Friday Health Care Reform Wrap

We're getting down to the wire on the health care reform bill. This week saw a lot of posturing and jockeying in both houses of Congress as pertains to the lynch pin --- the public option.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw the latest poll numbers showing that 57% of Americans support a public option and brought the hammer down on Democrats with a “you're either with me or agin me” ultimatum so that she could know if she had her 218 votes to get a robust bill passed. Apparently, she came up short and is now looking at the two weaker bills that the House has to choose from, indicating that the best we'll get is a public option that is triggered into effect if insurance companies don't meet certain criteria within a certain time frame. As Kent Jones would say, “WEAK!!!”

On the other side of the Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid culled this statistic: “If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76%.” Reid, who is facing considerable pressure from progressives in his home state of Nevada to get this thing done, met with President Barack Obama yesterday and laid out his strategy which might include an opt-out option for states. Obama, in his steadfast commitment to bi-partisanship-at-all-costs, is rumored to have expressed support for the above-mentioned trigger plan because Maine Senator Olympia Snowe (who's a Republican) has previously tossed that ball around.

Here's where that wagon goes off its wheels:

Howard Dean is right when he says that the public option is vital to reform because it puts the power in the hands of the people by giving us the choice rather than the politicos and the lobbyists and the insurance companies. It's also the only thing that will stop Teddy Kennedy from rolling over in his grave, peace be upon him.

Comments [29]

Rusty's picture

Billionaires for WealthCare

Punked: Keep your stinking Teabaggers; we have Billionaires for Wealthcare. (The clip Rachel played yesterday.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2QX9sMV5xI

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

Robin Rigby's picture

Here's what I want to say to

Here's what I want to say to the Democratic party and the President- Youre in charge, act like it! Fuck the Republicans. Fuck bipartisanship. Fuck compromise. You have 3 years left to change the world so get off your asses and do it!

Sorry for the language but I'm sick of being the party that always bends over to take it up the keister.

Rusty's picture

not much there

The original story today from Politico on this cited zero sources. It was picked up by Talking Points Memo. Again, no sources. However, people in the meeting as well as the White House are on record saying it didn't happen. Obama did not say he was "leaning towards the trigger" option because he was focused on getting Snowe's vote.

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

Robin Rigby's picture

Trigger option.  No trigger

Trigger option.  No trigger option.  I wasn't talking about that specifically or healthcare specifically I was just in general saying I want the GD Democratic party to grow a GD spine.  

Kelly McCartney's picture

Oversight

I forgot to mention that the CBO now projects that the public option will trim the deficit and cost less than originally thought: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6270

Follow me, if you dare: @theKELword

Annie Oaklee's picture

CBO

Kelly, no matter what the CBO calculates, the costs will be grossly underestimated. That's an historical given.

Rusty's picture

Bullshit

The Dems (House, Senate, and the White House) called bullshit on that Politico report:

Meanwhile, everyone is basically lining up to tell Mike Allen, who's got no on-the-record sources to back up his contention, that he's wrong about where the situation stands in the House, and wrong about President Barack Obama signalling support for a triggr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-house-lawmakers-kno_n_331...

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

Kelly McCartney's picture

Just for you...

Totally off-topic, but there's this story called Rusty Is a Homosexual that you should see:

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/rusty/rusty.html

Follow me, if you dare: @theKELword

Rusty's picture

Love it

K-Mac, not so off topic at all. Especially on a day when we're showing love to Judy Shepard and Veronica Rodriguez (Ceara Sturgis' mom).

"Who needs a Tupperware party when we have all these P-FLAG meetings to go to?" remarked Mother.

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

Kelly McCartney's picture

WHEW!!!

WHEW!!!

Follow me, if you dare: @theKELword

Rusty's picture

Nancy P

Yep, she's counting votes and taking names. We need to keep the pressure on:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/23/796371/-Action-Alert:-Keep-...!

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

Annie Oaklee's picture

White House tries to muzzle & threaten free press

Stations show solidarity when White House attempts to stonewall FOX:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlMILRyDRdM

 

Rahm puts a horse's head in Roger Aile's bed.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTNhZGQxYzVmMjU4NjY3NTIwMWFjMDQ0ZjJ...

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

Hmm...

I'm curious about something here...

How is the Obama Administration threatening the news media by failing to speak with News Corp "reporters?"  Is he actively preventing them from airing their materials?  Has he ordered the shutdown of their transmitters, or revoked their FCC broadcast licenses?  Has he pushed for a law prohibiting the watching of or listening to Fox broadcasts?

And, how is this silly war of words between News Corp and Obama hurting the former?  After all, from what I can tell, their ratings and stock values continue to rise, which this childish behavior on the part of both sides seems to be helping quite nicely.

Obama would be better off just ignoring News Corp altogether, rather than making them the story, much as Bush and Cheney did to MSNBC.  Then we can get away from this ridiculous "story," and get to what's really important news for the American people, Balloon Boy!

Not2Taem's picture

Up, up, and away!

Beautiful.

Rusty's picture

Lies, damned lies, and Fox-generated bullshit

This story is a perfect example of the administration's reason for pointing out the non-newsiness of Fox.

Fox "reports" a story and then rest of the MSM repeats it as truth.

Bush and Cheney could afford to ignore MSNBC because for most of the Bush administration, MSNBC was no more liberal than any of the other networks. Tucker Carlson and Michael Savage both had shows on MSNBC. Olbermann didn't come on until 2003. Maddown and Ed Schultz are both recent additions. And probably most important — even though it has a reputation as "liberal" MSNBC does not let the opinion side of the network drive the news side the way it does at Fox.

Here's an article on TPM that chronicles what actually happened the day Fox cried "censorship":

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-...

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

Thom Hartmann pointed out a

Thom Hartmann pointed out a few days ago on his program that a major difference between MSNBC and Fox is that, while MSNBC does deliver news content, it does not represent itself as a news channel (they are a political analysis and opinion channel, their own words). MSNBC could care less what Bush-Cheney thought, and so they reported the facts, well, most of the time they did.

Fox, on the other hand, portrays itself as a "fair and balanced source for news," while presenting clearly biased spins on news items, if they present anything beyond opinion, speculation, and gossip to begin with.  Fox is hardly what I would consider fair, in that they do not allow for.  And, if Glenn Beck is any example, I would say Fox is a bit unbalanced, and on a number of levels.

And, like I said originally, I do not see where anything the Obama Administration is doing is anywhere close to infringing on the First Amendment as it pertains to a Free Press.  My concern was over AO's linked claims that MSM closed ranks behind Fox, which you have now (thankfully) debunked.  The claim didn't make any sense on any level, and smacked of antitrust issues if it were true, which we now know is clearly NOT the case.

I still think the Obama Administration should simply ignore News Corp media outlets, with the exception of some of their more questionable, and legally borderline activities, which need to be quietly monitored by the FCC, FBI, and US Secret Service.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has allowed themselves to be pulled into a distracting war of words instead.

Annie Oaklee's picture

Obama-luv

I posted a longer reply to this further below on the page.

Guess everyone forgot which channel treated Hillary fairly during the primaries?? Or is everyone just so busy clinging to their obama-luv that everything else fades?

Also no channel can be as propagandistic as MSNBC, whose had commenters recently calling out "love you!" to Valerie Jarett after a "serious" news interview. Compare that to the infamous, über-misogynist "she should be taken into a room where only one person comes out"...

In case you've forgotten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmcmYieO3Qs&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64PRLw9nW2U&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11bu-4RjGh0&feature=player_embedded

Annie Oaklee's picture

Obama-luv

I posted a longer reply to this further below on the page.

Guess everyone forgot which channel treated Hillary fairly during the primaries?? Or is everyone just so busy clinging to their obama-luv that everything else fades?

Also no channel can be as propagandistic as MSNBC, whose had commenters recently calling out "love you!" to Valerie Jarett after a "serious" news interview. Compare that to the infamous, über-misogynist "she should be taken into a room where only one person comes out"...

In case you've forgotten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmcmYieO3Qs&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64PRLw9nW2U&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11bu-4RjGh0&feature=player_embedded

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

LOL, Obama luv?

You clearly haven't read some of my recent posts about Obama and the Democratic Party in general.

BTW, MSNBC never claims to be a news channel, nor have they ever claimed to be "fair and balanced."  By their own admission, MSNBC is a "political analysis and opinion" channel.

Having stopped watching corporate news years ago, I'm not privy to who covered what in what way.  I assumed, by the way the debates were handled and run, that the corporations who controlled the debates, conducted the polls, wrote the programs for the voting machines they built, etc, would be the ones who decided the election.

Turns out I was right.

BTW, the videos?  Self-promoting videos for Fox News Channel about how "fair and balanced" they are with the "news" they report do not impress me in any way.  If nothing else, the participation in those broadcasted love-fests by members of the Clinton campaign remind me of one of the reasons why I decided to vote for the Green Party ticket, the only one that had TWO women on it, both women of color, both progressive, both pro-LGBT on every level without equivication or reservation, and both denied any media coverage by your precious Fox News Channel, as well as the rest of corporate media.

Please do not equate my refusal to by into your unproven right-wing conspiracy theories with somehow supporting Obama or the Democratic Party.  He and his party are not progressives, or even liberals.  They are corporatists, pure and simple.

MacLass_19's picture

Agreed, CMW........

"They are corporatists, pure and simple."

 


Rusty's picture

Faux News

We're about 99% on the same page on this. My only disagreement is how much attention the administration should pay to Faux Noise. I would love to see the Obama Administration ignore Fox completely, but until the MSM stops acting as stenographers for Fox, that doesn't solve the problem. Too often, Beck, Hannity, et al control not only the story, but the spin because they bully legitimate news outlets to repeat after them. Fox is relentless.

Have you ever seen Outfoxed? It came out a while ago; if anything it's even more on point today. You can see clips and the trailer online: http://www.outfoxed.org/

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

Yep...

Saw it twice, and read Franken's book three times.  Another I would recommend is Thom Hartmann's Cracking the Code, which I just finished a few months ago.

And, if the Obama Administration would ignore News Corp outright, the others would have to do their own work, rather than rely on News Corp (or the government, as happened a couple of times under Bush-Cheney) to do all the work for them.  Otherwise, they too will have nothing to report.

What we really need is a couple of dozen like Helen Thomas, who aren't afraid to ask tough, relevant questions and are willing to keep their own biases out of the story.

Rusty's picture

yes, please

"What we really need is a couple of dozen like Helen Thomas"

Yes, please. And really, really missing Molly Ivins. I'll look for Hartmann's book. I also recommend Al Gore's The Assault on Reason and John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience.

We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out. ~ Delenn

Annie Oaklee's picture

Nixonian = this White House

Yes, Helen Thomas, who mentioned during a press briefing that no White House has controlled the press conferences to the extent this one does since NIXON.

She should know – she was there!

Robin Rigby's picture

Since I know a woman who used

Since I know a woman who used to be an editor at Fox News in NYC and since she told me straight up that they told her how to edit the news footage in order to make it slant the direction they wanted- nothing they do or say surprises me.  

As for other networks telling the White House that they had neglected to include Fox & that they needed to correct that problem I wouldn't be surprised and don't think there's anything wrong with that.  If you believe in a free press then of course you're going to want to make sure no news outlets (no matter how biased) are included.  It's not really a free press otherwise.  

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

Obama didn't leave News Corp out

News Corp failed to send anyone that day, and hence were not around when the changes were made to certain logistical aspects of covering a particular story.  In other words, they didn't do their jobs, and now want to blame Obama.  Someone thought that a bit odd, and asked if News Corp should be notified of the changes in plans, which subsequently happened.

In other words, News Corp found a way to spin the story in such a way that they became the story, which is typical for them.

Annie Oaklee's picture

chicago way sticks and carrots

The WH DID leave FOX out. I don't have time to fish out the links, but it has something to do with the networks (I think there's 5 of them) traditionally included in the pool, FOX being one of them. It was a situation of "it goes without saying" that FOX should be included.

In the TPM article that Rusty pointed to, there was this sentence:

Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

with no identification as to WHO told TPM that. Was it someone from the White House? i.e. believable? Later in the article the network bureau chief is quoted as saying:

"It's all for one and one for all."

What does that tell you?

The threat – thinly veiled but conveyed by Dunn, Emanuel & Axelrod on TV is one of of cutting off access, which the WH has largely done with FOX. The reward, LOTS of access as recently demonstrated with Ms. sold-out Maddow, Olbermann (both GE) and others getting hours of face time with the pres. + the WH EMAILING chosen networks (GE) live during their newscasts. Then there are also the unlimited perks being subservient to the WH will get you, as I'm sure Chuck Todd can tell you all about.

As for limiting even more access - access to even reaching the public, just wait. The WH is in no way finished with attempting to silence it's critics. Whether you dislike FOX or not, this should worry everyone.

A LOT.

 

 

 

CA_Medicine_Woman's picture

Make the time

I'm sticking with TPM's version of events, because from a business standpoint, it makes far more sense then your claims that competing corporate networks somehow came to News Corp's rescue, especially given the overtly competive nature of cable news lately.

It makes far more sense than a conspiracy theory cooked up by News Corp to get free publicity for themselves, one that is being actively debunked by every reputable media watch dog group and the media itself.

Obama is under no obligation to speak to any reporter on any topic, and any obligation on the part of those within his administration has to come from him, not Glenn Beck.

For certain, I am sick and tired of any media outlet making itself the story, which violates journalism ethics. 

Annie Oaklee's picture

ah, who needza facts when u kin has parody?!

Obama, in his steadfast commitment to bi-partisanship-at-all-costs...

this is a joke, right?? You're now writing parody!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifjRVLVjzA