I was advised by someone over at The Seminal to go jump in a lake. I figure Firedoglake will do. If Obama is not going to stand firm and take a position, the cause is lost. He has to take the lead in a matter like this.

Interesting article on the “bait and switch” tactics used to sell the “public option” (or “plan”). Started out being Medicare-like with 130 million enrollees, but, you know… Oh well.

NOTE A minor copy editing inaccuracy. The sentence that reads:

Here was Obama on a conference call with bloggers yesterday:

Should be revised to:

Here was Obama on a conference call with supporters yesterday:

Or, to be less tendentious, the wording that dday used in his lead:

Here was Obama on a conference call with some bloggers yesterday:

Given, that, so far as I can tell, no single payer advocates were invited, it does seem that the guest list was, well, selective.

Who invited who?

I am going to say this as nice as I can – FUCK THEM. It is time to slap the piss out of these idiots.

From a 538 story posted by Blue Texan this morning

More generally, progressives are doing very well among almost all growing demographic groups, while conservatives are retaining strength only where the country is stagnating or declining.

The country as a whole is trending progressive. Few if any of the Blue Dogs will have serious reelection challenges by voting for the popular plan. If their seats are secure and they don’t need lobbyist money, why do they feel the need to vote against the people?

Jane, I think that you are exactly right with your analysis:

“The easiest political path to passing health care is still running the “co-op” crunch. Regardless of what the House does, the Senate can pass Conrad’s shitty fake co-op. The Blue Dogs band together and refuse to vote for anything else, and that’s what comes out of conference. There’s a PR blitz to sell it as a “public plan” (which is why we’ve worked so assiduously to define it as NOT a public plan), and in a rush to get something passed, Rahm starts twisting progressive arms — which have been historically very easily twisted.”

I would bet this is precisely the approach “The Obama King” and his crew of con men are going to take – perhaps not exactly, but very close! Once again, Obama will throw the American people under the bus, and this criminal, bribery prone Congress will continue to do what they do best which is shovel “shit” into the mouths of the American people!

If their seats are secure and they don’t need lobbyist money, why do they feel the need to vote against the people?

I’m beginning to think it’s because they’re stupid, selfish, clueless asshats.

alank:

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant the people on the invitee list created by the White House political operation. Does that help?

Thanks for the clarification. I needed that as I was unfamiliar with the event. So, the White House filtered out single-payer advocates. Nice! Thanks for the heads up!

Btw, I wish to register my disapproval of the “Bomb Stark” title of a front page blog. It is totally inappropriate, imvho.

I will tell you that there are some instances of co-ops being set up and just having a very difficult time getting off the ground because they don’t have the scale and the resources to compete effectively,” Obama said of the approach

What did I say yesterday? Co-ops won’t work because they can’t achieve economies of scale and market share quickly enough. Did Obama listen to what he said? Does he understand what he said?

I guess we’ll find out at tomorrow night’s Bully Pulpit (TM) Sermonette.

I think we’re on the same wavelength, Alan. I want a single-payer structure. I’ll settle for a public plan that has the muscle to evolve into a de facto single-payer plan, but only because I have to settle for it.

220 years ago this month, stupid, selfish, clueless asshats in another country behaved in the same manner. Then, the people found a way to deal with them.

beginning?

Co-op is crap !
We want a bill with a pure public option ,the republican alternative is nothing more than a bail out for Insurance companies

No member of Congress or Senator in Arkansas has had an opponent from the other party since 1950.

I believe that was Congressman Stark’s view as well. I’m not against what he’s for.

The problem is that Congress will not go for immediate single payer. As you can see, it’s hard enough to get Congresscritters whose campaigns are paid for by health-industry lobbyists to accept even the public plan (which will eventually lead to single payer).

That being said, Obama’s got this pushed a lot farther along than the Clintons did. Even though the pro-industry forces pretty much own the media — especially the media that most American voters prefer — even more than they did in 1993. (Turn on your drive-time radio sometime and listen to what the talk jocks and jockettes have to say about health care reform. If you can find one that is a) for it and b) draws in lots of listeners, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.)

Wrote to my congressman,Dick Neal D-MA ,got a letter back thanking me for my interest in this matter, no commitment for a public option though !

Maybe time to bring back this site:

http://publicoptionisto.org/

“I’m beginning to think it’s because they’re stupid, selfish, clueless asshats.”

Yup. O/T, but I was listening to opening statements in the Bernanke hearing this morning. The committee members could not be more stupid, selfish and clueless. The axiom holds across all issues, apparently.

Tell them so — or better yet, write letters to their hometown papers telling them so. Those letters are read by hundreds of thousands of local voters, and are more effective than an out-of-state phone call (though those are fun, too).

The irony of what you say is that it was on Clinton’s watch that the FCC rules changed to allow total control of “public” airwaves by a couple of wingnut owners.

Write to your local papers about him. Feel free to crib from the talking points found here: http://campaignsilo.firedoglak…..blue-dogs/

On the day of the vote, pending the outcome, a rally in from of the Capitol with a few paper-mache guillotines might be appropriate to demonstrate the public’s displeasure.

(OT, forgive me
but today at noon ET, Bill Greider will be here to discuss his classic:
Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country )

That was the rule that Newt rammed through Congress the second he took over as House Speaker in 1995. Rupert Murdoch bought his aid in exchange for a $4.5 million book deal. (Now, remember, Newtie had led the charge against former Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright — and got Wright tossed out — over a $55,000 book deal!)

Clinton didn’t have much choice in the matter, IIRC, as Gingrich had enough warm bodies to override a veto.

(Ah, wait — I’m confusing that with the later act of 1996. Which Clinton rather stupidly backed, alas.)

The House needs to pass a strong public option. The only way to get prices to be reduced is to have a plan that can bargain nationally. I think we can see that the Senate is headed for state based-co-ops. They will not work because they don’t have the proper bargaining power. A government run public option would have proper bargaining power (and under the House bill could use Medicare rates plus 5% for most providers). That is really crucial to provide access. A state based co-op would suffer from states who cheap out in order to balance their budgets. Additionally, given states’ problems with budgets, now is certainly not the time to require more of state governments.

That’s the problem we face here. Does Obama have the will (or desire) to carry through a liberal program? To lead the Congress!

Thanks for the info
MoveOn.org also has a letter to the editor tool that is quite useful

The Republicans using the word/term “co-ops” is really something. Sounds like a bunch of socialist to me.

the insurance companies are going to spend millions hell maybe billions to scare the bee jeebers out of folks.

Scare tactics going wild. Wondering if there is any sort of fact check on Rachels, Olbermanns, or Matthews when Beck, Hannity etc keep spitting out the spin about health care reform?
http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/

Jane/All
Chair Bernanke talking about our money well our debts
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3_wm.aspx

It’s a little tacky, but I like it. And maybe real guillotines and paper maiche critters?

…under the House bill could use Medicare rates plus 5% for most providers

This is key, and I think why the AMA finally came around. Medicare’s not perfect, but it’s pretty darn good. Providers’ biggest beef is that they barely break even (generally speaking) on Medicare reimbursement. If you go 5 percent above, providers make money and people get health care. It’s a win-win for those who are directly involved in health care, i.e. providers and patients.

The Regooplicans are backing co-ops (to the extent that they’re backing anything, which ain’t much) because the HIA believes that co-ops will either be stillborn or die quickly.

Altmire says his definition of health care reform is “Improve the efficiency of the current system.” Jerk.

Might as well just let a Repug take back his district in PA – he’s useless.

Obama put the call out to all of us.
Bloggers ,commenters or lurkers ,get on the phone ,call your rep (especially if he or she is a Blue Dog)
write letters to the local papers call your friends and have them do the same.
Make noise lots and lots of noise , the public wants this, and our elected officials need to hear this loud and clear.

If we don’t get this now we may never get it !!

Yep, that’s the way it was always headed. Which was why we have been been trying to build a firewall in the House.

It’s damn hard to get people to understand that, and running ads against Senators who aren’t up for reelection is much more glitzy. Thanks to the folks here for following smartly and closely and getting it.

Go with him, Ally.

“Oh, okay Congressman Altmire. What do you mean by efficiency? Is it efficient to deny access to health care to 1/6 of our population except through Emergency Rooms? Is it efficient to expend 1/6 of our GDP on health and have population measures in the teens and twenties when we compare with other industrialized countries?”

I’m supposed to organize a letter-writing party for Saturday. I need to get on it and make sure it happens.

Any advice from the true progressives? I’ve been tasked by Obama’s Organizing for America, but I’d like to work in some better talking points than they’re likely to provide.

If concept was to put in place a single,nation wide healthcare co-op that presented access,membership and coverage which each co-op member could then use as needed with genuine income/needs testing pay-in schedules this is good.

That is a passable version of Single Payer.

However this talk of co-ops based within each state only is a pandora box waiting to open of rules,eligibility,generous/not generous playout that would confound/thwart would be members.

Which is surely what/how the private “for profit” insurers and related allies in current American healthcare regime would want/will want it to turn out. Killing any more movement towards American Single Payer Plan by having poisoned that idea with a co-op run amok/failing performance.

The bastards.

One national unified healthcare co-op? OK.

Fifty separate state co-ops? Pure co-op po-op.

So, it all hangs on the Congress bill, according to the cognoscenti. Are there no Republicans who would be easier to bring on board this firewall thingy than the DINOs?

I did press for more details but his staffer had no response on “does Congressman Altmire think it is fair to deny people health insurance due to pre-existing conditions?” Response – don’t know his position on that.

“Does Congressman Altmire think it is fair to deny people medical treatment when their insurance denies payment?” – don’t know his position on that.

“So what does Congressman Altmire think people without insurance due to job loss should do for health care? – - don’t know his position on that.

So Altmire does not have an alternative plan – he wants the for-profit insurance system to stay the same.

Have not watched Olbermann, Maddow or Matthews during the last two weeks. Would sure like to see one of these folks do a Glenn Beck.Hannity fact watch in regard to the fear tactics they are using to scare the bee geebers out of the American public about what Glenn Beck is referring to as a Health care “nightmare”

Is Glenn Beck one of those Faux Christians? You know those folks who hide behind those little crosses around their necks and go to church on Sunday but could give a rats ass about people who are suffering or those who do not have access to our health care system.

Glenn Beck protecting the rich
Watch Glenn Beck spin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCp_BOfYBzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCp_BOfYBzs

An argument for term limits.

I was a long time member of one of the first medical co-ops to exist: Group Health Co-op in Seattle, WA. It is now a heueuege entity and well, many locals now call it in jest, “Group Death.” This is because they have policies for such things as ~ not testing for suspected cancer, letting it develop and then sending the patient to the oncologist for their “last rights” because it is cheaper than treating it. An old doctor told me this …whose office was in exsitance simply to fix the mistakes of “Group Death.”

I can tell you, the European-like health care I have now in poverty is BETTER than anything I ever had there. And sometimes when I have gone to the clinic broke and without insurance they treated me better than anything I got from Group Death as a paid client.

Mind you, I had a good doctor for a long time, but he left in disgust as did many of his compatriots. It was then that I got a taste of what this co-op had really become.

Because I hoped that hopeful letters might also help, I wrote a letter to my senators letting them know that the health care I receive now is excellent with dedicated doctors who actually care about the patients they have and …guess what? The clinics are based on the “socialized model” not a co-op! I told them that I wanted them to know about these folks and how good they are. I told them that while something like Blue Cross would refuse me because i have “pre-existing conditions” that even if I had a choice to get their insureance, I would choose my present clinic, hands down. I already know something about the clinic I go to: When I was broke, they STILL cared, they did not put me out on the street!

BTW I wrote that letter to both Senators Marie Cantweel and Patty Murray and Senator Murray responded positively as she is asking for stories. In my email she said it was a good thing to hear positive stories as to what works. However, not a word from Cantwell. Senator Cantwell supports co-ops and considers them a “public option” (read cop-out for someone who is often clueless about the little guy) and I am sure she is getting lots of lobbying from “Group Death” who would LOVE to be a model for other states!

I understand that co-ops on a state-by-state basis is the issue, not just the quality of care as well. It would just weaken the need for something better and able to take on all citizens. It would only enable these rich insurances to go in there and decimate co-ops on our tax dollars and make even more money off our backs. No! Just take it from an ex-co-op patient. At one time this was a good idea when they let doctors actually BE doctors. But not now. It is sure death for the patient.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

I saw an ad last night that was disturbing. It showed a Canadian woman who had had a tumor removed in the US. She had been told in Canada she would have to wait six months and the ad said she would have died if she had waited. The reason the ad disturbed me is what it said fit four square with my understanding of the Canadian system (which will become the US system if health care reform is passed).
Maybe we should say “wait a minute let’s think about this.” Are we going off half cocked?
To borrow an expression Obama has used a few times maybe we should just kick the can down the road a few more years and get all our ducks lined up.
The last thing we want to do is mess up the part of health care that is working in this country.

DING!

The best form of term limits is not to re-elect them.
Gets rid of the bad ones, and the good ones can be kept around for a while longer.

I live in Jim McDermott’s district, WA-07, and I’m sure he is a safe vote for the public option, but I don’t understand why Jay Inslee, WA-01, hasn’t taken the pledge. He lost his seat in 1994 when the Dems couldn’t get their act together to pass the Clinton health care bill. Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA, was a Congresswoman in 1994 and she also got bounced that year. She has been squishy on the public option but appears to be coming around. I think I’ll send them a reminder of what happened to them the last time.

Yes, but with a Congressional approval rating of 13 or 14% and a re-election rate of over 90% clearly the system isn’t working properly. Way too much advantage for the incumbant. We do need some longevity so limits of maybe three terms in the Senate and six or seven in the House should do it. California made the mistake of limiting they members to six years. That’s too short.
We definitely need term limits.

I heard just a bit of that ad on NPR this morning and I would like to know more details about this woman and her tumor. I have many, many relatives in Canada and not one of them would trade health care systems with us.

What I hear from them is that there can be frustrating delays, but NEVER with life-threatening stuff. And for those who like to talk about Canadian delays, I challenge you to make an appointment with your current doctor for tomorrow morning. A lucky few might be able to get in on such short notice, but I suspect most of us will be looking at at least a week or two before we can get in.

Thanks for the additional info.
I guess it’s a PR war at this point.

Breaking News: The latest GOP talking point to kill health care:

The government is going to make private coverage illegal.

See for yourself.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2233

But here we are again, trying to fight the war on ‘nobody wants any other health care system but the one that doesn’t work right here in the States’. Honestly, I’m getting tired of a debate with folks whose facts are suspect. Either the Canadian system is good or it isn’t.

This whole health care system battle is already lost because the obstructionists view it as a way to defeat Obama (making it his ‘Waterloo’, is that what I heard?). I’m sick of the debate – so sick i might have to use my $ 555 a month health insurance to get inoculated.

That said, I would really and truly like to see substantive debate – not name-calling or fear-mongering. I also don’t want to see something rushed through with little or no thought behind it. I don’t want it to be a PR war, as torgo2009 said.

Term limits or no, there are no statesmen anymore. We’re getting what we’ve voted in to office and they’re not listening because they don’t have to – no one’s making them and I see no recall efforts initiated to get rid of the bad ones. Most of these folks end up running unopposed with either no opposition or opposition that’s so anemically financed that they may’s well not be running.

I’d like to see a system that won’t break the bank, that takes the onus of coverage off employers so insurance is portable, and that doesn’t cost more to administrate than it does to actually provide care. Why is this so difficult?

When you examine the internals on those polls, people approve of their Congresscritter, it’s all the other sons-of-bitches that are the problem.

And term limits are worse than the incumbency problem. A large part of the incumbency problem is due to politicians being allowed to shop for constituents in the redistricting process. In most of the country (everywhere the State Lege does the districting) the first rule of map drawing is, “Protect the incumbents.” The second rule is, “Improve my district.” The third rule is, “Help out my party.”

You will notice that none of these rules are, “Draw districts with meaningful geographies”, nor “Draw competitive districts”. When safe districts are drawn, the primary election of the dominant party is the important election in the district. Primary elections draw out the party faithful. In the case of the Regooplican Party, the faithful are the tin-foil hat wearing batshit crazies. It’s part of the current problem in Congress: most of the voters are in the middle, but the middle is marginalized as much as possible by the districting process. To stay in office, incumbents have to win their primary. Regooplicans especially have to appeal the reality-challenged to win the primary. They have nothing to win (and everything to lose) by compromise.

This national debate on Universal Health Care started off on the wrong footing. Thusly, we, as Democrats, became our own shills. Had we established an Understandable Standard, we would have a basis for comparison on which to measure “medical care delivered”.

However, it’s still not to late to establish this ’standard’.

For all these many years, I have advocated the expansion of the VA’s Medical and Hospital Systemic. And as such, I ask all of whom have posted to this thread, “Have you ever visited the VA in your geographical area?”

And thus, my second question is, “Does Obama’s Public Option for an Insurance Exchange measure up to the history and success for “medical care delivered” done by the VA?”

I look forward to reading your responses.

Jaango

Jane and others who like to decipher legislation:

I’d like to propose a research project: Let’s find out whether the “public options” in the Senate HELP Committee bill and the House tri-committee bill really are different from the co-ops Baucus is considering. This little project is on my to-do list, but I haven’t had time to get to it.

Based on a quick reading of the “public option” sections of the two bills, I got the impression that the authors of both bills are not talking about a single national public health insurance program like Medicare, but about many insurance programs, serving only sub-national areas, run by non-profit “entities” that contract with the Dept of Health and Human Services. If this impression is accurate, then the question arises, what “entities” would DHHS want to contract with? What “entities” would be capable of cranking up a insurance company on short notice? The first “entities” that spring to my mind are the non-profit insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente headquartered in CA (and savaged in “Sicko”) and all the Blue Cross BS companies that remain nonprofit.

As I said, this is a half-baked impression only. I might change my mind once I reread some of those convoluted sections describing the authority of the “public option” program director. Obviously, if my suspicion is correct, the “public option” in the Senate HELP and House tri-comm bills will turn out to be just one more giveaway to the insurance industry.

I’ve got some other projects I have to deal with. If anyone else can do the research before I get to it, please do and tell us what you find.

Kip Sulllivan

The story you heard has been fact-checked and debunked. The woman in question had a benign growth, not a tumor and not malignant. Her life was not threatened, and she chose to come to the US rather than wait 6 months (which was clinically appropriate) for surgery.