciting about a pub option thinking they can get it. but this isnt true as of now. help doesnt permit choice. pub plan only for indivs and sm business etc.. progs in congress must be pressed on choice

---

by: art3 @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 20:07:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You willl not have choice.... (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry Art, but that will not be in the cards... it would literally cost too much... everything will be done to keep you in your employer plan if they have one...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 04:49:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

house version open access, sen not? (0.00 / 0)

time says thehouse version will allow for anyone to opt into anothe plan. help version no but tumulty points out the fin cmte will determine the indiv mandate and scope of what u can do. she cites the part of the proposal on that issue. i see what u are saying about cost. i just think many say we want a pub opt thinking he or she can opt into it no matter the case.
http://swampland.blogs.time.co...

---

by: art3 @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 06:25:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure if someone's posted this yet (4.00 / 2)

But here's the response I got from Ron Wyden:

Dear Mr. Hubbird:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of including a public option in health reform. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I have clearly stated, and want you to know, that I am very open to a national public option if accompanied by real, comprehensive health reform, and if the underlying legislation is responsibly and sustainably financed.

You may also be interested to know that my bill, the Healthy Americans Act, S.391, not only allows a public option in states that want one, but also requires a public option if a state doesn't have at least two health plans offering everyone benefits just like members of Congress have today. This will ensure that all Americans have high quality and affordable coverage.

In addition, the Healthy Americans Act provides universal, affordable, guaranteed coverage that can never be taken away. Individuals would get a choice of health plans with benefits just like Members of Congress have now. Insurance companies would be prohibited from charging you more if you are sick or older, nor could they refuse to provide you health coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. Health insurance would no longer need to be tied to where you work. Individuals can keep the coverage they have or can purchase coverage through statewide or regional agencies called Health Help Agencies. Individuals and families who aren't able to pay the full cost of health insurance would be subsidized on a sliding scale to help assure that their health care coverage will be affordable and every bit the equal of those more financially-fortunate. If you would like more information about my bill, it is available on my website at http://wyden.senate.gov.

Again, thank you for keeping me apprised of issues that are important to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Ron Wyden
United States Senator

---

by: hubbird @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 18:24:41 PM UTC

thanks for posting this (4.00 / 2)

Still seems like a maybe to me, given the "ifs" that come along with it. But encouraging none the less.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 18:43:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd call it a yes (4.00 / 1)

Sounds like he'd vote for the HELP bill even if he prefers his own alternative. I certainly can't see him joining a Republican filibuster.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 18:45:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris' caution is understandable, but I think you are right as well. (0.00 / 0)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 19:14:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's to many if's to count as a yes (0.00 / 0)

This is about what they say, not what they think.  It's about making them take a stand so we can hold them accountable.

What we imagine he might do is irrelevant to this question. If you are right, then he ought to say so. There is no legitimate reason for a member of Congress to refuse to explain their position on the most important issue they face.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 22:52:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree and pressure is needed - strong consistent pressure (0.00 / 0)

However the point was about trying to count and see where we stand, not accepting oatmeal as a vote, but as indicating probable future action. This line of thought is about 'where do we stand' not who do we need to take pressure off of.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 17:18:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure thing (0.00 / 0)

It's just that if he (or anyone else) won't be clear about where they stand, then I'm not sure we can know where we stand.  

As I said, I can't think of a reason why someone would stick with those hedges instead of answering clearly (as opposed to using them at first, but then clarifying when asked) if they do in fact, stand with us. Maybe I'm missing something, but it suggests to me that he is not sure at best. Thus, my vote for "maybe."

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 18:30:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because like all sentors (0.00 / 0)

 he is the most important one, and has his own legislation suggestions and his own amendments and "we" don't have a bill that is the bill that means "with us" or is even so standard that a bill "like it" would mean that. There are groups of bills and many amendments, all of which use words like, or dont, public option, or public choice, but the thing is in the details.

This Senator's bill suggestions are not that far off from other similar bills that are in other committees, proceeding toward a committee or set up as a stand alone to go to the floor without scrutiny.

This isn't a train, there is no engine in front. So its hard to see the battle lines. The only thing to watch is the vote and the criticisms from people you trust. One bill recently passed has 1500 pages in it. I know no one that can read a bill with 1500 pages and think they understand it in less than a month. The constitution is equivalent to what 10 pages? And it gets how much interpretation?

The things this Senator is saying is generally compliant to things other Senators are saying that are reliably assumed to be voting yes on a "public option" or at least enough so that he can be counted in a "battle field assessment" sort of way, on the ground needed to cover so as to able to declare victory.

My point was, this isnt a description of the Senators position for the purposes of whether or not to keep pressure on him, merely a rough (fingers crossed) vote count, so as to get the lay of the land.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 20:28:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

any idea on the public option timetable? (0.00 / 0)

the 2013 in the house draft was disappointing

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 19:16:30 PM UTC

I'd imagine similar (0.00 / 0)

These programs need a while to set up, we are talking about a national public insurance plan, after all, and it'll be almost 2010 by the time the President signs anything.

---

by: Jason Rosenbaum @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 20:17:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why not 2011? (0.00 / 0)

bush's part C didn't take 3-4 years?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 20:37:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Part C wasn't nearly this (4.00 / 1)

Tons more people, and no Medicare infrastructure to build on.

The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics

---

by: J-Ro @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 21:45:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I meant 'part D,' not 'part C' (0.00 / 0)

the prescription drug thing

didn't they move a lot of people to big pharma for their prescription drugs?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 19:15:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

But it's all done using medicare's infrastructure (billing, keeping track, etc...), which wouldn't be of use for this.

The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics

---

by: J-Ro @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 21:41:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pat Roberts Huddles with Tom Coburn in HELP Committee (4.00 / 1)

At one point in a three-hour mark-up session, Roberts related the story of a man whose insurance disallowed yet another MRI on the man's knee replacement procedure. Then Roberts said he was that man. This conundrum wasn't enough to inspire him to support a public plan, but he seemed to want a plan that didn't put limits on tests that an orthopedic surgeon felt were needed for his patient.

Roberts was depending on Coburn for wording of amendments, even the one that they composed during the hearing, much to Mikulski's consternation. Roberts "threw up his hands" a few times during the amendment process, saying "You'll get your way, you have the votes." And resigned himself to not having his wording accepted in the end.

---

by: Books Alive @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 00:38:50 AM UTC

the math (0.00 / 0)

Going with just the 63 you list as "reachable" we can award 38 votes for those listed as "yes" and 0.5 votes for each of the unknown and maybes. There are 23 of those so we have 38 plus 11.5 or 49.5 votes.

Wow, close.

---

by: tremayne @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 02:32:26 AM UTC

Is it fair to put John Kerry as a Maybe? (0.00 / 0)

Kerry made it pretty clear that he wants to support a public option, and was only putting the trigger out there in the event that a public option couldn't be passed.

Kerry not being a Yes only makes sense if a Yes meant that the Senator not only supports the public option but won't take anything less, i.e. the Progressive Block.  Are we applying that same standard to all the Senators that are listed as Yes?

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 20:07:53 PM UTC

I think I'd like to see a clarification from Senator Kerry (0.00 / 0)

first, before we change the listing. I agree with you, I think he's on board, but still, let's clear the air, no?

The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics

---

by: J-Ro @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 21:42:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]