These loud voices keep reminding me of the ’70s screamers of “Love it or Leave it”….now look where the shoe fits. These people do not think “gov’mint” can do anything. Nothing…get G’mint out of our lives. SO. If there is nothing left to love, please leave. Let’s begin to fix things up. PO or GO, just like you said.

From the Brad Blog – http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7360#more-7360

UPDATE 08/17/09: An Aug. 17, 2009 front page article in The New York Times, “’Public Option’ in Health Plan May be Dropped,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, reveals how the corporate media has conflated the health insurance industry-funded, wing-nut mobs into an excuse for describing “betrayal” as “compromise” — justified because the “’public option’…emerged as a flashpoint for anger and opposition.”

Stolberg conveniently forgets that a June 2009 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that 76% of all Americans support a “public option.” A Feb. 2009 New York Times/CBS News poll revealed that 59% of all Americans favored a national health care system. A Feb. 2009 Grove Insight Opinion Research poll found that 60% of all Americans favor Medicare for All, the single-payer concept embodied in H.R. 676.

What we are seeing is a classic case of perception management by the corporate-owned, mainstream media. The same media, which inundates prime time news hours with wing-nut, town hall protests, failed to so much as mention that, in the span of one week, thirteen single-payer advocates were arrested for protesting their exclusion from the discussions of health care “reform” taking place in the Baucus-led Senate Finance Committee. Indeed, as I noted in “Single-Payer and the ‘Democracy Deficit,’” the words “single-payer” are rarely mentioned by the corporate media, MSNBC providing the occasional against-the-grain exception. The corporate media essentially ignored the large July 30, 2009 single-payer protest in Washington DC, staged as part of the celebration of the 40th Anniversary of Medicare.

By extensive coverage of wing-nuts, the corporate media skewed reality. The “opposition” to a “public option” comes from a tiny but very vocal minority. The Democrats who entered a Faustian bargain that will perpetuate a corrupt health care system that, annually, kills nearly seven times the number of Americans who lost their lives on 9/11 are not, as the Washington Post would have us believe, “moderates.” Corruption and betrayal can, by no stretch of the imagination, be seen as a reasonable “compromise.”

===

Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).

Obama is actually a republican. His “bait and switch” on Health Care is absolute evidence of his affiliation and allegiance to the concepts of Triangulation and Blue Doggery.

The idea that “bipartisanship” is something that is either required or mandatory for governance had a stake driven thru it by Preznit Done Evil and his minions.

I’m sorry, but any support for democrats doesn’t come from me until every one of these corporate democrats is gone. $50 to FDL to suppport better progressives (and I am starting to change my idea of what a “democrat” is). Anyone want to join me? Jane is a far more eloquent spokesperson than any beltway moron out there.

Fuck Obama and the corporate democrats.

Election ‘08 Fail?

PO…not PU.

WHY IS PRESIDENT OBAMA GIVING REPUBLICANS AND BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS THE POLITICAL EQUIVALENT OF A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD?

Here’s my problem with how the public “negotiations” with Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats over national health care reform are being conducted by President Obama. By repeatedly stating and or implying that Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats actually WANT national health care reform too, when all they really want is to maintain the status quo; Obama is literally giving Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats a POLITICAL PASS for obstructing meaningful reform. He is not forcing them to PAY A POLITICAL PRICE for organizing dishonest and scurrilous campaigns to obstruct, undermine and prevent national health care reform.

WHY isn’t he making them accountable for what they’re actually doing?

WHY is he letting the rat bastards walk away unscathed while they’re doing everything they can to screw him and the American people over?

WHY in the name of god is he doing that?

Does he or doesn’t he REALLY want to pass meaningful national health care reform?

While it makes a great slogan, the problem is that just because something is called the “public option” doesn’t mean that it represents effective reform.

For instance, this analysis shows how the “public option” coming out of the Senate HELP committee is a complete and absolute sell-out to the insurance companies who will wind up administering “public plans” for the government. (And the House version isn’t much better.)

When the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed a bill on July 15 creating an anemic “public option” program, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and other “public option” proponents were ecstatic. They welcomed the “public option” in the HELP committee bill, proclaiming it “strong” or “robust.” But the actual provisions in the HELP Committee bill call for numerous “community health insurance options,” not the single “Medicare-like” plan promised by “public option” advocates. That means the individual “options” will probably be as small and weak as the co-ops now under discussion in the Senate Finance Committee. More importantly, these “community options” will almost certainly be run by insurance companies.

The “public option” under the senate plan really looks like “Medicare Advantage” that the kind of government admininstered program that is large enough (and empowered to) negotiate significant savings from hospitals and drug companies. We’ve already seen how Obama’s AHA deal negotiated away the savings that could be achieved by having the public option use the Medicare reimbursement schedule for hospitalization. And we already know that Obama negotiated away any change that the public option can be combined with Medicare to wring savings from the drug companies.

Unless the advocate of the “public option” (like Jane and HCAN) acknowledge that this is about a HELL of a lot more than getting the words “public option” included in the bill, the “PO or NO” slogan will be just that — empty words

Does he or doesn’t he REALLY want to pass meaningful national health care reform?

That is the ten billion dollar question. I’m pretty sure we all know the answer. Actions speak louder than words.

delete

DO you want to destroy the conservative opposition to single payer in both parties?

Sign these petitions

http://bit.ly/single_payer_ross

http://bit.ly/HR676

http://bit.ly/drug_benefit

Read our blog http://blog.democratz.org

Join our new progressive political party and remain a Democrat http://democratz.org

FOR THOSE OF YOU, who get these emails from the Obama organization
you might find this link usefull

http://my.barackobama.com/page/unsubscribe/

If these guys can’t do what we want, I want NO BILL and a GOP victory with which to recruit the next POTUS.

Our current leaders have a clear mandate, a wide House majority and a veto proof Senate majority. If they can’t get it done, we need new executives…apparently Illinois isn’t up to it. (Always was the second city…)

Where’s a pitchfork when you need one??!!

PUSH! PUSH!! PUSH!!!

The issue is that the constituents of the congress is NOT the voters but the contributors and lobbyists who represent their constituents – corporations and private sector special interests.

The dems have several rational critters such as Nadler, Wiener and so forth who seem to listen to the public. The vast majority are simply responding to their handlers and corporate constituency. It’s that simple.

Any rational examination of health care delivery in the country leads away from the for profit system with the insurers acting as the ones who decide on who gets care with the object to make money for the insurance company. Add in the profit driven hospitals, pharma, and so forth and you have capitalism on steroids.

Of course, the public and those rational see this clear as the nose on their face. But “destroying” an industry will not play well in a capitalist society and hence all the calls against socialized medicine.

This “debate” is so dishonest because there IS no debate of the real FACTS and ISSUES.

Jane was brilliant with Mrs Greenspan. We know it, but the nation needs to see more of her and her calm, fact filled presentation.

Thanks Jane. You’re a saint and we love you.

When did the middle move to the 15th percentile?

In the NY Times / CBS poll taken a couple of weeks ago, there was still very strong support for a public option. See result (on Page 13) here – http://documents.nytimes.com/n…..haul#p=13. Yes, 66% said they supported some sort of “medicare like” plan being offered. This fact was not even included in the NY Times story covering this poll, which ran with the headline, New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan. Though the article noted that the changes in public opinion were “not huge”, the narrative of the article was obvious, as was its neglect to even note the 66% support for a public option. This widespread support is something that the mainstream media still chooses to ignore as it continues to portray the issue as being “divisive”.

With these politicians, pundits and journalists describing a move away from the public option as being a “move to the middle”, I would like to ask them -

Since when has the middle occupied the 15th percentile?

PO, PO, PO!

Assuming you are right, and this debate seems to have shown many of the forces you describe, what would it take to free Obama/to make him do the right thing? Is there such a path? I do not think he set out to snooker us…Is there too much to hide in torture & FISA? I do not think he is the snake Hannity poses…Maybe he could play all his cards to honor Ted Kennedy…there must be something to reclaim the high ground and the honest debate.

BOYCOTT those contributors. You rightly point out that contributors pose the problem but you don’t put forth a solution to destroy these contributors power. Boycott them and demand the legislation from them.

Read our blog http://blog.democratz.org

okay, paper tigers, just how did that neato ‘no blood for oil’ slogan work out ? ? ?
hee hee hee
give it up, the deal is done, the li’l peeps are screwed again…
ho ho ho
better get to work electing more spineless, useless, rethug-lite dem’rats so we can have a new crop of kongresskritters crap on us…
ha ha ha
(repeat ad nauseum, ad infinitum…)
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla@windstream.net
eof

good stuff teddy, combine that slogan with jane’s “the public option IS the compromise” and we have a winner

Alas, the devil is in the details. If “public option” means something that lives up to the original vision of this, okay fine. But, the versions currently on offer via House and Senate really don’t seem to match the best of the original vision. e.g.-

The Senate HELP Committee “public option” will be multiple “options,” and these will be run by insurance companies

I was wondering when were going to start abbreviating it.

Yes, the Catch 22 of mandating purchase is beyond “sick”

what’s our plan to prevent them from scr*w*ng us in conference, anyway? Even if we get a hundred and pass a house bill with the PO in it, the leadership can shaft us on whoever they select for Conference with the Senate. If the president won’t veto the outcome, we can get shafted regardless of how firm we convince House progressives to stand with us.

yes.. as I commented on a previous thread, it looks like both formal and informal polls are showing 66-69% support for a public option generally and CNN had a poll up showing 57% for a public option being “essential” to reform, which is even more reassuring (the exact proportion, between 75% for- and 55% for- depends a lot of what precise question is asked but every poll not run by Fox seems to be showing overwhelming support for the public option).

Unfortunately, this country isn’t a democracy anymore.

The Senate HELP Committee “public option” will be multiple “options,” and these will be run by insurance companies

so that’s how they’re gonna get around our public option meme…wonderfu;

someone on a previous thread posted a link to a great idea, simply make medicare available to anyone who wants it

now that’s a public option

I love that idea, we can force a contribution by anyone with a job and bing, a very nice public option

are you THE Jo Fish? the dem vet Jo Fish?

“just say PO” ??

We are that sure of the House? Also should not the Senators with a conflict of interest not vote on this bill?
What is the procedure to force them not to vote for this bill if any.

Paul Lukasiak has it exactly right. At this point the liberal position has devolved to the point of saying that any PO other than co-ops is worth drawing a line in the sand for. I’m not even hearing “robust” much anymore. Like PO itself, robust was a term that also went begging for clarification, which the Congressional Progressive Caucus actually provided but then walked away from. The CPC’s robustness would be truly worth defending. The PO currently on offer, in my view, is not.

If Democrats could agree that the CPC criteria actually constituted the definition of robust, and drew the line in the sand there, I would march to the slogan “Robust or Bust!” But they couldn’t, they’re not, and I won’t.

Gee, I heard that from 2002 right on up to the present. Either that or, “Get a job!!” Road scholars.

Got the 2 new ones. Click on my name and go to yesterday’s Caturday comments for details.

It is a punchy slogan.

It will however make any German speaker laugh!

http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/po

It’s a poor no, you know.

That’s right, lukasiak. The PO or No slogan has to refer to Jacob Hacker’s original proposal, and there’s even a great deal of question that even this form of PO will be effective in cutting costs significantly. Also, “PO or No” does have the weakness that regular people may not understand why progressives are so stubborn about it. They may wonder this because they don’t understand the PO. And even if they do understand it, they may wonder why progressives are so stubborn about supporting a measure that, after all, preserves the insurance companies that have been screwing people for so long.

That’s why “Medicare for All, or No” is much better, than “PO or No.” It’s much more understandable to people and it will be much clearer to the American people that the progressive Democrats are so stubborn about it because they really care about people and not health insurance companies.

