geez, steve, sounding a little frustrated...

it's mid-september. the so-called "health care reform" issue just swirls around and around and around and gets worse and worse.

even a scumball who heckles the president's speech to a joint session of congress succeeds by that act to walk back the language of reform in order that it reflect right wing racist hate (with regard to immigration).

are we to think that barack and rahm have no responsibility for this situation? to think that barack and rahm have no accountability (now there's a unique concept) for the status of health care reform at this point?

the progressive movement invigorated by the barack obama presidential candidacy is becoming a great deal like the fruit from an unharvested orchard -- apples lying rotting on the ground.

But that's how they do it. They just assume they are the most powerful and deserving. They have no shame, sure, but they also have no restraint. Bush claimed to have "won" the election even though he lost the vote, and he governed like, I don't know, LBJ, like he'd gotten a historic victory.

It's all just bravado. They are terrific at bravado, and it works every time. And the ONLY way the Dems can deal with it is to say, "The hell with this. We have a huge majority. We have the presidency. Let's use it. They can bleat and to tea parties. We'll govern without them."

But I don't know if any-- ANY-- Dem will do that. Obama should. Now. Make a point of the public option. Make them squeal.

If this is true, then the fat lady has apparently sung:

"Hours After Pelosi Backs off on Public Option, Health Lobbyist Announces Fundraiser in Her Honor."

Steve, you are still framing this too much from Republican eyes - I know, you're making a point about them, but: man of us; most progressives and a big chunk of "the public" - a majority? - want a public option in the HCRB. There is no "consensus" with the PO off the table, instead that ruins consensus with Democrats and moderates. Acceptance of a PO should be the litmus test for acceptability, and Obama needs the balls to say that any "consensus" requires that or that's their tough luck.

I didn't go to all that trouble to elect Obama and other Democrats, to let Republicans decide what the proper basis of "consensus" is. And Snowe proves now she is a hack undeserving of the label "moderate" (although the MSCM will continue to call her that, providing fodder for "even moderate Republican ... is against the PO."

GNOP

They say "no" and the Dems cave. What the hell did we elect these Dems for?

What do you mean asking what they are willing to give up? They've already given up their thousand year, er, permanent majority. Why should they have to give up anything else?

That link offered by jim is very important, and we need to blast our own, like Pelosi, for being in bed with the enemy. I notice that such things tend to get overlooked around here, and that shouldn't happen.

"They say 'no' and the Dems cave."
Posted by: madstork123 on September 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM

That's clearly true for some of them, possibly including Obama.
But I think it's equally clear that there are at least some Dems that aren't "cav"ing to the Publicans on this. They're using the Publicans as an excuse and doing exactly what they want to do, at the behest of their masters, the same corporate powers that own and operate the Publican party.
The question therefore is, how many, which ones, and what are we going to do about it?
It's crucial that we not let the many (and growing) disappointments of the Obama administration, and of "our" majority in Congress, lead us to walk off in a huff, as I read so many threatening to do on the blogs. (This is especially important with voters in the 18-30 range who, if we lose them now, will likely be lost forever.) That just directly and immediately cedes the ground to the corporations and the Publicans, and the collapse of our country will not just continue, but accelerate.
Did anyone really think it would be as easy as one election (two, if you count the '04 midterm that gave nominal control of Congress to the Dem's)?
Silly rabbits.
The Publicans took 30 years to get from Goldwater's loss to Reagan's win, and 40 years to get to W.
And we're going to give up after just two to four years of seriously attempting to fight back?

Depends on which news you read:

(CBS) Senior White House adviser David Axelrod said President Obama is "not willing to accept" that a so-called public option "is not going to be in the final package" of health-care legislation on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"He continues to believe it's a good idea," Axelrod told CBS News Chief Washington correspondent and "Face the Nation" anchor Bob Schieffer about a government-funded alternative to private health insurance. "He continues to advocate it, and I'm not willing to accept that it's not going to be in the final package."

Axelrod said the president "believes that it will add an element of competition where there is none in some places in this country where there's a monopolistic situation with insurance companies."

No One Knows Anything.

The heat of reaction

Having a mandate without a public option is like dumping water into strong acid. Things can get very explosive very fast. The democratic party would have to be suicidal to risk one without the other. The public option is an essential safety valve.

Why the public option is anathema to corporate run healthcare

Without a public option serving as a safety valve it will be easy for corporations to argue for the repeal of regulations. Within a year they will be arguing that the regulations are stifling private enterprise and raising costs. That is an argument they can and will win.

Why the public option is anathema to corporate run Senators

Senators endowed by the healthcare industry know that the public option, once it exists, will be nearly impossible to legislate out of existence. Not being able to kill Social Security or Medicare has proven to be educational. Thus they will do whatever they can to kill its birth, and then naturally, follow that up with a deregulation of the rules currently being proposed.

Why the public option is de rigueur

Put the thoughts together up above and you will see why reform without the public option is play-pretend reform that dangerously exposes the Democratic party to the heat of a public backlash. The Dems are suicidal-nuts if they pass reform without a public option. And they are insanely suicidal-nuts if they pass reform without a public option but with a mandate...

Is it reasonable to expect reasonable give-and-take from unreasonable people? The Republicans are not negotiating in good faith. Have they ever been negotiating in good faith? Can you find a single example?

Isn't it about time to give up the myth?

The emerging theme of the Obama Presidency: I'll roll over whenever pressured. Progressive tempers were rising last week prior to the BIG SPEECH. None of his actions since then give confidence. If you're going to give away the jewels you should at least get something for them. Feckless Democratic leadership (as Larry Wilkerson notes) will bring greater than normal defeats in 2010. And I see no move to change the direction. Should I be surprised? And yet I am!

No One Knows Anything.

That's Obama's fault. His constant flopping on the public option is one problem. His unidirectional defensive negotiating technique is a bigger problem. He needs to stop playing 11-dimensional chess; it's not working.

The Dims and the Repugs, as well need, to keep in mind that from the stand point of the majoirty of voters in fall 2008, all of whome will probably vote again in 2010 and 12, universal health care was what we voted for. Without that or its twin the Dims and Obama might as well just admit they are hopelessly spineless and give it up till they have a 70 seat majority.
A crappy bill will just kill us. Literally

So do we support a bill that doesn't have a public option? That is, do we encourage progressive representatives to vote against it? Which is worse, a bad bill that passes but provides universal health care or a bad bill that doesn't pass? Either way, the Republian crazy minority bitchslap the Obama administration.

I am just sick about this. I had such hopes for Obama. He won the election by a substantial majority; Why alienate his base to woo right wing crazies?

On the bright side, "The Daily news with Jon Stewart" returns from a long, long break tomorrow. I hope they had a good time. The way I feel today, I am in needs of some silly, but morally sound, clowing, "This is our most desperate hour. Help us, Obi-Jon Stewart; you're our only hope."

In Minneapolis Obama repeated what he said in the speech to the joint session of Congress. He favors the Public Option, but he's willing to listen to any other plan that will accomplish the same goal.

The trick is, THERE IS NO OTHER PLAN THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOAL. Even Kent Conrad, who interjected the co-op proposal (which I saw on Face the Nation this morning Olympia Snowe has picked up and run with), admitted in a TV interview a few weeks back that a co-op WOULD NOT lower costs.

So, if the Senate passes a bill with a co-op, when it is scored by the CBO, they will blow it out of the water. Then we're back to the Public Option.

Joe has a point in that Obama has been pretty consistent (to the extent that he has been consistent about anything) in putting the onus on public option opponents to come up with an alternative that 'works.' Guess it depends on what the defintion of 'works' is. However, at this point the public discourse is so screwed up, with even Barbara Boxer mixing up the concepts of public option and single payer on MSNBC last week, that I despair of ever being able to handle the issue rationally.

I an a retired Equitable Life agent who specializing in employee benefits before they left the health insurance market.I mention this only to attest to the fact that I can read health plans.
Since a great many of the people not currently covered will be looking for individual or family coverage I took a look at a couple of cities on the east coast for what was currently offered at what price.
The prices were high and I would not recommend most of the plans to anyone.
This is not surprising because there has never been much of a market for individual vs group coverage coverage but there were not even decent plans at affordable prices in MA.
I had given this little thought because a Public Option would have rectified this but NOW I wonder why someone researched this.

Beware a "scaled back" reform bill, which will just put Democratic asses in a sling by having insufficient subsidies to the low income people.

I just have one question and I wish progressives would go back to this question - You have 60 votes(incl.Kennedy's replacement) in the Senate. You have a healthy House majority. I don't want to get into the weeds arguing about fucking illegal aliens and death panels. I don't care about Blue Dogs and conservative senators.

If no robust healthcare reform now, then when?

If ObamaRahmReidPelosi think that they are going to sit there and tell me that they now need 80 Dem senators and 300 Dem. Reps, they can go Cheney themselves. fuhgetaboutit. ain't gonna happen.

Beware a "scaled back" reform bill

A "scaled back" reform bill will be the end of the Obama presidency.

Here is how I would like to see this played.

Obama asks Snowe and Collins to the WH, along with Grassley, Enzi, McConnell - and several good reporters.

At the meeting, Obama notes Snowe's comments about the public option and compromise, and gets out a pad of paper and a pen and (a) notes how much he's already given or signalled a willingness to give versus the House bill, (b) says he is willing to consider other approaches that accomplish the same result as the public option but before he makes that trade needs them to commit, so he can write it down, to (c) what all they will back off of and how many Republican Senate votes they can publicly promise in support of the bill.

McConnell, Grassley and Enzi will immediately weasel and balk for the reporters to see. Obama notes that it makes to sense to negotiate if they are unwilling to offer anything, and ends the meeting.

He then privately calls Snowe and Collins back and says "based on what you saw, where is this compromise if I give up the public option - can you still say that in good faith? and if not, why can't you and I agree on the public option?" Tell them they have 24 hrs to consider it, but in 24 hrs he's going into the press room and announcing either (a) the alternative deal they've cut based on mutual compromise and secured votes - and those two are welcome to stand with him and share credit -- or (b) that despite their own party proving their premise wrong, Snowe and Collins still wont consider the public option, so we have no choice but to include it and use reconciliation to pass the bill.

Here's a radical thought: what are Republicans willing to put on the table?

Silly Steve Benen. People keep saying the Republican don't have a plan. Of course have a plan. They want Obama to take health care reform completely off the table, apologize to them for wasting Congress's time with such pie-in-the-sky nonsense, and move on to immigration reform so they can demagogue, obstruct and defeat it, too.

That's their plan for everything: Lather, rinse and repeat.

If there is no public option, the taxpayers, who will have to cover the people who can't afford to pay for the mandated coverage, will be paying 10-20% MORE per poor person to the private insurers than they would to the public insurer. This is crazy not to mention political suicide. If there is no public option, Democrats themselves should call their Congresscritters to kill this bill.

We should transform it to something like the Australian system:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/healthcare.html

Public coverage for all, and half the population chooses to carry private coverage on top. Yet total per capita health expenditure is half the U.S.

From where I stand, either Obama said all he said to get elected, or the man has no balls. Which is it ?