Jane is a national treasure.

—

U.S. taxpayer dollars at work.

In 2003, Chemonics was awarded a $153.4 million contract to rebuild Afghanistan’s agricultural economy, including repairing and upgrading the irrigation canals in Helmand province, where many farmers happened to be opium-poppy growers. In effect, USAID helped finance a surge in the world’s heroin supply.

Ken Silverstein in September ’09 Harper’s

It is too early to tell whether progressives have found their spine. If past performance is any indication, there’s no spine to find.

That’s true — sternly worded letters are nice. Action will be the final test.

There will be no spine
before it’s time

the words “public option” are so vague as to be meaningless — within the definition of “public option” is what appears in the Senate HELP committee bill — a whole bunch of little regional plans organized by the government, but administered by the parasitical health insurance companies.
_
anything less than a plan that everyone is eligible for (including employers who can insure their employees through the public option), and that is administered by the government with no restrictions on how it can negotiate best prices, is not a “public option” — its a facade behind which political hacks (and their enablers) can hide while maintaining their standing within the permanent Party of Political Self-Preservation Above All.

As William Greider points out The Nation,
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/greider,
“public option” is a great phrase and open to a myriad of interpretations. The problem is, nobody knows what it means and it therefore it is nearly worthless. Before we rejoice that it may be back on the table, back in the game and up off the bench, would someone please tell us what it is? Sibelius says it is “not essential” and Obama calls it a small “sliver” of the “entire reform package”. Good. Now, WHAT IS IT?? Inhaling smokescreens is bad for your health.

Wiener just addressed it on Mornin Joe.

Yes, I have been asking this for months. It’s a Rorschach.It will be a shallow victory if the public option that passes is what’s in HR 3200, or worse, the Senate HELP bill. If people are going to advocate for a public option as a compromise to single payer, they must at some point start to define that in very specific terms.

Ok, what did he say?

Weiner may be able to “discuss” it, but he can’t address it. The progressive caucus and/or Obama has to draw a line in the sand in which the “public option” is defined if the words “public option” are going to have any meaning.
_
indeed, there needs to be more than one “public option” — there needs to be a variety of plans available from the government. (Fee for service ala Medicare, “nationalized” health care a la the Veterans administration, or “managed care” through independent doctors and hospitals.)

Perhaps this walking back by the administration was meant to get people up in arms and clamoring for single pay/public option.

The media has moved the goal posts and silenced the voices of the majority who want to FREE THEMSELVES from the health insurance industry.

What will awaken the people? You can see them pissed off and disgusted with Obama now. Will they scream for what they want? Or will they be resigned and let the media circus distort the discussion?

Where IS the debate on how to deliver health services to the people and how to control the cost?

The left notes that admin and profit eat up billions and billions and can be recovered and used to cover those who have no access to care. The drug companies are raping us with their rip off prices. The for profit hospital costs make the most expensive stay at a 4 star hotel seem like a flop house.

Let’s discuss the waste and abuse but the capitalists and then get the greedy to find some other way to make a “living”.

Isn’t it way past time to just get to the point?

Why do Americans need to continue to have profits made off healthcare coverage?

Why do we need any for profit health insurers?

What is so untouchable about going after the profit motive?

Would we tolerate police services or fire services charging per service or charging for potential coverage of being robbed or a house fire?

It is plainly evident Medicare For All or any Single Payer Plan — or now any talk about some kind of “public option” — are all being off lined, sidelined or questioned because they present direct or indirect threats to the for profit premise which infests the current American healthcare coverage regime.

President Obama? Why are you not going after the profit premise? Who are you trying to protect by not going for Medicare For All or Single Payer?

Enough of this unstated and corrupted false start line.

Why do Americans have to have profits coming off healthcare coverage?

Why?

The Democrats need to start explaining why there is any need for profits in delivering healthcare coverage to all Americans?

There is no profit premise in Medicare — why should there be anywhere in American healthcare coverage?

Mornin’ BT, pups.

I’m gonna wait until we get something firm from Congress. I can speculate til the sun falls from the sky and not be any smarter than when I started. I’ve got plenty of stuff to keep me busy. If nothing else, this little brouhaha woke a lotta folks up.

Washington Post asks, Where did all the Progressives go?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02363.html

spine no kabuki yes–keep us in a fog and then pass a scam law in the middle of the night with limited debate ala fisa and patriot act

So, if I understand, we’re saying that the electorates in Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Virginia, Louisiana, Indiana, etc., would rise up and force an easy 60 votes for cloture and 51 for passage of a single-payer plan in the Senate?

Don’t forget to call the WH: 202-456-1111 to let them know what you think about “compromising” away the public option. If single payer is off the table then the public option is non-negotiable.

Rachel’s summary was excellent. What a pity the rest of the establishment media refuses to tell the truth about health care reform.

What’s your point? They are just as likely to do that as pass a viable public option. Actually, Brian Schweitzer seems to support single payer, and he seems perfectly able to make the argument for single payer to the MT voters:

http://www.correntewire.com/mt….._town_hall

Consider the source.

The “source” is Robert Kuttner.

Good idea….Did the kids sleep well? ;)

I would have preferred at least starting with a single payer plan, but that’s not where we are. We’re trying to force at least 60 Senate Democrats, including those from small rural conservative states, to vote to shut down any filibuster and then at least 51 to vote for passage of a reasonable public option. Additionally, we should be trying to convince the Administration to use any arm twisting capablility it has to do the same, and that further concession would likely result in no successful passage due to House objections.

I don’t know if I credit the administration with that sort of twisty logic. I mean, yes, it might be that way, but I think the pull-back from the public option was in response to all the Fox News rightwinger nutcases coming out to town halls.

PO or No!

…I love that slogan!

The answer to this is:

Profits and wealth creation and protection is what AMERICA is about. The government is there it facilitate wealth creation, or stay out of the way of those who can do it in the market.

The lie is that competition in the market will provide innovation, low prices and value for the consumer. This is simply a myth.

What we have is a system of MONOPOLY capitalism where there is no competition, nor innovation and this is great for wealth creation and protection, but hell for the consumers.

The government at one time had some trust busting anti monopoly function, but that has gone the ay of the dodo bird as the capitalists lobbied and have essentially controlled the legislatitive agenda and the economic policies of the government. They have milked the tax payer for the MIC, and the the Health industrial complex and the media industrial complex and the energy industrial complex and the financial industrial complex, and the food industrial complex.

Americans are nor the consumers with no choice to these monopolies which make enormous profits for their owners. We have seen the “class warfare” and capital has crushed labor.

The middle class is now the lower class, as they bought into all the bubbles and consumerism which provided them with “identity” and self esteem and the belief that they were getting a bit of the wealth pie. They were suckered big time.

And when the big corporations get into trouble and being too big to fail, who do they look to for a hand out? Why the taxpayers. And they are told that the alternative is total disaster.

The entire system has been now rigged against the citizen and needs to be taken apart. It can’t be fixed. It has too many fatal flaws. It must be radically transformed.

But the people who have benefited – the ones in congress, the ones on the tee vee don’t want to change the status quo. They are living the life of Riley. And they rant about anyone can become rich in America if you work hard enough. Yea right.

This has been my argument when talking to people face-to-face. Basically any honest person will agree that the profit motive should not dictate police, fire, military decisions because of the life and death nature of them.

It’s then a very easy jump to add Healthcare into that group. Nealy 100% of time, even the most staunch Libertarian ends, “Well, you make a good case. I’ll have to think about that.”

Having said that, having to make the case through the Conglomerate Media filter might complicate this simple point. I have heard Obama directly make this same case many times, but I never actually see it presented in BigMedia. Plus, I wonder if there’s a worry in some Liberal circles that it’ll paint them into the “Liberals hate profits and money and stuff. See, communists!!11!!” The false BigMedia created frames still dominate most of our public discourse unfortunately.

Define “reasonable”. Where in the legislative process do you expect the “reasonable” public option to show up, because it’s not in anything out of committee so far.

LOL. Brutus is still under the couch near as I can figure. Kismet was wandering around investigating but is still very wary of me. Feurae is not happy. Growling at everybody. Did the same thing with Maste and Nagi for 3-4 days. Mr King of the Hill. Spent half the night in bed with me. That’s a first. First week is always chaos.

I hear ya… it seems like a rather strange approach.

But change will ONLY come from the people – NOT their reps. The tea baggers are intimidating or trying to intimidate critters and the media and it appears to have had some success.

So how do you wake up the “left”? Calls and blog posts? Not gonna get on the evening news.

You need some fire in their bellies and that will be noticed.

Personally, I would like to see extension of Medicare as a public option,but it’s not likely. I’m not arguing against the idea that Democrats in congress, in conjunction with the administration come up with a precise proposal for a public option. But I do think it’s too early to give up, throw it all in, and say that, since we’re going to lose anyway, we might as well go back and propose the perfect worker state.

The hate profits meme is touchy. Profit making is what america is about – it’s empire, it’s being an entrepreneur, a business owner, a “free person” blah blah blah.

But the fact is that profit is very closely linked to exploitation and that point is never made.

When someone wins – others LOSE.

For profit business have screwed up the health sector. THAT is the discussion that is not taking place. Profits are untouchable… can’t go there.

Well, I hope at some point you figure out how you define “reasonable” because it’s getting pretty late in the process for something better than what’s been offered, which few would argue is reasonable, to emerge.

Who said anything about giving up? I just think the case for Medicare for All, or Medicare for Anyone is stronger, and politically easier to make, then for an undefined public option.

It really doesn’t matter much what my specific plan is. I’m not in Congress. Medicare as the public plan isn’t specific enough for those who want to know precisely how you pay for it, when it’s going broke in a decade as it currently exists. Do you have those specific answers?

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

Community organizing is a fine art. It takes years of learning and practice to make it work. Just like MLK, Pete Seeger, Rosa Parks, and Ralph Abernathy did in 1957:
http://www.highlandercenter.or…..arks10.jpg

This is how it gets done. Many of the people around the Liberals blogs I see don’t seem to understand this. Petitions and holding feet to fire are good and valuable, but the in the trenches organizing seems to be a fairly small part of the mix thus far.

Nothing’s stopping us!

Well, I bet they learn to get along. They’re in a loving home….I have someone to sleep with as well, but oddly that is often when the nails come out..Funny how we adjust to it all. Just keep us up to date.

Everyone needs to find a clip of Rep. Anthony Weiner of NY on Morning Joe this morning. He was excellent! Joe and Mika were left with their mouths open because they had no argument against him! Priceless. All progressives must see this so that we can see how Obama has botched this so badly.

Botched doesn’t help…did he give us a way forward?

Interesting how you seem to be showing up again telling people what they “need to” be doing all the time. Timing is everything and makes me wonder what your motives are.

Being so fantastically wrong during the election when telling people what to do back then, I’d think you might realize that you could actually learn some things from others from time to time. A little humility is very healthy. Just a thought…

Well, you either expand Medicare to all, raise taxes, save 400 billion annually in aggregate health care spending(public+private), which can be used to to fund research to cure new diseases, pay for middle class tax cuts, etc. Or, you offer a buy-in to Medicare, which is deficit neutral. But, Medicare is wildly popular, people know what it is, as opposed to “public option”, and despite vague ideas that it’s in fiscal trouble, no one believes it’s going to disappear.

“It really doesn’t matter much what my specific plan is. I’m not in Congress.” I’m pretty sure it will matter to you in the long run if a public option is passed that less than 4% of the under 65 population can enroll in in the next ten years, creating no escape route for most Americans from private insurance, and creating no downward pressure on premiums. I do hope at some point there is some legislative language that defines a “reasonable” public option, otherwise, I have no idea what Public option advocates are supporting or why they support it.

Tryin’ to regain the sparkle from 7-8 years ago. All the bs during the campaign didn’t help though.

If your plan offers a rational means for extending Medicare benefits nationally, while correcting the impending deficit, it would be good to write it up, send it to every Democratic legislator, and publish it on every internet source. As I understand it, you’re saying that increased taxes would be required across the board. That would be fine with me, but would appear difficult for the admistration in light of campaign promises and the “concerns” already expressed by those voters imbued with a concern over “government control.” I’m not one of them, by a long shot, but their existence and number can’t be denied.

Again, I’m not in any way opposed to a more precise definition of “public option.” My argument was against going back and starting over again. However, no matter how rational your specific plan is, I don’t think it will facilitate passage in light of the irrational and/or self interested opposition which is delaying the process as it now stands.

The public option will not be in the final bill for one simple reason, the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the government to control their health insurance. Calling it a ‘co-op’ won’t change the intent of progressive ‘reform’.

The current “health insurance reform” proposals (co-ops included) threaten to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats. Granted private insurance does this as well, but for all the talk about “the people” what progressives really want is government by elite technocrats.

What progressives seek to create is a government monopoly.

REAL CHOICE, REAL FREEDOM would involve the absence of monopoly. It would involve breaking the employer-based link to health insurance and it would allow INDIVIDUALS to be responsible for their own health insurance/health care decisions.

I keep hearing progressives cite an outdated poll from mid-June stating that 76% of respondents said it was either “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”

THAT was 2 months ago! The poll no longer reflects the current debate.

Sure there are many who still want to have health care and health insurance without paying for it. But even more are realizing that in order to provide for those who want ‘free’ insurance and care, they will LOSE what they have and be forced to PAY MORE. Call it what you like, but the end result will still be the same.

Many would be happy to pay if they had not been denied or had the coverage terminated. You are so seriously wrong about end-of-life questions, that those assertions make your other points questionable.

Medicare is operating at a loss. It is wildly popular, but also wildly removed from reality.

Medicare has $36,000,000,000,000 (that’s trillion with a T) in unfunded liabilities in the next 25 years. That’s not “some financial problems,” as Weiner puts it in his interview on CNBC. ObamaCare promises to make the problem worse — by expanding the program and its coverage.

All of this political infighting among Dems makes no difference if public opinion is lost on the public option, which I believe it is.

The move to drop the option and dress it up as a co-op will not succeed in persuading the American people that government involvement in health insurance ‘reform’ will offer more and cost less. That myth has been exploded.

When Obama was campaigning did he not refer to the public option as being modeled somewhat around the medicare program?

The Democrats already have a bill that addresses this it’s called HR 676. Surely you know that. The California Nurses Association already did a study widely available on the internet as to how single payer actually stimulates the economy. Raising taxes but significantly lowering household health care costs, isn’t exactly a hard sell. The proposals laid out so far by Congress do not lower household health care costs, they only promise some vague notion of slowing future growth, which I would argue, is a harder sell.

You don’t want to start from the beginning, but this late into the legislative process you are hoping to see some “reasonable” public option, which you either can not or will not define. I guess you’ll know it when you see it. But I see no argument for how or why it will become more “reasonable” than what HR 3200 already calls for, which isn’t reasonable at all.

People don’t understand exchanges and the public option. And Democrats have been remiss from the beginning in not saying “That’s what Congress has.” One wonders why that is.

So we have two politically popular choices that people understand (besides the status quo, whose popularity is held in place by fear):

Medicare for All

Veterans Administration-type services for all

My guess is that a lot of veterans want to keep their “special” status in American society and would oppose extending Veterans Administration-like national health service to everyone.

And Medicare is being hammered with the “costs will bankrupt the government” argument, which is really bogus in the short term and doubtful in the long term unless nothing changes.

With this weekend, Obama has essentially abdicated responsibility for a healthcare plan irrevocably to Congress. He has burnt the bridge and now the White House is really irrelevant to reform. Max Baucus has ensured that the Senate is irrelevant in coming up with their own plan. It is clear now that there will be no Senate bill, not even a co-op fig leaf. And the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant since the beginning.

Which leaves it to the House, which has two real options coming to the floor: the Weiner Amendment and the current HR 3200, whatever the final tri-committee version looks like.

Whichever of these two pass the House must have some additional requirements: (1) any public insurance plan must apply to Congress and its legislative staffs; (2) benefits from the plan must appear before July 2010; (3) there must be strong provisions ensuring competition in the medical supply, medical equipment, and pharmaceutical markets; (4) the education of primary care physicians must be subsidized; (5) corporations and individuals must share a part of their savings from the plan to subsidize those who cannot afford insurance; this is why HR 676’s tax on the top 5% of incomes makes sense within the context of its plan while the tax on the top 1% of incomes makes sense in the public option; the public option doesn’t save people in the top 5% money, but taxing the top 1% taxes high-income providers and insurance executives, among others.

If I were strategizing, I would introduce VA for all and compromise back to single payer, but what do I know.

The Senate not having its own bill has no other bill to consider but the House bill, whatever it looks like.

It would be an act of welcome chutzpah if the House sent over HR 676. The heavy lifting on that is just about the same as the heavy lifting on the public option.

Yeah, I think he did. But nothing out of committee to date does that. Hacker’s Medicare Plus was supposed to start with 130 million enrolled, streamline Medicaid, use Medicare reimbursement rates, exercise negotiating power, use the medicare physician network, be open to all Americans, be the only program to include subsidies. None of the bills out of committee do any of those things. Indeed, HR 3200 expects a CBO enrollment of at most, 4% of the under 65 population, and the HELP bill has expected enrollments of zero. none of the other criteria are met. Look, if people are happy with a symbolic public option, fine. But otherwise, it would be nice to see some legislative language in process that builds a sustainable public option.

Allow me to address only one element of your argument. Taking insurance out of the employer/employee landscape and putting everyone into the “Individual Market” to obtain their own insurance.

Obviously, you have NEVER been in the individual market for healthcare. It the MOST expensive, MOST restrictive, MOST difficult to qualify for, of any health insurance plans, and the consumer has absolutely NO power against the insurance companies whatsoever. It is by far the least desirable place to find yourself when you need coverage. It is basically “insurance hell” unless you are 25 years old, have a generous steady income stream, and have never been sick a day in your life. And then, you will still pay a lot more than someone that gets their coverage through an employer or large trade group.

Where did progressives find their spine?

Did I miss the vote?

Didn’t think so – if they actually vote against any plan without a public option then credit them for the discovery of a modicum of spine but even then if they had serious spines and represented their constituents rather than corporations the plan with the public health option would be in opposition to single payer universal health care that eliminates for-profit health insurers/providers and severs the ties between employment and health care rather than this pathetic excuse of health care reform.

I also concur with Tarheel Dem … send the senate HR 676, then kudos would be in order.

I disagree. People understand the exchanges and ‘public option’ all too well, which is why support is cratering.

VA for all will NOT sell. Our brave men and women deserve the VERY BEST the American people can afford in exchange for their willingness to serve us and risk their lives for us.

Government run health insurance reform or health care reform is not going to sell in this economic climate.

Obama’s election was not a call for larger government or a return to 1970s-era entitlement liberalism. The nebulous “change we can believe in” was to clean up the Beltway mess.

Exploding deficits and expanded government that began with Bush is no longer being tolerated by the majority of Americans. High unemployment and the promise of higher taxes, not just on the wealthy, but on the middle class as well, are inevitable.

The public is too anxious, too exhausted by the speed of government spending and expansion into the private sector.

Putting money and choice back into the hands of individuals is at the core of any successful reform. The ‘public option’ and single payer do neither.

If everyone were in the individual market, demand would increase and guess what, prices would come down. Breaking the employer based-health insurance link would be the ultimate way to bring affordability and choice into the health insurance market.

Employer-based benefits and the tax code distort the health care/ health insurance market.

• Broad reliance on employers for health coverage results in higher costs and lower quality.

• Employers generally offer only one health plan,which limits value-enhancing competition among health plans and undermines a health plan’s ability to know what employees want and need in a health plan.

• Employers and employees do not adequately monitor the cost and quality of care in employment-based health plans because employers do not directly bear the consequences of high costs and poor quality,and because employees have no power to switch health plans.

• Employment-based health plans tend to have less cost sharing and higher
premiums. Less cost sharing often leads people to overuse medical services, one reason for higher premiums. Higher premiums lead
some workers to turn down coverage and remain uninsured.

But then where would that leave the statist, elite technocrats who wish to assume control of the system?

Indie’s in a panic

I don’t see how anyone can ignore that reasoning. You’ve convinced me. If you and the nurses believe a single-payer proposal would have been welcomed with candy and flowers, then I certainly understand your unwillingess to suffer fools gladly. You have a right to be surprised that I didn’t first research what the nurses had to say. Unfortunately, I think your going to have to change the viewpoint of a large portion of the country, particularly in the states I mentioned earlier, before there would be even a smidgeon of hope for the plan. But you’ll be able to go around saying, “If those idiots had only tried it my way…”

How so? If you are serious about offering choice and competition you would see that putting responsibility for health insurance and health care decisions BACK in the hands of individuals is the real solution to the rising costs of health care/insurance.

Employers are more than willing to off load the high cost of health insurance. Why not allow individuals to decide what services they want/need and how much they want to pay.

We should buy health insurance the way we buy car insurance.

I think that your claim of panic on my part is pure projection.

No, I just don’t believe that major legislative battles can be won in stealth Trojan horse mode. I think you actually have to, ya know, argue for them. You asked me how we could afford it. I told you how. Jesus Christmas, why can’t you answer my question of when your symbolic public option actually becomes viable?

Here’s what you public option advocacy has gotten you:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b…..ublic_opti

My understanding is that if everyone is on Medicare and those over a certain income level are paying a relatively small premium into Medicare, that it would be self-supporting, especially as it would have enormous negotiating power vis a vis drug and other component companies involved in providing goods and services. Medicare’s administrative costs are 25% or more cheaper than private insurers and doctors would not need huge staffs to submit and monitor insurance claims to hundreds of private insurers. The savings would be huge if everyone were on Medicare.

But, if those savings are not sufficient, why not cut our defense and intelligence budgets by half. They would still exceed those of every other country in the world. Close down the 750+ foreign military bases, cut out the expensive weapons systems designed to fight World War II, and stop all foreign adventuring on behalf of our big oil companies. The savings would not only pay for government funded health care and education, but also could be used to propel our alternative energy development to eliminate the need for the rest of the world’s oil resources.

We should buy health insurance the way we buy car insurance.

Except my body is not quite the same as my car. I can live with holes in my car insurance. For example, with a ‘92 Ford Escort, it makes no sense to purchase collision.

A comparable hole in my health insurance makes me dead.

De-linking employers and the tax breaks they receive by providing health insurance would also stimulate the economy, but it would NOT raise taxes. Individuals would receive tax credits and incentives, thereby eliminating waste and lowering costs. Also, no need to worry about government intervention into personal health care decisions.

Lions on the Serengeti get to choose which wildebeest to eat but the wildebeest have kind of limited choices. What you describe is basically the social Darwinian free choice we’ve always had. You just prefer that, given your economic circumstances, to some other form of choice and “rationing.”

Do you have any idea at all how the rest of the industrialized world handles health care? I agree with you about one thing. linking basic health coverage to employment is moronic. But tax credits and incentives? Give me a break. health care is not a commodity. the only way to bring down the cost of health care is through the negotiating power of the federal government, as is the case in every other industrialized nation.

States require that all divers and vehicle owners carry insurance. The same could be done for health insurance. Catastrophic coverage could be required for all citizens. Right now many of us pay for treatments and services we do not need or would not use.

My sister-in-law, a teacher, has a gold-plated plan that pays for her massages and anti-depressants while allowing her to remain overweight. By her own admission, her obesity is the direct result of her anxiety and low self esteem. If she were to be financially responsible for her own well being, if financial incentives in the form of lower premiums or tax credits were offered should she lose weight, both she and society at large would benefit.

As the current system stands, we all pay for her unhealthy choices.

Uh, your life is not a car. There is no replacement model if yours gets tanked.

Not true. There exist in the realm of the possible solutions that benefit both the individual and society. Personal responsibility, empowering individuals to seize control of their health care decisions, lifestyle choices and avoid high risk behaviors by offering financial incentives and savings via tax credits and lower premiums would benefit all of us.

The chronically ill, the elderly, vets and the needy could still be compensated/rewarded/subsidized by a healthier, more empowered, freer society.

Big, excessive, expensive government is the natural predator which seeks preys upon free individuals.

I understand that you disagree with the Obama Administration’s choice not to consider a single-payer system. That’s fair enough and you may be right. You also apparently disgaree with their decision to leave it primarily to Congress to draw up bills in order to avoid the congressional reaction to the pre-packaged Clinton proposal. You may be right about that also. Right now, the House has three Bills, and the Senate has one, with one pending. My understanding is that the House and Senate will produce single bills by mid September. During the course of that process, I will conclude which I prefer, will advise you, and will advocate it within my means.

