Nelson (D-Ne): Public option shelved

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Robynn Tysver

The idea to allow the federal government to compete with private insurance companies via a so-called “public option” has been “shelved” in Congress, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson said Friday.

It doesn't have enough votes, he said.

“For the moment, the public option is shelved,” said Nelson, who gave an update on health-care reform to a group of Nebraska doctors in Omaha.

Between 250 and 300 doctors gathered for a two-day convention of the Nebraska Medical Association in downtown Omaha. The national health-care debate was at the top of the doctors' agenda.

Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20091003/NEWS01/710039914

[Stuart G]

1. Ben Nelson should be shelved....nt

[AndyA]

21. +1...and at the very first opportunity!

What a disgrace that man is. (Like so many others in Congress, unfortunately.)

[Maraya1969]

150. Let him know. Call these numbers. And you can call at night and leave a message.

(I just told him that Jesus said we are to heal the sick not pander to the insurance companies. And that I thought he was going to Hell.)

Office Nearest You

Omaha
7602 Pacific St.
Suite 205
Omaha, NE 68114
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Lincoln

440 North 8th Street
Suite 120
Lincoln, NE 68508
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Washington, D.C.
720 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[SlingBlade]

22. Yep, All of these Blue Dogs Whores should be shelved

They are an insult to what we have accomplished, A cancer.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

79. they are slaves to the corporations and the RW

[Tippy]

157. Blue Dogs think Republicans can help them get re-elected...

I have said it before and I'll say it again, they have their own agenda..The DLC wants the old Democratic Party dead and gone.....That is why it was started in the first place.

[dotymed]

31. Too bad America is not a "Majority Rule" country....

oh wait a minute...it's supposed to be. We have to FIRE every
damned one of OUR representatives that voted against the P.O.,
another corporate victory directly against the well being of
Americans! We are 150 years behind all other
"civilized" nations. Doesn't this make you
"proud to be Americans"..lol..that reminds me of a
Lee Greenwood story. His band was the "house band"
for a bar I frequented in my younger days (in Clarksville, TN
adjoining Ft. Campbell, KY), when they came to town, the
business at the "Camelot Club" plummeted. They
sucked! Well, during the first "Gulf War"
(invasion), Lee (somehow) came out with, I'M PROUD TO BE AN
AMERICAN, he became an "overnight success" and the
rest is history. Before his "fame", I spoke to him a
few times at the club. He was usually drunk and had a nasty
attitude. He was not a friendly person, unless you were a
female he thought he might "get lucky" with. Not
many of those either..lol. But, he became a Rethug darling, as
soon as he released this idiotic song..."Where at least I
know I'm Free"...what a sick joke. The book,
"1984" , should be required reading for all High
School students. I have required all of my children to read
it.

[SOS]

84. We are "majority rule" when the majority is in sync with Wall Street profits

In 1980, a narrow election became "the Reagan revolution".
In 1994, the Republican takeover of Congress was dubbed "the Republican revolution"
In 2004, Bush got a "mandate".

In 2008, when Obama crushed McCain, there was no talk of mandates or Democratic revolutions.

Instead, we get "teabaggers", Ben Nelson and Jefferson quotes about the "tyranny of the majority".

The whole state of American affairs was summed up in five words by Sen. Durbin: "The banks own this place."

[wordpix]

54. note to Nelson: it ain't over 'til it's over, you doublecrossing DINO

:puke: BLECCCCHHHH

[sasquuatch55]

69. Ben Dover! nt

nt

[Enthusiast]

61. No doubt! nt

[Barack_America]

71. The fact that insurance whore Nelson is falsely proclaiming it "dead"....

...makes me very hopeful it will pass.

[defendandprotect]

87. Who here is keeping the list . . . cause he should definitely be on it--!!

[City Lights]

121. Couldn't agree more! nt

[donheld]

131. After all he's shelved his soul.

[tomm2thumbs]

133. +1, of course assumes he had one to begin with

[cascadiance]

137. Was exactly my thought reading the OP...

[orpupilofnature57]

2. We should have nipped it in the " Not on the table " their Language

denotes their Apathy.

[Why Syzygy]

3. This is a disgrace and mockery of our democracy. nt

[harun]

9. I don't call what our system of governance has evolved in to "democracy" anymore.

We live in a Corporate Representative Republic.

[pattmarty]

15. I don't know why we just don't call it by what it has become over............

..............the last 20 yrs, a modern Fascist state. If you believe the "definition" of Fascism as being the melding of corporate and state entities, then we sure as hell "have arrived". Look at the Climate bill, healthcare and so many other problems we have here that poll after poll people want things done. What happens, is we elect a large majority of Dems and have the SAME problems we had under the Republicans. Everyone now knows that our politics are sauteed in money from lobbyists no matter Democrat or Republican. So, "Corporate Representative Republic", I would rather simplify it and call it what we now have become, a modern Fascist State.

[dotymed]

34. pattymarty, unfortunately

You are 100% correct.

[pattmarty]

109. I said it (typed?) sarcastically, but I meant it sadly. I am 62 yo and.............

..............lived through the "good times" 50's & 60's too, they weren't perfect times, but they were in a lot of ways better for the poor and lower class (with a notable exception of course for the blacks until 1965 anyway).

[LibDemAlways]

37. Kids in school are still fed the bullshit about this being a

democracy where everyone's voice is heard. My daughter, a high school junior, is taking US History this year. At Back to School Night recently the teacher went on and on to the parents about "the great democracy in which we live." No wonder so many Americans are sheep. They are taught by people who aren't critical thinkers. You can bet I point out at every opportunity what a corrupt place this is - rigged so that the rich get everything and the peons are no better than serfs. Democracy my ass.

[defendandprotect]

91. They're pretty much also told that capitalism = democracy . . . !!

[SOS]

96. Imagine if Paulson's TARP proposal had been put to a popular vote

The banks wouldn't have gotten a dime!

[harun]

160. Perfect point and exactly why we don't live in a democracy, the top 1% wouldn't allow

it because they would no longer have most favored class status.

[Stuart G]

4. All congressmen/women..against public option should immediately lose their health insurance,

and it proves they are the most selfish of all.

These so called people could keep their insurance if for the rest of their lives they wore large plastic buttons around their necks saying..( you know like olympic gold medals ..saying
"I am the most selfish of all people"J)..

[Cass]

8. I agree with you 1000%. If it's not good enough for their constiuents then it's not good

enough for them.

[Ms. Toad]

62. They don't have a public option.

They have a menu of insurance plans to choose from.

[Cass]

76. That menu of insurance plans is subsidized by taxpayers.

Taxpayers pay 2/3 the cost of their premiums. They don't have to worry about waiting periods and pre-existing conditions like the rest of us. They or their families do not have to worry if they get sick but millions of Americans do.

This health insurance crisis is theoretical for them - they don't have to worry about any of it. That's why idiots like Cantor tell their sick constituents to go beg for charity when they get sick.

[Ms. Toad]

80. I understand the insurance crisis is hypothetical.

That's not the point I was making.

