House Progressives Push Reid to Put Public Option Back on Table

[t0dd]

Source: Huffington Post

House progressives organizing to rescue health care reform are pressuring their Senate counterparts to go back to the provision that has most energized the party and a majority of Americans throughout the debate: The public option.

The effort was discussed during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday night, with a faction arguing that the best way to salvage reform is to persuade the Senate to pass the public health insurance option using the budget reconciliation process that needs only a majority vote.

They argued that the current bill before the House, which passed the Senate, lacks the votes needed to pass because pro-life Democrats don't believe the abortion restrictions go far enough and progressive Democrats don't like the lack of a public option, the weak affordability measures or the tax on private insurance. And nobody likes the Cornhusker Kickback, a provision won by Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson that would cover the state's Medicaid bills in perpetuity. Not even Nelson likes it anymore.

So, in order to move health care through the House, Democrats either need to pick up progressives or conservatives. And the budget reconciliation process does not lend itself to altering abortion language reform, because that wouldn't have a direct, substantial impact on the budget.

That leaves progressives as the bloc available to pick up. Their demands -- changes related to the tax on insurance, a Medicaid or Medicare expansion, and a public option -- would likely be allowable using reconciliation. (The Senate parliamentarian would have the final say.)

Two House freshmen, Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), circulated a letter, looking for signatures, that will be delivered to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday on behalf of the plan, Polis told HuffPost.

...

"It is very likely that the public option could have passed the Senate, if brought up under majority-vote 'budget reconciliation' rules," reads the letter. "While there were valid reasons stated for not using reconciliation before, especially given that some important provisions of health care reform wouldn't qualify under the reconciliation rules, those reasons no longer exist."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/house-progressives-push-r_n_438024.html

---

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/277">CALL NOW AND ASK HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO SIGN THE POLIS/PINGREE LETTER TODAY

[global1]

1. If This Happened There Would Be A Groundswell Of Support For The Dems......

it would re-energize the base. This would be the best thing that could be done and happen to the Dem Party.

[harun]

4. Agree, they need to make this happen.

[emsimon33]

19. This could just save 2010 from being a blodd bath for us in the Nov elections!

[wordpix]

81. +1 DO IT!!!!

[Jackpine Radical]

21. Amen to that.

Between this and the high-speed rail talk, maybe the Dems are starting to figure something out.

[valerief]

56. Well, the people Dems. OTOH, it would probably hurt the corporate Dems. nt

[Mithreal]

61. That groundswell might cause more people to believe in our government again.

The conservatives in both parties won't give up another inch toward universal national health care.

People believing in and participating in government is just too messy, leave it to the technocrats.

A strong public option open to everyone immediately will be a deadly blow to conservatism and they know it.

Of course, Dem Leadership is blackmailing, bribing, and threatening Progressives who sooner or later are gonna have to stop acting like chumps.

[bobbolink]

74. A "groundswell of support" is not what they want.

[wordpix]

80. no, they want no one to support them. sarcasm

[leveymg]

104. Just got off the phone - Rep. Jim Moran (VA-8) will also sign the letter!

Good man, Jim. A pleasure to have him as my Congressman. :kick: :applause:

[derby378]

2. This is what the House Dems should have been doing all along

Sending Reid a message that the House will not simply rubber-stamp a Senate bill is the right course of action.

[No Elephants]

93. I think they have been doing that all along. If they hadn't been doing that, the Senate

bill would have been on Obama's desk and signed before New Year's Day.

[w4rma]

3. Very very good. (nt)

[jsamuel]

5. Yay!

[progressoid]

6. Goodluck

They're gonna need it.

[benchwarmer]

7. Time to start taking names!

So I was listing to NPR this morning and they were interviewing the Republican Minority "leader" of the House. His comments disgusted me. He's obviously high on Massachusetts magic mushrooms, but his rhetoric on bipartisanship just is not true and made me ill.

The truth is this: Barack Obama has been holding out an Olive Branch to the Republican Party (and indeed the more conservative in his own party) since the day he took office....and they've been using it for firewood.

Now the Republicans, looking for a midterm win are turning the truth on its head and claiming that it was the Democrats that weren't acting in the spirit of cooperation (because independents love cooperation). In Repub talk that means "The Democrats weren't doing everything that we want"....but the public doesn't know that. I don't know how it is that the spin machine that seemed to be so much in Obama's favor is now so much NOT. How do we combat this bullshit?

I think one answer is pretty plain. We do what this post is about. We energize the base with initiatives geared to do so. Initiatives like a public option. Obama is playing a game like the British did in colonial times. He's marching his soldiers into the open field, in neat lines, the "proper way" that war is handled, while there are snipers in the bushes! He has to get down, get dirty and go all GREEN BERET. Politicking is dirty, civility is dead. Fight the fight!

The Democrats have to get over this bullshit about their super majority. I don't care what the Repubs say, the Democrats were woefully soft on them. It's time to strap on the exoskeleton to strengthen that soft spine and act like a majority!

[beltanefauve]

23. I like the way you write

Welcome to DU!:fistbump:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. LOL! Brilliant! The GOP have been using Obama's olive branch as firewood

Exoskeletons LOL!

Right on!

[emmadoggy]

37. Welcome to DU!

Well said.

[DKRC]

48. Damn!

You've been on a 6 year lurk. :hide:

Welcome to posting on DU. :toast:



:evilgrin:

[Mithreal]

55. +1

[nilram]

60. ++1 & +1 4 OP -nt

[Shining Jack]

68. Well said ! n/t

[DisgustedInMN]

72. Welcome to DU...

.. any chance you could whip up a speech for Barack to use tonight?

[Enthusiast]

87. +1, benchwarmer! nt

[Wapsie B]

8. Anyone wanna bet the DLCers/Rahmites will let this go anywhere?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. they had better back off!

[Krashkopf]

36. F-Rahm and F-the-DLC

The ONLY thing the President has to do to win back my support is to start acting like the man I VOTED FOR!

Yay, GO, HOUSE PROGRESSIVES!!

[cilla4progress]

9. Done!

(Pelosi anyway; my rep is a RePIG!)

[colsohlibgal]

10. We Can Hope

Maybe this will bring out the throw caution to the wind Harry Reid, they'll pass it, and life will be peachy. Maybe I'll win the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes too.

Sarcasm aside, it would be great if the party apparatus gets the message and then will go on to do right thing, take charge of all this public angst - off past history though I wouldn't bet on it.

[cowman]

17. Sen. Reid

won't allow it because Reid is in the political fight of his life for re-election here in Nv. and the public option is very unpopular in Nv. despite what other people say. As a LV Firefighter I here all the time how the majority of people I treat don't like the PO even though I try to explain to them the benefits. So don't expect anything from Reid because he is more concerned about his political carreer than the citizins

[wordpix]

84. he'd better wake up from his slumber (re: yawning at SOTU speech)

[Enthusiast]

88. The public option is wildly

unpopular in Nevada? I find that very hard to believe.

[wordpix]

102. tell the anti-public option crowd the PO spurs competition, ergo lower premiums & maybe even

cost of meds and services will result. Repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse for those who're brainwashed by the teabaggers

[No Elephants]

107. That is not what the polls show. Maybe you've been listening to the wrong people?

As you probably already know, fivethirtyeight.com provides the most reliable analysis of polls. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html

[GinaMaria]

122. Thanks for the link

The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 34 of 52 Blue Dog - held districts, and has overall popularity of 51 percent in these districts versus 39 percent opposed.

That's interesting....

[tomhayes]

11. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THIS WOULD ACTUALLY PASS THIS SENATE??

It's the right thing - and the thing people want - but it has ZERO chance of passing a senate with a 60 seat - no-read-the-phone-book-for-days-in-a-row-filibuster.

[jsamuel]

12. reconciliation = 51 votes, not 60

that is the point

[benchwarmer]

13. I dare ya

I triple dog dare the republicans to filibuster.

I quadruple dog dare the Democrats to play this game of chicken. Come on Dems!!!

I infinite dog dare the Democrats to pull a midnight special and have the votes happen when the Republicans are asleep or not on the hill. That bit of political maneuvering would be hilarious!

[jsamuel]

15. no need for the theatrics, just use reconciliation

[harkadog]

18. Can't use reconiliation for the public option.

Only for budgetary items not policy.

[Dark]

22. Actually, reconciliation can apply to any bill that decreases the defecit (sic).

nt

[jsamuel]

24. which the Public Option does by 100 Billion

[GinaMaria]

79. It does?

Where did you hear/read that? Not that I'm doubting you. I just want to learn more.

Thnx

[JDPriestly]

85. I think there was an official review of the financial impact

of each bill on the budget. The public option is one of the proposals that cuts the budget deficit over time.

[joeglow3]

63. 2 questions

I thought someone was on MSNBC about a week ago and said the Republicans can simply introduce parlimentary items ad nauseum, which would require 60 votes. Additionally, aren't items through the reconciliation process only good for 10 years?

[Enthusiast]

90. Let them try to un-do the public option

after ten years.

[No Elephants]

108. We still have 60 votes.

[joeglow3]

118. The way he explained it, it does not matter

They could literally introduce millions of procedural matters with no way to shut it down.

Now, this is as I recall the conversation. I am FAAAAR from knowledgable on this.

[No Elephants]

110. Are you sure? Cause if so, the Byrd Rule sure uses a lot of words to say something that simple.

TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 17A > SUBCHAPTER I > § 644Prev | Next § 644. Extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation
How Current is This? (a) In general
When the Senate is considering a reconciliation bill or a reconciliation resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title (whether that bill or resolution originated in the Senate or the House) or section 907d of this title, upon a point of order being made by any Senator against material extraneous to the instructions to a committee which is contained in any title or provision of the bill or resolution or offered as an amendment to the bill or resolution, and the point of order is sustained by the Chair, any part of said title or provision that contains material extraneous to the instructions to said Committee as defined in subsection (b) of this section shall be deemed stricken from the bill and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
(b) Extraneous provisions
(1)
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a provision of a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution considered pursuant to section 641 of this title shall be considered extraneous if such provision does not produce a change in outlays or revenues, including changes in outlays and revenues brought about by changes in the terms and conditions under which outlays are made or revenues are required to be collected (but a provision in which outlay decreases or revenue increases exactly offset outlay increases or revenue decreases shall not be considered extraneous by virtue of this subparagraph);
(B) any provision producing an increase in outlays or decrease in revenues shall be considered extraneous if the net effect of provisions reported by the committee reporting the title containing the provision is that the committee fails to achieve its reconciliation instructions;
(C) a provision that is not in the jurisdiction of the committee with jurisdiction over said title or provision shall be considered extraneous;
(D) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
(E) a provision shall be considered to be extraneous if it increases, or would increase, net outlays, or if it decreases, or would decrease, revenues during a fiscal year after the fiscal years covered by such reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution, and such increases or decreases are greater than outlay reductions or revenue increases resulting from other provisions in such title in such year; and
(F) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it violates section 641 (g) of this title.
(2) A Senate-originated provision shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph (1)(A) if the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the Budget and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee which reported the provision certify that:
(A) the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a provision changing outlays or revenues and both provisions together produce a net reduction in the deficit;
(B) the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution;
(C) a reduction of outlays or an increase in revenues is likely to occur as a result of the provision, in the event of new regulations authorized by the provision or likely to be proposed, court rulings on pending litigation, or relationships between economic indices and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining to the provision, other than the regulations, court rulings or relationships currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office for scorekeeping purposes; or
(D) such provision will be likely to produce a significant reduction in outlays or increase in revenues but, due to insufficient data, such reduction or increase cannot be reliably estimated.
(3) A provision reported by a committee shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph (1)(C) if
(A) the provision is an integral part of a provision or title, which if introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee, and the provision sets forth the procedure to carry out or implement the substantive provisions that were reported and which fall within the jurisdiction of such committee; or
(B) the provision states an exception to, or a special application of, the general provision or title of which it is a part and such general provision or title if introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee.
(c) Extraneous materials
Upon the reporting or discharge of a reconciliation bill or resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title in the Senate, and again upon the submission of a conference report on such a reconciliation bill or resolution, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit for the record a list of material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of this section to the instructions of a committee as provided in this section. The inclusion or exclusion of a provision shall not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
(d) Conference reports
When the Senate is considering a conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title, upon—
(1) a point of order being made by any Senator against extraneous material meeting the definition of subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), or (b)(1)(F) of this section, and
(2) such point of order being sustained,
such material contained in such conference report or amendment shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed, without intervening action or motion, to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable for two hours. In any case in which such point of order is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.
(e) General point of order
Notwithstanding any other law or rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of order as to some of the provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this section. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.

[Lance_Boyle]

25. didn't you even read the quoted parts of the article?

The Senate parliamentarian has the final say, but the PO is undoubtedly a budget-impacting proposal that CAN be done through reconciliation.

[harkadog]

29. I read them.

No comments by any Senator just non-Senators telling them what they can do. Not a reliable source.

[No Elephants]

111. Please see Reply 110.

[backscatter712]

54. Yes you can.

The public option requires seed money to start it, making it a budgetary item. It's also designed to put downward pressure on health care and insurance markets, which would in turn push down expenses for Medicare and Medicaid, thus reducing the deficit.

I'm pretty certain that the public option is Byrd Rule compliant. Besides, even if the parliamentarian objects (I doubt he will, though the GOP will), the ultimate person who gets to decide if the public option is Byrd Rule compliant is Joe Biden.

[rhett o rick]

66. Sorry, i didnt see your "yes you can" when I wrote mine. nt

[No Elephants]

112. Please see Reply 110. From the jump, every Senator I respect

has been saying that using the reconciliation process for health care reform would be very problematicc. As between say, Senator Sanders, for example, on the one hand, and a DU poster or a Huffpo contributor, on the other hand, I have to go with Senator Sanders.

If using reconciliation were that straightforward, I think they would have used it.

Besides, everyone seems to be assuming they could get 50 Senators plus Biden to vote for a public option. I'm not sure that is so.

[rhett o rick]

65. Yes you can. One way is to expand Medicare to cover those not currently covered by insurance. And

a creative admin could find other ways too, if they really wanted to.

[wordpix]

82. read the article, OK? geesh

[No Elephants]

113. Please see Reply ##'s 110 and 112.

[groundloop]

14. 50 votes + VP Biden as tiebreaker

Yes, there's a good chance this could pass the Senate. IF Reid will push it, do a little arm twisting, and tell a couple of obstructionists they can go to hell.

[No Elephants]

117. Please see Reply ##s 110, 112 and 116.

[backscatter712]

53. With reconciliation rules, there's a chance.

With 51 instead of 60 needed, we can give the finger to Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Bayh, and still have a few votes to spare. There's also the potential for more support on account of the Democrats being desperate for a victory in the face of the demoralization of the base and dropping poll numbers - they'll be strongly motivated by survival instinct with the election looming this fall, and maybe they'll be smart enough to do this just so they can save their asses.

[No Elephants]

116. Any or all of these 13 Senators could vote against a public option, maybe more.

Specter, Baucus, Carper, Tester, Begich, Pryor, Johnson and Warner, in addition to those you named,

Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Bayh.

That is the Democrats little secret. It's not only abou no Republican votes. It's not only about a few DINOS you can count on one hand.

Please see also, Replies 110 and 112.

[GinaMaria]

16. it's a hopeful headline

but I can't get excited yet. I have to actually see it to believe it. I just can't take the roller coaster ride of PO headlines. It's been going on too long.

[No Elephants]

120. +1. I reached that point months ago.

Maybe that was the point--to show us how much Democrats in Congress wanted this, but, dang it all, just could not get it done because, because, because,

Oh yeah, Olympia Snowe. Yea, that's it. That's the ticket. It's all Snowe's fault!

[cap]

20. Guys, it's time to pick up the phone and start making the calls to the Congress critters

If this is what we want, we have to make the call.

Hit the link at the bottom of the OP and make the call!

CALL NOW AND ASK HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO SIGN THE POLIS/PINGREE LETTER TODAY

[perdita9]

26. You Cannot Negotiate from a Position of Weakness

If the Progressives can stand up and pull this off they will own Congress! I went to a Moveon.org rally last night as did thousands of other Americans. Let the Progessives know you have their backs!

[Kingofalldems]

27. A big +1 for that

[budkin]

28. Please God let this happen

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. I just called my Reps to "RESCUE healthcare"

the receptionist siad that she would pass the message on. I hope that they got the message.

[wordpix]

83. call again. I'm calling in the am. I like the "Rescue" sound bite

[No Elephants]

114. You have more than one Rep?

[FailureToCommunicate]

32. That would go a long way to making it "Scott Brown. Who?"

[No Elephants]

115. Yeah, right. As soon as Brown got elected, they announced nothing was going to happen until he got

seated.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

34. Yep, it's the one shot he has at saving his seat and fellow senators. If not MA has spoken adios...

amigos.

[niceypoo]

35. But..but...but.......but, but, but,...

..what about Baucus and Lieberman? They wouldnt approve!! Purists!!!! PURISTS!!!!!!! OOOMMMMMGGGGG!!!!

[Luciferous]

38. It would be great if they actually did it, but I won't hold my breath.

[KansDem]

39. You know, you really have to wonder about the times we live in...

...when a Democratic Senate leader has to be prodded to include a provision in a bill that really helps Americans.

I hope he does it...

[No Elephants]

119. IMO, Reid gets scapegoated a lot. And he takes it. silently. And both those traits

are the reason all the Democrats in the Senate keep re-electing him minority leader and majority leader. Better for the Party to blame it all on Reid, than to admit how many Democrats refuse to vote the Democratic agenda. JMO.

[Uncle Joe]

40. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, t0dd.

[Yuugal]

41. K&R

I am hope-disabled after being had by Obama....but um......here's hoping?

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. This is the course of action I wholeheartedly support. K&R n/t

[winyanstaz]

43. I would love to see the public option go through :)

[NorthCarolina]

44. While I appreciate the efforts of the Progressives on behalf of a Public Option,

I cannot imagine the DLC will ever permit this to happen.

[dflprincess]

51. And, there is the question,

what will the progressives do if he doesn't put it back in - send a strongly worded letter? :sarcasm:

[backscatter712]

57. The biggest guns of the DLC are sidelined.

Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu no longer have veto power - with reconciliation, we can put the public option in the sidecar bill and pass it without 'em.

We've got a chance. It's still likely to be shot down, but I think we have a real fighting chance.

[NorthCarolina]

64. I'm hopeful, but no longer have it in me to be optimistic.

The DLC has never before conceded any ground to the demands of a Progressive caucus they despise. I cannot envision them not attempting to derail this maneuver in some way, shape, or form. Time will tell, and I certainly hope I am wrong, but we all have seen the power the DLC wields over the Democratic Party, and with the added benefit of a President who is one of them....lets just say I'm not going to hold my breath till a public option passes.

[midnight]

45. I know that I will never understand the waste of money spent to prevent

real access to affordable healthcare.

[pleah]

46. K&R

[Common Sense Party]

47. Yeah. Let's get our hopes up and BELIEVE this is gonna happen and

everything will be sunshine and rainbows and all will be right with the world...

...and then let us be crushed yet AGAIN by our cowardly elected "representatives" who won't act boldly. Then we can fume and rant and post thousands more threads about how the party let us down and doesn't care about us.

Been there.

Done that.

Not again.

[backscatter712]

58. See my odds below.

The odds are against a public option, but the odds are NOT zero percent. We've got a real chance of pulling this off, so I think we damned well should push for it. At least we'll go down having fought the good fight.

[Common Sense Party]

62. To dream the impossible dream...

I just don't want to see the wrist-slitting and hear the gnashing of teeth when this crashes and burns like every high hope before it.

[optimator]

49. Reid says "trust me"

you have to be one dumb fuck to trust this guy, seriously.

[Kermitt Gribble]

50. If they're going to go as far as use reconciliation,

why not just remove the age restriction on Medicare?

[backscatter712]

52. THANK YOU JARED POLIS!!!

I voted for him not long before I moved north to Betsy Markey's district. Right now, I'm happy I cast that vote!

Now's the time for all of us to call our Congresscritters and demand they resurrect the public option!

I'll pull a Mythbusters and give the odds: 10% chance that the public option is indeed resurrected and gets in the bill that goes on Obama's desk, thus getting signed into law. Not much, but we've got to push now - it's still a 10% chance, not a zero percent chance. I give a 40% chance that the public option doesn't make it, but the changes that were agreed to between the House & Senate before Choakley get in, and we get that health care bill. I give a 5% chance that instead of the Senate Bill plus reconciliation sidecar strategy, some other strategy is used and makes it. And 45% chance that the whole thing falls apart and we get nothing.

So it's about even odds that we get a health care bill, and the odds are against a public option. Nevertheless, we have a small opening for resurrecting the public option, and we need to do what we can to take it!

[mountainvue]

59. Hope he listens to them.

[rhett o rick]

67. I noticed all the DU Conserva-Dems stayed away from this post. Me thinks they dont want HCR.

But that may just be me.

[Enthusiast]

91. They are not even

Conserva-Democrats. They pretend to be. Their language betrays them for what they are. They advocate the Reich Wing position.

[rhett o rick]

96. I agree, but if i call them what I want, post will be deleted. nt

[Jefferson23]

69. Please continue to help in any way you can at the link, FDL.

They said we couldn't do it.

The proponents of the insurance industry giveaway spent $1.4 million dollars lobbying Congress every day. How could a small group of progressives beat back the machine of Big Insurance and PhRMA, who have paid off Members of Congress for decades?

But we made phone calls. We took out ads. We got members of Congress to commit to vote against any bill that doesn't have a public option. We went up to the Hill and shot videos. We took polls that show the public option is popular even among Republicans in swing districts.

