I'm not so sure that this is a good thing. On the surface it appears a good thing allowing individual employees the option of opting out of their employers' Plans. However one needs to understand Group Plan underwriting and the Law of Unintended Consequence.

Allowing the presumably healthier, younger employees an opt out option so that they take their health care dollars to the as yet undefined health exchanges or public option plan dilutes the experieince rating of those employees left on the employer Plan.

In turn the employer Plan exhibites rises in experience rate and costs rise - often dramatically. The term is called "Adverse Selection". the effect is the same regardless the employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement or not. The cost of the employers' Plan rises to the realm of unaffordable and gets dropped altogether.

I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could happen and those drafting the legislation by now should be well aware of the after effect. thanks for letting us know Kari.

Wow. This is really great news. Good going Wyden!

Say what you will about Wyden, and I for one have had a few choice words for him over the years, but he is one tenacious Senator. I admire his willingness to dig in and follow through.

Never mind that he was one of only 8 senators who voted for Medicare-based public option, Wyden never got on board advocating for public option. Empty gesture.

Never mind he tried to offer an amendment that would have allowed everyone into the public option, and that he went on every news show that would have him to call for opening the public option to every American, Wyden never got onboard advocating for public option. He didn't mean it. It was all bait and switch. Never mind that he said that he would offer an amendment in the Senate to open the public option up to everyone. Smoke and mirrors.

Up is down. Black is white. Fat is thin. Trust me on this, 'cause I'm tepidjoe.

It's fair to say that the PO has already been jettisoned. The Senate bill's PO will only have about 3 million people in it.

Robert Reich: There's almost nothing left to give away in a healthcare compromise

Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no preexisting conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice -- dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls.

The reason Obama et al want most provisions not to kick in until 2013 is because it will be after the next presidential election, and they don't want people to know how they've been betrayed until then.

Take these piece of shit bills, Wyden-amended or not, and shove them. Start over from scratch, with the PRIVATIZED OPTION OFF THE TABLE.

Welcome to the progressive barf line Monkey! You take over while I heave my guts out!

We gave Dems the benefit of the doubt last year. It is now obvious that we have no hope for real change under their leaderlesship.

Well, it was obvious before. One wants to believe that local Dems aren't looking us in the eye and lying just to get to the next step. Unfortunately, our civility seems to have been taken advantage of again. National party loyalty trumps your neighbor's lives. All done with no shame. Just as justified as evangelicals. But then, we're naive ingrates that jsut don't get it. Half right, that.

It is good to see such a well considered amendment that will increase the choice of Americans and allow them to better serve their health needs instead of linking their health to what their employer decides is a good plan. With the wide variety of situations in which people live, this only makes sense.

Huffington Post has an interesting piece speculating on the senate health(?) plan: What the Passage of Health Care Legislation Means for the Future Bottom Line: What comes out of Congress - at best - will just be a platform on which to build something better. And maybe catching up with the rest of the industrialized nations in 20 or 30 or 40 years.

I think Kurt Chapman nailed it. And that is just one of the serious unintended negative consequences.

Kurt Chapman has it mostly right, but there's one other thing: Under Wyden's deceitful misrepresentation of his own plan --- more on that in a moment --- (some) employees would be able to opt out of their employer's plan.

The "unintended" consequence is that employers obviously have to negotiate the plan they will offer before they know which employees will opt out. Insurance companies will then will demand a HIGHER price to employers based on the fact they will have to assume some unknown percentage of employees will opt out.

Of course this is a structural feature of Wyden's fraudulent "choice" plan that actually makes the cost to the employer go up because the group is smaller. When we recall that Wyden's own legislation has always clearly had the undisputable effect of delivering welfare to private insurance companies and explicitly eliminating the only cost control mechanism that actually exists right now --- employer group purchasing --- only a moron would believe this is wholly "unintended". The only logical alternative is that Wyden is too ignorant to have anticipated the obvious.

Wyden's flat out lie in the next comment.

If employees opt out of an employer-provided plan, it simply indicates that the employer didn't make the best choice of plans to offer. The employer may switch plans as a consequence. This will increase competition between plans, more likely reducing costs. The post above is bilious nonsense.

As of this afternoon, the actual text of the amendment that Reid, Baucus, and Wyden supposedly agreed to was not available. Which of course highlights how the leftwing blogosphere like TPM is as bad as the right in making stuff up. All Wyden's press release says is these three politicians:

agreed today to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to include a version of Wyden’s “Free Choice” legislation.

We don't know what that version actually includes, but Wyden has been out there representing his amendment previously and in this press release as making it possible for people with employer-provided health insurance:

to convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges.

Clearly Wyden wants us to believe ANYONE (meeting very broad income qualifications) would be free to opt-out of their employer insurance if they want to.

But that's not at all what the version of his amendment that he tried to introduce in the Finance Committee and posted on his website says. What that amendment says is that employers are the ones who have the choice to either offer the voucher or offer two plans with prescribed benefit levels. If an employer does the latter, regardless of whether the employee agrees those benefits meet their needs, the employee does not have the choice to opt out. The language describing these two employer options is ambiguous and poorly written (intentionally so?), but the following paragraph that talks about how risk adjustment mechanisms actually contains language that is unambiguous:

All employers electing the voucher option would be required to participate in a reinsurance pool encompassing the plan offered by the employer and the plans in the exchange. The reinsurance is fully funded with an assessment applied uniformly to affected employers and exchange plans. Employers that decide to offer a choice of plans rather than offer vouchers are exempt from participation in the reinsurance pool.

As I said some of us were trying to get the language of what was actually agreed to to see if it is an empty as the previous language, but not surprisingly, it's not.

Here's a little prediction that picks up on what torridjoe and tepidjoe have already noted: The record shows Wyden's been one of the most dishonest players in this debate. He's stood by as the ignorant on our side have been other whipping up resentment against those "other Democrats" who supposedly are out to bailout the industry and obstruct reform. But he has always worked for a mandate and NEVER actually said he would actually work for a public option, much less put his foot down that it would be a deal breaker for him if the legislation doesn't include a strong public option.

He's just used the public option as a tactic to advance his own agenda by duping the gullible that he wants to give employees the chance to get into the exchange, so they can chose the public option. But as already noted, while he repeatedly used misleading language to the contrary, his previous amendment didn't allow every employee to do that. And those who could do that could chose the public option only if there is one, but Wyden did NOT say anything about fighting to make sure there was.

The vote Saturday that we are told 58 Democrats and 2 Independents will support is only to allow debate on the bill to begin. It will still take the 60 votes, meaning Democrats showing leadership, to invoke cloture to actually vote on the bill and right now that is in question. And it will take 60 votes to invoke cloture to vote on whatever comes back from conference. So here's a little prediction: Wyden will fully support a "compromise" which would introduce the trigger, or even strip out the public option altogether, either in final Senate bill or in the conference report, if this charade plays out that it supposedly takes that to get 60 votes. He will then disrespect our intelligence by putting out argument he did it to "save health care reform" (or at least the industry bailout this bill actually is).

The record is clear those were the essentials of his original plan, and he's never actually taken an advocacy position that substantively contradicts that original plan.

The fix appears to be in and the only thing that can stop it is if we put pressure on true progressives to promise to walk if the bill ends up with mandate and no real public option so the Democrats who have sold us out are exposed as being responsible for not delivering real reform.

As of this afternoon, the actual text of the amendment that Reid, Baucus, and Wyden supposedly agreed to was not available. Which of course highlights how the leftwing blogosphere like TPM is as bad as the right in making stuff up. All Wyden's press release says is these three politicians:

agreed today to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to include a version of Wyden’s “Free Choice” legislation.

We don't know what that version actually includes, but Wyden has been out there representing his amendment previously and in this press release as making it possible for people with employer-provided health insurance:

to convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges.

Clearly Wyden wants us to believe ANYONE (meeting very broad income qualifications) would be free to opt-out of their employer insurance if they want to.

But that's not at all what the version of his amendment that he tried to introduce in the Finance Committee and posted on his website says. What that amendment says is that employers are the ones who have the choice to either offer the voucher or offer two plans with prescribed benefit levels. If an employer does the latter, regardless of whether the employee agrees those benefits meet their needs, the employee does not have the choice to opt out. The language describing these two employer options is ambiguous and poorly written (intentionally so?), but the following paragraph that talks about how risk adjustment mechanisms actually contains language that is unambiguous:

All employers electing the voucher option would be required to participate in a reinsurance pool encompassing the plan offered by the employer and the plans in the exchange. The reinsurance is fully funded with an assessment applied uniformly to affected employers and exchange plans. Employers that decide to offer a choice of plans rather than offer vouchers are exempt from participation in the reinsurance pool.

As I said some of us were trying to get the language of what was actually agreed to to see if it is an empty as the previous language, but not surprisingly, it's not.

Here's a little prediction that picks up on what torridjoe and tepidjoe have already noted: The record shows Wyden's been one of the most dishonest players in this debate. He's stood by as the ignorant on our side have been other whipping up resentment against those "other Democrats" who supposedly are out to bailout the industry and obstruct reform. But he has always worked for a mandate and NEVER actually said he would actually work for a public option, much less put his foot down that it would be a deal breaker for him if the legislation doesn't include a strong public option.

He's just used the public option as a tactic to advance his own agenda by duping the gullible that he wants to give employees the chance to get into the exchange, so they can chose the public option. But as already noted, while he repeatedly used misleading language to the contrary, his previous amendment didn't allow every employee to do that. And those who could do that could chose the public option only if there is one, but Wyden did NOT say anything about fighting to make sure there was.

The vote Saturday that we are told 58 Democrats and 2 Independents will support is only to allow debate on the bill to begin. It will still take the 60 votes, meaning Democrats showing leadership, to invoke cloture to actually vote on the bill and right now that is in question. And it will take 60 votes to invoke cloture to vote on whatever comes back from conference. So here's a little prediction: Wyden will fully support a "compromise" which would introduce the trigger, or even strip out the public option altogether, either in final Senate bill or in the conference report, if this charade plays out that it supposedly takes that to get 60 votes. He will then disrespect our intelligence by putting out argument he did it to "save health care reform" (or at least the industry bailout this bill actually is).

The record is clear those were the essentials of his original plan, and he's never actually taken an advocacy position that substantively contradicts that original plan.

The fix appears to be in and the only thing that can stop it is if we put pressure on true progressives to promise to walk if the bill ends up with mandate and no real public option so the Democrats who have sold us out are exposed as being responsible for not delivering real reform.

If employees opt out of an employer-provided plan, it simply indicates that the employer didn't make the best choice of plans to offer. The employer may switch plans as a consequence. This will increase competition between plans, more likely reducing costs. The post above is bilious nonsense.

You obviously don't have a clue who insurance plans are negotiated. So let's take it slowly so it may even get through to someone as obviously clueless as you:

Employers who aren't self-insured negotiate the health benefits they offer their employees once a year. They get a final committed deal from an insurance company before the previous plan expires and the employee "open enrollment begins". Obviously an employer has to negotiate the contract before they can offer it to employees to accept or reject it. So the employer cannot simply "switch plans" if employees reject what has been negotiated for the following year with insurance companies. (Unless insurance companies radically change a business model that there is absolutely nothing in the Wyden bill to induce them to change, that is.)

Now, insurance companies will estimate the acceptance rate they can expect from an employer, just as they do right now when an employer offers employees the choice of a PPO or an HMO. What that means is that insurance companies will on average adjust the premiums upward based on the smaller expected size of the group compared to what it would be if 100% of the employees took the plan.

So there is no real competition between plans, because the reality of the timing between when the rates are negotiated by the employer, and when employees who aren't actually involved in the negotiation exercise their supposed market power. steve's fantasies about competition are just that - fantasies that bear no resemblance to reality.

But as explained in the next comment I'm trying to post and the system won't accept, Wyden isn't even offering the choice he's leading people like "steve" to believe.

In the comment explaining how Wyden's amendment hasn't been quite how he presents it, this should have read: As I said some of us were trying to get the language of what was actually agreed to to see if it is an empty as the previous language, but not surprisingly, it's not available yet. (Even though a deal supposedly has been struck to allow him to offer it!)

This will change a lot about the debate and the benefits for Americans, but the reality is that the reform is needed and it is going to work. I'm confident because of this: http://cli.gs/23yYaM/

Stephanie, as much as you obviously need some hope to hang on to rather than confront what is actually going on, you don't really understand much about how Medicaid works and why CareSource is NOT a national model for bending the cost curve do you?

First, non-profits like CareSource do not report to taxpayers. It is a private health insurance company whose fiduciary obligation is to the corporation. That includes a primary obligation to generate what are euphemistically called "excess operating revenues" rather than "profit" in the business.

Second, it is not a national plan at all, but a state-level HMO that suffers from all the elitist, paternalistic problems of an HMO historically. Primarily includes that the HMO managers, not patients is in charge of determining what providers you can consult for your health care, and limiting your right to seek care outside the HMO.

Nothing could be more different then CareSource from real reform like a MediCARE Part A and Part B national public option in which the patient is in charge of directing their health care and choosing their providers. Of course, that assumes we as a nation, and particularly those who call themselves Democrats actually cared to act like a adults by first learning how the system works, and then doing the right thing to fix it and fix Medicare as part of it. I think the proof is in the pudding just how untrue that is.

If this health extravaganza were something that were OFFERED to me, I might be interested. But Wyden wants to pass a multi-trillion dollar program that we will never be able to pay for that FORCES me to buy what he and his cronies think I need whether I want it or not. I know what I want and need better than he does. I'm an Oregonian, one of those who appreciates the liberty and freedom our progentiors paid for in misery and blood to just hand it over to a pathetic club of megalomaniacs who believe themselves more intelligent than anybody else. Wyden and his ilk are about to sell us. Figure it, we have a war on (popular or not it's there) and Obama with his fan club ignore our troops at risk just to shove this down our throats. Why? Obama's biggest concern is the conquest of America, not it's defense. Can't decide what to do about our troops under fire until AFTER he eats his turkey but gol darn it you yokels are going to hand me your soul before next week or else. Come on, Oregon. Don't sell yourselves for impossible dreams written to decieve and beguile.

Now this is interesting, at least to me. Sen. Wyden objects to certain things in the Patriot Act (as I do), but he still wants to shove this Health Reform through. I wonder, has he stopped to think just how much personal information will be ceeded to the gov't when they have all the health data (including financial, etc.) of every citizen for all their life in their grubby little hands? Talk about straining at a knat and swallowing a camel! See: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf/2009/11/patriot_act_we_dont_know_what.html

FWIW, Christians Undermining New Taxes and the Western Alliance of Concerned Octogenarians strongly support the current Senate bill. We are spotting you this amendment in a quid pro quo announced by Senator Reid on Wednesday, that there will be no abortions available with the public option.

Thank you Senator Wyden and Congressman Stupak for some real, feet on the ground, bipartisan work!

At least Bev Ann S. approaches this with satire, and far better than the empty cynicism egotists at Blue Oregon like Kari through out in lame attempts at satire. (At least I think I caught the point of those two impressively named organizations Bev ;))

By the way, can any of you who are pro-Wyden freaks, or who are just really, really, really sad cases who just need to believe the best about Wyden and the rancid core of the Democratic Party he represents, explain what the real differences are between the anti-choice Stupak amendment in the passed House bill and the anti-choice provisions in the introduced Senate bill?

Hint 1: It is NOT that one of them keeps what to now has been a temporary Hyde Amendment temporary. (Both would change that status quo.)

Hint 2: It is NOT that one of them absolutely prohibits insurance companies from offering coverage in the exchange that allows women to fully exercise their reproductive rights. (Either would allow insurance companies to offer policies that would just in different ways, but how is splitting the risk pool that way going to encourage companies to offer such coverage or keep overall costs down as much as we can and must?)

Notice to BO: progressives in full revolt. Yes, I know you think we've always been revolting.

I think the diff between Stupak and the Senate version was that the Senate version lets you buy supplemental coverage out of your own pocked (from a private insurer), whereas doing so under Stupak would mean wholly using the private option; you would not have been able to enroll generally.

just really, really, really sad cases who just need to believe the best about Wyden and the rancid core of the Democratic Party he represents

That's it, in a nutshell. If you read through the archives you'll see that the point has been raised constantly since last fall, and was a running meme from day one. It is sad, and, unfortunately, I don't know we're helping. Somehow, someone has to. It's like a lot of Catholic sponsored orgs. Great mission statements, but the reality is a few little old ladies, terrified of going to hell. Same with Dems. Progressive wannabees that are terrified of going against the herd. Most these "debates" sound like the scene in Life of Bryan, when he says, that the people don't need to follow anyone, they can be their own people; they are all unique. And one guy yells, "I'm not". Because the herd's slogan is "we're different", they believe they are progressives, unable to see it's just more herd behavior.

Of course, might as well bring up the other forbidden topic, as you're likely to dig until you hit it too. That "pander to the herd" mentality is part and parcel of our clunky, ancient, non-parliamentary democracy. As long as we continue to create the magic vote, that one that carries you over 50%, people will do, say and prostitute anything toward that end. That's the acid test. Lots on here self identify as progressive and mean it. They will not ever, in the least, consider real constitutional reform. It is where one most clearly sees that they only dream about progress, and are completely unwilling to make the changes that would be required.

I am approaching 50, and have to accept that the things that I thought would happen in my lifetime, based on the rhetoric of the 60s and early 70s, will not happen. Worse, it's looking like that was the high water mark. Even worse is realizing that these are actually good people. They really don't get it. Obama proves there is no hope for change in our lifetime. This generation has a number of challenges that are greater than any in history, and we are going to fail miserably on every last one of them. Obviously, no one cares about the legacy left to history. We're venomous? If you could only see what history is going to say about this...

To give you an idea of how well competition works when it comes to health insurance plans offered to federal employees and retirees check the new rates offered this open season:

Blue Cross standard self rose 15.14% Blue Cross standard family rose 12.45% Mail Handlers standard self rose 28% Mail Handlers standard family rose 42.16% Letter carriers high self rose 20.08% Letter carriers high family rose 18.88%

One provider managed to drop its premium on one plan and only show modest increases on other plans, but it was already the highest-priced plan offered nationally.

Correction: "but it was already the highest-priced plan offered nationally." should have read "one of the highest-priced offered nationally."

Zarathustra sums up the essential difference between the introduced Senate bill and the passed House bill when it comes to full coverage for women's reproductive rights. There is one twist I heard Tom Harkin trying to put on it, that I'm still not sure is true because of this way the Senate "introduces" a bill or an amendment without making the actual text available.

The twist was this: In some descriptions of the House bill, for every policy an insurance company offers in the exchange that is eligible for subsidies because it excludes full coverage for women's reproductive rights, they could also offer a policy which includes said coverage but is not eligible for subsidies. In the Senate version, they could just offer an single policy with a unsubsidized rider.

Now this is where the perverse genius of Ron Wyden's false-choice amendment, at least in the only text he's chosen to make available, comes into play in real life. If your employer choses the option of making two plans available to you --- say a PPO and an HMO as most do --- that meet the requirements of the exchange (meaning they don't have to cover women's full reproductive rights), you are not eligible to opt-out and get that voucher to buy a plan in the exchange that includes that cover, the clear implicature of Wyden's public statements notwithstanding.

Given the chance to save money, and potentially significant money per employee, does anybody really doubt how most employers will go? Especially when we can predict the Christians Undermining New Taxes and the Western Alliance of Concerned Octogenarians start public campaigns targeting businesses that choose to offer such coverage in the continuing quasi-populist backlash we already see in this country?

Zarathustra, I fear you are right because one thing I can tell you about the 60s and 70s is that a lot of those who were supposedly talking about all that change, a lot of them the children of well-educated comfortable middle and upper-middle class folks ("elitists" by any other name) really were in it for largely selfish reasons not unlike we see on BO. The threat of getting sent to die in a BS war really clarifies the self-preservation instinct if not the values. I can also tell you tension between those leaders and grassroots actually working selflessly for genuine social justice and civil rights for poor and working men and women of all backgrounds, and those we tend to think of with confused nostalgia as the "liberal"/"progressive" heart of the 60s and 70s was palpable at times. Just like it is now.

Well, Harry Reid will win the first round to move the bill to consideration and debate. But he clearly doesn't have the 60 votes for "opt-out", since Landrieu, Lincoln, and Lieberman have all said they will filibuster on round 2 if the PO is in. He has to be angling for 60 votes for the "trigger" now. Either that or he is going to take "reconciliation" out of his back pocket and break up the bill into two bills, one that is budget, and one that is insurance reform.

"Same with Dems. Progressive wannabees that are terrified of going against the herd."

This behavior has been part of the human condition for countless generations. Hans Christian Andersen illustrated it in terms simple enough for even the dullest wit to understand when he wrote about the emperor's new suit. But people still prefer to see their chosen "emperors" and "empresses" dressed in fine raiments.

What's the difference between fans of Sarah Palin and loyal foot soldiers of, say, Wyden, Obama, Limbaugh, O'Lielly, etc.? Intellectually, no difference. They all believe because they want to believe whatever their chosen "emperor" or "empress" has to say. Polls indicate that some people are catching on to Obama, but the others seem to be getting away with their BS.

I'm glad Ron Wyden's "choice" amendment is on the table. It's a politically popular feature. That said, it's clear there will be no PO in this bill unless there is reconciliation with two bills instead of one. And Reid has reportedly taken it off the table. So people will get to choose between private plans, but not a public one.

OK, Pat. Would you care to make a prognosis of what the Democrats will come up with to improve the national delivery of health care? When you consider ours is the worst in the industrialized world, it wouldn't take much to make an improvement. I'll predict that what they achieve, if anything, will be nothing to brag about, but they undoubtedly will.

On the other hand, perhaps you might like to start with some facts to back up your contention or contradict those you are aiming at.

While the Democrats will own the blame for the failure of the public option, the reason it is so tiny right now is because Trumka and AFL-CIO want it that way and Reid and Pelosi have obliged them. To his credit, Wyden says he will continue to try to open the public option to all in a Senate amendment, but Trumka has said publicly he will oppose that.

My question to my Democrat-hating friends commenting on this story is this: Are you willing to call out and fight the labor movement leadership for opposing a public option for everyone? If so, you are superior to the Democrats knuckling under on this. If not, you are no better than the Democrats.

Pat, it's a matter of logical consistency. It's not a matter of meeting "our" standards, it's a matter of the walk matching the talk, and it don't. It's a matter of finding a parsimonious hypothesis for behavior. Is this what you expected last November? Bill's right. Humans act that way. When you see people loyal to a party that doesn't well represent their vocalized interests, that's not a sniffy value judgment from progressives. It's disturbing that you would take exception, as I don't think, from your posts, that anyone would accuse you of returning to the Dem fold out of a herd instinct. You must be aware that you're not a typical Dem, no?

Good point, "say". That IS the difference. And, yes I am willing.

Ditto Aggadora.

"My question to my Democrat-hating friends commenting on this story is this: Are you willing to call out and fight the labor movement leadership for opposing a public option for everyone? If so, you are superior to the Democrats knuckling under on this. If not, you are no better than the Democrats."

First of all, some of us who are critical of the Democratic Party and some of its members are not "Democrat-hating" people, but we are offended by the hypocrisy that attends many of their comments.

On the issue of the public option I have mixed feelings. First of all, the public option has been tossed around and pummeled so much it is becoming less clear with each version what it means. One the one hand it appears it could mean some people, but not all, without insurance would get some coverage. On the other hand, it isn't at all clear what that coverage will be and what it will cost. Then there is another aspect that the mandate forcing some people to buy into the public option or other is just another way to inflate insurance industry revenues.

As for the AFL-CIO objections to the public option I have no idea whether they are valid or not. If I disagreed with them I would oppose them.

Disclaimer: I'm not a member of a union so my opinions of unions and their policies are my own. Having been involved with six unions during my career, I'm aware of the virtues and shortcomings of unions.

Weak Public Option Myths That Liberals Believe:

Myth #1 – Public option will help control costs

Myth #2 – The public option is a "public" option

Myth #3 – Public option will make single-payer possible

Every passing year we'll see more Americans with worse health and nobody will do anything because we will point to our legislation and say give it another couple years to work. And in five years, we will have exhausted the financial resources of the government, we will have exhausted taxpayers, we will have exhausted the good will of voters, the patience of voters, and no one will want to attempt health reform again.

Re: "This permanenent stance allows you to be always pure, always critical and cotinuously legitimately depressed."

Can't you guys come up with any new memes? We progressives are sick of your "purity over pragmatism" claims.

Obamascammers have coopted the energy of those who otherwise would have been out in the streets rioting over policies that McCain or Bush would have supported, including torture.

The DP has moved so far to the right that anything that Richard Nixon would have supported seems far-left. The majority of Democrats who have been led to the edge of the cliff like rabid lemmings believe foolishly that individual mandates for buying unaffordable and inefficient private insurance is a worthwhile project, just like expanding the war into Pashtunistan or torturing by proxy are worthwhile projects.

You guys obstuct all progressive messages. You control the range of acceptable debate and marginalize everyone to your left. You lie and obfuscate to the point where no one knows what's even being debated.

Shame on you who know the truth but continue to lie in order to continue to have access to the new mandarins.

"The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those systems."

