
Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are laying down a new mark. Though President Obama appears to be laying the groundwork to scrap the public option, and progressives are pessimistic about his upcoming health care speech before Congress, the CPC is digging in on its earlier vow to block health care legislation that does not include a public option, setting the stage for a potential rift in the Democratic party.
"We look forward to meeting with you regarding retaining a robust public option in any final health reform bill and request that that meeting take place as soon as possible," they wrote in a letter to Obama today. "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates--not negotiated rates--is unacceptable."
A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs. We cannot vote for anything less.We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the importance of your support for a robust public plan, which we encourage you to reiterate in your address to the Joint Session of Congress on Wednesday.
You can read the entire letter here.
Though the House Ways and Means Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee passed health care legislation that included a public option modeled on Medicare, the Energy and Commerce committee ultimately endorsed a plan that does not--Grijalva and Woolsey want that compromise undone.
The White House declined to comment for this story.
Though the situation is evidently very fluid, most public signs indicate that the White House is not going to call for health care reform legislation to include a public option--an omission that, at this point, would signal a general retreat from the idea.
However, House progressives and liberal interest groups alike are doing whatever they can in the interim to pressure Obama to buck internal pressure and come out strongly for a public plan--but that advocacy could set the stage for a bitter tussle if, in the end, he ignores their entreaties.
It will be interesting to see whether Grijalva and Woolsey's request for a meeting with the President is honored. Stay tuned.
Steve LaBonne
September 3, 2009 5:38 PM
That letter is a beautiful thing. Stick to your guns, progressives. We can still win this fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
September 3, 2009 5:46 PM
That letter is a beautiful thing, it will wreck Obamacare for the forseeable future. Keep up the good work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 3, 2009 5:53 PM in reply to shooter242
Be careful what you wish for, troll. If nothing sensible is done now the whole house-of-cards insurance system will collapse in a few years and the demand for Medicare for All will be irresistible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 3, 2009 9:31 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
And the problem with that would be what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 3, 2009 10:23 PM in reply to oleeb
Well, not much. But I imagine it's not what Shooter has in mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 3, 2009 10:57 PM in reply to gharlane
Precisely. I'd love it, but the troll would wail and gnash its little troll teeth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 3, 2009 6:25 PM in reply to shooter242
shooter,
do you have any insurance against losing your health insurance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
September 3, 2009 6:39 PM in reply to shooter242
Shooter, you seem to take pleasure in coming to this board and being a dick to people. I really don't get how anybody over the age of 13 can actually be so motivated so frequently to just be an arrogant dick. I mean, do you talk like this to people's faces? If so, how does your insurance company like paying for all those teeth replacements and nose resettings? Please explain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
September 3, 2009 11:10 PM in reply to Clavis
Shooter's situation can probably be described as follows:
He's either undereducated or an underachiever.
He's either unemployed or grossly underemployed, which forces him to live from paycheck / unemployment check to paycheck / unemployment check; he may well be also living with parents or other close relatives.
He feels helpless in the face of current economic circumstances, and he's reaching the limits of his ability to cope.
And he's increasingly bitter about his present predicament, thus rendering himself vulnerable to the seductive but misleading entreaties of Rush Limbaugh, et al., who offer him and others like him the comfort of blaming politically convenient scapegoats for their troubles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 3, 2009 5:49 PM
And while you are at it progressives, tell him we're going to pull the plug on his Afghanistan quagmire too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheraP
September 3, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to bluebell
The one would fund the other!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 3, 2009 6:33 PM in reply to TheraP
I thought so, but apparently war is free.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
September 3, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to bluebell
It's not a quagmire. The only way to balance our trade with China is to sell Afghan opium to the large potential market there. At this very moment, retired CIA operatives with experience running drugs in SE Asia are being called in to consult. All we need is a little more of the capitalist, can-do spirit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Observerinvancouver
September 3, 2009 7:44 PM in reply to wyt
You guys and the Brits tried something like that a while ago. That worked out well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 3, 2009 9:30 PM in reply to bluebell
Right on bluebell!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
September 3, 2009 5:57 PM
Finally.
Someone in the progressive caucus shows some balls.
Hopefully, they won't end up folding like a house of cards.
(Sorry for the mixed metaphor)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
September 3, 2009 6:01 PM
A giant round of appluase here for the Progressives. I would like to see the birth of a Progressive Party if the Democratic Party bails on the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dhs
September 3, 2009 7:27 PM in reply to Progressive Party
If the Progressive Caucus blocks the health care bill without the public option, health care reform, and possibly the war in Afghanistan, will be the big issues of the 2010 elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
September 3, 2009 8:37 PM in reply to dhs
As they very much should be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
September 3, 2009 6:14 PM
Sounds like there will be NO HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL this year. Republicans will be laughing at the Democrat destruction in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
September 3, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to Maritza
Yes, by all means pass some peice of crap that does nothing but hand more money to the insurance industry. Rupbublicans would never dare to mention that or run against Dems for handing billions to the most hated industry in America. And Obama will have his "victory."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
September 3, 2009 6:15 PM
Lynn Woolsey is terrific. Always has been. We need about 250 Lynn Woolsey's in the House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
September 3, 2009 6:18 PM
Obama needs progressive Democrats much more than they need him. Most of them come from very safe congressional districts. Obama is the one who is dropping lock a rock in the polls, and if he drops the public option, look for another steep decline and the failure of his Congressional agenda.
I figured this would happen after Ted Kennedy died. Kennedy was the conscience of the Democratic Party. Now all we have is Rom Emanuel. If Obama wants to divide the Democratic Party like Jimmy Carter did, he will end up just as unpopular and be defeated in the next presidential election. I certainly won't vote for him again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrmopps
September 3, 2009 6:29 PM in reply to rstephen
Thank goodness there's some pushback on this--I don't think should be a dealbreaker if the votes aren't there, but can't we get it through reconciliation?!
Nitpick: Grijalva is from AZ, not CA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
politicalnovice
September 3, 2009 7:03 PM in reply to rstephen
I agree with your first point (the President needing progressive Dems more than they need him) but not with a nugget within your second point (Kennedy was the conscience of the party).
If the late Sen. Kennedy was the conscience of the party, we would've had this bill wrapped up before the recess. If he was the conscience of the party, more senators would've listened to him on the vote to authorize force in Iraq.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
September 3, 2009 8:11 PM in reply to politicalnovice
You mean the same Ted Kennedy who was hailed over and over for working with Republicans? Wow, it's funny that Obama doesn't get the same respect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 4, 2009 7:10 PM in reply to Viva!America!
I see VivaAmerica has been drinking the Orrin Hatch kool-aid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
September 4, 2009 12:43 AM in reply to politicalnovice
I Sen. Kennedy hadn't been fighting a brain tumor, yes, this bill might indeed have been wrapped up before the recess. If, that is, Obama had listened to the advice he'd have been getting from Kennedy regarding how to maneuver to get it through the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
September 3, 2009 8:15 PM in reply to rstephen
Sorry, I do not agree with your first statement. In their districts -fine, but without Obama, the progressive Dems would have no clout in DC. They are fortunate that they have someone who would seriously listen to them. Everyone needs each other or we all lose. We are supposed to be a team and there should be no discussions of who needs who more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
September 3, 2009 11:41 PM in reply to Viva!America!
You really think Hopey McChangey is listening to the Progressives? Are you fer real? I believe they have met with him once. He ain't done crap about Gitmo, Executive compensation, Wall Street regulation, the Torture memos, wants to continue in Afghanistan, he has conservative Dems or Repubs in way too many positions and you think he's listening to the progressives? He has met with wingnuts more than the progressives. When he wants to to get reelected in 2012 he can go talk to Chucky Grassley and see if he'll endorse him for Prez and go knocking on doors trying to get him reelected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
September 3, 2009 6:43 PM
The public should punish those lawmakers who are taking big money from insurance, hospitals, pharma etc. and voting against reform and the public option. They should punish them by voting them out of office, Republican or Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
September 3, 2009 8:07 PM
Then get the fucking senate to vote for a PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BossDrop
September 3, 2009 8:15 PM
There will be No Public Option. There will be something very powerful to compete with Insurance Companies, but the public option is too toxic now. If Obama forces it he might as well kiss the house goodbye next yr and really make the assertion of him being a one term president more likely.
one thing Obama is not...is stupid. Progressives will not desert him, they would rather die than see a Repug in 2012. And Obama if he compromises will keep the moderates. HRC is too big to offer the excuse, people will forget by 2012. no they wont. and their wrath will be felt as early as next yr.
Obama is also a politician, he will do whatever to save his skin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
September 3, 2009 9:06 PM in reply to BossDrop
Wrong.
If health care reform doesn't pass it will be because of the Blue Dog and conservative opposition to a public option, not because of the progressives.
If a weak bill passes without a public option and no real way of controlling cost but with some sort of mandate to increase coverage, the net effect will be a huge gift to the insurance companies, hospitals and pharma. This may be what Rahm, and perhaps even Obama, actually want because it will mean millions in donations from these corporate interests. After all, that is what Rahm does best, get money from corporate intersts.
It won't please the public, however. Progressives will desert him, Republicans woukd never support or vote for him any way and independents will likely see through the charade and be mad. As Henk said above, Rupublicans would never dare to mention that or run against Dems for handing billions to the most hated industry in America.
Death to the public option, even "Death with dignity," as it was framed, will be death to the Obama administration as well. What I don't get is why Obama and Rahm think they must pressure actual Democrats, who make up a far larger caucus than the Blue Dogs, rather than the Blue Dogs to get something doen.
Unless, of course Obama really doesn't want real reform, but just cash from corporations. In that case, lets see how far that cash wil carry him after he's lost his base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 3, 2009 9:35 PM in reply to mjshep
The reason Rahm and Obama are doing that is because they are DINO's too. I hate to say it, but what other conclusion can one reach when outside of the healthcare debacle he's pretty much adopted the Republican policies on everything except the stimulus whether it's the two pointless wars, the torture regime which he's renamed and modified, the abomination of Guantanamo that's simply been relocated to Bagram, etc, etc, etc...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdop4
September 3, 2009 8:19 PM
If you're serious about keeping the public option, go to ActBlue.com and donate to one or more of the representatives who have pledged not to vote for a HRC bill that does not include a strong public option.
We're in the late innings now, folks. Let's make it count.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
September 3, 2009 8:43 PM
What's unfortunate is president Obama is for truly for single payer NOT the public option. But he won't even fight for neither. Interesting!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
September 3, 2009 8:44 PM
Why is the public option 'toxic' when a) most people in the country want it and b) the ones who don't want it usually do not know what 'option' means, as they yell that they want 'choice'.
The rightwing blah blah machine, from the RNC chair to talk radio to the TV MSN to the Congress persons who shamelessly demagogue this nonsense (see McCain's latest accusation that for Obama, 'old people are expendable') should not be kowtowed to.
I hope Congress gets it back way up; they know the people want this. I have half a suspicion that O is doubledaring them to do this. If so, great.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 3, 2009 8:51 PM
I don't live in their districts, but if they voted down any compromise, I'd vote GOP in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 3, 2009 8:53 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
If I lived in their districts I should say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 3, 2009 10:35 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
Over the past few days, the comment threads at TPM have seen numerous posts from progressives whose disappointment in Obama is growing and who are starting to make noises about looking elsewhere in 2012, or predictions that passing HCR w/o a public option will cost the Dems in 2010 and agian in 2012. Those comments have been predictably greeted by vociferous, vicious accusations of Trollery and (essentially) treason (to the Democratic Party, in any event).
My, how strangely, conspicuously, deafeningly silent those voices are, in response to this particular threat to vote GOP in 2010, to punish the House Progressive Caucus. How very telling that silence is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 4, 2009 1:26 AM in reply to gharlane
Over the past few days, the comment threads at TPM have seen numerous posts from progressives whose disappointment in hardline liberals is growing and who are starting to make noises about looking elsewhere in 2012, or predictions that Democrats voting against their own health care bill will cost the Dems in 2010 and agian in 2012. Those comments have been predictably greeted by vociferous, vicious accusations of cowardice and (essentially) treason (to America, in any event).
My, how strangely, conspicuously, deafeningly silent those voices are, in response to this particular threat to vote down a health care compromise in 2009, to punish all Democrats alike. How very telling that silence is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 6, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to Smooth Jazz
1) You can always tell you've struck a nerve when the best thing someone can think of to post in response is the intertoobz equivalent of "neener neener, I'm rubber, you're glue." It also means that they know they're out of arguments. Much as these juveniles may wish that cutesy employment of their computer's copy and paste functions substitutes for actual argument, sadly, it does not.
2) SJ's inability to account for either to the flagrant double standard I was identifying or his/her own decision to defect to the Republicans is telling. Of course, it never hurts to try to change the subject when you get caught and can't respond, and then fill your response with a slew of unsubstantiated, undocumented assumptions and assertions that are treated for rhetorical purposes as facts. It was a favorite Bush tactic. Heckuva job.
3) It remains the case that, here at TPM, it's apparently not OK to discuss any individual effort to move the Democratic Party to the left through political action, or for that matter any discussion of a person's expression of their political preferences which happen to be to the left of the corporatist DLC -- but it apparently is OK to threaten to vote Republican -- as long as you're doing so to punish Democrats who show signs of refusing to cave to the GOP and corporate America.
Despite Smooth Jazz's attempts at obfuscation, it's important to stay clear about what's happened here. When progressives on these threads threaten to vote third party, or stay home, out comes the TPM commentariat to immediately beat them over the head with the "well, that means you're handing a victory to the GOP, therefore you are deluded, an idiot or a traitor" brickbat.
What Smooth Jazz is proposing is, of course, far more extreme than that. Smooth Jazz is threatening to vote directly for the GOP.
That's right. In order to punish progressive Democrats, SJ is threatening to vote for the party that -- aided and abetted by his/her beloved "moderate, compromising, centrist" DLC corporatists -- brought us the disasters of Iraq; the drowning of New Orleans; the financial sector collapse; tax cuts in time of war; record-shattering deficit increases; two wars with costs mounting into the trillions charged to the national credit card so wealthy cronies could continue socking away billions in offshore accounts; the massive, wasteful corporate giveaways that are Medicare Part D and Medicare "Advantage"; the bankruptcy bill that allows a bankruptcy judge to rewrite loan terms for someone's second vacation home but not their primary residence (and of course lets corporations pretty much get away with anything they want); an agricultural, food and drug regulatory apparatus in shambles and beholden to the corporate interests they supposedly regulate; Michael Brown, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Hank Paulson. John Roberts, Sam Alito, and others too numerous to mention; and in general the whole national catastrophe of the last eight years. Smooth Jazz is threatening to vote for the party of David Vitter, Bobby Jindal, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, Mike Enzi, Rudolph Giuliani; and James Inhofe.
And why is Smooth Jazz threatening to do this? Of course -- it's to punish progressive Democrats who have already compromised their positions on health care (since most favor single payer or Medicare for All) and simply are saying, finally, "no more compromises -- we've compromised enough already." (And mind you, they are refusing to compromise on a policy that consistently polls with supermajority support across the country, yet are consistently painted as "leftists" or "fringers" who are "out of touch with mainstream America."
That should tell us all we need to know about Smooth Jazz.
Somehow this does not elicit a snide, arrogant "Democracy sucks! Waaaaahh!" from the NCSteves of the threads.
And the silence of the VivaAmericas, the JNagarayas, and the rest who would normally scream "troll" and "traitor" at the drop of a comment should tell us all we need to know about them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smooth Jazz
September 6, 2009 9:21 PM in reply to gharlane
I think that you can always tell when you've struck a nerve when someone goes into a two-page tirade when someone was caught not having enough integrity to be consistent with their own argument, as you have done. LOL
(1) It's funny that you spin your failure to account for your lack of consistency, saying that defection from the Democratic Party is OK, but only when you say so.
(2) Again, it's funny that you project your own double standard ("looking elsewhere in 2012") while duplicitously moaning "to defect to the Republicans is telling." Now THAT is a double standard.
(3) You show no logic, or perhaps just dishonesty, in saying "it's apparently not OK to discuss any individual effort to move the Democratic Party to the left through political action" because you have a double standard. How does that work? You are being held back by your own double standard? That is not sane.
With regards to what you consider to be the sins of Blue Dog Democrats, you can continue to believe that they are sins and that they are directly attributable to only Blue Dog Democrats. I don't think that's honest, as people who are pretty liberal (John Kerry) voted to go to war with Iraq.
Regardless of whether you are being honest or dishonest in pinning all of the nation's problems on the Blue Dogs, it is really irrelevant. None of this addresses the issue at the fore: will health care reform be advanced or hindered by a liberal defection on a health care compromise? Once again, you demonstrated hypocrisy and projection by obfuscating this and accusing others of obfuscation.
With regards to all we need to know about Smooth Jazz, well you know that he was not even phased by your blatant hypocrisy in calling for people to "defect" from the Dems, while criticizing others for doing the same. We know that in your attempts to "tell us all we need to know" about me and some apparent rivals you have, is that you are just a big fat hypocrite who calls for defection from the Democrats and gets angry if people don't defect in the direction he wants, tells outright lies about being held back from discussing what you want, blames Blue Dogs for going to war in Iraq when liberals (i.e. Kerry) voted for war with Iraq, and obfuscates the issue of the implications of liberals voting down a compromise while accusing others of obfuscation. I'd vote against liberals who shoot down compromise, but honestly you'd make a better Republican than I would. You've got their hypocrisy internalized down to a T.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EugeneVZardoz
September 3, 2009 8:56 PM
If we can't even win this small bit of serious reform, this bill is worth killing. I don't simply want to hand a political victory to Obama and a economic victory to the insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
annieratna
September 3, 2009 9:00 PM
everyone's gotta stick to their guns and at the end of the day, majority rules. progressives (while i am one) are not in the majority. we can't force what we want on the nation (even though it is better). this is a d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y that is sadly ruled by special interests. we gotta start somehwhere. and no we will not abandon obama, but what we need to do is start organizing in the blue dog and red areas and convicing people of what we want. all that misinformation damaged this fight for health care reform. this is a huge issue, and obama can't afford to become the "socialist" president. we need those repubs and independents to get more sh** done. i'd be happy if we could get rid of pre-existing, if we could streamline insdustry, do price caps AND have some sort of affordable option for people to buy on their own. i wish we could have hit the ground running on this, but the repubs were smart and canniving. i will give them that. NO MORE HMO MONOPOLY OVER AMERICA's HEALTH THOUGH. this sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
September 3, 2009 9:14 PM
I've seen comments like "Obama needs us [progressives] more than we need him." Maybe. Or, maybe progressives need Obama just as much.
I think it's unreasonable to think that progressive aims will be advanced by hamstringing this president. Many progressives sought to undercut Obama when his approval numbers were quite high. Now, these same progressives are complaining that he doesn't have the power to just ram the bill through. Well, elected officials look at polls probably more than anyone else, and they are less inclined to support a president with a lower approval rating, and the public is less inclined to support a president's initiatives when his approval rating is lower. Thus, one could make a strong argument that Obama is less able to ram a bill through, because of the position progressives helped put him in. Of course, Obama hasn't been perfect. But you should know that incessant, and sometimes specious, attacks from the left can't be made without a political toll.
Let's go even further. Say progressives do kill this bill... The most likely outcome is that Obama could see dramatic drops in his support among the public, and a hardening of independents against him. Democrats could essentially neutralize what is currently the party's most influential asset; a well-liked president.
And, what do you think that will mean for cap and trade? The proposed Wall Street regulations? Immigration reform? All those things that progressives want to see advanced will be much more difficult to achieve with a neutralized president. Republicans will be emboldened to challenge EVERYTHING the president and Democrats do. Democrats would be essentially bleeding themselves into shark-infested waters.
How do I know this? It happened in 1993 -1994. Many Democrats voted against healthcare then. We all know what a smart move that turned out to be. And now, people are seriously advocating a repeat of history??
Actions have consequences. I just wish people would be willing to consider the long-term ones, and not get so caught up in the moment.
[Counter view: If Democrats do get a healthcare reform bill passed, regardless of what some are saying, it will indeed be an historic and meaningful advance forward for this nation. The choice is ours.]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 3, 2009 9:39 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Perhaps Owimpa should consider the long term implications of capitulating to the corporate interest now? All it would mean is continuation of the same rotten system we have now for years before the political whores of DC would even take up the issue again. Eventually we're going to have to have a single payer system. It really is that simple. All these half measures do is put off that day. Why should we do that? To keep Owimpa the appeaser and imperial war escalater popular? Sorry. That's a bad deal for the people any way you look at it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hechicera
September 3, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
This independent will be disappointed in Obama if there is no affordable public option. Since I'm not a democrat, my ego isn't tied up in this bill. If it's a bad bill without a public option (and many have pointed out that it's basically subsidizing insurance companies with no price controls with no public option) ... then it should be scrapped.
We are sick of both sides. The only side that seem to be putting up ideas that might work though is the progressives. Most independents are fairly fiscally conservative, this bill is not fiscally responsible without a competitive public option. If progressives and resistant republicans kill it, fine. Blue dogs look really bad though. If it goes through without a public option, and it looks like Dems gave the farm away just to say "Obama did something fast" that may very well play worse by the elections than no bill to independents like me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
atticus1104
September 3, 2009 9:24 PM
When you think of public policy and health care reform, think of Mark Fuhrman. Watch this jack-o make up lies on the spot about the VA hospitals.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2777
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stan_1036
September 3, 2009 9:29 PM
Is it really true that if a major coverage expansion happens without a public plan, the only thing that will mean is that private insurers get more money? Won't tens of millions of people, most of whom are low-income, low-wage workers, disproportionately likely to be people of color, receive health coverage? Do progressives care about whether such people have the ability to go to the doctor and fill prescriptions when they get sick? Of course, a public option would be better than private insurance, but private insurance is a helluva better than what nearly 50 million uninsured people have right now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
September 3, 2009 9:45 PM in reply to stan_1036
That really is the question. I suspect most people supporting the public option right now, based on ideology, care for it for not reasons discussed but for what is not discussed. They want Single Payer, and they want health insurance companies to go bankrupt. Both of which, in this climate are damn near impossible. Hence, if there is no public option, there is no impetus for them to support the rest of the reforms (no matter how good they are). They feel that they would be giving "private insurance a bailout" which they would get nothing.
Of Course, you'd need to remind them that they would ensure the poor get subsidies (and therefore, health care, for the first time ever) and we would finally complete a moral plank that our party has been fighting for for decades. Of Course, that would be "corporate welfare". I think we're going to get nothing this year, at this rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
September 4, 2009 1:04 AM in reply to calchala
Please don't presume to tell me what I think.
Here's how I see it:
The chief reforms needed are these:
1) Nobody is turned down for pre-existing conditions.
2) Everyone pays the same premium.
3) No recissions.
For those to work, you have to have a mandate for everyone to buy insurance. Otherwise, you have the problem of adverse selection.
If you have a mandate, you need to have some control to keep the insurance companies from gouging people because they are forced to buy policies. Competition between companies isn't going to work, because too many markets are dominated by one or two companies -- the health insurance market is, in the parlance of the trade, "highly concentrated."
The public option is the necessary component to provide competition on cost to prevent the public from being gouged by insurance they are mandated to buy.
Now: that's not to say that there is no alternative to a public option. But as I see it, the only effective alternative would seem to be heavy regulation. That is, all insurance companies would be required to carry a plan that provides a set minimum level of coverage at a set maximum price, and this plan would have to be available to anyone who wanted it. If the anti-public option people are willing to go along with that, then we might be able to make a deal. But most of the anti-public option people are also anti-regulation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
annieratna
September 3, 2009 10:28 PM
Well I think folks, this is just the beginning. Obama said it himself, this would not be easy. You think the Civil Rights or Women's Movement gave up this easy? People had to organize, even die for meaningful change. Electing Obama and now going thru this fight just shows us where our weaknesses are as a movement. Nobody said change would be easy (we're talking about Washington D.C. here and the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth). I am not going to give up just cause I didn't get what I wanted right off the bat. What if Dr. King had given up or Cesar Chavez or the union activists of the 20's? We can win single-payer, universal health care in the future. But we can't ram it down America's throat. As a progressive, I believe that we must engage all of America, not just expect to get what we want (Even though yes we are right)... Let this be a lesson. This ain't gonna be easy folks. Are you in it for the long haul? In the words of a famous women activist- "Don't mourn, organize" and "Pray for the Dead; Fight like Hell for the Living".... si se puede!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
annieratna
September 3, 2009 10:32 PM
yes i am bummed about compromise, but that is why Obama was elected- he can work with both sides (even if the other side *is in the minority). I would venture to say America is split on the issue. *If however, we spend the next few years spreading our message, donating, educating, etc. then next time those stupid poll numbers will be in our favor- because the American people will not be as confused. This is better than it was 16 years ago, but clearly, we ain't on the mountaintop just yet. We need to spread the FACTS, the fact that Health insurance CEO's make billions in take-home pay while premiums go up up up and don't keep up with wages. I have a great fact sheet that we need to spread around. Fear tactics are dirty, and boy did the other side use them. They beat us in a way. But we are not out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
September 3, 2009 10:37 PM
In DC, one thing and one thing only carries weight. Money.
And of course the systems used to MAKE money. The Status Quo, The Establishment, the series of gentleman's agreements about how things are done....done to make those gentleman ....money.
Barack Obama's support for the Public Option threatens all of that to. the. bone.
The Public Option changes everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
September 3, 2009 10:38 PM in reply to FebM
BTW thats a diary at kos
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/3/776318/-Political-Naivete
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
annieratna
September 3, 2009 10:41 PM
here is one thing i am as a progressive am PROUD AND HAPPY ABOUT: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/us_cuts_more_than_30_million_in_aid_to_honduras.php?ref=fpa
Clinton just CUT OFF AID TO HONDURAS!!!!!! After America's shi**y history in Central and Latin America this is a HUGE VICTORY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
annieratna
September 3, 2009 10:43 PM
CLINTON CUT OFF AID TO HONDURAS!!! victory for progressives, liberty and democracy. still a sad day for honduras.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DuaneW
September 3, 2009 10:55 PM
OBAMA, THE WORLD MASTER AT CONSENSUS POLITICS
There are different management styles in high office. Many executives chose an authoritarian style where they make all the important decisions and force their directives down everybody's throat. The Bush/Cheney administration is a classic example of this leadership method, as eloquently put by George W. Bush "I sure wish this [the United States of America] was a dictatorship ... hee, hee, hee ... only I get to be the dictator!"
Obama on the other hand is the master of consensus leadership. He forces a very difficult issue onto the agenda of all stakeholders, encourages passionate and divisive participation by all and finally takes a very firm and aggressive lead in coalescing the disparate threads into a coherent and highly effective program (see history of The Stimulus Package 2009). On Wednesday, September 9, we are about to enter Obama's third phase of leadership. And before the Holiday Season 2009, the USA will finally begin the implementation of transformative Health Care legislation, changing a highly dysfunctional industry into a model of efficiency
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
September 4, 2009 1:14 AM in reply to DuaneW
In what sense was the "history of The Stimulus Package 2009" an example of masterful consensus politics? The package got no -- none, zero -- Republican votes in the House and all of three in the Senate.
If you're saying that Obama can forge a consensus among Democrats, well, maybe. But he has yet to show that he can garner support for his legislation outside the Democratic party absent massive giveaways to industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
September 4, 2009 7:03 AM in reply to slb
slb, remember Obamas effort for consensus is not all about getting republican votes, he has to always keep in mind the 46% Americans who supported McCain. Thats why he must keep appearing to work on bipartisanship
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
September 4, 2009 8:23 AM in reply to FebM
Bush LOST the fricking 2000 election and worried about no such thing. What a crock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
verite
September 4, 2009 8:59 AM
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party does the legwork to get out the vote. The Democratic Party needs us to ensure future victories. I am so glad to hear the Progressive Caucus is sticking to their guns. I hope the Senate and WH are listening!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus B Ochoa
September 4, 2009 9:49 AM
When I think Mark Fuhrman, I think of how a doctor or doctors at the El Paso County hospital, under the leadership of a cost-cutting ceo imported from Chicago, withheld care when I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure in 2005.
When Bush got his Part D medicare prescription plan, my meds jumed to almost $250 per month, hard to meet on ss income. I went to the VA for assistance.
Within six months of being enrolled, I was send to Albuquerque for a heart cath procedure, and subsequently had 5x bypass surgery. Unlike Letterman, I was not able to parade the team of docs, nurses, aides, support personnel, before the public to thank them for their care, something I would have dearly liked to do.
One year later I was gifted with a combination pacemaker/defibrillator. Three weeks ago, I had cataract surgery to reclaim the sight in my right eye. The left eye will soon be similarly repaired.
I joked with a doctor about spending so much money (the eys and such) on a dying man. His reply? Son (if I make it, I will be 75 the 21st of this month), you earned it. My reply: doc, but my Navy service was right after Korea.
No matter. You were called. You wore the uniform. You served.
I was really taken aback. I had not gone to the VA prior to the drug prices precisely because I was not a combat vet.
I don't believe you have to be a vet to receive the care I have received from the VA. Of course, Medicare helps.
But I do know this. If the President, as an alleged constitutional scholar, has difficulty understanding the meaning of "provide for the general welfare" part of the Constitution, then he is in the wrong business, and probably ran to satisfy his ego. In that, he was hugely successful.
Would I share a foxhole with Rep. Grijalva? In a New York minute. With the President? Not so much.
In the military, it's a matter of defending the principles of the county and the people one serves. In political life, it's being true to those who elected you. I don't think the Republicans made any significant contribution to Mr. Obama's successful run.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 4, 2009 7:14 PM in reply to Jesus B Ochoa
Jesus, I've never seen you post before... if you have, I'm sorry I missed them. Very moving. I wish more TPMers will read it and take it to heart. Sadly, I have little hope that will happen, at least among the "any excuse for Obama" crowd.
Please keep posting. Thank you for your service, in uniform and after.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?