Gotcha!

Did you catch Rachel last night? Rachel asks, "why, if you're a Democratic member of Congress, you would want to fight tooth and nail against your own party on the biggest issue facing the country right now." She calls Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas "the poster child for Democrats blocking their own party's efforts to reform health care." Now why would he oppose health care reform with a strong public health insurance option when most of his constituents are in favor of it?

According to the report on MSNBC.com,

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington questioned in a complaint whether the $420,000 that USA Drug paid Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., for his family-owned Holly's Health Mart in Prescott was a fair price. The deal was first reported this week by the Web site ProPublica.

Documents show that, after the sale, the Nevada County assessor valued the property at $263,700. An appraiser hired by ProPublica valued it recently at $198,000.

In his response, Rep. Ross has this to say:

This style of gotcha politics is why many folks are fed up with Washington and it is a shame serious debate on reform has, once again, fallen off course. Instead of having civil dialogue over true and substantive disagreements about reforming our broken health care system, outside groups are trying to taint a completely legal and respected small business that my wife and I worked hard for 14 years to establish.

Actually, Rep. Ross, it is your style of bought-and-paid-for politics that has many of us folks fed up with Washington. Do you really think that calling it "gotcha politics" will somehow justify your shady dealings with the drug industry?

Serious reform is threatened by our elected officials being more beholden to their corporate masters than to their flesh-and-blood constituents. Your whining at being called out sickens me. How is holding our elected officials accountable not "civil dialogue"?

We'll match your contempt and raise you one.

Christina and Me: A Public Option Primer

I had this delightful exchange with a Facebook friend today:

As you may have noticed, I am young, but I have become increasingly interested in the Health Care Crisis. I have a ton of questions, but I will only bother you for a few. Is the public option that you are for, the same thing as the Free Choice-Health Care for Individuals thing that I keep hearing about? I am getting some information from my Rep's web site, as well as Rep. John Shadegg's web site. Are these the same ideas, or are they different? I hate to say this, but I am utterly confused! Your help is much appreciated, Mary.
-Christina

Here is my reply:

Hey Christina. No apologies needed for your age. Your interest and questions are very welcome.

The free choice thingy you've read about is very different from a public health insurance option that many people support (both Democrats and Republicans). Republican politicians want free choice for corporations, not for individuals. I would call what they advocate "Wall-Street-run health care" (that leads to neither health nor care). They want to maintain the status quo (keep things the way they are), which is working only for the health insurance industry and the very wealthy.

Of course, their descriptions of their positions would differ dramatically from mine. They would call what I advocate "government-run" health care, because in spite of the fact that they themselves are part of the government, they think anything the government does is bad. So they are unapologetic when government fails, even when they're responsible for that failure, because it confirms their belief that government is always a problem and never a solution.

I believe that government should do what it can to help people, because I believe we're stronger collectively than we are individually. Of course, we won't always get everything exactly right. But we can always work toward improving things so that more and more people are helped rather than hurt by the system.

I hope this helps. Keep reading as much as you can from all sides, and determine to make up your own mind and not let anyone from any side tell you what to think. Listen to your heart. It will not lead you astray.

Many blessings,

Mary

P.S. I love your question. Would you mind very much if I posted it (and my answer) on my blog? If you don't mind, do you want me to use your name (I'd use only your first name) or would you prefer that it be anonymous? If you'd rather I didn't post it, no worries.

Christina's reply:

All that would be fine. My first name would be ok. One more quick one. One guy I listened to, Whyden, I think, did say that he wanted individual choice. He even emphasized it. What about that?

And my reply:

Do you mean Senator Ron Wyden?

The idea of giving people more choices is a good one. But I also think it's really important that one of the choices available to anyone who wants it be a public insurance option. If all the choices you are given are lousy, it's hardly much of an improvement.

The trouble with the private health insurance industry is that it is profit-driven. Health care shouldn't be about profits. Human beings are not commodities.

Health care should be about health and care. A public insurance option would not have the high overhead costs of private profit-driven health insurance companies. A public insurance option would not be beholden to stockholders. It would be beholden to the public.

Does this help?

Peace,

Mary

Christina's reply:

Ah yes, very helpful. I think I am more of the public insurance gal. Can you feed me more information on this? Thanks for all your help, Mary. I really appreciate it.

I pointed Christina toward Robert Reich's good explanation of the public insurance option:



I also pointed her toward the excellent cartoon guide to health care reform:

"The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act"

Today Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and his "Gang of Six" have released their version of health care "reform," which some say is the version that has the "best chance of passing." Bob Cesca points out that the bill is "bipartisan" only in that "members of both parties hate it."

According to the Associated Press, Baucus has received "some $3.9 million in contributions from the health care industry since 1989" and "all six of the Finance Committee members most intimately involved in drafting the measure have received above-average donations from the health care world."

Wendell Potter, senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy and former CIGNA executive turned whistle-blower, who spoke at last weekend's Fighting Bob Fest (which I was privileged to attend) says the Baucus bill may as well be called the "Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act" and would be "an absolute gift to the industry."

Wendell Potter speaking at the Fighting Bob Fest,
Baraboo, Wisconsin, September 12, 2009

Potter says that, rather than representing a "government takeover," as some mistakenly fear, the bill represents a "Wall-Street takeover" of health insurance, requiring that the already severely squeezed middle class sign over its life savings to the health insurance cartel.

Rather than a robust public option, the bill promotes insurance co-ops, which according to Potter, "would be unable to compete in today’s concentrated health insurance markets" and therefore would be completely ineffectual at reducing health care costs.

David Dayen of Brave New Films says the bill attempts to bring costs down by allowing insurance companies to offer lousy coverage. According to the New York Times,

To compare health plans, experts often focus on the percentage of medical expenses paid by insurance, on average, for a given population. This figure ranges from 70 percent to 95 percent under the House bill’s options, but it would be less than 70 percent under Mr. Baucus’s proposal.

Not only would the coverage be lousy, but we would be forced to buy it or pay a stiff penalty. According to the New York Times, the bill "would require nearly all Americans to obtain coverage or face a penalty of up to $3,800 a year for families."

Appearing yesterday in a forum held by the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, Potter testified:

The insurance industry is insistent on being able to retain what it calls "benefit design flexibility." Those three words seem innocuous and reasonable, but if legislation that reaches the president grants insurers the flexibility they claim they must have and requires all of us to buy coverage from them, millions more of us will have little alternative but to buy policies that appear to be affordable but which will prove to be anything but affordable if we become seriously ill or injured. . . .

The Baucus plan . . . 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.

It's hard to imagine how insurance companies could write legislation that would benefit them more.

In other words, rather than being regulated, the health insurance industry would be free to maximize its profits, while it's large pool of captive customers would be the ones being regulated. Charming. This is what I meant when I said that "this legislation . . . could be very good. Or it could be very, very bad." Uh, this would be the "very, very bad" option. Unless, of course, you are a stockholder in the insurance industry cartel, in which case it is a veritable wet dream.

~ ~ ~

So, please call your representative—again—and demand real health care reform with a robust public option. No co-ops, no triggers. Ask if you can count on your representative to vote only for a strong public option and to vote against any bill that doesn't have a strong public option. Here's the number:

(202) 224-3121

Then report your call here. Thank you.

What's at Stake, What We're Up Against, and What to Do

To some of my Facebook friends and relations, I must seem like I've gone 'round the twist. I can almost hear you thinking: "You're completely obsessed. Do you think you're going to single-handedly get a public option passed? We're going to have to find you something to do with your time. Every other post on my newsfeed is from you. And they're all about the public option."

Well, you may be right, but this is the political fight of my life. And it should be the political fight of yours too.

There are two reasons why I'm pushing so hard: First, this is not your average legislative fight. Health care reform has the potential to profoundly affect every single person in the United States—that's right, everybody: your neighbors, your coworkers, your kids, the person who rings up your groceries.

Not only that, but it will have a huge impact on some of the most important decisions of your life: whether to change jobs or start your own business, whether to get married or divorced, whether to retire. This legislation will affect each and every one of us every day of our lives—and it could be very good. Or it could be very, very bad.

Not only will this legislation affect our personal lives. It will also affect our life as a nation. It will affect our moral character—are we a people who take care of each other? Or are we content to let our neighbors fall through the cracks of a greedy, rapacious wealth care system?

