This begs the question: If we were told we could not have a public option because it does not have the votes why would Reid need to whip against it?

Actually, there’s little point asking this kind of question any more. Somebody, I forget who, made a quite brilliant but equally dispiriting hig-level analysis of what is going on saying (and I paraphrase)

“the only thing that gives me hope is that as the wheels start come completely off the sytem (meaning liberal democracy), they (the politician-clowns and oligarchal-servants) have to be increasingly transparent and brazen in their attempts to ‘fix’ things to the liking of the true rulers of the country”

In other words, if they want to keep their little sweetheart deals going, they can’t do so in secret any more. It is quite obvious to increasingly large numbers of people what is going on here.

Now the big question is, what happens next? And I mean that on a much larger scale than just ‘healthcare reform’.

That’s what one of the good outcomes of the FDL whip count was/will be, even if it fails to block Obama’s bill–revealing the empty promises and theatrics of so many politicians who are supposedly progressive “allies.” It was eye-opening for me, at least.

Via Sam Stein at HuffPost (about a half hour ago):

If House Democrats include a public plan in the reconciliation bill they craft to “fix” the Senate’s legislation, Durbin will work hard to make sure the provision (as part of the reconciliation package) has the votes for passage. If it’s not in that reconciliation package, he won’t lift a finger. In fact, he will work against efforts to add it as an amendment.

Durbin’s spokesman Joe Shoemaker wrote:

“Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over. Conversely, the Leaders will whip against any attempt to alter or amend the bill if the public option is not in it.”

That’s the public option hot potato being tossed at Pelosi.

If they cared it might mean something. However, friend they don’t care and are becoming more brazen about it. Yes, were seeing the man behind the screen pulling the whistles and levers ( the real wizard) but I repeat he doesn’t care anymore if we see him. In the end he wants us all to believe in the magic slippers anyway .

That is what an obviously frustrated aide tried to explain to me when I called Durbin’s office, outraged that he would not whip for the PO. I’m still not sure I understand.

Is this something that Pelosi actually can make happen? Should we be pouring phone calls into her office?

If Senate Democrats want to toss the public option hot potato to Pelosi and House Democrats, that’s fine by me.

Right now, Jane and everyone at Firedoglake should get back to whipping the votes for a public option in the House.

House leadership should include a public plan in the reconciliation package, find the votes in the House to pass it, and send it over to the Senate. Durbin said that the Senate leadership will not change it once it’s sent over and he said that they’ll fight aggressively to pass it.

Should we be trying to Grayson on our side for an all-out PO push, or let him keep working on the Medicare buy-in?

How could the PO, in any form, achieve savings in the initial years before the exchanges go into effect?

Definitely start pouring in calls to Pelosi’s office.

Take a look at Stein’s piece at HuffPost (link in the comment @ 3).

As I understand what Durbin’s spokesman is saying, Senate rules would open the floodgates to endless amendments if they try to change it there (i.e. Republicans can step in and obstruct it with bs amendments ad infinitum).

But if the House passes a reconciliation package that includes a public option, the Senate can have an up-or-down vote on it without having to open it to any amendments at all.

Thanks, Knox, I will start calling and getting friends to do the same.

Victoria (from Chattanooga)

Let him keep working on the Medicare buy-in. A bill combining that with subsidies to help people with the buy-in would be a big step toward Medicare for All. On the other hand, any PO really starts us off in another direction.

From DDay’s post a little earlier today, it sounds like the Medicare buy-in idea wouldn’t work until 2011 (after Senate rules are changed).

But a public option can be incorporated into the House’s reconciliation package right now.

I think we should definitely be trying to get Grayson on our side for an all-out PO push right now.

Also, the Medicare buy-in could be made effective immediately. People would actually see a result that helps them for a change.

I completely disagree on all counts. A public option is a step in the right direction. A public option can be done right now. The medicare buy-in would not happen legislatively until 2011 at the earliest, if at all.

Dear Senator Reid; I am saddened to hear about the accident that has injured your wife and daughter. If it were my family, I would not have the ability to pay for the property or medical expenses that were incurred. 100 million Americans share my situation.
You though are wealthy and have insurance coverage so you are immune, isolated and know that all that can be done is being done. We know that the minimum that can be done, and that someone is forced to do by law is the kind of treatment we get.
In a tragedy, perhaps you will understand what happens you your constituents when they have their families torn apart because they can’t afford surgery, can’t afford medication, can’t find work, can’t find out who has kicked them out of their homes or why, can’t really afford to live. Certainly, can’t afford to survive.
This is what makes the US a third world nation sir. It is this that causes the people to distrust their government and question why you are now trying to kill the public health care option, and trying to kill us? Does this tragedy show you how it is repeated day after day for 100 million fellow countryman? Even a small operation means the end of families because they can’t afford care.
Please, be a human being and stop trying to kill us. You do understand that we believe that you want to kill us with your actions? From all that we see and read, we wonder why you are so against us surviving?

Try to remember that you are losing your bid to be reelected because your own state hates you for your actions against them. The teabag can be bribed out of running and you would suddenly find yourself out of a job. Try once to think of the little guy and act like a human being. You can do it. Now we wait to see how you treat the victims of a major wreck after experiencing one yourself.

The bright side is that the dems have been exposed for not ever really wanting the public option in the first place. The best thing that cld happen is that they force the bill thru and get killed in 2010 and 2012. The sooner we get rid of the Durbins, Harkins, and Rockerfellers, all who were for the public option until we really had a chance to pass it, the sooner the dem party is purged of this type of leadership the sooner we may be able to change the party. So hopefully the bill passes, they cant blame us progressives for blocking Obama, and the American people put them out of work in 2010 and 2012. Sure republicans will be in charge but in a couple of years the people will be sick of them too. And instead of an incumbent corporate democrat we can install some real progressive dems. Obama’s concession speech in 2012 is going to be sweet.

I believe the Medicare buy-in is the public option we’ve been waiting for. Grayson is already on our side, which is why he introduced this bill.

The question is how to be the most effective with our efforts right now.

The answer is to push House Democrats for a public option right now.

I don’t think D-Day’s post implies that the buy-in must wait until 2011. Where do you see that? Also, if the PO is passed it won’t be effective until 2014.

In any event, any expansion of Medicare, including even passage of enhanced Medicare for All can be done purely through a reconciliation bill. A bill that simply provided for a Medicare buy-in along with subsidies based on income could easily be done through reconciliation. What makes you think it doesn’t fit the reconciliation rules? Also, it wouldn’t even raise the abortion issue since it’s covered by Hyde.

I would love to see Medicare for all, but am fearful that Grayson’s bill will be tied up forever and the PO might be in our hands if we give a final huge effort….

Krugman:

“And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?”

shows how one can be intellectually brilliant and still hopelessly blinkered by the tribal forces of your political affiliation.

Is Grayson’s a reconciliation bill? Why is it that at this late date in the whole drama we still are so confused about the mechanisms of this legislation?

I’ve replied to the “couldn’t happen until 2011 trope already. But as far as direction is concerned, a PO-based bill establishes a new bureaucracy, is tied to the exchanges, won;t be operative until 2014 given current thinking and also embraces the neo-liberal philosophy that competition can produce lower costs and better health care. Since health care is not a commodity product free market theory just doesn’t work in this area and it won’t work now. The whole PO thing has been and still is a big ruinous distraction. We need to take incremental steps toward Medicare for All. A Medicare buy-in for everyone would be one such step. Then progressives could gradually work on expanding full Medicare to other age groupings. That incremental strategy is easy for people to understand and it is easy to sell. Enough of the industry-feeding exchanges and the PO already.

Kill this bill, because the sausage coming from this crop of compromised Democrats will be shot through with so much loophole rot that it will make our heads spin.

Medicare for all!

It’s written can be expanded with a few strokes of the pen, and implemented within the time it took Bush to declare ‘Mission Accomplished’.

I wish Jane could get Rep. Grayson online with us right now for a question and answers session.

Grayson’t bill isn’t Medicare for All. That’s HR 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill. Grayson’y bill allows people to buy-in to Medicare as “public option” relative to private insurance. It would a simple amendment to include in a reconciliation bill and ought to have at least as much support as a “public option” provision which can be more easily attacked by the Republicans.

The last question in the post, regarding Reid needing to whip against public option, says it all.

We’ve been fed a load of baloney. These guys never really had the intention of reform HC from the beginning.

Now, we have massive bill that forces people to get insurance from private companies–which will surely be challenged in court–bloats the profit insurance companies make, lowers no health car costs, has no public option and does nothing except give a pre-existing condition exclusion.

Grayson’s is a simple provision that could be added to a reconciliation bill. They could retain the structure of the present reform, including how it would be financed and just add the Medicare buy-in option, available to everyone now. There are variations on how this could be done. They could make it effective immediately and have it be self-financing by charging premiums at full cost. Then beginning in 2014, they could implement their exchange, use Medicare buy-in as the PO in the exchange, and provide the subsidies they were planning to provide effective in 2014.

Alternatively, and preferably from my point of view, they could offer both the buy-ins and the subsidies now. But, if they did this, they’d have to raise taxes on the wealthy more, to make the bill deficit neutral or better. I don’t care about that since I think that we need deficits right now for the health of our economy. But they do, since they’ve been captured by the deficit hawks, so I think they might try to make the buy-in self-financing from premiums until 2014.

Also, let’s just get the truth out on the table.

You will all be like Stupak; make a lot of noises but eat the gruel in the end and like it. It won’t matter if there is no public option, no Medicare for all, etc., etc.

Like Stupak with no abortion language, you will all fall in line and go along and like whatever gruel you are fed.

Let’s get real.

When this passes, it will be hailed as a great victory and cheered up and down the street. At least by Democrats.

I was wondering how long do you think it would take to get a structure set up in the government for a public option. The year 2011 is only 8 months away. Medicare already has a structure set up. It would be far less trouble and far more timely in my view to expand Medicare than to start from scratch with a different form of public option. Medicare is a public option that is possible and can be adapted to cover all citizens far faster than anything else except Medicaid, which has its own problems, IMHO.

No. Grayson’s is not a reconciliation bill. It would be a stand alone bill that has no chance of becoming law in 2010 and little chance of becoming law in 2011.

Letgetitdone wants Medicare for all right now so badly that he’s willing to overlook the impossibility of getting it right now.

Even if Grayson were to spend all his time now getting co-signers in the House for a Medicare buy-in – even if he were successful in the House – it has absolutely no chance of passing the Senate by a vote of 60 or more in 2010. Zero. That’s what happened to H R 3962.

We should be pushing now for Pelosi to include a public option in the reconciliation package that the House sends to the Senate and whipping the votes for it among House Democrats.

I’m not saying that Medicare buy-in for all would be more difficult to set up once enacted. I’m saying that it won’t be enacted in 2010 or any time soon because of the legislative process that has to be overcome to make it law.

DDay’s earlier post suggests that Alan Grayson’s HR 4789 is not intended as part of a reconciliation package, but as a stand alone bill that looks beyond the current efforts between the House and Senate.

This is obsiously the case.

This whole bank student loan issue is just another distraction, as is this onstant self imposed ridiculous pretext of the having to abide with some arbitrary budgetary restraint. We are supposed to beleive that a $1 trillion dollar bill can be derailed if it is off by $1billion, 1/1,000th of its total cost. Really? Howh convenient to place another hurdle all of a sudden.

To bleieve that Conrad who is a consumate opponent to the student loan reform and to the PO is sincere in his lament that the Senate now coincidentally has to deal with this student loan distractiom is to fall for this patent ploy of yet again trying to frustrate reform.

The idea is to make the lousy current Senate health bill the law of the land by adding irrelevant sweeteners that make it harder for House memebers to reject the sweetened up bill, specifically to refrain from adding a public plan. Any measure they can think of that will achieve this end will be thrown in one after the next.

You would have to be an idiot to not notice that every pretext that is put up just so happens to preclude meaningfully altering the Senate bill by adding strong and real competition to the profits of private insurers.

If the Senate wants to pass bank student loan reform it could do that today or tomorrow by means of a separate bill dedicated to that end, again using reconciliation, or to bundle in with banking and financial reform where it more properly belongs. What do student loans have to do with HCR?Again we would be fools to give any any credence to anything coming out of Conrad’s mouth as being well intentioned.

The House should assure the passage of its version of HCR including as little of the Senate’s version of the bill as possible. And specifically no changes offered by Conrad.

You will all be like Stupak

you will all fall in line

All hail the new Karnak. *spit*

Jon Walker has a fresher cross-post available: Dick Durbin’s Spokesman Lies About Reconciliation, Continuing Effort to Kill Public Option

Pelosi: Public option ‘not in reconciliation’
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/pelosi-public-option-dead/

“”We had it. We wanted it,” Pelosi told reporters at a press briefing, according to the Washington Post Plum Line’s Greg Sargent. “It’s not in reconciliation. We’re talking about something that’s not going to be part of the legislation.”

and there you have it?

God forbid, we should have an alternative to buying the crappy Health Ins. mafia’s policies. That would be depriving the “Aristocracy of Pain” ( The Health mafia CEOS) of their serfs. The Dinocrats will never agree to that.

Why are we even talking about the “Public Option.” “Public Option” is NOT single payer; it is a cynical deceit. Why do we have to go over this time and again? Why are we even considering begging for crumbs?

Odd to me that people can’t see it. I see it everyday, clear as a bell. There are hundreds of opportunities to steer things. All that is needed is critical mass so that people aren’t immediately terrorized back into compliance – “look out!!! Be careful!!” – with each and every little foray out of the cell. If there was a relatively high possibility of ten at a time in any given situation saying “fuck that. I stand solid and won’t be moved. I won’t be intimidated” and stood with each other, had each other’s backs, the courage would grow and the forays out of the cell would become more frequent and pretty soon things would get out of hand in a big hurry.

That is why they keep us in debt, sick, scared and demoralized. Control. We are putty in their hands, weak and compliant. Sniveling little beggars doing our master’s bidding.

It is a strange modern idea that we think we can have no effect on anything that amounts to much – unless we are a somebody, or have money or position, or a clever plan, or certain personal qualities, or black magic, or the right connections – but at the same time we see ourselves as creators of our own reality and as having some sort of god-like power. Lots of confusion. No control over our own lives, just completely enslaved and yet thinking ourselves gods.

I wish we could dig in on this and gain some understanding. Why can we not see reality? Why the disconnection between our internal reality and external reality? It is as though when people discuss anything, rather than referencing what they see they first look inward at what they imagine. What is there about the situation that is beyond our observation and perception? Are the fantasies in our heads like gate keepers? Must we compare all data to fairy tales in our heads, and find congruence there before we can accept anything as real or true?

Imagine you were locked up in a small cell. You communicated outside of the cell through the TV, the Internet and telephone. But everything you saw and heard denied the existence of the cell. People told you that there was something wrong with your attitude or your thinking that made you think you were in a cell. How would you act? What would you feel? What would you think?

You would act, think and feel exactly the way we all do act, think, and feel.

Most of what the politically active people and intellectuals say is akin to “no, no, no. Don’t do that. We finally got them to allow us an extra 15 minutes on the exercise yard and you are going to screw that up. Play the game and follow the rules and you can do OK. I know there are problems, but we can keep working away on them gradually. You are making things worse.”

We are fucking locked up in a hellish prison and living a nightmare of terror and demoralization. Stop compromising on your rights. Get in the streets. We have everything to gain. It’s very, very late.

Not by me. I said Kill the Bill when it passed the Senate, and I say Kill the Bill now, unless it is materially changed.

Knox. You said:

Letgetitdone wants Medicare for all right now so badly that he’s willing to overlook the impossibility of getting it right now.

But, I haven’t said push for Medicare for All just above. I’m saying push for Grayson’s Medicare buy-in to be in the reconciliation bill. That’s a vast differences from Medicare for All, and it’s also a much more practical alternative than getting something labeled a PO passed. Don’t get me wrong; it is a PO, but it makes use of the existing structure.

I didn’t say anything about what the intention is. I’m saying that if people seize on it today and the House passes it as part of the reconciliation bill; it would be very hard for the Senate to turn it down. Much harder than it would be for them to turn down a PO, because Medicare is inherently more popular than the PO, and anything that carries that label will be much harder for Senators like Rockefeller, Schumer, and Durbin to vote against.

She talks like it’s some impersonal force taking it out of the bill. If there’s no public component to the Bill, there’s no impersonal force to blame. There’s only Nancy talking out of both sides of her mouth.

You’re right. The feasibility of Medicare for All would increase very quickly in response to 5 million people bringing everything to a halt in Washington, DC. But it’s up to us to organize that, whatever happens to this bill.