The Face of the Anti-Reform Movement in Montana

other pertinent stuff (0.00 / 0)

 
  Here's why your "public Option" is such a frightful thing...why it will never hold water and why it's pushers should be held 'suspect'... [lifted from Montana Maven's acct of how 'public option' looks for real] [i've known this for a long time but i'm glad she has articulated it so well]...
            So the Senate is up to its usual tricks and because they seem to always get away with murder, they think we won't notice.  Max and others  floated the idea yesterday of using a trigger for a public option plan for health care.  That means that they let those adorable health insurance executives come up with savings for the American people all on their own.  But if they don't, it would "trigger" a public plan of some kind.  

But this Trigger is a one trick pony.  They promised this in the late 1970s when Carter declared our health system unhealthy and unwealthy.
They promised it when Hillary tried to get health care reform in 1993.  They promised the president a couple of weeks ago to not bilk Americans as much as they were going to.  I think that is fool me thrice.

So the trigger deal seems to be getting a lot of flack, so their next tact will be to embrace a public plan instead of killing it.  But like Medicare Plan D and the current Medicare, they will really deliver death by a hundred paper cuts.  They will say that the public plan will pay up to $15,000 for a hospital stay and then have a doughnut hole and then kick in again at $30,000 or some such formula.  Then...ta...da...you will have to buy supplemental insurance for the hole.  This is such a crock.

No, take this to the streets.  Protest in front of your Senators office.  Protest in front of insurance offices.  The coalition of people fighting this is growing.  Soon we will be strong enough for a national strike.

Don't let this horsesh*t ruin our parade.  

        *******************************************

     And on another note: Congrats to your friend Ezra Klein for his new position with the WaPo ... and thanks to him for his work in The American Prospect... either way i still get to read his articles. Hope he enjoyed his time in MT.

---

by: Darwin26 @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 17:26:20 PM UTC

Trigger? (0.00 / 0)

Hey, didn't the "health care" industry promise a bunch of reforms(to cut the rising costs of health care) way back in the 1990's as a boobie prize for shooting down the Hill/Bill health care reform plan?  

How did those reforms work out?  Not so good....THERE's your "trigger"! Let the trigger happy supporters suck on that one for awhile.!!!

---

by: big sage @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 20:32:34 PM UTC

Cost reduction? Congress? (0.00 / 0)

Remember the prescription drug bill?  Its featured prohibition:  no negotiating with Big Pharma on price.  No cost-cutting there.  Handouts as far as the eye can see.  Now insurers want theirs. Wanna' bet the "public option" will in the end be privatized?  No cost-cutting there either.  The whole debate is caught between (right-centrist) corporate socialists and (extreme right-wing) corporate feudalists.  

---

by: steve kelly @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 21:41:11 PM UTC

The Beauty of Public Option as proposed by ??? (0.00 / 0)

 
 These are requirements of the Massachusetts plan - this is what Public Option will look like to the Trigger Happy morons pushing the Public Option finishing nail in the Health of America.

The requirements for an exemption from insurance and a penalty are: you are 30 days into foreclosure or eviction courts, your house burned down to the ground, your utilities have been shut off, etc. This exemption is only temporary and is NOT for people eligible for a subsidized plan b/c the state has already decided that insurance is affordable. If you don't think it is, you have to file to appeal the state's decision, prove you can't afford it and probably be denied. If you are denied, you can submit another request for an appeals hearing to your Superior Court. There's more than this but no time to write it.  

---

by: Darwin26 @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 23:58:47 PM UTC

Bad for thee but not for me... (0.00 / 1)

So, SInger points to the supposedly nefarious influence of those pesky "outside" groups in Montana, and even attempts to link Rep. Rehberg to the movement. It should go without saying that SInger/Forward Montana would cease to exist without the influence and money of the progressive mother ship in Washington, D.C.

It's interesting in the video that Forward Montana "produced" (uh-huh...totally home-grown no doubt!) that they produce fuzzy document forms that supposedly link Eaton, Rehberg, and others. I suppose Forward Montana just doesn't get the irony that they refuse to disclose WHERE they get their money from, and in what amounts. In fact their entire organization was created in order to hide exactly who is pulling the strings. Claim you represent the "grassroots" all you want, fellas, the grassroots movement doesn't start around a conference table in Washington, D.C.

But you don't sit in on strategy sessions, read off the messaging memos, and have your own personal (though less talented) Karl Rove running the ground game if you're interested in playing ball on reform.

But you do, SInger, and admitted as much a few months ago when you mentioned that trip you took to Progressive K Street in Washington, D.C. Being the political hack that you are you know damn well that strategy sessions happen all the time, on both sides of the aisle...and there's noting wrong with that. Messaging memo's? Ditto. Someone could make a full-time job of reading a major lefty bogs or following a single story as it's commented on throughout the journolist socialistosphere and count the hours until it's mentioned at LeninLeft in the West.

Just stop the ruse of pretending that Forward Montana is anything more than a money laundering operation for any number of progressive organizations and unions, any number of whom average Montanans would be disgusted with if they knew the truth.

---

by: Rich @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 20:43:21 PM UTC

Your crusade is lame and tiresome. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 21:15:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh noes! Rich cut to the core of us (0.00 / 0)

Reality check, Rich. We formed our organization in 2004, existed for over two years with no staff and a budget of a few thousand dollars, during which time we implemented and executed campaigns that registered voters, turned them out, passed legislation, and changed the makeup of the state board of regents.

As for where our money comes from, the majority of it comes from Montanans and virtually all of our hundreds of voting members are Montanans. We've never denied that we take out-of-state money or money from labor unions (unions, I should add, that represent thousands of Montanans).

As for this video, my officemate made it on his laptop in less than a day after we came up with the idea in our office earlier this week. If you think that's amazing, it is a testament to a talented and smart young Montanan who works in our office, not some big conspiracy.

Final point: if you read what we say about our Congressman, it is not that he is wrong to oppose healthcare reform. That's his right. We just want him to be honest about it because he is talking out both sides of his mouth. Last I checked, we're paying his salary and his job is to represent us, not misrepresent himself to us.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 21:30:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree, Matt. Rehberg and Baucus both suck big time when it comes to honesty. (0.00 / 0)

They should both quit whoring for the health care industrial complex.

And the people who support them, enable them, and run interference for them  should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are doing it for love or for money?

My guess is most of the time it's for money.

---

by: Steve W. @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 22:31:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bit of a problem with that, Steve. (0.00 / 0)

First, your comment placement makes it look like you were responding to Matt's comment responding to Rich.  In that comment, Matt made no reference to Rehburg or Baucus.  That's confusing to the reader of your comment, wouldn't you agree?  After all, we need to keep things very clear, here.

Second:

And the people who support them, enable them, and run interference for them  should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are doing it for love or for money?

My guess is most of the time it's for money.

It would appear that you are actually agreeing with Rich's lame attack on Matt Singer and Forward Montana, but yet you wouldn't actually show the clarity to do so.  Is Forward Montana running interference for Baucus?  How so?  Are they doing it for the money?  If this is your contention, then your comment was well placed, but horribly poorly written.  You do strive to be clear, yes?

If that was not your contention, then you are at odds with Mark T.  Mark contends that Baucus supporters/enablers have actually been hoodwinked by propaganda and party manipulation into believing the unbelievable, that Baucus actually cares about their concerns.  You contend that they do so for profit (actually, Rich did, but we've assumed for this paragraph that you weren't responding in agreement with Rich).  That's awfully muddled, now isn't it?  Perhaps you could clarify?  Who is correct, you, Mark, both or neither one?  As an activist, you should be able to clarify such a simple matter.  I await your response.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 22:59:19 PM UTC

And please, (0.00 / 0)

Feel free to substitute the word "courage" for "clarity" wherever you deem it appropriate.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:02:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]