Aides: Obama Not Demanding Government-Run Option

[MannyGoldstein]

Source: The NY Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama isn't demanding that health care legislation include a government-run insurance option even though he believes it would best meet his reform goals, White House advisers said Sunday.

The White House and lawmakers are trying to blend five House and Senate committee versions of health care legislation into a bill that will pass both houses, where near unanimous Republic opposition was expected.

House Democrats are insisting that there be a public option in competition with the private insurance industry to drive down the cost of coverage. In the Senate, Republicans and some Democrats oppose the measure, meaning inclusion of the public option would foreclose winning the 60 votes needed to advance a bill.

Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Obama believes the public plan is still the ''best possible choice,'' but she said he's not demanding it. David Axelrod, Obama's top adviser, said Senate opposition in both parties means ''we have to work through these issues.''

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/18/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Health-Care.html?_r=1

---

Obama promised a public option. Promised.

I guess on the other hand he never promised to give the bankers $trillions of our tax dollars to play with and pay themselves staggering bonuses from, but Obama did it anyway - so we're even.

(Again, the phrase that keeps echoing in my head: Middle class chumps.)

[DJ13]

1. CNN is running a headline that says

"Axelrod says health care reform compromise is close"

I saw that this morning and my first thought was we are about to get screwed over.

[IndianaGreen]

28. BOHICA

And the unrec cohort will chide us by saying that He never promised a public option during the campaign, only reform.

[elocs]

31. Well, the unRec cohort sure love it when you give them attention.

:thumbsup:

[ChiciB1]

227. A DOUBLE BOHICA!! That's How I've Felt For Many, Many Years!!

Bend Over Here It Comes Again!!! I think I DO recall what he said during the campaign, I went to THREE rallies myself because my daughter wanted to attend ALL of them around our area! He wasn't my first or second choice, but I DO recall him saying we needed a PUBLIC OPTION and serious Health Care Reform!

NOT A GIVE AWAY for the Insurance Companies and as Dylan Ratigan will say... Corporate Communists!!!

[earth mom]

241. Isn't that what's called a "bait and switch"? nt

[ChiciB1]

244. I DO Believe You Have It Correct! n/t

[closeupready]

231. His cheerleaders will find a way - ANY WAY - to spin favorably the unfavorable, no matter

how obvious.

[villager]

32. The word "compromise" to Democrats means: screw over their base.

The word "compromise" to Republicans means: Get the Democrats to screw over their base.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. A Rose By Any Other Name...

Capitulating when we own all three bodies that have a say on reform means "screw over the base". They can call it compromise, or they can call it "Bob", or anything else they want to call it.

[hay rick]

55. Compromise, surrender, whatever. nt

[dflprincess]

97. I think the term you're looking for is

"sell out".

[CoffeeCat]

208. We are the majority of the Dem party....

Democrats who want healthcare reform constitute the overwhelming majority of our party. The corporatist
Dems represent less than 10 percent of our party.

I've met a lot of Dems in my day, as I'm sure all of you have as well. How many of them have been against a
public option? I've not met one Dem against a public option. Most are for more...single payer!

This is fucking ridiculous! The absence of a public option is a CORPORATIST, NEOCON IDEA. It is not an ideal
that even remotely reflects what Democrats want.

Sure, many of our elected Democrats don't want reform--but their views do not reflect what the people want!

[toopers]

275. The problem is that 100% of the Dems cannot win an election . . .

you also need the 20% to 30% of the people who really do not identify with either dems or repugs to win the elections.

[No Elephants]

153. Well put.

[Canuckistanian]

109. Compromise? To whom and for what reason?

The Republicans have all but taken an oath to vote against ANY HCR bill.

Who negotiates a compromise without a quid pro quo?

[No Elephants]

155. Who is Senator Baucus, Alex?

[joeycola]

250. it is just a matter of time and we are indeed screwed by congress and the WH.

[sandnsea]

2. I guess we should have supported the HELP Bill

and helped create a movement over the summer like they asked us to. Instead, you fought against the public option then too.

And you still don't get it.

If you want a public option, you're going to have to fight for it. The fight isn't strong enough.

[bread_and_roses]

9. What are you talking about? The AFL-CIO and HCAN

(Health Care for America Now) have been running campaingns for a year - and intensely over the summer - with the public option as centerpiece. They have between them generated hundreds of thousands of calls, letters, congressional visits, in a concerted and unrelenting campaign.

There's been a campaign. There are the polls. There is the data. There is everything except real leadership from Obama - who is evidently willing to sell us out to the insurance cos for THEIR profit. He gives with one hand (railing against the insurers) and takes away with the others. I supported him unreservedly (despite my reservations on some of his policy) in the primaries - I don't know what to make of him now.

[sandnsea]

12. In my town, they're fighting for single payer

Still.

That's what I've seen most of DU and the rest of the blogs doing since June. No matter how many times Obama says he wants the public option - the left finds something to attack him over and refuses to stand with him and fight for it. I don't understand why.

Just last week the mad doctors from Oregon crashed the public option health event at the White House and bitched about single payer again.

What do you expect to happen when the Democrats are more divided than the Republicans?

[bread_and_roses]

36. It's hard to know where to begin to counter the fallacies in that view

Fighting for single-payer is not "attacking Obama." It's applying pressure. If we fight hard enough for single-payer, maybe we'll get a public option and Obama can say he "compromised."

Secondly, Obama's most direct statement on even the public option was in September in the address to Congress in which he put it out as something ONLY those who could not get private insurance would be eligible to get. THAT is not a "public" option - it is analogous to Medicaid, for which there are income and resource limits and which is all too often inferiour in that the lower payments mean that many providers won't accept it. That qualifier, along with the MANDATE to buy insurance from providers, makes it worthless. Of course anyone who cares about health care is going to object to that.

Third, your town and "the blogs" are not the universe. As I pointed out, there has been a vigorous, intense, and massive campaign on the public option from two very large and very well organized groups - the AFL-CIO and HCAN. Neither "attacks" Obama and, in fact, have gone out of their way not to do so.

You use "the left" as some sort of bogeyman to excuse what looks to be an impending colossal failure that will rest squarely on Obama and the Senate Dems.

[sandnsea]

145. HCAN and the unions are helpful

I work with HCAN in Oregon. My local Dems have asked me not to forward any of their emails or otherwise engage on health care. They are not pushing single payer so Obama can compromise on the public option, if they were it would be clear NOW is the time to push for the public option compromise. They won't. This is the same thing that has been going on at DU and with almost every progressive group who believe they are fighting for health care reform.

I can't recall a health care event where Obama didn't support the public option. Even today, Rahm and Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett continued to say Obama wants a public option. Discussing the different proposals that the Senate is discussing is his job. There are a variety of proposals for the public option, some better than others. Frankly, I still think we're missing the boat by not focusing on the subsidies because I don't think a 10% decrease in premiums is going to make that big of a difference to the uninsured. I also don't personally support the mandate, Obama doesn't really either; you can thank the Hillary side of the party for that stupidity. But as long as the subsidies are generous enough that everyone can comfortably afford a policy, I just do not give a crap what rich people do with their tax money. If they want to dump their taxpayer funded subsidies into insurance companies, I don't care. All I want is for people to have health care. That's all.

And yes, the "left" is often a bogeyman in these fights. You/they/whoever, don't do anything but attack. Not ever. When the Kennedy bill came out, it was attacked. I heard the ridiculous compromise theory. People are herds. You have to get them supporting something and them herd them to the finish line. If we had recognized the Kennedy bill was the best we could get and rallied around that in enthusiasm, we'd have a bill passed by now. You let legislation get bogged down, you get teabaggers and death panels and every other crazy winger crawling out from under their rocks.

And still, after all of this, instead of rallying behind the HELP Bill and the House Bills and those Senators who support them - all I see is attacks on Obama and negativity, day after day. Just what the right wing wants.

[JDPriestly]

151. President Obama needs to go directly to the American people and

tell us precisely what he would like to see -- whether he really wants a public option or not. He has refused to stand strongly for the public option. I do not recall hearing him explain why a bill with a public option would serve the American people better than a bill without one. He has been vague and inarticulate on the matter. He could pull a lot of votes to his side if he would just square with the American people about this. He refers vaguely to wanting a public option, but then he equivocates. He looks really weak on this. And his aides are doing him no service by encouraging him to seem so disorganized about his vision of health care reform.

[sandnsea]

164. When will the American People respond?

He has said very clearly that he believes a public option is preferable and that insurance companies need the competition. I think it's time people like you become his echo chamber instead of attacking him for not saying something in the exact words you want to hear.

[ChiciB1]

229. When Will The american People Respond??? Hard To Understand Why That

questions is being asked!! I for one have called, written and signed many, many petitions. Other than going DIRECTLY to D.C. and into the WH, what ELSE do you have in mind!

I've supported going ballistic with REVOLT, but far too many think THAT option is simply something that will never work!!

Shall we march or not???

[JDPriestly]

274. Americans have responded in polls and on the streets.

What doesn't Congress get? I bet many members of Congress hold investments in these big insurance companies. That deserves a look.

[No Elephants]

166. His position has not changed: He likes the public option AND will sign a bill that has none.

[sandnsea]

169. Because there isn't enough visible support

HCAN and the unions cannot do this alone. Do they even have any credibility in states where we need votes? If all people hear is opposition to the health care legislation, then they'll oppose it too and not care about the details. That's the way people are. If you want them to support the bill with the public option, you have to focus on it in order to get people talking about it.

[eilen]

186. Oh, just give me a fucking break

what ever happened to having the balls and the will to do the right thing and damn the torpedos. To me it shows a weakness of character.

[Jakes Progress]

217. Self Delete

Let the wall be.

[MannyGoldstein]

272. No

The PO used to be a must-have.

[bread_and_roses]

192. "We" let legislation get bogged down?

"We" did that? I don't think so. You can look at the Senate Dems protecting their insurance buds for that. And to your question a post or so down, yes, HCAN and AFL-CIO have been most active in those States where we need votes.

Interesting that you attribute so much power to "the left" to have stalled reform when it is clear as day by all the evidence that what has stalled the effort is the ties of Dems to the insurance industry vampires and thier massive infusions of our blood money into the politicos - including the Dems - pockets.

Your claim that "the people" are not supporting the Dems is simply flat out wrong. They are "supporting" - by all the evidence - a strong public option, which was, we thought - before he began his waffling and squirming in the face of the profiteers - what Obama wanted.

We will never agree. I think the fight for single-payer is critical to getting any sort of real public option. I also think it is democracy in action, perfectly legitimate, and the best way to give Obama cover to support a robust public option available to all. He can say, "see, I didn't cave to the "left" and give them what they wanted." You think it is "attacking Obama." As if citizens speaking up for what they want is somehow illegitimate. Even were it not strategically the best thing to do FOR Obama, I wouldn't care - people have a right to advocate for what they want in a democracy.

As for the "subsidy" train, I can't believe anyone wants more of our tax $$ to go into the pockets of the insurance cos to boost their profits - which is what subsidies amount to.

No, Obama and the Dems are failing on this, they are out of step with the will of the people, who by good majorities say they want the choice of a public option, they are contriving "plans" that will enrich the insurance companies with tax revenue we need for other efforts while putting the sickest and neediest on a "public option" plan that will then - absent a pool of healthy - be the most expensive to fund, thus creating fodder for the right wing to squall about inefficient "big gub'mt."

On both health care and finance Obama and the Dems have blown the strongest wave of progressive support we've seen in decades. And they did it to please their corporate paymasters. It will prove to have been a politically strategic blunder of colossal proportions. Goddess only knows how far back they have set us, or if they - and we - can recover.

[sandnsea]

256. June - HELP Legislation was attacked

That created the window for the teabaggers and the insurance lobbyist and everybody else who wanted to kill this legislation. All those people you're talking about in your post.

And still, there isn't a strong enough coalition to offset them.

Don't you get that? The same thing is going to happen to every piece of legislation if the left doesn't get the concept of coalition in a hurry. The single payer strategy failed, drop it. Stop attacking and start rallying. The majority of people want to be a part of something positive. They do not want to be mean or be a part of a group of people who are nothing but mean.

[sandnsea]

271. This is what I get in my email

This is what the Democrats in my town are doing to support the President getting a public option. :sarcasm:

This comes from the California Nurses:

"The next two weeks are crucial for healthcare reform. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York is putting forward an amendment that would replace the current House bill (HR 3200) with single-payer reform. We need to get a strong vote for the Weiner amendment - Medicare for All, HR 676 - when it comes to a vote. It would solve the crisis with comprehensive benefits, a single standard of quality care for all, real cost control, fiscally conservative budgeting, and progressive financing..."

And then turn around and yell at the President when they're obstructing as much as the insurance industry is. This Is Stupid beyond words.

[bread_and_roses]

283. Supporting Single-Payer does NOT hurt the public option, as has been pointed out to you many times

and CNA is not "the Democrats." However you persist, and evidently will persist, in your delusion that "they" - the boogeyman "left" - is somehow responsible for the Dems caving on a robust public option available to ALL as a CHOICE. So have at it, I'm tired of trying to educate you about how issue politics work, and will leave it to the many others in this thread who've tried - maybe they have more energy and patience than I.

And the CNA are not "the Democrats." They are a union.

[sandnsea]

291. It's A Waste Of Time And Confuses People

The ACTIVISTS (including California Nurses Assoc) strategy of going for single payer so they could compromise with the public option was always a phony lie. It's proven now when it is time to move to the fall back compromise of the public option and the exact same activists refuse to move. They never had any intention of moving. They never had any intention of being part of a coalition to fight for the public option. So, YES, they are hurting the public option fight because they are attacking Democrats and giving right wingers "government run" ammunition.

Don't even pretend to me that rigid single payer people were ever going to move into the public option camp. They've disrupted the debate from the start.

I blame a lot of people for the problems in getting health care passed. If I were talking to a conservative Democrat from Arkansas, I'd be telling them to tell their elected officials that the teabaggers are nuts. I'm not talking to them at DU. So I say what needs to be said to this group of people.

[bread_and_roses]

295. I am not "pretending" anything - and your characterization of "disruptive"

is very revealing of your total lack of understanding of how issue politics work. You are putting the fight for an issue in a candidate campaign frame. As if single-payer were the primary and public option the general election. Of course single-payer activists never intended to "move to the public option" - that was not what I said, nor my meaning, nor what is necessary, nor what will work. The only thing it would accomplish is taking any pressure we can create off - and that's about the last thing that will help get any real health care reform, or even help Obama - and even though I AM a single-payer advocate and activist, believe it or not, I have no interest in undermining Obama.

It's simply the reality. If the pressure from your boogyman "left" is for single-payer, then Obama has the option of fighting for a strong public option while being able to say he is denying "the left" - something that's evidently important to him. And - I say this as a single-payer activist who has no intention of giving up that fight - a strong public option would inevitably weaken - for a time - any fight for single-payer. It would make things enough better that most people will move on to other big fights - like global climate catastrophe - because the public momentum for health care reform will abate. Attaining single-payer will become one of those incremental reform issues that we work on in the background.

All your furious finger-pointing is an effort to distract from the colossal failure Obama and the Senate Dems look to be prepared to foist on us - an expensive, inefficient, nightmarish beauracracy of a convoluted and inaccessable "reform" that will solve nothing, add to the deficit, help few if any, and be nothing but a target for the Right's "big gubm't" rants. That's the reality, and the responsibility rests square on the Dems for blowing every shred of the momentum they came into office with - all in the service of their corporate paymasters. You can look at the Banksters to see how well that works.

I had no intention of responding to you but I don't like being accused of deception ("pretending"), nor having my meaning distorted.

[MNDemNY]

198. Your constant "Obama is god " attitude is coming to a head, now isn't it?

When will you admit the obvious?

[sandnsea]

254. Pfft, you do this to everybody

The same attacks are going to happen to every piece of legislation introduced, no matter who introduces it. The climate change legislation will be picked apart by wsws and then the usual suspects will pull their usual antics, ad nauseum.

[MNDemNY]

260. Aren't you going to get in trouble from the other bots?????

Do you still get the "memos"??

[robinlynne]

69. umm. 75% of doctors support single payer. almost equal number of citizens. bitching?

[sandnsea]

143. Not even pnhp has those figures

It's more like 60/40, 60% for subsidies and tax credits and against single payer.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/april/how_many_doctors_sup.php

[druidity33]

195. that's not right

according to PNHP, it's 42% who want single-payer, and 49% who prefer "The Current System With Addition of Tax Credits or Penalties". But this poll was done in April. I'm sure those numbers vary a few points depending on pending legislation.

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

255. single payer, that's what I responded to n/t

[No Elephants]

156. And politicians don't understand that those fighting for single payer prefer a

strong public option to no public option?

Sorry, the fight for single payer is not the problem.

[sandnsea]

162. It's about creating momentum

The same thing you need to win an election. Yes, those who keep hounding on single payer confuse the issue with other constituents, have been all year long, and will continue to. Yes, they are a big part of the problem, always are because they're always off in their own little world demanding a utopia that will never exist. They'll do the exact same thing with the climate change bill and everything else for the next 4 years and maybe even lose us another election like they did in 2000. They never learn.

[No Elephants]

167. I know you believe what you say, but I think you are mistaken. And we won in 2000.

The Supreme Court interfered with the recount, but Gore won the vote in Florida.

And the closeness of the vote had something to do with a lot of factors other than how Democratic voters debated amongst themselves.

[bread_and_roses]

199. Exactly and obviously so - except to those who want to make "the left"

the boogyman to cover for the Dems blatant appeasement of the insurance vampires who line their pockets.

[saracat]

152. And why doesn't the president have to "fight for it" ? Why isn't his fight

"strong enough"? Schumer stated the president could have whatever Bill he wanted and the Dems were a "team" who would support it. I guess he doesn't "want"it enough. Why do some always blame everyone else? The buck stops at the president's desk.

[bluestateguy]

3. Poorly written, poorly sourced story with misinformation and misleading

Let it sink.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Only David Axelrod And Valerie Jarett - Not Like They're Actual Aides

Oh wait, they are two of his closest aides, talk to him several times daily.

[Better Believe It]

42. Where's the beef? Do you have any evidence to back up your multiple claims?

Links please!

[No Elephants]

157. The NYT is not a good enough source to start a thread a DU? What is, then?

[QC]

204. Only articles that say nice things about Obama are accurate.

Everything else is vicious lies, even if it's true.

[earth mom]

245. Sorry but you can't hide the truth-the RECS are kicking ass!

:evilgrin:

[Ed76638]

5. If it's the best possible option..

WHY THE FUCK ISN'T HE DEMANDING IT!!!!!!!

ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT. STOP TRYING TO APPEASE EVERY GODDAMN BODY AND DO WHAT IS FUCKING BEST FOR THIS GODDAMN COUNTRY FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!!!!!

[jeffbr]

17. Can't be "demanding"... Gotta ask POLITELY, and SILENTLY - and make it OPTIONAL like

a memo that says pretty please would you please be so kind as to consider this maybe sometime in the future at your convenience whenever you get a chance and when you have plenty of time and when everyone is in perfect agreement so we have complete consensus....

[sendero]

20. Because....

.... he talks center left and leads center right.

[tblue]

67. He sure does. I'm fed up with his pretty speeches.

How cordial of them to say gee he'd love to have a public option but, actually, not so much. You can't have it both ways. Talk is cheap. I think he never wanted it.

[dflprincess]

74. Maybe if we were "starting from scratch"

Oh wait, that's what Obama said about single payer. Which never made sense given that we already have Medicare's infrastructure in place to build on.

I wonder how he plans to "keep the insurance companies honest" without a public option. Though maybe that's not one of his priorities either.

[tblue]

102. What are his priorities anyway?

I honestly do not know. Maybe if he'd just come out and tell us honestly we would stop getting our hopes up just to be let down.

[No Elephants]

173. Re-Election?

[No Elephants]

158. IMO, he stopped talking center left once he won the primaries. Now, he talks about his "friends on

the left," as though he were a courteous Republican. And Rahm speaks contemptuously about the "left of the left," as though anyone left of center were an extremist.

[Iowa]

37. +1

[earcandle]

53. careful.... rage will hurt you more than them, biologically.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Ah, The Un-Reccers Have Their Way

Recs dropping, although back above <0 now.

[Deja Q]

47. With extra pickles and no lettuce.

Well, what's pictured always looks different (and more like food, too)

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[placton]

7. since I got locked for criticizing Obama supporters

on DU - let me put it this way "some people are crazy if they don't think Obama is selling out on this and so many other issues. When 'they' are paying fines for not buying shit private insurance, and there is no public option, wonder what 'those people' will say?"

[sandnsea]

14. How much would a public option cost an individual? n/t

[No Elephants]

197. A lot less than a mandate with no public option will cost him or her.

And probably more than single payer would cost him or her.

[kath]

234. yep - single payer ABSOLUTELY makes the most sense economically.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Add to that the idiots that support a soda tax

which will hit the working class disproportionately, and they are just digging their own political graves.

[WriteDown]

34. Those people just have to realize....

that they have to be sacrificed for the "greater good." Kind of like the people of Detroit.

[earcandle]

54. Keep in mind the news is trash. We don't know what is really going to happen.

Wait and see and if we don't get a public option, then they
get a general strike.
We'll see what the numbers are then.

[tblue]

68. It's not the timee to wait. It's the time to fight. Call your Senators tomorrow, esp. Reid.

Even if you called before, call them again! Or fax.

[wordpix]

289. +1 and if democracy is of, for and by the people, we need to get busy

Seriously. Obama's not going to do it, or our "good" senator or our "good" rep. WE need to do it.

[No Elephants]

159. When was the last successful general strike in America?

[wroberts189]

8. Wait for the damn fat lady! It is not over till it is over. nt

[Left Coast2020]

127. Thank you.. Geeze. Everybody is getting all worked up over

someones bumbling comment. Good grief. They (the WH) knows that we will go ape-shit if the Public-Op bombs. They know they will suffer huge loses in 2010 or 12. But I believe its time to get rid of Jarret, Axelrod, and perhaps Emamuel for not being as firm as Bush staff was. Above named people are not ready for prime time--at least that is the impression I'm getting. I would name some other people, but thats another topic.

[No Elephants]

171. Bumbling comment? Where have you been?

EVERYone, including Obama, has said that Obama prefers a public option. NO ONE, including Obama, has ever said that Obama will refrain from signing a bill that does NOT contain a public option. Nothing has changed. There was no bumbling.

[PSPS]

10. That's our good old Prez Milquetoast for you

[Iowa]

38. +1

[tblue]

70. If this is true, I have two words for Obama: One Termer

It's not a threat, it's a warning.

[liquid diamond]

76. So the republicans can take over again?

You want Palin in 2012? You people need to stop letting your emotions influence your political decisions.

[tblue]

100. "You people"?

It's not what "we people" want, it's what the Dems are allowing to happen. They are giving away the majority. Don't you get it? It won't be Sarah Palin anyway. She is too lazy to campiagn and work that hard, and most Republicans who could bankroll her know she is too divisive.

A lot of us worked long hard hours for weeks or months to win this election because we thought it meant something and yes because we care deeply. People don't work their butts off on behalf of compromise and capitulation. So do me something.

[liquid diamond]

138. Yeah, YOU PEOPLE!

You unfulfilled people that constantly bitch, moan and compare Obama to Bush. I'm sick of you weakening our party by slamming our president along with right wingers. You would make Beck and Limbaugh proud. I'm shocked that they haven't used this division against us yet. Keep it up and they will.

Oh, laziness and being divisive did not stop Bush from winning TWO terms.

[tblue]

149. Bush didn't even win one term. He stole the election twice.

I didn't compare Obama to Bush? I blindly follow no one and I'll say what I damn well please. And all the other "You People" will, too. We don't need your approval. So you can badmouth us all you want because I really don't give a damn what you think. I mean no disrespect, but are you unusually aggressive tonight or does meanness run in your family?

[eilen]

187. He stole both terms

But received almost everything on his wishlist for 8 years.

[Cherchez la Femme]

247. And I'm sick of you people

who celebrate a cult of personality over policies.
Policies that continue to cause American poverty, suffering and death when they can be so easily ameliorated with application of principle and keeping promises.

[Pab Sungenis]

111. Again, better someone who will spit in your face

than stab you in the back. We stand a better chance opposing a Republican than being told we have to play along with a Democrat who is working against our interests.

[liquid diamond]

139. Hahaha. That's tough talk. We'll see how bad you are if Obama

is defeated in 2012. Ready for another war and some conservative supreme court nominations?

[No Elephants]

165. Another war? Besides the two we're in now?

[liquid diamond]

292. Yeah. Like with Iran. You know, that country

John McCain threatened.

[rudy23]

224. Rahm?

Sounds like DLC creep talk---"Don't like it Dems? Where else are you gonna go?"

[liquid diamond]

293. You WILL fall in line on election day or pay the price.

I've figured you out. You people just talk tough.

[No Elephants]

163. I let my emotions influence my political decisions when I donated more than the legal limit to Obama

I let my emotions influence my political decisions when I got furious with Nader for saying there was not much difference between the Democras and the Republicans.

This time, I'dd better actually see Democrats acting like Democrats so I can remember why I've voted Democrat all my life.

[Cherchez la Femme]

243. Whose fault will that be?

Ours, because we won't support a person who doesn't support us?
NO, the onus will be on the politicians and them alone: that's a lesson they best learn pronto.

It sure looks like the Democratic Party as a whole needs a good hard kick in the pants to teach them to take care of, not denigrate, their base;
to take care of the people not the corporations.

I've never been a doormat, although some Dems appear to like it down there... well count me out.
From now on if I feel like I have to hold my nose to vote for someone, I simply won't vote at all -- I'm getting way too old for these bullshit games, especially being cooed 'hopey' and 'changey' while I'm still getting it up the rear exactly like the last bunch did.

[No Elephants]

161. Self Delete.

[jeffbr]

11. So all that noise against the insurance companies was bullshit!

[earcandle]

56. not necessarily... we could be duped into thinking so... calm down and watch.

[SpartanDem]

13. In other words what's new

Obama wants, but isn't drawing a line about it, that's how it's been pretty much from day one if this whole thing.

[lovuian]

15. Obama is a huge disappointment here and the Democrats

this will blow up in their faces

the repercussions are that maybe not this year but
soon we will HAVE to have Socialized medicine

the collapse of the system is inevitable

making insurance mandatory and fining people

is incredibly stupid and a failure from the start

its just a delay tactic for the inevitable

[HamdenRice]

16. Would someone please unrec this for me? I clicked on the wrong button and rec'd it

Please forgive me for my sin, but it was an innocent error.

[IndianaGreen]

18. I just rec'd so that people get to see the upcoming betrayal in all its glory

HR676 Single Payer is Medicare for all, which as our grandparents know very well, is not a government-run program. Britain's NHS is government run, not Medicare. For people in the White House to start using the lie that a public option equates to "government run," it means they never intended to pursue it.

Add to that Harry Reid's statement that he favors a trigger on any public option, and you have to understand the sense of rage from those of us that support universal health care.

Millions of Americans will remain without health coverage under the Baucus bill.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[DURHAM D]

118. Wow - reading comprehension is not your strong suit. nt

[whathehell]

136. What consummate gaul

Who the fuck are you to come onto OUR board and tell US what we can talk about?

"Once more - stick to yourself - you ahve no idea about other countries - even when you do go there or live there your ability to actually understand the situation is clouded by your extreme parochial narcissism".

You're all but foaming at the mouth...Go onto some Aussie Board and do your yank bashing there.

[jonnyblitz]

22. i just rec'd on your behalf as well. nt

[t0dd]

26. rec'd it for you! nt

[QC]

33. Rec'd it just for you! n/t

[liquid diamond]

77. Done. I'm sick of these crybabies.

[No Elephants]

172. Those on the left discuss the issues. Those on the right post personal comments

about those who disagree with them.

[QC]

205. Is this your dramatic exit? n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

137. I rec'd it in your honor n/t

[Claire Beth]

21. no, he never promised a public option...

never did he promise that. He wanted affordable and accessible health care for everyone but he NEVER promised a public option.

[IndianaGreen]

24. He did promise a deal to PhRMA

while keeping single payer off the table.

[chadmak09]

110. yes he did.

yes he did.
I am losing all faith in Obama and todays democratic party i am sad to say.

If a bill is passed with no public option, WE WILL BE WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE.
NOT ONLY WILL WE OUR PREMIUMS CONTINUE TO RISE, BUT NOW WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS BROKEN SYSTEM.

HOW CAN OBAMA SIT THERE AND LET THIS BILL GET THRU WITHOUT A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION???

IF HE DOES, THEN HE IS A SELL OUT. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
AND HIS "HOPE" AND "CHANGE" SPEACHES WERE NO DIFFERENT THAN EMPTY SPEECHES MADE BY OTHER POLITICIANS.

[Claire Beth]

218. NO, he did NOT promise a public option....

he just didn't.. I agree we NEED a public option but he didn't make that promise. Don't lose heart with the administration...they have a LOT to have to clean up from the past 8 years where the repukes totally wrecked us.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Absolutely Did Promise One - Here's A Link

"ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

[KoKo]

79. Yes he did and he said there would be "no closed door secret hearings."

And, yet...the deal was done with insurance agencies before they began the process. Even that RW shill C-Span had Obama's quote about how Health Insurance would be "openly debated on C-Span." Obviously the "open debate" didn't take place on C-Span so they felt it was worth quoting this morning from his campaign speech transcript.

[Cherchez la Femme]

248. Just less than 3 months ago he said that.

He's in way over his head, looks like; and we're without feathers.

[Claire Beth]

219. No...he endorsed the NEED for a public option...

back in July but he never PROMISED that there would be one. There's a difference.

[Iowa]

39. He certainly did promise it. And even if he hadn't made an explicit promise (which he did)...

...would you have no problem with him selling out the people of this country to the insurance companies? Promise or not, it's still a massive sell-out.

[grahamhgreen]

82. He never wawawawawa - whatever. This pay-or-punish crapsurance is a screw you-s-a!

[Neecy]

112. There's little in this plan to make it affordable

No price controls, no windfall profits tax. When the insurers can no longer cherry-pick and take only the most healthy, when they can't put a little tiny cap on lifetime benefits, you can bet they're going to take their pound of flesh. And of course they'll have to keep paying their CEO's hundreds of millions of dollars - no cost savings there!

Yes, it will be accessible for people with pre-existing conditions. Some people will get subsidies to help them pay, which isn't exactly "affordable", since they taxpayers will pick up the bill for the subsidies to these hugely profitable companies. But there's little in any of the bills to actually control insurance costs. On the contrary, there's every indication that the costs will continue to rise.

The public option - even the most "liberal" version - would only be available to 3-5 percent of the population anyway. It really wouldn't have been a player in controlling costs. But at least it gave the illusion that we weren't being forced entirely into a forced massive transfer of private wealth into public corporations. At least a few people wouldn't have had to subsidize the luxurious lifestyles of Aetna executives. Even that small - tiny, really - victory looks about shot.

This whole thing is a joke, really. A big fat joke on us.

[No Elephants]

168. It's a bonanza for the insurance companies. That's no joke.

And health care "reform" in name only that makes the insurers even richer at our expense could take the issue off the table for another decade, minimum.

[YOY]

121. Pay or be punished ain't "affordable and accessible health care".

Just like the "it's just like manditory car insurance" ain't a good comparison at all.

[flyarm]

128. Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option / firedoglake

Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option
By: Jane Hamsher Thursday September 10, 2009 10:18 am


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/

[ooglymoogly]

228. +1 nt

[andym]

23. All that matters is that they get something to hold costs down

and give everyone access to health care in a fair, affordable way.

Unless they get a strong public option (based on Medicare rates) and open to many (all), rates will go up and things will not get better. In other words it won't work.

None of the other viable solutions seem to be under consideration: Medicare for all has less congressional support than the public option. Tightly capping insurance premiums is not even being considered.

So, they will be considered failures in a very short time frame (probably 3-4 years), if they don't get a public option now. It's in their own interests to push for it.

[dflprincess]

101. As long as the health insurance companies are running the show

there will be no guarantee of access to health care. They might offer "affordable" (whatever that means) insurance policies, but those policies will have copays and deductibles that are so high you still won't be able to access care.

They have sold us out - and most of Congress probably doesn't care if they do lose their seats in 2010, no doubt the insurance companies have promised many of them lucrative positions in the private sector.

[winyanstaz]

25. If the Dems fail on public option.....

the republicans will be back in power next election...damn it.

[chadmak09]

135. yep

yep,
and if a healthcare bill is passed that mandates health insurance from private insurance companies on americans with no public option that regular people can join, then i will most likely be leaving the democratic party and joining the re-pugs.
so far, the only change that has effected me is that i have to pay much more for a pack of cigarettes since obama came into office.

This healthcare reform is really starting to seem like a big scam to me.
If real change was what obama wanted, then why did he never even give universal healthcare a shot? thats the BIG question. because thats the only way to fix this mess and he knows it (and so do we)
Hell, at least with the republicans (bush), I wasnt being force to line the pockets of health insurance CEO's.
I am trying my best to remain an obama supporter, but I am really tired of my life getting worse, and so far he is not helping and making my life harder.

[No Elephants]

170. Maybe because Daschle was one of his campaign advisors?

From his wiki

"Post-Senate career

Official Senate portrait Career and public service
Following his election defeat, Daschle took a position with the lobbying arm of the K Street law firm Alston & Bird. Because he was prohibited by law from lobbying for one year after leaving the Senate,<26> he instead worked as a "special policy adviser" for the firm.<27><28>

Alston & Bird's health care lobbying clients include CVS Caremark, the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, Abbott Laboratories and HealthSouth.<8> The firm was paid $5.8 million between January and September 2008 to represent companies and associations before Congress and the executive branch, with 60 percent of that money coming from the health industry.<9> Daschle was recruited by the former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.<29> Daschle's salary from Alston & Bird for the year 2008 was reportedly $2 million.<30>

Daschle was also a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. In addition, he served as National Co-Chair of ONE Vote ‘08 (an initiative of ONE.org), along with former Senator Bill Frist. He and former Senators George Mitchell, Bob Dole, and Howard Baker formed the Bipartisan Policy Center, dedicated to finding bipartisan solutions for policy disputes.<6>

<snip>

{b}In an appearance on Meet the Press on February 12, 2006, former Senator Daschle endorsed a controversial warrantless surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA); Daschle explained that he had been briefed on the program while he was the Democratic leader in the Senate.<32>


And Daschle would have been in his cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, if it were not for those pesky unpaid taxes.

Nothing shady about this guy.

[high density]

27. Well Obama is clearly demanding the PO or something like the PO to drive down costs

That was one of the tenets he put out in September. Every week we have one of these stupid articles that comes out from the AP that says Obama is wavering on the public option. Every. fucking. week. And every week heads explode on DU as if health insurance reform just crashed and burned because Obama didn't put out some Bushian "with us or against us" statement that the media would pile on and attack.

[earcandle]

59. nice way to make us sick if we fall for it.

[flyarm]

211. we don't need a damn article..his "people" were on all the Sunday shows ..saying he would not demand

a public option..what part of that are you not comprehending?

Obama's Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett was on Meet the press and she was pressed on this point, and she said very clearly ..Obama would not demand a public option and he would not fight for one!

Can it get any clearer??????????

I didn't need Ap or anyone else to help me watch and hear what she said!

[Fire1]

29. I don't believe one word of that article. n/t

[TexasEditor]

30. It's the Associated Press, and they're biased against Democrats.

Fuck the AP.

[Better Believe It]

41. Not true!

Can you provide some evidence that the Associated Press opposes the conservative Democrats who are against a strong public option?

Links please!

I'd also like to read your links that detail the AP's position on other elements in proposed health care legislation.

Thank you.

[earcandle]

60. It would sinful, shameful, and world wide embarrassment if the people of American do not get

government run socialists healthcare.  

Just unbelievable.  Shall we all move away
or go on a general strike should that happen?

Find new dems to run in next election that will do our
bidding?

hmm.  saw some kids working on this the other day on cspan.
hope they work it out for us old tired folks sooner than
later.

[Better Believe It]

85. Your sarcasm suggests that you're opposed to any public health insurance option..

Do you also want to do away with Medicare and Medicaid because Republicans and some conservative Dems don't like spending money for those kinds of "socialistic welfare schemes"?

[Better Believe It]

40. Including this word .... "President"? That would make you a fool!

Obama is the President. Really. He was elected last November. However, if AP wrote that it must be a lie!

:)

What other words don't you trust in or believe?

How about this word ..... "isn't"?

Or this word .... "House?

Is this word a lie .... "said"?

And this word in your opinion is nothng but MSM right-wing propaganda .... "to"?

Now if you have a serious response that can refute the apparent abandonment of a strong public option available to everyone please post it!

I'm listening!

[Fire1]

48. I do not believe that the President has 'abandoned' the

public option. What's your point?

[Better Believe It]

87. I believe he is prepared to abandon a strong public option rather than ....

do a little arm twisting to get "centrist" Dems or bow down to them and Senator Snowe. We shall soon find out if President Obama is a hard and strong fighter for the people, which I gather you think he is, or is he really more centrist middle of the road Democrat who just wants to get along with Wall Street, the insurance industry and the rest of corporate America which I hope he isn't.

Of course, following that middle of the road centrist policy will make President Obama a one term President and all but guarantee Republican control of Congress and the White House in 2012.

We'll have a definitive answer to that before Christmas.

Of course, some here will support ANY bill that passes Congress no matter how weak or harmful it might be to us so long as it enriches the insurance industry.

Any health care insurance bill is better than nothing, right?

WRONG!

[No Elephants]

174. You're right No change. He favors a public option--or so he says-- but will sign a bill without one.

Then he can say, "Well, I said a thousand times that I was for a public option, didn't I? If you don't like this bill, blame Congress. I am blameless."

[flyarm]

214. You don't have to ..go watch the Meet the Press show from yesterday on their web site and hear it

directly from Obama's Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett..in her own words representing Obama's administration!

Can it be made any clearer for you??????????