And it worked. We won this round.

The myth of "60 votes" in the Senate is dead, Joe Lieberman has lost his control of the health care bill, the White House/Senate bill written by lobbyists for the benefit of big corporations is DOA, and the possibility of passing real health care reform is alive again.

We need to seal the deal for the public option in the coming weeks. Please donate what you can - $15, $25, $50 or more will go a long way to helping Firedoglake pass real health care reform. Click here:

https://secure.firedoglake.com/page/contribute/hprog

[bvar22]

70. It comes down to this, Harry:

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

It comes down to this, Harry:
Who are you working for ?

The Health Insurance Industry
OR
The American People

It IS that SIMPLE.

"By their works, you will know them."

[Enthusiast]

92. It is that simple. nt

[Jennicut]

71. I wish this would happen but Reid lets everyone down time and time again.

[Faryn Balyncd]

73. 72% of voters favor a public option - But only 34% think Senatebill is "better than passing nothing"

K & R



The Senate bill is TOXIC ----not only bad policy, but suicidal politics.


The GOP's dream is for Democrats to pass a wildly unpopular no-public-option MANDATORY corporate insurance bill that they can run against. Although the Senate bill is a virtual clone of the 1993 Republican "alternative reform", in 2010 the Republicans can blame the mandate on Democrats.


We must kill the Senate bill resurrect a real Public Option, or Medicare Buy-In.






:hi:





:kick:

[bobbolink]

75. Good for Polis. He's done some questionable things, but this sounds good.

I get email from Winograd.

[alp227]

76. Too bad Pun-DLC brainwashed too many Democratic congress members

Thank you for providing the DemocracyforAmerica.com link. Is that phone number open 24/7, or should I wait till tomorrow morning? I think I can call my representative and Speaker Pelosi before my evening computer engineering class.

[yurbud]

77. how do you push a sock full of jello?

[GinaMaria]

78. Ever feel like you're getting played?

It was clear from the SOTU tonight that Obama wants Health Insurance Reform not Health Care Reform. He spoke of lower, more affordable premiums. It sounded like the senate bill to me. I think these 'news' stories get 'leaked' to back us off. :tinfoilhat: Just sayin', I feel like I've been on this roller coaster ride before. I really hope these guys hold out, but history is not on our side.

[No Elephants]

121. See Reply # 120.

Great minds think alike?

In fairness to Obama, I think he described the Senae bill because he thinks that's what he can get, if anything. If a bill with a public option were to land on his desk, I think he'd sign it, and happily. But, abovve all, he wants to get something done so he can declare victory. JMO, of course.

[Enthusiast]

86. I signed and called.

Look, this is the only option if we want to moderate the disappointment in the Democratic Party brand. People want this Public Option!

[Enthusiast]

89. If we don't restore the Public Option

the GOP will gain many seats. If we use budget reconciliation to get the Public Option it will energize Democrats and the party will gain in approval.

The GOP would pass anything they want with a 59 to 41 majority. That is a fact.

[freddie mertz]

94. Let's do it! K & R!

[GinaMaria]

95. The PO is a way to keep the Insurance Co Bailout

in check. I really hope they can pull this off, but recent history has shaken my confidence in getting a PO.

[lonestarnot]

97. kiCK

:kick:

[GOTV]

98. Without a real PO there is no real reform nt

[Odin2005]

99. K&R!

[NewJeffCT]

100. This has no chance of passing in the House

I appreciate the effort, but HCR with the abysmal Stupak-Pitts amendment barely passed the House before. I don't think it could pass without him.

[Myrina]

101. Prez O said last night "If you have a better idea, bring it" ... Well ...

... here's the better idea. Why the hell was it taken 'off the table' in the first place?!?!?

[NewJeffCT]

105. I know - why take single-payer off the table in the first place

word the bill as budgetary and keep it there and get the Dems together & threaten to pass it via reconciliation... then, see how fast the Republics offer up a strong public option as the alternative. Voila, you have a bipartisan bill with support on both sides.

[No Elephants]

109. Because Obama took it off the table during the primaries.

[orbitalman]

103. 1/28 Public Option: Representative Alan Grayson delivered...

Representative Alan Grayson delivered your petition signature to the Senate along with and those from over 200,000 others members of CREDO Action, Democracy for America (DFA) and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC).

[Hubert Flottz]

106. Like pushing a limp wet noodle.

He wouldn't do anything his "Good Friend" Joe LIEberman wouldn't do.