On this issue of compromise, among many Dems and progressives, a public plan IS the compromise. Many of us would much prefer a single-payer system.

Can we lose the scare quotes around centrist and just call them what they are-- right wing Democrats?

The MN Supreme Court should be ruling on the Coleman-Franken race very soon. The importance of that seat is looming very large in this context.

Oh health care, as on damned near everything else these days, I fear the Democrats in the Senate don't have enough vertebrae among themselves to form one good spine.

Seriously, have anyone explained to them that they have nearly a 3:2 margin in the Senate? And a President of their own party? And a clear mandate from the 2008 election? And a moral duty to at least make an effort to do something for 50+ million of their fellow citizens?

sadly, people like ben nelson and blanche lincoln and mary landrieu are fools.

What Atrios says: http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/06/havent-we-been-here-before.html

Ain't this co-opt plan (or is it co-opted) what the HMO's were supposed to do?

I have no confidence in Congress and its ability to legislate anything. First of all, there is no "emboldening" for the simple reason that many sitting members of Congress are too beholden to the insurance lobby to actually pay attention to the needs of their constituents. Increasingly, over the last 30 years or so, there has been a growing disconnect. The needs of the people are secondary to the desires of the powerful. This is very wrong, and is a terrible mangling of the stated intent of the way our government is structured: namely, the elected officials are supposed to represent the people.

But you know, our government has been moving away from that quaint idea for several decades now. Today's "democrat" is roughly a 1970s-era "republican" but as the government shifts right and becomes more & more beholden to big business at the expense of its citizens, the people themselves haven't changed that much.

It's very naive of leftist pundits to overlook the way Democrats live to serve big business.

Schumer is responding to the latest poll showing that Americans overwhelmingly support a public option. The Democrats are going to have to fuss and fume a while until the Health Insurance industry anti-public option propaganda campaign takes hold. Otherwise the Democrats might have to do something that actually helps taxpayers. After all unlike the Republicans whose base is know to be the rich elite, Democrats actually depend on regular people to vote for them. As it is Democrats find themselves between a rock and a hard place. It is really hard to stay bought when the public opposes your patron's position by 72%.

It leads to a test for the Senate caucus: back an effective plan that enjoys public support, or pursue an inferior bipartisan alternative.

But, but....

What ever will Evan Bayh do if he can't pimp his wife out to the insurance industry as an "advisor" and "board member" for $375,000?

What ever will Max Fuckus do without his $1,500/day from the insurance pimps?

What ever will Mary Landrieu do without the opportunity to go down for cash on the health unsurance pimps? (that "typo" is left as being accurate)

What will Holy Joe do without a way to sell his constituents down the river?

If the Senate was on fire and you could only save two Senators, who would they be? (Sanders and Feingold for me.)

To Blue Girl - if you could only save 2, you have selected the correct pair!

If you could save 3, I think my 3rd choice would be 'none of the above'.

To TCinLA - Susan Bayh (Evan's wife) is also on the board of directors of several pharmaceutical and biotech corporations. Not to forget her 'directorship' on Emmis Communications, which owns radio stations that consistently provide homes for 'rethug reich-wing hate talk'. In total, she is receiving about $1 million a year as a 'professional director'.

Dont know who I'd save. Just know I'd be splashing a bit of jet fuel on Sessions, Graham and my own Cornyn.

Sen. Schumer occassionally does the right thing. Whether or not it is for the right reason is another issue.

My favorite Senator would still be safe in Minnesota until he's finally seated.

you could only save two Senators

I'd at least hold he door for Klobuchar and Whitehouse.

It's one thing to compromise to pick up votes, which, one hopes, is what Baucus is doing. It's another to compromise in exchange for nothing at all. -- EJ Dionne, quoted by Benen

I don't consider thousands of dollars in contributions from the insurance ticks, vampires and other bloodsuckers to be a definition of "nothing". Baucus and his like are gambling that, with enough money from the above, they'll be able -- through high-blast campaigns -- to fool enough voters not to give them a kick in the pants. They're also gambling on the voters' reluctance to stomp on Dems; the tired, old, "we need 60 Dems in the Senate" is bound to be heard over and over again.

Those two gambles allow them to eat their cake and have it too. Like someone upthread has said: they need strong, credible, and well-financed *primary* competition. And they're not likely to get it, if the case of Spectral Boy Wonder vs Sestak is anything to go by.

I care about what the Rethugs want on healthcare the same amount they cared about getting Dem support on anything during the 8 glory years of the Royal Moron. Bipartisanship? Give them the cold shoulder and the nuclear option. The Dums are using the Rethugs as a shield against passing legislation that the healthcare oligarchy doesn't want. Primary challenges for all "centrist" Dems should be a must.

As I've said before, it's all about power. If bipartisanship is required, then the most conservative Democrats and the most moderate Republicans have all the power. Their colleagues have to court them, the lobbyists try to win their favor, they appear on all the Sunday talk shows, everyone knows their names.

I thought Republicans are also 50% to 39% in favor of a publican plan. I think it should be made clear to "centrists" Democrats that the Rep. Senators follow the Pailin-Limbaugh (base) minority rather than the majority in their own party.

White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally

The White House meant to say that Obama promises were as good as “The Bibile” .. the book of Genesis to be exact.

Schumer's comments are a very big deal. Chuck is the money man for the Senate reelection funds.

eric

I usually consider myself rather reasoned and interested in getting all the information possible (harder and harder to do) before making a decision...BUT, think it's time for RADICAL listing of all "centrist" DEMS who are standing in the way of a public option REGARDLESS of whatever they think MAY be good reasons. I mean, seriously, list them, publish it, actively work to have them challenged and defeated where possible...ESPECIALLY the representatives...then light FIRES under Senators like Bachus, Feinstein, Bayh, et al and continue to shine the light on them on JUST THIS ISSUE!!!!

The republicans have no intention of bi partisanship, it is not in their nature, remember when Obama passed the stimulus, the dems had to tailor it to the repubs who said they would vote for it, then only 3 voted for it, they are playing silly games again.They should never be trusted. They are also using delaying tactics.By the way what happened to Franken?

E.J. Dionne: "Where did we get the idea that the only good health-care bill is a bipartisan bill? Is bipartisanship more important than whether a proposal is practical and effective?"

Maybe from President Obama's comment that "he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52 to 48" as reported by the high priest of Broderism himself?

On this issue of compromise, among many Dems and progressives, a public plan IS the compromise. Many of us would much prefer a single-payer system.

This.

Which is why taking single payer off the table in advance was such a dumb move -- now the GOP is negotiating against the compromise. It's astonishing that the Democrats still let themselves get played by the GOP like this.

If the Senate was on fire and you could only save two Senators, who would they be?

Do I have to?

I'll put it this way -- if I could only save one of Indiana's two Senators, I'd pick Lugar over Bayh in a heartbeat.

The Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans should consider the House bill which was recently announced.

In it there's a public option paid for only by premiums. There is also an employer mandate to insure (or pay for the insurance of) employees.

What this means is most people will be insured through their employer and only unemployed people will have the option of the gov't basic no-frills plan.

The effect is the private insurers are protected by always having the employer-based market. Also, the gov't option is a very basic plan which enables everyone to afford being insured, but which won't compete with many private insurers.

Blue Dogs and Repubs should keep an open mind and take a look at that House plan.

I think the House bill is a solid foundation for the Senate and as soon as it's passed they should take it up, make amendments as they see fit (mostly to control costs) and get it to Pres. Obama.

As I see the cost issue they might eliminate the individual mandate and/or reduce the Medicaid expansion of the House bill to match the dollars they're willing to spend.

Government run Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt.

Government run Medicaid is one of the biggest reasons States like NY and CA are going bankrupt.

QUESTION: Since Government has made such a big mess out of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, why does President Obama and the Democrats want to put the Nation into even greater debt by taking over health care and making an even bigger mess?

Moreover, President Obama cannot reduce health care costs and provide insurance to an additional 47 million people without empowering government to step in and reduce costs by rationing of health care. Government rationing of health care nullifies an individuals right to privacy which is unconstitutional. This intrusion by government into life and death decisions made by an individual and his or her physician would violate the court mandated personal zone of privacy as in Planned parenthood v. Casey (1992) "these matter involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a life time, choices central to person's dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the hear of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning of universe and the mystery of human life"

IF YOU ARE AGAINST THE BANKRUPTING OF AMERICA AND THE INTRUSION BY GOVERNMENT INTO LIFE AND DEATH DECISIONS MADE BY AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS OR HER PHYSICIAN, CONTACT CONGRESS AND TELL THEM HELL NO ON GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE REFORM.

linda, please stop wasting your (and our) time by cutting and pasting moronic and untrue right-wing talking points.

one absolute way to know if someone is stupid is if they pretend that decisions today are made between doctor and patient, as though no other factors (like insurance companies, hospital policies, and the lack of information on the patient's part) entered into the equation.

linda is very, very stupid.

Good morning. Good afternoon. Help me! Please help find sites for: Mudd shoes woman. I found only this - mudd Shoes boots. Amazon carrier seemed to take extra time getting the mudd shoes. Poof clothing company, buy clothing online, rainbow plus mudd shoes. Best regards :o, Ilias from Africa.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Perfect work!

Perfect work!

dsfgsdfg dfssdfgf fdsgsdfgsd

Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also...

This brings to mind something that my grandmother would always say...
Then it's definitely inappropriate right now...