"Unless you live in Walden's district, then make the call to voice support even though he won't listen to you."

Ha Ha- ain't that the truth- calls to Walden are likely only to contribute to global warming-

Do you have something higher than a fence?

So because Walden disagrees with the public options he "won't listen to you?"

I think you just need to accept the fact that Walden's worldview is different from yours and that he'll never support a public option (and neither do a majority of his constituents).

I'm not completely opposed to the public option, but I believe there are better ways to deal with healtcare, like starting with opening up competition across state lines between insurance companies as Senator Wyden has pointed out.

Oh, and by the way, my mother is a 62-year-old worker who has a decent job, but her company doesn't provide healthcare. Due to her age and other medical issues, she can't get insurance. She is bi-polar and needs medication to stay healthy, so I have a VERY personal stake in this matter.

I'm just not sure the federal government is the best or most efficient place for a resolution. IMHO.

True, but most of his constituents don't want the public option. Having spoken recently with one of his staffers, a majority of citizens in the 2nd District are to voicing their opposition to the idea. Walden is representing what a majority of his constituents want, whether those with dissenting viewpoints like it or not.

He certainly was horrible on KPOJ a couple of weeks ago. Gave the morning crew the old "people are afraid" crap. His source? Town hall meetings. This guy is barely a Democrat. Maybe his wife would have been better.

Kari, if you built his friggin website, can't you just call and ask him?

Schrader had a 16% margin of victory, Jack. He's not in much danger, and helping to pass a law that will help his constituents is just going to help.

Even Margaret Thatcher didn't try to dismantle the health care system in Britain.

I called Schrader's local office about the public option and was told he had signed a letter supporting it. Whether it was a specific proposal for a specific public option, I don't know. I did hear a headline that a proposal to fix the reimbursment rates for Medicare (to be more fair to states like Oregon) was advancing.

Is this all about what someone on Huffington Post said? Should they be believed over the people who work in the local office?

I've been through this before over the decades--someone is upset because they wanted a politician to support XYZ and we should be publicly angry at them even if they made a statement which sounded like they support ZYX.

I personally know some of the folks who work in the local Schrader office. Be careful and don't fall into the trap of getting angry with someone before knowing all the details.

Kari and I don't always agree, far from it.

But Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 23, 2009 1:09:30 PM rings more true to me than the critics.

It is a little after 9 PM Pacific Time on Friday night. Does everyone here with a complaint really know what exactly is the state of the health care negotiations in the House at this very hour?

There were people here earlier that wanted a primary challenge to Wyden because he didn't seem pure enough to them on this issue. Did events bear out that he was some kind of heretic?

A freshman member has to satisfy bloggers because they know everything that goes on in Congress?

That sounds more like the "circular firing squad" mentality than something which will bring better health care to all.

Anyone ever play that old game of "telephone" where a message is passed verbally from one person to another via whispers and the message at the end is not the same as the message at the beginning?

I got 2 emails. Credo wanted me to contact Schrader and to learn more about the story by reading about it after clicking on this link http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/10/22/115656/99

DFA, normally a very worthwhile organization, sent out an email containing this: Press reports say the whip count for House members who support the strongest most robust version are short by only 12 House Democrats and your representative may be one of them.

Rep. Curt Schraeder needs to hear from you RIGHT NOW. We may only have hours before House leadership makes their decision.

Representative Curt Schraeder (OR-05) Washington DC: 202-225-5711 Local Office: 503-588-9100

They got the local phone number right, but their source is only "press reports"? What source? Obviously not a source which knows how to spell the name. I remember something that happened when Kurt was a state senator. Someone was mad that he hadn't committed to a certain vote on a nomination. A really angry email went out, but it misspelled Kurt's name. Do you suppose he voted for that nomination?

My point is this: Suppose someone sent out an email or posted on a blog that Cari Kisholm was a blogger who needed to get a certain message, so everyone should contact him. How many people here would take that seriously?

Take a deep breath, folks. People who rely on "press reports" and who can't get a detail like the spelling of someone's name right just might not know what is going on from moment to moment.

Walter Cronkite had a saying about accuracy in such matters. Suppose there is a fire at 321 Fir Avenue. The newspaper reports that there was a fire at 123 Fir Street. Obviously the people on Fir Street and Fir Avenue are going to know where the fire took place. If the news people weren't eagle-eyed fact checkers and let that one slip by, maybe most people wouldn't know the difference. But if such sloppiness were not corrected, sooner or later a big mistake could be made (like misquoting the Mayor's speech) and then it would make the paper look bad because that is the sort of thing people WOULD notice.

I intend to take DFA and all the others who are making such a big deal about this with a grain of salt until they can show they are concerned about accuracy.

Jack, when will your friend Scott Bruun begin telling us where he stands on this legislation in relation to where Sen. Snowe stands?

Carla, I am not questioning your sources in DC at the moment you spoke to them , but do you know for sure that at this moment the information is the same?

Could negotiations on this legislation be moving fast?

This is on the Wash. Post website. Does it square with what you learned?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102304081.html?hpid=topnews

Clyburn said the debate is no longer whether to include a public option, but "whether or not we will get this form of a public option or that form of a public option." Since the talk of "death panels" at town-hall meetings in August, Clyburn said, the political climate has changed as voters have come to understand "that all of this foolishness was just that -- foolishness. Nobody wants to pull the plug on Grandma." <<

And I have a problem with the headline. I do not believe that from here in Oregon anyone really knows where the "fence" is and for sure which members are "sitting on the fence" at any one particular time. And pushing? Could the negotiations possibly be more complex than people here might be aware of?

I believe we elect members of Congress to use their own best judgement in fast moving negotiations. If when all is said and done you don't like where Kurt came down, find someone to challenge him in the primary.

But I think the emails from Credo and DFA were overkill, and someone needs to have a talk with DFA about checking name spelling before sending out an email.

Well Jason I've known Greg Walden since he was 18 or 19 years old and watched his career from the Oregon Daily Emerald to Denny Smith's press flack to the Legislature to Congress and I don't mean this to demean him personally because he is entitled to be the person he wants to be,, but you will never NEVER EVER find a more dyed-in-the-wool myopic one sided loyal and true blue Republican on the face of this planet with every breath he takes and in every brain cell it just throbs G O P. His father passed in on in the genes I am sure of it as the sun will rise. He knows what he thinks and public opinion is something he deals with only because he has to. He wouldn't vote for a public option if he got a million phone calls and furthermore I am sure he is proud of it. I live in "his" district and I see no big swell against a public option.

Kurt Schrader is for the public option. That question is, which public option? So let's focus on the issue at hand. Right now the issue is Medicare +5. And Schrader has not, I repeat not, taken a position. He is sitting on the fence. So if you support that proposal, you need to push Kurt Schrader off the fence. I did call yesterday, and I do live in-district. And the staffer was clear that Schrader has not taken a position on Medicare +5.

Thank you Pat for your comment---and for the picture in your "Learning to love assimilation...." post.

I really do think this debate should include discussion of the Borg. We have long criticized Republicans for voting the caucus party line and not wanting to discuss details. But it is OK not to question any detail on this issue?

Looks like knee-jerk "here's an issue, let's send out a blast email" as if those don't get deleted faster than print mailers get put in the recycle bin. As if the wording doesn't matter because we should all be loyal to what someone tells us to believe and not think for ourselves.

I can't believe Howard Dean personally OKed an email with the misspelled name of a Congressman--more likely a mistake by a staffer. But then, when many were dumping on Blue Dogs this summer, Dr. Dean was on CSPAN at some public appearance and said, "actually, in some ways the Blue Dogs made this a better bill" and went on to cite a few examples.

Oregon would benefit from an updating of Medicare reimbursment rates. There is a Senate bill addressing that, S.1776 - Medicare Physician Fairness Act of 2009.

Carla, have you looked deeply enough into this to know whether Oregon would benefit more from Medicare +5 or from S. 1776?

Have you followed the news coverage of this issue over the last several days? Seems to me there have been radio stories about it the last 48 hours.

In interviews, Speaker Pelosi talks about looking for consensus on the bill to go to the floor.

So what Pat says is valid, The way this works is that Kurt publicly and loudly asserts that he's on board with a public option. He signs pledges, and speaks out at the summit, but that don't cut it. Carla decides that her definition a robust public option (Medicare + 5%) if it goes to the floor. is The Definition and demands that Schrader support that one without caveat or qualification.

Otherwise he's..........whatever..........something really bad, and scary (and certainly insufficiently pure of heart).

Glad to hear that DC staff is refusing to be stampeded into the chute at the slaughterhouse. <<

It was also on the news this morning that abortion has emerged as a major stumbling block. Cong. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) is angry that some way some federal funds might creep into paying for an abortion somewhere--if not directly, then a federal subsidy for a low income woman's insurance coverage if the defined benefits package included reproductive services and did not outlaw abortion.

People my age are old enough to remember the Griswold decision, making it legal for married women to buy contraceptives. As you might imagine, that was a very important decision for congresswomen and staffers. There are women in Congress pushing language which says that reproductive services incl. pregnancy coverage, contraception, and abortion coverage should all be included in the interest of gender equity (or words to that effect). Are you aware of how long the fight has gone on to require that every insurance policy which covers Viagra cover contraception?

Yesterday on Ed Schultz, a 20 year old woman said she and her husband had bought high deductible coverage just so they would have some insurance, and then discoveredn in the fine print that pregnancy was not covered without an extra rider. And any pregancy rider which was purchased would not go into effect for 270 days. In other words, "make sure you buy the pregnancy rider before you have any chance of becoming pregnant".

That is why "push him off the fence into Medicare + 5" may sound good to some activists, but Kari and Jack (who both have been around politics awhile) are wise to see that the goal should be wider than "you must support the plan we tell you to support".

This is a big picture issue. Do you really believe Kurt Schrader's friends are going to be OK with the misspelling of his name because the cause is all that matters? And would "pushing him off the fence to Medicare + 5" really address the issues of abortion coverage and S.1776?

FYI folks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/24/AR2009102401194.html?hpid=topnews

Unexpected Revival Breathes New Life Into Public Option By Dan Balz Saturday, October 24, 2009; 12:56 PM

Pelosi long has been a determined advocate for the public option. The most robust version, which would pay on the basis of Medicare rates, appears not to have enough votes to get through the House. As of this weekend, Pelosi's fallback appears to be a provision that pays on the basis of negotiated rates, still a relatively robust approach. <<

I was just listening last night to a recording of when Speaker Pelosi was on Charlie Rose. And as I recall, she talked then about "negotiated rates".

My problem with Rep. Schrader on this issue is that he won't state what he DOES stand for. Everyone here is trying to figure out what he supports, if the proposal is something he can stand, does he or doesn't he support the public option, in what form, etc.

Well, over the past few months I have tried communicating with his office in several ways-- email, Facebook forum, phone, even joined the teleconference "town hall" he held on the subject. His answers changed by the day, but what he said-- in writing-- consistently was that he DID NOT support single-payer (no reason given) and that he was "open" to the public option. What does that mean?

Rep. Schrader, who I voted for and tried to convince others to vote for, he refuses to specifically tell us what he will support. He will not propose a solution, but instead is content with acting as a spectator, waiting for someone else to do the work so he can decide if he should support it. You can count me among his comfy 16%, but this issue will decide how many of those are peeled away.

I don't care if he is a freshman, he is MY representative and we need him to fight for affordable access to health care. And if he doesn't I will fight to defeat him in the next election, no matter who opposes him. He could take a lesson from another freshman, Rep. Grayson, and remember that 122 of us die every day without adequate coverage.

Link, please?

"We didn't "define" it. Speaker Pelosi did. Schrader is being asked to support a very specific proposal. He's on the fence. "

Please let us know where and when Speaker Pelosi asked the Cong. from the 5th District to support Medicare +5%.

Or for that matter, said, "regardless of what I said previously about support for negotiated rates, I would now like all members of our caucus to support Medicare +5% and here is why.....

BTW, do any of these proposals offer dental coverage?

And RIGHT ON! Pat!

Speaking as one of those pesky Unicorns for Single Payer I would like to continue my observations of the designed to fail process that is underway on so-called health care reform. Today, Raw Story is reporting on the Washington Post story that says a Private Insurance Company will run the "robust public option" if it should by design happen.

Given that the inequality in Medicare reimbursements was not made a single bill Oregon remains at one fourth of Floridas compensation rate. Thus, with a opt out provision Medicare plus 5% is a useless, by design, plan.

Additionally, a separate piece of legislation repealing the anti-trust legislation should have been pursued. The truly disgusting part of this process is how BO managers disparage any criticism of the persons for whom they have designed a campaign. A sad end to the Chisholm Trail.

by: Chris Bowers Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:18

House whip count update, from sources very close to the process (yeah, take anonymous sources as you will): `` that is NOT s not the same as: "We didn't "define" it. Speaker Pelosi did. Schrader is being asked to support a very specific proposal. He's on the fence. "

What I was looking for was something along the lines of "in a press conference on...." or "in an interview with__"

On Charlie Rose show, Speaker Pelosi spoke of negotiated rates and of consensus among the caucus.

Are you saying Bowers speaks for Pelosi?

Carla, perhaps we are talking past each other. I am just nagging you on intellectual rigor and serious sourcing the way I nag Republicans, and the way I sometimes nag friends in political debates.

Are Oregon Medicare rates so wonderful that they don't need to be debated or changed? Public option will succeed beyond wildest hopes in Oregon with Medicare + 5% but be a failure under what the Speaker calls "negotiated rates"?

In a very simple web search (maybe in the top half page of results) I found these. Are they saying exactly what Bowers is saying? If not, why should we believe that Bowers has the revealed truth?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114144193 October 25, 2009 Congress is at an impasse over how to fix a perennial problem in Medicare.

Just about every year a formula glitch threatens to cut payments to doctors who treat seniors and the disabled. And just about every year Congress cancels the cut. This year lawmakers are complaining about the bill because it's not paid for. But, despite what both Republicans and Democrats are claiming, that's nothing new.~~~~~~~~~~

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63945-breaking-pelosi-to-bring-public-option-backed-by-liberals-to-floor#

“We are very close and I count tough,” Pelosi said, according to a senior Democratic staffer at the caucus. She added that passing a strong public option will give the House negotiating leverage in conference negotiations with the Senate.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/# October 23, 2009 Categories:House Pelosi is in a negotiating mood Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied reports on Friday that she's given up on the most robust version of optional government-run health insurance, but she's clearly willing to bargain.

During an end-of-the-week press conference, Pelosi told reporters, "Part of the decision is not just about votes...We have a very strong Democratic majority here. Part of it is the end-game of conference. I think it's really important to note this...The atmosphere has changed."

The "atmosphere" she's referring to is that in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid seems to be giving some ground on a public option - which was long thought to be dead in the Upper Chamber. Now that the Senate is giving optional government-sponsored coverage a serious look, Pelosi seems to be open to their suggestions.

"When we were dealing with the idea that the Senate would have nothing, it was really important again to go with the most muscle for the middle class with the robust public option," Pelosi told reporters. "So this is about the endgame now...There's no philosophical difference between a robust public option and negotiated rates. It's just a difference in money. It's just a difference in money. And money is important."

She has asked House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) to have his operation survey all House Democrats starting Wednesday to see if they will support the Medicare-based option.

Democratic leaders are planning to roll out the bill next week, and are hoping to vote the first week in November.

The decision is likely to anger rural Democrats and centrists, including many Blue Dog Democrats. Many rural lawmakers believe Medicare already shortchanges the hospitals in their areas. They want government officials to negotiate individually with providers, an option called “negotiated rates.”

Some centrists are philosophically opposed to a public option, fearing it could put private insurance committees out of business.

The Medicare-based plan, called the “robust” option or “Medicare Plus 5” in the jargon that has emerged on Capitol Hill, ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent.

Ron Brownstein has a very intersting look at the big picture.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

And Kari is right in saying "Carla, your post had zero context to it -- no explication of the new facts, that we're no longer talking generally about the public option, but a specific variation on the theme. "

You could have said "Medicare + 5% means ..." and defined either that it leaves current reimbursement rates in place or raises them for states like Oregon.

"This is where the rubber meets the road, public option supporters. If this is what you want, now is the time to push Congressman Schrader in the right direction." does not provide that information.

Are you aware of the Sarasohn column (new this weekend) which has the views of Oregon's US Senators?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf/2009/10/health_fight_seeks_cure_for_li.html

In fact, Oregon has the third-lowest Medicare compensation rate in the country. The feds say medical care costs less here; Oregon says we're being punished for being more efficient.

"Our state has long been clobbered for doing the right thing," says Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., "for holding costs down."

In Congress, trying to adjust the reimbursement formula manages to polarize the two houses along entirely different (but equally sharp) lines, geographic instead of partisan.

"Reimbursement issues," says Wyden, "are root canal work without Novocaine."

In the bill that went through Merkley's committee, the public option reimbursement rates aren't pegged to Medicare but are to be negotiated separately by the secretary of health and human resources.

When the House bill came up, Merkley said, "I pointed out it wouldn't fly in my state, because we already had providers who wouldn't deal with Medicare patients. Then Tom Harkin (D-Iowa, now committee chairman) joined in and said Iowa was just like Oregon and it wouldn't work at all.

"I found it humorous when, 10 days later, that became the argument of the Blue Dogs in the House."

Blue is not the color of a Merkley dog.

Where are our Senators compared to where you believe Schrader is as of Oct. 25 according to your sources and where you believe he should be "pushed off the fence" to?

And why does Kurt Schrader have to communicate with a blogger who is not a constituent? "As if somehow Schrader's people can't contact me and set me straight. "

Do you live in the 5th District, Carla?

Over the decades there has been a strand of the Democratic Party which I've never had a good short explanation for until Kari came up with,

"This post reads like you're hitting a guy for hating ice cream, when the real question is whether or not he likes double chocolate chunk."

Jokes are still told about the peace activist in the 1980s who made it clear that anyone who would not put a yellow and green bumper sticker on a burgundy colored car was not truly loyal to the cause.

How different is the tone of this post? Ask someone you know will be honest who has not been a part of the debate to read it and tell you what they think. Another opinion can be of great value--a different person sometimes sees things with different eyes. Lots of journalism and politics could have benefitted having an honest, unbiased opinion of various types of writing/broadcast.

Republicans lose support for being the party of "agree with us or else!". But Democrats have done that too sometimes.

It does not help in the long run even if the elected official says to the questioner exactly the words the questioner wants to hear and votes accordingly. People watching the event sometimes draw the conclusion that dissent is not tolerated and why would they waste their spare time around such contentious people. I have seen that happen in the past.

And yes, any source which misspells a public official's name alienates me to the point they will need a confirming source the next time they make a claim. That includes DFA --very disappointing they didn't have a higher quality standard to check the spelling of a Congressman's name.

Serious people have the responsibility not to be sloppy.

Carla: Just now I went on Huffington Post and the big news is that Sen. Webb has announced he will vote for cloture on any health care measure the Democrats support.

The actual Pelosi quote from the article you linked is "Robust has become a code word on the Hill that means a public option tied to Medicare rates; it is the preferred policy of progressives."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/crunch-time-pelosi-puts-d_n_331470.html

OK, what Medicare rates does Pelosi mean? Medicare rates as of Oct. 2009 and if they hurt states like Oregon and Iowa, no matter, a "robust public option " means Meidcare + 5%, Carla told us so, and who are we to ask questions?

Do you really expect me to believe that Peter, Earl, and David don't think what Wyden, Merkley and Harkin are talking about in the Sarasohn column about fixing Medicare reimbursement rates is important?

Notice what Merkley said about the House bill, "I pointed out it wouldn't fly in my state".

But Schrader should support it anyway and not ask any questions or else he is not a true "progressive"?

I first met Ron Wyden as a member of our Oregon delegation to the SF Democratic National Convention a quarter of a century ago. I also met Tom Harkin there--the year he was first running for Senate. I met Merkley in 2006 when he gave a speach at a dinner where I was a guest.

I also have known a member of the Schrader Salem staff for many years.

But none of that matters because "this is where the rubber meets the road" and anyone asking any questions doesn't really support the public option?

If that isn't your view, then you need to be more careful in your wording.

Oh, and one more thing. I was watching a tape which turned out to have CSPAN coverage of part of the Netroots Nation meeting on it. My ears picked up when I heard Dr. Howard Dean say, "You gotta raise the rates on Medicare or it isn't going to work."

Sounds to me like he would be applauding what Wyden, Merkley, and Harkin talk about in the Sarasohn quote.

It's not the concept of a public option Schrader is worried about, it's the reimbursement structure attached to it. A reimbursement rate of "Medicare +5" would cripple providers, specifically those in rural or underserved areas, who would not sustain their business by accepting only or mostly Medicare patients.

This was the main reason most House Blue Dogs originally threatened to oppose the bill. Many are from rural areas, and a public plan tied to Medicare payment structure would mean that a lot of doctors would have to close their doors, leaving patients without a provider.

Kari said above he's more concerned about the number of people in the system than the provider payment structure, but what if someone who has insurance doesn't have a provider to go to?

He's a freshman member, yes, but he's also showing his willingness to dig into the utility of an issue rather than submitting to talking points. He supports a public option, but also wants it to work.

For those of you thinking that if they implement this it will eliminate some of the waiting and lines… I agree in principal with your ideas at the same time I do believe if someone invents something before others they should have some rights to make money from it. acı cehre koçluk vajinismus