In response to a comment that congress critters against the public option should lose their insurance, you said, "If its not good enough for their constiuents then it's not good enough for them.

They don't currently have access to a public option - so apparently its not good enough for them.

What a number of people apparently don't understand is that congress does not currently have either a public option or a single payer system. They are in the same position as anyone else who has a job that provides health insurance - although with more choices than most for insurance providers. It's just empolyer provided insurance. With respect to waiting periods, pre-existing conditions, or sick family members, however they are in the same boat as any other individual with employer sponsored health insurance.

[strategery blunder]

89. With one critical difference

No insurance company in its right mind would deny a claim filed by a Member of Congress.

"Normal people" have to worry about what happens if they get sick, try to use their insurance, and the insurance denies the claim.

[Ms. Toad]

114. That may be

We would have to have access to the communications between them and their insurers to confirm that (and I doubt they would release those records) - but that is not the subject of this dicussion.

This discussion is about whether congress should lose its insurance because the bill just passed out of committee doesn't include a public option. I merely pointed out that they don't have a public option now, so the suggestion that they should give up their insurance because if it (the public option) isn't good enough for us it shouldn't be good enough for them is not relevant to whether or not the ultimate plan must include a public option.

[brightertomorrow]

100. They have access to good health insurance and

There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for them for preexisting conditions.


http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/


Plus they have lots of CHOICES. They are not in the same boat as most of us.

[Ms. Toad]

123. But their boat does not include a public option

I was not suggesting abandoning the reform that would make the boats more similar than not. My beef is with the suggestion that anyone who votes against a public option (but for the rest of the reforms) should have their insurance yanked so they know what it feels like. (I tend to agree with the suggestion if it is applied to anyone opposing to the list of things you set out above - none of which depend on including a public option in the bill.)

They already know what it feels like to not have a public option, though, since they don't have one. They have, essentially, the exchange and the insurance reforms that are in the version of the bill about which this thread is complaining (and every other version).

As to how similar congress is to everyone else - they have the same plans the rest of the 8 million other federal employees. All employers have the option of implementing the bar on waiting periods and the bar on exclusions for pre-existing conditions and choices of health care plans. Many large employers do. Even if your employer is small, if health care is offered the provider can exclude you for preexisting conditions, or bar coverage, unless you have a gap in coverage from your prior coverage of more than 63 days. I agree, they are not in a boat that is even close to similar with those who do not have access to employer provided insurance - but even the worst bill would make the boats similar.

That doesn't mean that far too many of us are without access to health care (by whatever means that is provided), and that doesn't mean we shouldn't still be working for single payer. It just means that we're losing sight of what is important - making access to health care available to all - by our obsessive focus on a small part of the bill. Only single payer would make health care accessible to all - we're not getting there at this time. The reforms, with or without a public option, will make health care accessible to far more people than have access to it now, and that would be a major improvement.

[Cass]

112. Except they are not in the same boat as any other individual when it comes to waiting periods and

pre-existing conditions. There are no waiting periods and no pre-existing condition limitations in FEHB plans. Because the FEHB is such a large pool they set the framework for the insurance companies to work within, not the other way around.

I understand their coverage is not a public option or single payer. I think most of us here do. However, my point is they enjoy far superior health benefits than the majority of the public and it is subsidized by taxpayers, millions of whom have no coverage or substandard coverage. If a congressperson votes against meaningful health reform for the public while enjoying their subsidized excellent coverage then they should lose their health benefits. Its that simple. Let's level the playing field.

If they think the private insurance system is so great then let them step outside their protected subsidized bubble and experience what the rest of us are experiencing..high premiums, rescissions, waiting periods, pre-existing condition exclusions, etc.

[Ms. Toad]

119. They are in the same boat as every other federal employee,

the same boat as employees of many large companies, and the same boat as anyone who has employer sponsored coverage who has not had a gap in coverage (because of HIPAA - which mandates access and coverage of pre-existing conditions so long as there is not a gap of coverage of more than 63 days).

Any of the bills currently being considered would require all insurance companies to live by the standards many large businesses are currently able to provide for their employees.

This discussion, though, is about whether they should lose their insurance because the version of the bill passed out of finance doesn't include the public option - not about whether anyone voting against meaningful reform should lose their insurance.

There is a difference between voting against putting everyone else on the same footing (which even the Baucus bill would do) - and forcing anyone who votes against that should certainly have a taste of what that is like - and voting against the public option - and they already have a taste of that because they don't currently have access to a public option.

[Cass]

125. To be fair, they have no need for a public option because they enjoy excellent health insurance.

Coverage which is subsidized by taxpayers. The public option is for those who have no other options, right? Congress has very good options available to them so they have no personal need for a public option. Yet some of them would vote against the public option for those members of the public who DO need it.

They are very different than employees of large corporations because they are in control of this legislation - their votes can make hugely significant impacts to the lives of Americans - and because they receive millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry.

[Ms. Toad]

135. A public option is JUST another health insurance plan

run by the government, and it is not for those who have no other options. Those common misunderstandings are pretty much why I jumped into this thread in the first place. The bulk of the proposed changes that will make access to health insurance available to a much wider group of people than those who have it now have NOTHING to do with the existence of a public option.

A public option requires nothing more than it be a government sponsored insurance plan. It doesn't have to be free or subsidized to those who can't afford anything else. It doesn't have to accept all applicants. It doesn't have to cover pre-existing conditions. It just has to be sponsored by the government. (It is all those things, as set out in each of the bills that still include it - but they are included because the public option must accept all of the rules that are going to be imposed on EVERY insurance plan for new enrollees after a certain date.)

As it has been proposed, it will be a government run insurance plan that will be available as part of the insurance exchange to any one who is eligible to participate in the exchange, at roughly the same cost. The only distinction between it and any other plan in the exchange is that it is run by the government rather than by a profit of not for profit insurance company. The idea behind a public option isn't who is covered by it - but that it will be able to minimize its administration costs - and isn't focused on making a profit so it will be lower priced - and will force the cost of private insurance plans lower by competition.

Ultimately, under most bills, everyone will either be covered by a work plan or Medicare or be eligible to participate in the exchange - and some employers will choose to offer the exchange to their employees. Conceivably, even teh FEHP could offer the exchange to

All insurance companies (public or private) will be required to take all applicants, to cover all pre-existing conditions, to not discriminate. Even if the public option doesn't pass, this will still be true.
All plans will be subsidized (public or private). Even if the public option doesn't pass, this will still be true.
All insurance companies (public or private) will be required to cover all pre-existing conditions. Even if the public option doesn't pass, this will still be true.

[Cass]

139. "Let me be clear -- it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance."

Obama also defended his proposal for government-run public health insurance as an option for consumers, saying it would force private insurers to lower costs. However, he called the provision one alternative for increasing competition for health insurance and signaled his openness to alternatives.

But he added, "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."

"Let me be clear -- it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance," he said. "No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/obama.speech/index.html

[Ms. Toad]

140. That is the exchange - which INCLUDES, but is not limited to

the public option. The public option is ONE choice of MANY - the rest of which are private insurance plans - in the exchange.

And, if you read the bills, even the exchange is open to employers an option to provide to their employees. The house bill opens the exchange to micro-employers in 2013, and to every other employer within 4 years (I may be off on the timing, it has been a while since I read the bill).

You may not be able to get into the exchange if your employer does not select that for you - but if your employer does select it you are able to choose the public option - or reject the public option - and choose a private plan instead.

Same thing with those who have no other insurance - once they are eligible for the exchange, they can choose the public option OR reject it and take a private insurance offering in the exchange instead (with the same subsidies as the public option).

[Cass]

142. Ms. Toad, there are far too many vague and conflicting statements being put out about this.

One day there is a public option, one day there's not. The Pres says the PO is only for those who don't have insurance as was quoted above, now its different according to the bills you have read. Nelson says there will be no public option, another senator says oh yes there will be a public option. Its all giving me a migraine.

I will go back to my original thought which is that any congressperson who votes against meaningful health care reform (which I believe must include the public option to be effective), should lose their taxpayer subsidized excellent health policy. Whether "meaningful health care reform" encompasses the public option is open to debate I guess but I believe it must be included to keep the insurance companies honest.

I hate that a profit motive exists for health care and, as such, I would be quite satisfied to see the insurance companies removed from the equation entirely. They have brought on so much pain, misery and suffering in this country in the name of money and greed that it burns me up to think they could be rewarded by the possibility of the public being forced to buy their products with no public option offered as an alternative.

[davekriss]

159. Another important point

Not only are they required to take all comers, including those with pre-existing conditions, but they can't discriminate by pre-existing conditions. It is one thing to tell someone who has had cancer and heart disease that, yes, they have to cover them -- but if that coverage was priced at $17,000 per month with a $5,000 deductible, well, is that coverage? So even the lame Bacchus bill, as I understand it, limits price differentials to age, smoking or non-smoking, obesity, and one or two other markers. And there are rules about the markups of policies so I think the maximum differential between the lowest priced policy and highest is x7. I am not happy about that, but if policy x is sold to teenagers for $150, then policy x must be sold to a pre-Medicare senior with cancer and heart disease for no more than $1050. The latter is a lot, but for the unhealthy it is real access they otherwise would not have, and it is subject to subsidy if that person's income is also not "healthy".

For a Pre-Medicare senior without the few risk factors (other than age) that can be used to markup the price of policies, the premium would be $750 (5x). One thing I hope that comes out of reconciliation is Baccus' 5x rule is reduced, ideally to 2x -- that would go a long way to making health insurance affordable for more. That teenager would pay more, but the older would pay closer to something they can afford.

I am a big fan of single payer and I feel we missed an opportunity of the century here -- a little hard to forgive my Democratic Party on this -- but the incremental reforms are better than no reform at all. My fear is all kinds of candy have been inserted in the bills to placate the pharma, medical instruments, AMA, etc. lobbies.

The outrageousness of the Republican argument against a public option is just soooo blatant. They in effect make the case FOR a public option, FOR single-payer. If private insurers can't compete with a public option and citizens would flock to the option -- doesn't that support the notion that healthcare can be delivered more efficiently through public entities? Why are "free market" Republicans arguing for preserving inefficiency (ok, the answer is obvious)? Isn't then this like trying, via the power of government (in this case by ignoring what the public wants, single-payer/public options), trying to sustain the profits of buggy whip manufacturers against the arrival of a better way, the Model T? Shumpeter's creative destruction -- the health insurance industry SHOULD be allow to "wither on the vine" if they cannot compete with a more efficient mechanism to deliver access to healthcare. Thank you, Republithugs, for making our case so well!

Instead, we get to continue to subsidize the health insurance industry. Right now approximately 34 cents of every health dollar spent goes to the insurance companies and the huge edifice of administration providers need to coax payments out of those insurers. The poeples party made sure that subsidy will not be hurt. So in the US we will still pay almost twice per capita what the next most costly nation pays for healthcare and probably continue to get abysmal results. 37th in nation ranking in overall health as ranked by the World Health Organization; 42nd in life expectancy -- take a look online at some of the macro-indicators of results online, this is what we have been getting for the most expensive, least efficient healthcare delivery system in the world. Um, we overpay, don't you think?

...getting off soapbox now.

[rayofreason]

99. I only get 1/3...

...of a subsidy as a tax-free benefit, and I pay 2/3 of the cost of my insurance. And I know I have it better than many others, especially the self-employed.

Congress should not get to live in a bubble where they are immune to the various factors that buffet the lives of constituents. They are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

[defendandprotect]

113. You're point about "self-employed" also makes clear more people would be able to

start businesses if they didn't have to worry about extreme health care costs for
themselves -- which would even the playing field at least one iota vs large corporations --
and also with any employees they take on.

I'm very anxious that my kids get a public option because even though so far their companies
have been very good with health care it's a tremendous worry if you're in-between jobs -
or if you want to work for a company that has different health care coverage.

For all our kids, this is important --

[GinaMaria]

153. paid for by the public

Their insurance is paid with our tax dollars as are their salaries. Doesn't get more public than that. Maybe for once our money could go toward something we need? I don't know about you, but I don't need two wars or congress people who can't do what is right.

[Justpat]

72. Totally agree

We should start a loud, public campaign to have the health insurance of all members of
Congress canceled right away.

If they vote against it for their constituents, then surely it shouldn't be paid for
by our tax dollars for them.

[GinaMaria]

154. They should be mandated to buy individual insurance

to cover themselves and their families. That' more profitable for the Insurance Companies than group insurance. If they are going to sell out and have corporate masters, they can start with their own families.

[harun]

10. Someone needs to put this in as an amendment.

[wordpix]

57. These insurance bribers & their Congressional whores need to be brought up on BRIBES charges

THEN we might see some change we can believe in.

[rayofreason]

102. Get out your cell phone camera...

...and pull an ACORN on them!!!

Where are the young, enterprising, progressive (and sneaky) journalists when we need them? I am sure that evidence could easily be dug up on the corrupt ones.

[wordpix]

55. +1

[truedelphi]

105. I am loving your comment.

Maybe we sshould start sending them those plastic do-hickeys by the thousand.

[grytpype]

5. That's not what I've heard!

[Divine Discontent]

6. With Dems like Ben, we remain a minority party! Oh Ben, you grizzly ol' bastard, retire already!

[Stuart G]

7. Who are these people who basically don't want

health insurance for all our people? How can they call themselves Democrats?

[Moochy]

50. New Democrats!

Shiny Happy, Double Plus Good Democrats!

[Moochy]

49. Ben Nelson's Mission Accomplished

There are plenty of greedy opportunists to fill his place, the DLC will make sure of that. That is the mission of the DLC to lead the party in directions that minimize actual representation for working people, depress the participation in the vote, suppress all populist movements ASAP. That is their mission.

[elocs]

11. It's funny how we always hear this from those who never supported a public option. n/t

[rasputin1952]

12. As a Nebraskan, I am ashamed to have fought so hard to

have Nelson re-elected. No way I'd have voted R, but Nelson has shown himself to be nothing more than an insurance corporate shill.

