Kurt Schrader was firm on public option in the teleconference Town Hall I participated in.

Cool. Now so-called "health care reform" can be killed from both ends of the political spectrum. Declaring for a public option now gives them ample cover to vote down the eventual bill when that feature is whittled away to meaninglessness.

The dems are eating their own. They will be the ones that kill any meaningful healthcare reform. Too bad.

Good any "reform" without this will be meaningless pandering to the Insurance industry. Rather have nothing than to be forced by law to give these blood suckers money.

Wow Carla, a new low for you here. For months and months you kick and scream and pound sand about how the evil Republicans are killing healthcare reform (which was laughable in its own right considering the Democratic majorities), and now you're leading the fundraising charge to reward members of your own party for committing to kill it themselves. Remarkable.

As Barry himself just recently said, the public option is only a "sliver" of the total reform...it's a toxic, horrendous and intellectually indefensible sliver...but according to him, a sliver nevertheless. So that being the case, do you really find the need for any reform at all to be so inconsequential unless it reads exactly as you yourself would like it to read, that you support killing healthcare reform all together? Do you need to be reminded that this one sliver of the bill that you are insisting is a deal breaker, is a sliver that a majority of Americans oppose? So much for bipartisan progress, I guess you show your true partisan, liberal hack colors when you advocate for either ideological purity or legislative gridlock as the only two options...its Carla's way or the highway, to hell with the country...well done.

Carla, Reward them with cash for their position? You've really nailed the problem here: The role of money in this debate. Unfortunately too many Dems have already been rewarded by lobbyists behind closed doors for their support.

  Let's improve the odds the Democrats will do what the voters who gave them Congress want: Let's have politicians offer themselves up for sale on eBay.

   I like Michael Moore's quote about this: "As for the congressional Democrats, what a bunch of losers -- weak, scared, stupid. They had better get a clue pretty quick or the Dark Forces will return."

Does that mean that Earl and Pete will throw a tantrum and go home if they only get 80% of what they want? They'd condemn 40 million Americans to another decade or so of no health coverage because they the bill left out one piece of their healthcare pie?

More likely it's political posturing on the part of Earl, who isn't that stupid. DeFazio apparently is (see, e.g. ignorant demagoguery on free trade).

I love it when people act like anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid or unprincipled.

Thanks for the info Carla! I too am pround that some progressive congress-folk are taking a stand. It's actually the politically smart thing to do.

Not even discussing single-payer was the MAJOR compromise that progressives had to agree to at the beginning of the health-care reform debate. Even more unfortunately: progressives have been largely kept out of the debate. Most negotiating seems to be between a few Blue Dogs and a couple wing-nut Republicans. By throwing down this gauntlet, let's hope progressives will help stiffen the spine of Baucus and Conrad.

I hope lots of liberals here do contribute to these fine representatives.

Please throw as much good money after bad as possible, so that when these guys complete their own political suicide by voting against the eventual health care bill, the resources to support any remaining Democrats in 2010 will be greatly diminished.

ooops Did I say that out loud?

Kari, I understand your logic but it's wearing thin. We gave the Dems control of Congress in 2006 to stop the war in Iraq. We're still in Iraq. The BS spin then was that Congress couldn't stop the war. We all know they could have though by simply cutting off the funding for it. But they were frightened to do the right thing in case they lost power because the mean Republicans said they were soft on terrorism.

   A few months back we had a popular Democratic President and a Democratic Congress with pretty nice majorities - plus a public that wanted serious healthcare reform.

 Single payer - which could save a fortune and isn't socialism - was immediately dumped.

  Then the Democratic party proceeded to CRAWL to Big Pharma and beg them for the

privilege of letting them continue to plunder us.

   Now you've gone soft on public option.

   I believe there is a big difference between the Dems and Republicans, but at some point you are going to have to come through on something. Not by pulling a number like 75% out of your butt, and then threatening that we'd loose that later if the Dems don't retain power.

    You are running out of excuses and time to do something good. We don't want to hear why you couldn't.

   The ironic part is that if you did get major healthcare reform passed, 2010 would be in the bag. If you lose Congress in 2010 it will be your own fault for selling out the American People in Iraq after the 2006 elections, and now here.

   No more excuses. You can't blame it on people yelling at a meeting. This is as serious as it gets. Healthcare has the potential to take down our entire economy. We have to fix this and stop beating around the Bush excuse, or whatever excuse you've come up with since.

Steve, You use the term "staking out" and that implies the potential to pull up stakes and move. Wouldn't the Obama administration have been smarter to stake out a better position to start with here? I like the idea of single payer. It's simple sounding in a complex debate so that could help with public opinion. Plus those angry doctors touring the country in the RV say it would save 700 billion a year. But just in a pragmatic way, if there was an eventual compromise, why wouldn't you start with a proposal that allows you to slide into something nice after your opponents have spent all their energy defeating single payer? And there's always the chance it would have passed. It's a mystery to me how President Obama could concede so much on this issue - that he clearly cares deeply about - and give in on things before the debate ever got going. What could possibly get him to cave so thoroughly to Big Pharma if one of his main points is controlling costs? I don't get it. Incidentally, he's being interviewed on TV and he just said 14,000 Americans are losing their healthcare insurance everyday. Grim.

Why so surprised Obama caves? He kowtowed to the trial lawyers and organized labor from the get-go.

He's simply not a serious man, or some of his own sacred cows would be in the reform hamburger grinder already.

I just phoned Earl's office to confirm that he's on the list and as his constituent thanked him (his staffer) for taking this position. Who knows, maybe the silent (silenced?) liberal base in Congress is going to try to make a comeback before it's really too late on healthcare.

A new poll from Survey USA says 76% support a choice for a public option. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

The important word here is "Choice"? (The recent WSJ/NBC poll left out "choice".) And the Dem. Congress should take note. People oppose something when they think it's being forced upon them. On the other hand, they might not choose something for themselves, but they don't mind if someone else chooses it. Consumer choice is the watchword. The present plans need to be modified so it's individual and not employer choice.

Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care:

Though there remain irreconcilable points, both parties have reached some common ground in recent weeks. Senate leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) point to Congress' failure to pass legislation before a July 31 deadline as proof of just how serious lawmakers are about stringing along the American people and never actually reforming the health care industry in any meaningful way.

"People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind," Reid said. "But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there's no chance in hell that ever happens."

"No matter what we come up with," Reid continued, "rest assured that millions of citizens will remain dangerously uninsured, and the inflated health care industry will continue to bankrupt the country for decades."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congress_deadlocked_over_how_to?utm_source=a-section

I am personally stunned at the amount of evil that is condoned in the united states.

Killing soldiers for the fun and profit of the merchants of death and the oil companies.

Killing citizens by not having health care for all.

Hasn't any republican or any of the blue dog democrats even read the new testament?

less is better wrote:

"Hasn't any republican or any of the blue dog democrats even read the new testament? "

Are you suggesting that government policy should be guided by the new testament?

I thought liberals believed in separation of church and state?

Do you think that Americans should be using tax dollars to fund health care because God commands it?

Are you saying that if someone doesn't support Obama's plan for socialized medicine that they are not a good Christian?

Joe--the debate could be made about the Matt. 25 injunction to help the poor and needy and what Jesus did to the money changers in the temple.

It is an old debate in this country--are people rich because they have lived good lives and deserved to be rich? Are poor people lazy?

Or does luck, the unexpected layoff, etc. play a role?

Haven't heard Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Rick Warren et al giving an opinion on health care. Do they believe "pro-life" means all God's children deserve health care? Or does it just mean outlaw abortion but don't require maternity, birth, and well-baby care be covered for all Americans?

If you believe all good people can afford health care, the status quo is fine, and no one who has a heart attack finds their insurance company will try to avoid paying for their hospitalization, fine/

But there are others who believe decent health care is a civil right, and if that means questioning fee for service medicine, the way health insurance companies make profits (by denying coverage?) or individual experiences with insurance companies, that is fine with them.

That doesn't mean a massive bill must be passed this year or given up on for the next 3 years. James Clyburn, a member of House leadership, was quoted as saying that there were a number of civil rights bills in the 1960s, not one big omnibus bill.

"LBJ made it very clear a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all," Clyburn said Wednesday. "We should do what can be done immediately and use the time between now and 2013 to figure out how to do the rest."

Speaking of scriptural references, the Rs conveniently forget the story of Lazarus and the rich man in the Gospel. There is a special place in hell for those who abandon the poor and the sick. Sen. Jim DeMint, the bible thumper from South Carolina said today health care is a privilege, not a right. Hey, Jim, there's a circle in hell with your name on it.

"Speaking of scriptural references, the Rs conveniently forget the story of Lazarus and the rich man in the Gospel. There is a special place in hell for those who abandon the poor and the sick. "

Back in the 1960s when I was in high school, our high school choir sang lots of traditional songs incl. spriituals.

This reminds me of one of them. The chorus (to a really catchy tune) was, "Put your finger in the water, Come and cool my tongue, 'Cause I'm tormented in the flame".

One of the verses was about Lazarus being disabled and having to eat crumbs from the rich man's table.

But the verse I always liked was, "Rich man Dives, He lived so well. And when he died, He went straight to Hell".

Many Republicans seem to have forgotten that concept.

LT wrote:

"Joe--the debate could be made about the Matt. 25 injunction to help the poor and needy and what Jesus did to the money changers in the temple."

Are you suggesting that it is the role of government to fulfill the commands of Jesus?

I thought liberals believed in separation of church and state?

How come GWB was portrayed by liberals and the liberal media as so awful for talking about religion while president (btw I didn't support the Faith Based Initiatives).......

.........but now the Democrats can say 'support our health care bill because God commands it'?

Bill R wrote:

"Speaking of scriptural references, the Rs conveniently forget the story of Lazarus and the rich man in the Gospel. There is a special place in hell for those who abandon the poor and the sick. Sen. Jim DeMint, the bible thumper from South Carolina said today health care is a privilege, not a right. Hey, Jim, there's a circle in hell with your name on it"

Are you saying anyone who doesn't support socialized medicine is going to Hell?

Don't liberals believe in separation of church and state anymore? (they sure did when Bush and Reagan were president)

Or is it only Republicans who should not invoke religious principle in support of their political goals?

There's a word for this, lessee, starts with an H......

....ends with a Y......

What about all the nonbelievers in this country? Is it right to demand tax money from them to fulfill the commands of God that they don't believe in?

One has to believe in that asinine metaphysical mumbo jumbo for it to have any influence on public policy.

Besides, these so called Christian invocations are at their true heart admonishments to give of one's self, not conveniently force the state to strong arm everyone to assuage your personal guilt.

Re: "LBJ made it very clear a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all"

"You might think that half a loaf is always better than none — but it isn’t if the failure of half-measures ends up discrediting your whole policy approach." (Paul Krugman)

I was flipping through channels and came on one of those book discussions ---this was some author speaking to some group.

As I listened, he said, "Suppose people are arguing about whether it is better to walk on your right leg or your left leg. Eventually you have to walk on both legs or you will just be hopping ".

He said that was an excellent description of current politics.

When I read comments like "I thought liberals believed .." or remarks about right wing radio, or the political spectrum, that is what it sounds like.

Bill McD is right about being pragmatic.

Legislation gets passed when a lot of people work really hard to get legislation which will end up with as many votes as possible. It may not be a perfect bill, it may have unexpected people vote for it at the last minute. It may displease some columnists, or some voters. But in the end does it make this country a better place, the way the civil rights bills did?

Anyone here know about the Open Housing Bill of 1968? It said no one could refuse to rent or sell to another person due to race. Prior to that, there were neighborhoods where white owners only wanted to sell to white people. It was a major civil rights bill (yes, there were several civil rights bills--not just one big bill).

One of the votes for it was a very religious white Republican Congressman. He said he voted for it as a memorial--he was very upset that anyone would shoot and kill Rev. Martin Luther King.

There have been cases this summer of people saying "it is in the House bill" to a member of Congress who gets out a copy of the bill, reads the language, and it turns out that the person speaking is wrong.

That is not about ideology, but about people not wanting to be told what they believe is not fact.

There may be more than one health care bill. The product of conference committee may have something in it for everyone to love and everyone to hate.

There have been ministers who have gone on the record saying they think making sure everyone has adequate health coverage is a moral issue.

Separation of church and state means there is no official church (like Church of England).

DeMint has made it very clear that all he cares about is defeating Obama. If his point of view is "who cares whether citizens are healthy, they matter less than beating Democrats", whether that is morally right or wrong it may be politically stupid. If people see him as arrogant and don't support the candidates he wants to win, how does it help the GOP?

In order to "defeat Democrats" it takes attractive candidates to oppose them. It also takes a better message than "Vote Republican, because defeating Democrats is more important to us than the health of citizens."

Thank you Carla. I just made my contributions to Representatives Blumenauer and DeFazio (through ActBlue). I hope that the blogosphere can keep the forward momentum on this question. This is a great tactic. Kudos to all involved. It would be great if Obama and Emmanuel had a come-to-Jesus moment over this (no extra-Constitutional religious test implied) and realized that kicking sand in the face of the Democratic left turns out to be a bad idea.

KC Hanson wrote:

"it's about changing the paradigm and coming to the recognition that health care, like public safety or even road maintenance, is an essential, and should not be regarded as the commodity it is now. "

Food is an essential.

Are you in favor of the government controlling food production and distribution?

Why not? Isn't it even more essential than roads, police and fire or doctors visits?

Why don't we have a 'public option' where food grown on government owned farms and processed at government owned factories is available?

KC Hanson I bring you greetings from fellow spirits Doug Oakman and Dick Horsley. Up the rebels!

Astroturfing on the Left

http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/45426

<h2>"I'm willing to bet that AFSCME's membership would be outraged at the tactics funded by its money. These are union members. They know that people who want single-payer and people who want a baby step in that direction are united against the insurance companies and the corporate media and the party leadership. And they know that you don't begin a negotiation asking for the least you'll take. No, the orders come down from the Democrats. So people are being organized to rally Democrats in Congress to do what the Democrats in Congress have already approved being asked to do. How is this not astroturfing? How is this different from what the right does..."</h2>