Progressive Caucus: Our position (on public option) has not, and will not, change.

Source: Congressional Progressive Caucus Press Release

Tucson, AZ---Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus issues the flowing statement concerning the public option in the upcoming health care reform legislation:


"The public option is central to healthcare reform. Real reform, which lowers costs and ensures all Americans get the quality, affordable healthcare that they deserve, cannot be accomplished without a robust public option. As we have stated repeatedly for months now, a majority of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will oppose any healthcare reform legislation that does not include a robust public option. Our position has not, and will not, change. As Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop comprehensive legislation that allows all Americans to choose the healthcare plan that’s right for them and their families. But I will not support any bill that does not include a public option."

Read more: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=510&ParentID=8&SectionID=21&SectionTree=8,21&lnk=b&ItemID=508

and I signed the Dem. for Change thank you note to the 64 house members who say "no public option, no 'yes' vote".

If I coined that term, ----- I want to be in the wikipedia !!

to the Progressive Caucus's own website and use "Contact Us." Or just use this link. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=15&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=5&SectionTree=15

I just did that and thanked them for being progressive and for taking a stand on the public option. Said I'd prefer no bill at all to one without a public option. (I hear the cons are even dropping help for pre-existing conditions.) Your own note will probably have more impact than a signature on an internet petition.

Edited to add link.

Plus I can't wait until the CBO scores HR676.

If we can eliminate the insurers right out of the starting gate, we could reduce costs from 18% to 32% (or maybe even more.) That reduction would come from getting rid of the onerous tens of millions of dolalrs paid to CEO's and other executives
Teh estimates I hear are about 1.1 trillion bucks per a ten year period.

As far as who pays for it, we had a two trillion dollar war in Iraq that was debated for maybe ten days via the time given Congress to debate the Iraq War Resolution. Who is paying for that? A brutal and mainly senseless struggle that has killed over one hundred thousand Iraqis. (At least.) And four thousand of our service people.

And we just handed over 3 trillion directly to Wall Street, with another eight trillion to various other events and items that Mrs. Bernanke and Geithner felt they needed to do. No one screams about that: it is just given to these guys.

The attitude regarding both these things is just - whatever!

As far as I am concerned they can put the expense on the same line of the budget that handles the expense of paying for the premium health insurance policies for
Congress' bought and paid for fat arses.

:sarcasm:

recall whether it was Cheney or Rummie, though. It was on a talking head show. Like that wasn't an invitation for the resistance to blow up Iraq's oil supply.

Health care = bad, war = good. Very simple.

It's all about their bottom line!

All about Hallliburton and how each and every small thing they did generated huge amounts of cash. They got X amount ($ 30K?) for each run up and down certain highways in Iraq. So they began to send trucks that were EMPTY up and down Iraq.
Like one contracter who was employed by Halliburton stated, the truck didn't even have so much as a box of bandages on it.

Yet should you state you want health care for all, universal, single payer, it is as though you were trying to be fiscally irresponsible.

If you want fiscally irresponsible, I'll tell you abt 92 Senators who voted away Glass Steagall, which brought the economy to its knees ten years later. But hey! taking an action that leads to a ten trillion dollar economic collapse is perfectly fine - as long as you are a Senator doing it for the advantage of the Big Banks.

... was supposed to SAVE us money! Because... because.... private enterprise is more efficient than government! Yeah. The dog-eat-dog world of competition amongst capitalist entities ensures that only the efficient survive. So they wouldn't be on the front lines to earn a profit, no sir, they'd be patriots working efficiently for the good of the country, saving freedom and the budget! So, after doing a non-competitive bid to get Halliburton working for us.... Oh, wait. Private enterprise... efficient... um, profits... and, uh, non-compete..? Never mind.

These operations can become self-funding but it takes about 10 years to get them into that position.

It can't be looked at just as an expenditure. More like seed money.


Cher

You can get numbers out of Washington, but they are never correct anyway, be it the cost of a war or the cost of Medicare. In the case of the Iraq War, we may never know the true cost because of funny accounting.]

Welcome to the world of the reality of Washington, D.C.

But: If the insurance companies can make so incredibly much profit on medical insurane, will all the money, bonuses and perks they give their top people, why can't government at least break even?

Summer, due to no house building jobs available.

A forklift driver accidentally spilled over 1,000 pounds of pears. Probably anywhere from one third to two thirds of those fruit were not hurt, except for a small bruise or two.

But there is a state or Federal law saying that they must be scrapped, if they hit the floor!

So in one of the poorest counties in Calif, those pears are now on a truck to go to the dump! Where the seagulls and other scavengers will have the tastiest day of their lives.

asked if they wouldn't mind washing them well and taking them to the dump for me. If they said they'd mind, then I'd take them. If they said they'd be happy to, I wouldn't ask any questions.

A bit devious but I like how you think!

:fistbump: :headbang: :yourock:

:dem:

-Laelth

are the only ones with any balls (no offense to the ladies, oftentimes you exhibit more than the pasty white guys).

And I'm not talking just color or gender here. In the case of congress (and the white house) having guts puts you in the minority.

people who have struggled know change won't happen by just going along and getting along.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No offense to the gentlemen.

refer to their courage---or any of their good traits---as "ovaries."

I wish we could disassociate courage from genitalia.

We took gender specific words like fireman and converted them to gender neutral terms like firefighter. Yet, we take a gender neutral trait like courage and make it gender specific for no apparent reason other than male ego.

to have Ovaries!!

I also originally read your post as saying we should "dissociate from our genitalia." No thank you! I'll leave mine right where they're at!

My guess is that the word shift for testicular-related courage occurred sometime in the Victorian era, when our culture gained so much of weird sexism and prudishness. But that's just a wild-assed guess.

usually (not always!), if people use that, it's bc they're referring to a woman and feel funny saying 'balls'; whereas a man will still be praised for having 'balls'.

Personally, I'd like 'gonads' for all (haaa, there's an image for ya). Or, 'ovaries' for all, just cuz many of us have been putting up with the male default for so long.

I'm more concerned with domestic violence, equal pay, and reproductive rights. The language will catch up when there's no more sexists to speak it. Until then I will continue to avoid words that offend and try to educate others. That's the best I can do.

And I'm totally with you on those three issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, so, SO very with you.

---forgive my long ramble coming up; I just was typing my thoughts as they came. Thanks for reading, in advance while your eyes are still focusing :P be grateful; I could have gone on even longer trying to describe my perceptions!!!! ---

I think, as a woman speaking for myself and many other women, it gets so tiring to continually be needing to bolster yourself against the everyday small bashes to your selfhood. They're so constant and insidious, so pervasive that once a woman can see them, it's startling. And the general assumption that there's something wrong with the woman who points it out or says knock it off, that she should like it, it's just a joke.... so infuriating. I'm convinced that these "small" things become aggregate and eventually manifest as larger things. I think it has so much to do with how women often have such trouble with assertiveness, how women are the default butt of insults, how employers feel more comfortable treating female employees as less than males, how people can see a fetus' potential human rights superceding a living breathing woman's tangible, emotional, physical, economic suffering.....

It IS a chicken and egg kind of question, I admit -- and it intrudes so deeply, into so many aspects of women's lives. Will raising awareness of everyday smack-downs help change attitudes that lead to acceptance of violence against women/unequal pay and restricting repro. rights? Or will changing those big problems lead to generalized improvement in respect for women as human beings?

Personally, I'm biased in that I think becoming cognizant of the invisible reinforcers surrounding us that solidify unconscious tendencies to treat women as less human, less entitled is a critical part of the whole puzzle. Actually, I just thought of an example that really clarifies it, for me anyway ----

To me, saying and showing racist, dehumanizing notions, or using racist language about black people has become something that is VISCERALLY repulsive to most people (the racist fascists are the loud exception, but they're not the majority).

It wasn't always so; it's taken a long time to get to where that disgusted response to the dehumanization of black people even in everyday speech or mass media imagery has become so internalized for so many people. That reaction is what I want in response to the dehumanization of women.... fundamental disgust with, for one small example, entertainment (infotainment too) that slants the violent death of (hot) females as titillating.

is that the small things you notice are done largely from ignorance, laziness, and oversight. A lot of men simply don't think of the effect of certain words, including men who pride themselves on not being sexist.

On your chicken and egg question, I can only reiterate what I said before, let the non-sexist language grow organically from a non-sexist society that frees women from violence and inequality. It's like moving, get the big stuff first. Just my opinion.

gender neutral. Or, we could use ovaries for courage and balls or stones for cowardice and see how men like it.

I'm sure if you let the women run this country we'd have a lot less wars, better healthcare, better education etc. The rethugs are just stalling until football season so my fellow males w2ill forget about whatever and stick to living out their fantasy of not being neutered by the big money.

Apparently, that's too much to ask.

I can't believe that there is a disagreement on that all Americans should have health care, when there is a war politician don't care if there is opposition or not. They just send the troops and later pass the bill to the taxpayer, why it doesn't work the same way for health care?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's really past time men and women stop equating courage with balls and cowardice with pussies. It's sexist and it is offensive. And saying "no offense" shows you got that.

Since you tatooed "misogynist pig" on my forehead cause I used a colloquialism to describe an anatomical feature that is directly associated with aggressive behavior, why don't you just put me on ignore and we'll both get on with our lives, neither of us offended by each other ever again.

You know, automatic labelling and prejudging is not a very nice trait.

No offense intended. Have a nice day...

use of a sexist expression or, if you prefer, a sexist colloquialism. That's very different from saying anything about you. You know, much like saying prejudging is not a nice trait, as opposed to saying someone is not a nice person.

Another poster complained, too, so that should at least make you take a step back and consider not using that expression anymore and maybe een apologizing. You know what they say; If one person calls you a jackass, get offended. If two people call you a jackass, get a saddle. Nine out of ten women on this board find that expression offensive, so consider using guts or spine next time..

But, I have an idea, too. Why don't you put on ignore anyone you care to put on ignore whenever you care to do so, but don't try to control my behavior. Deciding whom I put on ignore, if anyone, is simply not your prerogative.

No offense.

Senor Grijalva is now one of my Representatives, and I have always been proud of him, even when he was in Tucson and state governments. He's a man of principles. Gabby Giffords is another rep, and claims to be a Blue Dog. Strangely, she acts like a liberal. Arizona politics can be baffling, at times.

:patriot:

For all that Howard Dean accomplished towards putting the Democrats in a strong position and the President thanks to the 50 state strategy, perhaps they need to be reminded of who brung' em.

Or maybe someone needs remindin' about Ted Kennedy coming to speak in strong support of Obama in the middle of his fight with Brain Cancer because he knew it was important to bring change to America. You see, SOME people put out 200% while others are quick to roll over and lie with the Republicans even when they are in the majority. How sick is that?

way this group will hold up a bill. I hope we get the public option, but if we don't I hope these progressives have the spine to stand up through the process.

MSNBC needs to figure out which side it is on and stop setting its policy based on polls. That's why it's ratings are so lousy whie Fox's are so high.

note.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=15&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=5&SectionTree=15

President Obama,

How happy I and millions of Americans have been to say that! I was an ardent supportor of your election and a small-time contributor. I had great hopes for your standing with the American people against the money and power of the corporations and their lobbyists. Now, I must admit extreme dissapointment in your actions regarding health care reform.

As the father of child with a genetic disease and can't get insurance, and an adult child, on the job, who has been unable to afford health insurance, my family is directly negatively impacted by the current private insurance-based system. It needs far more than reform, it needs to be completely re-designed.

I am in favor of a Single-Payer system in order to get the private insurance and Big Pharma corporations from being between my family and out doctors. Clearly, the Public Option is a compromise from what, even you advocated for as a candidate for state Senate in Illinois a few short years ago. Now we are told even you are ready to abandon even that very minimalist provision for a Public Option. A Co-op is not a public option. We see many examples of so called-non-profit, co-op type plans, such as Blue Shield/Blue Cross and Kaser which functions and burn money for executive salaries, bonuses plush offices and behave just like all the other for-profit insurance and pharmacuetical corporations. That is not an answer!

If the minimalist Health Care Bills, so far, do not end up with the meager Public Option, please do not sign the final bill. Veto it! In fact, please fight now for Single-payer and get the insurance and pharmacuetical corporations from being between my family and our doctors! Without the bare-minimum "Public Option" - not a so-called "Co-Op" there is no reform and not worth the effort at all.

As a life-long democrat, supporter of your election and many of your policies, and a former union leader and supporter of various environmental and social justice efforts for 30 years, if the democrats fail on health care and thus abandon the 47 million american without health care insurance and the many millions who lose their health care by getting sick and/or losing jobs, I will abandon the democratic party. I will do everything in my power to encourage all other people I know to do the same for the rest of my life. I am 57. My grandmother lived to be 93. I expect to live a long time! As Gandhi said to the effect "If one person stands up for justice, that person is a majority of one." We will build a majority for Single-payer, one person at a time.

Mr. President, please stand with us and not the insurance and Big Pharma corporations! You must stand with US!

Use the power of your voice and the presidency to make the change we believe in. Tinkering with reforms of corporate private insurance and Big Pharma practices, is not change! It would be continuing with the same system and thinking that got us into the current crises for millions of Americans. You are better than that. And, can do better

If you are worried about getting re-elected, forget it! How do you think you will be able to put together the wonderful coalition you and your team did to get elected last year in 2012, if, while in your first term you abandoned the very people who fought so hard and funded (half of your contributions) your election. We got your back! Do not abandon us and we won't abandon you.

Thank you for all of your efforts!

Now, Fire it up!

We need to constantly remind about our stories - the people who need health care.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1) Obama has not taken the public option off the table

2) Tort reform. A favorite right wing talking point but it accounts for less than 1% of the cost of the health system. It actually has had an impact on only two areas OBGYN and Neurology, and these areas, especially the former can be handled seperately. IN any case not significant.

3) Having a public option means that they will have the option and letting people choose.

4) Your comments o medicare and medicaid are just laughable. Life expectancies and costs in all of the other developed countries show a much higher result and half the cost.

The reason for higher costs is that our system takes about 37% of the gross simply to decide who gets what procedure and who should be denied. Single payer is a much more efficient and cost effective way of providing broad based public service. For that reason we have single payer fire departments, single payer airports and so on.

Oh and thanks for dropping by with your Right Wing points.

:hi:

Hope he/she enjoys her/his short stay ...

Folks don't last long here spewing Grover Norquist's right-wing talking points...


Ooops... Too late... Already gone...

He was spewing a bunch of crap about an "Ownership Society", while at the same time balming to poor about this and that. I didn't last 2 minutes before I walked out in disgust.. The crowd was predominantly White, Blond, Female or Old Codger. It was very creepy, but it finally made sense during the election in 2004, when my partner offered rides to student to get to the polling place. The four ditz's that rode with my partner all were Blond, early 20's, and pro bush. My partner was so upset about this.. So was I.

The Republicans have a pretty strong operation going in Hawaii, which is pretty surprising actually. They are a vocal, vile bunch of thugs.

The man was speaking from the heart, did you have to go and offend him in #4 by calling his comments laughable? He has been through a lot and deserves our support, not snarling.

I despise this kind of behavior.

but I usually give people the benefit of the doubt

I am a victim of our screwed-up healthcare systems and reading these stories just tugs at my heartstrings.

They are significant. Not so long ago, a doc could amputate your left leg when your right leg was the one that desperately needed amputating, and you would have zero recourse, not even a free amputation for that right leg.

Tort cases have encouraged doctors and other providers to be a lot more careful than they once were, improving medical care at zero cost to the taxpayer. Yes, maybe there is too much defensive medicine and that raises costs of medical care, but there are other ways to combat that.

Looks like someone's pasting reichwing talking points. Tsk, tsk.

People live longer too.

You can forget about getting any support from me again unless you straighten yourselves out. I'm mad that Obama is dumping the public option.

You've caved to the right wing and you will never get back on your feet again. They've seen they can make you cave. Now they are drunk with the success of their vandalism. They'll only get worse.

The public option wasn't just the most important part of health care, it was the only important part. Forcing insurance companies to enroll people who are already sick is unfair to the insurance companies and will encourage people not to buy insurance until they have problems. You've traded that for promising to subsidize millions of people's private insurance policies. The reason people are losing patience with you is that you've bailed out banks and auto companies. Now you are giving a giant bailout to the insurance industry. Why not just let the insurance companies reject who they want and find their own customers who have their own money? With no alternative for the public left, what's to stop them from demanding larger and larger government handouts? All you are doing now is turning the rest of the public against you. You've made the same crooked deals with pharmaceutical companies. The government should be able to negotiate lower drug prices for the drugs it buys. How could you trade away that?

The fairest way to deal with people with severe pre-existing conditions is to allow them to join a public plan. The risk should be spread though taxes, not by making others pay more for their health care.

You also got yourselves and the rest of this mess in the first place by conceding the idea of simply expanding medicare and letting people buy in. Polls show what the public wants most from health care reform is cost savings. Medicare could provide health care for far less than private insurance. It pays lower fees and has lower administrative costs. Expanding medicare would provide proven savings. The people who scared the country with lies about death panels and other problems wouldn't have been able to do it if all that was being done was an expansion of medicare. People know what medicare is and trust it. Competition from expanded medicare would have forced private insurance companies to provide better quality or lower prices.

That one simple plan, expanding medicare, would have accomplished all the main objectives. Why wasn't it done that way in the first place? Medical providers probably didn't like lower fees. Insurance companies didn't want competition. So you've traded away to those people too. What do you have left? Nothing that anybody can support. You've traded away all the advantages of public health care for the support of groups that only were after their own advantages and never could have stopped a good plan for expanding medicare. Those groups are no help to you now. You have nothing left to sell.

Scrap everything and go back to the beginning and just try to expand medicare. Its your only hope.

I would sign a petition supporting your letter.

K&R

Way to go.That is what the progressive mindset is all about. No compromise on principles.

It was a head fake. The White House made an appearance of backing away from public option. No Republican came forward to embrace and support a healthcare reform without the “dreaded” public option. They will never support a healthcare bill that passes and credits the President with a victory. Now the White House is backing away from backing away from the public option. The Dems may have to go forward with reconciliation, 51 votes in the Senate and majority in the House. The President should be willing to gamble and go all in with his remaining political capital. The healthcare issue is going to make or break his presidency. This is the right thing to do and the American people are behind him. The Progressive Caucus cannot be sacrificed for slimy Blue Dogs.
I will only believe the White House had given up on the public option when they categorically say they did.

He is not giving up, but he will sign a bill without it. He's made that clear. Maybe a poll, out today, which says that 80% of Americans feel Obama will be hurt if he cannot get the public option, will convince him otherwise. Or an outcry from us. Or both.

After all, they are progressive, and not stupid!
Not to mention, MY congressman, Maurice Hinchey, (D-NY22) is one of them!

Not long ago the congressman from my district was called before his big money campaign contributor to account for why he cast a yes vote on a piece of labor legislation that was anathema to the contributor. He told the contributor not to worry because the bill would die in the Senate, but his vote would play to his liberal base.

What a novel concept here in 2009. We need many more of them that will speak truth to power/money, particularly in the senate.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus calls for a robust public option that must(emphasis theirs):

Enact concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.

Consist of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.

Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation

Allow patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promote the medical home model, and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits.

Have the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management, and good public health.

Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.

Establish or negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers, and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.

Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.

Ensure premiums must be priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/CPC%20public%20Health%20Plan%20principles.pdf

Real reform is essential. If not now, when?

We're counting on you.

:yourock:

and the House can't pass it WITHOUT a public option. One side has to give for a bill to arrive to the President's desk. We need to write/call/fax the Progressives to let them know we support them and ask them to stand strong.

condiions appears to be a goner now, too. This bill looks headed for giving the insurers tens of millions of new customers at no cost to insurers--courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer--and doing very little for the public. And then the cons, Red or allegedly Blue, can all say "We told you so."

Screw that.

....to the Congressional Progressive Caucus!!

....and when we discuss Single-Payer, Public-Option, co-ops or more of the same all we're really debating is to what extent corporate-profit and shareholder-gain should be allowed to kill Americans.

It is disgraceful that only 2 Senators--Sanders and Udall--are members. The House Democrats are better in general than the Senate Democrats.

K&R

:applause:

:yourock:

:kick:

not. I hope he listens to them instead of his big money contributors. If he will not, I hope they kill any bill without a public option. I believe a bill must come out of both the House and the Senate. However, with no public option some Congressional GOpers may vote for it. They will be torn between keeping Obama bill-less and pushing a no option bill. If GOpers go for a bill, then the Progressive Caucus may not have the votes to stop it.

You know it baby!!!!

Raul G!!!

But I wasn't aware that Suji was located in Arizona's 7th Congressional District. No matter...you're absolutely right, Neighbor:

Raul's Da Man!



:fistbump:

great post

by 2 1/2 blocks.

Unfortunately I have the egregious, wishy-washy blue-dog Giffords to contend with.

Oh, well, it's a challenge...

Just what we all need, more challenges. Vietnam, Nixon, ray-gun, feinstein, bush I, clinton, bush II and now Obama's wishy-washy corporate sucking up...

Well, Raul is my REAL representative...that other woman won't hear us...so we'll have to get rid of her -- even if that means a repub...

They need to feel some pain...

One day, perhaps, you and I can both campaign to elect him Governor of America's 54th State -


http://www.bandersnatch.com/bajaz.htm


:toast:

:hi:

a member of the Progressive Caucus, your emails and calls would be little more than cheerleading. That has value, but not as much clout as telling a Blue Dog he or she damn will better not vote for a bill without a public option. Not to mention that you have the rare opportunity of being able to work to PRIMARY a blue dog. (Geez, we should call them red dogs, or purple dogs.) I wish I had that opportunity.

My Rep is a member of the Prog. Caucus, too, and I email him all the time. My Senators are not, so I email them even more, including this morning. Let them know I'd be voting Green next time if they vote for a bill without a "robust" public option.

And she's come out (sort of) for a "public option"...

My senators:

Jon Kyl -- nuff said. He's slime, deadly corporate lawyer slime and receives my most fervent wish that he would disappear from the face of the Earth... Evil, evil man...

McCain -- wishy-washy but maybe, just maybe, when not PTSD'd out, reachable.

The current proposal is worse than nothing at all. Its just a big gift to the insurance industry. Kill it. Go back to sqaure one and work on expanding medicare and letting people buy in on a sliding scale.

I wish your colleague in AZ-8 had the same cojones!

anybody familiar with the guy at all knows that. He's a champion for the common person and a great American. He's the Rep for the district right next to mine and he's about as good as it gets.

K&R.

I was told that I was the only caller that they had received that was interested in getting the public option. I also read over at the Daily Kos that someone else was told the same thing when they called their congressman's office.

How can this be if everyone claim to be soooo upset about loosing that option? We sit here and complain what the President (and/or the congress) is not doing or that he has caved etc. and the only thing people do on their computers is complain to one another.

I receive all kind of spam mail from republicans and their organizations about what reinforcements (lies) that they want done or spread, sometimes 7-12 emails a day from them. Now I see why their little drones are so well versed on the talking points.

I see now that America is a visual country and if we can't show them the numbers that they saw when Obama was running for the presidency and all the tears they saw of supporters there, they just won't believe many want that public option.

We need to be more motivated...we need to let the people *see* our actions and what we need and want.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/17/768242/-Its-the-Senate,-Stupid!!-Or,-how-to-take-effective-action.

eta: sorry for blowing off some steam here, please forgive me if I've hurt anyones feelings.

Not everyone can be purchased.

Health and Human Services stressed Obama's support for the public option. And I totally believe he supports it. However, Obama indicated that he would sign a bill without the public option.

The way that he indicated that was to say that the public option, whether we have it or not, is only a sliver of reform. That is a definite signal that we may end up with a bill that does not include a public option. And his Secretary of Health and Human Services mealy-mouthed.

Now, there is even talk of not requiring the industry to cover pre-existing conditions and maybe doing away with Medicare and other post-1929 programs one fine day. Which again proves that you should never negotiate with terrorists.

Industry-run co-ops are, to my mind, the worst of all possible worlds. They will increase the cost to the industry, and therefore to the consumer, yet they won't do much for the public. The only major outcome will be fifty million new customers for the insurers, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Plus, bet on this: the industry will figure out a way to use them to gouge their customers and the taxpayers even more.

In a recent poll, eighty percent of Americans say a bill without a public option will hurt Obama, so he has nothing to lose by going full bore for the public option. Trouble is, I agree with Kucinich. This has been mis-handled. Badly.

No foundation was laid. Obama, Pelosi and Reid did not get their ducks in a row. Even Kennedy, bless him, aimed too low in his bill, thinking he could at least get it passed. The public was not well mobilized or educated, except by the Republican and gun lobby rabble-rousing disinformation. Meanwhile, the Republicans slow walked the issue until the break, so that they could make the town halls explode and scare Democrats with a handful of nutters who carry guns to a public Presidential meeting.

IMO, Democrats need to fall back and re-group. Organize. Get a massive educational P.R. effort going. Maybe hire Dean and some organizational and P.R. types to spearhead the effort and join forces with single payer and public option advocates. Get out the facts, which definitely are on our side. Mobilize public option supporters of all Parties and frickin’ make Pelosi and Reid do their REAL jobs.

Have the DNC and state Democratic Parties have "come to Jesus" talks with the so-called Blue Dogs, who are really Red Dogs, mentioning the word “PRIMARY” loudly and often. In part, browbeat them and threaten them with no funds and with support for their primary opponents. In part, ask them what their constituencies will need to hear in order to support a public option.

Then and only then, give this another shot and be prepared to risk everything on it. Go big or go home in 2010. 'Cause that's what's going to happen anyway. Democrats are losing support and respect over this FAST and needlessly with those who voted for them and giving plenty of ammunition to their opponents.

Meanwhile, send the Progressive Caucus some love and encouragement. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=15&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=5&SectionTree=15

Makes no sense to me....If you feel you have to vote for a conservadem, why not just vote Republican and leave the Democratic Party to the Progressives? That way we would at least have a real 2 party system instead of two parties that both represent corporate interests.

Politics theory: The Party feels that conservative Democrats have the best chance of getting elected these days. So, that's where the support goes. That's somewhat like the Party's having Super Delegates--if the Presidential primaries yield a candidate whom the Party honchos think will lose, the honchos pretty much get to overrule. And Super Delegates started to be discussed after the primaries yielded a liberal, even though the Super Delegates did not actually get established until years later. I think that may have been McGovern.

Numbers theory. I heard this morning that only 1/5 of Americans are liberal, not even a majority of Democrats.

Bottom line. Since Democrats lost the Solid South to Repubicans (bc of the Civil Rights Act, probably), neither Party has a base that can win an election. So, each has to win the unenrolled, aka independents. They skew purple--and probably more red than blue.

Geez. I hope you were not asking a purely rhetorical question.

the ones who control the party money...recruited...

In the mistaken belief (or true belief) that real Progressive can't get elected...

Since over 70% of the USAmerican public have essentially "liberal" or "Progressive" values in most polls the DLC and their fellow travelers really fucked up...

----------------------------------------

The other main reason...

Back in the old days, the party machinery controlled whether one got elected or not. When Lyndon was passing Medicare he had the nuclear option, "I'd really like you on board on this one...I'd hate to call <Dem Boss Here> and tell him not to finance your next campaign..."

But now, the corporations spend MUCH more money than they used to and they give it directly to right-wing pro-corporate candidates and/or their PACs.

The corporate funding is now going DIRECTLY to the candidates who believe that corporatism is the "only way"...instead of being funneled through the party machinery.

Also, the Democratic party has no essential value system any more -- just expediency...get elected and stay in power... same as the republicans...

Unless the Democratic Party (considering it controls the presidency and both houses of congress) can pull off major health reform it will prove its irrelevancy and incur the wrath of more than just the far right (which it had anyway).

:bounce: :fistbump: :applause: :woohoo:

I thought we won the election last November.

All I know forsure is all this talk about health care reform has the private health care providers raising premiums while reducing services. Our health care provider now makes you pay the first $3,000 of anything you have done B/4 the insurance kicks in its called the "deductable plan" and it highway robbery.It should be illegal ,however apprently when companies see the end of their meal ticket may be coming near as usual they start to price gouge the consumer. We see this with oil and now in health care.I bet none of the ones who came up with this "deductable plan " have it for their own family. They take over $600 a month out of paycheck and have me afraid to go the the Dr. ,God forbid he orders any testing to be done ,then I can expect a large bill in my mail box. So now they have the best of both worlds they get to take your money knowing you wont use their services unless you have a near death exprience and have no other choice then to go into the hospital which by they way has a $500 copay attached to it. With all of this lousey pricing and declining starndard of care ,bisness is bomming for them ! For them its a beautiful world ,for the average worker it just another service picking our bones till there is nothing left to our paycheck. So if they are not going to pass a health care for all at a resonable price can they at least put some restrictions on these vultures picking the pocket of hard working people, the middle class thats disappering from the Americian landscape ?
NikRik

Man, this is how you do it. Stop the Blue Cross Dems in their tracks, just like they do to us!!!

I have to check that my Congresswoman, Barbara Lee is in here. I'd be amazed if she weren't.

Thanks. :hi:

this corporate Insurance wet dream.

Rewarding Good Behavior
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday August 18, 2009 7:20 am


We've been working since June 23 to get progressive members of the House to draw a line in the sand on health care: no public option, no health care bill.

Yesterday 60 members did just that when they sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius saying they would stick together through conference, all the way to the bitter end, to oppose any bill that does not have a public plan.

Marc Ambinder is right:

The basic calculus here: the White House thinks that House Democrats won't be able to say "no" to a reform bill in the end, even without a public plan, and is going to try other inducements -- money for favorite programs, promises down the road, maybe even some threats and pressure -- to keep them aboard.

The battle is not won, not by a long shot. Howie Klein and the Blue America team put together an Act Blue donation page that includes the 60 members who signed the letter, plus five more that our whip count effort have secured promises from that they will not vote for any bill that does not have a robust public plan. Thereisnospoon and Hekebolos over at Daily Kos are also on board.

Democracy for America is letting these members know that they have the support of their constituents, and Howard Dean -- well, he's been on fire. Eat it, Rahm.

Meanwhile, HCAN is going to spend $650,000 -- attacking Republicans. If grass roots efforts weren't underway to fight the real battle here, and we had to rely on the big moneyed interests, the public plan would have been lost a long time ago.

Help support members of the House who support us. Please give what you can to progressives fighting for a public plan.


http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/18/rewarding-good-behavior/

"A Public Option is the Compromise," I would add it needs to be strong but I'm convinced, the only real cure/solution to this ongoing fundamental, dysfunctional, immoral, illogical, structural problem with the nation's health care is universal single payer coverage for every American from the cradle to the grave!

Dear President Obama,

I am a Democratic Precinct Captain (CO HD 39, Pct 267) and I volunteered tirelessly for you in 2008.

I do NOT support Health Care Reform UNLESS it includes a strong, comprehensive, universal, PUBLIC OPTION.

The Democratic Party will lose my support if it caves in to Big Pharma, and the Insurance industry, and passes health care "reform" that does not include a strong public option.

You will lose my support the day you sign any "window-dressing reform" that does not have a strong public option in it.

Sincerely,
Real Name

the insurance company whores... it really needs to be DU'd. If you have a Facebook page, make your voices heard:
http://apps.facebook.com/my_polls/index.php/main/vote?poll_id=10680&src=feed_poll_url

pathetic.

the responses by some on there are astounding!

off on this while Rachel Maddow/others are shouting from the rooftops?! Why is he shrinking at the 11th hour when we NEED HIM to champion this and get it on the table - even if it does not pass-at the very least, we HAVE TO TRY!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If single-payer went into force it would significantly cut the cost of Health Care...

This is a bad thing...

Cut the cost of Health Care and you decrease the GDP...

There's a term for decreasing the GDP -- it's called Recession or, if done on a larger scale, Depression...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to rethink the entire phony Ponzi scheme laughingly called an "economy"...

What do people REALLY need (and it ain't wal-mart plastic chinese shit)...?

How should people be able to fill those needs (and it ain't by cheap petroleum fueled 9000 mile supply lines filled with wal-mart cheap plastic chinese shit)...?

How can we restructure society and the economy to do what must/should be done and remove ourselves from the corporate-consumerist living death?

Relocalize, down-size, starve the beast...

www.transitionus.org

Cheers;