Another great post from letsgetitdone. Go read and comment:
I agree with Jon Walker, that passing health care reform requires mobilization of the activists who were so important to Obama in the past. But, I think that to mobilize them and to maintain that mobilization in the difficult fight to come, the President needs to backtrack from his earlier positions and guarantee that he will veto any health care reform bill without “Medicare for All.” Since “Medicare for All” will socialize insurance for basic health care, and provide freedom from the insurance companies; that is what will mobilize the activists. That is also what will mobilize the 85 co-sponsors of HR 676 in the House, who thus far have been awfully quiet and unwilling to commit to vote no on any bill lacking a robust public option. And that is what will mobilize masses of Americans in back of health care reform, because everyone understands what Medicare is, and 86% of their parents and grandparents say they're satisfied with it.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Readers and fellows, question
If we were going to try to get the Progressive Caucus off the friggin sidelines and into this fight in our favor, what would we do?
If we were to whip them, how would we go about doing that?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Well, I think for starters we have to
get their attention somehow. I don't mean in a threatening way, but something. Right now our voices(and I believe the voices of a good number of Americans who don't want to throw more money at private insurers) are being drowned out by the wingers and the progressives on the left still looking for a robust public co-op, or whatever.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
A tactical question...
... would it be a net plus or a net minus to be clear that we're pushing Obama and the Dems in Congress to change course?
I ask because the waters are so murky because of all the "public option" activism, people who haven't been paying attention may be confused about whom we want to move.
When Lynn Woolsey goes on Diane Rehm's show and says that
progressives have already compromised; they wanted single payer, but they'll settle for a "good" public option --and admits she can't define "good" as it pertains to public option-- PLUS never mentions the promised vote on Weiner's Medicare for All single payer plan -- Ooooof! we're in severe Bizarro World.
And being ignored: We do not have the clout Obama has with them.
My GP said there are not enough voices being raised, not enough calls, emails, etc., to overcome the power of the Big Insurers' Big Donations.
So, what to do? Today, I don't know. My car's not functioning and I had to have it towed to my mechanic, so it's hard to get around to picket, even buy materials for signs! And I would have a newer car if I didn't have to feed the damn parasites so damn much. Plus, my '97 beaut just got reclassified from 18mgp to 19 by the EPA, thus being no longer eligible for Clunkers for Cash. I guess because our Dems were mostly interested in having new cars purchased, they didn't take into account how age tends to affect mileage and pollution. And just why is my cursor on right click so squirrelly.....
OK, whinging over.
Really, what to do? Call the so-called progressives to pin them down on how they will vote for the Weiner Medicare for All?
Call Weiner to make sure he names it effectively? Like "Medicare for All"? Make sure he sticks with HR 676? That any changes are real improvements?
Well, we could whip for single payer, eh?
That doesn't take a car.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
definitely DON'T
follow jane's suggestion for pitting activists who want single payer against activists who are fighting big ag. ugh.
i've been calling and/or emailing everyone on her whip list, telling them i want single payer, not a public option.
Well, why don't we all do that, then?
But what's needed is making sure about the Kucinich amendment, right?
Why not whip the Congressional Progressive Caucus on the Kucinich amendment?
Maybe we could just adopt whatever the wording of Jane's public option was? Make a pledge?
NOTE I guess I don't think it's the role of the activist to work out what the quid pro quos might be (Big Ag, or whatever). The whole process is opaque; let them figure out their own deals, which they are far too adept at anyhow for mere mortals like us. What we can bring is pain. Let's bring as much pain as we can, and they can weigh that against the deals.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
bingo!
NOTE I guess I don't think it's the role of the activist to work out what the quid pro quos might be (Big Ag, or whatever). The whole process is opaque; let them figure out their own deals, which they are far too adept at anyhow for mere mortals like us. What we can bring is pain. Let's bring as much pain as we can, and they can weigh that against the deals.
very much on target. if it were our job to make the deals, we'd be getting paid the big bucks, and the lavish benefits, instead of them.
Your question, Lambert
is a good one. Look, I'm no great tactician, and until I discovered reliable sources like Kip Sullivan, and shortly thereafter Corrente my brain would just go to mush on the issue. So, I'm a "newbie" on the issue. Healthcare reform or whatever you want to call it has so many potential moving parts (I don't mean HR 676), the propagandists will go with "baffle em with bullshit".
HR 3200 seems like a truly awful bill. Should the tactic be to press to have it go down in flames? Whip to get cosponsors of HR 676 and the PC to vote NO on it, period, stating that it just won't work, and SP will?
Compromised HR 3200--has anyone found confirmation that the
Blue Dogs got funding for the "public option" (whatever it may be) down to $2B???
Has it even been reported anywhere?
Which is what Lynn Woolsley said on the Diane Rehm Show. $5B for health coops, no requirement to be paid back -- while the ever weakening public options must pay back the $2B. WTF
, Dems?
$2 billion? That's insane. Transcript?
Lynn Woolsley needs a beat down. Perhaps we can arrange that?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Rehm show has audio, but no transcripts unless purchased --
Per my county library, NPR is very slow to get transcripts into Lexis-Nexis, which they will access for patrons. I sure wish there transcripts; I hate having to listen to get to a few nuggets.
I wrote up what was said yesterday in this comment (should be a post, but I wanted hard cites -- for people who like to see it in writing, like, oh, I don't know...).
LINK for audio.
Lynn Woolsey's segment runs from 13:30 to 22:40, beginning with her statement about how the Blue Dog compromise weakened the public option by favoring the co-ops over public option. I did hear it right. Favored to the tune of $5 Billion to $2 Billion. I have little faith that $2 Billion can do very much for people.
Earl Pomeroy, intro'd as Blue Dog, ND, comes on at 23:45 to 31:15. He speaks about the compromise as making the PO
"more truly competitive." On abortion coverage he said:
I will be doing a post tomorrow on the abortion issue and Obama's apparent non-stand.
My transcription skills are miserably slow and poor, but I did try to capture Pomeroy's actual words.
Comments on right bar are not in chronological order -- the abv
posted 46 seconds ago per time is on the bottom, and the rest are kind of mixed up.
Whassup? Huh -- now chronological, but the comment above off the list.
Twilight Intertubing?
Comments appear in the sidebar
in the order they are first posted, most recent on top.
But if you edit a comment, it stays in the same queue position, but gets a new time stamp.
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
I meant to call Woolsey's office today, but RL was...demanding-
If there are people from her district around, please call her about these remarks.
Is it best to call the DC office -- or are they bare bones during the break? Or call local office? Appreciate suggestions, advice, experience.
jawbone- I just checked out Lexis-Nexis
first using NPR and then using Diane Rehm show and also WAMU
There were transcripts up from NRP from Aug 3, and Aug 4.
I could find only a few transcripts from the Diane Rehm show, and these were from way back.
So, it looks like NPR does get transcripts up of some stuff really quickly. But, looks like these are only from programs that are broadcast on all NPR stations, and not programs that are specific to local member stations.
A friend of mine (well someone I know via the internet) does a classical music broadcast at an NPR affiliate (also a university radio station as WAMU appears to be), and his program is totally local to that NPR affiliate station. The local station broadcasts NPR programs that are pretty much standard fare e.g. "All Things Considered" at all NPR stations, but also has a number of programs that are totally local.
Seems like the Diane Rehm show is specific to a local affiliate (WAMU), and as such is not included in NPR transcripts.
Hope this makes sense. My main point is that it's doubtful that this transcript (the specific one you reference) will ever appear at Nexis-Lexis.
VG, T/U! Rehm is broadcast on many public stations, but at
times of the stations' choosing.
I recall not that my reference librarian told me NPR gets some stuff up quickly (Talk of the Nation used to have --still?-- transcripts quickly on the NPR site. But apparently some get up quickly, some take longer, some never make it. Weird. Maybe they don't get to Lexis-Nexis unless people purchase them and then the transcript gets made?
What about All Things Considered and Morning Edition? Were those available on a timely basis?
Again, thank you so much.
I saw some current stuff from ATC
but I really wasn't trying to figure out the whole shebang!
got no idea how the intersection between LNexis and NPR works.
But, if there's something from ATC or ME you want to find, I can try, but not right now.
I'm no tactician either. Help!
For whatever reason, my thought is to:
1. Do the positive thing on whipping for the Kucinich amendment
2. Do the negatives on HR3200 out on the blogs and in the media along with positive things.
Not sure why I think that. Hipparchia? BDBlue? Leah? Anyone?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I dunno
Lambert,
just trying to think this through myself. What is the aim of whipping for the Kucinich amdmt? I need to think about that.
To possibly get something included in the bill, which could provide an avenue for showing over time that the other options are mess- if in fact some states go with SP?
As a show of support for SP- meaning having critters support this b/c "even if we can't get this nationally" states should have the option of choosing the best, SP?"
above doesn't have to be either/or.
I take your point 2 about positives and negatives, in terms of messaging, but I'm having a hard time getting past the negatives. Oh, maybe a few positives in the bill, that have nothing to do with the PO
. Rescission stuff. Maybe if the bill were greatly reduced, w/o the amorphous PO stuff, cut to the bones and to support changes that get rid of the worst insurance practices, that would be good.
Whip for a greatly reduced bill now that could still count as reform, and to take the rest off the table until next year when (hopefully) constituents are better educated? There do seem to be a few parts of the bill (not the PO) that could help people soon. But, downside, might make then hate insurance companies less. As you say, with your Rube Goldberg analogy, too many moving parts.
yep, whip for the positive
ridicule the negative in blogs.
but are we going to stop with the kucinich amendment? i haven't been paying attention today, where are we on the weiner amendment / floor vote for single payer? can't we whip for / blog about that?
positive / negative
privately, in person, i've been talking up the they want to force you to buy insurance aspect of health care deform. fortunately, my congress critter is helping all he can [not that he'll be any use in trying talk up medicare for all].
a possible positive spin i haven't tried yet: if we extend medicare to everybody, no more insurance hassles, you just go to the doctor and the government pays for it. it's a tad disingenuous, but it's the truth. we're short on time, so rather than take the time to educate people about medicare really is govt run health care, just play on their deeply ingrained wish to have somebody else pay the bills.
I also say it's cheaper.
We'll save 400 billion a year=jobs=middle class tax cuts=infrastructure=cures for disease=jobs.
I also say I think every child born in the country should have equitable health care as a birth right, and wouldn't you like to never deal with the insurance company again, so many less hoops to go through, etc..
Oh, and I remind them that single payer is about how you finance health care, not delivery, and that health insurance is really a financial instrument not a delivery instrument. I try to separate finance from care.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
i'm in a seriously red portion of a purple state
people here are rabid partisans, xenophobic, paranoid about govt, and many are not only fundamentalist christians, but have been brought up on the poor people are poor because they're morally unworthy and god is punishing them for it kind of religiosity.
and when the rest of the country is doing well job-wise, we're not, so they're not going to buy that one either.
every child born in the country means little black children too. this area is, in many ways, the deep south, so gotta avoid that trap. not to mention that it gives them the opening to worry about paying for illegal aliens.
i'm also thinking, now that we're hearing about the people who don't think medicare is a govt program, they just know they've paid into it and it's theirs by rights, we should be able to leverage that. tell people that they're already paying into medicare now, but can't use it until 65, and if they pay a little bit more, they could start using it now. something along those lines.
Whip them both
I can't think how to phrase this, but we don't want HR 3200 without Kucinich amendment, but we really want HR 676.
I've been thinking about how to push this today. Should be a selling point to NY pols that Weiner brought up that "affordable" != affordable to people with NYC cost-of-living. What I'm worried about: pols (members of CBC especially) who feel they must show loyalty to Obama for the sake of the folks at home. This may apply to some Brooklyn reps (Towns maybe, for example) - I don't know about Rangel, who's been all over the place, sometimes standing up to Obama when he felt Obama was trying to dictate who could run in local elections here for example, but in general he's been much less outspoken and much less on the front lines since all that scandal last year and since (one hears) he got his arm twisted over his support for Hillary in the primaries. Note he has not co-sponsored HR 676 this time around, and I wonder how that fits in.
OK, that was meandering.
Here's something else I wonder about: my local, PSC-CUNY, has been conspicuously silent on this issue except for this on their website:
They have not been emailing us about the legislation going through Congress. This is odd because PSC-CUNY has sent out a number of email updates on things they are working on over the summer, has endorsed candidates in the upcoming NYC primaries, etc. The parent union (AFT) at least in the person of Randi Weinberg has endorsed staying with the employer-based system. My feeling is that there may be a split in the local, with a lot of people still wanting to work for single-payer.
We can't afford not to have single-payer!