Reporter Ellison? Rep takes on public option on House floor

[annm4peace]

Source: Minnesota Independent

Rep. Keith Ellison offered a unique strategy on the health reform debate on the public option: he took his video camera to the House floor to discuss the issue. Long a supporter of single-payer health care, Ellison has been outspoken about his support for a public option to the health reform bill. And now, he’s gotten his colleagues to speak out as well:



Read more: http://minnesotaindependent.com/39022/reporter-ellison-rep-takes-on-public-option-on-house-floor#more-39022

---

Awesome! When the Main Corporate News keeps ignoring the Congress member who DO support Single Payer Health Care.. then Make your OWN news. !

[BunkerHill24]

1. Well done Rep. Ellison. Keep up the good work

K & R

[ShockediSay]

62. Good way to pay for public option

Disallow all tax deductions for lobbyists beyond their writing letters and making phone calls to those in Congress. That's all we mere citizens can do. And WE ARE THE MAJORITY !!!

[Hulk]

2. WOOT!! Those are the voices that need to be strong and heard!

Aren't there ANY repukes that have a conscience???

[zbdent]

53. Repukes with consciences ... funny ...

the consciences have been taken to an undisclosed location and had jumper cables attached to their nuts ...

[Libertas1776]

3. Wow

I wish more members of congress would do something like that. Unfortunately the Rethugs would find some way to bastardize it and use for their agenda.

[No Elephants]

17. That means only that the Dems need to get more street smart and stay ahead of them.

[elocs]

26. Let's be honest here: we applaud things when they are used for our own agenda.

Agenda: "A list or program of things to be done or considered".

Both Democrats and Republicans have an agenda. The difference is that ours is noble, just, and pure while theirs is evil (at least that is what I have learned from reading DU).

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Too much for you to get your head round, by the sound of it. What are you doing on here?

Why not make a start, yourself? "I don't want in a publicly-funded health service." There! It's easy, really.

[elocs]

31. My point is simple: both Republicans and Democrats have an agenda on all issues.

To believe otherwise is silly.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. The word, "agenda" is neutral, like the word, "propagada". You evidently impute

to the word, "agenda" the same kind of cynical overtones that the word "propaganda" is now invested with. You were right the first time: it means "things to be done". So, what's your point. Everyone has an agenda. It's part of waking up in the morning, living through the day and going to bed at night.

[elocs]

37. The post to which I originally responded to stated "agenda" and not "propaganda".

As you know my point was simply concerning "agenda".

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. Precisely. But you seem to invest it with some kind of self-serving, biased overtone,

which the pristine term, "agenda" does not possess. It is perfectly normal for politicians to have partisan agendas. It does not necessarily imply anything remarkable, still less unworthily biased - which was what you seemed to suggest.

[elocs]

67. That's just your take and opinion. I'm simply pointing out that "agenda" is "agenda" for both.

Words have meanings and should be used in accordance with that meaning and not by someone's whim.

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. Sure. That's why I'm trying to establish what point you were intending to make.

You were stating the obvious. Why wouldn't we applaud our own agenda? You make it sound sinsister or at least rather unworthy. Are we supposed to applaud an agenda we believe to be very wrong "just to be fair".

I'm not a moral relativist. There's truth and there's falsehood. The purpose of an open mind is to close on the truth. If it happens to be our agenda, does that make it's merits questionable in some way?

The truth here is an even broader one - although doubtless you will characterise it as no more than "opinion" - namely, that not only has every citizen the right to free health-care across the board, but to shelter, food and employment with a living wage; and without the need for more than one bread-winner in the family.

[gtar100]

35. But to make them equal is intellectual laziness.

Consider the vision behind them, the desired outcomes, the historical precedence set by past actions, and the results of the agendas these two groups have put into action and then decide if they are just a question of tit-for-tat. You can dismiss something by saying, "well you do too" but it overlooks a lot of detail.

[elocs]

36. It is also intellectually lazy not to believe that their points of view are not as important to them

as ours are to us. Clearly, we both have agendas. They believe theirs is correct, we believe ours is correct. That is simply the broad viewpoint.

[gtar100]

39. Agreed. That is why it's so difficult to change minds by using facts alone.

Belief has a tendency to put blinders up which is always an obstacle to understanding conflicting data. But I would submit that republican ideology (and by extension, their agenda) is more based on belief than the democratic ideology. They believe in little or no government regulation over business, more government regulation over individual liberties, peace with enemies through domination, tax cuts as economic stimulus, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, etc. But overwhelmingly, history has shown that these ideas just don't work out in the long run. In fact, they create the opposite of what they intend.

I get your point, that both sides have an agenda and a perspective that they believe in. But we don't get anywhere if we are satisfied to leave it at "agree to disagree". Republicans have an agenda that is catastrophically destructive to the planet we share and it contains no reality checkpoints that I'm aware of. Whereas, the Democratic side is open to debate and willing to negotiate for a mutually agreeable outcome. I think we've come to the point where it is harmful to let republican viewpoints stand unchallenged or considered as legitimate alternatives. They've had their chance to prove themselves and have brought us to the brink of destruction. The nonsense they stand by needs to be shown for what it is, a fools dream.

[bobbolink]

56. Those at the bottom may believe they are correct. I don't think those at the top believe they are.

I think the RW leaders know just how corrupt they are, and that their policies are wrong for the average citizen, and wrong for the nation.

But that doesn't matter to them, because their AGENDA is power and $$$$$.

Now, maybe you think power and money is what should run this nation, but I seriously doubt that many here will agree with that AGENDA.

[Joe Chi Minh]

70. No. It's more than a matter of belief or a "personal" self-serving agenda.

It's about truth and falsehood. The fact that they think they're right, at least in economic matters, is neither here not there. Hitler thought he was right - in everything.

[bvar22]

54. You are arguing moral equivalency.

1) Republican Agenda = more money and power to the already rich and powerful

2) Democratic Agenda = (or at least it should be) "When everyone does better, we all do better."---Paul Wellstone

These two agendas are NOT morally equivalent.

[Joe Chi Minh]

71. PRECISELY.

[MNBrewer]

4. You go, Rep. Ellison! He's my REP! :) So glad to have him!

[Delphinus]

15. You are so lucky to have him!!

Wow!

[babylonsister]

5. Rep. Ellison, here's the video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=335163

[bahrbearian]

6. Hijack a thread?

[babylonsister]

7. ??

I provided the video of what the OP was talking about, Ellison taking video testimonials from Dems who want a public plan.

What is wrong with that?

[NBachers]

9. Thanks for the link, Babylonsister

I really enjoyed seeing that video. After all the discouraging words about "no support in Congress for single payer or public option," this is really heartening.

But don't ever hijack another thread ever again!!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. Thanks to op and also thanks to Babylon Sister for link to video

And bigggg thanks to Rep Ellison!

I would like to see each member of congress explain their view.
Especially the idiotic wingnuts.

And how they just love their own health care. Cause they have it.

[Wetzelbill]

13. what a showboat

:)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

43. would you rather not have the link to the video?

Babylon sister has never been a fracking showboat.
Never.

[babylonsister]

48. Thanks for your defense, but I know Wetzelbill, and I think he was

just joshing.

[Wetzelbill]

66. yup

:)

[Wetzelbill]

65. I'm just teasing her

We're friends. :)

[fascisthunter]

21. ya got to be kidding us

[quidam56]

8. About time !

Clearly profit care is more important in America than patient care. If our health care system was so great and was the best care in the world, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. As a former health care giver, I am ashamed and sad to see what is called quality health care in TN & VA.

http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62

How many more have to die while we demand health care reform ?

[farmboxer]

10. Will Keith Olbermann allow him on Countdown?

I missed keith tonight. Will he allow this on his show?

[and-justice-for-all]

12. K&R!!!

[valerief]

14. K&R

[myrna minx]

16. Excellent. K&R

I'm so happy to have him as my Rep.

[No Elephants]

18. Ellison, Franken. MN is doing well! Thanks, Rep. Ellison. You go!

[Jackpine Radical]

20. And Bachmann.

Minnesota, like Wisconsin, is known for sending some of the best and of the worst to Washington.

[wolfgangmo]

49. On the bright side

If Bachmann has her way and gets enough of her constituents to agree with her and refuse to answer the census then her district, already on the edge of being removed will cease to exist.

Typical republican, making all the right moves to achieve extinction.

[scentopine]

19. Outstanding work! -nt

[snappyturtle]

22. Has anyone heard a number on the Dems who support the

public option?

K&R

[PassingFair]

38. Every single member of the Progressive Caucus in the House

There may be others, I am waiting
for the fence sitters among the DLC
to figure out how many need to vote
with the Blue Dogs to DEFEAT IT.

Progressive Caucus Members:

Arizona

* Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix)
* Raul Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson) - Co-Chair

California

* Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Petaluma) - Co-Chair
* George Miller (CA-7, Martinez) - Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
* Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland) - Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus
* Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)
* Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)
* Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)
* Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles) - Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee
* Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
* Diane Watson (CA-33, South Los Angeles)
* Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)
* Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)
* Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)
* Linda Sanchez (CA-39, Lakewood)
* Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego) - Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee

Connecticut

* Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven)

Florida

* Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville)
* Alan Grayson (FL-8, Orlando)
* Robert Wexler (FL-19, Boca Raton)

Georgia

* Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
* John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta)

Hawaii

* Neil Abercrombie (HI-1, Honolulu)
* Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu)

Illinois

* Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights)
* Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago)
* Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago)
* Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago)
* Phil Hare (IL-17, Rock Island)

Indiana

* André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis)

Iowa

* Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)

Maine

* Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven)

Maryland

* Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington)
* Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore)

Massachusetts

* John Olver (MA-1, Amherst)
* Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester)
* Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton) - Chairman, House Financial Services Committee
* John Tierney (MA-6, Salem)
* Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden)
* Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston)

Michigan

* Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13, Detroit)
* John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit) - Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis)

Mississippi

* Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton) - Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee

Missouri

* William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis)
* Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City)

New Jersey

* Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark)

New Mexico

* Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)

New York

* Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan)
* Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn)
* Nydia Velazquez (NY-12, Brooklyn) - Chairwoman, House Small Business Committee
* Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan)
* Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem) - Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
* Jose Serrano (NY-16, Bronx)
* John Hall (NY-19, Dover Plains)
* Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
* Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester) - Chairwoman, House Rules Committee

North Carolina

* Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte)

Ohio

* Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo)
* Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland)
* Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights)

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland)
* Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene)

Pennsylvania

* Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia) - Chairman, House Administration Committee
* Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia)

Tennessee

* Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)

Texas

* Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18, Houston)
* Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas)

Vermont

* Peter Welch (VT-At Large)

Washington

* Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle)

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison)
* Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee)

Non-voting

* Madeleine Bordallo (Guam)
* Donna Christian-Christensen (Virgin Islands)
* Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)

Senate members

* Sherrod Brown (OH)
* Bernie Sanders (VT)
* Tom Udall (NM)

Former members

* Sherrod Brown (OH-13) - Elected to Senate
* Julia Carson (IN-07) - Died in December 2007
* Lane Evans (IL-17) - Retired from Congress
* Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) - Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
* Major Owens (NY-11) - Retired from Congress
* Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) - Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
* Hilda Solis (CA-32) - Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
* Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) - Died in 2008
* Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) - Died in plane crash in 2002

[snappyturtle]

51. Thank you! nt

[PassingFair]

52. Plus 20 New Dems out of 68....

that leaves 48 of them to *uck us over
if they get the call from the insurance
industry lobbyist that their chits are
being cashed in.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/band-of-house-centrists-offers-support-for-robust-public-health-insurance-plan-2009-07-09.html

If you have a "New Dem" or "Blue Dog" rep,
PLEASE put pressure on them today!

On edit: You can track the positions here:

www.standwithdrdean.com

[snappyturtle]

64. Like the "standwithdean" website!

Here's what a small group did last Thursday from my hometown in 105 degree heat to promote the healthcare single payer issue. This the the e-mail I received reporting on the effort:

DEAR ALL: TWENTY EIGHT DEMOCRATS FROM KERR COUNTY GOT ON A "COACH AMERICA" BUS ON THURSDAY AND WENT FIRST TO SEN. HUTCHISON'S OFFICE IN THE GENERAL DYNAMICS BUILDING NEAR KELLY FIELD. WE WERE GREETED BY 5 OF THE SAN ANTONIO TV STATIONS (WOAI, KENS, KSAT, KABB, AND UNIVISION). THE SA EXPRESS NEWS WAS THERE ALSO. THERE WE WERE MET BY MOVEON. ORG ORGANIZERS AND ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA STAFFERS AND 30 BEXAR COUNTY FOLKS. OUR LEADER, ROSE HALL, HAD SIGNS FOR US TO WAVE, AND THEN HAD 4-5 PEOPLE TELL THEIR HEALTHCARE STORY. AFTER THE RALLY SIX PEOPLE WENT INTO THE GENERAL DYNAMICS BLDG. TO MEET WITH THE SENATOR'S STAFF. THEY WERE VERY WELL RECEIVED AND WERE ALLOWED TO TELL THEIR STORIES AND DELIVER A PETITION WITH 7,000 SIGNATURES TO SEN. HUTCHISON. WE THEN REBOARDED THE BUS AND DROVE DOWNTOWN TO SEN. CORNYN'S OFFICE AND REPEATED THE SAME SCENARIO. THERE WE WERE JOINED BY A PEDIATRICIAN FROM SA THAT TALKED ABOUT THE COST OF IMMUNIZATIONS BEING SO HIGH THAT REGULAR PATIENTS CANNOT AFFORD THEM FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

AT ABOUT 1:20 WE WERE DRIVEN TO MI TIERRA WHERE WE ENJOYED LUNCH AND RETURNED HOME AT 4 P.M VERY TIRED AND HOT BUT FEELING THAT WE HAD ACCOMPLISHED A GOOD THING.
_______ DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, MAKING ALL THE ARRANGEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS IN ADVANCE. THANK YOU_____FOR ALL YOUR WORK AND THANKS TO ALL OF YOU THAT GOT ON THE BUS AND BRAVED THE HEAT TO DO THIS THING. IT WAS A VERY WELL ORGANIZED AND ORDERLY EVENT.

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THIS TYPE OF THING IN THE FACE OF THE OPPOSITION OF OUR
REPRESENTATIVES. BOTH SENATORS ARE AGAINST THE PUBLIC OPTION. HOWEVER, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT ON A VERY HOT DAY IN SOUTH TEXAS 60 PEOPLE RALLIED AND MET WITH THESE LEADERS TO SAY THAT THEY DISAGREE ABOUT THEIR VOTES. THESE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO HEAR THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE AND IT WILL MATTER IN THE DAYS, WEEKS, AND MONTHS TO COME. WE MUST BE STRONG, VOCAL, VIGILANT AND WORK TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE. IT CANNOT HAPPEN WITH THE ELECTION OF ONE PERSON, BUT CAN HAPPEN WITH THE ELECTION OF LOTS OF CHANGE AGENTS.

ALSO LOOK AT THE PRESS COVERAGE THAT THIS GROUP RECEIVED -- THE KERRVILLE DAILY TIMES, THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS, AND 5 TV STATIONS. THAT MEANS ALOT.
_______________________

We have two Senators listed as "NO" on Dr.Dean's website....but we're working on them. Rep.Lamar Smith has an office here in town. He says he 'doesn't know' but I think that's just to avoid the heat of groups like the above.

[bobbolink]

57. Notice Colorado being conspicuously absent from this list??

:grr:

I call and call.... sigh...

I will now start also calling Jerod Polis...he SHOULD be there!

Notice that TOM Udall (NM) is there, but not his Colorado brother, Mark? :grr: Tom signed on to Hr676 years ago, but not Mark. :wtf:

I didn't know that Tom also made it to the Senate...that's great!

[BumRushDaShow]

23. K&R

:kick:

[AlecBGreen]

24. VERY COOL!

Im so jealous of you Minnesotans! Keith would be great to have as a Congresscritter

[Christa]

25. Kicked, and I have a confession to make

WTF is this new button?

I wanted to rec but but accidentally unrec'd it and I cannot change it :( :( :(

Since when do we have an option?

My apologies, this needs to be recommended.

[MindMatter]

30. It is what it says

If you think a thread should NOT be on the Greatest list, then you can unrecommend it and that will cancel out the vote of somebody who recommended it.

[SHRED]

27. Now he needs to...

...take the camera around to those against the public option and ask them if any public money pays for part or all of their health insurance.

---

[cyndensco]

33. And perhaps take it to the street

to document what the antis' constituents are saying.

[MindMatter]

29. OK. Can somebody actually tell me what is "the public option"

Everybody is slinging around this phrase as if it actually meant something, but I have not yet heard a single person actually define what that means. If we can't define what "the public option" is, then we will not know when the insurance, hospital, and pharma executives get THEIR bill passed using THEIR definition of "the public option".

So what s it? I challenge anybody to come up with a clear definition of "the public option" that we can all live with, using fewer than 100 words.

[MindMatter]

40. Considering nobody has jumped in,

I will assume we are all equally confused on this subject. To focus it a bit, here are some questions:

1) Is "the public option" available to everybody or just some people?

2) Is "the public option" essentially another insurance company, but one operating under government control?

3) Who actually operates "the public option"? Is it safe to assume most of it would be outsourced to private contractors? Remember that Ross Perot made his fortune mainly by operating Medicare contracts.

4) How would we pay for "the private option"? If I belonged to that, would there be a payroll deduction just like FICA?

5) And because there would still be for-profit insurance companies, what assurance would the taxpayers have that these vultures wouldn't keep cherry-picking as they have always done -- covering only the healthy people and sending the more expensive risks to "the public option"?

6) In a related question, if I am a cancer survivor, for example and I change jobs to a company that has private insurance, will they have to include me in that plan? And will this be done according to a formula that doesn't penalize my employer? In today's environment either I could not be covered or else my employer would have a big increase in fees because of my medical history, and most employers will simply not make the job offer in that case.

Maybe these question all have great answers, but I have not heard them. So before anybody does any more chest pounding about how badly we need "the public option", take a few minutes and figure out what you are asking for.

[MindMatter]

41. Here's what Obama says about it

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/president-obamas-presser-public-option

It is an interesting discussion, but does not answer any of m 6 questions. He mentions the cherry picking question briefly, but doesn't talk about a solution other than a vague notion of an "exchange". Apparently for a private insurer to be in this exchange, they would have to not band new members with pre-existing conditions. But that doesn't say they can't gouge the employer in ways that may it cheaper simply not to hire that employee. And it doesn't speak to THE REST OF the insurance industry that could evidently opt not to be in this magical exchange.

Am I really the only person who has questions? Are the rest of you perfectly happy to just use the buzzword without actually knowing what the hell anybody is talking about?

[MindMatter]

42. And here's an article that twists everything around -- intentionally

The more we use the meaningless buzzphrase "Public Option" without actually defining it, we are creating opportunities for the moneyed elite to twist the meanings around to serve their purposes. Here is a prime example.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709618142215031.html

[iris27]

45. It doesn't seem nebulous to me at all.

Maybe I am the only one, but let me hazard a definition and see if people wildly disagree with me or not.

The public option, as it's being discussed here and across the country, seems to be simply setting a price at which everyone could choose to buy into Medicare if they wanted (obv. with premiums subsidized for the poor, etc., etc.).

That's my 100 words definition I guess.

It would not replace any other insurance company, so if you felt you were getting better coverage with your existing plan, you could keep it. Other regulations that will be part of the overall health care bill would require that private companies take you on at any time if you chose to move from the public plan to a private one. (The bill in its current form is going to eliminate "pre-existing condition" as a concept. No denials or hikes in rates because you're already sick.)

I'll have to post and then come back and edit b/c I don't remember what your other questions were.

But I don't think this is off the mark from what everyone else is thinking or what reps like Ellison are fighting for.

-----

Okay, I'm back.

1) Is "the public option" available to everybody or just some people? Available to everybody - no point in doing it otherwise!

2) Is "the public option" essentially another insurance company, but one operating under government control? Yes, like how Medicare is now.

3) Who actually operates "the public option"? Is it safe to assume most of it would be outsourced to private contractors? Remember that Ross Perot made his fortune mainly by operating Medicare contracts. I would assume so and consider it a necessary evil. The administrative/overhead costs of Medicare are 3% as opposed to private industry's 30%, so I think this would still be a win.

4) How would we pay for "the private option"? If I belonged to that, would there be a payroll deduction just like FICA? I assume you mean the public option? Yes, payroll deduction is exactly how I figure you would pay your premiums for the public option (but only those people who are enrolled will pay it). Employer-based and individual private plans would continue to work like they do now.

5) And because there would still be for-profit insurance companies, what assurance would the taxpayers have that these vultures wouldn't keep cherry-picking as they have always done -- covering only the healthy people and sending the more expensive risks to "the public option"? As I mentioned above, other regulations are already written into the overall healthcare bill that will prevent private insurers from refusing coverage to anyone for any reason...and they won't be able to charge different people different rates, either. The public option is a critical part of healthcare reform, but it is only one part. As long as we continue to let private companies exist, those companies need to face stronger regulations than what they have today.

6) In a related question, if I am a cancer survivor, for example and I change jobs to a company that has private insurance, will they have to include me in that plan? And will this be done according to a formula that doesn't penalize my employer? In today's environment either I could not be covered or else my employer would have a big increase in fees because of my medical history, and most employers will simply not make the job offer in that case. Yes. See above re: pre-existing conditions. This is actually something that is pretty sure to pass regardless of whether or not we get a public option.

[MindMatter]

59. I appreciate those comments. I'm not completely convinced

that this is what other mean when they say "public option". For example,

When you say "Available to everybody - no point in doing it otherwise!", I quite agree, but it seems to me Obama has said exact the opposite, that it would only be offered to a certain subset -- a few million people -- and he would still expect private insurance to cover the big numbers.

That's a pretty important factor, wouldn't you agree?

I have absolutely zero confidence that Congress will pass any law that actually requires private insurance companies to accept all enrollees regardless of medical condition or history. It is absolutely fundamental to the business of private insurance to cast out the risk and to collect high premiums from the lowest risks. This is at the core of how the whole industry operates, you can bet there will be a thousand loopholes in the final bill allowing them to basically continue what they have been doing.

I guess my bitch is that with everybody running around talking about "the private option" without actually defining what we want and need, we are not going to end up with the real reforms that are necessary. We need to be talking about the fundamental reforms, but the slogans.

[ProudDad]

68. HR676

There, that's 1 word... :hi:

.............................

Seriously, "Public Option" as used is mainly a weasel word that the Dem "leadership" and the Obama Admin. uses that will allow them to pull the wool over our eyes and shovel more hundreds of millions at the health insurance mafia and Big Pharma...

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

A VIABLE public option would be repair Medicare, allow anyone who wishes to join...

Along with legislation:

1) Require ALL private companies to insure anyone who asks -- NO PREEXISTING CONDITIONS, ETC.
2) Require ALL insurance companies to provide the same basic package as the new Medicare Open To All plan
3) Limit how much profit an insurance company may make on health insurance to the same as the admin. cost of Medicare.
3) Fixe Medicare Part D, fill the doughnut hole, allow the govt. to negotiate prices with the drug dealers

and so on...

---------------- That's 95 words -----------------

[MindMatter]

72. No I am more confused than ever

According to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h676/show

that bill provides "all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care, which would encompass primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care."

That looks like nationalized health insurance, i.e. single payer, compulsory membership. That ain't "the public option". SO I appreciate you one-word and 95 word answers, but they simply don't tie back to the debate about "the public option."

[AllyCat]

34. My representative! Tammy Baldwin! Yeah! Way to go Rep Ellison

This is a great idea. circulate widely all...the masses need to see they are NOT alone in their thinking no matter what the M$M say.

[SeattleGirl]

44. Heard him on the radio yesterday.

Can't remember which show it was on, but the host asked him if he had talked to anyone who said they would oppose the public option. He hadn't, but agreed to go for those folks after the urging of the host.

I think it's a great idea; get the pros and the cons on tape. Get it on YouTube. Let people know exactly where all these people stand on this issue.

[TomClash]

46. But he's a Muslim Terrorist! He took His Oath on the Koran!

Does anyone remember these Repuke canards? :rofl:

[iris27]

47. That was the first thing I thought of.

"Ellison...hey, that's the Muslim rep, right? AH-HA-HA-HA, eat that, Republicans!"

[nahant]

50. Public health option

We need more and more of our elected officials to shed their corporate money bags and give the citizens what they want!! Single Payer with no co-pay and No preconditions with a monthly fee based ability to pay!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Guess who hasn't covered this?

That's right, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Ellison's hometown paper.

I doubt that anyone in Minneapolis is surprised.

[bobbolink]

58. Thanks for posting this! I heard him talking about this on ....Ed Schultz, I think it was.

I just put together the list of Capitol Hill toll-free numbers, so I need to give his office a call to thank him!

1-800-828-0498

1-866-388-1015

1-866-220-0044

1-877-851-6437

[PretzelWarrior]

60. this is excellent groundwork from an awesome representative

he is now on my radar BIG TIME.

[onethatcares]

63. Yes, Yes, Yes

this is what I consider PROGRESSIVE Now it's time to stand on the corners and get it passed.

[annm4peace]

73. Hope Ellison can persuade Franken to co-sponsor Single Payer Health care

It is what Wellstone would do.