This legislation will have an enormous effect—for good or ill—on our economy, on our health and well-being, on our everyday lives, on national security, on our viability as a nation. In other words,

This is a life-and-death issue, people!

This isn't something that should be left up to the politicians. This is our fight. It has to be our fight. The question about the politicians is, Do they work for us, or do they work for the health insurance industry? They can't answer that question. Politicians are like trees blowing in the wind, and whichever way the wind blows hardest, that's the way they'll bend.

Which leads me to the second reason I'm pushing so hard: $1.4 million per day. According to the an article in the July 9, 2009, Washington Post,

A record-breaking influence campaign [is being waged] by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million. [emphasis added]

You may have heard how the health care industry is behind health care reform. Yes, indeed, they are "behind" it in more ways than one, according to the New York Times:

The top lobbyists for every major sector of the health care industry publicly insist they are squarely behind the Obama administration’s health care reform. But as the debate gets down to the details, the lines dividing friend from foe are getting blurry.

Each industry group is also working quietly to scuttle or reshape some element of the administration’s proposals that might hurt profits — usually some measure aimed at cost control.

The industry is very much involved in both shaping and undermining health care reform. And believe me, it's not your best interests they have in mind.

The only way to create a force that will counter that kind of gale force wind is for every single one of us to get involved. Nobody is off the hook on this one. In spite of what you may have heard about the public option fading from the debate, it's still very much alive. And it's still the very best way to bring down the skyrocketing costs of health care.

On Saturday, President Obama had this to say about this presumably fading possibility:

Now, I've also said that one of the options in the insurance exchange, one of the options—most of the folks who are going to be offering insurance through the exchange are going to be private insurers—Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, all these. Well, I think one of the options should be a public insurance option. (Applause.) Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. Let me be clear: It would only be an option. Nobody would be forced to choose it. No one with insurance would be affected by it. But what it would do is, it would provide more choice and more competition. (Applause.) It would keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable, to treat their customers better.

I mean, think about it. It's the same way that public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students. That doesn't inhibit private colleges and universities from thriving out there. The same should be true on the health care front. (Applause.)

Now, Minnesota, I have said that I'm open to different ideas on how to set this up. But I'm not going to back down from the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we're going to provide you a choice. (Applause.) And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the coverage that you need. That's a promise I will make. (Applause.)

To me it sounds like Obama is for the public option. Or something else. He wants this, but he's open to other ideas. He doesn't know yet which way the wind is blowing. First he gets blown one way and then the other. The health insurance industry lobbyists are trying to blow the public option right off the table.

That's your American dream they're trying to make disappear. The only thing standing in their way is:

You.

It's not too late. They haven't succeeded yet. But the clock is ticking.

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake.com presents our best hope for health care reform with a robust public option. Instead of trying to push Blue Dogs or Republican obstructionists, push members of the House of Representatives who are known progressives from solidly progressive districts (i.e., their political fortunes are not at stake) to vote only for a health care reform bill that contains a robust public option. That way, they are essentially aggregating progressive power and preventing the passage of a watered-down bill:

We need at least 40 members of the House to pledge to vote for only a strong public option. By our count, we can rely on at least 17 members to say "No" to triggers, co-ops, and other faux public options.

You can help us find the remaining 23 members of Congress by calling your representative now. Can you help us whip the vote for a strong public option?

Call the House switchboard now at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative in the House. Clicking here will let us know you called.

It comes down to this: will progressives stand up against a health care bill written by insurance industry lobbyists? Or will they follow the lead of Rep. Raul Grijalva, who slammed the insurance industry bill as "not legitimate," and fight for what the President says we need to keep costs down?

Here's what we need you to say when you reach your representative's office:

1. State your name, city, and state, and that you're calling because you strongly support only a true public option in health care reform.
2. Say that you expect your Representative to support nothing less than a strong public option - that means no co-ops, no triggers.
3. Ask if you can count on your Representative to vote only for a strong public option and vote against any bill that doesn't have a strong public option. Again, that means no co-ops, no triggers.

Can you call your member of Congress now? Dial (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative in the House.

When you're done, click here to let us know you called. and then report the office's response.

Thanks for your help in whipping the House to pass the public option.

Best,

Jane Hamsher
Firedoglake.com

Now Let's Get It Done!

I am guardedly hopeful. Obama's speech was better than I expected. He said he supports the public option, but he's open to triggers and co-ops. The last part of his speech was really great.

I especially liked his reference to the letter he received from Ted Kennedy:

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death....

He expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform – "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it – would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." [emphasis added]

It was truly a great speech. Given the opportunity to edit it, I would have tweaked it:

But an additional step we can must take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option only for those who want it. don't have insurance.

Even so, the president demonstrated more support for a public option than I expected. His stated goals are good.

So now the question is, Can he deliver?

Even more importantly, can we?

I believe that the stance Barack Obama took tonight was altered by our activism and our persistence. In spite of his chastisement of Progressives for imbuing the public option with so much importance, I think his support of it was stronger because of indications Americans demand it. I think we did that.

During the election last year, we were just dipping our toes into this online organizing thingy. But clearly our work on health care reform proves that we're getting better at this. We're learning more, we're teaching each other, we're making more and more important connections. We are aggregating our power. How awesome is that?

Tonight I feel guardedly hopeful, not so much because of Obama's speech but because we are mobilizing for real change. I knew when Obama was elected that the really hard work lay ahead of us, and I was worried about whether we'd have the heart and the wherewithal to do it. Tonight, I'm less worried.

Barbara Boxer reported on Rachel Maddow that after the speech, Obama said to her, "Now let's get it done." That was my favorite thing he said all night. Enough talk. Let's have some action.

If you haven't already, tell each of your representatives to support real health care reform. Tell them you insist on a robust public option.

Write letters to local and national newspapers in support of real health care reform with a robust public option.

Particularly if your representative is a member of the Progressive Caucus, ask her or him to publicly commit to voting against any health care that does not contain a robust public option.

If you have other ideas of how to push for meaningful health care reform, please let me know.

Now let's get it done!

Ninth Inning Fail

White House senior advisor David Axelrod told ABC News today that this is the "9th inning" for the health care reform debate and that "President Obama is getting in the game [uh, about time?] and is 'at the point where he can close this' debate."

Oh really? Axelrod continued:

As to the fate of a government option plan to compete with private insurance, Axelrod suggested the controversial concept is gone but not forgotten: "The spirit that led him to support a public option is still very much at play here and so you know he wants competition. He wants choice.'

Russ Feingold has this to say about this "controversial concept":



The public option is the only way to bring down the skyrocketing costs of American health care. As Feingold says, "Real reform needs a strong public option." So if the public option is dead, so is real health care reform.

But how the hell can it be dead when 77 percent of the American people support it and even 65 percent of Republicans support it (according to an AARP poll)? That's as close as this country will ever come to a consensus. And it's dead????

Nevertheless, indications are that the administration is ready to bail (read: fail) on the public option and thus has declared it "dead" so that no one will pay attention to the fact that they are the ones who are murdering it.

This is change we can believe in only in the most profoundly cynical sense.

There's something much, much worse at work here than our rapacious health care system, and that would be our rapacious political system.

If Obama and the Dems undermine real health care reform, like it sounds like they're going to, then I suggest we encourage progressives like Kucinich and Feingold to organize themselves into a new party, one that is beholden to the people and not corporations.

Because I'm not voting for those damned Republicans any more than I'm voting for those damned Democrats. And I'm not not voting either....

So if the Dems screw this up, it's party time. NEW party time.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I still won't back down.

Which Side Are You On? (video)

So, here it is, our very first homegrown video. What it lacks in polish is made up for by heart. The inestimable chorus is made up of folks who hung around after the church picnic on Sunday, the wind, and a few seagulls.



Undoubtedly we'll get better at this with practice, but hey, this isn't bad for our first attempt. And now that we know how easy it is, there'll be plenty more.

Which Side Are You On?
original version by Florence Reece; new lyrics by Mary Ray Worley
New lyrics © copyright 2009. All rights reserved.

chorus:
Which side are you on? (4x)

Our health care system’s broken
Right here in the USA.
The only ones who can afford to get sick
Are the ones who can afford to pay.

My daddy he was laid off.
He lost his insurance too.
Then he caught pneumonia.
Now he’s singing the foreclosure blues.

When you submit a claim form,
Do you know what they’ll provide?
Will they send it back to you
With a big red stamp “Denied!”

