I haz a confusion -

Jane,
I’m gonna sound like someone who just got here instead of one who has endeavored to follow the twists and turns closely . . .

oh, and out myself as a dumbass in the bargain

If, a primary motivation was to placate Stakeholders and keep them out of GOP coffers – how does a proposal that would give numerous states a PO help Rahm ??

…by giving the Stakeholders millions of new customers ?

this is embarassing, am having trouble getting this

p.s. WH gave it a passive-aggressive diss by saying ‘they hadn’t checked in on it yet’

from yesterday
Howard Dean – ‘I’d vote for it ‘

If, a primary motivation was to placate Stakeholders and keep them out of GOP coffers – how does a proposal that would give numerous states a PO help Rahm ??

If the PO is not very strong, not very viable, not available on day one (WTF 2013?), not user friendly, kind of expensive, exclusive (not inclusive), if the PO is only available in some states (think opt in vs. opt out) the weaker it can be made, the easier it is to kill.

Then, they’ll say, “see, it didn’t work”.

Doesn’t OPT-OUT help progressives in the long run. If states whou OPT-OUT want to OPT-IN at a later date because they see how nice it is will have to elect progressives. A great test of ideals do Red States have the guts to elect Affordable Healthcare vs Guns and Affordable Healthcare vs Taxes etc. Maslow would be curious, I’m sure.

I guess the OPT-IN requirement would be:

                                                      ELECT PROGRESSIVES!

thanks – but anecdotal reportage so far shows that it would be a fairly strong PO. and per the numbers, NY & CA alone could keep it from being “weaker”

“fairly strong PO”

damn – should have qualified that as Ezra strong

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Read my lips: Opt-out smopt-out, it’s all about what’s in the fuckin’ bill, stop followin the distraction and get a Mideicare plus 5% bill and it doesn’t matter what the tactics are to get the damned thing to a vote.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, DON’T SHOOT AT THE FRIENDLIES!!

Opt out states will see ads from big insurance:

All the blue state grandmas are dying before their time, the death panels, the waiting lines, the Frenchness, the Socialism, the medicare cuts…

Absolutely, Norske … this is one of many distractions put out by the Reichwing.

First they said no to any change, then they proposed a weak PO as the only sensible alternative and now they’re saying that a strong PO will only work in certain parts of America.

They’re whipped but they are still controlling the message. Medicare + 5% is nearer than ever !

To add: Go Jane Go !

Citizen TheLeftNut:

Now yer gettin’ it…the opt-out only makes the bill stronger and puts a bullseye on the fascists if it’s written narrowly enough to make it politically impossible for a governor to unilaterally opt-out…as long as the bill itself has a strong public, medicare option it doesn’t matter if it has a narrow opt-out!!! (As long as the SCOTUS doesn’t declare it unconstitutional.)

Yeah. But the PO infrastucture will exist and precedence established. I don’t know. If coverage is mandated, OPT-OUT is Unconscionable.

my belief is that this is the latest in the conservadem/rethug coordinated bright-shiny object scam. We’ve been here before, in this process. Carper or somebody like him floats some idea suggesting that it might attract enough support for a few bi-partisan votes or that it will make the conservadems happy or whatever. We waste time talking about it, detracting from the activism we should all be engaging it, then we find out that the people who proposed it never planned to support it in the first place. And too many liberal Congresscritters and online activists fall for the bright-shiny-object every single time. It doesn’t matter if its co-ops, triggers, state-insurance-commissioner-control-of-the-PO, the weak membership-limited PO, or, now, opt-outs. These aren’t honest trial baloons – this is more likely just the Congressional equivalent of concern-trolling. My suggestion is not to fall for it yet again.

The veal pen, or so many bawling calves. What is this “veal pen”?

CORRECT! AND

              As long as coverage for OPT-OUT states IS NOT MANDATED which is Unconscionable!

Sure has thrown a wrench in the progressive activist machine. That stinks of Rahm.

You are wrong about red state citizens revolting and eventually electing progressives. They would have no need to do so, since the cost of their mandated private insurance policies would be subsidized by the federal government. They won’t care who is footing the bill or that private insurance companies are receiving federal money – why should they?

So now you’re worried that the ‘public option,’ a program that almost no one is eligible for (see CBO), will only be offered by a few states? And the fact that you are still calling the damn thing a public option even though most Americans will not be able to choose it only underlines the absurdity of your situation.

Yet you peasants claim to be realists because your government/representatives will pretend to entertain the idea of a PO but never ever ever mention single-payer. I don’t know if that’s a joke but it is certainly laughable.

If you are Americans that truly care about other Americans, stop gambling on crumbs for a few and start demanding Medicare For All Americans: expand a program that already exists using a bill that is already written (HR 676).

One more day that the Village Lobbyists have sucked away. Just let our critters have a VOTE in Congress, whether it passes or not. Just one more dreadful idea by the friends of David Broder and Cokie Roberts and Mika.

Q: How many more dreadful ideas can these corporate lobbyists come up with?
A: As many as it takes to keep Goldman Sach in control of profitable privatized health care.

But I have another addition to the phony librul groups that also suck away any good ideas, such as CREW and DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE. Welcome to the PEN, NOW the National Organization for women.

David Letterman is so so so terrible, NOW is SHOCKED! But health care for women, NOW gives us those noisy *crickets*. And Taylor Marsh agrees with me.

Oh, grow up.

This is not the 1970s or even the 20th century any longer. Women have recourse if they’re sexually harassed at work, or should which is why Franken wrote his amendment, though there is no evidence so far that this was the case with David Letterman, who, by the way, is not an employee of CBS, for all of you writing that he should be “fired.” Besides, who’d drop someone with these ratings?

There is also such a thing as women going after a relationship that isn’t appropriate and could jeopardize their livelihood. Saying that there may be a “hostile” workplace or they’re afraid of getting fired, especially at the level of David Letterman’s show, is ludicrous. Unless you’re also trying to float that women are too weak to speak up for themselves.

welcome

here, try this

that is not quite what he said…..
the link is a must read.

. And Sam Stein reports that it is “gaining steam” among moderates.

How this was just announced recently does he have any polls or evidence to back up that statement?

Because it gets Rahm off the hook even if it undermines everyone who has been fighting for a public option.

Could failure on healthcare lead to Rahm being fired?

yea, and you can call Medicare for all–MedicAll.

none of us have accepted that particular version of the PO. We are for a strong PO, with rates tied to Medicare and widely accessible. That’s what I’m asking for and so far I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that we can’t get to it, despite the Rahmbot concern trolls telling us as much. I am not and have never been sold on 676, because of my preoccupation with cost control issues – in fact, I’m opposed to it, and I certainly do not believe that there is any way for those who are in favor of it to get it passed anyway. Which means it’s a moot point.

I am not a lawyer, would opt out violate the 14th amendment?

This is hideous.
Last week, when Cantwell demolished the GOP objections about ’states rights’ with her amendment, I felt like a key part of the wall protecting healthCo profiteers and medical fraud had been breached.

This week, it’s like watching the Titanic take on water, and what is the response? These fools can’t try to rearrange the deck chairs fast enough; pretty soon they’re going to be just a blur from trying to move so fast.

Here’s their chance to build a new ship, but they’d rather take us all to the bottom of the ocean because ‘it’s the ship they know’, rather than a ship that could actually function?!

It’s just ghastly to see this occur.

Then, they’ll say, “see, it didn’t work”.

agreed. and if that happens it means that the po will be, instead of a path to single payer universal healthcare, the means by which it will be prevented.

see scarecrow’s comment from earlier today:

The competitive pressure for states to opt back in, after opting out, is unlikely to materialize. The assumption is that competition will push prices down, but the incentive structure will induce private insurers to evade the regulations and push consumers out of coverage. The public option is their escape valve, and not having it makes a difference.

The WaPo had an excellent article earlier this week, making a point I’ve been making, that the private insures will use selective marketing, administrative hassles and poor service to discourage the higher-cost (usually older) patients. If the PO is present, they will tend to move towards the PO, which will also tend to drive up it’s costs/prices. That will be a problem, unless the risk-sharing arrangements work perfectly (but they won’t and you can bet the insurers will be lobbying on the inside to make sure HHS doesn’t enforce them).

But if the PO is not present, then those discouraged by the insurers’ tactics will have no place left to go. The insurers will maximize the 4:1 ratio allowed for charging higher premiums to older people, and they’ll get screwed or be pushed out of the system. The private insurers will settle into controlled competition with no pressure from a PO demanding the insurers abide by the rules against discrimination and fork over the correct amount of risk sharing dollars.

You can’t judge this proposal by assuming insurers will play fair and the logic will just convince people to do the right thing; you have to design a system knowing that people have powerful incentives to cheat and manipulate the rules and how the results are reported. High-risk consumers will be screwed, regulators will be misled, and the public will not know how it happened.

imo, if we’re lucky, the po, at least as conceived in current legislation, will be a partial refuge for catastrophic illness. that is all. no universal healthcare, no significant cost control, but still maybe a bit better than what we have now if too much money is not siphoned off from public health services for the needy (as has been happening in MA).

still, millions will be left with nothing (iirc, expect 17 million with hr 3200). and of course, with the mandates, it will be a massive subsidy for private insurers who will tend to get the healthiest customers and so may even come out ahead with this reform effort…. in a way, maybe that is for the best (with this reform model) because at least then there will not be so much pressure from them to kill the po.

iow, crumbs, very expensive crumbs. but for some people maybe lifesaving crumbs. hope we can afford them and hope that no one takes this model and attempts to apply it to medicare (which has been a worry by some healthcare policy experts).

Well, there could be a silver lining … if the opt-out states become places to which rabid wingsters flee then I say let’s allow the creation of these Health Free Havens where everybody has a gun a bible & tuberculosis.

And members of the Veal Pen are?

MoveOn, the ACLU, La Raza, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, Media Matters, HCAN or any of the unions in the AFL-CIO or Change to Win

If the PO is not very strong, not very viable, not available on day one (WTF 2013?), not user friendly, kind of expensive, exclusive (not inclusive), if the PO is only available in some states (think opt in vs. opt out) the weaker it can be made, the easier it is to kill.

Then, they’ll say, “see, it didn’t work”.

EXACTAMUNDO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Citizen dcblogger:

BINGO!! The only way an “opt-out” jepordizes a STRONG bill is if it’s found to be unconstitutional…but the opt-out can be removed on the floor by amendment as long as it’s just a tactic to get the damned bill to a vote. The “opt-out” is nuthin but a distraction…forget about it

I agree that the opt-out plan is a weakening proposition for the public option and hopefully it will die a quick death. But still, it is intriguing for its Trojan horse possibilities. Imagine if a strong public option is made available to all of America but most, if not all, of the regressive (red) states choose to opt-out in support of the private health insurance industry. The public option will still be available to a vast majority of the country thus giving it real bargaining power and a great chance to be wildly successful. Those red state voters might just notice how well it works and actually start thinking for themselves that they want it too. Could lead to red states going blue in the long run.

has AFL-CIO weighed in on this latest piece-o-crap ?

only if they agree to opt-out of the union and we can build a wall …. “Dear Governor Sanford, In reviewing past correspondence we realize that we never formally responded to your office’s letter of December 20, 1860 (since you bombed our fort shortly thereafter). We have now decided to accept your proposal. You may consider this acceptance of your proposal to include our acceptance of the immediate resignations of ex-Senator Graham and, pending Justice Department agreement, ex-Senator deMint (who may be designated an enemy combatant). We expect all of your nationals, including the members of your House delegation (including, especially, ex-Representative Wilson) to remove themselves from our borders within 24 years of your receipt of this reply. All Federal programs, personnel and funds will be withdrawn by the end of the year, and our ambassador will present his credentials to you shortly thereafter. Good luck.” /s

We are for a strong PO, with rates tied to Medicare and widely accessible.

Please link/quote the legislation that defines a ‘widely accessible’ PO.

Until then, I’m for rainbows and unicorns.

Norske and Petro -

we agree on the priority of Medicare+5

but I disagree on this as shiny-shiny. I think they mean it. I also think they are desperate motherfuc*s who are now busy throwing up something, anything to see what sticks.

this is Schumer as used car salesman who doesn’t want to show you the Car Fax

Don’t forget about. Make sure that your Congresscritters don’t vote for it. Keep those phones ringing. Senator Hagan’s has.

I’d prefer that the US decompose itself into decentralized bioregions governed by grassroots participatory democracy.

So this opt-out idea appeals to me even though I’m not of the Veal Pen.

Don’t know… just trying to get a firm grip on who exactly the veal marsala’s are.

cut it out with the “peasants” bit. first, because honest disagreement is no excuse for name calling. make the argument on the policy merits honestly and maybe you’ll persuade someone.

and btw, i think it’s more of a moral outrage that to leave 17 million with nothing, than it is to leave some states without a po. so count me among the very strong supporters of hr 676 for comprehensive universal healthcare. imo, single payer “expanded and improved medicare for all” is the policy that makes sense and the po in a multi payer system is stupid policy. but i know for a fact that supporters of the po policy are not stupid. or peasants.

jeeze, just show some respect please to those who disagree with you.

The bill is headed for a vote soon assuming Rahm can get the votes or else I expect another delay.
If anything Rham wants Opt Out voted on before real polls on this issue come out because there is a chance that the American People won’t like this plan.
So how much longer can Rahm delay a vote and does he have time to try another idea?
If Rahm is pressed for time he will start leaking to the press that its all our fault no deal was reached.

this is Schumer as used car salesman who doesn’t want to show you the Car Fax

good one, Cbl

I don’t understand how anyone can support ‘opt out’ when so many states have basically monopolies in health insurance.

What about that simple fact is too confusing for these people?

Because nobody wants to take responsibility for taking the public option out of the Senate bill. They’re desperate. It’s the best they can do.

But the point is — they don’t have to do anything.

I’m with you.

Citizen ThingsComeUndone:

“Could failure on healthcare lead to Rahm being fired?”

Answer: YES!

Further more, it’s time that we all realize that Obama owns whatever happens with this legislation and he and WE the people are in the same boat. The only way we lose politically and actually is if a weak, unworkable bill comes to a vote. If the strong bill gets to a vote it will pass, if a strong bill is fillibustered then only the fascists and fellow-traveler Blue Dogs lose and there will be reform before the next election, and if the bill is killed by vote, only those voting against it willsuffer and the next time it comes up it passes a legislature with no more fascists in a significant voting block.

The opt-out is another example which demonstrates the White House’s intent to kill the public option at any price, just as long as someone else’s name is on it. Nobel Peace Prize indeed. Whatever the people in Norway are drinking should be banned.

‘zup!

exactly who gets to opt out?
if individual persons get to opt out of public insurance, that is okay. they can.
if individual doctors get to opt out of treating people with public insurance, not so okay.
if individual states get to opt out on behalf of their residents, not okay at all.

why should my state get to decide that I, a resident in my state, cannot take part in a federal program?? am I not also a resident in the united states? does my state get to decide that I cannot take part in any other federal program? not good. not good at all. sounds very like excluding some folks of color from federal programs after the civil war. seems like we amended the constitution to take care of that kind of thing. now we want to re-introduce it??? equal protection means equal protection.

oh thank you.

I didn’t know people who identified themselves as 676 supporters felt good about calling people “peasants.” That’s pretty sneering, ugly and derisive, and as a 676 supporter myself, I think you should find another way to identify yourself so as not to tarnish the bill itself.

just trying to get a firm grip on who exactly the veal marsala’s are.

can’t tell from just looking at the policy they advocate — it could be an honest difference of opinion (policy or politics wise).

Citizen cbl2:

Get a strong Medicare public option to the floor for a vote…if it has a narrow “opt-out” it can be removed in conference or left in as long as it doesn’t allow for opt-out by referendum or unliateral opt-out by governors. The point of all of this is: GET A STRONG BILL TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE!!!

Listen to Howard Dean on this!

Yep, that’s right.

a working class hero is something to be

But you still haven’t provided the name of a single Senator who’s willing to vote with the GOP and filibuster a Democratic health care bill.

Nor have you provided 10 names of Democratic Senators who will vote against a public option.

You’re just shouting “states rights.” Which few people would find a “liberal” argument.

Ok worse thing that can happen a weak plan passes and Rahm declares victory and the Red States get to Opt Out.
Still there is to much attention on this issue to just say Opt Out has support and expect there to suddenly be enough cover to protect the Blue Dogs?
I’m thinking this is a spitball if this is all they got they got nothing.

I am not a lawyer, would opt out violate the 14th amendment?

Not unless the US Supreme Court decides that quality affordable health care is a fundamental constitutional right AND issues regarding whether that right has been violated due to discrimination are evaluated according to the same standard applied to discrimination in “suspect categories” like race and gender.

Discrimination is okay in other cases asserting civil rights violations due ro discrimination so long as there is a “rational basis” for it.

Funny!

Hi Jane!

Everyone should tell Harry Reid that a public-option “option” is simply not an option!

I’m going to send this letter to Reid today.

Language is a problem. I agree.

I won’t use peasant when you stop calling this legislative sleight of hand that offers no choice to most Americans a ‘Public Option.’

Citizen Hamsher:

EXACTLY!! No one wants to be responsible for takin’ the public option out of the Senate bill…so get a God damned bill with a strong public option to the floor for a vote even if it has an “opt-out” that isn’t and “opt-out”. It can always be cleaned up in conference. Don’t spend anymore time on this fuckin distraction…I’m puttin my money on Howard Dean’s analysis of this. As a matter of fact, I’d like to see Howard Dean as Chief of Staff after this mess is all over and Rahm is hung out to dry!

Californians following this issue and mistakenly assuming that an opt-out provision is a good thing should reconsider.

Since the California legislature requires a 2/3 vote for anything to pass, the wingnuts who have over 1/3 of the votes will block any effort to bring any public option to California.

Put differently…California is a Blue state that would probably NOT get a public option if “opt-out” is allowed to pass.

geeawd I hate risking nordic flames, but from what I’ve read from the sane people, if this gets in, it aint comin’ out in Conference – cw says Conference is the Senate’s world, and the House just lives in it

doesn’t mean our progressive cadre in the House can’t put the kibosh on the final bill

I’m with the Lake on this I think its wrong to say some people get healthcare and others don’t but Opt Out as Jane is noting can’t find a single Senator willing to go on the record in support of it.
1) That means Rahm is not coordinating even with the Blue Dogs or
2) even the Blue Dogs would not go for it unless he first created public support which at this late date seems unlikely.
I’m leaning toward 2

It can always be cleaned up in conference. Don’t spend anymore time on this fuckin distraction…I’m puttin my money on Howard Dean’s analysis of this. As a matter of fact, I’d like to see Howard Dean as Chief of Staff after this mess is all over and Rahm is hung out to dry!

You think that’s what Schumer is after, getting a bill out of the Senate with a public option and cleaning it up in conference?

Howard Dean for Chief of Staff!

Citizen slowereastside:

There’s room in this foxhole for everyone unless they you shootin’ at friendlies…for God’s sake man, don’t cut your head off because you’ve got a headache!!!

But you still haven’t provided the name of a single Senator who’s willing to vote with the GOP and filibuster a Democratic health care bill.

Jane, I always thought that votes were counted up, not down. If the votes are there, great. I’d love to be wrong about this.

Does this question accomplish anything more than me retorting “But you still haven’t provided the name of 15 Senators who will add their names to the 30 + leadership to get us to 50?”

Nor have you provided me with the names of the Democratic leaders who will crack heads for voting with the GOP on a filibuster.

Gotta say, in my decades of watching American politics, since the summer of Watergate when I was 12, this has to be the most pornographic exercise in democracy that I’ve seen…everything is on full display for all to see, full monte is an understatement, for better and for worse.

uh, you may wanna catch my link at 2 above

Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is ready for our perusal: “Erick Erickson: Obama Won the Nobel Prize Because He’s Black”

I just left the following comment at CNN’s political ticker story “DNC targets ‘radical’ GOP lawmakers”

http://politicalticker.blogs.c…..lawmakers/

If the insurance companies win, YOU LOSE
October 9th, 2009 1:22 pm ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The DNC should do a series on the Faces of the Blue Dog, Republican-lite Democrats (who just are intellectually and morally bankrupt as the Republicans).

One way to wake the Blue Dogs up is to help bring health care to thousands of uninsured Americans in their states, even if only for a day.

Please consider donating to The National Association of Free Clinics, which has already begun to help thousands of fellow Americans.

Click here to donate to The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) !

Hopefully, it’ll be approved by the moderators.

Citizen cbl2:

I’ll ignore the “from what I’ve heard from the SANE people” remark and just tell ya that, no matter what Candi Crowley says, Howard Dean ain’t insane. Read what he had to say on this and then tell me who’s not sane. (You dodged a hot one cbl2…if it weren’t for Howard Dean your ass would be crispy!)

Didn’t see it. Not good. I’ll just let NorskeFlamethrower (see comment at 62 above) fight the good fight in defense of Howard Dean, who is in fact a strong voice for liberals and progressives.

lol. I was speaking of Sane Hamsher among others and certainly not the very serious Ms Crowley

and I’ll go back and re-read Dean’s tacit endorsement on this, was awfully po’d when I saw it yesterday, so maybe I misunderstood where he was going with it

I dunno selise.. seems like that unity cabal letter… sure earned a veal pen demerit badge for those linked / listed.

I won’t use peasant when you stop calling this legislative sleight of hand that offers no choice to most Americans a ‘Public Option.’

The correct term is serf, as far as I can see.

With all the hoopla re public option, opt-out,etc., I’m very surprised that no one is mentioning ““Remember there will be four years and two elections before the reforms go into effect.” (from here)

THAT is the TRULY outrageous part of this whole claptrap where single payer(Medicare for All) STILL hasn’t been scored by the CBO.

Way more people than expected have signed the petition to tell Harry Reid to strip all leadership titles from any Democrat who joins with Republicans to keep health care reform from coming to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote!

The number is now over 39,000!

Click here to see the petition and sign it!

Simply put, no. If the the Congress authorizes a state’s right to opt out, it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional.

I have an alternative theory. What if there are no Democrats willing to join a Repbulican filibuster? What if they really are all on board to vote for cloture?

“There must be!” you say, “They keep claiming they don’t have 60 votes!”

They don’t. Byrd’s not there. And maybe they know he’s not coming back.

I don’t follow your logic. Please can you clarify?
In CA it’s an opt-out that must pass the state legislature. The PO (Pissants Offering to the Pheasants Only )is not opt-in.

Tax increases require a super majority.
Tax decreases require a simple majority.

However this leads to a question that’s been lurking in my mind for a while–

If the “fine” for not having insurance is, say $3800, does than make this new system tax the first $4500 (Pheasants Option + SS) or so of income at 100%?

I do believe the PO is not the Public Option, but the Peasants Offering (aka crumbs from let them eat cake), and it would be very effective to call is such.

Does shielding income for house payments but not for house rent violate the 14th Amendment? (end of snark interruption)

which letter are you referring to (sorry, iirc there has been more than one and i may have missed some). and do you mean the senders of the letter or those who received it? jmo, but receiving a letter/email/message is not by itself enough to conclude complicity. i’d certainly be wary though.

and btw, i’ve been calling hcan a con for about a year. that one was obvious (multiple reasons) from the get-go.

here ya go.

have to step away for a while.

hr 676 needs more than the fake scoring the cbo has been doing this go around. fed budget costs are NOT the whole story, or even the most important issue. total national expenditures are a critical component of real scoring (more here) and something the cbo used to do.

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

Winston Churchill.

Peter Gabriel – Steam

a clear and peasant danger.

thanks! me too (have to step away) but will be back to read. later!

The correct term is serf, as far as I can see.

Yeah, that works.

Hey, since you don’t seem to be choking on the Kool-Aid, maybe you can help: show me the legislation that PO supporters are fighting for?

Medicare +5% gets thrown around a lot but who will have access to that program? Small businesses? Which ones? Individuals? At what income levels? What does this coverage look like? How is all of this defined?

I contend that PO supporters really don’t know what the hell they are arguing or fighting for. Of course they have demands, I support a lot of them, but there is no legislation that addresses those demands. The PO that everyone from the posters here to Howard Dean argue around does not exist in Congress. It’s effectively a myth.

Meanwhile, HR 676 is real –real legislation that builds on a real program. A lot of PO people claim they support 676 but they spend their time fighting for the myth. Forget the real, work for the myth. The PO people claim that the PO is more realistic because Congress, who more or less refuses to discuss 676, will at least say no to the mythical PO. It’s a process, you see. Medicare was passed over 40 years ago, so we’ve got a lot of time to discuss the next step. And if we’re lucky, the country will be broke or we’ll all be dead and the problem will basically solve itself. Now that’s a change I can believe in!

This Opt out thing is compelling at first glance, but on closer inspection it looks more like the old “dilute, divide, and conquer” strategy. Look at the arc of this whole battle. What works best for the Health insurance monopoly is increasing complexity. We all agree that Single Payer Medicare for All is the EASIEST to understand and implement. It’s simple and ultimately deadly for the monopoly. In the other direction, the PO in whatever form is more complicated and made even more so by the time you factor in all these opt-in, opt-out state legislatures, armies of lobbyists, insurance commisioners, inevitable state “assessment panels,” etc., etc. All this plays in to the hands of the insurance monopoly. It’s confusing and keeps the power and the $$$ in their hands.
Also, I was moved by Margaret’s argument yesterday who made a case that she didn’t want to be marooned by the Opt out thing because she is a Prog in Texas w/ health issues and no insurance. I don’t accept the validity of those who think that people in OPT out states will just up and move to an opt in state. That’s just not feasible for a lot of people and those folks shouldn’t be punished.
At any rate Progs should certainly not cave and give away this card at this stage of the game. We should try to kill it and only consider using it as a bargaining chip as a last resort, at the end of the game and after all the details are known. Finally, I like Howard Dean but he’s not God and is capable of misassessing this muddy situation just like anyone else.

Jane,

You are spectacular! Great work, keep up the pressure!

Understood but the postponement of enactment(actually doing something) -”“Remember there will be four years and two elections before the reforms go into effect.”- is something I haven’t seen any ‘outrage’ over and find it hard to believe (in fact, incomprehensible) that so many are willing for this charade to be played out.

You’re talking about being realistic while pushing 676? 676 is great but it would not get 50 yays, let alone pass cloture. That’s why people are pushing the public option. It’s a step towards Single-payer, which has absolutely no chance in the senate. This can’t be stressed enough. If HR 676 came up for an up/down vote, it would fail.

Thanks for bringing up Churchill, but I think the quote was more like ” Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing,- once all other options have been exhausted.” Which is far more Churchillian. How ironic to be quoting Churchill who was a rabid opponent of National Health Insurance! LOL

Selise ! ES !

I agree that 676 is the way to go, but that’s not got any viability now and I don’t see any materalizing in the near term.

There is so much in flux right now that the content and characteristics of PO in any bill are Rumsfeldian known unknowables.

We do know that the Democrats are uniquely gifted with the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

A PO that is Medicare + 5 that is open to anyone would be an acceptable compromise from 676 at this point, as the solution carries a natural continuation to Medicare for all. If that was only attainable by an opt-out plan, so be it.

The ongoing political task is to universalize the notion of Medicare for all, because that is a meme that is understood and conveys continuity.

I am telling people the enemy is attacking, but they are cowards with their stealth attack. Come on Lobbyists, bring it to the public. Are you fraidy cats, PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL? What is that bottom feeder lobby firm with Lanny Davis, that is helping dictators?

Charlie Rangle is the latest target. John Murtha, cosponsor of HR 676 is next. At least that is what my “Remote View” device has predicted.

As far as drinking the Kool-Aid goes, its okay to set your sites for the Moon so long as you’ve got enough oxygen, fuel and navigation skills to get you there and back.

Otherwise, you’re just wasting time.

You’re talking about being realistic while pushing 676? 676 is great but it would not get 50 yays, let alone pass cloture

And America would never make a black guy named Hussein president. Got it.

If you’re going to begin by selling the country short, of course you’re going to have low expectations.

Wrong we already have had two bills passed by both houses for Single Payer only to be vetoed on by the Governator, not the Republicans in Sacramento, otherwise they have NO power.

We wouldn’t opt-in, this bill is trash, we would say -

Arnold, sign SB810, your time in office is up anyway

The Republican Party has limited strength in California, mostly in really rich areas (Orange County) or really rural areas. Obama as reawaken a Progressive movement here, that’s why we passed high speed rail.

Prop 8 was poorly ran and thought to be a forgone conclusion, it wasn’t next time it comes up it will pass.

Read My Keyboard – WE WILL HAVE UNIVERSAL, SINGLE PAYER, COST CONTROLLED HEALTH CARE before the rest of you get it. 2010 vs 2013, we’ll say “Thanks But No Thanks”

They are REALLY low because Obama isn’t really Black either, he’s Bi-Racial. He’s only Black by the ONE DROP RULE. Are you saying he’s more Black than White? I’m saying he might identify more with being Black than White because, Whites generally accept Bi-Racial Children more??? We all know that’s generally NOT TRUE. Are Whites going to accept Michelle Obama more because deep in her Family Tree a White Slave Owner is her Great Grandfather?

Obama largely got elected because he had a Populace Message for Americans, that’s the ONLY reason. Remember Hilary was the all but assured the Winner… The fact he was a man of color MIGHT have gave him an edge and surely made him VERY popular overseas.

You’re right, being black has always been advantageous, in America.

U R dreamin’.

An aspect of the current debate pertaining to the PO , the single payer scheme and the private insurance scheme should be established. This is that if the PO is to function at all it will ultimately lead directly to a single payer scheme, and ultimately necessarily to supplant the private insurers. The PO has to satisfy but one condition, that it offer lower premiums than the private insurers.

The polemic between those that argue for a PO plan now or a single payer scheme now becomes mute. The real polemic is between the private insurers and those aspiring to make the PO viable, because the two can not coexist.

The argument is simple. For the PO to succeed it must offer premiums that are continually lower than private firms, As long as this holds there is no need for private insurance firm to exist and once this ceases to hold there is no need for the PO to exist. Stated differently, the PO exists if and only if the private insurers do not exist. .

It’s more than a little silly that you’re now calling out the Opt-Out Sellout when for so long you have been whipping for a nebulous Public Option. You can’t say anything definitive about the PO yet you’ve been whipping for it!
If you’re for HR676 then be for 676! Don’t punk out and say the “votes aren’t there”. As is plainly evident now it should be obvious that the vote count is secondary. They are gonna scramble your precious PO and try to shove the Opt-Out down your throat.