Lierre Keith, The Vegetarian Myth. Crescent City, CA: Flashpoint Press, 2009

While the Democrats will own the blame for the failure of the public option, the reason it is so tiny right now is because Trumka and AFL-CIO want it that way and Reid and Pelosi have obliged them. To his credit, Wyden says he will continue to try to open the public option to all in a Senate amendment, but Trumka has said publicly he will oppose that.

You're source "say what you will"? The labor position as I am aware of it is far more nuanced then your implication here. It is quite accurate to say that the AFL-CIO has been an advocate for a public option while Wyden has not, and called for a far stronger public option that Wyden ever has. So it's clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about as you spin out BS.

Re: "This permanenent (sic) stance allows you to be always pure, always critical and cotinuously (sic) legitimately depressed.."

Not so. It's is because we ascribe to the ideals that politicians, "patriots" and others talk about but rarely adhere to.

Each business day in Congress starts with a Democratic or Republican party member reciting the pledge of allegiance that ends "... with liberty and justice for all" then during the day, if it becomes politically expedient, liberty and justice get tossed under the bus or in the trash can until the next day when another politician sanctimoniously invokes that phrase and the rest of the pledge they have rendered into an act of national hypocrisy.

Not since the McCarthy era has there been a more degrading national spectacle than the recent examples of the right wing Israeli tail wagging the American dogs in Congress and the White House. And Ron Wyden and most Democrats (including so-called progressives) are willing groomers of that infested tail.

This is pretty tiresome, but totally predictable. Everyone thaqt deviates from your personal dogma is a cowardly member of The Herd. Unthinking and acting purely on reflex.

What's tiresome is the mindless empty rhetoric of pedantic political hacks like Pat Ryan. Pat, why don't you take a shot at rebutting the arguments made here refuting Wyden's position on it's contradictions, hypocrisy, impoverished values, and outright lies. The reasoned, nuanced substantive arguments several critics have argued here is exactly the opposite of acting on reflex.

And for "say", here's a quote from Trumka on Oct. 26, 2009:

“We, along with the majority of Americans and many Members of Congress, support a robust public option to bring down costs and keep insurance companies honest. The Senate is making great progress toward that end and we are encouraged by today’s announcement.”.

and it's reporting in this vein (without quotes supporting the reporter's opinion I might add) that you are spinning to misrepresent:

Trumka was ambiguously critical of proposals to give states the right to opt out of offering a public option, but he is strongly opposed to Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) proposal to let individuals opt out of group plans to buy their own insurance.

What I've consistently heard Trumka say over the last few months is that the AFL-CIO supports a robust public option that anyone could be in --- like buying into Medicare. Once Reid and Pelosi took that off the table, not labor, and left us with this corrupt private insurance system including employer group plans, labor has opposed Wyden's dishonest plan which actually would give insurance companies an even stronger hand because it would weaken the ability of employers to bargain for the best group rates. As explained above. But pinheads like you who defend Wyden and his false-choice amendment demonstrate you don't actually even understand what you're defending.

Wyden is and remains the fraud in this little drama. He uses the public option that he doesn't actually advocate as a ploy for his amendment which would undermine the group insurance purchasing power for employers. His bogus argument is that somehow if we are all individual agents in the exchange we are going to be able to bargain against the insurance industry (whose anti-trust exemption remains intact in the Senate bill, something Wyden has never criticized over the last several years or in this bill, BTW.). He fails to produce any credible economic arguments supporting that theory. It's all handwaving about a economically vacuous misrepresentation of how "competition" in the market, any market, actually works.

The real question is whether Wyden and his staff are just ignorant, or just that arrogantly deceitful. To which I observe, sometime it's the ignorant who are the most deceitful because they can only get an edge by being deceitful.

Another question is whether Wyden and his trollish supporters are just after petty get-back at labor with this dishonest propaganda tactic as the flail to defend his empty argument and because he's abandoned labor and working people on health care?

Makes sense to me, although I do think that these politicans are kidding themselves if they think anyone is going to be able to buy coverage as an individual cheaper then they get as group...as a small business owner, I've tried and frankly speaking IT SUCKS!

wine club
wine clubs

Now were getting somewhere. This will greatly spur competition, particularly with insurance companies no longer able to price fix. Go health care reform/Wyden.

Wine clubs:

Makes sense to me, although I do think that these politicans are kidding themselves if they think anyone is going to be able to buy coverage as an individual cheaper then they get as group...as a small business owner, I've tried and frankly speaking IT SUCKS!

Bob T:

Government has made it impossible for you to get an affordable coverage plan. Either by design or as a negative consequence of the usual "good intentions", the result has been the same.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Trumka speaks from both sides of his mouth. While stating he is a strong supporter of the PO and individual choice, he would not allow individual union members the right to opt out of union negotiated health plans.

Trumka knows that the only way a group plan survives is by keeping the young, single and healthy in the plan to offset the ill, those having kids and accidents. The adverse selection ghost of Wyden's amendment will kill group plans, employer based and union negotiated.

Many young singles (who already think themselves invinceable) will take the $7k - $8k out of their employer plans and purchase a catastophic plan that gives little in coverage but allows for more toys.

Can't you guys come up with any new memes? We progressives are sick of your "purity over pragmatism" claims.

Since what is delivered is exactly the opposite!

"... insurance companies will no longer be able to price fix."

genop: Would you by any chance be interested in buying a piece of ocean frontage property on the east side of Mount Hood? Tropical breezes year round. Cute 5-bedroom cabin on the shore. In foreclosure. Going real cheap. Check with your real estate agent. Be quick. It won't last long.

I'm just pissed that Wyden didn't hold out for 300 million dollars like Landreiu did. He could have really done some good things for Oregon with that much pork, and I bet every other senator who was contemplating this turd of a health care bill is wishing they did the same thing.

"I'm just pissed that Wyden didn't hold out for 300 million dollars like Landreiu did. "

Wyden was probably more interested in taking care of his campaign donors from the insurance industry than the people of Oregon.

So Kari, before this thread dies, now that Lieberman has confirmed he will block a vote on the bill if includes even a poor public option (and he is saying quite the opposite from expressing support for a strong public option), and since Wyden's pathetic office staff says they have nothing our arrogant Senator cares to share with his constituency on this, why don't you ask your boss Wyden whether:

a) He is now going to aggressively put Lieberman on the spot publicly to support a strong public option or he'll fight to get the rest of his colleagues to kick Lieberman out of any leadership role, including chair of the Homeland Security committee.

b) He is actually for stripping any public option out of the bill, but leaving the mandate they both agree on in if that what it takes to get Lieberman's vote, because that's actually been his position all along, misleading statements of idle support for the public option notwithstanding,

c) He believes Lieberman is lying to the press and in the end will support a public option, and even a stronger one if that's what would come back from reconciliation. (Not likely, but if it were true it would suggest Lieberman has serious sociopathic mental problems and should be shunned by the Democratic Party any way).

Those are the only options in this case, and as Wyden's constituents we have a right to know his position, even if he and his staff arrogantly believe they down have to condescend to inform us mere voters of his position.

If anybody bears the blame for this it is scummy NW Democratic Senators Wyden, Cantwell, and Murray who have done nothing to fight for the public option, and undermined it every chance they get in that uncivil, mentally-ill NW passive-aggressive way while working to rip us all off by forcing us to buy from the corrupt private insurance industry if there is no public option.

bodden said: "Not since the McCarthy era has there been a more degrading national spectacle than the recent examples of the right wing Israeli tail wagging the American dogs in Congress and the White House."

Would you please contrast your position with the Nazi-skinhead "ZOG" hypothesis? Do you really think that yours is a leftist analysis? Do you understand that leftist analysis is based on institutional factors that are independent of ethnic minorities and "foreigners"?

When and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World?

The fact is that Israel is a client state of the U.S., totally dependent on us for economic, political and military support. (The military part includes the siphoning off of 70% to U.S. corporations.)

Israel must report to its imperial master (US) for the "green light" before it commits any of its crimes, a fact which has been demonstrated many times. The U.S. never has to ask anyone, much less a nation of five million or so Jews, for the green light for its crimes.

If there were no oil in the Middle East, Blumenauer, Wyden, Obama, et al, would laugh at a lobby that was demanding acquiescence on matters that affect U.S. power.

"Mr. Wolfowitz..., Mr Feith and all the others...their power springs from the American state. If Israel gets stronger, their power does not increase. If the United States gets weaker, their power decreases. So now we are having this weird phenomenon of people, due to their ethnic loyalties, are willing to strengthen another state and thereby weaken the sources of power from which their power comes...that doesn't sound believable."

( THE PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY: THE DEBATE BETWEEN JAMES PETRAS AND NORMAN FINKELSTEIN)

<hr/>