We can’t leave it up to Obama.
He may or may not come through.
If you want this reform to pass,
Then you know it’s up to me and you.

We want the public option.
We’re drawing our line in the sand.
Will you call on Congress
To be strong and take a stand!

We’re tired of the moneyed interests
Calling Washington’s tune.
It’s time for us to shake things up
And send the lobbyists to the moon.

Now health care’s not a privilege.
It is a human right.
And we’re standing on firm moral ground,
And it’s here we’re gonna fight.

Ted Kennedy on Health Care Reform (video)

Ted Kennnedy's astoundingly passionate and eloquent plea for health care reform:

The Kennedy Plan: The Dream Shall Never Die

Senator Edward Kennedy
February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.
--Senator Ted Kennedy
1980 Democratic National Convention

Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time....

For five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.
--President Barack Obama, on the passing of Ted Kennedy

Quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.

This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it's always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years....

We have to cut the costs of health care. For families who've seen health-insurance premiums more than double—from an average of less than $6,000 a year to nearly $13,000 since 1999—one of the most controversial features of reform is one of the most vital. It's been called the "public plan." Despite what its detractors allege, it's not "socialism." It could take a number of different forms. Our bill favors a "community health-insurance option." In short, this means that the federal government would negotiate rates—in keeping with local economic conditions—for a plan that would be offered alongside private insurance options. This will foster competition in pricing and services. It will be a safety net, giving Americans a place to go when they can't find or afford private insurance, and it's critical to holding costs down for everyone....

I believe the bill will pass, and we will end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people.
--Senator Edward Kennedy, Newsweek, July 18, 2009

For so many years, Ted Kennedy has been a politician we could count on not only to do the right thing but to inspire right action. He was a passionate advocate for justice and equity. He was a great leader, and he will remain an inspiration to many.

Senator Kennedy called health care reform the cause of his life, and he considered the public option to be one of "several elements that are essential to any health-reform plan worthy of the name."

I agree with Senator Robert Byrd: Let's honor Teddy Kennedy's great legacy and name the health care reform bill, replete with the public option, after him. Let's call it the Kennedy Plan. And better still, let's get this thing through Congress and enacted into law.

Predatory Government

Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is quoted today in the Wall Street Journal:

"Government is not a competitor, it's a predator," he said of the public option that has been embraced by key congressional Democrats."

And what do you call the health insurance companies that routinely deny people needed care and refuse to cover those with preexisting conditions?

And you're calling the government a predator?

This comes from Obama's great bipartisan hope, no less, one of the Senate's Gang of Six who are holding health care reform hostage while thumbing their noses at the 77 percent of the American people who are in favor of the American option.

Oh crap, maybe Grassley's right, at least in part.

The predator is the U.S. government in the death grip of the health insurance industry.

Cartoon Guide to Health Care Reform

An excellent cartoon summary of why we need government-run, universal, socialized (*gasp*) health insurance, written and animated by Andy Lubershane.

Bamboozlers

Great word of the day: bamboozle.

So who's bamboozling you? The health insurance industry wants to put health care "reform" dollars in its own pocket, not yours.

These are the same people who deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions and deny care on the basis of their bottom line.



The bamboozlers don't care about you, and they don't care about America. They spend millions of dollars a day lobbying Washington to maintain the status quo, or even better, "reform" health care so they can increase their profits. Their one and only passion is their own bottom line.

Do you really want the bamboozlers in charge of your health care?

Foil the bamboozlers and insist on the American option.

Contact your representative--especially if she or he is a member of the Progressive Caucus--and urge her or him to take the pledge to vote against any health care bill that doesn't have a public plan.

Progressives in Revolt

Paul Krugman today outlines President Obama's "trust problem."

On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat who talks of “bending the curve” but has only recently begun to make the moral case for reform. Mr. Obama’s explanations of his plan have gotten clearer, but he still seems unable to settle on a simple, pithy formula; his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee....

So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

Progressives in revolt. Count me in. This progressive is drawing her line in the sand, since Obama seems to lack the will to do so. I insist on real, substantive reform, a plan that will ensure that Americans are no longer denied care on the basis of some profit-monger's bottom line. And yes, Obama definitely has a trust problem.

Glenn Greenwald made an excellent case on Wednesday that Obama & Co., not being big, hapless dummies, are going about this reform process in a way so as to get exactly the bill they want, that is, exactly the bill the health insurance industry wants, while ensuring that that industry's support stays solidly with the Democrats. There's no other reasonable explanation for the administration's casual, milquetoast, give-away-the-farm approach to health care reform.

Today, Greenwald outlines the administration's strategy further:

This is the mindset of Rahm Emanuel: The only calculation that matters is maximizing political power. The only "change" that's meaningful is converting more Republican seats into Democratic ones. A legislative "win" is determined by whether Democrats can claim victory, not by whether anything constructive was achieved. The smart approach is to serve and thus curry favor with the most powerful corporate factions, not change the rules to make them less powerful....

All that matters is that we beat the Republicans and we should do anything to achieve that, including serving corporate donors to ensure they fund Us and not Them. [emphasis in original]

But that isn't what Obama pledged he would do when he campaigned. He repeatedly vowed he would do the opposite -- that he would reject that thinking and battle aggressively against domination by what he called "the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few" who have "run Washington far too long" -- and he convinced millions of people that he was serious, people who, as a result, became fervent devotees to his cause. Those are the people who New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently said have been "punked by Obama" because it is precisely those same interests who continue to be the prime beneficiaries and masters of Washington behavior during the Obama presidency.

I am indeed feeling punked, as Rich so succinctly put it. And I'm furious. I'm not altogether surprised, but I am dismayed at how readily and transparently Obama has gotten in bed with the corporate behemoths who treat this country like their own personal all-you-can-eat buffet. This is most assuredly not the change I voted for.

I will fight this status-quo-loving pandering-to-money politics as hard as I can, regardless of whether it's coming from the Reps or the Dems. I am sick to death of a system that's stacked against ordinary Americans, enriching the already fabulously wealthy and leaving the average working stiff in the muck. The enormous gulf between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen ominously.

Our current wealthcare system is a travesty and a horror that affects every single ordinary person in this country. Eighteen thousand U.S. citizens die every year because they don't get adequate health care. As Johann Hari of the Independent says, "That's equivalent to six 9/11s, every year, year on year." And then there are those, either uninsured or underinsured, who are bankrupted and ruined because they happened to get sick. Many of these are the people who are then forced to foreclose on their mortgages.

The insurance companies are having your American dream for lunch. They not only deny people coverage on the basis of "preexisting conditions"; they deny care to those who are "covered" based on the insurance company's assessment of what is "necessary." It's you and your doctor who should be deciding what's "necessary," not some insurance company bean-counter hack.

We are in the midst of a full-blown health care emergency in this country, a disaster the equivalent of six 9/11s every year, and Obama and Rahm want to give away the farm to the monsters responsible for this debacle. Don't let them. Keep pushing and pushing. Channel your rage. And don't back down.

Stand Up for the American Plan

I love George Lakoff. He understands how I think. Really. I love it when someone understands how I think. Don't you? It's one of the best feelings in the world, to be understood.

Not only that, George Lakoff understands how people who don't think like I do think. And that's something really special. Because, really, how people who don't think like I do think has been a great mystery to me. George Lakoff is a cognitive scientist. He studies thinking and communication.

In the HuffingtonPost today George weighs in on health care reform. He has a keen-sighted take on what has been happening (and not happening) and some excellent suggestions on where we go from here. I know it's long, but it's worth reading. If you just don't have time, bookmark it and make sure you read it later. And for now, read the following two paragraphs. There's much, much more, but these two paragraphs are sparkly gems of dynamic communication:

Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.

Read it a few times. Take it in. Ah, clarity.

George suggests the term "American Plan" instead of "public option," which is boring and uninspiring. I'm for it. I'm for the American Plan. It is the answer to our health care emergency.

Thank you, George, for your insight and clarity. I hope progressives get the message. I hope Americans get the message. I hope we get our American Plan.

Dear Senator Kohl

Dear Senator Kohl,

Thank you very much for your response to my letter regarding health care reform. I'm especially concerned, though, about one thing you said.

"However, a public plan should not undermine current health providers or rely on government subsidies to function, and it should garner bipartisan support."

Since we're not talking about a single-payer health care system, I don't see how a public plan could possibly "undermine the current health providers." If the public plan is an addition to the private plans, the private plans are free to carry on as they have been.

I'm very frustrated with politicians who are more concerned about the well-being of corporations than people. Please, do not give a single thought to the well-being of the "current health providers." The system has worked to their great advantage and at the expense of ordinary people for far too long.

As for bipartisan support, please, do not insist that our health care reform be something the Republicans can get behind. They had their chance and they blew it. The American people did not elect President Obama and so many Democrats in Congress so that you could make nice with the party we voted against.

The Republicans have no intention of supporting any kind of health care reform whatsoever. Please do not make this desperately needed reform contingent on their cooperation when the Democrats have a 60-seat majority in the Senate and a 70-seat majority in the House. If real health care reform with a public option fails, it will be the fault of no one but the Democrats.

Most sincerely,

Mary Ray Worley

Dear Mr. President

I mailed off my message to President Obama, via whitehouse.gov, a few minutes ago. It's a slight variation on what I posted earlier today. Just for the record, I'm pasting it in below. But I'm not feeling all that hopeful, having just read Glenn Greenwald's blog for today.

The Obama White House isn't sitting impotently by while Democratic Senators shove a bad bill down its throat. This is the bill because this is the bill which Democratic leaders are happy to have. It's the bill they believe in. As important, by giving the insurance and pharmaceutical industries most everything they want, it ensures that the GOP doesn't become the repository for the largesse of those industries (and, converesly, that the Democratic Party retains that status).

This is how things always work. The industry interests which own and control our government always get their way. When is the last time they didn't? The "public option" was something that was designed to excite and placate progressives (who gave up from the start on a single-payer approach) -- and the vast, vast majority of progressives (all but the most loyal Obama supporters) who are invested in this issue have been emphatic about how central a public option is to their support for health care reform. But it seems clear that the White House and key Democrats were always planning on negotiating it away in exchange for industry support. Isn't that how it always works in Washington? No matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter which party controls the levers of government, the same set of narrow monied interests and right-wing values dictate outcomes, even if it means running roughshod over the interests of ordinary citizens (securing lower costs and expanding coverage) and/or what large majorities want.

Makes me sick to my stomach. Tom and I voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary precisely because we liked her take on health care reform much better than Obama's.

But wait. Glenn says there's still a ray of hope!

That's why this debate has now taken on such importance -- regardless of whether you think a public option is important or even if you think it's a good idea. Thanks in large part to the months-long efforts of Jane Hamsher and her FDL team -- who spent enormous amounts of time and resources getting large numbers of progressive House members to emphatically commit on video to opposing any health care bill that lacks a robust public option -- there's actually a chance this time that the outcome could be different. If those progressive House members actually adhere to their pledge, they can and will block any health care bill that lacks a public option. They can actually thwart industry demands and the dictate of Beltway leaders; can empower a new faction in Washington (themselves) beholden to different interests (ordinary citizens); and can vest some actual significance in the outcome of the 2006 and 2008 election.

Along with several other blogs, Jane and FDL are sponsoring a fundraiser to reward, and embolden, those progressive members who have made that pledge, and it raised an extraordinary sum of close to $150,000 in just a couple of days. Those interested can donate here. Rachel Maddow's lead segment last night was a discussion with Jane regarding the political significance of the health care debate and the possibility that progressives could actually prevail on something of significance for once.

The Washington Post today quotes an "anonymous White House official" excoriating what he condescendingly calls "the left of the left" for petulantly demanding a "public option." That article notes that the Obama White House is surprised by the intensity of progressives' insistence that the bill include a "public option," and who can blame them for being surprised? Ordinarily, progressives are told that they cannot have what they want because Blue Dogs and Republicans (on behalf of the industries that own them) must get what they want, and progressives meekly accept that because it's "better than nothing" (don't let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good, they are lectured). More than anything else, it's vital that this dynamic change. Such a change -- a shift in Beltway power dynamics -- would be far more consequential even than the specific health care policy issues at stake in this debate.

OK, so it's not time to throw in the towel yet. But I'm feeling a bit discouraged, truth be told. I'm tired, and I have loads of work to do, but I'm too distracted by all this to do it. And I sure wish I had some money to send here. If you have some to spare, please do so.

Dear Mr. President,

I read earlier today that the White House is still insisting on a bipartisan health care reform bill.

But the Republicans in Congress have made it very clear that they will not back down on health care reform. These people don't want any reform at all. They are invested in maintaining the status quo. They are committed to the welfare of corporations. And they have had their chance to do things their way, and we are much the worse for it.

Much of the outcome of the health care debate depends on what you do and say in the next few weeks, Mr. President. We're looking for your impassioned leadership, for your clarity, for your steely determination, for your inspiring and illuminating rhetoric. We're looking for your commitment, not to bipartisanship, but to us.

The scoundrels you're making nice with, Mr. President, have drawn a line in the sand. It's time for you to do the same. Don't give them so much power. Don't choose a higher ground that's just going to throw us all off a cliff. And please, do all that you can to get those Blue Dogs in the Senate in line.

I'm begging you. We did not elect you to make nice with the party we voted against. Did you campaign on promises of bipartisanship? Or change we could believe in? We need to go where those people will not follow.

Draw your line in the sand, Mr. President. Insist on real reform with a public option. Don't back down. We're counting on you. We can do this. Yes. We. Can.

Most sincerely,

Mary Ray Worley

Oh, and one more thing: I won't back down.

The Blue Dogs of Summer

Thanks to the Democratic Underground, who thanks the OpenSecrets and OnTheIssues web sites, here is a list of the Blue Dog Democrats who are on record as being opposed to the public option in the current health care reform legislation. You know what to do.


Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Web contact: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=iss...
Phone: (202) 224-6361
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/max_Baucus.htm


Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Web contact: http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email /
Phone: (202) 224-5623
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm


Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Web contact: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: (202) 224-3441
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Maria_Cantwell.htm


Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)
Web contact: http://carper.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: (202) 224-2441
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Tom_Carper.htm


Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Web contact: http://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Phone: (202) 224-2043
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Kent_Conrad.htm


Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Web contact: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction...
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.h...


Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Web contact: http://landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Phone: (202) 224-5824
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Mary_Landrieu.htm


Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Web contact: http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: (202) 224-4041
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Lieberman.htm


Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Web contact: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Phone: (202) 224-4814
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Blanche_Lambert_Li...


Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Web contact: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bill_Nelson.htm


Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Web contact: http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me.cfm
Phone: (202) 224-5274
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ben_Nelson.htm


Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Web contact: http://pryor.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Mark_Pryor.htm


Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Web contact: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: (202) 224-5244
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ron_Wyden.htm

The Public Option Is Dead -- Long Live the Public Option!

If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody's going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care. But the point is I don't want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either.

--Barack Obama

I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don’t see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.

--Senator Russ Feingold

The headlines proclaim that the public option is dead, and the White House seems to be making noises about its willingness to back down on the need for a public option. At this point, if you believe that the public option is essential for health care reform, your stomach may do a loopdee-loo and then bottom out somewhere near the area of your feet. But it's not time to despair. Really. Trust me on this. The public option is not dead.

The contortions the public option is going through amount to what Howard Dean calls "nothing more than politics." In other words, there's some political strategy at work here. Yesterday on Morning Joe, Dean explained:

The president knows very well that you aren't really going to have health care reform without a public option. But he also knows he has to get this out of the Senate. And he's got a very important member of the finance committee, Kent Conrad [D-North Dakota], who doesn't want to vote for this bill if it's got a public option in it. And he knows he's not going to get any Republican votes of any kind. So at the end of the day, this bill is going to be written by Democrats, it's gotta get out of the Senate, you only need a few Democrats to take out the public option.

The conversation continues the explanation, which, if I understand it correctly, essentially amounts to this:

The Senate needs 60 votes to pass the initial version of its health care reform bill. That version will need to have the blue dogs on board, so it may not include the public option.

Meanwhile, the House will pass its version of health care reform, only its version will retain the public option.

Then in October, the bill will go through the reconciliation process. For that version to pass in the Senate, it will need only 50 votes. The blue dogs can cool their heels out in the hall and it is still likely to pass.

If you haven't done it already, contact your senators and representative and tell them that you vehemently support health care reform that includes the public option.

The public option is not dead. Long live the public option!