PO or SP

These a holes say that the insurane companies can’t compete with the government option and in the next breath say the government can’t do anything right so to complete the sylogism that means that the insurance companies are worse than the government.

Actually I don’t think that Obama is a Republican he’s just not as bright as the corporate media wanted us to believe.

*G*

As far as Andrea Greenspan, don’t you think that somewhere hidden in the dark recesses of her attic is a portrait of her that grows more grotesque with each passing day?

Saw that earlier. Looks like not a lotta folks remember Dorian Gray.

That’s a good one, thanks for sharing, I’d not seen it yet . . .

We’re 76%. NOT a minority. We and our effin Dem’s should start ACTING like it.

Obama is not stupid, he KNOWS he’s toast in ‘12, and the dems are toast in ‘10 if he DOESN’T get a full blown, vibrant and immediate reform plan to please the masses.

Aside from letting the MSM and corporate feudalists wage kubuki on is for all this time, I’m thinking the hammer will come down before it’s all over. Without a public option, a VIBRANT one for all, that competes with private sector and negotiates on a national basis, there will be all hell let loose by america.

That 76% will make the whackaloon Armey’s People folks like like small ants.

Very well-taken. But the wording of the survey makes no mention of “public option,” but only a “Medicare-like” plan. Since most people have only a vague understanding of the details of the distinction between the PO and “Medicare for All,” I suspect the 66% approval figure doesn’t refer to simply a PO, but to some combination of various PO types and Medicare support. Surveys like this one, rarely take the trouble to define their terms before they ask questions. For that reason it’s very tricky to infer conclusions about what they favor from the data.

Theory is he’s letting them hang themselves early, and often.

And so far, they are. MSM only reports kabuki, and NO ONE knows what’s REALLY going on behind closed doors.

Patience. THEN outrage when the final final is over . . . pressure, all along the way, sure.

He SAID we have to MAKE him do it.

I think, we are. In the case of healthcare, 76% frightens the corporate feudalists. They sense their time is coming to an end in this field (healthcare).

Question – how do you sell that to the tens of thousands of people who need health care NOW?

There’s going to be a lot of “collateral damage” that occurs, not counting the fact that the last time health care reform sputtered and died it took almost 2 decades to bring it back this far.

A lot of people can’t wait until 2016. Hell, a lot of people can’t wait until the 2013 that’s in the bill now.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a good idea or not if you can’t sell it.

Not necessarily, provided the progressives stand firm and reject the Conference bill. Of course, if they fold then, we lose. But if they don’t, a bill could be immediately resurrected by the President, if he has the guts. In the end it all depends on the guts of our elected representatives.

Yep, it’s the craziness of convoluted thinking….really makes no sense…the gov. cannot do anything….as you say, the insurers could never compete. To repeat my own self….the quite sane townhall meeting that I attended was almost unanimous that insurance companies are the enemy. So why not provide a lot of competition.

I disagree.

July 15 is NOT what’s left behind closed doors.

And Obama has the final say so, and the progs are on the march in The House.

NO ONE, not the author of that article you post, nor the blow owner, knows what’s up for grabs behind closed doors.

So, these community based options? Just another thing to kabuki about. We won’t know until Obama signs something. And if he signs watered down something, all hell is gonna break loose, dem’s will get slaughtered in ‘10, and Obama is a one term prez.

That’s just not how Obama wants this all to go down.

Don’t be misled by all the theatre, the kabuki, that’s being spun daily on all this.

Pressure on the elected ones? OH HAYALL YES! RELENTLESS PRESSURE!

But doom, and forecasted loss? I don’t think so.

PO OR NO! WE GOT THE MO!

PO or No!…

I like it. It’s kind of ridiculous-sounding, but it’s catchy.

PO or no.

Shit, we can do this!

Me neither. For that, “I ain’t Marching Anymore.”

Come on Perris, that was July 15. No one knows what’s going on behind closed doors, and most ANY MSM info we see or read or hear is kabuki spin to titillate and sell advertising . . . . don’t buy into the false fail!

PO OR NO! WE GOT THE MO!

PO or NO is good, but its going to take a next level.

Perhaps if we had 20 Trillion in business behind us, control of both parties, control of the media, control of polling questions, a few loons yelling and waving guns (don’t forget to setup fake protesters)…

I get the tinfoil sense ”they” gave Obama the choice of Health Care or the Economy. Of course just like their will be no R votes for this the cons are going to take every last cent.

The sad thing is this is the only chance for change, and it was all a lie.

Obama said their ’must’ be a PO just 3 weeks ago.

As I always suspected and the C street family has confirmed – they are not bound by morals.

As has been shown these protests are largely bought, and where not or in addition have slanted coverage.Now on Maddow ”angry renter.com” fakes (steve forbes).

As has been shown the economy is a lie.

As is being proven now with one party in near complete control they still do nothing as Americans fall off the edge. The simplest reason could be the one right? Well the most simple is they do not want it.

Tweety went from saying the protests were fake – to the PO is dead and part of the reason was the gun wavers.

Everyone said lets watch what happens with such a minority, now its in progress. Hopefully the overworked are helped by the sadly jobless and one more effort can be rallied (obviously not by Obama and his multi-million person contact list).

If it occurs as it seems to me then Obama is a lie.

Try this instead of “no.”

Pass a minimalist bill that declares it illegal for insurance companies to 1) deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, 2) charge people with pre-existing conditions more than others are charged, 3) rescind anyone’s policy because they failed to report a pre-existing condition, or because they got sick while insured, or 4) raise anyone’s premiums because they’ve gotten sick while insured.

If we passed just that right now and made it effective immediately, we’d stop a lot of the bleeding going on due to the private insurance system; and next year (in an election year) we could come back and push for Medicare for All, which we’d either get, or alternatively be able to negotiate a Jacob Hacker type of PO system in return for mandating health insurance coverage.

Notice this sequence of doing things would be much harder for “Blue Dogs” to oppose. That is, how could any Democrat object to the above 4 requirements without explicitly aligning themselves with the insurance companies and jeopardizing their re-election? They couldn’t excuse their behavior by hiding behind their concern for fiscal responsibility, or their concern for not having “socialized medicine.” They’d have to admit that they just don’t want to require the insurance companies to play fair.

Further, if such a bill passed, it would immediately impose heavy costs on the insurance companies and begin to wipe out their profits; putting them in a much more favorable frame of mind for negotiating either a worthwhile public plan in 2010, or even Medicare for All.

Agreed. There is no viable public option in any of the bills from any of the committees. What the heck is with the absolute failure of the public option supporters to concede that??? It’s mind boggling. The only PO supporter I’ve seen admit as much is Digby who is happy to just pass something with the word “public” in it. But, come on, when are the PO people going to get back to reality and acknowledge that this late in the legislative process, THERE IS NO VIABLE PUBLIC OPTION ON THE HORIZON!

No, I will stick with Medicare for All, everybody in, nobody out, or Medicare for Everyone, or Medicare for Anyone, or Medicare, made in America, or Medicare for All…with a robust private option, but I don’t give two figs about a symbolic public option.

As Carville said, Let the Republicans kill health care reform! I don’t agree with Carville too often, but he is correct here. If they kill meaningful health care reform, they will be a second class political party for decades! Sounds good to me!

Oh, and it would seem the ”essential” part of the plan is MANDITORY but without a PO.

So get junior to pay a subsidy for older unhealthy people.

On Darcy Burner’s panel Sat David Wald… was explaining that there are currently 3 versions/portions of a bill in the House and 2 in the Senate. We don’t know what’s in them or what the final bill out of each chamber will actually look like. Now we’ve got WH officials running around sayin’ different shit. Sebelius sounds like mayhaps she wasn’t the person for HHS.

Where the fuck is Biden? Isn’t the VP usually the one up on the Hill twisting arms, making threats, that kinda stuff?

Hi masslib, A symbolic public option of the kind we see in HR 3200 would prevent us from coming back for further reform before it was clear that its PO wasn’t working. Since the PO in that bill won’t go into effect until 2013, we’d be looking at 2015 before we could come back and get an effective PO. Six years down the drain, and a 1.5 trillion giveaway to the insurance industry if we pass HR 3200. That doesn’t compare well to a minimalist bill that would stop insurance abuses and let us come back for another bite at the apple next year.

This could perhaps cause people to think they can skip the trillions of dollars and media control – and just yell and scream, make no compromise, and wave guns.

Wtf is the point of an election. Wild west.

Agreed completely. I prefer your minimalist suggestion. of course the problem is the insurers already agreed to the reforms provided they get the massive captive market to make up for the revenue loss on the sick and older. So, it will still take a fight, but it’s one I would be happy to participate in. A symbolic PO that could actually work to deter a real expansion of government administered health care, on the other hand, is not a cause I can rally behind. Further, apparently Dem leadership “frowns” on Kucinich’s amendment to allow states to opt-out and use their funds for their own single payer, so I am not a fan of HR 3200.

There is no viable public option in any of the bills from any of the committees. What the heck is with the absolute failure of the public option supporters to concede that??? It’s mind boggling.

completely agree. it’s also depressing.

would love to be persuaded i’m wrong though. so, if anyone’s got an example of a viable public option in any of the bills now in play please let me know. and if not, then what public option is being fought for here?

The conference bill has to pass both houses of Congress before going to the president for signature. If the 100 progressives say “NO” to a “reform” without a public option in the conference bill, then nothing goes to the White House.

If this Administration is smart, it will double down on the big Kahuna, Medicare for all. With the latest broad hints that the “public option” is not central, not necessary to their plan etc.,etc. and the pundits doing “Chicken Little”, it is time to admit that the Republican strategy is achieving beyond their wildest dreams. The Health Insurance Industry had great gains on Wall Street today. Could anyone even feign surprise over that news.

I can’t speak for the team that came in with Obama but as far as he is concerned, I do believe that he will be sorely troubled over the loss of healthcare for all Americans. Whether he would accept an incremental approach, is more difficult to guess. I can say it would be stupid for Progressives to vote for any current Republican because they are ticked off at conservative Democrats. Let us insist that every Democrat currently serving has to vote for the official platform for the Democratic Party, “HEALTH CARE FOR ALL”.

PO or NO! stands a good chance in the current climate. PO, in so far as it keeps the Insurance Industry in just will not realize the savings that Medicare for all would. The Insurance Industry would have a “supplemental market” a small share of what they currently control but Medicare would negotiate the fees with providers and do the regulation against fraud and abuse. You can’t trust a Republican Administration to do government enforcement, they just don’t believe in it, their free market ideology pushes them to go with “what the market will bear”.

Start leaning on those “blue dogs” and Leadership to sit Max Baucus down and explain how riled up an army of pissed off voters can become when told that “the fix” was in when he only included the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma on the “reform” discussions and then decided on a small “subcommittee” to put the finishing touches on his committee’s reform bill. We could make the veteran’s bonus army look like a picnic.

The trouble with Carville is that doesn’t see that if Democrats have a huge majority in the House and a 60-40 majority in the Senate, they will have a hard time convincing people that Republican intransigence was more important than Democratic perfidy in defeating health care reform. Everyone knows that the Democrats ran on health care reform. Every one of them did, “Blue Dogs,” ConservaDems, Progressives, and just rubberstamp Obama supporters like Jim Moran (D-VA). So if they can’t keep their pledge, they will get more of the blame than the Republicans. Carville won’t be able to spin away the perfidy and corruption of someone like Max Baucus, bought to his very soul by the insurance industry. With this sort of Senate majority the Democrats could get rid of the filibuster and the seniority system entirely, if they really wanted to. But don’t hold your breath.

Agreed. Is Carville just smelling a loss and trying to spin it early? Really not sure what he is up to, but the in Party always, always, gets the blame.

Or perhaps Obama should support it because the people want it, the people need it, he said he Mist have it, and he wants to do the right thing.

It would (falsely) appear that protest could get it done – a lie, millions protested the Iraq war and it barely rated 5 minutes on Olberman. A few people and ”the media” (business) have a week and its done (and as shown ther stocks all ticked well up today while the rest of the market was down).

Nothing to see here, back to work for more hours and less pay.

I would like to add a 5th to your list.. a cap on what they can charge. I pay $130.00 more than my mortgage every month. There has to be a limit somewhere.

Actually the wording was quite explicit – “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people over 65 get – that would compete with private insurance plans?”

If that doesn’t say “public option”, I don’t know what does.

And 66% said they’d favor such a plan.

A line has to be drawn as to what you support and won’t. If you don’t do that then everything is negotiable. If everything is negotiable, you are lost at the get-go. I think that real reform is NOT debatable, and no Public Option or Single Payer means no reform. If we have to suffer on for a few more years, so be it….remember that the “reform” doesn’t kick in until 2013, so stop telling me about “folks who need health care now.”

With all due respect, I am one of the people who CAN’T “suffer on for a few more years”. So I refuse to be cannon fodder for some sort of perfect bill that isn’t going to happen, and thus NO bill is a death sentence for me and quite a few people I know.

So far as I can see, the progressive Dems in the house have no leverage – except to pressure Obama. In turn, Obama can if he chooses, play Lyndon Johnson Hardball; for example by threatening key Senators with closing down federal projects in their states. Will he? Rahm might.

Hi Adsdan, You said:

“Actually the wording was quite explicit – “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people over 65 get – that would compete with private insurance plans?”

If that doesn’t say “public option”, I don’t know what does.

And 66% said they’d favor such a plan.”

in reply to my:

Very well-taken. But the wording of the survey makes no mention of “public option,” but only a “Medicare-like” plan. Since most people have only a vague understanding of the details of the distinction between the PO and “Medicare for All,” I suspect the 66% approval figure doesn’t refer to simply a PO, but to some combination of various PO types and Medicare support. Surveys like this one, rarely take the trouble to define their terms before they ask questions. For that reason it’s very tricky to infer conclusions about what they favor from the data.”

So the issue is not whether the wording says PO to you or to I, or to someone who knows what a PO is, but whether the wording actually says:

“Would you favor or oppose a public option, by which we mean the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people over 65 get – that would compete with private insurance plans?”

My point was that the PO was not defined in the survey, therefore the claim that 66% favored the PO requires an inference not supported by the survey; specifically the inference that people associate the term PO with:

“. . . the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan – something like the Medicare coverage that people over 65 get – that would compete with private insurance plans?”

If you need proof that people don’t associate PO with than unambiguously consider that HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bill are both referred to as public option bills but neither one has the government “. . . offering everyone. . .” a government administered health insurance plan. Do they?

In brief the term “PO” is now incredibly vague, so to say that the survey in question has 66% of the people favoring the PO is a distortion. The result is that that 66% of the people favor a very specific form of PO that is not on the table right now. Moreover, that survey says “favor,” it does not say “favor over x, y, or z.” So the survey doesn’t address the question of how many favor that type of PO over other types of PO or over “Medicare for All.”

masslib, You bet it does.

Hi darclay, It’s a good idea, but I think that placing an explicit limit on what an insurance company can charge would hurt the chances of such a minimalist bill passing.

But perhaps we could add a provision that would prohibit the companies from charging individuals more than say 15% above what their least expensive group rates are? That would cut out a lot of the price discrimination between individual rates and group rates, but it would not place an explicit limit on what they can charge.

hychka, That 2013 date for the public option takes a lot of steam out of the people dying now problem. However, if discrimination is stopped immediately, those who can’t get insurance now would be able to get private insurance and have the pleasure of paying their exorbitant rates.

arion, Why do the Blue Dogs have more leverage than the progressives in your mind. If Rahm threatens to cut their public projects, or Obama says no money for you in the next campaign, they’re toast in the next election. Most of the progressives are in relatively safe districts and can tell Rahm to go take a hike.

Spotts1701, I understand your position, but won’t the alternative I’ve suggested @50 above, help with your immediate problem while we come back next year for Medicare for All?