Pelosi To Dems: Time To Take A Stand On Public Option

Well, at least she has Roland Burris in her corner...what a skank.

Quote :

Nancy Pelosi is ready to rumble. The House Speaker told her Democratic caucus Tuesday night that she plans to bring a health care reform bill with a robust public option to the House floor for a vote, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells HuffPost. But first she needs to know that the party is with her.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been tallying support for a public insurance option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates over the last several weeks. According to people in the room Tuesday night, Pelosi told her members that the caucus is close to the 218 votes needed to pass the bill. She went on to say that the few remaining undecideds - or undeclareds - needed to let Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) know by Wednesday where they stand.

The caucus will meet again Wednesday evening to retake the Democratic temperature. If the 218 votes are there, the party will plow forward and go to conference committee negotiations with a strong hand.

The challenge from Pelosi to her caucus puts the onus on her to find the votes. "Do I think it will get to 218? I have such confidence in our speaker Nancy Pelosi, that when she is determined, as a strong woman - I can't guarantee everything - but I do believe she's determined to go into the conference with the Senate with a strong public option," Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday.

"As with so many other issues, the American public is way ahead of even those of us in Congress," said Rep. Donna Edwards, a progressive Democrat from Maryland. "It's good fortune and a lot of hard work on the part of the Speaker and the Democratic caucus for us to finally come where the American people are."

A progressive public option also puts pressure on Senate negotiators hammering out the final health care bill in the upper chamber. A robust public option on the House side could give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) the political wiggle room to include a more conservative public option in his package. It would then come down to a duel between the chambers.

Pelosi was "upbeat" as she delivered her news and made the call to the caucus, said one person in the room. A Washington Post-ABC poll released Tuesday showed support for the public option climbing nationally.

The robust public option's ability to save money bodes well for its future. Pelosi shared the outlines of a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of the House bill, telling the caucus it came in at well under $900 billion over ten years.

President Obama has demanded that the package come in at under $900 billion. "Without the public option, which has been scored as a big cost saver, it will be hard for us to meet the $900 billion mark and provide the affordability to Americans that is absolutely essential," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).

Clear majority now back public option: poll

Quote :

A "clear majority" of Americans now support a government-run public insurance plan as a competitor to private insurance companies, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Tuesday.

The findings show that public support for a public option is growing. Over the last two months, the public option's support has risen from 52 to 57 percent, the poll says.

Artie60438 wrote:

Clear majority now back public option: poll

Quote :

A "clear majority" of Americans now support a government-run public insurance plan as a competitor to private insurance companies, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Tuesday.

The findings show that public support for a public option is growing. Over the last two months, the public option's support has risen from 52 to 57 percent, the poll says.

Once again gramps, letting the public opinion polls do his thinking...very, very sad.

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Clear majority now back public option: poll

Quote :

A "clear majority" of Americans now support a government-run public insurance plan as a competitor to private insurance companies, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Tuesday.

The findings show that public support for a public option is growing. Over the last two months, the public option's support has risen from 52 to 57 percent, the poll says.

Once again gramps, letting the public opinion polls do his thinking...very, very sad.

As opposed to wingnuts who ignore what the public wants and is in favor of. That strategy of saying NO to everything is working out so well for you Repubs,isn't it? :rolfcry:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Clear majority now back public option: poll

Quote :

A "clear majority" of Americans now support a government-run public insurance plan as a competitor to private insurance companies, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Tuesday.

The findings show that public support for a public option is growing. Over the last two months, the public option's support has risen from 52 to 57 percent, the poll says.

Once again gramps, letting the public opinion polls do his thinking...very, very sad.

As opposed to wingnuts who ignore what the public wants and is in favor of. That strategy of saying NO to everything is working out so well for you Repubs,isn't it? :rolfcry:

Hey gramps...better consult your Magic 8 Ball...

Quote :

Speaker Nancy Pelosi counted votes Thursday night and determined she could not pass a “robust public option” — the most aggressive of the three forms of a public option House Democrats have been considering as part of a national overhaul of health care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091023/pl_politico/28651

House health reform will have public option-Pelosi

WASHINGTON, Oct 23 (Reuters) - The health reform bill making its way through the House of Representatives will include a public insurance option, but negotiations are continuing on the details of the plan, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday.
"At the end of the day we will have a public option" in the House bill, Pelosi told a news conference.
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=7590627&subject=economic&action=article

Media distorts coverage on fate of public option

If you woke up this morning and read the headlines you would think that the public option was all but killed in Congress. Included were the following headlines from various media sources:

Fox News: "Pelosi reportedly lacks votes for robust public option"

The Hill: "Whip count show Democrats lack votes for 'robust' public option"

POLITICO: "Exclusive: Nancy Pelosi lacks votes for most sweeping public option"

Lost in the hysteria (and cheering from conservatives) was the realities of the situation and the complicated legislative process. Talking points Memo has some of the more detailed and accurate accounts of the real situation with the public option. Evidently the Democrats met in a private caucus and in that meeting the most robust form of the public option failed to garner enough yes votes to pass. It is important to note however that this version of the public option, advocated by Sen. Rockefeller, is essentially the public option steroids and every liberals dream version of the bill. In addition a number of the Democrats in caucus cast a vote of "undecided." In reality a number of these undecideds would likely turn into "yes" votes once they were forced to vote in a public forum where their liberal constituents could hold them accountable. A slightly more moderate version, but still strong, version of the public option advocated by Sen. Schumer has not failed. Sen. Schumer's version of the public option is still considered "robust" by many liberals and is certainly more progressive than the bill passed out of the Senate Finance Committee.

So in conclusion once again rumors of the public options demise have been exaggerated. In reality what happened was that many Democrats paused at supporting the most progressive form of the public option in a private caucus. This does not mean that the a robust public option lacks the votes to pass, it merely means one version of a robust public option failed to gain support in a private meeting of Democrats in the early stages of passing the legislation.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m10d23-Media-distorts-coverage-on-fate-of-public-option#

I don't think Pelosi trying to rename the public option is gonna work. People are watching this issue too closely to be sucked in because unlike most Federal initiatives it directly involves something important in everybody's own lives.

They've lost their token Republican and their Token Independent. This is a dead turkey!

As a democrat I find it important to say Pelosi needs to be voted out. She is an egotistical powerhungry leader. She and Reid need to be gone. They have forgotten what it means to be a Democrat, and what they need to fight for. Both are power hungry and should be gone. They no longer represent the Democratic party. Greed and power is all they seem to want. No "public option" No cap and trade. That is just stupid. It is time I think for a strong third party to get in. Lets get back to the origional purpose of the Democratic Party. The party of JFK, and Roosevelt. The party of the "common" man. (sorry ladies). Lets get back to basics and do the right thing, not for me, my neighbor, or anyone else, just the right thing.

Face wrote:

As a democrat I find it important to say Pelosi needs to be voted out. She is an egotistical powerhungry leader. She and Reid need to be gone. They have forgotten what it means to be a Democrat, and what they need to fight for. Both are power hungry and should be gone. They no longer represent the Democratic party. Greed and power is all they seem to want. No "public option" No cap and trade. That is just stupid. It is time I think for a strong third party to get in. Lets get back to the origional purpose of the Democratic Party. The party of JFK, and Roosevelt. The party of the "common" man. (sorry ladies). Lets get back to basics and do the right thing, not for me, my neighbor, or anyone else, just the right thing.

Have you had a chance to see Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism, a love story"? He has a video clip of FDR's last state of the union message. In it, he called for a second bill of rights which would guarantee citizens a right to homes,jobs,education and health care. I agree that we need to start removing Democrats from office who will not make decisions that are in the best interest of the middle class. Voting Evan Bayh out of office would be a great start.

Face wrote:

As a democrat I find it important to say Pelosi needs to be voted out. She is an egotistical powerhungry leader.

Yeah. Well you'd be hard pressed to find any former Speaker of The House who wasn't an egomaniac.

Face wrote:

She and Reid need to be gone. They have forgotten what it means to be a Democrat, and what they need to fight for. Both are power hungry and should be gone. They no longer represent the Democratic party. Greed and power is all they seem to want.

I don't care much for Reid either. However my problem with him is that he's not combative enough for my taste. Personally, I'd prefer somebody like Durbin as Senate Majority Leader.

Face wrote:

No "public option"

Wow, I'd really like to know why you oppose a "public option," Face. It looks like this is moving into a public option with an "opt-out" for the states if they wish. What's wrong with that approach?

Face wrote:

No cap and trade. That is just stupid.

There's a climate change emergency that is quickly moving into a crisis stage. I don't see how anyone can just flat out oppose a cap and trade system without knowing the details.

Face wrote:

It is time I think for a strong third party to get in. Lets get back to the origional purpose of the Democratic Party. The party of JFK, and Roosevelt. The party of the "common" man. (sorry ladies). Lets get back to basics and do the right thing, not for me, my neighbor, or anyone else, just the right thing.

Well, it's possible that a third party might arise, but I don't think that a new party is going to "get in" any time soon. Do you?

As for "doing the right thing," I think that some form of a "public option" is the right thing. And preserving the earth's climate sure seems like the "right thing" to me.

I'm frankly taken aback by your post, Face. Perhaps I've misunderstood it? Care to clarify?

Face wrote:

As a democrat I find it important to say Pelosi needs to be voted out. She is an egotistical powerhungry leader. She and Reid need to be gone. They have forgotten what it means to be a Democrat, and what they need to fight for. Both are power hungry and should be gone. They no longer represent the Democratic party. Greed and power is all they seem to want. No "public option" No cap and trade. That is just stupid. It is time I think for a strong third party to get in. Lets get back to the origional purpose of the Democratic Party. The party of JFK, and Roosevelt. The party of the "common" man. (sorry ladies). Lets get back to basics and do the right thing, not for me, my neighbor, or anyone else, just the right thing.

I agree with you. IMO, BOTH parties have forgotten the people. It's time for a new party, who will represent the people, and not their own interests.

What I see wrong is that the "public option" really isn't an option. If from what I hear is true, fines and penalties would be incurred if you don't have something. I feel this is totally wrong. Secondly if you look at how the H1N1 vaccine has been handled, it is obvious that the govenrment cannot handle anything like that on a "sma;;" scale, how can they administer being in the insurance business. Third, I believe the attacks on the insurance industry is misguiede anger. It should be directed (IMHO) toward the hospitals and doctors. How can one with insurance go and get an MRI receive a bill for about $3000 and after a "PPO" discount have the bill reduced to about $1200? So the poor guy without insurance has to pay the "full fare". Reform needs to be directed toward pricing. If the prices are in line, then the insurance payout would be less, therefore making insurance a more "viable" option. Now while I agree there should be no "in-network" providers, all providers should be included in every plan. State insurance laws are archaic (sp) and should allow all "qualified" insurance companies to cross state lines and go after all of the business. More companies mean less cost to the consumer. The government in the past few months have had two programs fall flat on their face. Cash for Clunkers, and the vaccine for H1N1. This tells volumes to me.

Face wrote:

No cap and trade. That is just stupid.

Cap and trade is nothing more than someone else stating who can do what. There is a better option, no I don't know what it is, but the cap and trade will ending up costing the average citizens plenty of money. These companies are not going to absorb the increase, they will just pass it on to the consumer. Therefore is there really any idea where the end consumer won't be harmed, probably not, but come up with something else. It limits the companies in this country and puts us here at a very large disadvantage across the globe.


Scorp, I hope this does a little more clarity as to where I was coming from.

Face wrote:

There is a better option, no I don't know what it is. . .

That seems strange.

Face wrote:

but the cap and trade will ending up costing the average citizens plenty of money. These companies are not going to absorb the increase, they will just pass it on to the consumer.

That's stated often enough but it's never offered with any actual proof. Do you have any? I keep asking, but I'm usually ignored. Like I said there, The reports and studies I've seen on mitigation conclude that it's pretty inexpensive, especially compared to the alternative. Besides, we've used cap and trade before, haven't we?

Face wrote:

What I see wrong is that the "public option" really isn't an option. If from what I hear is true, fines and penalties would be incurred if you don't have something. I feel this is totally wrong.

Yeah. Well nobody is forced to choose the public option. It's simply one choice available in the "insurance exchange" that's being proposed. Simply put, this is like the plan the government employees enjoy today. They seem quite happy with it.

As far as some kind of health insurance being mandatory, this will help hold down costs by providing a larger risk pool for the insurance companies to tap, and the insured will no longer have to absorb the costs of caring for the uninsured. There is a "hardship" exemption for those who can't afford to purchase any health insurance, even with monetary assistance.

I don't see the "mandatory" nature of this as being a lot different from the requirement that everyone has auto insurance.

Face wrote:

Secondly if you look at how the H1N1 vaccine has been handled, it is obvious that the govenrment cannot handle anything like that on a "sma;;" scale, how can they administer being in the insurance business.

The government is already in the "insurance business." Medicaid and Medicare are much better examples than the one that you cited.

Face wrote:

Third, I believe the attacks on the insurance industry is misguiede anger. It should be directed (IMHO) toward the hospitals and doctors. How can one with insurance go and get an MRI receive a bill for about $3000 and after a "PPO" discount have the bill reduced to about $1200? So the poor guy without insurance has to pay the "full fare".

In realty, both hospitals and insurance companies share the blame for the "full fare" charges. Insurance companies and "preferred providers" negotiate the reimbursement prices of all the procedures. In your example, the "real cost" of the procedure i(for those who are insured) is probably quite close to $1200 The uninsured get gouged because they are uninsured. I agree that it is unfair, but I would argue that is another reason to support insurance reform.

Face wrote:

Reform needs to be directed toward pricing. If the prices are in line, then the insurance payout would be less, therefore making insurance a more "viable" option. Now while I agree there should be no "in-network" providers, all providers should be included in every plan.

That's almost exactly what the "insurance exchanges" are designed to accomplish.

Face wrote:

State insurance laws are archaic (sp) and should allow all "qualified" insurance companies to cross state lines and go after all of the business. More companies mean less cost to the consumer. The government in the past few months have had two programs fall flat on their face. Cash for Clunkers, and the vaccine for H1N1. This tells volumes to me.

Yeah well like I said earlier, Medicaid and Medicare and the benefits enjoyed by government employees are better examples.

I'm curious about why you think that "Cash for Clunkers" was a failure. Care to elaborate?

Face wrote:

Cap and trade is nothing more than someone else stating who can do what. There is a better option, no I don't know what it is, but the cap and trade will ending up costing the average citizens plenty of money. These companies are not going to absorb the increase, they will just pass it on to the consumer. Therefore is there really any idea where the end consumer won't be harmed, probably not, but come up with something else. It limits the companies in this country and puts us here at a very large disadvantage across the globe.

There is no way that any "cap and trade" system is going to pass without some kind of financial subsidies to consumers to compensate for any increased costs. I don't really think that's an issue.

It's going to take a worldwide effort to address climate change. I really can't see us negotiating a deal that will put us at a competitive disadvantage. The way things are going right now, we're importing solar panels from countries overseas. Stuff like that has got to end. But it won't until we make a firm commitment to alternative energy technologies.

Face wrote:

Secondly if you look at how the H1N1 vaccine has been handled, it is obvious that the government cannot handle anything like that on a "small" scale, how can they administer being in the insurance business.

I have been following the H1N1 vaccine developement and production quite closely and am really curious why you think our government has mishandled this issue? The federal government was only responsible for two parts of the vaccine process, testing by the FDA and ordering and paying for the vaccine. All of the manufacturing of the vaccine was done by private companies. Which part of the process do you believe the government failed at,testing or procurement?

Heretic- I am not aware of the cap and trade idea being used before, let me know when it was.

Scorp, while the Government is in the insurance business, they have failed. Medicare and medicaid are both damn near broke. It was never managed properly. Too many layers there to be effective and productive. Our government no matter who is in charge don't know how to run a lean "business", too many people with a hidden motive. As far as your link with auto insurance, well it is a horse of a different color. If I choose not to buy auto insurance, I can, and have no government "penalty", as long as I don't own a car. While I can't do that here where I live now, I could if I life in a "big city", and take public transportation.


As fare as cash for clunkers, here is where the line had been drawn. Obama stated that payment would be in one week once the request was given (yes you had to submit the proper documantation). That was FAR from the truth. We were on the hook for $500,000 for over one month before one dime was paid. We did not have any submissions denied because of missing documents or unqualified purchases. If that is how they would pay for services, they might as well own the whole thing with health care.


Sparks, here is where the government failed on the H1N1 Vaccine. They were in charge of distribution. They once again over promissed and under delivered. As far as the production, well why did Australia fund a study and process where it would take half the time to bring it to market???? It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Having said all of this, I will say I dod vote for the current Administration, and generally am not mad with what he has done, but he over promissed and delivered nothing. What about the promiss of putting the bill on line for at least 1 week before a vote. HASEN'T HAPPENED YET. What about a tranparent government. HASENT HAPPENED YET. Either he didn't understand the process, or just gve us lip service. My opinion, lip service. I want him to succeed, and do one hell of a job, but for some reason he just cant get off the dime and make what he said he would do happen. Sad to say!

Face wrote:

Heretic- I am not aware of the cap and trade idea being used before, let me know when it was.

Scorp, while the Government is in the insurance business, they have failed. Medicare and medicaid are both damn near broke. It was never managed properly. Too many layers there to be effective and productive. Our government no matter who is in charge don't know how to run a lean "business", too many people with a hidden motive. As far as your link with auto insurance, well it is a horse of a different color. If I choose not to buy auto insurance, I can, and have no government "penalty", as long as I don't own a car. While I can't do that here where I live now, I could if I life in a "big city", and take public transportation.
Sparks, here is where the government failed on the H1N1 Vaccine. They were in charge of distribution. They once again over promissed and under delivered. As far as the production, well why did Australia fund a study and process where it would take half the time to bring it to market???? It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Sparks wrote:

Do you have a link about Australians producing enough H1N1 vaccine to meet the needs of that country in half the time?

Having said all of this, I will say I dod vote for the current Administration, and generally am not mad with what he has done, but he over promissed and delivered nothing. What about the promiss of putting the bill on line for at least 1 week before a vote. HASEN'T HAPPENED YET. What about a tranparent government. HASENT HAPPENED YET. Either he didn't understand the process, or just gve us lip service. My opinion, lip service. I want him to succeed, and do one hell of a job, but for some reason he just cant get off the dime and make what he said he would do happen. Sad to say!

One of the best run healthcare systems in the country is run by the VA. They have some of the highest patient satisfaction ratings in the country, they have a great patient outcome record, they have instituted system-wide electronic patient records and have held down costs while costs have skyrocketed elsewhere. There are two reasons for their success. The first is the VA is a single payer system which keeps billing and administration costs low and the second reason is that the VA's primary objective is to provide good care, not to make a profit. I believe the VA healthcare system is a model of what health care throughout the country could look like if we quit allowing corporations to reap windfall profits off of sick Americans.

60 minutes had a terrific piece tonight on the H1N1 Vaccine and the production of it. It was the Federal Government that decoded the virus in record time. The snags in production had nothing to do with the gov't at all. You can read the transcript or watch it @ An Inside Look at H1N1 Vaccine Production..60 Minutes Visits the Only H1N1 Production Line in the U.S

For those of you who are interested in learning more about why our present health care is so expensive,here is an excellent video that discusses our existing system. It is produced by doctors who have spent their entire careers dealing with a system that has been twisted to produce profits rather than keeping us healthy. There are quite a few different groups ranging from Consumer's Union to the AMA producing their own solutions to reform our broken health care system. On the other side of the fence, I have yet to see a single video that explains why we should keep our existing system.

Artie60438 wrote:

60 minutes had a terrific piece tonight on the H1N1 Vaccine and the production of it. It was the Federal Government that decoded the virus in record time. The snags in production had nothing to do with the gov't at all. You can read the transcript or watch it @ An Inside Look at H1N1 Vaccine Production..60 Minutes Visits the Only H1N1 Production Line in the U.S

I had a chance to read the article you posted and was stunned to read Glenn Beck's comments.

Quote :

In New York City last week, schools reported well over half the parents declined to give permission for the shot. Nationwide, 40 percent of those polled say they won't take the vaccine.

It may be because the Internet and talk shows have added to the confusion.

"If it's so mild, why wouldn't we just have a chicken pox party? Why wouldn't we just get someone to cough on me?" talk show host Glenn Beck asked.

"There's been Limbaugh and Beck and Bill Maher. Bill Maher told his viewers that they would be idiots to take the vaccine," Pelley told Secretary Sebelius.

"Well, I tend to like to get my health advice from doctors and scientists. And that's what we would urge people to do," she replied.

Are there Americans out there ignorant enough to listen to losers who cry like babies on national tv for their health advice? Wouldn't it be nice if a waiter in one of the restaurants that Beck frequents caught H1N1 and coughed on Beck a few times to test out his theory?

sparks wrote:

Are there Americans out there ignorant enough to listen to losers who cry like babies on national tv for their health advice? Wouldn't it be nice if a waiter in one of the restaurants that Beck frequents caught H1N1 and coughed on Beck a few times to test out his theory?

What a twisted little mind, for a person of your bulk.

sparks wrote:

Are there Americans out there ignorant enough to listen to losers who cry like babies on national tv for their health advice? Wouldn't it be nice if a waiter in one of the restaurants that Beck frequents caught H1N1 and coughed on Beck a few times to test out his theory?

Right off the top of my head,I can think of several people that frequent message boards that feel the same way as kooks like Beck do. I got my shot last week. Took me 1hr 15 minutes total.

Face wrote:

Heretic- I am not aware of the cap and trade idea being used before, let me know when it was.

I don't know specifics, but a quick search came up with this via the EPA:

Quote :

Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.

Examples of successful cap and trade programs include the nationwide Acid Rain Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast. Additionally, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on March 10, 2005, to build on the success of these programs and achieve significant additional emission reductions.

Face wrote:

If I choose not to buy auto insurance, I can, and have no government "penalty", as long as I don't own a car. While I can't do that here where I live now, I could if I life in a "big city", and take public transportation.

Aren't you covered by insurance on public transportation?

Face wrote:

Sparks, here is where the government failed on the H1N1 Vaccine. They were in charge of distribution. They once again over promissed and under delivered. As far as the production, well why did Australia fund a study and process where it would take half the time to bring it to market???? It just doesn't pass the smell test.

But they weren't in charge of supply, which is where the problem was. They overpromised based on what the private manufacturers said they would provide and failed to deliver. Something completely beyond their control, right? Sure, they could have handled the entire thing, but that would really have thrown Beck's disciples and all the 9/12 waterheads into a tailspin. And what study was that from Australia? I haven't heard of that one.