NEWS
Public Option Called Essential – Washington Post
Several leading Democrats voiced concern Monday about an apparent White House shift on health-care reform, objecting to signals from senior administration officials that they would abandon the idea of a government-run insurance plan if it lacked the backing to pass Congress.
Alternate Plan as Health Option Muddies Debate – New York Times
The White House has indicated that it could accept a nonprofit health care cooperative as an alternative to a new government insurance plan, originally favored by President Obama. But the co-op idea is so ill defined that no one knows exactly what it would look like or how effectively it would compete with commercial insurers.
Liberals revolt over public option – Politico
The White House’s signal that it’s willing to back off support for a public health insurance option has sent congressional liberals into full revolt, bluntly warning the administration that no legislation will pass without a government-run plan.
Where Is Kent Conrad Getting His Whip Count? – Huffington Post
There are 60 members of the Senate’s Democratic caucus — so why is Sen. Kent Conrad insisting that that there aren’t enough votes to pass a public health insurance option as part of comprehensive reform bill?
Boehner Blasts PhRMA On Deal With White House - Kaiser Health News
The drug industry’s decision to agree to $80 billion in concessions to the White House was short-sighted, will hurt drug manufacturers and their customers, and "has all the markings of a deal gone sour," House Minority Leader John Boehner wrote Monday to his former colleague, Billy Tauzin, who now heads the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Sixty House Liberals To White House: No Public Option, No Health Care Reform - Greg Sargent
One interesting side plot in the health care wars: The debate over the public option has suddenly reminded us that there are in fact two houses of Congress, something that’s been easy to forget amid the media obsession with the “bipartisan” negotiations in the Senate.
OPINION
Where’s Mr. Transformer? – Eugene Robinson
It’s true that politics is the art of the possible, but it’s also true that great leaders expand the scope of possibility. Barack Obama took office pledging to be a transformational president. The fate of a government-run public health insurance option will be an early test of his ability to end the way Washington’s big-money, special-interest politics suffocates true reform.
Three Reasons Why a Strong Public Option is Likely to be Part of Health Insurance Reform – Robert Creamer
Hasty headlines to the contrary, it is very likely that a strong public option will be part of a final health insurance reform bill when it finally passes Congress this fall. There are three reasons.
This Is Reform? – Bob Herbert
It’s never a contest when the interests of big business are pitted against the public interest. So if we manage to get health care “reform” this time around it will be the kind of reform that benefits the very people who have given us a failed system, and thus made reform so necessary.
Grassley Says He Would Sabotage A Health Care Bill Whose Provisions He Favors in Order to Advance Partisan Agenda – Matt Yglesias
As you can read here and here Chuck Grassley was on MSNBC earlier today explaining that he might vote “no” on a health care bill even if he thinks it’s a good piece of legislation if that bill doesn’t get support for other Republicans besides Grassley.
Obama Addresses Veterans — A Constituency That Benefits From A Public Health Insurance Plan – Think Progress
Today, President Obama addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, AZ. In his speech, Obama reassured veterans about his health care plan: “One thing that reform won’t change is veterans health care. No one is going to take away your benefits.” Still, many veterans are reportedly wary of health reform. But ironically, one of the key pillars of reform — a public plan — is currently benefiting millions of veterans who rely on the government-provided care of the Veterans Health Administration.
Co-Ops Are the Single Dumbest Idea I Have Heard in the Health Care Debate in Twenty Years – Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review
I am sure you have heard the story about the committee that was charged with designing a horse but, because of the bureaucratic ways of the committee process, instead ended up creating a camel.
Whole Foods Fight – New York Times
Of all the sideshows to the Great 2009 Health Care Debate, the Whole Foods boycott may take the prize as the most unexpected.
Republicans: A Co-op Plan Is Government-Run Health Care – Marc Ambinder
That’s what the Republican National Committee is now saying, with some help from Senate Majority Leader Harry Read. The RNC forwarded a press release/research memo to reporters today claiming that a "’public option’ by any other name is still government health care." But does it smell as sweet? Probably not to supporters of a true public option, and it was perhaps out of a desire to alleviate those concerns (and pose a future co-op passage as a White House victory) that Reid deemed co-ops as "some type of public option" in early July–a quote the RNC references prominently.
Robert Reich live reader chat 1 pm edt – Politico
The right ticked off. The left ticked off. A muddle in the middle. How did Obama get into this mess? How does he get out of it?



13 Comments







There are at least two articles on Brian Schweitzer’s endorsement of Canadian health care. Could you fit at least on of them in your round up?
They are both linked to in my post here:
http://www.correntewire.com/mt….._town_hall
Thanks for these. No guarantees, but very good reads.
Jason:
What do you mean, “no guarantees”?
Surely a column entitled “Daily Health Care News – 8/18/09″ should deem these two stories newsworthy?
If these two stories are not newsworthy, how do we find out where the “guarantee” comes from and who gives it?
Thanks!
NOTE If it’s too late to resolve these matters today, would you consider posting them in your column tomorrow? If not, why not?
personally, i think these diaries should have the word “propaganda” in the title. it’s not healthcare news — its politico, nyt, ezra klein, matthew yglesias and similar in support of jason’s paid job shilling for the k street lobby hcan. which i note is not even mentioned as a disclaimer in the post. from sourcewatch:
are there ever any links to healthcare experts (for example at pnhp) or news that supports single payer based reform for universal healthcare? that’s been the story for a long time. see for example this comment:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/06…..nt-1916583
one day i tried to shame jason into doing a better job when he had condescended to include an sp link in the comments (just to show that no one was being fooled by his censorship):
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/6412
but his response to you, after a number of requests, here:
convinced me it was probably a lost cause because the previous day marilyn clement’s death had been announced and that’s only not news in a world where single payer news is being actively censored.
shameful.
Jason, I note that your news piece is cross-posted at HCAN, although you didn’t say so. I’m wondering- as you are paid by HCAN, how do they feel about you posting news in favor of single payer?
http://blog.healthcareforameri…..ews-81809/
Couldn’t there be an HCAN logo on the column then? Just so the sponsorship is clear?
vg @4 and lambert @5 – you beat me to it (i must have been looking up links while you were posting)
You are a phony creep and we can find our own “news items” thank you very much anyhow. We are onto you so why dont you go peddle your sly propaganda somewhere else.
Well, nanb, I think that’s over the top. There’s no need to make any of this personal.
All we’re really asking for is transparency. Many bloggers, when they cross-post, have a home blog, and when they cross-post somewhere else, they’ll say something like “Originally posted at…” So, if HCAN is Jason’s home blog, he might consider saying here “Originally posted at HCAN.” Or if FDL is Jason’s home blog, similarly at HCAN.
Further, given that Jason a paid staffer at HCAN, there’s no reason to expect him to be posting out of conviction; that’s not his job. And since HCAN can’t possibly have an editorial policy that gives oxygen to a policy they’re institutionally opposed to, it’s perfectly reasonable that Jason shouldn’t regard single payer news as “newsworthy.”
However, for the sake of readers who don’t pay close attention, it would seem reasonable to brand Jason’s column with HCAN’s logo — not least so that there’s no confusion between HCAN’s brand, and FDL’s. That way readers will know they need to go elsewhere to round out their understanding of what’s really going on.
Of course, another alternative would be to simply retitle the column: Rather than “Daily Health Care News,” “Daily News from HCAN.”
This is a matter of truth in packaging, if you will.
Ah…well,I see, and totally apologize. I felt not at all cool about it after the editor seemed to o.k. it. but it was too late. He just annoyed me.
hi nanb.
he annoyed me too as i’m sure you could tell from my comment @6!
we can and do argue strongly about the issues. but name calling is imo best avoided (even if jason has himself crossed that line). for what it’s worth, that my two cents.
i still think these diary titles should be changed to be more truthful about what is being presented. maybe “censored daily health care news” ?
that’s one of the wonderful things about comments – we can provide feed back.
that works for me.
Well, he doesn’t seem to have answered. We can ask again tomorrow, and provide the links that HCAN’s editorial policies lead him to censor. The branding issue we can, I suppose, leave up to the POTB here, though it couldn’t hurt to keep mentioning it…