I'm happy to see that despite what must be enormous pressure, the House progressive caucus is standing firm on the public option. Not only that, they're pushing Nancy Pelosi to dump the Blue Dogs. Via The PlumLine:

The latest: The two top House progressives have just fired off a letter to Pelosi that, in effect, urges her to stick with them and to ditch the Blue Dogs when the public option rubber hits the road. Progressives have reiterated not just their support for a robust public option, but their opposition to the Blue Dog's weakened version of it passed out of Energy and Commerce.

The letter, which was sent over by a source, makes this point by noting that the version of the public option in the House health care proposal negotiated by Blue Dogs — the version that emerged from Henry Waxman’s Energy and Commerce committee — pales beside the ones created by two other key House committees, which have a more robust public option.

The two progressives — Dem Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva — ask Pelosi for a meeting to discuss these pertinent facts. They write flat out that the version negotiated by Blue Dogs is “unacceptable” to them, because it results in far less savings than the two other versions.

You should read the letter yourself. But suffice it to say that it’s another sign that when it comes to the public option, House liberals are preparing for a showdown with Blue Dogs — and showing no intention to budge.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives

H-232, The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

We write to see how we can best work with you to ensure that a robust public plan with Medicare rates plus 5% is included in the final health reform bill.

In July, 60 Members signed a letter saying they could not support an agreement made in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that would require the public plan to use negotiated rates rather than Medicare plus 5% rates, which could delay the start of the public plan, reduce its savings, and reduce its ability to drive down costs. As you stated last week, the Congressional Budget Office scored the Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means bill with the Medicare plus 5% rates at $110 billion in savings compared to the Committee on Energy and Commerce at $25 billion in savings. The loss in savings the Committee on Energy and Commerce brought by this change was offset by reducing subsidies to low-and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, is something we find unacceptable.

As we’re sure you agree, these numbers demonstrate the importance of a robust public plan tied to Medicare. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss how we can work together to include a robust public plan that will increase competition, bring down costs, and provide the necessary savings to ensure robust subsidies to those who need help paying for health insurance.

Sincerely,

Lynn Woolsey

Raul Grijalva

DOWNLOADS: (1129)

PLAYS: (2900)

Embed

Anthony Weiner with Neil Cavuto on Fox News tells him the White House will lose 100 votes without a public option:

CAVUTO: So you’re saying if the president leaves the public option as just an option, not a drop-dead one, he’s gonna lose, essentially, the House.

WEINER: “Well frankly, right now, as the bill’s constructed, it would be an option for people to choose, no one would be forced into it.

What happens if you leave out the option? Where’s the competition, where’s the downward pressure on prices, and where is the thing that helps taxpayers, where’s the thing that helps small businesses? You need that, and it was part of the construct of the bill, and frankly the president’s been a couple of different places on it, but tonight we get to see what he has to say. And I think what he’s going to say is not only are we going to keep the public option in there, we’re going to make it a vigorous one so that consumers have a choice.

CAVUTO: But he has said, Congressman, while that’s something he would prefer personally, in the ABC interview, he said there are a number of ways you can get there, this is not necessarily “the” way. So what if he does something in the middle here? He’s a pragmatic fellow, he wants to get healthcare reform passed, and he says something to the effect, all right, to get the Anthony Weiners and all behind me, if the private insurance guys don’t do what I want them to do, or extract the savings I expect them to, then we do Weiner’s public option.

WEINER: Well frankly, the way the present public option kicks in is, what, ten years out? 2013 is Year One of the bill, then there’s a five-year grace period. But the fact of the matter is, we’ve tried the private insurance model and they’re providing unaffordable health care and 15,000 Americans lose their health care every single day. I don’t frankly see the argument for dropping the public option. All it is, is a choice. All it is, is competition.

CAVUTO: Well you know, the fear is that it’s not just an option, it’s a Trojan horse. That once in, the government just takes over everything.

WEINER: Yeah, I’ve heard that, and I’ve heard that a lot of places, and none more than here on Fox. Frankly, CBO say 4% of people would wind up getting in and I frankly think that’s not vigorous enough. I think we should cut out the bank shot and say the private insurance companies aren’t contributing enough. But that’s not where the president is.

Continue reading »

I was reading this story about Obama trying to get the progressives into line behind his healthcare surrender compromise, and I was intrigued by the language. What does "moderate" mean, class?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As Obama prepares to go before Congress and lay out more details about his stance on health reform, he held a conference call Friday with some of the most liberal members of the House, who say they won't vote for a bill without a government-run insurance option.

Two congresswomen on the call, which took place Friday afternoon, tell CNN that the president probed them about how entrenched they are, even asking them to define what they mean when they call for a "robust" public option.

"I think he would like to convince us that there is something sort of that could lead to a public option that would satisfy us, and guess what? It doesn't," Rep. Lynne Woolsey, D-California, told CNN in a telephone interview after the conference call.

Woolsey, the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, insisted that the president did not explicitly warn them that he may have to give up a so-called public option in order to pass a bill through the more moderate Senate, but it seemed he was laying the groundwork.

There's that Overton window again! If the Senate is "moderate" (i.e. too flipping wingnut crazy to even consider the truly moderate compromise of a public option), that must mean the actual moderates in the progressive caucus are literally INSANE!

"He has to decide where that line has to be drawn and he knows we have to decide where the line can be drawn," said Woolsey.

The conference call included leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Another Democratic source familiar with the call said the president did made clear it will be hard to pass a public option out of Congress because of deep opposition from moderates, and talked about what's most important to him — market reforms that force more competition, lower costs for health care, and expanded coverage for the uninsured.

But both Woolsey and Rep Barbara Lee, D-California, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CNN that they told the president point blank that they do not believe a health care proposal without a government-run option is real reform.

"All of our caucuses are very unified about a robust public option, and that is essential in healthcare reform efforts," Lee told CNN in a separate phone interview after the conference call.

Here's the White House thinking, as leaked by another one of those very busy White House sources *cough* Rahm Emanuel *cough*:

A Democratic source close to the process told CNN Friday that the White House was very conscious of the potential congressional fallout: "How do you [get the deal passed] without a revolt in the House? It can be done, but very delicately."

The bottom line, said the source, is that the president would have to "move to the center" on the issue eventually, "and it's not a bad thing to have liberals screaming at him." That development will help sell the deal to Americans and "convince them it's a good, moderate deal, if liberals are mad."

No, Rahm, we won't be screaming. In fact, we'll be very, very quiet. Screw us on healthcare reform, and all you'll hear is the Zen sound of a few million activists sitting on their hands for the next four years.

No more checks, no more phone banking, no more letters or calls of support. You're on your own now, pal. Go ask your new "moderate" friends for help.

enlarge

Credit: Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's Website

Sargent’s case was bolstered yesterday when the National Journal offered up datapoints that supported contentions that increased traditional media obsession with deficit is lurching our national conversations on economic issues to the extreme right.

Thompson essentially counters that the traditional media should get a pass for not covering unemployment issues because no one is trying to fix it. There are number of problems with Thompson’s argument.

First, his argument that no one is trying to fix the job issues is just off base. Congressional Democrats for their part have remained focus on the jobs. He should specifically look through the “Make it in America” section of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s website and learn more about the Democratic agenda, which is all about jobs. The “People’s Budget” presented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which was described as a “courageous” by the Economist, also focuses how to “put America back to work.”

He should pay close attention to leaders such as Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), one of the most effective spokespersons for a progressive vision in the U.S. Congress, who has been hammering away on how to make “job creation” the “number 1 focus” for our Congress. And just days ago President Barack Obama tied trade pacts to aid for U.S. workers who lose jobs. So the insinuation that our elected officials – specifically Democrats in Congress – have not focused on how to fix jobs issues does not fly. Unless, of course, you're talking about Republicans. More after the split.

Continue reading »