Making the Public Option More Robust

It is a lot easier to make changes to an existing program than it is to create one. I hate to sound like my dad, but you can’t build a house without a foundation. Unless of course one wants his or her perfect, all-in-one all-at-once overhaul legislation to be FEMA trailor–those don’t need foundations before constructing them.

I agree. We’ve got to move this thing through-with a public option, any way we can. We have time later to fix the amendments

I have always said, you would have a public option, and I am still sure of it, however Joe Lieberman appears to be the sticking point here, but I am not beyond hope that the POTUS will sort him out once and for all fairly soon.

And we must get rid of the Stupak abortion amendment in the final bill.I think the fight in the Senate will be much worse than in the House. It will be amazing if we get a po in a Senate bill. Or even in the final bill.

Bob–thank you, a thousand times, for being a voice of impassioned rationality in a world of concern trolls and fearmongers.

I read Lee’s links posted in Bob’s last “all or nothing vs. the practical” food fight.The arguments are good. But they just define the problem and suggest a plan of action for a dictator. We do not have a dictator. We have an inefficient, bribery tainted, obsolete two party mess to deal with on HCR.So, we must go with the best we can get. Or, based on some of the “progressive” posts, we should just scrap the whole system of government and start over. I guess I like this concept. I also like the concept of perpetual motion.

>>>>…should we abandon the public option, or pass it and then campaign to make it better?Pass it, and then campaign to make it better.

The latter (as per Bob) works for me, also.Earlier this year I came to the conclusion that, even if policies offered through a public option cost as much as those offered by the for-profit companies, I would still go for that, as something that was morally preferable.I have no problem with a ‘level-field’ PO. The pool needs to be broadened – I hope that can somehow be altered. More people need to be allowed in.In regards to lowering the overall cost of medical care, when do we begin to examine the fees charged by doctors and hospitals, especially the latter? We’re focusing all of our collective animosity on the health insurance companies these days, but that is only a very small fraction of what is driving our costs so high.

My worry about the Senate is that we built this momentum and then Reid put the breaks on. In a big fucking way. I had this idea that we were going to get something done by the end of the year.And both Stupak and his amendment have to go. My hope is that once we’re in conference, that’ll be among the first items to be stripped.

A final bill with mandates but without a public option is the true health insurance industry giveaway.Our progressive friends here who’ve been debating the issue really do think nothing is better than this bill, even though it hasn’t been finalized yet and we don’t really know what the final product will look like. While I agree with some of the arguments they’ve made (including the linked posts they refer to) on why the single payer option is the way to go, the fact that it isn’t happening shouldn’t stop us from looking at the bigger picture.Denial because of pre-existing conditions, gone. Recissions, gone. Cap on out of pocket expenditures. An expansion of those eligible for Medicaid. No cap on what insurance companies pay out. These things can’t just be flicked away with the back of a hand as “not good enough.”The fight doesn’t end with the passage of this bill, it only begins as we make our voices heard to make it better.

Hielo,There’s no reason to scrap our whole government. It would work fine. The only thing that needs scrapping is the two parts that claim to actually be a part of our government; the Democrats and Republicans. They have the entire country snowed into believing that they are actually inseparable from the government of the United States of America.Get rid of the parties, and I guarantee you that our “government” will work much better. Of course, they would tell you that without them, government would fail. But they are the very reason that corporations are able to buy legislation, and why meaningful legislation is ALWAYS watered down to ineffectual crap.In the last fifteen years, voters have not been able to vote incumbents of both parties out of office fast enough. There is nothing wrong with our government. The failure isn’t in the constitution. No, that failure belongs squarely on the shoulders of the two parties.ABSOLUTE FAIL.

I absolutely agree with Jan.

Love the idea, PPP, and secretly love you a little bit, but there will be rainbow flags flying from the island of an aircraft carrier before we get rid of the two party system. And a Gay & Lesbian Joint Chiefs of Staff before the likes of Kucinich is seen as the voice of reason on health care reform.We can move forward and improve what we’ve accomplished or we can wait until the two party system is removed, the lobbyists banished, and Kucinich elected president and get our single payer.Again, there will be a Pridefest parade on the flight deck of the Ronald Reagan before any of that ever happens.

Just now on NPR – Congresswoman Woolsey, co-chair of the House progressive caucus, said that if the Stupak amendment isn’t stripped out of the bill in conference there are a lot of representatives who won’t vote for the bill.

I agree with you guys. As for Lieberman, while he’s alreay said he would not filibuster the bill when it comes to the floor and keeps saying he would filibuster the final bill, this is basic bullshit 101. If he allows the bill to get to the floor he’ll be unable to stop final passage of the bill. Once it’s in the final bill he can’t remove it without 60 Democrats.Yet when he goes on fox news and says he won’t allow the final passage, not one “reporter” has challenged him on this. They either don’t know, or more likely, don’t give a damn. So, the next time Deputy Droop Along opens his yap, just turn the channel!

There’s an article on thinkprogress this morning about Diana DeGette (D-Colorado. She says she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Dems who say that if the Stupak amendment isn’t removed from the final bill, they will vote no!Personally, I’m curious about this provision being seen as a bill of attainder. Could the government be sued for attempting something like this? Maybe the National Organization for Women? Or some sort of Class Action Suit? Women would be the only one’s affected by this.

@PPP: Why not make suggestions that can happen in this lifetime?Get rid of Democrats and Republicans? And which soon to be corrupt and paid off parties do we put it in their place? I used to think that if we had more women in power then…..but the past two years have proven otherwise.It’s up to the people. History has shown that when an overwhelming amount of citizens get angry united, and motivated, things change – for real. And what the teabaggers are doing don’t even come close to what I’m talking about.

If 2009 has taught me anything — especially November 7, 2009 — it is that all Democratic primary elections, including off-year primaries, are just as important as general elections.If and when it comes down to it, I’ll show up and vote for a ConservaDem over a Republican every time. But we need to run strong progressives in every Dem primary around the country to avoid being stuck with the lesser of two evils in the general.

Nano,Never stop believing that your government can be all that it was meant to be. You own it, and it will be people like you and me who will change it. There are far, far, far more of us than there are of them. Don’t believe the lie that both parties have crafted, which says that it is impossible to get rid of them. It’s their lie, a clever one, but a lie nonetheless. Popular revolutions take about a year to win their rights once set in motion.Both parties know this, and both parties fear it. I believe that we will see the death of both parties within ten years.

Ever the voice of reason. Yes, the latter works for me too. I’m unhappy about a lot of the compromises made but I’m antsy to get this passed and to move on to other endeavours. We need jobs jobs jobs and the longer this healthcare reform saga continues, the less likely its chances of passing (due to mid-term elections) and less focus is put on other equally important measures. That’s not to say we should just pass whatever. I just wish the Blue Dogs would show some lee-way the way progressives have (leaving out single-payer amendment, acquiescing to the ridiculous Stupak amendment, accepting a less robust public option). Lieberman is scaring me. Healthcare reform could die because of that little troll and I want nothing more than for him to get what he soooooo badly deserves. There’s no reason why he should wield this much power. One vote. One flippin vote should not have the power to tank this.

FYI, Steve Benen just posted on this topic. He’s always worth a read.

I say let the troll filabuster- a TRUE filabuster- like reading a cookbook for 2 days on his feet.But plenty of people say he is bluffing. Who knows. Reid has plenty of options but doesn’t seem inclined to do anything. Except push the vote til January WHICH we saw how well that worked after they blew off the August deadline, giving the wingnuts time to organize.

Thanks, cjo30080. I just posted about that.

Thanks for the link, cj. I like the Washington Monthly. Well, I like one article in particular. I found it after the investigation was over for the Space Shuttle Columbia.Beam Me Outta This Death Trap, Scotty

@PPPI agree with all that you have said about the two party system except . . .”I believe that we will see the death of both parties within ten years.”I don’t see a path to this result. I think that the Democrats could walk away from the affiliation but the Republicans treat their dumb-ass party as a religion. I think that they are concerned about the prospect of going to Hell if they do not vote the way they are told by their corporate masters.

I don’t think we can get rid of them, PPP, but I do think we can change them. I heard someone say once that parties are just coalition vessels that shift and change constantly. We’re seeing that pretty clearly here on the blog. The party is not made up of only one type of Democrat any more than the Republicans are made up of one type of conservative. In the last 150 years, the parties have traded ideologies. Once, many moons ago, the Republicans could be seen as much more progressive than the Democrats.I just don’t want us to grind to a halt altogether while we wait for one faction of the party to be happy. It’s give and take. And right now one faction is taking an all or nothing stance and not budging.

Just explain this part to me…Why and how will there be more political will to fix the Public Option then there is now to create it?The biggest reason the bill is worse than nothing is that it makes the private insurance industry even bigger, richer and more powerful than it is now. That is the issue. And this new mandated, bigger private insurance industry is going to fight even harder with MORE resources to kill the PO.Again – let’s be really clear. This bill enriches the private insurance industry and gives them MORE power then they have now.All the arguments people are making about about how this is ‘the best we can do’ don’t reconcile with the idea that we’ll strengthen the PO against an even stronger, mandated industry who will claim that the problems are solved – after all, they will say, there’ no pre-existing conditions anymore! No recission! We fixed that! Why do you meed a public option at all!?!That’s what the GOP will say and so will Democrats. And then they will gut the public option but leave the mandates. That’s what they are doing NOW. Not strengthening the PO. Gutting it. And it will only get easier to do.

Worse than nothing?Ending pre-existing conditions? Ending rescission? End arbitrary lifetime limits? Putting caps on out-of-pocket expenses? Subsidies for low-income households? Shrinking the Part D donut hole? Negotiating drug prices for seniors? No. Not worse than nothing.Compare the Senate Finance bill with the John Kerry health care proposal of 2004. Hell — compare it to the Howard Dean health care proposal of 2004. Yes, the end result will be far less than what we hoped for and far less than what we need — but it will still be a tremendous amount of progress. I don’t think we should refuse it out of spite or fear.Yes, the insurers will work to gut any reform in the future. Yes, Republicans will try to roll it back. What’s new?I also don’t agree that more revenue necessarily has to equate to more power — especially with the advent of netroots. I’m not naive about the obstacles. But in fact, the voters do and always will have the power, and whether we use that power is up to us.

Lee.You’re right. We’re all wrong.There.Now go torment some other fucking blog for a while.

Nano – Some people on this thread – Carl and many others – actually are having a substantive discussion of the pros and cons on this issue. If you can’t keep up with that, okay.In mean time, you can read my piece that’s currenty featured on HuffPost politics.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/kucinichs-brave-health-vo_b_349857.htmlOr watch Jane Hamsher and Dennis Kucinich explain the very real dangers of the House bill.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-utz/dennis-kucinich-the-lone_b_350577.html

You’ve pretty much become a troll, Lee. You do nothing but harangue people for not agreeing with you.Oh and thanks for letting me know it’s ok if I’m not keeping up. I’m glad to hear you think I can’t and that that’s ok with you. Very generous.

Nano – a growing number of people realize that this bill has some very real downsides. The give and take of ideas shouldn’t intimidate you so much. Disagreeing doesn’t make one a ‘troll’ – that’s just a way of deflecting from the issues presented.Shutting me up doesn’t make the bill any better or address the disaster it’s going to be for the Democrats in 2010 and 2012

Loath though I am to engage a troll, you don’t want a give and take Lee. We give and take with you and you just restate your argument over and over and keep telling us how wrong we are. Then you copy/paste a few links as if to show us all how much more right you are because other people agree with you. This in spite of the fact that we can all quote a few people who agree with us. But yours are more better, or some bullshit or other.I don’t know if you want to add this blog to the “growing number” of people that have issue with this bill as you do, which again we all have issues with this bill, but give up already and go harass some other corner of the internet. Go be among friends that will tell you how awesome you are and that we’re just not progressive enough, that we’ve drank the kool aid. Go be a smug, condescending little asshat somewhere else.

LeeI read your HuffPo piece and the post by “the brilliant RJ Eskow” that you reference.You both make some constructive points but Eskow leaves out the whining . . .> > > Progressives should be every bit as upset that President Obama lied to us to get his historic health bill. The citizens of this country did not have a seat at the table. Proponents of single payer didn’t have a seat at the table. Under the guise of health care reform, we watched as the insurance industry got a bill passed that entrenches and enriches them.I also notice that Eskow sounds a lot like Bob in advocating a positive approach to modify the House bill. You, on the other hand, come out with this . . .> > > Personally, I supported President Obama in the primaries and the election but do not support him on this corporate giveaway built on broken campaign promises.I do not see Eskow flaming out about our evil President enriching the insurance companies although he does say that the bill (as currently drafted) does not fulfill the promise to “provide ‘all Americans’ with the choice of a public option” He proposes the Widen “Free Choice ” amendment which expands the PO and offers a much larger pool in the PO and strengthens the level of competition with the cartel. Fine with me.Can we move forward in a constructive way and leave out the spoiled brat shit?

Nano:>>>>>We give and take with you and you just restate your argument over and over and keep telling us how wrong we are.Thank you, sir.

Adding… Entrenches.

Passing it is the first step, but then we need to work to get it on a solid foundation. It really does have a proven track record! http://cli.gs/23yYaM/

I’m probably going to regret this.Lee, I am curious. What exactly is your purpose here?You have made your position quite clear. And most of us have as well. You, and others, want to KILL THE BILL, while others of us are more pragmatic about the situation and feel that this public option, while not perfect, is better than nothing.Great. So there we are. I don’t understand why you feel the need to rehash the same arguments over and over again, when it seems that everyone’s positions have been established.Nano is correct when he says that you are haranguing people for not agreeing with you. You don’t seem interested in actual conversation, just proving your point and getting other people (Bob, in particular) to say that you are right.About Bob, I may have drunk the Cesca Koolaid, but I think your behavior to him on his blog has been atrocious. Especially when you have called him “friend.” No friend of mine would ever treat me the way you have treated him, or I them.

Hielo – Bob is the one who doesn’t want a give and take. And he keeps repeating the same stuff over and over. Here, anyway – he tones it way down on HuffPost.RJ is brilliant. I posted the link to his piece. Bob didn’t because RJ isn’t making Bob’s point – RJ’s position is much closer to mine but as I’ve said, he’s very balanced.

Kat – sometimes I have to defend myself from clever comments like “Fuck off, Lee”But if you read the comments, I’ve been posting quality content from other people recently. I think it helps some people figure out the issue. Not everyone here agrees with Bob, you know. And some people like the exchange of ideas.And Bob hasn’t treated me well, either. Whatever. We’re big boys.

“He started it!”Jesus Fucking Christ on a crutch.

Here’s more great stuff from RJ…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/democratic-party-out-of-b_b_351037.html

Lee:>>>>>>Bob is the one who doesn’t want a give and take. And he keeps repeating the same stuff over and over.Yeah, like when I mention Senate jurisdiction rules about how the Finance Committee has to be involved in matters of healthcare, and then Lee continues to say that the president somehow chose to have Baucus work on healthcare. Or like when I mention that the 125% premium cap mentioned in your video CLEARLY has to do with a temporary and immediate high-risk pool program, and then Lee continues to suggest that 125% applies to everyone.I can’t imagine why I have to repeat myself sometimes.