Pelosi Prepares To Move Ahead With Robust Public Option

AHHHHHHH, this week is going to be very interesting indeed.

Do we dare hope? Go, Nancy, GO!!!!!

Harry, take a lesson!

But will Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) have to indirectly pay for a poor woman's maternity care?

Smart to put the strongest bill forward while the Senate dithers, and claim the middle ground.

Pelosi rules.

Make sure the final bill includes an opt-out option. We most certainly want to give local officials the opportunity to have a voice in the final decision - just in time for the 2010 election cycle.

Another hatchet job "study" paid by AHIP in 3, 2, 1...

It’s time to stop talking about healthcare reform and start SINGING about it!! See “Healthcare Fighting (King Fu Mix)” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nc1VwJOb9Y

NO TAXATION WITHOUT.....

I was talking with one of my English friend. I said, how nice it would be if we allowed the states to opt out of public option. This would be a tax on red states for being red. He said that's what I was thinking. You yanks got rid of us for a silly little tax on tea. Now look what you missed. We have a far more efficient health care system. Americans pay about 10 percent of GNP as extra tax for not having the health care that the mother country enjoys (or their less rebellious cousins up north do!). No tax on tea -- only on sympathy!

Good luck Nancy. Go for it!

GREAT, GREAT NEWS! My prayers are with you Pelosi!

I like to see Pelosi sticking to her guns, but this is nothing new. It has been obvious to anyone following the strategy and procedures that the Senate finance committee was not going to include a PO, then it would be merged with the HELP bill, with either no or only a watered-down PO, THEN it would have to be reconciled with a House bill with a robust PO. The only real drama will begin with what the reconciliation bill looks like. What Pelosi's bill is really doing is laying the foundation for a bifurcation or an opt-out clause. The bifurcation option would involve an initial bill that set up more strict regulation of the insurance industry, prohibiting exclusions and payment caps, and requiring portability, but without a PO. Then, a second bill would immediately be submitted offering ONLY a PO, and that one could be rammed through on 50 votes in the Senate, because it's only purpose would be budgetary, to save the fed hundreds of billions over time.
The opt-out option might be a way to force wavering Senate Dems to support a robust PO, by giving them cover.
Of course, the third possibility (and the one I fear is supported by at least Rahm Emanuel) is to pass only the first part of the bifurcated process, then kill the second part by 1000 blows and attrition.