Nancy Pelosi says House Bill will have the Public Option: Snatching Victory from the jaws of defeat
Nancy Pelosi stays strong on the public option.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters at a Thursday briefing that she was glad to see the Senate making progress on its version of health care reform but she emphasized that the House plan would look markedly different - by including a public option.
"I fully support the public option. The public option will be in the bill that passes the House," Pelosi (D-Calif.) said purposefully.
By including a public health insurance option in the House version, Pelosi will set up a confrontation between the House and the Senate when they meet in conference committee to hash out the differences between the two bills.
We have a long way to go, but the blogosphere is keeping up the pressure on the public option and it's helping.
And Cilizza has some new polling numbers on health care, but Digby is puzzled by his framing.
Chris Cilizza writes that the numbers on health care haven't actually changed much over the past two months in spite of the August hoohah. And then he sagely notes:
The Gallup numbers provide a worthwhile reminder that even while Washington is consumed with the daily back and forth over health care, the public at large is less invested in the tit for tat inside the Beltway. And, they also suggest that for all the doom and gloom talk regarding how Americans view Obama's health care plan, there may well be room for the White House to pull out a victory on the legislation.
A signing ceremony in the Rose Garden -- and the resultant favorable media coverage -- could well be the last (only?) time some Americans pay close attention to the health care debate and give the president a chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Well isn't that good news. But I'm a bit puzzled. Cilizza himself writes in the same piece that polls show that a majority support Obama on health care reform --- and always have. Why in the hell should there need to be "room" to "pull out a victory?" And what "jaws of defeat" is he pulling victory from?
This is typical beltway narrative building. Despite the fact that the teabaggers have done everything in their power to change public opinion, it hasn't worked. Despite the fact that the Republicans have vowed to do everything in their power to kill health reform, it hasn't worked. Despite all the "doom and gloom" talk in the media, people still support the bill and every vote in the congress that has been taken thus far has advanced the bill. But apparently all of this shows Republican strength and it's the Democrats who will be snatching victory from the jaws of defeat if they manage to pass the bill. Same as it ever was.
The teabggers have shown a dark side in America that was being hidden by the right and America is turned off to it. They have lost the debate, but they still have their Beck.
If she comes back and says Public Option is off the table she should just resign.
and the rest that are looking out for what the American people need....Blast the knuckle draggers --but thank those that are doing their job!
1.800.828.0498 or 1.866.220.0044
Let's hope you are right.
Remember: despite their "we the people" rhetoric, the teabaggers represent only a small minority of opinion. They managed to gather some 60 to 70,000 demonstrators to DC a few days ago, but recall that the peace movement produced crowds that were four to five times as large simultaneously in many cities across the US on the eve of the Iraq war.
The idea that the teabaggers represent anything larger than the John Birch society nutcases is simply false.
She has now made a pledge-promise and she should be held accountable if she fails to come through.
It's a bargaining chip...
They'll piss it away, when the Health Insurance Parasites whine loudly enough
competing against each other either.
PLEASE let Pelosi be speaking the truth. I swear, why do Democrats act like they're actually apologetic for wanting to enact an agenda? I've never understood this spinelessness. There are a few of 'em with spines, but my god, people.
that's why. They don't have to come through because they believe people are stoopid with 2 second attention spans.
and lemme know which one gets stinky...
I don't trust Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
Keep the pressure on!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
even if the house has the public option, that doesn't mean it will get thru the senate. the bill is doomed in any way shape or form. get behind the revocation of the health cos. and their anti-trust exemption.... only baseball and the health ins. cos. have the right to not being busted under the sherman anti trust act.
keep the ins. cos. but force them to be non profit. that will lower rates 25 to 30%....
Unfortunately the term "public option" leaves plenty of wiggle room. Especially since most of us don't know what the hell it actually is. I suspect Ms. Peolosi could eventually say that co-op(t)s are a "public option," and could cluck and crow when they pass a bill that includes that abomination. That's why single payer is the phrase that pays - there can be no doubt about what it is.
The whole "beltway narrative" is just an extension of the MdIC narrative brayed by the ususal suspects. Of course the msm is playing it up, anybody who has had the unfortunate experience of seeing the network evening news shows knows that the majority of their advertisements are for pills we should ax our doctor about. They ain't going to give up those $$$s without a fight.
Sorry Nancy, I admire your current position but we don't trusts tricksy hobbitses like yourself.
For stating what is all too obvious: NOBODY CAN EXPLAIN WHAT THE PUBLIC OPTION IS, WHEN IT WOULD TAKE EFFECT, WHO WOULD QUALIFY TO JOIN IT, HOW THE COST WOULD BE FIGURED OUT FOR EACH PERSON JOINING, WHAT THE COVERAGE WOULD BE etc.
Hey John! How about going to Ms. Pelosi and asking her for a simple two pager that answers all the above questions?
BTW, if anyone else can answer the above questions, that would be swell.
But considering the Senate will bury "The Whatever Option" it is, this is all probably just so much hot air swirling around the Internets.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
pretty much all of the info you seek is in the House bill. except what it will actually cost per person based on income, age, status, etc.
Mmmm... not so much.
Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56%
"Those "Strongly Opposed" to Obamacare Now Outnumber All Supporters"
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.
Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.
And that's before Obama floated the idea of giving illegals health care by granting them amnesty.
It's the Kreeyistyin thing to do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/poli...
http://wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/08/26/aarp-...
Why would you expect anything different, just what are the "health care reform(s) proposed by ... Democrats"? When you ask a generic question like that is it any surprise there is opposition to some undefined thing? That figure could include those who are disappointed there is no single payer included in any of these so-called "plans."
I find it interesting you forgot to add:
I also find it interesting that I could find no methodology for this poll listed. Care to clue us in who they asked?
is not a credible source
If you think of his plan as the Baucus bill (incorrectly but Baucus did say it has everything Obama wanted).
I don't support that either. But Rasmussen's own poll :
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan if it doesn't include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers."
Baucus' bill has no public option. Gee, you think that might be it?
Naw, you'd rather race bait with illegals than think. So be it.
You gotta watch dennis. He's not entirely truthful with the accurate facts. He likes to grab the ones he likes. Not necessarily the correct ones. Not to mention, Consider the source.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
a warm hello to you, too.
Second, which do you think was more accurate, the polling for the questions raised and the results offered, or the last statement of this blog post, that 'they have lost the debate, but they still have their Beck'.
You can email me if you prefer to answer truthfully.
You can trust me with your answer, too.
And I've got a poll that I'm pulling out of my ass right now that says just the opposite.
Hooray! We won 22nd place!
What happened to single payer? Which public option is this? The one with the fines?
Why are we celebrating getting something way different than reform?
Because the reality is that this is America. Very hard to implement significant structural/institutional
changes. When they occur, it tends to be incremental over a period of time. Single payer will become reality if/when we have a better orchestrated, persuasive campaign. Time and time again we've seen that
you often can not sway public opinion if you count on the public being correctly informed. IT also requires a dose of unavoidable reality (i.e., astronomical health care costs) and the kind of public relations campaign that the Right is so adept at. Though with the right message.
I think we will have single payer. But not before 2020 at the earliest. And provided that FOR ONCE
Progressives actually get their heads out their rear-ends and realize what it takes to win on a major issue in the field of public opinion.
In the mean time, here's all the informational ammunition we need to combat the current BS from the Righties, and a future blueprint: "The Healing Of America" by T.R. Reid.
From FDL poster:
The Congress is back in session and doing the dirty work for the Medical Industrial Complex.
mcconnell $3.3M, hatch $2.9M, baucus $2.8M, grassley $2.7M,
lieberman $2.6M, burr $2.4M, ensign $2.4M, cornyn $2.2M, kyl $2.1M,
conrad $2.1M, cantor $1.8M boehner $1.7M, coburn $1.2M, j wilson 800K
were paid by the Medical Industrial Complex to kill Health Care Reform.
(Source: OpenSecrets.org)
Follow the Money: http://hmc-lavadogs.livejournal.com/20128.html
Call Congress and demand, SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE for All!
(Toll Free # House and Senate)
1-866-338-1015_______________1-866-220-0044
1-800-473-6711_______________1-866-311-3405
Sign Single-Payer Petition: http://hmc-lavadogs.livejournal.com/20128.html
Don’t let the Medical Industrial Complex steal your Health Care from you and your family by donating huge sums of money to Crooked Politicians in order to maintain the Status Quo. Keep up the good fight.
Also excellent video here:
Health Care Reform with Michael Moore - September 16, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VMKFjk_mio
ANY of this B.S.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
What concerns me is not any of the fear-mongering about public option destroying the privante insurance market. In fact, it's almost the opposite. I fear that for various reasons, in particular the "level playing field" constraints and even more so the demographics of its potential policyholders. In other words, if the plan is excessively saddled with people requiring subsidies and those that will require more costly medical services, does the public option risk going into fiscal failure/bankruptcy?
Let alone negate any thoughts of having lower premium costs.
I am one who is convinced that the only long-term solution to the myriad of health care problems is single-payer (for starters). And since any public option will carry the "government plan" label, a market place failure would do great harm to any future chance of implementing single payer (even though in reality the two have very little in common). Something the failure of "co-ops" would not do (and, ironically, having something weak and sure to fail like "co-ops" could actually help the chances for single payer in the long run).
So, can anyone alleviate my concerns about the market place viability of a public option?
That was the concern I just expressed. I suppose those who support the public option will say it is the beginning of real reform and will eventually lead to the single payer option. I haven't seen the explanation behind this.
If it works out like the bank and credit card reforms we just had, the public option will be horrible, ineffective and beneficial only towards big business interests.
credit cards and they will issue us new public ones backed by the government with which we can splurge on cigarettes and whiskey.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Is this meant to be a serious contribution?
For a reason.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
On the other hand, I small tax on certain items, be it stock market transactions, sugar-laden soft drinks would pay for a lot of prevention/early detection.
blog profanity too, unless studies show it reduces health care costs by alleviating head explosions among constant users.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
My thoughts were in part motivated by what I see as a over-fixation on the Public Option. I realize that for some people it's seen as a compromise position, hence something we should hold onto
like a life-vest.
But I also think that besides the long term "strategy" I hinted at, I am really concerned that if the
"improvement effort" (my new name for "reform") is torpedoed, it will have serious consequences
for the Democrats. Including putting in doubt some important legislation beginning next year.
I think it's important that our worthy idealism also contain a dose of reality and pragmatism.
Believe me, if we allow nothing to occur, even if it's just "improvement over the status quo" and not "real reform", then we'll live with the consequences, and they won't be pretty.
In other words, do you really want to hear, "Speaker John Boehner"?
The cut-off point becomes where does "any bill" become worse than no bill. As an independent, I already blame the Democrats with the Republicans for obstructing (yes, I mean Blue Dogs not all Democrats).
If you pass a bill that has mandates but no affordable option (public or otherwise), the independents who have been coming out for Dems in greater numbers than Republicans will just decide that they should stay home again. Non-Dems don't have as much ego invested in "must do this year". The general view from the non-beltway "middle" is that the country is a mess and neither party is capable of fixing it. The Dems did look like they were standing up to the plate, and got votes. The Blue Dogs do not represent the middle. Catering to them raises the real specter that the working class middle (that needs affordable health care) will stay home in renewed depression if the bill doesn't give them any relief.
That does increase chances that Republicans will gain of course. The answer isn't dumping the public option, but ensuring there is an affordable change after the bill that can be felt by voters. Whatever it ends up being. Then again, the 4-5 year phase-in may cause disillusionment anyway.
September 17, 2009
Dear PNHP members and friends,
"Start from scratch!"
That's PNHP National Coordinator Dr. Quentin Young's advice to President Obama now that the whittled-down Senate Finance Committee plan has been released without a single GOP supporter. That plan would leave tens of millions uninsured and tens of thousands dying annually because of lack of care. Even the most liberal version of the House bill would leave 17 million uninsured in 2019 (and tens of millions more until then), according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"Obama has said repeatedly that he would favor single payer if he were starting from scratch," says Dr. Young. "Well, now's the time. The Republicans have struck out with their irrational right-wing attacks on the administration's proposals. Mr. Obama, for his part, has managed to have zero converts to the mediocre plans that have emerged. This puts the ball in our court."
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance...
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
I do follow them. But we haven't seen the final bill. Sure I'm pessimistic, but I'm a grey, grumpy old cynic.
At the end of the day it still boils down to ... does the bill that gets passed give working poor affordable access to health care, or just more taxes (mandate is a tax penalty). Need to see the final bill.
The House of U.S. Lords isn't going to do anything to hurt the "Health Care" Industry because we can't afford another major blow to whats left of the economy.
worthy of the name.
Pelosi's grandstanding, nothing more.
This is, if anything, no more than a bargaining chip, to be frittered away in reconciling the House bill with whatsoever piece of shit comes out of the Senate.
and the kiddies will deal with the massive debts.
Like they won't be dealing with massive health care costs in the decades to come if we don't do something to address them? And in fact, among entitlements, health care "reform" as its developing, will add little to the debt.
And if you haven't read HR3200, I suggest you find the long section devoted to ways to implement
meaningful, cost effective changes in the delivery system itself.
Too bad that aspect of the Bill has been overshadowed by the fixation on public option and especially by the barrage of lies and fear-mongering from the False Patriots of the Right wing.
that with the continuing debasement of our currency, and lack of anything of real value this country produces it doesn't make any difference?
beads, the Wall Street mentality is you can buy anything with anything.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
why Digby is puzzled by Chirs Cilizza stating that, despite public polling in support of health care reform, he phrases its passage as Obama snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
Cilizza states "The Gallup numbers provide a worthwhile reminder that even while Washington is consumed with the daily back and forth over health care, the public at large is less invested in the tit for tat inside the Beltway."
Just because one member of the Village press reminds colleagues that what is important to the Village is not necessarily important to those outside, that doesn't mean the village pays heed to the reminder. If they did acknowledge that fact it would mean they are not all important and all knowing. How much fun is that? Cilizza himself can only remind, then fall back into the group think pack.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I wonder if people are still puzzled about how Bush Co Jr got into power.
Because too many Dems stayed home in a handful of critical states.
to big and to good and to well off to bother to be involved.
allowed tasty white Eurpoeans to get a toe hold in Florida in the first place.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I wonder, has anyone here yet read (besides me), "The Healing Of America" by T.R. Reid?
Thanks for the heads-up.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
a rally good reporter and charming writer.
His PBS special about health care around the world is eye-opening.
he was canned from the US story because the Health Insurance PArasites wanted him gone.
I hope someone will convince me that a "public option" will be able to compete in the Exchange over any period of time. For the reasons I mentioned in my earlier comment.
Is the silence to be interpreted that my concerns are valid?
There are two versions of the public option. One indeed is a valid target of your criticism, it was designed to fail based on blue dog input in committee. The other is not. The criticism from the right, that it is a Trojan horse for eventual national health insurance is correct. Trojan horse is too strong, but the fact it would be able to gain critical mass (in provider network as well as insurees) is the threat. Which version of the public option is included is a very valid thing to be watching.
Thanks. But what specifically in the "good" public option plan would allow it to gain this "critical mass"? As I understand it (including in HR3200, albeit it's a bit vague), the public option would not
be available to just "anyone", code for "the most needy" and potentially the least cost-effective.
to the "most needy" they will be setting it up to fail so they can say down the road, "See!!! Publicly sponsored health insurance doesn't work!" The bigger the pool of people the more affordable the insurance is. The Public Option would need lots of young Americans who are healthy in the pool in order for it to work. Which is why the private corporations TRY to "cherry pick".
The ONLY way to have a Public Option that works will be to simply open up Medicare to EVERYONE who wants to join.
If you like your private, pricey Blue Cross/Blue Shield then keep it.
If you are sick of your private insurance corporation, or if you are uninsured etc. and you want the protection of an AFFORDABLE system, then The Public Option should be just an 800 number away. American citizen? Yep. What is your yearly income after taxes? ______________(Fill in the blank). Okay, your monthly premium will be $X/person. Pre-existing conditions? No problem. Need to switch jobs? No problem. Do you want the premium deducted from your check every week? Easy.
And here's the reason this won't happen.
Because the majority of Americans will DUMP THEIR PRIVATE INSURANCE AND RUN FOR THE MAGIC 800 NUMBER TO SIGN UP!!!
Same great coverage. Universal paperwork. AFFORDABLE PREMIUMS since the Public Option wouldn't be paying for Viagra commercials and other marketing nonsense.
Remember when this whole "conversation" started and the study was released that said that millions of Americans would DUMP THEIR PRIVATE INSURANCE AND FLOCK TO A PUBLIC PLAN??? And the private insurance corporations went berserk?
"We can't have THAT!!!! Everyone would dump us!!!"
Well, yeah!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Instead of negotiation with individual providers it would offer Medicare reimbursement rates (Medicare +5% to providers already in the Medicare program). That will get a robust provider network.
