“The president… took the Senate bill as the base”. So is the House bill just irrelevant, never happened?

It is the more liberal version of the two bills, so yes it is irrelevent to the WH and the Senate. I doubt the House matters much to them beyond a strategy to bring them into line for the final vote.

Is FDL thinking of putting together a petition to Gibbs or Obama asking who the then Senators are?

Gibbs and Obama are just unregistered lobbyists for PhRMA and the insurance industry. They’re scared stiff that the p.o. will pass and they’ll lose their Billy Tauzin deals.

I will say it is outrageous that the “public option” was originally written off due to the impossibility of reconciliation, and now that the whole health care effort hinges on reconciliation, it suddenly becomes viable again, but not, we are told, the “public option.” As a matter of simple honesty and integrity this is a colossal failure.

In terms of policy and effects on the real world, though, all this is still just window dressing over the central reality of refusing to admit Medicare for All as a possibility.

Walker continues to aid and abet that in keeping with Hamsher’s absurd denial.

Let’s start with Dick Durbin, Asst. Majority Leader, who could whip a few votes in favor, but chooses to sit on the sidelines. Staff will only say that he has been a supporter in the past. Deceit!

“the central reality of refusing to admit Medicare for All as a possibility”
___

Howard Dean was just on MSNBC claiming that Medicare buy-in at 55 was still do-able.

That’d go a long way toward significant reform, but I rather doubt that it’ll happen.

The white house never supported the public option.

House members need to read the Glenn Greenwald article. House members need to know that have been treated like fools.

Progressives must look at the Obama track record.

Drug importation Bill for american people (Obama says No)
Public Option for american people (Obama says No)
Don’t ask Don’t Telll (Obama does nothing)
Excise Tax on Union Health Care Plans (Obama says Yes)
Individual Mandate (Obama says Yes)

Even a blind man can see Obama is playing for the other team.

Robert Gibbs, Body language tells you, he now knows Obama is a one term president.

David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs know the crap Rahm and other idiots are doing with lights on in the room, will get them slaughtered in a primary in 2012.

Nancy Pelosi and other house members need to run from this white house ASAP. The current White House and some Senate Dems are not on your side.

290 House Bills are now sitting on the senate floor dying.

I’d like to know who those ten senators are, and I’d like to know who’s in Stupak’s corner too. Cuz until we see who these people are, how can we believe they exist?

I didn’t vote for Obama, I didn’t buy into the “change we can believe in,” but I wanted him to succeed once he became president. We had the better part of a year when he hadn’t kept many campaign promises but still there was hope.

Now the President has broken faith the the people. He campaigned FOR the public option (after taking single-payer off the table) and AGAINST private insurance mandates.

khin go cheer up Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, they look down

they know what you don’t know

we make the phone calls
we knock on the doors
we control the big e-mail list
we make the Obama political machine run,

this year we are going to get rid of some of these idiots call Blue Dogs and we can’t wait for Candidate Obama the progressive to show back up in 2011 begging, crying, lying, etc for our help, and we all are going to whisper to him NO.

(obama will lose in a primary, pass this health care bill, and will not be close)

Howard Dean 2012

Kabuki theater– i image that your leaders credibility is 0. I bet my father dinner, 14months ago, there would be no PO– it was so incredibly obvious–corporatist

I did vote for Obama. There were two overriding words: “Sarah Palin.” He very nearly lost me at FISA, but then Along Came Palin.

Dean says we need to be in Afghanistan–no thanks done with that evil

Keep in mind the major Medicare buy-in proposal that was actually floated limited the option to people without employer insurance. So it would be people 55 and over who had no insurance only. I’m not saying this is worthless, but perspective is helpful.

As for Howard Dean, he has stated before that Medicare for All is not possible because “You can’t take choice away from Americans” and that anyone trying to create it would “pay an enormous price at the polls.” (Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform)

Hamsher and her writers mostly follow Dean on that remark, in effect.

Good luck. Seriously. But see above quote from Howard Dean.

That is brilliant! It is actually Jon Walker and Jane Hamsher that are to blame. Now I see it.

Well, going off the OpenLeft whip-count, and recent statements, we could make a good start at figuring out the crooked bought-off senators are:

1. Lieberman
2. Lincoln
3. Landrieu
4. Nelson
5. Nelson
6. Jello Jay Rockefeller
7. Baucus

Who am I forgetting? I would have put Bayh up there a few weeks ago, but since his resignation, he’s been making the right noises about reconciliation, etc. so who knows?

Who else?

I did vote for Obama because of what happened the last eight years before, but he will NOT get my vote next time and I have voted in every election, city,county,state and federal since 1964. That was the year I became eligible to vote at 21.
I had such high hopes with Obama and he has destroyed any hope that I had with his shifting positions, waffling, blaming others, or just sitting on the sidelines when his leadership on issues is needed.

They wont tell which senators are to blame for killing the PO. So I say hold Harry Reid responsible. He has the power to put the PO in the reconciliation bill, or reveal who is making it impossible to pass. No PO, time for Harry to go.

I don’t know if Kabuki theater has an ensemble, a chorus, or a corps de ballet, but it it time tomorrow for people to make one last effort to take back the debate by calling their Senators and representatives and let them know that healthcare must pass — through reconciliation if necessary and with a public option. And if either or both of your Senators is a Democrat who has not signed on to the Bennet letter, ask their staff when they are going to sign on and don’t take any evasion like Levin’s “I have to read the text of the letter.” Well, when is the dear Senator going to read the text of the letter?

It’s the Senate Democrats manipulating the progressives in their base that we should be angry at, not necessarily Obama. Deliver the public option to his desk; be angry if he vetoes it. My guess is that he won’t, that he will say that the people spoke against tremendous resistance of lobbyists. Lie or truth, that will be the narrative.

For the next week or so, it’s the Senate once again that needs to be hammered.

Khin,

Glenn Greenwalds article is a must read for all Progressives.

Progressives have been door mats for to long, pay back time is coming.

Khin, all we ask, is that if Obama wants to govern as a Blue Dog, run as a Blue Dog in 2012.

Laughing

Now who needs the Luck?

You are aware (??) that SCOTUS recently ruled that employers may drop you from your health plan at work once you become Medicare eligible — that it doesn’t constitute unlawful “age discrimination.”

Given the high correlation of age and medical services utilization, dropping Medicare “buy-in” eligibility to 55, again, would constitute real improvement, particularly given that that is an unloved cohort within the for-profit insurance industry anyway.

btw, note that I said “buy-in.” Not automatic full “entitlement” that comes at age 65 (now 351 days out for me).

It’s the Senate Democrats manipulating the progressives in their base that we should be angry at, not necessarily Obama.

And you don’t think Obama has been manipulating those same progressives? Are you telling me that if Obama had been insisting on a public option instead of trying to kill it, we’d still have 10 Democratic senators who would vote against one? There’s plenty of blame to go around.

SPINELESS…ABSOLUTELY SPINELESS.

This person is really tiresome with the Jane bashing in every comment s/he writes on every thread.

Obama and his white house killed Drug Importation.

Obama HCR SCAM BILL the one he wrote has no Public Option.

Obama is not on our team! He is helping the republicans.

Any DEM House member that believes the white house is on their side need to read OBama Health Care Bill, he basically threw the House Bill in the trash can.

Laughing

Is Anthony Weiner invited to the HCR SCAM MEETING on thursday? No

True Progressives need not come to the HCR scam Meeting, we don’t want ideas that can work for the american people, juse those that make Insurance Companies rich.

“The important thing is that Gibbs refuses to say that the public option is not included because Obama does not want it included.”; well said Jon. Hey everyone, remember the Obama Admin taking action to kill Dorgan’s re-importation bill AFTER he had rounded up all the needed votes?

What more evidence do you need to pull the plug on this whore?

Indeed.

Hey!…. yeah you khin, if it is so bad here; go. away.

it’s not bashing if there is an actual critique. and there is. no one is perfect and it’s not fair to expect anyone to be. it’s also not fair to object to people pointing that out unless they are in error.

what is this? the limbaugh show? only dittoheads welcome?

oldnslow, you know me. i’ve been here for years and contributing what i’m capable of. you expect me to have to leave if i have a disagreement about something? personally, i’d rather talk it out. friends are friends even when there is disagreement.

Walker continues to aid and abet that in keeping with Hamsher’s absurd denial.

Aid and abet what?

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Here’s one point on which Democrats and Republicans agree on health care: President Barack Obama’s much-touted televised summit has virtually no chance of breaking the political logjam, forcing Democrats to find a way to pass an overhaul on their own or face a huge political defeat.

Lawmakers from both parties suggested the Obama-hosted meeting Thursday will amount to little more than political theater. No cracks appeared in the GOP’s overwhelming opposition to Democrats’ efforts. And both parties saw the president’s revised far-reaching proposal, released Monday, as a call for Democrats to try to pass the legislation on their own under Senate rules that would bar Republican delaying tactics…

Y’see, what’s REALLY important to these people is political “victory” or “defeat.” In fact, it’s the only factor that matters.

When every comment, valid critique or not, ends with a derogatory comment about a particular individual that’s bashing in my book.

Per Glenn Greenwald today:

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.

Like the Full Court Press ( http://www.fullcourtpress.org ), he assigns collective responsibility to the Democratic Party en toto. That is why we want to run 435 primaries in 2012, rather than the lame old ActBlue “target the worst” approach, which plays exactly into the Democratic Party game.

Instead of saying, “pass the public option or else,” it’s time we realized that they’ve done the dirty deed (dirt cheap), and it’s past time for us to be loading up the “or else.”

I knew that would get a rise out of you and that was not my intention.

There are a lot of new commenters here that seem to be bere only to stir shit. You have never been afraid of honest debate and are frankly good at it. (and you have long been on of my beloved’s favorites)

That person is not interested in debate. Only being right. If that person finds the site so egregious perhaps there is some other that would suit him/her better. Just sayin.

You are forgetting Mark Udall of Colorado. After saying early on that he supported a “robust public option”, he new position is:

The public option he envisions wouldn’t be a nationwide provider, but would be established to provide local competition, Udall said in a visit Wednesday to Grand Junction.

Grand Junction Sentinnel

But that does not become obvious as long as the backstabbing is done in Congress. Put something on his desk that he has fought progressive Democrats in Congress on and that has broad public support, and then see if he signs it. Democrats in Congress are being complicit in this, which muddies the waters and leaves them vulnerable. And they got their wakeup call in December.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Jon Walker and the firepup Freedom Fighters:

There is a bunch of interestin’ push back, shuckin’ and jivin’ and some changin’ of partners in the middle a the dance today. First of all Senators Carper and Levin issue statements in support of the Bennett letter immediately after Gibbs tries to drive another stake through the public option. This after David Brooks, yes THAT David Brooks, belches forth some colonic gas in support of Obama in the face of Democratic party efforts to take health reform over the cliff in support of trial lawyers. And of course there is Stenny Hoyer sending the blame for lack of a public option back at One Hung Harry Reid and the White House.

I’ve felt for the last couple days that Obama diliberately didn’t address the public option in his healthcare plan before the meeting on the 25th because he was hopin’ that he would get some Republican votes for his Republicrat plan with the spector of the public option hidden behind his back. Now it seems that the success of his gamesmanship has reinvigorated the public option and the genie is outta the bottle and he can’t kill it now without slappin’ down the voters in his own party that he’s gunna need to get ANYthin’ passed.

ObamaRahma have been too clever by half and their sucess has carried ‘em too far out in front of events to triangulate with the fascist Republicans even if they were disposed to help. Even Jello Jay Rockefeller can’t slay the awakening giant of the public option now that the progressives have the sword in their hands.

Don’tcha jest LOVE it??!!!

And tell me again where our progressive ally Ron Paul is comin’ down on gettin’ rid of the Stupid Amendment in the house vote for reform? And how many votes can he deliver again for healthcare reform?

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

No, but strategically now is the time to push the Senate Democrats hard on this issue and see if they move. If they move, then the hot potato is on Obama’s plate.

Thanks.

Right now I don’t know if I’d put him in the No column, he sounds like he’s trying to weasel word his justification for initially supporting a PO, but that’s not an outright no. I almost didn’t put Jello Jay up there, either, as he might back down and vote for a PO if it looked like the wind was blowing that way.

Do you know if any of Udall’s constituents have called his office to try and nail down his stance?

bashing? then what do you call cheering on when single payer advocates are called lazy cultists?

When every post, valid critique or not, ignores the most important aspects of the situation, that blog has big problems in my book.

I think you misunderstand what Thursday’s meeting is about. It is a put up or get out of the way session with Republicans. It is not about soliciting Democratic changes but pointing out that Republicans have nothing. Its purpose is to kill the notion that bipartisanship is necessary on healthcare and open the way to use reconciliation. If Republicans were smart, they would bring some new ideas — but that would hurt them with their whipped up base; they play the manipulation of the base too and the Tea Party bunch is beginning to call them on it.

Once the way is open to reconciliation, the ball is back with the Democratic Caucus in the Senate but with only a 50-vote threshold. Harkin said he had 52 votes for the public option. Now is the time to put those cards on the table.

I have no intention of rehashing that.

How much more proof do we need?

Dorgan Drug Importation Bill Obama killed it
Public Option Obama is trying to Kill It
Don’t Ast Don’t Tell Obama can care less, could end this in Five Minutes
Excise Tax on Union Plans Obama like this idea
More War and New War Obama Like This idea
Individual Mandate Obama likes this idea
(when did progressive start wanting to make the rich, richer?)
the list goes on and on,

TarheelDem, enough is enough, we progressives must deal with the facts

Our current quarterback Obama is helping the other team win.

900K dems stayed home in Mass that voted for Dems and Obama in 2008, Why Because they know Obama is not on their side.

House Dems and Senate progressives need to abandon this White House ASAP.

Then write your own, so someone else can come along and bitch and moan about it.

Refusing to admit Medicare for All as a possibility, or that is to say, the public option bait and switch.

by stating senate votes arent there for the PO the WH gives cover to any dem who does not want to sign the Pro PO letter

that statement puts real drag on progressive policy

Barack Obama and the Obama administration are not progressive

that only leaves the right as ideology

This is a right of center moderate republican administration that only appears left because right wing rhetoric has been contorted to its bizarre form.

this gives cover to Obama who while enacting right wing policies appears rhetorically to be of the left.

I hope Harkin did not include Jay Rockfellar in his 52 Senators

Jay Rockfellar is now the new Villian of the Public Option

Please go read Glenn Greenwald article about the White House and some Senate Dems.

It is time for all of us to wake up.

Citizen SouthernDragon:

Don’t get pulled into fightin’ with the nihilists and psuedo-anarchists who wanna dance out in the ether with Jimmi Hendrixx and The Pearl.

well i’ve tried to debate the issue unsuccessfully for over a year and gotten all kinds of personal attacks for it, so i’m more than a little sensitive when i see it happening to others, especially newcomers. i don’t like calling people out (not usually my style and i don’t like when it’s done to to me. trying to follow the golden rule and all that), but imo that’s no reason not to take a person’s critique at face value. maybe it is offered in good faith?

(by the way, i’m a big fan of your beloved. and you too if the true be known). this had just been such an unpleasant and actually painful issue. and for way too long.

Put something on his desk that he has fought progressive Democrats in Congress on and that has broad public support, and then see if he signs it.

I think that is his worst nightmare. He has been scrambling furiously — using every hack at his disposal — trying to keep that from happening.

I love this Dance,

Great Post

Refusing to admit Medicare for All as a possibility

When? In the past or now?

nihilist and psuedo-anarchist?

that’s what you call someone (me) who has stood up for you when you were the one on the receiving end? i’d still do too, but not with any fellow feeling after the name calling and grief you have directed at me for the simple crime of disagreeing.

May not show up very often but isn’t a newcomer.

Citizen econobuzz:

“He has been scambling furiously…to keep that from happening.”

Yes and if he gets a bill on his desk with a public option in it you are bettin’ he will veto it?? Jesus H. keeeRIST where do you folks come from??!!!

I do believe he wasn’t referring to you.

Maybe you better freshen up your reading skills a little, Flamethrower. Never implied anything like that. At this point, he’ll sign anything put in front of him.

someone mention jimi?

We live in a Democracy and have the right to judge our representatives by their actions

Actually no. Evidence is you live in a plutocracy and have absolutely no rights whatsoever since you are now de facto serfs. I reckon even the Romanov’s would have blushed at this state of affairs.

i was here for what i think was his/her first diary and am still ashamed at our response.

Citizen selise:

Don’t start with me Citizen…I don’t ask for help if I’m gettin’ hammered, rightly or wrongly, and if you are one of those who refuses to leave old *** hassles behind then methinks thou doest protest too much.

*MOD NOTE: edited to remove term used to demean

Thanks for your comments selise. My statements on Hamsher and friends, which can certainly be frequent and repetitive, are only so because this blog’s stance is even more repetitive. There is no logic in this stance, and I see no reason why I should continually lay out comprehensive arguments when clearly they don’t care. These arguments have been rehashed again and again by Kip Sullivan and others.

I continue to post here because it is the most left wing of the major blogs, but that is really not saying much considering how warped the whole blogosphere is. Corrente is ideal but lacks many people and ZBlogs is even more spartan.

to your comment @45 which was a reply to me.

… i’ve got to go. just way too much meanness. and i am about od’ed on that right now.

Citizen SouthernDragon:

I wasn’t, actually, referrin to Citizen selise, but now I am I guess.

Brother Dragonman:

I’m sorry I was tryin’ ta take some a the neurotic air outta the baloon of meaningless conflict…guess I should jest stay out of it…sorry I was jest tryin ta help.

What is the FDR slogan?

Make me do it.

Let him scramble. He’s organized a community and the community is speaking.

What I mean is that there is no consistent focus here on Medicare for All or national health insurance, even as one possibility among many. Instead they concentrate narrowly on the public option and lend credence to the bait and switch deception that Sullivan described.

I think were asking the wrong question here. The real question is: Why can’t we find ten Senators who will vote no on a bill that has mandates, a regressive revenue model, Pharma protections, etc, but no ROBUST public option. That is the real problem. If they were there we would find the bill at least came close to our minimum requirement.

Oh, c’mon, you can’t really believe that? Now he’s FDR?
Hell, he’s Billy Tauzin’s butt boy.

Citizen khin:

This site is a community of freethinkers and passionate people who can fight it out like the brothers and sisters they are AND they can let go of past conflicts when issues and events move us all forward. If you are lookin’ for ideological purity or some elegance of argument then you will be unhappy here and it appears that when one of us tells you to let go and join us in some current relevance you hold on to your anger like my oldest daughter used to when she was forced to go to bed on time.

I know how hard it is when you write up somethin’ and engage a debate and no one seems ta care to carry it forward…but get over it or find some other place to vent.

There are 57 Democratic Senators. Going the reconciliation route gives them less cover. No doubt some will wait until after Thursday to declare whether they will support the public option. There are either 50-51 votes there or there are not. But until the cards are on the table, it is the Senators we need to focus on no matter how hopeless we might feel this to be.

As for Harkin’s 52, yep, I bet he did count Rockefeller who was on Ed Schultz’s show many times saying that he supported the public option. That leaves 51. Carper has crossed over from opposition to signing the letter. That is either momentum or a tell that it’s Kabuki. It’s time for the chorus to sing and find out.

Or maybe I read you wrong. Did you mean he should act like FDR? If so, sorry for the comment.

It says nothing about Obama. He is a Lincoln afficionado.

It says everything about what the progressive strategy should be.

What I mean is that there is no consistent focus here on Medicare for All or national health insurance, even as one possibility among many.

Because a (watered down) Public Option has a chance – albeit a tiny one – of actually passing, in part because of activists like those who run and contribute to this site.

Single payer has no chance of passing right now, in part because its most vociferous advocates spend their time trolling lefty blog comment sections, instead of doing the hard work of pressuring their politicians.

In effect, you keep arguing over and over for some group of people to come along and do your work for you.

Now if HCR passes with no PO, or dies altogether, you can expect to see a great number of people switching over to advocating for single-payer, or a NHS style system.

I’m sure you’ll find other reasons to troll them as well, if and when that happens.

No.

We should make him do it. The it of the moment is the public option. Had we known what we know now, we should have come off November 2008 beating the drums for single payer.

And the way to make him do it is to persuade the Senate Democrats to force the issue.

Agree.

Ideological purity is indeed the problem, but where I think you are mistaken is in saying that this blog lacks it. The level of purity here on health care is actually rather high: the focus on the “public option” is very consistent and maintained by people like Hamsher, Rosenbaum and even Walker, although he is certainly aware that the “option” is not a comprehensive solution for our problems. Solutions like Medicare for All, in contrast, do not even receive consistent attention as one possibility among many. The attention given to them is basically marginal. They are ignored.

This fight has just begun. Getting a bill like the Obama outline does move us forward; its defects are issues to push in November. Getting a public option moves us forward even more; getting it implemented sooner and broadening the eligibility for it can be issues to push in November if it passes. Getting no bill is a problem only if we allow it to deflate the current momentum; however, getting no bill does not make single payer easy to make an issue of in November; too many ordinary folks will vote their anger.

Simple question: why should we advocate only what has a chance of passing during this legislative session?

What is the advantage in this?

Udall has been inundated with calls and written correspondence. He won’t take a position.

Remember, he voted against the drug reimportation amendment after campaigning in support of it.

He will do the Democratic leadership’s bidding. He is not up for re-election for 5 1/2 years. He can take the heat from the base so Bennet can act all “progressivey.”

As with all issues, I think folks who agree on almost everything else — including what they would do if they were a benevolent dictator — can disagree violently with regard to “what’s on the table” at any point in time.

What you see as a fundamental ideological difference — or an egregious lack of attention — may just be a difference in judgment about “what’s on the table” now. No?

I agree with everything you said, except perhaps for the last sentence, which I am merely ambivalent about and certainly am not strongly opposed to.

How far do you think Medicare-for-all would get in Congress or the WH in 2010? The way I read Congress/WH there was more of a chance in early 2009 and that chance was slim to none. Obama took it off the table during the campaign, giving every member of Congress a ready made excuse to not even consider it. Look at what is going on between Congress and the WH now. Will Medicare-for-all make an outstanding issue in the upcoming campaigns? Damn straight. First we have to identify who is running where and go from there. It is also apparent that Medicare-for-all will never have Obama’s support. He is not about to upset the Golden Goose that is health insurance.

Jon Walker, THIS is why I read FDL.

“Tell us, Mr. Gibbs, who the ten senators are.” (loosely quoted)

Sweet read, LOVED your finish.

Press them, each and every minion in the game, press them.

If we can’t GET to Gibbs directly, press those at the pressers for NOT asking the tough questions.

Press them, press their editors, press the owners of their media.

Press the WH, and our elected officials.

Press them, day in and day out.

Once they figure out the pressing might not ever stop, but that it’s actually growing not only from the DFH’s or the rabid right, but it’s now coming from middle america and all over the citizen spectrum, they might have to react to that pressure . . . and actually DO something before it all collapses around them, and us.

Because, let’s be serious Pups, how many more ‘bubbles’ to collapse can we the people OR the system endure before it’s over?

How many more bubbles built on phantom values, phony stock pricings, over valued good will and such can collapse for our corporate oligarchy goes to our government for a bailout and there’s nothing, nothing, there, our government can take or tax or impose on we the people to bail out too big?

Not much more, methinks . . . . and that’s my rant to the choir for the day.

*G*

Press Gibbs, press them all, all the time. Make them sweat to real questions, and real pressure.

Thanks Jon . . . ;-)

Webb & Warner

Barak Obama never promised a public option when running for president.

Those are pretty good reasons for putting Udall in the No column. I guess that brings us to 8 total.

Replying to khin 82:

Why should you advocate only for something you know has no chance of passing, this session?

Where’s the advantage in that?

Maybe so, I can see them both voting no.

Well, like Jon Walker said, Gibbs should pipe down, or put the list up.

Name the ten that will vote no.

Obama: “Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.”

I’m reminded of the scene near the end of the Life of Brian. The one where the ‘PFJ suicide squad’ turns up. Everyone runs away, in awe and terror. Then comes the order

‘PFJ suicide squad……commit suicide!!’.

It seems an apt metaphor for the Democrats.

How about another attempt to show Gibbs for the talking puppet he is questioning him and Obama and Rahm and the admin about WHY there is no ROBUST Public Option on the table?

Because we the people want it, 65% as polled!

And, oh, BTW Gibby, who ARE those ten senators, we’d like to talk to them, too, ya know, once you’ve finished telling them their careers are over and the DNC n DLCC won’t shovel any campaign money their way in ’10 . . . if they get vocal and public about supporting a PO . . .

Obama campaigned on the public option.

That’s pretty much it, now how do we pressure them on this, and move them off of the deal making dimes . . .

I wonder how much re-election means to any of them, given they have lucrative lobbying positions lined up.

I certainly don’t know what is going on inside the minds of people like Hamsher, Rosenbaum and Walker. It would certainly be interesting to know. My suspicion is simply that they are involved in organizational arrangements that make it advantageous or maybe (in the case of employees) to not talk consistently about comprehensive health reform. For Hamsher I imagine it is easier to build a blog brand if she sticks to repeating established messages. That is my best guess.

Medicare for all is not a possibility any more than a full single payer system is at this point, short of a bloody revolution on the part of the disenfranchised masses.

How do you see this Medicare For All happening? Where are the votes? What pressures do you have to apply to bring it forth? What messaging systems do you have the money for, or in place, to ‘persuade’ the half of the we the people who would rail against it as socialism despite the fact that it WOULD likely better their lives?

Oh, I forgot, you don’t really care about Medicare For All, that’s just a bright shiny object.

YOUR goal, as it seems, is to belittle FDL and it’s writers in any way you can to prevent or lessen progressive blowback in support of a ROBUST PO.

Did Rahm finally update that script or are you adlibbing off his reservation?

That’d go a SHORT way, and leave many, many behind . . . it’s not viable for progs because it’s not all inclusive.

*****

(MODNOTE: comments intended to flame will be moderated as this one was)

Phantom Senators, like the Phantom Stocks and over inflated good will values of private insurance, PhRMA and Big Med!

*G*

One advantage is in having a message that can cause a movement of people to cohere around it and produce real change. Another one is that public support for Medicare for All is actually very similar to support for the “public option.” It might be a bit less, but depending on your source still ranges from a likely majority to a two-thirds supermajority. This is crucial, because it means that you are not losing much support by taking the more extreme position. By taking this position you can move the Overton Window (look up the concept if you are unfamiliar), and you are actually likely to increase your chances of passing moderate reform during this session as a result, as well as ratchet up your long-term chances.

Yeah, those “organizational arrangements” are a real killer.

*ouch*

I want to tell the MODS, you are the best. Mr. Khin has been repeatedly “flaming”, and perhaps deserves a warning.

*MODNOTE: Thank you. Let us consider the modnote above to be a warning to all*

Gotta add Bahy, he’s gonna be a lobbyist!

And any others that are ‘retiring’, they’ll be lobbyin too . . . nice first 7, BTW.

How do you see this Medicare For All happening?

social movement politics. the modern movement started in the late ’80s and the dems have been the biggest obstacle.

one part of social movement politics involves popular education. for example:

Medicare for all is not a possibility any more than a full single payer system is at this point, short of a bloody revolution on the part of the disenfranchised masses.

this is a good time to say that they aren’t two different things. the slogan for single payer IS medicare for all, and has been for years. in fact it’s even in the name of the bill, hr 676.

United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

here is more info if you are interested: hr 676 faq

p.s. there has been no functionally robust po and we’ve had that info since june when the first house bill came out. robust is a slogan, it’s not based on policy analysis that examined what was necessary for a po to actually be robust, or even as far as i can tell, viable.

“For the next week or so, it’s the Senate once again that needs to be hammered.”

Yep.

My two get it once a week, whether they wanna hear it or not. And they BOTH signed the Bennett letter.

Why should you advocate only for something you know has no chance of passing, this session?

i wouldn’t say “only” but i think it should be front and center. the biggest reason is education and supporting / advancing the social movement. we could have been part of doing that this year. if we only advocate for what has a chance of passing this year, we are stuck with non solutions to our very serious problems. the future is more than this session.

the other problem identified with pushing a neoliberal policy instead of a progressive policy is that it moves the conversation about healthcare and everything else to the right. that’s profoundly unhelpful.

from 2007, The Logic of the Health Care Debate. here is a bit (my emphasis), but i recommend reading the whole thing. it’s about the neoliberal mode of thought in healthcare (compared to the conservative and progressives modes of thought):

But people using a neoliberal mode of thought do not view a market-driven, profit-maximizing approach as a surrender of any kind. They deeply believe that progressive moral principles can be served through neoliberal methods and forms of argument. We want to stress, however, that the consequence is dire whatever the motivation. The failure to articulate a clear progressive morality in favor of more technocratic solutions to profit-maximizing markets puts the progressive cause at a disadvantage on health care and other policy issues as well. It doesn’t matter whether one is simply trying to avoid conservative and insurance company opposition or whether one truly believes in one’s heart that the market will cure us. The progressive moral basis for providing health care for all—empathy and responsibility, protection and empowerment—is not stated. As a result, Americans don’t get to hear the progressive moral basis for extending health care to all Americans, and they don’t get to decide whether they agree with that moral premise. Americans only hear the conservative moral view. That moves them in a conservative direction, not only on this issue, but on all issues.

There is an additional danger. As a strategy, surrender-in-advance puts advocates in the weak position of starting negotiations by going half way or more toward what the other sides want.

2007. they nailed it. we blew it.

that chance was slim to none

THAT is maggie thatcher’s TINA: there is no alternative.

the slogan of neoliberals and the borg.

I see the Quislings are lurking.

Well, Jon, I see you persist in your irrational and illogical conclusions. You are not doing much better than the teabaggers here. You have concluded Obama doesn’t want the public option, and you twist everything to fit that conclusion. Gibbs offered a reasonable explanation–one, which incidentally I suggested on the prior thread–but no, that reasonable and plausible explanation is summarily discarded as proof of your pre-conceived conclusion.

What I expect from you are cogent arguments that conform to the basic rules of logic. What you purport as fact, is merely inference.

Another note to whitehouse.gov:

Writing off progressives and independents by killing the public option will cost this administration a second term.

I hope all of the corporate interests allied against a robust public option for real health care access and insurance reform flood your 2011-12 election campaign with hundreds of millions.

Because no one who voted for real change in 2008 will be showing up at the polls to cast a ballot for four more years of this pathetic bipartisan public relations garbage.

Keep up the good work, Rahm.

Clearly, it’s worthless pushing smart, effective, popular policy solutions that could be in the best interest of most of the country. All you people understand is fundraising and running election campaigns. That’s all that remains of democratic governance.

Keep up the good work, Rahm.

ME-How do you see this Medicare For All happening?

“social movement politics. the modern movement started in the late ’80s and the dems have been the biggest obstacle. one part of social movement politics involves popular education.”

Hmm, now yer twisting khin’s thoughts onto MY thoughts, and yet, we are far apart in beliefs, and I’m more in accord with YOUR beliefs.

Social movement politics are long term efforts, and only come to full heat to occasionally during the lifetime of that social movement. History shows that. And yes, without that long life, the heat will NEVER get turned up.

I don’t see the will for turning up the HEAT among the populous, now, for what you want. Not among the populous. But we have issues on the table, that need attention. Serious issues, as in, status quo or fight for a ROBUST PO? Or KILL BILL!!!!

Passing a shitty PO, or none, with the present Senate Bill (or what the WH has drafted for Thurs)

I’m all FOR popular education, but it’s not happening due to a lot of reasons not to mention control of the mass media, the money spent on false meme’s (Teabaggin) and more, including a lack of a real social movement to spread the message of single payer . . . and thanks, but I’m NOT an example of a LACK of popular education, but nice poke in the eye, gal, for someone like me on your side with single payer and more (I’d love it, the fight’s for something less today).

ME: Medicare for all is not a possibility any more than a full single payer system is at this point, short of a bloody revolution on the part of the disenfranchised masses.

Selise: this is a good time to say that they aren’t two different things. the slogan for single payer IS medicare for all, and has been for years. in fact it’s even in the name of the bill, hr 676. United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act here is more info if you are interested: hr 676 faq

ME: Thanks, I am aware of that, MY point is there is no political viability at this point for single payer for ALL, and HR 676 was NOT all inclusive, bottom to top, for ALL THE PEOPLE, be they employed, or not, insured, or not, or under employed or underinsured. Again, yer pokin my eyes, and I’m with ya.

Selise: p.s. there has been no functionally robust po and we’ve had that info since june when the first house bill came out. robust is a slogan, it’s not based on policy analysis that examined what was necessary for a po to actually be robust, or even as far as i can tell, viable.

Me: Robust is not a language construct, I think it’s been defined pretty clearly here at FDL, by Mz. Hamsher and others, and I’ve certainly stated what I think ROBUST means in many comments.

Now, if you want to argue that HR 676 does NOT have a FULLY robust PO, I might agree with you on many counts as we wade thru the definition of robust and what HR676 was to provide.

But I’ll take the basis of HR 676 gladly as a STARTING point, given the abortion language is removed, and the government runs and operates a HC Insurance Exchange in direct competition with private insurance, etc., etc., etc.

Wish you would spend more time poking the one’s who are NOT aligned with you in ANY manner, instead of me. This whole single payer ABYSS you continue to try and stir up as if WE are against YOU, is tiresome, and unwarranted, but it’s your thang, and you do it well.

Again, yer pokin my eyes, and I don’t know why. I’m in the same foxhole you are. You can HAVE some of my purple berries, I’ve been eating them for decades or more now.

Honey, Medicare for All is a full single payer system. That’s what is being advocated here.

Secondly, there is already high public support for Medicare for All. The problem is not the public, the problem is the leaders/elites/rulers, who refuse to listen to what the public wants and refuse to allow Medicare for All to be debated.

Applying pressure to bring forth a policy has to start somewhere. Because there is already high public support, you are not losing anything by taking the more extreme position; your chances are actually higher of getting small reforms in the near term if you advocate Medicare for All. Your chances are even higher of getting a policy like a Medicare opt-in for those over 55 during this session than they would be if you just directly advocated a Medicare opt-in for those over 55. Compromising is for legislators; for a mass movement you must have clear goals to motivate and inspire. Most people are not inspired by pre-compromised positions like “public option” or a very limited Medicare opt-in. Inspire people and the movement can become powerful.

Did you read beyond that sentence?

Do you believe that single payer, MFA, whatever one wants to call it, would have gotten past a cloture vote in the Senate, no matter how much pressure was put on them? Pressuring them for a public option sure turned out well. Obama is a follower of the Friedman school of economics, a dyed in the wool neoliberal. He is not going to wipe out the massive profits of the insurance industry to make way for Medicare-for-all, a public entity. If we got it past the Senate, that’s assuming it would pass the House, we’d need enough votes to override a veto. Repeat for 2011 and 2012.

Is Obama willing to spend tax dollars to actually create jobs? No. Tax credits for small businesses, etc, is a farce. Is he willing to apply Keyne’s theories to end the recession, soon to be depression? No. Factories have moved overseas, corporations have trimmed their payrolls to the bone, there are at least 6 people for every job and very few of those jobs manufacture anything. The economy right now is close to a neoliberal’s dream. Privatize SS and they’ll be in heaven. Obama has no desire to do anything but tweak a few things in health insurance to make the unwashed masses happy.

It’s not just health care, it’s the entire agenda, the wars, FISA, the whole nine yards.

This is part of my reasoning for saying that significant real change is way down the road.

Sorry to all for rough editing and I also left out an entire thought construct up there in my #115. I hope enough of what I believe in shows up.

Oops, I left out a word in this sentence:

My suspicion is simply that they are involved in organizational arrangements that make it advantageous or maybe (in the case of employees) to not talk consistently about comprehensive health reform.

That should have read “maybe (in the case of employees) mandatory…”

Sorry for the error.

Do you believe that single payer, MFA, whatever one wants to call it, would have gotten past a cloture vote in the Senate, no matter how much pressure was put on them?

I don’t think anyone believes that. The real question is whether you are more or less likely to see

A. Moderate change in the short term
B. Full Medicare for All in the longer term

as a result of advocating Medicare for All. I submit that both (A) and (B) are more likely and therefore it is surely a good idea. See prior comments for more explanation.

Ok, ONE last time from me, line by line:

You: Honey, Medicare for All is a full single payer system. That’s what is being advocated here.

Me: I know that, that’s not my point, that’s not my issues at hand, you disregard my points and issues at hand.

You: Secondly, there is already high public support for Medicare for All. The problem is not the public, the problem is the leaders/elites/rulers, who refuse to listen to what the public wants and refuse to allow Medicare for All to be debated.

Me: Show me the polling that supports your catch phrase, done by pollers who define what the catch phrase means, and that those polled understand what the catch phrase means. There ARE polls, on and on and linked to by FDL Pups for a year now, that show a Public Option is hugely popular (65%). I concur fully our leaders (bought by the corporations, we are a facist country) are failures, and lie to us, that’s not my issue, nor my point WRT what I consider to be the reason to fight and argue for a ROBUST PO as defined often here at FDL.

You: Applying pressure to bring forth a policy has to start somewhere.

Me: Sure it does!!! No brainer! That’s a long term fight, we have a fight at hand, and the corps are winning because we can’t even get a fuckin ROBUST public option! Get in the game, hoss.

You: Because there is already high public support, you are not losing anything by taking the more extreme position;

ME: You fail to convicne me there’s high public support for Medicare For ALL!!!!! The polls I know, are about the public option, and you hoss, are fabricating a reality I’m greatly unfamiliar with!!! Even here at FDL!!!

You: your chances are actually higher of getting small reforms in the near term if you advocate Medicare for All.

Me: That fight is NOT on the table, there’s stuff on the table NOW, and you haven’t said a SINGLE thing as to how you’d deal with what’s in front of us. Me? I’d kill the sucker if there’s no robust PO. YOU??????

You: Your chances are even higher of getting a policy like a Medicare opt-in for those over 55 during this session than they would be if you just directly advocated a Medicare opt-in for those over 55.

Me: That’s convoluted, and I’m not sure, but did you just posit the same thing against itself?

You: Compromising is for legislators; for a mass movement you must have clear goals to motivate and inspire.

ME: Sure, and there IS no mass movement at hand!!! That’s one that needs to be built, in the meantime the wolves are at YOUR door and you don’t seem to mind. You don’t have a defensive plan, an escape plan, much less a plan to rip their throats out before they rip yours out.

You: Most people are not inspired by pre-compromised positions like “public option” or a very limited Medicare opt-in. Inspire people and the movement can become powerful.

Me: You banter about catch phrases without fully defining what even YOU think they mean, then you ascribe them to mass coverage of the masses. Incredible.

Tell Rahm the script still needs work.

And thanks for your comment.

But I’m tired of this line by line disgorging of the reality that exists you continue to fog up.

I wanna be in yer foxhole SD, at least I understand your language.

*G*

I’ve read all your comments.

We’re fighting for that moderate change in the short term right now and it’s an uphill battle. Win or lose, MFA will be a campaign issue.

Arguing whether or not we did the right thing this past year is, at best, an academic exercise. It’s ancient history. Did we learn some things? I did. Do I regret pushing for a public option instead of MFA? No, and I’ve explained that and stand by it.

Do you see any real support in the Senate or WH for either a public option or MFA right now? How many MFA supporters could we drum up in Cogress over the next 8 months?

Very nice staying within yourself.

Wow..this thread has sure taken a turn for the worse.

Let’s stop the insults, or the mods will do what they hate to do.

What newtonusr said.

yes i read the whole thing. and i agree that big change is down the road. and it’s even further down the road if we don’t work for it now. i don’t care what obama thinks. social movement politics isn’t about changing insider’s minds. the eventual goal is popular mobilization.

am i supposed to stop advocating for the end of our wars or the end of torture just because the votes in deecee aren’t there today? hell no.

same story with healthcare. people are dying by the tens of thousands every year in this country. advocating for a stupid neoliberal policy that won’t work and will move the conversation to the right is not something that makes a damn bit of sense to me… each to their own, but i fail to see why it is ok for advocates of neoliberal policy to jump all over advocates of progressive policy (bullying, name calling, etc) and yet advocates of progressive policy aren’t even supposed to point out the problems with the neoliberal policy. on a progressive blog.

Now that everyone is focused on the public option, including the senate, it seems very um, silly, to now start lobbying for something ELSE – Medicare for all. The public option is the line in the sand now, whether anyone likes it or not. It’s too late baby now it’s too late.

my apologies to the mods. will quit now. my bad – should have stayed quit earlier.

Luvya, let’s lunch?

Everybody likes and thinks highly of you selise.

You are not getting away that easy.
Hang in there.

We don’t have a cohesive social movement. We have any number of groups with various agendas, some overlapping. We haven’t been very successful in uniting these folks over the last 8-9 years. I do think we have a wonderful opportunity to do so now.

I care what Obama thinks because what he thinks is what’s going to be put forward for policy. I want to know how he thinks so that I can better foresee those initiatives. I got fooled into thinking he wasn’t as neoliberal as I first thought.

I haven’t stopped advocating the things that are important to me and I certainly don’t expect anyone else to. I’m hoping that members of Congress are astute enough to know that support for a po or MFA is substantial and continuing to reinforce and advocate that idea is a no brainer. Advocating for it to be introduced in this session, however, is not realistic imo.

If you see the public option as a neoliberal policy I don’t agree. It’s not the most progressive thing I’ve seen but the House bill is what we have.

I know that, that’s not my point, that’s not my issues at hand, you disregard my points and issues at hand.

I don’t understand this comment…but let’s put that aside. It’s probably not important.

Show me the polling that supports your catch phrase, done by pollers who define what the catch phrase means, and that those polled understand what the catch phrase means.

I wrote a post summarizing polls in 2009 here. It’s just a list of polls done in that year with an average. I came to the conclusion that 52% of the population were outright supporters (with forty-five or less percent opposed) but that some polls were biased against Medicare for All because they didn’t use the most specific term “Medicare” and instead polled on vague generalities.

Kip Sullivan in a far more substantive post concludes there is two-thirds majority support based on citizen jury experiments carried out in the 1990s, arguing that the few polls done this year are mostly biased because in many cases people didn’t understand what the question was asking.

There ARE polls, on and on and linked to by FDL Pups for a year now, that show a Public Option is hugely popular (65%). I concur fully our leaders (bought by the corporations, we are a facist country) are failures, and lie to us, that’s not my issue, nor my point WRT what I consider to be the reason to fight and argue for a ROBUST PO as defined often here at FDL.

I am not necessarily disputing the 65% figure, but keep in mind that 65% is not what all polls show. Nate Silver’s two recommended polls show merely 56 and 62% support.

That fight is NOT on the table, there’s stuff on the table NOW, and you haven’t said a SINGLE thing as to how you’d deal with what’s in front of us. Me? I’d kill the sucker if there’s no robust PO. YOU??????

I’d kill it if it’s actually a step backwards and distributes wealth from the poor into the hands of the rich. Otherwise I wouldn’t take a position on the specific bill, I’d just say that whether or not it passes, what we actually need is Medicare for All. Regardless of what happens you push the legislators in the right direction.

Sure, and there IS no mass movement at hand!!! That’s one that needs to be built, in the meantime the wolves are at YOUR door and you don’t seem to mind. You don’t have a defensive plan, an escape plan, much less a plan to rip their throats out before they rip yours out.

I think advocating Medicare for All is the best defensive plan. It is the best for both offense and defense, if you want to use those terms. Advocating the public option is not good defense. It has all disadvantages and no advantages.

You banter about catch phrases without fully defining what even YOU think they mean, then you ascribe them to mass coverage of the masses. Incredible.

I’m sorry, what catch phrases are you talking about?

Do you see any real support in the Senate or WH for either a public option or MFA right now?

For a limited public option or restricted Medicare buy-in it seems possible there would be support. For Medicare for All, hell no. At last count I think four people in the Senate were in favor! But that doesn’t matter if your goal is to appeal to the population, build a movement, and remove the shmucks now in the Senate from power. Most of the population favors Medicare for All.

How many MFA supporters could we drum up in Cogress over the next 8 months?

Few in the House, fewer in the Senate. That’s why much of Congress needs to be replaced. In the meantime, by advocating Medicare for All “on the ground” we strengthen our own position in both the short and long term. Even in the short term you are more likely to see moderate reforms like a Medicare buy-in as a result.

We’ve been talking here for a while about pushing MFA during the upcoming campaign regardless of the outcome of the fiasco we have. Not a lot of chatter because of the focus on now. From what I see our biggest problem this year is finding challengers who have a background we can rely on. We don’t need any more instant turncoats.

School night. Gonna leap into my tree.

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

Short of HR 676, the best bill on the table is Pete Stark’s “public option on steroid’s” Americare bill. Since its a concrete bill that spells out its benefits and costs, public option supporters in Congress would have been smarter to lay down that bill as their marker instead of letting the term “public option” to come to mean anything that a politician wants it to mean.

Medicare for All is commonly meant to be the HR 676 single payer plan… which is basically the Committee of 100′s National Health Insurance plan first sponsored in 1970 by Ted Kennedy. Interestingly enough, two of Kennedy’s Senate cosponsors were Republican Senators William Saxbe of Ohio (later was Attorney General under Nixon and Ford) and William Sherman Cooper of Kentucky (Mitch McConnell’s first DC job was as a Cooper intern).

In 1974, Kennedy and Ways & Means Chairman Wilbur Mills offered a compromise bill in the hopes of getting President Nixon’s support (Nixon’s plan was similar to Obama’s current plan). It increased the payroll taxes to fund opening Medicare to everyone but it allowed large private employers to opt out and keep their private insurance. What’s more, unlike the single payer plans’s no deductible or copayment policy, the Kennedy-Mills bill had both (both set far lower, even after adjusting for inflation, than Obama’s plan). Nixon probably would have agreed to something similar but he got bounced by the Watergate scandal in August of that year (Mills himself was gone soon after because of a personal scandal involving booze and a stripper).

Anyway, the “Medicare for All” bill that Kennedy and John Dingell offered in 2005 and 2007 was quite similar to Kennedy-Mills except that it phased in over 5 years by age categories. Pete Stark’s HR 193 Americare bill is also similar except that in of increasing payroll taxes it has income-scaled premiums and an employer mandate to buy into Medicare (or comparable private insurance).

HR 676 does add cost controls and expands benefits coverage compared to the current Medicare system, since private insurance companies make money selling “Medigap” policies to cover things like an annual copayment cap, Medicare lags in the benefits that other public insurance plans, like the Pentagon’s Tricare and the VA’s CHAMPVA have had for years. And of course, the biggest problem with Medicare is that it requires recipient premiums for most services (the payroll tax covers Part A hospital coverage, Part B provider, Part D drugs and medigap coverage all require additional monthly premiums). This makes a straight “Medicare buy-in” rather problematic. Since Medicare covers individuals and not families, a straight Medicare buy-in for a family of four would entail 16 different premiums checks written every month. In contrast, the Pentagon’s Tricare Reserve Select plan (a public option buy-in plan offered to reservists and their families), covers hospitals, providers, drugs and a copayment caps for a reservist’s family with one monthly premium.

Amusingly, when the Pentagon started the buy-in plan a few years ago, they had no idea how to set premiums, so they looked to the federal employee exchange (FEHB), found a comparable plan (Blue Cross Standard), adjusted down premium costs to reflect a younger (thus cheaper) demographic. After a year, they found that the single payer Tricare plan (using Medicare provider rates and VA drug prices) was so cost-efficient that the FEHB premiums they used were 72% too high to cover actual medical costs, DoD has since cut Tricare premiums dramatically. But the FEHB insurance exchange wastes so much money using private insurance instead of a single payer plan, does anyone think that Obama’s 100 new state-based insurance exchanges will do any better?

What real Leaders do is when you don’t have the votes because some in your party are holding out is to get up off your ass and start kicking ass until you get the votes. So far Obama has wasted a year kissing Repuk’s asses instead of giving us the Change that was promised.Sorry to say this folks but our leader has turned out to be a wimp where poll after poll shows that most of the voters want and support a Public option he and our party refuse to take on the Health insurance Co. for fear of loosing their support. just another Washington sell out.

thanks beowulf for your excellent and informative comment.

imo, one of the issues of controversy, i think, is that imo (and maybe some others) your statement:

… public option supporters in Congress would have been smarter to lay down that bill as their marker instead of letting the term “public option” to come to mean anything that a politician wants it to mean.

applies equally, or perhaps even more, to public option supporters outside of congress. iow, us.

…….

your comments re the issue of medicare buy-in are very helpful. i’ve been focused especially on the issue of a lack of risk adjustment that could make a medicare buy-in work to undermine medicare as a whole. the issues you raise make this even more problematic and the lack of any real discussion of these issues by democrats (who by and large treat the issue of a buy-in as some kind of panacea as far as i can tell) is another example of the trouble of not laying down a marker of what is actually meant by a buy-in means that different people and different politicians use the phrase to mean different things and i have no idea what they are actually talking about.

We don’t have a cohesive social movement. We have any number of groups with various agendas, some overlapping. We haven’t been very successful in uniting these folks over the last 8-9 years. I do think we have a wonderful opportunity to do so now.

actually there is a social movement. maybe not as cohesive as you would like but it does exist and major progress is being made. our choice is to support it, ignore it, or work to undermine it. mostly we’ve been ignoring it. by that i mean that we rarely hear about it here and that it is purposefully not mentioned on posts with titles that indicate they are daily healthcare updates (have to go to other sites for that – and last time we had a conversation about that, you had no idea what those sites were or what was being done. iirc though you did have a critique about a site layout which caused you to dismiss the content).

If you see the public option as a neoliberal policy I don’t agree.

i absolutely do and i would love to have that debate/discussion with you (if it could be done without resorting to putdowns, bullying and name calling). in fact, i think we should have had that discussion a year and a half ago and have tried, many times since, to initiate it.

thanks lurk. i’m trying, not very successfully apparently, but i am trying.

Selise: p.s. there has been no functionally robust po and we’ve had that info since june when the first house bill came out. robust is a slogan, it’s not based on policy analysis that examined what was necessary for a po to actually be robust, or even as far as i can tell, viable.

Me: Robust is not a language construct, I think it’s been defined pretty clearly here at FDL, by Mz. Hamsher and others, and I’ve certainly stated what I think ROBUST means in many comments.

Now, if you want to argue that HR 676 does NOT have a FULLY robust PO, I might agree with you on many counts as we wade thru the definition of robust and what HR676 was to provide.

But I’ll take the basis of HR 676 gladly as a STARTING point, given the abortion language is removed, and the government runs and operates a HC Insurance Exchange in direct competition with private insurance, etc., etc., etc.

Wish you would spend more time poking the one’s who are NOT aligned with you in ANY manner, instead of me. This whole single payer ABYSS you continue to try and stir up as if WE are against YOU, is tiresome, and unwarranted, but it’s your thang, and you do it well.

i’m not trying to stir up any abyss. in the case of this comment, i’m trying to set the record straight and correct massive misinformation.

hr 676 doesn’t have any abortion language. it covers allmedically necessary healthcare with first dollar coverage. it provides for comprehensive and universal healthcare (please read the faq i linked to).

hr 676 doesn’t have a public option because it’s not based on the neoliberal model of competition. it’s based on the progressive notion that we’re all in this together and that means we’re all covered by the same plan, not divided into different plans with different levels of care. and while there are taxes, there are no premiums, no deductibles, no copays and no coinsurance. no one would have to go without healthcare for lack of the ability to pay for it because healthcare is a human right that society should provide, not a commodity to be purchased.

the definition of robust used here for the whip had, to my knowledge, no policy analysis regarding viability or robustness. the criteria were, iirc, supposed to prevent co-ops, triggers, and state opt-outs. not enough to insure viability or even wide access. if you have any policy analysis i’m not aware of, please point me to it.

khin,

apparently there is a very thin skin to any hint of criticism regarding certain individuals. [personally, i think it's nuts because expecting anyone to never make a mistake, or for there to be disagreements about those issues strikes me as unrealistic. it's even worse, imo, because apparently the same people with the thin skin apparently have no problem with bullying, name calling, etc when directed at fellow commenters.]

but the goal here is persuasion and saving lives by making healthcare a right, not scoring points off of each other, so would you please be willing to consider holding off on using names in your critiques? maybe it will help people see the critique instead of seeing red.

on the other hand, i’ve been trying for a long time without success, so maybe my advice deserves to be ignored.

Selise –

Your insight and advice is always welcome in this reader’s corner.