Pelosi: No To BaucusCare, Yes To Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:57:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Think Progress:

Wendell Potter:

A public option must be created to provide true choice to consumers or reform will fail to fix the root of the severe problems that have been caused in large part by the greedy demands of Wall Street. By creating a strong public option and restricting the insurance companies’ ability to enrich executives and investors at the expense of taxpayers and consumers, HR 3200 [the House health bill] will truly benefit Americans. [. . .] The Baucus plan, on the other hand, would create a government subsidized monopoly for the purchase of bare bones high deductible policies that would truly benefit big insurance. In other words, insurers would win, your constituents would lose.”

< Everybody Hates BaucusCare . . . Except Obama? | BaucusCare: "A Bipartisan Bill With No Bipartisan Support" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pelosi: No To BaucusCare, Yes To Public Option | 43 comments (43 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think the house (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:06:42 PM EST

is going to save the day

Yup! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:11:58 PM EST

Looks that way, fortunately.
A public option MUST be a part of healthcare reform!


The House & the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by christinep on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:30:48 PM EST

At some point, the other "reconciliation" that will occur in conference committee involves what often is a normal situation of the House version ultimately being more progressive than the Senate as both bodies play to their respective audiences. The role of the future conferees here could be compelling. Apart from the real seriousness and importance of the subject, there is an intriguing quality about where the process eventually leads. Earlier, Andgarden remarked that we may see something like a co-op or pool that actually had the characteristics of a public option. I tend to agree that such an amalgam is highly possible.


I'm fairly pessimistic on this (none / 0) (#10)
by Left of the Left on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:46:58 PM EST

If Pelosi views the public option as not happening, what would be her best political move? Would it not be for her to talk tough on it so as not to be blamed for its failure? Basically what Obama's doing now.

This was the reality as I saw it pre-speech and I dont see how it has fundamentally changed now:

-Public option had high public approval 60-70%
-Nate Silver points out it was even high in Bluedog districts.
-Obama, while voicing strong personal support, will not strong arm the bluedogs, will not issue veto threat.

So given that, what's so reassuring about Pelosi's support? If she could reign in the bluedogs ok, but she cant. I hope I'm just being overly cynical, but what does this change really?


Her best political move? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:08:57 PM EST

Given her role, it would be to acknowledge reality. There is nothing that's less in the interests of a Speaker of the House than to "talk tough" about something she knows can't pass.


Pelosi has been (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by SGITR on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:35:21 PM EST

sending mixed signals in the last week. I'm not exactly sure where she stands right now because she has backed off her tough talk on insisting on a public option. She has been saying very openly that we need to pass something.

This is the first time in a week I heard her say that the public option is needed. However she didn't go so far as to say that a bill would not pass the House without it did she?


Perhaps (none / 0) (#27)
by Left of the Left on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:01:05 PM EST

Perhaps she needs not worry about her personal political future. But that doesnt change anything else I pointed out. Lets say she is just putting on a show, how does this change things?


: *isnt just putting on a show (none / 0) (#28)
by Left of the Left on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:02:15 PM EST

d'oh

: Doesn't change things at all (none / 0) (#41)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:19:02 PM EST

The rest of your comment I basically agree with. I'm just trying to point out that it's not a question of Pelosi's "support." What she supports and doesn't support has only minimal impact in this particular melodrama.
And in any case, when she says something about the prospects for the PO passing the House or not passing the House, it has nothing to do with her personal support, it's just her assessment of where the vote count is going.

So, will the real Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by Anne on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:00:44 PM EST

please stand up?

From September 11th:

In separate news conferences yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "signaled their willingness to drop a government run public health insurance option from a final health-care bill." "This is about a goal. It's not about provisions," said Pelosi. Reid said a co-op could "fill the bill" if "it makes more competition and it makes the insurance companies honest."

From CNN:

"This is about a goal. It's not about provisions," Pelosi said, adding that as long as legislation meets goals of "affordability and accessibility and quality" then we will go forward with that bill."
[snip]
She said she still thinks a public option is the best way to achieve those goals, but when asked if inclusion of a public option was a non-negotiable demand -- as her previous statements had indicated -- Pelosi ruled out any non-negotiable positions.

I think that was the Nancy Pelosi who was going to have a meet-and-greet fundraiser at the home of UnitedHealth lobbyist Steve Elmendorf - coincidence? Puh-leeze.

For me, the key sentence in the Think Progress piece is:

We want the private insurance to thrive

.
And as you read the entire quoted comment, pay attention also to:

And you cited a public option as one way for it to reach its achieve its goal.

Get that? One way.

Gosh, it would be nice if we could just take people's words at face value and not have to parse them to divine their real meaning. And even nicer if we could count on a consistent message from one day to the next as to what people are for, if we knew what is and is not negotiable, and if we had any idea what these Democrats believed in other than money and the glory of their own wonderfulness.

Me? I'm just about over it, all of it. I know we're not supposed to name-call here, but these people have a stone cold lock on idiocy, and it's time for us to stop suffering these fools gladly - heck, we shouldn't have to be suffering them at all.

: Is my memory totally shot? (Don't (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:23:27 PM EST

answer that!). Didn't Pelosi advocate no telecomm immunity and then vote for FISA revise which included telecomm immunity? Why is she now touted as a hold-the-line advocate of a public option?

Tom Harkin (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:24:57 PM EST

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin predicts Congress will approve a health care reform bill this fall that includes a public option, saying a "silent majority" of Americans favor such an overhaul. . . . Harkin's views have grown in importance since he was named chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee after the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy.

I'm glad Harkin's views have grown in importance. He is one of the last liberals left standing.

And Rockefeller: (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:32:22 PM EST

Rockefeller told reporters he was unhappy with the lack of a government-run "public" insurance option in the bill, which is scheduled to be made public on Wednesday..."There is no way in its present form that I will vote for it"


Rockefeller No to BaucusCare (5.00 / 5) (#26)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:00:01 PM EST

Yes to Public Option.

"There is no way in its present form that I will vote for it," Rockefeller said during a conference call co-hosted by the liberal Campaign for America's Future
. ...
Rockfeller said he'll sponsor an amendment in committee to add a public option to the bill, and will have other amendments as well.  "I'm not going to worry about, 'Is it coming out of the committee or is not coming out of the committee?' " Rockefeller said. "I'm going to vote the way I feel." TheHill

Thanks. (none / 0) (#29)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:02:40 PM EST

Someone's gotta teach me how to do that.


Link intructions (for Windows) (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:13:36 PM EST

Use your mouse or touchpad to highlight the URL to which you want to link.
With the link highlighted, hold down the Ctrl key while pressing the C key to copy the URL to your clipboard.
Use your mouse or touchpad to highlight one or more words in your comment.
With the word(s) highlighted, look at the buttons above the comment box and press the one that looks like a link in a chain. The link box will open.
Place your cursor in the window of the link box. Hold down the Ctrl key while pressing the V key to copy the URL into the window. Be sure to remove the extra http:// that may appear at the beginning of your link.
Preview your comment, and click on the blue word(s), which now should represent your link. If you did everything right, you will be taken to the page you linked to.

Thank you, Spamlet. n/t (none / 0) (#34)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:20:45 PM EST

Here's my method: copy link, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by oculus on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 06:31:47 PM EST

paste in comment box. Enclose in brackets. Just after the initial bracket, type "link" or whatever words you want to show up. Preview.


: Thank you, oculus. n/t (none / 0) (#42)
by ChiTownDenny on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:27:36 AM EST

De nada (none / 0) (#36)
by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:25:09 PM EST

oops, link (none / 0) (#24)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:34:14 PM EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE58E6TL20090915


Courtesy of waldonpond (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:07:17 PM EST

How to link (none / 0) (#34)
by waldenpond on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:13:17 PM CST
How to link:
1.    Type a word 'link' (or any word/s)
2.    Copy the url address that is at the very top of the screen. (I have the article I am going to link to open on my tabbed browsing.)
3.    Highlight the word 'link'
4.    Click chain link button above the comment box.
a.    (Note: mine is blocked so I must press my shield, select unblock and press the link button a second time)
5.    Paste in the url. (the letters http are already in the box so make sure you override them)
6.    Press preview to make sure you see your word/s in blue
7.    Press post

Or you can try tiny url (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by Rhouse on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM CST
go HERE and read the instructions. I use it to send links through the mail and at TL when I forget what to do for embedding links.


Thank you, MO Blue. n/t (none / 0) (#35)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:23:31 PM EST

Btw, CTD, with this method (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Cream City on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 06:23:15 PM EST

it only works for me, but it works well, if I first boldface the word(s) that will be the highlighted link; then I go back and highlight them again and click the link box; then I insert the URL there.

To see if whichever method you use has worked, try Preview first before Post. If it hasn't worked, swear at your computer and/or cat, then try again.


: Thank you, Cream City. n/t (none / 0) (#43)
by ChiTownDenny on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:28:34 AM EST

Bipartisan bill with no bipartisan support (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 05:27:36 PM EST

As one top Democrat told me, the fundamental problem is that Democrats "are being asked to support a bipartisan bill that doesn't have bipartisan support." The compromise without the cover. h/tMyDD

I would prefer if the Dems were more concerned with providing good quality health care and less about covering their a$$.

: In your dreams. (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 05:37:50 PM EST

Should we trust Wendell Potter, former (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:09:16 PM EST

PR chief of Cigna, who has recently switched sides?

: I think we should (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:15:57 PM EST

I have seen him a couple of times. he seems like the real deal to me.

Just a few days ago (none / 0) (#3)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:10:16 PM EST

Sirota thought Nancy was going to cave.

I'm not sure what to believe anymore.

: I read that. (none / 0) (#5)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:13:48 PM EST

It unnerved me. Seems the noise is working...to efffect change or increase my blood pressure. Time will tell. ;)

Nancy is cagey (none / 0) (#7)
by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:39:50 PM EST

First she says that the House doesn't want to pass "a plan that doesn't really achieve its goal."

Then she tells Potter, "You've cited the public option as one way for it to reach its goal."

She goes on to say, "We want the private sector to thrive" and "We don't want our members [members of what? an exchange?] to go into an exchange where they only have one choice, where there's sole sourcing," and then this semi-nonsequitur directly follows: "but that the public option provides that competition."

Some wiggle room here?

More like some (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:43:49 PM EST

inarticulate Speaker.


: As always (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:50:11 PM EST

: Let's just say (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:57:22 PM EST

I have trust issues:

"This is about a goal. It's not about provisions," Pelosi said, adding that as long as legislation meets goals of "affordability and accessibility and quality . . . then we will go forward with that bill."
She said she still thinks a public option is the best way to achieve those goals, but when asked if inclusion of a public option was a non-negotiable demand--as her previous statements had indicated--Pelosi ruled out any non-negotiable positions.

: Thank God it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:10:17 PM EST

up to her to explain the policy to the public...

Agree (none / 0) (#9)
by waldenpond on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:46:30 PM EST

I thought she was iffy. Baucus bill sets a priority of a thriving public sector, it seems she agrees. I have heard Potter speak several times and Congress is not listening. PIPPEA


: private not public (none / 0) (#11)
by waldenpond on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:47:17 PM EST

Yup. (none / 0) (#14)
by dk on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:58:16 PM EST

The "one way" language came straight from Obama.

Nothing to see here...


: Yup. I've been wishing the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:27:18 PM EST

would stay 'on message' for years...but I wish it were a message I liked.

My prediction: (none / 0) (#17)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:09:47 PM EST

The Baucus plan for a bill, for the most part, will be shoved to the wayside.

: Your lips to god's ears... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by denise k on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:06:15 PM EST

The health care schism (none / 0) (#32)
by joze46 on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:12:46 PM EST

Isn't it curious that "We the People" have essentially given way trillions of dollars over the past century without options and much of it secretly via the Federal Reserve?

Now, all to improve the welfare and general prosperity, but, to even suggest having a public option in health benefits for everyone is considered foul, not to be able to use our pool of tax money to encourage a free market is a spectacle in contradiction of Republican conservatism.