Dems split about Public Option

[NickCole]

A day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that health reform won’t get through the House without a public option, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Friday that the public option may have to go in order to get a bill passed.

“I’m for a public option but I’m also for passing a bill,” Hoyer told reporters on a conference call. “We believe the public option is a necessary, useful and very important aspect of this, but we’ll have to see because there are many other important aspects of the bill as well.”

In San Francisco on Thursday, Pelosi said: "There's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26335.html#ixzz0OuXqFRb6

Not only is Obama and his administration wishy washy about the public option, the Democratic House Speaker and House Majority Leader aren't even on the same page.

The public option is an essential element of the health care reform that Democrats (progressives and liberals anyway) have sought for years, and that Obama promised during the campaign. This should be a no-brainer. Why isn't it? If you blame Republicans, when Dems have the WH and Congress, that reflects very poorly on today's Democratic "leaders." Looks to me like Democrats lack a genuine leader in Congress or the White House right now. And when you have the White House and big majorities in the House and Senate, and an ambitious agenda, that's not good.

 

[NickCole]

Don't want to leave out the Senate.

Yesterday Robert Reich wrote a post on his blog about what's going on there:

Why the Gang of Six is Deciding Health Care for Three Hundred Million of Us



Last night, the so-called "gang of six" -- three Republican and three Democratic senators on the Senate Finance Committee -- met by conference call and, according to Senator Max Baucus, the committee's chair, reaffirmed their commitment "toward a bipartisan health-care reform bill" (read: less coverage and no public insurance option). ...

I really don't get it. We have a Democratic president in the White House. Democrats control sixty votes in the Senate, enough to overcome a filibuster. It is possible to pass health care legislation through the Senate with 51 votes (that's what George W. Bush did with his tax cut plan). Democrats control the House. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a tough lady. She has said there will be no health care reform bill without a public option.

So why does the fate of health care rest in Grassley's hands? ...

So, I repeat: Why has it come down to these six? Who anointed them? Apparently, the White House. At least that's what I'm repeatedly being told by sources both on the Hill and in the Administration. "The Finance Committee is where the action is. They'll tee-up the final bill," says someone who should know.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-gang-of-six-is-deciding-health-care.html

Even if one believed Obama's absurd promises about post partisan politics and special interest groups, why, given the circumstances we've seen in recent weeks, would Obama continue to give Republicans like Grassley this kind of power?

Republicans don't HAVE this power, the People took it away from them last November. So when the People gave Democrats the power to make substantive health care reform, why does Obama dilute that power and empower Republicans to mess it up?

 

[Orlandude]

..........If you blame Republicans, when Dems have the WH and Congress, that reflects very poorly on today's Democratic "leaders." Looks to me like Democrats lack a genuine leader in Congress or the White House right now. And when you have the White House and big majorities in the House and Senate, and an ambitious agenda, that's not good.

Oh really. For 8 years you blamed Democrats, when Republicans had the WH and Congress and did absolutely nothing about health care reform, spent money like drunken sailors and obscessed over funding an oil war. That was leadership? Was it so good when republicans had the WH and big majorities in Congress? They left this country in shambles. Republicans should stop criticizing, whining and bellyaching about something they ignored for 8 years. That's exactly why they aren't in power anymore and why the republican agenda (read: double standard) has become irrelevant.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Well guess what, we don't have a parliamentary system, where the leaders decide everything and the rest of the party falls in line or gets booted out. We have conservative Democrats to deal with, and even (about 1 or 2) moderate Republicans.

But I agree with you that it's the White House that has to provide the leadership. I suspect what Obama thought was, OK, any health plan has to make it through Congress anyway, so why not let them write it?

He should have started out by stating at least some basic principles: universal coverage, public option, negotiated drug prices. And then said, I will veto any bill that doesn't have all 3.

Well, I said all along that Obama, like any new president, would have to climb the learning curve before he could be really effective in Washington. Let's hope he's learning fast.

 

[naked gent]

Once again bad analysis based on a desire, in this case, to blame Obama for the doings of Max Baucus.

Tsk tsk.

 

[JB3]

Oh really. For 8 years you blamed Democrats, when Republicans had the WH and Congress and did absolutely nothing about health care reform, spent money like drunken sailors and obscessed over funding an oil war. That was leadership? Was it so good when republicans had the WH and big majorities in Congress? They left this country in shambles. Republicans should stop criticizing, whining and bellyaching about something they ignored for 8 years. That's exactly why they aren't in power anymore and why the republican agenda (read: double standard) has become irrelevant.

Thats an idiotic analysis of the situation. Republicans NEVER had big enough majorities to get anything to the president's desk without at least some democratic votes, or by using parliamentary procedures that the democrats themselves are now considering using.

Face it: if democrats wanted to, they could pass their healthcare legislation through both houses and get it signed by the president in a week. But their caucus is currently divided, and their leadership is about as effective as a damp, moldy towel.

 

[CuppaJoe]

Actually, I think that some of them are beginnng to remember that next year is an election year for them, and with public opinion so divided on health care reform, they're beginning to realize that maybe they shouldn't be riding so closely on the coattails of Obama.

 

[MystikWizard]

Once again bad analysis based on a desire, in this case, to blame Obama for the doings of Max Baucus.

Tsk tsk.

As you know, some people on here would blame Obama for:

Poverty
Homeless People
The AIDS Virus
The Sky being Blue
Global Warming
Natural Disasters
World War 2
The Civil War


and just about anything else they can possibly think of. That is why you can not take the trolls seriously.

Their bitterness is laughable.

Obama made good on his intentions with Health Care reform. He made it a priority for his Administration, and he began the initiative.

This is NOT a matter of Senators not getting on board because of ideological differences. This is a matter of corrupt Democrats who are in Office, who are in the pockets of the Insurance Companies. I find it laughable how anyone can blame Obama for corruption in the Senate.

What do the trolls want Obama to do? Bribe them with even more money than the Insurance Companies did?

Don't give me this "Ineffective Leadership" Bullshit. This is about corrupt people in power who shouldn't be.

However, the Media should be releasing the names of all the Senators who are against the Public Option to better inform people who they are.

 

[CuppaJoe]

As you know, some people on here would blame Obama for:

Poverty
Homeless People
The AIDS Virus
The Sky being Blue
Global Warming
Natural Disasters
World War 2
The Civil War

Wow, the same things everyone was blaming on Bush the past 8 years...

 

[MystikWizard]

You know, MW, you've become a powerful JUB voice -- probably the best one, too -- for health care reform. And while I loath the cowards in the Democratic Party, I have to say that Obama sure hasn't publicly shown much backbone in making them heel. He vacillates at every turn, his admin contradicts itself daily. Yes, we need to boil these cowards in oil, but Obama has not been showing much balls.

Alfie, I appreciate that. I definitely wouldn't say I am anywhere near the "best" voice on here for Health Care Reform, as I am not even close ... but I am all for it 100% and I am absolutely fuming at the Democrats who are preventing it from being a reality.

However, I ask this question in all sincerity ... what realistically should Obama be doing? I know you talk about Obama "showing balls" against them, but realistically and specifically .... if these Democrats are corrupt and in the pockets of the Health Care Insurance Companies (which I am absolutely convinced they are), then what specifically can Obama do about this?

Like I said, I do want to see the Media blaring the names of each of these Democrats all over the TV as I know they certainly would be receiving a lot of hate mail and phone calls from around the country if this would occur ... and put some pressure on them.

 

[NickCole]

Oh really. For 8 years you blamed Democrats, when Republicans had the WH and Congress and did absolutely nothing about health care reform, spent money like drunken sailors and obscessed over funding an oil war. That was leadership?

For eight years I blamed Bush and Republicans for what they did. I did blame Democrats for far too often letting them do it without putting up much of a fight. And now when Democrats have the power of the WH and Congress they're still letting Republicans make a mess of things.

 

[naked gent]

You know, MW, you've become a powerful JUB voice -- probably the best one, too -- for health care reform. And while I loath the cowards in the Democratic Party, I have to say that Obama sure hasn't publicly shown much backbone in making them heel. He vacillates at every turn, his admin contradicts itself daily. Yes, we need to boil these cowards in oil, but Obama has not been showing much balls.

No he hasn't Alfie and its a wonder that those who opposed his candidacy on the lack of experience grounds have not brought that up as a reason he's failing here. (not that I agree with that assessment) Its also obvious that Obama is not a classic Chicago pol.

His mistake was not allowing congress to write the bill but it was not setting sufficient parameters for them to work around.

Had he focused on cost control from the beginning all those who oppose him would be the ones on the defensive instead of him being on it.

Hitting both insurers and hospitals on their pricing policies would have been a good start imo and forcing hospitals to give one price for all (within each hospital or chain of hospitals) would undercut the private insurers business model and open up that industry to more players which would increase competition and maybe bring prices down.

Might not work but its a much easier sell and undercuts those who call him a socialist and exposes the insurance industry as something less that the highly competitive business they would like us all to believe they are.

 

[NickCole]

Well guess what, we don't have a parliamentary system, where the leaders decide everything and the rest of the party falls in line or gets booted out. We have conservative Democrats to deal with, and even (about 1 or 2) moderate Republicans.

We don't need to have a parliamentary system for our leaders to engage smart leadership skills and strategy.

But I agree with you that it's the White House that has to provide the leadership. I suspect what Obama thought was, OK, any health plan has to make it through Congress anyway, so why not let them write it?

He should have started out by stating at least some basic principles: universal coverage, public option, negotiated drug prices. And then said, I will veto any bill that doesn't have all 3.

Exactly. And, having not done that, he still today could do that. But, instead, he made a deal with Pharma that already took negotiated drug prices off the table and he gets wishy washy about public option.

Well, I said all along that Obama, like any new president, would have to climb the learning curve before he could be really effective in Washington. Let's hope he's learning fast.

And I said all along that we don't have the luxury of a learn-on-the-job President because the issues are too vital and the mess too far along. If it were 1993 it'd be a different story, Obama could take his time figuring out the lay of the land, but it's 2009 and we're in crisis mode from the economy to health care to energy.

 

[NickCole]

Once again bad analysis based on a desire, in this case, to blame Obama for the doings of Max Baucus.

Tsk tsk.

That's just pathetic. There is no reason Baucus even has a potent voice in health care reform.

The Democratic President should have met with and come to agreement with Democratic leaders of every element of the Party about what the health care reform bill would contain and their strategy to get it done. Before Max Baucus was anywhere near it.

Obama's failure gave Baucus whatever power he has for his "doings."

 

[naked gent]

The Democratic President should have met with and come to agreement with Democratic leaders of every element of the Party about what the health care reform bill would contain and their strategy to get it done. Before Max Baucus was anywhere near it.

You are aware that Max Baucus as head of the senate committee writing healthcare legislation is one of the democratic leaders you refer to.....aren't you?

Because to read what you just posted it would not seem to be the case that you are.

If you are advocating a strategy of by-passing the chair of the senate committee in order to pass legislation you really need to read up on how the U.S. Senate works.

 

[naked gent]

^ Doesn't Obama run the Senate, too? Isn't the US Senate unde the Executive's domain? Or am Im missing 'thomthing?

Yes I see that you're right now. Its one of the reasons some here expect so much more from Obama than they did from Bill Clinton.

 

[MystikWizard]

^ Doesn't Obama run the Senate, too? Isn't the US Senate unde the Executive's domain? Or am Im missing 'thomthing?

If you ask Sarah Palin or someone like Nick Cole, then the answer is "YES". The President and Vice President also run the Legislative Branch of Congress, as well.

Just wait until there is a Supreme Court decision ruled during Obama's term that Nick Cole disagrees with. Then, the Judicial Branch will fall under Obama's jurisdiction, as well.

 

[justapixel]

Uh huh. Cite?

Just read this forum with topics started between Jan 20, 2001 and Jan 19, 2009

 

[MystikWizard]

Great News!! Thanks for posting. The public option is a horrible idea. Don't give gov't another opportunity to fuck something up.

Well, if the Government fucks something up, there should be no problem, since the Private Insurance companies will still be in business ... and you can still pick them for a provider if you are happier with their plans, right?

This will force Insurance companies to become more competitive with their rates and deductibles, and more flexible with their terms.

I guess people like paying lots of money to the Insurance Companies.

 

[naked gent]

since the Private Insurance companies will still be in business ... and you can still pick them for a provider if you are happier with their plans, right?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/

Willy you do understand that the "right" you are worried about losing is one you don't currently have........don't you?

And Mystic I don't doubt that soon in marketing classes all over the country this debate will be studied as an example of the power of marketing which is so great that facts are a secondary concern and you can convince middle class people that its worth paying twice the price for the same product and think damn all those who look down their noses at me because they think I'm wrong.