Has anybody out there been following this? Anyway yesterday I listened to one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus say she wanted to hear strong support for the `public option'. Lee and others sounded united on getting what Lee called a `robust public option'. This included the TriCaucus which are various other minority caucuses. Lee's version was linked to Medicare providers, had provisions for `equity care' meaning that it addressed the unequal care provided for minority and immigrant populations, especially children, and for children included dental. That bill was introduced in June and was labeled HR3090.
I don't know what these equity provisions are. I assume she is talking about family planning, obgyn services, full pediatric coverage, mental illness, family counseling, and substance abuse recovery. I also don't know what `linked to Medicare providers' means either. If it is a good provision it means the public option has a sliding cost scale based on income to buy Medicare coverage, with government subsidies for low and moderate income. I also think she had it so it didn't exclude non-citizens.
Obama directly shot some of the above down here:
``under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place...''
I think what became Family Planning was originally part of the war on poverty community health system, federally funded and specifically designed for low income women and children.
Further down, he mumbled crap about a `non-profit' that had to pay for itself. If only 5% of the un-insured are supposed to use such a plan, it can't pay for itself. I also didn't like the idea of savings in Medicare used to pay for anything. What savings? `Savings' means more denial of service, lower fee schedules, and higher co-pays in the Medicare system. His mention of Intermountain in Utah worries me even more. In California there are already Medicare paid for private plans and they really suck, charge Medicare through for-profit contracts, and they make billing a bigger nightmare.
The progressive groups in the House I think have enough votes if they join the Republicans to defeat any bill without what they called robust public option. So now the question is how did they react to Obama? I thought to myself, you suck buddy. Moyers last Friday urged the president to stand up for real healthcare reform. This sure ain't it.
Lee has been disappointing. She seems very reluctant and cagey about going up against Obama and Pelosi. I haven't followed anybody else in the CBC so I can't tell where they are. The Progressive caucus (which I think includes the many or most of the minority caucus members) sent a letter this morning demanding a meeting with Obama:
``We look forward to meeting with you regarding your support for defining the public option in any final health care reform bill and request that the meeting take place as soon as possible. Public opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Americans want the choice of a robust public plan and we stand in solidarity with them.''
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/letter-from-house-progressives-to-obama-demanding-meeting/
If they heard the speech the way I did, they are pissed.
So, do the progressive and minority caucuses have the guts to back up their threat to vote no on what Obama outlined?
The reason I am interested in all this is because it's obvious by now that Obama is a bait and switch Democrat in the best tradition of Kennedy, Johnson (on the war), Carter, and Clinton. If you consider the economy, education, environment, Obama is even less `liberal' than his predecessors.
Because of his Afghan war and his chumminess with Brooks, I am beginning to think of Obama as a neo-conservative despite the fact that probably most neo-cons can't see the similarities.
I think, if progressives and liberals really want some power within the Democratic party, now is their chance. They can defeat this meaningless healthcare nonsense. They've had a full nine month course of Obama sell outs.
A No vote will definitely send the message to Obama to stop selling his liberal support out. And more. Obama is going to lose his primary base, the one that put him in office---if he keeps this line going. Most of Obama's supporters didn't vote to watch Bush-lite put in four more years.
Team-O in the WH must know exactly the same thing. Furthermore, they must know the whole Republican leadership is counting on Obama to disillusion his base enough so that apathy sets. I guess team-O thinks the Republicans sound so insane these days, they can count on the lesser evil scenario to keep working for them.
Below is Kucinich's response to last night's speech.
``The President's health care policy speech was brilliant but when you get into the details another picture emerges. Unfortunately, at this point, the proposal outlined last night is the ultimate corporate giveaway. It's not health care, it’s insurance care. As many as thirty million new customers for an insurance industry which makes money not providing health care. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care. That is the essence of HR676, the single payer bill.
The President opened his speech speaking of how we have solved the economic crisis - how? By rewarding those who caused the crash! Is this the way we solve the health care crisis? Rewarding the insurance companies? Helping insurance and pharmaceutical stock to soar, propping up markets while skimping on health care? The very same system which caused the health care crisis is being rewarded with the guarantee of tens of millions of new customers mandated - by law - to have health care. The latest plan rewards the very companies that have denied treatment, denied care, denied drug coverage while their profits grow daily.
The only way this country will see true sustainable economic recovery is through investment in the real economy, priming the pump through job creation. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care.
The 1public option' has been relegated to insignificance. What we will now get is yet another `private option', not a public option, because single-payer is `off the table.' We the people deserve better. We have been faced with general warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan - multi-trillion dollar ballouts for arms merchants, $12 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, bailouts to coal and nuclear industries, and now proposed huge subsidies for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. What's wrong with this picture? Everything!''