Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

Around 5:30 on Friday afternoon I received a robocall paid for by the Democratic National Committee on behalf of Organizing for America. The voice informed me about a rally for health care reform, scheduled for today at 6 pm just west of the state capitol building in Des Moines. Press 1 if you plan to attend.

I didn't press 1 and stayed on the line to see what would happen. The voice came back, telling me "The president needs you to show support" for reform.

The folks at Organizing for America have some pronoun trouble. It's not President Obama who needs us. We need him to show support for real reform.

Although I have a busy day planned, I would have rearranged my schedule to attend this evening's rally if I saw the president working hard to get the best deal possible on health care reform. Instead, the White House cuts back-room deals with drug companies and encourages industry lobbyists to negotiate with the Senate Finance Committee, the Congressional committee likely to produce the worst bill from the perspective of consumers.

Not only is it ludicrous to let the Finance committee's "gang of six" (three "centrist" Democrats and three Republicans) write a health care bill in a chamber with a strong Democratic majority, the White House isn't even trying to add some irrelevant sweeteners to win Republican votes for more controversial health care policies.

Official administration policy on "health insurance reform" is backing away from some of Obama's campaign promises. The Organizing for America issue page on health care doesn't even mention a public health insurance option as a goal.

In this context, the insurance industry is understandably confident that they will get the bill of their dreams: a mandate for all Americans to buy health insurance, with no public option to compete with private insurers that dominate most markets.

Tinkering with insurance regulations will not solve our problems, as shown by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (also known as Kennedy-Kassebaum). Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 has reminded me that this law was supposed to end abuses such as "rescission," when insurance companies cancel people's policies after they become sick. Ragbrai08 blames poor enforcement by state regulators for the failure of this bill and helpfully sent me this link on the problem. Others such as Mike Lux point to loopholes that insurance industry proxies in Congress wrote into the 1996 bill. Regarding HIPAA and the Massachusetts health care reform adopted a few years ago, Lux writes:

These two bills, both passed with great fanfare in the thoroughly bipartisan fashion, are not working because they provide no check on insurance industry power, no competition and no reason for insurers to control their costs- which, by the way, is exactly why they passed so easily with such big bipartisan support.

Remember, insurance companies are granted exemption from anti-trust laws by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. A very small number of them have overwhelmingly market power in huge parts of the country. Their rates are unregulated by the federal government. And they have enormous political power to go along with their massive market power.

What my friends at Third Way don't mention is that the insurance industry has happily signed off on all the regulatory changes mentioned above, just as they supported Kennedy-Kassebaum and the Massachusetts health bill. They know that with all the market and political power they have, without anti-trust or federal rate regulation to worry about, without competition from a public option, they can raise rates as much as they want and probably write loopholes into the regulations that they agreed to so that they will be easier to slide around.

Requiring Americans to purchase private health insurance would amount to a regressive tax going directly to corporations. And since private insurers have very high administrative expenses, their preferred method of controlling health care costs is limiting people's access to medical services.

Until the president honors promises he made to those who got him elected and rejects the stupid and politically suicidal path favored by insurance companies, Organizing for America can count me out of their photo-ops.

Tags: Barack Obama, health care reform, health insurance, OFA, organizing for america, Public Option, rescission (all tags)

Comments

70 Comments

Re: Pronoun trouble

 You have a busy day planned? I believe you may have a pronoun problem of your own!

by QTG 2009-08-29 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you attempting to praise the hard efforts desmoinesdem makes day in and day out? Because it sounds like a criticism.

And, if indeed it is a criticism, what the hell does it mean? It sounds, to my ear, like interjecting "NO YOU ARE!!!!" in the middle of a discussion.

Using a different discussion as an example:

"We have to be more careful about using sexist language when talking about..." "NO YOU ARE!"

Did I understand you?
by commentist 2009-08-29 09:09AM | 0 recs
ha ha!

