NOW PROGRESSIVES ARE OUTRAGED

[democracy1st]

Progressive House Democrats Balk At Health Care Compromise



Wednesday in the House, Democratic leaders gave in -- at least temporarily -- to numerous demands from rank-and-file rebels from the conservative wing of the party. The so-called Blue Dog Democrats had been blocking the bill's passage in Energy and Commerce.

The House changes, which drew immediate opposition from liberal lawmakers, would steer away from using Medicare as the blueprint for a proposed government insurance option, reduce federal subsidies to help lower-income families afford coverage, and exempt additional businesses from a requirement to offer health insurance to their workers.

The House deal was worked out over hours of talks that involved not only Democratic leaders but also White House officials eager to advance the bill. Senior congressional aides cast it as a temporary accommodation, saying leaders had not committed to support it once the bill advances to the floor of the House in the fall.

As word of the agreement spread, liberals fired back. "We do not support this," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. "I think they have no idea how many people are against this. They can't possibly be taking us seriously if they're going to bring this forward." At a press conference, she said, "We might have to come back and start over."

Plans to convene the Energy and Commerce Committee for a vote slipped until Thursday as leaders sought to allay concerns of liberals.

"Waxman made a deal that is unacceptable," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told Politico, after meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday.

"We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn't include a robust public option, and this plan doesn't have a robust public option," he added.



In the Senate, the pace of negotiations appears to have accelerated in recent days, with lawmakers all but settling on a tax on high-cost insurance plans to help pay for the bill, as well as a new mechanism designed to curtail the growth of Medicare over the next 10 years and beyond.

More problematic from the point of view of most Democrats is a tentative agreement to omit a provision in which the government would sell insurance in competition with private industry. In its place, the group is expected to recommend nonprofit cooperatives that could operate at the state, regional or even national level.


Nor is any bipartisan recommendation likely to include a requirement for large businesses to offer insurance to their workers. Instead, they would have a choice between offering coverage or paying a portion of any government subsidy that noninsured employees would receive.

Like the House bill, the bipartisan proposal under discussion would expand eligibility for Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

It provides for federal subsidies for individuals and families up to 300 percent of poverty, less than the 400 percent in the House measure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/progressive-house-democra_n_247615.html

[Enrique]

1. I'm with the progressives

I want health reform, but if a good number of good progressives say this deal is no good then I say kill it if necessary.

[TeamJordan23]

2. There is no point in Obama signing a bill with the blue dog compromises.

We would be negotiating with the insurance companies the rates the public option could offer - that really makes sense :sarcasm:

[rocktivity]

3. At least the media is admitting that the progressive exist

Do they outnumber the blue dogs?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[kirby]

5. Yes, but you wouldnt know it...

Something like 82 vs 52.

And 32 of the 52 Blue Dogs were elected in districts that John McCain won.

[democracy1st]

6. Oh hell yes

http://pdamerica.org/

http://thecongressionalblackcaucus.lee.house.gov/

http://www.chci.org/

[DevonRex]

4. OMG are we seeing actual backbones???? It's been a long time

so I'm not quite sure.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Good...we need a robust public option

[blm]

8. Good - and when senate bill takes shape I expect Dem senators to shame the corpoDems.

.

[slipslidingaway]

9. "The CPC must take a principled stand immediately..."

This was written before the latest compromise with the Blue dogs...

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/28/does-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-care-about-its-public-option-principles/

"...Two of the three health care “reform” bills that will be introduced in this Congress by Democrats have now been introduced. They are HR 3200 and the bill written by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. As debilitated as HR 3200’s “public option” is, it is not as degraded as the one called for in the Senate HELP Committee bill.

The “public option” in the HELP Committee bill is weaker for two reasons. First, it calls for “community health insurance options,” and then defines these things as “health insurance coverage” which can vary by state. That implies there will be no single national “Medicare-like” program, but rather dozens, perhaps hundreds, of insurance companies sponsored by the federal government, each of which will be called “a community health insurance option.” Second, the bill does not authorize these “options” to pay providers rates below those paid by insurance companies as HR 3200 does. It was mainly for this latter reason that the CBO reported to Congress that the “options” in the HELP Committee bill would be unable to keep their premiums below those of the insurance industry...

If an intervention within Congress is going to occur, one might expect it to come from the CPC. But so far the CPC’s strategy appears to be to do nothing to strengthen the puny “public option” in HR 3200. The CPC appears to have adopted a strategy of (a) insisting that the final bill contain a “public option”, and (b) begging other Democrats not to let anyone degrade HR 3200’s “public option” any further. If this observation is accurate, and if the Senate Finance Committee bill turns out to be as bad as everyone expects it to be, then it is safe to say the bill Congress sends to Obama will contain either no “public option” or a very, very weak “public option.” And if that’s the case, the bill will be a pure, or 99-percent pure, health insurance industry bailout.

The CPC needs to remind itself that the goal of most of its members is comprehensive, universal health insurance under a single-payer system. CPC members need to ask themselves whether their current strategy is moving America toward or away from that goal. They should take immediate steps to compare the “public option” in HR 3200 with their own principles, or better yet Hacker’s original principles, and then issue a report telling the public what they found. To facilitate this report, I propose to the CPC that it adopt the following resolution:..."

[cascadiance]

10. Lynn Woolsey should be Speaker of the House...

Now she's showing the leadership I'm wanting there that both houses in Congress need!

[defendandprotect]

11. MEDICARE FOR ALL -- ready to go now . . .

[Scarsdale Vibe]

12. Progressive caucus will win in conference for the most part

Blue Dogs are just kabuki dancing for constituents.

[Vidar]

13. Good for the progressives.

[Jakes Progress]

14. Is it rook to queen's pawn four yet? nt

[Kablooie]

15. The whole thing is a chaotic mess. Just like it was back with the Clintons. Goodbye health reform!

And I just heard on NPR that the public is turning against Obama's health plan.

THE REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES SCORE ANOTHER BASKET!

THE SCORE IS NOW 302,938 TO 1!

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO CATCH UP!

---

I Have to hand it to them. The Republicans are no good at creating or building but
DAMN they are GOOD at tearing any and everything down!

[ClayZ]

16. Yay! K and R