The Solomon Solution? Split the Bill

The public option was bargained away in a back room last March. We aren't that dumb, Matt. (4.00 / 1)

And I can guarantee you that progressives will chill. We will be very chill.

Good luck on getting Romney care passed. It's looking like a big victory for Dem campaign coffers and a defeat for Repo fund raising. You must be proud.

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 16:40:30 PM UTC

Well then ... (0.00 / 0)

The public option was bargained away in a back room last March. We aren't that dumb, Matt.

Believing a falsehood is no good indicator of your intelligence, Steve.  And don't bother accusing me of trolling; you brought it up.  The public option has not been bargained away.  It still exists in HB 3200.  Single payer still exists in HB 676 (which you have been lauding all over, what with Pelosi saying it will get a vote and the CBO doing a budget analysis.)  So please don't try and convince anyone that the PO is gone when your own writing contradicts you.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:46:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you daft? (2.00 / 2)

How can ether be a viable public option if the White House doesn't support it, and the Senate doesn't support it?

---

by: Mark t @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:53:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ether is a narcotic gas. (0.00 / 0)

I guess I'm not too daft if I recognize that simple fact.

And yet again, MarkT, you promote a slice in time as if it is the fact that shapes all reality.  It isn't.  "The White House" hasn't signed jack.  The Senate hasn't even proffered a bill.  Now who would be more daft, MarkT?  The guy pointing out Steve's own contradictions, or the guy who thinks he knows the future?  OhhhOooweeeOoooH ...

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:03:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you want to call that shriveled turd in hr3200 "A Public Option" then be my guest. It won't be available to (0.00 / 0)

the public, as it is currently written, but why should that keep anyone, especially you, from using the misnomer "public option" when describing it?

Single payer exists both in HR676 and as an amendment to HR3200 that would allow states to opt out of Romney/Obama Care and to set up their own single payer system using federal dollars.

No one has yet introduced a bill with the public option as it was conceived of and testified about in congress by Professor Hacker, the entrepreneur who invented the plan. That would be a government run pool that would start with 130 million enrollees and would allow anyone to opt in who wanted to. It would use Medicare reimbursement rates, and it would negotiate for fair drug prices. It would use it's size, buying power, and it's pricing advantages to the fullest degree. You should read the bill, (HR3200) or at least the CBO scoring of the bill, Wulgar. Then you might understand what you are attempting to write about. Not that that's ever stopped you before, I know. But try it. You might like it.

The pool as contained in HR3200 is a shriveled up turd.

There is also a pool in the Senate HELP Bill, which is even worse, if you can believe that, than the one in HR3200. Some people attemt to foist the name of public option on that as well.

Here is a very well researched and written article on the history of the public option, it's theory of how it's supposed to operate, and about what's in the bills currently. Read this, you will learn something Wulfgar.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/2...

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:23:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually Steve, I've read it. (0.00 / 0)

You are a poor teacher because you assume so much.

And you still haven't refuted my point, but rather supported it.  If  HB 676 is still viable as you have argued, and if the Weiner amendmebnt is still viable than you have contradicted yourself by writing, and I quote you:

The public option was bargained away in a back room last March.

Get your story straight if you wish to denigrate others.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:33:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well if you read it then you would know that there is no "Public Option" in HR3200, it's a (0.00 / 0)

tiny pool restricted to a few specific people with no buying or bargaining power, no way to drive down costs.

And HR676 has been promised a full floor debate and vote by the House Speaker. It doesn't have a "public option" in it, it is a single payer bill.

Weiner withdrew his amendment to HR3200 in return for the Speaker giving HR676 a future full floor debate and vote.

HR3200 has the Kucinich amendment in it to allow states to dump the Obama/Romney Private Insurance giveaway Bill (HR3200) and to start up their own single payer system. That was passed out of committee, but of course it could be stripped out in a later committee or on the floor. The Kucinich amendment isn't a "Public Option," it's a states rights provision so that states can protect their citizens from the criminal private insurance conspiracy.

Yes I know it's a lot to digest, but if you read carefully you will figure it out.

Single payer and "Public Option" are not the same thing, Wulfgar.

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 23:02:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

~sigh~ (0.00 / 0)

There is a public option in HB 3200 as written.  It just isn't what you want to see.

And HR676 has been promised a full floor debate and vote by the House Speaker. It doesn't have a "public option" in it, it is a single payer bill.

No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't make your spew even one ounce less contradictory.  In fact, it worsens your problems with yourself.  You said that "the public option was bargained away in a back room last March."  Prove it.  It's a lie. Single payer was removed from the table last March, very publicly with much light shown by you. But you still favor a lie and a contradiction when you falsely claim that PO is off the table.  The onus is on you, Steve, not me.

W

einer withdrew his amendment to HR3200 in return for the Speaker giving HR676 a future full floor debate and vote.

Apologies.  I didn't see that official reaction.  But one has to wonder why you brought it up if it had already been withdrawn.  You wrote:

and as an amendment to HR3200 that would allow states to opt out of Romney/Obama Care and to set up their own single payer system using federal dollars.

That still makes my point.  You claimed that a back room deal killed any public offering when this clearly shows that such has not been done.  You contradict yourself, Steve.  That was my whole point, and you obviously support it.

If you want to draw a line between "public option" and "single payer", you go right ahead.  You're only opening yourself up to a world of hurt.  Not from me, certainly.  But the fact that you do so to defend yourself against obvious inconsistency is really kind of sad.

Yes I know it's a lot to digest, but if you read carefully you will figure it out.

Don't ever talk to me again about civility, pissant.  You know that was insulting.  You meant it to be.  There are those of us who have real lives, and don't obsess every minute about the health care debate.  Here's the truth.  There are vastly, overwhelmingly, more of us than there are of you.  And you just insulted all of us.  When your desire fails Steve, don't blame me.  Blame yourself for being arrogant and condescending.  That appears to be the only true talent you appear to have.  Honesty, not so much.

Single payer and "Public Option" are not the same thing, Wulfgar.

I repeat, no shit, Sherlock.  Doesn't stand against my point one teeny bit.  You have contradicted yourself.  The wise man would acknowledge that fact.  Then there is you.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 23:43:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sick and tired of reading commentary (4.00 / 1)

from people who have good health coverage. They just don't understand the situation from the position of someone who has preexisting conditions, can't get coverage, couldn't afford coverage if they could get it, and are currently in the process of dying slow deaths from untreated illnesses, all the while having to watch idiots parading around with stupid signs full of lies, demanding appeasement.

I'm glad that some people like Paul Stark can treat this like some intellectual game, with the goal of appeasing right wing wackos enough to pass something that Obama can claim victory for, all the while setting up progressive to take the fall if reform fails.

This is so f*cking ass backwards. Blame the progressive for failing to appease the right wing enough. Why can't we just blame the right wing wackos for the failure? Blame the republicans. Blame the corporations. Why can't they be the ones that compromise is demanded of. Why can't they be the ones that are derided for being inflexible?

I'm sorry, but if it comes to people like Stark setting up progressives to take the fall for the failure of dem leadership to... LEAD. Starks' position will infuriate the left, and further drive the wedge between progressives and moderates.

Matt, I truly hope that your posting this here isn't a harbinger of your falling in line with Stark's line of thought. If so, then I guess all of those lively debates we had where you talked me down into supporting a strong public option were useless. I've already compromised far too much. Much better to retreat and start supporting the work of Kucinich and Sanders and Weiner, exclusiveley.

The white house may be lambasting the "left of the left" and decrying "progressive litmus tests," but you know what? We have principles, and what our leadership is doing is sacrificing principles.

The truth of the matter is that most of us "left of the left" believe that health insurers are evil. That appeasing an evil system is evil. But if the final destination can be clearly divined, then maybe ends justify the means.

With health care reform without a PO, the ends no longer are clear, hence the means are no longer acceptable. Call it a line in the sand. Call it a cop out. But no PO, NO BILL!

Fuck Stark and any who think like him. I haven't been this pissed reading about health care in a long, long time.

Thanks for making my day, Matt.

---

by: JC @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 18:08:09 PM UTC

JC?????? (2.00 / 2)

Watching you guys eviscerate others who are on the same side as you but walk a different strategic path, makes me wince.  People like Matt and Jay seem to be saying bank what's possible, strategically plan for the future, and don't burn bridges to get there.  Your voice and others seem to be calling for some sorta demonstration of mass suicide by falling on your swords while holding hands.   There are reasons why people have battle scars-- they lived to fight another day while reinforcing the bridges that carried them forward.  Just my opinion. I return you to your intramural sword fight.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 18:30:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey Craig... (0.00 / 0)

and what happens to those Republicans that aren't ideologically "pure"?  

---

by: bigsage @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 20:36:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sage, so you are saying (4.00 / 1)

the people here wielding the rhetorical knives are acting like Republicans?  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:00:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Craig - (0.00 / 0)

There is a huge ideological chasm between progressives and Democrats - I think it might be hard for you to see, as you seemingly view us as a monolith.

There are some, like me and a few others here, who feel that Democrats are not forceful enough in advancing progressive causes, were too willing to go along with Bush and his wars and tax cuts, and actually achieved right wing objective under Clinton (financial deregulation, the attack on Kosovo, the horrendous Iraq sanctions, for instance).

On this particular issue, progressives are fighting hard for a true and viable public option, and the regular Democrats are willing to give it away. That's a typical split among us here.

I am glad you come here - it will help you understand us better, just as I get good insight into you by visiting conservative sites.  

---

by: Mark t @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:08:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mark, the following is NOT directed at you (2.00 / 2)

Life is a messy business. Progress is measured by MORE forward steps than backwards ones.

In my opinion, a rational progressive understands life and the effort to move forward. The ideologically blinded, both right and left, can't accept life and its up and down rhythms, and nor can they appreciate the back and forth effort it takes to progress.

Consider hypocrisy not as evil, but a virtue as two halves of the same person walk in the same direction on opposite sides of the canyon until a crossing appears.  Once rejoined the whole person can look back at the difficulty journey on both sides of the divide and appreciate the distance traveled.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:29:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're assuming that progress (0.00 / 0)

can be measured similarly from different points of view. I don't agree with that.

I "understand life and the effort to move forward," yet, my goal of moving forward may be different than yours. I see some of the goals changing if the PO is dropped. My goal is to have a single payer system someday. A single payer for a basic set of benefits for all with a private overlay for additional coverages would be ideal, to appease those that like to have choices in the private sector.

If dropping a PO moves the direction of reform to a private insurance-only model, then it works against my notion of forward progress, and indeed is regressive. I understand incrementalism, and don't mind it being used in health care reform. But if the increments move away from my goals, and cement the status quo in place, so that my goals become less likely to be achieved, then I will work against them.

I'm not alone in my thinking. I would venture that most true progressives and "left of left" individuals think this way. And it seems that the dems in D.C. have horribly misread their progressive and support from the left. I would put my progressive principles up against the lies foisted by the right wing whacko mob any time. Yet I don't see an "leaders" in D.C. doing the same. It leads me to believe that my goals and theirs are not the same. That they lack an adherence to principles needed to call out BS where they see it--Barney Frank aside!

I see no benefit participating in a political process that involves compromising with or accommodating people that come to the table with lies and guns. And I have no desire to work with the people who do.

---

by: JC @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:58:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Come on JC (0.00 / 0)

"I see no benefit participating in a political process that involves compromising with or accommodating people that come to the table with lies and guns."

So it was wrong for Obama to reach out to North Korea?  It was wrong for Bill Clinton to get those young women back?  

We live in the world we have, not the one we wish existed.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:04:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was speaking for me, personally (0.00 / 0)

not for Obama or anybody else.

When Obama reaches out to North Korea, he says, here is the line in the sand. Step over it, and we will bomb you to oblivion. He should do the same with the tea baggers.

When Clinton went to Korea, he had the backing of the US government. Meaning if the Koreans didn't do exactly what the US wanted, the consequences would be severe. I have to admire the cajones of a former US president flying into enemy territory for the rescue.

I wish he could show the same fortitude and walk into the middle of a tea bagger rally and tell them they are all whack. Go right up to that dude with an AR-15 and tell him to go home, put it away, and then he could have an intelligent conversation with the guy--cause that's what we did with Korea.

---

by: JC @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:45:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, the oblivion quote (0.00 / 0)

was Hilary Clinton talking about Iran during the primaries. I assume it was just a gaffe--she said exactly what she meant then, and probably means now.

---

by: JC @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 23:53:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Starr, not Starr (0.00 / 0)

.

---

by: JC @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 20:55:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's unfair, JC (0.00 / 0)

I'm sick and tired of reading commentary from people who have good health coverage. They just don't understand the situation from the position of someone who has preexisting conditions, can't get coverage, couldn't afford coverage if they could get it, and are currently in the process of dying slow deaths from untreated illnesses, all the while having to watch idiots parading around with stupid signs full of lies, demanding appeasement.

That's a pretty bold assumption, and very doubtful at it's foundations.  It assumes that people who don't agree with what you see as your needs simply haven't the capacity to understand because of the slice in time they find themselves in right now.  Let me clarify my complaint with an anecdote.

For the largest portion of my adult life, I have had no health insurance.  I had basic care when I was in college, and didn't get a good plan until 11 years ago.  In the time I was uninsured, I paid thousands of dollars (mostly on credit) for dental care (I suffer from hereditary weak calcium in my teeth), and thousands more for other ailments.  I blew out my knee when I was uninsured, and just muddled through it. The knee has never been fixed, though the other one was when it blew (thank god for insurance). The hip went compensating for a weak knee.  That's probably why I will have to have a hip replacement someday in the not too distant future.  In a rather atypical fashion, my gall bladder went to hell, and had to be removed.  That was 3 emergency room visits, and surgery, thanks to a misdiagnosis fro two years previous.  That included two years of zantac which I didn't need.  ON the third ER visit, when the problem was correctly diagnosed, I wasn't dying slowly.  All of my internal organs had shut down, and I was jaundiced beyond belief.  I was almost dead.  The pain of getting to that point is something that, to this day, I cannot describe and will certainly never forget.  Even now, as I prepare to move my aging mother into my home, I feel the weight of keeping my job at all costs, such that I keep my health insurance; that health insurance which is really really good ... you know, the kind of coverage which makes me incapable of understanding the position of others?

My tale is not as unique as you portray.  I understand your anger, and have no problem with it.  By all means let it out because this is certainly the time.  But I hope that you recognize the target of your fury, and aim well.

The white house may be lambasting the "left of the left" and decrying "progressive litmus tests,"

See, that's what I'm talking about.  That accusation came from an anonymous White House staffer.  I don't care if it came from Rahm or the kitchen busboy, and neither should you. Yet you portray those sentiments as if they come from the President himself.  The propaganda machine certainly wants you to think that, but I think you're a bit smarter than that.  You're just a little (a lot) pissed off.  Consider this.  Maybe that was the 'journalist' objective.    

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:33:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's next, Medicaid? (2.50 / 4)

I suppose bipartisan Democrats will advise we privatize Medicaid next.  I mean, it's better than losing Medicare, right? And poor people don't vote in great numbers, so what are they good for, anyway?  They don't pay much in taxes, and don't contribute their fair share to Democratic candidates come election time. Why not throw them under the bus too, along with the uninsured, unemployed, bankrupt, and anyone "underwater" on their mortgage or overextended with credit card companies.  Matt, are we missing anyone?

---

by: steve kelly @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 20:47:50 PM UTC

I must ask ... (0.00 / 0)

I suppose bipartisan Democrats will advise we privatize Medicaid next.

On what, in reality, do you base this supposition?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:48:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Under Wyden-Bennett (3.67 / 3)

both SCHIP and Medicaid are privatized.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-24...

---

by: JC @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:07:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uhhh, JC? (0.00 / 0)

Wyden-Bennett has languished in the Senate almost as long as HB 676 has been DOA in the House.  Some of the co-sponsors, most of those co-sponsors being Republican, aren't even in the Senate any more.

Mr. Kelly put forth a supposition.  My question remains.  On what is his fearful prediction based?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:26:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the info and the link., JC (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 22:44:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This whole health care debate has succeeded in (0.00 / 0)

pushing people out of the discussion in favor of politics.  Starr, Begala, Sunstein, and other Beltway policy wonks and writers are commenting about the game and not about principle. And sometimes principle must be considered above politics. As a man reminded me today we need to remember the slogan of the civil rights movement.  We must "keep our eyes on the prize". The prize is not getting a bill passed. The prize is understanding that the health of the nation is a national interest. Also, if we put people to work building human infrastructure in education and health like clinics, assisted living quarters, and hiring doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, we can pull ourselves out of this recession and make us healthier at the same time.  We can take our place in the family of civilized nations.    

Amy Goodman had on the longest serving MP in British parliament, Tony Benn. He says that the British just can't understand why we would leave so many million Americans uninsured or under insured.  http://www.democracynow.org/20...

"But I'll tell you what really changed it, and it takes you back to the 1930s. We had mass unemployment, as you did in the United States. And I was a pilot in the Royal Air Force in the war, and we were discussing on a troop ship coming home once how we would deal with the problems of unemployment. And one lad got up, and he said something I've never forgotten. He said, "In the 1930s we had mass unemployment, but we don't have unemployment when we're killing Germans." He said, "If you can have full employment by killing Germans, why can't you have full employment by building hospitals, building schools, recruiting teachers, recruiting nurses, recruiting doctors?" And that's how we got it."

I know.  Talking about principle is so boring. Instead we get wonks and "nudgers" talking about "the game".  Now part of the game is trying to find who to blame for the coming debacle.  Instead of mediocre senators or a lack of leadership from the White House, it's those hysterical and rude lefties.

The fix has been in for awhile. The bill they are considering has many "reforms" not even taking effect until 2013.  I want no part of it.

---

by: Feral Cat @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 23:13:46 PM UTC

Privatization of Medicaid... (1.00 / 1)

Wyden-Bennett is a real bill.  Baucus and the gang of 6 is a real right-wing disaster.  Obama can't say single-payer and is choking on "public option" lately. Republicans are still killing grandma.  Gee, what might give one a sense of worry that this could go terribly wrong, far beyond today's narrow media focus.  

Wulfgar wants proof that Medicaid could be privatized. That's a hard thing to come by these days.  Is there one shred of proof of anything certain at this point in the health care debate?  Not really, that's why so many people are expressing unhappiness.  Relax Wulfgar!, no need for you to worry too.  Max is never going to let YOU down.  Or would he?

---

by: steve kelly @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 17:56:42 PM UTC

Where in the name of Granny Annie's panties did I write any such thing? (0.00 / 0)

Wulfgar wants proof that Medicaid could be privatized.

Bull and shit, Steve.  I don't need proof that it "could" happen, any more than I needed proof that GW "could" privatize Social Security, or Mark Rashincrotch could privatize Montana Power.  I never wrote what you say I did.  And you might want to consider that if you run for office again, putting words in the mouth of a likely voter will just piss them off ... at you.

And you still haven't defended your supposition.

Max is never going to let YOU down.

Since you appear incapable of keeping up with events important to potential constituents (a highly sought quality in a potential candidate, no doubts) allow me to clarify:

Max, has already let me down.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 20:21:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]