House Democrats pessimistic about public option

[oreo3leg]

I really have no hope of a public option coming out in the final version.


http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/house_democrats_pessimistic_about_public_option.html

House Democrats pessimistic about public option

Source: Associated Press Online | December 28, 2009


RELATED
Doughtnut hole in Medicare coverage

By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28, 2009 (AP Online delivered by Newstex) -- House Democrats aren't optimistic that a government insurance plan, a central element of health care legislation passed in their chamber, will survive negotiations with the Senate.

While insisting "it's not dead," Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said Sunday he recognizes realities in the Senate, where Democrats had to scrape up every vote from their side to pass a bill -- even one without a government plan to compete in the private insurance marketplace.

"Before the House was to give up the public option, we would want to be persuaded that there are other mechanisms in whatever bill comes out that will keep down premiums," said Van Hollen. "We've got to make sure that the final product is affordable."

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and one who had appealed to President Barack Obama not to yield on the public plan, set out conditions for yielding himself.

"We want a public option to do basically three things: Create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies, and to contain costs," Clyburn said. "So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I'm all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence."

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., underscored the divisions Democrats will need to bridge when negotiators from the House and Senate meet next month to reconcile the two bills. He said there will need to be more give on the House side than the Senate, which took weeks to find the 60 votes needed for passage.

"If we are going to have a final law, it will look a lot more like the Senate version than the House version," Menendez asserted.

...............

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina voiced similar hope, to opposite ends: "a few Democrats to stand up in the House that maybe didn't before and help us stop this thing."..................
:scared:

[mdmc]

1. wait until house dems see how the working poor can't pay for treatment

God willing the health insurance industry will bribe all the dems so that they can pay for re-election.

[chimpymustgo]

2. We MUST have a public option and restore ABORTION rights. Otherwise KILL the BILL.

[customerserviceguy]

3. Anybody expecting this bill to be any better

than either the existing House or Senate bills after the conference committee is just fooling themselves. I expect it to have the worst of both bills.

Agreed, kill the bill. All we're going to witness is the game of hot potato where each side of Congress wants to make sure the other side is blamed for it's death.

[mmonk]

4. I find it interesting that the most powerful and largest body of our

government the Constitution provides seems to be the weakest in today's perverted form of government. Most of the power and duties enumerated in the Constitution were devoted to the Congress. While the Senate is a house of Congress, The largest is by far the House. If it cannot wield any legislative power now, the process is broken.

[KharmaTrain]

7. It's More Systemic...

This is a problem that runs throughout all branches of the government. The past 30 years we've seen its role change from being an honest broker for all people to serving the needs of special interests...the people who give the politicians the millions they need to run their non-stop campaign machines and inflated egos. We also have a media that has been deregulated and corrupted into playing up the big lies and distorting and perverting complex issues that echo inside the beltway and have a big effect on how our government acts.

The Senate is the worst these days as the rushpublicans are using every loophole and procedure to obstruct any actions of the House. This has been the case for a while as under Pelosi you'll see she's passed out a lot of Progressive legislation only to have it tabled or just plain ignored in the Senate since Reid is afraid to ruffle feathers. He boxed himself into always needing 60 votes that allows scumbags like Lieberman to play games and Reid to cave.

And don't forget a judiciary that has been plagued by nearly 30 years of rushpublican appointments that helped throw one election and is the quiet moles waiting to block any attempts to curb the corporate power. A sad picture, but one that has to be faced if there's going to be any real way to bring about change...as well as understanding why things went the way they did.

Cheers...

[mmonk]

9. While we can't change the damage to the judicial branch for

awhile we can change Congress if we have the will. The Constitution devotes 58% of its enumeration of powers of Congress, 18% devoted to powers of the executive branch, and 7% on enumeration of powers about the judiciary. If the Congress wants to, it can impeach the other branch members and those other branches have no such power. It is clearly, Constitutionally, the most powerful even though there exists checks and balances. All of this is clearly in my mind a question of will of the members of that body. We must act to make it more representative of our needs and desires.

[KharmaTrain]

10. There's Where Our Work Is Cut Out...

The saying "you get the government you deserve" comes to mind. Many thought last year's election was the end of a road...getting rid of booosh and relegating the rushpublicans to minorities, but in essence that's where a new road began. Now, how many see that road and are willing to move forward? Looking at all the frustration around here, it's not very clear.

The House should be the agent of change as it is the closest thing we have to representative rule. However, it's become very provincial in how it operates and who it serves. The voters are only catered to after the lobbyists and big money interests get their grease. With the average House seat costing at least $1 million every two years, the money always comes before the ideology and then self interests follow closely. Congress abdicates its power cause it serves a bigger picture for its members and its party. There's a stalemate as neither party will cede their power and will always work to preserve whatever advantages it has...thus once power is given away, it's rare to be taken back.

Yes, we can make change and it has to be from the bottom up...bringing a new focus to Congress, but it has to be done using the current rules before you can change them. This means supporting and electing more Progressives...especially in 2010. If you look closely, we've never been closer to gaining some true change, but it's always the last miles that are the toughest. If Democrats can target and pick up a couple open Senate seats (Florida, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio) and the netroots gets behind electing more Progressives...be it in primaries and general elections, the balance can start truly moving in a more progressive direction.

Remember, it wasn't FDR's win in 1932 that secured the New Deal...it was the 1936 landslide.

[mmonk]

13. Yes indeed, correct on so many accounts.

And you are right about last year's election not being the end of the road, but the beginning of a new road.

[OHdem10]

5. Yes, anI I am pessimistic about their next election.

[Mari333]

6. oh they are wringing their hands and have the *vapours*

no spines.
and they will , many of them, have wonderfully cushy retirements when they get kicked out of office thanks to the blood money they took from the insurance companies.
and some of them. very cushy jobs.
they are in office to please themselves. thats all.

[freddie mertz]

8. We have to hold them accountable if they betray their promise.

Pressure them NOW, and remember what they do in 2010.

[thotzRthingz]

11. I'm with you... and have informed my Senators/Congressman of same...

But I don't think this thing will pass without some major necessary changes.

Without, at minimum, a PUBLIC OPTION (better still SINGLE-PAYER)... this thing (particularly the SENATE version) is destined to failure... any individual, and potentially every, STATE can simply "opt out" of anything which they consider to be "unconstitutional"

also see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7354814
(Proposed health care reform... can this really pass a Constitutional challenge?)

[laughingliberal]

12. I'd be happier if they were addressing some of the other major problems with the Senate bill

Even the PO that is in the House bill is so weak it is just barely better than not having one. I have not heard them address any of the other provisions that are better in their bill than the Senate. For instance, fighting for their surtax on the wealthy instead of the 'cadillac tax' in the Senate bill. Also we need to push them to fight for their community rating allowances over the Senate. Certainly, continue to write in support of the public option but, also, write about these other provisions. Otherwise, this stuff is flying under the radar and will get rubber stamped. In the end, letting the revenue sources and the community rating allowances of the Senate get through even with the public option would be worse than getting the current Senate bill with the weak public option in the House bill.

[freddie mertz]

14. Great point! The HC Benefit tax is especially egregious.

And yet, crickets chirp in the Dem caucus as Unions are placed on the altar of political expediency.

[laughingliberal]

15. It is a way to tax some workers and middle class people without...

"technically" breaking the promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Once again, the working and middle class bear a big part of the brunt of transferring money up to the wealthy corporations.

[freddie mertz]

16. And yet, Obama campaigned AGAINST this very tax when proposed by McCain.

I agreed with him THEN.

Not so much these days....sigh.

[laughingliberal]

18. Yes, he did.

But, I'm sure if this is pointed out we will hear that he did not. You must remember, he did NOT campaign on the public option.

[freddie mertz]

19. Yes, that too. First we read that we have no right to criticize on Afghanistan...

....because he CAMPAIGNED on that policy.

THEN when he completely reverses policy as he has on may (most?) aspects of HCR, it's "never mind," or "he's got no power in congress," or "he never said that."

Most infuriating.

[laughingliberal]

20. You would almost think that right to seek redress from our government is N/A if a Democrat is

in charge. Why are we being bashed for questioning this crap?

[freddie mertz]

21. There must be many reasons.

Here's three possible ones:

1. Some people want to hold on to that first glow of excitement.

2. Some want to defend against a Republican return at any cost.

3. Some of it is probably coordinated or encouraged by political operatives connected to the WH.

[oreo3leg]

23. I sigh with you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Earth to House Dems: Grow a spine already!

Be as stubborn as the Republicans for once.

[TransitJohn]

22. Of course there won't be a public option.

That's been the point all along. Because if there were, a guy like we would ditch my plan and buy in to a government run not-for-profit medicare-for-all type plan in a heartbeat, because I'm a commie pinko liberal. For information's sake, I have a great health plan through my employer, into which I kick $200/month and they kick in ~$700/month (self and one dependent child). This is about ensuring insurance profits, pure and simple. Think AIG. Can't wait to see how the Supreme Court rules on the individual mandate.