
Mrs ralphbon kindly offered to make me a poster for yesterday’s big single-payer rally in Washington. Wracking my brains for a slogan, I rejected the ironic expropriation of a wingnut mantra (For-Profit Insurance Stops a Beating Heart), the internecine snipe (Keep Insurers “Honest”??? Make Them GONE!), and the unvarnished-truth angle (Investor Profits = Patient Deaths).
I opted finally for Dudley, which proved a crowd-pleaser, with only one or two people asking me over the course of the day who this Do-Right gentleman was and could I elaborate on his health plan.
The occasion, as you know, was Medicare’s 44th birthday. I chose to hop in the car in predawn Brooklyn darkness to arrive for the morning’s special activity: distribution of Medicare birthday cupcakes (and single-payer literature) to all members of Congress.
Washington was already as steamy as a Brighton Beach bathhouse by the time Dudley and I met up with single-payer supporters from around the country, with whom I stood in line to be assigned legislators for cupcake delivery. The New York congressional delegation having already been snatched up, I spotted a loose 3×5 card for progressive good guy Rush Holt of New Jersey and grabbed it, then volunteered for two other unassigned congressmen who also had offices in the Longworth building: Mike Quigley (D-IL), who beat out the more progressive Thomas Geoghegan for Rahm Emanuel’s seat, and Sam Johnson of Texas, whom you can tell is a Republican because his web site is meticulously scrubbed of any indication as to his party affiliation.
I was issued three information packets, three cupcakes, and three candles. However, no one had matches for the candles, since, as studies by both the Lewin Group and Commonwealth Fund have documented, single-payer activists have the lowest percentage of smokers among health reform advocates, followed in ascending order by sorrowful public option supporters, enthusiastic public option supporters, state co-op supporters, mandates-and-regulation-only proponents, Blue Dogs, and Black Lungs.
When I arrived at Longworth, it turned out guards weren’t allowing people through security with cupcakes anyway. I asked a guard how long Congress had had a no-cupcakes policy, and he responded, “About 10 minutes.”
I retreated to the adjacent Rayburn building to see if I could get my cupcakes through there (so as to double-back to Longworth through the basement connector tunnel). However, by this time the entire Capitol Hill security apparatus had been alerted to the cupcake threat. The only way to deliver a cupcake was to call up to a legislator’s office and have an aide come to the lobby to accept it personally under a guard’s vigilant eye.
So it was that a single-payer volunteer from Oregon met an aide to his congressman in the lobby and gave her all ten or so cupcakes he’d been planning to distribute to different legislators. I gave her my three as well. The Oregon congressman and his staff made out like bandits, unless they treated the cupcakes as presumptive biohazards, which would have saddened me but for which I suppose I could forgive them.
I still offered Medicare birthday greetings to the perky aides of my three selected legislators and offered regrets about the cupcakes. The perky aide to the Republican Congressman perkily treated my single-payer information packet like so much hazmat.
The rally commenced some hours later and was at least as well attended as the one on May 13, all the more impressive given the oppressingly moist heat this time around and the interim attrition of some portion of single-payer advocates to the ranks of sorrowful – and in odd cases even enthusiastic – Obamacare supporters.
John Conyers, father of HR 676 Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, led off with an air of feisty exasperation. “I’m going to do something I hope my colleagues don’t get mad about,” he said. “I’m going to mention them.” He chided, in particular, Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Boxer, Feingold, and Feinstein for walking back earlier support of single payer. “Let’s be honest,” he implored, about what current health care reform bills are and aren’t.
Conyers was the first at the rally, and far from the last, to offer uncharitable assessments of HR 3200. In what (at least for me) seemed an actual nugget of news, he vowed not to vote for the bill if it lacked a “real public option” and if it were stripped of the Kucinich amendment (passed in the House Education & Labor Committee version of the bill), which waives federal restrictions on states that pass their own single-payer initiatives.
