Pelosi Publicly Demanding Public Option Skeptics Get Off The Fence

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 11:06 AM

Cracking heads! Good on her. She's the only visible fighter in this game.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Moose49

October 23, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to Indie Pro

Co-sign!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Dorn76

October 23, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to Indie Pro

So now you concede there's more than one way to skin a cat?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 11:51 AM in reply to Dorn76

you'll have to elaborate on your point.

But the basics of skinning a cat well, are pretty standard.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Dorn76

October 23, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to Indie Pro

I'm probably just projecting, but the way you phrased it, "visible fighter", seemed to acknowledge there's been some less visible fighting going on as well.

Not that you were impressed by it, just that it was going on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to Dorn76

If this is another plea to believe President Obama is fighting behind the scenes for one PO over another or somesuch, I've seen no evidence of that. That's why I phrased my comment that way, to draw the contrast with Obama's seemingly hands of approach, at this stage of the game.

He likes the idea of a public option (not a specific PO). Says it isn't important though, and he's open to alternatives. I think that's all we can say for sure.

But I do hope you're right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Dorn76

October 23, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Me too.

Getting close. 2 weeks ago any form of a public option seemed DOA, so I'm encouraged.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to Dorn76

that is encouraging!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

October 23, 2009 3:05 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I just want to object upon behalf of all the feline avatars to the discussion of cat-skinning.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

October 23, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I hate that term. How about more ways to skin a republican.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

bmull

October 23, 2009 11:25 AM

I applaud Pelosi for trying, but you can't pass this kind of major legislation when the President doesn't give a flying fuck. He's going to get nothing. We're going to get nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

October 23, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to bmull

Gimme a break. He doesn't give a fuck? That's why his aides have been all over saying he prefers that a public option be included.

Just WTF do you want him to do? Get out in front of microphones and say "I demand that a public option be included!" Will that satisfy you?

It will energize the Republicans and rightwing media like nothing else has, and the scaredy-cat Dems in the Senate will fold like a cheap suit.

Obama is working with the Dems he has, not the ones we wish he had.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

October 23, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to CT Voter

I think you are giving to much credit to Obama here. At the least I think he has not pushed hard enough. I don't mean a veto line in the sand or anything, just more a robust - if you will - public defense and campaign for a PO. If in the end he had to compromise it away, I wouldn't hold it against him. But I haven't seen that effort.

Worse, I have seen indications that the WH may have cut a deal with insurers months ago to neuter or kill the PO, such as Robert Reich and the FDL web site have written about. Maybe they are wrong. I hope so. But my reading of the tea leaves at this point offers more evidence for this than for some theory that he has a secret behind-the-scenes plan and campaign for a real progressive PO.

Let me repeat. I pray I am wrong and I will be willing to eat as much crow as any Obama defender wants if I am.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

October 23, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to rwc

I don't think we'll know until this is over just what role Obama actually played. I guess I'm somewhat more optimistic than others that he is playing a role. Although, as Indie Pro has pointed out, there's precious little evidence to suggest how strongly he's actually advocating.

I guess I have a hard time acknowledging that someone who campaigned so strongly on this issue is selling out to insurers. Perhaps I'll look back someday and laugh at my naivete. Hope not.

I don't read FDL any longer--too much faux outrage for my tastes--similar to what goes on at Kos.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

October 23, 2009 1:24 PM in reply to CT Voter

To be honest, I don't read FDL very often either, I just don't have the time after reading the Boston Globe, NYT and TPM and Salon. I've mainly only read their pieces on this subject.

But after reading them and Reich on this supposedly deal-cutting, I've found a close reading of NYT accounts, in particular, gives circumstantial evidence that they may be right. I think the NYT's reporters have some of the best WH access and they have repeatedly thrown cold water on the chances of the PO. I think that is coming from their off the record conversations with the WH.

My main hope that this will change is that public pressure has grown in support of the PO and it may force them to change their plans. But I suspect we will get the weakest plan they can still label as a PO.

But, as you say, we shall see.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

October 23, 2009 12:50 PM in reply to bmull

Another trolling liar is amongst us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

oleeb

October 23, 2009 11:25 AM

What exactly does "robust" public option mean in this context? Does it mean it remains a pale shadow of a real public option open only to those who are unemployed or whose employers don't offer any insurance? Does it mean a national government run alternative to the insurance parasites that anyone can choose to be a part of if they don't wish to continue overpaying for rotten private insurance?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

October 23, 2009 11:42 AM in reply to oleeb

I'm pretty sure in this context "robust" means reimbursement at Medicare +5% rates, whereas non-"robust" (anaemic?) means reimbursement at negotiated rates.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

oleeb

October 23, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to agio

That's not really my question. I'm wondering who gets the option? Who is eligible? If only a very, very small number of persons have the option available to them it isn't a very significant or robust option at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to oleeb

the lack of details sucks, for sure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

October 23, 2009 11:54 AM in reply to oleeb

Assuming the PO makes it into the final bill I'm sure it will start out with a pretty narrow segment of the population being eligible, namely people who are on the individual insurance market.

However I am hoping this will just be a start, and something like Sen. Wyden's "free choice rider" will come into existence. (That is: if you don't like the insurance your employer provides, you can take a voucher for its monetary value and spend it on the exchange for any other plan, including the PO.)

What is important right now, IMO, is to get some sort of a public option passed, and preferably one that reimburses healthcare providers at a higher level than Medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

oleeb

October 23, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to agio

So, we are to support a very weak and not very widespread public option that won't even take effect for several years after passage and then sometime in an unknown future (after the weak public option is attacked, smeared, weakened even further by corporate Dems and Republicans in an attempt to discredit it on behalf of the insurance industry)hope that it might be expanded? Sounds like a pretty bad deal to me particularly if we have to swallow massive subsidies for the insurance industry in the meanwhile which only allows the parastites to grow wealthier and more powerful. Smells like a doublecross to me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

October 23, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to oleeb

Whine,whine whine. If the thugs were in office, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Buck up folks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

oleeb

October 23, 2009 10:55 PM in reply to lousgirl84

And that really is what needs to be looked at. What good does this conversation do us? Are we any better off with this insurance subsidy bill than we would be if the Republicans gave the insurance parasites 100% of what they want versus the Democrats who are giving them a mere 90%? It isn't whining at all. It's disgust that we are being sold a bill of goods on the whole thing. Instead of doing what is right, we have to spend a trillion dollars bribing the insurance companies to let us pass a bill that won't really help the common people at all. How is that a good thing again?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

October 23, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to oleeb

Unless someone can figure out a way to replace 5-10 Democratic Senators toute suite, we are certainly going to have accept some kind of compromise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

October 23, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to oleeb

Everything I've read indicates the PO, robust or not, will only cover a small number of people in the individual market or in small businesses, not those with large employer-provided insurance.

What's needed in Sen. Wyden's choice plan in combo with a robust PO, but I've seen no indication it's in the works.

Instituting a Wyden-like plan would be difficult and disruptive to the current employer-based system. Most large employers negotiate with insurers and offer them exclusivity in exchange for discounted rates. If suddenly employees of large firms could choose among dozens of options, that exclusivity deal and the discounts go away. I think it needs to be done but it's certainly not as simple as many think.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 12:50 PM in reply to rwc

as more and more employers increase employee pay portions, or drop coverage or the amount of coverage due to premiums skyrocketing - It could also be disruptive in a postive vein, freeing US businesses from this burden as they compete in a global market.

Of course, I agree, it needs to be studied and doen well, but it shouldn't be kicked down the road, and ignored at this stage.

That's my opinion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

October 23, 2009 1:06 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I agree and I hope that it isn't kicked down the road. What's also interesting is that Wyden's amendment, which I believe started as only creating a national choice option among private plans as Congress now has, actually has many Republican supporters, attracted to its free-market approach. Though they would probably reject it with a PO included.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

October 23, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to rwc

Exactly, the PO is for those people now with no insurance. Makes sense to me. Most americans who have insurance seem to like their insurance (according to all the polls) so why would they want to change unless they became uninsured.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

October 23, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Because they are not satified. I'm not satisfied with my large employer's single choice (we used to have 3 choices, then 2 and now one) which seems to get worse and far more expensive every year -- and that's story I hear from many.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

theswan

October 23, 2009 11:26 AM

Nothing! Correct!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

theswan

October 23, 2009 11:29 AM

"Robust" is the oxy. It's intended to fool you. Don't be a fool. It's easy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

sbv

October 23, 2009 11:38 AM

i too applaud pelosi for trying; but i have come to the realization we have been played big time! just as with the pea in the shell game con, while we have been pushing for the public option, we have taken our eye off what the overall bills now being debated do not address - namely, the understaffed hospitals, the rationed care dictated to the primary care docs, the inflated health care costs demanded by the health care monopolies for their own taxpayer funded reimbursements.

we played right into the health insurance industries and their greed driven investors hands. while we have waited to see what barack was or wasn't going to do, while we have been pushing for the public option; like nero, we have been fiddling while rome burned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

oleeb

October 23, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to sbv

Excellent observations! And who is the big winner if the bill passes? The insurance industry with it's millions of new customers forced to buy their rotten product.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 11:49 AM

This whole thing does not speak well for the Democratic Party.

Especially with the supposed CBO scoring and the common sense part of the whole thing.

But, again, I must say that Speaker Pelosi has gone a long way to mending her image in my eyes from the days of "off the table".

I'd like to see her fighting to get Insurance back under anti-trust laws, and work to strengthen regulations that would offer a check to Insurance Companies and Premiums.

Also, since we haven't seen her details on the PO she is fighting for, I hope it is offered to most Americans if not all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

October 23, 2009 12:35 PM in reply to Indie Pro

This whole thing does not speak well for the Democratic Party

No. It doesn't. The extent to which they are a) spineless or b) bought and sold by opponents of insurance reform is depressing.

Also, since we haven't seen her details on the PO she is fighting for, I hope it is offered to most Americans if not all.

Not only should it be offered to most Americans (which I bet it won't), but it should also take effect in 2010 or 2011 at the latest, and not in 2013. What is with that bullshit, anyway?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 12:40 PM in reply to CT Voter

My greatest fear at this point is they are playing their cards close to their chest (not delivering details), and drawing this out, to shorten the time the bills can be digested and potential problematic aspects, like availability, subsidies, anti-trust laws, regulations, etc can't be argued.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

October 23, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro

That makes about as much sense as anything I've read, actually. As you said in another thread, this is a no-brainer from a Democratic standpoint, so why all the delay? So they can get something, anything, through, and dress it up with lipstick.

(Sorry for the mangled metaphor. I guess I'm less hopeful now than I've ever been about the chances of meaningful reform. You're making too much sense.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 12:59 PM in reply to CT Voter

it's not over. take heart.

Even when we finally see the merged bills, it ain't over.

Once details of the bills are released, hopefully we'll see action that flows towards meaningful reform.

I think most of the trumpeting about the PO is really about affordability, coverage, and regulation -and you'll see those subjects brought to the forefront once they lay their cards down.

But I wonder if they are trying to shorten the length of time for most people to offer opinion and suggestion. Unfortunately, that gets in the way of the, "we'll have it this year" desire.

But you fight the good fight. A tree hugging progressive liberal living in the heart of Texas can't be shy or worried about losing a fight.

I'm still hopeful!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwc

October 23, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to Indie Pro

You live in Texas? Politically speaking, anyway, you have my sympathies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

October 23, 2009 1:37 PM in reply to rwc

Yeah. I love this place, though. Someone has to fight the stupid!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

October 23, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to CT Voter

If it takes this long to pass a bill, I can understand how it could take that long to implement it. I can only imgine the bureauocracy and red tape to get it all legal. I do remember Obama saying that they would have a plan to get people covered in the interim.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

bill

October 23, 2009 11:56 AM

Without a robust public option, there will be no real reform - yes, the insurance industry will have lots of new 'mandated customers' and they'll like that (but the American citizens wont , because they will have no choice and guess who did it to them? THE DEMOCRATS!) and, yes, the insurance industry will have lots and lots of lobbyest (last count 6 for every 1 congressman and woman) to manipulate future the federal rules for the benefit of the insurance industry and to the detriment of American citizens, but, that's pseudo-change, change you scoff at, not 'Change You Can Believe In'. The primary consideration for Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats should be the effect of the reform on American citizens - and for American citizens' to have a choice, there must be a robust public option. After all this agony, publicity, visibility – and with the very real consequences for American citizens - Pelosi, Reid and Democrats cannot risk screwing the public with pretend Health Care Reform. While I appreciate all the commentary on 'other options', it is simply the case, that there will not be real Health Care Reform without a robust public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

October 23, 2009 12:19 PM

The Politico is the web equivalent of FoxNews.

Anyone remember their Summer 2008 predictions about a McCain "blowout"?

Typically a Politico story consists of *ONE* cowardly anonymous "source" who is presumably a GOP operative seeking to smear or spin. They type it up with all the "sources say" caveats, and voila -- Spin accomplished!

Just take anything from Politico (or GOPolitico) with a huge grain of salt. It's some sort of Republican spin meant to attack the Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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