home

Pelosi: House Will Pass A Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:20:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Brian Beutler reports:

[Speaker Nancy] Pelosi said afterward that there's a good chance that Congress will have a bill on the President's desk by Christmas. But asked by TPMDC whether she believed that, if given the choice, Obama would ultimately choose to endorse a bipartisan bill over a bill with a public option, Pelosi demurred. "You'll have to ask him," she said, "but I'll tell you what will pass the House: a bill with a public option."

(Emphasis supplied.) Speaker Pelosi is telling everyone what the House is gonna do. Any Dem that wants to kill the public option will have to do it openly.

Speaking for me only

< Bernie Kerik Pleads Guilty to Lying To Government and Tax Evasion | MTV Denies Building Wall Around Berlin Wall Concert Site >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pelosi: House Will Pass A Public Option | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good for her (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:21:50 PM EST
    Now I just wish the Dems would boldly define the expansive parameters of the public option that MUST be passed.

    It means nothing (none / 0) (#27)
    by SOS on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    because the cost of Medical Treatment is still going to remain the same.

    Parent
    It doesn't mean NOTHING (none / 0) (#62)
    by coigue on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:56:20 PM EST
    since the cost was going to go up.

    Parent
    Reproductive Freedom and Abortion (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    Whether the House passes a public option may depend attempts by anti-choice forces to sacrifice the reproductive freedom of those who buy the public  option or who participate in private plans with federally subsidized credits.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1&ref=us  I hope pro choice democrats can muster a majority to defeat restrictive amendments.

    Nancy saying the House will (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    pass a bill with a public option reminds me that I have to buy a new oven; I can't tell you which one, what it will look like, how many bells and whistles it will have, or how much it will cost, but I've narrowed it down, and I'm buying one.

    Where I make out better than Nancy is that I don't have to worry about finally picking one out only to have "the Senate" - i.e., my husband - try to talk me out of it, or put the kibosh on my plan, as he is fully on board.  He's not a Blue Dog, he's just a Man Who Likes To Eat.

    But, wait!  There's more!  Get this: even though we already have a microwave and a toaster oven and a fireplace and don't technically "need" an oven, we can still get one, and it will work for us, and for everyone who wants to use it!  I won't even have to cook 30% of my food somewhere else before I can use the stove - how cool is that?  

    And, glory be, I will not have wait three-plus years for it to be delivered.

    Hey now (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    I don't wanna be the Senate, just cause I'm the guy.  You be the Senate!

    Parent
    Well, in fairness, my husband is no (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    Harry Reid, thank goodness, but it seemed to me that the Senate is going to be the roadblock to the/a public option, so, since Nancy's adamant about passing a bill with a public option, and I'm adamant that I'm buying an oven, that's just the way it all worked out.

    But if you wanna be the woman, well, I can't stop you...  ;-)

    Parent

    At least you will have something (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:59:46 PM EST
     to stick your head in when you can't afford health care.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by eric on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:46:10 PM EST
    good one.  Here's to hoping the oven works great - so great that everybody wants one.

    Parent
    Great analogy (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    It's hard to know if the dems who vote "yea" are actually worse than the ones who vote "nay" until we know what the plan is they are voting on.

    Parent
    Well, I know what a public option is, (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    but what is an oven?  And, why is it in the bill? Does it include a trigger, too?  Do I opt into it or out of it?  It is all so confusing.

    Parent
    If you will tell me what a (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    public option is, I will tell you what an oven is, and I will even cover the subject of...the cooktop.

    But, here's a little preview: with an oven, you can have both the "in" and the "out," AND you can even have "on" and "off."  How about that?

    You put the food "in" the oven, and then later, you take it "out."  Or, you have the "option" to use the cooktop, in which case you put the pan "on" the burner," put the burner "on," and then you take the pan "off" and turn the burner "off," too.

    It;s way more complicated than health care, because you have all those temperature settings, there are recipes to tell you how long something should be in the oven, and there are lights that can be on or off, and - hold onto your hat - there's a drawer underneath for storage.

    Okay, your turn - what's a public option and how does it work?  Can I have one?  How much will it cost me?  

    Parent

    I am reading all the public option manuals (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    and will get back to you within the decade. Thank you for your patience.

    Parent
    Triggers on an oven (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    a good thing, health care, not so much  ;)

    Parent
    Neigh (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    Obama is drawn to Olympia Snowe's Trigger, but I like Roy Roger's much better.

    Parent
    There isn't and won't be a (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by esmense on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    "bi-partisan" bill. A bill that Snowe signs off on won't be "bi-partisan." It will just be a bill designed, inexplicably, to cater solely to the sensibility of one senator -- whose views aren't representative of her party, a majority of her constituents, OR, MOST IMPORTANT, THE VIEWS, NEEDS AND PREFERENCES OF THE VAST NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO ELECTED THIS PRESIDENT TO REFORM OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

    The administration's willingness to sell the American people down the river in exchange for this pathetic, fingernail size fig leaf of phoney bi-partisanship (to protect him from what? accusations of being too progressive? demands that he be more progressive?) is infuriating.

    I'll believe it when I see it (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    Especially as Dems in red states are rethinking their votes on a whole host of issues coming up.

    The Dem who are going to vote against anyway? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    Look, you have been sounding this smae line for a while now.

    Here's what you never understood - Gene Taylor, Travis Childers, Jim Marshall, et al were NEVER EVER going to vote for a public option. EVER.

    They are not undecided.

    Now the weasel who was never going to vote for it but pretended he would, Jim Cooper, is making noises. but he was always, I mean ALWAYS a No vote.

    But there are not 40 Nos in the Dem Caucus in the House.

    There simply is no doubt the House will pass a public option. None.

    The rest of them, we'll see.

    Parent

    Peolsi, (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:39:25 PM EST
    when asked if she has the 218 votes, she said they "will" have the votes on Saturday, which means she doesn't have them yet.  I think more Dems who were on the fence, are going to be more cautious now after Tuesday's elections.

    Then you have people like Kucinich and Raúl Grijalva who aren't going to vote for it either unless there is a robust public option.  Loretta Sanchex went from "yes" to "undecided" (Loretta Sanchez!).  Ike Skelton is a "no".  Keith Ellison is "undecided".  (All from a whip count on 11/3)

    Parent

    House Whip Clyburn (none / 0) (#6)
    by WS on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    sounded cautiously confident they have the votes on Andrea Mitchell Reports today.  I think that if they delay the bill, that means they don't have the votes yet, but if they send the bill to the floor this Saturday, that means they're confident of victory.  

    Parent
    That could also be spin (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    Look - I'd love two be wrong this - I hope I am.  But this is just posturing right now.

    And it won't matter anyway, as the Senate bill won't have it and my guess is, it won't come out of reconciliation with a public option, but will come out will be complete garbage anyway.

    Parent

    you are wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    And I think you know you are wrong.

    The last graf of your comment is of course the REAL issue.

    Parent

    Keith Ellison is a Blue Dog now? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    Of course the Progressive Block is still bargaining.

    But that is NOT what you wrote in your first comment.

    You were talking about Blue Dogs.

    BTW, Loretta Sanchez is a Yes vote. you know it. I know it. She knows it. Who are you kidding here?

    As for Clyburn, well, his connection to the Obama WH is patent.

    There are 218 votes for the House bill. You know it and I know it. Pelosi knows it. Clyburn knows it.

    The only reason it would not get 218 votes would be if it did not come up for vote. Which would be the House doing Obama's bidding.

    I think Pelosi answered that question.

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    BTW, Loretta Sanchez is a Yes vote. you know it. I know it. She knows it. Who are you kidding here?

    I'm just going by her own answer to The Hill newspaper (see the whip count link)

    And Keith Ellison's own response as well.  (again, see the link).  It's as of the 3rd - he is reading the bill and/or is undecided.  I'm not making this stuff up, as you seem to be accusing me of, so know, neither you nor I know if I'm wrong.

    Parent

    Keith Ellison's answer leads you to believe (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    He is a Blue Dog? Really?

    As for Loretta Sanchez, she's a Yes vote and you know it.

    Parent

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    Where did I say Ellison was a Blue Dog?  Kucinich said he would be hard pressed to vote for it if it didn't contain a robust public option - does that mean I said he was a Blue Dog too?  

    Pretzel logic.

    Parent

    Pretzel logic indeed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    "I'll believe it when I see it (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    Especially as Dems in red states are rethinking their votes on a whole host of issues coming up."

    Citing the Progressive Block for that proposition is pretzel logic.


    Parent

    What progressive block? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    1. Dems (both House and Senate) in red states ARE rethinking their positions on a whole host of things now after Tuesday's elections.  You honestly think they wouldn't?  Even Mark Warner said the Dems "got walloped". You think some of these guys aren't worried about their jobs?

    2. And again, here's the updated whip count (updated today at 1:55 pm).  It shows, based on media reports and their own answers, what Dem members are thinking about the bill.

    Below is a list of selected Democrats and their positions on the House healthcare reform bill based on media accounts, press releases and spokesmen for the lawmakers.

    UPDATED 11/5/09 1:55 p.m.

    YES OR LEANING YES
    Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
    G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
    Steve Cohen (Tenn.) Called the measure "America's bill"
    Gerry Connolly (Va.) Had expressed concern about tax provisions in initial bill
    Henry Cuellar (Texas) Got tort provisions added, though still wary of costs
    Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
    Sam Farr (Calif.)
    Debbie Halvorson (Ill.)
    Alcee Hastings (Fla.)
    Steve Kagen (Wis.)
    Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) Leaning yes
    Dale Kildee (Mich.)
    Ron Kind (Wis.) Voted no in Ways and Means Committee
    Brad Miller (N.C.)
    Jim Langevin (R.I.) Opponent of abortion rights
    Tom Perriello (Va.) Held many town halls this summer
    Jared Polis (Colo.) Voted no in Education and Labor Committee
    Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) Voted no in Ways and Means Committee
    Nick Rahall (W. Va.)
    John Salazar (Colo.)
    Mark Schauer (Mich.) NRCC quickly pounced on Schauer's support of bill
    Dina Titus (Nev.) Voted no in Education and Labor Committee
    Paul Tonko (N.Y.) Leaning yes
    Tim Walz (Minn.) "I think we're getting there."
    Diane Watson (Calif.) Praised bill in speech on the floor
    Peter Welch (Vt.)

    NO OR LEANING NO
    John Boccieri (Ohio) Leaning no, citing cost-containment concerns
    Dan Boren (Okla.) A firm no
    Artur Davis (Ala.) Gubernatorial candidate says, "We risk a disaster if we get this wrong."
    Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) Wants changes to abortion-related provisions
    Parker Griffith (Ala.) "I cannot support this bill."
    Bart Gordon (Tenn.) Science panel chairman is a no, citing public option and bill's "financial impact on the state of Tennessee."
    Jim Marshall (Ga.) A firm no
    Walt Minnick (Idaho) Has bucked leadership on big-ticket bills
    Collin Peterson (Minn.) Ag chairman has sharply criticized bill
    Ike Skelton (Mo.) Ag chairman cites public option, concerns about rural providers
    Bart Stupak (Mich.) Wants changes to abortion-related provisions
    Gene Taylor (Miss.) Made it clear to constituents this summer he is a "no."

    UNDECIDED/REVIEWING BILL
    John Adler (N.J.) "I've only read most of it."
    Brian Baird (Wash.) Changed from "leaning no."
    Melissa Bean (Ill.)
    Marion Berry (Ark.) Wants more aggressive action against HMOs, drug makers
    Rick Boucher (Va.) Wary of public option; voted no in Energy and Commerce Committee
    Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
    Yvette Clarke (N.Y.)
    Jim Costa (Calif.)
    Chet Edwards (Texas) A perennial GOP target; rejected climate bill
    Keith Ellison (Minn.)
    Bob Etheridge (N.C.) May run for Senate
    Bill Foster (Ill.) "Encouraged" House is moving forward; voted no on climate bill
    Bart Gordon (Tenn.) Republicans targeting Science panel chairman
    Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) Wants vote on "robust" public option
    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
    Baron Hill (Ind.)
    Frank Kratovil (Md.) Voted yes on climate change bill; GOP targeting him
    Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) He said he "will have trouble voting for anything other than robust public option."
    Daniel Lipinski (Ill.) Opposes abortion rights
    Betsy Markey (Colo.) Has concerns with cost of the bill
    Eric Massa (N.Y.) Fan of single-payer approach
    Jim Matheson (Utah) Prefers Senate Finance measure; voted no in committee
    Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
    Dennis Moore (Kan.) Was target of death threat last summer over healthcare reform
    Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
    Solomon Ortiz (Texas) Voted no on climate change bill
    Ciro Rodriguez (Texas) Voted no on climate measure
    Loretta Sanchez (Calif.) Has gone from "yes" to undecided
    Heath Shuler (N.C.)
    Zack Space (Ohio) Voted yes on Energy and Commerce Committee
    Betty Sutton (Ohio)
    Harry Teague (N.M.) Skeptic of public option

    Now, it's not all 258, but you just have to think about others who may not be included.

    (And Nance still doesn't have the votes yet - according to her own words, as well)

    More....

    Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her leadership team are seeking to satisfy anti-abortion rights Democrats, Hispanic lawmakers and centrist Blue Dog Democrats in the final days before the Saturday vote. They're scrambling to win the 218 votes necessary for passage.

    Abortion opponents warn that the bill ends the longstanding ban on taxpayer dollars going to abortion. Hispanics are concerned about the level of documentation that people will have to provide under the plan to receive services. And Blue Dogs are worried that the plan will increase the deficit in future decades.

    She also defended a Democratic abortion-rights opponent, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) who was accused by anti-abortion rights activists of "bayoneting" them when he sought to broker a compromise on the abortion issue.

    "His record has been strongly pro-life," Pelosi said of Ellsworth. "His position on that is respected in the Congress."

    Pelosi also said that no decisions have been made on whether to allow amendments beyond a vote on the Republicans' $61 billion alternative. She also deemed that plan "scandalous" for not seeking to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to those with "pre-existing" medical conditions.




    Parent
    Why are the Dems rethinking the positions? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Radix on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    In California they replaced a DINO, Tauscher, with a dyed in the wool liberal. In NY, a district that hasn't gone Dem since the 19th century, they replaced a republican with a Dem, a Dem who supported a public option. So on those people who have a national impact they went Dem, not just Dem mind you, but Dems that support a public option. It seems to me the lessons they are learning, if indeed there are any, is that the public wants a national public option. Is this not so?

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#32)
    by eric on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    the lesson from the election, if there is one, is exactly the opposite from the one being suggested by jbindc.

    Parent
    Not my theory (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    Coming from the Dems themselves

    Parent
    Why does anyone need a theory on this? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    Griffith said the Democratic rank and file is "very, very sensitive" to the fact that issues being pushed by party leaders "have the potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats."

    If we have congressional members who are unaware of the connection between doing what your boss expects of you, and keeping your job, they need to go. I don't know who these folks think their boss is, but I'm pretty darn sure it's the people who hired them. Obama is not their boss, and they are no more beholding to him than the Republican congressional folks who were sent to represent those who hired them.

    When I find my elected officials voting against my needs to satisfy the Speaker, Majority Leader, and/or POTUS rather than consider what their constituency has communicated to them, they are failing to do the job they were hired to do.

    If they don't understand this, they don't deserve the six-digit salary and red carpet lifestyle they are getting by occupying a seat in congress.

    Note that I believe Republicans who vote against a plan that has Democratic Party agenda written all over it, they are doing what their constituency sent them there to do. If they receive a mass mailing that tells them to vote FOR a bill, they need to realize that some issues apply equally to people from both parties. If they vote partisan just to vote partisan, they are not doing what their constituency sent them there to do. The pink slips need to come out for those who don't understand who their boss is.


    Parent

    So those in Congress who've already (none / 0) (#43)
    by Radix on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    stated opposition to a public option are now saying these elections prove their point? How so, I wonder. From my perspective it proves the opposite. The 2 candidates running for a national office, that won, ran on supporting a public option. So I wonder how we get from the public sending two yes votes to Washington, to that some how meaning they, the voters, don't want a public option?


    Parent
    Let's see (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    Creigh Deeds ran against the public option ("not necessary... would consider opting out") and lost by 20 points.  So based on that, members of Congress are rethinking whether they, too, might want to oppose the public option?  I would hope they're rethinking that, but in a different direction from what you're suggesting.

    Or was it Jon Corzine's support for the public option that cost him his election?  I'm not clear on what Tuesday's results were supposed to teach us about the public option.

    Parent

    It seems to (none / 0) (#26)
    by eric on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    me that both Congressional special elections were won by pro-public option Democrats.  And they ARE the ones that are going to be voting on this.  So the lesson is...


    Parent
    Well, in Virginia (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    Health care was the top concern of 24 percent of the voters, and Democrat Creigh Deeds won among them, 51 percent to 49 percent.

    Link

    So, I'm not sure I understand your argument.

    Parent

    My argument is simple (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    Deeds ran against the public option and lost.  So why would any Democrat look at that result and think "hey, maybe I should oppose the public option"?

    Parent
    You mean the guy who ran away from Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by steviez314 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    lost by 17 points, and the guy who clung to Obama went from down 20 to almost winning despite a 35% approval rating?

    Why, that doesn't fit what I heard on teevee yesterday!

    I guess the analysts are stupid.  Unfortunately, so are the Blue Dogs.

    Parent

    Let's look at this fact then. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Radix on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    Amongst those 24% Deeds won, yes? The question is, Was it Deeds position on health care that swayed them? I don't think it was. Not only did his opponent have the same position on the public option as he did; Deeds opponent belonged to the party whose position is in opposition to the public option. Given this, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that it was something else that gained Deeds their votes.

    Parent
    Come on (none / 0) (#23)
    by eric on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    Ellison is a sure yes vote.  It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.  If he is saying he is undecided, it is just his way of keeping pressure on from the left.

    Parent
    Why would they be more cautious? (none / 0) (#54)
    by esmense on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    Tuesday's elections added two more public option supporting Democrats to the congress (one in a heavily Republican district, the other in a moderate, formerly Repulican district that was most recently represented by a pretty conservative Democrat).

    Plus, although statewide elections really don't matter in terms of the national health care debate, one of the Republicans who won (Christie in NJ) supports s public option. So you certainly can't claim that Tuesday's election has provided anyone with proof that supporting the public option is a political loser.

    The argument that the recent election should deal a blow to health care reform just doesn't hold water.

    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 03:53:51 PM EST
    They'll be a little more cautious, especially as the House just released it's 2000 page bill today and they're supposed to vote on Saturday?

    Parent
    AARP endorsement of House bill (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:38:00 PM EST
    can't hurt:  NPR

    President touts AMA and AARP (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    endorsements of House bill, but says that is why Congress whould pass HCR.  Kind of general.

    AP

    Parent

    I wonder if Obama had the AARP endorsement (none / 0) (#11)
    by steviez314 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    in his hip pocket for a while and waited to announce it after the election, in case it went very badly.

    It's like the primaries--he always seemed to have some endorsement or the like ready to go after a loss.

    Parent

    If so, that's a good thing (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    I admire the strategy.

    Parent
    In the hip pocket? (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:01:52 PM EST
    Funny...I was just saying the same thing. And, I also admire the strategy. Good timing; & a good sense of when to play the cards. Actually, it is the sign of a power player.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    A friend and I were talking today about the dramatic turnabout for AARP since the Bushian-maneuvered Medicare Advantage largesse for insurers et al.  Then, I also wondered about that famous "nose of the camel." In this case, the nose of AARP might be a forerunner for a few insurance companies.  After all, AARP is an insurer.

    Parent
    Can't hurt whom? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    I haven't heard them out there making noise to protect the elderly on these Medicare cuts being talked about. Just like I haven't heard NOW demanding women's health issues be given equal priority to men's.

    AARP represents only people on Medicare, so why would their endorsement of HCR for all be a big deal? Just asking.

    Parent

    You can join AARP at age 50, sonny boy :) (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:26:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Sonny boy, learn some respect (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    The AARP will not be lobbying anything for the 50 year old...they just want the money. Can't even get the AARP member discounts until after 55.


    Parent
    Well, it seems to me senior citizens (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    (assuming they agree with AARP endorsement of House HCR bill) are a bunch of votes for members of Congress.  

    Parent
    AARP (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:41:30 PM EST
    has actually been quite vocal about extracting promises that there will be no cuts to Medicare benefits.

    Parent
    And that's a GOOD thing. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:44:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Sez you (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    According to Jim I am pro-death panel, so cut 'em all off I say.

    Parent
    If the swine flu vaccine is a result of (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    a gov't. conspiracy to harm us, maybe alloting first to Wall Street Masters of the Universe is the best plan.

    Parent
    Even my wife (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    who is a pretty anti-vaccine person, wants to get this one for the kids.  Of course I'm the only one who's really at risk of bringing it home.

    Parent
    So all the reports of those $500 Million (none / 0) (#64)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    in cuts are a lie? There are Medicare cuts in 2010, and they are not the first ones to take place. AARP is no longer the group it once was.

    Parent
    Not a lie (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    but they're not benefit cuts.  If I spend $50 less on groceries because I found a cheaper grocery store, that doesn't mean my kids are getting $50 less of food.

    Parent
    This Hill article (none / 0) (#44)
    by magster on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    lists Ike Skelton, Bart Gordon and Collin Peterson, all of them committee chairmen, as opposing the bill.

    Between these guys and Baucus and Lieberman, anyone who votes against tenets in the party platform loses their chairmanship. Period.  

    Where is the party discipline?

    What party? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    Much less what discipline.

    The Dems in their current context are to political parties what shirts/skins pickup games are to organized basketball.

    Parent

    How public is it? (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    Has Pelosi signaled what kind of "public option" she is talking about? The last I heard - the thing that they were proposing would do absolutely nothing for 90% of Americans. Is that still the case?

    Grayson (none / 0) (#60)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    Alan Grayson said on Olbermann's show that the healthcare bill  would be "comprehensive" and "universal". He said it would be completed this week - or by Monday at the latest.

                          - ?????????-

    Done deal (none / 0) (#61)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    Pelosi has made it very clear that the bill coming out of the House will have the public option. I believe her. She's put a lot of political capital into this bill. She wouldn't keep stating what the bill will have unless she was confident of success.

    It won't be the bill progressive want but it will be something we can at least build on.

    Pelosi: House Will Pass A Public Option | 64 comments (64 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment