Of course, there are various ways these can be achieved.

I didn’t know Medicare denied coverage that way. Maybe that needs to be done away with in the same way the insurance company’s ‘doctor’ needs to become unemployed.

if by “we” you mean us, you and me, we don’t. we aren’t in a position to have much influence on the outcome. not in the Senate, especially. Democratic Senators don’t have to care what voters think – or at least don’t believe that they do.

Is Baucus going to just step aside and let it happen? No…

that’s actually the only hope i see for getting something that minimally qualifies. not Baucus himself, but by doing exactly what he and the other Dunnocrats are doing: being willing to sink the entire bill. that’s the source of their power in the situation. the leadership is not with us on this, they just want The Deal, contents unimportant. only a threat to The Deal will get a response.

i think we are only still talking about even a neutered public plan because House progressives have been making noises like that. i think all we – you and me – can do is encourage them to continue. if there’s anyone in the Senate who will do the same, that would be nice too.

this is a pretty slim hope, though. it’s not a comfortable tactic because there is a real risk of ending with no bill at all. in every similar situation in the past, ultimately the progressive side has caved because of their desire to do something at least. that’s why they’re in Congress in the first place after all. i guess we’ll see.

The framing of any progressive plan needs to point to the cause of the crisis, which is the insurance industry.

Ultimately, Republicans are the enemy. Any Democratic elected official who agrees with the framing of this piece and the Huffpost piece should be moved toward a more progressive solution. I’m not over-estimating the impact of the pieces. I simply mean Democratic contact with these or similar thoughts from others should help.

I believe my own thoughts are more persuasive with Dems when I tone down the criticism of them. And I am referring to tone only. This, obviously, doesn’t and shouldn’t apply to everyone. It’s just a matter of my judgment and temperament. Maybe I’m wrong.

Finally, I believe there are significant problems with private/public plans. I think I over-simplified the clause referring to Hacker (I just noticed the link wasn’t live). While consistently saying that the insurance industry profit motive is the cause of the crisis, I reluctantly believe we will politically have to move in stages.

i think we agree on the values, i just don’t think your policy recommendations are in line with them.

if you think a private/public plan can work, why not make that argument clearly? tell us what it is, how it would work, how it would lead to single payer. let’s have the discussion/debate out in the open. have you actually read hacker’s report? can you explain the regulation he says a public/private insurance based system would need? can you explain how the insurance company lobbyists would not capture such a complicated and opaque regulatory regime?

here’s what don wrote about luntz’s report:

Look at this example from the report: “What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your ’solution’ will provide is, in a word, more: ‘more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.’”

What Luntz left unsaid is that these are features that more closely describe the progressive position. Most of the Republican policies would make these worse. Again, you wouldn’t respond by saying, “That’s not true.” You would respond by providing accurate sound bites on how the single payer proposal provides improved access by eliminating financial barriers to care, and single payer would eliminate the private insurance industry so it could no longer interfere with your care.

Wait. Progressive? Single payer? Isn’t my comment supposed to be talking about the framing to be used the Democrats? Well, we have a problem here.

Look at another example from Luntz’s report: “We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy. Call the Democratic plan a ‘bailout for the insurance industry’ — both because it is, and because it will build lasting credibility by going after the two things the American people hate most: Washington bureaucracy and insurer greed.”

Wow! Luntz is right! The Democratic plan IS a “bailout for the insurance industry.” In fact, the Democrats have lost all credibility on this one when they have AHIP’s Karen Ignagni front and center at every hearing, every forum, every summit, and her operatives providing input to the closed-door sessions, while they have excluded from the process those who most vigorously attack the insurance companies – the single payer advocates.

i think he is exactly right.

Mr. Smith, thanks for attacking the lying tactics of the anti-reform GOP insurance company hacks.

Selise, thanks for your passionate advocacy for those who suffer every day because of the corrupt policies of health insurance companies. Someday health care will be a Right and not a commodity.

I think of my mother who complained to her HMO doctor for two years of abdominal pain and was shushed away and dismissed. She died of ovarian cancer, diagnosed at Stage IV.

Selise, I have said this before, but my worst fear is that the liar’s club will create a federal HMO like the one that murdered my mother.

I will do everything I can to promote HR 676 and to educate those I meet about single payer and its advantages over existing plans.