Lynn Woolsey writes an op-ed in Roll Call today on her commitment to a public option, pandering to liberals who would indeed have to be “f*#king re#!rds” for it to make any sense. It comes on the heels of her public announcement that she will break every single pledge she’s ever made to vote against a health care bill without a public option.
It’s a paean to the importance of said public option, but the kicker is at the end:
Piecemeal tweaking of the health insurance system will not address this growing problem. We need to reform our health care system, and the public option must be included.
I will fight to include the public option in the final version of the health care reform legislation.
If it is not included, however, it will rise from the dead once again.
The day after the health care legislation is passed, I will introduce a bill calling for the public option.Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Really? Wow. That is just brave and amazing, Lynn. You’ll introduce a bill that has absolutely zero chance of passing? That is about six degrees dumber and less convincing than anything Harry Reid ever tried.
And you really think there are people out there who will kick that football?
Let’s pretend for a minute there’s anything of value in a public option by itself. It was always a half-assed measure, a pre-compromise made by you and others in Congress who professed to be supporters of “single payer” but somehow couldn’t find their way to make the most efficient and fiscally responsible approach to health care part of the conversation. It was important to have a public option included in this health care bill to keep it from being quite so big of a ripoff for taxpayers and a little less of a boon to the insurance companies, not to mention the only thing that stood as as a barricade to outright fascism (yes, now that the bill can’t pass and images of brownshirts and swasticas and marching Nazis won’t derail the conversation, we can call it what it is — because that is the textbook definition of forcing citizens to buy the unregulated products of private companies that have been granted monopolies).
But let’s say for the sake of argument that a “public option” really is the cat’s meow. Is anybody stupid enough to think that some bill you introduce as a face-saving measure the day after you cast the only vote that matters stands any chance whatsoever of passing? Do you understand the political process, Lynn? All that business about a bicameral legislature, those old dudes in that other big room in the Capitol? They call it the “Senate.” Let’s pretend (again) that you manage to get your pre-compromised (again) bill through committees and through the House.
How exactly do you plan to surmount the Senate problem, the one that is preventing a public option from being included in this bill? You know, the one where they say there aren’t 50 votes for a public option now?
Does it strike you that this is still going to be an impediment when your fabulous brand spanking new “public option” is introduced? The day after you fully plan to cast the only meaningful vote making it irrelevant?
Did anyone from your staff try to stop you from publishing this?
I can’t tell from afar whether you think we’re all “f*#king re#!rded” enough to buy this, or if this actually makes sense to you and that monicker is more accurately applied elsewhere. But it doesn’t really matter.
Your complete contempt for the political process, and the public’s understanding of it, is without parallel.
Remember this?
It’s your signature. On the July 31 letter, pledging to vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option. And you’ll never be able to blot out the memory of it. That’s the beauty of the internet — it will always be there, for anyone with the power to Google.
It’s been a profound experience watching Bart Stupak actually fight for something he believes in, versus your leadership on health care.
You need to step down as the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn.





151 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Jane are you saying that if a public option is not in the legislation that you are willing to watch the package put together fail?
Do you really think that Senator Brown, Harkin etc will not revisit the “public option” as they have repeatedly said?
Hmm. Does that mean FDL will be removing the Public Option Please campaign graphics, links etc? Having Jane Hamsher call it a half-assed measure somehow makes it seem less compelling.
The key is what does “revisit” mean? Making a speech? Getting a symbolic vote that everyone knows will fail? Writing op-eds with vague promises of a fuzzy future? Sure, they will probably do those meaningless things, especially while asking you for money or your vote. But we’re “visiting” the public option right now, and they won’t fight for it. In fact, Harkin threw cold water all over the independent effort to whip votes for it. Politicians will say anything to stay in office or cover themselves. As a matter of common sense, there’s no reason to expect real action from them.
I’ve been defending FDL and advocating for the PO all over the web for months, but going after Woolsey is alienating me. Can’t go there. No other woman in Congress that I know of was ever on welfare. Sure, she’s a pol — she compromises.
But the enemy is Stupak, not the weak liberals. Sorry, can’t go there.
If Woolsey was not the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, I might agree with you. (I’m in Woolsey’s district, BTW)
The problem is that Woolsey is in a position of leadership for progressives. Woolsey’s choices matter more than the average “progressive”.
The CPC ought to be acting as our advocate in the House, and co-chair Grijalva has done a great job agitating for the Public Option. Woolsey has been weak-kneed from the beginning when she could have been whipping the caucus to vote as a block.
Jane Hamsher is dead on about getting rid of Woolsey as co-chair of the CPC.
Back from the interview. She didn’t tell me I was hired on the spot, nor did I crap on anyone’s desk. I found out that I had worked with one of the doctors before and in fact, I have a sister of his daughter’s cat. Cautiously optimistic. Glad to be out of that suit and back into jeans and my Obama sweatshirt.
I like Lynn as a person but I wish I could have someone with spine as my Congressperson.
Unfortunately that’s only going to happen when she decides to retire.
P.S. Admirable writing, Jane.
So how is she Bart Stupak’s enemy if she voted for the bill with the Stupak amendment?
And it’s looking like they’ll give Stupak everything he wants. She says she’ll vote for that, too.
Funny way to treat an “enemy.”
YSD, how is all this playing in Woolsey’s district?
Are folks “onto her” there? Are there letters to the editors of the local papers, op ed’s + articles detailing her dishonesty?
Do folks there realize what a piece of crap the Senate bill is, but are they nonetheless supporting it, or are they wisely calling for its defeat?
PS – thank you, Jane, for all you do on this. It’s amazing to see how strong the OFA, DNL et al. Kool-Aid is, and how folks remain willing to “pass anything” to “save Obama’s presidency.” It’s sickening.
Sounds good to me. You prolly did better than you think.
People are pretty well informed in Marin and Sonoma counties. But many elite 1%’ers live in Marin. (I have seen Dali Llama stickers on huge suv’s in marin) Sonoma is suffering greatly in this “recession”. But they may all be attached to the notion that Woolsey is a liberal.
They sure understand whining about the process and blaming it for their failures.
Lynn Woolsey needs to lead the Progressive Caucus in rejecting the Senate Bill and the Obama proposal, or she needs to get out of the way by resigning as co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
This thing is NOT over…the battle right now is over reconcilliation and whether and what will come out of that. I don’t think that healthcare reform was ever the real goal, I think reducin or eliminating the Democratic majority in the House has been the real goal. So, the only way Progressives win this replay of the 1994 game of chicken is to threaten to kill the bill and be willin’ ta make real healthcare reform and ending the wars the only issues in November. I think if the progressives go public with this fight with the White House, Obama will be forced to tack to the left quickly or he’s toast and he knows it.
And if he doesn’t then let’s use democracy this November and kill the Senate bill now.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, DON’T PLAY THIS GAME IF YOU’RE NOT WILLIN’ TA WIN!!
“If it is not included, however, it will rise from the dead once again.”
Zombie HCR, woohoo. That’s some powerful leadership.
Why is Stupak the enemy when he is the best hope I know of killing these looting sprees known as insurance reform bills? But Lynn is not? Yes, I’ll take irony for $1,000 Alex… but it is plain to see.
I am ardently pro choice… even more so for women having complete access/coverage/open discussions with their doctors in re reproductive medical care. For that alone I think all progressives should vote no on this legislation.
But Jane is right, these bills even without Nelson Stupak are pure state enforced fascism…. which will also break the bank unless you are super rich. They cannot stand… And Lynn Woolsey (along with way to many in the progressive caucus) is part of the problem.
Best of luck.
BTW, I’d have turned that sweatshirt inside out and been using it as a dust-rag a long time ago.
Can I answer that?
Yes, without a PO I’m willing to watch the legislation fail.
NO, I don’t think all those senators will come back later to add a PO, I think they’ll be so happy to run as far away from healthcare as possible.
Lynn Woolsey needs to to be made to suffer for this. This shouldn’t be something you just get to do and get away with?
What plans do we have to exact some sort of price for this kind of betrayal?
(before my commenting was so rudely interrupted by a hit on the wrong key…) Some say that Pres. Obama is playing 10-dimensional chess; unfortunately, he is playing it for the wrong side, for the large greedy private insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.
Citizen DanR:
Recess is over, go back to class…the adults own the playground around here Citizen.
You need to step down as the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn.
Spot on, Jane.
Lynn and all the rest of them who LIED about their commitment to a public option (when they didn’t have the spine to push for single payer), can get the hell out of the way. Nothing is ever going to change, if this crapola is allowed to continue with no consequences.
There are really two lessons here. The first is that Woolsey
is sellinghas sold out. The second is that she thought progressives wouldn’t notice.It is amazing how even a “progressive” like Woolsey continues to live in a pre-Internet age, thinking that the same old pump and dump, bait and switch cons, used from time immemorial, will still work on the rubes. That is what is so irritating about her action. It isn’t just that she sold out. It is that she thinks we are so stupid.
Why does everybody refer to the malignant insurance industry as companies? The biggest company I can think
of is your local food store or supermarket, even though it is corporate. Companies are friendly. Insurance
corporations are anything but. It’s really late and the Democrats lost this frame way back.
Obama is, simply put, a bad faith player.
She thinks we’re her veal pen. Nuh-uh.
Thanks for setting the bar completely out of my reach… :-)
Yet in addition to being sickening it’s also an important way the supposed “left” and “right” are again really the exactly same: they all refuse to acknowledge, accept and stand up against the clear failures of their leaders – and thus themselves.
We could have unity in the country this afternoon if we were all brave enough to admit where we were wrong, and where we, not anyone else, are the problem.
I’m certain that lots of kossacks and others (I’m looking at YOU, Josh Marshall) will eat it up.
The short answer is why would you wait?
Why would you believe that any Democrat is trustworhty on this or any other issue for that matter? Senate Democrats told you repeatedly that they had a majority to pass a PO but now that there is no impediment to passing it with a simple majority they refuse to do it. What more evidence do you need that that they are opposed to passing a PO. The proof is right in front of you.
What is wrong with you?
You are right but what to do with that admission? Where do we take it?
So Woolsey says a piecemeal approach just won’t work as she then describes how she’ll vote on a piecemeal approach.
Yeah, that’ll work.
Jane’s always said that the public option is the compromise — hence the whole point of the line in the sand of the pledge to reject any bill without a public option at the very least: This far and no further. Since the single-payer movement’s congressional backers were pretty weak, the public option (you know, that thing that Obama campaigned on, and which is more popular than the rest of the proposed HCR?), and which would lead to single payer, looked like a much better battle. And it would have been, if Woolsey had as much spine as Stupak.
Hear, hear!
Good on ya, Jane!!
Woolsey’s pledge to FDL was unequivocal…she would NOT vote for health care reform legislation without a public option. She now apparently intends to vote for the Senate bill…it has NO public option.
Her bleating about initiating a new, separate effort to pass a public option is just that…pathetic bleating. Jane is correct…we know that there are only 35 Senators currently on record favoring a Senate public option bill.
Even using reconciliation, 15 more Senators, at a minimum (with V.P. Biden casting the deciding vote), are needed. Further, I wonder… how many of the 35 that say they would vote for a public option are saying so only because they know the votes aren’t there, and they’ll never be forced to back up their support for a public option?
FDL has every right to expect Woolsey to honor her commitment to the public option. Sponsoring legislation in the House that she KNOWS has zero chance of passing the Senate does not constitute honoring that commitment.
Woolsey deserves to be called out for her behavior. Her word is worthless…as Jane has pointed out in no uncertain terms.
That depends on who one thinks is really responsible here.
Obama has always been about seduction.
When one of your girfriends gives it up for someone who is obviously lying to her and just playing her, but she refuses to listen to anyone who warns her – who’s really at fault?
The guy who’s trying to get a blowjob? Or the woman who’s completely committed to giving it to him?
I would like to get all these progressives on record in favor of yanking Stupak’s committee assignments from him in January. I imagine the Caucus will be slimmed down by then.
If there is no punishment for bad behavior it will be repeated. Like with rats.
It’s comfortable and that’s the only statement it makes. :)
Yup, just like how after months of SP congressional advocates’ not whipping their colleagues on single payer, a pro forma vote is scheduled just so they can say “See, we DID really, really try to get single payer, honest!” when in reality they wouldn’t even whip for the public option much of the time.
Progressive Caucus: “We will stand for nothing less than a strong public option.”
Administration/Insurance Lobby: “You’ll get nothing more than a complete sell-out to the current non-system.”
Progressive Caucus: “OK. Deal, but afterwords you’ll be in for a heckuva fight!”
Oh what a surprise, a plethera of concern trolls have been dispatched to FDL. Great post. Give ‘em hell, the bastards.
I for one would like to see that vote on the record as well.
Calm down, buddy.
Maloney said at her town hall yesterday that there will be no public option.
Rather a moot point, there will never be that sort of mass consensus. Look how many people would rather be required to buy junk insurance than admit they made a mistake voting for Obama or supporting the other corporatist Dems.
The one thing our pols really excel at is dividing and subjugating the electorate.
Citizen ratfood:
LOL…you can fake it Citizen, adults are easy ta fool.
damn i love when jane’s angry
If your assumption is that I wanted to give head to Obama you are mistaken. I never thought he was a progressive. I was deluded and thought he had a sense of justice and right and wrong. I expected a Clintonian administration but we got a Bush II with benefits. The “benefits” turned out to be seduction and obfucation.
Oh, ratfood, you are so practical. Thanks.
I’m in Woolsey’s District. She won with an 85% margin.
I have to say I’m perplexed by this. Jane’s right of course.
I believe Lynn is pushing jello up a hill. Rally a vote against the PO? If you stand on a mountain of pride with nothing to show for what have you gained in the end.
If you turn on her you may be losing an ally.
This whole thing stinks but the alternative (nothing) is worse.
Rus
Santa Rosa
Seeing how the “elect more Democrats” strategy was so effective in view of how Democrat POTUS Barack Obama’s HCR is getting moved through a Congress which his party — the Democratic Party — runs it now comes down to the Grand Kabuki Play of we just did not have enough political power,still not enough Democrat votes and those mean sand kicking Republicans just will not play nice.
Meanwhile Barack Obama clearly wants the PO idea to perish and he clearly is more into doing Super AHIP minus any real competition but wants the mandate to put in fix for AHIP federal gravy train payouts going forward.
Something of a why did the cat chase the mouse story here. Why did the cat chase the mouse? Because it wanted to and that is what cats do with mice.
Barack Obama wanted Super AHIP to cross the finish line without any PO or any other genuine competition threat to his Super AHIP. Why you ask? That is what he wanted to do. A year ago. Never changed his mind. He is going to get his Super AHIP with mandate in place w/o any PO.
The D Party mice in Congress are running TOWARDS Barack Obama The Cat. Have been for the last year.
What part is not made clear yet in this story?
You have it backwards. She turned on us.
Of course they will not. If they wanted to get it done, they would do it now. It’s negotiation 101. Once you give the insurance companies the mandate, there is absolutely no bargaining chip left on the table. You think they fought hard and bought hard thus far? That’s nothing compared to what they will do to a stand alone PO bill. At least this one had something they desperately wanted in it, so they had to be careful to kill the PO without killing the entire bill with mandate as well.
You NEVER give everything the other side wants up BEFORE getting what you want unless you are willing to never get what you want. I can’t believe so many people in Congress, whose primary job is supposed to be negotiation, really, don’t seem to get this. I think many of them do, but they think they can pull one over on voters so they just talk like they’re clueless.
There will be no political will (Obama and the House have their win before the 2010 elections so they think they’ve dodged the too incompetent to run the country bullet) and lots of lobbyist pushback and nothing at all to use to persuade either the Administration or the insurance industry to come back to the table. This will be it. Anybody who knows anything about negotiation can see it in neon lights. That’s exactly why they are talking about fixing it later instead of now. They don’t want it fixed. They want to keep the lobbyist money, not risk it. But they don’t want to lose the progressive votes, so they tell you they will fight and make a show of it and hope you get distracted or they can blame the Senate or Conservadems or whoever when it never happens.
Your personal frustrations are not a fertile place to look for a pertinent metaphore.
It’s actually amazingly simple. We take action not out there somewhere, but in our own lives.
Understanding the fundamental equivalence of the external and internal means we now don’t have to change the whole world, which is an impossibly large task. We simply each have to change our own worlds – and that, collectively, changes the whole.
See what we want to change in the world, and then change it in ourselves.
Simple. Not easy, but simple.
Changing ourselves is the only thing that ever truly changes anything.
-
(P.S. This statement will most likely either be completely clear, or completely opaque. ;-) Rather than muddle around explaining something you very likely can already see, I’ll wait to say any more until you ask. It’s not really hard to understand, sort of like learning to see one of those image puzzles where the two faces also make a lamp or whatever. And I’m happy to break it down into steps of any specificity you desire. I just don’t want to dilute the point if you already get it. In essence, it’s the practice of alchemy…but you perhaps already understand that as well.)
OT there is this article on Blanche Lincoln in the NYT. I disagree with its characterization of her as centrist. Even a Republican in it calls her a conservative Democrat, for example. And surprisingly she is even called a corporate Democrat at one point.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/us/politics/08lincoln.html?hpw
I didn’t think that about you, which is why I referred to your hypothetical girlfriends – the collective crush the left had (and some still cling to) for Obama.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
She doesn’t have to leave the Congress, but, as you said, she’s a weak liberal. Weak people don’t belong in positions of leadership. She needs to step down as Progressive Caucus co-chair so they can put in someone who fights harder or just let Grijalva handle it alone. When your leadership sends out the wishy washy vibe from the front, you’re screwed. People can see this in comparing what Harry Reid gets done in the Senate to what Nancy Pelosi gets done in the House. It’s the same at the caucus level. If you’re not a leader and a fighter type, you don’t belong in that particular role or it messes up the whole caucus.
She needs to be really careful, though, because her backing of a nightmare over a real progressive with a real shot at winning has pissed off a lot of people here in CA. You don’t add fighting for an enemy to refusing to fight for your friends or it begins to look like you’ve forgotten what it was like to be on welfare and are just in it for the money and power now.
Compromise is different from “half-assed”. Just sayin’. I know the ropes of the HCR debate, public option/medicare for all, FDL, and Jane Hamsher’s position very well.
I get it and agree. Sometimes I foam at the mouth but we just went into debt another twenty grand for three days in the hospital. It is a continuing theme in our lives that is getting tedious and crazy making. After years of actively working for reform it is getting worse. Plus, the whole system will crash soon no matter what they do. Woolsey is a problem. I want to find a way not to be my own problem. I don’t know where to put this energy I have.
Woolsey has to be booted for this failure of leadership. but let’s not forget that she’s not the only one who has turned out to be spineless despite talking a good game.
If Woolsey is continually elected by a landslide why is she bullshitting us?
Keepin’ my fingers and toes crossed. Having worked with somebody there before should be a big plus. Ever tried walking with yer toes crossed?
Why are we trying to make a Rube Goldberg type system?
Why is Congress not studying and MAKING BROADLY KNOWN the systems used in France and Germany?
Forget the public option and Medicare for ALL (though, that is simple). Medicare is going broke soon, so why use that system?
Take a system that works, like France or Germany, and get that going.
Even Canada, with it’s 27% people waiting 4 months or longer for surgery, is not better than France.
The main objection to the House or Senate bill is TOO COMPLICATED.
They screwed it up, and now expect all of us to live with it simply for the sake of accomplishment.
As Mark Penn pointed out today, ram something through which has 65% or more public support, but not something with only 25% support (here talking about THIS Senate bill).
To Pelosi and Reid, I would say, “Ok, you f’d up. So what? Start over and do it right. This time, get the public on board.”
She’s being told by House leaders and the WH that resistance is futile. Her disingenuous pledge to reintroduce a PO after HCR is passed is simply an attempt to mitigate the damage to her progressive cred that will occur when she folds.
I suppose everybody (those who matter, anyway) knows Margaret and to what that message in post 6 refers, but I for one find it a huge non-sequitur in this thread.
I hope she does ok also, but I can’t imagine posting my personal stuff here in the middle of a totally different discussion.
Am I missing something?
Lynn Woolsey = just another sell out to the Left. What will it take to make these people stand up for our principles?
Blue Texan’s regularly schedule post is up: While Americans Look for Work, Blanche Lincoln Works to Cut Taxes for Millionaires
Keep up the good work Jane. You are the only public progressive I follow with a spine. You must have some FDR genes in ya. I know spine being down here in dork ville pharisee land called the deep south.
WH and Congressional leadership must think they’re Daleks.
This is the thing. Woolsey is in a super-safe Democratic district, and still bails.
Or the Borg.
Most likely Woolsey, like many of the others that said they would support the PO were taken to the woodshed a few times and almost certainly told that they could kiss their district’s piece of the pork pie if they failed to play ball. Not trying to defend this instance except to say that this is the result of Team Obama having way more resources and the muscle to put all of the silly liberals exactly where they want them.
As far as possible, it might be useful to assume that the failure of progressives on various issues has less to do with their good intentions than it does with being unable to mount a defense from the center right Ds. All of the Rs, nearly every D in the Senate, most of the Ds in the House, the MSM and most of the election funding sources. That’s some bad odds. Especially with the completely predictable Latino vote triangulation initiatives getting ramped up just in time. Man, I sure didn’t see that coming. :)
exactly. The theory that they have dirt or manipulated info on everyone may stand. or Woolsey has been on congress too long and cannot see what is in front of her. Myopia abounds.
Jim Cooper is in a safe Dem district (TN-05). He voted against the Stimulus and for the Stupak Amendment to H R 3962. He votes against his constituents’ interests and then bullshits them about it.
I’ll answer that for me. Without real enforcement of the insurance “reforms”, and without funding for expansion of Medicaid until 2014, and with a mandate for individuals to buy insurance, I’m willing to see it not pass. The Senate bill is so far from progress that calling it reform is laughable.
It’s sad to look around and see how few people are laughing.
It was a very minor distraction. If you are so concerned at the off-topic nature of the comment, why compound that by making an additional off-topic comment?
More properly. Daleks thought resistance was “useless”. Not that there’s much difference there…
Yeah. The fact that this is a community of folks who care about others and is not your basic authoritarian blog.
“He votes against his constituents’ interests and then bullshits them about it.”
Sounds like we’ve established a pattern.
Sigh!
WTF is this, a private club???
I just want to point out that if Obama manages to hammer Democrats into voting for this bill, that it will likely lead to massive losses in November – as I know you all know. But if we lose big in November, then Obama goes into his revamping of Social Security and Medicare with a big, new, hot Republican majority itching to do away with those entitlements at his side.
I think this horrendous bill is about finally breaking the Democrats. If they don’t stand up to him now, they won’t be able to stand up to him then. You cannot let bullies get a hold of the process and easily recover.
As for Ms. Woolsey, Obama doesn’t want a public option. He’s negotiated with for-profit hospitals and has guaranteed that it won’t be there. Why does she think that she can get sufficient Democrats to sign on to a bill that the president will simply veto? What is she thinking?
Just the opposite.
Besides being a blog it is a support network. The occasional drift from the topic is not so bad.
No, it is not a private club, it is a community. During the day brief ventures off-topic are accepted. In the late night posts nothing is considered off-topic.
I agree completely.
I think that there is a “you can fool some of the people all of the time” aspect to this and probably that is good enough for her.
Jim Cooper (TN-5) has elevated it to an art. He’s a Blue Dog taking up a seat that should be held by a progressive (i.e. his constituents would vote for a progressive if they were given an opportunity). Cooper changed districts to take that seat, and it’s something that progressives should work harder to change.
Good Afternoon Jane and Firedogs,
you can ask Congresswoman Woosley about this in a Letter to the Editor of her hometown paper here
or at: letters@pressdemocrat.com.
you can also write a blog post (where you can probably flash her signature on that 7/31 Letter) here
Where is TN-5?
No, just a blog where a lot of regulars have been discussing things so long that they care about each other as people. It’s clearly off topic and if it ended up derailing an entire thread, the response would be different. But a little bit of personal touch isn’t seen as a bad thing around here.
That’s why Obama and the left’s “bad faith” is actually them giving us exactly what we need – the essential first step in learning how to put one’s energy to best use in one’s own life is to learn to stop giving it away inappropriately.
That’s really what’s happening at the collective level, too. Like a mid-life crisis, we have to accept that we have to let the old ways go before we can create whatever comes next. In essence, life is asking us to accept the reality of death. That’s also why all this occurs in a time of both war and slaughter and health care – we’re bringing ourselves to finally confront and accept the essence of life.
Understanding any of that doesn’t make the pain of the reality of it all any less painful. I think the best it can do is change living through it from impossible to possible.
But making the impossible possible…that’s enough.
At the personal level, I’m sorry about all the stress in your life, the extra debt, the time in the hospital.
And I hope you can feel how when you say you’re tired of it all and it’s crazy making and you want to change and you have energy to do so I also hear that as completely uplifting and inspiring.
Knowing you want to change and having the energy to do it, too…that’s the most beautiful moment of infinite possibility. It’s the moment of creation…which is also the essence of life. :-)
I hope you can take all the energy you have (that I can feel in your writing) and use it with those around you to simply have a great day.
Thanks for sharing some of your energy with me. :-)
Damned shame this blog appears to be the only real progressive blog on the intertubes.
Damned shame.
I still marvel at the idea of ditto heads on the left. After years of laughing and making fun of them on the right, I would never have guessed that the left has them too.
Boy was I wrong.
Keep up the good work Jane. The righteous work. You rock.
Congrats on a good interview. Will continue to hope for all the best for you.
Includes Nashville.
I don’t worry about OTs unless they totally distract from the topic. Until you complained about it, it wasn’t distracting anyone at all.
Margaret, fingers crosssed! It sounds like it went well.
Of course Woolsey thinks we are too stupid to figure this all out. Have you been over to DKos lately, Jane? There are a whole bunch of people all excited about how we are going to pass this bill as is and then fix it. And that was before Woolsey said anything. She’s just taking the crazy that is already out there and feeding it for her own purposes.
WARNING: OFF TOPIC AND OF A PERSONAL NATURE. PLEASE DISREGARD.
Hey folks, can ANYONE do a diary at the Seminal??? I had a story pop in my head over the weekend that’s flowing out of my fingers today. Was wondering if it’s ok to post it when finished?
Thanks.
BACK TO LYNN WOOLSEY IS AN ASSHOLE THREAD.
Presupposes a non-braindead California political press. There is none.
Let’s not gang up on Starbuck (probably too late). It was a legitimate question if someone is unfamiliar with FDL.
in response to Knoxville @84
I should have been clearer. I was trying to be snarky by implying his “skill” seems to be prerequisite for Dems today.
The problem is, they never began with the intention to reform the system. They began with the intention not to reform the system. Even Obama said at the very beginning that single payer was out of the question.
So, there was no intention to reform to begin with, only, “What can we slip by?” The intention was to fool the public. Therefore, no public support materialized.
This is why starting over and doing it right is the only thing which will save it. This will not get the votes. So why court a big disaster with a failure? If it does fail, it WILL be many years before anyone attempts it again.
If started over, they could still get something done this year.
Well, one of my personal quirks is to look at certain processes as a newcomer. Comes from my work in software validation, I suppose.
Carry on.
You got that right.
Thanks, ratfood @ 91.
Cooper won that district in ’08 by over 70% of the vote. It’s a totally safe Democratic district. He voted against the Stimulus, and then issues press releases locally to say how delighted he is that his constituents are getting the money when they need it most.
He voted in favor of H R 3962, but only after he voted to fuck it up by voting in favor of the Stupak Amendment. Before his vote on H R 3962, he would not say that he supported a public option (strongly implied the opposite, in fact). But now that he thinks there won’t be a public option, he tells his constituents that he supports it.
Yes you can!
Thanks. Funny, this is the same feeling I get when a creative surge is about to happen. I know it well and hope to take advantage of it.
I wasn’t trying to pile on so much as make another point, though I suppose it was already made by others.
Back to Woolsey and the tendency of spineless progressives and DINOs to talk out of all sides of their mouths.
That’s what the Seminal is for. If ya run into problems there should be somebody around that can walk ya through it.
Yes, that’s what it’s there for.
Also, staying on-topic becomes less important in older threads. There is a newer post than this at the top of the front page, so things are now more relaxed here.
Gotta throw yer flowchart away here. We favour spaghetti code a lot of the time.
since public option is going down either way what are fdl’s goals at this point Just bitching at intransigent dems that won’t listen to us. This is why I have gone green. I am jumpin ship entirely!
So long as we agree that the first “they” refers to Team Obama then, of course, I can’t disagree except to say that they have no intention of starting over. From the standpoint of generating revenue and bending the cost curve by forcing businesses to pay less for employee premiums the Senate bill is as close to success as they could hope to get. The mandate as a way to generate tradeoff profits to the health insurance monopolies is a big winner, as well, from the standpoint of protecting big business. There is no way they are going to walk away from the table when all of the money is still sitting in the pot. Next week or six months from now they going to keep fighting for this example of perfect insurance reform until they get it passed.
I was a little surprised to learn that the population of Nashville is under 3/4 million.
Ok, back to Woolsey.
So now, how many recidivists concerning the pledge about which we know? My own Congressman Bluemhauer was chastised here in these pages for hinting to NYT that he may, and we jumped on that big time. Haven’t heard any more form him on these points other than the bland “assurances” that he is “on our side” so to speak.
Yeah, when the larger organism doesn’t yet know what you know (that feeling of having to let go of the old because the energy’s needed to create something new) it has to discover it the hard way…which is what we’re slowly doing.
Half empty, half full…the glass is both. ;-)
And since what we see in the world is simply what’s true in ourselves, I hope your feeling of a coming creative surge is also true for me, too.
Thanks for being such a bright spot in my life today. Like the sun coming out.
OK, thanks for the responses folks. I’ll give it a try, if I can’t figure it out, well then you will all have been spared! *g*
And Starbuck, mine was meant to be funny, not to pile on. Hope it came off that way.
And welcome to the Lake.
I’ll keep that in mind, especially if the spaghetti is top notch! I cook up a mean sauce myself!
I certainly got your humor, OFG. And I am not a newcomer, as some here probably recognize. But thanks anyway!
Better a no vote than passing this abortion of a bill. I am betting ms woolsey got a big ol payment from an insuarnce company that is just dying for mandated customers.
[Edited by Moderator: There are certain words that are better left not said on this site. Please refrain from using the one that was deleted again.]
OFG – Firedog Ellie Elliott shows you how to post images with your diary here
Ok, cool, well then you may already know this as well, but will say it anyway just in case.
There are certain threads where anything off topic is not allowed. Usually the Book Salon threads and threads where we have visitors. You’ll quickly find an off topic post in those threads removed by the mods.
Just in case you weren’t aware.
Hope you have a great day.
Speaking of customers, I sure got feted when I turned 65 for my Medicare upgrade money. I spent too much at first until I got wise. So I am puzzled by the so-called lack of competition. Sounds more like price-fixing to me.
Ok, cool.
Now if I can figure out how to post the text…. *g*
Thanks!!! Never done it, so I guess it’s about time to lose my virginity.
I am aware of that, and in the recent salon on the Imperial Cruise, I did watch how I wrote my responses.
Jane, has it occurred to you that you beat a dead horse? It’s not that people like Woolsey are dishonest, though they may be. It’s that the system doesn’t work. It doesn’t tell our representatives in an unambiguous fashion what we the people want. Polls don’t do it either. Take my representative-please. Jim Himes ran on an anti-war platform. If ever an election said something, it was that his constituents wanted out of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he voted for every military funding bill that came down the pike. The generals (“experts” all) tell him the funds are necessary and he doesn’t want to be painted as not supporting our troops. If we the people can’t find a way to express ourselves in an unambiguous fashion we will get nowhere. You can’t expect a different result from more of the same.
Make sure you have the title, summary, body and tags boxes completed. You can do Save & Preview to make sure it reads the way you want it to then press Publish. You’ve got time to edit it after it publishes.
Back to work.
Namaste
Thank you, Jane! (and did you get the clip from Christy?) :^)
I keep saying – as long as the bill demands compliance to neo-fascism (citizens forced to buy insurance from private vendors) I do NOT want to see it pass. What good does this bill actually do? And don’t tell me it forces insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions because it puts no cost controls on them, so, sure, they’ll offer to cover you but you’ll have to pay them ungodly amounts of money (so, if you’re very wealthy, it’ll be okay)…
No, but in most cases our VOTES tell them what we want. We told them BIG TIME in the last two major elections what we wanted…but they are so greed-driven that they stop listening the second they win.
I’m not sure you’re right about votes telling our representatives anything. At any rate it’s their stop listening habit that must be addressed.
See, I think you have been sold a bill that the Senate bill is the best to hope for.
They ended up with the Senate bill because they never really tried to get real reform. Even the public option was a very weak substitute for real reform.
#1 reason is that they never tried to bring the public into it. They were so afraid that if they let anyone know what they were doing that the insurance companies or whoever would work against them, they excluded the public.
They were running scared from the very beginning.
Because of that, they ended up with a whole lot of nothing except the pre-conditions exclusion.
I actually live in Maloney’s district, I’d love to challenge her but I have no idea where I would even start.
She’s been worthless for years.
I’ve often been struck by this as well–not in relation to Woolsey, but the Democratic Caucus in general. Who out there matches Stupak’s unyielding intensity when it comes to hcr? Can’t think of one member of either house or senate.
Wow, all this smoke being blown up my ass, I’m gonna explode in a minute! And with the Senate saying trust me, the check is in the mail; which branch of gov can sell us out faster? Reid, Obama, or Pelosi (let’s not worry about protecting our jobs she says?)
You know things are bad when the talk is about reforming healthcare reform when healthcare reform hasn’t passed yet. All this talk about how things will be made better later is just ridiculous, but the more these politicos talk about how they’ll reform healthcare reform the more it shows shows how crappy the bill is.
Here I was thinking my cynicism was too overt. I guess I really am a bit subtle after all. (This will come as a shock to my wife I suspect.)
From my perspective nearly everything that Obama stands for now, Bush was there first. Bush would have done the Senate bill but he as too busy saving us all from mythical WMDs. What might appear as me supporting the Senate version is actually just an attempt to illustrate why the current administration wants this medicinal leach placed on the open wound of health insurance. I’m for either massive regulation of health care and the insurance companies that provide their own independent death panels or single payer pretty much as exists in Canada. Of those two I think our corporate controlled government is completely incapable of regulating that which the lobbyists who own them represent, which leaves single payer.
That being said, Obama is not going to give up on this willingly, in part, for the reasons previously outlined. The fact that it is a bad plan to me has very little to do with why they want it. His current misguided efforts in health insurance ball spiking are, in the final analysis, nothing compared to the previous financial and military malfeasance as well as support for the so-callled Patriot Act.
from Jane’s:
“It was important to have a public option included in this health care bill to keep it from being… quite so big of a ripoff for taxpayers and…
“a barricade to outright fascism…
” call it what it is — because forcing citizens to buy the unregulated products of private companies that have been granted monopolies):
“Is the textbook definition”…
My comment:
This is a big leap away from liberal democratic and “laizey fair,”ways governance. Why didn’t the right wing express their antagonism for the issue more effectively on this point though?
Not death panels, or socialism, faux frugality posturing, or government take over, but just this bold faced unconstitutional, and fascistic mandate.
This one issue may be the real purpose behind the past year of ignoramus HCR kabuki. A cost plus extravaganza boondoggle, all just to push all the people into paying for breathing rights. Mandated ins. purchase. Which will be a step to kinds of forced compliance at all levels. Fascistic.
Woolsey is well intentioned but like the rest of… ( them with good… inclinations,) lacks enough strength, force, legs, to lead it. I have less tolerance for the pres, A total chameleon, he is a wanton poseur, dupe, and/or sock puppet. When that’s your top pick, it’s time to rethink what is happening. The actual processes, what the dynamic forces are, etc.
In Woolsey’s district… life goes on, sports, munchkin stuff. the genious of HCR is just its oversize, too big for… polite small talk.
PS: Excise tax on existing plans: Object lesson… cynical. A slap at unions for getting ahead of the times. “This is not Europe.” There is a firewall to keep in place, exactly here.
If you’ve known what Jane’s position on HCR has been for the past year, then you know that her stance today is the same as it has always been — that the public option’s main value is as a steppingstone to Medicare for All – and that the congressional forces who claimed to be for single payer were not exactly fighting, much less fighting effectively, for it. So Jane backed fighting for the public option, with the understanding that it was a compromise and that since we’d already compromised, we wouldn’t compromise any more. Period. That’s the whole point of getting Woolsey and the other alleged House progressives to sign onto the pledge not to vote for any bill without a public option. We’d already worked to meet people more than halfway by foregoing immediate universal single payer — we’re not giving up anything else. No public option, no deal.
Now, antichoice Blue Dogs have no trouble getting their members to honor pledges not to vote for bills that don’t have what they want. Why is it that Woolsey can’t even whip her flock into making pledges, much honoring them?
Spot on. She’d vote against her own follow-up bill if Rahm told her to do so.
The politician’s perennial cry: I’ll vote the right way the next time! Fat chance, Lynn.
Wouldn’t it make perfect strategic sense to salt groups with agenda you don’t like with moles? Especially wouldn’t it work perfectly if you could place a fake into a leadership position? The Trojan Horse strategy. Works for malware, why not politics? Hasn’t this very stunt been pulled off before…………
Even the “looney lefties” dont care – well good luck with those re-elections.
I am done with the lot.
Wonder if they care about that, I doubt it – they still take power and shit money.
I can, and will.
Time for words is over. Show me.
While I appreciate everything Jane has done to advance policy solutions that put people above corporate interests, I have to agree with Ian on this administration & congress.
Here is Lynn Woolsey lying. She’s really bad at it. Why the fick do I care if she was on welfare, so are/have been a lot of people.
Step down Lynn, you are useless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiyO9VBGhHA
Bingo. No more calls folks, we have a winner. It’s Machiavelli as practiced by Obamarahma.
Agreed. You and lorelynn go to the head of the class. (And get to be the eraser monitors!)
Definitely the place I hang out the most…
Well since Godwin’s law was already abused, I’m in.
Surely we CAN NOT believe they are selling us out to the highest bidder and have camps in wait. But YES, your truth telling eyes do not lie.
If they don’t VOTE progessive, then they ain’t.
What is so god darned hard to figure out about that? Listen. It’s not that hard. The ability of denial is amazing. This is the moment and she and Grijalva and all the rest are selling us out. What were those Jews called that sold out their own kind? You end up dead even if it’s a nice woman who was on welfare named Lynn that means all the best just as you do if it’s an “enemy.” Meaning well is not enough. Actually sacrificing something might be a start. The horror! A politician sacrificing. NEVER gonna happen.
Woolsey not only doesn’t vote progressive, she fund-raises for Blue Dogs! Case in point, Jane Harmon (CA-36), who is OFFICIALLY part of the Blue Dog Caucus.
How’s that for inappropriate conduct by the Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair?
Nice jumpover…like Ian’s POVs…amused to find my HCR FDL comments lining up with the bulk of the views and comments found here…first time here and will visit more often :-)
I think we are all aware that it has been reported that the polling is such that without a public option, the Senate Bill has support among only a minority of the public, but with a public option it has support among a majority. I think that reason for these polling results is perhaps this:
I think that We the Public are showing perhaps some sort of Jungian Collective Unconscious Understanding that President Obama and the rest of the corporatist “Public option? We ain’t got no public option! We don’t need no public option! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ public option!” crowd are trying to trap We the Public into a privatized system that is mathematically impossible to work, a privatized system in which we always will be in the hell of severe premium or other payment inflation, a privatized system in which so many of us will still not have the security and resulting peace of mind we crave.
Why do I think that President Obama is part of this crowd?
Because I believe the many reports saying that President Obama made a deal with the for-profit hospital industry to kill the public option. This make me angry. It means that if public money going to private plans without a public option becomes law, it’s over – no public option for at least a generation. As Howard Dean said, we’ll be battling these insurance companies in the hell I just described for at least a generation. The author of one the articles reporting Obama’s deal wrote a comment here at FDL,
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/05/anthony-weiner-if-you-want-a-vote-on-the-public-option-why-not-demand-it/
at comment 80.
At comment 88, I suggested some hope that, in a rather paradoxical way, President Obama and these other “We don’t need no public option!” corporatists could be forced to give We the Public what We the Public want, which is a way out of the privatized nightmare they have constructed for us, a way out of having to live like caged animals who wish for nothing but freedom from incessant corporate raping.
I thank Jane for her expression of anger. It’s time to get angry, not only at those who have bowed to pressure to kill the public option, but at the one who is ultimately responsible himself, President Obama.
Everyone needs to understand (and I think there might be some sort of Jungian Collective Unconscious Understanding of) what I referred to above, that no matter how much the health insurance model is reformed, it is still mathematically impossible to avoid a severe level of insurance premium inflation, and it is mathematically impossible to make healthcare truly affordable long term for any more than an ever-shrinking minority of the population. Without a public option as a way out, it therefore by mathematical undeniability really is a privatized nightmare that they have constructed for us – we really will have to live like caged animals who wish for nothing but freedom from incessant corporate raping.
I invite even the most mathematically challenged to think through what I’m about to write, to see what I’m saying:
Imagine if we were to try to finance government such that everyone regardless of income paid the same actual dollar amount. Notice that this is a severely regressive payment system with respect to income. Could government ever really have enough revenue to fully serve all the people with such a severely regressive payment system? The answer and three other consequences:
(1) The system would never have even close to enough revenue to provide full services to even just a majority of the population. It could service fully only an ever-shrinking minority. Not only that: (2) The system would have to raise these dollar payment rates very often and very much higher than overall inflation in the economy overall just to even try to maintain funding services to the minority it tries to service on such poor financing. The only mathematical way to slow down this rate inflation in such a severely regressive payment system would be, without end, (3) shift ever more costs to those paying these rates by raising their out-of-pocket costs, and/or (4) dumping and denying more and more people full or even just partial services.
The for-profit or nonprofit health insurance system is financed in exactly how I described, as a severely regressive payment system where everyone pays the same rate in actual dollars for the same service in terms of coverage. And note that everything I described above is happening, point by point for either for-profit or nonprofit insurance:
(1) Only somewhat above 1/3 of the US population (only somewhat more than 100 million) is considered fully privately insured (for-profit or nonprofit), and the private market is still trying to lessen this fraction continuously by dumping and denying – the market is actually saying that it wants no part of even far away from universal coverage. Note that the other somewhat less than 2/3 of the population is such that roughly 1/3 (roughly 100 million) is on some sort of public healthcare (federal, state, county, city) and somewhat below 1/3 (somewhat below 100 million) is uninsured or privately underinsured. (2) We have severe premium rate inflation. (3) We have more and more costs shifted to consumers via raised deductibles and copays. (4) We have more and more people being dumped or denied coverage.
By these four points, this severely regressive financing system of everyone paying the same dollar amount for the same service or coverage regardless of income is, in a nutshell, is the real reason why either the for-profit or nonprofit insurance model is mathematically guaranteed to be a monster of a headache forever, until we kill the headache in the only way mathematically possible, which is with progressive financing, which we can have only via progressive taxation. In this last case financing would come from general revenue or from progressive hypothecated taxes or some combination. (Note that Medicare premiums finance only a small fraction of the total cost of Medicare, so its financing is overall not regressive with respect to the income of those paying the premiums.)
By these four points, it should be clear that we have the best chance of avoiding underfunded services and the best chance of minimizing rate hike increase frequency only if we have financing that is progressive in terms of income.
Some might still complain that such a regressive payment system could still be made to work. Those who would say this need to know the facts as to how not-rich the bottom 50% – even the bottom 75% – of the income distribution of the American public really is:
1/3 of all households have pretax incomes BELOW roughly $30,000/yr. 1/2 of all jobs pay BELOW roughly $15/hr pretax (national median wage), BELOW roughly $32,000/yr pretax 40/hr workweek. 2/3 of all uninsured are BELOW twice poverty. Average industry actuarial value (defined as healthcare portion paid by insurance) and loss ratio is each roughly 65-80%. Holding steady this actuarial value, lower premiums until this loss ratio equals the mathematical limit of 100%. Premiums decrease only 20-35% maximum. Average family premiums decrease roughly from $13-14,000/yr to $9-12,000/yr at best. In this regressive payment system in question, they are still far from affordable for at least the bottom 50% – even the bottom 75% – even before all those deductibles and copays and future increases of all three.
Some might complain that progressive financing would be re-distributive in its effect. Apart from the fact that all government services have the essential effect of being re-distributive, the facts I just cited showing just how not-rich the American public really is should show that without a progressive-tax-financed system, there is no hope for at least this bottom 50% – even the bottom 75% – of the income distribution of the American public.