The stage is set. The bloc of progressive House members yesterday delivered a letter to the White House that reiterated their commitment to a public option in any legislation that addressed healthcare reform.
"Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Mediare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable," reads the letter, which was sent over by a source. It was signed by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva, the two leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs," the letter continues. "We cannot vote for anything less."
There's been a lot of talk from some - like Senator Baucus - that reform won't, can't, include the public option. Well, now it's obvious that reform can't not include the public option either.
Ezra Klein expressed doubt around the strategy of a progressive bloc demanding, you know, actual reform in the bill. The centrists, he opined, don't care if a bill gets passed:
The reason the Blue Dogs have a reputation for being happy to let the world burn is that they really, really, really are willing to let the world burn, let health care fail, let cap-and-trade die, let Iraq grind on. The reason liberals have a reputation for not wanting to let the world burn is that all the anti-burn initiatives under discussion are, in fact, items from their agenda. They really, really, really don't want the world to burn.
The centrists have all the advantage, right? Well, not so much. FDL's scarecrow reminds Klein that there are more important players in the game:
The Progressive strategy is to stop being the patsy for a compromising White House, while genuine reform is given away yet again. So this not about playing chicken with Mike Ross. Even if it's true that some Blue Dogs don't care whether we get health reform -- and I believe many do care -- the point is that the White House cares. And they care not so much about genuine reform but about not being seen as losers, because that means this is a one-term, failed Presidency.
The Progressives' clear-eyed strategy says that a winning Presidency depends on demanding and fighting for real reforms. And if the White House can't see that, the progressives are telling this President that they won't be used again if the White House acts as if it only cares about itself.
That's the point, isn't it? And that's the message for Emmanuel, and Max Baucus, too - even if he doesn't understand it yet. Instead of trying to water down the bill to make it palatable for Chuck Grassley, he needs to start building support for a public option within his own party. He sits as the chair of one of the most powerful committees in the Senate, he should start using that power to get people in line - if not to support the public option, then, at least, not to filibuster any bill that includes it.
Here's the thing: we are doing everything we can to make sure reform includes a public option, and to kill anything without it. That's the reality. That's the topography of this political fight.
So let's not hear any more bullsh*t about how you can't get the public option through the Senate. It's your job to make it happen, one way or another.
So. There was a meeting hosted by a president in Montana yesterday. While I'm at the NN09 in Pittsburgh, I followed Facebook accounts of the ugly, ugly protests - and Charles Johnson's coverage in the Gazette left out the uglier aspects of the Tea Baggers, the white supremacists, the Obama = Hitler signs, etc & co, and the pushing and shoving that went on. (Rumor: a Tea Bagger was arrested?) Remember: these protests are not about health care....
I'd point you to the various summaries of Obama's speech in Bozeman, but better to read what he said. For me, the biggest news was that he reaffirmed his commitment to the public option, and his continued advocacy for a surtax on the wealthy (as opposed to taxing health care benefits) as a means for paying for health care reform. You'll notice that both stances differ substantially from where Baucus (apparently) stands.
By making a rare presidential visit to Montana, Barack Obama has put even more pressure on the rural state's senior senator, Max Baucus, and his panel to produce bipartisan health care legislation in just a month's time.
Given the context of this visit - the fact that Baucus' committee is essentially single-handedly holding up health care and gutting provisions that the Democratic caucus thinks crucial to reform - you can't help but think Obama's visit is intended to put pressure on Max by appealing directly to his constituents. And then there's this from the Gouras report:
For his part, Baucus doesn't appear worried that a bipartisan group of six senators has already blown through several targets for producing a Finance Committee bill. The veteran senator has told Obama that "it will be ready when it's ready" - even if that means waiting until September.
Heh. Tough words, eh?
Probably as a result of signals from the White House, which Jane Hamsher helps us interpret. The WH, through Emmanuel, is blaming Baucus for the logjam in Congress, and he and Jim Messina are being set up to take the fall if all fails, and for any untoward deals cut in Baucus committee with the health-care industry. (Wasn't it in the Indy's profile that Baucus said his whole life prepared him for this legislation? Little did he know how prescient that comment may be...)
So now Obama's in Montana playing "good cop."
Oh, and in case you want a good laugh, check out Montana GOP chair (and Missoulian!) Will Deschamps lame attempts to put forth positive policy on health care:
Deschamps said the current system does have problems, but he doesn't think the federal government ought to be the one trying to fix it. Asked what role central government should play in health care changes, Deschamps said he "didn't have a hard and fast answer."
He said the government should use other means to change health care.
"Maybe they should spend their time in the (public relations) end of it," he said. "They should promote healthy living."
Some people can afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it, he said, particularly young people who don't think they'll get sick.
"There ought to be some way to encourage them to buy health insurance without government interference," he said.
That would lower premiums for everyone else.
Uh...okay...so basically stick with the status quo. Cool.
My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.
So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States....
The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now -- before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.
Jon Tester
Max Baucus
Brian Schweitzer
Dennis McDonald
Margarett Campbell
Jean Lemire Dahlman
Ed Tinsley
Still no response from any on whether they'll agree to vote for the candidate Montana's voters choose in the June primary. Give 'em a call, and ask if they'll pledge their votes to our choice!
The good Jackie Corr noted that Sen. John Melcher is a superdelegate (Wikipedia lists him), but I've read that he's no longer one. Anyone has more info on that?