Bernie Sanders was no less rousing, as were Dr. David Scheiner, Barack Obama’s personal physician for 22 years; Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen; Donna Smith, Katie Robbins, and Dr. Margaret Flowers of, respectively, CNA/NNOC, HCN!, and PNHP; Terry O’Neill, President of NOW; and Sameer Dossani of Amnesty International. Tim Carpenter of PDA and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink drove home the linkages between health care reform and antiwar activism.

Two particularly moving moments came when Frankie Hughes, who just turned 12, recounted her recent arrest along with 8 adults in a protest at Wellmark BC/BS in DesMoines, and when Nadina LaSpina of Disabled in Action, who’s been arrested some 50 times in various protests, spoke of how most disabled Americans have no choice but to go on Medicaid because of medical impoverishment under our system. Dr. Ogan Gurel discussed the 700-mile walk he just completed, from Chicago to Washington, to publicize the plight of patients in our country.
The rally was followed by a second and more intensive lobbying push, as well as a briefing on the Kucinich amendment to HR 3200 to permit state single-payer initiatives. If there was one recurring – and actionable – theme of the day, it was that the Kucinich amendment
1. Is no joke;
2. Could make a real difference to millions of lives regardless of the shape, scale, and “robustness” of Obamacare;
3. Will need massive public support over the August recess if it is to have a shred of a chance at surviving the consolidation of HR 3200, much less the House/Senate conference deliberations; and
4. Deserves particular support from progressives who’ve chosen to focus for now on a public option, with the hope that if robust, it could lead to single payer. Legalizing state single-payer initiatives constitutes no less plausible a seed for future single payer than a robust public option itself. If we succeed in keeping both in the final legislation, we’ll have planted two seeds rather than one.
These points were driven home in their own ways by two eloquent and forceful state legislators, Jim Ferlo of Pennsylvania and Mark Leno of California. Their two populous states present the best chances in the near future of enacting state-level single-payer systems.
Pennsylvania, although largely conservative, is especially hard hit by the economic downturn, and it has high union membership. As a result, not just progressives but conservative Democrats and a growing subset of Republicans have been joining in support of single-payer (eg, John Murtha just became a co-sponsor of HR 676). A single-payer bill stands a good chance of passing the legislature and getting signed by Governor Ed Rendell. But it needs the federal waiver as set forth in the Kucinich amendment to move forward from there.
In California, a single-payer initiative has passed the legislature twice now, only to be vetoed by the Governator. Mark Leno says it will pass, and be vetoed, at least one more time. With a change of governors, the fate of the bill could be much different. But that (and the federal restrictions on implementation) is only the first step in the struggle. As Leno explained, unlike the Republicans of Pennsylvania, California’s Republicans are solidly obstructionist. They aren’t strong enough to block passage of a single-payer bill per se, but they are strong enough to block its funding under the rules of the regressive Proposition 13 of 1978.
If a Democratic governor enters office, and the Kucinich amendment stays alive, and the state single-payer bill finally gets signed into law, Leno said, overcoming Republican obstruction under Prop 13 will constitute the real battle line in the early part of the next decade. Fortunately, he reports, California single payer has some powerful allies, including Lily Tomlin. In a series of short spots, Tomlin is reprising her role as Geraldine, who’s moved from the phone company to a health insurance firm.
Sharp satire, ridicule, and shame – plus the Kucinich waiver – could help California, with a population comparable to that of Dudley Do-Right’s homeland, show the rest of the nation how to do health care right.



79 Comments




Thanks for an interesting summary of the day’s events. Will FDL cover this or does its boycott of single payer extend to this too?
Thank you for your post. Recommended.
I wouldn’t call it a boycott, though of course this account is all the coverage you’ll see around here. Jane and colleagues have chosen to approach the issue from a different direction. Her progressive-whip operation and citizen markup operations are valuable strategies for playing the crappy cards dealt us because of last year’s tragic (and infuriating) missteps by moveon.org and other progressive powerhouses in abandoning SP advocacy at the start, rather than the end, of negotiations.
That said, as the post notes, I think it’s worth pressing Obamacare supporters, and the whip operation, to include the state single-payer waiver amendment in their lines in the sand. (Strategically, we’ll need to stop calling it the Kucinich amendment only because of the baggage his name carries due to years of unfair, know-nothing marginalization and denigration.)
Thanks, Ralpbon. Very hopeful account. I agree that State-level Medicare for All is at least as important as the kind of public option we see in HR 3200 in getting to Medicare. In fact, I wouldn’t even mind a giveaway of some of the inadequate public option in return for a State-level Medicare for All option. But that’s to pessimistic. There’s another month before they come back, if we can build intense support for Medicare for All during that time, perhaps we can surprise a few people.
While Texas, land of the troglodyte, will show you how to do it wrong! Governor Goodhair Rick Perry, has struck again, further embellishing his credentials as a opportunistic politician of extraordinary magnitude. Don’t forget that his State leads, or trails, depending on one’s perspective, the Nation in almost every category of health care:
http://www.texasobserver.org/c…..perry-plan
IIRC, Kucinich got Republican votes on the committee for his amendment on — get this — State’s Rights ground. So it will attract bipartisan support!
FWIW, “Medicare for All” is the slogan, “single payer” is the policy, and the idea of decreasing progressively decreasing eligibility is a very simple concept that makes single payer very easy to implement.
Just start lowering Medicare eligibility.
Lower it by 2 years every year until everyone is covered. No new machinery, no nothing.
If you want to get there faster, then make the increment 4 years, not 2.
And you can absolutely give the American people a “date certain” by which everyone will be covered.
I’m betting, also, as a “compromise” position, this is a hell of a lot more effective and popular than that public option machinery, which just screams “Game me, please!” to the insurance companies.
nonplussed hit the nail on why some Rethugs are supporting the state waiver amendment; they want the right to let states opt, not for single payer, but the status quo. I say, let ‘em! If they actually succeed in a state or two, their constituents will in short order be calling for their heads as they see the rest of the country enjoying, at minimum (and I do mean minimum) Obamacare, or at maximum (starting with Pennsylvania, Ganesh-willing) single-payer.
Jacob Hacker’s briefing document of December 2008 (updated and expanded in April 2009) is really a love song to Medicare. In it, he mentions a decade-by-decade expansion of Medicare eligibility (eg, 55 and up, then 45 and up, etc.), along with immediate Medicare for All and Pete Stark’s Americare plan, as proposals he deliberately will not examine for reasons having less to do with merit than perceived pragmatism.
Sorry I missed you, I was down on the Hill that day to see the event as well as the Progressive Caucus press conference.
Thank you for this excellent report. I am very proud Mark Leno is my state Senator.
This is off the topic of this post, but this is a must watch clip of pure economic stupidity.
Holy Cow!!!
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2369
Hi, Jason — you’ve got a question from Kip Sullivan, in case you missed it: LINK
We’re waiting with bated breath for you answer!
Nah, go for 10 year increments.
OK, I clearly don’t have the hang of editing here yet.
Comment 13 is a question to Jason Rosenbaum.
Comment 14 is a reply to lambertstrether, Coment 7.
Slowly, slowly I may get it together.
Be careful about admitting this publicly. Could be construed as a pre-existing condition.
Great post and report Ralphbon . . . thanks so much. And a lot of good updated info on it all . . . THanks! *G*
Too late. It’s out there.
Ralphbon, is the promised vote for single payer to be on the Weiner amendment, which subs HR 676 for HR 3200, or a different Kucinich amendment? Any wording at hand? Thnx.
David Swanson at American Chronicle looks at strategies, tactics which pertain to this upcoming vote.
Oh, damn. Now, how could not having it together be construed? No mental health coverage, fer sure, eh?
“OMG, call the cops, it’s ‘out there’!”
FWDiva
It’s such a boycott that all pro-single-payer comments, commenters, and Oxdown/Seminal diaries have been censored and deleted! And this very post by ralphbon never happened! (/snark)
Oh, wait, that boycott didn’t actually happen, except in the imaginations of some folks who already have blogs but also have pre-existing axes to grind against Jane. (Not you, Hugh. But they know who they are. They haven’t forgiven Jane for not backing Hillary wholeheartedly during the primaries, so now they’ve decided to get back at her using this as the weapon.)
Really? No snark intended, or disrespect.
I mean REALLY as in shocked at this . . . PUMA’S are spreading the blogosphere boycott on SP rumors?
I sure don’t get THAT one . . . . can you name bloggy names, I mean, is it appropriate to do so in this forum?
Uh, beer anyone?
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Mark Klein’s Wiring Up the Big Brother Machine…And Fighting It hosted by emptywheel
I’ll take a Grain Belt, myself. Off to the Salon!
Oh, it should be pretty obvious to anyone who’s been reading the health care threads closely. What’s so amusing about it is that there are another faction still fighting the primary wars that thinks that Jane was a total shill for Hillary. I’d love to get both factions in a room sometime and film the resulting matter-antimatter reaction.
As a slogan what about:
Medicare for All
Give Me Medicare While I’m Young Enough to Enjoy It.
Eh, not taking the bait, I know a strawman when I see one. Sorry Scarecrow.
Phoenix Woman, I’ll fess up to being a Hillary supporter and that almost all my worries about an Obama presidency have come to be realized, actually more than I’d conjectured — especially concerning civil liberties.
But, Jane is a hero of mine. I do wish she could include in her calls to action mentions of single payer. It would help in so many ways. With Obama, I think his tendency to “reconciliation” and compromise results in a desire to be in the middle of whatever the contending sides are. Given that the argument has been limited to the far-right and something called the center, but is really center-right, we’re asking for poor results to not push for the leftmost plans which can be seen as logical and good for the public.
I also have the need for fact-based decision making, so I have major problems when anyone, Obama or a blogger, asks me to support something which is not defined clearly. I mean, consider “Day One.” Well, what does that mean? Day One as defined by Obama? By someone thinking it means 1/1/2013, given that the public plan as sort of proposed won’t go into effect until 2013? Or, is Day One simply the day, any day, the plan goes into effect? I have no idea.
When Obama writes an email to me saying he wants me to support a plan which has the following 8 protections, I still have to ask what his words mean.
“No discrimination” in the first point seems pretty clear, but does it mean no higher premiums?
“No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses” etc. — How is “exorbitant” defined? Is there to be a cap on amount which must be paid? How determined? By whom? What percentage? Sliding scale based on income? I see there isn’t a lifetime cap, but annual? Lots of pesky questions….
And this one: “Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid” — And the cost of those premiums?
Private for-profit insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make a profit, right? So, how is that managed? Or is it? If their profits fall, what happens then?
Anyway, with all these unaswered questions I find it difficult to ask others to support this plan. I need facts. Part of that old Reality-Based Community…
Medicare for All? I have a really good idea of what that means and how it would work. The bill is 30 pages long, something we can deal with. OVer a 1000? Ooof! And it has the great possibiity of becoming a national plan, which means great economies of scale and far less paperwork and personnel necessary to work through the thickets of insurance company regulations, gotchas, etc., which can vary wildly within the same company!!
It took me several calls to nail down that an ultrasound test did not require a referral, but only a prescription. I got so many different answers I had to escalate through the management tree. Turns out it differs for my parasite depending on where in my state a person lives. If the insurer’s personnel can’t keep things like this straight, what must it be like to be a health provider dealing with so many different parasites’ plans?
I don’t think other bloggers are “out for revenge” on Jane for not supporting Hillary. But then I tend to read issues-oriented blogs, so may not know what’s “out there.”
I also have a great deal of respect for your work, Phoenix Woman.
Glad to see this front-paged at Seminal, and kudos to HCAN for letting that happen.
How about some front-paging at FDL proper?
That’s why positive FDL coverage of single payer actions like this at the state level is important.
Uh, it has been front paged at FDL. As of 1PM Pacific time.
When folks click on the headline, it bring them to this diary at The Seminal.
No, Jason, I’m afraid you don’t know what a straw man is. Let’s check one definition:
Now let’s look at the questions you were asked at the other end of Hipparchia’s link:
That’s a simple question, and I would expect that an HCAN staffer would be able to answer it easily. If you can answer, will you? (And as you can see, there’s no overstatement or misrepresentation.)
Again, that’s a simple question that I would expect an HCAN staffer to be able to answer. If you can answer, will you? (And as you can see, there’s no overstatement or misrepresentation.) Finally:
Here, if you feel there is anything unfair about the questions, you’re given the chance to reformulate them. No overstatement or misrepresentation here!
There’s no “straw man” here at all.
Absent answers to the question, what we have is the spectacle of an HCAN staffer unable to answer basic questions about the very plan he’s inducing others to spend time whipping for. Not the best optics, I think we can all agree.
Good. I’ll update my post accordingly.
I think the Republicans were joking with Dennis. If this really is going to get into the final Bill, I think the Democrats are going to have to do it. People like George Miller who’s supposed to be an HR 676 supporter, needs to support State-level HR 676 or the equivalent.
You know, there really are some people — Nancy Pelosi among them — who understand that Medicare for All is the best from a policy perspective.
I agree with her, and I’m advocating for the best policy as forcefully as I know how; along with, for example Anthony Weiner, who you may have noticed getting some good press lately.
So, I don’t know what difference it makes, from the standpoint of using evidence and reasoning to discuss policy, why on earth it makes the slightest bit of difference who wore which jersey in 2008. It’s like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 only for the supporters of George Washington, and not for the supporters of James Madison.
But if you feel that it does, do feel free to name names as opposed to going the “nod and wink” route — unless you feel that gets in the way of an honest and open policy discussion, of course.
Not bad, but it still wouldn’t stop many of the deaths, bankruptcies, and family breakups that result from insurance companies attempts to deny services to insurees. In addition, I’d like to see 10 year increments, so we get to universal coverage much faster.
I saw the coverage. I also noticed that was single-sourced, anonymous, and from Sam Stein in HuffPo. So… If somebody points to a YouTube of the hearings, great, but for now…
I agree that Medicare for All is the slogan and single payer is the policy. But I think we need to get into the habit of calling it “Medicare for All,” because the slogan is understandable to, and powerful with, most Americans.
We could set up a Health Exchange for those cases!
(Snark, but this is minor tinkering compared to the Goldilocks problem that public option advocates have, of getting the public plan “just right” so that (a) the health insurance companies stay in business and (b) the mandate that people will be forced to buy isn’t junk insurance.)
What I’m doing.
(The opposite policy, of course, being “Medicare for Some” ;-) )
I’m hearing *** crickets *** from Jason.
Isn’t the advantage of having an HCAN staffer moderate, is that he’s here to answer policy questions?
Yes. Complexity kills. And the public option is complex, and also disingenuous.
I hope it works out that way. It would be nice to have a race to the top, instead of a race to the bottom for a change. Maybe Toyota would leave those red states and go to Pennsylvania so it could benefit from Medicare for All.
Wow, just got home to discover this post on the front page not just of the Seminal but the Mothership. Whether or not this relates to my recent complaint about Obamacentricity at the Seminal, I’m honored. Will scroll back to the new comments and plunge in after we get miniralphbon to bed.
There are two problems with “pragmatism.” One is that’s what “practical” is always changing, and in politics sometimes it can change fast. What’s not practical in 2002 can be much more practical in 2009. Two is that what we decide is “practical” may or not turn out to be practical; but what we decide is “impractical” will surely never happen. This is the problem of reflexivity. The physical world imposes certain constraints on us whatever we decide. But the social world is a world that we create in large part. We bring it forth all the time. And when we decide that certain things are impractical we are deciding not to bring them forth regardless of whether our judgment about what is practical is right or wrong. Since are judgments about social reality are always quite fallible. We need to very careful about what we declare “impractical.” And we are not. We use labels like “impractical” or “naive” everyday, and our futures, our poltics, and our lives suffer from it. In any event, there’s nothing “impractical” about Medicare for All, except that the smart progressive money has decided not to say “yes we can.”
I’m all for Medicare for All. But I’m a big fan of Jane, Firedog, Marcy, Scarecrow, and ralpbon too. It’s not always about getting back at people.
msobel, just great. Thanks.
Hi Jason, Please explain why it’s a strawman.
Thanks. It is very important.
Not only that. It’s also lack of transparency. Why is HCAN still supporting HR 3200 when there’s no clear path in it to controlling rising premiums and no clear path in it to Medicare for All either. Does HCAN know something we don’t that it won’t expose to public view?
Fair enough.
I agree. A point at which the public option and private insurers are in equilibrium is a pipe dream. Either one or the other will dominate. Without prohibitions of health insurer contributions to politicians, private insurance will dominate and we will have the same mess we have today.
Well done, Ralph, and well done, FDL. More like this, please.
On no clear path to Medicare For All: Exactly what I asked for when Ian Welsh posted on “finding common ground” between public option and single payer advocates. If such a clear path exists, it’s hard to imagine it can’t be described. And if there’s some “security through obscurity” concept of forthcoming legislative legerdermain, it’s hard to believe that health insurance lobbyists who are paid to work on this stuff all day won’t find it, or haven’t already figured it out. So why not be transparent? Not good optics.
Sorry, I hadn’t seen your reply on the Ian Welsh post. Just to underline transparency. That’s a major theme of Obama’s and the progressive movement. To say that Obama is disappointing us on transparency is the understatement of the year. But that’s no reason for our organizations to eschew transparency. Once we begin to play insider-outside games we’re no better than the other folks.
yeah, right.
single payer advocacy is just sour grapes from Hillary supporters.
talk about conspiracy theories!
great post here, ralphbon, great discussion.
Actually, I was part of the group that “dropped by” at the CPC press conference. I kept an eye out for someone resembling your teensy thumbnail photo in hopes of introducing myself, but with no success.
As for that “dropping by,” here’s my account, for the record:
At the conclusion of the rally, one of the organizers announced that folks with lobbying appointments with Senators or Representatives should head to those meetings but that others with no immediate plans might want to march over to the CPC press conference that had just begun.
She explained that the press conference had to do with CPC members defending HR 3200 from Blue Dogs and suggested that it would be meaningful if single-payer advocates briefly and silently ringed the event with banners held high, just to remind the progressive reps of their root dedication to single payer. Sort of a brief, quiet, and decidedly nondisruptive flash mob.
When we arrived at the press conference, march leaders attempted to quiet the group, but some people were intent on chanting slogans. In particular, a Single Payer Action activist insisted on booming, “Single Payer Now!” even after the rest of the group had quieted down, and he got indignant that his own allies were trying to shush him.
I’d seen video of another Single Payer Action activist heckling Chuck Schumer with a bullhorn at your HCAN rally last month and was similarly annoyed at the pointlessness and tone-deafness of the action. I support well-considered direct action, like the brave stand taken by the Baucus 13, but heckling of this sort is worse than wrong: it’s counterproductive. I mean, I know how I’d feel if Jason Rosenbaum whipped out a bullhorn at a single-payer event and screamed at us not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
There may yet come a day when I feel justified and mentally prepared to handcuff myself to Baucus’s hair, Conrad’s wire-rims, or Schumer’s nostrils, but it will have come at the end of extensive and judicious, not scattershot, deliberation.
Hi, jawbone. I’m not 100% sure, but my understanding is that if the Kucinich state-waiver amendment gets stripped from legislation, Nancy Pelosi has promised that it will still be brought to the floor as a free-standing amendment. That may or may not be what Swanson is referring to. The Weiner amendment, IMO, is a fine symbol at this stage but would be a toothless distraction in the final haggling (unless an unprecedented mass movement suddenly caught fire in August).
Very much appreciated, Teddy. Leno’s definitely a keeper.
PW, I’ve been completely oblivious to these pro-Hillary sour-grape undercurrents you’ve mentioned in a number of threads. I’m not denying their existence, but it’s pretty inside-baseball stuff, and to my eye, health care reform threads have pretty much been about health care reform.
LGID, I wasn’t agreeing with Hacker’s assessment of pragmatism, in case you got that impression.
Nice deconstruction, jawbone; thanks.
Not to defend or excuse such actions, since they are certainly counter-productive, one will get that sort of reaction to people when they’re shut out of deliberations, as Medicare for all advocates have been.
ralphbon, I didn’t get that impression at all. I mainly offered that comment to throw the attitudes of Hacker, HCAN, and, unfortunately, I think Obama and Rahm, into high relief. They appear to think that their judgments of what’s practical and what’s not that are so sound that need not be subject the same kind of vetting and criticism they reserve for other things. That kind of thinking is a big mistake, and is reminiscent of the kind of thinking we saw in the Bush Administration and among the Masters of the Universe that has led to the all too familiar disasters we’ve recently experienced. I’ve written about Obama’s version of “pragmatism” elsewhere.
Agreed, but context? Who’s playing what games, here?
> Single payer is just sour grapes from Hillary supporters.
I know you’re not saying it is, sporkovat, but:
And so what if it were? (Which is isn’t). Would Medicare for All save one less life, or one dollar less because of that?
Sorry, lambertsrether. Didn’t get your comment. A little more context please.
have any of these politicians, activists, advocates, and lobbyists actually defined what they mean by ’strong’ or ‘robust’ when they talk about the public option?
chris dodd, when the senate bill passed out of the help committee, said that it contained a strong public option, but his idea of strong doesn’t jibe with mine.
Too meta ;-) This sentence:
Who is the “we”? Very often a useful question to ask.
Here’s a useful test for “strong” and “robust”
It you don’t see insurance company CEOs bursting into tears and explaining how it will destroy their industry, it’s not strong enough.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus set forth an excellent set of robustness criteria in early June. HR 3200 doesn’t come close to fulfilling them, and the Senate HELP public option is even worse.
These criteria are considerably more rigorous than the HCAN criteria on which Jane based the FDL pledge. Despite that fact, and despite the reasonable expectation that a caucus should take its own goddamn pronouncements seriously, it’s still been all the pledge campaigners could do to get CPC members to draw the line at the more dilute criteria.
The key difference is the phrase, in the CPC criteria, “available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation.” In HR 3200, eligibility to participate in the exchange, and so, through it, the public plan, is greatly restricted, and the option to expand access falls largely to the discretion of the HHS secretary, at a time when he or she could — gulp — be a Republican again.
No, they’re already bawling and crying “socialism!” in response to the paltry public option currently on offer. They whined and cried even when Hillarycare was set to enroll most Americans in HMOs. You’ll know it’s robust when they send out the black security vans, a la “Silkwood.”
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wa) has a really slimy push poll using disinformation on health care reform on his website:
“Do you support health care reform if it means you might be forced out of a plan that lets you see your current doctor?”
Kind of like asking if you support health care reform if it means your dog will die. I answered yes just for fun. I’m thinking if we can get the “yes” vote over 50%, he’ll take it off of his website. If you want to join me, here’s the link to his website:
http://hastings.house.gov/
We’ve doubled the yes vote total since this morning. If it gets above 50% we’re going to call the paper and see if they will call his office for a comment.
We was meant to be inclusive of HCAN and Jason.
Folks there’s an interesting exchange going on over here also.
Hmmmm. Not a good example of constructive discourse. Very poor reflection on this blog
There are a lot of responses to commenters that … um … seem over-the-top. Distressing to say the least
Reminds me of something like this
:)
thanks for the cpc link. i do vaguely remember seeing it a long time ago and had apparently completely forgotten it, probably as a self-protective measure, since there are some things on the list i disagree with [though there are some good things there too].