TPMDC

Progressive Groups Petition Obama to Demand Public Option in Health Care Speech

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Many liberals may be readying themselves for the worst. But MoveOn and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee are filling the political space between now and President Obama's big Wednesday health care speech by pressuring him to support or demand a public option.

Both groups have blasted out petitions to their hundreds of thousands of members in the hope that a major public showing in support of the public option will convince Obama that there will be a political price to pay for abandoning it.

The MoveON petition reads: "President Obama, we're counting on you to fight for bold change on health care--including a strong public health insurance option. It's the key to breaking the stranglehold that private insurers have over our health care system."

While PCCC's is a bit bolder. "We worked so hard for real change. President Obama, please demand a strong public health insurance option in your speech to Congress. Letting the insurance companies win would not be change we can believe in."

You can read each group's letter to its members below the fold.

Bob,

We didn't plan to email you again today. But yesterday, news broke that President Obama will make a big speech to Congress next Wednesday on health care -- an issue we know you care about.

And according to news reports, "although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself." *

In response, we got a truly depressing email from Christian S. in Texas:

"Your recent health care ads are great, they hit home. But Obama has decided to drop the public option and for breaking his campaign promise I am dropping out of political activism for the time being."

This fight is absolutely not over, but Christian's feelings are real. If Obama doesn't stand firm on the public option, millions of people will lose hope.

So today, we're launching a petition to President Obama signed by those who volunteered, staffed, voted for, or donated to Obama's campaign in 2008, asking him to please stand firm on the public option.

If that's you, can you sign this petition today? Click here.

Then, please think hard about others you know who worked for change last year -- and forward them this email.

The petition says: "We worked so hard for real change. President Obama, please demand a strong public health insurance option in your speech to Congress. Letting the insurance companies win would not be change we can believe in."

We'll make sure the White House gets our message. In addition to delivering the signatures and personal notes from the petition page, we're planning an ad featuring the voices of those who sign.

Dear MoveOn member,

News just broke that President Obama will give a major speech on health care before Congress on Wednesday where he'll lay out what he thinks needs to be in the health care bill.

What will he say? This morning, The New York Times reported that the president remains committed to a bold reform plan, including a robust public health insurance option. But the reality is that he is under immense pressure from conservatives in both parties--and some advisers--to drop it.

This is a critical crossroads and our President needs to hear from you right away.

President Obama ran a campaign based on real change--he talked about challenging the status quo, breaking the stranglehold that corporate lobbyists had over our politics, and standing up to special interests.

We know that change does not come easily. But in difficult moments throughout our history we have always looked to our leaders to push beyond politics and do what is right for our country. This is one of those times.

Can you sign this petition and let President Obama know that you're counting on him to fight hard for a bold health care reform bill which includes a public health insurance option? We need to show him we'll fight right alongside him if he does. You can send him a personal message at the link below too.

http://pol.moveon.org/hcobama/o.pl?id=&t=3

The petition says: President Obama, we're counting on you to fight for bold change on health care--including a strong public health insurance option. It's the key to breaking the stranglehold that private insurers have over our health care system.

Making good on his campaign commitment to bring real change to Washington is the most difficult as well as the most necessary part of reforming our health care system.

HMOs and health insurance companies are fighting to kill the public health insurance option. Republicans have made it clear that they don't intend to help reform health care. And some conservative Democrats are so afraid of standing up to special interests that they are pushing for the weakest version of reform.

But the worst thing would be to pass a big reform bill that doesn't really change things. There's only one thing that's really going to cut costs, provide real security and peace of mind to the millions of Americans who are suffering, and take on the big insurance companies who have complete control of our system. That is the public health insurance option.

During his campaign, President Obama often said that he believed that change had to come from the bottom up---not from the top down.

So right now, at this critical moment, it is up to all of us to speak out and let President Obama know what millions of Americans across the country want. Click here to tell the President that you're counting on him to do the right thing:

http://pol.moveon.org/hcobama/o.pl?id=&t=4

The public health insurance option represents the change that Americans everywhere rallied around--it's our best chance to break the stranglehold of a broken, corporate for-profit system and bring true affordable care to all Americans.

Thanks for all you do.

Comments (31) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

September 3, 2009 3:01 PM   

Today's NY Times, acting as trial balloon conduit, gently probes readers for a compromised on the already compromised upcoming healthcare legislation. Here's the money (non)quote:

“It’s so important to get a deal,” a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. “He will do almost anything it takes to get one.”


How is that being 'candid'?


We are at a real crossroads here. 2/3 of Americans want some sort of single payer system so 'public option' is already a compromise!

Even so, it looks like corporate interest is set to overcome even that compromise. The carrot(campaign cotributions) and the sticks(contributions for your next opponent and smear ads in your district) seem to far outweigh quaint ideas like 'will of the people' or 'the right thing to do'.

On every major policy there will be a lobbyist-enacted campaign vs. the will of the people. If we lose on this one we'll lose on the rest.

The system is broken. We face a future of slavery.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

September 3, 2009 3:14 PM   

So when Obama gives his speech, and it calls for a public option but doesn't treat it like a precondition for passage of the bill-- what do these groups do next?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:30 PM    in reply to mcc

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they'll do what "progressives" always do when it turns out they can't magically have exactly what they want exactly when they want it without any adversity or setbacks.

They'll channel their inner Veruca Salt and kick and scream and whine and cry in a blind rage, recriminate and backbite. I'm further predicting a 100% chance of vicious threats to primary people, up to and including Obama, citations to nonexistent or time-expired polling data to "prove" that the rest of the country is with them, raging about sell-outs to corporatism and third parties and, most likely, some Hillary dead-enders will re-emerge to cast it all as proof that they were right.

In short, we'll see them do everything they possibly can to reinforce the independent's view that Democrats are ineffective, whiney pissants who can't govern or get anything done because they're too busy fighting each other. And the whole time they do it, they'll be patting themselves on the back because their dogma assures them that all of that kinds of stuff makes the party stronger.

But that's just a guess.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:35 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Democrats are ineffective, whiney pissants who can't govern or get anything done because they're too busy fighting each other.

What part of that is incorrect?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 5:10 PM    in reply to Schmed

Didn't used to be that way. Oh, Democrats have always squabbled, but they used to have some fortitude and capacity for delaying gratification.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 6:53 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

So, there's really nothing about that perspective for progressives to reinforce. Dems are doing that all by themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:43 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Putting aside the snark and the defeatism (assuming you even want a public option), I think you are mistaken when you believe that progressives have no other choice than supporting the Democratic party. You seems obvious that the level of progressive support -- money, energy, time -- will drop precipitously. Some progressives undoubtedly will hold their noses and vote Democratic anyway. But some won't. Enough, I believe, such that the Democrats can sustain a national majority. In other words, good-bye White House and good-bye Congress (and the Supreme Court, to boot). I fear, however, that the Democratic leadership may share your view that progressives are expendable, which is exactly why we're having this discussion in the first place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 4:34 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Expendable? No

Predictable and often unforgiving? Yes

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 4:48 PM    in reply to wbgonne

"Assuming I even support a public option."

Nice but of litmis test reverse-McCarthyism, there.
revere

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 5:03 PM    in reply to wbgonne

And it wasn't defeatism. It was annoyance at the endless narcissism, immaturity and childish impatience of the left wing of the party (or outside it. Whatever). It's the same childishness that gave us George W. Bush because Al Gore, Al Gore for Christ's sake, was "too compromised" and "in bed with the corporatists." It's the same narcissism and immaturity, and apparently civic illiteracy, that makes them scream and whine and threaten because the things they want might take more than a few weeks to accomplish.

And, above all, it was annoyance at the constant threats of "you better do what I want right now or we'll give the country to the Republicans and it will be your fault."

I'm reminded of a passage from Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech, where he purported to address the South:

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 4:52 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

In short, we'll see them do everything they possibly can to reinforce the independent's view that Democrats are ineffective, whiney pissants who can't govern or get anything done because they're too busy fighting each other.

Oh, I think the congressional Democrats and Obama are reinforcing that view just fine all by themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 5:44 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

You have a point... no one said this would be easy.

But you have to admit it is a tough pill to swallow for all of us who worked so hard to get Obama elected, to watch a key part of his plan for healthcare reform go swirling down the drain due to what appears to be fecklessness on the part of our own party and its leaders.

It is not as if Obama couldn't have foreseen the obstacles -- particularly the resistance within his own party, the bad faith negotiation on the part of GOPers, the languers of August with the media filling up the airwaves with dishonest sensationalism -- and come up with a better strategy to manage this. And, at least until I see otherwise, I refuse to believe Obama is pulling a bait-and-switch for the insurance industry. It is hard to put it down to anything other than the flabby incompetence that comes with taking power for granted.

I'm a Democratic party guy, no one of those take-your-ball-and-go-homers. I tend to vote against incumbents, I even voted for Bradley in 2000, but never in the end against my own party. Still, even I keep seeing 1994 all over again on this one and asking myself, how can I continue to support a party that, nationally at least, doesn't seem to be able to learn from its own sorry history?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:31 PM    in reply to mcc

If Obama doesn't "treat [the public option] like a precondition for passage" there will be no public option in the bill. It's a simple as that. Only the president has the power to make this happen. Stand and fight. That's what he has to do. If he's wishy-washy it's over. Just who is going to stick his neck out when the president himself won't? So, to answer your question, weasel words won't cut it. It's time to show Congress who the boss is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

September 3, 2009 4:09 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Only the president has the power to make this happen

So Congress doesn't have the power to influence legislation anymore?

Was that like a provision in the Patriot Act or something?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 5:54 PM    in reply to mcc

Political power, not procedural power.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 4:37 PM    in reply to wbgonne

That makes no sense. If that's all it took then Obama would have done that already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 5:14 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

Bah. He just hasn't used his sword and magic helmet yet. If he did, it would just up and happen, so clearly, the only reason hasn't used them is because he hates progressives. Or, possibly, because he's on the take or under the Rasputin-like influence of Rahm Emmanuel. There seems to be some disagreement on that point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:21 PM   

all that can be done is vote down a bad bill. No PO, no mandates.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:34 PM    in reply to Tom Wells

So, basically, if you can't have it perfect the first time, you're willing to see a defeat that could hand Congress back to the Republicans in 2010. That's great.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:39 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Who wants perfect? I just want a bill that doesn't force 47 million people to become a cash cow for the insurance industry that has a policy of denying every possible claim to maximize profits.

If Congress goes back to the GOP in'10, it's because the Dems pissed away the mandate they got in '08.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:42 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Given that Olympia Snowe is writing the health reform bill one could argue that Congress has already been handed back to the Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

September 3, 2009 4:12 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

So, basically, if you can't have it perfect the first time, you're willing to see a defeat that could hand Congress back to the Republicans in 2010

That seems to be the deal that's developing, yeah-- the Democrats are either going to do the job they were hired to do, or they're going to lose that job.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 6:27 PM    in reply to mcc

So in your world, a President Romney is better than a President Obama??

I have to ask, as a certain Representative asked of a Larouchie not too long ago: What color is the sky in your world??

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 6:29 PM    in reply to admiralmpj

And, mcc...I realize I may have slammed you incorrectly, if so, I wholeheartily apologize.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

September 4, 2009 1:14 AM    in reply to admiralmpj

I don't think I said that. I'm pretty sure I'm going to be trying to help the Obama people in 2012 regardless of whether I'm happy with how they handle the health care fight-- I think the advantages of an Obama presidency over a Romney one are self-evident, and frankly, I think they're so self-evident Romney is not likely to win no matter how fractured or circular-firing-squad-ish the Democrats become.

2010 is a slightly different matter. On that front I think matters are up to the Congress to demonstrate that a Democrat-majority Congress is specifically preferable to a Republican-majority one. If they can't make that case to the community, then the community just isn't going to be willing to take drastic action-- like holding back from opposing a bill that does not meet its goals-- just to possibly protect that Democratic majority. And this is the case regardless of what I myself do or don't want to happen...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 3:42 PM   

Kos is shrill!

If your car starts making dangerous sounds, don't take it to the shop. Instead, give it a two-year trigger to see if it fixes itself. Same with that old roof ... wait to see if the leaks fix themseves!

No need to be hasty when things are broken since you never know, they might magically improve!

Memo to White House: when you've lost Kos (whose site was the biggest hotbed of diehard Obama support during the primaries) you're in pretty bad shape.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 4:53 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

I know this was Kos' comment, but since you seem to agree, I'll take the metaphor one step further: if you need to repair your roof and fix your foundation, but only have enough money to repair your roof, don't do it because the foundation will still not be repaired. Sure the roof will still leak, but waiting until you have enough money to do both at the same time will be much better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 5:21 PM    in reply to Philv

You seem to have a little difficulty with reading comprehension. The trigger idea is "wait a few years before even thinking about fixing any of the above".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 6:28 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

No, it's just an example of what one person can do using the same metaphor you liked. I didn't dispute your/Kos' metaphor, merely used it to make my own point. Dangerous thing with metaphors, they can frequently be twisted around to prove a point different than the one you started with. Of course it would be silly to put a trigger mechanism into fixing your roof if you can just fix it, you should just fix it. But what if you can't just fix it?

Let's alter it so we're both on the same metaphorical page: we have the money to fix the foundation but not to fix the roof. We therefore decide to fix the foundation, but start saving money to fix the roof at a later date. You can call this a trigger if you like, we will fix the roof when we accumulate enough money, but we'll fix the foundation right now. So not exactly a trigger for "fixing any of the above", but just a trigger for fixing the part you can't afford right now. Now you would tell me not to fix the foundation, because the roof still leaks, and to not save money to fix the roof later, because the mere act of saving money won't by itself fix the roof. Or really, that unless we fix the roof at the same time as we fix the foundation, the roof will never get fixed because everyone will be incredibly upset that the house is still broken.

Of course this is all kind of silly, because a house is a very different thing the health care system of the United States, but I couldn't help but point out what I saw as a logical fallacy in the argument.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 6:51 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

I love Kos and read the site everyday, but to think that Obama "had" Kos in the first place, let alone only "lost" him recently, is just unfounded.

The netroots were cool to Obama until Iowa. They didn't really side with him until after the primary whittled down to him and Hillary, and until then, there was probably more support for Edwards. The diehards in the blogosphere never were much about reaching out to Republicans, and were bruising more for a fight than they were for unity--and that's pretty much where Krugman has been coming from since the 1990s. I even remember Kos sending lots of kind words to Chris Dodd (Oh, we can only imagine what that convention would've looked like) back when the progressive cross to die on was FISA--and not just opposing a FISA expansion, but filibustering a FISA bill that had telco immunity.

There was no doubt that Obama would start raising heckles once he started making decisions. The question was whether the administration would refrain from feeding the media beast hungry to hype divisions with the progressives (too late), or whether the progressive community would have enough sense to stay focused on the big picture without falling into fits (still not too late, but not encouraging so far).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 3, 2009 4:12 PM   

If the media treat this whole struggle over the health care reform bill, in particular retaining the public option, as they did their '08 campaign coverage, there's a glimmer of hope. Because, at this point they are all seeing Obama as the underdog in this fight. If he comes out of next week's speech having made the numbers move significantly in his direction, they'll jump all over it (a la "comeback kid") and the timing of that couldn't be better.

That's my little fantasy, anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on