TPMDC

OFA Adopts Obama's Non-Committal Language on Public Option

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

A good catch from The New Argument. The Democratic party's organizing arm, OFA, seems to have changed the language on it's website, which used to be as firm as possible on the public option. The site used to say that health care reform "must... [g]uarantee choice - Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor - including the choice of a public insurance option."

Now, it's backed away from that insistence. The new language on the site urges members of Congress to support President Obama's health care reform principles, which include a public option--but doesn't characterize it as a make or break issue.

An OFA source confirms that the new language is taken from Obama's speech to Congress last week, which does reflect OFA's new public message, but says that OFA continues to press just as hard as ever for a public option in the field.

Even so, in politics, words matter, and I think it's fair to say that, excluding House progressives, not a single Democratic party leader or organization now says that the public option is an absolutely necessary element of health care reform.

Join the Conversation!

21 comments

Recommend Recommend (1)

September 16, 2009 9:50 AM   

For fuck's sake, they changed the language to correspond with the wording Obama used in his speech, which is a completely logical thing to do if you're trying to build on the speech and maintain consistency in messaging.

Tempest in a teapot again, Brian. "Ferris" Beutler, please take a day off!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 10:22 AM    in reply to ttarleton

And for Fuck's sake we know how "consistent" the messaging has from this White House has been, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 10:23 AM    in reply to henk

scratch one has.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 12:22 PM    in reply to ttarleton

In fairness to Brian, he's right that OFA has shifted the emphasis in their language. What I don't see is the retreat from an obvious "make or break" position that he read into all the "must" statements from earlier, which seems like a bit of a stretch given what we knew the WH position to be. And the fact that the Obama political arm is echoing the president's message from his speech is hardly news.

Par for the course for our coverage, though. Once again, the trajectory of the public option is not revealed in parsing these statements and passing them off as news. The proof is in the Senate vote count, and I think there's more than an open chance that the Baucus framework won't survive past the committee vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 9:56 AM   

Kinda' shows just how powerfully money talks in Washington. The grassroots may want health care reform, but these guys just can't resist using this as an opportunity to instead establish the "Health Insurance Industry Profits Enhancement Act of 2009."

I can only imagine the kind of energy policy reform we get once the oil and coal lobby get done with these whores.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 10:00 AM   

The public insurance option is there. It's at the bottom. It's the head fake:


If You Don’t Have Insurance,
the President's Plan:

Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.

Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.

Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.


Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 10:07 AM    in reply to make

What if I can get insure but would rather have the government one? Will they prevent me from going that one?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 10:24 AM    in reply to MNPundit

Most definitions of the "public option" reserve it for those whose employer does not offer a plan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 12:19 PM    in reply to MNPundit

Obama said it's only for those who are currently uninsured in his speech to the joint houses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 10:49 AM   

"The Democratic party's organizing arm, OFA, seems to have changed the language on it's website, which used to be as firm as possible on the public option."

I can haz website with stiffiness?

It appears that the Democratic party's organizing arm is relaxing its language on the Public Option. Where once unequivocal support of the Public Option appeared, there now exists equivocation.

Put the link to the new language on the words now exists or equivocation; and if possible, a link to the old version (google cache or the wayback machine) around unequivocal support.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 11:13 AM   

I want to sign up with Medicare for my private insurance. Isn't Medicare a pre-existing condition?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 11:16 AM   

Wanted: National Leader for New Progressive Party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 11:23 AM   

On the front page of TPM the headline is "Obama's Grassroots Org: Public Option No Longer A Deal Breaker"...

But really, there is nothing less grassroots than changing the language to reflect the OPPOSITE of what the actual grassroots supporters want and demand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 11:40 AM   

Whatever you do, don't let the good be the enemy of shit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 11:48 AM   

Whatever you do, whatever you do, don't force sole proprietors to pay a grand a month for a policy with a ten thousand dollar deductible. Please. Public option or private option, these kinds of policies are bad for Democrats. They help ensure a GOP return to power.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 12:23 PM    in reply to Mateo123

What are you on about? What provisions in which bill out of which committee calls for this? Sounds like you're talking about the way things are in the current insurance "market" (or more correctly) racket.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 12:32 PM    in reply to 714Day

Uhh the current Baucus bill released today is essentially what Mateo just described. It has a mandate but no affordable Public Option.

It is garbage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 12:18 PM   

I don't know who they think the grassroots are in this piece. The people in my community that worked for Obama for over a year, that donated, phone banked, door knocked, organized and raised money are not left wing zealots or overly dramatic, but to them, absence of a public option is an Obama deal breaker. It would simply be a fundamental betrayall. These are informed people that know that healthcare today is beyond broken, and without a public option (which is the compromise) we are driving off the economic cliff. Health insurers and big pharma will NEVER satisfy their greed. It is oppositional to their business model. Only a public option can provide an outside element of competition. Every insurance company IS THE SAME with only a different name. We must have a new insurance instrument to compete. Congress will do only what serves it's own self interest. It's up to us to show the WH and Congress that shilling for industry is not in their interest.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sbv

user-pic

September 16, 2009 1:30 PM    in reply to xargaw

well said xargaw: president obama himself has said competition must be brought to bear to lower the overcost of health care for all; so if not the public option, what then?

i vacillate between getting as much as we can in hopes we can get more later, or saying, "if it isn't done right now, this time; then don't do it." anything less will only be more money in the pockets of the health care industry anyway.

my big concern is if congress caves on this, mark my word "pre-exisiting conditions" will be next. the problem is not the will of the people, and especially those like many of us who donated, campaigned and voted for barack; but those in congress who are bought and paid for by corporate interests - from the health care industry to the wall street and banking crowd to the coal, oil and gas industries - and terrified they will not get re-elected.

now is not the time though to get discouraged; that is exactly what the gop wants. if they can not grow their party, their only hope to return to power and their sanctified corporate interests, then they must shrink the opposition.

you are definitely correct xargaw, we did learn how to organize, how to canvas and knock on doors and donate; we can and will do it again; i still believe, as hard and as much hard work and long view it will take; the will of a majority of informed citizens can defeat all the corporate lackeys until we are no longer a democracy!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 4:20 PM   

Very generous, and politick of you, Brian, to direct web traffic to a friend/peer/associate at "The New Argument". However, you only got Evan and TNA unwanted but well-deserved criticism and the critiques have merit.

I volunteer and organize, very locally now as my mobility/disability issues and social security-only income limit travel, even regionally.

I always, always ask in our conference calls "Does the [new] pledge contain support for the public option?" The answer, last night, is "YES". The web site includes the public option, and our pledges are based on the site, which is based on Obama's statement.

You ever consider that Obama, once again, played this just right? He let congress write their bills, Baucus produced the only bill without a public option, and that bill provides a contrast that the public - and the media - needs to absorb a complex debate. Baucus gave us a clear target that shows that not having a public option means all subsidies go to private insurers.

One thing was also clear from our state's conference call: Our legislators were hedging because progressives were not calling our legislators - we were outnumbered up to 5-1 some days by the anti-reformers. Sooo, would you write a front-page article that tells people "Stop reading this and all progressive sites, Tweeting your lunch plans and FBing "weird news", for 10 or 30 minutes a day, and actually call your legislators, now!" I make my calls to my legislators first, then read what's on the grapevine, then call voters to get their pledge, ask them to volunteer, then organize yet another pledge-gathering event.

Our progressive media is joining MSM to push disappointment and a sense of betrayal - on no concrete basis, on chess moves - when people need to be fired up and working, acting like a democracy requires civic people to take civic actions. You're making me use stronger language than I'd like to fight the despair you're all pushing. Check what you're selling before you post.

Oh, btw, yesterday I also Tweeted 35 legislators, Dem and Repub, w/a link to the Cigna ex-exec's statements before Congress. I post daily on FB asking people to call and sign up to volunteer. What have you and your dear readers actually done to get what we want passed, today?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 5:04 PM   

Fuck them all then. I only stand with House Progressives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on