Pelosi On Brink Of Sending Robust Public Option To House Floor

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 20:40


Congressional Progressives are on the brink of a major victory in the public option campaign.

Following tonight's meeting of the Democratic House caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ready to bring a health care bill with the "robust" public option (currently defined as a public option with Medicare +5% rates) to the floor of the House.

From The Hill:

Pelosi to bring public option backed by liberals to floor pending caucus approval

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has chosen to put the public option favored by the liberal wing of her party in the healthcare bill that goes to the House floor, pending agreement later Tuesday night by the full caucus, according to two House sources.

Leaders are planning to roll out the bill next week, and are hoping to vote the first week in November.

The plan, called the "robust" option or "Medicare Plus 5" in the jargon that has emerged on Capitol Hill, ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent.(...)

[T]he liberal option saves the most money, according to congressional analysts, by competing with those companies and driving down premiums. A Democratic leadership source said the leaders have received an analysis that shows that both forms of the public option reduce healthcare costs across a 20-year time frame.

This is an enormous step forward for the public option campaign.  If the House passes a health care reform bill with the Medicare +5% public option, which now appears likely, the chances of a public option of some sort ending up in the final bill skyrocket.

By going with the stronger, Medicare +5% public option gives the House negotiating room in the Senate for a weaker public option--negotiated rates, Schumer's "level playing field," or the opt-out--to emerge in the final bill.  If the House goes into conference committee with a weaker public option, they will have less room to negotiate with the Senate.

Now, if the Senate brings the opt-out public option to the conference committee--and Ben Nelson is now openly supporting the opt-out--the debate won't be whether or not to have a public option, but what kind of public option will end up in the final bill.

Key details on the House bill--including its cost estimate, current number of supporters in the House, and political ramifications within the Democratic Party--can be found in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Pelosi On Brink Of Sending Robust Public Option To House Floor
  1. The CBO score meets President Obama's cost target
    A couple hours ago, Greg Sargent reported that a version of the House health care bill with the robust public option was scored at under President Obama's stated limit of $900 billion over ten years:

    In another step forward for the public option, I'm told reliably by a source that House leaders have been given a new Congressional Budget Office "score" finding that the evolving House bill - when you include a robust public option - reduces the deficit and is under the President's cost goal of $900 billion

    Politco pegs the number at $870 billion:

    According to preliminary numbers, the final bill would cost around $870 billion over the next 10 years - coming in under President Barack Obama's $900 billion target - and cover 96 percent of those Americans who qualify for coverage.

  2. House bill covers more people, and at a lower rate, than Senate bill
    The House bill will cover 96% of Americans (or around 34.5 million), compared to only 94%, or 29 million, for the Senate Finance Committee bill. This means the cost per person covered is about $320 lower--$2,520 vs $2,840--in the House bill than the Senate Finance bill.

  3. Currently 206 votes for the bill
    As of last week, the whip count for health care reform with a robust public option stood as follows:

    House Medicare +5% public option whip count
    218 needed to pass
    Solid yes: 184
    Lean yes: 15
    Incoming yes votes: 1 (maybe two)
    Leadership: 6
    Undecided: 20
    Lean No: 7
    Solid No: 23

    This puts the bill at 206 likely supporters, 30 likely opponents, and 20 or 21 undecided (depending on the results of the NY-23 special election).  While that is not currently enough for passage, it is likely that the bill can get over the finish line with support from the leadership.

  4. Shift in power toward Congressional Progressive Caucus
    The whip campaign for the robust public option was started four weeks ago by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Challenged by Speaker Pelosi to find enough support to pass the Medicare +5% public option, the CPC stopped their whip count on how many members would vote against a bill without a robust public option, and began a new whip count to find 218 supporters for the Medicare +5% public option.

    So, the credit for pushing the bill this far goes to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which has emerged as a new, powerful player in the House of Representatives. If the robust public option ends up in the bill that passes the House, and if a public option ends up in the final health care bill, it will be a clear victory for the Progressive Caucus over the more conservative elements in the party--Senate Conservadems and House Blue Dogs--who so far in 2009 have wielded the bulk of power in Congress.

Overall, a huge story, and a great step forward. The public option campaign--which so many pundits, Senate Conservadems, and House Blue Dogs declared dead for months--keeps demonstrating real signs of life.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Yes, BUT.......... (0.00 / 0)
If you knew the country's health was totally dependent on the results of a meeting between Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd and Raaaaahhhm Emanuel, wouldn't you just go and shoot yourself right now??

I sure would, especially after Harry's happy little press conference where he was almost in ecstasy at having nothing to report, while pumped up and surrounded by others contributing to that nothingness.

We need to stick to our guns and back Pelosi "all the way to the gates of hell", if necessary.
If we're all gonna die, let us go forth - proudly.


Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
re: but (0.00 / 0)
If you knew the country's health was totally dependent on the results of a meeting between Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd and Raaaaahhhm Emanuel, wouldn't you just go and shoot yourself right now??

not as long as the progressive block holds

as you say:

We need to stick to our guns and back Pelosi "all the way to the gates of hell", if necessary.
If we're all gonna die, let us go forth - proudly.

amen!


[ Parent ]
Thanks Chris (4.00 / 4)
Great news! Any idea who the 20 undecideds are? How can we pressure them?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

I will see what I can find out (nt) (4.00 / 4)


[ Parent ]
Anecdotal, slightly off topic (4.00 / 3)
Got a call tonight from OFA phone banking on the Congressional phone effort and played dumb to see what exactly they were asking people to say. They specifically stressed pushing the public option when calling, which I was glad to hear.

I suggested that while our phone calls will help, some phone calls from Obama himself pushing the public option would be more impactful and suggested OFA ask people to call the White House too, to ask Obama to push the public option. Given that Obama's being too coy by half right now on the PO, perhaps the White House switchboard should lit up too.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
I add my thanks (4.00 / 2)
For all your reporting and pulling together.  I've made my calls which is all I can do ... maybe this will come to pass and it will be a great thing.  

[ Parent ]
A question about opt-out (0.00 / 0)
I haven't been paying much attention to the details of the opt-out proposal.  Would Nelson and other ConservaDems be fine with a medicare + 5% public option provided states could opt-out?  Or have the opt-out crew detailed other requirements about the nature of the public option they would accept, in addition to states being able to opt-out?

It remainns unclear (0.00 / 0)
They have been pretty tight lipped.

However, Baucus did say he wanted Schumer's "level playing field" in the opt-out.


[ Parent ]
I thought Baucus was for any PO that could get 60 votes (3.00 / 4)
if that means a stronger PO (which it should, unless a Democrat actually wants to join a Republican filibuster) than he should theoretically be for it.

In any case, I'm sick of us liberals having to always be the ones making these damn concessions.  If the centrists want their opt-outs than we should get the strongest PO possible: a Medicare buy-in.  Hell, if we put forward a Medicare buy-in with some kind of Medicare reimbursement rate fix for rural areas, we might even get the rural centrists on board without an opt-out.  Let the rest of them explain to their constituents why they voted against Medicare.


[ Parent ]
There are Democrats willing to join a GOP filibuster (4.00 / 1)
we just don't know exactly who they are.

Plus the Medicare reimbursement rate for rural areas will lose liberal city votes, because it takes away Medicare funds from those areas. Hence the problem.

An amendment to fix the reimbustment rates in rural areas is DOA because of people like Weiner, who are on our side.  


[ Parent ]
There can be no such thing as a GOP filibuster (4.00 / 7)
It take 41 to deny cloture and the GOP only has 40. Only Democrats can effect a filibuster, either by voting against cloture or not voting at all.

We need to call it by its correct name -- A Democratic filibuster.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
A GOP filibuster (4.00 / 1)
because the GOP is the one initiating it.  

[ Parent ]
Initiating means nothing (4.00 / 7)
It's only a filibuster if/when cloture fails. The cloture vote failing is the filibuster. The GOP cannot make cloture fail.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
The GOP cannot make cloture fail (0.00 / 0)
by itself. That is certainly true.

However, if cloture succeeds because of the votes of 40 R's and one or two D's, it does violence to the language to interpret that result as a Democratic filibuster.


[ Parent ]
Violence to the language? (4.00 / 1)
Obviously, I disagree. In any event, my focus is on effective politics, not linguistic niceties. The polemics and optics of calling it a Democratic filibuster are spot on. It's within the power of Democrats to stop a filibuster. Not stopping it is on them.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Meaning of words (0.00 / 0)
Yes, we disagree, and I respect where you are coming from. And, instead of the word "language", I should have said "violence to the meaning of words".

Far from nit-picking on "linguistic niceties", I think our use of language should reflect reality. Otherwise, people will not take us seriously.


[ Parent ]
Reflecting reality (0.00 / 0)
A filibuster cannot occur without the complicity of a Democrat. If a filibuster becomes a reality it will be because of a Democrat's action or inaction. It will be a Democratic filibuster.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
The deal of the century (4.00 / 4)
Rural centrists get a reimbursement rate fix.

Liberals get Medicare for All.


[ Parent ]
I think joanneleon was rating 4 and slipped (0.00 / 0)
otherwise, joanneleon, we reserve 0 ratings for trolls, not disagreements.

--

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


[ Parent ]
given their STRONG sell out credentials, the (0.00 / 0)
probability that their version of 'opt-out' would be anything but a race to the bottom / fuck over the working people of gawd's country ...

I give it about a ZERO.

C'mon - these senators do NOT give a fuck about anyone but their crooked and rich masters - as I heard Anne Richards say about GWB in '91??

'you can put lipstick on a hog and call it monique, but,
it is still a pig'

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


[ Parent ]
Wait! (4.00 / 1)
Are you calling Sarah Palin a pig?  ;-)

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!


[ Parent ]
Conrad's a firm no on Medicare+5 (nt) (4.00 / 1)


Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
All he has to do (4.00 / 3)
is agree not to filibuster.  He can vote no on the underlying bill if he feels that he needs to.  

That's the problem.  Reid is trying to shield people like Conrad from having to vote no on it.  And that's wrong.  He's a big boy, a big grown up Senator, and if he is against it he is going to have to vote against it.


[ Parent ]
The math (0.00 / 0)
206+30+20=256

That's the number of Democrats currently in Congress. If we're counting Garamendi, which I'm assuming we are since Pelosi isn't normally counting in the whip count, that's everybody but Pelosi...so the leadership is already included.  


NOT ROBUST!!! (4.00 / 1)
yikes, chris. we just went through this is your last post. this is NOT a robust public option by the cpc's own criteria. in addition, it is also not robust by the hcan criteria. it is not robust by any objective measure i'm aware of.

what will be the cost impact of the public option? maybe somewhat less than a half a percent of total health care costs?

if robust is going to mean different things on different days, then the word has no meaning whatsoever.  and you are going to confuse a lot of people. me included.

also, a second correction: you are citing the cost figures incorrectly. this is the third time in the last few days i've pointed this out -- if i'm wrong please correct me. and if i'm not wrong please correct your posts. the cbo cost figures you cite are fed gov costs only. they do not include the costs of obamacare to households, employers, state and local govs.

last figures i saw for total national health expenditures was something like 2.7 trillion a year. what is it projected to be under obamacare? answer is we don't know.


I agree (0.00 / 0)
Since when did "robust" come to mean "Medicare+5"? At best this moves the bill from "should be opposed" to "neutral"?  Why are rank and file progressives urging support for this abomination?

My other question is how does a state "opt-out" anyway? Isn't a public option an individual plan administered by the Federal government? How and why would states be permitted to tell their residents they can't buy in?  


[ Parent ]
they'll 'opt out' when insurance crooks go to (0.00 / 0)
your state capitol and get the state level rubes to vote for whatever is put in front of them by the insurance company crooks, cuz the rubes got 8 grand in donations from 15 places, and the rubes got a big dinner at a fancy chow hall.

unless all us working stiffs got time to hang out at the state capitol for months and months watching the rubes?

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


[ Parent ]
Or it will drive the Democrats to power in State after State. (4.00 / 1)
So many Republican States waiting to be made progressive by a massive drive for the public option.

"The people of Kentucky and Mississippi threw out long time conservative regimes this election cycle, when the sick and tired grew sick and tired of hearing about good medical coverage just across the border, that "their" conservatives made sure they couldn't have."

"My cousin Thelma has great coverage, she loves her medical, she aint a commnis, so I am sure tired of the ol' boys keeping medical just for themselves."

This is all not to promote the opt-out, but protect conservative governments it won't.

This might just be the watershed that brings real government services to populations across the country whose only interaction with government is taxes and brimstone, bad roads and 'bortion, falling down schools and "imgrints."

If we want them to stop the opt-out, we might want to smack the conservative good 'ol boys up the head about this.

--

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


[ Parent ]
This is very good news. (0.00 / 0)
Let's get the cards out and see who's hand is better.  Anne Richards would appreciate this turn of events.

This legislation has not been about healthcare anyhow.  It's about power and where it comes from.  The lack of protection for doctors, and lowering reimbusement rates will close small hospitals in rural areas.... but what the heck.  These folks don't vote enough.  When the government eliminates the health insurance companies do you think doctors will still be practicing?  

Well, how's that swine flu stuff coming along?  Has the government eliminated it yet?

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


Give me Medicare+5% (4.00 / 3)
and I will open a hospital or clinic anywhere in the country and make it profitable. Those who don't like Medicare+5% really don't want anybody else telling them how much they can pay themselves--but that's not capitalism, that's extortion.

[ Parent ]
You will need to make a profit. (0.00 / 0)
Your rate of return will have to be twice the inflation rate. If not, you should keep money in an interest yealding account with a guaranteed rate of return.  Extortion is what you will have when the government starts to deny treatment because you can't get it anywhere else.  Under capitalism, I don't want you telling me how much money I earn.  It's none of your business otherwise.  Under socialism, I'll stay home and you will pay me anyway.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Oh thank you so much for stopping by and explaining (4.00 / 5)
the system we have been trying to fix or remove for so long.

We never though of it that way. I guess we will just stop our efforts and let you guys run things. You are so smart.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Your welcome (0.00 / 0)
The first thing you need to do when fixing a system is to understand how it works.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
lol (4.00 / 1)
it works al right. But it doesn't do what we want it to do. So it has to be harnessed like a horse with a cart, or an ox.

Its not suitable to worship an ox who should be pulling your cart. And we should recognize how ignorant and brutal the ox is.

So you are saying that we need to have health facilities that "return" better than inflation?  Double inflation? I have sent your suggestion to the afl-cio, their wage requests, now that they "understand how it works" will be different in the future. I have also sent suggestions to congress on how to peg increases to the minimum wage. Double inflation should be fine, once wits raised to a living wage of course.

Or the health facilities could be run by non-profits, or even better, publicly. Then the "return" could be "zero," which a long way from "double the rate of inflation."

BTW, that is "You're Welcome" my friend.


--

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


[ Parent ]
"You're Welcome, Thanks (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes my English reverts to the working class useage I'm familiar with.

My comment was in general to the person that wanted to open his own clinic.  If he were to borrow money from some place, he would have to make more than its interest to be able to pay it back.  How much?  Well more than inflation.

I agree, our health system is like the ox.  We would like to get some work out of it but not get hurt in the meantime.  The other possibility would be to eat it, but then we would get no work out of it.  

The afl-cio probably already knows how much return they need to make on borrowed money.  The have Government Motors and Chrysler to run.  If they aren't successful, they will have no health plans either.  What the heck, they all drive Caddilac plans anyway.

I guess that congress understands what a living wage is.
I don't.  I would stop working and find a different job if I had a dying wage.

Probably 99% of all health facilities are non-profit.  That's a definition from the IRS.  Shocker ain't it!
Most of them would have better management if they were for profit.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
re: profit (0.00 / 0)
Probably 99% of all health facilities are non-profit.  That's a definition from the IRS.  Shocker ain't it! Most of them would have better management if they were for profit.

no, it just would lead to more coverage denials


[ Parent ]
Umm, yes. (4.00 / 5)
Health insurance companies bring nothing to the table. They produce nothing of value.

Glad to see you're so concerned with their well-being, though.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Value of insurance (0.00 / 0)
Sadie If you wish to do away with insurance I'm for it.    We shall just pay for our own medical expenses.  If the government pays, some people will hog the system.  Those will receive the medical benefits that should go to others.  We then have to control the benefits and some people will just have to die.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Wow. (4.00 / 2)
Your ignorance is breathtaking. I don't even know where to begin.

Maybe you should spend more time reading before you try posting comments on blogs.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Thank's for the evaluation. (0.00 / 0)
Your retort offers nothing.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
what tripe (4.00 / 4)
Several countries with better health care than ours have systems with no or little insurance participation at all. So yes, I believe doctors will continue to practice without insurance companies involvment.

As for your reply to Sadie, single payer does not cause that anywhere it is currently in place, to my knoledge. However, as our system is now opperating, 122(?) die daily due to the way we curently control benifits, useing the republican health care plan that Alan Greyson described in the house so accuratly.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
Thank you too Reggie (0.00 / 1)
I know that Cuba has been cited as having a better healthcare system than ours.  I don't see you having heart surgery being done there.  Who knows, they may have helped Ted Kennedy?

Countries that have government payer systems seem to be very small in population and not have the variety of problems that our much larger population has.  I think that the link between benefits and deaths that you cite is interesting.  If it costs too much let them die?  This would be the same under a government health care system or private one.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
They already die today, (0.00 / 0)
under our death-for-profit system. This is one of the things you would know if you read more.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Thanks again Sadie (0.00 / 0)
Your retort tells me that you think our government won't let us die if it costs too much?

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Are you tryiong to start a flame war? (4.00 / 3)
Or trying to be banned? If you are completely unaware of the topics being discussed, if you are useed to discussiing at the level of a tea party, perhaps you could ride with training wheels for a while, or hang out at easier sites to understand.

But arrogantly making points that  illuminate only ignorance is a time waster.

--

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


[ Parent ]
As I grew up (0.00 / 0)
I learned that not all people would agree with me.  This is something I cope with, as an adult.  Posters here sometimes utilize polysyllabic terms in describing their thoughts and hopes.  This is refreshing by compairison to many political sites.  It also is indicative to their relative knowledge of the subject

When you decend to disparagement of posters you don't agree with, you have lost the point of the discourse and your own command knowledge of the subject.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
When you learn to spell, (0.00 / 0)
and quit using RW talking points, who knows? Maybe people will agree with you, you  poor misunderstood soul.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Another Fox News Bot (4.00 / 1)
Probably thinks Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are good men who sincerely believe in conservative policies.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I left you another post on the Fox thing (0.00 / 0)
I don't admire Lieberman.  It a toleration thing.  I barely have knowledge of Ben Nelson.  Neither of these two seem to be overwhelmingly committed to anything.  I have to give Specter his due, he did switch parties.  He probably did it to save his career retirement, but he did switch.  I do recall one of our former congressman's statement on committment.  He was asked about his. He said, "I'm committed to be here on payday".

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Do you really think anyone cares (0.00 / 0)
what you think?

No one here is your mother.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Yep. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The fact that you believe (4.00 / 1)
insurance companies = good
government = bad

tells me everything I need to know about you. And I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't understand.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Insurance companies good? (0.00 / 0)
Sadie, I would do away with health insurance companies.  You will have to go back a few posts though to reread it.    

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
But without them, (0.00 / 0)
we would not have healthcare, according to you:

"When the government eliminates the health insurance companies do you think doctors will still be practicing?"

Your words, not mine.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Thank you Sadie (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I ceed the point Doctors would still be practicing.

If we had no health insurance, doctors would still be practicing.  Since the sick would have to pay as we go, the advancements in medicine would probably be much slower because not as much money would be spent in that industry.  Many other costs would also be reduced as well. The advancements in the quality of care would also be reduced because it would have to be self-supported.  Cost shifting would be reduced because the premimums from healthy people would no longer be available.


Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
Would you like to revisit your (0.00 / 0)
statement that insurance companies don't bring much to the table?  As you can see they bring quite a lot.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Your charade is over. (4.00 / 1)
Countries that have government payer systems seem to be very small in population and not have the variety of problems that our much larger population has.

We have more people, its too hard for us. Wow really? WEhat is the population of Europe anyhow? Not that talking about how big the population might be is a real point. Might as well be saying, all those countries have only one major ocean on their borders, the US has two, public health care is there for impossible. It's not an argument it is just words strung together with a conclusion at the end.

Tomato wishes win apple strong bicycle truck so we can't help mom get health coverage.

IF your comment meant anything, and it doesn't, as California has the same population as Canada, its okey dokey for them to have single payer then? Ans one final sentence giving your argument the respect it does not deserve: did you know that Canada for example, essentially just has laws making free healthcare a right, and makes the provinces responsible for providing it.

--

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


[ Parent ]
Single provider in Canada (0.00 / 0)
Canada has a rising population of private health care clinics.  Canadians are complaining about losing their doctors to them.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
You are either completely ignorant, or a dutiful liar. (4.00 / 2)
The thing that is important about the brilliant Canadian system is that it does just one thing. Just one thing. It pays the bills. Thats it. It just pays the bills. It doesn't even ask if the procedure is necessary.

It just pays the bills.

That hasn't changed, wont change, and it is the thing that makes all the difference. It pays the bills.

I know cause they paid when I had my heart attack, and doctors gave me a stent the next morning. 24 hr. turn around. Never even had tissue damage. By that standard, I never even had a heart attack. Just repair, no damage, no bill.

