So we've had a new letter being sent to the White House by 30 U.S. Senators saying that they want a public option. And Specter and Difi signed on to it. No, really.

Taking a page from the strong House Progressive Block pushing a robust public option, Roll Call reports that thirty Senate Dems have written to Harry Reid, demanding a public option...This is a key development as the negotiations between Reid, Baucus, Dodd and the White House to merge the Senate HELP and Finance bills begin.

Moving parts and trial balloons are flying all over the place. We are speculating at this point because we aren't at the negotiating table, but the newest one is to include a public option in the Senate bill, but allow states to opt out if they don't like it.

Paul Krugman kind of likes the idea.

So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out — that is, make it not available to their own residents. At first blush, that sounds good.

It’s true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.

Howard Dean also thinks it's a good idea. Dean: If I Were A Senator I'd Vote For Opt-Out Public Option

In a brief telephone interview, Dean stressed repeatedly that his preference remained, far and away, a national public option that was available to anyone -- regardless of state -- from the day of its conception. But in a wholly political context, he acknowledged, adding the opt-out option to the bill might be the best and only way to get something through the Senate.

"I would like to see that come out of the Senate because it is a real public plan," he said of the opt-out compromise. "Then they can negotiate it [with the House] in conference committee... And if this passes I won't say it is not reform because it is reform."

"If this is what it takes to get 60 votes I say go for it," said Dean

I'm still digesting this, but the fact that the public option is still being talked about in such an intense way suggests that all our (blogosphere, activists, liberals in Congress, etc..) efforts have been really helping and I feel more positive than I did before. It's just a feeling at this point, of course...

I've been talking to Digby and other activists about the problem Obama faces because his plan won't hit the streets for anther 3-4 years and America wouldn't see any tangible evidence that the health care reform had a positive affect on their lives. It is a big problem because a lot of people can't afford to wait the necessary time it would take to implement a massive project like health reform.

Digby remembers something Howard Dean said and this makes a ton of sense.

Dean has been talking about this problem too, and his solution is even better:

To address that problem, Dean said Democrats need to do something that will have tangible results by next summer. His proposal: opening up Medicare to people over the age of 50 so that a "certain mass" of people will already have benefited from health reform by the elections. "You need to have people sign up for this program by July 2010," Dean said.

I've heard this before but it never seems to go anywhere. I'd be first in line to sign up for that plan. Even if it is eventually phased out, it would be worth doing right now. The people my age -- and they are a huge group -- are in real trouble with the current economic mess. They've lost their retirement nest eggs, their property values are in the dirt and their health care costs are insane. This would be very, very helpful.

This is a great idea.

It's real simple. If President Obama doesn't include a vibrant public option in health care reform, he will lose the left and will never recover. Is that what he wants? Does he want to be a one-term president? Does he want conservatives and teabaggers to control Congress?

I'm sick and tired of hearing his representatives tell me that Congress is writing the bill. He won a mandate to reform health care. John McCain's plans for health care were rejected by Americans. So why is he involved in a kabuki dance with all the weak-kneed Democrats like Blanche Lincoln, DiFi, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and all the rest of the corporate Dems? And why does Sen. Grassley matter at all? They don't care about American families and what's been happening to them.

Doesn't his team look at the polls? Americans are willing to be taxed for health care reform. What more does he want? There's a 20-point jump in the belief that the government can run health care, which is amazing. The polls aren't lying so what is President Obama doing?

Protests should be breaking out all over America about health care before it's too late. July 4th would have been a great day to have one.

President Obama wants a bill to sign in October. Great. But it has to be a good bill with a vibrant public option or health care will never be reformed and President Obama will see his popularity rise in Republicanland. I'm sure they'll all turn out to vote for him in 2012. The problem is that nobody else will.

DOWNLOADS: (1702)

PLAYS: (2009)

Embed

With DINOs like DiFi, who needs to worry about Republicans?

President Barack Obama may not have enough votes in the U.S. Senate to pass his effort to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said.

“I don’t know that he has the votes right now,” Feinstein said today on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.” Controlling costs of the new system is a “difficult subject.”

So the very wealthy DiFi, who hasn't met an appropriation she wouldn't try to swing to her husband's company and ended up having to resign from the Military Construction Appropriations committee when this conflict came to light, and lucky recipient of free healthcare, courtesy of the U.S. Senate, doesn't think that the 59 (nay, 60, if Franken ever gets his seat) Democrats can actually pull it together to vote for the health care reform that a HUGE percentage of Americans want?

Pardon my French, Di, but WHY THE FRAK NOT???? Her answers don't make a lot of sense, frankly:

FEINSTEIN: Ergo, you have enormous problems in my state. California’s bigger than the populations of 21 states and the District of Columbia put together. We have an enormous health care industry, 350 hospitals. University of California alone has 34,000 health care workers, has health care worth $4 billion a year. So it’s complicated. Additionally, the state is in a state of financial catastrophe. I think that’s clear. So, if you change the Medicaid rate, for example, it has an impact on California between $1 billion and $5 billion a year. Now, how could I support that? Because it would take down the state.

Er...huh? Does the fact that these costs are offset by the savings to employers not come into play? How about the fact that by creating a public option, health care costs would be a lower percentage of the average income to individuals and companies? How about the greater costs we all absorb now to cover the uninsured and underinsured? This is not that complicated: COVERING EVERYONE WILL SAVE LIVES AND MONEY.

Then Feinstein becomes even more puzzling:

You also have enormous profit centers in the health care industry, in pharmaceuticals, in medical insurance. And I wonder about these profit centers. Because, unless you have some method to control these profits, premiums continue to rise in the private sector, as they have over the past eight years, substantially.

Therefore, controlling costs is a very major and difficult subject, as long as you have a large private-sector involvement. So this needs to be worked out.

The profits in health care are obscene. Look at what CEOs took home. Elizabeth Edwards famously said that $1 out every $700 spent in this country for health care went to pay the CEO of UnitedHealth. But here's where I'm flummoxed by this statement by Feinstein. If we have a public option that lowers the costs to consumers, doesn't the "free market" then naturally depress these profit centers in health care by forcing them to be competitive with the public option? Isn't that a good thing, Di?

The stakes are too high for these kind of nonsensical arguments from ridiculously privileged politicos ignoring the will of the people. Please consider donating to our Campaign for Health Care Choice to make your voice heard.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »