In Letter, House Progressives Object To Blue Dog Public Option Compromise
In a letter to be delivered to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House health care leaders, Congressional progressives will reject a compromise Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) forged with Blue Dog Democrats to advance legislation. "We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the [Energy and Commerce] Committee as fundamentally unacceptable," it reads.
This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable.
You can read the letter, the text of which was obtained by TPMDC, below the fold. It was being circulated for signatures until early this afternoon*, and could be released officially later today. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are hoping 50 or more members will sign on, to prove they have enough votes to kill the final bill. Earlier today, over 30 had added their names to it, according to one source, but that number could have grown. We'll get you more details as they're made available.
Late update: House Progressives have announced that they've rounded up 53 signatures--if every one of them legitimately votes against a bill that incorporates the compromises the Blue Dogs extracted, they would kill it.
Late, late update: * After making it to 50 signatures, progressives will continue to seek signatures, hoping to achieve 60.
July 31, 2009The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Henry Waxman
Speaker ChairmanU.S. House of Representatives House Committee on
Energy and CommerceH-232, The Capitol 2125
Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Charles Rangel The Honorable George Miller
Chair Chair
House Committee on Ways and Means House Committee on
Education and Labor1102 Longworth House Office Building 2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC
20515Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:
We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.
To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.
We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.
Sincerely,
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Then don't vote for it
July 30, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
and they wonder why they have so little influence
July 30, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad the progressives are standing up for a real reform bill and letting the House leadership not to take them for granted.
July 30, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
All bark, no bite
July 30, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is better than no bark and no bite. But not by much.
July 30, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are promising to bite. The letter states that they cannot vote for it. Which is equivalent to won't vote for it.
July 30, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
not mentioned in yesterday's reporting -
yesterday's actions by the Progressive Caucuses were unprecedented - they've never done this before. they have functioned as a loose knit coaltion and a target for Leadership/WH arm twisting (see Schakowsky, Jan)
here's what they figured out: 218 is the majority in the House - with 178 Repubs pledged to vote No, any group of 40 controls the vote -
as of this morning they have 57.
it remains to be seen if they can hang together after an August of ad wars and Dick Armey's tea bagging circus coming to a district office near you - but they've clearly figured out the power of their numbers and are ready for a test drive
July 31, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't deny yourselves. "Red Dogs" -- attack those running Blue Dogs of capitalism!
OK, maybe Red is not best color if you're trying to get massive public support in the US of A.
Yellow dogs, that's already been taken, and of course "yellow" has negative connotations as well.
So, what's left that really reflects your position? Green Dogs.
GO Green Dogs! Form a caucus with THAT name rather than "progressive," which is too long and abstruse for Amuricans to understand. Green is Good.
July 30, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recognizing gender would be good.
If I were a dog I'd rather be an Alpha male and not someone’s Bitch.
I wouldn't want to be on the leash of the Insurance Companies, and be known as they're Bitch
bitch n. A female canine animal, especially a dog.
July 31, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand (understood?) Obama's reason for giving the Democrats in Congress a pivotal role in crafting health care reform. I still bear scars of an equally popular president's decline and fall because he went all cramdown on a hugely Democratic Congress. (Best ex President in history!)
But these guys have ZERO political capital of their own - 24% approval ratings and falling....Progressives, blue dogs, Pelosi, Bohner, Woolsey, Ross the lot of em they are all playing with Obama's chips
Health care reform indeed any significant legislatiion depends on Barack Hussein Obama It is his political capital they are frittering away
And he is letting them do it
July 30, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put another way, in the grand scheme of things - what in the hell good are Lynn Woolsey or Max Baucus?
With what are they going to repay Obama for the political assets they're squandering....
He's given em the political equivalent of a subprime liar's loan
July 30, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter is still the best ex-President in history. Bill has talked a good game, but not put it on the line like Carter has for years and years.
July 30, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama frittered away his capital when he followed Timothy Geithner.
Obama showed his true colors when he proved he supported a Government of, by and for the bankers. Health care became the casualty, because we spent the money bailing out the banks.
It was a matter of priorities, and Obama squandered the opportunity.
The Capitalists created a deficit, in order to prevent Healthcare. Lo and behold the Republican talking point is, we can’t afford universal healthcare.
DOH! They made sure of that.
July 30, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll alert!!!
July 30, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOUSE
worm: a person who has a nasty or unethical character undeserving of respect
July 30, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I ready "Troll alert," I interpret it to mean that you don't appreciate people writing things with which you disagree. So what's your point?
July 30, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the parties negotiating reimbursement rates are the various insurers and the health care providers, then yes, costs will be higher than under current Medicare reimbursement rates. I'm assuming that each insurer would negotiate its own rates independently. The reason providers are dropping Medicare now is that it now pays 20% less than private insurers, who of course pay far less than the uninsured consumer.
Given near universal coverage, insurers would have little incentive to negotiate rates that are any higher than necessary to strike a bargain, with the public plan and its lower overhead in the game.
If we want a sustainable reform of health care in the US, then negotiations makes more sense to me than federal price controls. Savings in the long run will not come from squeezing the providers, but by moving from pay for service (which is the Medicare model) to pay for outcome (the Mayo Clinic model).
Therefore IMAC is far more important to the evolution of an efficient and equitable system than price controls. I can't agree with the progressives on this. But maybe I'm missing something.
July 30, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reckon Barack will have to come out and define what a "public option" is.
July 30, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't threaten to vote it down, vote it down. Please.
July 30, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far they have not had an oppotrunity to vote. Progressives are interested in the cause, Blue Dogs, and they are Dogs, are interested in donations from insurance dogs, thieves, and scoundrels.
July 30, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
53, not bad at all. Now let it out of E and C and let's see if you stand up for yourself in the committee.
July 30, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this really helpful?
We are trying to get this bill through. Also, there is no guarantee that the public option the way it is in the House will last once the Senate and the House convene their bills.
July 30, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So anything is better than nothing?
July 30, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just anything, no. But I'm not sure I'd agree that the deal Waxman worked out is "a large step backwards." It didn't change any of the fundamental structure of the plan, it simply trimmed the numbers here and there. As long as the fundamental structure is intact, the numbers can be revised down the road if necessary. That's a whole lot easier than having to fix something that was structured poorly from the beginning.
July 30, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it didn't just trim a little. Cutting the public option off from the bargaining power of Medicare is a disaster. The public option will not be big enough in enrollment to offer any cost advantage if that holds. The House progressives are right.
July 30, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it didn't just trim a little. Cutting the public option off from the bargaining power of Medicare is a disaster. The public option will not be big enough in enrollment to offer any cost advantage if that holds. The House progressives are right.
July 30, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It made the so-called public option more expensive than Medicare when it could have been made to run the same way as Medicare which gets 9 points out of 10 from the people using it.
Having a plan in place that provides competition for the insurance companies is one thing -- what the Blue Dogs are doing is something else entirely --- giving the insurance companies captive consumers who have to buy. No thanks.
Obama ought to be threatening to veto -- that's how you preserve and increase political capital.
July 30, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bill without a public option is worse that a sham of insurance reform that does not reform, merely enhances the thieving insurance companies!
July 30, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate is even more conservative than the House. Whatever they pass in the House will be even further watered down by the Senate. So if they don't pass a strong public option in the House, there won't be any sort of reasonable public option in the final bill passed by Congress. So it isn't worth passing in the first place.
July 30, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the eternal spectacle of "The Big Tent".
Unhinged "progressives" fighting the "cowardly Blue Dogs" to the death.
July 30, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder Lawrence O'Donnell said that there will be NO health care insurance bill this year because the Democrats themselves are going to kill it.
No wonder the Democratic party is at 23% approval.
July 30, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So wait, now the PROGRESSIVES are the bad guys? You and lalo can both eat a dick. There is a difference between a bipartisan bill and the RIGHT BILL when it comes to HC reform. Getting a good bill done is the way to go and I APPLAUD the CPC for standing for what is right.
July 30, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes in this case the progressives are the bad guys and are trying to be purists.
It's either "my way or the highway". The Blue Dogs didn't get everything that they wanted with their compromise but they did compromise.
The progressives need to compromise as well.
This is some BULLSHIT.
I predict wipe out in 2010 for Democrats if they can't get their shit together and compromise to get a bill through.
July 30, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you are talking about because the Progressive had already compromised and will not let a bill go thru that is not the right mix ; especially public option. You and Dickhead lalo are ....
July 30, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never gonna happen. What's the option? Vote for republicans?
July 30, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you are either really naive, or really disingenuous.
Progressives have compromised already for this bill. They wanted Single-Payer, which was removed faster than a prom dress. Republicans want nothing passed. Blue Dogs want a half-baked plan to try and play both sides. Progressives want Single-Payer.
So the COMPROMISE was a Public Option. And keep in mind, there are several Blue Dogs that support the public option - there's only 7 Blue Dogs on Waxman's committee that are causing problems. While not every Blue Dog will vote for a strong public option, some will - and that's all that's needed to pass in the House.
Oh, and even if health care reform fails...it's still not going to "wipe out" anything in 2010. First off, the map is better for Dems so at WORST they could only take a minor hit. But moreover, even with all this inside baseball...the public still blames Republicans for obstruction (if I had a link to the poll, I'd post it...I'm in a hurry, sorry).
If this fails, Dems might take more blame...but everyone's numbers will go down.
If it passes...then expect gains in both houses for Dems.
July 30, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Your point is something I have tried to point out to others offline as well, and needs to be reiterated again and again until it sinks in. The Public Option IS a compromise already. Single-payer was (and IMNSHO still is) the only truly viable long-term HC solution.
The "centrist" and right-leaning Blue Dogs already have their compromise win. That being that we are discussing Public Option instead of single-payer.
July 30, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-signed
July 30, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you said.
It's time the progressive caucus pushed back. Enough has been given up already.
July 30, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The progressives need to compromise as well.
Yeah, just like the Cherokee.
July 30, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Blue Dogs are DOGS! They are in it for the money. The progressives are fighting for a cause. No PUBLIC OPTION is a sell out to the croocked vile insurance companies. Get your head out, oleeb!
July 30, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maritza, your kind of compromise is what's taken the country so far to the right even Ghengis Khan looks centrist.
Thanks, but I've HAD 40 years too much of GOP compromise, and so has the nation.
Time to let go of racist, misogynist, corporate feudalist rule by the few and move the country into the 21st Century, not back to The Dark Ages (any further than we've already been moved to The Dark Ages).
Maritza, please don't try and pass yerself off as a dem. Yer wearing the wrong costume, dear.
July 30, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems at 23%...lol, what are Republicans at?
I thought so.
July 30, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a really crazy idea.
Instead of Waxman and Pelosi writing a bill pleasing to Progressives and then negotiating with the Blue Dogs to walk back some of the things that were pleasing to the Progressives, and then negotiating with the Progressives about walking back the walkbacks they did for the Blue Dogs, and so on, and so on, and so on, why don't they just get the Progressives and the Blue Dogs negotiate with each other?
Yeah, I know it's crazy talk. It's not like they're members of the same party or something.
July 30, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Barbara Lee! Yeah! I agree with these guys - we're not scooping any poop from the blue dogs.
July 30, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans, to a certain degree, have to be sitting back and slapping high-fives right now.
No vote until after recess and factions of the Democratic Party fighting each other. While they're on vacation, the airwaves will be flooded with anti-healthcare ads, generously funded by big insurance and pharma and the rightwing-controlled media will be going into unrelenting disinformtation/propaganda overdrive.
By the end of September, the damage will be done and any hope of a progressive healthcare initaitive will be history, never to return.
July 30, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Once again the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot.
July 30, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
FTFY.
The Blue Dogs support corporate profits over the health of Americans. That is not hyperbole, that's the facts.
You can't compromise on health care reform with those who don't want health care reform.
July 30, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
To mangle a phrase:
Health care reform is Blue Dogs and Republicans negotiating with a well-armed Progressive Caucus over what's for dinner.
July 30, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, with what's going on in the Senate this letter shows remarkable shortsightedness and stupidity. The line in the sand ain't gonna be whether a public option pays Medicare or negotiated rates - it's going to be whether there is a public option at all. If the progressives really do kill the bill because of this they will be responsible for killing reform and losing Congress, period.
For all those that are all of sudden warriors to teh death for Medicare payment rates - the negotiated rates were part of the Senate HELP Comm bill too, run by that famous conservative Sen. Kennedy....
July 30, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate is its own nightmare landscape. I feel pretty good about the House grinding out a good bill, but the Senate : : :
My hope is that Obama will lean heavily on the House/Senate conference committee (if we can get that far) to whip the package into something better. Then, of course, the final product will have to go back into both chambers for votes. We still gotta long way to go!
July 30, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but voting on a reconciliation bill is straight up or down, and not subject to the filibuster. Which is the ace in the hole.
July 30, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. It's called bargaining strategy. House progressives understand that the Senate will try to weaken whatever the House sends into conference, and that's the main reason they want the bill to be as strong as possible.
2. Also, don't count the Senate out. There are already noises from Democratic senators that they're not happy with what Baucus is doing, and one hopes they'll have Harry Reid's ear when he combines the HELP and Finance committee bills. The question will come down to whether Baucus, Conrad, and the other conservative Democrats will in fact filibuster a health care reform bill supported by the majority of their Democratic colleagues. I think it's at least even odds that they won't.
In the end, we could go into conference with a House bill with a strong public option and a Senate bill with a slightly weaker public option. But that requires everyone fighting for every inch before conference.
July 30, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The progressives are wrong on this. Read the letter and think of the whole health care problem, not just saving a few bucks by stiffing the providers.
July 31, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will the American people wake up? The Capitalists will win this debate.
If you get any healthcare bill, it is what the Capitalist’s will allow; just enough to appease the left and no more.
So what if no healthcare bill is passed. The people will piss and moan and blame one party over the other; yet in the next election the Capitalists will have a candidate, and it makes no difference if it's a D or an R, both parties are Capitalists.
Capitalists are not concerned about the peoples needs, unless the people react.
Business interests must push the agenda; mercy will not motivate Capitalists.
If business benefits, that’s the program the people will get.
If you are no use to business, you will not benefit. Healthcare to get you back to work is the plan business will back.
Reduce disability insurance and get you back to work as quickly as possible.
If you are too old to be competitive in the work force, you will not receive care. You will be considered a burden.
You want healthcare; it will be what businesses will support. Otherwise the status quo works for them.
Get the workers to pay for their own as businesses drop coverage; healthcare is not their problem. Get to work or you’ll be replaced.
The American worker is in no position of leverage. Our leverage has been neutered.
Tax imports to pay for healthcare.
July 30, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. American Capitalists to a certain extent lost the debate because of ideology they won't agree to something that -- if your company isn't named Aetna, Cigna, or Pfizer -- is actually *good* for business: namely, Single Payer.
As Jim McDermott pointed out by reading a letter from auto executives on behalf of Canadian national health insurance:
They won't agree to rational healthcare in America because ideology matters more. Our capitalists are gonna lose to smarter capitalists elsewhere. There can be no doubt about that.
July 31, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The genius of the public option is that the capitalists will have to put up and compete with a public plan, or shut up and go out of the health insurance business.
July 31, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So-called progressives need to stop confusing the bumper sticker campaign for a public option with healthcare reform. More is at stake, including moving toward universal coverage and moving away from service-based payments to quality-based payments. The progressive caucus is becoming an obstacle to universal coverage and quality healthcare in Washington.
July 30, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it Opposite Day?
July 30, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, UFPO. Did anyone here read the letter? The progressives are having a tantrum over a minor part of insurance reform when the real issue is health care reform via regulation and IMAC.
BTW, as somebody noted above, the public option was a compromise. But it was made a couple of years ago when John Edwards proposed it as a way to get to single payer by using "the power of the market." Single payer wouldn't have flown and everyone knows it.
The public option is necessary but not sufficient to reform American health care.
Someone else noted that Medicare subscribers love it. But health care providers don't because it's payments are often below the cost of the service.
You won't get real reform by squeezing the providers. We need their help in designing an equitaable, efficient pay-for-outcome-based system.
July 31, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Dogs are dogs.
July 30, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee,
I am all for a public option. But, if it only pays Medicare rates, my small community's non-profit hospital is going down.
Just sayin'
July 30, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you recited those Luntz' talking points to perfection. Well done. (golf clap)
July 30, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gratuitous insults don't make the problem go away.
Our small hospital in a small relatively poor state is not the enemy. It can't absorb any more Medicare rate reimbursement and keep the doors open. Who do you suppose would lose out then?
All I am pointing out is that there is more work to do to improve a public option. If that's what the Progressive Caucus is going to fight for, they need to do it right. Everyone I know, including most of the hospital's medical staff and management , would prefer a single payer system.
July 30, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
gmarshall is right.
July 31, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good! Kill the insurance subsidy bill and push through Conyers' bill of Medicare for All!
Single Payer!
Single Payer!
Single Payer!
It's the only thing that makes any sense at all for the American people. If it doesn't work for the parasites in the insurance and pharma industries it is no loss at all.
July 30, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good! Go progressives. Grow some cojones and damn the torpedoes! Single payer is the only option that makes sense -- we'll be there some day even if we have to have a full-scale disaster first -- and a real "public option" is at least a step in the right direction.
July 30, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The full-scale disaster was averted, when Obama bailed out the banker class.
There will be no help for the peasant class, only the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich.
Notice there are no Home remodifications, only foreclosures.
Notice the interest rate hikes from the bankers credit card division
Notice the record profits of Goldman Sacs.
The rich don't need to worry; the US government will keep them solvent.
Why should the rich class care, if the peasants don't have healthcare?
Let them eat cake?
July 30, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had no choice but to hire bankers to bail out the banker class. No one else had the knowledge, skills and contacts to save the system. It was a dirty job. They feathered their own nests and they ripped us off. But they did what had to be done. Like it or not we are in a capitalist system, as is the rest of the world.
July 31, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cash for clunkers program was the model.
When the people were forced out of they're homes because the banks (Excuses) wouldn't remodify the loans, even when they could make $1,000.00 to write up the paper.
The banks would rather foreclose and then cry for help from the Government.
The Government bailed out the banks using the peasants to finance the venture.
As for the similarities of a workable program such as cash for clunkers.
The moment the government had to pay the banks for Bad mortgages is the moment we should have bulldozed the older homes.
This in turn would have created a shortage of homes.
In turn shortages would have existed property values higher, as supply would eventually not keep up with demand.
To meet the demand for new homes, more carpenters, more cement, more iron more construction, more employment.
But NO we had to make sure the bankers got bonuses.
With the home shortage, existing homes would have maintained their values. Property taxes collected by the states would have remained sufficient for programs to continue.
Instead we bail out the leaches, which like taxpayer help and in turn kick the people under the bus.
Capitalism is all about profit, even if it means your neighbor suffers.
Our form of Capitalism is Imperialism that discourages the development of any other asset class that might compete with its own design. .
Did you expect the banker class through its controlling Federal Reserve Governors, to promote the real estate class, assets?
Now where do you think Capital will flow.
If you said to the bankers pockets, you'd be correct.
Our Government assisted in wiping out the middle class who invested in home ownership.
Purposely withholding a support system; favoring one asset over another, I wish the Federal Reserve had cared as much about the value of homes, as it does about the value of the dollar.
Manipulation?
July 31, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides taking care of political donors who own dealerships and write car loans and insurance, cash for clunkers is necessary to eliminate the huge inventory of brand new gas guzzlers. Whether they are replaced by a new fleet of energy-fficient clean vehicles is anybody's guess.
A billion dollars lasted four days. It will be interesting to see if the Republicans and the Blue Dogs make a fuss about expanding the program to maybe twenty or sixty billion (240 days).
July 31, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking about availing myself of these funds; but I'm afraid the dealerships have jacked up the prices on the new vehicles. What are your thoughts?
July 31, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is GREAT NEWS! For thos of you who don't get it, this is exactly what is needed. If the Progressives vote against this and they will, that particular bill won't make it out of the House. The Progressives will restore the stronger public option and they'll have more votes than the Blue Dogs to get the bill to the Senate floor. Don't forget that Bush passed his tax cuts for the rich with 51 votes. The Progressives can do the same while neutering the Blue Dogs!
July 30, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the Progressives, better no bill than a bad bill. You can be sure that any bill is going to pass out all the benefits insurance, health care companies, and employers want, and probably spend all available money to boot. So a bad bill will leave nothing to bargain with to make it better; it will make everybody happy except the ordinary citizens who need relief.
No bill is not much better, but it might be spun as Democrats doing their best to be responsible, and a better deal may be possible if we get a brighter economy and improved majorities in 2010.
July 30, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is for real, then looks like we have at least 53 real folks with some real balls.
July 30, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! About damn time. The "public option" WAS the compromise. And if a crappy, half-assed Blue Dog/GOP health bill makes it into law, that'll be it for a generation. The time to take a stand is now. We didn't elect Obama and a Democratic Congress so that Max Baucus could hand the reins to the Republicans.
July 30, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If "reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates" includes the rates that primary care providers are paid, it's not at all clear to me that this should be in a public option. Several years ago I could not find any doctors willing to accept my mother because of low payment rates. Earlier this year, after their doctor retired, two elderly neighbors called over 35 local doctors without finding anyone who would take them on. This is not talking points, this is reality.
July 30, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right.
July 31, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For more on Obamacare and the bureaucrats that control it, read the article titled "Are you willing to die for your government?" posted at http://www.cliffyworld.com
July 30, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Proud to be represented by a stalwart member of the CPC!
This is true, and would be damaging to any future attempts at further reform.July 30, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? How? Do you think that the medical professionals will want to help reform the sytem if they are made to subsist on current Medicare rates of reimbursement?
July 31, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't the bill from Waxman's Energy and Commerce committee still have to be reconciled with the two other bills? And don't both of those bills contain the provisions that the progressive caucus wants? So what, if anything, makes everyone, seemingly, presume that what is in the E&C committee bill will be what the House votes on?
Is it simply that we wish to show a united Democratic front to the public (and the Republicans, of course) on health insurance reform and this gets in the way of that particular meme or is there really a very distinct danger that contents of the E&C bill will become the final bill?
July 30, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The E and C is going through. This is just a shot over the bow and showing their strength. This is good, very exciting that we have people that actually have our back.
July 30, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point of the letter isn't to influence the E&C bill, it's to influence the final bill after it's reconciled with the other committees' work.
July 30, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is all confusing. The Dems are fractured while the GOP are united. The GOP can jst sit back and enjoy this, to tell the truth. Ross, Baucus and the rest need to be taken off of the committee. I am glad the PD's are showing some backbone.
July 30, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES, YES, YES. The public option must be real. Cost containment is crucial. If you have to destroy the legislation in order to save it, do so. Don't let the corporations win this one.
July 30, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make the Blue Dogs pay a price.
If the Conservatives are so worried about the deficits, then find a revenue source to pay for health care.
TAX imports; revisit NAFTA and all the other trade agreements that allowed American industry to be outsourced, because of the promises of Globalization.
This financial crisis is a watershed opportunity to revisit the failed promises of NAFTA and it’s progeny.
Either the American people get a GOOD Healthcare program or else WE THE PEOPLE will insist that the economic rewards of trade will be funneled to the programs the People need.
Let the Blue Dogs defend the current Trade agreements that have destroyed the middle class and it's ability to pay for private Healthcare.
The People wouldn’t need Government healthcare, if the working class had jobs, that paid enough, to pay for the benefit offered by Private insurance.
July 31, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The President needs to say he will veto any bill that does not have a public option. I don't think he is that kind of leader. Because of this weakness it falls on progressives to kill health care reform that is watered down and does not contain a public option.
July 31, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm proud to have Barbara Lee for a Rep. Go Barbara! And yes, if you support this, let them know you have their backs. They're taking some risks by doing this and they know they'll get targeted, so ante up please for the vulnerable ones. (Sorry, that's just the main ActBlue page... you'll have to find the individuals yourself. If I have time and nobody beats me to it, I may build an ActBlue page for the HPC. But if anyone has more time feel free to steal the idea. Doesn't look like anything like that is up yet AFAICT.)
July 31, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink