Health Insurance, Competition & the McCarran-Ferguson Act. What competition?

Wasn't there a McCarran Act to go after suspected "Commies" in roughly that same time frame?

That health care act is from 1945. Maybe time to change things?

The problem in Congress is that corporations own half the Democrats. Having said that, don't expect any help from the republicans because they are 100% in the back pockets of the big business multi-nationals.

Kos was right. Our job is far from done. We need to keep working to elect more and more importantly, 'better' Democrats.

It gets worse. Baucus joined hands with Big Bizness and Labor to kill it without making members vote on it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_status_quo_wins_in_health-.html#comments

I would like to thank Kari for trying to provide a distinction between big business and the 99.9% of other businesses that exist. Those groups (The Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers) don't represent the majority of business owners in any way, shape or form.

It is very important that, when discussing business issues here on BO, that we distinguish between the actions of the Fortune 500 and your neighbor, the small business owner.

I hope this is a distinction that will continue to be presented in the future. That being said....

The people in power always get the money! Did you really think that the D's would somehow exhibit some semblance of moral goodness in the face of all that money? Hell No. Now's there turn to get paid and they are. Can you say...term limits.

Ron is making his fellow Republicans proud...

“Sen. Wyden is a new champion for freedom around here,” said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. “I like the idea of individual choice.”

Kari, I can't remember being this encouraged by a Democratic member of Congress - but enough about Alan Grayson. I had to laugh a little, Kari. My eyes are becoming weaker so I boost the text on the old computer and your post read, "Corporate America: Ron Wyden" on one line, followed by "must be stopped" in quotes on the next.

   It read like a subliminal message embedded in a hostage tape. Just a little humor. I'm sure Ron Wyden loves you very much. There isn't an Olympic pool big enough to hold the water you've been carrying for him lately.

  But could it be that the Democratic Party IS stuck in a hostage situation? Are there lingering emotional effects from the last 8 years? Maybe them caving to the Bush administration was just another form of the Stockholm Syndrome - an irrational need to love your tormentors.

  Ron Wyden and the rest of them have got to break through the invisible emotional bonds that seem to hold so many Dem politicians back right now. They're too damn timid.

It's not about doing the right thing as much as finding ways to present another helping of P.R.: "See what we're up against here? See how great Ron has done!"

  Meanwhile Alan Grayson just put on a clinic in how to fight the Republican Party. Soak it up, Kari. Stop reacting to their stuff and go on the offensive:    The Republican Plan is Don't Get Sick and If You Do, Die Quickly.

   Now that is how it is done!

  This thing can still be won.

Ron is making his fellow Republicans proud...

Wyden votes with the Democrats 97 percent of the time, according to the Washington Post. So, I understand you're expressing an opinion, but it's only grounded in about three percent of reality. He also voted for the public option twice this week, but to this specific issue, why shouldn't employees have a choice of health plans? Why is that a bad idea?

The bill would have been a lot stronger with Wyden's amendment, and it's pretty damn disappointing to read that it appears dead this morning, according to the Oregonian.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: An Examination of the Wyden-Bennett Health Reform Plan

"It would set standards for the health insurance plans offered through the new pools, requiring plans to be actuarially equivalent initially to the current Blue Cross Blue Shield Standard Option available to federal employees."

That's the plan I have, and I'm looking at dumping it. The options (from the "competition"), however, are not all that great.

Last night I read a summary of a cost analysis for dental care in an eastern area of Scotland and their National Health Service. Using an exchange rate of $1.60 to one British pound, the average cost for a denture was $222 and for a filling $25. I was on vacation in that area in 1969 and had a bridge for one missing tooth installed. It cost about a third of what a San Francisco dentist was going to charge me. The bridge is still in place. Earlier this year I had a crown job in Oregon. Eight hundred bucks with nada, nichts, zilch, rien from Blue Cross.

Accept anything less than single-payer, and you come up short.

@ Bill Bodden -You are conflating the Wyden-Bennett plan with Wyden's "Free Choice" Amendment.

Max Baucus killed it in committee but I think Wyden still has a shot to get his "Free Choice" amendment adopted from the floor. And he may get some Republican support, which is okay by me.

Posted by: John Calhoun | Oct 2, 2009 11:51:27 AM

Amen. On an unrelated note, that's a painting of John Calhoun behind Wyden in the Oregonian photo.

Here's a good analysis of the "Free Choice Amendment" and a report on the "under the table" antics that Baucus pulled to keep it from a vote. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_status_quo_wins_in_health-.html

If Ron Wyden is making big business nervous........ he must be doing something right.

I'll concede that this is a practical, progressive move from a mainline Dem. But I'm only wrong about the Party if he doesn't get stabbed in the back, if he survives the mossbackers, or isn't supported by the leadership in Congress.

Points about narrow mindedness well taken. One assumes though, that big bidness really wants an Americas that is first world competitive, instead of ruling the third world and keeping workers rights on a par with that.

Every major debate seems to come down to people that say we mustn't change and ones that say we have to. I still would like to see a Constitutional Congress to hash out the big assumptions, rather than continually fight the elephant in the room. That's the nut of the problem. There are plenty of Dems that don't see systemic change as necessary, particularly now that they're in power. I don't know how you would structure it so that minority, progressive views get a fair hearing, and get represented in the final product, as happened the first time. Perhaps that's the best characterization of what the Senator is fighting.

An unqualified, "good on 'im", though!

so sensational. I believe corp american wanted to stop Ron Wydens "free choice amendment", not Ron Wyden in particular.

Why, because he submitted an amendment that he declared makes a public option nonessential, and that CBO said would have almost no effect (1bil savings and no measurable increase in coverage)?

Wyden voted twice for the public option, and of course, nothing in this amendment would have precluded one. Just would have opened it up to more people is all.

So what are we really talking about here? What, did Wyden hurt the public option's feelings?

This whole idea is crazy. If an employer can't afford to buy good insurance for his/her employees, he/she is supposed to calculate what might have been spent and turn that monthly amount over to the employees?

How could such a thing be enforced? (it can't be).

For example, why wouldn't an employer low-ball the estimated monthly payment, throw up his/her hands and say, "Sorry, that's all I can afford". And, then, raise the profitability of the company (which is the reason they're in business).

Is there going to be federal enforcement by delving into the books to see how much the company might have ponied up for health insurance? What is this, the accountants full-employment act?

Unbelieveable. A federal bill which seeks to enforce hypotheticals!

Wyden is just doing this to grandstand that he's actually on the public's side. He knows this crazy bill is unworkable.

Mr. Kari Chisolm: Please cease speaking kindly of him merely because he's a Democrat.

Jack Roberts Let's not forget that the ads being run against Wyden's health care plan earlier this year were paid for by the unions, not corporate American. They don't their members to have choice either.

The reality is that union members, in general, have more choices and better accountability with respect to their insurance than do most Americans.

Members not happy with their benefits can elect new leadership.

If you want real insurance reform, let all Americans vote for the people who administer their health insurance plans. Let the leaders Americans vote for negotiate the costs and benefits of their health insurance, just as the leaders union members elect do.

Medicare for all would do that.

"@ Bill Bodden -You are conflating the Wyden-Bennett plan with Wyden's "Free Choice" Amendment. "

They are variations on the same theme of diverting more money into "health" insurance corporations for policies of questionable value.

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Committee for Economic Development (CED) today urged the Senate Finance Committee to amend the America's Health Future Act (sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT)) by adopting the "Free Choice" amendment submitted Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). The "Free Choice" amendment is a key element of the Healthy Americans Act (S. 391) which was endorsed by CED in June of this year." from Business Leaders Support 'Free Choice' Amendment to Senate Health-Care Bill

"The Senate Finance Committee is now considering a proposal that would impose an aggregate tax of $6.7 billion dollars per year on “any U.S. health insurance provider,” in proportion to market share, whether for profit or not for profit, but not on employers who “self fund” their employees’ coverage."

...

"The tax would fall heavily and disproportionately on small employers who need to buy coverage from insurance companies, about 72 million people, plus another 17 million individuals who buy their own insurance. The tax will surely be passed through to the policy holders or their employers. It will be paid by 89 million insured Americans at a cost of about $75 per person per year.

"What’s wrong with this picture?"

A Tax That Targets Health Insurance Innovation

The reason why big business is opposed to the Wyden plan:

1. Many, many LARGE companies self insure. You wouldn't know it, even if you worked for them, because they hire a normal insurance company to manage their program.
2. They collect up all their employees' insurance premiums, kick in their own "share" and bingo, everybody's insured.
3. The kicker is, they can usually MAKE MONEY from this program.
4. So they would be very unhappy to have large groups of their employees LEAVE this insurance group, as they couldn't make as much money from it.

