More Like This

by: Michael Conrad

Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 23:00:03 PM EDT

The GOP base is still  furious with Rep. Weiner  for consistently calling out conservatives on their hypocrisy, clueless talking points, and smears during the health care reform battle -- going so far as to debate Betsy McCaughey, originator of the "death panels" lie.   Weiner also brought attention to Glenn Beck's non - stop campaign to scare his audience into getting ripped off by Goldline.

With Wingnutia decrying his every move, a clear sign that he's doing something right, now is a good time to consider what fuels the Awesome Machine that is Anthony Weiner, and what his Democratic colleagues could learn from him.  

Of Economic Concern Trolls And Deficit Myths

by: Michael Conrad

Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:50:05 AM EDT

Reaction To FRONTLINE's "Obama's Deal"

by: Michael Conrad

Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 01:48:26 AM EDT

Some initial thoughts.

- I've heard this number cited before, and it's insane enough that it's worth bringing up again.  If there are in fact any influential Democrats who bought into the idea that 5 Senate Republicans would vote for a good bill, they should evacuate Fantasy Land at once.  There is nothing noble about Beltway bipartisanship for Beltway bipartisanship sake.

- It was a huge mistake not to keep reconciliation on the table at all times.  Ben Nelson would have had much less leverage this way.   And the very elements that would have required reconciliation to pass, like a strong public choice, would have made the job of selling the bill now much easier.  

- To borrow a phrase from Steve Benen, so - called "centrists" really can screw up anything.  Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, and Ben Nelson all voted for the disaster that is Medicare Part D.  They also went out of their way to undermine this effort.

- At least on this issue, those who claimed that pre - compromising would neutralize the opposition's most formidable point were dead wrong.  In this case, the opposite is true.  Not having a public choice has reinforced the most formidable attack from Republicans; the case against the individual mandate.

- Living in the past (read: the 1990's)... there's no future in it.

Thoughts anyone?

UPDATE:  A public choice continues to be dramatically more popular than the bill that was passed, and the gap is growing. (h/t Imsinca)  

The Fight For Health Care Reform: Part 2 - The Future

by: Michael Conrad

Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 19:25:26 PM EDT

The urge to celebrate is understandable. Progressives and mainstream politicians from both parties (at least until the 70's) have been trying to open this door for decades.  Now we have our foot in the door.

There is an emerging consensus in the Democratic coalition that the legislation has real flaws and needs to be strengthened as soon as possible.  This is very good news.

On this point, it's important to remember that stronger reform is in everyone's interest.  This is something Medicare For All supporters, public option advocates, those who supported finale passage of the bill, and those who argued that passing the bill would do more harm than good can agree on.

Note:  I realize there is a lot of overlap.  Many of us, myself included, are in the first three groups and think the fourth group raises issues that have a lot of merit.  

We should be able to agree on a simple premise.  There are some very good things in the bill that was passed, but we can and should do better. We took a historic first step, but we've got to follow it up ASAP.

So what now?

Medicare Choice, A Win - Win - Win

by: Michael Conrad

Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 14:50:31 PM EDT

The 1850's and the Path Ahead

by: BruceMcF

Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 15:29:45 PM EDT

Now that the Republican Health Care Reform legislation of the early 90's has been passed with no Republican votes, I've been musing on the Path Ahead.

The path ahead for health insurance reform seems straightforward, at least for as long as the Republicans remain trapped in a strict "Repeal" stance by the angry and noisy opposition to health insurance reform that corporations have stirred up in their base.

It has always been a misnomer to call the current legislation "health care reform" when it has always been primarily health insurance reform. Yet there is a necessary-through-not-sufficient relationship that applies here. Just as arriving at a less broken health insurance system was necessary to even apply bandaids to the health care system, a not-at-all broken publicly administered, not-for-profit health insurance system will allow actual reform of the health care system to proceed.

But then, thinking about how to organize to work for progress on Health Insurance Reform leads to thinking more broadly about achieving progressive social change in the face of our thoroughly corrupted political establishment

A Final Question On The Public Option

by: Michael Conrad

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 20:20:34 PM EDT

Reactions To The House Vote

by: Michael Conrad

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:16:17 AM EDT

The Fight For Health Care Reform: Part 1 - The Present

by: Michael Conrad

Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:27:28 PM EDT

Over the weekend I starting writing an overview of why I believe passing this bill is better than the alternative.  I edited it down to the most pressing issues and concerns, and split the post into two parts.  

Part 1 focuses on the bill being passed as a first step
Part 2 lays out the push for Medicare Choice For All that can and should be set into motion very soon.  

There are a lot of moving parts to this.  If there's something important I've overlooked, or you have a different take, feel free to let me know in the comments.  I know we all share the same core values and goals here, so disagreement is always welcome.

It Looks Like The Senate DOES Have The Votes For A Public Option

by: Michael Conrad

Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:12:50 AM EST

Florida's Bill Nelson makes 41. He is the fourth Senator to join this week.

Why is Nelson's vote so important?  

Shortly after I re - started the "Going Public" series in mid - February, I broke Senate Democrats into three categories.  

Every Reason To Join: Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Harkin, Kaufman, Klobuchar, Kohl, Murray, Rockefeller, Mark Udall, and Wyden.

Need Vocal Constituent Support To Join:  Baucus, Begich, Carper, Conrad, Hagan, Johnson, McCaskill, Tester, Warner, and Webb.

Can't Imagine A Scenario In Which They Join:  Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Pryor.  I wrote that "Bill Nelson is most likely with them."

Since then, the efforts of grassroots Democrats have picked up everyone in the first group but Harkin, Kohl, and Rockefeller, two from the second group, and surprisingly, one from the third.  We're at the tipping point.

To 45

CS = Constituent Support
PS = Previous Support
OS = Other Senator from their state is on board.

Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) - CS, PS, OS
Past support:

"Ideally, I think health reform should include some type of a public option."

Tom Carper (Delaware) - CS, OS
Faces overwhelming constituent support.  He's a DLC champion who reversed himself on signing the Bennet letter in a bizarre way last month.  But he's probably smart enough to know that this is not going away.

Tom Harkin (Iowa) - CS, PS
Leading proponent of a public option.

Harkin is one of my "political heroes," an authentic progressive populist, and a Medicare for All supporter.  So I naturally have an extremely hard time believing that he would vote against the public option.  Judging by his most recent statements, Harkin doesn't think the votes are there on the House side.

Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) - CS, PS
Also a leading proponent of a public option.

The Final 5

We would need five of the following eight.

Max Baucus (Montana)
If Baucus is the deciding vote against the public option, he would face the an incredibly intense backlash from MT Dems.  Thanks to the Gang of Six fiasco, Baucus is rightfully on very thin ice.

Mark Begich (Alaska)
Position unclear.

Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
See Max Baucus.

Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Past support.

Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Limited past support.

Mark Pryor (Arksansas)
Open to a public option.

Mark Warner (Virginia)
Not a big fan of a public option.  Politically though, he would have no coherent rationale for being the deciding vote against one.

Jim Webb (Virginia)
Past support:

"There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all American at an affordable price for taxpayers," Webb and 15 other senators wrote in an April letter urging that a public option be approved.

Note: I'm not including West Virginia's Robert Byrd because of his health difficulties, though Byrd did support a non - trigger public option in the past.  

The problem may very well be the House.  But first things first.  Because basic accountability is so important, Senators should be straightforward about how they would vote on the merits.  To clear this up, the remaining Dem Senators should be asked a simple question, in isolation from what is going on in the House.  

"If there is a vote on a public choice, how would you vote on the merits?"  

If they say that the votes in the Senate aren't there, they should be asked how they would vote if 49 other Dems were voting yes.  This is not a far - fetched scenario.  "We don't have the votes in the Senate" is no longer a very convincing argument.

Over to you Tom Carper, Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller, Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Kent Conrad, Kay Hagan, Claire McCaskill, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb.

Resource: The Washington Independent's Senate Public Option Scoreboard
Action: PCCC - Whip Congress

One more thing...

The Top Three Political Reasons Congressional Democrats Should Support Including A Public Option In Health Care Reform

- It's probably the only thing that can really close the enthuisasm gap.  We're talking about the difference between a November that is rough, and a November that is a disaster.

- Without it, the individual mandate is politically indefensible.  

- Many of those currently on the fence now have either already voted for a bill with a public option in it (on the floor or in committee), or voiced support for it.  They're already going to get attacked for it by the right.  Using reconciliation is going to make the Republican base freak out regardless of what is in the legislation.  The public option has been consistently popular.  If Dems are going to go this route, we might as well include important policy supported by a clear majority of the American people.  Among voters who will or potentially would vote for Democrats, support for a public option is sky high.  A significant number of the most active Dem voters consider it essential.  

Whether it's a public option or a Medicare Expansion, including a public choice is the right thing to do... and the smart thing to do.

UPDATE:  McJoan reports on Dick Durbin telling Senate Dems that they can't have a vote on the public option.  Durbin is arguing that it will jeopardize the whole reconciliation process, and Tom Carper is backing him up. If this argument is revealed to be seriously flawed, this move will backfire big time.

It looks like the votes in the Senate are there, but for whatever reason, some leading Dems don't want the vote to take place. If they don't want a vote on a public choice, they should say why.  But "we don't have the votes in the Senate" just isn't credible anymore.  

UPDATE #2:  Greg Sargent talks to Bernie Sanders, who says he is prepared to introduce a public option amendment.

UPDATE #3:  Ryan Grim reports that Durbin will whip votes for whatever comes out of the House.  Grim's headline says it best -- the public option is now "a matter of will, not votes."  

Going Public: Palin Goes Rogue On Right - Wing Talking Points

by: Michael Conrad

Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:39:50 PM EST

The big news of the day:  Sarah Palin became an unintentional spokesperson for Medicare For All.

Brian Beutler on Stupak's dirty dozen.

Contact info for constituents here.

Just now on Countdown:  Rep. Dennis Kucinich is a solid no.  Compares a bill without a robust public option to "building on sand."

Greg Sargent has a useful roundup of other swing House votes.

On the Senate side, I still do think the votes for a public option through reconciliation are within grasp.   We have 37 right now.   Akaka, Carper, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Rockefeller, Tester, Baucus, Conrad, Hagan, McCaskill, Webb, Warner, Byrd, and Begich would give us 52. That's home with a little room to spare.  Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and Bill Nelson would be worth lobbying as well.  I doubt any of them would back it unless the train were leaving the station.  But Lincoln couldn't afford to be the one vote to kill it, unless she wants small donors to flock to Bill Halter like nothing ever seen before.

The grassroots is not urging elected Dems to do something that doesn't make sense.  We're urging them to include a popular element that is good policy, makes the individual mandate politically defensible, and is probably the only thing that can really energize the Democratic base in time for November.

Drew Westen weighs in.  The entire post is worth reading.  Westen reinforces why a Medicare Choice Buy - In would be a winner.

Great coverage of all things reconciliation at Congress Matters.

Mitt Romney is apparently running for president on an "I Heart Insurance Companies" platform

President Obama at his best.

Some much - needed comic relief:  Jonathan Chait mocks Mike Allen's reconciliation FAIL.

Action

PCCC - Whip Congress
Fix It And Pass It!