How has your personal adoption of a specific proposal gotten you any closer to realization than my current “wait and see” position? Basically, it seems to me that you are saying that opposition to the administration is based on vagueness. You give the electorate more credit than I do. Perhaps it’s because you apparently live in Massachussetts and I live in Texas. Most people around here aren’t objecting becasue Obama has failed to tell them that the Federal Government will administer their health care. I don’t think that’s the case in the states about 15 or 20 of the Democratic Senators represent either. I wish it were.

No, it’s not based on vagueness(although clarity helps), it’s based on the legislative language of the public option coming out of committee, which is simply not viable. I’d love to hear how it becomes something more than symbolic but you don’t seem to know.

Big, excessive, expensive government is the natural predator which seeks preys upon free individuals.

Yes, I lived through the Reagan Administration and know the doctrine. I just don’t believe it. We’ve always had a mixed economy. Even during the height of the Gilded Age, governement was doling out public lands to build railroads. Everything is a matter of degree. Absolute freedom is the freedom of the jungle. Government can of course be oppressive, but it can also “promote the general welfare.” Of course you will never agree with people on this blog regarding the adjectives you use (big, excessive, expensive),so what’s the point of asserting it. Do you think anyone is going to say, “Oh, you’re right. I never thought of that.”

My understanding is that appointed subcommittees from the three House committees with bills meet to reconcile their bills into a single bill, which is then voted on by the whole House. Unfortunately, in the Senate, Harry Reed is likely to designate which Bill will considered to be adopted by that body and voted on by the whole Senate. Senate and House committees will then be appointed to reconcile the two bills and the result sent back for vote. Definition of a public option would have to occur during all of the sub committee reconcilliation meetings. I don’t know how you think it would improve the situation if I develop a very specific concept of what is acceptable to me. If you think that is being unwilling or unable, so be it.

New to all of this, first post and all, and…

Thanks for this answer. This has been on the top of my “I don’t get it” list for a while, and the MtP go-round with Rachel et al. only made it worse. I simply don’t understand why everyone is obsessing on the “level playing field” thing with regard to the public option. I didn’t think this was a game!

If I decided to start up a police force and then claimed that the real one couldn’t be supported by taxes because it wouldn’t be a level playing field for me, I’d be laughed out of town (and rightfully so). So why does that argument fly with my health as opposed to my security?

I have seen Chemonics at work in West Africa. They are one of the sleaziest organizations going, a Beltway Bandit on the order of Blackwater. Based on what I know, I would be very surprised if someone on the ground in Afghanistan read the reports that Chemonics did for USAID and was able to recognize them as being about the same project.

It will be reconciled from the bills already out of committee that do not include a viable public option. Sooner or later, public option advocates are going to have to define what the feck the public option is. John Nichols says it better than me:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs…..ion_debate

The lifting on HR 676 is not near as heavy as on the PO. A new NBC poll just appeared showing that more are now against the PO than favor it. Progressives are marshaling their shock troops now for no purpose but to go down with the PO ship. As Jane Hamsher has said “the PO is the compromise.” The problem is that the industry is opposed to the compromise. They don’t want it; so why should we want it. It’s time to return to HR 676, a bill we can believe in and really fight for, and a bill that people can read (30 pages in length) and understand.

No but I am telling you my perception of the public mood. A poll out this morning shows a pluraluty 47% of Americans now oppose a government administered and government subsidized ‘public option.’

There is a fine line between ‘promoting the general welfare’ and providing the general welfare. The public option takes us over the line, and on a path where the authoritarian bent of government seeks to impose its will on the people it is meant to serve.

Government involvement leads to rationing and higher taxation in order to control costs. Without reduced service or higher taxes, deficits occur. See Medicare, the Post Office, Public Education.

What poll is that?

We have to stop trying to find the political jiu-jitsu in what this president is doing and accept the fact that he was bought and paid for as evidenced by the campaign contributions from Wall Street especially the FIRE segment of the economy.

Maddow spoke about something at the top of her show that just jumped out at me yesterday while I was watching to closing bell on Wall Street. All the health care companies and insurance companies associated with HMOs had banner days closing up significantly while the rest of the market tanked. That should let everyone know that the word has gone out from the administration that as far as the prez is concerned anything is acceptable except a plan that will actually help the average person and have a negative impact on the insurance/pharma industry.

The one they’re greasing up to insert in America’s anus.