Skip to main content

So i wrote this diary yesterday, along with tags like sniveling little weasel, spineless wimp, and corporate bitch because Harry Reid was saying that Co-Op is just another version of the Public Option.  He's not doing so well his his state, so i guessing he decided that he'd accept the insurance lobby's money instead of progressives.  

FDL: HARRY REID ENDORSES WELLPOINT'S CO-OP PLAN

The Senate Majority Leader endorses the Mike Ross/Kent Conrad/WellPoint authored co-op plan:

First of all, you will notice this statement when questioned about their commitment which seem to be popping up pretty often among spineless senators and blue dogs:

A Reid spokesperson tells me "Reid did not endorse the co-op plan at today's press conference. He reiterated again today that he supports a public option but is open to interpretations of such a plan. The goals for him are lowering cost and keeping the insurance industry in check." And indeed, it does seem that other reports have overstated Reid's remarks.

Next time any politician gives this kind of bullshit, you know that they're straight up LYING, and just trying to quell the anger of progressives long enough so they can sneak in a bill and call it "reform".

Back to Wellpoint's co-op plan, which Nancy Pelosi is even open to:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorsed the concept of health insurance cooperatives Thursday, siding with centrists in the House and Senate who want healthcare reform but oppose a public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also hinted she could accept that approach a day after President Barack Obama delivered an address to a joint session of Congress that offered encouraging words for both centrists and liberal Democrats who have demanded a public insurance option.

Blue Dog Mike Ross presciently submitted virtually the same co-op plan in a July 31 amendment that finally emerged this week in Max Baucus's Senate plan. But since it now looks like Pelosi is on board with co-ops, that means the Blue Dogs aren't going to have to take the hit.

Progressives, instead, will have to take the hit. No, scratch that.. the American People, our deficit, or healthcare system are about to be hit with a sledgehammer by Wellpoint and the insurance companies. And i'm pretty sure there will be less turnout for 2010.  

Did you know that health insurance stocks went up after Obama's speech?

h/t RJ Eskow, a health analyst and this http://hosted.ap.org/...

Originally posted to lizard people on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 02:52 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gllibrand seems to be talking up co-ops too. (0+ / 0-)

    Drug Test Congress, POTUS and SCOTUS - Rehnquist was addicted to Placidyl for 10 years.

    by JerichoJ8 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 02:55:20 PM PDT

    •  Gilibrand was never a progressive (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irmaly, royce, farbuska

      and its sad people supported her blindly and without caution

      BEN NELSON reeeeeeeeally DOES NOT WANT YOU TO USE THIS

      by lizard people on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 02:58:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beemerr

        Don't talk so stupid.  Nobody has had a chance to support or not support Gillibrand since she hasn't run for the Senate at this point - she was appointed.

        But of course you knew that.  You just choose to ignore that fact, as facts don't seem to mean much to you.

        Silence is the enemy - Green Day 4330+ dead - Bring them home

        by Miss Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:44:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Source? (7+ / 0-)

      Because yesterday she was asking her mailing list to sign her petition in support of the public option (which she thinks should have Medicare-plus reimbursement rates).

      Here's the text of her petition:

      Real health care reform must include a not-for-profit public option.

      Opening up a not-for-profit public health plan like a "Medicare for all" can ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care regardless of his or her income. In the world's wealthiest nation, it's unconscionable that people are turned away from coverage because of a pre-existing condition and that families are just one illness away from bankruptcy.

      Stand with Senator Gillibrand.  Use the form below to show that you believe any health care reform package must include a public option.

      In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

      by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:08:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gillibrand's PR yesterday in followup to Obama (7+ / 0-)

      Press release:

      Following President Barack Obama’s address to Congress, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand issued the following statement urging Congress to follow the President’s strong lead and pass comprehensive health care reform:

      "In his address to Congress tonight, President Obama successfully refocused the debate on improving coverage for those who have health insurance and providing quality, affordable health care to every single American.

      "Political opponents have made every effort to derail a serious discussion of real reform, but the status quo is unacceptable.  I plan to stand with the President so that we move forward on meaningful health care reform.  I continue to support a robust public option that can compete with private health insurance and drive down health care costs for everyone.  Comprehensive reform should also focus on prevention as opposed to emergency room care and strengthen Medicare for seniors.

      "I am hopeful that everyone in Washington can see that the American people expect action. We must recognize that we have a health care emergency in this country and pass comprehensive reform that provides security and stability for everyone."

      [emphasis mine]

      It's one thing to attack our enemies. It's extremely counterproductive to waste time, resources and goodwill attacking our friends.

      In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

      by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  coop talk (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sullivanst

      "People should payfor it themselves. I think if people could buy into all these various insurance options, whether it's a Medicare-for-all type of approach or a co-op, people should buy in," she said.

      "And they should buy in as a percentage of their income so it's affordable. Something between 5 and 10 percent is the affordable range," she said. "Beyond that, it gets very difficult for families to spend more than 10 percent of their income just to have basic health care."

      Drug Test Congress, POTUS and SCOTUS - Rehnquist was addicted to Placidyl for 10 years.

      by JerichoJ8 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:41:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A couple of comments here (0+ / 0-)
        1. That article's dated August 19th. In other words, it predates a couple of emails out to her list asking supporters to sign her petition specifically in support of the public option, and the press release in my comment above.
        1. It's not "talking up" co-ops, that part of the quote is facially agnostic on the co-op vs. public option question. That's because what she's talking about isn't the type of plan people are buying into but the amount it costs them, and she proposes capping an individuals' premium at somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. That places her to the left of the committees' outputs, all of which have less generous individual subsidies. Since we (including Sen. Gillibrand) all know that the premium cost of the public option is likely to be well below the premium cost of co-ops, it's clear that her proposal would be too expensive without a public option.

        In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

        by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:54:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  But, but, but... (5+ / 0-)

    ..I thought Obama's speech had successfully rallied the troops, & the "Ted Kennedy Factor" was going to cause all Democrats to veer left on health care reform?

    That's what I was told.  So what is happening?

    Mott the Hoople and the game of Life, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

    by wyvern on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 02:57:44 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, Obama embraced co-ops too. (6+ / 0-)

    I think Obama already spanked you on Wednesday.

    Can we move on and stop holding one another hostage now?

    I am going out canvassing tomorrow to support a public option.

  •  Wake up, people... (10+ / 0-)

    what started as a proposal to let tens of millions of Americans enroll into public insurance, has become Romney Care.  This focus on the puny PO (that doesn't actually cost less than private insurance via the vaunted Exchange) has meant you are not seeing the forest through the trees.  Romney Care is regulatory, public insurance is programmatic. The Dems ARE going the Romney route, hitching their wagons to the notion once they have a federal role, later down the road, they will be able to tighten regulations(laughable).  

    President Obama advisors met w/ Susan Collins today.  

    Face it, if you thought this was a move toward Medicare for All, you got rolled.

    Medicare for All is Fiscal Responsibility

    by masslib on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:00:02 PM PDT

    •  do you honestly think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Julia Grey, CitizenOfEarth

      they're going to regulate the health insurance market? yeah, that's possible in other countries where they don't completely own the politicians. but looking at Democrats' history for the past 20 years, that's an unlikely scenario, HENCE THE PUBLIC OPTION.

      BEN NELSON reeeeeeeeally DOES NOT WANT YOU TO USE THIS

      by lizard people on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:14:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know if you've noticed (0+ / 0-)

        but there's a fuckload of regulation of the health insurance market in even Baucus' pile of crap outline.

        In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

        by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:31:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Experts says there is plenty of wiggle room (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          masslib, He Freed No Slaves

          and loopholes for the corporations to slime their way thru.

          Here's one by Trudy Lieberman.
          Baucus Watch, Part XIII  

          Regular readers of Baucus Watch should not be surprised at the health reform compromise the Senate Finance Committee has brought forth—many provisions are not terribly friendly to staunch reform advocates, and give insurance companies lots of wiggle room. But, then, we at Campaign Desk had been predicting that.

          Q: What do you call 500 Congress-slugs at the bottom of the ocean? A: Divine intervention. (with apologies to the couple dozen honest ones.)

          by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:38:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, one thing Liberman cites as a "loophole" (0+ / 0-)

            is in fact an example of more regulation that's in the Baucus plan.

            She says:

            For example, the AP story pointed out that there would be "no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions." Well, yes, but there’s more to it than that.

            Here’s where Maggie Mahar comes in. In her Health Beat blog yesterday, Mahar probed what she called "a gift to the for-profit insurance companies." Turns out that Baucus and committee would require companies to insure even the very sickest, but would allow them to charge rates that are five times higher if they are older.

            Well, that limit on underwriting is a new and very important piece of regulation. I'd personally much rather have the 2x limit on age rating that's in the House bill, but even the much, much looser 5x limit in Baucus' proposal is a stricter limit than the current "no limit at all". It also ignores that even Baucus rules out any rating consideration of health status or gender - both of which are new regulations. So, yes, we can talk about gaps that would be left. But we have to recognize that they're gaps that already exist, but we don't notice them because they're currently adjacent not to regulation but to more gaps.

            In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

            by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:11:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This adds insult to illness. (0+ / 0-)

              Seems like another huge giveaway to me. If my current insurance costs $10K and I get cancer, they can jack the rate to $50K/year. Who can afford that except maybe the morbidly rich?

              What other country does it this way? The Baucus plan is cruel and unusual.

              Q: What do you call 500 Congress-slugs at the bottom of the ocean? A: Divine intervention. (with apologies to the couple dozen honest ones.)

              by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:05:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, that's how it is NOW (0+ / 0-)

                Under Baucus, they CANNOT do that.

                What the underwriting limits in the Baucus plan mean is that if they're selling insurance to a 21-year-old at $10K/year, they can charge a 65-year-old at $50K/year. That's bad enough, but don't just make shit up that can't happen.

                What CANNOT happen under Baucus, is if they're selling to a healthy 21-year-old at $10K/year they CANNOT charge any 21-year-old more than that, even if they have cancer. Similarly, if they're selling to a healthy 65-year-old at $10K/year, they CANNOT charge any 65-year-old at more than that, even if they have cancer. They are not allowed to consider health status in setting the rates. Period.

                But right now, it's a total free for all. They're perfectly free right now to do exactly what you'd describe. That's exactly what all of the proposals stop.

                In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

                by sullivanst on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 06:50:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, and it's crap. (0+ / 0-)

          Medicare for All is Fiscal Responsibility

          by masslib on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:40:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, no, I clearly don't. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CitizenOfEarth

        The PO is piddling.  Read the CBO report I link to.  The Dems have chosen the regulatory route.  Do I think it will work?  Hell no.

        Medicare for All is Fiscal Responsibility

        by masslib on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:39:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This site is like Mardi Gras since the speech (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irmaly, masslib

      The industry analysts I follow say it is a huge windfall for the HC industry and all the cost controls were gutted. Plus the PO is Crippled.

      But he does give a hell of a speech.

      Q: What do you call 500 Congress-slugs at the bottom of the ocean? A: Divine intervention. (with apologies to the couple dozen honest ones.)

      by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:32:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CitizenOfEarth

        Medicare for All is Fiscal Responsibility

        by masslib on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:40:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Always. He's a great talker. A great doer? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CitizenOfEarth
        Not so much. That is if it's something the 'liberal and the progressive' wings want. Like affordable healthcare coverage.

        Now war, he's got that down! "Can't leave." "More troops." Where have I heard all this before? 128 billions reasons to be pissed off about that.

        <snip>

        Spending for US wars approved
        Argentina Star
        Friday 11th September, 2009  

        A powerful Senate committee in the US has approved President Barack Obama’s $128 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        With little debate, it was decided to allow the request which will cater for $636 billion in funding for next year’s Pentagon budget.

        The funding will allow President Obama’s order from earlier this year, to add 21,000 more troops to the Afghanistan contingent, to go ahead.

        The order will bring the total number of U.S. forces there to 68,000 by the end of 2009.

        http://story.argentinastar.com/...

    •  And Obama has refused thus far (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CitizenOfEarth, masslib

      to meet with the progressives. Even after they have written him two letters asking for a meeting.

      "The individual mandate is 'just one part of the bill' - its not worth losing everything else in the bill just to get it through." BruceMcF

      by irmaly on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:35:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, Katie71

    Co-ops might work pretty good for certain people like dairy farmers. Problem is what works one place may suck in another.  But I say lets make a deal:
    Let Conrad and the rest of the blue dogs in the Senate have their Co-ops as long as they give up their government health insurance for the same Co-ops and the rest of us can have single payer.
    Sounds good to me.

  •  The Hill's story STINKS (8+ / 0-)

    You're paying too much attention to the "journalist"'s inaccurate descriptions of what was said, and too little to what was said.

    Reid said that IF a co-op proposal was drafted that did everything the public option did, we should consider it. Well, that "if" can never be met, and is very, very, very clearly not met by the Faucus bill. This is an attempt to appear open-minded, not an endorsement of the Wellpoint proposal.

    In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

    by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:06:30 PM PDT

    •  then why did Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake (0+ / 0-)

      report on it?  There is no denying that Wellpoint authored the Baucus/Conrad/Ross Co-Op Plan.

      BEN NELSON reeeeeeeeally DOES NOT WANT YOU TO USE THIS

      by lizard people on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know if you've noticed lately (5+ / 0-)

        but the FDL campaign is hardly cautious. They appear to have developed an extreme siege mentality, hence the near-equation of people who refuse to commit unequivocally to voting against any bill without a public option (no matter what replaced it) with the extremists on the Republican side. They're looking for reasons to criticize people, and parse everything accordingly.

        In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

        by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:27:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They are doing what they need to do (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          math4barack

          to keep the pressure on. Politics ain't for wusses.

          "The individual mandate is 'just one part of the bill' - its not worth losing everything else in the bill just to get it through." BruceMcF

          by irmaly on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:37:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  they aren't cautious but I view the fdl pledge (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            irmaly, FightForJustice, AvoMonster

            as the wall of protection separating us from an awful bill with an individual mandate and something less than a public option.

            •  Yes, that's a good perspective, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              math4barack

              the battle still rages and we cannot let up.  FDL and the CPC and all progressives still must press hard for a robust PO.  Congress critters have silly putty for spines and we must be there all the time to buck them up and keep them going in the right direction.

              This is sausage making, it goes through the grinder several times before the final packaging.  We are only on the first time through, still.  Better hold on tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride to the signing ceremony.

              "The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving." Oliver Wendell Holmes

              by AvoMonster on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:59:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Well perhaps (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sidnora, math4barack, beaky

            But there's a law of diminishing returns.

            Making the commitment to vote against any kind of bill that lacks a public option isn't necessarily the best politics. It's a focus on means not ends, and it presupposes that (and admittedly this is extremely likely) noone thinks of a better idea than the public option.

            But focussing so much of their effort on Representatives who already support the public option means they're not expending that energy on Senators who are on the fence. I'm vastly more interested in whether Kay Hagan says she'll vote for a public option than whether Jim Clyburn says he'll vote against a bill without one (when we all know for damn sure he'll vote for one that has it included).

            FDL's essentially given up on the possibility of getting a Senate bill with the public option in it. In doing so, they may turn out to have missed the best opportunity to achieve the PO - getting it passed in both chambers is a sure-fire win, keeping it in a conference report after the senate omits it is a 50-50 proposition.

            In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

            by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:02:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you make a good argument. nt. (0+ / 0-)
              •  I'm thoroughly supportive of FDL's objective (0+ / 0-)

                it's pretty much the same as everyone's here - to achieve a public option.

                And I love their passion. I think we'd have been sold down the river long ago without them.

                I just worry a little about the current tactics. It feels like it's playing in to one of the media's favorite pre-written story templates: Democratic infighting.

                In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

                by sullivanst on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:23:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  any postal workers out here? (7+ / 0-)

    go to your supervisor and ask for an idea form.

    Write on that idea form that the USPS and the postal unions should extend the health insurance coverage that is provided to postal workers to anyone who has a post office box or has mail delivered to them.

    That would be the ticket.

    Republicans===the party of the 1% rich people in America. Or in other words..The Party of NO!

    by jalapeno on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:06:35 PM PDT

  •  If only the dinosaurs had asteroid insurance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prinny Squad, SilentBrook
  •  Can we agree the Tea-baggers (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, tnproud2b, He Freed No Slaves

    are half right?

    Its not that government can't work, its our current Government won't work.

    When 76% of Americans want a robust public option, and our democratically elected government can't make it happen, something is seriously wrong,

    I don't think we have any idea what we are up against.  

  •  Here comes a dkos meltdown (8+ / 0-)

    We only get one day before diaries filled with misinformation based on speculation begin to make it on the rec'd list.  Comeon people let's keep this off the rec'd list.

  •  He pretty much quoted Obama. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    math4barack, sullivanst

    The purpose of a public option is to create competition, which is so important, and to create quality healthcare," Reid said at a press conference. "If we can come up with a concept of a cooperative that  does just that — that is, it makes more competition and makes insurance companies honest — yes, I think that would fit the bill."

    Notice the 'if.'

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:17 PM PDT

    •  Ha what would Harry 'Bankrupcy-Bill' Reid know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib, Johnny Q, He Freed No Slaves

      about "Honesty". :-)

      Q: What do you call 500 Congress-slugs at the bottom of the ocean? A: Divine intervention. (with apologies to the couple dozen honest ones.)

      by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:22:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OMG, has it really come down to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      math4barack

      this?  The Democrats are going with a federal regulatory role in health care rather than a big public program approach.  They are kicking the can, hoping with an established federal role, they will one day be able to come back and tighten regulations, which is laughable.  Is thisthe PO people started out supporting?  Is it anything like that?  Of course not.  They moved from the idea of a big Medicare-like program for all takers, to Romney Care.

      Medicare for All is Fiscal Responsibility

      by masslib on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:49:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama breaks promise to meet with CPC ldrs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib

      The letter  

      House progressive leaders just sent another  letter to the President — which was sent over by a source — reiterating their demand for inclusion of the public option and insisting on a face to face meeting to discuss it.

         "We were pleased that you explicitly expressed your support for a public option as a central piece of achieving true reform," says the letter, which is signed by Dem Reps. Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "We look forward to meeting with you regarding your support for defining the public option in any final health care reform bill and request that the meeting take place as soon as possible."

         The letter adds that "public opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Americans want the choice of a robust public plan and we stand in solidarity with them."

         "We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the importance of your continued support for a robust public option in the final bill," the letter reiterates.

         As TPM reported yesterday, Obama had originally promised a meeting to progressives, but mysteriously, it never materialized — hence the reiterated demand for a face-to-face.

      Why do you think that thus far he hasn't kept his promise to meet with progressive leaders Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva ? Do you think that he will meet with them within a couple of days ? Anybody believe that enough to place a wager on it ?

      But he did meet the 16 conservadems + Joe Lieberman.

      Do you think the lack of meeting with Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva has nothing to do with Obama's legislative plans in regards to the public option ? Do you really believe that ?

      The only way he can get my vote back is to keep his promise. If he doesn't at least meet with them, he's lost my vote.

      He could have kept my vote by meeting with them even if he had signed legislation with a national trigger on a robust national option or a single national cooperative.

      That's a hell of a lot of concessions - Single Payer, public option.

      But at least I would have still voted for him.

      But not meeting with them like he promised and the obvious reasons why, well that's how you lose this progressive's vote.

      •  He has already broken the promise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        math4barack

        unless you were hoping for a tiny PO that will hardly move the needle.  The entire focus of the reforms have changed.  This is no longer about a big expansion of the federal role in providing health care.  It is about a federal role for the feds in regulating private insurers, and the bill barely does that.  They are kicking the can, hoping to come back at some point with tighter regulations, which this country doesn't have the political capacity for.

        By the way, his advisers also met with Susan Collins today.

        Medicare for All is Fiscal Responsibility

        by masslib on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:06:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah. his PO was too small. That's why (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          masslib

          he sees it as fine to replace it with coops or regional triggers.

          If he had originally favored a robust public option, then he would not view them all as interchangable and equivalent.

          They aren't.

          •  I am starting to pray (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            math4barack

            Democrats come out of their hypnosis here and force the Dems to scratch this bill and start again.  The right wing was much more effective in killing policies that did not comport to their policy goals when Bush was in charge.

            Medicare for All is Fiscal Responsibility

            by masslib on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:50:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  It's bizarre. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, TarheelDem, math4barack

    What do they think the Public Option is? It's essentially a co-op for everyone. The Government is the people, so "government-run" would be the same thing as a co-op being run "by the members".

    The difference is, the Public Option would have massively greater bargaining power and (eventually?) pose true competition! No co-op can achieve Reid's goals anywhere near as well as a Public Option, which is really just the biggest co-op possible.

  •  It's not final. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TarheelDem, hhex65, math4barack

    It's not final until the bill has been signed by the president.

    It's not even close to final until a senate bill is passed.

    It's not even close to final until reconciliation is done.

    So, to recap,

    IT'S NOT FINAL.

    I was paid to post this comment by my cat, but he's a deadbeat.

    by decembersue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:32:26 PM PDT

  •  Wow. Dog bites man. Sun rises in the East. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    He Freed No Slaves

    Rain is wet.
    Reid needs to be replaced.
    Strange what passes for news these days.

  •  What a load of crap (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hhex65, beaky

    And I see you've rallied the Obama/Democrat haters all around you.

    Garbage and more garbage.

    Silence is the enemy - Green Day 4330+ dead - Bring them home

    by Miss Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:46:11 PM PDT

  •  No need to name Reid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    math4barack, He Freed No Slaves

    He comes pre-caved.  Right out of the box.

  •  this is PREMATURE (0+ / 0-)

    ejaculation, in my opinion........

    i don't mind if arlen remains the senior senator from pennsylvania IF the voters in the DEMOCRATIC primary choose him BUT until then...........

    by primaryarlen on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:00:40 PM PDT

  •  Where do you see Wellpoint wrote it? (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site