OMFG. This is unforgivable.

I say, make them vote NO officially, on the record so evryone can see what shills they are.

Great work on the list, Jane. My guess for the likeliest suspects who have gotten weak knees when it comes to passing it through reconciliation:

Hagan, McCaskill, Webb.

I’d guess Hagan is now a definite no, and the other 2 refuse to commit until they see the final deal. The House would need to make them a final offer and then I think there’s still a chance both of them would agree – which means the PO is still possible, although I don’t expect it.

The American people have only one option left:

RESISTANCE.

House Democrats must not pass any version of the Senate’s bill.

Yep. The CPC needs to make sure that the Senate version dies out. They are our last line of defense.

But you know what, I don’t care if people make money if we cover more people

This is the critical difference between a progressive and what’s been called a “business progressive” (or progressive lite) Like Obama, she thinks that its possible to help people while still maintaining the corporate status quo. She doesn’t want to change the basic terms of an inequal system, of an unjust system–one that also happens to be failing. She wants to tinker around the edges, address the problem because its unavoidable, but appease corporate America. She wants to work within the bad system. But the system is not sustainable, and people like Schultz don’t have either the imagination or the courage or both to face it.

The mantra is that millions of Americans will get coverage, but the Senate’s bill isn’t about helping Americans who’ve been screwed over by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

The for-profit health care system has failed, and the Senate’s bill is entirely about keeping the for-profit health care system from totally collapsing and about enhancing corporate profits at the expense of taxpayers.

RESISTANCE IS THE ONLY OPTION LEFT.

It’s also this difference between an elected progressive and keyboard commando’s.

Politicians lying?

Whoever could have anticipated…

It’s an election year and it is not too early to put together a plan to advance the progressive agenda. Failure to do so will leave us adrift and just trying individually to survive in a hostile country.

One message that could be sent is dumping DLC bagman Charles Schumer.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/07/14/debbie-wasserman-schultz-wont-draw-lines-in-the-sand-except-when-she-does/

So Jane, is she drawing a line in the sand? The house won’t pass the senate bill unless they pass a reconcilliation bill first? But, of course she doesn’t draw lines. where were these house members 3 months ago? Now that Obama has criticized the senate, all the house members are going to pile on? Whatever it takes I guess.

Agreed.

Washington itself is being controlled by an interest who was frightened by the Dem sweep – interests which control both parties and have stifled any attempts at any reform, right or left.

You have to remember the same thing happened with the Republican “Contract on America” fiasco: What happened to the term limits proposal from the right? Notice how even this proposal from the right suddenly disappeared?

Someone wants Washington so tied up and paralyzed that any proposal for reform, right or left, will never see the light of day. Who they are can be deduced from the shifting arguments on health insurance reform.

So who was lying? Who still supports a public option via reconcilation?

We need to know.

Elections should be paid for by us.Term limit on every office down to the local level.(pie in the sky)one thing every voter can do that doesn’t cost a dime,VOTE EVERY INCUMBENT OUT.Huge message if it goes three election cycles.I don’t see a dimes worth of difference between a D and a R.Third party is ultimate answer.I will never vote for a D or R ever again. Have voted in every election since I’ve been of voting age.

Can’t we get HR 676 that allows states to implement a single payer system if they want? I can’t believe we can’t even get a vote on that. We have a much better chance of trying out a single payer in the states before we implement a national single payer.

I frankly used to be in favor of a strong national government, because of the protection it added for other states. Now I wish they would just get out of the way so smart states can have more regulatory power.

Jane writes:

The Senate wants what the lobbyists tell them to want, and all the rest is kabuki.

The whole point of this post is that Senate Democrats have been lying. Does it matter if there are a couple of them who aren’t corporate shills?

Rather than waste time trying to pressure Senate Democrats to do what’s right for the American people, we have to get House Democrats to oppose the Senate Democrats’ bill, i.e. get House Democrats to oppose Senate Democrats’ efforts to screw the American people over for the benefit of their corporate masters.

What pisses me off most of all is that the vote could still be whipped in favor of the public option if only OBAMA would open his mouth and say “We need that public option!” But he REFUSES to even say the words. This is Obama’s failure, and it’s unforgiveable.

It was amazing to watch Wasserman-Schultz lie, not once, but twice. Blatant lies. First, that the PO couldn’t be included in reconciliation. Second, that there would be cost controls in the Senate bill. I’m still amazed at the political correctness nerds who whined when Dylan Ratigan took this corporate turd to task for trying to push her corporate apologist talking points on his show. Until we stand up and expose their hypocracy, we’ll just keep re-electing these limosine liberals.

This is not Obama’s failure! It’s his success. He never intended to have the public option.

When it comes to other regulatory areas, say, like environmental protection or credit card regulation, the assertion of “federal primacy” has been challenged by states wanting to go beyond federal regs, and has always prevailed. Of course, this was always used to shoot down more effective regulatory programs by states. And, it should come as no surprise as to the behind-the-scenes lobby string pullers.

check out the horrible senator in MN. Klobucher. Do you see how she words it? She is for buying a public option that is bought through private insurance. She is one of the most despicable and spineless democrats I have ever encountered. She is so good at lying to people in such a way that they have no clue as to what she means. She has no principles and no soul. She will do as she is told. She has no self. Call her office some time. What you get is she is waiting for which way the wind is blowing. What a huge disappointment she is for MN.

Jane,
I have been critical of you before before you co-signed that letter with the right winger. I still think that was a big mistake of you.

But I now conclude that you have been right all along about health care and I agree with you. Obama does NOT want real health care reform. He does NOT want real change. He is a center-right politician willing to sell and compromise everything. This administration is pathetic.

Term limit on every office down to the local level.(pie in the sky)

As has been mentioned often, term limits already exist – they’re called “Elections.”

The artificial term limits as you propose only wind up further empowering lobbyists and unelected staff members.

And what usually happens is folks don’t necessarily want term limits per se; they want someone who has been elected in another CD, state, city, whatever who they disagree with out of office. Not saying that’s the case for you but it damn sure is for a lot of folks who cry term limits all the time.

When Obam slammed Republicans at their retreat yesterday, he kept saying “our bill,” by which he must have meant the Senate Democrats’ bill. He called it “centrist.” As far as I can tell, “centrist” means corporatist. Obama will not fight for a public option.

Right now, the American people have to focus on resistance.

The House must not pass the Senate Democrats’ bill.

What about the anti-abortion measures? Its more important to me that women don’t loose the constitutional rights, than having a public option. This site is obsessed with the public option with little discussion of any other fucked up parts of this bill.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see a public option, but if the bill had one and still kept the anti-abortion language, it would still be unacceptable. I think half the country’s constitutional rights is more important than a public option.

I was going to make a snotty sexist comment about how stunningly pretty she is – BUT

that would hide my true intent of disparaging these worthless sell outs and wastes of space.

at least if you vote republican, you get bon-a-fide fascist lackey liars gaming the system so the pigs at the top can get even FATTER legally ripping us off.

there was a 850,000 vote gap tween C-rap-Oakley ’09 and 0-bama ’08 cuz people are SICK of having these big shot townies (Tip O’Neil … ) and big shot ivy’s (clinton, dukakis, kerry, gore, 0-bama) giving us losses, bullshit excuses, and screwings — meanwhile they live large f’king losing.

so, yawn … debbie blue eyes, what are YOUR excuses for losing to these bastards? you’re too vapid? too politically pathetic? too stupid? too sold out?

we need guys like wilbur mills back – straight up crooks.

rmm.

Woulda.. coulda.. shoulda..

All the ideas are good but not doable. Rather try to retake the Democratic Party.

1/3 of the Senators come up for election every two years. Start with this years crop and knock out 3 or 4 DLC “Big Business” Democrats. It still leaves a Democratic majority but starts to thin the ranks of the conservative Democrats.

Obama’s not going to listen to us DFHs so just start with a six year plan to change things.

What a disgrace they all are…..Is there a courageous spokesperson, advocate among these people? Guess not or we could reimport drugs, for a starter.

We can use this to attack all the Senators if they don’t allow a vote on the public option. Granted we don’t have the money to run commercials against them all.
However we can probably run commercials against a few senators we can hit the Bluest Blue Dogs and the weakest Blue Dogs, the most evil Blue Dogs my only regret is Joe is not up for election this time.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

First of all, Citizen mgloraine @16 hits it square on the noggin, the public option can get 51 votes in the Senate if Obama whips ‘em. And if Obama doesn’t, he sets himself up to be a one term President and the Democratic Party is history. After watchin’ Obama’s brilliant smack-down of the fascists yesterday I was left with the scarry feelin that the corporations were speakin through Obama sayin to the krypto-Nazi Republicans that if they didn’t coalesce with Obama and pass the corporate friendly “reforms” from healthcare to fake a jobs bill and a Social Security sellout, the teabgers threaten to blow up the whole political money machine of corporatist rule of both parties.

What’s shakin’ now, Sister Jane, is there any effort to reach Phony Nancy Pelosi to get her to whip her troops and cram this healthcare thing down the Senate’s throat and up Rahm’s ass?

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE CORPORATE WARS!!

People are from Earth. Politicians are from Mars.

Bring back the American Anti-Imperialist League.

Yes, keep saying it at every opportunity. No health insurance industry give-away. No new health insurance taxes on working Americans. No mandates without a public option. NO SENATE BILL.

I agree, but that means just killing the Senate bill, and there’s still massive support for the “anything is better than nothing” BS which the administration and its apologists keep pushing. We need a way to wage war against the insurance companies directly, because our politicians are doing their bidding and not ours. How can we make the AHIP-PhRMA corporations HURT big-time for forcing this through? We must find a way…

But the good thing is if the Dems don’t pass a strong public option, they are going to losse a ton of seats. Maybe they are just shooting for the 41 super majority in the senate.

Citizen mgloraine:

KILL THE BILL!!! and force Obama to chose between bein a one term President or stabbin’ the corporationas in the back.

You’re right. The unions have said they’re going to run primary challengers against Blue Dogs in 2010. We need to join forces.

Breast cancer

In March 2009, she revealed that she underwent seven surgeries related to breast cancer in 2008, while maintaining her responsibilities as a member of the House.
The congresswoman in 2009 increased efforts to promote early screening for breast cancer, after she revealed her own battle with the disease in 2008. She maintained an aggressive schedule campaigning during recovery from seven operations.[2]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz

Must be nice to have health insurance huh Debbie?

Citizen mgloraine:

We are missin a step here with organized labor, we still don’t have EFCA and you ken bet that if Obama caves in on healthcare that EFCA is dead too. Until we have a strong organized labor force especially after the last SCOTUS give away, the only political movement that can threaten corporatist control is the Teabaggers…this is lookin more and more like Wiemar Germany circa 1932.

Citizen Hamsher:

Where is this goin’ now…are we at the point of open warfare with Obama…is there any effort to reach Pelosi?

There may be many paths to a decent health care system, but the Senate Democrats’ bill must be killed first.

No one should operate under the delusion that 51 Senate Democrats will support a public option or Medicare buy-in. While you’re wasting time trying to get the votes in the Senate, corporatist sellouts will pressure enough House Democrats to pass the Senate’s bad joke on the American people.

The focus now has to be on resistance to the Senate Democrats’ bill and on getting House Democrats to defeat it.

Obama handled himself very well I think I would like to see him debate us next.

Not going to happen, because state parties like AR D’s will make sure no decent Dem challenges Plantation Blanche. They would rather end up with a republican than do that.

And then one need only take a look at NY and the progressive blogs where everyone focused on Ford… while defending (sometimes by default) Gillibrand, instead of promoting Tasini for the last week or so.

Agreed we just need to make sure the public realizes that people who voted for Obama and wanted the Public Option did not show up on election day.
The Tea Baggers will try and claim credit of course but lets see them get one rally with numbers bigger than the immigration rights protests.

Actually, the corporations have more to lose if nothing is done than the people do.

That was my point in the comment @ 6:

The for-profit health care system has failed, and the Senate’s bill is entirely about keeping the for-profit health care system from totally collapsing and about enhancing corporate profits at the expense of taxpayers.

Single payer is the only thing that will keep our countries medical decline in check and allow it to rise again from barely lousy in the top 40 back towards number 1. It’s not going to happen but it would be nice. Living in permanent recession bordering on depression is good for America. It is our duty to support the socialized parts like the VA, Medicare, Medicaid and government employees. The rest of us should do what the Republicans say, if you are uninsured and get sick, die quick.

The cost is only about 45,000 to 50,000 extra dead per year is all, but on the bright side we don’t have to fly their bodies back from the Middle Eastern vietraqistan areas. Thankfully there are only a few dozen of those American deaths per month over there as compared to the thousands of american deaths from lack of health care every month here in murica but the cost of those worthless wars is much higher than national healthcare. Go figure.
Has anyone else noticed that the USA has not ‘won a war’ since 1945? Our contractors and Merc’s are just not getting the job done since the initial looting of Vietraqistan. We’ve only lost a few thousand service people over there over the past 8 years at a huge financial cost that we could have spent in America for single payer healthcare to save 45,000 to 50,000 American citizens per year. But war is more fun and uninsured sick people should shut up! lol

So let me see if I have this gist of this…

Wasserman says they aren’t going to pass the senate version because it’s just horrible.

So they are going to submit their reconcilliation version first then send that to the senate.

But reconcilliation can only deal with “funding” issues so the excise tax will still be in place in some way or another.

Then it goes to the senate and they make changes and it goes to the White House…

and the House then approves the senate version of the bill and sends THAT crap to the White House.

But they can only change funding issues not the “mechanics” of the bill like the mandatory purchasing of insurance from these criminal companies or the fact that it looks like the pre-existing condition protection only applies to people under 19 or even the public option which is completely about funding?

That pretty much it or did I miss something from Aetna’s spokesperson?

Citizen Knoxville:

If the Senate bill is killed it means we are back to bill Clinton’s 1994…that’s what Rahm wants but we can make the outcome different from 1994 but we’re gunna hafta be willin’ ta see fascist control of the House until 2012 and Obama will hafta run as a Republican in 2012 if he’s gunna get re-elected. I been sayin this for months now, we can’t beat the corporatists from outside the Democratic Party but we’re gunna hafta let go of all the Blue Dogs and control of the House and force Obama out if we’re gunna save room for a real politics in this country beyond this November.

I want drug prices in America to be the same as Canada and Mexico we can run that little fact in a tv commercial too.

We shouldn’t use just a one prong approach.

We don’t have the financial clout that the DLC has and the last Democratic presidential primary was DLC vs DLC. We should start refusing to support ANY DLC candidate.

If you can’t stomach voting for a Republican, just stay home. It’s not like the DLC represent you. It might as well be a Republican in that seat as a Blanche Lincoln.

Has anyone else noticed that the USA has not ‘won a war’ since 1945?

Ah c’mon. We beat Grenada! Clint Eastwood told me so. And Panama too!

But they can only change funding issues not the “mechanics” of the bill like the mandatory purchasing of insurance from these criminal companies

My bold If voters are forced to buy insurance in a Recession the Dems are dead in November.

I believe Obama was also privately (secretly) opposed to the public option. It’s time to stop pretending Obama is some kind of “progressive.” I do believe he’s a liar and plays his supporters for fools.

Reform=deform.Reform of the system of rule=respect for and legalization of the basic rights, such as right to life to which right to universal health care is closely ahug.

Reform,any, of: warfare, healthcare, education, information by congress as it is now will always=deform.
In short, no matter how much americans plead, scream, rage, complain, advise, wish, hope with system not changing over 200 mn adults wld be ruled like serfs.
It is robber barons that always ruled america.

Is there any political scenario where the Dems force voters to buy crappy health insurance during a Recession that does not cost the Dems in November?

Citizen Knoxville:

I agree with you, the corporations have more to loose with healthcare dead IN THE SHORT TERM but any change in political physics will require the Democratic Party to suffer big losses in the Hopuse which will insure that Obama will play Bill Clinton from 2011 through 2012 and someone else will be President in 2013. Unltimately, if Obama is smart he’s gunna game out this entire situation and see that if he can’t get the fascist Repuiblicans to triangulate with ‘im (what do ya think that cagematch with the Republicans was all about yesterday)then he is history and the only way he saves himself for 2012 is to turn left. I don’t think that’s gunna happen, so we’re lookin at pitchin Obama over the side and takin some lumps in 2010 in order to get a progressive Democratic Party with a strong organized labor and progressive base after 2012…it also means takin Obama on right now and forcin him out of the closet before November.

Just a technical note – INS CO RUN PUBLIC OPTION IS NOT THAT BAD AN IDEA

The Mass Plan called “Connector” is run this way – the state designs the policy and the ins, co then offers it for sale.

In other countries the PO put out by the ins. co. is done in a country that has very tight regulation as to policy design and customer service (no second opinions needed – claim must be paid within 8 days – any claim denial reviewed by government).

PO via ins co policy is not evil idea – and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not wrong, is not evil, is not proposing a bad idea assuming the regulation is done at the same time, and indeed she is one of the good guys in this fight.

I’ll take your Klobucher and raise you a DiFi.

It may be that the unions’ willingness to fund challengers is a result of the slowly growing awareness that EFCA is never going to happen. Rahm et al. have been playing them for chumps, and they’re starting to realize it. But the unions are not what they were in the days of my youth. They need help from beyond their card-carrying base, and those of us in the DFH crowd are insufficiently numerous and largely unorganized. I think it’s a natural collaboration.

In the same breath Wasserman tells the story of a small business owner whos payments to insurance gangsters went up 150% because one employee filed a claim then goes on to say that the passage of this bill will bring the costs down because it will “broaden the pool” of customers for the insurance companies.

Thats… just… funny.

Debbie is not proposing what you suggest – she wants to replace all that has been done – toss it all out – with a simple reconciliation that expands current programs as is permitted under the rules – Medicare buy-in or PO as a mod to basic law now in effect, as was done for SCHIP, plus drug pricing and donut hole, paid by Medicare savings.

What can not be done is the new programs like community health centers or regulation that ends any current insurance company underwriting rule, or which installs “insurance exchanges” (which are just web pages with comparative policy information).

What about the Greens? Or other “third parties”? In races where progressives can’t fund a challenger, we may be better served by backing the Green candidate than just staying home. The Republican may still win, but then, maybe not!

Citizen mgloraine:

I am a charter member of the “Boomer” generation and I have 3 kids two of whom are teachers and one is soon to be in graduate school in Couples and Family Counseling. Obama created a monster with his coalition of youth, minorities and DFH “liberals”. If the Democratic Party loses any one of the three elements of their coalition then they can’t get anyone elected to anything anywhere. The only hope for a truly free politics is to unite with labot….do ya remember the old slogans on the walls of the University in the 60′s and 70′s, “Smash racism, student-worker alliance”? Well it’s here and Obama created it, why do ya think he dismantled the DNC 50 state structure Howard Dean built? Obama mobilized this new coalition in order to get elected but he needs to kill it or it will eat him.

Drill Here , Drill Now, for Primary Candidates

“here” being Craigslist

Democracy Now had a program segment called
“The Citizens’ Candidate”–Grassroots Effort Uses Craigslist to Find Candidate For Utah House Seat

Utah Citizen’s Movement website is here

If Craigslist works for UCM, why not the Full Court Press?

Jane, I wish that you, jeffroby, and the Utah Citizens’ Candidates folks would have a pow-wow. jeffroby’s brilliant but simple idea of running MINIMALIST candidates should be applied in 2010, and to Senate races, also. WHO NEEDS THOSE BOZOS? This diary makes that clearer than ever.

Even if there’s no upset victories, on what is, after all, short notice, such actions now will help lay the groundwork for larger voting blocs in 2012, and might even spark a progressive populist movement which could rival the teabaggers. A Full Court Press (minimalist) attack in 2010 could serve as a lightning rod.

I am a democratic Precict Committeeman that lives in Debbies district and follow her votes. Out of the hundreds of votes this woman has made I only have 2 problems; 1. she voted to let the telcos get away with spying on all of us since 2000 when Bush was appointed to take over the White House and 2. Continued funding for puke of the earth merc’s in the vietraqistan wars we have already lost. Those are the only instances I know about that Debbie voted against the American people.

This is where the people that want to believe that it just isn’t so should chime in about how hard it is for the Ds to pass laws while in the majority of two branches of government. Which is of course pretty much true. Much as an morbidly obese person can’t pass the buffet table the Ds and Rs can’t go past the lobbyist cash buffet without grabbing a few tasty platefuls.

So if the Congress, with Obama’s help, passes the Senate version it will all get fixed later on. Probably because the lobbyists that wrote most of it and paid to push it through would dig into their pockets to pay the pols to fix it. Undoubtably due to pangs of guilt.

The wholesale corruption of votes for cash is the name of the game. Losing even relatively inexpensive ways to help the people who have fallen through the safety net will continue to simply be side effects of the bigger problem. Watching new comers like pseudo-populist Jon Tester belly up to the trough probably shows that just picking a replacement for an incumbent is not a guaranteed path to success. Which isn’t to say that most of them shouldn’t be replaced, just that it is necessary but not sufficient.

I’d like to see this bill killed for a lot of reasons, one of which is that it would represent a waste of corporate lobbyist vote buying efforts.

The PO could be a non-profit company, but the existing insurance companies are not suitable enterprises for such an endeavor. It doesn’t do any good to call it a “public option” if it’s just another for-profit insurance company with fat paydays for its execs. Affordability of genuine coverage can only be had when the company keeps its own expenses at a minimum. Nobody gets rich in a scenario like that, which is why existing companies would reject the notion. If they don’t get rich, they don’t do it.

One last note – a state head of the Doctors for single payer group backs passing the Senate bill on the theory that a major change will be “fixed” many many times over the years, it is better than the current situation, and it places Health ins into the game for the next several Congresses as cost makes folks try to control costs, making single payer the eventual choice.

I’m old – and seen too many after the bill is passed laws just make the bill even more corporate welfare. So I am in the kill the Senate bill and pass what you can via budget recon.

But friends of Health care reform do have different opinions.

Your comments above have the making of a wonderful seminal wasser-snark diary, imo.

Very depressing. If you can’t trust progressive Democrats to keep their word, what can you do? We had at least 51 votes for the public option and 58 votes for the Medicare buy-in. Now that we can actually do it, the votes aren’t there? Well, my vote’s not going to be there for Dems in November.

If you want, but realistically we are a two party system. Voting for the Greens is probably the practical equivalent of staying home.

A national non-profit option (PO?) is in the Senate Bill – but it will not work unless it can use the Medicare provider network contracts. If it must start its own contract signing effort, it will never get off the ground.

No mandates, PERIOD! If readers of this post are among those who think that broad-scale health insurance will not work without a mandate, then let’s take a page from the Collected Wisdom of Saint-President Olympia Snowe and support legislation for a (rusty) TRIGGER for mandates that would be employed only if and when it is provably shown that mandates are necessary because the public option is insufficiently popular to keep the system in the black.

That’s an eventuality that I predict will never happen, if we have a genuinely robust public option that is not hobbled by bullshit provisions and limitations.

Note that, in its 40 years of administering the Medicare system, the government has never had to impose a mandate requiring all 65 year-olds and above to enroll in Medicare. And that is a system that has extremely low premiums and an elderly, sickly patient base. (True, it is supported by taxes from younger persons, but a public option would similarly be funded in part by premiums paid by younger persons.)

All of this is above and beyond the fact that an individual mandate, especially (but not solely) without a public option, will be political poison for those who support it. Bye, bye, Dems.

Staying home increases the chances of the lying D’s explaining away their defeat as voters being more centrist than the D’s progressive base.

Voting Green tells the D’s how you feel about what they are doing. Then the D’s will blame you for their defeat.

As a liberal Democrat American I must be honest. If I had a choice between doing whats best for all of us or getting say $5 million each from Pharma, Ins-cos, con-agra, clean coal and pigoil, I may just take the $25 million and throw the vast majority of us under the bus knowing it will cost thousands of us to die for my greed….. which would keep me from ever doing such a thing…. and I don’t even know most of the 300 million people in our country. That means I would be a very shitty republiklan, so be it.

Yup. What we’re currently seeing is the oncological model of capitalism, where a few parasitic billionaire cancers enrich themselves while everyone else gets poorer. Cut out the cancers and the system thrives, as does everyone in it.

Any defeat will be interpreted as due to “DFHs”, “Nader (or the equivalent)”, and “running a poor campaign”.

It’s the equivalent of “They hate us for our freedom”.

Single payer is the only thing that will keep our countries medical decline in check and allow it to rise again from barely lousy in the top 40 back towards number 1.

Back towards number 1? I am curious to hear about when we were number 1, do tell. You do know that the Europeans have been providing their citizens with health care since the 19th century?

I agree with this analysis. I also think now is the time to “show” our cards. Going forward, the narrative from liberals should be, “reject the corporate friendly healthcare reform and pass our single-payer proposal. Otherwise, we will assist the teabaggers anyway we can to blow up the political party on the right and we will pledge to do the same on the left. Corporations, do you wish to fight a two front war or a one front war? Libertarians and Independents are free to join our fronts or establish their own fronts against “the machine”. This is the left’s offer. Decide.”

are the greens all irish?

Better yet: Work to take over your local Democratic party. Start by offering to run for school board — it’s easy to win those elections and we need to have sane, civic-minded people running for them, to counter Pat Robertson’s religio-racist-right hordes who are trying to turn America’s public schools into the Christian version of Taliban madrassas.

On that I heartily admit I don’t know that the USA was ever #1, it is the direction we should try to head to unlike all the socialist/fascist/commie/nazi countries with no freedom like Canada, Japan, Australia and the country of Europe also too! They are all ahead of us too those cheaters! lol

President Obama is the one person with the power to alter the course of American history. But, he has to be prodded like a cow to act. If he wanted to act boldly, he could:

1) End the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
2) Create a monumental Infrastructure Bank to provide millions of jobs building a national high-speed rail system. It would increase productivity in this country dramatically.
3) Expand health care coverage to 40 MILLION people using reconciliation:
Expanding Medicaid to everyone below 215% of the FPL, and expanding SCHIP coverage to all uninsured children, should give roughly 30 million more Americans insurance for a cost of just under $800 billion.
The Medicaid expansion could be structured to also work as a de facto extreme catastrophic insurance policy for people over 215% FPL. This would effectively put an end to medical bankruptcy in this country.
Early Medicare buy-in could be added for people without insurance who are between 47-65.
Expanding Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP are all doable under reconciliation.
Robust public option.
Tax the rich to pay for it all.
(The top 1% in this country take in 29% of ALL income! Taxing the rich on health care (and taxing them substantially to eliminate the deficit) will help bring about a more level playing field for the middle class).
4) Instruct the secretary of the Treasury and other financial regulators to draw up a plan to implement as many of the financial reforms that the president has proposed as possible, using the broad regulatory authority they have under existing law. The plan will take effect April 1 unless Congress acts on a broader regulatory reform bill.
5) Ask Congress, as an interim step, to impose a modest carbon tax beginning in 2011 equal to 25 cents on a gallon of gasoline, rising to 50 cents in five years, with the revenue to be used to reduce payroll taxes. That will result in no net increases in federal taxes.
6) Pledge to veto any bill that increases the national debt unless it authorizes a bipartisan commission to recommend a plan to bring down the deficit through spending cuts and tax increases. Do so even if it means shutting down the government until a commission is authorized.

OT: I’m with Pimpy O’Keefe…the Lucky Charms Leprechaun is insulting to the Irish./s

Ah contraire. All it took was a few million Dems, registering and voting Socialist, for FDR to wake up, save the party and country with a New Deal.

They didn’t have to win with a third party in order to actually win.

negotiating with “centrists” while staying home, or worse, voting for them just won’t work.

I agree. Staying home is not an option for me, everyone needs to participate. Vote 3rd party or go and turn in an empty ballot. The winning percentages are calculated from all ballots submitted, make your voice heard even if it is just a squeak.

That’s how the Religious Right infiltrated the R Party, with great, great success.

Thank you for clarifying that.

If that’s Debbie’s approach it’s a big improvement, but if you listen to Cenk’s interview with her, she never mentions expansion of Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP.

If a reconciliation bill could be passed that expanded Medicare to those 18 and under and 45 and over, and Medicaid to everyone under 200% at the poverty level, then that would certainly make the reform an improvement over what we have now that would be worth passing.

On the other hand, even if the House Dems could get the House’s PO restored and the Excise tax replaced with taxes on the wealthy to fund the reform, I’d still be opposed to the reform, because it leaves too many Americans uncovered, too many fatalities due to lack of insurance, too many likely bankruptcies and foreclosures and also establishes the parameters of political conflict around a neo-liberal vision that won’t work, instead of around continued expansion of popular public programs toward the eventual goal of Medicare for All. Both the House and Senate bills needed to be killed. And now, I want to see a clean reconciliation bill that just expands existing programs towards Medicare for All.

Finally, it is beyond me why Jane and other FDL commentators continue to support the PO idea knowing that the best the House will do right now is to resurrect a token PO that will have only marginal impact on the broken insurance system, and won’t have that until 2014. Even if we’re successful, try telling the voters in 2010 and 2012 to vote Democratic or progressive because we got them a PO that will cover 6 million (or will it be only 3 million) people starting in 2014.

Forget the PO already. Let’s work for Medicare for All, and if we have to compromise each year we fight for it; then let’s do so by agreeing to Medicare for more people based on Age Groupings, rather than go down some neo-liberal road relying on the “magic” of market competition that insurance companies will be undermining from Day one.

Everybody In; Nobody Out!

Gotta hand it to the Democrats…they’ve really perfected their stategy for shaming and guilting progressives into impotence.

Even around the lake arguments are made voiciferously that one must always vote for the D regardless of their credentials or ability to lead. That is why progressives are so weak within the party.

I think we are in agreement, check my earlier posts on the thread.

The PO can not be a non-profit company. This is just a contradiction in terms. You do know that BCBS is a non-profit company and there are many others out there like them right now? In fact, many of the pirates participating in the health insurance cartel today started off as non-profit companies. Non-profit has been reduced to weasel words by the powers that be, which gives a good indication of how well insurance reforms would actually work when faced with an industry with a long history of circumventing regulations.

is it really asking too much of OUR politicans to simply act? Why can’t the most POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD do these 6 simple things?

Medicare for all is a public option. When I use the term public option, and I assume this is how others feel as well, I intend it to mean any government funded entity providing health care. I think that anyone advocating the PO would be just as happy, if not happier, with expanding Medicare.

The DINOCRATS BS has been called! Let these lying sacks of shit have to vote NO on a PO! I’m sick of these paid for shills. They’re going to lose big time this fall and we Progressives are going to be blamed! So fucking what! Let the DINOCRATS party die who cares.

Hard to say how almost anyone would be able to avoid the temptation. The old lie that many voters fell for in the past that electing the rich would put them above the fray was never reasonable. Rich folks just want more money and have a better means of accomplishing their goals. The changes, legal and cultural, that made taking large sums of money to pass legislation has been our country’s biggest downfall. Money as speech has left the vast majority of us speechless as far as many legislators are concerned.

It was never ever rocket science. The whole BS kabuki dance about a PO was to tie everyone up in a phony game. It was always about expanding and paying for Medicare the Dems. weren’t fooling anyone with this game they play. When these Corp. whores want something they don’t even read the bill. Look at the so called Patriot act vote as an example.

“Money as speech has left the vast majority of us speechless as far as many legislators are concerned.” Yep. $$ talks and BULLSHIT runs the Marathon.

I have fewer problems with money-as-speech than I do with corporations-as-people.

It is ironic that in trying to rename a medicare expansion as a public option, the dems have separated these two things in the mind of the public. One has to wonder if this was a strategy designed to be unpopular, or whether they actually thought that relabeling an expansion of a popular government program would somehow increase its popularity. This whole process has been completely disingenuous!

2014 is the start date in the Senate Bill -

When SCHIP was done via budget recon it started the next month.

“Expansion of Medicare, Medicaid” were what Debbie was talking about in the past – but she may have given up and is trying to find 50 votes for any change in the Senate Bill, In any case, it appears we do not have 50 votes for anything.

“Medicare for All, and if we have to compromise each year we fight for it; then let’s do so by agreeing to Medicare for more people based on Age Groupings” – count me in – but Obama made promises and look what we got in terms of what he is REALLY trying for – as in showing leadership rather than saying “I prefer”. Hard to Trust Democrats until they denounce Obama’s corporate protector attitude in words – and in votes.

The Democratic Party is a con job – I stayed home for the Martha election – first election I’ve missed in 50 years – I’ll be staying home until there is a Party worth voting for.

Spot on comment

Corps as people was the wedge that ended any control of corporations – hard enough to control the rich buying laws -
corporations have forever lives and can hide their wealth and spending.

PO can not be public company is contradicted by both US (Mass Savings Bank Life Ins) and EU experience – but in both cases it was with very tight regulation. Once the CEO’s of the Savings Banks bought themselves out from under special regulation a decade ago they merged into a for profit company and the Judge Brandeis experiment with controlling insurance excess via a system that set an example by having no excess rip-off – that experiment ended.

Book Salon up at the Mothership with Sean Carroll’s From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time hosted by Chad Orzel

Hmmmm…now about the ‘Victory’ email? What now?

Money as speech has left the vast majority of us speechless as far as many legislators are concerned.

I’m stealing this one to use as I now see fit! Great Line. thanks

Of course a lot of our Reps and Senators are lying.. That’s why I refuse to contribute when FDL tells me to fire off dollars to them just because they say at any given moment in time that they are for the public option. As for Schultz she is another basic sellout.

wait- Senators in favor but wont vote because cant pass
Schultz in favor, but cant pass-
Progressive?

Liar?

Comment on what? Why comment, anyway, at this point? It’s all been said and then some and more and less and more and less and then some and then again…..

It is what it is, and it ain’t pretty……not pretty at all…..Grotesque more like it……that’s why America is becoming uglier and uglier and uglier and uglier……and the beat goes on and on and on and on and on….

I already miss Howard Zinn…..

: )

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

Just a quick comment Lgid,
Did you listen to Debbie’s pathetic reasoning for why expansion of Medicare or a PO could not be run through reconciliation in the TYT interview? Very uncomfortable and flustered response wherein she searched for some rationale for how these things could not be connected to issues of the budget and therefore were ineligible for reconciliation. Debbie has been a little backtracker on any opposition to the corporate bailout for some time. After listening to that I went to ACTBLUE and cancelled my ongoing contribution to the freshman progressives. I’ll find some other way to use my money.

It’s the latest lie, Pelosi did that the other day. These people are nauseating.

I see my two Senators on that list. I’ll make sure I call them on Monday to see where they stand now. I’d wager one of them will have changed their mind, or be ducking the question. I’ve noticed that, despite them both being fairly progressive, one or the other will often vote for crap or against good legislation.

… well how do you explain those 2 votes ……?

… was she ever the deciding vote …:?

Yes — let’s see those no votes!

and in the Ratigan appearance , same flustered rationale against po budget
inclusion until Ratigan pushes her on her reasoning then with her next
breath .. oh we don’t have the votes for a po in the senate anyway ” …
…. i think we’ve reached transparancy … eh deb ? …

Let me guess, you like to pat yourself on the back for being what you like to think of as “pragmatic”

Maybe so, but I think it’s important to vote and theoretically be heard–even if you go the route of a write-in candidate. I really feel it’s important to show up and vote.

If Labor were willing to break away from the Democratic Party…

You make a very good point. The MSM whores were going on and on about how the teabaggers won it in MA. Might be a little truth to that, but IMHO Brown won because the dems and independents stayed home.

I certainly hope my Senator Hagan has not gotten weak knees when dealing with the public option because she was voted in by a lot of people in North Carolina who really need that public option.

Not gonna work anymore. Once they get into office, they’re blackmailed, threatened by the Dictator in Chief, or flat out bribed.
Which is why the system is beyond hope.

One term and kick them all out, repeat, till this shit stops.

I’m just wondering why states seemingly are not empowered to institute single-payer systems on their own, right now, without “authorizing” legislation like HR 676. Anyone know? Perhaps something in the bowels of ERISA (which, BTW, precludes a lawsuit for damages arising from wrongful denial of health-insurance benefits under employer-provided plans, even in cases of death)?

After all, Massachusetts adopted its own “universal” plan with individual mandates without getting Congress’s permission. (It is, however, a multiple-provider system.)

Much of this depends on what the Congressional legislation states. Most environmental and consumer-safety laws will state one or another of the following: 1. The states may enact statutes and/or regulations that are more stringent than the federal statute and regulations; 2. The states must completely stay out of the field; or 3. Some mish-mash combination of 1 and 2.

So, you can’t extrapolate from the federal-state regulatory regime in one field, such as pollution control, and apply it to another field, without checking what the federal statute says. Or if it’s unclear, you need to see what the courts have held.

Huh? Did I miss a statement where leading Senators have confirmed that reconciliation is the way forward? Who says only 51 votes are needed for changes to health care yet?

Absolutely. It’s bad enough that these drugs are so much more expensive in our United States, but to add insult to injury, the Senators will not allow us to legally import the exact same crap from Canada.

Furthermore, why can’t we adopt the European Union’s policy on herbal and alternative medicine… over there, these are just as tightly regulated for quality as drugs, so the “potency and quality guarantee” actually means something. Plus, you can’t slap a frickin patent on an herb.

I think you’re mistaken. The PO model assumes a new entity will be created by the Government which operates differently from Medicare and which competes on an exchange with private insurers. Neo-liberals favor this. People who that insurance should be socialized, because private companies in this field provide no useful social function do not.

Hi cb, I did notice that. It was the kind of response that leads one to think she’s either lying, or knows little about reconciliation. About your contribution to support freshman progressives, I’m sure that Debbie’s not one of them, so it wasn’t going to her anyway.

These pols are a sorry excuse for human beings…makes me sad and angry…let’s keep fighting them and find/donate to progressive candidates.

I would respnd to this but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

She’s not a progressive, so you got some ‘splainin to do, Raver . . .

I don’t always get yer snark, but in this case it’s obvious Debbie had caved on prog ideals.

As they all are caving, in House, and Senate.

You got something you finally wanna offer to HELP this shit, instead of ragging on all parts of the dialogue, as you do, incessently?

You got something to offer, to FURTHER prog ideals, that would benefit the masses?

You sure bitch about any bitching, on either side, but I never hear you offer a solution.

Call it out, hoss, what’s your input and solutions? To this incredible shit we’re all into?

The wonderful thing about a reconciliation bill with a Public option is that it will leave our Dem. Senators no place to hide. Voters will see they’re no different from their Republican counterparts. This is why we’ll not see this vote.

Medicare for all is a public option. When I use the term public option, and I assume this is how others feel as well, I intend it to mean any government funded entity providing health care. I think that anyone advocating the PO would be just as happy, if not happier, with expanding Medicare.

agree with the last part of your comment, but want to make clear that policy-wise a po is NOT medicare for all and that the policy differences really do matter. the public/private competition model for healthcare insurance is a neoliberal policy based on the fallacy of market competition and even in the best case providing different levels of healthcare based on class and ability to pay (i actually don’t think it would work, but that’s another story). medicare for all (as in hr 676) is a progressive policy where everyone gets necessary healthcare (based on our national healthcare expenditures this is doable) and rationing should it ever occur (if funding is cut for example) should not be by ability to pay, but rather by urgency of need.

there’s been over a year of a massive disinformation campaign that conflated medicare for all / single payer with the po. so, there’s no reason you or anyone else shouldn’t confuse the two. i just want to try to counter that a little bit. (would say more, but the topic is an aside to the theme of the post so will stop now unless you want to extend the conversation topic. just let me know — i’ll stop back later to check for any response)

MA has a waiver from the HHS.

Is Obama playing it out reaching out to the Rethugs as much as humanly possible? And they continue to say “no no no” Setting them up? Giving them enough rope to do themselve in? I sure hope that is what is going on. Only time will tell

I think that you too were confused about what I was trying to say. Perhaps it would have been more clear if I wrote it like this,

Medicare-for-all is A public option (but not THE public option).

The confusion over terminology in this debate is the result of deliberate obfuscation by those putting forth HCR proposals. I am not confused by it, and you claim not to be confused by it either, so it is rather ironic that we should be having this discussion over terminology.

“…want to make clear that policy-wise a po is NOT medicare for all…”

I never meant to imply that the proposed public option (TM) is medicare for all, only that medicare for all would be a type of public option, concept-wise.

I am not sure what a neoliberal is, beyond being intended as another pejorative slur, but please keep in mind that I am not even a registered Democrat. I just thought that the dems were on my side on this one, but that appears to have been a mistake. The fact that you find it necessary to cubbyhole various positions in terms of political ideology is disturbing. I simply want to see our government provide its citizens with health care at cost, and although I would like to see the for-profit health insurance industry eliminated entirely, that is not amongst my current requirements for acceptable legislation.

So please keep in mind that when I mention the public option above, I am not talking about the trademarked PO that was proposed, but rather the general concept of a public option for health care in this country. My belief is that this trademarked PO was created purposely to be a separate entity from medicare even though it appeared to be designed as medicare lite with a buy-in option.

Various proposed versions of the public option had payout rates tied to medicare, as my preferred version would have. This begs the question of why it should require a separate bureaucracy to administer such a program when the medicare infrastructure was already in place and available. It seems to me that there was a deliberate attempt made to have this trademarked PO unlinked to medicare even though its intention was basically to provide the same services to a different group of people.

As a political calculation, this was just wrong. Why not leverage off of an existing popular program, as medicare is, to pass what amounts to an extension of medicare? Instead the purpose seemed to be to put some distance between the proposed public option and the concept of a medicare extension to appease the Republicans.

I realize the proposed PO was never intended to be medicare for all, but this would have been the logical end of such a policy path. I just wanted to see a public option, any public option, make it into the final version of HCR legislation. Once the foot was in the door market forces would take care of the rest, hopefully.

I believe people would prefer government run health care to the deeply flawed product offered by private insurance. I know I would, and I have a gold-plated private insurance plan provided by my employer. I know for a fact that my employer would prefer to purchase public health insurance over private. As a small business we have had our rates increased by over 20% each of the past two years, and perhaps for even longer for all I know.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that I am not confusing the current version of the PO with medicare for all, I am just trying to say that they are related, that they describe the same basic concept and that medicare for all is the ultimate goal. Perhaps you can illuminate the differences between the proposed public option (TM) and a medicare for all buy-in option with separately negotiated rates and a gazillion restrictions on who can purchase it, which I believe is equivalent to what was proposed.

Medicare-for-all is A public option (but not THE public option).

no it’s not. it’s not an option — with medicare for all (as in hr 676) everyone is in the same insurance plan (run by the gov). there is no private insurance option for medically necessary healthcare.

only that medicare for all would be a type of public option, concept-wise.

but it’s not. (more on that below)

The fact that you find it necessary to cubbyhole various positions in terms of political ideology is disturbing.

i apologize for that. i was trying to draw the distinctions (as, for example, described in this paper: The Logic of the Health Care Debate. i thought it would be helpful/illuminating. if it’s not helpful, please ignore it.

So please keep in mind that when I mention the public option above, I am not talking about the trademarked PO that was proposed, but rather the general concept of a public option for health care in this country.

that’s exactly as i understood you. there have been multiple po proposals, some from congress, some from policy advocates. the thing they all share is the public/private health insurance competition model with some people covered by private insurance and some by public insurance. with medicare for all (as in hr 676) there is no private insurance competition for whatever is deemed to be medically necessary. that is a big difference (and a big cost savings). one is an option (a po) and one is not an option (medicare for all as in hr 676 — hence the saying “everybody in, nobody out”)

I realize the proposed PO was never intended to be medicare for all, but this would have been the logical end of such a policy path

i don’t think so because the financing is quite different, but maybe there are policy paths i haven’t thought of (i’ve been asking po advocates for about a year and no one has ever described one, so i’d concluded that was only a talking point. quite possible though i’m completely wrong about that (and hope to see some documentation of a policy path described in enough detail to evaluate it if you know of any).

Perhaps you can illuminate the differences between the proposed public option (TM) and a medicare for all buy-in option with separately negotiated rates and a gazillion restrictions on who can purchase it, which I believe is equivalent to what was proposed.

it depends on which specific proposals you are referring to (maybe the current house bill?), but a medicare buy-in option would be a kind of po for the 64 and under age cohort and not a medicare for all policy.

…..

here is john conyer’s faq on hr 676 (expanded and improved medicare for all act). and lots more here from pnhp.

…..

in this reply, i’ve tried to only address the issues which are matters of fact and not policy preference. it wasn’t that i was ignoring your preferences, i just didn’t want to be more confusing that apparently i’ve already been.

Community health centers are a great, but in fact, like “electronic medical records”, there’s nobody on the other side, even President Bush supported them . Its difficult to see how the a government funding of the centers wouldn’t be a revenue measure allowed by reconciliation, but even if it didn’t fit, there’ll be bipartisan support for building out more health centers anytime in the future. As for underwriting rules and “insurance exchanges” , if a reconciliation bill provided a Medicare-based plan for everyone (with robust private option opt-out), private insurers would either have to provide at least as good coverage as the government or they’d quickly lose their customer base.

We can expand Medicare coverage this year via a reconciliation bill., I keep harping on Pete Stark’s “public option on steroids” Americare bill because 1. it builds on the existing Medicare system and 2. its already written and was introduced with 32 cosponsors in 2007 and 3 cosponsors this year (Everyone, including Stark, quickly jumped on the House Tricommittee bandwagon last spring. How did that work out for them?) . Stark’s 60 page bill boxes the compass by addressing all the seemingly minor details entailed in providing universal coverage that a last-minute legislative rush job (like the ill-fated “Medicare buy-in” proposal that the Senate briefly considered) would either neglect or worse, allow the healthcare lobbyists to quietly revise their way before anyone realized what they’d done. Americare would provide universal coverage starting Jan. 1, 2011 (three years before most of the Senate bill provisions begin).
DrSteveB: Strong Public Option: 100% Coverage & Cost Control

I’m a fan of Medicare for All myself, but there are two battles here. The first is the battle to provide 100% coverage, and that battle is with the health insurance lobby, the second is to transition from premium-funded coverage to general revenue-funded coverage, and that battle will be with the deficit hawks. To get to Medicare for All, we need to win the coverage battle first and build on that by coming back afterwards to win the funding battle.

As a small business we have had our rates increased by over 20% each of the past two years, and perhaps for even longer for all I know… Perhaps you can illuminate the differences between the proposed public option (TM) and a medicare for all buy-in option with separately negotiated rates and a gazillion restrictions on who can purchase it, which I believe is equivalent to what was proposed.

From I remember about the Americare bill details, there’d be a employer mandate to pay for at least 80% of every employee’s Americare premiums (or a private plan that offers equivalent or better coverage). However for the first 3 years (that is, till Jan. 2014), small businesses would be exempt. However your employees would still only be required to pay 20% of premium cost from day 1.

Finally, the House is being too passive, they should put the Senate and the White House on the horns of a dilemma (as General Sherman would say)– instead of negotiating the terms of a reconciliation bill, they should pass their own bill and give the Senate and the President a Hobson’ choice, ‘you want a healthcare bill this year, here’s what you’re getting’. Or, as I suggested in David’s climate change thread, put Americare and a revenue-neutral carbon tax in a single reconciliation bill and tell the president he can lobby his Senate buddies to complete the two big items on his legislative agenda or he can go into midterms failing to get either.

OK, we have been talking past each other and it is my fault. I thought the terminology hang-up was with the definition of a public option, but in reality it was with the definition of medicare for all. This would be my fault because I have been fixated on what you call policy paths you have not thought of. When I think medicare for all, I am thinking about this…

Radical New Idea: Medicare Buy-In For Everyone

Which is, actually, a medicare for all public option. I am not quite sure how I developed such tunnelvision on this issue but I have somehow compartmentalized the common definition of medicare for all, which would be the one you are espousing, into a strict definition of the single-payer option. Of course, the commonly accepted definition of medicare for all is a single payer option, so I stand corrected. However, I have apparently repressed that possibility since I know it was killed off, dead and buried, early on in the recent HCR policy creation process.

I too would prefer to see a single-payer system but it was fairly clear from the get-go that that was not going to happen. When the medicare buy-in compromise was floated, and before Lieberman drove a stake through its heart, I began to hope that the existing public option proposal could perhaps morph into a medicare buy-in option for all, at cost. In this scenario you would have medicare for all existing side-by-side with private insurance, with the option of which to buy into left to the consumer. I think we all know how that would turn out, which is why the health insurance cartel expended so much effort to keep it out of the discussions.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say and I am sorry for the confusion caused by my myopic definition of medicare for all.

Hi beowulf, I like the hardball suggestions on how to deal with the Senate and the President. On this:

I’m a fan of Medicare for All myself, but there are two battles here. The first is the battle to provide 100% coverage, and that battle is with the health insurance lobby, the second is to transition from premium-funded coverage to general revenue-funded coverage, and that battle will be with the deficit hawks. To get to Medicare for All, we need to win the coverage battle first and build on that by coming back afterwards to win the funding battle.

I don’t agree that we have to take it in two steps, primarily because the health insurance lobby Senators and the deficit hawk Senators overlap so much. We’re fighting the same people so we may as well go after them on both questions. Also, if we go after both at once we can accept part-way compromises along the way that get us closer to the goal. That is if we expand Medicare to those over 45, we get both universal coverage within that group and also Government funding. As we expand Medicare by age group we incrementally approach both goals at the same time.

Thanks for the link, the “Medicare Buy-in for Everyone” proposal there is the perfect example of what I meant above by ‘legislative rush job’. As you may know Hospital bills are paid by Medicare Part A (funded by Medicare payroll taxe), doctor bills paid by Part B (premiums split, 25% patient/75% general revenue), drug coverage paid by Part D (same premium split as Part B, IIRC), finally if you want a copayment cap in case of catastrophic illness, you’ll need to get a private Medigap policy (some Medicare Advantage HMOs do cover B, D and copayments for one fee).

So does a “Medicare Buy-in” include tapping Medicare taxes and/or the 75% general revenue subsidy? Will someone who buys in to Medicare need to pay for 4 separate insurance premiums (A, B, D, Medigap)? How will premiums be set? Are there are any groups that will be mandated to join (if only to minimize the very sick causing adverse selection issues)? What sort of premium subsidies or exemptions (if any) will be offered to those who can’t afford the premiums? What about people who can’t afford the deductibles? Anyway, those are the kind of issues that Pete Stark’s Americare bill addresses that the linked “Medicare Buy-in for Everyone” proposal ignores.

Structure and Administration: Creates a new title in the Social Security Act, “AmeriCare.” Provides universal health care for all U.S. residents, with additional coverage for children (under 24), pregnant women, and individuals with limited incomes (< 300% FPL). Sets out standards for supplemental plans with a focus on consumer protection. Requires the Secretary to negotiate discounts for prescription drugs.

Financing: At April 15 tax filing each year, individuals either demonstrate equivalent coverage through their employer or pay the AmeriCare premium based on cost of coverage and class of enrollment (individual, couple, unmarried individual with children, or married couple with children). Employers may either pay 80 percent of the AmeriCare premium or provide equivalent benefits through a group health plan (the contribution for part-time workers is pro-rated). AmeriCare does not affect contracts or collective bargaining agreements in effect as of the date of enactment, and employers may choose to provide additional benefits. Employers with fewer than 100 employees have until January 1, 2014 to comply (employees of small businesses would still only pay 20 percent of the premium).

no problem. this is exactly the kind of misinformation campaign i was talking about (and what got people confused):

Radical New Idea: Medicare Buy-In For Everyone

the po advocates via hcan used single payer rhetoric from the get go in the summer of 2008 (even at some points going so far as to say that the po was single payer). it induced lots of confusion in lots of places. i think intentionally.

and pissed me off. but that is another story. and if you and i are all good now, that’s made my day.

p.s. beowulf’s comments on hr 193 (stark’s americare) is a po i could get behind as a compromise. i should have mentioned it because it’s the only one i’ve seen legislation for that imo is not a joke.

i got the impression that various slogans were being floated (like medicare for everyone, which wasn’t really everyone), not serious policy proposals. but maybe i’m just too cynical. imo stark’s bill is a serious policy proposal.

in any event, i like your idea of pushing americare with po advocates.