home

Weiner: No Public Option Loses 100 Votes In The House

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:16:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via FDL:

What that means is no public option means no health care reform. Whether Ezra Klein likes that or not, that's the reality that Obama needs to deal with.

Speaking for me only

< Supreme Court Orders New Hearing for Troy Davis | Tom DeLay Joins Dancing With The Stars >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Weiner: No Public Option Loses 100 Votes In The House | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Weiner is one of (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    the lonely voices of sanity these days.

    But my bet is that Obama will somehow push through a no-public-option bill through in the end.  He managed to twist enough arms to get TARP through last fall.  He'll probably do it again.

    Can we vote to have Rep. Weiner (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    be the administration's spokesperson on health care reform. He consistently states the advantages of reforming health care in a clear easily understandable message that everyone can understand.

    Heck send him on the road instead of Obama. He does a much better job.

    Parent

    If his claim is true, then he isn't that lonely. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    I hope he sticks to his guns - I hope all 100 do so.

    Parent
    Bad analogy (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    Giving money TO the Banksters is a whole lot easier than taking money FROM the Insurers.

    Parent
    This health care bill, (none / 0) (#28)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    with or without the "public option" that is not really a public option (because very few Americans would be granted the option, hence not public) is really no more than a big giveaway to for-profit insurance.  It's just that the no-public-option plan is a cleaner giveaway to them, which is why Obama will twist enough arms to get it passed that way.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:04:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe I misunderstood (none / 0) (#36)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    NY's comment, but I don't see how this bill, either with the "public option" that's not a public option in the House bill, or without any "public option," takes away anything from for-profit insurers.  It's a giveaway to them, just like TARP was a giveaway to banks.

    Medicare-for-all, or something like it, is what would take away from for-profit insurance.  But there's no chance of getting that this year.

    Parent

    It takes away 11 million customers to start (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:22:13 PM EST
    by your own analysis and more importantly, it sticks the camel's nose under the tent.

    Parent
    Or it sets up the (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    public option for failure because there isn't a large enough pool for it be competitive (and, it's not what 72% of the American people want so it won't be considered much of a success), and since none of the reforms are to be put into place for 5-10 years, it puts off the chance to enact medicare-for-all and extends the ongoing fiscal crisis due to overexpenditures on health care costs.

    Parent
    It has the potentional ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:31:05 PM EST
    of 11 million.  But that's not a guarantee.  They aren't pre-populated.

    Given the way start-up costs are structured, both size and payback time-tables, the number could be as high as 11 million or as low as zero.

    Parent

    Also, for the public option (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    to really succeed, you need people other than the poor and the very sick to be a part of it, so that you have premiums paid in that will actually make the plan pay for itself.  As it is designed now, those other than the poor and the sick will be prevented from having the option to join.  Hence, despite the spin, it is not a public option.  Saying that it is over and over doesn't make it so.

    Parent
    Oh I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    Have you never heard of Medicaid?

    Parent
    Of course. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    Medicaid is great.  So great, in fact, that everyone should have access to it.  If only there was a bill calling for that...hmmm...

    Parent
    Medicaid (none / 0) (#75)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:39:01 PM EST
    is necessary, but if that's what this is, why not call it that?  

    Parent
    Even those people ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    will only have the option if it's been successfully negotiated with local health care providers.

    Parent
    You are likely (none / 0) (#70)
    by coast on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    correct about the camel's nose, but what "11 million customers" are you refering to?  If its those who are estimated to qualify for a public option, are't they uninsured currently?

    Parent
    The CBO did an estimate of (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    how many people would be in the restricted House public option plan. They estimated that 9 - 10 million would be in the plan by 2017.

    Those who are already insured though a employer plan would not be eligible  to use the exchange. Exception: 1st year of implementation - small businesses with 10 employees or less. 2nd year  - small business of 20 employee or less.

    Parent

    Huh? It's 9-10 million at best under the House (none / 0) (#87)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:19:52 PM EST
    proposal and zero under the Senate HELP bill.  It also provides a fantastically large, expanded captive market for private insurers.  Indeed, private insurers have suggested the reforms, eliminating cherry picking, voiding underwriting, etc., in exchange for the expanded captive market.  The public option, as it now appears in committee is a far cry from hacker's Medicare Plus, and in all likelihood, isn't viable.

    Parent
    I agree with what you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    I just provided the CBO estimates on the best House bill.

    Parent
    Simply taking (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    Taxpayer money, and giving it to the Banks, literally with no strings attached, other than a little "hopey," is what Congress is hard-wired to do; simple.

    A public option, any option, even a lousy, stinking, rotten option; would be sold as an option nonetheless. Using the NRA's policy," don't give an inch, never, never, never," is what the Right is usurping on the public option.

    Or, as BTD implied, even a worthless public option would be seen as that "inch."


    Parent

    Well, sure, some will see it (none / 0) (#79)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:48:26 PM EST
    as giving an inch.  But that doesn't mean that it is, in fact, giving an inch.

    My point is that primary consideration for Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership, IMO, is to figure out a way to give the for-profit insurance companies what they want.  Now, of course they have to do it in a way that won't be too politically damaging.  So, it seems they have a two-pronged strategy.  Talk about a "public option" that isn't, in fact, a public option.  And arm-twisting liberal Democrats to go along with their plans.  That's the kind of the strategy that worked for Obama with TARP, and I believe unfortunately it will probably work with this issue as well.

    Parent

    I see your point, (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    but I was referring more to the political aspects of this thing, and each side's goals.

    The Left, watching their flagship, health care reform issue vaporizing right before their eyes, just wants a worthless option, then hope their constituents develop a little amnesia before election time, and give them some credit for getting "health insurance reform, with a vigorous public option." Kind of like GWB did, "I cut your taxes!" (for 1% of the people)

    The Right, smelling victory, (and blood) wants to knock this issue out for good, or at least for a decade or two. Giving the D's NO public option would be such a humiliating, and demoralizing, defeat, they know a good thing when they see it.

    They're on a roll (who could've imagined it would be so easy) so why not go for the Grand Slam?


    Parent

    I like the poker game (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    I'm tired of the Blue Dogs holding all the cards.  If there really is an electoral disaster in 2010 because of the failure to pass health care reform, it won't be the progressives in their safe blue districts that will get thrown out.  They have leverage and it's nice to see them using it - we'll see who backs down.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    The ones who are in danger if there's an Obama failure are the blue dogs.

    Parent
    What constitutes an Obama failure though? (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    Can the House members of the conference committee just refuse to let the bill out of conference?

    That's the only scenario I can see where Obama would not at least claim victory (whether I think it is justified or not.)

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    I posted something earlier that showed that 44 of the Senators currently serving are from states that didn't vote for Obama, so I don't know how much "danger" they'd be in.  Outside the big cities, the far left just doesn't have the numbers.

    Parent
    The "far left"? (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    Really now.

    Parent
    for some reason (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    I watched Bill Maher this weekend and he made the point that the left no longer exists.  at least in party form.  the democrats have become the republicans (he used the example of the republicans once supporting cap and trade) and the republicans have lost their minds.

    we have a functioning center right party, now we need a functioning center left party.

    Parent

    He is right and Dems do (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    the center left a disfavor of putting the words "far left" into any statement referring to another Dem.

    The far left is almost as extinct as the dodo bird.

    Parent

    I watched it too and thought he was right on (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    as well.  He makes a lot very good points when he isn't hating on a Clinton, or women in general, or sharing the private dope smoking history of other people that are not himself with me.

    Parent
    He is very frustrating (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    Makes great points at times, and at other times he represents everything people hate about upper class liberals.  The class-snobery, white-men's club, while pretending to care about the little guy.

    But I still watch, because when he's on, he's really on.

    Parent

    Yup, and when he's off (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:31:14 PM EST
    he's so far off he must be smoking too much of something.  I think he's back to snorting too...he sure is plugging for it lately :)  I never made any sense on that stuff.  I just smiled till my face hurt and was convinced I had accomplished great things :)

    Parent
    She may ask for birth certificates next (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:58:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Uncalled for (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    Stating that proven fact most people in this country are not "far left", but instead are mostly in the center is now equated to birthers??  Really?

    I think you jumped the shark on this one.

    Parent

    Totally called for (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    The "Far Left" urban centers? WTF? Straight out of Fox.

    Parent
    Whose center? (none / 0) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    I think we're too quick in defining what the center is. We allow TV pundits and Republican's to continually define it. Most polls I read (before the debacle) showed the American people were on board for decisive health care reform. It isn't some far left wing agenda.

    Anything short of the screamers at the town hall meetings isn't center. We may not be a bleeding liberal country but by the same token we aren't anywhere near the right wing either.

    Parent

    I am the Center (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    I have declared it so many many times.

    Parent
    And the Center (none / 0) (#81)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    is fungible?

    Parent
    Well sure. I mean (none / 0) (#56)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    72% of Americans want government run health insurance that is available to everyone.

    But the Democratic party is not giving us that under any of the bills currently being given serious consideration.

    Parent

    40 of those are Republican probably (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    Never going to vote for it no matter what.

    And what's up with the Far Left BS?

    I thought you were one of thise who despised Obama's centrism?

    you are quite perplexing.

    Parent

    My point was (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    The "far left" is not a large part of the population, just as the "far right" isn't.  Most people are politically in the middle and only veer out for an issue or two, so to say that the Blue Dogs will suffer I think, is not really going to happen.  The only place a "Blue Dog" would suffer if this health plan doesn't pass with a public option would be in the Northeast or west coast, and there aren't any Blue Dogs there to begin with.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    I suggest you look at what happened in 1994.

    It wasn't "the Far Left" that lost seats.

    Parent

    This ain't 1994 (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:14:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:19:48 PM EST
    Making your comment even more incomprehensible.

    Parent
    Tell you what let me look at the most (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    recent test case you could give of you hypothesis- were any far right senators and congressmen been driven out in the 2006 and 2008 elections: Basically you only have Santorum other than that guys who clearly far to the right of America- Bachmann, Coburn, Inhofe etc were re-elected because like the left counterparts in Kucinich, Sanders, Pelosi, et al they fit within there given areas of representation.

    Parent
    I don't really get (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    the point of moaning and groaning day after day about how horrible it is that we're not getting a public option, if it's an idea that's so extreme that only the "far left" even cares about it, but that's beside the point.

    In point of fact, the Blue Dog Coalition has around a half-dozen members from the Northeast and the West Coast.  Jane Harman is a Blue Dog and the PVI of her district is D+12, so let's not fall into the trap of thinking that these people only vote like conservatives because they represent red districts.  But anyway, that's beside the point as well.

    The point is, that even in the swing districts, the people who care about the public option are disproportionately likely to be activists.  Those are the same people who canvass and work the phone banks and go the extra mile to get a Democrat elected.  It's very hard to win without their help.

    Parent

    also (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    Bubba made a great point at netroots.  he said once it starts working and people see the benefits approval will explode.

    as it has with social security.

    but that could take a while if it doesnt kick in for years.

    Parent

    When I was very young (none / 0) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:41:10 PM EST
    we lived in NYC, having just emigrated from Russia. Walking home from school one day a bully twice my size started picking on me. I ran home, and my mother seeing me out of breath, asked what was wrong. So, after telling her what happened, Mom, a tough, Georgian Cossack, grabbed me by the arm and said, "Let's go, we're going to nip this thing in the bud."

    When we got to where the kids were playing (a bunch of mothers were watching over them) my mom made me point out the bully. Then she said to me, loud enough so the mothers there could hear, "go get'm, Pavlic, and don't stop beating him until he stops moving." The mother of the bully looked up, and with an incredulous smirk on her face, said something like, "are you crazy, my kid is gonna kill your shrimp." So my mother said to her, "Mrs. Galletto, you're right, your kid probably will kill my boy, but I suggest you go home and get a camera and take a picture of your son; cause when my boy is through with him you won't recognize him  ever again." That Mrs. Galletto stopped, thought a moment, and said to her son, c'mon Robert; let's go home, these people are crazy."

    Moral of the story: if you believe in something, be ready to fight to the death for it. Even if the other side is overpowering and vicious, let'm know there's a price to be paid for standing in the way. I know one thing: No bully wants a real fight; they just want to scare you into thinking they do.

    Throughout my life, I was in many, many fights. I never got beaten, not even once. Why? Because I was more afraid of what my mother would think than of the guy I was fighting.

    We have to put that fear into Obama. It's o.k., if you lose, but dammit, fight!


    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    the numbers matter as much in the House, where the districts are smaller and more closely mirror the views of the Representative.  It's the Senate that matters, and if only a few of the Blue Dogs from red states have pressure back home not to vote for what they see as a government giveaway, or socialized medicine, or whatever they want to call it, then the deal is dead. Period.

    Parent
    We can't get a primary (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    challenge for her until 2012 can we?

    Parent
    44 senators (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    but I bet the majority of them are republicans.

    Plus - demographic trends indicate that there are more people living in cities now, and will likely continue trending in that direction.  So "outside the big cities" does not represent as many people as it used to.

    Parent

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    Remember - Obama only won 28 states, so the Senators from the other 32 states (64 Senators) still have to answer to their constiuents, and an estimated 6 million Republicans did not vote at all.

    States that went for McCain with Dem Senator(s):

    Alaska (Begich)
    Montana (Baucus, Tester)
    West Virginia (Byrd, Rockefeller)
    North Dakota (Conrad, Dorgan)
    Louisiana (Landreau)
    Arkansas (Lincoln,Pryor)
    Missouri (McCaskill)
    Nebraska (Nelson)

    Add to that Virgina (Webb, Warner) and North Carolina (Hagan) which may or may not be "blue" (my guess is, no, not really, not yet), and industrial Midwest states (Michgan, Ohio) where there are currently Dem governors, but high unemployment, and Dem Senators who may be in trouble (Dodd [who could be replaced by another Dem], Specter, and maybe Reid).

    And then, there's always Joe Lieberman.

    Parent

    That makes 60 states (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:15:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Ok 22 (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:18:23 PM EST
    ding my math

    Parent
    A big ding (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    50 votes.

    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    give repubs the purple blue states and not dems the purple red states.  Seems a bit inconsistent.

    Also, not sure why you assume that the republicans who didn't want to vote for McCain will now be so enamored with the new and improved republican party that they come out in the mid-terms.

    It seems like the only people republicans have been able to motivate right now are the loud, rabid base.  I have a sneaking suspician those people did not stay home on election day in 2008.

    The problem with the republican party is the soccer moms not the people who show up screaming at these town halls.  I don't see their latest escapades helping them with this demographic.

    Parent

    Not what polls are showing (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    I live in Virginia, and we have a gubernatorial election coming up here in a couple of months.  The Dem that's running is a conservative Dem, and he's still being outpolled anywhere from 7-10 points.  Virginia is a conservative southern state, no matter how much the Obama folks wanted to tell you it's turning blue (and our two Dem senators, Webb and Warner, are fairly conservative Dems).

    Also, not sure why you assume that the republicans who didn't want to vote for McCain will now be so enamored with the new and improved republican party that they come out in the mid-terms.

    Um, because they realize that it $ucks to be out of power?  Do you assume that everyone who voted for Obama will vote for him and not the Republican candidate?

    The problem with the republican party is the soccer moms not the people who show up screaming at these town halls.  I don't see their latest escapades helping them with this demographic.

    Apparently it's helping with "independents".  I don't know if that will last, but who's winning the argument right now?  HINT:  It's not Obama, nor the progressive side.

    Parent

    What's your point? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    I live in MA and we had a republican Gov. for most of my life.  Says nothing at all about the senate.  Your two "conservative" dems also support the public option.  So again, I don't see how that's relevant.

    2nd, I never said everyone would vote for Obama.  In fact, had you made that case, I'd say you'd have a better argument.  That being said, I really don't see Republicans who couldn't get around to vote in 2008 being all excited now that their party has completely jumped off the deep end.

    The only thing independents know right now is that they don't like the "current plan" (whatever that means).  That doesn't mean they wouldn't like a public option.  Not to mention, nothing says whether this is a make or break issue for them.  Or that they wouldn't come around after the fact.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    Webb, Warner, Tester, Rockefeller, McCaskill and Byrd are almost certain supporters of a public option.

    Rockefeller won't vote for HCR without it.

    Dodd the same. Specter and Reid without a doubt will vote for it. As for Michigan, sheesh. Two sure votes for it there.

    Your political analysis is ridiculous.

    Parent

    Is this true andgarden (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    I know you know demographics and incumbents...you're sort of freaky on that stuff :)  Is it really true that an Obama failure puts blue dogs in danger?  Because I always get the impression when listening to them that they all think being "too liberal" is what would wipe them out of office.

    Parent
    and, if spun right (none / 0) (#84)
    by magster on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    the party of NO gets hurt even more.

    Parent
    Hardball (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    we can believe in . . . I hope.

    this might belong in the dancin with the stars (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:47:09 PM EST
    thread but Obama needs to learn about the custom which in Texas is called "Dancin with the one that brung ya".

    now is as good a time as any.

    Uh.... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    That would be his good friends in Congress who were instrumental in winning him the Democratic nomination.  It was all downhill after that.  Who did Obama have to fight harder against - Clinton or McCain?

    Parent
    good point (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:38:34 PM EST


    Parent
    It's refreshing to see someone stand (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    up and fight for something for a change.

    With this miserable effort at reform heading into pull-the-plug territory, I think it's time for the kind of extraordinary measures that should have been part of the strategy all along - going for it all, the best plan possible, and insisting that implementation begin ASAP, to really deliver on the help people need NOW, not three years from now.

    None of this co-op crap, or private exchanges, thank you: if it's going to be called a public plan, it should be a public plan, and as many people who want to be in it should be allowed to enroll.  Guaranteeing the private companies all the insureds they could ever want is not the way to inspire competition; maybe the prospect of losing a sizeable chunk of the current pool to a public plan would goose that a little, but, who knows?

    There is something to be said for courage and passion, and a price to be paid for timidity and fear.  Even Dems in safe districts risk making their next run more dicey if they insist on delaying implementation until 2013, and if the Dems really think they have a good plan, they should be willing to have the courage to get behind it now.

    Glad Weiner is getting attention and hope it inspires his colleagues to go all in for the best plan possible.

    I never understood the delayed implementation (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    What was the point of passing a bill that does nothing for over 4 years?  

    Parent
    Some here have suggested (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:57:01 PM EST
    that delaying implementation gives legislators shelter from 2010/2012 electoral sh!tstorms that could come down from both right and left if the bill is enough of a bipartisan mess.

    Parent
    I'ts not just Weiner (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:44:03 PM EST
    by any means.  Dana Bash on CNN is reporting the House is in an "uproar" over Sebelius's comments, presumably meaning primarily the Progressive Caucus.  Just heard Sheila Jackson Lee, for one, says she won't vote for a bill without a public option (what kind is another story).  Pelosi just issued a statement saying she expects the House not to pass a bill that doesn't have it.

    I don't think Weiner is all that lonely on this.

    Parent

    excellent news (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    in other non-scientific but hopefull news - the cnn website poll has 57% of people saying a public option is an essential part of the health care bill.  A lot of people have clicked on it too.

    Parent
    And... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    ... if the "public" only knew what was going to be in the "public option", we might actually have something to sing about!

    Jane Hamsher made a really good point on MSNBC today when Mrs. Greenspan asked, "But what about the compromise plan of co-ops? Won't that work?"

    Jane nicely smacked her down. "No, the public option is already the compromise -- down from single payer."

    I want the members of the Progrssive Caucus devising the public option. From there, Pelosi (and Clyburn, the whip) would have to get the deal done.

    I like Weiner. He should continue being the spokesman.

    Parent

    Is the whole thing delayed? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    Or just parts of it?

    Never mind..there is no bill yet anyway...

    Parent

    It is my understanding (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    that it will be rolled out in stages. I think all bills are using 2013 as the primary start up date. One provision, increasing the compensation for medical providers in rural areas, could be implemented as early as next year but that is the exceptio. Other elements of the program would be implement starting in 2013 and it would not be fully implemented until 2017.

    Haven't seen a schedule that shows the rollout schedule.

    Parent

    I just dunno (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    Time to break out in 80's child song.

    Parent
    The song that comes to mind for me (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    is "The Song That Never Ends."

    This is the song that never ends,
    It just goes on and on, my friends.
    Some people started singing it,
    Not knowing what it was.
    And they'll continue singing it
    Forever, just because --

    This is the song that never ends,
    It just goes on and on, my friends. . . .



    Parent
    if no public option (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    is included, than what's the point? absent that, and the whole piece of legislation just becomes one big game of three-card monty. the house (insurance companies) always wins.

    every tea bagging town haller (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    should have to read this:

    Here are a few things Americans should know about the NHS    :

    Every Briton is registered with his or her own family doctor, whom they can see when they need -- without paying a fee. These doctors are independent contractors to the health service and are recognized and rewarded for quality in their compensation -- so they can focus on what works, not just what pays. Expanding on the facilities that are already in place, by next year every community in England will have a physician's office open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day of the year, and you can simply walk in and see a doctor, for free, regardless of whether you are registered.

    In the unfortunate instance that a patient is diagnosed with a dire disease, such as cancer, it often takes only a week or two for a patient to be seen by all the right specialists, complete all the required diagnostic tests and be ready for surgery or other interventions. This rivals the best care in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

    The English are more than a little ticked (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    at the right wing crazies (including politicians) telling lies about their NHS.

    Papers are being to call American the "land of the fee" when describing our health insurance system.

    Parent

    So are the Australians (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    including one to whom I am related.  Much mockery of how stoopid we Americans are.  Some tarnish on the image there of Obama, too, from what we read.

    Parent
    Looks like the UK (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    should be mad at more than the right-wing crazies.  

    In this general election ad, Obama called the UK system extreme and placed it as the left wing extreme balance to the right wing extreme notion of insurance companies denying help to poor sick babies.

    Guess what...Obama promised to be right in the middle.

    Parent

    Weiner actually support Medicare for All... (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    He's the guy offering the floor vote on it.  And, he gave the best health care reform pitch to date when he argued for it in the House.  I hope he keeps advocating for Medicare for All, and not just so mouse of a public option.

    good (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    news, yes?

    Definitely (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    good news. We don't need another regressive tax, like this (with mandates) would be....especially not a regressive tax to subsidize insurance companies.

    Parent
    Absolutely right (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    I never liked the mandate in the first place, but without a robust, affordable, and subsidized on a sliding scale public option, a mandate to purchase health insurance is absolutely unacceptable, and nothing more than a regressive tax and welfare for the already wealthy health insurance companies.  I e-mailed my two senators today and told them so.  (Of course, I really want single-payer, but it doesn't look like we're going to get that in my lifetime.  A public option is the absolute minimum.)

    Parent
    Video is cut at the right (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    I'm glad he said so, though. The House absolutely must pass a bill with the public option.

    We can talk about what comes out of conference later, but don't prenegotiate.

    Prenegotiation already occurred. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    I didn't see medicare-for-all at the table, did you?

    Parent
    House must drag Obama to the left (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    How many who cast a starry-eyed vote for Obama believed this would be the result?  That, if it happened at all, the change wouldn't come from the man-o-change, but from that gridlocked bunch of bickering partisans in congress?

    Amazing how the "art" of politics always more closely resembles a Jacson Pollock splatter than one of those David Hockney fantasies.

    The Dept. of Mixed Messages... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:41:24 PM EST
    ...is at it again.  Sigh.

    Link.

    At least (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    it's trending in the right direction this time.

    That combined with this video, and Dr. Dean's statement make me think that maybe progressives are waking up and starting to shout down some of the "town hall" rhetoric.

    Parent

    hope so (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    boy do i hope so.

    Parent
    Reconciliation! (none / 0) (#14)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    The House passes a bill with the public option.  The Senate passes a bill without the public option.  Reconciliation gets a bill with the public option to Obama's desk with 50 Senators.
    The noise is deafening.  Just get it done!

    It looks like it's over........... (none / 0) (#20)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    Sigh............The House has pushed back their vote, the Senate is saying that they have no time limit.  

    My current prediction, they will keep putting off the vote, and messing with the bill, until no one cares what they pass because it will be so watered down.  Since Obama has to declare victory, they will pass something, later this year, but it won't be much of anything.  It sure won't be what we had hoped for.  

    Did Obama waste his political capital on TARP and the stimulus bill?  or what the heck happened?!  

    When is it.....that nobody is going to care? (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:02:25 PM EST


    Parent
    It's not that Obama wasted (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    his political capital.  He still has it.  He just didn't use it on real health care reform.

    Then the worry might be -- what is coming at us for which he thinks he had to save his political capital?

    Parent

    Yes, he had the gun... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by desertswine on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    but never pulled the trigger.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    I think his political capital is gone for the time being. He really didnt use it when he had it w/r/t the stimulus. The way he's taken a beating from the GOP on this issue pretty much evaporates a lot of his capital and with the economy not getting beter...

    Parent
    Another view (none / 0) (#112)
    by Spamlet on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    might be that Obama didn't actually have political capital w/r/t the stimulus. The financial meltdown was an 11th-hour event. It fortuitously swept Obama into office, but promises about the stimulus didn't form any major part of his campaign for the presidency, and certainly not for his party's nomination.

    It could be argued that Obama, exercising much more restraint and "bipartisanship" than many would have liked w/r/t the stimulus, was attempting to preserve his political capital for the health care fight to come.

    Which is not to say that he hasn't squandered a good part of his capital in that fight to date.

    Parent

    Progressive Caucus (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:47:22 PM EST
    in the House is not going to wimp out, I don't think, and at the moment, they seem to have the upper hand there and Pelosi's ear.

    If they don't get leadership's support in pushing and passing what they consider a good bill, I think you might see some kind of full-scale revolt in the Dem. caucus in the House.

    Parent

    Just like with TARP (none / 0) (#99)
    by dk on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:06:27 PM EST
    I expect Obama will call a few of the Progressive Caucus members at the 11th hour and arm-twist them into voting for whatever watered-down bill he ultimately agrees on the the insurance lobby to push.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    if you put the public options back in does it again not pass in the senate? Looks like any sort of health care reform is dead.

    It passes the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:19:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    would it pass "this time" when supposedly there arent the votes for a public option ever.

    Parent
    If that were so, why would the (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:25:24 PM EST
    administration be willing to make another concession?  Just because it's a new week and it's time to give away something else?

    It is precisely because it won't pass the Senate that we are where we are with this: House Dems saying they won't pass a bill without it, and Senate (Blue Dog) Dems saying they won't pass a bill with it.

    Looks like the administration blinked, bless their hearts.

    Parent

    I for one would welcome (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    a knock-down drag-out between the House Progressives and the Senate Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    Yes, it would be very welcome (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    to see the House Progressives stand firm on this issue. Who knows, it could become a habit.

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#74)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    Weiner can get on CNBC.  Obama can get on every major news network at primetime.  Whenever he wants.

    He'd better stand up for his own idea.

    What idea would that be? (4.50 / 2) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 03:50:25 PM EST
    is the problem.  He's been all over the TV almost daily pushing "health care reform" as a general goal.

    Parent
    The idea now is (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    "health insurance reform," unquote Obama.  There 'tis.

    Parent
    public option (none / 0) (#105)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:26:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Weiner just hit ABC World News (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 05:37:34 PM EST
    lead off story.

    Parent
    Can he run (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:17:38 PM EST
    for co-president? ;-).

    It's nice to have some true leadership on the issue.

    Parent

    Yup! ;) (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 06:37:00 PM EST
    My Rep, Nydia Valezquez, has signed the pledge to vote no if there isn't a public option. I think I'll inquire why I haven't heard her speaking out more. She heads up the Hispanic caucus and generally can be pretty firm on issues.

    Parent
    It is obvious (none / 0) (#100)
    by catmandu on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    That the makeup of congress will change in 2010.
    It is bad for the country to have one party in power.  The health care debate should be held off until then.  The result will be better.
    72% of the US want universal access to health care, but the majority do not want a public option.
    Substandard care is not a popular option, and any gov't run program will be substandard.  It is the nature of the beast.  The gov't is inflexible and one option fits all.  That is a poor base to settle health care upon.
    Most people are becoming disgusted with congressial democrat's antics and hypocrasy.
    I know I am.

     

    So you think (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:13:51 PM EST
    that the military gets substandard care?  Shouldn't you be trying to do something about that?  Our national security is on the line.

    Parent
    Maybe you should tell the 45 million (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:42:39 PM EST
    people on Medicare that they are getting substandard care.  Better yet, go to some Senior citizen meeting and tell them that you are going to work to get rid of their Medicare coverage.

    Also, you might want to actually read the 72% poll you were referencing. The question asked was Do you support a government administered health plan, like Medicare?  Just in case you don't you are unaware of the fact. Medicare is a government run program.

    Parent

    MIlitary?? (none / 0) (#107)
    by catmandu on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    Acting military?  No they have value.
    Retired and disabled military??  YES. They are
    given substandard care.
    The VA does what it can, but is underfunded.
    The VA succeeds only due to the passion and commitment of fellow vets.  I know of no vet
    who would prefer VA treatment over private
    healthcare.
    The wait for care is long, the facilities are not
    top of the line, and it is time consuming to qualify for care.  
    I know of too many people trapped in that system.
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 04:35:25 PM EST
    Patient satisfaction in the VA system is higher than patient satisfaction in the private health care system, year after year after year after year after year.

    Amazing how your circle of friends just happens to consist of only the dissatisfied ones.

    Parent

    Eddie Bernice Johnson says "not likely" (none / 0) (#118)
    by ricosuave on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    I just saw Eddie Bernice Johnson on CNN.  The uber-annoying Rick Sanchez just asked her if she would vote for a health care bill that didn't include a public option.  She answered "not likely," and without hemming and hawing about it.

    Nice to have a Texas politician we can cheer for (especially a day after Tom Delay announced he is on Dancing with the Stars).

    ----

    While I am writing this, she is now saying that the White House tells her that public option is not off the table and that she believes it is still on the table and says it is still in the bill.  Will Dems fight to keep this in the bill?  I doubt it.  If they do, will it survive conference?  Also doubtful. (Wow...answering your own questions is fun.  Now I understand Rumsfeld a little better!)

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#119)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    The VA is consistently ranked one of the finest hospital systems in the country if not the world.

    There might be some confusion in the poster's mind with Army-run hospitals, which are different from the VA; some of these, like the Walter Reed hospital of recent infamy, are run by...wait for it...private contractors.

    Yeah, the govt. always sucks! That's why our military should be entirely taken out of the government's hands and taken over by private companies, like those fine upstanding folks at Blackwater. They'll do a much better job.

    Incidentally, I've never had the post office lose a single package or letter, and I dream of the day that dealing with my crappy local for-profit hospital is as painless as dealing with my state's DMV.

    Weiner: No Public Option Loses 100 Votes In The House | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment