House liberals reject healthcare "reform deal" with Blue Dog Democrats!

[Better Believe It]

Liberals protest deal with Blue Dogs
By Mike Soraghan
July 29, 2009

House liberals have quickly rejected a healthcare compromise their leaders forged with centrist Blue Dogs, putting the deal on shaky ground only hours after it was announced.

"It's unacceptable," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "We're not going to vote for anything that doesn't have a robust public plan."

The Progressive Caucus has 83 members. Members are circulating a letter for signatures protesting the deal.

Woolsey said liberals cannot accept that the public plan will not be linked to Medicare, and said subsidies have been cut to the point where the plan won't help the middle class.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), another supporter of a "robust public option," was more open to the compromise.

Capps, a member of the business-minded New Democrat Coalition, said it was too early to tell if she and other Democrats on the committee would deliver the rest of the votes to help the Blue Dog amendments pass -- despite Ross's insistence that additional votes would come from fellow Democrats, not Republicans.

Please read the complete article at:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/liberals-protest-deal-with-blue-dogs-2009-07-29.html

----------------------------------------------------------

Deal with 'Blue Dogs' sets up health care vote
By DAVID ESPO
Associated Press
July 29, 2009

After weeks of turmoil, House Democrats reached a shaky peace with the party's rebellious rank-and-file conservatives Wednesday and cleared the way for a vote in September on sweeping health care legislation.

Across the Capitol, House Democratic leaders gave in to numerous demands from rank-and-file rebels, so-called Blue Dogs from the conservative wing of the party who had been blocking the bill's passage in the last of three committees.

The House changes, which drew immediate opposition from liberals in the chamber, would reduce the federal subsidies designed to help lower-income families afford insurance, exempt additional businesses from a requirement to offer insurance to their workers and change the terms of a government insurance option.

The White House issued a statement praising the development in the House, and with appearances in North Carolina and Virginia, the president sought to minimize the significance of the slippage in his timetable.

The House deal was worked out over hours of talks that involved not only the chamber's leaders but also White House officials eager to advance the bill. It was unclear, though, what commitments Speaker Nancy Pelosi or the administration may have made to support the agreement once the bill advances to the floor this fall.

As word of the agreement spread, liberals fired back. "We do not support this," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., head of the Progressive Caucus. "I think they have no idea how many people are against this. They can't possibly be taking us seriously if they're going to bring this forward."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902598.html

-------------------------------------

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), one of the leading Blue Dog critics of the original bill drawn up by House Democratic leaders, called the changes to the government insurance plan "a huge win."

Yet there already were signs of trouble in the liberal wing of the House Democratic caucus.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) blasted the deal minutes after it was announced.

"This is not going to pass," she said. "It's a non-starter. It's going to cause havoc."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-house30-2009jul30,0,4349602.story

[Thrill]

1. Good. Fight Back

[Becky72]

2. Yes! The House showing some guts n/t

[uponit7771]

3. Unnn, I'll believe it when I see it...usually they just bend over..good for them if they are fightin

[ihavenobias]

4. K & R n/t

[dflprincess]

5. Good!

I hope they stick to it. No bill would be better than the crap they're tying to force on us.

[Better Believe It]

6. Blue Dogs Delay, Water Down House Health Care Bill

Blue Dogs Delay, Water Down House Health Care Bill
By Jeff Muskus
Huffington Post
July 29, 2009

Conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are celebrating their success in delaying a full floor vote on health care legislation past the August recess and in weakening two key provisions during their negotiations with committee Chairman Henry Waxman.

"We have successfully pushed a floor vote to September," Mike Ross (D-Ark.) told reporters Wednesday afternoon. "The American people want us to slow down, and that's what we're doing here."

The Blue Dogs wrestled major concessions out of Waxman (D-Calif.), particularly related to a public health care option and employer mandates. The committee's current version of the public option now more closely resembles that of the health committee in the Senate, Ross proudly announced.

For instance, rather than linking the public option to the rates enjoyed by Medicare, the new language would require a separate agreement with significantly higher charges, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius would also have to sign off on any deal between the public option and service providers, while the plan would lack Medicare's bargaining power.

"The public option must go out and negotiate with providers, just like private health insurance companies do," Ross said. "It's strictly optional. It won't be mandated on anyone. It will not be based on Medicare rates."

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/blue-dogs-delay-water-dow_n_247177.html

[damntexdem]

7. The Blue Dog plan would make things worse. It must be opposed.

It's not a matter of the perfect being the enemy of the good; it's a matter of garbage being the enemy of the good. The Blue Dog plan would be worse than no bill at all.

[Engineer4Obama]

8. No the house energy & commerce plan isn't that bad

your post would apply to the rumors coming out of the Max Baucus committee the committee most dedicated to max baucus anywhere!

The blue dog Compromise cut fees on companies making under a certain amount, and took out the tie in to medicare but it still has a public option (though its not tied to medicare right now)

This is HUGE news because all they need to do is get it out of committee and reconcile the hell out of it with the much more liberal other TWO bills.

Now think about this the big news today should be that four out of five commitees will pass bills with Public Options in them. One public option is slightly weaker and will most likely be reconciled into the stronger public options.

Oh I'm sorry did I get in the way of you standing WITH the status quo?

[Sebass1271]

10. could you answer my question below? you seemed to know

a lot about this plan passed by Baucus.

[Engineer4Obama]

12. I don't know that much about the baucus plan

but I've been reading up on the energy and commerce bill and the compromises didn't seem that bad to me.

[Sebass1271]

13. excuse me? you answerd the question above. You like his plan

how can you? It is not a fair plan. The plan they just agreed upon is not fair to us. The plan should have public option tied to medicare. Why did they changeit? how much money does the insurance company given to baucus? He is a sheep dressed as a democrat and so are you!

[Engineer4Obama]

16. I know general things about the baucus plan

Like the idea behind co-ops and the fact that there is no Public Option in it nor an employer mandate, but that's about it.

On EDIT:

Oh crud didn't see that "you like his plan" thing. I am advocating AGAINST baucus and for Waxman's energy and commerce committee compromise. Baucus is on the Senate finance committee.

[Better Believe It]

14. Only problem is the four bills you mention have a very weak public option.

which the vast majority of employers and individuals won't be able to join!

Only around 10 million will be part of the public option by 2019! Just about everyone else will be covered by private insurance companies, a real bonanza for them!

Read the details in the initial House and Senate bills.

The public option wasn't very good at all even before the right-wingers got their hands on it!

[Engineer4Obama]

19. You see I read this and you know what I see

10 million under the public option everyone else has insurance. That's a hell of a step in the right direction. What you are completely ignoring is the cheap affordable care many currently uninsured people would be receiving often through subsides but they would still be covered. The elimination of the Pre-Existing condition clause - a place for people between jobs to get health care. These are all better than the status quo and your upset because there is money going to the insurance industry?

I thought the goal was universal health care not STICK IT TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Yes they are evil murder by spreadsheet bastards but keep your eye on the real goal.

[robinlynne]

22. The only way we can afford universal health care is to get rid of the obscene profits the insurance

and pharma companies currently have. duh. They are all about providing only profitable health care. That does not work.

[Zhade]

42. Indeed. Once again...

[JDPriestly]

28. The problem with keeping private health insurance companies in the

picture is cost. The cost of high executive salaries, profits and advertising (among other unnecessary expenses) that the private health insurance companies require drives up the cost of health care reform. There can be no question that the single payer option set forth in H.R. 676 is the least wasteful, least expensive alternative.

The public option is a compromise to assuage the ire of the insurance gods in the private sector. Even it stinks.

If you read H.R. 676, you will realize that the single payer option gives more control to your doctor and other providers than any other proposal.

I'm posting this several times a day, but I would like everyone to take the time to look at the actual bills proposed.

H.R. 676 http://www.hr676.org/

H.R. 3200 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Town Hall at AARP: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/A-Tele-Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-at-the-AARP/

for small business owners -- written speech by President Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Health-Care-Reform-and-Small-Businesses/

[Laelth]

35. Cheap? Affordable?

You're kidding, right?

The struggling middle class can't afford any new taxes right now. In the best bill that has been proposed, HB 3200, the uninsured would have to pay a whopping new tax of between 1.5% and 11% of the gross income every year.

Listen to this very carefully. For most of the uninsured the story is the same. If they could afford insurance, they would have bought it already. We're in the middle of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Uninsured people can not afford to buy insurance. And why would they want to? Under HB 3200 no doctor and no hospital would be required to take patients covered by public option insurance.

What Congress is selling now is worse than doing nothing. "Success" (defined as passing just any old bill so that the President can say he got something done) is worse than doing nothing at all. This is how we got NAFTA, the destruction of AFDC, and Telecom 96. It is not enough for Democrats to crow about success and just pass legislation. We need for the legislation produced to be actually good for the American people.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Sebass1271]

9. it won't help the middle class? why not? so, the public plan tht

blue dogs approved will only help the poorest of the poor? how about us the working class? the family who works full time whose employer does not offer health insurance and who can't still afford health coverage because its too expensive? wht about us? will we be kept out of the public option just because my husband and I both work?

Disgraceful! These blue dogs democrats are a disgrace to our party.

[Engineer4Obama]

15. Here is where I've gotten most of my info

Some comprimises on various excemption levels, but looks okay. Looks like getting under $1 trillion was key. Public option is still included but also options on co-ops.

Looks like Rahmbo did it again.

The blue-dogs will also not stand as a group when voting.

The Blue Dogs also succeeded in cutting $100 billion from the overall cost of the bill, bringing the total price tag under $1 trillion. The legislation will now exempt small businesses with a payroll under $500,000 from paying for any government-sponsored health coverage - double the $250,000 in the initial draft.

More at the link
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/29/759276/-BreakingWaxman-gets-dealmarkup-restarts-@-4-PM

[pinto]

11. I wish any one directly involved in House discussions or the press would note some specifics, if

possible, in their statements. We get leaks, some innuendo, some spin, a quotable line.

I understand this is *far* from over and some of it's posturing on all sides of the debate. The thing is, with 24/7 cable news and the internet, a lot of it becomes the news.

I'm fine with just the facts.

[JDPriestly]

29. Here is what I have so far, but, clearly the negotiations continue.

H.R. 676 http://www.hr676.org/

H.R. 3200 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Town Hall at AARP: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/A-Tele-Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-at-the-AARP/

for small business owners -- written speech by President Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Health-Care-Reform-and-Small-Businesses/

[endarkenment]

17. We do have representatives that represent the people, just not enough of them.

[Better Believe It]

18. Waxman Postpones Health Markup Amid Liberal Backlash

Waxman Postpones Health Markup Amid Liberal Backlash
By Steven T. Dennis and Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
July 29, 2009

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) postponed the health bill markup that he planned to hold Wednesday afternoon amid a backlash from liberals to the deal that he cut earlier with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Waxman told reporters that he intended to keep meeting with committee Democrats on Wednesday night, resume the markup Thursday and still finish the bill Friday.

The weakening of the public option incensed some liberal Members, with Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) declaring she would vote against it.

“It has to be much stronger to get our support,” Woolsey said after a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who tried to sell them on the deal.

Woolsey said progressives fear that without using Medicare rates, the public option will not be able to hold down costs and force savings from private insurance companies. She said that was “great for the insurance companies” and would allow them to keep doing business as usual.

Woolsey said members of her caucus would meet at 6 p.m. to discuss their response to the deal.

“We’ve got a long way to go before this gets to the House floor,” Woolsey said.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/37359-1.html?type=printer_friendly

[pinto]

20. Glad to see it's still in process. And, it's a long way to the floor.

Allowing the Sec. of Health set the rates instead of pegging them to Medicare is an unknown, so I can see some push back there. Is it better? Worse? To be honest, I as John Q. Public don't know.

Currently Medicare pays 80% of "usual and customary charges" for office visits and procedures. I'm not sure who sets those rates.

It's worth a second look.

[JDPriestly]

30. FireDog Lake reports that Waxman took the pledge for

a public option or no reform:

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/06/24/the-pillars-of-a-robust-public-option/

current list posted on FDL:

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/07/29/fdl-action-whip-it-day-35/

[Zhade]

43. FOUR. FOUR FUCKING CONSERVATIVE "DEMS" FUCKING OVER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Blue Dogs should be thrown out of the party.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. I guess I've been watching too much sausage-making.

The apparent problem Woolsley has with the markups is that, instead of the public option using Medicare-based provider compensation for the first three years before shifting to negotiated payments, the markups empower the HHS secretary to negotiate with doctors immediately.

The downside of this is that provider payments will undoubtedly be higher.
The upside of this is that providers will be more likely to participate.

I guess it boils down to whether provider participation or cost control are more important. Arguably, since the subsidy setup makes price differences irrelevant to the middle-income person shopping for insurance, having a smaller pool of particpating providers will be a disadvantage to the public option.

I think that people are reacting to what they're seeing in the Senate, and are resistant to anything they see as giving up any ground.

[JDPriestly]

31. I expect providers to be reluctant at first but then, when they discover

that the public option makes their lives easier and that they get paid what is promised for sure, they will love it.

My experience is that people become doctors because they really want to help people. GPs in particular don't like being told by the HMO they work for that they have to hurry, hurry, hurry and can't refer people to specialists. You can't adequately counsel a morbidly obese person on his or her alternatives in just a few minutes.

And, in particular, hospitals will like the public option. They provide a lot of charity work for free. This option will mean that they get paid -- maybe less then they would like -- but a lot better than they are paid now by some of their most frequent visitors.

[Plucketeer]

23. Hooray for Woolsey!

Stick to your guns, Lois! It's time we wrangled those damned health insurance pigs to the ground! :grr:

[bvar22]

24. The Progressive Caucus has a much better record....

...of protecting Working Americans than the Blue Dogs/DLC who have proven very good at protecting Corporate Profits.

I'll stick with the Progressive Caucus until I see more details.

[truedelphi]

27. Same here. n/t

[depakid]

25. With 83 members, the Progressive Caucus is larger bloc than the blue dogs

[mmonk]

32. And they better hold together.

[GrantDem]

26. Good...

Glad to see some Progressives keeping up the fight.

[FVZA_Colonel]

33. If they get the progressive caucus united the way the Blue Dogs seem to have been,

hopefully they should be able to exert enough pressure to move this back in the other direction.

[Laelth]

34. Here's to the Progressive Caucus!

Nice to see that some legislators are actually interested in protecting the American people.

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[Better Believe It]

36. Congressional Progressive Caucus Letter to Nancy Pelosi 7/24/09

House Progressives: We Can Not Tolerate Further Weakening Of The Public Option
By Brian Beutler - July 24, 2009, 4:51PM
As if there weren't already too many factions of the Democratic party working at cross-purposes on health care, eight members of the House progressives are now saying, on behalf of the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus, that they won't tolerate any more weakening of the public option.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/house-progressive-we-can-not-tolerate-further-weakening-of-the-public-option.php

[Better Believe It]

37. "Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members of Congress are feeling betrayed"

Liberals gag over health deal
By GLENN THRUSH
July 29, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent half of Wednesday finalizing a deal with the Blue Dogs — and the other half quelling a brewing rebellion among progressives who think conservatives have hijacked health care reform.

Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members — Pelosi’s most loyal base of support — are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost.

The compromise, which still must be reconciled with competing House and Senate versions, would significantly weaken the public option favored by liberals by delinking reimbursement rates to Medicare.

“Waxman made a deal that is unacceptable,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of about 10 progressives who met repeatedly with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday.

“We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn’t include a robust public option, and this plan doesn’t have a robust public option,” he added.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) predicted that House liberals, who believe they have compromised away several core issues to further President Barack Obama’s agenda, might finally buck leadership if they are force-fed a weakened public option.

He answered “yes” emphatically when asked if progressives were willing to delay the entire process as the Blue Dogs have done.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25597.html#ixzz0Mha3ZtP3

[debbierlus]

38. Kick

[natrat]

39. good , nothing is better than a giveaway to insurance companies

[TheKentuckian]

40. There are almost 50 million that might feel a little differently but I feel ya.

[Zhade]

41. As they should. "Reform" with no real reform is a LIE.

NT!

[cabluedem]

44. Indeed.

[Odin2005]

45. Good! Screw the Dumb Dogs!!!

[Hepburn]

46. good...n/t