Skip to main content

Yesterday Ezra had a post on the public option that struck an odd chord:

For all that, I’d still bet against the public option. For one thing, there’s sharp resistance to this idea in the White House. The administration has just spent weeks rebranding itself as a bipartisan outpost in a sea of bickering hacks. Resuscitating the most controversial element of the bill and running it through reconciliation looks less like reaching out and more like delivering a hard left cross to the opposition.

It seems that the opposition is irrelevant at this point. Originally, the White House opposition to the public option was supposedly because it couldn't get 60 Dem votes. If, as seems a pretty damned fair bet, they don't get at least two Republican votes for the plan without one. Which is why they're talking using reconciliation now. If you're going for 50 votes, why worry about the opposition? So far that apparently hasn't occurred to them, as they are apparently leaving out the most popular element, and including the least popular one.

The White House has arrived at a general outline of what this proposal will look like, a senior Dem leadership aide tells me. It will largely reflect the compromise reached between the House and Senate in January: It will likely contain the national exchange sought by House Dems, and tougher penalties on businesses that don’t insure workers.

Also, the White House has told the House Dem leadership that it isn’t prepared to raise the threshold of the Cadillac tax, as many House Dems want, the leadership aide says. The White House prefers instead to keep the version already agreed upon with unions, the aide adds....

But House leaders are under no illusions, and expect the White House to go to the summit with a proposal in hand that includes the Cadillac tax as is, and no public option, the leadership aide says.

Yglesis comments smartly on this:

[W]hile it’s true that the White House has sought to brand itself "as a bipartisan outpost" you know and I know and Ezra Klein knows and I certainly hope David Axelrod knows that at the end of the day if a health care bill emerges no Republicans will vote for it. And any shine of bipartisanship that Obama may or may not have put on himself is going to go away. So what’s the point in being "sharply opposed" to the public option concept? This is very bad logic, and if true very fishy behavior on the part of the White House. Given the level of liberal discomfort with the excise tax, the best policy option available would be for progressives to get their way on the public option (where progressives are right) and centrists to get their way on the tax question (where centrists are right) then you’d have an excellent bill. The path of least resistance is to do the reverse, but that would be a much worse substantive result.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM PST.

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

  •  If the White House can't get any GOP votes... (24+ / 0-)

    ...going out of its way to piss off the Democratic base is not going to convince anyone--outside, perhaps, of the WaPo editorial staff--that the White House has crafted a bipartisan plan.

    And it will piss of the base.

    Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

    by GreenSooner on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:14:02 AM PST

    •  and Cheney will see his prediction come true. (7+ / 0-)

      The public option, love it or hate it, can save the Dems.

      •  of course (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jim bow

        if Obama does not get you your pony he will be a 1 term president and you will have proven a lot of people right about progressives.

        Nice job on excelling at short sighted lunacy

        •  not at all. (8+ / 0-)

          the people feel the Dems don't deliver.  the right wing media will fuel these feelings.  

          It's not a pony.

          Believe me, son, the public option will not:

          * give you immortality * by itself improve the quality of care * stop global warming * make Tiger Woods monogamous * give Sarah Palin a brain * keep the Right from lying

          •  at this point it's becoming a pony (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jim bow, whaddaya

            because there is multiple really good things in both bills that do not even touch on a 'public option' but no Mcjoan and a select few with a really big soap box are going to throw a fit cause it probably in all reality won't make it to the end of this bill.

            •  Who Denied You Your Pony (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uberbah, geomoo, J M F, orestes1963

              This "pony" isn't an impossible wish, it's a legitimate need that the powers that be (the Democratic majorities and White House) could give us, say they want to give us.

              Who denied you your pony when you were a kid, who could have given it to you, that you think this is a "pony"?

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:42:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  "McJoan . . . throw a fit" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Terra Mystica

              That's funny.

              The only true competition in America is local--over which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich.

              by geomoo on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:51:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  well I am glad I amuse you (0+ / 0-)

                when you want to actually have an adult discussion let me know.

                •  My point is a serious one, (0+ / 0-)

                  made in a light-hearted manner.  I am sorry, but it is hard to take you too seriously if you are accusing McJoan of having "fits."  Whether or not you agree with her, she is one of the most even-handed, level-headed people around.  She has been point person on the HCR debate, and I have never seen her come even close to having anything resembling a fit.  Her behavior has been exemplary.

                  I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.  It's just that that remark struck me as especially off base.  As to adult discussions, I would once again point to McJoan as someone I have never seen be anything other than adult.  Perhaps we can emulate her.

                  The only true competition in America is local--over which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich.

                  by geomoo on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:34:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  my point is serious too (0+ / 0-)

                    you might not like it hell you might not agree with it. But it is a serious point made and I rather have had enough of pretentious people deciding only they know what should and should not be taken seriously. So you will excuse me for rather having enough of your type of response.

                    That said, I think you do not understand how I am using the word. And upon actually responding to my comment I think I see the misunderstanding and will see if I can illuminate matters.

                    I am not talking about attacking people here I am talking about throwing a fit because the one thing you want more then anything will not be in the bill.

                    I and many others have asked mcjoan and the others I have in mind what exactly do they propose if the final bill has no PO? Not even some token effort.

                    Mostly it has been silence and a feverish attempt to hold onto the PO which to me is answer enough. Some have been at least honorable enough to state that the bill should be killed.

                    Either response though is throwing a fit in my opinion. It is an unreasonable, unrealistic emotionally driven reaction to what realistically is most likely.

