The Kucinich bill would allow states to form their own single-payer systems:

As reported earlier, House leaders have stripped the Kucinich amendment from the House health care reform bill. This amendment would help nullify legal challenges against efforts by individual states to enact their own single-payer systems.

[...] According to Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America, one avenue of appeal remains regarding these efforts:

Democratic House leaders can insert what is called a “Manager’s Amendment” into legislation, even when it is closed to any other amendments. The managers are the majority and minority members who “manage” debate for the bill on each side.

Today, tomorrow, and beyond, we need to call these “managers” and insist that the Kucinich Amendment is restored into the healthcare bill.

The “gang” that holds our future in their hands includes:

* Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4965; San Francisco office (415) 556-4862

* Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: Washington, DC, office (202...; Greenbelt office (301)...; Waldorf office (301)...

* Rep. Henry Waxman: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-3976; Los Angeles office (323) 651-1040

*Rep. Charles Rangel: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4365; New York office (212) 663-3900

* Rep. George Miller: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-2095; Concord office (925) 602-1880; Richmond office (510) 262-6500; Vallejo office (707) 645-1888

Since the Senate is the group turning the health care debate into "either-or" - as in, "either" regular citizens get screwed "or" the health-for-profit industry gets screwed, I thought I'd point this out as a perfect example of how they think:

The Finance Committee seemed to come very close to passing an amendment Tuesday that would have violated the White House deal with the pharmaceutical industry.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) proposed ending what some Democrats have called a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry – and he picked up strong support from his party.

But two sources familiar with the process say it is still likely to fall short when the committee votes Wednesday.

As part of the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, more than 6 million low-income seniors were shifted from Medicaid, which allowed the government to negotiate a deep discount for drugs, to the Medicare program, which did not. This has resulted in the government paying about 30 percent more for drugs, according to an analysis by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Fla.).

Nelson’s amendment would shift these beneficiaries back to the Medicaid program, resulting in $86 billion in savings that could be used to close the donut hole for senior citizens.

Senators were drawn into a tense discussion over the merits of the White House’s $80 billion deal with the pharmaceutical industry, and the failings, as some Democrats see it, of the Medicare prescription drug program.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the Finance Committee should honor the deal with the drug industry. To suddenly double their obligation from $80 billion to more than $160 billion would not be “fair,” he said.

Now, think about that. Senior citizens are not getting needed medication because it's too expensive, but it's more important to continue giving pharmaceutical companies this windfall because they're counting on it and it wouldn't be "fair" to take it away from them.

Just so we're clear.

This is encouraging, because untying the public option to Medicare virtually guaranteed no significant cost savings:

Speaker Pelosi is nixing a deal she cut with centrists to advance health reform, said a source familiar with negotiations.

Pelosi’s decision to abandon the agreement that was made with a group of Blue Dogs to get the bill out of committee would steer the healthcare legislation back to the left as she prepares for a floor vote.

Pelosi is planning to include a government-run public option in the House version of the healthcare bill. She wants to model it on Medicare, with providers getting reimbursed on a scale pegged to Medicare rates.

"The speaker is full-steam-ahead," said a senior Democratic aide.

Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom represent rural districts where Medicare reimbursement rates are low, vehemently oppose tying the public option to Medicare.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and a group of fellow Blue Dogs had negotiated a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in July that would remove the link to Medicare. Under that plan, officials with the government-run plan would negotiate individually with providers.

That move, which drew howls of protest from liberal members, prevented the bill from getting stuck in committee. But Ross returned from the August break saying he couldn't support a public option under any circumstances, essentially withdrawing his support for the deal.

Pelosi is now effectively withdrawing her support. In leadership meetings last week, she said the public option in the House bill should be linked to Medicare.

Other Blue Dogs involved in the deal have said they realized the public option they negotiated was likely to change before it went to the floor.

Pelosi has also told her fellow leaders she still wants an income surtax on the wealthy, rather than a tax on "Cadillac" health plans, as a means to help pay the $1 trillion cost of the bill. The rest is to be made up with savings in Medicare by eliminating wasteful spending.

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

When I lose patience with the pace of healthcare reform, I remind myself exactly how much detail work is involved. (Via MSNBC: Above, House Energy and Commerce Committee Special Assistant Mitch Smiley, center, thumbs through boxes of amendments to the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, on Friday.) So stay patient and keep calling, we're getting closer all the time. All three major committees have finished their version and will vote in September:

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul the nation's healthcare system got a major boost when a pivotal House committee passed a compromise bill Friday night, clearing the way for a floor vote this fall.

The bill was approved 31 to 28, with five Democrats and all of the Republicans on the energy and commerce committee voting against it. Despite the defections, enough liberal and conservative Democrats were able to come together to break the deadlock that had stalled the bill for weeks.

"We are a diverse caucus with many points of view," said committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills). "We've agreed we need to pull together."

To reach agreement, Waxman earlier this week had accepted conservative lawmakers' demands to limit the bill's price tag to $1 trillion over 10 years, exempt more small businesses from the employer-provided insurance mandate, and reduce the number of low-income people who would qualify for subsidized coverage.

But those changes provoked a backlash among liberals. To win them back, Waxman crafted a compromise that would restore low-income subsidies. The committee also added a major provision that would limit the premium increases that insurers could impose, and another that would let the government negotiate pharmaceutical prices under Medicare's prescription drug program -- a goal long sought by liberals as a way to reduce drug costs. (The idea was bitterly opposed by Republicans when the program was established in 2003, as critics questioned whether the government would secure discounts.)

The bill is designed to provide insurance for the 46 million people in the U.S. who now go without it; to curb healthcare costs; and to make it harder for companies to deny coverage or increase premiums.

"We have a historic opportunity to transform our healthcare system," Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a leader of the panel's conservative faction, said ahead of the vote.

But Republicans said that despite changes made to address conservative Democrats' concerns, the legislation remained a costly, intrusive expansion of government power over medical care. Conservatives did little more than "pick the color of the lipstick on this pig," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).

The vote came just as House members prepared to leave town for a monthlong recess.

The word I'm hearing is that Rep. Henry Waxman kicked the Blue Dogs around over their health care obstructionism and the earlier reports of a deal being dead in the HOUSE is not the case. The Hill is reporting along those lines:

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) says there is "no alternative" but to have healthcare legislation bypass his Energy and Commerce Committee if Blue Dog Democrats don't accept a deal worked out Friday.Waxman is now playing a game of legislative chicken with the Blue Dogs. He's hoping the inclusion of a study on Medicare reimbursement rates in the healthcare overhaul will be enough to placate the centrist Democrats, who say the government program short-changes hospitals and physicians in their rural districts.

If that’s not, the seven Blue Dogs could join with the committee's Republicans to "eviscerate" healthcare reform, and that’s something Waxman will not tolerate.

"I won't allow them to hand over control of our committee to Republicans," Waxman told reporters.

"I don’t see what other alternative we have, because we're not going to let them empower Republicans on the committee."

Is there anyone wondering why Waxman took over the EC&C Committee from Dingle? If he hadn't then the Blue Dogs would be running the show. Waxman is an excellent at legislature and obviously knew he needed to get things done.

Hullabaloo has much more:

The truth is that the Blue Dogs are slaves to entrenched power, serving the interests of powerful lobbies rather than the middle-income voters in their districts. Cutting subsidies to 300% of poverty level from 400% would make health care less affordable to working people - and it's only being considered in the House because Blue Dogs want to protect those making half a million a year from a surtax.

Which is why Waxman is absolutely in the right to do this. The Blue Dogs, cheered on by Republicans, are simply standing in the way of progress. You can tell because their arguments lack logic and coherence. They apparently got the President's MedPAC proposal in the bill, as part of a larger deal over reducing regional disparities in Medicare reimbursements, but other measures that reduce costs they resist. And measures that increase costs they favor. They exist at this point to be nothing more than sand in the gears.

At some point, I think you do have to pull the trigger. Matt Yglesias makes the moral case, that good legislation matters more than good process.

The House plan, naturally, is looking a hell of a lot closer to reality as we live it than the proposals spawned by the Millionaires Club they call the Senate:

House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama’s call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system by putting forward a 852-page draft bill that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance, force employers to provide benefits or help pay for them, and create a new public insurance program to compete with private insurers — a move that Republicans will bitterly oppose.

The bill was unveiled by a trio of committee chairman, George Miller of Education and Labor, Henry Waxman of Energy and Commerce, and Charles B. Rangel of Ways and Means, who have worked jointly for months to develop a seamless proposal. But the chairmen said they still did not know how much the plan would cost, even as they pledged to pay for it by cutting Medicare spending and imposing new, unspecified taxes.

Hey, I have an idea! We can invade an oil-rich country, take over their oil to get cheap gas and... oh. Never mind.

The three chairmen described their bill as a starting point in a weeks-long legislative endeavor that they said would dominate Congress for the summer and ultimately involve the full panorama of stakeholders in the health care industry, which accounts for about one-sixth of the nation’s economy. They described their efforts as the historic culmination of a half-century of failed attempts across the tenure of a dozen presidents.

Mr. Miller, a Democrat of California, said that completing a bill would require extraordinary cooperation among lawmakers. “In order to change American’s health care system,” he declared, “Congress itself must change.”

House Republicans, who have had no involvement in the development of the health legislation so far, quickly denounced the Democrats’ proposal as a thinly disguised plan for an eventual government takeover of the health care system.

Here's hoping for that government takeover, guys!

“Families and small businesses who are already footing the bill for Washington’s reckless spending binge will not support it,” the Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said in a statement. “Raising taxes, rationing care, and empowering government bureaucrats — not patients and doctors — to make key medical decisions is not reform.”

I'd like this amoral buffoon to say this to my face without laughing.

For once, I am firmly in Nancy Pelosi's corner. Of course an economic stimulus program should include family planning funds.

And God, how I hate these cynical Republicans - and the spineless Democrats who roll over for them. Only someone who's never been poor is breathtakingly stupid enough to believe that birth control doesn't have an immediate effect on the economic health of a family - or someone who's cynical enough to draw a line in the sand over something he doesn't believe anyway - like John Boehner.

What, an additional wage earner has no economic impact on a family? Or have we suddenly awakened in a world where free daycare, diapers and formula abound?

What makes me so furious is, we don't need the Republicans to pass this package, anyway. Why, oh why are we knuckling under to the people who have already demonstrated their utter indifference to the poor - and their economic incompetence? We voted for Democrats because we didn't want to see important legislative decisions based on right-wing memes:

Call Waxman's office and give him an earful:
DC: 202-225-3976
CA offices:
323-651-1040
818-878-7400
310-652-3095

And contact President Obama by email here, or call:

Comments:
202-456-1111
Switchboard:
202-456-1414

WASHINGTON – House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

Under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services — including contraceptives — under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.

Democrats considered the politically-potent change as congressional budget experts estimated it would take slightly longer for the overall legislation to achieve an impact on the economy than the administration projects.

Oh look, now Obama is throwing mortgage modifications under the same bus!

It's official:

California Rep. Henry A. Waxman on Thursday officially dethroned longtime Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, upending a seniority system that has governed Democratic politics in the House for decades.

In a secret ballot vote in the Cannon Caucus Room, House Democrats ratified an earlier decision by the Steering and Policy Committee to replace the 82-year-old Dingell with his 69-year-old rival. The vote was 137-122 in favor of Waxman.

The ascension of Waxman, a wily environmentalist, recasts a committee that Dingell has chaired since 1981 with an eye toward protecting the domestic auto industry in his native Michigan. The Energy and Commerce Committee has principal jurisdiction over many of President-elect Barack Obama's top legislative priorities, including energy, the environment and health care.

As John says, this is truly welcome news. We may finally get some oversight from this committee. Matt Stoller has more.

I wrote earlier that I was supporting Waxman for the Chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This is good news.

Congress Daily:

By a three-vote margin, the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee today recommended that Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman be given the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

UPDATE: Matt adds...

If it's true that the freshmen are breaking heavily for Waxman, and older baron committee chairs are going for Dingell, this adds a lot of firepower to Waxman's case. Dingell is a vindictive guy, so his case rests on the notion that if you don't vote for him you're going to have problems with the person who will naturally be the Chair of Energy and Commerce. Cracking the image of inevitability is key to letting members know it's safe to go against Dingell.

Here's a very important story. How great has Waxman been since '06? I think he needs our backing in this fight for the Chairmanship. I'm here for you Henry.

Matt Stoller explains: Automakers and Dingell vs. Waxman

I'm surprised, given the amount of attention foisted on the US auto industry at the moment, how few people are actually watching the Dingell versus Waxman dogfight over the Chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. E&C is the policy-making committee that will probably have jurisdiction over a good amount of the rule-making around whatever bailout happens, since it handles CAFE standards, industrial regulation, etc. So whether it goes to the super-green but sensible Henry Waxman or the more traditional John Dingell matters quite a bit.

It's very hard to tell what's going on with the conflict. Since it's secret ballot, certain members are probably promising their vote to both, and others are lying about who they will vote for. What makes it even more difficult to suss out is that Dingell is waging his campaign through the media, and Waxman is not.

..read on

OK, I didn't want Holy Joe in either, but Obama made his decision and the Senate obeyed his wishes. This is a big one we should get involved in. Especially where we are today.

Digby has more.

Waxman is an effective, green progressive and he knows how to get things done. Dingel is an elder who is discredited by his relationship with the auto industry and the NRA. If pragmatic change rather than milquetoast status quo bipartisanship is what people voted for, this is where the action is.

{snip}

Waxman is the right guy to be in charge of these things as we deal with this economic/energy crisis. Whatever threats there may or may not be to the seniority system by putting Waxman in charge pale in comparison to the necessity to have the House working properly on these issues.

I couldn't agree with Matt and Digby more. Let's go Waxman.

I didn't have a chance to get to this the other day. Mukasey is headed for trouble as outlined by Chairman Waxman in this video. He warns the Attorney General of a Scheduled Contempt Vote over Cheney:

Download | play Download | play (rough transcript)

Waxman; ...I have tried to investigate what really happened and the White House has resisted oversight every step of the way.

The committee's inquired has tried to penetrate the cloud surrounding VP Cheney's conduct. But today the President has asserted executive privilege and is withholding from the committee and the American people key evidence about the VP Cheney's actions. During our investigation we have learned that Mr. Libby told the FBI that it was possible that the Vice President instructed him to leak Miss Wilson's identity. That would be an extraordinary breach of trust. There is a key document that could explain what the VP knew and what he did. The report of the VP's interview with officials working from the FBI working for Mr. Fitzgerald. If there is one document that could pierce the cloud hanging over the VP, that is it.

Mr Mukasey decided that a different rule should apply to Republican Presidents than to Democratic Presidents.

The claim of executive privilege is ludicrous.

The President's actions have darkened the cloud over the VP and left important questions unanswered. As the committee considers its next steps, I hope the President and Vice President will also consider theirs. Congress and the American public are entitled to know what role the President and Vice President in the despicable outing of Miss. Wilson

AG Janet Reno provided this committee---the FBI interviews of both President Clinton and VP Gore a decade ago so what's the deal? Waxman is trying to find out what Cheney said to the FBI and is not too happy that Mukasey is blocking access to it. It sure looked like Scooter Libby was getting ready to hang Cheney out to dry unless Bush stepped in and gave him a get of jail card for free. Murray Waas wrote this great article about it a while ago:

Cheney Authorized Leak Of CIA Report, Libby Says

Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, according to Libby's grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report...read on

The Gavel: "Chairman Waxman writes Attorney General Mukasey that the Oversight Committee will vote to hold him in contempt unless the Attorney General produces a copy of the report of the FBI interview of Vice President Cheney in the investigation of the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, a covert CIA agent."

Here's the pdf of the letter he wrote Mukasey.

Mr. Fitzgerald removed any doubt about this important point last week. He wrote the Committee that "there were no agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and either the President or Vice President regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews."

This should get real interesting soon.

At an EPA hearing today on Capitol Hill about ozone standards, Henry Waxman got into a heated exchange with Administrator Stephen Johnson over his evasive non-answers to simple, straightforward questions about whether or not he had certain discussions with the White House about key environmental issues. It got so tense at one point that a frantically gavel-slamming Waxman threatened to have Rep Darrell Issa "physically removed" from the hearing if he continued to obstruct Waxman's line of inquiry. Classic.

It seems to me you're being awfully evasive and I don't know why you can't tell this committee whether you, in fact, had a discussion about this rule or that rule...either you did or you didn't and I don't know why you can't tell us that information.

"I will have you physically removed if you don't stop."

Why is it that conservatives consistently appoint people to head agencies who have nothing but contempt for the issues those agencies are supposed to oversee? Well, I guess they can't later claim that their self-fulfilling prophecy of "government is the problem" is true. The problem lies not with government, but rather with the stooges who run the government and appoint their incompetent cronies to fix problems they have no intention of fixing.