That would allow premiums to be low enough that private insurance would have a hard time cherry picking all the healthy sign-ups. Also, premiums would be low enough people would sign up and not just take the penalty. Even if you start with just currently uninsured, that is a very large potential pool. As more employers drop coverage, it will grow. It might get enough enrollees for critical mass. With identical billing to medicare, it does open the door to combining it with Medicare later (the "poison pill" for insurance).
This is also why you want Medcaid to only go up to 133% not 150% of poverty eligibility. It cost shifts to state budgets, and decreases those who would sign on to the public option.
The "bad plan" is the "must compete on a level playing field" wording. This version sets up a public insurance company that must negotiate fees with providers exactly like private plans, and must completely self-finance then with the same rules as the private companies. Since it will have many hard to insure people signing up, that will make the provider network very small at first, and premiums high. Would you sign up for a high premium plan with few providers? That is it's trap. This version will never get enough enrollees to pass go.
The main thing to look at is how the public option is allowed to negotiate with health care providers.
Taibbi's article and the KFF site (esp. side-by-side comparisons) are helpful, as is PHNP. And you've already read T.R. Reid.
I agree the public option is not ideal. I think anything other than the most robust of the options being discussed risks dropping the coverage available under this bill to level that make it untenable.
I'm not a big fan of Speaker Pelosi, but she has been consistently and steadfastly in support of the Public Option since this most recent health care "debate" began. She blinks a lot, but Madame Speaker has not blinked once on this issue. If you support, or are willing to settle for, a Public Option, then Nancy Pelosi is your most powerful political ally.
then Nancy Pelosi is your most powerful political ally.
Then all is truly lost.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
the House version of the public option is still too weak to play the role it's supposed to play. you're only eligible if you can't get employer-based insurance, and employers will be mandated to offer insurance, which people will be mandated to accept. statistically speaking, practically no one will be able to choose this "option." and on top of that, it won't exist until 2013, which means, most likely, that it will never come into being.
Cilizza is a shill, mislabelled "progressive," like the CNN folks and the chubby goateed White House Press Corps man from MSNBC. Chris Cilizza gives his opinions, and they are calculatedly sh*tty and depressing for us, as a glance at his blog will show. He always looks like he's biting his lips to keep from bursting out laughing. Which I'm sure has nothing to do with this. :D
Public Option, which seems to keep getting "lost" on the way when writing the bill. All by coincidence I am sure.
Gotta love the USA, the country where the middle and lower classes are more likely to revolt to protect the interests of the elites than their own... and where we treat a San Francisco socialite as a populist regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Yay!
Yay!
Bigger nads.
However, I don't know if multiplying zero by two yields anything.
Of course the House bill will have a public option. There's a large Democratic majority, no filibuster procedure, and no fictitious "rule of 60." It's totally a free vote in the House to vote for the public option, since it would just get stripped out in conference with the Senate.
It's been obvious from the beginning that the Senate is where the legislation must pass, and the effort there to make it palatable to Republicans in advance has been disastrous. I'm still trying to figure out why, if the Senate bill was hammered out by a "gang of six" consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans, we bothered to have the 2006 and 2008 elections at all, and why, when a party wins a majority in the Senate, especially a substantial one, it gets more seats on every committee than the minority.
I think the House will come up big in the reconciliation process once the Senate passes a bill and they will pass a bill even if they have to use the "nuclear option". Of course they are hoping it doesn't come to that, but I think the Dems have gotten the message that the next couple of elections could be disastrous for them if they don't get real reform with a PO passed.
That doesn't sound too disastrous to me. What you say would only be true if the great majority of voters who support the public option and real health reform would rise up and speak out loudly. So far, they have not done so in massive numbers, and have allowed a small minority on the other side to grab the media spotlight and amplify their message instead.
but I'm starting to believe we just may get there and here is why I say that:
1. The Prez is in campaign mode on health care reform and who campaigns better than he.
2. The First Lady is on the stump and calling attention to the unfairness of the current system to women (a tragedy for sure)
3. And last but not least, Bill-O has declared the PO dead, and when has he ever been right on anything.
Now there is a congress critter that is claiming Roe V Wade will claim a big win if health care legislation passes and is stating the number of abortions will double if it does.
I suppose he figures if everyone who isn't pro-choice gets on board the right wings train it will help to defeat health care legislation. The frightening part is he might be right.
I don't know why it is so difficult for the right to tell the truth and the media shoul call them on their lies when that is the case.
when I see it.
NOBODY 2012
Comments are closed on this entry