                    Now if I am wrong and a PO makes it to the final bill or even better it's more then just a name then great. Me, I believe that the PO is not so great that it is the end all be all here, not even the House version is that great.

                    •  Your definition of a "fit" is not widely accepted (0+ / 0-)

                      I would say.  I have not seen McJoan be "feverish."  She does have an opinion, but the bulk of her reporting is nonetheless objective and factual.  If anything, I would say she tends to be resigned in the face of not getting what she wants, which strikes me as rather the opposite of having a fit.

                      I'm sorry, but it seems you are not taking others seriously here.  It is not necessarily immature to have a strong opinion.  I strongly disagree with your characterization of McJoan, and especially of her being "unreasonable, unrealistic emotionally driven."  I can't get into her mind, but it seems that she has a view based on reason and calculation.  I almost always agree with her take, and I hope you won't mind if I assess myself as a sensible person.

                      I guess there are few things more obnoxious than unsolicited advice, but I'll still venture to say you would be more effective in your argument if you stuck to issues and avoided dismissing opposing arguments on the basis of supposed character flaws.  It really is enough to argue that you think the PO is unrealistic.  I can accept that view and have to acknowledge that you may be right about that.  I disagree with you, but that's just my opinion.  

                      Perhaps we'll just have to disagree on this.

                      The only true competition in America is local--over which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich.

                      by geomoo on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:12:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you know what they say about glass houses (0+ / 0-)

                        "Fit" has multiple meanings and I am sorry but you do not get to pick the one I choose to use when I choose my words.

                        Further I take people seriously when there is a serious discussion, you did not start that way but it's somehow my fault for that? Bloody fucking hell you were the one that picked your words and it's hardly my fault that you decided to open up in a way that is hard to take seriously.

                        Further it's funny how blind people can be, I have no doubt in my mind that you almost always agree with Mcjoan, maybe you should think about how that noted bias is effecting your advice and your take on this.

                        This is more then just whether the PO is unrealistic, it's about whether or not progressives are pissing away the credibility we have earned and about whether we are just tilting at wind mills. Now you may not think that important but I do.

                        One of the worst but effective 'criticisms' of liberals is exactly what I said above.

                        And yes I think we'll just have to disagree.

          •  it doesn't matter that the republicans and the (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo, Uberbah, J M F, whaddaya

            blue dogs will only fuck this country over.

            the american people have poor memory.

            too many of us are uncritical with the media, and too dependent on the shitty propaganda that masquerades as reporting.

        •  A pony? We want more than a pony! (5+ / 0-)

          To be even clearer, we want more than Obama's 1 trick pony

          1 trick = His perfect (currying favor with conservatives/industry by letting them have their way) as the enemy of our good.

          While a pony is cute and nice and sweet and pretty... it aint enough to plow a field and thus, provide the harvest we demand.

          So no, we dont want his one trick pony, and we dont want a pony, period.

          We demand a whole fucking stable of plow horses that gives the American people the bounty they deserve and have, for far too long, been denied: CHEAP, ACCESSIBLE, COMPREHENSIVE healthcare... for ALL.

          So no, sorry, we are even more 'selfish' than you think. The infamous pony is not enough.

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:50:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  your pony was already dead LAST February (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terra Mystica, J M F

          ...and the extra year hasn't improved it's smell, drache.  But that hasn't kept you from beating this "where's my pony" straw man on a regular basis.

          Obama opposing the public option "because he doesn't think it will pass" is a pathetic cop out whether he's been in office 7 hours or 7 years.

          I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

          by Uberbah on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:50:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Please, no Pony Remark... (0+ / 0-)

          it only gives straw to anyone who wishes to build up the Bots v. Haters meme, and pisses off those who don't agree with you.

          If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. -SC/MT . -9.4, -7.0

          by Amayi on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:53:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  while I see your point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Amayi

            I do not know what you want me to call it if not that.

            I believe I have explained myself enough already on why I called it that.

            •  i just read your later comments upthread (0+ / 0-)

              you did explain well without using the shorthand "pony", which has become such a loaded term. That is why I don't think these oversimplified symbol words are helpful-- people see those and it bypasses their nuance circuits, and they get defensive and focus on the trigger word instead of the idea. I just don't like to give trolls more fuel, or alienate people who are fellow liberals but skeptical or have different priorities. I do appreciate your work on behalf of us Bots People-who-are-generally-supportive-of-the-President. ;)

              If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. -SC/MT . -9.4, -7.0

              by Amayi on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 04:52:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  as I said though (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Amayi

                I do not know what to call it if not that.

                If you have suggestions I am all ears as I agree the word is loaded (I think unfairly so but I am receptive to changing) but I still think the point needs to be made.

                So as I said, if you have a suggestion have at it.

        •  I am commited to retaining my sig line (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah

          until the very last smarmy reference to progressives wanting ponies is ridiculed into oblivion.

          Yes, I know President Palin would be a disaster, and I do understand the ponies are on back order. Now, what the fuck was your point again?

          by WisePiper on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:56:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  for the love of gods (4+ / 0-)

      will you cease and desist conflating 'the base' with this site and progressives?

      Contrary to what you think a lot of rather diverse groups voted for Obama.

      •  3/4 of the US public wanted a PO (17+ / 0-)

        My guess is that a higher percentage of the base would have been in that group.

        FWIW, as a progressive independent, I'm one of the many non-Democrats who voted for Obama.  I am well aware that a very diverse group of voted supported him.

        But the PO is one of those progressive proposals that has much broader public support than inside-the-Beltway support, largely because most of us (in the public) pay huge amounts of money to insurance companies, while most of them (in Congress) receive gobs of it instead.

        Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

        by GreenSooner on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:27:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and I am an Independent (0+ / 0-)

          are we done with the measuring contest?

          I think we both are aware that there are a host of things the American public supports that will not pass the Senate.

          Now if you want to blame the executive branch for the ills of the legislative branch go ahead but I do not get that.

          I remain optimistic that Obama's got a miracle up his sleeve but I also have to look at the situation realistically.

      •  drache, drache, drache (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Blair

        The public option had 80% support from the public, remember?  Not only is this site representing the base on this issue, it's representing America on this issue.


        I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

        by Uberbah on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:55:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I live in heartland America (7+ / 0-)

        Most people I know are moderate to moderately conservative.  (I don't personally know a single "progressive").  Many of these people voted Democrat in 2008, flipping my district to the Democratic column.

        Among them, the public option is very popular, the idea of a Medicare buy-in even more so.  The excise tax in universally despised.

        These people are the Democratic base.  None of them have heard of Jane Hamsher, or even DailyKos.

        The Senate HCR bill in its current form were it to pass would be mighty unpopular in these parts, among moderates, independents, union members, small business owners, just about everyone.  Its passage would cost the Democrats my district.

        There are two reasons the Democrats are in big trouble here in heartland America.  One is the pervasive perception that they bailed out Wall Street but not Main Street (in fact this has become a sort of mantra around here).  Locally, the unemployment rate went up to 14.3%  Claims that the stimulus is working fall on deaf ears, and in fact only reinforces people's perception that the Democrats are completely out of touch and only care about Wall Street, about bankers.

        And the second is that they came up with a health care plan that is seen as a sell-out to the insurance industry and pleases no one.

        I cannot fathom why the Democrats would include something so universally despised and as harmful to the future prospects of the party as the excise tax.

        Candidate Obama promised to finance HCR with a tax on the wealthy.  He also promised not to raise taxes on the middle class.  People around here expect him to keep his word or there will be hell to pay come election time.  And it's not progressives who are going to turn on the Democrats, it's moderates, union members, independents, etc.  It's heartland America.

         

        •  Ah, but you see (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah

          the excise tax is not directly levied on the people.  It's the insurance cos who pay.  I can guess how popular that distinction would be in your district.

        •  I think drache and his cohort believes they (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Williston Barrett, orestes1963

          represent the heartland and average voters. No amount of polling data, election results or anecdote such as yours will convince them otherwise. It is either a talking point or sincere belief on their part, but either way, it is not based on reality, and I don't think, if they still have not figured out that they are not based in reality - you are going to say anything that convinces them.

          •  Well you can be sure that the people (0+ / 0-)

            in my district are making their disatisfaction known loudly and clearly to their elected Democratic Representative and Senators.  Mostly with written letters.(Or they insistently tell them whenever they dare to set foot in this district--something I think they are afraid to do)

            That is why when Nancy Pelosi says that the Senate bill is dead I both know why and  believe her.  What I don't understand is given the tsunami of negative feedback they are getting nationwide, that elected Democrats would even consider going forward with such an unpopular tax.

            Are they trying to lose control of Congress?

            •  First let me say that your summary above (0+ / 0-)

              was beautifully clear and accurate.  The basic problem is that the Obama administration is unwilling to take on corporations in any meaningful way.  What they want to do is to carry out pro-corporate policies while hoping that they will retain enough of their base (and the rethugs will be visibly insane enough) to win re-election.  There is a real danger in taking on the big corporations.  They control the mass media to a large extent and they control a lot of campaign money.  If you run against corporations you have to really run against them.  If you fight with the king, you have to kill the king.  The problem is that failing to take on the corporations that are ruining the country is bad for the country and pisses a lot of people off.  People where you live may not have a coherent ideology, but they can see that things are very wrong and that the Obama administration is not making them right.

          •  it always makes me laugh (0+ / 0-)

            at how arrogant you are.

            Please keep speaking for me not only is it sad and pathetic but wrong.

        •  well I think to an extent this is a knowledge (0+ / 0-)

          problem as the exercise does bend the cost curve and is useful.

          Do not know what else to tell you

    •  the Public Option just costs too much (0+ / 0-)

      Obama is flitting around the country pushing "fiscal responsibility" (whatever the hell that means to him).

      He will not turn around and push for an expensive public option.  And, it will end up being more expensive to the consumer.. That will surely win lots of votes in November, eh?

      I posted this in a comment in another thread, but it bears repeating.

      Will the public plan have higher premiums than private insurance?

         I've been saying that a public option with negotiated rates probably won't post much of a price advantage against private insurers. But according to the Congressional Budget Office (pdf), that's an overoptimistic take. The public option's premiums, they say, will actually be more expensive than private insurance:

                Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.

                That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO's assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that "adverse selection" on the public plan's premiums would be only partially offset by the "risk adjustment" procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)

      We cannot afford a public option at this point in time.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:20:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you are full of shit. get some laxative. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        just my professional opinion.

      •  What a bunch of hooey (14+ / 0-)

        In fact, we almost can't afford NOT to have a public option at this time. You can juggle and twist and prod the figures any way you want, but it really comes down to the fact that if you require people to buy insurance, you need to have a way for them to do it that doesn't inflate the profits of private enterprise. It's deeply unlikely that the public option will be felt on voters' pocketbooks, because the shameless private companies are already hammering them. THAT will be felt in November.

        Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

        by anastasia p on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:23:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  US GDP spent on health care is more important (9+ / 0-)

        If the weight of the current health care costs were lifted even a little from the US economy there would be a boom.  

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        A Public Option is not to expensive and in the grand scheme of things is necessary for people to have jobs.

      •  Cut defense waste? Oh, but you have to audit it.. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Blair, Uberbah, Terra Mystica

        first, to do that! Gosh, just like the banks were too big to fail, I guess it's just too big to audit. Let the bloat continue. (Then let's hear Obama's debt commission tell us, then him tell us, that Social Security costs too much, gotta tighten middle class belts more, raise retirement age, cut benefits... give a blue dog a bone...)

        Fertheluvva...  

        Dont talk about not enough money.

        There are some big fat piggy banks just waiting to be cracked, and you think we oughta deny the middle class some more?

        I have had it with the no money bs.

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:01:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure about this but, (0+ / 0-)

        IIRC the CBO does not calculate the offsets of letting the Bush tax cuts lapse or any other tax that would be levied.  It looks at a zero sum approach.

        Anybody else on this point?

        "Never, desist till we ... extinguish this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, will scarce believe that it suffered a disgrace and dishonor to this country.

        by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:39:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the chief problem with using the cbo (2+ / 0-)

          is that they are not particularly good at what we are asking them to do. to calculuate non-government values such as what the PO would represent. Indeed, historically, they have been very bad at it. But they are the only source that we have so people tend to over emphasize their value.

          •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah

            Does the Government Accounting Office have any role here?

            How about some of the think tanks?  It seems to me in the forgotten parts of my memory, I have seen other groups which have issued better and more comprehensive accounting on changes such as HCR.

            It just seems like it should be doable.

            "Never, desist till we ... extinguish this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, will scarce believe that it suffered a disgrace and dishonor to this country.

            by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:13:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not sure about the GAO (3+ / 0-)

              But, yes, there are several reports from the private sector that takes cost savings into consideration that are not focused on what the government saves. For example, as I understand it, while the PO is projected to save 25 bil by the CBO- that number  does not take into account increasing the full private sector impact for consumers of having a check on private insurance companies. As we saw in the last few weeks, what if we had a public option to address the 39 percent hike or 50 percent hike by the private  companies? Does anyone seriously believe that such a hike would have been mitigate a great deal by  public option and other public programs? This is the core issue that these disucssions often do not address. The point is to create a check on the private sectors price gauging and that competition will do more than any regulaton alone can do.

    •  Yes, and I'm beyond understanding (10+ / 0-)

      why it's so important not to "deliver a hard left cross to the opposition" while hammering your supporters over and over and over with one hard left cross after another. The "sea of bickering hacks" is ONE-SIDED. It's ALL the Republicans who, as Mitch McConnell said early on, would not vote for a bill even if they got everything they wanted. (Well, them and some corporately controlled Democrats).

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:20:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats have to learn that Sister Souljah... (4+ / 0-)

        ...is a moment, not an eternal political principle.

        Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

        by GreenSooner on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:28:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand it either (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        One thing I do understand:  You can kick your friends just so many times before they cease to be friends.  

        I'm not sure they understand this in the White House.  

      •  Ezra Klein's view, frankly, sucks. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        Who the fuck is he speaking for?

        Yes, the left should ever and only be allowed to wield a nerf cross.

        Heaven forbid they should be feared.

        Fear is a driver to get folks to give what they dont want to give you. (Would many of us show up to work, would we have written that term paper or cracked the study materials, when we werent motivated, if we had no fear of the outcome had we not done so?)

        Corporate Dems have long been given carrots, which they have not earned.

        Time, way past time, to bring out the iron crosses, the sticks.

        (We'll save the carrots for our pony, upon delivery!)

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:18:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  As someone who (0+ / 0-)

        accurately predicted the course that HCR would take (until the senatorial election in Mass.  I admit I didn't see that coming until a few days before the election), I believe I can tell you.  The Obama administration never really wanted really progressive health care legislation.  They never wanted a robust public option, they never wanted an expansion of Medicare.  They wanted a corporate friendly bill--friendly not just to health insurance corporations but the corporate health care providers and others as well.  "Reaching out" to the rethugs was a convenient excuse for watering HCR down.  They wanted a bill but they did not want to be seen as threatening to large corporations. That is why they went apeshit on Howard Dean when he objected to the bill that passed the Senate while giving the rethugs a free pass.

    •  Except 1 qoute was left out of the FP story: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jim bow, drache, clubbing guy

      This doesn’t preclude a reconciliation vote on the public option later, however.

      I wonder why?

      •  Maybe because it is a throw-away line (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        J M F

        like some parent would say, "Maybe someday you can have a pony," in a effort to appease a child.  And guess what?  Kids pick up on the fact that those sorts of comments are throw-away pretty quickly in life too.  I think I was about five when I figured out that "maybe" was a nice way of not saying "no".

    •  I enjoy seeing how long (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jim bow, Theston

      these diaries take to produce Obama bashing comments. I guess it's down to mere seconds.

      Sarah Palin has all the answers in the palm of her hand.

      by kitebro on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:21:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  JUST PASS MEDICARE FOR ALL (2+ / 0-)

      who want to buy in.  Mandate coverage for all that insurance companies don't want. Suggest that the buy in folks be a relatively small group, very small businesses, self-employed.

      I suggest that Medicare then reimurse Docs and hospitals more the younger their patients are

      If you're going to pass it by reconciliation anyway, might as well give the people what they want.

  •  Personally, I'd love to see somebody... (13+ / 0-)

    ...delivering a hard left cross to the opposition.

    Grow up Democrats, face the music, do it alone - you're the majority - Rachel Maddow

    by blueyescryinintherain on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:15:10 AM PST

  •  This boughtpartisanship, for that's what it is, (5+ / 0-)

    people of either party playing for big money from corporations, has to somehow be knocked out of the President's head. As a practical measure it does nothing for our legislative agenda, nor does it get Democrats votes in elections.

    I don't get why this bizarre notion that people want comity between the parties, above having their actual needs actually met, has infected our leadership. Well, not exactly, I do get it's strictly about the dough.

    This, too, is just whacky:

    tougher penalties on businesses that don’t insure workers

    All it means is more workers will be let go, and struggling businesses will struggle deeper. It's just insane, really.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:04 AM PST

    •  People want stuff to get done. (8+ / 0-)

      Many if not most people are not particularly ideological and favor, most of all, action over inaction.  

      Everyone sees they're getting nothing but gridlock.

      The punditocracy maintains that a poisonously partisan atmosphere--for which both parties are equally responsible--is the cause of all our problems and that the solution must be to move to an imaginary middle (imaginary, in part, because the GOP is always willing to move the goalposts) where stuff can get done. And since this is, by definition, the only way to get stuff done, this must be what the public wants.

      In fact, partisanship and ideological extremism aren't the same thing. The two major parties aren't equally partisan or equally ideologically extreme.  And the American people will reward action that produces tangible positive consequences, wherever it comes from.

      Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

      by GreenSooner on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:34:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  one MAJOR problem facing public support (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atlliberal, laker

    is that no one has actually given the public a clear explination of exactly what constitutes 'cadillac health coverage'

    This might actually be the cause of some of the 'not sure' responses we see in polls and could be costing this issue a few YES WE SUPPORT THIS pts in polls too.

    People are not sure if they have 'cadillac' coverage or not and so they do not understand HOW this 'tax' might effect them and their coverage.

    If they are not sure how this tax might effect them they are, for sure UNSURE about whether or not they support the HCR Bill.

    "Obama set his Phaser on stun and aimed at the GOP Retreat"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:12 AM PST

    •  Honestly, I am so confused (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melpomene1

      I keep reading that it's not us but the employer who will pay it and that employers will wisely look for plans under the cap — junky plans that don't provide the coverage we need because the premiums are just too high on decent coverage. So I just don't know, and because I don't really know, I don't like the idea.

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:25:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The net effect would be reduction of the quality (0+ / 0-)

        of health insurance.  Employers will not really pay.  In principle they could pass the cost on to customers but what will happen in reality is that the cost and quality of the health insurance plans will decline to put them below the line at which employers will have to pay.  The cheaper plans will have larger co-pays and deductibles.  This will "bend the cost curve," but at the expense of the quality of the insurance plans.

    •  It's more the deal the unions got.. (0+ / 0-)

      These bills are so full of giveaways, backroom deals and special considerations for connected groups or states, the public is just sick of it all.

      People don't care as much how it will affect them when they know the guy next door will get a special break because he's in a union.

      It boggles my mind that Democrats do not see this.  The American voter sees this whole process as tainted and dirty and wants no part of it.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:36:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  delivering a hard left to the opposition (4+ / 0-)

    is wrong, how? in this case, is not only long overdue, it will make for meaningful reform and it will save the Dems' hides in November.

    Resuscitating the most controversial element of the bill and running it through reconciliation looks less like reaching out and more like delivering a hard left cross to the opposition.

    who are you, and what have you done with ezra klein?

    Years from now, the children of DLC-ers will sit around campfires telling stories about what happened to Martha Coakley in 2010.

    by output on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:13 AM PST

    •  I also disgree that it's the most (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atlliberal, output

      "controversial" element. Polls have repeatedly showed an overwhelming number of Americans like it when it's explained accurately. It has been controversialized, which is a different thing. That's simple using distortion and scare tactics to make people believe it's something it isn't i.e. socialism. And it depends on controversial with whom? Among women I know, the abortion clauses are the most controversial elements.

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:27:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  hey lady! (0+ / 0-)

        i wrote a new brunner diary today.  hope you catch it.

        People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

        by Cedwyn on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:06:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dems Codify the Concept of Excess Care (9+ / 0-)

    with the excise tax. Given the conservatism of the party and the corporate pressure, the tax is what I'd bet on.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17:41 AM PST

  •  Interesting that this quote was omitted: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fitzov rules, drache

    This doesn’t preclude a reconciliation vote on the public option later,
    however.

    I wonder why?

  •  I am beginning to believe that many of the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    melpomene1

    senate democrats, like all of their republican colleagues are negotiating in bad faith. I also wonder about the president's agenda on HCR. It all leaves me not very hopeful.

    "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

    by hester on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:21:01 AM PST

  •  When did bipartisanship become (8+ / 0-)

    a necessary condition of passing any legislation? Why, when Democrats took charge, of course. For eight years, the b-word never passed anyone's lips in Washington. Now, it's all we hear about.

    It's bullshit.

    Everybody in the country knows that no Republican will vote for any sort of HCR. If the Democrats don't just go ahead and do this, it's because they don't want to. Not because they can't.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:21:11 AM PST

  •  well it certainly will be an interesting week (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jim bow, Calidad, clubbing guy

    but then again I think some on this site, you included Mcjoan are missing some key points not least of all is no one seems to have clearly defined what a 'public option' is.

    And no one here seems willing to admit we lost the message war on that front.

    Not to mention this bill is more then a 'public option'

    •  mcjoan just can't help herself. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clubbing guy

      The first season of the public option soap opera wasn't all that great.  So now mcjoan thinks the second season is going to be better.

      It continues to boggle my mind how people can equate the importance of the public option with the self-insured's exemption from the minimum benefit packages (Sec. 1301(b)(1)(B) of H.R. 3590).  Under the Senate bill, over half people in this country won't get the maximum out-of-pocket caps, the removal of lifetime and annual caps on coverage, the minimum actuarial value, and some of the required services because they get their health insurance through organizations that self-insure.  The House bill has a five-year grace period, and then requires the self-insured to comply with the minimum benefit packages (Sec. 202 of H.R. 3962).

      Seriously, which is more important -- the public option or the self-insured's exemption from the minimum benefit packages?

      I've listed at least 13 ways the House bill is more ambitious, more progressive, and a demonstrably better bill than the Senate bill.  Please tell me which of those items are less important than the inclusion or exclusion of a public option.

      Well, for now I'll just play along with the Daily Kos crowd:  Public option.  No excise tax.  Public option.  No excise tax.  Public option.  No excise tax.  Public option.  No excise tax.  Public option.  No excise tax.  Public option.  No excise tax.  Public option.  No excise tax.  Public option.  No excise tax.

      •  I thought you were one who wanted to pass (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orestes1963

        the Senate bill through the House, so we'd have something? Saying that the Senate bill is fatally flawed regardless of the public option issue seems to be going in the opposite direction.

        As for the "public option"...the only way a "public option" makes sense is if it's a Medicare/Medicaid buy-in. Creating a government-run health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies on their terms makes no sense at all.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:05:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

          Where did I say the Senate bill was fatally flawed?  I simply said the Senate bill as a whole wasn't nearly as good as the House bill.  That said, given the options we have right now, I'd happily take the inferior Senate bill as it still would represent the largest domestic policy change in over 40 years -- let represents a vast, vast improvement over the status quo that would provide security and dignity to millions of Americans, save hundreds of thousands of lives, and avert millions of bankruptcies.

          When we go to a restaurant, we don't get to pick our favorite dish in the world.  We only get to pick our favorite dish on the menu.  It would be nice if people were honest here about our options.

          I actually think the public option is preferable to Medicare buy-in.  Most older adults will save more from the generational subsidy from the community rating -- certainly with a 2:1 age rating that would be the case -- than from the Medicare's bargaining power.  Also, the benefits in Medicare are tailored towards older, sicker people, and both bills allow healthier Americans to buy coverage having an actuarial value less than Medicare.  So it's hard to see how Medicare doesn't end up with an older, sicker population than it currently has, and be made into a dumping ground for sick people.

  •  Will be attached to budget bill to avoid filibust (0+ / 0-)

    http://bit.ly/...

    Democratic officials tell the New York Times that President Obama's health care proposal "was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance the bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority."

    Said a Democratic aide: "It will be a reconciliation bill. If Republicans don't come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do."

    "I feel like I'm trapped in a Salvadore Dali painting."......can't remember

    by anninla on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:21:49 AM PST

  •  I teach trade skills (6+ / 0-)

    to union apprentices.

    Last year they were fired up and hopeful.

    This year they are not.

    If we need their votes we gotta throw them a bone.

    If we don't need their votes then.............

  •  an excise tax is just dumb (6+ / 0-)

    if the problem was hunger you would not tax food more for people who buy a lot of it.  You would try to make food cheaper and more available.  If you look at tort reform in California and Texas where health care was suppose to become cheaper, health care costs just as much there as everywhere else.  Private health care did not pass on any lower costs to their Customers they are charging what the market will bear.  In the same way, some middle class families will have to pay more for already expensive health care with no benefit to them and it will still not be cheaper for anyone else (why would health care charge any less with a tax?).

    On the other hand, a Public Option creates competition in a way that private health care cannot game and health care will be forced to be cheaper and it will be more available.

    •  I hate to see you get excited (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orestes1963

      No public option is going to be passed, and you're setting yourself up for more disappointment by even hoping for it.

      Unfortunately, this president and this democratic congress is so weak, so disorganized, and so cowardly that there's little chance that ANY health care bill will be passed, unless they can push a blank piece of paper through on reconciliation.  You can bet that if reconciliation does happen, the bill might as well be a blank piece of paper for all the good it's going to do.

      As long as our political system is money-driven, it's always going to favor Republicans.  Even if we gave Obama a 90-seat majority in the Senate, they wouldn't be able to get it done.  Pick your favorite democratic senator.  The most progressive.  Even he or she is a weakling when it comes right down to it, because they'd rather be re-elected than do the right thing and lose an election.  So they are ALWAYS going to favor corporations.  

      I'm finally starting to see term limits and comprehensive campaign finance reform as the only hope for this country, and the possibility of either of those ever passing is zero.

  •  BCBS in MI (6+ / 0-)

    just announced their intention to raise rates by an astounding 57%.

    Why not let everyone buy into Medicare and be done with it? These gangster insurance companies are never going to stop bleeding us.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:25:46 AM PST

  •  I posted on this in August 2009 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

    by Benintn on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:26:28 AM PST

  •  That's what I'm saying (0+ / 0-)

    It's my understanding that the Unions were the loan holdout on the excise tax ... BUT

    they were willing to acquiesce on the condition that a Public Option were in the mix.

    VOila!

    Let's Dance!

  •  They're not going to show their hand .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jstipich, Egalitare

    ...before the bipartisan summit. It would sink the whole thing.

    They'll have the summit, make the republicans look like fools and then hit them hard with their lack of cooperation.

    That's when the Public Option comes to life for the White House.

  •  The White House never opposed a public option (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fitzov rules, whaddaya

    Sebelius said today of course they would support public option.  And the president's health bill is being written specifically to use reconciliation.
    From the "Daily Beast - "Obama Writes Own Health Bill

    Should he have done this months ago? Hoping to revive his health-care agenda, President Obama is writing his own comprehensive health-care legislation before next week’s meeting with Republicans. According to Democratic officials, Obama is writing it so that it could be passed through reconciliation and therefore skirt the threats of a Republican filibuster. "It will be a reconciliation bill," one Democratic aide tells The New York Times. "If Republicans don’t come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do." The White House will post Obama’s plan online by Monday morning.

    Read it at The New York Times

    Eyes on the Prize People

    by jstipich on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:31:23 AM PST

  •  I'm all for delivering a hard left cross (4+ / 0-)

    If they did it, I'd be willing to bet a majority of Americans will say:

    It's about time!

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:31:53 AM PST

  •  Most important election in America (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry for the OT but

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  They're going after Math now? (0+ / 0-)

      Science and history weren't enough? I suppose they will now try to get 2+2=5 printed in all the math books.

      I guess that's the only way they'll be able to convince the next generation that tax cuts increase revenue.

      "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

      by atlliberal on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans will scream bloody murder regardless (5+ / 0-)

    so why don't ignore them & pass the best bill we possibly can?

    The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

    by Positronicus on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:36:08 AM PST

  •  If the public option passes (5+ / 0-)

    the Dems will own DC for a generation. The cost doesn't matter, the deficit is out of control and everyone knows it. the Public Option will not be the straw that broke the camel's back.

    But it WILL produce results and it WILL give the Dems a platform to run on.

    You look at any country with UHC, not even their conservatives will talk about cuts to the service. If the Dems delivered on that, the Republicans would be deprived of most of their major talking points.

  •  Bipartisan = moderate = regulatory capture. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, J M F, Eric Nelson

    The most enlightening article I've seen to date, defining the forces in play in a way that makes perfect sense of all the machinations, is Luke Mitchell in Harper's--Understanding Obamacare. [I fear it's subscription]

    The polite word for regulatory capture in Washington is "moderation." Normally we understand moderation to be a process whereby we balance the conservative-right-red preference for "free markets" with the liberal-left-blue preference for "big government." Determining the correct level of market intervention means splitting the difference. Some people (David Broder, members of the Concord Coalition) believe such an approach will lead to the wisest policies. Others (James Madison) see it only as the least undemocratic approach to resolving disputes between opposing interest groups. The contemporary form of moderation, however, simply assumes government growth (i.e., intervention), which occurs under both parties, and instead concerns itself with balancing the regulatory interests of various campaign contributors. The interests of the insurance companies are moderated by the interests of the drug manufacturers, which in turn are moderated by the interests of the trial lawyers and perhaps even by the interests of organized labor, and in this way the locus of competition is transported from the marketplace to the legislature. The result is that mediocre trusts secure the blessing of government sanction even as they avoid any obligation to serve the public good. Prices stay high, producers fail to innovate, and social inequities remain in place.

    No one today is more moderate than the Democrats. Indeed, the triangulating work that began two decades ago under Bill Clinton is reaching its apogee under the politically astute guidance of Barack Obama....

    The only true competition in America is local--over which politicians will enjoy the privilege of representing the interests of the rich.

    by geomoo on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:19 AM PST

    •  Global competition will evetually force the US to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geomoo

      adopt some form of national universal health care insurance.
       There will always be corporations fighting for control of medical insurance-for-profit industry, but as the non-medical insurance corporations [every other indusrty] begin to lose internationaly, change will come.

      The interests of the insurance companies are moderated by the interests of the drug manufacturers, which in turn are moderated by the interests of the trial lawyers and perhaps even by the interests of organized labor, and in this way the locus of competition is transported from the marketplace to the legislature. The result is that mediocre trusts secure the blessing of government sanction even as they avoid any obligation to serve the public good. Prices stay high, producers fail to innovate, and social inequities remain in place.

       The US corporations that produce tangible products with US laborers will no longer protect the health insurance cartels.
       The insurance cartels take too big a bite out the economy.

  •  It's Occurred to Them (4+ / 0-)

    If you're going for 50 votes, why worry about the opposition? So far that apparently hasn't occurred to them, as they are apparently leaving out the most popular element, and including the least popular one.

    The idea that the necessary vote counts for reconciliation "hasn't occurred to them" is BS of the highest order.

    Why don't we just say that the White House uses "bipartisanship" as a figleaf to give the insurance corp (and the rest of their corporate sponsors) what it wants while blaming only Republicans? If we don't how can we possibly expect to get better Democrats, not just (and maybe not even) more Democrats?

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:28 AM PST

  •  I'll ask this again: (3+ / 0-)

    What the hell are we getting in return for this prized "bipartisanship"?  If it's to win favor with the American people, and yet you can't use that favor to pass something that the American people themselves overwhelmingly want, WTF good is it?

    Save the parrots: Drink shade-grown coffee!

    by oscarsmom on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:42:51 AM PST

  •  mcjoan you always have great info (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink

    I look forward to your dairy, you always have in depth well researched and written topics. Thanks keep up the fight!

  •  it's a stupid talking point to begin with (6+ / 0-)

    Originally, the White House opposition to the public option was supposedly because it couldn't get 60 Dem votes.

    It's like if Obama said he was against the Cubs going to the World Series, because he doesn't think they'll win.  WTF?

    I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

    by Uberbah on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:46:31 AM PST

  •  great post, mcjoan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, TomP

    Join Our FixItAndPassIt! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

    by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:46:31 AM PST

  •  Wouldn't a National Exchange (0+ / 0-)

    Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines?  Why would conservatives oppose that?  I know their opposition is reflexive, but just on a policy level, isn't this what they want?

    •  That's easy. (0+ / 0-)

      A national Exchange would mean more regulation in states with lax regulation.  Conservatives hate federal minimum standards.  They hate regulation of the fully-insured -- let alone the self-insured.

      Of course, you can't have both a federal and state-based Exchange with different community ratings (and different minimum benefit packages, different reserving requirements, different premium taxes, etc.) in the same state.  That would cause all kinds of adverse selection problems.  The young would migrate to the Exchange with the wider community rating as premiums would be cheaper for them, and leave the old in a pool to themselves with much less a generational subsidy from the young.  Health insurance would eventually become unaffordable on the Exchange with the stronger community rating, and it would cease to exist.

    •  One question that never gets asked... (0+ / 0-)

      Will a doctor or hospital in NJ take insuarance from a local resident who purchases a plan in North Dakota where apparently the reimbursements rates are so low they can't stay in business?

  •  Heck yeah; why not the brass ring? (0+ / 0-)
    Why not do both?

    the worst thing that can happen is Americans get better health care at a cheaper price and elect more Democrats.

    Our incumbent House and Senate need to be verbally slapped around a bit for all the nonsense they've put us through.

    Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. Reinhold Niebuhr

    by patriot spear on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:49:06 AM PST

  •  What is the point of the excise tax? (0+ / 0-)

    If it's to raise revenue to pay for HCR, why not roll back Bush's tax cuts on the top 1% who enjoyed Bush's party?  

    Why the hell is this administration so afraid to do just that?  Are they looking to maintain their non-existent street creds with the anti-union crowd since many of the "Cadillac plans" come through union contracts?  

    Once again, it seems to me this administration is terrified to offend it's detractors so they go after their friends.  

  •  PO will never happen (0+ / 0-)

    It wasn't agreed to in the back room deals the WH was making last summer.  they keep letting it get taken down and acting like they didn't want it to happen.  The only proof I have is the whole process so far.  Then when it gets close the Liebermans wreck it without any recriminations. How could a dem without any chance of re-election keep his chairmanship and carry on like he has, unless he did what was asked of him.

  •  why not just pass Medicare for all (4+ / 0-)

    just let people buy in, any age with simple rules,
    with mandates. if it's going to be passed by reconciliation go with what more people would rather call it

    •  Medicare for all!! (3+ / 0-)

      Its an existing program no need for 60 votes . The WH has to know it can do this through the recon. process. The simple truth is it doesn't want to because that cuts the Health Ins. companies out and that means he doesn't get all their cash anymore, nor do the the rest of the Dems. When is this man and his party going to start doing what they told all of us they would do if elected , instead of just talking endlessly about it and doing the exact opposite? What Obama and the Dems. are doing is creating a kind of political cognitive dissonance out here and its going to come back to haunt them big time. The public doesn't like to be lied to this way. Yes, they hated BV$H, but that was his policies not the way he portrayed himself. Say what u will about BV$H and I hated the fucker he did what he said for the most part, as rotten as it was. Obama and the Dems. are doing just the opposite! They're pissing on our heads and then their trying to convince us it's raining.

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

      by Blutodog on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:29:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree a bit (0+ / 0-)

        Medicare for all would be available to those the Insurance companies doesn't want in the long run anyway.

        Limit it to the self employed and very small businesses.  I suspect Insurance companies don't want them, they are trying to price them out anyway. Botton line to me is these companies would ultimately want only large customersm thay'd rather have 3/4 of the country and 10 million accounts than 9/10 and 100 million accounts.  

        At some point in time the insurance companies and the gov would find the balance they both really want.

  •  I must have a poor memory. (0+ / 0-)

    I don't remember ever seeing a quote from Obama saying he was opposed to the PO. As for the dufases in the Admin that seem to spew contradictory statements every other week, who cares?

  •  Obama has to manage expectations. (0+ / 0-)

    I think he has to make clear that he is going to push for what can pass.  The PO doesn't have 51 votes yet.  When it does, then he'll support it.  Otherwise, he is about getting what is possible, and that is the Senate HCR bill which is a great bill.

    We have what looks like a brand new opportunity to pass HCR and he is not going to screw it up by allowing expectations to get out of control, and he is certainly not going to allow overeager progressives to talk legislators out of voting for the Senate HCR bill because of the public option issue.  

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:49:40 PM PST

  •  In response to your questio,- They are ideologues (0+ / 0-)
  •  Obama agains public option (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Blair

    There are a bunch of spineless dims up for reelection in 2010.  They need to pass at least one of the following:  public option, universal health care, opt in medicare. And they need to dump taxing health care and criminalizing it.
    If they can't do at least one of the above and dump the tax and fine mentality there aren't going to be enough of them returning to pass any of Obama's legislation.

    So Obama needs to sit down and shut up and stuff a rancid sock in Rahm's mouth about opposing health care and start pandering to the people he wants to maintain his majority in Congress.

    He isn't up for election till 2012.  How many dims will support him then, if he doesn't support his party and his voters now?

  •  Whose side is Obama on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Blair

    If he puts up a counter proposal to his own party and if the dims as a party want the win in 2010 and 2012, and local and state elections along the way, they need to pass legislation to satisfy their voters and to hell with Obama's proposal.  He can choose to support his party and his voters or not, but if he cuts this off at the knees - again - he will be a very lonely guy in 2012.  Between the dead from lack of health care and the dead from what are now his three wars he may end up a bloody mess.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site