home

Up Or Down Vote On The Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:53:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Cenk Uygur repeats the call first made by mcjoan and tweeted out by Kos - let's have an up or down vote on the public option. And for those concerned that it will gum up the works, I repeat my own suggestion:

[I]t can be done by allowing an amendment to the base reconciliation bill for those concerned it will gum up the works. What's wrong with this approach? Nothing of course, except that pols will have to go on the record against a proposal very popular with the Dem base.

Time for an up or down vote on the public option.

Speaking for me only

< From the Pols Are Pols File | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Up Or Down Vote On The Public Option | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Do we know what the public option IS yet? (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    I tend not to sign onto things if I don't know what I'm signing up to support.

    I'm curious (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    you do not want an up or down vote on whatever the proposal is?

    if so, why?

    Suppose it is a Medicare Buy-In for 55 and over. do you not want on that?

    Suppose it is the House PO. do you not want an up or down vote on that?

    These objections smack of basic hatred of anything that has been proposed.

    And even then, this makes no sense. Why would you oppose knowing where your congresspersons stand on these proposals?

    Anthony Weiner proposed a vote on abolishing Medicare. he did it to make a point - government run insurance is popular. did you oppose that too?    

    Parent

    I strongly supported Rep. Weiner, and he was (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    promised that he would be given an up-or-down vote on the floor of the House to substitute HR 676 for the bill passed by committee. He was going to have that vote in committee, but Pelosi, perhaps fearing it would pass with Repub votes in committee?, made him the offer of a floor vote.

    Vote never happened.

    He also didn't get to have his Kill Medicare If You Dare vote in committee, which would have put Repubs on record.

    And we got...weak tea.

    The House version of the PO is weak and may well turn people off to the very idea of a government run plan.

    So, yes, I need to know what I'm being asked to support. When I know what it is, yes, if it's good I'll do what I can to get it passed. If not, why would I waste energy and time on something which is designed to fail?

    Yesterday, Obama said he was open to health insurance being sold across state lines. I think his additional comments were supposed to mean that would happen only when the exchanges [exchanges?] were in place, but I'm not sure.

    Republicans love this idea, and, while Obama and other Dems said this might mean a rush to the bottom in terms of coverage and standards, there's another reason this is so bad. Right now, the overhead for medical providers to simply deal with the myriad paperwork, differing offerings, coverages, denials, deductibles, etc., etc., eat up an incredible amount of our health care dollars.  Do we really want to increase this waste of health care dollars? Along with all the other problems of negotiating with yet more insurers, understanding the varying state requirements? Yikes!

    Do I want to work to have that passed into law? No, actually.

    But, back to PO -- If the PO is a government run program like Medicare only better, open to all, comprehensive, with low overhead, well, yeah, no brainer. Yes, yes, yes. Go for the vote.

    If it's a stealth means of keeping the private for-profits fat and happy, with the sickest, most likely to need care, going to high-risk pools (terrible idea) or this pubic option, leaving the cream of the possible customers to the privates? No way.

    Parent

    Medicare Buy-In? Absolutely YES --- Molly Bloom (none / 0) (#17)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    yes-ness. That would a strong start and would actually help people.

    But why stop there? The Senate mishmash, according to Sen. Gillebrand, cannot be passed through reconciliation.

    BUT...Medicare for All, improved and with robust private option, CAN BE.

    So, yeah, that I'd support; I'd be down in DC hitting the streets and offices. Especially if it was to done within a year.

    But that would not meet the Obama requirement of Profit Protection for the Private For-Profit Insurers.

    Parent

    Polls show people who do not support current bills (none / 0) (#18)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    would prefer a government-run program like Medicare and prefer it by about 60%.

    Our Dems don't seem to want to give the people what they want and what WOULD WORK to cut costs while providing comprehensive care.

    Nor can single payer or Medicare Expanded even be discussed! It' s "off the table" by presidential fiat.

    Parent

    Weiner agrees with me on this (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    See my latest post.

    Parent
    HR 676 (none / 0) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:19:04 PM EST
    Was a bill that while philosophically satisfying had enormous problems- its restrictions on medical practice alone would have caused massive headaches for any possible implementation.

    Parent
    A public option (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    that is very restricted and open only to a very few won't help very much.  I agree jawbone.

    Parent
    I still do not understand (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    this objection.

    Is it better than NO public option?

    At this point, I have a hard time taking some of you seriously in these discussion.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    no public option would be better than a bad public option because a bad one would never be fixed.
    In fact I feel that way about the whole bill.  I would rather they passes nothing and tried again with something worth passing because I know damn well they will not "revisit" HCR again for a long long time if they get something passed just to declare victory.

    Parent
    The definition of insanity (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    Trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    How many times has this happened and nothing ever came to pass because it wasn't good enough?

    At least this time they have a chance of passing something.  Let's give that a chance for once.

    It's not like they've tried it before.  Unlike say, leaving everything and saying "we'll get back to it some day".  Which is what has happened on this issue for decades.  And nothing ever happens...

    You gotta start somewhere.  It's much more likely that they fix a public option than that they create a wonderful one from scratch.  History tells us so.

    Parent

    The insanity, it seems to me, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    was - and still is - in refusing to consider all the possibilities right from the start.  

    We could be building on the single-payer model we already have, by lowering the eligibility requirements for Medicare to 55.  That would be something incremental we could do, and we could lower it again in another year to 50, and then down to 45.

    The sad thing is that for the most part, the current attempt to reform the system has more to do with insurance - making people get it, making sure the insurance companies get a bigger piece of the pie - but not a whole lot to do with improving the access to care; there will still be an insurance monolith acting as a barrier to care, and these companies will make more money doing it.  Yes, there are some changes: ending the practice of rescission, prohibiting the refusal to cover those with pre-existing conditions, not allowing people to be dropped from coverage when they get sick.  What is not clear to me is how airtight these restrictions will be and how they will eventually affect premiums, and whether those in higher risk groups will be pushed into less comprehensive, high-deductible, high co-pay policies - which won't improve their actual access to care.

    The focus was, from the beginning, about insurance coverage, instead of on actual care, overall health, better outcomes and affordability of the care (as opposed to the affordability of the insurance; if the question had been, "how do we improve these things?" we might be in a different place, with different proposals on the table, and closer to - not farther away from - what the people really need.

    I don't believe something is better than nothing; sometimes it can make a bad situation worse.  If we're going to experiment, why not do it with something we already have some experience with, something that has an existing structure, would not have to be built from the ground up, and does not function as a barrier to care?  

    If we're going to be cooling our heels for a couple of years, waiting for exchanges to be set up (which not everyone will be able to use, by the way), why not do something we know we can do right now?


    Parent

    I fundamentaly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    that nothing is better than this something.

    I understand the frustration with the process and how it has been done to date.  I agree that I think it could have been done much better than it was.  What I don't see, is how this relates to where we go from here.

    From where I sit, there are two options - pass what can be passed now (Senate with reconcilliation package), or don't pass anything at all right now.

    For the second of these options, I don't see how that gets us any closer to real reform in the future.  I don't see how wasting a year on something to get nothing done is going to make anyone MORE likely to pick this fight in the future.

    For the first option - at least it puts something in place that can be discussed in the future.  There is a baseline from which we can move forward.  Rather than the general feeling that health care reform as a policy goal is always a failure.

    Parent

    A couple questions on Medicare for all (none / 0) (#28)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    Anne,
    I enjoy reading your comments even though we are on different sides of the aisle.  Your points are always thought out and articulated clearly.

    Regarding Medicare for all, what would be the solution to a few of the biggest Medicare problems, those being:

    1. The current massive costs of Medicare?  Specifically, the govt can't afford to offer buy-in  to these younger groups without charging some fairly significant premiums.

    2. The current Medicare reimbursement rates evident in the "Doc Fix" problem and the increasing number of Docs/providers walking away from Medicare due to the low reimbursements.  Mayo AZ being one of the most noted cases.

    3. The current Medicare claim denial rate that is currently running higher than the privates.

    TIA

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:16:28 PM EST
    an insurance based model based around non-profit coverage has been shown time and time again around the world to outperform single payer- I don't really get the collective lust for single payer as opposed to a Bismark-style system ala France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and Taiwan - the latter two of which had Healthcare systems much like our own when they began a transition to non-profit insurance for basic health care in the mid-90s (they allow private insurance for coverage over a basic level).

    Parent
    Good question. Two answers: (none / 0) (#49)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    First, we're getting very close to technologies that will push individual full genome sequencing into the $100 range, further disrupting the insurance model.

    Second, US ethos is extremely rapacious compared to that of Euro and Asian cultures where corporate conduct is concerned (even in the "non-profit" sector).

    Parent

    Why do you say this (none / 0) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    you realize Social Security as it was initially structed basically omitted all minorities from ever collecting right?

    Parent
    Why is it so difficult (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    to understand that people want the details before agreeing?

    Unless the dems lay out EXACTLY what this "magical, solve all the world's problems" PO entails it is more rhetoric.

    It comes across as damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead and we'll figure out the damages later.  

    Parent

    Agreeing to what? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Having a vote? I'm not saying opposing the proposal is a problem.

    I'm having a problem with opposing a vote.

    I think my point is quite simple.

    Parent

    Kind of like (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:36:41 PM EST
    Social Security when it started.

    Parent
    It took thirty years (none / 0) (#13)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    and a lot of arm-twisting by LBJ to pass the Social Security Act of 1965 and add Medicare (although it's true that there had been incremental improvements and expansions in the original Social Security Act well before that, and after).  That's too long.  I would prefer to have an at least somewhat expansive public option passed in the short term, rather than rely on future presidents and congresses to get us something substantive in the way of a public option.

    Parent
    Yes but (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    its possible that like Social Security passing a the Public Option will only be possible in a highly restricted form- SS passed because it purposely screwed over African-Americans.

    Parent
    And that's the problem with (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    having an "up or down" vote- the question still remains- what exactly would they be voting for (or against)?  I agree with the posters who have said that, if a weak, watered-down, restricted-to-few PO passes, we might not see any reforms or expansion for many, many years.  Your concerns are valid.

    Parent
    When one considers that (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:03:04 PM EST
    all the push to get any kind of public component only resulted in a weak version, hobbled by Stupak, in the House bill, and nothing in the Senate bill, I don't see that there is going to be any great push from either the House or the Senate to get something into the compromise legislation, whether or not they decide to use reconciliation or get rid of the filibuster, and notwithstanding the signatories to the Bennet letter.

    In spite of the many poignant letters and anecdotal stories from many of the summit participants, it's hard to believe that they are truly listening to the people, as much as they are only hearing whatever already supports their position.  

    The one thing I would like to see them do, with a pre-enrollment date beginning July 1, 2010, to be fully operational on January 1, 2011, is to open Medicare to people ages 55-64 and see how that works out while we wait for however many years for exchanges and other elements to be implemented (keeping in mind that even the exchanges, once they are in place, will not be available to everyone).

    I know it isn't going to happen, which is too bad.

    As for the up-or-down vote, I think there are too many traps there for Democrats, from being cast as wasting a year feigning interest in being bipartisan to somehow managing to do it in a way the turns whatever progressive caucus there is into the equivalent of the minority party, with the result being even more conservative, Reaganesque legislation.

    A fine mess no matter how you look at it.

    And in anticipation of (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    being told that I'm not addressing whether or not there should be an up-or-down vote, here's where I am on it:

    If they can muster up something to vote on, sure, let them vote.  Let them go on the record as opposing the expansion of Medicare, for example.  Or on the House PO.  Or single-payer.  I may still be someone who thinks the House PO isn't good enough, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a vote.

    While we are on the subject of voting, and considering the voice vote that was held in the Senate the other day on the renewal of provisions of the Patriot Act that were due to expire, maybe someone with more knowledge on the process can tell me, if there any chance that any of these things we want an up-or-down vote on could be put to a voice vote?  I know it takes unanimous consent to have a voice vote, but is it applicable here, and is there any chance that we are heading into territory where they will vote, but avoid being accountable for their votes?

    Parent

    Is this first person reporting that (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    Kos tweeted this?

    my note (none / 0) (#8)
    by someTV on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    Sent my note to Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid:

    Please inform Senator Reid that an up or down vote on either the public option or a single payer plan will insure that honest reform occurs.  Without it I will accept what is managed but be deeply disappointed with the Democratic leadership at a moment in history when we have majorities in both the senate and the house of congress and a member of our party in the White House.

    Thank you for your time,

    Send yours.  Copy and paste if you wish, no ownership of intellectual property here.

    I'm glad you sent a note to your (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    Senators and to the majority leader.

    However, by telling them that the only consequence for their failure to come up with a good plan will be your disappointment, and that you will accept whatever they manage to do, I don't think they have much reason to fear not doing the right thing.

    Sometimes, with children, one can use the "I will be so disappointed in you" argument to good effect, but I don't think it's likely to work with the Congress.

    Parent

    Deaf ears (none / 0) (#26)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    The torpedoes are already in the water.

    Parent
    ah, I get it, (none / 0) (#35)
    by someTV on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    sit by silently, cause the congress is not a child.  Not sure why you are glad I sent my note though as it seems to me you believe it to be a useless effort.  Any other suggestions?

    Parent
    No, I don't think you do... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:19:57 PM EST
    get it, that is.

    We should all be contacting our members of Congress and the Democratic leadership, and letting them know what it is we want them to do - what we expect them to do; the more they hear from us the better.

    But which sounds like something to be concerned about?  The letter that says, "This is what you need to be doing, but if you don't, that's okay - I'll accept it even though I'll be disappointed" or the letter that says, "This is what I want you to be doing, and if you don't, not only will I not contribute any money to you or the party, but I will not vote to re-elect you."

    All I was saying is that your letter didn't really give Boxer, Feinstein or Reid any reason to act on your request - if they don't do what you want, there's no consequence for them - and don't you think there should be?

    Parent

    to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by someTV on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    it sounds like semantics:
    "This is what I want you to be doing, and if you don't, not only will I not contribute any money to you or the party, but I will not vote to re-elect you"
    could be considered to be the same as saying:
    "Sometimes, with children, one can use the 'There will be no television tonight if you dont behave' argument to good effect,"
    except that congress is not a child.  If you desire a PO or SPP, then ask for it, but to redress me for my actions does not seem the way to go about getting what you are implying you want.

    Parent
    Oh, for heaven's sake. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:20:35 PM EST
    It was just a suggestion, but considering that no one seems to be listening, or caring that we are angry and disappointed and fed up, it probably doesn't matter what we tell them.

    Which is so depressing it's ridiculous.

    Parent

    I do think (none / 0) (#41)
    by someTV on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    they are listening, or at the very least I imagine that they can.  We will see what comes down the pike eventually.  It seems to me that they way things have been swinging on this pendulum that the fact the PO is being talked about, that the leader of the house (Ms Pelosi) reminded the President during the "summit" of his previous interest in the PO suggests that some kind of conversation is happening.  I still may be greatly disappointed, angry, yes, incredulous, yes...but somehow have snapped out of the depressing part.

    I hope you can get out of yours before I get back in mine.

    Parent

    Redress you for your actions? (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    What on earth does that mean?

    Look, Congresspeople don't want a friend, they want your vote and better yet your money.  That's literally all you have to bargain with, one vote.  They're not interested in friendly advice, they want to know whether you feel strongly enough about something that it's going to affect your vote.

    If you're more comfortable taking such a timid tone in addressing your representatives, that's obviously your choice.  But don't expect "attaboys," either from them or from us, for the exquisite politeness of your request on such a life-and-death issue.

    Parent

    redress (none / 0) (#46)
    by someTV on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:34:48 PM EST
    as in redress [rɪˈdrɛs]
    vb (tr)
    1. to put right (a wrong), esp by compensation; make reparation for to redress a grievance
    2. to correct or adjust (esp in the phrase redress the balance)
    3. to make compensation to (a person) for a wrong

    In other words to correct me for the language that I choose to use to address my representatives.  There is nothing timid in my tone just a voice that you believe does not represent your own and as you saw it here it offended you.  Had I said rebuke instead of using redress in an unconventional manner, it might have made more sense to you, but harboring "attaboys" over one person's choice of language seems to reflect the conventional difficulties the Democratic party often faces: melding all of its many and varied voices into one.

    Parent
    Constructive criticism is what I expressed. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 12:12:28 AM EST
    "Redress" does not mean the same as "rebuke;" perhaps you were thinking of the phrase "dressed down," but I didn't do that, either: you shared the text of your letter and I gave my opinion about it.

    It was a constructive criticsm; nothing more, nothing less.  It wasn't intended to hurt your feelings, or discourage you from writing.

    Gyrfalcon is right: the only things that mean anygthing to these people are money and votes; tell them you will give them neither if they don't (1) do what they promised, or (2) do what their constituents want and there's a chance it might get their attention.

    The "please, sir, may I have another?" approach is like giving them permission to keep kicking you, but if that's what you want them to know, by all means - have at it.

    Parent

    No feelings hurt (none / 0) (#48)
    by someTV on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 01:04:33 AM EST
    nor discouraged.  I disagree with Gyrfalcon's generalization that all politicians are interested in is money and votes.  And I don't agree with you that the best way to get there attention is by saying I will withhold money and my vote.  In general, with letters and phone calls to politicians, it appears to me that they are a statistic, or a poll, and that by expressing one's opinion, or signing a MoveOn online petition, or sending a letter is simply a way of adding your voice to similar voices in the hope that the statistic will be large enough to get noticed.

    "Dressed down" is probably the phrase I should have used, and I responded to both your and Gyrfalcon's comments as dressing down because of how I hear their tone in my head, I imagine in much the same way that "accept" and "disappointed" had a pathetic tone to your ears (if I may be so bold as to speak for the two of you).

    I now give you permission to keep kicking me if you like.

    Parent

    Never had any intention of kicking you, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 05:51:53 PM EST
    and apologize if that's how it came across.

    We each have to deal with this mess - and our representatives - as we feel appropriate, and it's better to do something than nothing, for sure; if nothing else, it shows that there are still some people paying attention, watching what they do, and ready to weigh in.

    My daughter had a friend who was in intern in Hillary Clinton's Senate office, and one of the things he was assigned to was reading - and sorting - the mail, which was voluminous.  The staff would pull a certain number of letters for her to read, but she never saw all of it; it's just not that easy to get access.

    We'll keep doing what we do - how can we not?

    Parent

    Thanks for the note (none / 0) (#51)
    by someTV on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 07:53:06 PM EST
    My mother was an elected official at local county level in California - caught in the cross-hairs of a district evenly split left and right and she did her best to move it as far to the left as she could, not always pleasing either side.  She was an exemplary representative, I don't say politician, and in my mind there are still some out there fighting the good fight, and as you said, "doing what we do" because they cannot do anything else.  Let's just keep pushing left as hard as we can and see if we can get this ship moving in a better direction.

    Parent
    Yeah, suggestion (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:19:55 PM EST
    Send them a stronger message, one that doesn't tell them, as yours did, that whether they do what you want or don't essentially doesn't matter at all.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#38)
    by someTV on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    the suggestion that I will be disappointed implies that my support for the actions of the party might lead me to work towards getting somebody else elected who is more likely to act in a manner that I will not be disappointed in.  I did not say
    that whether they do what you want or don't essentially doesn't matter at all
    , I believe your paraphrasing is disingenuous.

    Parent
    Oh, please (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:41:57 PM EST
    When you say you will "accept" what they do but will be disappointed, you are quite literally telling them you don't much care one way or the other.  Nobody in his right mind would read that as a threat to withhold support.  Are you kidding me?

    Parent
    I 100% agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    My major question right now is about timing.  First I don't understand the time component of reconciliation.  Once you start, what hurdles must be jumped and how long will it take?  When would have a vote on the public option- does it have to come after the bill is voted on?

    P.S.

    During the healthcare meeting yesterday, I so wanted Obama to ask for the document that was in front of the Republicans- you could see that their were pages with no words on them.

    If there are 50 Senate votes for the PO,which way (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    will Joe Biden vote to break the tie since Obama didn't support the public option in the HCR plan he proposed?

    We didn't get an up-or-down vote (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    on new Patriot Act.

    How freakin' sad is it (none / 0) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    that after over a years worth of debate on health care when you call my two senators office they still can not enunciate what kind of health care my Senators support?

    (head* desk*)

    I get that from Murray and Cantwell - they're (none / 0) (#43)
    by seabos84 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:24:53 PM EST
    worthless, unless you're running the fascist stooge party and you need "opponents" who are pathetic, sold out, or a mix of each.

    rmm.

    Parent

    I wonder who among (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    the Democrats would actually vote against a public option.....

    Maybe not so many if they had to oppose the public option publicly in public....

    Could 50 Democrats be shamed into voting for the public option....

    I do NOT Care 'bout the f'king rules of congress (none / 0) (#42)
    by seabos84 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:23:53 PM EST
    which allow ... goldman and kbr and exxon and pharma and ahip and boeinglockheed ...to steal everything whether it is nailed down or locked up.

    They CAN pass whatever the hell the want to pass,
    IF they want to.

    It is that simple - and they can't pass it cuz WE allow it.

    ALWAYS - NEVER - STOP
    ALWAYS vote.
    NEVER vote for fascist stooges.
    STOP voting for sell outs.

    If that means you vote for your drunken brother in law or for your sneaker, then that is what you vote FOR.

    rmm.
     

    Cenk Uygur Is Right (none / 0) (#52)
    by john horse on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 05:23:06 AM EST
    Take the damn vote.  We didn't elect these SOBs to Congress to avoid taking a stand on issues.

    Up Or Down Vote On The Public Option | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment