We need to find out where progressive Members of Congress stand on a bill with triggers or opt-outs. Can you call now?

they don’t stand. They capitulate. Good luck!

Since we aren’t going to get a perfect bill, I think that where we need to draw the line is at the level where it would be better to have no bill at all.

I think an argument can be made that the Stupak amendment reaches that level. It essentially forces insurance companies to either refuse to cover abortion for anyone, or else refuse to participate in the insurance exchanges, under a “money is fungible” argument that is applied nowhere else.

As someone who is likely to depend on biologic drugs for the rest of my life, the Eshoo amendment probably also reaches that level.

Likewise, a bill with no public option, requiring everyone to buy insurance from private industry, may also reach that level.

But opt-out? I’d take it over no bill, because the insurance companies are still constrained. If they try to jack up rates in the states that have opted out, voters in those states will demand to opt back in.

Is the public option as spelled out in the House bill available on day one? I was thinking it wouldn’t take effect until 2013 or something.

Why is a trigger or opt out bad when the PO is useless already?

On the contrary if the PO is loaded down with triggers and other crap — or better yet removed entirely from the bill — it will be easier to KILL THE BILL.

I can’t support this strategy.

The Progressives are just going to fold again. What good are Grijalva and Clark? They already compromised with the house bill, of course they will do it again.

This is the wrong way to go about this.

We don’t need to focus on triggers and Co-ops, we need to find a way to kill this bill and start over with something that is not an insurance industry bailout.

I will not pledge or support or donate money or call anyone for this, it is the same thing we did last time and it didn’t work.

Insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting different results.

That’s the effective day one we’re dealing with in the public option as it stands

My weasel (Harry Teague, D-Chamber of Commerce) voted against the bill because it put mandates on ’small bidness’ and ‘failed to control costs’, so I doubt that calling him will do any good at all.

Anybody got a name in New Mexico I can call to encourage?

Oh and the a**h*t voted for the Stupid Stupak (I always get those confused) Amendment too.

The progressives weren’t whipped on the House vote – the end game has always been get the best possible House bill and draw the line on the conference bill.

PO will still be useful for many from the start, and can be evolved to be more useful over time. If we can get it without triggers or opt-outs, it’s worth making it happen. That’s the goal of this effort.

The Progressives all wrote a letter to Pelosi stating they wouldn’t vote for a bill meeting certain tenets. Last I saw only Kucinich and Massa did not vote yea.

And what do you mean they weren’t whipped on the house vote? What was with the FDP public whip? Why did you have us raise all that money? did the ones who broke the pledge say they will be giving the money back?

If this is the best possible house bill, then we need to start over. The PO in this is a piece of crap. and it’s only going to get worse in conference. so now we have to do everything we can to get rid of the Stupak amendment.

This is not a correct strategy, and I still can’t support it. I’ve taken my name off every member of the Progressive Caucus’s E-mail list except for Kucinich.

Why are we putting our faith in Progressives when they will cave again? This is insane.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Michael Whitney:

The Stupid Amendment in the House bill was (is) a momentary distraction that can’t be allowed to cover the Senate killin’ the entire reform effort. If Medicare Plus 5% , immediate implementation and no restriction on women’s health is in the Senate version then an opt-out for the state legislatures in 2012 is acceptable. Triggers and 2013 implementation should be bill killers…nuthin’ short of even a weak public option with abortion covered and implementation in 2011 should be considered in the Senate package.

Whip the House to command 60 votes against triggers and late implementation and we can get what we want if we’re willin’ to put the heat on the progressives in the House of Representatives. ANYone in the House of Representatives that received one dime from Act Blue or one drop of sweat from volunteers from the blogoshere should be whipped and there are mangy Blue Dogs that will get real tight in the collar if there is mention of primaries in states that are cheap dates (like Arkansas and Tennessee).

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, REGROUP AND RECOMMIT BUT DON’T QUIT!!

I also disagree with this.

I think letting this bill die is better than getting this half baked corporate bailout.

But this is the problem with everything we do.

Progressives don’t have the spine to block anything.

“All industries stand to gain from this legislation,” Steven D. Findlay, senior health policy analyst with Consumers Union in Washington, said in an interview. “They’re going to continue to fight their narrow issues and get the best that they can get. But all of them are aware they stand to gain significant new business and new revenue streams as more Americans get[forced to get] health coverage and money flows into the system for them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/health/policy/09industry.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

the PO that is in the House bill is weak. Not even close to real or robust

I just want to be clear, I was out of town all weekend and missed all the details of the bill that passed the House Saturday.

So the bill that passed the House Saturday contained a public option that would be effective immediately? As in early 2010?

If that’s the case, then that makes it a little better in my book.

Thank you Norske! I really appreciate our contributions on FDL, particularly today.

Citizen Inquisitr:

A well-organized whippin’ from Citizen Hamsher and the rest of the heavy hitters in the blogosphere can create a progressive block against Pelosi, Hoyer and the Likudnick in the White House. We hafta convince the “progressives” that Pelosi and Van Holland can’t hurt ‘em next November and we hafta scare a few a the Blue Doggies out of Rahm’s kennel.

In my opinion, the way to avoid what happened to the Democrats in 1994 AND get viable healthcare reform is to take enough Blue Dog ammo from Pelsoi and give the progressives an option and some leverage with the DCCC and the Speaker. I also think that a little “addition by subtraction” can take the weapon outta Rahm’s hands so he casn never create a block large enough to triangulate progressives out of the action. If we end up with a few more fascist Republicans and a few less fascist Blue Dogs, the Democrats will be leaner and meaner but Pelosi won’t have anywhere to go.

I agree with you but there’s one problem.

We just tried that.

We put immense pressure on the “Progressives”. there was even a money drive here to thank them for standing firm. But what happened? Every single one of them folded.

We can’t raise more money than the interests, so we won’t get them that way.

So how do we “make them” stand firm? We don’t have anything they want except our vote, and they know you’re going to vote for them anyway because they are the “lesser of two evils”.

Certainly not by trying what just failed again.

Citizen Inquisitr:

So your first assault resulted in a loss but at great cost on the leadership. Now if we learn from the North Vietnamese, we recover, regroup and hit ‘em again now that their only perimeter defense is manned by Blue Dogs and anti-abortion lunatics. Jesus, because we lost the first assault means we give up and go phone bank for Nader? Good Christ man, I hate ta tell ya but if you are really in this fight you got no place to go but back up the fuckin’ hill.

Finally, let’s prove that triggers have never had a chance of passage. But let’s not get too dug in against the opt-out – there’s almost no chance of passage without it.

Sorry, I’m specifically stating there wasn’t “whipping” to get members to vote against the PO in the House bill for Saturday’s vote. The focus of the FDL public option whip count has always been the following:

We need you to call progressive members of Congress and ask that they Take the Pledge to vote against any health care bill that doesn’t have a public plan which is:

* available nationwide
* on day one
* and accountable to Congress and the voters

“Day one” being day one of when the bill goes into effect, not delaying the public option with triggers.

Mr. Whitney, boy do I have some questions for you.

1) The House Bill is done. It’s passed. Now, the Senate wades in. History proves the Senate triumphs over House, in the mergers. What makes you think the Senate is going to add ANYTHING positive of note?

2) The House Bill would take effect in 2013, what makes you think The Senate will want to change that to 2010?

3) What Senate Bill do you refer to, that still has opt out, or triggers in it?

4) The PO as is from House, will die of its own failure due to a lack of competition built into it, a lack of subsidy levels at MINIMUM 400% of poverty level, a lack of ensuring that HEALTHY people will enroll (not just poor and sick) and a lack of OPEN ENROLLMENT so ALL people can enroll in it. And with The Senate to water it down more, that’s more fail. What makes you think the PO will evolve at all over time, when it’s been crafted to FAIL, in all forms?

Frankly, Mr. Whitney, why waste time call our reps, when they are going to be overwhelmed in conference, anyway, as history proves?

And without the WH and Obama advocating for a ROBUST PO, there’s no SUPPORT for it, politically!

This is all a giveaway to Big Med, Bit Pharma, and Big Insurance.

And the Senate is NOT going to ensure any reforms, restrictions, or the development of a ROBUST PO that would compete with the money they spent to BUY off our elected offals.

Mr. Whitney, why should we waste a moment of our time and efforts to contact our Reps, when the Senate has the ball, and the power?

And given the SHORTCOMINGS in what’s at hand with the House Bill, that in MY mind pave the way to attack and destroy ALL government entitlement programs including Medicare, Social Security, and what, EDUCATION? Given the big picture goals to eradicate entitlements, starting with this HCR effort, why should we look for SUPPORT for this crap legislation?

Shouldn’t we be seeking to HAMMER our Senators to either:

1) IMPROVE this legislation!
2) Defeat crap legislation!

I fail to see any value for what you post posits.

Thanks for being patient with my, erm, ’seething anger’ at it all, and perhaps explaining what I’m missing here.

And yes, I read ALL of what Mz. Hamsher posted and commented about below. I didn’t hear her say anything about going after our REPS, much less our Senators on any of this.

What am I missing?

“In a loss but at great cost to the Leadership?”

What cost?

What did the leadership lose? They got exactly what they watned, Pelosi was on HuffPo crying getting her “historic healthcare vote”. Obama can call it a W in his book, and Reid got another bargaining chip to get his centrists in line.

The Leadership lost nothing, we didn’t even make a dent.

And sure the permimiter may be crazy Tea-baggers, but the inner defenses are a solid destructive core of Corporate Democrats and huge huge campaign contributions.

You want to go with the war metaphore, I’ll keep going.

When you find that the front of the enemies line is not vulnerable to attack, do you attack the same place in the line sending more troops to die, or do you change your strategy to something that may actually work?

And personally yeah, I’m done with the Democratic party, but I understand why a movement might not spring up overnight for it. But one day we’ll realize that the Democrats are now the party of Corporate power.

Cit Norske, is there a political process I’m missing here?

The House Bill, is what it is.

Now, the Senate resolves, and the merger begins.

Is there a final vote in both House AND Senate, post merger, before bill is sent to Obama?

I’m not aware of this. If there is, then I’m sadly lacking in knowing how this all works, which is ENTIRELY possible.

I thought during merger, the final bill is done, and sealed by committees. Which history proves, The Senate has the most power and influence over.

Thanks hoss, for your flames, love all you do.
And thanks for clearing up my confusion on this procedural issue.

I’m with you, if the final bill does not include the things you list in your comment, THROW IT OUT INTO NO MAN’S LAND AND LET EVERYONE SHOOT IT DOWN!

Pass the biscuits and gravy and the moonshine, we can reload and start shooting after we eat!

Well they already broke that pledge now didn’t they?

“on day one” was one of the conditions right?

This doesn’t go into effect till 2013. That’s a broken pledge.

“and accountable to Congress and the voters”

The bill isn’t that either. Do you really liek that PO? Do you think it will really help? I don’t so that’s a 2nd part of a broken pledge.

They lied and turned on the pledge man, I don’t know how you can try and be defending that, even Jane gave in to that on the other thread.

Citizen Inquisitr:

The cost to the leadership was that now they’ve whipped and pissed off 60 progressives and their only line of defense against a well organized assault on their leadership, today and next November, is the Blue Dogs and the anti-abortion lunatics. The leadership has triangulated themselves into a very small perimeter, guarded by lunatics and weak political tools…and the progressives that they beat up on are pissed off and gettin’ a helping of shit pie from their constituencies. The next effort to organize the “progressives” will meet with a lot more success.

The Senate is going to put together a worse bill, yes – but the whole point of a whipping operation is to build a coalition of 40 members of the House who draw a line in the sand.

In all honesty, it’s what Stupak did, and it worked. Even if he was bluffing, they believed him. And he won.

Progressives can do the same thing for the public option – get 40 Reps to say no to anything but a public option and make the conference committee work around them.

It’s the same as what we’ve been doing: work towards building up progressives to hold the line on a final bill.

PO will still be useful for many from the start, and can be evolved to be more useful over time.

Michael Whitney: The only cogent argument I can find that offers anything better than the 2% “public option” granted by the CBO is in Jon Walker’s piece. Here is how Walker argued it:

One of the biggest “assumptions” the CBO was forced to make is that the exchange, the only place where you can select the public option, would be restricted to only businesses with 100 or fewer employees. They had to assume this because that is the letter of the law, but that is not necessarily how the law will be enforced. Starting in year three, the Secretary of HHS can, in theory, make all employers, regardless of size, eligible for the exchange. I don’t think the Secretary will go that far that quickly, but I do think access to the exchange would be noticeably broader than the CBO analysis was forced to assume.

This is extremely weak tea. Gee, maybe they won’t enforce the letter of the law. Year three — hmmm — that’s 2016.

And then you have the actual structure of this “public option,” described in Kip Sullivan’s piece so well. The thing is to be designed and administered by the same private corporations which are so clearly lobbying today to kill the public option.

Thus the idea of writing an insurance bill which is nearly 2,000 pages long is to provide an elaborate showering of fig leaves for all concerned, so that the main point of the whole exercise (the assurance of corporate profits) does not shine through. The point of the 2013 date is, obviously, twofold: it provides a figleaf for Obama, who will not have to run for re-election if the bill with full provisions is not a hit with the public, and (of course) to give the insurance companies time to design the rather complex public option as Kip Sullivan (above) described it.

How you use your time is, of course, your choice. But I would submit to you that the outcome of the Preserve Corporate Hegemony Health Care Bill of 2009 Or 2010 will be largely a product of what little horse-trading is left to do, and that your time lobbying Congress would be better spent preparing to change the makeup of Congress in 2010 and in 2012 so that we really can get a better bill.

I highly doubt that.

The only fight will be over the Abortion amendment. The PO and everything else will be untouched.

Allow me to be clear.

I’m not against the House bill just because of the Stupak Amendment. I’m against it because the PO is a complete and utter joke.

Now the only thing that happens next is conference with the Senate. The Senate bill will be worse than the House one, we all know it because it’s based on the Baucus bill with mandates.

So the Progressives will throw a shit fit to get rid of Stupak, and that will be the cover they have to vote on the shitty PO and give Obama his big “W”

That’s un cceptable to me. We need to kill this bill right now, while we still can.

I spoke with a message-taking munchkin in the office of Diane Watson (D-Cal.), said no triggers, no state opt-outs. He said he’d pass my message along, the usual.

Citizen Larue:

Think in three dimensions, Citizen ‘cuz this last few months through this weekend was just one round of the fight. The progressives in the House of Representatives will have another opportunity to get what they say they want and the leadership won’t have anything left to threaten them with as long as we get their backs with a couple a sharp sticks. Next November is starin’ down at ALL the members of Congress and they all know that it will be a base election and WE are the base, my friend.

How will the PO be useful?
I keep asking this.

What am I missing? I thought the House Bill was done, and now it’s merger time, and Senate has historical precedence to prove it’s stronger than House.

Is there another vote in House AND Senate, before a bill is passed and sent to Obama AFTER Committee Merger proccess?

Am I missing some thing THAT elemental and simple?

Michael, you are not understanding the problem with what you are trying to do.

We just tried to make the Progressives stand firm and draw a line in the sand, and it didn’t even come close to working. Out of all of them only 2 remained true to the pledge.

What makes you think it will be different this time?

We can’t raise more money, we can’t make a bigger threat than leadership.

Why do you think doing the exact same thing will have any better results when we just got slapped around like children by doing it?

Why should I bother giving anything of myself, money, time, phone calls whatever, when the Progressives have just shown they don’t have the spine to stand up to leadership.

And even if they did, what are they going to stand up for?

Say they get rid of Stupak? So what? Even if magic happened in the Conference and the Senate bill was tossed overboard and we got the House bill minus Stupak so what?

It’s still a weak, crappy PO that does not meet any of our standards.

So why are we doing the same thing again? This is the definition of insanity.

After it gets passed in the Senate we have the Conference. Once the bill is merged in Conference it has to be voted on again in both chambers

Okay, so let me get this straight. The House bill does not go into effect until 2013 and I think it’s safe to assume that the Senate bill, if it contains a PO at all, will not go into effect any sooner.

So how are we going to get “effective immediately” out of this?

I’m seriously asking because I really want to be on board here. But I don’t understand how two bad bills are going to come out of conference as a miraculously “better” bill. And in the likely scenario that the bill coming out of conference between the Senate and House is a crappy bill, we don’t have any recourse to kill it by the time it gets that far?

What am I missing?

Yep, House and Senate both vote on the merged bill before it’s sent to Obama.

Okay, I forgot we got another vote in both chambers to kill what comes out of Conference if (ha, I said ‘if’) it sucks. So maybe there is time for a Hail Mary.

Hoss, what’s the process from here?
Senate and House merge, right?
Who has final say on final bill?

IS THERE ANOTHER FULL SENATE AND HOUSE VOTE ON MERGED BILL?

And if so, and our prog support were to KILL a shit PO, who wins if Senate passes, and House don’t?

Again, predication is based on IS THERE ANOTHER FULL SENATE AND HOUSE VOTE?

I need help with this, what’s the process?

2010 and 2012 I don’t disagree with you at all, but the fight in MY foxhole right now is what’s the process, and do I support shit PO with or without Stupak, or do I work to kill a shitty bill?

HELP! I’m out of ammo AND moonshine!

*G*

A progressive case against the House bill:

http://www.counterpunch.org/murphy11092009.html

Also, the P.O. is worthless; the mandate should be dropped.

“Even if magic happened in the Conference and the Senate bill was tossed overboard and we got the House bill minus Stupak so what?”

Well, first, that would be one HELL of a win.

IF it included the PO started in ‘10, IF it included a LARGER enrollee base, and included anti trust busting WRT Pharma and 12 year protection, and enrollee subsidy up to 400% of poverty, not 150%. And if EVERYONE could enroll in PO, not just uninsured, poor and sick.

Lotta phreakin if’s, huh . . *G*

Yes of course there is.

I can’t figure it either. All that hand-wringing about how only 14 votes were needed — you get another shot when it comes for voting for the bill after conciliation.

This is my point.

That’s not what we’re going to get.

We’re going to get something closer to the Senate bill because that’s the price Progressives will pay to get rid of Stupak because they’re to cowardly to block the bill.

Okay, so if we still have a chance to late-term abort this bill before it gets to the president’s desk, then it can’t hurt to take a shot down field and see if we can’t somehow get a miracle and improve it.

At least that’s the way I see it.

As long as we still have time to unleash a political shitstorm if we don’t get anything that can be tolerated.

REALLY?!?!?

Then I’m opening up to revisiting whippping progs for all the reasons stated by Mr. Whitney and Norske.

However, would be be whipping FOR passage, or for BLOCKING passage?

And would that depend on what conference bill emerges?

If so, how can we whip NOW? That call becomes laborious given all the scenerio’s we’d have to cover.

Uh, Rep, will you oppose bill if (insert 10 conditions) these are not part of PO?
Uh, Rep, will you SUPPORT bill if (insert 10 conditions) ARE part of the PO?

See what I mean?

And THANK YOU and bless ya for clarifying the process.

Knowing there’s still a full vote in BOTH chambers changes where I come from, a lot.

So, Mr. Whitney, what do we whip? FOR? AGAINST? How do we whip, if we don’t have a merged bill to examine and evaluate?

Has The Senate not resolved into a single bill yet? Thought they had.

Ergo, Merger is next? Man I’m confused . . .

Let me get this straight, Mr. Whitney. The House progressives signed this letter saying they would only accept a ROBUST public option tied to Medicare rates:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/files/30/files//2009/08/090730.pdf

They promptly caved in exchange for nothing more than an expansion of the office of minority affairs.

And all but one voted for a bill that restricts womens’ rights.

And you want us to call them and ask where they stand.

They stand for nothing! They are a disgrace! All but Kucinich!

You and I are now on the same page of questions being asked!

Thank you!

Thanks, Inquis answered just before you, and now I have new insights, but with new questions!

*G*

Appreciate your patience with the little things some of us just don’t get . . .

I’m open to whippin House Progs given there’s a final vote to come in both chambers.

What happens if the final bill is crap, and House Progs defeat the House vote FOR it?

But Senate vote PASSES in favor of crap final bill?

Thanks, see my replies to others on this.

Senate has not merged yet. So technically speaking the Senate vote is next, then Conference, then the Conference votes.

It won’t matter, here’s how it’s going to play out.

1) Reid will release a bill with a horrible, worse than the House, PO, Mandates, and all the other shit we don’t like from the Baucus bill.

2) The vote will pass in the senate.

3) In conference all of the Progressives will be focusing so hard on the Stupak amendment that they will forget everything else. They will trade any chance of a stronger PO, any chane of it starting right now, and any chance of it being available for all Americans, everything to get rid of the Stupak Amendment.

3) At that point the Bill will be such a shithole that all the blue dogs will be cool with it Stupak or not and the Progressives will have gotten outplayed into doing exactly what they did last time, voting for a piece of shit bill.

We cannot afford to do exactly what we just did. Counting on the Progressives is folly, they don’t have the spine for it, and they suck at this game compared to the blue dogs.

The Bill dies and we win.

What happens if the final bill is crap, and House Progs defeat the House vote FOR it?

But Senate vote PASSES in favor of crap final bill?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the merged bill needs approval of both houses. If it doesn’t pass them both, it goes.

MO Representative is William LACY Clay. Lacy will IMO vote to give Obama the “win” regardless of what is contained in the final bill.

Inquisitr,

I’m afraid I think your scenario is likely how this all plays out. I think where I differ from you is that I’m willing to take a chance that we can get a miracle, with the understanding that we can unleash such a shitstorm if the merged bill turns out like we expect it to, that it can still be killed.

Maybe I’m naive, but I have to hold on to hope.

Ok, I see the scenerio you posit playing out in Conference.

Last question.

A crap bill emerges.

House Progs vote NO, and defeat it! Somehow, just indulge the Question, ignore they gave up voting no to get rid of Stupidpak Amendment.

Senate however, PASSES crap bill.

Then what?

BTW, I’m so confused, did Eshoo Amendment make it into the Final House Bill?

Cuz THAT’S a killer for me, as much as Stupidpak.

Even if you do believe that, trying to lobby the Progressives in exactly the same way we did before is futile.

We need some form of leverage over them, other than “it’s the right thing to do”

Because Leadership will always be scarier to them than us. They aren’t afraid of losing your vote.

The bill dies and the process starts all over again I believe.

Which is whay it’s exactly what we should be trying to do. This bill must die.

I’d rather nothing for another year than a huge insurance bailout.

Hmmm, thin chances, but I could easily live with that!

So, on we call, on we hope.

Thanks for all your patience, and Mr. Whitney’s and Norske’s and everyone else’s with my questions.

And thanks FDL, I now have a MUCH more clear picture of the short and long term.

Well, the long term was always pretty clear . . . we need to primary the shit out of anyone Blue or non prog for ‘10 AND ‘12 unless we get a miracle HCR Bill passed (we won’t).

And we have to open up the prog fight to backup and demand bank/fi reform legislation (Glass-Steagull), demand EFCA, demand FISA reform or repeal, and on and on and on.

Failure to do opens the doors to losing ANY women’s or men’s or poor or children’s entitlement programs to privitization or worse, simply eliminating them.

Hell of a day here at Da Lake.

*G*

But if there were to be no PO from the senate I think it would be easier to get the progressive block to vote no.

I don’t mind holding out hope for miracles, while working hard to do what we can with what we have.

And as Norske says, we’ve got ‘10 and ‘12 to play with.

Somehow, the masses just HAVE to get some modicum of control back as to who and how champions our causes and needs, cuz THAT’S what’s best for our country short term and long term!

Like, JOBS! Bitchez!!!! Damned elected offals.

Harumph.

*G*

One other thing. The promises Ms Hamsher made them make (on tape) included specifically the vote after the conference.

Passing comments but, I concur, heartily.

What kind of leverage do you think we can get? What do you propose we do differently – other than kill this bill?

I’m not saying this is a snarky way, I really want to know. What should we be doing differently?

Ideally?

I’d like to see Kucinich and Sanders leave and form a 3rd party right now. I’d like to see FDL supporting that and denying support for every single Democrat.

That’s really more long term tho yeah so I get your point.

But for right now? We need a single Senator, just one. Sanders in my estimation. We start a huge drive right now for Sanders to kill the bill. It seems like he wants to go there anyway.

But if it’s not him we can find one. We start the “Kill the bill drive” We pool all our money to give to a single Senator willing to kill the Bill if it’s not what we want. Whichever Senator is willing to stand up for it. The amount of money we gathered spread out among 60 house Progressives is not so much.

But give it to one legislator who can kill the Bill and that can kind of be a dent.

but then it’s really a long term fight that we need to change the tone of. I admit chances are bleak for healthcare, but we are seeing right now what’s going to happen on every other piece of legislation.

We (and now I mean voters not bloggers) need to stop voting for fake Democrats. I already called Weiner and had him remove me from his lists and tried to get a donation back.

No more talking being enough. I know my strategy is risky, and I know we’re going to cost democrats in 2010 and 2012. Just because you call yourself “Progressive” Doesn’t mean you’re voting how I like.

But who cares?

the Democrats aren’t doing anything we want from them right now anyway, unless you’re a CEO.

i agree with Marcia Angell’s (editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) article where she writes:

Is the House bill better than nothing? I don’t think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we’ve tried health reform and it didn’t work. But the real problem will be that we didn’t really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.

and

If a similar bill emerges from the Senate and the reconciliation process, and is ultimately passed, what will happen?

First, health costs will continue to skyrocket, even faster than they are now, as taxpayer dollars are pumped into the private sector. The response of payers — government and employers — will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments. Yes, more people will have insurance, but it will cover less and less, and be more expensive to use.

Time to call this what it is, a failure. If you need to raise money, you need to actually fight for something worth believing in, not a piece of crap PO in a failure of Reform.

We don’t have anything they want except our vote

They didn’t want the money? Did they give it back?

You really think the amount of money we raised split 60 ways equals one check Big Pharma writes to them?

Of course they’ll take it, but it’s nothing in the grand scheme, and certainly not enough to motivate them.

Sorry for the late response. We need to draw a line in the sand that triggers or opt-outs aren’t acceptable, because we can’t further delay a public option. We must also insist that states can’t just opt their citizens out of the choice of a public option.

Look, here’s what Bart Stupak said to Ryan Grim at HuffPost:

HuffPost asked Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, why he succeeded and the progressives failed.

“Because I didn’t threat[en]. These are the facts,” he said.

But you did threaten, a reporter pointed out.

No, Stupak said, it wasn’t a threat. It was a promise. “No, they know I’ll vote against the rule,” he said.

We still have an opportunity to shape the final bill by getting these members to promise – promise – to vote against triggers and opt-outs. Then we can get this done.

We are most able to affect the debate with the House strategy. There’s just not as much leverage with the Senate, where there are bigger constituencies that respond less to pressure than House members.

Wrong in so many ways.

First of all, the house public option? That we most certainly can delay, it’s a toothless gutless cop out of a PO and we all know it.

“We still have an opportunity to shape the final bill by getting these members to promise – promise – to vote against triggers and opt-outs. Then we can get this done.”

This is exactly what we did last time, we made them promise, and they spit on that promise. What makes you think they will respond to it this time? You refuse to answer that question yet keep telling us this is how we should do it.

“We are most able to affect the debate with the House strategy. There’s just not as much leverage with the Senate, where there are bigger constituencies that respond less to pressure than House members”

I completely disagree. With the house we are trying to influence 60+ members. We only need to influence 1 senator. All we need is one who responds to us to block it there.

The House is a lost cause, and I cannot give anything of myself for this futile cause. FDL needs to change direction instead of trying the same old failed tactic. Because all you’ve told us to do so far is to try the same thing that failed again. Which is by definition insane.

I’m with the blue dogs, but I mean it. DERAIL IT! Why would ANYONE argue to save this Bill?

We’ll do well to have the PO and IM cancel one another out at this point, and foist business practices reforms on the insurers without a guaranteed customer base.

Proclamations of a Democratic Surrender Monkey are useless. Observe their actions and you’ll see who they work for and it’s not us. Tough talk is cheap Tough action requires Kucinich, Massa, or a Republican. Unfortunately the good guys are vastly outnumbered in the action department.

This bill is the work product of an obviously corrupt process, and if we return these cretins to office on ‘10, we deserve it.

A brand new Congress: Change we can believe in!

As much as I am for Health Care reform I am for Killing this bill it sucks not the Change we voted for.

I hate to say this but the REPUK’s are right the Dem’s don’t know how to govern

Wasn’t there ALREADY a supposed list of signed-up, on-board, committed progressives who were NOT GOING TO ALLOW a bill to come out of the house without the ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION?

What happened to them? Their knees buckle out from under them?

Why would I trust any “progressives” who sign on in the future for what they “claim” they will stand up for? They have proven they have no spine and cannot be trusted. Period.