The Public Option: It's Up To The Progressive Block

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:32:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Beltway insider Mike Lux:

[T]here is still one counterweight that might save the day, the same counterweight that progressives have been hoping will stand strong since this debate started: progressives in the House. . . . What progressives in the House have to do is hold strong and hold together. Negotiating as a block of 60 members makes you a thousand times stronger then letting yourself get picked off one by one by one. If progressives hold strong and hold together, we can still get comprehensive reform with a decent public option. If they don't, the all-important details of this legislation will get worse and worse.

This is what it was always going to come down to: how much courage and moxie House progressives would have in the final negotiations on this bill. The end game has arrived. It is time to stand and deliver.

If they do not hold strong, the Progressive Caucus may as well shut down. No one will ever listen to them again.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Midterm Elections And A Demoralized Base: We Don't Have Bush to Kick Around Anymore >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Public Option: It's Up To The Progressive Block | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

lux is right (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Ric Locke on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:39:23 AM EST

...but there's another component.

Stop trying to "reach across the aisle". It's become just a leeetle too transparent that the only purpose of that tactic is CYA, so when the thing crashes and burns you can wail "but the Republicans agreed to it!"

Spend the time working on conservative Democrats, a.k.a. "Blue Dogs". When Olympia Snowe, of all people, has figured out your strategy, it's gotten a little too blatant to be useful.

More thoughts here.

I'm grateful for your daily steady (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:54:25 AM EST

stance. You know that you don't need to move around in order to be relevant and correct, just sit quietly alone in a room and let the clarity just be. I get so tired of flock after flock of outright Glenn Beck style liars followed by those who are tiring, stumbling after them with brain flatulence. Most of the people losing their patience and then beginning to write the elements of our surrender can't seem to stand in one place calmly addressing the challenges. It's scary because we can all be nailed to the fruits of such a strong commitment to human life (snark, cuz if this is the commitment we can't seem to embrace we are pathetic), and we lack courage. The people who won't quit trying to write our surrender up aren't as stupid as the stuff they are writing. I know they aren't. Mankind wouldn't have made it this far if they were.

There's a little bit of wiggle room (none / 0) (#2)
by magster on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:50:13 AM EST

in that we need just 2/3rds of the progressives who signed the letter a few weeks ago. Still, I would say the odds are on a progressive block cave now that Pelosi backed down last Friday.

Mhmm... (none / 0) (#3)
by masslib on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:54:37 AM EST

This leaves out recognition of some of the instant relief for their constituents some CPC members face, like the increase in Medicaid eligibility. Keep in mind half the uninsured could be covered under Medicaid if it was expanded to just 150% of FPL. Also, the 10 billion dollar bail out to insurers for retiree benefits of 55-64 year olds(most probably union retirees)set to commence immediately. Now it would be far cheaper to just expand medicare to these people, but then how would the insurers benefit? My point is there has been a lot added to the pot to make it much more difficult for progressive members of certain districts to vote against the bill.

That said, I don't support the bill because it expands the current clusterf*ck of a system. But one needs to at least recognize that the hobbled public option vs. Medicaid expansion puts the CPC in between a rock and a hard place.

Easy enough (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:57:10 AM EST

Pass a bill for that and leave out the mandates and the idea that you are doing HCR.

I've laid out this approach a few times.


In other words (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:58:17 AM EST

Do an S-Chip type bill.


Well, yes, and I have agreed with you (none / 0) (#6)
by masslib on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 10:58:58 AM EST

a number of times, but I think it is clear, just like a Medicare expansion, that is not on the table. Not the President's table. Not the Senate's table. Not the House table.


It could easily be put on the table (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:03:50 AM EST

especially in reconciliation.

It takes a little bit of brains of course and that is in short supply I'll grant you.


Disagree on reconcilliation. (none / 0) (#10)
by masslib on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:31:49 AM EST

SCHIP was passed as a stand alone. Reconciliation is where the insurers are likely to exert their heaviest influence, not the least. Further, the problem is the Democrats seem to have made the deal with insurers for a small federal regulatory role in exchange for the captive consumer base. Therefore, I don't see the Democrats dropping the mandate. I support a bill that expands the safety net, but not at the expense of the middle class.


If the Progressive Block holds firm (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:47:31 AM EST

well, that's the whole game now isn't it?


: Harkin claims (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by lilburro on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:51:24 AM EST

he'll fight hard for it in the Senate, citing Teddy.

Good that the reality of the debate is recognized. (none / 0) (#9)
by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:05:37 AM EST

Let's move forward with what we can get and what we can get CAN include a public option.


As President Clinton has said, (none / 0) (#7)
by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:00:18 AM EST

as you, BTD, have said, as many bloggers have said, President Obama needs support to get a Public Option in a bill he signs. Progressives (c'mon, they're liberals; lets own the word) need to hold strong. "Robust" Pulblic Option may be negotiated. Public Option may not. Incrementalism has to start someplace, but it can't start a zero.

Jane Hamsher (none / 0) (#14)
by waldenpond on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 01:47:56 PM EST

Just got an e-mail update. There was a cakk to contact Reps to vote against legislation that does not include a public option. The update was that there are 17 willing to vote against. 17 doesn't seem enough pressure.