Kari, So.. having been stymied by Baucus in committee, where does Wyden go now with his amendment?

Welcome back, Michael Moore and lookout Ron Wyden.

Viz comment about self insureds in the PDX area, they are NOT our friends. Self insureds in the PDX area: OHSU, Legacy, Providence. Troublesome little fight two years ago: you kids are burying the malpractice records of ALL of your doctors in your hospital system by using backdoor laws and high priced smartypants attorneys who know them well.

Incredibly volatile fight to refuse to report provider malpractice to the Oregon Medical Board ensued. THEN, the next year, a doctor legislator introduced riders on the back of that bill to ensure that four different categories of cases are illegal to report to the public. But only the ones of those categories that happened after a certain date.... Step three, high powered smarty pants attorneys dragged OMB into court to wrangle over language. SO now, ALL kinds of cases with settlements and clear fact-bases have the word "Allegedly" attached to the descriptions of their substance. I even run across cases where the reporting insurance company says, "allegedly DIED!".... hahahaha.

Oy....

Kari, please be intellectually honest enough to include that the AFL-CIO was also stedfast in their opposition to Wyden's plan and amendment to Baucus's plan.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/10/wyden_fights_democrats_busines.html From the Oregonian today:

Both business and labor attacked Wyden's idea. The AFL-CIO wrote the committee that Wyden's amendment "would undermine employer-based health care plans." And Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the big businesses in his home state are "dead set against this"

Joe Conason on ‘Socialism’ and Sham in the Senate. And Wyden essentially went along with this farce differing only by offering a worthless tweak.

Kurt Chapman is right about AFL-CIO's opposition to Wyden's choice proposal, Kari. I saw Wyden address this on the Rachel Maddow Show. The Senator asked a good question when Maddow asked him about labor opposition to his proposal. He asked whether union members are aware that their leadership is fighting to prevent them from having access to the public option.

My knowledgeable labor friend tried to explain to me why labor feels threatened by opening up the public option and the exchange to their members. He said that they fear some of their members will choose the less expensive plans offered under the exchange and that would weaken labor's position at the bargaining table. When I asked why AFL-CIO opposed Wyden on opening up the public option to everyone and not just 10 million mostly uninsured people, he said Wyden is just grandstanding. I countered by saying that even if that is the case, wouldn't most union members want the choice to enter the public option. He confessed that they would, but that they don't need the public option because they have better health care because they belong to a union. Outdated paternalism if you ask me.

If unions claim to support single payer for all, why do they want to deny their members access to the public option? And if they support public option, why do they want to trap their members in private insurance plans? Can anyone explain this to me?

Bradley: I have to say that I believe what you are saying. Union, I believe in the Union and Labor Movements. But I'm not starry-eyed, and they are politicians and understand brokerage of power, this is what they DO. It's why we need them, but it is also why we need to always be on the watch with them.

They do have outdated paternalistic stances, BUT: and this is huge - these stances and tactics WORK. They stay engaged with our reptilian limbic system... and therein lies their success.

"He confessed that they would, but that they don't need the public option because they have better health care because they belong to a union. Outdated paternalism if you ask me."

Not necessarily so. I believe in the principle of unionism but have a problem with some unions, including their leadership. Nevertheless, there can also be a problem with the membership on occasions who may not be as fully informed as they should be or capable of seeing the whole picture. At one time I was involved with seven unions and saw the good and not-so-good in them. It is not a good idea to paint them as black or white when gray is more appropriate. Or "paternalistic."

bradley My knowledgeable labor friend tried to explain to me why labor feels threatened by opening up the public option and the exchange to their members.

And who is your "knowledgeable labor friend"?

AFL-CIO President Trumka is one of those demanding the public option be included. Unions are threatening to withhold campaign support from Dems if they don't support the PO. See http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/20/blue-dogs-bite-unions-bite-back/ and http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/10/02/progressive-block-loses-14-members-join-dfa-and-fdl-and-tell-them-we-stand-united/

If you want to talk about organized labor, check the record first.

Bob, you missed the point. There seems to be a major disconnect between what the union is saying regarding their strong support for a public option and their opposition to allowing their own union members have access to the public option. Their opposition to the latter was, as Kurt commented, made public earlier this week.

Don't get me wrong. I am a labor supporter from the womb, but they, like politicians, sometimes make bad calls based on self-interest. I don't think everything they do is paternalistic, but fighting to prevent the public option for their members seems pretty contrary to the interest of workers. I would rather they fight for public option for all and then adapt to the new, better world. As long as there are bosses and shareholders, there will be unions. Unions are quite strong in Europe and they don't have an employer-based health care system.

Chris, I know you are a single payer supporter, but Wyden voted for public option, including the real version, Rockefeller, which was my litmus test of support for a real public option plan. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Obviosuly public option wasn't his priority, but he supported it. Thank you, Senator. Why all the sour grapes? Because a guy you don't like did the right thing and once again reaffirmed to Oregonians whose side he is on?

bradley

Bob, you missed the point. There seems to be a major disconnect between what the union is saying regarding their strong support for a public option and their opposition to allowing their own union members have access to the public option. Their opposition to the latter was, as Kurt commented, made public earlier this week.

Don't get me wrong. I am a labor supporter from the womb, but they, like politicians, sometimes make bad calls based on self-interest. I don't think everything they do is paternalistic, but fighting to prevent the public option for their members seems pretty contrary to the interest of workers.

No, Labor is supporting the Public Option. We also support the continued right to bargain collectively. Should unions accept being singled out to be told we can't continue to have the plans we have now, if what we have is better than what the PO is likely to actually be?

And I don't say "they" with respect to labor leaders as I am one (President of Local 2417, AFT, AFL-CIO).

What I find to be paternalistic is someone who is not in a union telling us we don't know when our elected leaders are doing what we want them to.

Let our members vote on whether we want to keep the plan we have now, or take the PO. That is, after all, the democratic way, is it not?

"Should unions accept being singled out to be told we can't continue to have the plans we have now, if what we have is better than what the PO is likely to actually be?"

You are making absolutely no sense, Mr.Baldwin. How are unions being "singled out" by simply saying that EVERYONE should be able to choose the public option IF they want to? How would that constitute being told you "can't continue to have the same plans?" My assumption is that most unions would negotiate better health benefits than what you will be able to get under the public option. But for those unions who aren't represented by someone as effective as you, why shouldn't those union members be allowed to enter the public option?

bradley

You are making absolutely no sense, Mr.Baldwin. How are unions being "singled out" by simply saying that EVERYONE should be able to choose the public option IF they want to? How would that constitute being told you "can't continue to have the same plans?"

You seem unclear on the process of collective bargaining. Taking away the right of unions to bargain collectively, under the guise of letting "each person choose" with respect to health insurance is no different than doing so with wages. That's the classic corporate argument: let each worker "choose" for themselves, and question whether the union leaders "really" represent rank-and-file interests.

If you can secure a PO which gives better benefits than what we have now, for less cost, than any sensible member would insist on that in their contract, and the Local leadership would act accordingly.

If you can't deliver better benefits for less cost, then union members who've successfully maintained a quality plan should not suddenly be subjected to higher taxes simply because the kept that plan, and we should not lose the right to negotiate on behalf of all our members.

Back to the original point: Sen. Wyden, unfortunately, invested a lot of his own political capitol in a plan which might have been "good" by the standards of the Republican-era government during which he created it, but it is significantly less than what we should be after: Medicare-for-all. He chose not to come around fast enough.

Keep on keeping on rw. I would echo your sentiments across the board.

One nit picky though... Despite the great metaphor, reptiles don't have limbic areas. That's a mammalian specialty, that instead of directly reacting to stimuli, they can be filtered in a way that increases or decreases them internally, via "feelings". That's why primates are scared of snakes and such staring at them. It is a cold, reactive, emotionless stare.

Ultimately spin is all that happens between the decent ideas. All down to what it sounds like, rather than meaning. Watch how many will protest that their iguana loves them.

Bob Baldwin can not have it both ways. Either the proposed public option is open to all; or it is not. By what Rube Goldberg thought process would anyone agree that unrepresented corporations must open up their plans to a public option, while exempting employees who work under a collective bargaining agreement.

Bob, you represented employees already have a choice of the plan bargained through negotiations or opting out. Why are you, and others running Labor afraid of the public option for your represented workers?

Could it be you might lose some control?

Bob, you say you want "Medicare for all" but you oppose your members being able to opt-out of their negotiated health benefits (possibly run by a greedy, wasteful private insurance company) and place their family's health and fate in the hands of a public option plan. I don't know much about reptiles, but I suspect you are a warm-blooded mammal. Unfortunately, you just fell off an intellectual cliff which makes you roadkill.

And changing the subject to Wyden is pretty lame. Wyden had nothing to do with the demise of Medicare for all. I, too, wish he had come out for public option sooner, but mostly because it was making me crazy having to spend my time encouraging him to support it. Nobody in their right mind thinks Ron Wyden could have persuaded Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln to support Medicare for All in committee. Stick to the issue, please.

I do not know why MoveOn, HCAN, and every other group working for public option is allowing their members to fight for something most will never be eligible to receive. At a minimum, they have an obligation to share this information with them, don't they?

One more time:

If The current proposal was to dismantle all private plans, and go Medicare-for-all, I'd be all for that.

That is not, however, what is being proposed. Largely because Wyden and a host of other Dem's opposed that from the beginning.

So now all we are talking about is some regulation of the private plans, and possibly a public option of some limited sort.

If that's the case, Unions need to keep the basic right of organized labor: collective bargaining. We want the right to choose the PO. We also want the right to reject it. Just as we currently have the right to use the OEBB plan. We chose not to.

It's fascinating to see people who continually claim they respect democratic processes, but can't handle the idea of workers using a democratic process to make their decisions, because we can do better collectively than individually.

I'm hearing nothing from either of you (bradley & Kurt Chapman) which isn't an echo of the anti-EFCA arguments. Start out by saying how much you like democracy and support workers, then question the ability of of workers to use democratic systems to make decisions about their wages and benefits by way questioning the motives of the leaders the members elect.

Some background on the shenanigans involved in the health care/insurance reform and other charades: The Rabbit Ragu Democrats

Charlie Burr wrote,"So what are we really talking about here? What, did Wyden hurt the public option's feelings?"

 No, Charlie. But at the beginning of the debate there was a certain amount of momentum for public option. I felt Wyden hurt the momentum back then. Remember when he was saying healthcare reform had to guarantee every American coverage as good as a member of Congress had? It sounded great but that, and waiting 'til he ran with his amendment, did have the effect of hurting the momentum for public option.

  Incidentally, I can prove the effect of Wyden's message, because Kari - who practically hands Wyden a towel when he comes out of the shower in the morning - started writing posts questioning if public option was necessary in this healthcare bill.

  Voting for public option later doesn't change what happened. Wyden's been around long enough to know there was a window here and his actions helped close it. Okay, maybe not shut it completely, but his amendment helped draw the drapes on the initial window for public option and he had to know that would happen.

  But what about you, Charlie? You know about the momentum of a message and the way an idea works with the public, don't you? I thought you were in the public relations business?

 You know exactly what effect all this had. So don't try and bring this weak level of spin. Okay, Ron Wyden did not hurt public option's feelings, but voting for it later doesn't negate the damage he did to the momentum early on.

Bob baldwin, you are intellectually dishonest begging for democratic rights for workers, yet insisting that represented workers follow the dictates of their democratically elected representatives.

Again, if you have nothing to fear about loss of control you could advocate for the Public Option for all, not just employees who are not operating under collective bargaining agreements. While the democratic election process may produce representatives for organized labor, that does not lead to the conclusion that the elected representatives know, understand and can deliver the best health care options for each individual within the membership. What you advocate is a balkanized regime where everyone gets what the elite deem is best for them (or nothing).

"I felt Wyden hurt the momentum back then. Remember when he was saying healthcare reform had to guarantee every American coverage as good as a member of Congress had?"

Just a reminder. The plan for federal employees, including those in Congress, is the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP). While many people are grateful to have it and many others wish they had it, it does have its limitations. Much more so than single-payer and other variations in Europe, Canada, Japan and other more enlightened nations.

Bob, I am far from anti-EFCA. I have seen first-hand the tactics used by employers to break the law and thwart the popular will of employees to organize. But there is a quantum difference between allowing card check for union elections and denying individual union members access to the public option. If you want to be a stand up guy, why don't you and the rest of your fellow union leaders publicize to your membership that you are fighting to keep them out of the public option? THEY DO NOT KNOW THAT CURRENTLY.

Bill M and Bob: As for Wyden - and this is really getting stupid -- what proof do you have that Wyden's earlier support for public option would have made a bit difference on Medicare for All? Is he a member of any of the House committees that did not even attempt Medicare for All? No. Is he a member of the Senate Labor Committee which did not even attempt Medicare for All? No. Has he (or any other Senator) ever influenced Baucus or Lincoln to not be conservative Democrats? No. Your argument rings hollow until you offer up even a shred of evidence.

Kurt Chapman: Bob baldwin, you are intellectually dishonest begging for democratic rights for workers, yet insisting that represented workers follow the dictates of their democratically elected representatives. Again, if you have nothing to fear about loss of control you could advocate for the Public Option for all, not just employees who are not operating under collective bargaining agreements.

Are you simply failing to understand my point or are you just another anti-union concern troll?

Once more:

I have not said that the PO should exclude union members. I have said the decision to join, or not join, the PO belongs to the members through the usual collective bargaining process (just as we have the choice to join or not join the OEBB).

Bradley, Would it have made any difference if Wyden had endorsed the public option back in June when Howard Dean was openly admitting he didn't know where Ron came down on this? I don't know. I would say the path he took was the best possible way to destroy its chances back then by presenting a divided front and giving the GOP more time to attack. The press release that he was "open" to it, didn't make up for it not being featured in his plan. He certainly didn't endorse it.

  Tough legislation like this loses momentum quickly and Ron helped. I'm not taking a cynical view but if you read the Huffington Post back then you got a summa cum laude Harvard grad named Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change saying this:

"Wyden, in failing to push for a public health insurance option, has brazenly aligned himself with the insurance industry and against ordinary Americans - 73 percent of whom firmly believe they should have a public health insurance option. Americans don't trust private health insurance companies to stay honest. Ron Wyden apparently does. Why? Is it because Sen. Wyden has taken some $1.5 million in contributions from health and insurance interests?"

  That sort of perception didn't help. It wasn't as bad as the "death panels" but it sure didn't present the Dems as ready to vote in a national public option - despite it's popularity with the American People.

  Now we're in Google Press Release mode from Blue Oregon. You enter "Public Option Wyden" and you read that he voted for it.....twice. Charlie Burr asks how Wyden hurt it - by hurting its feelings?

 They're in repair-the-image mode. It's all so familiar. You hurt something's chances and then turn around and brag about how much you supported it. That's Washington

for you. That's politics for you.

   So to answer your question: It probably wouldn't have mattered. This thing has most likely been a charade from the beginning - a lovely little spin around the dance floor signifying nothing. I believe President Obama was sincere but the deal with the drug companies was shocking. It was like he decided to leave some corporations unaffected for future campaign contributions in case this passed.

 The key thing is everyone will have something to spin next year during the campaign. Of course, thousands more ordinary Americans will die by then because they had no healthcare insurance.

  The politicians will brag about how hard they tried and maybe if they're lucky the insurance companies will even give them a raise.

"The politicians will brag about how hard they tried and maybe if they're lucky the insurance companies will even give them a raise."

And, unfortunately, the party faithful will toe the party line and reelect them back into office for another term of bullshit and betrayal.

Bill, when did Kari write a post about whether public option was necessary? President Obama said it was just one issue while trying to put the public option into perspective. And John Kitzhaber said that while he supported it, it is a sideshow. I don't remember Kari saying either of those things, though he may have reported their words.

Again, I would like someone to give concrete proof of how Wyden led to the demise of Medicare for all. The more liberal House passed 3 versions of a health bill, all without Medicare for all. Did Wyden do that? Baucus and Lincoln voted against every version of a public option before them. Did Wyden do that? The depressing public option outcome would have been the same if Wyden had "public option" tattooed onto his ample forehead. If you disagree, please provide evidence.

For a while Kari went with the argument that getting some things passed with no public option would be better than nothing. As the winds shifted and the pubic option became more of a defining "must have" with the public, Blue Oregon began its migration to the current spin: That Wyden has supported public option because he recently voted for it twice.

  It's called damage control.

So, Bill: I take it you are a stiff old bastard who never shifts his view, allows himself to be educated or persuaded? Sounds like it. And, if so, you are not really a fellow who should paint himself progressive, eh?

The definition of progressive, to me, means someone who allows themselves to be responsive to OTHERS, not simply black/white splitting and clutching self-righteously to their own tense frame.

I think politics is a stupid game, frankly. Look at the Obama situation just now -- the guy has one hour with his wife of seventeen years at a cheap restraunt, on his anniversary... and the mudsharks have a field day ranting about the dead in Afghanistan, as if eschewing dinner time would change anything about THAT? He is dragging us to hell if he refuses to compromise, and he is pouring syrup on waffles from hell if he collaboratively works for solutions!

Same here. Maybe. Sheesh. I am so tired of the shallow vibe of this forum.

rw, I get what you're saying. People change their minds. Kari was very forthcoming about what we were all going through back then - just sort of wading into the issue.

 I had just spent months trying to figure out derivatives - I remember being inclined to take this round off. I'm not saying Kari and all progressives can't debate these things and float ideas out there. It's not just venting - we all can learn. I admit there was a time not too long ago when I didn't really even know what single payer meant or any of it. I do now. Incidentally, I recall Kari was for that but realistically there was no chance. I also found his other comments to support Wyden - which they frequently do.

  But let's not do blog swerve on this. I was objecting to the spin going on about Ron Wyden now. Charlie Burr asked how Wyden had hurt the public option. Did he hurt its feelings?

  I considered that annoying spin. Anyone who followed this through the month of June on knows Ron Wyden hurt public option's chances and momentum. Let's be real here.

People are dying because they don't have health insurance. I thought Burr's comment about public option's feelings was immature. It irritated me - a little like George W.'s comedy sketch where he looks for Iraq's WMDs under the desk in the White House. Where's the respect for what is really going on here? This isn't some high school popularity contest.

  I don't want to stand by and watch the history of this be rewritten - especially with a caliber of spin that weak.

  We can't begin to turn this around 'til we hold these politicians responsible for what they actually do - not what their supporters say about it later.

Yah, Bill - if you have waded thru my onerous, self-referential blathers, you know I'm a poster child for what happens to all kinds of uninsureds in OR and the US.

Was just picking up on some kinda roundhouse punch at Kari, unnecessary and not very useful. It was only last week that I finally caught on to the fact that so-called Cooperatives are not an option we should even bother to consider. It's INSURANCE from the same schematics we have now.

Not worth our time. But it took time anmd listening closely as it was sliced from a number of angles over time before someone did a piece of reportage that clicked for me, or I'd heard just enough to finally get it.

Just so the complexities of different elements of potential healthcare solutions. I'm afraid of anyone who REFUSES to shift position one iota. Some folks advocate an Oz-style social support system. News flash: Australia's amazing system went broke. Too lavish. Too idealistic. But ours: viciously lacking in integrity and social justice of any kind.

Important to be forgiving of one another and seek dialogue. It's our only way forward. Very few are taking it as their option.

ps Bill: genteel response. Thanks. You took it in a good way.

Bob, I am not an anti-union concerns troll. I am concerned that union leaders such as yourself are speaking out of both sides of your mouth in a Kafkaesque jabber-wocky.

The public option is predicated upon individual choice. This choice is in direct opposition to historical union tactics employed in represntative voting for the status quo. As outlined in the NLRA, a majority of the voting members direct the actions of the entire represented group. The individual is left out of the equation (unless they were a member of the prevailing voting members).

This is not even about the majority of the represented members, only those who voted. Under that historical perspective, the public option in health care would be anethma to union leadership traditionalists. Rightfully so, they should be very concerned about a public option undermining hard won traditional union strengths.

Imagine the young 20 something member of SEIU/OPEU 503 deciding to "take" their/his share of the health care bargained alottment, purchase a cheaper public plan and declare the excess as income or throw it into a Health Savings Account. This would leave the bargained plan with higher use individuals and loosen the union bargaining position. I do understand it.

You can not have it both ways Bob; most people understand that union leaders will privately be against a public option for their own union members. It just makes sense.

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbel in the wabe. All mimsy were the borogoves and the mome raths outgrabe!

Huh, brother?

Kari, "Corporate America: Ron Wyden 'must be stopped.'"

  You don't see the spin in that? For what Ron did to the chances of a national public option back in June, corporate America should send him a plaque.

  I have never seen a business where the people involved, go so far out of there way to deny it. If a politician does something political other politicians accuse him of "playing politics."

  By saying you just reported the facts in the "Voted Twice" post, are you trying to distance yourself from political spin? It's fascinating. Are you claiming you're just a reporter? I know you describe yourself as an activist, but isn't what you're really doing public relations for politicians? Doesn't Charlie work for a PR firm? It's okay, but why pretend otherwise?

  Why not just say it. Spinning is a fact of life. The other side spins - you spin too. It's at least as important to who gets elected these days, as substance will ever be. Look at George W saying the tax breaks for the rich were to help Joe Sixpack. It's spin.

 So no, you are not the story as an individual, but what you are engaged in is the story.

 Here's the basic tough sell: Congress must convince the American People that it is working for them, when it is really working for corporate interests.

  That's the story. That's what all the ads are about. That's what political websites are about. That's what a breathless title like, "Corporate America: Ron Wyden 'must be stopped'" is about.

  Corporate America has given millions to Ron Wyden. Why would they invest millions in him and then stop him?

Bill, call it spin all you want, but I think this amendment should have passed, and that has nothing to do with my job. I'm bummed that it didn't. We both support the public option; the difference is that if a public option actually makes it into the final bill, it will be open to much fewer people without this amendment.

Bill, corporate America has invested millions into plenty of politicians who turned around and worked and voted against them. Ted Kennedy, rest his soul, received many millions from corporate America and then had corporate America fight many of his progessive efforts. So Wyden is sticking to to corporate America. Good for him! Senator Paul Simon famously said of campaign contributions that they didn't change his votes or positions but they ensured that he would meet with those interests and return their calls first. I particularly don't like even that, but I can live with it, especially if Simon, Wyden, Kennedy and others are telling corporate contributors, "Sorry, but I don't agree with you on this issue."

Since the Fortune 500 corporations publicly came out in opposition to Wyden, Kari's title was accurate. Complaining that Kari likes Wyden is pretty childish. If Kari likes Wyden (I hope he does if he does his website) that puts him in good company in this state with Democrats and liberals. I'm sure this makes you a little grumpy, but Wyden is by far the most popular politician in this state with progressives and Democrats generally. Most of us just don't see the world the way you do.

Gentlemen, I think it would be a worthwhile discussion periodically, this who are you, is it spin etc... if the rocket blast was not typically done ad hom.

It's an important philosophical, operational and utilitarian question, and it's akin to our politico poster who realized that he was indeed taking a good close look at how cliques of influence are, indeed, formed.

Makes no difference if the reality is he was in one or not: what matters is that he took a serious, naked look at it and allowed himself to experience the reality of all that goes into it and what it means.

If we were able to probe that nakedly and without anomie upon occassion, it would be healthy for all. Kari, you walk a tightrope, or you should. I certainly have experienced the professional tightrope when working hte depths of HIV/AIDS intervention. DAILY I looked myself over. It was that important to me. And the parameters, the physiognomy of integrity, of psychodynamic/sociodynamics were that important to me. Question yourself, look for your bias. Be upfront with yourself with it.

Like that. If folks could rid themselves of the destructive vitriol, and ask the questions in humanity, expecting and eliciting honest, self-referential resopnses, think of the civil dialogue we could have here!

Kari, You're kidding right? You present this article because you are trying to repair the damage Ron Wyden did to his image earlier this year by not endorsing public option. Back then the insurance companies had to be delighted by his stance, and that's why we're getting the counter-spin now.

  Why did you select this story? Was it another case of just reporting the facts? You admit your bias in picking stories, so why this one? What were you trying to accomplish with it?

  Yes, it's a real article although you hyped it by saying Ron Wyden himself must be stopped like he's Robin Hood or something. But still, you chose it and not the dozens of articles I saw criticizing Ron, because you are spinning his image.

  Saying, "I didn't write it. Matt Miller did" is just childish as a defense. I'm saying your attempt to spin Ron as this big threat to corporations is overblown and counter the record.

   And as for the comments about senators receiving big bucks but then working for the people, let me ask you: Are you saying special interest money is not affecting Congress? Really?

When time after time, something the general public wants is ignored in favor of what the lobbyists want? Could it be that some moves that appear to be for us, are just deceptions? They appear to mean one thing along the way to something else?

  Remember, it was a public outcry that caused the first vote that rejected TARP, but the special interests marched back in and cut a deal with Congress, including dishing out favors to individuals. Another vote was taken and this time, Congress did what it was told. That's how the system works.

   If you are trying to say the money from corporations doesn't have an impact, save your breath. It's not working.

Bill McDonald: are you saying that BlueOregon is actually a house organ publication for Kari's various clients?

Dentures are really expensive even with the insurance and the worst part is in the long run it would do more harm than good. Health care should never compromise about this things.

<h2>Thanks for the video. Its great to watch. I will back in your site again. Thanks.</h2>