Sweet. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/letter-from-house-progressives-to-obama-on-public-option/ Letter From House Progressives To Obama On Public Option
I wouldn't be so optimistic. The GOP has repeatedly demonstrated that there will always be a willing audience in tune to their sensationalistic appeals on any hot button issue. This will merely die down until the next round of lies and catchy slogans.
I do agree that there will always be some people who will be susceptible, but all you need is a certain percentage of the moderates to realize that they’ve been duped and to get on board with a solution to get something done. There are a lot of forces at play and it will be interesting to see how it all turns out. The guy who was primarily responsible for bringing universal health care to Canada 40+ years ago is considered to be a national hero. If any American politician really wants to do good and to be a part of what will forever be one of the most important moments in US history, then this is their chance. The insurance companies, otoh, will likely to almost anything to oppose any real change. There is maybe a way for the insurance companies to get out of this honourably, however, but it would be a bold move and they would have to propose it, imo. That move would be to admit that they can’t provide basic health care as economically or as efficiently as a single payer system could. By saying this they would only be admitting the obvious truth (see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf ), and given this fact they could then propose that the government buy that part of their businesses, and they would then either continue in the supplementary health insurance business or get into some other business. This way they acknowledge the truth about their industry, and effectively end any opposition to single payer universal health care, but they also would get compensation for the sale of their businesses to the government. The government have to borrow a good chunk of money to do this, of course, but it would also get the revenues that used to go to the private companies. Basically the government would be buying a profitable business and then reforming to become more efficient. This might be the smoothest transition and smartest way to do it, but I think the insurance companies would have to get together and make the offer first.
Or supporters of the public option against elected officials beholden to the insurance lobby. Tomato, tomahto.
This goes back to the age old question of whether the insurance industry supports those people to influence their views, or if those people get insurance industry support because their views match the industry's.
You mean the view that insurance companies should get rich at the expense of sick people? If they sincerely share that particular view, I hope they lose in their next election -- "Democrat" or not.
Or they could just believe that there are ways to control costs without a public option alternative. They may be wrong, but really, no one knows at this point. I don't think its an absurd view.
There are several components of the plans being discussed that are cost control measures that don't involve the public option. Everything from the insurance exchanges to letting people buy insurance across state lines to importing drugs to the negotiations Obama has done with pharma companies and hospitals on cost controls. This is one thing that's so ridiculous about all the talk of a public option. It's only one component of health care reform. Alone, it's not sufficient. And without it, it doesn't mean you can't make massive improvements in the system. But Dems have let the entire debate revolve around that, and that's put all the other reforms in jeopardy. HillaryCare didn't have a public option, for example. The whole idea is a fairly recent part of the health care reform debate, coming about initially from single-payer proponents that needed a new idea once it became clear that wasn't going to happen.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, D-Houston Abandoning the public option “would demonstrate he is truly concerned with the needs of the American people — not just fulfilling a campaign promise to the liberal left.”
Wasn't she one of the gang of 57 progressive signatories to a letter vowing to vote against any bill that did not include a strong public option? These 57 progressives must stick to their pledge; because their promised cohesiveness, numerically superior to the Blue Dogs, is essential to any hope of a strong public option passing. If only a few of them start peeling off / capitulate the bill will inevitably be watered down into nothingness. Why yep, yep she was a signatory to that pledge. TPM: "57 House Progressives Say No Compromise On Public Option". That's her signature on Page 2. Assuming the article correctly characterized her quote, that would be a complete 180 in just over a month's time on the paramount issue of national significance. Screw Sheila Jackson Lee.
Actually, not so fast. I retract my previous statement: bad reading comprehension on our parts. That quote is from John Cornyn, not Sheila Jackson Lee. Sheila Jackson Lee apparently said, in keeping with her previous pledge, There weren't any dashes in front of the speakers' names, as is common when names typically follow the quotes, so I can see how you originally misread it. From your Chronicle link, "HEALTH CARE: Obama unveils tougher strategy":
They don't really have to, though. They can get a bill through the Senate without the public option, through the House with it, and then put the public option back in during reconciliation, which will only require a bare majority of the Senate to approve. Filibuster doesn't even have to come up, unless the GOP is willing to filibuster ANY healthcare bill, even without a public option.
The GOP will fillibuster anything they don't have a hand in writing. Putting the public option back in during reconciliation doesn't just eliminate the chance of beating a fillibuster, it kills the entire bill because there won't be 51 votes in the Senate.
Not quite. Any bill destined for reconciliation has to be identified as such and come out of the appropriate committees with the reconciliation tag. If the Senate and House pass two different bills and the Senate Bill was not considered under reconciliation, it goes to Conference Committee made up of Reps and Sens and then back to both Houses for another vote, which could be filibustered in the Senate. I don't think you can have a Conference Committee Bill moved under reconciliation unless previously identified, or if you did, you would have to send it back to at least the Budget Committee.
Though I admit I have not studied up on Congressional procedures, I don't believe that this is how it works. At least, that isn't how the GOP got it done for the tax cuts.
