In a sign that House Dem leaders remain committed to making a public option a part of health care reform, the leadership is urging members in a new polling memo to keep in mind that the public plan remains overwhelmingly popular despite weeks of attacks on it.
The memo — which will be distributed to members of Congress and others later this morning and was sent over by a leadership aide — is designed to arm Congressional Dems with ammo to beat back claims that the public option’s popularity has tanked.
“Coordinated attacks by Republicans and other opponents of health insurance reform have had little effect on the strong support for a public health insurance option,” the memo reads.
The memo, which comes as intra-Dem fighting over the public option is set to intensify, also sends a simple message to centrist Dems: The public wants this done. The memo, which you can read right here, reproduces much recent polling in a handy chart:
Three recent polls show overwhelming support for the public option, and the fourth poll, by Rasmussen, finds a large majority opposes a plan without one. The memo also stresses that the pulic plan gets much greater support when you offer respondents a “choice.”
The memo’s goal: To put some spine into individual members spooked by the relentless assault on reform and the chorus of punditry claiming that the public option will have to be nixed in order to get reform done.
- Think Progress: Idaho Republican gubernatorial candidate jokes about hunting President Obama.
On Tuesday, Rex Rammell — a Republican candidate for governor in Idaho — joked to an audience that he’d like to hunt President Obama. The AP reports that it came up when conversation turned to Idaho’s “planned wolf hunt, for which hunters must purchase an $11.50 wolf tag.” Rammell remarked to an audience member that he’d like to purchase an Obama tag:
When an audience member shouted about “Obama tags,” Rammell responded, “The Obama tags? We’d buy some of those.”
AmericaBlog’s Joe Sudbay writes, “It’s not a joke. It’s not funny. And, GOP leaders should be speaking out about this appalling behavior. But, it’s coming from the GOP base — and GOP leaders will never challenge their base.”
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
By: Blue Texan Friday August 28, 2009 5:00 amIf I hear one more Republican Senator lecture us about Ted's "bipartisanship"...:
Kennedy's Republican friends should not make that disingenuous argument in his lamented absence. Lest there be any doubt about what he truly wanted, his bill includes a robust public option along with all the insurance reforms and cost controls that the president has endorsed since this process began.
How would he have handled the intransigence and dishonesty of the Republican opposition? We know that he could shout as well as whisper — and that he could be partisan as well as bipartisan. He believed that the time for incremental changes had passed. He was ready to fight. The tragedy of his death is not only that he didn't see the triumph he had dreamed, but that he fell before he could lead the nation to that final victory. Now that victory will have to be won in his name.
It's time to get it done. And there's simply no excuses.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R) of Texas has been one of the leading right-wing agitators against health care reform. It was a little odd, then, to see Armey accidentally tell The Economist that the public option may be a good idea.Benen: ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING..."If you in fact freely choose to enroll in Medicare that's a wonderful gift, it's a charity, it's something I applaud. But when they force you in, that's tyranny."
The Economist added, "In arguing against the Democrats' plan, he says that Medicare is a form of tyranny, and that citizens should be able to choose to enroll in the program. This choice, between a public plan and private ones, is precisely what the Democrats propose in a public option."
Right. No one is proposing a public option that Americans would be "forced" into. That's why it's called an "option." It denotes something "optional." Eligible Americans would be able to choose whether to "opt" in or out. "Optional" and "mandatory," in the English language, are opposites.
And yet, this seems to come up all the time. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dog point-man on health care, said last week he would not vote for a plan that would "force government-run healthcare on anyone. Period." He added that the public plan would be "strictly ... an option." The fact that he had to make the not-so-bold declaration in the first place suggests he's been running into some folks who believe they would be forced into a public plan.
With that in mind, I have two suggestions going forward. First, reform proponents should probably start telling the public that even Dick Armey thinks the idea of a public option sounds like "a wonderful gift."
And second, Democrats should declare, publicly and loudly, that in response to popular demand, they've decided to make the public plan purely optional. Conservatives drive a hard bargain, but reform proponents are not above compromise. As this item, posted by Josh Marshall, put it, "I think Obama should use all the fictional friction points as bargaining chips. You want us to give up the tyranny of compulsory coverage? You win, Dick Armey. Will you support the bill now?"
You probably think I'm going out of my way to pick on Chuck Grassley. I'm not, but let's face it -- he deserves the criticism.Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa indicated Thursday he was no longer sure whether negotiators can reach a bipartisan deal in September, citing mounting public concern about excessive government spending and soaring federal deficits.
Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee which is attempting to draft a bipartisan health care measure, said in a telephone interview from Iowa with Kaiser Health News, that he was struck by the intensity of Iowans' criticism of the health care proposals and "fear" of excessive federal spending during several weeks of town hall meetings throughout his state.
Asked whether he thought the six Democratic and Republican negotiators on the committee would be able to cut a deal when Congress returns from its summer recess next month, Grassley replied: "If you asked me that on Aug. 6, I would have said yes, I think so, September. But you're asking me on Aug. 27 and you've got the impact of democracy in America. Everybody's showing up at town meetings.... If town meetings are going to mean anything, if democracy is going to mean anything, then you listen to your people and you act accordingly."
A few things. First, the folks who are "showing up at town meetings," ranting and raving about reform, are angry because they don't know what they're talking about. They've been filled with rage, lies, and paranoia. Killing a necessary reform bill to placate ridiculous cries from gullible people is politics at its most inane. Responsible lawmakers do the right thing, even when misguided mobs whine about it. Letting temper tantrums, motivated by stupidity, dictate public policy only encourages more stupid temper tantrums.
Second, Grassley has a confused sense of who "everybody" is. Grassley has 3 million constituents. Let's say, hypothetically, Grassley has heard angry right-wing screams from, say, 3,000 Iowans at town-hall events. That would mean the senator had heard strenuous opposition to reform from exactly 0.1% of his constituents. If he's heard far-right town-hall enmity from 30,000 Iowans -- a farfetched claim, to be sure -- that would still only be 1% of the people Grassley represents.
He's concerned about "democracy meaning something"? A clear majority of Americans -- and a clear majority of Iowans -- elected Barack Obama as president. His signature domestic issue was health care reform. "You listen to your people and you act accordingly."
Grassley doesn't give a damn about the deficit or screaming Teabaggers or government spending. He wants to kill health care reform. The only question now is whether congressional Democrats are prepared to help him with this goal.
BarbinMD: Michael Steele: "No one’s trying to scare people with soundbites"
Michael Steele is either delusional or a liar:
INSKEEP: Do you find it challenging to get into this complicated debate and explain things to people in a way that it’s honest to the facts and still very clear –
STEELE: That’s a good point.
INSKEEP: — and doesn’t just kind of scare people with soundbites?
STEELE: Well, no. Look. No one’s trying to scare people with soundbites. I have not done that, and I don’t know any leaders in the House and the Senate that have done that. So yeah, it’s complicated and you want to do that.
Death panels, death books, forced euthanasia, pull the plug on grandma, the list goes on and on. But no, Republicans aren't just trying to scare people with soundbites - they're lying through their teeth to scare people with soundbites.
Off topic, but very interesting . . .
Drum: Cash 4 Clunkers Wrapup
Joe Romm says that although the Cash for Clunkers program was never meant to be a cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions, in the end it turned out to be very effective indeed:In the real world, the public has mostly turned in gas-guzzlers in exchange for fuel-efficient cars — which perhaps should not have been a total surprise since oil prices are rising, gas guzzlers remain a tough resell in the used car market, and most fuel-efficient cars are much cheaper than SUVs. So as a stimulus that saves oil while cutting CO2 for free — it has turned out to be a slam dunk, far better than I had expected.
....Let’s assume the new cars are driven nearly 20% more over the next 5 years [compared to the old cars they replace], and that the average price of gasoline over the next five years is $3.50. Then we’re “only” saving 140 million gallons a year or roughly $500 million a year. The $3 billion program “pays for itself” in oil savings in 6 years. And most of that oil savings is money that would have left the country, so it is a (small) secondary stimulus.
Using a rough estimate of 25 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas (full lifecycle emissions), then we’re saving over 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per year — and all of the ancillary urban air pollutants from those clunkers — for free.
I wouldn't make a habit out of supporting targeted industry programs like C4C, but it was wildly popular, provided a modest but noticeable amount of economic stimulus, and helps reduce U.S. oil consumption. Not bad for $3 billion.
C&L: Exclusive: The Rest Of That Barney Frank Town Hall Meeting With The Teabaggers
By dday Thursday Aug 27, 2009 7:00pm
Anyone who is aware of all Internet traditions has by now seen the footage of Barney Frank taking down the Larouchie who asked him if he would support a "Nazi policy" by asking her, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" But Rep. Frank was in rare form that night, standing up to the uninformed shrieking of the right and offering a real lesson in how to argue with conservatives. Rep. Frank's office provided C&L with the tapes of that town hall meeting in Dartmouth from last week, and I put together a sort of greatest hits reel.
Frank explains what deficit hawks should concern themselves with:
"I am struck by those who say, well, you don't care about the deficit. No, I do. I do care about the deficit. That's one of the reasons, not the only one, why I voted against the single most wasteful expenditure in the history of America. The Iraq war. If we hadn't gone to the war in Iraq, which I thought was a terrible mistake and voted against, we would have had more than enough money to pay for health care."
He argues with a "tenther" who thinks that Congress isn't authorized to provide health care for their citizens:
Frank: Do you think Medicare is unconstitutional, sir?
Teabagger: I think that Medicare needs to be reformed.
Frank: Do you think it's unconstitutional? You said that the Constitution doesn't give us the authority to do it, but Medicare was done. And, do you think Medicare is unconstitutional?
Teabagger: I think that Medicare needs to be reformed.
Frank: But you won't tell me whether you think it's unconstitutional, which you said--
Teabagger: I am not a Constitutional scholar-
Frank: Then why did you start off arguing about the Constitution?
That's really a fantastic exchange, where Frank digs an inch below the surface and finds nothing. He insists on having this questioner back up the rhetoric he cribbed off of Free Republic or wherever he got it, and the guy just couldn't do it.
And this is my favorite part:
Teabagger: Can you pledge to all of us here tonight, that if a new government single-payer system is instituted, that you will opt out of your Cadillac insurance?
Frank: Yes I am in favor of single payer, and that's why I like Medicare. (yelling) You act as if you people have discovered it is August. I have been a co-sponsor of the single payer bill, I think it would be better...
Teabagger #2: But we watch tapes of Obama and everyone else secretly say they're in favor of an eventual single pay system.
Frank: I haven't... sir, it's been 21 years since I've had a secret. (Laughter) And I don't have one now! You have discovered that I'm for single payer! I've been a sponsor of single payer for years!
What you see here is several things: 1) Rep. Frank is always in control; 2) he concedes nothing; 3) he allows his opponents to hang themselves with the outlandish logic of their own claims; 4) he knows when to throw in a well-timed bon mot. At one point, Frank says, "When you say things that people can't refute, they try to drown you out. That's understandable." That's someone who is confident in their beliefs. Democrats could learn something from that.
No comments:
Post a Comment