While he has done some good things, people are in misery and dying while he sits on his pile of insurance company cash. I am disgusterd...x(

On the bright side, What Nelson says means little, it takes next to nothing for someone with a spine to take it off the shelf.

[paulk]

42. I've made the argument before that a "D" is always better

than an "R", but in the case of Nelson, I may have to rethink that. If NE elected a Republican in his place, we'd still have our majority, and we wouldn't have him on any committees taking up a "D" slot. We could fill that slot with a real Democrat.

[Zambero]

44. Yes, he and others like him are definite "Rethink" material

Nelson's mantra seems to be "It's OK for an elected Democrat to think, act, and vote like a Republican". What we get from that line of logic is assisted Republican legislative victory, if not outright obstruction of important issues such as health care reform.

[droidamus2]

98. My view

I would rather have a politician who votes conservative (which most times reflects the Republican agenda) have the R next to his name even if it means the Democrats lose control for awhile. At least we know where they stand and they are in the Democratic party trying to pull it to the right. This may have been the neo-cons plan all along. Specifically take over one party and make sure you have enough people in the other part to keep liberals and progressives from being able to accomplish anything. I am more and more beginning to believe that there is no such thing as a 'conservative Democrat' what they really are is moderate Republicans masquerading as Democrats. As I have stated before I don't look for lockstep voting be our Democratic representatives on every legislative item but on the big ticket items in the agenda they should get with the plan or shut up.

[Pab Sungenis]

45. The difference is, if Nelson gets defeated by a Republican next time

then six years later you have a chance to get a real Democrat in there.

And if you can't beat a Republican with a real Democrat in Nebraska, then there's no change at all. Nelson is a reliable Republican vote on important issues, even with a D after his name.

[Moochy]

51. I say fund two challengers on either side

one R and one D.

Time to take out the trash.

[defendandprotect]

92. Think we need to get officials to sign PLEDGES on issues like health care . . .

before they're elected --

and before we give them any $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[ixion]

13. but I'm sure they'll keep the "mandate" part

so as to create that huge new revenue stream for insurance companies.

[CrispyQ]

14. We'll see what the final bill actually has.

It does cause me to wonder if all this "there is no public option" talk is a ploy so that they can water it down to the point it will be completely ineffective, but they can still come back & claim, "We got you your public option."

We never should have started from a point of compromise in the first place. :eyes:

[L. Coyote]

16. Okay, when is his next primary contest? Maybe we can run a doctor against him!

Someone who understands what is going on in America!

[Bette Noir]

17. Yeah, like he knows.

[Algorem]

18. Big Nose Nellie needs to be removed.

Wikipedia has some odd information on his birthplace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson


"...Former President Bush nicknamed Nelson "The Benator." Originally, Bush nicknamed him "Nellie," but Nelson jokingly complained that he would prefer a "tougher" nickname..."


http://upload.wikimedia.org.nyud.net:8080/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Ben_Nelson_official_photo.jpg/225px-Ben_Nelson_official_photo.jpg





http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1254558875231190.xml&coll=2

...Democrat Sherrod Brown petitioning colleagues to include a government insurance option ...

Brown is seeking other senators' signatures for a letter to give to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid next week.

"We are concerned that - absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option - health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment," the letter says. "For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option."...




Sherrod Brown-public option for sure on table,will pass by end of year,
chances got better this week,

good live interview today,about 10 minutes long,he explains how it will go,
interview starts at 41 minutes in-

http://www.awfradio.com/october09/AWF10-01-09.mp3




http://www.awfradio.com /

http://www.awfradio.com/podcasts/awfradio_podcasts.xml

[liberal N proud]

19. I am sick of this fucking roller coaster

There will be a public option to the public option is dead and back around again.

Between Congress and the M$M they are just fucking with our minds.


I am sick of it all.

[KoKo]

23. The article says "Off the shelf for the moment." Nelson was speaking to Doctors

...I guess to get the conservative physician's lobbyies all energized. Hopefully, there's still hope past the subject line the OP put out there.

[niceypoo]

67. Obama needs to start asserting himself here

His 'let congress do it' approach is turning into a joke

[Triana]

20. Well then we have NO HEALTH CARE REFORM - SHELVE THE ENTIRE BILL....

...and start over.

I am going to write to Whitehouse.gov and suggest that.

"doesn't have enough votes?!"

BULLSHIT!

[Faryn Balyncd]

32. If this is true, any bill that emerges will be a massive step backwards and must be DEFEATED.

[Ms. Toad]

65. Please don't.

Even if all that gets passed are the insurance reforms, that will make health care available to millions of individuals who cannot currently purchase insurance at all - even if they have enough money to purchase a reasonably priced policy, an in some cases even if they have access to an unlimited pool of money.

This insurance reform would guarantee access to all (who have the money to pay), and would average out the premiums so that individuals were previously denied coverage are not charged several times what everyone else pays.

It isn't perfect, it isn't nearly far enough, but we have been trying to at least guarantee at least access to insurance guaranteed for all for close to two decades - and this is the only time we've even come close to this modest reform. The last serious attempt got us HIPAA in the late 90s - which is a joke because even though it guarantees access to a select group of individuals (those who have had already coverage but lose access to it for some reason, like job loss), insurance companies are permitted to charge that select group of individuals differently than they charge anyone else.

We can't afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[SandWalker1984]

78. You're missing the big picture here - w/o a strong public option, we're screwed!

You said "Even if all that gets passed are the insurance reforms, that will make health care available to millions of individuals who cannot currently purchase insurance at all - even if they have enough money to purchase a reasonably priced policy"

The problem with your sentence? The words REASONABLY PRICED.

This is the industry that, since 2002, has RAISED the average premiums by 87%. Who's PROFITS have SOARED 428% during that same time period.

You think, if our Congress MANDATES that ALL Americans buy insurance from this den of thieves, that they will offer REASONABLY PRICED INSURANCE PREMIUMS? Really????

The way the Baucus bill reads, which Obama appears to be tentatively praising today (and that's the subject of a whole other post), we all will be FORCED by LAW to buy insurance from the very industry that has created the insurance problems for all of us. NO REGULATION of what they can charge, nothing about excessive profits, nothing about stopping the denial of care that is currently going on.

JUST FORCED MANDATES TO BUY INSURANCE, NO MATTER HOW BAD THE POLICY, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST, NO MATTER HOW HIGH THE DEDUCTIBLES, NO MATTER HOW MUCH COVERAGE THEY EXCLUDE SO THAT THE POLICY IS WORTHLESS TO YOU, YOU WILL BUY THAT POLICY OR BE FINED, OR EVEN GO TO JAIL (yes, Baucus slipped that language in at the last moment)!!!!!

Do you not realize that, according to a Chris Hedge's article of 8/25/09, that the chance of an American WITH HEALTH INSURANCE being bankrupted by their medical bills, if an illness occurs, is 7 out of 10? 7 out of 10!!!

We cannot afford to settle for the Baucus bill. It is better to kill this bill altogether, if the rest of Congress compromises in this manner, than to allow them to shackle us to an insurance industry that's main goal is profits over health care. The Baucus bill WILL make us indentured, corporate slaves.

That is NOT health care reform!

[Ms. Toad]

86. As someone whose entire family currently is uninsurable

I am not wiling to give up access to insurance just because there is no government sponsored insurance plan (which is ALL a public option is).

Currently, we are covered through work. If that fails...as it might for two members even if I retain my job...

My 19 year old daughter, if she is unable to stay in school full time because of an illness that will eventually require a transplant, has the privileged of enrolling in a high risk pool that will cost her (currently) $14,400 a year. If she misses the open enrollment period, she is out of luck for her medical expenses which cost $50,000 a year. If she moves to another state, there is no guarantee that they even have an open enrollment period or offer any mandatory issue at all. The cost for her premium goes up dramatically as she ages.

If she can't manage to attend school full time because of her health - how on earth can she manage to obtain employment that will cover $14,400 on top of living expenses (or a job that provides access to insurance).

My spouse has been unemployed for about 5 years, and is also uninsurable. Fortunately my current employers are enlightened enough to provide same gender spouse coverage - but there is only one insurance company in the entire state that would provide the policy that permitted her coverage (they are not required to for small businesses). Open enrollment for her - at age 57, if the single insurer that currently provides coverage decides to drop it - I don't even want to think about it - but probably in the range of $50,000 a year.

I could survive on catastrophic coverage - my health problems tend to be ones that are acute but not likely to repeat. Even though I can't get regular insurance, my catastrophic coverage (i.e. $5000-$10,000 out of pocket before any payments are made) would only cost around $1000 a year. If one of my acute problems that freak out the insurance companies occurs again, I would bear the entire cost for treatment - because the catastrophic policies I am permitted to buy don't cover pre-existing conditions.

Under the Baucus bill (the worst option out there), each of us would be guaranteed to have access to insurance - no company would be permitted to deny coverage.

Under the Baucus bill, none of us could be charged a higher premium for coverage - so rather than $14,400 for my daughter, the cost would be around $5-8000 a year. For my spouse and I, I think the max would be three times that (I haven't checked that specifically, but there is an age multiplier).

Under the Baucus bill, my pre-existing conditions would be covered. (The rest of the family's would, as well, but only my fall-back plan includes an option that does not cover pre-existing conditions.)

Under the Baucus bill (after whatever waiting period to implementation plays out), my daughter would have coverage for free. My spouse might, depending on whether there is a means test. I would pay full price (if my employer drops my coverage)

A public option might provide enough competition to drop the cost of my plan (or my spouse's plan) a few percentage points.

The main changes come not from making a public option available, but from the additional mandates that apply to all providers of insurance (whether public or private).

It's not perfect - only single payer or some other plan which recognized access to health care as a fundamental right would be.

BUT even without the public option:

*Many individuals without access to health care will be given access to insurance (not having access to insurance is a barrier even for many people who have the means to pay for it).

*Many people without access to health care will be given access to insurance, without charge for the premiums (not being able to pay insurance premiums is a barrier even for people with decent health who would qualify for it but cannot afford the premiums).

*Premiums will be averaged out so those with chronic illnesses are not charged many times more for insurance than those blessed with better health (even some who have the means to pay some premiums, who live in a state with a high risk pool, still cannot afford to pay the premiums in the high risk pool)

We have the opportunity to at least put the structure in place that will permit easy insertion of a public option later (if we haven't mustered enough support for a single payer system). It won't help everyone - primarily those at the upper end of the subsidy range for whom the premiums will still be a real economic burden - but it will help those worst off (who either can't afford or aren't permitted access to insurance), and those who can afford to pay into the system but are barred from it because of pre-existing conditions.

I have been monitoring health care and health insurance reform since I became uninsurable in the early 90s. Virtually no progress has been made. HIPAA, which provides portable insurance for a small class of individuals at exhorbitant premiums (and which states were never forced to fully implement) is the biggest. If we give up this chance to make a significant improvement now, we probably won't have another chance to make major changes again for a decade. I am not willing to give up the opportunity to make things better for many, just because we can't make all of the changes now.

[Doctor_J]

108. wake up, ms. toad

without a PO things will get much, much worse. Think of how much we're all giving Big Insurance now. Then imagine them getting that much from 50 million more people. That's what happens without competition. Big Insurance has won a major victory over Americans

[Ms. Toad]

124. Sorry, but the changes even in the worst bill

will make insurance (and by extension access to health care) available to many people who have no access now.

It is not ideal, but it is far better than what we have now - and I am not willing to tell people without access at all - and the people who are without subsidies to pay for health care - that because we can't inject competition into the system right now that they are just not worth it.

I am very much awake - it is those who are obsessed with a public option (many of whom have no clue what a public option is) who are sleeping if they believe that it is productive to defeat a bill which makes a major improvement (but doesn't include a public option). That defeat would result in nothing more than than at least a decade more of what we have now. HIPAA - the last baby step toward providing access to health care was 12 years ago. We cannot afford to reject major reform because we can't get a perfect package through.

[Doctor_J]

136. Yes, it gives poor people insurance (which they already have with

Medicaid) and places the bill for the uninsurable on my tab. My premiums went up 20% last year, thy will go up 20% again this year, and once I start paying insurance companies for yours (+ 20% overhead for bonuses, lobbying, and other graft), they will go up another 20%. The % of bankruptcies due to thievery by health rationing companies will go from 65% to 75%.

Please keep all of this in mind when cheer the Baucus "Big Insurance Hits The Lottery" scam.

[Ms. Toad]

138. Don't know about your state -

but in Ohio, you don't get Medicaid unless you are a child, or pregnant, and your parents make less than 1.5 - 2x poverty.

The subsidies in even the worst bill apply to everyone, not just children, and extend to either 3 or 4x poverty. The cost for the uninsured is primarily on the tab of those without insurance who are paying the billed amount. At least the proposed bills would spread that cost out more evenly - we would all bear the cost, not just the uninsured who are currently paying full price (including the make-up amounts for those who pay nothing). Those not eligible for the subsidy can still get coverage at the price of an average premium, not the bumped up high risk rate.

I am not cheering on the Baucus bill, specifically, I just don't want real insurance reform (and the changes in every bill, including the Baucus one are real insurance - if not health care - reform) opposed merely because it doesn't include a public option.

[Doctor_J]

156. Real insurance reform? In a bill written by the Insurance Lobby?

Holy shit. I am deeply impressed by the job don by the Big Insurance propganda arm. This is their finest hour.

Like I said, when a few million more Americans go bankrupt every year because of this disaster, I hope you're able to sleep at night

[Ms. Toad]

158. Hmm..

Currently my entire family is uninsurable. No matter how much money we have, if none of us has a job with insurance attached - or we can't time it right to hit the high risk pool that our state has - we can't get insurance at all. Many people who are uninsurable have NO option to purchase insurance at all because there either are no plans - or because there is a waiting list for the available slots on the plan.

Under any of the bills, every person is entitled to guaranteed issue.

Currently, because there is a high risk pool in my state, if we time it right we can actually purchase insurance - at a rate of several times the average cost of health care. $14,400 a year for a 19 year old, and closer ot $50,000 a year that for my 57 year old spouse.

Under any of the bills, every person will pay the same rate for insurance (with variations permitted only for geography and age in most bills). The rate would be somewhat higher than the average cost for care of approximately $5000-$8000 a year.

Currently, if my daughter loses her coverage because she can't manage to remain a full time student she has no options. She is not yet disabled enough to qualify for SSI. She is too old for SCHIPS. She can't afford $14,400 for coverage. She has an average of $50,000 in medical bills a year - and will be just out of luck.

Under any of the bills, she would be entitled to a full subsidy because her income is below the poverty level.

Can I sleep at night because I oppose rejecting bills which would require guaranteed issue, premium parity, and subsidies because they don't also include a public option (which, at best, provides some competition which there is speculation MAY drive the costs down - but for which there are no statutory guarantees). There are certainly better ways to do it - single payer comes to mind. As to the difference adding a public option ot the reforms in the bills - I'm not convinced that creating competition in a broken system is anywhere near as significant a reform as at least splinting the broken limbs (the reforms that at least make access to insurance more uniform).

By the way, none of what I am advocating has anything to do with insurance propoganda - I have been actively advocating for these reforms since the mid-90s when I first learned I was uninsurable. Believe me, implementing these reforms is major insurance reform - just go back to the HIPAA changes and compare how much change is in these bills compared to the miniscule changes the last time any additional access was created. It is also significant health care reform in that it will provide more people with access to health care by making it possible for them to purchase insurance. I would prefer to scrap the insurance system, but there isn't currently support for that, and the inequities in present system are intolerable.

[Doctor_J]

162. Yes, I read your post upthread

I understand that you are uninsurable under the current system. What you don't seem willing to admit is that the Baucus bill, which should rightly be named the Big Insurance Christmas Bill, will insure your family at a tremendous cost to the rest of us - and to the enrichment of the insurance CEO's.

In a way it matters very little. Any of the current proposals, if adopted, will send so many Americans to death or bankruptcy that it will have to be scrapped and redone within a few years anyway.

Edit: Let me spell it out: Big Insurance's profits will go up by an order of magnitude due to this legislation. You will get your (very expensive) insurance. Out of whose pocket do you think the increased profit will come?

I am happy for you and the others who will be able to get insurance because my premiums will double every 4 years for eternity. I am sad because,

a. Big Insurance, their propagandists, and their whores in DC have managed to once again rape the middle class, and

b. This capitulation will likely cost Obama a second term and result in a Republican congress beginning in 2001.

[Ms. Toad]

164. I wish it would get scrapped and redone in a few years

Unfortunately, I have been wishing that for the better part of two decades, and this is the most progress that has been made.

Bad as it is, it is progress and will make health care available to many people who don't currently have access to health care by providing an opportunity to get insurance - and far fewer will be bankrupt with these changes than without because we at least have that option. In our case, we will be bankrupt a lot slower because my daughter is eligible for subsidized insurance so we will not be spending $14,400 to make sure she has access to health care.

If single payer had a serious chance of being implemented - I'd be fighting tooth and nail to reject anything other option. As to the public option, though, it is really just window dressing on top of the fundamental restructuring of the insurance rules. None of the bills has any guarantees that adding a public option will do anything to keep the costs down. No premium cap is mandated for the public option - just wishful thinking that competition will help. It might work - it might not. Yes, insurance companies will continue to profit under these rules - as they would even if there was a public option. The only way to eliminate the cost that profit adds is to go to a single payer system. Since single payer is not even on the horizon, I'm not willing to give up real change because I don't get the added hope that competition will slow the cost increase.

As to the cost of caring for my family, and others who currently cannot get insurance, being borne by everyone else - that is what any insurance or health care reform will do. That is the fundamental principle of single payer - health care is a right, and we all share in the cost of making sure it is available to everyone. These reforms at least implement the cost sharing principle. It's easy enough to add a public option once the structure is set up and running to provide competition - I suspect it will even be less scary if it is clearly just one more plan among the collection of plans already offered. That's what it would be now - but it has taken on an importance (on both sides) far beyond any reality based role it may play.

[Doctor_J]

166. Here is a nice overview of the effect of BaucucCare

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x486638.

It will take those who can't afford insurance now and give them lousy insurance, and take several million who have decent insurance and raise their rates and replace their decent insurance with lousy insurance.

[Joe Bacon]

143. Since I'm over 50, I will pay 5X more than others under Mad Max

Why the hell do I have to pay five times as much as someone under 50? If that isn't discrimination, what is?

[Doctor_J]

155. Yep. I hope you weren't planning to retire

I am amazed at what the propaganda machine has been able to sell this time around. This makes the Iraq War sale look easy in comparison.

Hopefully those like Ms Toad who bought this load of bullshit will have a moment of clarity right before the entire country goes bankrupt because of this Big Insurance-written piece of shit

[rucky]

24. Just because he says so?

wishful thinking on his part - or on my part?

[Bleacher Creature]

25. Why is this on the front page? I'll take Harkin's word over Nelson's any day.

And Harkin says it's still very much alive.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. Yes it's there. No it's not. Yes it's there. No it's not. Yes it's there.

I can't wait until this whole thing is over. Between the lunatic fringe RW-owned media purposely creating confusion via propaganda, the Blue Dog bullshit, and the hand-wringing threads that are sure to come on DU with this latest "No it's not"... enough is enough.

To quote Addison Graves Wilson in my message to Blue Dogs: "You LIE!".

[FlaGranny]

27. It's hard to believe he has the gall

to come right out and say, in so many words, it would hurt insurance companies. Who the hell cares if insurance companies make less profit? They NEED to make less profit. I HATE insurance companies and their patsies.

[laughingliberal]

36. That is what people need to write and call to tell him

Write and call his office and tell him he was not elected to protect private insurance industry's profits.

[shcrane71]

75. I and everyone I know have been writing and calling him

He just doesn't care. He's getting large sums from health insurance companies. I live in Omaha. I heard from a friend that works for a large insurer, that their corporate cafeteria set up a table where workers were encouraged to fill out pre-written letters to Nelson thanking him for thwarting health care reform.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. Then this would be the first time he was right about anything,

[Lasher]

35. And he says it like it's a bad thing.

As we are seeing confirmed before us, insurance companies are too big and powerful. An individual mandate bonanza for them, particularly without a real public option, would make this much worse. I'm starting to believe we'd be better off without this Republican bill.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. So our Democrats CAVED IN to the f*****g insurance companies after all nt

[quiet.american]

30. I take this with a grain of salt. nt

[backscatter712]

52. Exactly. It's Nelson's attempt to kill the public option.

Tomorrow, progressives and Pelosi in the House will tell us the public option is very much alive.

[Faryn Balyncd]

33. This is exactly why the Baucus corporate welfare bill must DIE IN COMMITTEE.....

[Pab Sungenis]

48. Thank you. Keep spreading the word.

Call the D's on the Finance committee and make sure they vote NO next week! Kill this abomination and let the HELP bill come to the floor unscathed.

[wordpix]

58. while you're at the calling, remind them they could be brought up on BRIBERY charges if

they were designing and voting bills while taking insurance/health care co. campaign contributions.

[IndianaGreen]

66. The Kool-Aid unrec cohort will take issue with that statement

Their role is to keep you, and others like you, from thinking that not every is rosy since we elected a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. We should have never put the protest signs away!

[Riley18]

38. Bill Nelson is about to be "shelved" in Florida. Grayson should run for his seat.

[Hepburn]

40. Amen...n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. This article is about Ben Nelson of Nebraska, not Bill Nelson of Florida

Nelson of Florida voted for Senator Schumer's amendment to create a public option.

[wordpix]

60. whoops

[SandWalker1984]

82. Actually, Bill Nelson needs to go too - he's a member of the "Family"

Read This --

Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Senator Bill Nelson is a Member of The Family
Jennifer Hancock
www.examiner.com
September 6, 2009

According to Jeff Sharlet in his new book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, former astronaut and current Democratic Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson, is a member of The Family. The Family is a cult-like religious sect that emphasizes personal obedience and seeks to create a theocratic kingdom on earth. Not a democracy, a kingdom. And not just in the United States, but globally. In fact, their agenda is much bigger in scope then what the Taliban or Al Qaida have ever contemplated.

The main concern about the religious beliefs of Family members is that they believe in certitude. According to Sharlet, members of the Family believe they are chosen by God and that the inner voice in their heads is God speaking to them. As long as they obey that voice in their head they must be doing God’s will and can therefore do no wrong. Which explains why they feel no remorse for condoning and causing great amounts of suffering all around the world.



MY Question: How many other Senators, Representatives and Cabinet Members belong to The Family? I think we need to find out, and quickly.

x(

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. Apperently the voice in Nelson's head tells him to vote with Senate Democrats 93% of the time:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/party-voters/

[defendandprotect]

115. Nonetheless, the whole right wing religious thing put in play by GOP is a threat to us all --

And the GOP did give start up funds to the Christian Coalition in response to the
1960's revolution which was an attack on all authority, hierarchies -- across the board.

GOP wealthy like Scaifie and others funded Dobson and Bauer's religious groups.

Patriarchy was going down after 1960's -- and organized patriarchal religion is the
underpinning for patriarchy.

FURTHER -- hard as it is to believe, WE/US/CIA created the Taliban and Al Qaeda AND ...

US/CIA also created the Islamic Fundi movement in ME ---
We spent millions on printing and producing the vile text books used to teach violent notions
of Islam. At the end here I'll give you a like to the info on Afghanistan and the textbooks.
Again, none of this happened by accident -- it's been used to disrupt peaceful religions.


FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[Freddie Stubbs]

141. What does that have to do with a Democrat who votes with his party 93% of the time?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

163. It has to do with Nelson/"The Family" and right wing religious influence on DC . . . in general --

[wordpix]

59. self-delete

[Lorien]

147. N0o kidding. I will never vote for Bill Nelson again

I even worked for his campaign in the past, but I'll never vote for that phony Dem again. He's nothing but a corporate whore.

[barbtries]

39. i don't believe it

i can't believe it. he must be wrong.

[54anickel]

41. Funny how it's all about public option now. Single payer's been long dead and buried, just this

pesky little gnat called public option to chase back and forth for the sheer illusion of winning something "big" for the little people. :eyes:

It's moved from a compromise as a stepping stone to single payer to providing a huge windfall gift to the insurance, as well as pharmacuetical and other heathcare related industries.

Lotsa back scratchin' goin' on, and we'll end up gettin' chicken scratch.

http://www.canow.org/.a/6a00e54ee7ad648834011570345bef970c-800wi

[truedelphi]

104. It is all working out for the Powers that Be

Obama, unfortunately, started out in a compromised position. Why, I don't know. He had the ball, as 62% of us voted for him. The people would have been out in droves supporting it if he had started off with a strong stance for Single Payer Universal Health Care. But how could we support a health care bill until we knew what it was? (And listening to him addresing the Teabaggers all summer - he didn't even seem sure of what it would be. 0

But that was just a dream some of us (most of us) had. He had it once too, as a candidate for the Illinois Senate position, and he said all that was preventing it was a majority in both houses, and a Dem in the WH.

Then when he needed the insurance fraud crooksters' money to run as President he started saying that although it was the best idea, he was nixing it, because we were not starting from scratch. (No logic there - jsut a great heaping of DoubleSpeak, but oh well.)

Luckily for him he gets to hide behind the fractious hatred of the Repugs. So now we can either be for our President or agaisnt him, even though I am wondering if he really is for us.

[demwing]

43. FARK!!! Here we go AGAIN!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8681351

Nelson is referring to the Senate Finance Bill, but the headline pushes the meme that Public Option is dead and has no support.

:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:
:puke:

[fascisthunter]

46. he's done....

mark my words... bastards like him won't learn until "We the People" teach them not to fuck with us and for siding with the minority elite.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Can we shelve Ben Nelson, too? n/t

[alarimer]

56. Then all the bills should fail to pass.

Let's revisit this issue once we kick the fucking Blue Dogs and DLC assholes out of Congress.

Spineless piece of shit Democrats (including Obama).

[Festivito]

63. I think that ANY BILL WITHOUT a good public options SHOULD NOT PASS.

If this is how the fight is going to be, so be it. Filibuster, veto, or just plain old not passing it.

[supernova]

64. FUCK Ben Nelson!!

:puke:

:grr:

How do we get these Blue Dog turds out of congress?

[Barack_America]

68. Maybe by Republicans like yourself, Mr. Nelson...

...But Democrats have pledged to get it through.

[shcrane71]

70. He's a turncoat.

He doesn't care about Americans.

[GrantDem]

73. Again...

Screw it up and In November of 2010 and 2012 GrantDem will be "couched".

[Fearless]

74. Fuck you Ben Nelson.

[DFW]

77. OK, the "moment" is over

We can bring it back off the shelf now.

[Cleita]

81. Apparently, any welfare to help Americans achieve universal health care has

been shelved except for the insurance companies who will now be able to get money from our Treasury with insurance mandates or corporate health care. Brought to you by the best senate money can buy.

[Odin2005]

83. F U!!!

[Deep13]

88. asshole

[AllyCat]

90. Then they shouldn't vote for the bill at all. I refuse to pay higher taxes for less service!

That is what will happen with Bawcuss' bill if it is approved. We'll pay more in "tax" to our corporate overseers for less service and the poor will still get screwed.

If they can't get a strong public option at a minimum (single-payer would be better) then they should vote this turkey down and face the music in 2010.

[Swede Atlanta]

93. STFU Ben Nelson

What a loser. To be a leader you need to fight for things you believe in. If you give up before the battle is enjoined you may as well not even don your armor.

[Joanne98]

94. I wonder if this is code for "I won't vote for closure"

[droidamus2]

95. Since when?

When did Ben Nelson become the head of the Democratic Party and the spokesman for Democrats in the House and Senate. This is one of the things that drives me crazy about the Democrats they have too many members that seem to think they are the spokespeople for the party. Because of this they put out no coherent and consistent message. These memebers, i.e. Nelson and Baucus, speak out as if they are speaking for the party as a whole and it is reported that way when in all actuality they are just supporting their own positions. Of course Nelson is going to say it is shelved because that's the way he wants it to happen. I say if he is correct that there aren't the votes for it bring it up for a vote anyway and make these assholes go on the record against it. 'Shelving' it without a vote just gives these people cover they don't deserve. If it isn't in the final bill to start with then Leahy or Sanders or one of those that supports it should force an amendment vote specifically on the 'public option' and force these fools to put their signature on killing it so we can use it to defeat them the next time they come up for reelection.

[jmondine]

97. If you say it enough times, maybe it'll be true!

[Hippo_Tron]

101. Sounds like wishful thinking on Benator's part

[Joey Liberal]

103. Why should I vote Democrat the next time?

Its hard to watch the Dems get pushed around by the repugs, despite being the majority in the Congress. I ask myself, why should I bother supporting and defending Dems when they are such wimps? Then, one answer comes to mind: It came from Wasilla - Palin.

[Doctor_J]

106. Let the handwringing begin

we're so pathetic. I am stepping away from politics for awhile. I'll be back when we're ready to start doing something about all of this, unless I can get a job in a country where the people still have a voice. And posts like #65 make me sad that we're so badly beaten down that we give thanks for the screwing we're taking.

[backscatter712]

107. FAIL. He's trying to pull a Kent Conrad.

Conrad's been pulling the same shit for months, going on all the bobblehead shows and solemnly proclaiming "The public option is dead! (But please try my co-ops!)"

And every time he's tried it, the progressives come right back and say that the public option is very much alive, thank you very much, and we're going to raise hell for anyone that tries to kill it.

Excuse me for being skeptical of anything that comes out of the mouth of Nelson.

[Barack_America]

129. +1

Fuck Nelson.

It's not nice to lie.

[JackDragna]

110. Question..where is the president on this?

He needs to be out front and vocal about getting this passed, even confronting members of his own party. How can he let Nelson get away with this without at least some form of countermeasure in the press?

[grahamhgreen]

130. He said mandatory payments or fines to big insurance is a must, but the public option is not

[grahamhgreen]

111. Translation: The BAUCUS BOONDOGGLE PAY OR PUNISH CRAPSURANCE BILL has failed.

[Politicub]

116. It's so weird how people like Nelson speak of competing with insurance companies like a bad thing

I don't and won't understand how they can stand on the side of the insurance companies at the expense of people's lives.

And, I don't get why people like Nelson call themselves democrats. What do they stand for that makes them a democrat?

[Krashkopf]

128. Name one positive benefit to Society provide by the Health Insurance Industry!

Ask Sen. Ben Dover, or any of the other Blue Dogs that question. Challenge them. There is NO good answer.

Health Insurance companies DO NOT provide a societal benefit. Ins.Co.s do NOT provide health care. All they do is stand between me, and my doctor, collecting my health care dollar, and skimming 30% off the top before paying the Doctor.

How is that "moral," let alone "legal?"

[and-justice-for-all]

117. Unaccecptable...Is this a Government of and for the people..

or Corporations??!!!

A Government for and of the people DOES NOT LISTEN to what corporations want or cave into corporation demands. How dare they allow corporations to have more say than the people those officials are elected to serve and protect.

[Doctor_J]

118. Corporations

duh

[Aramchek]

120. the Last Stand of the Insurance Cronies

when you start hearing Repukes and Insurance cronies like Nelson saying this,
you can be assured the exact opposite is true.

This convinces me more than ever that a Public Option will be in the bill Obama signs.

They are now resorting to the BIG LIE as a last ditch effort to distract and delay.
Their attempts will fail.

[npk]

122. USA USA USA USA

We're number one. Except in helthcare where we're 37th. But hey don't let that stop all the proud Americans who demonized the public option from pounding their chests and chanting USA USA USA USA!!!!

[d_b]

126. Ah, It's 'the public option is dead' week,

How I've missed you.

[Kablooie]

127. I'm hearing it's dead from all quarters.

[tomm2thumbs]

132. YELLOW dogs - or RED dogs - but these are anything-but-blue dogs /nt

[rmp yellow]

134. Wishful thinking. Nelson is tipping the balance n/t

[unkachuck]

144. dear ben, I don't like you....n/t

[marshall]

145. I think they'll find a way to include it without calling it a public optionThe

The problem with releasing information to the public is that the right wing takes catch phrases (like public option) and demonizes them. Then Congress can't act on what they really want to do because of the manufactured public ill will.

A rose by any other name--what difference does it make what it's called.

[progressiveGI]

146. Most people that I know ration their health care

Most families that I know ration their health care - they have to continuously calculate deductibles and out of pockect expenses - some even let problems fester because they can not afford the costs involved -

and these are people with "good" jobs and stable incomes and health insurance coverage at their employment - every year, insurance companies continue to up the bar, both in premiums and legal fine print.

American families, except the super rich, are struggling with managing their health care costs. Apart from food and shelter, health care is the foremost worry for people who lose their jobs.

[Lorien]

148. Yep. I have a badly sprained ankle that I can hardly walk on

after many months of heling, but I can't afford my deductible so I can't see anyone for it. I never have cancer screenings because I can't afford to have cancer-and most of my friends are in the same boat. They DO all want us to just "die quickly".

[nightrain]

149. fine by me--so bury it already and get us some real healthcare!--single payer

[FVZA_Colonel]

151. I sincerely hope other Duers can give me an idea on this: how does he know?

Beyond his position in the Senate, how can he be so sure it's gone?

[GinaMaria]

152. "doesn't have enough votes"?!

Democratic majorities and we don't have enough votes? This is the most ridiculous statement. It's insulting. Is it time for a new party? I'm starting to wonder if there are candidates out there who will do what's right by the people. This is so weak.

[brightertomorrow]

165. I agree using that "we don't have enough votes" makes them look weak

They should be saying they are going to fight for what's right and make sure they get enough votes. Seems they like to use that "we don't have the votes" for an excuse so they can side with the insurance companies, rather than with the American people.
Single payer would have made so much more sense than this complicated mess they are coming up with.

[New Dawn]

161. Forcing people to buy anything from a private company is fascist economics.

[alfredo]

167. There's bills in the house, and in the Senate. That bill is not the only one.

They will take it to the floor where it will be amended. Then they will reconcile the house and senate bills. Obama will be involved at that point.

There's a lot of posturing for the folks back home. Nelson is playing to his conservative constituents. Fuck him. Let's see what happens when the bills hit the floor. We've been warned not to watch sausage being made.

We are weeks away from a final bill, don't worry. Worry is a waste of time. Get active. Call, write, then do it again.

The DINOS will come around and when they vote for a bill with the public option they will tell their constituents that the bill wasn't perfect but the good outweighs the bad.