Who Wins the Battle During the August Recess Will Determine the Fate of Health Care Reform

by: Mike Lux

Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 12:15


Usually when I leave DC for a few days, as I did recently, my mood and hopefulness about the country improves - it's a lot easier to be hopeful when you meet real people working in their communities for change. And usually when I talk with my insider Democratic friends in DC, my optimism fades because everyone in DC tends to be so cynical and overly-cautious. But on this trip, I got really depressed with the steady drumbeat of bad news coming out of the traditional media about health care. When I got back yesterday, though, and started talking to people who were actually working on things here, I remembered how relentlessly negative big media tends to be, how every story emphasizes the conventional wisdom story line about how health care reform is impossible to pass.

This health care fight is just one motherf-er of a battle. Every step of the way will be really hard and really painful. The final trade offs will piss virtually everybody off. Passing something real, something that actually matters, has never been more than a 50/50 proposition. But talking with people on the Hill and at the White House, and watching what has happened over the last 24 hours, I now believe our chances at real reform are still alive.

The fact is, Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi forged a deal with the Blue Dogs that didn't require them to give up anything that really mattered very much on the substance. While the Energy and Commerce bill will be the worst of the 3 bills reported out of House committees, it still has most of the important things you would want to see in a health care reform bill, including a decent public option. It is a great thing that progressive members of the House are pushing back hard against the bad compromises that were made, though, because progressives need to send a clear signal that they will not be rolled. When the 3 bills are merged during the August recess, that pressure will help deliver a very solid version of the legislation.

Speaking of the August recess, while I am not thrilled that the House put off the floor vote until after it happens, that is also not a disaster for us. But it is a test for those of us who believe in serious health care reform. The battle over who wins the organizing and message fight in the August recess - grassroots reformers or the astroturf insurance lobby in league with right wingers everywhere - will decide the fate of health care reform, pure and simple.

The conventional wisdom in the media is simply wrong about the nature of the health care fight: the Senate Finance committee is not determinative. That's what the Republicans, the insurance lobbyists, the conservative Democrats want everyone to believe, and that mantra is being pushed day and night in the offices and hallways of the DC establishment. But it doesn't have to be that way. Four committees out of five did the right thing, and the signal that I'm getting from the White House is that they are still fighting hard for the public option, and Senate Finance is not the end all and be all. What will change the dynamic is progressives winning the organizing and messaging fight in August. Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, and at least two Republican Senators from a small progressive-leaning state in play. If our side out-organizes the insurance/right wing astroturfers, if the White House and Reid and Pelosi put every bit of muscle into winning the fight for real reform, it can still happen. Everything is at stake here, as I wrote yesterday: if we don't win this fight, the Obama Presidency, Democratic prospects in the 2010 election, and any hopes we have for victories on other big issues are all in deep, deep trouble. But we still have a real shot at winning this battle, and now is when we need to pull out all the stops to do it.

Mike Lux :: Who Wins the Battle During the August Recess Will Determine the Fate of Health Care Reform

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Fantastic article. It means we have to communicate better. Go around the Press. (4.00 / 2)
If our side out-organizes the insurance/right wing astroturfers, if the White House and Reid and Pelosi put every bit of muscle into winning the fight for real reform, it can still happen

For us the first line is a command. For us the first line is our marching orders. And maybe Marching is what we should be doing.

There are many things to do to help drive reform through.

First we have to Demand a Right to Affordable Health Care for every American,

second we have to personally tell as many people as possible that they have to help.

third we have to let our personal Senators and Reps we want a funded robust public option or single payer

Fourth we have to organize actions to support reform, or join actions that support reform. (Someone start a Sick Day march on Washington) and maybe accompanied by a Call in Sick (and tired) day for everyone that wants real Change to healthcare.

Fifth we have to counter the insurance industries fake paid for demos against reform, and their paid bloggers and posters.

Sixth we have to prevent people from lying about the reform moving forward, and simplify the debate, a Right to Affordable Health car, for our moms and dads, for our kids, for our businesses and communities.

Seventh we have to pledge, like the progressive caucus has, to never give up.

Is there a March on Washington yet? Is there a better idea? A mass movement needs mass movement.  

--

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


Legislative process question (0.00 / 0)
The Schoolhouse Rock video didn't quite get into enough detail to answer my questions:

1) Is it possible to bypass the Senate Finance Committee, say if the HELP bill is passed and merged with the House bill's version of financing the reform?

2) If the House bill passes, can't the Senate vote on that without sending the House bill to the committee?

3) What would need to be done to attempt a leadership change, either at the committee level, or dethroning Reid?

John McCain won't insure children


some answers IANAL and IANAMOC (4.00 / 1)
1) Is it possible to bypass the Senate Finance Committee, say if the HELP bill is passed and merged with the House bill's version of financing the reform?
Yes, the final bill, though it has to go through a committee is not rquired to have that Ctte's bill be the final bill.

2) If the House bill passes, can't the Senate vote on that without sending the House bill to the committee?
After both houses pass "a" bill, then the two houses appoint people to negotiate a final bill, that again passes both houses.

3) What would need to be done to attempt a leadership change, either at the committee level, or dethroning Reid?

Reid wont be dethroned, although not giving us the leadership we need, he is not joining with Blue dogs to prevent one either, the Reid problem is long term problem, and not a short term crisis.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Answers (0.00 / 0)
1.) The Finance Committee can simply accept the House version of financing or see below.

2.) Yes, this is entirely possible. Mike Mansfield did this with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he bypassed Judiciary and sent the House bill for a vote...but it failed and the Senate ended up voting on a compromise bill that got Republican support

3.) Death, Resignation, or the 112th Congress.


[ Parent ]
What Exactly Is a "Decent Public Option"? (4.00 / 2)
I'm not trying to be snarky, it's just so many different people have so many different definitions of what is and isn't a decent public option, that I'd like to know what you mean when you say it.  Are we looking at 9 million enrolled and it up in running in 4 years?  Are we looking at 130 million enrolled and it up and running in a year?  Or is it something in between?  Something worse?  Something better?

Thank heavens you asked this question! (4.00 / 1)
The only decent public option is AT LEAST 130 million enrolled and up and running in a year.

Period.


[ Parent ]
Iam Walsh made some great suggestions, very very robust and suggested that his suggestions were (4.00 / 1)
necessary to areal bill.

I am not sure that he is right that its 100% necessary for each line item suggested, in fact I worry about selling details, details can lie, complexity makes me think of Insurance sales people showing you pages and pages of a contract, that in the end is just excuses to not cover you.

Hers the limk to Ians yard stick link "What the Public Option MUST Have To Survive"

I think the Right to Affordable Health Care is the yardstick, and that it should be included in the package. No matter what the details, if you get sick you get care. Paying is worked out, and the paying cant stop the care. Payment is a organizational detail. It doesnt, mean you dont have to pay, it means you dont have to may more than you can afford. The best way to afford something is a sing;e payer system but let them worry about that, and let Americans go to the Doctor.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Iam Walsh made some great suggestions, very very robust and suggested that his suggestions were (0.00 / 0)
necessary to areal bill.

I am not sure that he is right that its 100% necessary for each line item suggested, in fact I worry about selling details, details can lie, complexity makes me think of Insurance sales people showing you pages and pages of a contract, that in the end is just excuses to not cover you.

Hers the limk to Ians yard stick link "What the Public Option MUST Have To Survive"

I think the Right to Affordable Health Care is the yardstick, and that it should be included in the package. No matter what the details, if you get sick you get care. Paying is worked out, and the paying cant stop the care. Payment is a organizational detail. It doesnt, mean you dont have to pay, it means you dont have to may more than you can afford. The best way to afford something is a sing;e payer system but let them worry about that, and let Americans go to the Doctor.

--

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


[ Parent ]
I think democrats will win on this (4.00 / 2)
And by winning I mean will pass legislation that will make the average person feel better about healthcare with Republicans fighting every step of the way.

The fundamental issue will be passing something significant enough to make people feel like they had an effect by voting.  If Republicans can stop that they win.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....


And another four, and one more 4 (0.00 / 0)


--

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


[ Parent ]
Dream on. (0.00 / 0)
Republicans will win in 2010 and again in 2012 - maybe even your Savior will lose in 2012.

It will serve them right.


[ Parent ]
I see a loser. (0.00 / 0)


--

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


[ Parent ]
Yup, Obama is a loser. (0.00 / 0)
If Obama is the Answer, then you asked a really stupid question.

I am a former Democrat for 45 years.  Never voted Republican in my life - until this past election when I didn't vote for the first time in my life.  


[ Parent ]
Hahahahahahah (0.00 / 0)
sorry I couldnt help myself. And good luck with tanking republicans.

--

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


[ Parent ]
What Obama's doctor says (4.00 / 3)
Here:

But Scheiner says that nobody has seen the details of that option, making it a hard sell for the president.

"We don't even fully know what the public option is going to be. If the public option is too good, patients who are sick will flock to it, and I'm not sure it will be able to support itself."


Others agree:
Since Memorial Day, there have been ten polls that asked whether the public supported what was identified as the Obama, Democratic, or Congressional health care "plan". I put "plan" in quotation marks because there still isn't "a" plan; instead the Congress is debating between several different plans. With that said, what the public thinks of as the Obama/Democratic plan has been steadily gaining opposition...

I understand why the mid-terms are all-important to Democratic operatives, but their professional concerns are not mine: What concerns me is the nature of the actual proposal. But there isn't one. What the old saying? "You can't beat something with nothing?"

And you can tell the real quality of what's on offer from the fact that Obama doesn't want to run on it in 2012; the plan doesn't kick in 'til 2013. That's really all you need to know, and it makes the fauxsteria all the more unseemly in policy terms.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


Your understanding of where the blockage is, and who is pusing with us is wrong. (0.00 / 0)
Every time you say "the democrats" you are using the main stream media's framing of the fight in Washington and across the country.

You blame of Obama, is wrong, the problem is republicans and blue dog republican-lite democrats in congress, the solution to the problem is public action to support the progressive caucus, the line in the sand, the States right to set up their own single payer, and a declaration of the right to affordable healthcare.

I have to wonder why you keep saying "this is all Obama's fault" who while he might go further out than he has, is already miles further than he was during the Primaries.

Is it because you never wanted him elected anyway?

This an article about what is working, what isnt, who is lying and what should be doesnt to help.


the mid-terms are all-important to Democratic operatives,
yeah I support the continued growth and strength of more better democrats. If you support "taking the steering wheel off" and then blaming Obama and hurting the first drive left in a generation, your interests are not the same as ours.


--

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


[ Parent ]
Since you asked..... (0.00 / 0)
You asked:  "I have to wonder why you keep saying "this is all Obama's fault..."

BECAUSE IT IS.

No leadership.  Running and hiding.  New "framing" with every statement.

Hmmmmm.  Certainly makes you feel optimistic, doesn't it?

NO!


[ Parent ]
No I think its your fault. (0.00 / 0)


--

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


[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
Last I checked, Obama was head of the Democratic Party. Has been since August 2008. Has there been a change, and I missed the memo?

As for the rest... Feh. When the Obama, the Dems, and "progressives" stop sucking, the pain will stop. That's what pressure from the left does. Deal.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
This is a call to action. Although not written as one. (0.00 / 0)
It couldnt be clearer from what you write that our congress is capable of passing what we need, if not what we want. But it will require us to push hard.

We need a call to action.

--

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


I have a crazy idea (4.00 / 4)
Maybe Obama should run against the opponents of reform.

Hell, even Nate Silver--you know, the guy who thinks Sirota is a marxist and who urged activists to lay off Tim Geithner--gets it. Obama, he says, is "strangely resistant to populist rhetoric."

I'd thought, frankly, this was one of the real advantages that Democrats had going into the legislative process: big business is very unpopular because of the economic collapse, and there might even have been some way to parlay negative sentiments about AIG -- an insurance company -- into skepticism about the motivations of insurers in general. But we haven't seen very much of this from the highest-profile Dems

I dunno, maybe he feels uncomfy running against the interests with which he's worked out back room deals, but really, he should let that discomfort stops him. No one would ever mistake him for William Jennings Bryan--or, for that matter, John Edwards--but he surely he could summon a little outrage.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...


I completely agree with you. (4.00 / 1)
His doctor says he is too pragmatic. That seems to fit. He didnt have the public option, or anything like it while running for the nomination, nor while even running for President, so he has moved, and now needs to give a speech that ties an American Right to Affordable Healthcare, to a robust funded public option.

He needs to call for support, risk his political capital, because of he does not, he could lose that political capital by allowing a damaged low effect bill to pass that pleases no one, and does nothing to solve the costs problem, and nothing to solve the coverage problem.

Obama needs to call with as much rhetorical insight and skill as his race speech for the Care of Americans Nate's got some good ideas.

--

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


[ Parent ]
I have no idea how hard it is to do on this time line. (0.00 / 0)
but a march on Washington of 100,000 to 2 million calling for real health reform then addressed by Obama would do it for me.

If we have the august break off, lets have a party in Washington. We need the sixties back right now.

--

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


[ Parent ]
He's already firewalled himself from this (4.00 / 1)
He needs to call for support, risk his political capital, because of he does not, he could lose that political capital by allowing a damaged low effect bill to pass that pleases no one, and does nothing to solve the costs problem, and nothing to solve the coverage problem.

That's what the 2013 start date is all about. It's very clever from an electoral point of view, because it simultaneously prevents having to defend a manure sandwich and blackmails the voters by threatening its repeal if the GOP wins the election.

At this point they'll probably take anything that says "Now with Public Option(tm)!" on the outside of the box.


[ Parent ]
Obama's disguises are amazing (0.00 / 0)
Obama did not add a "start date" to any bill. Obama does not write bills. Obama is in the executive branch.

The "stuff" is really flowing. Doesn't even need a fan.

One version of the Bill, sets up some of its programs in stages. The public option, in the version you cite, starts in 2010, but the subsidies for helping people that can't afford it the public option, do not start until 2013. You can charge that completely unfair, and you would be right.

I support cutting that from the final Bill, and so do many other people. Pressure to cut it from the final Bill does not come from odd statements that "obama" put it in the bill because... well I dont why you say, so he can not have reform, so he can win, because he will put it in later?

Which is slightly less bizarre than other reasons that "obama" put it in the bill "because" he isn't going to run 2012.

And according to the Mayan calendar the world ends in 2012, thats  another 'good'  reason  that "obama" dressed up like a member of congress, snuck into a committee meeting, and fooled everyone into letting him vote for all of them.

Wasn't he out hiding his birth certificate that day? Do you have space pictures of Obama dressed as a committee of congress trying to sneak back into the White House.

That Obama needs to lead more on this is correct, and the progressive caucus has to hold the line. But the one thing we can do, is demand a good bill all summmer long.

I support a March on Washington. But there are many other things to do.

--

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


[ Parent ]
I request you find the following quotation (0.00 / 0)
"obama" put it in the bill because...

anywhere in my post.

Thank you.


[ Parent ]
Obama didnt write the Bill you complain about. (0.00 / 0)
How does that easier to understand.  

--

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


[ Parent ]
We're dealing with Democratic politicians who want to win (0.00 / 0)
And you can bet that if they thought that the bill was a winning issue for Obama in 2012, they'd set things up so he could do just that.

Nobody's saying that Obama crafted the legislation, for pity's sake. And the Mayan calendar is cute.... But obfuscatory. Quelle surprise. And the birther nonsense is a low blow. The world isn't divided into people who wear the D jersey and people who wear the R jersey.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
"they thought" (0.00 / 0)
And you can bet that if they thought that the bill was a winning issue for Obama in 2012, they'd set things up so he could do just that.
Who is they?
Nobody's saying that Obama crafted the legislation, for pity's sake.
Crafting the legislation is only important thing here, and how to effect it. And its not an amorphous 'they' and it isn't Obama. Blaming 'they' and Obama on the quality of the bill isn't accurate nor helpful. And that's why I constantly suggest greater accuracy in your identification of both actual obstacles, and ways to apply pressure. The ones writing the parts we like seem to be part of the amorphous 'they' you talk about. Unless you think subjecting Obama to a primary is the path forward. Or is the GE your point of pressure?

I would suggest that we support the power block that supports moving the bill toward complete coverage, and attack or sway their main stumbling blocks, the conservative dems.

Okey dokey pokey?

We can further assist, by talking to the public about demanding universal coverage of affordable healthcare. Dispelling the lies of the republicans about Obama wanting to kill old people, and making fun of the birthers and hannities who, in the words of St. John the Stewart, are in a national contest to see who can be the biggest douche.

Its an open contest.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Hope Officer (0.00 / 0)
I thought the Democrats -- the "they" of which I speak, which would be evident to any non-tendentious reader -- were a party that worked together to achieve a political objective like electing Democrats, and that they would do things that made it easy to win elections, like in 2012.

And that if Obama's health care plan was any good, the Democrats -- see, they're a party, remember -- made it easy for him to run in 2012 and win, they'd make damn sure he could do that. As Ian Welsh remarks:


Proper governance liberal style works like this.  Pass effective bills even if it requires not being bipartisan.  When those effective bills create good effects (a good economy, everyone having good health care) reap the benefits of voters being happy with good jobs and not going bankrupt over health care.

See how easy?

Of course, as you've said, your goal is make Obama "admired." Perfectly fine objective for an operative, nothing wrong with that. But if, as Chris Bowers points out, such strategerizing leads to single payer in the next 15 or 20 years, then some -- especially those thrown under the bus by it -- might be led to question the motives and competence of people with those goals.

And thank you so much for giving me the approved list of talking points. But since I can read about them perfectly well elsewhere, I see little point in repeating them. As I've said before, scratch a progressive and you get "Shut The Fuck Up." But do continue waving your pom poms!

NOTE And thank you so much for your civil response. It's nice to not to be called an asshole -- especially by a "progressive"!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Single payer in 15 years is an excitng possiblity. (0.00 / 0)
I am fairly sure that your insults and foot stomping wont do much to help it along.

Here is a thumb sketch of the way it was introduced in Canada.

1947 -Saskatchewan initiates provincial universal public hospital insurance plan, January 1.

1948 - National Health Grants Program, federal; provides grants to provinces and territories to support health-related initiatives, including hospital construction, public health, professional training, provincial surveys and public health research.

1949 - British Columbia creates limited provincial hospital insurance plan.

Newfoundland joins Canada, has a cottage hospital insurance plan.

1950 - Alberta creates limited provincial hospital insurance plan, July 1.

1957 - Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, federal, proclaimed (Royal Assent) May 1; provides 50/50 cost sharing for provincial and territorial hospital insurance plans, in force July 1, 1958.

1958 - Manitoba, Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia create hospital insurance plans with federal cost sharing, July 1.

Saskatchewan hospital insurance plan brought in under federal cost sharing, July 1.

1959 -Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia create hospital insurance plans with federal cost sharing, January 1.

Prince Edward Island creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, October 1.

1960 -Northwest Territories creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, April 1.

Yukon creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, July 1.

1961 - Québec creates hospital insurance plan with federal cost sharing, January 1.

Federal government creates Royal Commission on Health Services to study need for health insurance and health services; appoint Emmet M. Hall as Chair.

1962 -Saskatchewan creates medical insurance plan for physicians' services, July 1; doctors in province strike for 23 days.

1964 -Royal Commission on Health Services, federal, reports; recommends national health care program.

1965 -British Columbia creates provincial medical plan.

1966 - Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), federal, introduced; provides cost-sharing for social services, including health care not covered under hospital plans, for those in need, Royal Assent July, effective April 1.

Medical Care Act, federal, proclaimed (Royal Assent), December 19; provides 50/50 cost sharing for provincial/territorial medical insurance plans, in force July 1, 1968.

It isn't a directly comparable set of steps. But you may just note that it started in 1947, didnt really get going till the fifties, and wasnt really completed till 1966. That's 19 years by my count. Second whilke there a few countries with fairly complete single payer systems, and they are the cream of the crop, agreed, most guarantee affordable care, and various methods to achieve it. germany for example taxes you, or forces you to pay about 10% of your income to private companies(this is memory, the details could be different).

America, because it has dedicated people working their asses off, will get to Single Payer.

I just wish you would help.

BTW on 'the democrats" being a party LOL!
I almost spewwed my coffee through my nose.

I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat! Will Rogers

As if talking about Baucus, Pelosi, Kucinich, Dixiecrats, Blue Dogs, progressives, my grandfather, the populists and Garrison of Florida weren't obvious enough.


--

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


[ Parent ]
"I just wish you would help." (0.00 / 0)
Pitiful.

O. First with the "asshole"* -- you did apologize, right? Link please.

1. The with the  infantilization -- "foot stomping."

2. Then with the lies and the smears.

God. Go away.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Oh for chrissakes (0.00 / 0)
The 2013 state date was the earliest realistic date they could start it and still keep the bill deficit neutral so it can pass the Senate without being subject to a point of order.

[ Parent ]
Great (0.00 / 0)
Then you'll stop using the "They're killing people!" talking point, right? Just to surrender the doublethink?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Pray that Gates has a health crisis..... (4.00 / 1)
.....and his insurance company screws him.

Ok just kidding.

Seriously, these people inside the Beltway only seem to have visceral reactions about things that impact them personally or people in their social circle.  Obama is selling healthcare reform with an Excel spreadsheet.


[ Parent ]
Indeed (4.00 / 2)
Chris Hayes has a good piece about this:

In its healthcare messaging, the White House has taken an issue more intimate and immediate than perhaps any other in a voter's life and transformed it into an abstract, technical argument about long-term actuarial projections. It's a peculiar kind of reverse political alchemy: transforming gold into lead.

What happened to the moral case for reform?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...


[ Parent ]
Agreed Obama is doing somehting odd with his promotion (0.00 / 0)
or he doesn't yet felt comfortable with advocacy that is direct and populist. Some have said it is his pragmatism, others its a need to appear bipartisan while advocating.

Whichever mistake he is making: it is time to catch a stride and forcefully say he wants every American to have a right to healthcare, and it is up to the government to figure out the details, I said previously such words could be like:

Because president Roosevelt said we had a right to freedom from fear, and millions of Americans live in fear of what is covered, what will be denied, what will be delisted, what bill will be returned unpaid with coverage lost. What procedure wont be offered, fear of choosing which hand to save because he cant afford both.

Americans  have a right to  healthcare.

If everyone knows that they are citizens in a democracy, if everyone knows they have a right to demand, if everyone knows that their child and their father have a right to be cared for, and if they say that it is time; it will happen just as bills get paid, just as taxes come, and babies get born, it will be time to deliver

That it would add to the understanding, the assumption of somehting that people, one, each person, could demand be rectified as to implementation. and even, could someone clarify for me the addition of "intents" in the body of a law. Is it an actionable addition?

--

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


[ Parent ]
Nancy Pelosi -- who is no radical -- (4.00 / 3)
understands this. Here's what she's saying today:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is dramatically escalating her attack on health insurance companies as she rallies House Democrats to go on offense against the industry over the August recess.

"They are the villains in this," Pelosi said Thursday of the insurance companies. "They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

Pelosi's broadside comes as she tries to pull her fractious Caucus together after a compromise that Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) struck Wednesday with conservative members of his panel set off howls among liberals.

The Speaker on Thursday morning gave what aides in attendance described as a fiery speech to House Democrats, urging them to take the fight to insurance companies over the five-week recess scheduled to begin Friday.

She then laid out the line of attack to reporters gathered outside her office, blasting the industry as "immoral."

"They have had a good thing going for a long time at the expense of the American people and the health of our country," she said. "But our Members have to go out there ready to take on a big special interest that has not made our country healthier and has made the cost spiral upward and for whom that is coming to an end. This is the fight of our lives."

Roll Call.

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
Oooh, fiery populist talking points! (0.00 / 0)
I'm a little unclear on how a bill that bails out the insurance companies by guaranteeing them a  market holds them accountable, but I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence in the bills that the House actually crafted. (Clue: Check whether the ombudsmen have conflict resolution powers in HR3200.)

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
The other shoe dropped today (0.00 / 0)
Speaker Pelosi will let single payer get a floor vote. Lesson: It really is possible to be too cynical -- though I will never regret pushing as forcefully as I know how for the right policy.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
It is the only way for (4.00 / 3)
Obama to win this.  Cooperation won't do it.  His "coolness" won't do shit.

He must get his hands dirty and fight.  Populist rhetoric and populist action.

Or he loses.  


[ Parent ]
Yep! (0.00 / 0)
And concrete detail we can look at, not talking points. Above all, how many will be enrolled and how fast? This 2013 crapola doesn't cut it.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
I think thats right. (0.00 / 0)
More more more.

He should reach out not to the Republican Party, but to every American. This will be moved far forward with more Obama talking directly to the people. Like his race speech. Delineate and explain and touch.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Ah, inside knowledge! (0.00 / 0)
Lux writes:

...[T]he signal that I'm getting from the White House is that they are still fighting hard for the public option...

Super.

Then maybe you can pick up the phone and get Rahm to explain what "public option" really means? Given the bait and switch that's already been run by "progressives"?

Because I'm not the only one who think's it doesn't mean anything.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


Ohhh now I get it --- Party Unity My Ass! (0.00 / 0)
That fits perfectly

--

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


[ Parent ]
Oh, the PUMA smear now (0.00 / 0)
Give me a f*cking break. I must be the only PUMA to be under moderation at the Confluence.

"Any stick to beat a dog." Just perfect. Well done, "progressive."

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Oh right, the doctor (0.00 / 0)
because he's certainly the go to guy for politics these days.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, just like "progressives"... (0.00 / 0)
... who helped turn the American people's desire and need for health care reform into a bailout for the insurance companies. Well done, all.

Any data yet on how many people the "public option" is going to be able to enroll? No? Great...

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox