I couldn’t agree more with the progressives.

Wasn’t Energy & Commerce scheduled to have a mark-up meeting today at 4 EST? I am planning to live-blog it for the cause. Keep us informed. Many Thanks!

If true, this is good…
OTHO, where the HELL have they been over the last 6 weeks? Other than telling FDL et al “la la la la, can’t hear you…”?

So…how do we help them grow a spine at this point? How do we get them to be just as tough as Blue Dogs?

FunnyWheelieDiva

Is the final bill going to be so Insurance Co. friendly that it not passing might the best for now. Obama is essentially a conservative, he is not on our side.

More and more progressives are figuring out he is far worse than what HRC would have been as prez.

I’m happy that the progressives are sharing their feelings about being frustrated, and I sympathize with their feelings of marginalization.

So here, once again, is something very concrete they could actually do:

Proposed resolution for the Congressional Progressive Caucus

WHEREAS the Congressional Progressive Caucus has evaluated the “public option” in HR 3200;

WHEREAS the CPC has determined that the “public option” in HR 3200 is not “robust”;

WHEREAS HR 3200, therefore, is just another Massachusetts-style bailout for the health insurance industry;

WHEREAS a Massachusetts-style debacle on a national scale will set back the movement for universal coverage under a single-payer system;

WHEREAS the CPC has repeatedly put Democratic leaders on notice that they intend to vote against legislation with a weak “public option”; therefore be it

RESOLVED that the Congressional Progressive Caucus members will instead support an amendment to HR 3200 that replaces HR 3200’s language with that in HR 676, The United States National Health Care Act.

I’m dealing with things as they are, not things as they might have been. A pointless exercise!

I still ask – if the public will not get street-wise about the public option, and the Senate and House are pawns to the moneyed interests, what makes you think that simply announcing a push for single-payer will suddenly invigorate the masses? I mean, what are the mechanics behind making this happen? Why would “we” or “they” suddenly take to the streets and swarm the Congress? Why would the dollar-folks suddenly be overcome by a single-payer push? Do you think that they would walk off the battlefield because of… what?

Huh, what a surprise. I wonder if Beutler thinks they might have had more influence up to this point if the Progressive Caucus as a whole had taken the FDL pledge and thrown their weight around like the Blue Dogs. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me the PC is shedding crocodile tears because their constituents are really steamed and now they have to put up a good show. Kabuki anyone? I can’t wait to hear my own rep’s sob story, it should be a real howler…

Submitted too fast. Should have said “the President we have…” Oopsie.

Well, we have to start somewhere. My thought is that blogs with big megaphones might be helping people get “street-wise.” It’s never too late to do the right thing! Otherwise, I guess we’ll just have to see what the grassroots can bring!

My point is this – Why are the words “Single-Payer” magical? Why do those words command any more activist energy than any other words, like “public option”?

I think we would benefit greatly from a “Single-Payer” system in the U.S., and I don’t think you will find much disagreement in these pages. But is there a reason to believe that utterance of “Single-Payer” will force the insurance companies and others with a financial interest to withdraw? I would posit that if “Single-Payer” were the battle, it would make the to-date high-dollar efforts combating the “public option” look like funding a scout troop.

So why do these magic words command more activism? Do you disagree, that “Single-Payer” is NOT a greater threat to the hegemony of the industry? Why would they simply lie down when those words are spoken, instead of redoubling their slimeball campaigns to confuse and frighten the public?

“Magic words”? What are you talking about?

Seconded.

If the PC would have taken the wonderfully crafted pledge at the beginning of July, we could have spent the month pounding the blue dogs.

You know, why is a push for “Single-Payer” more likely to succeed than another idea? And how do you – and I mean you and me and the rest of us – make that happen? Why would there be more activist energy behind “Single-Payer” than, say, “Public Option?”

Is there something behind the words “Single-Payer” that give you confidence that you could push that scheme over the hill more easily than “Public Option?”

You have spent a lot of time pushing the idea that the “Public Option” is the wrong path, and if we took the right path (”Single-Payer”) that it would succeed. I want you to explain why.

Cause it sure isn’t in the language. Or am I wrong?

It has to start somewhere, even crocodile tears. But you know, they may start to like it!

I agree with lambertstrether on what to do. As for the words, I don’t think we talk about single payer. Instead, we need to talk about “Medicare for All” and talk that up all we can over the next month. “Medicare” is very popular, at once much more popular than “public option” and much easier for people to understand.

As for the mechanism, we have to use social media of all kinds to alert people to the “sell-out” in health care going on in Washington and to ask them to join us to stop it. We have to deliver the message that coops are a sellout, that mandates forcing people to buy insurance from private companies that will soak them are a sellout, and that public options that won’t take effect until 2013 are a sellout, that the idea of a public option is itself a sellout, and that the only thing that is not a sellout is Medicare for All.

Now this won’t make the insurance industry and its hired guns back off or fight any less hard, but it will make Congressmen and Senators realize that this is personal with us, and that if they vote against the interests of their constituents; they are going down in the next election.

Fair enough.
I am still interested to hear from Lambert and other “Single-Payer” absolutists about how this actually gets done.

The chatter around here these last few weeks suggests that if we pushed “Single-Payer” over all other options, it will happen.

I would like to ask this, though – If you were to confine possible outcomes to two – “Single-Payer” and the “Public Option”, telling the powerful money interests that it would be one or the other, which do you think they would fight against?
Do you think they would choose a competitive arrangement, or do you think they would choose obsolescence?

The point is that as long as you avoid talking about the politics of this – the money spent on advertising in districts, the campaign contributions aimed AT and aimed AGAINST candidates who are variably for or against a particular proposal, and the storm of pro and con arguments made in video media, you are free to suggest any damned plan you like.

But once you enter the fray and admit that the politics are as much a player as the constituients, you are confronted with the following:
YOU HAVE TO SELL IT.
And you have to sell it to people who are bombarded with hundreds of millions of dollars of confusing and scary advertising, who’s Congressional Representatives are pinned by the enormous amounts spent for or against them in their districts and are utterly compromised.

And once you have sold it, you have to rally them to confront their Representatives and Senators in their districts and in DC, and they must be relentless to the point where considerations of campaign cash are set aside by the pols, in favor of “doing the public business by performing public service.” Do you have a plan for that?

Further, once you come to grips with the surety that the efforts exerted thus far against a “public option” are kids play compared to what they would mount against “Single-Payer,” and that The President is affirmatively against “Single-Payer,” then you can explain how supporting “Single-Payer” makes any sense at all.

That said, The President, for a while anyway, supported a “strong public option” and I think we should hold him to his word. If you don’t like it, I suggest that you elect a Liberal.

I wish you success. I really do. I think “Single-Payer” would be the best solution.

It’s time those 76% of people started getting angry. If tea baggers can get people in the streets over silly wing nut issues, why can’t progressives get 38% (half of 76) of people to act. Call! Fax! Write Letters! Go to Town Meetings! Call is sick if you have to. We need a national strike, A Blue Flu for the Dog Days. Congress should spend every minute of it’s ‘recess’ getting an ear full from every single one of us!

Lets hope so! : )