This is what I was hoping for from Wyden. It looks like he is working every angle to improve the badly flawed Senate bills. Merkley signing was predictable, but continued great work and welcome news. Wyden signing ought to make Reid sit up and take notice. Based on what I have seen from Wyden's television appearances, he isn't constrained about telling the truth about a bad bill, whether it comes from the Republicans or the Democrats. If I were Reid, that would worry me almost as much as Wyden voting against the bill.

The problem is that Wyden has a vote in committee and Merkley does not. Wyden should vote No on the Baucus bill, rather than let it be labeled the "centrist" position, which also automatically means the HELP bill is the "leftist" position.

Force the Baucus/Lincoln/Nelson bloc to either support a Republican filibuster or vote for cloture, then see if you can get to 50 + Biden on the HELP bill. Then conference with HELP being the conservative end of the debate.

So, our great state is being further ruined by Obama-loving Islamocommunofascists.

YAY!!

And I'm thinking, the state opt-out thing sounds good too. I'm sick and frickin tired of the south ruining everything for us.

Presuming that there is any benefit to be gained from what is being described as a public option it should be acknowledged that "reform" is not scheduled to take place until after the next presidential election.

At a current rate of forty-five thousand deaths per year due to lack of insurance what will be the death rate in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. Can Jack dream of getting fifty-five, seventy-five, one hundred and twenty-five and then (oh joy) one hundred and fifty-thousand?

Imagine the profits. Through the roof already they will be heaven bound. The thrill of killing. Oh my. It must be so satisfying.

I'm proud of Oregon.

@Bob, seems to me Wyden should vote for whatever cowflop of a bill Baucus allows so that it gets out of the finance committee instead of sitting there like a beached whale for ANOTHER three months.

Seems to me it will be easier to fix that bill by reconciling it with the HELP Committee bill, and then with the House bill, in an environment where Baucus is not the sole ringmaster and doesn't have the power to falsely claim Wyden's good efforts are out of order.

Admiral Naismith Seems to me it will be easier to fix that bill by reconciling it with the HELP Committee bill, and then with the House bill, in an environment where Baucus is not the sole ringmaster and doesn't have the power to falsely claim Wyden's good efforts are out of order.

Except that we are then dealing with rules which can equire 60 votes, and again Baucus and company get to play penny-ante dictator because the left keeps trying to "work with them".

Fixing the Baucus bill reminds me of Jack Nicholson ordering a side of wheat toast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wtfNE4z6a8

Glad to see this.

However, public option alone does not solve all problems.

If the bill outlaws denial due to pre-existing conditions, contains a public option, updates the Medicare re-imbursement rates so that states like Oregon get the same rate as states like NY, does a number of other good things but none of it takes effect until 2013, what have we gained?

At the very least, ending the pre-existing condition denials should happen within the year if not sooner.

I am going t research this more.

Those of you who are advocates of meaningful health care reform and a strong public option should take heart that you have brought Wyden along to this point. It is a quite a distance from where he started and he has resisted it all the way.

At the same time, we also need to be circumspect that this letter does not say he is all the way towards what most of us would consider to be full support for a robust, national public option. So far he has yet to respond affirmatively to numerous requests he make it clear he will not vote for a Senate bill that includes a mandate but does not include a robust, national public option.

More importantly, it was just a few days ago that Cantwell called what amounts to a state version of Medicare Part C a "public option". That is a plan which takes the premiums of those who buy into a "public" system and just uses them to buy insurance form private insurance companies. In his original bill and since then, including in his characterizations of the OHP which is now largely based on private managed-care insurance plans, Wyden has also tried to describe fragmented regional and state efforts, and "public" systems which just pass dollars through to private insurance companies as public plans.

So this is the time to thank Wyden for coming along to where we've managed to bring him, but to keep on our toes and continue to push him across the finish line to finally voting for no less tha a real publicly-owned, administered, and accountable option. It's too bad he's made us have to devote so much energy dragging him along that could have been used to wage the fight against other opponents. But as with any politician who has his eyes fixed first and foremost on re-election, he undoubtedly thanks you for forcing him to do the right thing. Re-electing him if his votes are there when it counts will be thanks enough in exchange. (And a tip of the hat to organized labor for so far making it crystal clear to Wyden where his bread is buttered.)

"But as with any politician who has his eyes fixed first and foremost on re-election, he undoubtedly thanks you for forcing him to do the right thing."

S.P.O., this is silly assertion. If Wyden had his eyes "fixed foremost on his reelection" he would not be rocking the boat harder than anyone I have seen in the Senate. He has remained a shockingly independent voice in the health reform effort, and he demonstrated that by taking on just about every special interest in the debate. Labor on at least two huge issues for them, insurance companies repeatedly, the large employers repeatedly, trial lawyers, and yes, he has frustrated me and many of us who wanted him to quickly say yes to a public option so we could just call and scream at Walden. If he were focused just on reelection, he wouldn't have done of of this.

"(And a tip of the hat to organized labor for so far making it crystal clear to Wyden where his bread is buttered.)"

Don't get me wrong. I think Wyden is a pro-labor Senator, but I don't get the idea that any one interest in this debate has been able to successfully influence Wyden to their satisfaction. And I think that's just about the way it ought to be.

If you think the insurance companies are going to lower their cost while having a monopoly over the process – well I’ve got a bridge to sell you …and I think Wall Street should be completely unregulated – I trust strangers with my money…and pollution is good for us.

The fact remains that big insurance by refusing care to patients and reimbursement to doctors over typos has ticked everyone off - both patients and doctors. They have a virtual monopoly over the whole process a hugely well financed lobby team and representatives on both sides of the isle.

A friend of mine recently laid off without children is paying $2,500.00 dollars a month for his COBRA - that is outrageous. Health insurance costs more than his mortgage – unbelievable.

When Bush implored people to go out and spend - well that’s kind of hard to do when you are buried in health care bills, filling and refilling out forms and in foreclosure because you made a typo.

The insurance companies and their representatives in Congress would love to perpetuate a business model that is crippling our economy – a bunch of great Americans aren’t they?

Paul Burke Author - Journey Home

I'm afraid big business sees this like drug testing. They are horrified beyond belief by the idea of a labor force that is free to vote with its feet. They seem to truly believe that fear of losing health benefits and fear of drug testing are the only way to extort cooperation from their employees.

Another example, imho, of Dems treating as a bona fide difference in positions what is a difference in goals. They don't want health security! Security is something that corporations and States are entitled to. Not individuals. Why isn't that what the argument is about, instead of letting them game the public that they're genuine or in any way have public interest at heart?

Posted by: joel dan walls | Oct 8, 2009 4:31:49 PM

So, our great state is being further ruined by Obama-loving Islamocommunofascists.

Speak English? That's not even possible. If you were genuinely concerned with the ruination of Oregon, you'd move!

Black Agenda Report: Why the Public Option is Doomed To Fail, and What Can Be Done About It

"The president's health care plan is designed to preserve the parasitic private insurance industry a little while longer. In this context, the public option is a cruel and cynical hoax, an excuse not to abolish the role of private insurance death panels and toll collectors in the nation's health care system."

A friend of mine recently laid off without children is paying $2,500.00 dollars a month for his COBRA - that is outrageous. Health insurance costs more than his mortgage – unbelievable.

A friend of mine just found out that he's been out of work so long that he's lost his Social Security disability benefit. You know those statements you get that say, "if you retired at 70 you'd have $xyz / month"? His disability has always been around $2500/month. After 10 years of having on and off work- after 25 years of constant work- he doesn't have enough quarters in the last 10 years, and has no disability benefit whatsoever. His retirement benefit has gone to 1/2 in the last year. That is a scenario I have never heard discussed, but shows the real world intersection of all these issue, and more.

Maybe keeping the chronically under and unemployed numbers high is a cunning plan to balance Social Security.