home

Senate Dems, White House United For Public Option

mcjoan has the headline to sell - Reid, Obama, Baucus Deliver. All 3 do the right thing today. Reid delivers a federalist public option in the principal bill. WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said:

The President congratulates Senator Reid and Chairmen Baucus and Dodd for their hard work on health insurance reform. [The President is] pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition."

Max Baucus said:

I included a public option in the health reform blueprint I released nearly one year ago, and continue to support any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. Success should be our threshold and I am going to fight hard for the 60 votes we need to meet that goal this year.

All the right moves and all the right noises. Still a fight ahead, but good on the Dems today.

Speaking for me only

< Saudi King Cancels Lashes For Female Journalist | Monday Night Open Thread: "This is It" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Final step: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:15:04 PM EST
    this cannot be a "fall" vote; it has to be the vote. Raise the stakes and you increase the probability of unity and passage.

    Proof is in the pudding. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    What I've witnessed coming out of this WH over the past few days leaves me doubtful about this WH's priorities.  However, still plenty of opportunity to get it right before Obama signs a HCR bill.

    On the contrary, the proof of the pudding ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by cymro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    ... is in the eating, or in other words:

    ... don't assume that something is in order or believe what you are told, but judge the matter by testing it; it's much the same philosophy as in seeing is believing and actions speak louder than words.

    When you get the proverb right, it actually makes sense because it is applicable to this situation.

    Parent

    "witnessed?" (none / 0) (#13)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:01:07 PM EST
    I, for one, am not quite sure what we "witnessed coming out of this WH over the past few days." We have had the usual rumors and rumors of rumors coming out of the press corp and any & every manner of pundit. But then, that would be consistent with most high power negotiations and so-called "endgames."  Wouldn't it be interesting if the weekend amounted to elusive maneuvers of a deliberate sense...perhaps, to keep the Monday Reid presentation intact and not undermined by any rascal?!? (Who knows. In any event, the structure certainly came together on Monday rather well...for something unplanned that is.) The next month or so--I imagaine--will be even more trying.

    Parent
    Hmmm. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:20:55 PM EST
    Could be you understand 11 Dimension Chess better than I.

    Jane Hamsher doesn't seem to play it well either:

    "Only a few years ago, liberals were upset that Dan Rather was pilloried for using questionable documents to prove that George Bush had been AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard.  At the time, the fact that the future President of the United States had engaged in really sketchy activity while wrapping himself in the flag seemed much, much more important.

    Things have changed. Liberals now are far more concerned with the conspiracy of journalists trying to link Barack Obama to triggers, and their shady practice of using anonymous sources is of much more concern than the potential health care costs to millions of Americans.  The fact that the White House is offering up those blind quotes?  Well, those are probably all made up too.

    February 2009 -- Sam Stein of the Huffington Post:  "[A] source close to the administration, who has been in contact with the White House on health care matters, said that Emanuel has been "floating" the trigger compromise since January."

    June 2 -- Obama, Senate Dems Consider Public Health Care Option With A Trigger:   "Multiple Democratic sources tell the Huffington Post that the White House and key members of the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committees are in the process of hammering out key principles on health care reform -- with a meeting scheduled at the West Wing this afternoon. One of the components will be music to progressive ears: that any bill includes an option publicly run health insurance coverage. But it also comes with a caveat that could engender opposition from that very same constituency [a trigger]."

    July 7 -- Wall Street Journal:  "On Monday, Mr. Emanuel said the trigger mechanism would also accomplish the White House's goals. Under this scenario, a public plan would kick in under certain circumstances when competition was judged to be lacking."

    September 2 -- Marc Ambinder:  "The White House hopes that, having voted for a public option, House Dems would accept a "trigger" as part of a conference committee compromise rather than putting the kibosh on the entire health care reform project.  In some ways, this strategy is old, and in some ways it's new.  For months, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been pushing the idea of a "trigger" internally, and he and Snowe regularly trade legislative and political intelligence."

    September 9 -- The President himself, in his speech before the joint session of Congress:  "[S]ome have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies [ed -- "Snowe" trigger plan].  Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan.  These are all constructive ideas worth exploring."

    September 22 -- Bloomberg:  White House Budget Director Peter Orszag "signaled the administration doesn't consider a government-run insurance program essential to the legislation. He suggested it would be sufficient to either create nonprofit insurance-purchasing cooperatives or set "triggers" to activate a public option if needed to cut costs.

    September 23 -- Mike Lux, Open Left:  "Some senior White House staffers are now beginning to try to sell this trigger to progressive groups as the compromise version of a public option, saying the White House doesn't want to have a floor fight in the Senate, and that they can always fix it in conference committee."

    September 30 -- Karen Tumulty, Time Magazine:  "[T]he Obama White House has made no secret of its belief that the trigger could be the compromise on the public option that the President has been looking for."

    October 13 -- Rahm Emanuel on PBS NewsHour:  "[The President] believes strongly because of what it achieves in the sense of keeping the competition that insurance companies need, so the prices don't continue to jump and out of control, that, if there are other ways to achieve that goal, as you know, Senator Snowe has the idea of a trigger, that, in case that price isn't achieved or that competition isn't achieved, there be a trigger that then the option, a public option, would come available."

    October 14 -- NYT reports that "two senior administration officials" say the White House "looked favorably" on Olympia Snowe's plan for a trigger.  "[I]n private conversations with Ms. Snowe, Mr. Obama has brought up her idea for a trigger that would create a government-run plan in states where at least 5 percent of residents lacked access to affordable care. One senior White House official called the idea `very reasonable.'"

    October 15:  Bloomberg:  "The Obama administration signaled a willingness to compromise on a proposed government-run health- insurance company by praising Senator Olympia Snowe's plan to start the entity only if private insurers don't meet targets ... A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that while President Barack Obama prefers the public option, Snowe's trigger was a potentially good compromise if the Senate decides to pursue it."

    October 23 -- Brian Beutler, TPM:  "High level White House officials have floated the trigger trial balloon a number of times in the press, and it seems they continue to do so, even at this crucial stage of the health care reform process, when their involvement is greatest. That has senators who support the public option concerned."

    October 23 -- CNN:  "In recent days, two administration officials have told CNN that the prevailing White House opinion is for the Senate health care bill to include a so-called "trigger" mechanism proposed by Snowe that would bring a public option in the future if thresholds for expanding coverage and lowering costs go unmet in coming years."

    October 24 -- Sam Stein and Ryan Grim, Huffington Post:  "President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan `triggered' into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks."

    The fact that the White House worked hand in hand with the Finance Committee to craft a bill, which doesn't have a public option?  Meaningless.  Reports that they would have put a trigger in that bill but didn't have the votes to get it through?  More lies. When  Mike Allen says "Administration officials have been telling POLITICO for weeks now that [a "trigger" option] is the most likely compromise?"  Made it up out of thin air.  The complete absence of any reporting saying that Obama has called a single Senator or Representative to urge them to vote for a public option?  Well, that's because he's cleverly waiting until the last minute to fix it in conference.  And anything else can be chalked up to Rahm, who obviously doesn't work for the President.

    If there were cynics in the White House, they might conclude that they were free to do pretty much anything they want.  As long as the President says one thing, it doesn't matter what reporters report -- they're all scurrilous and disreputable anyway."

    Parent

    I understand your cynicism, but... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    I choose to disagree.  The reason: This is the most significant progress on health care reform in my lifetime (60 yrs.) My interest/concern/involvement with/etc. health care is unequaled by any other issue in my political life. (And, given my background, that says a lot--e.g., my sister & I were privileged in 1994 to speak with then First Lady Hillary Clinton about prospects for reform in the future. If I went into the personal & professional reasons for my dedication to reform in this area, it would be the length of a short novel...and I would be blocked from further participation surely.) There is a very long way to go yet. A curvy, treacherous road of sausage and deals. But, one thing I have learned in my political life is to take with a grain-of-salt almost any statement emanating from those with an interest during such tense negotiation phases. That is especially true in these days of bated breath unsourced there-must-be-conflict stories coming out right on cue.  So, while I respect some of the clips above (and thank you for such meticulous research in the matter), I truly believe that noone really has presented any compelling analysis of the evolution of the White House position. Frankly, in other comments, I've alluded to the late community organizer and philosopher, Saul Alinsky. You may want to take a look at some of the concepts there...if only because there is a familiar ring to organizing and attaining a goal in a fashion a bit atypical for Washington pundits.  Perhaps, it is a pipedream.  But...we'll see.

    Parent
    Apparently you don't understand! (none / 0) (#21)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:26:31 PM EST
    The facts speak for themselves.  Reid and Pelosi get all the credit for their courage and brinkmanship.  I'm saddened that I can't include Obama or this WH in that last sentence.  Please document this WH's efforts to support Reid over the past few, critical days.  And if you had been paying attention, you'd notice that I have supported everything coming out of this WH since the election.  Now, I will judge the WH's actions accordingly moving forward.  
    Your personal story notwithstanding, and we all have them, doesn't belie the facts!

    Parent
    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:27:52 PM EST
    I also understand some different approaches to political philosophy, including power-sharing and strong executive vis-a-vis resurgent legislature. Again: reference Alinsky. (BTW: you mentioned that the facts speak for themselves. Yep--sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. See Schumer's interview over at TPM. Also: Recall that lawyers often present "facts" a bit differently...depending on which side one represents. Speaking for me only.)

    Parent
    Excuse me: I meant to add (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:30:30 PM EST
    No need to be so surly. I respect you. You might want to consider the same.

    Parent
    Cynical and surly. (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:35:13 PM EST
    Speaking for me only, may I suggest you get a copy of Dale Carnegie?  

    Parent
    Facts may "speak for themselves" ... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by cymro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:32:54 PM EST
    ...  but every statement you quoted was actually spin, and not necessarily truly representative of the ultimate goal of the negotiating process. If you are willing to accept all those statements as "facts", that explains why the two of you are not communicating.

    In this case, Obama may find it politically expedient for Reid and Pelosi to get all the credit, because of who he is really negotiating with. In negotiations, weakness is strength, in that if one party is able to argue convincingly "I am powerless to change XYZ" it puts them in a very strong negotiating position where XYZ is concerned.

    I'm not saying that -- should the truth ever be revealed -- either of you will actually be proven to be right or wrong, just that you don't seem to be taking into account the possibility that there is more to this process than the "black and white" views contained in public statements.

    Parent

    Thank you very much, cymro! (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:54:32 PM EST
    Of course, you are correct.

    Parent
    More 11th Dimensional Chess? (none / 0) (#48)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    As I stated in my intitial comment:  "Proof is in the pudding."

    Parent
    Hmmmmm and errr (none / 0) (#25)
    by norris morris on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:03:19 PM EST
    You've said it all. Obama will wait until the last
    as he's playing,dancing,dodging, as he gets political cover.

    Rham is in his own kingdom.  Axelrod is explainer,excuser, and hit man.

    No one has yet discussed the drug deal made sub rosa by Obama, as there will be no negotiating for drugs from the government. Big Pharma is out of reach and seniors will still face the dreaded republican Doughnut Hole.

    Also where will the 15 million not insured under this bill go?

    This stinks.

    Parent

    open left has a few interesting posts up (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jes on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    • current one giving much of the credit for this outcome to the House progressive caucus  and

    • one  saying they are pretty sure that Blance Lincoln is the only remaining holdout that hasn't indicated he/she probably won't filibuster.


    AP re public option: (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:31:30 PM EST
    link

    Looks like AP article precedes Reid's press conference.

    Thanks for link (none / 0) (#12)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    if description of "public plan" at AP article is correct, the plan leaves much to be desired.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by SOS on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:47:00 PM EST
    bill Reid envisions would require most individuals to purchase insurance. With exemptions for those unable to find affordable coverage.

    Required to purchase insurance?

    Some reform there.

    I've been trying (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:22:07 PM EST
    to get someone to explain the value of what everyone here is pushing. My experience with a public option is homeowners insurance in Florida.

    When that became available the private companies dropped anyone considered to live in a high risk hurricane area leaving the public option with all high risk accounts, thus making the public option no longer an affordable option.

    The public plan tripled my premium over the next two years while private companies continued to reap the profits from low risk accounts where they jacked the premium to just under the high risk public option premium.

    The end result...I'm now self insured and pay out of pocket rather than paying the new exorbitant rates of either private companies or the public option. Rather than lowering rates, it skyrocketed the rates for everyone.

    I would expect the public option health care insurance to follow a similar pattern of insurance rate increases. Unless they make the public option a free basic healthcare plan eliminating the insurance middle man there will be no reform with regard to costs.

    Parent

    Maybe Roland Burris' position (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:52:49 PM EST
    became as important to Reid as Snowe's seemed to be to Obama.

    But (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    what is this "public option" going to be and who will be eligible?

    Than question is still not answered.  Until it is, Public Option is just vaporware.  

    And when will it kick in? 2010 or 2013? (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:32:54 PM EST
    But don't worry about the details, I'm sure the Democrats will look out for us in conference and it will all be good.  It's not like they recently shoveled several trillion dollars to another failing set of businesses.  

    Parent
    People with no (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:26:56 PM EST
    employer insurance now and I believe small companies will be eligible.  That hasn't changed for some time.  The final bill will presumably include some basic dimensions for the details of what must be covered, etc., but it's not going to write the policies.  That will be worked out by the non-profit board the bill establishes to create the public option.  But I think it's reasonably safe to assume it will offer pretty standard coverage.

    Parent
    Comedians of the political arena (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    In a bit of hilarity, the NRSC, the campaign arm for Republicans, called Reid a "partisan bully" because of his decision on this bill. FDL

    One battle at a time, folks. (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:01:43 PM EST
    Beating back Obama's lust for a bill, any bill that had the word "health" in it was no mean feat. Nancy Pelosi's steadfastness, Reid's coming around, and several heroic Senators boldly challenging the White house should be celebrated; Not to mention, of course, the progressive groups, including the blogosphere, that defined the issues and demanded to "put it all on the line."

    So we've gone from utter despair a couple of weeks ago to a fighting chance now. Of course, if we become complacent, disaster is just waiting to knock us out.

    So now we've got our "nose in the tent," and it's time to be statesmen. Childish anger and adolescent snarkism must make way for hard headed negotiation.

    We've drawn a line in the sand; we've got the words "public option" in the proposed bill. We won on the one "non-negotiable" item. Now a small group of incorruptible representatives like Feingold, maybe Rockefeller ,should negotiate, line by line, to see that no "curve balls" are slipped in. And, if we, the watchdogs, made noise before, we should triple it going forward. Rational, adult, and firm support should be given to those negotiating for us.

    Momentum is a funny thing; it takes on a life of it's own. (think Obama's Primary Campaign)

    Negativity is yesterday; Today it's "ever onward, ever upward."  


    Obama's Lust (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by norris morris on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:19:54 PM EST
    A bill, any bill. Curve balls, millions still left uninsured. As long as it can be called The Healthcare Reform Act.

    A flawed bill is better than nothing and Obama claims victory!    Hoorah. Finally a groundbreaking healthcare bill that he didn't do very much to shape, and little to clarify because anything that congress could cobble together would enable him to adopt as it's saviour at the end game.

    As you say it's time for hard negotiation, but Obama cannot be counted on for this. It's up to a groundswell from the people and the small group of honest legislators that dare to fight at all costs.

    While we can't count on the President, we must make our voices loud and clear on the curveballs and uninsured, and fight like hell for a decent healthcare bill that is really reformed.

    Parent

    One at a time sounds good but (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:28:58 PM EST
    events overtake one, ready or not.

    Today, for instance.  Move over healthcare...Iraq, Afghanistan (not to mention Iran and Pakistan) are back with a vengeance and cannot be ignored.

    Then there's the economy and the banks...the Fed and housing...

    Parent

    Somebody is getting took (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kidneystones on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    I'll believe in a world without nukes, an America with a national health insurance "option" for all, and universal peace, love, and understanding when I see it.

    The numbers and the lack of screams simply don't add-up, IMHO. If the public option is really most of the camel sneaking/striding into the tent, then big healthcare, big pharma, and the insurance companies would be screaming.

    The WH may yet try goad a squeal or two out of them to produce an 'authentic' audio backdrop. This is a corporate, rather than a 'peoples', presidency. It's possible that Dems can succeed in keeping both those who favor the existing system in place and those who want to tear down the system and replace it with something new happy.

    At this point it looks like a punt to me.

    Taken (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by eric on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    and FWIW, if you look at health care insurer's stock, they all went down today.  It isn't the nationalization of the health care industry, but it is progress.

    Parent
    Those companies should not be allowed (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    to go public. The instant they did, they became beholding to their shareholders rather than their members.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#40)
    by eric on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:20:13 PM EST
    Even more (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by eric on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    they should not be allowed to be "for profit".  I am in one of those co-ops, and it is a non-profit so there is now need to answer to share holders that are not members.

    Parent
    Excellent (none / 0) (#37)
    by kidneystones on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:39:12 PM EST
    And thanks for checking!

    Parent
    Give an honest (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:56:31 PM EST
    evaluation of today's stock market. You give the impression that health care was alone in declining rather than what actually happened. Health Care had an average day in comparison.

    Advancing Sectors: (None)

    Declining Sectors: Financials (-2.5%), Materials (-2.5%), Energy (-1.5%), Telecom (-1.3%), Utilities (-1.3%), Health Care (-1.1%), Industrials (-1.0%), Consumer Staples (-0.8%), Consumer Discretionary (-0.5%), Tech (-0.3%)

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#41)
    by eric on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:26:09 PM EST
    I just happened to look at my hometown evil that is United Health, and scrolled down to "Related Companies".
    LINK

    That link is good for the rest of today only.  Anyway, it was all down pretty much.  All of them down.  Good news.

    Parent

    You aren't looking at the big picture (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:44:17 PM EST
    Financial     -2.10%
    Basic Materials -2.09%    
    Conglomerates     -1.76%
    Capital Goods     -1.51%    
    Energy      -1.46%   
    Utilities     -1.13%   
    Transportation     -1.04%
    Cons Non-Cycl     -0.85%    
    Healthcare     -0.72%    
    Services     -0.67%    
    Technology     -0.50%    
    Cons. Cyclical     -0.21%

    Healthcare was slightly better than average on the day beating 8 sectors and losing to 3. It was one of the better places to be today.

    Parent

    It seems hard to believe that after (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 07:59:35 PM EST
    years of knowing we had a crisis in health care - a crisis where too many people were not getting the care they needed, where too many people were being driven into bankruptcy because insurance companies that had happily taken their premiums for years suddenly cut them adrift just when they most needed coverage, where insurance company profit was a higher priority than the health of the people that were making them wealthy - we have spent the last nine months trying to get our voices heard over the sound of pens gliding across checks being written to politicians by health insurance companies determined to maintain the best of the status quo and cash a winning lottery ticket in mandates.

    What's so hard to believe is how hard it's been, and how little, really, has been gained.

    I'm not ready to trust any of it.  There's so much that hasn't been fully disclosed to the American people - it still astounds me that this so-called public option is not going to be available to everyone who wants it, but those who are really going to be astounded - and angry - are those who think it is.  Public schools are not closed to all but a small portion of the population.  Public transporation is available to even those who have their own means of travel.  The police and fire departments serve everyone in need, not just those who can police themselves and put out their own fires.  But the public option?  Not so public; not really an option.

    I am still not convinced that there is unity of purpose or vision within the Democratic caucus, or that efforts will not be made to undermine and undercut what should be important first steps to truly reforming the system and helping people manage an area of their lives that causes so much mental and financial stress.

    I'm watching the White House.  I'll be taking the measure of the inevitable leaks.  The White House has yet to really step up to the plate and lead, to exhibit the courage of whatever, if any, convictions this president has.

    I'm pretty sick of the politics, and would just like to see some real emphasis on and understanding of the impact reform will have on the lives of everyday Americans, instead of keeping the focus on the political fortunes of mostly-Medicare-eligible Washington fat cats.

    Stepping Up To The Plate (none / 0) (#38)
    by norris morris on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    Forget the WH. They're waiting in the wings.

    The only way we'll get anything of value with real protection and a competitive edge is if we take to streets, telephones, blogs, news, and the congress seriously believes we'll make them pay for this if it doesn't happen.

    Parent

    Looks like (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    we're going to get our nose in the tent.  I am pretty happy.  

    Now we just have to push as much of the camel in as we can.

    and also (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    from the way Schumer tells it, I'm also happy that the 11th dimensional chess players were taught a bit of a lesson today.  Hopefully.  Doubtfully...

    Parent
    Too bad for the people who live in (none / 0) (#2)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    the states that opt out?

    I hope there will at least be a provision that says any state wanting to opt out may not do so without having it on a ballot for the people to decide.

    They won;t opt out, if by some chance they do (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    it won't be long before those state pols are out and new ones who want to opt back in are elected.

    Parent
    They won't opt out is right! (none / 0) (#10)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    Actually, it would be interesting to see which state governor & legislature would really look their constituents in the eye(s) and say: Our state "don't want your stinkin' money." It would be a Blazing-Saddles kind of moment.

    Parent
    Alabama,SC,NC,ND,Utah,La, and a few more. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by norris morris on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 10:29:24 PM EST
    The Blue Dogs hate healthcare reform and Medicare.
    Mary Landrieu was sayong on TV last week that she is totally opposed to public option and detests Medicare.

    But if we do get a really decent bill with no curveballs and just opt outs [not likely], then this bunch and some Republicans will go down with their ideas.  It's far to early to conjecture and our eneergies need to be spent on calling our Senators and Reps and telling them what we expect.  We need to support large groups who have been taking action on this, and frankly go to the streets if we are rolled.

    Triggers and coops are out of the question as they take so much time to implement and are so iffy, that nothing will be done. This is Snowe's idea of reform and it's pathetically ineffective. How and why Americans vote against their interest is a result of years of propoganda and  lazy voters who are ill informed and ignorant of the facts.

    That Snowe is Obama's idea of a Bi-Partisan effort is more than  disappointing as he knows better. What games these pols do play.

    Parent

    Reid basically said Pres Snowe (none / 0) (#47)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:17:29 AM EST
    is not necessary. I hope that is true....that the Dems are ready to ignore her.

    Parent
    Not so worried about the Opt Out (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by trillian on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    ...as I am about the "level playing field"

    If that hold up, what's the point of the "reform"?

    Parent

    It's where we begin (none / 0) (#18)
    by NealB on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 06:33:37 PM EST
    I'm as irrationally hopeful today as I've been irrationally pessimistic until today. There hasn't been enough to be rational about. But Democrats sound united today and it's good. For the first time since they took office, I hope Democratic Congress and Obama's numbers go up a notch next week. I feel healthier already.

    Parent
    Many a slip twixt... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 11:17:07 PM EST
    I'm not hopeful, but I am pleasantly surprised.

    Parent