Just sitting down at the computer again after a busy day. I spent most of it in Coon Rapids (small town) enjoying the events marking the 50th anniversary of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's visit there (more info here.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 04:43PM | 0 recs
Trouble for Liberals Organizing for America

I too have been greatly discouraged. I see the DLC'ers and Third Way'ers taking over Obama's positions on EVERYTHING and it freightens me. You are correct WHY should I give my all for a Healthcare program that will possibly NOT have a Public plan? Why should I support a War with out an exit stratigy in Afghanistan ? Why should I support a President who continues many of Bushbags policies? I just have no desire to make the effort. I try to get worked up but never get around to 'making the call'. attending 'the event' am I alone or am I one of those who has helped lowered Obama's approval down to 50%.

by eddieb 2009-08-29 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Trouble for Liberals Organizing for America

'cos if you quit now, you are guaranteed not to get those things... we've still got a shot at getting a good bill, but only if we fight for it!

by LordMike 2009-08-29 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Trouble for Liberals Organizing for America

obama's group is not the only choice for organizaing, and in fact, given what is being sought by them versus others maybe counter productive. I am losing faith in the administration. Before it was just strategy but now it is becoming substantively what they stand for.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Trouble for Liberals Organizing for America
Do not be discouraged, the criticism is of Obama's contribution to the struggle for meaningful reform with a robust public option. Just about that. Organizing for America is just one group.

There will be meaningful health insurance reform, and WILL contain a Robust Public Option. All Democrats want meaningful health insurance reform, and no Democrat Opposes a Robust Public Option, none will vote against a bill with a public option, But and this is extremely important, the entire Progressive Caucus has vowed, declared and promised, that are unable to vote for any Reform of the healthcare system without a public option. They will vote down the final Bill if does not contain a Robust Public Option.

demoinesdem does not want you to stop working for what will be a very large meaningful reform of the Health Insurance system, for what WILL contain a Robust Public Option, just that she cannot take time away from a busy schedule working for "a meaningful reform of the health insurance system with a robust public option" to work with "Organizing for America" because theyt are still stupidly not emphasizing the incredibly popular public option in their work on reform.
by commentist 2009-08-29 09:27AM | 0 recs
this is the best strategy

and I am hoping it works. It has a better chance of working if more House Democrats take the pledge, which is why I'm focusing on generating comments to Iowa's Democrats (Braley, Loebsack, Boswell), urging them to insist on a public option.

Sadly, I think there is a better than 50/50 chance of the White House buying off enough Progressives to vote for a bad bill out of conference, but the larger the Progressive Block becomes in the next few weeks, the better our chances of getting a decent bill.

A little arm-twisting may be needed in the Senate to get us to 50 votes there. The White House doesn't seem interested in that now, but if the Progressive Block holds, Obama may be forced to act in order to get a bill out of Congress.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: this is the best strategy

Check out Maher's interview with Bill Moyers. What we  are seeing is the continued influence of money on Democratic policy. That Rahm is trying to protect the money from K Street, just as Delay Rove etc did before them.

http://ow.ly/nfFI

http://ow.ly/nfGI

There is more, but I just wanted to link to the healthcare part as far as I listened to it.

It's very good. It gets at the heart of the debate including Pres Obama's promise not to have lobby dollars influence the WH, but then having lobbist like Daschle come in for policy discussions and again Rahm back the Blue Dogs who are raking in lobby dollars at obscene amounts.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: this is the best strategy

PS- If I am remembering correctly, it also discusses the backroom deals such as with Phrama and other big contributors and how policies seemed to have been shaped that ensure that in 2012 Pres Obama will not lose out on phrama dollars.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

Obama has to take a clear stand on this issue.  It's especially important also to not let the teabaggers control the debate when Congress returns; they are planning a "march on Washington" the weekend of September 12.

I'm afraid we're being setup for the great cave-in--I hope I'm wrong on this.

by esconded 2009-08-29 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust

of this diary is 'Let's sit it out, we'll show him!'

Because we're very busy (and legislating isn't our job).

To which I say, "Whatever!"

by QTG 2009-08-29 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust

Yeah, I think the best way to send the message is to go to an OFA meeting and say you want to fight for a public plan. I am sure most of the other people there would agree.

by Lolis 2009-08-29 06:32AM | 0 recs
The fact that this

isn't a given for people makes me think the netroots really are as unaffective as they say. No wonder the President ignores us...why should he waste his time on people who need certain criteria to be met before they get inspired to fight for their beliefs.

by DTOzone 2009-08-29 10:16AM | 0 recs
OFA will cheer for Obama

even if he signs the worst bill imaginable.

All I'm asking is for Obama to stand up for what he campaigned on--a public option.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust

Unlike you some of us really do not want to change the democratic party to a bunch of mindless sycophants. Once again this video describes the likes of you best:

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust

Thought experiment:
 One person sits on ass because he/she is petulantly peeved and seriously miffed that some other very busy person isn't doing enough to accomplish the goals of Person 1.
 Another person sits on ass cheering on those people who are actually doing work to accomplish something, and stays naively quiet and hopeful, giving the working people some peace and quiet so they can get the job done.

Which person is a whiny bitch as in your video?

It's YOU, BITCH!!

by QTG 2009-08-29 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust

Careful, your screen needs a spittle guard!! rofl!!

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust

Treat me like you do all real Democrats who aren't living up to your standards - give me the silent treatment. See how it works!

by QTG 2009-08-29 10:15AM | 0 recs
The head of the I told you so brigade....

Personally, I think, as compared to KOS, this place attracts a group of posters who actually WANT the democratic party to lose out, because they can get on their high horse and proclaim their brilliance in having seen down the road....

A high percentage are angry primary losers, who delude themselves that either Edwards or SOS Clinton would have miraculously flipped a blue dog dominated congress into voting for Single Payer.

It's little wonder the traffic here continues to drop, diaries remaining on the rec list with ONE rec for 3-4 days, and unless some posts a primary diary like

Hillary would have gotten this done

Most end up with 5-10 comments....

This place used to be a nice boutique blog, compared to the giant mall at KOS.

Now, it's like a neighborhood bar, with the same sad drunks ranting their life story to a bored contingent of their peers.

by WashStateBlue 2009-08-29 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The head of the I told you so brigade....

The problem with intellectually lazy people like you is that they are still stuck in the primaries as the whole health care issue is being flushed down the drain. But that's not a problem with quasi-progressives and faux-democrats, I appreciate that even in this hour you find the time to stand back and clap hard and post inane diaries.

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 09:13AM | 0 recs
Inane Diaries?

Funny, coming from you...MyDD's one note Johnny writ large.

I'll take inane over banal everytime.

by WashStateBlue 2009-08-29 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Inane Diaries?

another example of inane comment! Amazing how you never get tired of posting rubbish.

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 10:27AM | 0 recs
Well, I certainly don't have your raw output?

What, you're MyDD's number one poster by sheer volume?

But, I guess, junk food is much easier to create, especially when it is all of one flavor and one basic recipe!

Tarheel, you have two or three basic supporters here, everyone else thinks you serve up the same recipe of fact-free quote loading bitching and moaning "I told you so's"....

Again, inane has it's upside, but banal and endlessly repeatative only shows you spend WAY to much time on this blog.

I am spending less and less time here, but when I do come back, I am amazed at how 2 or 3 posters are keeping up output.

I get here you can dominate, where as at Kos, you get pummelled to death because there are folks every bit as rabid as you are who don't put up with your BS.  It's a numbers game.

As I said early, ONE rec and you are on the list for 3-4 days...

Here, you're one of the top doggies, but that says WAY more about the state of this blog then your skill as a blogger.

Sadly, I think MyDd is in about 4 place now, Kos, Open Left and FDL are certianly much more critical to the left wing blogosphere then sad old MyDD.

Like anyone cares WHO says what here?

Oh, sorry...evidently, based on your dedication to your posting..you do!

by WashStateBlue 2009-08-29 10:58AM | 0 recs
if you value Open Left and FDL

then I'm surprised you read this diary as my saying let's all just sit it out.

Activism focused on getting Democrats on record standing for the public option is useful. That has a chance of leading us to a better bill.

OFA's rallies supporting the president are not useful if the president is not drawing any lines in the sand.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: if you value Open Left and FDL

You ar discussing what I call the Ezra Klen problem. I used to love reading his work, but he just keeps moving the ball each time Obam a does such that he's no longer credible. He's just acting asa a shill. If he once actually stated a position that was his own rather than spinning for the WH, then I would say oaky maybe its just what the thinks. but it is clear for quite a few people they look to Pres Obama first to tell them what they should think.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust

That's too bad because the DFH's have been right over and over again since 2001.

by MNPundit 2009-08-29 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I think the thrust
desmoinesdem is working hard for meaningful reform of health with a public option. Thats what she does. Thios ios not sit it out. This is "what the hell is wrong with this organization" because they are not including the robust public option in their fight for reform.

But there will be a PO, there will be NO BILL without a PO. desmoinesdem knows that.
by commentist 2009-08-29 09:30AM | 0 recs
I hope so

but I think the Progressive Block strategy could fail as well. It's the best strategy we have, so I am committed to it, but I wouldn't say it's guaranteed to bring us a bill with a robust public option.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 05:02PM | 0 recs
I'm not sitting it out

I am spending money and time supporting the groups that are truly organizing for health care reform that would be worthwhile. That's Democracy for America, Health Care for America Now, and Blue America PAC. I would absolutely make time for their rally.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

If we sit this one out 'cos we are afraid of the "great cave", then this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

by LordMike 2009-08-29 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

again- there are other options than working for obama's group. Jane Hamsher for example is doing yeoman's work with her blog that's actually at odds with Pres Obama and has helped build the progressive wing of the party up rather than tear it down or play the politics of low expectation such as "at least they aren't Republicans."

by bruh3 2009-08-29 12:59PM | 0 recs
Pronoun problem? Or predication error? n/t

by chiefscribe 2009-08-29 07:17AM | 0 recs
I hate to say this

But the public option is dead, it was never in serious consideration in the WH since the election. It was a little bone that was bandied around to us. Right now here is how the land lies:

1) a nominal pubic option like co-ops (the health care unicorn)

2) exchanges with no restrictions on premiums

3) a mandate forcing 47 million to buy insurance without any measures to keep costs down

4) reduction of SCHIP benefits

5) reduction of benefits to the poor restricting it to 400% of the poverty level

6) and now for the kicker: there will be a massive cost shifting to the consumers by an increase of 15% co-pay rate

This is the wonderful bill we are holding out for, while the WH refuses to take a stand, for that matter even refuse to explain the public option (only 37% know what it is the rest don't) while he remains enamored with his own image and sends all the friendly reporters like Jonathan Alter, Joe Klein, Steve Pearlstein, Ezra Klein to reduce expectations for a public option while we get emails asking us to support "health care reform". But is this reform? I will not support any bill in this form, because frankly it is undemocratic and a sham.

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

We  may even  get less than that if we stop fighting...

Liberals quit way too easily... conservatives never do... that's why they win.

by LordMike 2009-08-29 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

The effort now is insurance reform and that is a laudable effort if we did not have a regressive tax in the name of individual mandate. That is corporate welfare, we have had enough of that already. The bill as I have outlined is so outrageous that even the Republicans would not have the gall to propose something like that.

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

The bill you have outlined doesn't exist, yet... we really don't know what's going to be in anything, yet.  Everything is still in flux.

Until there's an actual bill up for a vote, everything can and will change.

Until then, we should not quit fighting... I remember when Obama was losing right about this time last year.  We were so terrified of a republican president that we redouubled our efforts.  We should be just as terrified at the possible loss of health care reform... the loss would be just as bad for everyone.

by LordMike 2009-08-29 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

Look I hope so too, but two things are different from then and now. Obama won, because he was out in front leading on this issue. We fought for him because he proposed changes, substantial changes to what we had for the last 8 years.   Yet on the issue of health care reform he has been fuzzy, ambivalent and largely absent. The indications that the public option would be dropped was there as early as May. Frankly I do not even know what we are supposed to fight for. What is the bill? If it is insurance reform mandating coverage for the people with pre-existing conditions and stop rescission, it will pass handily because no Republican however foolhardy will want to appear as complete tools. But is that health care reform? No it is not because it still does not address the key problem, how to make insurance and health care affordable. I am willing to fight for something that the president is willing to lead on, for a well-defined bill and not some abstract ideas that will be sacrificed for political expediency like the public option.

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

Why don't you put your concrete goals on a sign?

by Jess81 2009-08-29 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

There were well defined ideas on Obama for America, stuff we fought and won an election over. Right now the bill that is being bandied around is Republican-redux.

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

Someone had an excellent diary up the other day of what then candidate Obama expressly stated was his goals. It includes nearly everything Tarheel has said here over the last few months. The reality is that whehter you want to admit it or not. Tarheel is responding to what Pres Obama said he wanted to do, and is now not doing . The response by quite a few people in the diary by the way was the attack the diarist for posting the campaign literature or to change the subject such as by saying that co opts are the same or could be as the public option, and therefore really Pres Obama had not changed anything.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this

All the more reason to put those goals on a sign and keep agitating.

by Jess81 2009-08-31 05:21PM | 0 recs
who said I stopped fighting?

I'm just not wasting my time with OFA, who will clap loudly no matter how crappy the health care bill turns out to be.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to say this
"I hate to say this" is probably wrong, I am thinking you love to say it.

There will be no Bill without the public option.

There is not one single democrat that will vote against a final Bill that has a PO in it. NOT ONE.

There are dozens and dozens who have pledged to defeat -even the final Bill - if it does NOT contain a Public Option, a Robust Public Option.
by commentist 2009-08-29 09:34AM | 0 recs
it's not over yet

What you describe is perhaps the most likely outcome, but I think there is still a chance (25 percent?) of getting a decent bill when it's all done. There is also maybe a 10 percent chance of no bill passing.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

I hope you will reconsider... the less of us who show up, the less chance the stuff we want will be in the final bill, if there is one at all...

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face... the game isn't over, yet... don't leave the field in the 3rd quarter...  if you don't want to do it for yourself, do it for the chronically ill, who need all the help they can get!

Do not quit until the final buzzer sounds!

by LordMike 2009-08-29 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

It you can cut out the sports cliches for a second?

Every single shred of evidence we have is that the bill will make things worse. Obama doesn't even pretend to stand up for anything.  The only thing we can do is 1) make sure the bill doesn't pass, and 2) destroy the democrats who pushed capitulation and defend those pushed a public option.

The fundraising to help those who support a public option is a good start.

Until there is a bill it's pointless. Max Baucus is openly lying to his constituents about public options for God's sake!

by MNPundit 2009-08-29 11:41AM | 0 recs
not quitting

Just spending my time on this issue in ways other than showing up for OFA's pep rally. I don't see that group having any impact whatsoever on the bill.

My time is better spent encouraging Iowans to contact our Democrats in Congress (Braley, Loebsack, Boswell), asking them to insist on a public option. So far all of them say they are for a public option, but none have pledged to vote against a bill that doesn't have one.

by desmoinesdem 2009-08-29 04:51PM | 0 recs
OFA is inept at legislation

It is always good when you have someone to fight against and OFA was able to do that. Now democrats are fighting themselves, the WH is negotiating with itself against the best interest of the people that voted for the present administration. But even at organizing for legislations OFA is proving to be inept and clueless.

A couple of weeks ago Arlen specter came to Lebanon PA which is not very far from where I live now, except the event was on a weekday and in the morning. My wife and I were looking to attend one of these townhalls because unlike most people in the OFA we are real people with real health issues who had to fight the health insurance company only recently, even issuing a legal challenge just to get covered. We had no idea where the townhall was and Lebanon being an extremely red county and incidentally not in our county we also did not know if the OFA was trying to get people to go there. 10 hours before the event I got an email from OFA telling us of this event and urging us to show our "support". I had work scheduled on that morning so I let it pass. But think about it what is OFA doing now? Nothing. Just a series of meaningless pep rallies because it itself has no clue what it should be fighting for. Reform yes, but what kind of reform? Because the way I see it you can have insurance reform without an individual mandate, and any individual mandate without a safety net, be it a public option or a way to buy into medicare is nothing short of corporate welfare.

by tarheel74 2009-08-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

Enzi just smeared dems today n the weekly radio address... the gang of 6 is finished...

I'm begging you to reconsider... a dems only bill is coming, and it willl be much better than what is being predicted.

Feingold said yesterday that the only way we are going to get what we want is if we show everyone we want it!  If we quit now, the insurance companies win!

I'm discouraged,too, but that makes me want to fight harder, not quit.  The time to stay home is next years elections if we don't get what we want. Right now, everything is in flux... we still can influence the outcome, but only if we try!

Don't quit!

by LordMike 2009-08-29 08:25AM | 0 recs
Demoinesdem is working for Health with a PO!
All the time!

Here is a recent post that all must read from desmoinesdem posted elsewhere that helps explain what she is doing, and what we could all be doing.

ACTION: Urge House Populists to join Progressive Block

Do not doubt. We will pass the "Edward M. Kennedy American Health Act 2009" this year, and it WILL contain a robust public option.
by commentist 2009-08-29 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

And what is Pres Obama's response to the attacks? Nothing. That's the point. YOu can't defend someone who is not defnding himself.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 01:05PM | 0 recs
Primary difference

between Republicans and Democrats;

Republicans don't need a President to light a fire under their asses, Democrats wait for orders from the top.

Which is why they'll always win and we'll always lose.

by DTOzone 2009-08-29 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Primary difference
While I take your point about working hard beside the President, desmoinesdem, as you probably know, is not advocating against working hard for meaningful reform with a robust public option, quite the contrary, she is advocating for working hard beside the president -by pushing him and Organizing for America -- left toward the public option, which is a required part of the final Bill. We don't always lose. We are winning. We will pass the Kennedy Health Bill, and will contain a robust Public Option.
by commentist 2009-08-29 10:04AM | 0 recs
I'm really not sure

how not showing up at a rally is going to help push OFA and the President toward a public option. If no one shows up, are they going to say
"oh, maybe if we come out for a public option, people will come?"

Nope, instead they're going to say "Gee, no one really wants healthcare reform, let's drop the whole thing or make it less radical"

If you really want to push the President and OFA toward a public option, you got to show up and show them your support. Otherwise, you're just waiting for orders from the top.

by DTOzone 2009-08-29 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm really not sure
No sorry you're wrong. If there wee only one organization pushing for health reform, that might be true. If there were only one path through to a Bill, that might be true. If there was only one way to push, that might be true. But there are many organizations pushing, many different paths forward.

All go through the House and Senate, and all are pushing forward. One goes through the Progressive Caucus, and their pledge to pass a good, great, Bill and a complementary promise to defeat any Bill that dos not have a Robust Public Option. One can support them through donations, one can write of their Heroism in the paper. There are marches for this plan, there are groups set up to help.

Michael Moore is working with 'some' chapters of Organizing for America and showing the film Sicko across the country.

It isnt a choice between OfA and nothing, its a choice between strongly pushing the wildly popular, necessary, country changing, movement building, self organizing drive for the public option and the drive for all the rest of the reforms without mentioning that.

There are some that worry, and it seems sensible to worry, that the leaving out of this wording in Obama's OfA materials and websites is to not promise something that may not be delivered.

While I on the other hand, am confident that it will be included, and work as hard as I can to make sure it happens. Because wishes are not nickles.

You see people like Micheal Moore, showing his movie and demanding single payer, are letting people know, to deeply understand, that we have compromised enough, that single payer is what we demand. That if you create a robust enough set of reforms that include a robust public option, we will accept it. But otherwise not.
by commentist 2009-08-29 12:55PM | 0 recs
What other organizations are pushing?

What organizations with credibility are pushing? I see none. There are little none that are at the level of OFA. The Unions are even linking up with OFA...at least they are where I am.

by DTOzone 2009-08-29 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

If you walk into elections with the EXPECTATION that the President will screw you over and be more accountable to concentrated power than the people who got him elected, it will help you get back to doing what you're supposed to be doing.  Which is being an activist.

I mean relying on the electoral system alone to accomplish your goals fails every time.  Even freaking Obama said this: "After I'm elected, your work will only be beginning" in a context where he was talking to "community organizer" types.  I think the left used to universally understand this - the whole "pull the lever and cross your fingers" thing seems to be a strictly post-Clinton phenomenon.

by Jess81 2009-08-29 09:58AM | 0 recs
The magic wand of Liberal Transformation?

I mean, what the hell is wrong with obama?

I figured he'd reverse 2 plus decades of Reaganism in a couple months at most..

After all, that is what I voted for him to do?

by WashStateBlue 2009-08-29 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

We liberals have been reacting too violently in the healthcare debate. We grabbed on the public option as the solution to all of our problems.

But it isn't so. All the power you claim insurance companies have can also be applied to make whatever becomes the public option a weak entity incapable of doing anything.

No, as you point out, the problem is that insurance companies are not regulated and are not subject to anti-trust. So the solution is not a weak public option or cooperative, but a firm system of regulation.

To get this, we must focus on the exchanges, or rather a national exchange system. Here we can establish strong national regulations. We must also work to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

We should focus on an insurance exchange system that works to maintain strong competition among insurance companies, health providers, hospitals, health labs and services, etc. We don't need a public option that is a useless appendage.

by PaulSiegel 2009-08-29 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

Great and for a change an original thinking comment.

But, I suspect, the same power thrown at killing the public option would be thrown at stopping congressional action to repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

Hell, we can't even repeal BASEBALLS anti-trust status, and talk about a socialist enterprise? Who built all those stadiums those billionares owners and millionare player inhabit.

Also, you might lose SOME of the parties at least weakly support the Health Care reform, some in the medical industry slightly with us would blanche at repealing MF.

Still, if the Public option goes down, as I suspect it will, repealing the Health Care Industrial Complexes monopoly status is a worthwile agenda.

by WashStateBlue 2009-08-29 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pronoun trouble at Organizing for America

Here's the problem, DMD:

Obama has clearly stated that any healthcare reform must not add to the deficit and must cover everyone or nearly everyone.  Covering more people adds more costs.  More importantly, though, the rate at which costs increase itself increases.  A public option with affordable rates and coverage of preexisting conditions becomes unsustainable in less than a decade.

In order to make the public option viable, the rising rate of cost increases has to become a declining rate of cost increases.  This can be done in several ways.  W

e can increase the number of doctors and nurses.  This moves some short-term healthcare costs into the education category because increased supply should lead to lower prices in the future.  

We can eliminate state laws that control the number of hospitals and clinics.  This moves some short-term healthcare costs into the infrastructure category.  Again, higher supply should lead to lower prices.  

We can give everyone in the country a wellness checkup every year.  The short term costs rise, but hopefully the long-term costs decrease.

There exists only one option that lowers both short-term and long-term costs.  Our biggest single healthcare cost in this country is type II diabetes caused by our high obesity rate.  Our obesity rate is high because of our public policy to subsidize sweeteners and animal fats rather than fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and grass-fed livestock.  This distorts our food prices to such an extent that unhealthy choices make more economic sense (for a majority of consumers) than healthy choices do.  

If we reform or eliminate the subsidies we reduce public healthcare costs by $140 billion dollars every year--a 12% reduction.  With longer, healthier lives to show for it.

As a bonus we get less topsoil erosion.  Topsoil erosion contributes as much carbon dioxide to our atmosphere as all the vehicles in our 5 largest cities combined.  That frees up even more funds in both the public and private sectors.  That's a good thing.

Can we afford to cover more people?  Without increasing the deficit?  Without raising taxes?  Without making the cost curve steeper?

I'm certain beyond a doubt that the answer is yes.

by SuperCameron 2009-08-29 11:17AM | 0 recs
Now it just got complicated

Taxes will certainly have to be raised, that, I believe, is what is causing the holdup more than anything else.

A local congressman by me said this off the record;

"It is possible to have cost control with the public option and it is possible not to have it even with it"

by DTOzone 2009-08-29 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Now it just got complicated

In what nevernever land is cost control possible without PO? They are not willing to regulate it, which requires even more arm twisting, so what's left? The power of belief?

by bruh3 2009-08-29 01:07PM | 0 recs
I'll be sure to ask

Congressman Weiner why he said that then.

by DTOzone 2009-08-29 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll be sure to ask

so you are saying that congress weiner is advocating that we can have cost control without the PO. Link to your claim. I am not interested in your conjecture.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 01:37PM | 0 recs
It's called off the record for a reason

lol. Like most of the progressive block, they're saying one thing publically, and another behind closed doors.

but keep believing those progressive Democrats will stop a bill without a public option. I feel sad for those who think they really care what you think.

by DTOzone 2009-08-30 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll be sure to ask

oh and by the way, even after you link to the cliam- explain how it will happen.

by bruh3 2009-08-29 01:37PM | 0 recs
Switzerland

Netherlands, Germany, that's how.

oh btw, perhaps the bigger story here is the developing one about how the public option may not control costs at all.

We're so focused on insurance companies and their profits being the ONLY reason costs are skyrocketing. This is wrong, it is, as the President and leadership has said, only one reason.

Doctors salaries, administrative costs, cost to manufacture drugs, etc. all these are also factors in high healthcare costs and are being ignored by progressives (this is what Weiner was referring to btw)

You solve all those things, costs will go down even without a public option, and go down more with one.

by DTOzone 2009-08-30 07:50PM | 0 recs
Mandate w/o public option

and tax credits rather than reduced monthly payments for insurance on the exchange for subsidies equals MASSIVE electoral losses for Democrats next year.

And I mean MASSIVE. I have relatives with no insurance now who don't pay taxes because of low income. How in the hell are they going to be able to pay mandated insurance premiums??

It doesn't make sense.

by Coral 2009-08-30 05:13AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads