The Single Payer Action group has a new project. Discredit Dean.

[madfloridian]

It is to discredit Howard Dean. I find that shameful to discredit someone who is basically after the same thing they are after. This is not about Howard Dean, this is about the people in our country who are desperate with poor or no health care.

Here is today's attack on him. They are proud of shouting him down at signings of his own book around the country.

Howard Dean to Single Payer Action: Get Outta Here

The article is pretty ugly, and it is speaking of a signing at Powell's book store in Portland.

I put the video up of that signing

Their view is quite different than what I saw.

They are calling congress not to vote for the public option...to abstain.

With all the pain in our country today of people with no health care or poor healthcare I find that unconscionable.

There are many groups including physicians' groups which support a public option. Here is their statement:

Eight physician groups issue support for Obama’s ‘public option’

According to the joint statement issued June 15:

“As doctors, we see patients every day who are more afraid of their medical bills than their illnesses. It frustrates and saddens us to care for patients with what began as a simple and inexpensive medical problem, but has developed into a life-threatening condition. It makes us angry to see children suffering from treatable illnesses, like asthma, in the Emergency Room because they literally have nowhere else to go.

All doctors need to work together to solve our health care crisis. Part of this solution should be the inclusion of a high-quality public health insurance option that competes fairly with private plans. Having the choice of a public health insurance plan will help make health care more affordable for patients, foster greater competition in the insurance market, and guarantee that quality, affordable coverage will be there for our patients no matter what happens.

We believe that the creation of a public health insurance option can break the stranglehold that out-of-control healthcare costs have on our patients by fostering choice and competition. As the American Medical Association first reported, 94% of insurance markets are now highly concentrated—and as a result, premiums have skyrocketed -- increasing more than 87%, on average, over the past six years.”

The statement was signed by:

* The American Academy of Family Physicians
* The American Medical Student Association
* The Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare
* Doctors Council/SEIU Healthcare
* Doctors for America
* The National Doctors Alliance/SEIU Healthcare
* The National Physicians Alliance
* The Student National Medical Association

Groups that support the public option

We should be working together to get the best we can get.

[madfloridian]

1. So feel free to get those unrecommends ready.... because..

if these groups can come here to defeat the public option, then I can defend it and those who are speaking out for it.

[bobbolink]

57. Recommended. Attacking Dean is disgusting.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. They are all-or-nothing zealots who understand little, if anything, about how the world works

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I have an even darker notion...

A good way to contribute to the demise of health care reform is to attack it from the left--to Naderize it, to coin a phrase. You know--"Not a dime's worth of difference" between Dean and Grassley.

[ContinentalOp]

17. BS, it's a totally different scenario.

You can't "naderize" an issue like this because it's not like there's an either/or, two sided vote that the public gets to participate in. In other words, advocates for single payer are not siphoning votes off of the public option. That's ridiculous.

The "public plan" has been deliberately conflated with single payer as a way of taking single payer off of the table and shifting the debate to the right. I don't think it's unfair to say that Dean has played a part, intentionally or not, in that process.

[madfloridian]

23. Then make sure we get nothing at all.

And make a medal for yourself.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Single payer couldn't be taken off of the table because it was never on the table to begin with

It was never even considered an option by those who have the power to influence the legislative process on this issue.

[ContinentalOp]

36. Exactly.

Which is why Dean is culpable.

[ContinentalOp]

63. More proof of who is "naderizing" the debate. Dean seems to think S.P. and P.O. are the same thing.

"...What Obama's plan essentially does is give you the choice of whether you want to be in a single-payer or private insurance plan..."

"Dean also said that single-payer is pretty tough to differentiate from the public option.

"Public option is like single payer. It gives consumers the choice..."

If intentionally trying to convince the public that single payer and the public option are one and the same thing isn't equivalent to convincing the public Bush and Gore are the same thing, then I don't know what is. DEAN is the Nader here.

[Oregone]

5. And the world works different in American, whereas, much of the rest of the civilized world...

has no problem with single-payer.

One of these days, people are going to get tired of those bending over backward making excuses for leaders failing them.

[madfloridian]

7. You think I am making excuses for failed leaders?

Oh geez.

This is getting worse than I thought.

[Oregone]

8. Yes. Its getting tired

Hold them to a real standard. The rest of the civilized world would.

Americans forgot how to draw lines in the sand. They move the goal posts to wherever their faithful chosen leader is standing, then pretend it is the "pragmatic" and "correct" stance.

[madfloridian]

10. Well, that is very clear how you view me. Thanks for the honesty.

Trying to stop a possible health care for desperate people.....I am not sure what to call that.

[Oregone]

12. You are welcome

Im not "Trying to stop a possible health care for desperate people". Rather, Im advocating a proven approach that always delivers health care for all people, desperate or not.

[madfloridian]

14. Then wear a medal...

that says you refused to compromise at all...not one little bit.

[Oregone]

16. Single-payer is a centrist compromise

Letting the for-profit insurance industry exist and continue to thrive is a right-wing give away (which is the "public option" compromise)

[madfloridian]

20. Well, then continue your quest for perfection.

Let me know when you find it.

[Oregone]

26. You don't find perfection.

But you don't refuse to look for and fight for it. When you avoid so much as fighting for the ideal, as your ideal, you will end up in a less than ideal society. Welcome to America.

[madfloridian]

31. I have fought hard here for rights for everyone.

But if you feel better saying I haven't so be it.

[Oregone]

34. Yes, it makes me feel much better

Thanks

[edc]

130. "We should be working together to get the best we can get."

I read you opinions religiously and am a big fan, so with all due respect, Sir, 3/4 of the American people support a civilized, single payer health care system. We are not petitioners. Our servants in government are not our Lords. This nation remains (at least on paper) a constitutional republic. When our representatives in government represent the interests of money rather than the common good, that is by definition corruption and rule by an elite, a system as old as the pyramids. America was not founded upon such ancient occultism. If you work to "get what you can get" then you accept that corrupting system of relationships, the role of master and servant reverses and you become a supplicant. That type of relationship is no democracy. Worse still, it becomes a normal condition that you pass on to your children. No thanks. The soil of our country has been watered with far too much blood in the cause of liberty, equality and fraternity to accept such a regression.

[nosmokes]

44. In a single payer system for profit insurance might exist but it wouldn't be

necessary.I think mebbe you have public option confuzzled w/ single payer.

[Oregone]

45. Im not confused

I was contrasting the two approaches (single payer vs public option). Reread.

[nosmokes]

51. Then how on earth do you come to the conclusion single payer is a

centrist compromise w/ the insurance companies and the public option isn't. That's backasswards.

Sorry if I'm missing something...I have been at my medical weed today so I'm waaay not the sharpest knife in the block.

[Oregone]

53. Ah...thats where you missed it.

Single payer is not a compromise with insurance companies. Its a compromise with the concept of non-profit, socialized health care (which is on the left of the spectrum). Single-payer allows profit to exist in care delivery and allows private practicioners/facilities to exist, thrive, and profit from providing care. Though, single-payer does not allow insurance companies to scoop additional profits from the payment end and continue to deny care (which is on the far right). Its somewhere in the middle of a socialized model and a free market model.

"Public option" does not take any significant steps towards the left (socializing the delivery/payment), though it takes some small ones. In exchange, it mandates private insurance. You may call it a "compromise", but its not towards a center (defined between socialized and free market extremes). Its a compromise that creates a system that remains largely on the right.

I think you are thinking compromise in the current context, where as I am thinking of it in the context of all available models out there in the world, you know. Im asking, what is in the center of socialized health care and free market death; the answer is single-payer.

[TheKentuckian]

105. Not in context. Nobody is calling for socialized medicine.

In context single payer is the left most position in the debate. It is regrettable that it was not given consideration but there isn't the groundswell of support that many think they see for it. So, it has few dependable votes in the legislature and less than a plurality of solid support in the electorate. Maybe, if more non-voters got of their asses this would have some momentum but the real deal is more people would leave it as is than do something as revolutionary as single payer once the fear machine went full bore. Much more so than now.

You're talking relative extinction for the insurance companies, they'd dump BILLIONS into the media. BILLIONS with a B to stave that off. Going that far with an option plan would probably be an overplay of their hand, an admission they can't provide reasonable service at fair prices.

In the case of the national discussion I believe you are inventing a position that no one is taking to frame yours as middle of the road. I think it is ineffective as it comes of as dishonest despite being technically truthful.

Socializing medicine may be a step that has to be taken too but I can't imagine anyone that checks in on reality from time to time thinks it is something that has much Democratic much less general American support. Not even enough to bring up beyond brainstorming.

[glinda]

124. I am. I don't care how they get there but help everyone. Cover everyone.

[JDPriestly]

114. Look, many Americans believe the propaganda about how awful

"government health care" might be. The public option gives the American people the opportunity to test the water, to see whether it is the boogieman that the health insurance lobbyists argue that it is. Of course, having lived in Europe for years, I know that single payer is the best way to go -- single payer with optional private insurance coverage for things like private rooms. But Americans are ignorant about single payer. They don't know what it is and they are frightened that it will mean bureaucrats in their operating rooms. They don't realize that the bureaucrats are actually working for the insurance companies. The government bureaucrats have to publish their rules. The private insurance companies don't explain their rules until you find out you don't have coverage.

I would prefer single payer, but if we have to start with a public option, I'm OK with that.

I watched the disturbance at the Dean book signing event. The single payer advocates were way out of line. Dean promised to allow them to talk after he was finished and explained that a lot of the audience was there on the lunch hour. The single payer advocates harmed their cause with their discourteous behavior.

[SleeplessInAlabama]

43. It is also quite possible to understand that on some issues,

people have hard-and-fast principles and they can still wear whatever they please without you telling them.

You act as though the people on this board will be on the floor voting on the bill OR that their opinions influence those that will be.

[Oregone]

46. "You act as though the people on this board will be on the floor voting on the bill OR that their"

Hear, hear!



BTW, I have no doubt "public option" will pass in one fucked form or another. But Im not going to skip a beat telling you why its a fucked "compromise" to start with. We don't have to lie to each other and pretend it matters in the big picture. Stopping dissent to express support of these chosen leaders will just put all current and future debate right back into the stone age.

[ContinentalOp]

59. You obviously want me to die in a gutter somewhere!

If you dare criticize the current plans congress will take their crayons and go home! :P

[KakistocracyHater]

93. why not see if registered Dems get covered by the same Federal Plan as our

Reps? Either that or remove all health coverage from all our Reps-make them pay for it out of their own salary. Take away their tax-payer cars & tax-payer covered "working" vacations.

[MilesColtrane]

78. "Hold them to a real standard."

...said the ex-patriot.

[Oregone]

88. Or leave

But standing in the middle making excuses is a fruitless venture

Maybe it takes an ex-pat to point out that there are options between "failure" and "fail a little less".

[MilesColtrane]

90. Don't you have something Canadian to do?

[Oregone]

97. Im doing it

[MilesColtrane]

98. Really?

Seems like you'd be too busy drawing your line in the sand in Kamloops to lecture Americans on their strategy to build a better country.

[Oregone]

99. If thats what they are strategizing for...

they are fucking it up big time. But I guess all you are looking for is an "uniquely American" echo chamber

[MilesColtrane]

102. You guess wrong.

[MilesColtrane]

76. self deleted

[Laelth]

4. I wrote the leadership of the Progressive Caucus and asked them to vote "no."

My liberal cred. is not in question. Mandatory insurance is, quite simply, not the answer, and it's worse than doing nothing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

6. Then let us have nothing.

So be it.

I have become a pariah here now. I was called a corporatist, a sell-out.

Congratulations on helping to stop what we could get for a dream we can not get.

[Laelth]

35. I have tremendous respect for you, madfloridian.

I have never called you a pariah, nor a corporatist.

But I beg you to hear me out on this. A mandate to buy insurance will be a disaster for the party. I honestly feel it would be better to do nothing. On the other hand, I respect your position on this. I just wanted you (and others) to know that many of us are very opposed to a federal mandate requiring the uninsured to buy insurance. Most of us simply can not afford it, even if it's "subsidized." Passing a law requiring me to buy insurance will do nothing but make me a criminal under the laws of the United States.

:dem:

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

41. We don't know the final form. Only what committees have let leak.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Madfloridian, I almost always agree with you, but this bill looks like a

slightly kinder, gentler version of the Massachusetts system, which burdens the middle-income uninsured by requiring them to sign up for crappy policies.

Like the Clinton bill, it is a compromise-before-the-fact.

Both Obama and Dean should have come out swinging for single payer and THEN compromised.

But in this case, they have STARTED by crafting a system that they THINK the Republicans might accept. Only, of course, they won't, so the final bill will be even weaker.

It is overly complicated, not easy to explain, and therefore not easy to win public support for. Look at the readers' comments in the New York Times articles on health care. Support for single-payer is overwhelming, and it's easy to explain in five sentences: "The government or its designated agent is the only insurer, but doctors remain in private practice. The whole nation is the pool. You pay a tax/premium that is less than you or your employer is paying now. You cannot be turned down or terminated, nor will your rates go up because you were sick. You never see a bill."

Now try explaining the Obama bill in five sentences. A lot of the objections to it are based on people not understanding how it will affect THEM. They want to know before they support it, and yet it's complicated enough that the information is not easily available without reading the whole bill. I actually had to ASK to find an executive summary of the bill, and even there, it took a couple of readings to figure out how it would affect me. (A wash, in my case.)

Just because Howard Dean is for it doesn't mean it's the best we can do. In fact, the aspects that are in it in order to appease the Republicanites and Blue Dogs may be exactly the elements that may make it unworkable or trouble-prone in practice.

[madfloridian]

77. Dean DID speak against the Senate version on Rachel's show tonight.

Now I am sorry but fair is fair.

Don't worry, I know I am not a popular person here.

It does not matter. I see 3 groups trying to get the public option stopped and it is not a good idea.

I don't care who agrees.

Personal attacks toward honest politicians is pretty bad.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. I don't have cable anymore, so I don't see any talking heads shows

but all in all, the Dems' main problem is that they don't come out strong for what they really want.

When the Republicans are in control, they come out strong for what they really want, even if it doesn't have a chance of passing (like privatizing Social Security). But because of their boldness, they have managed to change this country so much that it's hardly the same place it was in 1980.

The Dems are always in the mode of, "Well, we really want X, but the Republicans won't accept it so we'll compromise before even sending a bill to committee."

[madfloridian]

81. Well, the man they are attacking protesting and calling a liar

spoke out on the way the Democrats are acting...and he did it on Rachel's show.

The video will probably be up soon, but you know what? It won't matter. They are trying to kill health care unless we kick all the insurance companies out. That is not even possible.

It's sad.

I am the perfect example of how to become a pariah at DU. And I don't give a damn.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. It's not about Dean, and it's not about you

It's about getting the best possible plan and and the Democrats as a whole being willing to tell the Republicans and Blue Dogs where they can stuff their contributions from the insurance industry and the AMA.

[madfloridian]

113. I have been doing just that. So where's the difference?

I just think it is wrong for single payer people to be calling congress NOT to vote on a public option.

[suzie]

111. Madfloridian, you are to be commended for standing up for

Dr. Dean on this one.

You might want to ask, what does Dean have to gain by proposing something that will harm the American people?

He's been a pretty independent voice, so why would he go along with legislation that will ultimately be that harmful?

Dean seems to be the only one who has called single payer, "Medicare for all", which would be much more understandable to the public. I think Dean is one of the voices out there who can explain what health care reform and health insurance changes mean in a way that average folks can understand it.

[Laelth]

129. Beautifully said, Lydia Leftcoast. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[prolesunited]

11. Gee, thanks

I'll let you know when my COBRA runs out and I can't buy insurance on the open market because of pre-existing conditions. Thankfully, you wouldn't have compromised your principles. I'll think of that if I wind up dying and be glad.

[Oregone]

15. You will anyway

This won't solve anything in time, even if it could solve anything in the first place

[Laelth]

38. For you, the bills currently under consideration are better than nothing, I admit.

For me, on the other hand, if the bills currently being considered become law, I will become a criminal under the laws of the United States because I can not afford to buy the insurance that the law will require me to buy (even if it is "subsidized").

I want health care reform. The mandate that the uninsured buy insurance, however, must go, and I will fight it with much of my might and energy.

It is the greedy, already-insured who would rather I die than for them to have to pay more taxes to fund universal health care.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BlooInBloo]

9. Damn all-or-nothing fucks.

[Oregone]

13. Fuck all-or-nothing damners

[armyowalgreens]

18. Without compromise, nothing would get done.

All or nothing people die with nothing because they decided for nothing instead of something.

[Oregone]

24. This "compromise" crap argument operates on the premise that...

Single-payer isn't a compromise. This is very incorrect. It is a centrist pragmatic approach to pay for health care, but it compromises entirely in delivery, leaving that to the existing public/private market forces.

This silliness needs to stop. Single-payer is an incremental starting point in the proper direction.

[armyowalgreens]

28. I never said single-payer is the end of the road.

It is your goal, and you are unwilling to compromise. In turn, you are willing to let others suffer.

Let the new system pass, and then we can go out and protest about it's shortcomings.

History has shown that progress is incremental. It does not come in one giant leap. Except, of course, for the great leap forward in China. And that cost the lives of millions of people.

[Oregone]

32. "In turn, you are willing to let others suffer" -- Quite the opposite

Allowing the existing structure to remain mostly in place institutionalizes a willingness to let others continue to suffer.


"Let the new system pass, and then we can go out and protest about it's shortcomings."

Or we could protest now, and settle on a system with less shortcomings


"History has shown that progress is incremental"

And single-payer is incremental. Sounds like a good starting step.

[armyowalgreens]

37. A step towards what?

What is beyond single payer?


Just because it is a step does not mean it is truly incremental. If you honestly think that moving from our current system to single-payer is some incremental step forward, you must be mad. It would be a giant leap.


The difference is that I'm willing to let the new plan be implemented to help more people. You are willing to let it die and in turn you are willing to let more people suffer than if it was passed.


It's okay to say that the new plan is better, while still not being enough. You are allowed to think that.

[Oregone]

42. Single-Payer=socialized *insurance*. Have you not heard of socialized health CARE?

That is beyond single-payer. Costs will continue to grow with fee for service models beyond the reach of a single-payer system's ability to contain them. Some services, (or all in a non-hybrid system), could be socialized.

This reform is not even incremental in that direction at all. Perhaps a single-payer catastrophic insurance would be (which leaves private providers in place, yet pays out 100% on services for everyone beyond out-of-pocket beyond % of income). But this...come on now. Its just a step towards institutionalized private insurance. Its more laws allowing them to operate, and thrive via mandates.

[armyowalgreens]

49. hmmm yeah I apparently forgot about socialized for some reason.

That would be the ultimate goal.

I guess you are right. Informing congress that what they have is not enough would let them know that they better try harder. Rejecting the new bill would probably accomplish that objective.

[Still Sensible]

30. Just curious, if single payer is the "centrist" position

what is the "real" answer that you wouldn't consider a centrist sellout?

[Oregone]

39. It is centrist, yes.

A more leftist position would be putting doctors on a public salary, rather than a fee for service salary (and socializing their facilities). That would be socializing health care, instead of socializing insurance (which single-payer does). This reform really does neither to any significant scale.

Single-payer doesn't even concern itself with the delivery. That is why it will start to eventually fail in Canada and Europe in the next two decades, because the budgets will be strained. More of these countries will incrementally experiment with acquiring private health assets for the public good and paying doctors salaries directly for some services. The US actually already does this for veterans already.

[ContinentalOp]

22. The people who say this is all or nothing are the ones who have successfully "naderized" the issue

They have taken single payer off the table by making people afraid to even talk about it. If you dare bring it up you're somehow helping defeat the "public option". They are the ones who are going to end up getting us nothing.

[Oregone]

29. I completely agree

It also illustrates a basic lack of understanding of the health care issues too (which seems to confuse delivery and payment, and ignore all solutions to the left of single-payer). Single-payer is anything but an all-or-nothing approach. It is pure pragmatism and incrementalism to start with.

[slipslidingaway]

83. Blame it on the people who were not invited to the discussions

and are protesting the exclusion instead of the insurance company reps who have a say in the legislation.

:eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

86. For the record I agree with you.

I just re-read my post and saw how it could be read in exactly the opposite way that I intended it! I think we're on the same page though.

edit: not sure if the eye rolling was at me or at the "public option or nothing" folks (who hypocritically accuse single payer advocates of being all or nothing).

[slipslidingaway]

87. I should have added the sarcasm tag....

we agree.

:)

[ContinentalOp]

91. ok, I thought so, but wasn't sure at first.

I read you the wrong way the first time :) my confusion.

[slipslidingaway]

92. My post is the one that was confusing....

:hi:

[anonymous171]

85. Incrementalism is the only way anything gets done in this country.

That's just the way it is. The American government was built and designed by revolutionaries to prevent any other revolutions.

[madfloridian]

19. Keep those unrecommends coming fast and furious. Don't compare the video

with what that group said went on.

Don't search for the truth. Just tell your children you never compromised.

[ipaint]

50. I rec'd your thread

Knowledge is power.

[Mythsaje]

21. Let's ask for the least we think we can get

and get less than we ask for and call it a "compromise."

The Democratic Motto.

[madfloridian]

25. Well, unrecs have taken down from 4.

There's still one left.

[undeterred]

27. Why don't they discredit the Republicans or obstructionist Dems?

[madfloridian]

40. Because they believe Dean co-opted their efforts.

Which he did not. There is plenty of room for everyone.

[ipaint]

48. They are all politicians.

They do what is best for them first. Dean is doing light weight lobbying for bio firms. He is going against public interest in pushing a 12 year patents on those new kinds of drugs (biosimilars). Not only that he is going against obama and quite a few of the more liberal democrats and most non industry financed consumer groups who want a 5-7 year limit so these drug will be affordable for the folks who need them.

I don't begrudge him making a living but when folks call him on it, tough. He's a centrist politician and he's just going to have to deal with it.

Hero worshipping these guys is asking for trouble. You lose your ability to see them for what they are and aren't.

[madfloridian]

54. What a convenient fall back argument when someone is speaking truth.

To accuse them of worship. Damn, that is just so clever and cutesy.

He's an honest politician and a doctor who is a target of a group of physicians.

What he is saying is true, whether or not he is making money....and I say good for him.

He lit a fire under the party, led them to control both houses and the WH...and got unceremoniously dumped.

There is no excuse for attacking someone like that so viciously, and DU is being used to push their views exclusively.

[ipaint]

58. And he's shilling for bio firms for a living.

And getting heckled or called out on questionable lobbying is not vicious. Hopefully he won't be claiming single payer and medicare for all is a choice for all of us in the reform the president would like to see.

That's just a lie.

[madfloridian]

60. Shilling.

Strong word.

[ipaint]

64. Thanks for the correction- Shill. n/t.

[madfloridian]

68. Dean was just on Rachel's show "shilling" away.

:eyes:

[slipslidingaway]

73. They have....people forget...."Make it the Baucus 13"

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=690

"Make it the Baucus 13.

Five more people were arrested at the Senate Finance Committee this morning.

They are advocates of a single payer health care system.

And they were protesting the fact that Committee chairman Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) continues to exclude single payer advocates from a series of hearings on health care reform.

Last week, eight doctors, lawyers and activists were arrested as they sought to put a single payer advocate at a table of 15 witnesses.

Today, 13 witnesses testified – not one a single payer advocate.

The Baucus 8 were charged last week with “disruption of Congress” and face a May 26 court date in Washington, D.C.

The Baucus 8 were outside the hearing room this morning wearing black t-shirts that on the front said “Put Single Payer On the Table” and on the back quoted Senator Baucus from last week’s hearing as saying “We Need More Police.”

...On their backs, they wore signs that said “Nurses Say: Stop AHIP. Pass Single Payer.” (AHIP stands for America’s Health Insurance Plans – the health insurance industry lobby.)..."

[slipslidingaway]

47. Why are people trying to discredit single-payer advocates? ...

Single payer groups accuse Dean of having them arrested in Portland
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=321786&mesg_id=321786

Nowhere in the video or article do they accuse Dean of having them arrested!

Supporting links to comments at this thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6125451&mesg_id=6126194

The quotes that Dr. Himmelstein was objecting to are not in the OP... after months of Dean confusing the issues and misrepresenting the two systems, Dr. Himmelstein had enough. Dean has been speaking all over the country and has had many appearances in the media so there are probably many other examples.

Now the organization and doctors who are the biggest threats to the insurance companies are the bad guys because they called Dean out on his misuse of the terms.

"...What Obama's plan essentially does is give you the choice of whether you want to be in a single-payer or private insurance plan..."

"Dean also said that single-payer is pretty tough to differentiate from the public option.

"Public option is like single payer. It gives consumers the choice..."

"AMY GOODMAN: Explain what is the public option, as it’s been presented.

HOWARD DEAN: For the average American, they should best think of it as Medicare..."


Dean speaking at the AHIP Convention...public option not as bad as you think.

"What the president is proposing to do is say, if you like what you have, you can keep it. If you're comfortable with the private insurance market, you can keep it. Not only that, but we'll help you buy it. There will be a government subsidy based on your income, particularly helpful to small businesses, that you will receive to buy healthcare in the private market," Dean said. "But you will also have a choice of buying into a public plans such as Medicare or some other public plan. And I'm one of the few defenders of that in this room."

"Now I know people in this room, in this industry, are very, very fearful," he said. "This is the center of opposition."

He looked at the rows of representatives of Aetna, Blue Cross, and dozens of other companies assembled and said, "Your living is at stake here. But I don't think it's going to be as tough as you think it is."

The reason, he said, is that most of the nation's CEOs, despite "incredible inflation," prefer to have employer based health insurance. He emphasized that there is still a role for private health insurance, but one that would be shared by public plans..."



Chairman Emeritus of the DNC bolsters firm's national government affairs practice

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Howard-Dean-to-Join-McKenna-Long-and-Aldridge-LLP-38347-1/

WASHINGTON, March 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Governor howard dean -- a nationally recognized political figure, presidential candidate and six term Governor -- has agreed to serve as an independent consultant exclusive to the government affairs practice at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. Governor dean will provide guidance to clients, particularly in the areas of healthcare and alternative energy resources..."


Howard Dean Claims He Is "Actually Not a Shill For the BIO." Then Stop Acting Like One

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/howard-dean-claims-actual_b_243038.html


As reported in detail in the BioCentury report, Howard Dean was brought in by BIO to get Democrat votes:

In his e-mail to board members, (BIO President & CEO) Greenwood did not fail to include Dean in his praise. "Our team at BIO, the D.C. offices of our members, our consultants (now including former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) did a magnificent job," he wrote. "Governor Dean was very helpful to us" as BIO scrambled to respond to the Kennedy amendment, he told BioCentury. "As a physician clearly focused on healthcare, a Democrat leader and clearly to left of center, his efforts were impactful....

Dean is not candid about his role.


He failed to disclose his financial relationship to BIO when he wrote an op-ed about the
biosimilars legislation.

He didn't acknowledge he was personally paid when he responded to the questions by students at CAP. ("I work for a law firm part-time that got paid")

He makes it sound as if he has had a long term interest in the issue before he was hired by BIO..."

[slipslidingaway]

55. Senate HELP amendment on "data exclusivity"

We should be questioning relationships between politicians and the firms that represent the corporations for additional profits.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/senate_help_amendmen.php

"U.S. Senate HELP Committee
July 13, 2009

Consideration of the Enzi/Hatch/Hagan amendment on establishing a data exclusivity period of 12 years for biotech innovation

Sen. Orin Hatch: I don’t know a biotech company that isn’t for this bill, for this 12 year data exclusivity.

...Sen. Tom Harkin: Keep in mind what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about patents. Everybody gets a 20 year patent… What we’re talking about here is data, data exclusivity… How do you get that data? You get it through FDA supervised trials… Where do they do those clinical trials? Academic health centers. Who supports academic health centers? Our taxpayers… When should that data be released so that another company out there, some other entrepreneurs, can look at the data and say… I’ll bet if we changed this and did this, we might come up with a new formulation that might actually help something else. They’re still going to have to go through their clinical trials… At least they’ll be able to look at the data. If you don’t do that that means that the company can sit on that data for 12 years. Then they let the data out. Clinical trials will take another 7 years or more, so you’re going to have at least a whole 20 year run in there… before anyone can ever surface with anything even comparable to what that drug or that biologic is.

****

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Let’s find out why year after year the drug companies make hugh profits, look at why the drug companies have never once, to the best of my knowledge, have never lost a political debate here in Congress… (medicine) doesn’t do anybody any good if they can’t afford it. I think for year after year we’ve been paying a lot of attention to our friends in PhRMA, who are spending, I don’t know what they spend in lobbying and campaign contributions, a whole lot of money. Maybe it’s time that we start worrying about the people who have to pay for this medicine.

****

Sen. Sherrod Brown: You know what we’ve not talked about, Mr. Chairman? We’re not talking about how much these biologics are costing patients. Let me give you some numbers. (examples)… 48 thousand dollars… 20 thousand dollars …100 thousand dollars. You know what the average wage in my state is? 46 thousand dollars… If we do this giveaway to the drug industry, this giveaway to the biologic companies, it means profits are up for them, it means executive salaries are up for them, it means we can all feel good, but let’s think about the patients, let’s think of the patient with breast cancer who has got to spend 1000 dollars a week… the patient with colon cancer who’s got to spend 2000 dollars a week… What kind of progress is that, Mr. Chairman?

The data exclusivity amendment passed by a vote of 16 to 7, with several Democrats voting in support..."


Biotech firms lobby for say on healthcare

$66m effort to protect drug-patent exclusivity

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/07/21/biotech_firms_lobby_hard_for_say_on_healthcare/


"...The quest for influence is not always obvious.

Howard Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman, wrote an opinion piece this month in The Hill, an influential Capitol Hill newspaper, arguing that fewer than 12 years of monopoly rights for biotech companies’ products “would prematurely rob innovators of their intellectual property and . . . destroy incentives to develop new cures.’’

Within hours Joe Trippi, a Democratic consultant who ran Dean’s 2004 presidential race, hyped Dean’s opinion piece in a blog post that he sent to The Huffington Post, a widely read website. “He’s a doctor and lifelong advocate for health reform - he knows what he’s talking about,’’ Trippi wrote, urging readers to contact their lawmakers.

...Dean failed to note in his editorial that he is an adviser to McKenna, Long & Aldridge, a global law firm that is advising the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the influential trade group.

...But Dean said his editorial was part of McKenna’s rapid-fire response to an unexpected, eleventh-hour Senate health committee proposal (which biotech firms ultimately fought off).

“It was a huge scramble, all hands on deck,’’ Dean said..."

[ContinentalOp]

62. Thank you. I've been annoyed with Dean ever since he sent out an email calling for signatures...

for a petition that sounded like it was for single payer but really was just in support of the same "public option" that was already under discussion in Congress.

I think these are the key points that show what he's trying to do:

"...What Obama's plan essentially does is give you the choice of whether you want to be in a single-payer or private insurance plan..."

"Dean also said that single-payer is pretty tough to differentiate from the public option.

"Public option is like single payer. It gives consumers the choice..."

Either is is shockingly misinformed or he's a flat out lier.

[slipslidingaway]

65. I really do not understand why Dean is trying to confuse the issues...

obviously Dr. Himmelstein had enough and used the word liar last week.

You're welcome.

[abumbyanyothername]

67. If this were an OP

I would give it a rec. And I don't hand them out like candy.

[slipslidingaway]

71. Thank you :))) n/t

[leftstreet]

104. This would make an excellent OP

:thumbsup:

If you've already posted it, I missed it.

[slipslidingaway]

118. Thanks, maybe later on this evening, although I would prefer to

discuss the pros and cons of each plan.

[johnaries]

52. I would love to see HR 676 pass, but it can't even get out of

committee. To treat someone who is doing his best to look out for our best interests is unconscionable. They should go after the real culprits, instead.
edit to add K&R! :kick:

[slipslidingaway]

56. That shows the influence of the For Profit companies, we need people

to stand up to them, not compromise from the beginning.

[bobbolink]

61. Single-payer people need to accept some of the responsibility.

Several years ago, some of us were urging them to develop a real strategery, knowing it would be a war with the big money.

We needed to be working hard to educate the general populace.

But, PNHP was mostly talking to each other, and not reaching out to average folk.

It was a big tactical error.

[Uzybone]

66. "We should be working together to get the best we can get. "

enthusiastically agree

[Time for change]

69. I don't think there's much difference between single payer and a strong public option

A strong public option, along with a requirement that private insurance companies not be allowed to discriminate against people based on prior conditions or risk, should work out quite well. Anyone who wants the public option can have it, so the plan would make health care available to all who want it.

Private insurance companies could not compete against a strong public option. They would have two choices -- get out of the market or offer a comparable product. It's unlikely that they would be able to do the latter, so they would be driven out. I don't understand those who say that anything but single payer would be tantamount to subsidizing private insurance companies. If that is the case, then why the hell is the insurance industry so dead set against it?

Anyhow, the bottom line is that anyone who wants health care for everyone and believes it should be a right should be on the same side. If we are divided on that issue we will fail for sure. Whether we think that a strong public option is better or single payer is better, we have to at least be united enough to support them both if need be.

Thank you for sticking with this and trying to drive this point home.

[madfloridian]

72. Nice comment that gets right to the point.

Thanks.

[slipslidingaway]

74. This is what Dean told AHIP when he spoke at their convention...

"I don't understand those who say that anything but single payer would be tantamount to subsidizing private insurance companies."

http://healthplans.hcpro.com/content.cfm?content_id=234081&topic=WS_HLM2_HEP

"...But Dean considers public health insurance a necessity. "I think it is absolutely essential. And I don't think health reform is worth doing without a public option."

"What the president is proposing to do is say, if you like what you have, you can keep it. If you're comfortable with the private insurance market, you can keep it. Not only that, but we'll help you buy it. There will be a government subsidy based on your income, particularly helpful to small businesses, that you will receive to buy healthcare in the private market," Dean said. "But you will also have a choice of buying into a public plans such as Medicare or some other public plan. And I'm one of the few defenders of that in this room."

"Now I know people in this room, in this industry, are very, very fearful," he said. "This is the center of opposition."

He looked at the rows of representatives of Aetna, Blue Cross, and dozens of other companies assembled and said, "Your living is at stake here. But I don't think it's going to be as tough as you think it is."

:shrug:


Now supporting health care reform...

"Illness" - AHIP Reform Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R36YJl8SagU


Big Pharma Turns Ad Pair Who Killed Health-Reform Effort in '90s Into Allies - Harry and Louise

http://adage.com/article?article_id=138127

"...Now they're supporting Mr. Obama's health-care initiative -- as vague as that may be at the moment -- as part of a three-week, $4 million "Harry and Louise" campaign running on cable and broadcast networks..."

[Time for change]

115. I'm not sure what your point is

Is it that Dean was trying to get buy-in from the insurance industry? Or is it that former adversaries agree on some things this time around?

My point is that our main goal should be to make good quality health care that is available to all Americans -- and that a strong public option plan is one way to achieve that. Yes, a plan that includes a strong public option will also involve some government subsidy of the insurance industry -- but at the same time it will compete with them (and regulate them) to ensure that they will be forced to offer a much better product in order to survive. The net result will be that their profits will be greatly diminished -- notwithstanding the fact that some people who are currently without insurance will choose to use government funds to purchase private health insurance. Why else would the insurance industry be so against this?

There may be some in the insurance industry who will support a public option, perhaps for altruistic reasons, or perhaps for a combination of reasons. That would not be an unusual scenario. When Medicare was passed, there were many physicians who supported it, even thought the AMA fought tooth and nail against it. Certainly, the belief that the elderly should have access to medical care was a major reason for that.

The attitude that we will not support anything if it's not exactly what we want (single payer) will not be helpful. If those who favor universal health care allow themselves to become too divided over this, it will fail.

[suzie]

116. That all seems far too pragmatic for the "single-payer" folks.

Simple things like the need to pass legislation don't seem to enter into their discussions.

[slipslidingaway]

119. That is why I copied your sentence in my reply and posted the

statement by Dean at the AHIP Convention. He told the private insurance companies that the public option will not be as bad as they imagine and that tax dollars would be used to subsidize the For Profit insurance plans. On one hand we are told that a public option will lead to single-payer, on the other hand Dean tells the insurance companies it will not be as bad as they think.

:shrug:

If Dean wants to argue for Obama's plan that is fine, but he should not be confusing the plans and telling people that the public option is the same as those who advocate for a national single-payer plan.

The reason I posted the commercials is to show that the insurance and pharma companies are on board with health care reform, provided it does not harm them too much. The people they fear the most are single-payer advocates who would do real harm to their bottom line.


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/transcript1.html

"BILL MOYERS: I saw back in the spring-- the chief lobbyist for the Big Pharma industry, Billy Tauzin, used to be a member of Congress. He was on CNBC. And he was in support of this bill, whatever this bill is. Because it would broaden the industry's customer base by providing subsidies for people to buy--

MARCIA ANGELL: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: More coverage from the private insurers.

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: At whatever price they want to charge. It will be a bonanza for the health insurance industry. And a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. And for the doctors, too. Because the doctors are going to get more paying patients, because people will now have this ticket, this insurance card, that they can whip out when they need medical services.

BILL MOYERS: So, does this explain why Harry and Louise, who were around 15 years ago to help defeat Bill Clinton's health plan, Bill and Hillary Clinton's health plan, are back now in support? Seemingly to be in support?

MARCIA ANGELL: You bet it does. You bet it does.

BILL MOYERS: Let me show you the commercials that's been running now, watch closely.


....BILL MOYERS: Wouldn't that make you think that Big Pharma is supporting health care reform?

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: That's exactly--

MARCIA ANGELL: Yes, yes.

TRUDY LIEBERMAN: That's what they're supposed to be--

BILL MOYERS: But on their terms, right?

MARCIA ANGELL: On their terms. Exactly. Exactly."


According to some of the draft bills, not everyone will be allowed to purchase insurance from the public option but there will be a mandate for everyone to have insurance.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/14/house-bill-comes-in-at-1-trillion-undermines-gop-talking-points/

"...Most importantly, the CBO coverage tables undermine the conservative claim that a public option would eliminate private insurance and erode employer-sponsored coverage. The House bill actually increases the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million (in 2019) and shifts most of the uninsured into private coverage. By 2019, 30 million individuals would also purchase coverage from the Exchange, but only 9-10 million Americans (or approximately 1/3) would enroll in the public option, the rest would enroll in private coverage..."

[Time for change]

132. Ok, I see what you mean

What makes this especially confusing is that there are so many plans flying around, and the terminology is not very concrete.

When one uses the term "public option", that could be a very good plan or a very bad plan, depending upon the specifics of it. Some people even use the term to mean public option for some, but not for others. When Dean uses it, I'm pretty sure that he means public option for everyone. Certainly if there is a mandate for everyone to have insurance, but some will have to have private insurance rather than a public option, that will be bad. Likewise, if a public option is not generous enough to ensure that those who have it will receive adequate health care, that will be bad.

From everything he's said and done, I have to belive that Dean is for good quality universal health care (I hope you saw him host Countdown on MSNBC last night) -- though I'm not sure what he was driving at when he told health insurance companies that it won't be as bad as they think. Of course, it would be nice if they weren't against real health care reform. But I can't see how a strong public option plan won't cut greatly into their profits.

It's a real fine line we're walking here. We need to make sure that the plan will ensure decent quality health care for everyone (who chooses it), and at the same time we need a plan that will pass through Congress. There is no question that a properly contrued public option plan could accomplish former. Whether it can accomplish the latter depends on how skillfully the politics is played.

[slipslidingaway]

133. Even before there were any draft plans available Dean was saying

that the public option was like a single-payer system, this was confusing to many people.

From the beginning I could never get behind the public option petitions, I did not know what the plan would look like when it emerged, for me it was dangerous to support an unknown plan. It is as if we are told there is a car behind door number three so we should choose that door, but we have no idea of the year, condition or value of said car.

:shrug:

I think some people dropped their support of a single-payer system in support of the "public option" and possibly because Dean was also behind the public option. When I first heard him start to blur the lines between the two systems I was very disappointed, that was in early May and I posted a poll asking if people thought a SP system was the same as the public option.

As you have stated a strong public option, open to everyone would be an acceptable outcome for now, although there is the matter of how to fund the subsidies and whether or not it would cover everyone. I am not in favor of using tax payer dollars to buy private insurance, adding to the for profit companies bottom line. Although I also would worry if only certain providers accepted the public option and people had less of a choice when it came to doctors, hospitals etc.

Single-payer covers the most amount of people, at the least cost and unites everyone to fight for the best health care system. The other plans will keep groups arguing for dollars and possibly access to different providers.

I just wish so many did not compromise from the beginning as I think we'll wind up with a weaker plan.

Yes I did see Dean host Countdown last night and think he did a good job.

One of the cofounders of PNHP used the word liar last week to describe Dean, I agree that it was harsh, but my feeling is that people are getting tired of the terms being misused. At this point the damage is done, single-payer has been excluded, marginalized and misrepresented by people in our own Party and it would be difficult to change course at this time.


http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1204

“He knows that the public option plan is not single payer and he says it is to try and confuse people,” Himmelstein said. “He goes on Democracy Now and other shows and says that people can buy into Medicare when he knows that what is in the plan is not that.”

“Medicare doesn’t have to compete,” Himmelstein said. “That’s why it’s so efficient.”

And it’s definitely not single payer..."


In case you missed this article it goes into a little more detail about the disadvantages that the public option begins with...it has to compete from the start with no designated pool of enrollees.


Bait and Switch, How the Public Option was sold...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6120089&mesg_id=6120089

Thanks for the courteous conversation.

:)

[Time for change]

134. I'm totally with you on the idea of not getting behind plans until we know what they are

I think that there are three essentials for a good public option plan:

1. It must cover everyone (who chooses it).
2. It must provide for decent health care for everyone -- admittedly a vague and difficult concept.
3. Private insurers must not be allowed to exclude people based on risk.

You say "I am not in favor of using tax payer dollars to buy private insurance, adding to the for profit companies bottom line."

But here is the way I look at it. The tax payer dollars are not for the private insurance companies, they are for the American people so that they can purchase decent health care. I believe that private insurance can't compete with a strong public option plan because private insurance has to divert money into marketing and profits, whereas government insurance doesn't. So people will have a choice of buying a superior government plan vs. an inferior private plan (unless they come up with some way of offering something better, but I don't see how they can). Some people will undoubtedly choose private insurance for ideological reasons. Those are the people who will suffer as a result. It's not that I want them to suffer -- but hey, I can't be responsible for other peoples' dumb decisions.

So, is that "subsidizing" private insurance? I don't see it that way because the competition from government should hurt them a lot more than the subsidies will help them. Of the 47 million who are currently uninsured, some of them (10 million?) will use that money to purchase private insurance. But of the 200+ million who currently purchase private insurance, maybe 150 million or more will switch to the government option once they see that it's better. Why wouldn't they? That would be a huge net loss for the insurance companies. And the numbers may be a lot worse for them than what I've indicated here.

[slipslidingaway]

135. Glad to hear that we agree on supporting an unknown plan ...

:)

I would add another requirement for a public option, cost and financing of the program.

The draft proposals being discussed will not allow everyone to join the public option and may only have 10 million people enrolled in the public option by 2019, but will cost close to 1 trillion dollars.

Part of the funding will come from savings in the Medicare program, that would be fine if the number of enrollees was expected to stay stagnant over the coming decades, but estimates are that the number of Medicare enrollees will increase from 46 million to 79 million over the next twenty years. My fear is that the Medicare program will suffer as cost savings in that program will be needed to fund the new enrollees.

When possible we all should contribute to paying for others who are struggling, but IMO we should be pushing for this to be accomplished in the most cost efficient manner. Maybe the final bill will push more people into the public option instead of private insurance, but current estimates show that we will be funding more people to buy private insurance.

It sounds as if the public option is just becoming weaker as the days go by.

:(


http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%e2%80%9cpublic-option%e2%80%9d-was-sold/

"...The switch

Now let’s compare the “single national health insurance pool covering nearly half the population” that Hacker and other “public option” advocates enthusiastically championed with the “public option” proposed by Democrats in Congress, and then let’s inquire what Hacker and company said about it.

As readers of this blog no doubt know, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and three House committee chairman working jointly, published draft health care “reform” bills in June. (The third committee with bill-writing authority, the Senate Finance Committee, has yet to produce a bill.) According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “public option” proposed in the House “tri-committee” bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The “public option” proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the “public option.”


...In public comments about the Democrats’ “public option” provisions, the leading lights of the “public option” movement imply that Hacker’s model is what Congress is debating. Sometimes they come right out and praise the Democrats’ version as “robust” and “strong.” But I cannot find a single example of a a statement by a “public option” advocate warning the public of the vast difference between Hacker’s original elephantine, “Medicare-like” program and the Democrats’ mouse version.

...Ditto for Hacker’s allies. Representatives of Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the organization most responsible for popularizing the “public option,” repeatedly describe the House and Senate HELP committee bills as “strong” or “robust,” always without any justification for this claim, and have repeatedly failed to warn the public that the “public options” they promote today are mere shadows of the “public options” they endorsed in the past..."

[Sebastian Doyle]

75. Why aren't these people protesting outside the Capitol?

Or at the district offices of DLC pieces of treasonous shit like Conrad or Baucus, or any other worthless son of a bitch opposed to anything BUT mandatory corporatist horseshit.

Any time Dean is attacked, I look for a DLC motive. Because 99.9% of the time, they're the ones attacking him.

[slipslidingaway]

82. They are doing that as well, but Dean has been confusing the terms

for months now.

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=690

"Make it the Baucus 13.

Five more people were arrested at the Senate Finance Committee this morning.

They are advocates of a single payer health care system.

And they were protesting the fact that Committee chairman Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) continues to exclude single payer advocates from a series of hearings on health care reform.

Last week, eight doctors, lawyers and activists were arrested as they sought to put a single payer advocate at a table of 15 witnesses.

Today, 13 witnesses testified – not one a single payer advocate..."


They are also questioning Dean's association with the firm McKenna, Long & Aldridge based on this article and his support for the Biotech firms exclusivity amendment.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/07/21/biotech_firms_lobby_hard_for_say_on_healthcare/?page=2

[madfloridian]

95. Baloney. They did not get arrested because of Dean.

This is really out of control stuff now.

Your goal right now slipslidingaway is to stop health care reform and make Dean look as bad as you can.

I am updating my list again.

You have helped turn those of us who support a sensible plan into nutcases. I am damn tired of it.

Good bye.

[slipslidingaway]

100. What the hell are you talking about, did you read the post I replied

to or are you just trying to wrongly accuse me again!

Here is the post I replied to...

"Why aren't these people protesting outside the Capitol?

Or at the district offices of DLC pieces of treasonous shit like Conrad or Baucus, or any other worthless son of a bitch opposed to anything BUT mandatory corporatist horseshit.

Any time Dean is attacked, I look for a DLC motive. Because 99.9% of the time, they're the ones attacking him."


Single-payer advocates have protested at the Senate hearing, were arrested and I linked to the article.

I never said they were arrested because of Dean!!!

You really need to read and reply to what is written.

A sensible plan that requires people to purchase insurance while leaving many ineligible to buy into a public option?

Why are you trying so hard to discredit single-payer advocates instead of focusing on the insurance companies who do nothing to provide care?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6164248&mesg_id=6164827

[madfloridian]

79. PS Dean spoke out against the Senate again tonight on Rachel.

But that's not good enough....that is not perfection.

[madfloridian]

84. Please stop with the "madfloridian i usually respect you" stuff.

This is about health care, getting the best we can while we are nearly controlled by corporations.

That fellow who is being discredited by these groups was on Rachel tonight coming out against what the senate is doing, and admitting this is a Democratic problem.

This is not about me and how you feel about me. This is about stopping what we CAN get in the name of what we won't get.

Look at the other groups who are supporting the public option. They are not chopped liver. They are credible groups.

[Odin2005]

89. I expected this would happen.

The Cindy Sheehan effect. You so-called "progressives" make the rest of us liberal look like nutjobs. :puke:

[madfloridian]

101. .....

I am considered a nutjob here now. Really. A sell-out and a corporatist. A few days ago I was too much of purist for wanting the party to stand up for women's rights.

Can't win.

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

106. Ugh, people suck!

:(

[suzie]

128. Doing a good job on this, madfloridian.

And Dr. Dean did well as a guest host last night. Brought out some important information.

[slipslidingaway]

94. Bill Moyers - Dr. Marcia Angell speaks an inconvenient about our health system that no public plan w

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6165525&mesg_id=6165525

[Vidar]

96. Recommended. Dr. Dean should have been named Surgeon General.

[madfloridian]

103. Rachel Maddow and "shiller" Dean on her show tonight. Video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VriojzKGqhU

A few comments..

"This is about the insurance industry vs the American people"

"A vote against the public option is a vote for the insurance industry and a vote against the American public"

"The cry in 2010 will be who are you gonna vote for...the people who sent you there and pay your salary or the health insurance industry...that's your choice."

Rachel tells him about the latest development...

"that's all very nice...glad they are bipartisan but that is not reform.."

"that's what I call the fake public option"

"and it's a shame really because the Democrats are going to end up being responsible for killing this bill"

"this is gonna be a hell of an issue in 2010...what's the point of having a 60 vote majority in the Senate if you can't produce health care reform."

Geez, what a sell-out. :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

107. These actions from the left are unconscionable and beyond stupid

Before responding, I googgled "Dean single payer" and this really is a major effort. This is as stupid as Nader attacking Gore in 2000. The only thing I can think is that they are convinced that by discrediting Dean, they will gain people behind their views. The fact is though that what they really do is reduce the effectiveness of a prominent, credible person working for progressive goals.

From the google, I also found a nice Think Progress post that actually had a thoughtful statement from Dean that shows why he favors the public option over single payer. I add it because I had not seen it before, though I would bet you have. :) Whether people agree with the reasons or not, they are thoughtful and motivated by a desire to give people a system that works. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/04/dean-single-payer/

But, Dean supporters might do well to put their own house in order. The DFA site is front paging a campaign by Adam Green and Bold Progressives which is targeting conservative Democrats who are against the public option. However, they include as a target John Kerry, who has been for the public option at least since he ran for President. In response to people who have written him, Green responds that his write up acknowledges that Kerry supports the public option, but requires of Kerry, and only Kerry, a statement that no legislator would ever agree to stating categorically that he would never vote for a "watered down plan". In fact, responders on the site have uniformly read the description and attacked Kerry for NOT being an advocate of the public option. Several people, including myself, have written via the DFA site to Jim Dean and to the general site with complaints on this - pointing out that JK is on Dean's list as for the public option and has said so repeatedly - including a response he wrote on Daily Kos.

Now, I am not intending to highjack your thread, but this is a very parallel situation. The question I have is who will be the liberal voices after Kennedy? Obama can't be the only voice. Dean and Kerry are intelligent, articulate men with credibility when speaking in the mainstream. Dodd has been very good on healthcare, but he has considerable baggage at the moment that weighs him down. If the left succeeds in hurting these men, they won't be replaced in the mainstream media by Conyers and Kucinich. they will be replaced by people to their right - like Schumer and even, Conrad or Baucus.

[madfloridian]

112. I agree and wrote to DFA about that issue.

They should not be targeting Kerry.

[karynnj]

117. thanks - it is great to know that they have heard from someone

that they likely know (or should know) has been a great advocate for Governor Dean.

[George II]

108. Didn't you post most of this in another dicsussion a few days ago?????

[slipslidingaway]

131. Just wanted to acknowledge your replies in the thread below...

I was away for a few days and now there is no sense replying in that thread.

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6125451&mesg_id=6125451

[disndat]

109. Obama let the genie out of the bottle

with his press conference on Health care last week. Obama needs a huge public outcry if he doesn't get the "public option" in a bill that comes out of the Senate. Even if a bill comes out without the public option I am sure that will not be the end of the story. The way Obama put it, it's public option or we go down the tube, i.e, there is no choice. The cost of Health care will spiral out of control. We need to nail the 12 Blue dogs to the wall.

[varelse]

120. Who are these people and who is funding them?

Nader accepted (then later returned) campaign donations from conservative and republican sources. Who are the players here, and what is their real agenda?

[madfloridian]

121. Here is their contact page with names.

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/contact.html

I recognize a couple of them from their opposition to Dean in the primaries, but most I don't know.

[mistertrickster]

122. Perfection is the enemy of the good. Perfect example. nt

[mzmolly]

123. In doing so, they discredit themselves.

Anyone who has followed Dean for any period of time knows he's a pragmatic, progressive who genuinely cares about the American people.

[madfloridian]

125. Here's a group giving out leaflets and harassing him in Seattle...fake blood smeared on them.

They won't let him have a book signing in peace. I never heard of this group. It takes money to organize like this to bring down a public option.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article22.php?id=1130

"A spirited crowd, made up of Socialist Alternative members, United for Single Payer, and other single-payer activists chanted for an end to the insurance companies control over the healthcare debate and held signs and banners calling for single-payer healthcare. Some protesters smeared themselves with fake blood and laid down on the sidewalk in a theatrical die-in to represent the 22,000 people that die every year from inadequate health insurance coverage. "

"Dean escaped having to answer these questions on Friday, but that doesn't mean the questions will go away. Socialist Alternative and other single-payer activists will not stop campaigning for healthcare until there is free quality healthcare for all, and the power of the insurance companies is a distant memory.

With members and supporters of Socialist Alternative, as well as other groups joining the fight, we sent a clear message to Howard Dean, who was forced to walk past protesters covered in fake blood lying on the sidewalk - a somber reminder of the 22,000 Americans who die every year from lack of healthcare coverage."


This is so over the line.

[JNelson6563]

126. We need to send a copy of this

Howard Dean Will Fuck Your Shit Up by the always eloquent Rude Pundit

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/howard-dean-will-fuck-your-shit-up.html

:toast:

[Stinky The Clown]

127. If they want single payer, I can tell them in whose shit they should be. (Hint: It Ain't Dr. Dean)

This sounds like a double flip flop whammy jammy

[madfloridian]

136. Other Democrats being hassled as well. Part of efforts by these groups?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/