[Fire1]

280. What IS clear to me is since he's taken office I can't count

the number of times he has gotten on national tv and disputed every aide and staff member who alleged he is not in support of a public option or there will be no public option. I'm sorry, but I just think the man has more integrity than that. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it and I damned sure will never vote again.

[ipaint]

43. Once this clusterfuck of private ins.reform is over

and we are all beholden to overpriced for profit insurance for our lifetimes we get to take on the oil and coal companies in order to get real climate change legislation. Isn't it good to know we have president on our side.

[KoKo]

80. I shudder to think what will come out of the next bill for energy given this Health Care fiasco...

I worry he's already made backroom deals with the Coal Industry. Sigh....

[ProSense]

45. Jarrett made some great points

transcript

[flyarm]

220. Meet the press Transcript and video: president's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

'Meet the Press' transcript for October 18, 2009
Valerie Jarrett, Chris Dodd, Jon Kyl, Maria Shriver, John Podesta

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33345703/ns/meet_the_press/

GREGORY: But first, with the view from the White House, the president's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

MS. VALERIE JARRETT: Well, thank you, David. It's a delight to be here.

GREGORY: Good to have you here. Let's first talk about the economy, and here was a headline that played prominently this week from The Wall Street Journal: "Wall Street On Track To Award Record Pay," expanding bonus pools and raking in big profits. And yet here's a picture of what is now called the Obama economy, since he's come into office, and let's show it on the screen here. The debt is up 12 percent, it's now at $11.9 trillion. The deficit's now at $1.4 trillion. Unemployment at 9.8 percent, up 36 percent since he took office. And jobs, 4.2 million jobs lost since the president has taken office. Wall Street's healthier, but the American worker is not.

MS. JARRETT: Well, that's right. And--but I think we have to take a step back, David, and let's remember the conditions that the president inherited, a global meltdown, and we now realize that it was actually far worse than we realized at the time when he came in office in January. And what the president did is take very serious steps to get our economy back on track. He has pulled us back from the precipice and as a result of that--we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, that has decreased steadily over the course of the last nine months, and we are beginning to see signs of hope. But the unemployment rate is still much too high, and the president will not be satisfied, as he has said time and time again, until every single American who wants to work has a job.

GREGORY: But what's he prepared to do in a--what looks to be a jobless recovery, to make sure that jobs do get created to say he--the way he say he--says he wants?

MS. JARRETT: Well, first of all, first of all, he's already done a great deal. The recovery bill that was passed by Congress in record speed really staved off a disaster, and we saved millions of jobs around the country. And we're on track. We're already--we're fully on track with the recovery bill and the spending that's going forward. But we've only spent about a little less than half of the money, and so we still have a ways to go with the recovery bill. We know unemployment is a lagging indicator. We've always known that. But what we're doing is making sure that we have the process in place so that we can bring those very important jobs back.

GREGORY: But is--does there have to be a second stimulus, something done to specifically target job creation?

MS. JARRETT: Well, I think we have done many things to target job creation. I think it's too soon, it's premature to say is a second stimulus needed. There is this conundrum: You've got this huge national deficit, and we've got to do what we can to bring that down, at the same time as it's important to stimulate the economy. And the federal government has to do its part. That's why the recovery bill was so important, that's why many of the measures that the Treasury Department has taken since then, whether for housing or small business, are all very important in stimulating the economy. So let's wait and see. Let's let the recovery bill do its, do its job and then we'll see.

GREGORY: No commitment on a tax credit for employers, for instance?

MS. JARRETT: Well, every morning, as you know, the president meets with his economic advisers, and the first thing he says to them is, "What are we doing to tackle the unemployment rate?" There are a range of suggestions that are being considered right now by his economic team, and we'll see what we come forward with. We're consulting with the business community, we're consulting with everyday Americans who are struggling. We're trying to figure out what can we do to create an incentive to invest in our country and make our country strong again.

GREGORY: So, so, so the idea of some kind of additional stimulus to create jobs is on the table, fair to say?

MS. JARRETT: Everything is on the table. As you know, President Obama is always interested in what can we do to make our companies strong so that they're going to grow and invest in our country. So he's, he's willing to look at all possibilities; but he's also saying, "Let's let the recovery bill that was passed by Congress work." And we're not even halfway through that yet.

GREGORY: All right, let's turn to health care. The president in his radio address yesterday took on the insurance industry and some of the studies that they have submitted this week to, to challenge his version of reform. This is what he said.

(Videotape)

PRES. OBAMA: It's smoke and mirrors. It's bogus, and it's all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, "Take one of these and call us in a decade." Well, not this time.

(End videotape)


Click for related content
Watch the full broadcast
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/33368508#33368508

[BzaDem]

46. Why don't people get that it might be impossible -- IMPOSSIBLE -- for him to deliver it?

If Lieberman and Snowe bail on cloture, that will be it for a public option. Reconciliation won't work for a public option, because with reconciliation everyone conceeds that we can't end discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions (because it isn't sufficiently budget related). Without that ban, a public option would either have to deny coverage to the sick or charge extremely high premiums, since if it were the only option that didn't discriminate, private insurers could just end coverage for all the sick and have them go on the public option (and the healthy would jump to private insurance, which at that point would be much cheaper).

Do people here even understand the concept of the words "not possible?" Sometimes I wonder. The chance of us getting a viable public option is completely determined based upon getting one of Lieberman and Snowe to vote for cloture on a public option (and holding everyone else).

[Orrex]

50. +1

:thumbsup:

[IRemember]

52. Guess it was impossible to put single payer on the table at the beginning too. nt

[BzaDem]

58. No, but it was impossible for Single Payer to get anywhere or shift the negotiations leftwards.

There is a huge difference between "wanting something" and "being able to get it," as most people begin to understand with great clarity at the age of 3 or 4. It seems that some people never got the memo.

[earcandle]

62. children are dependent on parents. We are not dependent on our government. If we were, we could

make those demands law. 

[BzaDem]

64. Hahaha

Are you saying we should let healthcare reform fail now and then rely on gaining seats in the Senate (as opposed to losing several due to failure) to pass it in 2011?

:rofl:

Good luck with that!

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

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

[IRemember]

65. So it was impossible to consider single payer as the process began

because... because.. it would never become law. Single payer didn't even deserve consideration because it never had a chance. I guess we had better give up on same-sex marriage too. It can't become law now, so it will never become law.

What a horrible world it would be if everyone thought the way you do. Does your shallow existence allow you to comprehend the possibility that if the President had come out swinging for single payer initially, the compromise now would be a strong, robust public option for everyone? Probably not. You can't think along those lines. You blindly follow what the President does and never internally question a thing.
Does it ever get depressing having no principles? You are so enamored by the President you can't even stomach allowing others to question his leadership. You pathetically call those that disagree with you childish. It is you that are the child, and I feel very sorry for you.

[BzaDem]

105. You can say what you want. All I know is that Social Security and Medicare

were passed by stepping over the wishes of people like you. If people with your no-compromise attitude actually had any power, both programs would never have been enacted. If you want to continue thinking that all you need to do to enact something is propose something much further to the left and then "compromise" with what you originally wanted, then you are of course free to think that.

[Vinnie From Indy]

216. There is another explanation that is equally likely to be true

It could easily be true that Obama NEVER INTENDED to sign a bill with a public option. It could be true that publicly Obama would support a public option with great vigor while in private he knew that he would NEVER have a bill cross his desk for signature that included a public option.

Also, I think that not forcing Senators to filibuster is a bad move politically and it lends creedence to thought that this was a rigged game from the start. Quite simply, Obama and Rahm could have played all of us for suckers.

[dflprincess]

72. Then it should all be tabled

a bill with no public option but that mandates we be forced to buy coverage from the private insurers is no reform at all - just a gift to the insurance companies and a stop gap measure to keep the status quo going a while longer.

The system we have now can't last much longer without a cash transfusion so maybe it would be better to just let it collapse rather than prolong the agony (think of it as pulling the plug on CEOs). Once it does fall apart Congress will have step in with Medicare for All.

[No Elephants]

175. It is not impossible for him to fight for it tooth and nail. He has not done that.

He began this by taking single payer off the table in the primaries. His first steps in this process were having the insurers over to the White House and fighting to keep the logs secret. (Ya, ya, I know. HE wasn't fighting; the Secret Service overruled him. Need a bridge?)

He refused, however, to meet with a group of doctors who wanted single payer. And he has always left the door wide open for a bill without a meaningful public option.

Hint: "I favor a public option, but I will sign a bill that does not have one" is not fighting for a public option. Neither is "What my friends on the left need to understand is that the public option is only a detail" (Or words to that effect.)

Fight for something as hard as you can. If you fail, then tell me it's not possible.

BTW, EVERYone here understands what "impossible" means, so save your condescension.

[QC]

206. But if Obama fights for something, he might lose. Can't have that.

So it's best just to take whatever he can get and declare it a victory.

[flyarm]

221. But not impossible to spend billions more on 2 wars, and not impossible to bail out the banks and

wall street eh? You know the wall street that is paying out huge bonus's with our fucking money! While people can't get medical care, can't get their meds ..ya know what..the time for excuses is damn well over!

[Cherchez la Femme]

253. +1

I luv ya, fly!

[Autumn]

49. K/R n/t

[defendandprotect]

51. This is crap . . . Democratic Party should be calling us out to demonstrate for single payer . . .

Where are the unions to call us out?

Where are the women's groups?

Where is the NAACP?

[KoKo]

81. Only the Left has been urging any action and we are just supposed to trust the unions

are in there doing behind the scenes deals to keep the Public Option.

Our Dems will never call for us to Protest. Womens Movement is pretty much Dead...nothing much since Steinhem and the NAACP seems to be lying low.

So...what's left except the Progressives who've been frantic in doing ads against Blue Dogs and constantly calling us to Fax/Phone/E-Mail and the Doctors who went on the road all across America for PO/Single Payer and yet were never covered by the MSM. Plus just today group pictures on DU of "Billionaires for Health Care" and protests all over America by real Supporters of Health Care Reform and PO even here in NC where thousands attended all over the state but it was never covered by the Cables and got little coverage on the local news.

So...where are the Protests? They were there. If the DNC had alerted the Media with Talking Points they would have been covered. That the DNC didn't do it says that the media got the message. In the meantime Tea Parties got the RW Think Tanks sending the Faxes of Talking Points to all their RW RADIO/MSM/NEWSPAPERS and the WORKS.

[defendandprotect]

86. No . . . it's the RIGHT which has been in the streets "teabagging" . . .

Nothing wrong with Unions, except they're constantly being infiltrated and killed

by the right -- evidently Bush continued this in sending government into breaking

up unions further. Do you think union members benefit somehow by Maifa infiltrtion

and abuse, or FBI infiltration?

Democrats won't call us out to protest as long as we don't demand it --

Women's movement is certainly not "dead" -- nor is the idea of "Equality for all" dead ...

is it?

Steinem was a fake -- not a political leader. The leadership was taken from Betty

Friedan.

NAACP . . . don't know what the leadership is now . . . but they can also be infiltrated.

Michael Moore could call us out --

So could Howard Dean - Kucinich -- Conyers --

And we can call ourselves out --

Or we can let this go down the drain?

It doesn't matter if corporate-press doesn't cover it . . . Congress has to understand we

will target them -- even Dems -- if this doesn't happen.

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- get the buttons out there!!!

[WriteDown]

212. Why stop there?

Howard Dean is a fake too! Do you think that scream was by accident? He was told to do that by his repug overlords in order to further denigrate the democratice party! :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

284. If Howard Dean is a "fake" send me a few more of them . . . !!!

[Better Believe It]

91. The Democratic Party has never organized demonstrations or mass movements on any issue.

They want peace and political stability at home.

The other groups you mention don't want to alienate their alleged "friends" high up in the Democratic Party (like Reid) even if they are about to slit their throats or at least stab them in their backs.

Of course, that can and will change soon. The people will organize and fight for their rights and build the necessary movements to force progressive changes. And that will be real change we can believe in.

[deutsey]

57. Can't say this surprising

Disappointing, yes.

Surprising...not at all, unfortunately.

Same as it ever was.

[earcandle]

61. Perhaps all of the doctors should start charging us $100 a month for any health care we need at any

time we need it?  And if one is booked, we go to another? 

Have them buy hospitals to do their bidding?  After all,
aren't they the experts on healthcare?  Or are they anymore,
after so much imprinting on denying care to those who have
not? 

My doctor sucks lately.  I think he had gone batty. 

[earcandle]

63. We could all drop our policies if doctors would advise and prescribe on their own.

[defendandprotect]

89. They're all cowered by the militancy of medicine today, deadly chemical presciptions . ..

schemes to extract payment from patients and Medicare --

Schemes by pharmaceutical companies to elicit their help in overtreating

and over medicating patients - and schemes to defraud Medicare.

They have been denied the ability to think for themselves -- and they don't!

It's a conscience-less profession now . . .

And they're all dumbed down --

[earcandle]

94. Why bother with the whole profession then? Why not just

Eat well, take vitamins, exercise, keep blood nutritionally
balanced with the
12 inorganic cell salts that make up the body and all of its
parts?

Why not just reject them and their monopoly to police and use
our bodies for their profits?

[defendandprotect]

134. Those who have been harmed by the pharmaceutical industry certainly

try to avoid any other contact --

Most turn to natural remedies -

However, you can't remove your own appendix, can you?

Few of us could set our own broken ankle, could we?

Even if you make it to enjoy the age of a broken hip . . . ???

There's an excellent website called: "askapatient.com"

If you're having any severe complications from the medications you take,

you might like to check what others have to say about it there -- ?


And as we discuss the corruption of government and its agencies by bribery,

we should understand that's the systemic process of capitalism and it certainly

effects every venture.

Is there anyone who still thinks that those attracted to "medicine" these days

are there for altruistic purposes?

[earcandle]

146. thanks for the site! I'll check it out.

[eilen]

188. My brother certainly would have loved

to stop his chest pain all by himself but he can't. He went to the ED who eventually discharged him because he refused the stress test as they could not tell him how much it cost.

Is it so hard to provide a price list? He has no insurance. He is self employed and in the construction business. He already pays crazy money for workers comp insurance which does not actually cover anyone-- a state mandate.

I hope he goes to the clinic tomorrow instead of his job and finds out exactly what the source of the pain is. He has three kids and his ex is a nutter.

[defendandprotect]

285. Oh . . . situations like that just prove the inhumanity of our medical system and

those delivering this rigid and idiotic "care."

I hope he'll find some real help -- without bankrupting himself.

Meanwhile, a VEGAN diet might help -- eating a large bowl of raw vegetables --

staying off dairy. Hope it turns out to not be anything serious.

This is really criminal -- !!!

[eilen]

290. Thanks for your concerned words

but my brother is not likely to do vegan anything. He is a rib-eye and Budweiser kind of guy. We have a family history of vessel disease. I express-mailed him some nitro.

[defendandprotect]

294. Understand . . .

and I hope that we soon get some system of universal health care --

like Medicare for all --

[Cherchez la Femme]

257. Sure, follow your regimen

and no more birth defects, no more childhood diabetes, childhood cancer, disease of any sort of any age... why, we'd all be perfectly healthy forever -- heck, we may never die at all, since Alzheimers & other 'old age' diseases would be automatically defeated!

I mean, the link between disease and DNA is overrated, no? Not to mention biological agents that cause minor stuff like Malaria.


Now WHY hasn't anyone done your prescription before?
Oh, because it doesn't work!

Yeah earcandle, your meds need adjusting.

[Vidar]

66. Yes and done.

[CKennedy16]

71. Hillary would have got this done.

Is anyone really surprised by this story? Looks like that SNL skit wasn't so far from the truth.

[liberal N proud]

73. Oh Pleeeeeeeeeeeeez!

[Bonobo]

103. I will remember your name. I'm sure you have a great future here at DU.

Please don't forget me when you become famous, okay?

[Cherchez la Femme]

261. Can't praise a Dem on DU?

Or only the PC --for here-- Dems?

[YOY]

115. Now that is comedy!

Seriously, don't quit your day job! (and don't forget to post a little further that "Edwards would have got(ten) this done."

[Beacool]

140. Shhhhh, you can't say that around here or they'll ban you.

Just enjoy the show.

;)

[No Elephants]

201. LOL.

[QC]

209. But she doesn't preach those pretty speechsermons about hope and change

and we are the ones we have been waiting for and all that other silly New Agey bullshit that had everybody going.

And we never get to see pictures of her eating ice cream and playing with puppies.

[redqueen]

225. *rofflemayo*

[davidhilton]

75. he's soon to lose my vote in 2012 n/t

[liberal N proud]

189. I hope you like President Palin.

You sound like a pretty fickle voter if your vote is lost this easily.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

78. K/R and so forth.

Tabling the public option while extending military options is hardly representing the Democratic/Liberal ideal, but Obama's having a great time being the (not really) anti-Bush, so life is good, right?



:kick: FWIW.

[grahamhgreen]

83. Mandatory pay-or-punish crapsurance is a screw you-s-a! No to the Baucus boondoggle.

[jwirr]

84. I am probably wrong but I cannot imagine a democrat stabbing the

union in the back. Even blue dogs. And that does not even consider other groups like DU.

[demwing]

88. We are officially being Mind Fucked

By someone, I dontow who, but who cares.

I will not listen to ANY warnings of doom, OR promises of glory. Fuck it all, I'm waiting for the finished story, and THEN I'll decide how I feel.

[earcandle]

95. sound like the safest bet for our biology and physics to bear it well.

[mistertrickster]

90. Has anybody heard about a gov't option that individual states can choose or not choose?

Before you reject this out-of-hand, consider the evil genius of this: red states that DON'T want a public option will be screwing all the folks who live in those states. Eventually, the residents of that state will see the huge benefits of the states who have opted into a public option. This could produce a massive progressive groundswell as CONs see the stupidity of CON think.

A flaming liberal (like me) friend told me about the state-by-state plan. Has anybody else heard about it?

[NorthCarolina]

98. I seriously doubt they would pass such legislation for the very reasons you point out.

Above all, the Senate is like a Country Club or a Fraternity...they would never pass anything that would put their fellow fRats in dutch.

[No Elephants]

176. Yes, we've heard, Let's not care about people in red states who die

while we're waiting for those states to change their minds, is that the evil genius of which you speak?

122 people dying each and every day for lack of affordable health care.

[saracat]

222. Yeah. I was told by some of my fellow Dems that I was expendable the other day

on DU as I live in a red state that would opt out.Collateral damage was acceptable to them.I don't recognize some of these "Democrts lately.

[ooglymoogly]

92. O and Rahm threw us under the bus at the beginning of negations

by taking universal health care off the table, has never truly pushed for a public option and does not want one, though for political reasons he has paid lip service to one. It has all just been talk the talk while scrooching up to the insurance money in back rooms. Now that the public option is within reach, he is letting it be known subtly that he really does not want a public option; That his deals have already been made and doesn't want them screwed up by his grass roots or their desperate needs. I hope the house Dem's see through this flim flam and stands its ground. If a good public option, by some fluke, with the Dem's standing their ground, should squeak through without his help, he will then take credit for it and I will not mind that though I will never forget his non help and those who worked against it in the dark of night; And that goes whether the bill passes or not.

[No Elephants]

177. Obama took single payer off the table during the primaries--way before Rahm.

[earcandle]

96. We will get a public option or universal health care in the end. Or we strike. No?

[dysfunctional press]

104. no.

you're dreaming if you think that the people in this country have the gumption for a national strike- ESPECIALLY in this kind of economic climate.

a MASSIVE march on DC would be easier to accomplish, and send a very strong message.

[Faryn Balyncd]

99. Big Insurance could NEVER have gotten this with Republicans in power.

[No Elephants]

178. Um, what?

[Cherchez la Femme]

263. No, because the Dems would fight it tooth and nail

now, we cheer it on. :cry:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

106. K&R

[madrchsod]

107. they know they can do what ever they want because-

who else are we going to vote for? we chose the democratic party because it is the lesser of two evils.

[MannyGoldstein]

132. The "Who The Fuck Else Ya Gonna Vote For, Chump!" Strategy

Indeed.

But look what happened when folks tried to break that cycle by voting for Nader: they were excoriated.

[Cherchez la Femme]

264. They might be betting on the wrong horse

if they think that's going to stop people leaving the party, for as you mentioned there IS a place to go, a place more in line with our beliefs.
What's going on now almost seems designed for that effect.
Very curious.

[dflprincess]

267. It may be true that there is no one else to vote for

so a lot of people will just stay home because the current Congress & Administration seem determined to prove to them that there is no meaningful difference between the two parties.

Midterms always have lower turn out anyway and not much is being done to motivate those who have voted Democratic in the past to show up in 2010.

[No Elephants]

179. YES! The Republicrats ARE less evil than Demlicans! Or is it the other way around? I forget.

[Pab Sungenis]

108. Once more, I TOLD YOU SO.

But you all refused to lobby to kill the Baucus Bill.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[flyarm]

129. +10,000

[No Elephants]

180. We all knew the Baucus Bill was an insurer's dream and those of us who are not

semi-comatose did lobby against it, some of us once a week.

[joeycola]

249. a lot of us tried but the writing was on the wall. damm.

[theFrankFactor]

113. Can you imagine if we had a majority and a Democrat President?

... oh, wait.

This will be a big stinking turd of a bill and we have no one but Democrats to thank. Useless corporate pussies. A global embarrassment. And some Democrats continue to spoil their baby Dems in congress and make excuses for their failure to lead and to act responsibly to their constituents.

You can bet your pussy-democrat-ass that if Republicans had our numbers and wanted SOCIALIZED medicine we'd have it by now. Democrats ARE The Washington Generals, a prop, a decoy, a farce.

You think Barack's just getting warmed up? Hmmm, for what?

[Scruffy1]

150. Maybe a polished turd

It's a sorry state of affairs when we're fighting for healthcare in the year of 2009. The real problem as I see it is that the majority still have what they consider to be health care through their employer and are afraid of change and that the rest are so used to getting victimized that they're happy to get anything at all. Maybe they are afraid to ask the masters for another bowl of porridge. I can hear the pols now at the next election explaining it was the best they could do and how hard they fought for us...blah, blah blah. Hope its at least its a polished turd, but as long as we allow profit in health care we'll get the shaft. I'm guessing that the big money will finally allow a public option,but only if its designed to fail.

[forum slut]

114. fucking mandates. Might as well have elected Mitt Fucking Romney.

[YOY]

116. Lesser of two evils...

Just what we have to deal with...and this gets called "Far Left Wing" by the Republicans? Seriously, those bastards make laughing easy.

[No Elephants]

182. "My friends on the left" and "the left of the left" did not come from Republican mouths.

[YOY]

193. No but it was put there by those who listen to them.

n.t.

[No Elephants]

200. Obama and Rahm said those things. If you are suggesting they listen to Republicans,

Er. Well then. Um.

[YOY]

207. No. They listen to those who make the money and pay the bills.

The Republicans do too. They just put their spin on things.

The "best interest of the people" never had a horse in the game. We just hoped we did.

Still, I will always vote for the lesser of two evils even though it means me, unlike some Republican rube loving the noose he just made for himself, not getting everything I asked for (to my own self destructive end...)

[Neecy]

117. It's the Massachusetts miracle!

Who knew that we elected Mitt Romney president? This whole thing is an overlay of the Massachusetts plan - and we know how well *that* has gone.

[spanone]

119. been reading for MONTHS that the p.o. is dead...day after day. it ain't over til it's over

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[femrap]

130. When I heard the tough words

of yesterday, I said to myself....'Is this Circus for the Progressives? Am I to believe him?'

NO. It was just an acrobat flying that landed in the net.

I'm sick of this crap.

Give me some fucking health care or at least let the suicide doctor do his thing legally.

[DesertFlower]

131. i am so disappointed. nt

[rpannier]

133. Another unfortunate twist in history

Had Kennedy not died, the Public Option would be there.
Dodd doesn't appear to have the will or the clout to buck Baucus

[excess_3]

142. do we have 50 Senate votes for public option? ,nt

[rpannier]

154. I think we do

As many people have said in the past...Most Senators were afraid to get on Kennedy's bad side. He had a lot of pull and a very long memory.
Dodd doesn't seem to elicit that kind of respect and fear
And Obama seems unwilling to play hardball with Senators Nelson (NE), Landrieux and Lincoln.

The House appears unwilling to waver
If they don't get their act together they could conceivably wind up with nothing

[excess_3]

160. if so, Obama needs to the use the nuclear option

first of all, I hope you are right.

.............................
Obama needs to rally his troops

negotiations, aint going to do it.

[No Elephants]

183. Either that, or strong arm Democrats to vote down a fillibuster, regardless of how they

vote on a bill.

I suspect some of that has been going on behind the scenes. I sure hope so, anyway,

[colsohlibgal]

141. No Big Surprise

Obama needs to start earning back the trust of we progressives ASAP and health care is his chance to begin doing that. So far it seems like he was just promising things to get elected - for the most part. Obama really needs to start channeling his inner Alan Grayson.

if he really said that it's just another reason to wonder how in the heck the wing nuts can call him a socialist. If only, as in a democratic socialist.

[still_one]

144. We will know soon enough, I don't trust what is reported from the media until I get

actual proof

[BrklynLiberal]

147. Very sad if true.. disappointing..

[smalll]

148. "isn't demanding ... a government-run insurance option even though...

he belives it would best meet his goals." :eyes:

Look, I like the man, but he doesn't know how to negotiate. You don't say that kind of thing, to blue dogs, or Amedinejad, or Kim Jong Il, or anyone. It's pre-emptive surrender.

Somehow, this Onion video seems particularly apropos:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_to_enter_diplomatic_talks
(Obama to Enter Diplomatic Talks with Wildfire.)

[No Elephants]

181. My hope for change in health care is in the Progressive Caucus of the House of Representatives.

They backed off HR 676 fast enough, though, if they ever really meant for it to pass.

100 co-sponsors, yet it never even got to the Congressional Budget Office since 2003, when it was first introduced.

And that's only 100 out of more than 450.

Still, I have hope.

[Jeep789]

184. Fact is - He never did promise one while campaigning

He did however, promise no mandatory insurance,lower costs, no exclusions and no price jumps for pre-existing conditions or using insurance.

I am all for a public option, (in fact, I would prefer single payer) but Obama never promised either.

[No Elephants]

185. See Reply # 35 and the other responses to Reply # 21.

But, your point would be relevant (if true) only if the only issue were: Is Obama breaking a campaign promise? That is not the issue though. The issue is, what SHOULD a Democrat who campaigned on health care/insurance reform have been doing since he got elected and what should he be doing now? What is best for the country and for its citizens.

"Sending clear signals about his willingness to sign a bill without a public option for the last several months" would not be my answer.

[Jester Messiah]

190. "Government-run" is a GOP turn of phrase.

This article is designed to inflame passions and keep people yelling at each other. "Journalism" at it's finest.

[No Elephants]

196. I agree with you to the extent that AP is repeating old news. And AP is getting to repeat it

because George Steph and David Gregory asked questions that forced Axelrod and Jarrett to repeat what everyone, including Obama, has been saying for months. He thinks the public option is the best way to keep down costs, but he is not going to veto a bill simply bc it does not contain a public option. This is nothing new.

It's fine with me if they repeat it, though. Every time they do, they give us a fresh reason to contact the White House, our Senators and our Representative to say so-called reform without a "robust" public option is unacceptable, especially "reform" that leaves millions uninsured and gives the insurers millions of new customers, at public expense.

[and-justice-for-all]

191. I need to hear it from the horses mouth...

because the M$M loves to induce false insecurities.

[No Elephants]

194. Hear what from the horses' mouth?

If you watched George Steph or Meet the Press this Sunday, you would have heard Axelrod and Jarrett say it. It's the same thing Gibbs said. And Sebelius. And everyone in the WH who has spoken publicly about it.

More to the point, Obama has never said he would veto a reform bill that does not contain a public option. To the contrary, Obama said very clearly this summer that, while he thinks a public option is desirable, it is not the be all and end all of reform--it's a "detail." (If you don't recall that, I bet you could find a video of him saying it online.)

Not sure what else a reasonable person needs.

I hope that Congress passes a bill with a meaningful public option so that we never have to see Obama sign a bill without one. However, neither he nor anyone he hired to represent him has given me any hope that he will veto a bill without a public option. And, I am talking about listening to them directly on TV, not reading articles spinning what they said.

[saracat]

223. How could anyone take anything other than what you say from this? These are "Quotes"

this isn't an "Opinion " piece. The WH is declaring it won't demand a PO. That is a fact.The delusion is amazing.I now know some will insist that we have gotten a PO even if we don't. This is scary.

[natrat]

202. fuck the obama admin-what more can you say

[pmorlan1]

203. Reading between the lines

Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Obama believes the public plan is still the ''best possible choice,'' but she said he's not demanding it.

If it's the "best possible choice" why isn't he demanding it when the Dems control the House, Senate and the WH? Here's what I believe: Either President Obama is the worst negotiator I've ever seen (single payer is the best possible option - the public option IS THE COMPROMISE POSITION) or he truly doesn't want a public option and is more than willing to "negotiate" it away. It's that simple. If we get a robust public option it will be in spite of Obama not because of him.

[closeupready]

233. He's not demanding it because he's scared of them, I guess.

He seems to cave on every single issue. EVERY one.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

210. Hasn't this always been his position?

[joeycola]

213. Yes, I believe it always has been Obama's take-Not willing to spend political

capital on health care!!

[QC]

215. Not willing to spend political capital on anything, apparently.

Except for his own career, of course. That must be defended at all costs.

[MannyGoldstein]

235. Yes, Ever Since He Stopped Promising It

And he did promise it multiple times.

[Jefferson23]

226. Has anyone else seen the newTV ad featuring Wendell Potter?

move on.org paid for it, and Potter gives a specific and hard hit at the current Senate bill that does not include a public option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0MPsYk2hXg&feature=player_embedded

I wish this could be repeated every hour on the hour on every network. I emailed this to my elected reps, think about doing the same.

[lumberjack_jeff]

230. The president has to sign whatever the congress brings him.

He should not veto.

That said, the house should stand strong to only pass a suitable bill.

[MannyGoldstein]

236. Then Obama forfits much or most of his leverage

He needs to send the message that either they develop a good bill, or he'll veto it and blame them for stopping health care reform.

[lumberjack_jeff]

237. No, he won't, and should not, veto anything his party brings him.

It is up to congress to write good law, and Obama should not paint himself into any corners.

In the spectrum of possible fixes, the Baucus bill sucks. BUT it is still a big improvement over what exists now.

I am not about to panic. The spectrum of compromise choices is heavily loaded toward good plans. The Baucus bill is an outlier.

[Jefferson23]

239. Without a public option how is it an improvement?

[lumberjack_jeff]

258. No recission, no preexisting conditions, meaningful subsidies for the poor...

nearly universal coverage, expanded medicaid and minimum offering standards.

In ten years, there is nothing preferable about the do-nothing alternative.

There are a bunch of doors that congress can take, and although none of them are labeled "excellent", none of them are labeled "diastrous", or even "bad" either.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/baucuss_framework_summary.html

[dflprincess]

266. Coverage does not equal care

Coverage merely means that you have insurance but that insurance may have out of pockets that are so high you many still not be able to afford care.

All this will do is create a larger pool of underinsured.

[lumberjack_jeff]

269. No it won't.

Coverage may not equal care, but absence of coverage does mean absence of care.

Out of pocket expenses are capped in all the bills, and even the Baucus bill defines what constitutes adequate coverage.

[dflprincess]

273. In HR 3200 annual out of pockets are capped at $5,000 for a single

and $10,000 for a family of 4 (and there is a formula for these going up every year). That is in addtion to premiums (up to 11% of income) and anything not covered by your policy (i.e. dental & vision for adults)

Any subsidy currently ends at 4x the poverty level (Pelosi has said those could be lowered). For a single person that's $43,000 a year. If you're single and you make $43,001 you're looking at the possibility of finding another $5,000 in your budget for any care you might need - if you have a chronic condition this is something you could be paying every year. Someone in this situation is not going to be much better off than they are now. The big difference may be that they will be forced to pay for an insurance policy that they can't afford to use.

And, while preventative care is covered by all these bills, good luck if any of those tests come back needing following up. An odd spot on a mammogram can result thousands of dollars in needle and/or surgical biopsies even when the results come out benign and a lot of women will be expected to pay a chunk of that out of pocket.

The bills in front of Congress are not just gifts to the insurance companies, they also protect the credit card companies as the high out of pockets guarantee that there will still be plenty of people who will need to use plastic to pay medical bills.

[lumberjack_jeff]

276. Affordability arguments are pointless

There is a large contingent who won't consider healthcare affordable unless it costs less than a can of tuna.

Nevertheless, healthcare costs 17% of the US gdp. Complaining that my share of that cost is 5 or 8% of my income borders on ingratitude.

[dflprincess]

277. The reason costs are that high is because the for profit insurers have driven them up

and as long as they are allowed to remain involved costs will continue to be higher than they need to be because we're not just paying for care and for those who actually provide care but also for the salaries of insurance company CEOs who, despite what Obama said, serve no worthwhile purpose (except, from a politician's viewpoint, to write checks for campaign "contributions").

Nice that you can afford 5% to 8%, many of us can, but a lot of people can't. Besides, HR3200 does allow for a person to pay quite a bit more than those percentages. The bill allows premiums to be as high as 11% of income (plus all the other out of pockets).

Odd to say affordablity is not the issue when all the politicians are telling us they support "affordable" coverage. Someone needs to come up with a realistic definition of what people can afford and HR3200 sure isn't it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

278. I was not a math major...

... but I know that "may be as high as 11%" is better than "if you get sick, it will cost you your entire net worth".

Anything is better than what we have.

[mvd]

279. I would disagree with "anything"

I know where you are coming from, but can't accept a whole package that isn't adequate and will cause America to take a while to re-visit health care.

[dflprincess]

287. Assuming you have 11% of your income left after rent, utilities and other expenses

to spend on a lousy health insurance premium that still might not give you access to health care.

If you're single and making $43K an 11% premium is going to cost you $394.00/month. On top of that, if you're unlucky and don't stay healthy, you could have another $5,000 in out of pocket plus anything else not covered.

There will still be people ruined financially, there will still be people running up credit card debt to cover medical expenses and there will still be people who are financially ruined and there will still be people who die because they can't afford the care they need.

There is no defense for this scam we're being sold.

[Jefferson23]

270. Thank you for the link , appears that Wendell Potter disagrees with you

about the present state and muscle of the bill.

[MannyGoldstein]

240. The Baucus Bill Is Worse Than Nothing

It will not help things by the time it's implemented (surprisingly, that will be after the 2012 election - coincidence, no doubt). And it will delay actual reform for another decade or more.

[brentspeak]

281. If Obama wants to be reelected, he'd better veto a "mandatory insurance w/ no/little PO" Baucus bill

The Democrats will the be the minority party for the next 50 years if such a bill were signed by Obama.

[mvd]

238. No harm in threatening a veto IMO

It adds to Obama's leverage, even if he doesn't actually veto it in the end. The Baucus bill would be even worse than what we have IMO, so I would veto. The Baucus bill has mandates for private insurance and millions still without coverage. Insurance companies have shown that they would exploit this to no end. IF you absolutely can't get the votes for a public option, you can pass a couple pieces needed like no pre-existing condition denials. Then keep pushing for the PO.

[lumberjack_jeff]

259. Don't threaten that which you can't deliver.

If Obama vetoes a democratic health care reform plan, then he gets, and deserves, the blame for those who subsequently die for lack of coverage.

[mvd]

262. Personally, I think the veto is worth it

I understand that a lot of people would be helped by a couple of the provisions in the Baucus bill, but we can give them help without a bill that would do damage in the long run.

[wordpix]

288. +1 and if this is a trial balloon, let me burst it. We want the public option, period!

If Canada can do it, so can we. Sheesh. :crazy:

[brentspeak]

282. You don't happen to be employed by the insurance industry?

[lumberjack_jeff]

286. You heard it here first. "Lumberjack's law"

A variation of Godwin's law; "The first person to accuse the other of being a paid insurance company shill, loses"

[closeupready]

232. If we don't get a strong public option, I'm out.

For good.

[earth mom]

242. Ex-Prez HW Bush praised Obama the other day-here's one reason why.

:grr:

[earth mom]

246. Time for Pitchforks or Time to STOP Paying Taxes? nt

[OneBlueSky]

251. of course, the best possible solution is a "public option" run by the insurance companies . . .

meets everyone's needs, no? . . .
:sarcasm:

[RainDog]

265. Maybe it's time for another march on Washington

so that the toadies of the rich have to face the voters.

Better still, Doctors should set up free public health clinic tents across the street from the Capitol. Let people from all over the country who are uninsured go to Washington to receive health care and let the Democrats see what pandering to insurance cos does to the image of this nation.

You know, Obama made a big deal about improving the U.S.'s image abroad after Bush. Well, this issue is just as much of a national disgrace as was 8 years of Bush. MORE OF A DISGRACE.

Obama couldn't meet with the Dali Lama because it would piss off China after industry outsourced American labor for decades. Obama couldn't force accountability on Goldman Sachs because Paulson gave them no strings attached money which they refuse to use for the good of the American public. Obama can't have a public option because the insurance company overlords of the U.S. might not give the democrats enough money to maintain their whorish lifestyles as panderers to the rich and immoral.

During the Bush years, I desperately wanted to leave the U.S. I thought my feelings would change with democrats in power but, honestly, the slime coming from democratic leadership makes me feel like it's useless to vote or even live in this country if I can go somewhere else.

I may find out in a few days if I'll have a job that will allow me to transfer to another country. Why bother to care about what happens here when those in a position of power to address the CRIMINALITY of those who let people DIE because they aren't wealthy are whores to those same powers.

Yep. whores to those powers. I don't give a fuck if any Obama supporter dislikes those words are not. THE PROOF IS IN THEIR ACTIONS.

[demwing]

268. Mindfuck Alert

[Algorem]

296. don't vote in november