Toronto.

But you go right ahead Money and pretend to know what you're talking about.

--

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


[ Parent ]
I know what you're talking about (0.00 / 0)
I didn't have stints I had valves.
I'm very happy that you are still with us.  Good for you.

Why do Canadians come here for health care?  Our border states treat Canadians very often.  Why don't Americans go to Canada to seek healh care?  Most of the negative comments that I here about Canada seems to be in the willingness of the government to purchase diagnostic equipment.  My neighbor, a former citizen of Canada, now a nationalized citizen, opines that he stood in a line for 7 hours to get an MRI.  Well at least he didn't pay for it directly.

And you are making comments about the American Health Care system.  It will affect me not you.

Dutiful Liar: Of or submissive to Lies?

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.


[ Parent ]
He did not say ever to you, nor she nor anyone that they stood in line seven hours for (4.00 / 1)
an MRI

No they did not.

Your stories aren't even well constructed.

'stood in line" ? really no chairs?

seven hours? that was the complaint? seven hours is a traffic jam. "Yep don't want that Canadian system, they gotsta stand in line all day long for things I am never allowed to see."

Hospitals in Canada are exactly the same as in any US city, but they don't bill you. Thats it. Thats all. Oh and no Doctor asks ANYONE EVER if she should order that procedure. If its the right thing to do, they do it.


--

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


[ Parent ]
I am an American (0.00 / 0)


--

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


[ Parent ]
Let's stay on subject (0.00 / 0)
1.Toronto is in Canada
2. You, your friends, neighbors and other citizens of Canada paid your hospital bill.  It wasn't just paid. You paid for it through your taxes after the govt. took it's share.
3.  My neighbor made that statement on a Radio Show.  He's the host and can be called on it at any time.
4.  The healthcare debacle is a red herring.  At any time the number of uninsured could be adsorbed into the veterans hospitals or indian medical system.  There's plenty of room for them.
5.  When the government controls your healthcare, they control you.  They've got you by the short hairs.  In Canada you could never muster enough votes to get rid of it.  The citizens of the United Kingdom can't either.  The Daily Mail carries stories almost every day of screw-ups in the National Health Care system.  Many deaths are needless.  Now, since the system is running short of money, if its deamed you should not recieve treatment because it costs too much, you are starved to death.
6.  It has control of you.      

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
You are a lunatic, and a waste of time. (4.00 / 1)
Even you don't believe them. They pour out of your mouth, and you barely even notice that they make no sense. Doesn't it bother you to make arguments you dont believe?

Doesn't it rankle somewhere that you are doing this? What does it feel like to say things you know are untrue? Do you have children? Does your mother know that you lie about important things?

All your posts, not just past ones but all future ones as well have to be viewed in light of this post.

Or have you slipped slightly off the boards?

I can just see you running through the halls of a Canadian Hospital screaming at heart patients that the government controls them. "Don't let that Doctor listen to your heart!! He sends his bills to your democracy!"

The reason my visiting redstater friend that Canadians could never "muster enough votes to get rid of it" is that it is wonderful, Canadians love it, and identify with it.

Lol, the present Conservative govt. of Canada  promised that they would never touch, or disturb, or study or even look at the health care system, so as to re-assure Canadians that they aren't as loony as American conservatives.

Canadians asked themselves with polling, "What is the central symbol of Canada, what best says who Canada is?" WWII sacrifice? Hockey? The beaver? Winter etc etc  etc. Canada answered overwhelmingly that the Canadian health care system is who they are.


6.  It has control of you.
   LOL

--

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


[ Parent ]
It has control of you. (0.00 / 0)
Whenever you have to denigrate the poster to express yourself you have lost all point of discussion.  Please learn to stay on subject.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
re: teddy (0.00 / 0)
Who knows, they may have helped Ted Kennedy?

troll-rated


[ Parent ]
Another Take On This (4.00 / 4)
Every day that the administration doesn't go to bat for a strong public option is a day that progressives can claim that we fought for it and got it anyway without Obama's help.

Given the other ways in which he's aggravating the Democratic base, does Obama really want to head into the 2012 primary season with his base thinking they don't really need him?


Considering his base still strongly supports him (4.00 / 2)
I don't think that matters.


[ Parent ]
Maybe his base still believes in him (4.00 / 1)
but he never would've been elected without progressive voters and volunteers. He's going to need us again if he wants a second term.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
YAWN on obama II. BUT, sure the hoping rubes (4.00 / 1)
will let hope triumph this bullshit ..., or, so the white house hopes.

they're probably looking at clinton '96 and bush '04 - if the sell out can get re-elected in '96, and the fascist rip off artist can pull it off in '04, well...

barack just needs to criss cross the country with his hopefull speeches and nobel peace prize, who cares about RESULTS?

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


[ Parent ]
It's not 1996. (4.00 / 1)
We talk to each other now, we are not so easily isolated and manipulated as we were then.

The time of mushroom politics is over. You know, keeping people in the dark and feeding them horseshit.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Excellent point. It is not just a swing in "mood" or a prevelance of liberals (4.00 / 1)
it is also just Americans are now talking to each other, shit dont fly as far as it used to.

Well made point ! Four!

--

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


[ Parent ]
And he'll get them regardless (4.00 / 1)
I know you people think progressives will bolt if there's no public option, but that is false.

In the state of Maine, among Democrats who support a public option, you know, Obama's "base", Olympia Snowe's approval ratings skyrocketed to 70% after her vote AGAINST a public option.

What does that tell you?  


[ Parent ]
Seems cherry picked to me. (4.00 / 1)


--

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


[ Parent ]
Would what? (0.00 / 0)


--

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


[ Parent ]
No, they won't. (0.00 / 0)
He has pissed on progressives with DADT, FISA, EFCA. Killing the PO is a bridge too far.

Even Obama knows this, which is why he's being so passive. He wants the PO to die but doesn't want to leave his fingerprints at the scene.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Apparently killing the public option DOESN'T piss off (0.00 / 0)
progressives...Olympia Snowe is doing her and her approval among them is sky high.

That's my point.  


[ Parent ]
tells me (0.00 / 0)
That Dems in Maine appreaciate some showing of intelligence and representation from their senator, even if it is unsubstantial and insufficent. Still best of ALL repubs.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

[ Parent ]
what do the opponents have left? (4.00 / 1)
So the strongest public option saves the most money. What can they possibly argue at this point against a public option? What can Baucus and all them say now?

Reason continues to rise to the top of this debate.


reason? (4.00 / 5)
if reason was the deciding factor, we'd already have single-payer

[ Parent ]
do you remember how this debate started? (4.00 / 4)
With those crowds of weird Fox News drones waving Commie Obama signs and the media completely ignoring broad public support for the public option?

Reasonable compared to that.


[ Parent ]
that's not how this debate started (4.00 / 4)
this debate started in the early 20th century and continued through truman, clinton and obama and i'm sure others that i don't know about.  

even in recent memory, health care has been listed as a top issue for as long as i can remember and it was a major issue in the democratic party primaries, with each candidate offering their own plans and debating relatively technical details like mandates in a forum that is not really known for specifics.  of coures, they were probably lying about half the stuff they said, but that's another matter :)

so, yeah, this is a major sign of progress for progressives, but we shouldn't stop pressing - we're only up about 3 points with 5 minutes left, but the other team has the ball and a fairly good quarterback (more like joe flacco than peyton manning though :)


[ Parent ]
They will use the anti-government argument (4.00 / 4)
as Conrad did to justify his vote against Schumer's PO, when he ran out of other reasons.

That argument, that government sucks and we can't trust it to do anything, is what ultimately controls everything in our politics.  We will most likely never get the real change we want - single payer, real carbon emissions control, education investment, etc. - as long as anti-government ideology is the prevailing mood of the land.


[ Parent ]
And one can't cahnge that prevailing mood.... (4.00 / 2)
...until we can prove that government, in the right hands, can do things right.  But, we can't get there with people like Conrad.

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!


[ Parent ]
We already have (4.00 / 6)
with Medicare, not to mention other government health services like VHA and Tri-care, as well as myriad government programs and services outside of health care. (Hell, the very fact that we are alive and living in a mostly orderly society is proof enough that we have a functioning and competent government.)

Medicare is the most powerful pro-government weapon we have at our disposal.  It's like a rhetorical shield to use against those who say government never does anything right, and can be deployed as a launching pad for single-payer.  I don't know why no one besides Anthony Weiner uses it as such.


[ Parent ]
major question (0.00 / 0)
okay, so now the idea dispute is basically resolved - yay!!!! after a moment to celebrate, there are some other things to discuss, and please take your time in looking at these since celebration is very important.

these revolve around how we win the substantive dispute over what is IN the public option and ensure that it moves forward rather than reinforces the existing system or discredits itself (i.e. is progressive in the broadest sense of the word).  Another commenter raised this issue above to some extent, and I am further interested in it.

There are four imoprtant substantive questions out of many I can think of:

1) What is the extent of coverage in total (including public private, etc.) of all persons (not citizens - but persons, including immigrants, etc.) in the United states.  

2) What remedies can be provided as a backstop for those remaining uninsured (mandates suck, politically and from a fairness standpoint)

3) What will be the quality of care in each of the plans, including the public option? (this is extremely important for the future evolution of the public option)

4) what mechanisms are proposed for cost control, how will they work, and who will bear the current or future losses (or relative losses) for this cost control (e.g. is it going to reduce insurance company profits by 3 points and deny coverage to 4% or will it across the board have slightly or significantly weaker coverage, etc.)

There are several important structural questions I can think of:

1) What will the institutional form of the public option be and what will it be for the rest of the revamped health care system - what role will the exchange play, the private insureres, private employers, individuals as consumers or suppliers, small businesses, hospitals, etc., in providing health care access (which is what this is fundamentally about - not about providing health care - that's what distinguishes it from a government health care takeover).

2) how will this institutional form interact with current and future political trends to the best that we can imagine in further developing the heaolth care debate according to the criteria laid out above (breadth of coverage, quality of coverage, cost, and distribution of costs).

Finally there are some procedural questions that need to be answered:

1) We have seen very effective work from chris, Working Assets, and many, many others in mounting pressure for the public option.  However, the further up the chain we go in the legislative process, the more opaque and horse-trading it becomes - how do we ensure that our preferred answers to the questions above occupy as much of the vision of the bill that emerges as possible.

2) What is ideal to achieve is obvious economically but institutionally and politically was limited - single payer heatlhcare.  What is practicable to achieve - what is the most that can be achieved in what remains in the process - without limiting ourselves?  What is the strongest public option and/or overall quality and breadth of health care with the biggest share of costs going to entrenched powerful interests?

3) Most importantly - what are the levers of power that we now have.  Here I turn to our congressional gurus and ask - where are the points where we can influence, what messages will work, and in what spirit will they be done most effectively.  I'm not asking for someone to decide what I think about policy, but for help in figuring out how best to influence the policy debate towards my (our) own ideas of what policy should emerge from this debate.


The (real) public option is on the march! (4.00 / 1)
I am so happy. It almost makes me forget Pelosi's past incompetence on torture. They should put up this bill, and let the Senate put up their unworkable compromise--and see what the public wants. Hallelujah!

What good does it do (4.00 / 1)
to say things like this, Chris?
By going with the stronger, Medicare +5% public option gives the House negotiating room in the Senate for a weaker public option--negotiated rates, Schumer's "level playing field," or the opt-out--to emerge in the final bill.  If the House goes into conference committee with a weaker public option, they will have less room to negotiate with the Senate.

You're negotiating away a strong public option before it's even had a chance.

God, this annoys me to no end.  

Schumer's "level playing field" is reinventing the wheel.  Opt-out is a sell out to the people who need the public option most.

The most we should be willing to settle for is Medicare+10 or something like that where we are able to use the public plan that is already functioning, is popular, is efficient, and would be easiest to implement.  

We've been working hard on this for so long now.  Don't go around announcing that we'd be willing to settle for a weaker public option.  We don't have to.  And we shouldn't have to.  Make the Senate Dems come to us.  Pressure the White House to get the Senate to stick together on cloture and then we'll have enough votes in the Senate for a strong public option.  

We have everything on our side.  Don't throw it away!  We have popular opinion and better cost estimates on our side.  There is no need to compromise on this and especially not now!

There is nothing in the rule book that says that the version of the public option in the House has to be watered down by the Senate.  


Thanks coach. (0.00 / 0)
There is nothing in the rule book that says that the version of the public option in the House has to be watered down by the Senate.  

This is a game plan to take the field and run with the ball.

Hell of a lot better game plan than "We intend to run to mid-field, and ask the other team to carry the ball down to just shy of their own goal line, where we would thank them, of course, and carry it the rest of the way ourselves for the  6 points.."

--

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


[ Parent ]
What is robust? (4.00 / 2)
Robust has become a term of insider lingo.  I know what robust means to me:  It means I can sign up for the public option right away after the bill passes.  


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox