WaPo last night posted a unsurprising but still infuriating story on progressives. The tri caucus last week said no deal to the Blue Dogs. They want a real robust public option tied to Medicare rates-which is a better deal for all as many here have showed.
Pelosi and Rahm gave in to the Blue Dogs-cutting subsidies which would impact minorities the most and weakening the essential public option by untying it to the medicare system. Pelosi in the WaPo mocks her own base in the House-the CPC,CBC etc.. She is actually laughing at them just days after they said NO to the Blue Dog sellouts. I have hopes Rangel will restore the public option. But if Peolsi and Rahm are set here-laughing at the Black Caucus-the core of her base for her own Speakership then if you live in a Progressive congressperson’s district better attend any events and hound away that hr or she stands firm.
How sad the progressives are mocked in their own party. If Pelosi pushes this compromise over their objections then she imperils real reform and perhaps her speakership. Those wounds in the House wont go away.
FDL has more action on this...
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/...
Some House members must be real unhappy after reading this garbage.
...the rebellion from fiscal conservatives on the Energy and Commerce Committee last week served as a political wake-up call for Democratic leaders. With enough votes on the panel and on the floor to sink reform legislation, the Blue Dog Coalition forced Pelosi and Emanuel into concessions that made the government plan similar to private health insurance, sparking a new fight with House liberals.
Sensing that the Blue Dogs had dug in for a prolonged fight, Pelosi and Emanuel gave in to most demands in order to get the legislation moving again. They essentially decided that it was better to pick a fight with their liberal flank, where Pelosi remains popular and where loyalty to Obama is strongest, particularly in the Congressional Black Caucus.
Despite threats from almost 60 progressive House Democrats -- who outnumber the Blue Dogs -- Pelosi defended the compromise, saying it was similar to one backed by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Pelosi predicted that the liberal wing would fall in line because the legislation is so important to them.
"Are you asking me, 'Are the progressives going to take down universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans?' I don't think so," Pelosi told reporters Friday, breaking into laughter at the question.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
---
a great summary again of why this compromise is being resisted byt he core of the dem caucus-
July 31, 2009
RJ Eskow
Consultant, Writer, Health Analyst
Posted: July 30, 2009
Blue Dog Compromises: A War On the Middle Class?
It's hard to analyze the compromises coming from Blue Dog Democrats without concluding that, intentionally or not, they add up to a financial assault on working families. Every concession rings with the sound of middle-class Americans being dinged financially.
Ding! That's the sound of lower-income working Americans losing what remained of their subsidy for purchasing health insurance. They've raised the bar1 so that people making $31,200 will no longer get any help with their premiums. Neither will parents trying to raise a family of four on $63,000. That means families without employer-based coverage will have to come up with the money for health insurance (currently $12,000 per year) or face a government penalty.
But how many Americans will have employer-sponsored coverage? Ding! That's the sound of more people losing that chance, as Blue Dogs raise the minimum payroll requirement for employers from $500,000 to $750,000. 86% of small businesses will now be exempt from any mandate. ...
But wait. At least some of these uninsured folks will be able to buy into a public option, right? (That is, if the Blue Dogs' soul mates in the Senate don't kill it altogether.) Won't the public option be more affordable than those high-cost private insurance plans?...
Ding! That's the sound of the Blue Dogs eviscerating the cost-cutting potential of the public plan by refusing to allow it to use Medicare rates with providers, ...What does that mean for uninsured working Americans? Their lowest-cost option is going to cost a lot more if the Blue Dogs get their way.
....
Where didn't the Blue Dogs and Rep. Waxman (my representative) compromise? Here's where: They didn't ease up on the mandate for individuals to obtain health insurance coverage. They made it easier for employers not to offer it, and they found several ways to make it more expensive, but they didn't give a break to the working people - mostly blue-collar working people - who will be hit the hardest by their much-vaunted compromises.
____________
1 From 300% to 400% of the Federal poverty level.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
--
UPDATE-HOUSE PROGS AINT HAPPY WITH PELOSI'S MOCKERY. WHAT WILL THEY DO-TBA-
Left is miffed at Pelosi over her comment
By Mike Soraghan and Jared Allen
Posted: 08/03/09 08:52 PM [ET]
House liberals are offended that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) mocked their threats to oppose a Democratic healthcare bill, saying leaders are underestimating their frustration over a deal cut with centrist Blue Dogs.
In a session with reporters before leaving for the August recess, Pelosi said, "Are you asking me are progressives going to vote against universal, quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans? No way." Her directness elicited laughter in the room.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on Monday expressed outrage at the comments and said her group is being "laughed at."
Woolsey is the author of a letter signed by 60 fellow House liberals vowing to vote against a deal cut with the Blue Dogs. Liberals feel the bill weakens the "public option," the group’s signature issue in the healthcare debate.
"It didn’t take us very seriously," Woolsey said. "She may be overlooking the strength behind the 60, and there are more who are absolutely committed to a robust public option."
A spokesman for Pelosi said the Speaker, who is a long time member of the Progressive Caucus, does take the group’s concerns seriously.
"It is clear from the story that the Speaker’s reaction was in response to the notion that progressives would reject universal, quality, affordable healthcare for all," said spokesman Nadeam Elshami. "Progressives, including the Speaker, have long supported that goal. The Progressive Caucus continues to play a major role in shaping that legislation, which the Speaker agrees must include a vigorous public option to help reduce healthcare costs for the American people."
http://thehill.com/...