Anyone advocating that a bill with a public option should fail is an idiot. Michael Moore,

[ProSense]

despite his preference for single payer, understands that a reform bill that includes a public option is a needed progress:

Filmmaker Michael Moore, known for his liberal politics, on Tuesday threatened Blue Dog Democrats that he would work to defeat them if they don’t support a government-run health insurance plan.

Moore told reporters and activists that his threat should not be taken lightly.

“We will organize. And we will remove you from office. Make no mistake about it,” Moore said in a speech at the liberal nonprofit Public Citizen.

link

[Cha]

1. My blue dog Rep better watch

out then..I heard him on a teleHealth Reform call bragging what a blue dog he is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. People arguing against the bill are just shills for Big Insurance.

[SPedigrees]

3. sad that we are, at least in part, a nation of idiots

and represented by a number of the same who call themselves dems

[Oregone]

4. Disagree

If the Public Option is not accessible to all by firewall, OR, despite its accessibility, if it is not affordable for all, then all you are left with it mandates and a shiny trinket to hide them.

While I understand subsidies will exist, some will not qualify for complete coverage. They may personally have the option to take the employer paid free private plan, or put up money they cannot budget in for a public one. Wyden's amendment, which you previously opposed, addressed this be forcing them employer to pay. Without some mechanism to do that, all you really have here at the end of the day is mandates (and some beneficial regulations, that could have existed on their own without the hoopla).

[ProSense]

6. "some will not qualify for complete coverage. "

Health care isn't free. The purpose of reform isn't to make it free. The people who will benefit most are those currently earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level, who are currently paying the same as everyone else. Under reform, some of those individuals will pay nothing and up based on their income. For the rest, cost will go down.

[Oregone]

12. You seem to be missing what Im saying about this....

Lets PRESUME *everyone* will have access to the exchange/public option (big presumption), and can opt into the exchange easily.

Now lets say person 1 wants to sign up for it, but the premiums are out of their affordable reach a month due to housing/college costs/car payments/debt/etc (typical American). But, they have a good job and don't qualify for subsidies...they simply don't have their budget under control.

Now, their employer provides coverage by paying $500 a month for him, but this private insurance is terrible. It's basically the meat an potato plan, designed to meet the minimum requirements at the least cost.

Well, the public option is useless to this person unless there is a mechanism that would force, if the person chooses, to have their employer pay some percentage of what they currently pay to the public option.

Wyden's free choice amendment that you oppose does this. Im not sure why you oppose it.

So even if everyone has access, they don't really if they can't afford it. Then all they get is the private market to tear em apart.

There is no reason to not allow EVERYONE to sign up, as well as make sure they don't have to spring for it out-of-pocket if they currently do not as it is.

[ProSense]

15. This is a bogus argument

Now lets say person 1 wants to sign up for it, but the premiums are out of their affordable reach a month due to housing/college costs/car payments/debt/etc (typical American). But, they have a good job and don't qualify for subsidies...they simply don't have their budget under control.

Does this person currently have coverage? You are basically saying that if someone makes $100,000 and has overextended him/herself, that person should receive subsidies.

[Oregone]

18. No, Im not saying they should recieve subsidies. Read the next sentence

I said they currently have a streamlined cheapo private insurance plan provided for them. They should have the option of forcing their employer to pay into the public option, no amount more than what the employer pays for the private plan.

Stop with the straw mans and bogus argument BS. This is a very valid concern. There is legislation to address it, though it was shut out of the last mark-up

[ProSense]

23. It's not a straw man. Do these individuals have insurance now? n/t

[Oregone]

25. Ill copy and paste for you

"Now, their employer provides coverage by paying $500 a month for him, but this private insurance is terrible. It's basically the meat an potato plan, designed to meet the minimum requirements at the least cost.

Well, the public option is useless to this person unless there is a mechanism that would force, if the person chooses, to have their employer pay some percentage of what they currently pay to the public option."

Yes, I am talking about a scenario where someone has employer-provided private coverage that is insufficient at meeting their needs. If they currently have their private coverage paid for by their employer, they should be able to choose comprehensive public insurance and have about the same amount paid for by their by their employer.

I know you expressed your opposition already to Wyden's amendment that addresses this, so I don't expect you to see this as a problem. A public option existing, even if accessible, is useless to many if it is not universally affordable. In such cases, it is essentially not accessible by cost to all (and isn't this supposed to be *universal* reform?). The under-insured can really be locked out of the "option" if they are expected to shoulder the costs out-of-pocket.

[ProSense]

27. What are you cutting and pasting? Where is the link?

"Now, their employer provides coverage by paying $500 a month for him, but this private insurance is terrible. It's basically the meat an potato plan, designed to meet the minimum requirements at the least cost.

Again, is the person getting health coverage free? Also, that last part is eliminated by reform.

[Oregone]

37. Look, forget it.

I have an interesting conversation to pursue with my more literate mailbox

[ProSense]

7. Another thing, are

you among those who are advocating that a bill with a public option should fail?

[Oregone]

9. It depends on the "public option"

There isn't one that exists yet. It isn't known what will come yet. No one knows how comprehensive it will be, or accessible.

Its as foolish to oppose a bill with a public option NOW, then it is to support one. Im merely trying to remind people of this.

If the public option is not sufficient enough to mitigate the effects of the mandate, then I would oppose the bill. If it is sufficient, then no problem.

[ProSense]

11. "There isn't one that exists yet. "

Yes there is.

[Oregone]

13. No, there isn't in a final bill.

Right now, its foolish for anyone to use a "public option" as a litmus test for support on the reform, as it will pass in its final stage, because we don't know what the final one will look like. You can advocate one over another, sure, but its a little early to ramp up unconditional support.

[ProSense]

14. Who the hell is talking about a final bill? So you're advocating the death of a non-existing bill?

The fact is advocacy deals with pushing for something. That is the purpose of Moore's statement. You are dancing around this issue with nonsensical statements.

[Oregone]

16. No, Im advocating EXAMINING a final bill to see how sufficient the public option is

Before deciding to call for its passing or its death. Its a pretty reasonable approach, right?

People who would oppose a bill even with a public option, or support one simply because it contains one, are absolutely jumping the gun right now.

[ProSense]

17. The OP is about advocating the death of a bill with a public option

The HELP and House bills are currently on the table, deal with existing options not the imaginary ones.

[Oregone]

19. And when the "public option" is finalized, people can support or reject it without being idiots

It depends on what it will look like. It will probably not be a carbon copy of anything on the table

[ProSense]

20. Until then, advocating the death of a bill with a public option is pure idiocy. n/t

[Oregone]

22. Oh yes, I agree on that point there with it being in the abstract

Though I also suggest that unconditional support for any bill with a "public option" is pure idiocy right now.

[TheKentuckian]

21. You've got some valid points but to advise flushing the whole thing down the toilet

because a plan has holes is unreasonable and counter-productive. You set up a scenario where probably something like 90% would be okay but a few wouldn't benefit (not be hurt but just unaffected) and recommend maintaining the status quo. That's not wise. The concerns are valid and I agree that Wyden's amendment is something that we should all be about because it would certainly add some real and more expansive reform but I'm going to strongly support any bill that does more good than harm (not that I'm at all sure we are there yet either).

[slipslidingaway]

34. In this talk even Moore said "hit the reset button" ...

nobody wants the status quo, but mandating a mostly for profit system is not acceptable to everyone.

"...So. You need to hit the reset button. That's all. Just hit the reset button and go back to the drawing board. Rep. Weiner is there at the drawing board already. He's there with Sen. Sanders. And they've got the legislation that the majority of the American people want..."

Here is the full video...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=379918&mesg_id=379918

[slipslidingaway]

36. Agreed, very reasonable. n/t

[thereismore]

5. Yes, but a public option is a bare minimum to build on. And it has to last at least 4 years.

If it collapses within 4 years, before the Senate would take it up again, the enemy will win.

[rudy23]

8. I don't think people are holding on to single payer as much as trying to reclaim the PO

as we have always defined it. A publicly administered alternative to private insurance, accessible to ALL AMERICANS! NO TRIGGERS REQUIRED!

[DevonRex]

10. I love Michael Moore. nt

[Phx_Dem]

24. Just like he did with Al Gore in 2000 by supporting Nader to "teach

democrats a lesson." Unfortunately, it didn't teach the Dems a lesson, instead the man Moore helped to elect destroyed our economy and badly hurt the country and the world with his wars, torture, anti-environment bills, etc. That was a great idea Michael. Thanks.

[Engineer4Obama]

26. Yeah well Moore learned his lesson

which is more than I can say for some.

[Phx_Dem]

41. He doesn't appear to have learned a lesson. He wants to

hand the congressional majority to Republicans because he's mad at the Dems even though they're going to pass a health care reform bill. At least that what it sounds like he wants to do.

[old mark]

28. "Idiots" being most republicans and conservative Dems.

I actually agree with Mr. Moore on this issue as well.

mark

[slipslidingaway]

29. Michael Moore, Public Citizen call for a single-payer health plan...

this is the talk referenced in your article, Moore also called on Obama to hit the reset button and fight for what he said he believes. He also stated that we are where we are because Obama started from a position of compromise.

Of course people who posted similar thoughts here have been called all sorts of names.

:shrug:

http://www.citizen.org/index.cfm

Full video and partial transcript

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=379918&mesg_id=379918

"...First to President Obama: we have been in such a state of hope since last November, a state that we haven't felt in quite some time... it made us feel very good and very proud to be part of this country, that our fellow Americans would do the right thing. And they came by a very large margin for change, real change... and it saddens me, when I see you President Obama out there stumping for health care reform and there is no enthusiastic support for your position. It feels like you're out there all alone. We look at the other side and they're out there in full force, even though they're the minority, even though they only represent 25 % of the American public, they're there at the town hall meetings, they're there at the teabagger rallies - especially my favorite one, the one last week, where they were... the pictures of them using the publicly funded rest rooms on The Mall. They've been vocal, they've been organized, they've been FUNDED.

And you probably turn around and you wonder who's got your back, because you seem to be out there all alone. The reason for that, with all due respect, is that you started with a compromise. Anybody who's bought a car, anybody who's bought or sold their house or negotiated anything, knows you don't start with your final position, you don't start with a compromise. You start with everything that you want. Everything that you believe in.

And in 2003, when you decided to run for the Senate, you said you were in favor of a single-payer health care system. And I believe in your heart you still believe that. But you started in a place where you had no wiggle room, nothing was left, and, it was a position that did not energize the base. Did not, you're not going to get millions of people out there going 'Yes, give us the public option where the private companies still get to call the shots.' How do you get people enthused about that? That's why you're out there and alone on this. You don't need to be alone.

Millions, tens of millions of Americans right now, would be right out there with you, right out in the streets, right there on the Internet with their emails, up here on Capitol Hill jamming the phone lines, if you just did what the people wanted. The majority of the people of this country are behind you. Come on!

I mean, politicians, they kill to have this support. You've got us all. You had us all.

So. You need to hit the reset button. That's all. Just hit the reset button and go back to the drawing board. Rep. Weiner is there at the drawing board already. He's there with Sen. Sanders. And they've got the legislation that the majority of the American people want.

Not only do upwards to three-quarters of the American people want universal health care, and support the public option, a majority depending on which poll you look at, either a simple majority or a plurality of Americans support single payer, support Medicare For All. You're already there. You're not out on some limb. You're not having to take a risk. You've already got the people with you, and we will be there with you every step of the way.

When you held that meeting with all the bankers, the heads of all the banks, the private meeting you had with them in the White House, I just want to read the report from that day that was in the paper. It said: "President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out (as they went on with their explanations with why they needed trillions of dollars of our tax money). He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. He said: 'Be careful how you make those statements, gentleman. The public isn't buying that. My administration,' the President added, 'is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.'" That's what he told the bankers.

What we're here, today, to tell you, Mr. President, is that we have got your back. We're here to let you know that majority of Americans support you, and that we stand between you and the pitchforks that are being held out by the private insurance companies that want to destroy this country..."

[ProSense]

30. "He's there with Sen. Sanders."

Who is pushing for passage of the HELP bill's public option.

Moore made the point that he will primary blue dogs who don't support a public option. He says a lot of other things too, but the OP point stands.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Read and acknowledge the reference he made to the SP bill by Sanders...

and the Weiner amendment to substitue a SP bill for the House bill.

Yes, he says a lot of other things including what I posted.

But it is nice to pick one part and call those who disagree an idiot.

:puke:

It is clear to me that Moore would prefer a not for profit system as proposed by SP advocates.

"...So. You need to hit the reset button. That's all. Just hit the reset button and go back to the drawing board. Rep. Weiner is there at the drawing board already. He's there with Sen. Sanders. And they've got the legislation that the majority of the American people want..."


Single-payer health reform bill introduced in Senate

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/27/sen-bernie-sanders-introduces-single-payer-bill/

PNHP
Press release
March 26, 2009

"Challenging head-on the powerful private insurance and pharmaceutical industries, Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a single-payer health reform bill, the American Health Security Act of 2009, in the U.S. Senate Wednesday.

The single-payer approach embodied in Sanders’ new bill stands in sharp contrast to the reform models being offered by the White House and by key lawmakers like Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Their plans would preserve a central role for the private insurance industry, sacrificing both universal coverage and cost containment during the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

In contrast, Sanders’ new legislation would cover all of the 46 million Americans who currently lack coverage and improve benefits for all Americans by eliminating co-pays and deductibles and restoring free choice of physician. The most fiscally conservative option for reform, single payer slashes private insurance overhead and bureaucracy in medical settings, saving over $400 billion annually that can be redirected into clinical care.

Highlights of the bill include the following:

Patients go to any doctor or hospital of their choice..."

[ProSense]

35. I know what Sanders bill is, now stop ignoring the fact that he supports the HELP bill. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

38. Maybe you should acknowledge the reference made by Moore and stop...

trying to divert attention to something that was not part of the talk by Moore.

He clearly referred to the SP bill and amendment.


Now unrelated... yesterday you accused PNHP of distorting the public option on their website and I asked you to document exactly where, please post links to the distortions they have made.

Several of these doctors have put their practices on hold to fight the insurance companies, to accuse them without any proof is disturbing to those of us who appreciate what they are doing.

[slipslidingaway]

42. Crickets again. n/t

[whistler162]

31. Yes... if someone doesn't follow EXACTLY your beliefs

they are an idiot!

[ProSense]

32. Where in the OP does it say everyone has to believe what I do?

I repeat, anyone who is advocating that a health care bill with a public option should fail is an idiot.

[Bjorn Against]

39. I would agree that it would be stupid to oppose a bill with a strong public option...

If it is a really weak public option that is designed to fail however then I would oppose it. A public option needs to be open to everyone who wants it and it needs to offer the same or better coverage than the private plans. I know there are some out there who would like the public option to be inefficient by design so they can point at it and say "see government can't do anything right", we can not allow that to happen. If a public option is done right it will be far better than anything that private insurance can offer and it will bring real reform to this country, if it is designed to fail however then it could set back efforts towards real health care reform by decades. I will support any bill with a strong public option, I will oppose any bill that either does not have a public option or has a really weak public option that appears to be designed to fail.

[Mass]

40. Moore refers to pressuring the Blue Dogs if they vote against a public option and I support that.

This is what all Democrats would be saying, that there will be consequences to pay for those who block the bill (rather than talking about compromising and giving up things). This is what this is about. That does not mean that Moore does not think the HELP bill is still very weak, and the final bill probably even worse. So, what is your point? Because his is clear. That Dems should fight for us, not against us.

Rather, the Democrats in general are busy watering down bills that are already weak.