WOOOO HOOOO!!!!!

[WilliamPitt]

Carper: Senate Bill Will Include A National Public Plan With An Opt Out
Brian Beutler | October 22, 2009, 4:00PM

After a meeting with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) discussed the status of the public plan in the Senate health care bill with reporters. Here's what he said:

"I think at the end of the day there will be a national plan probably put together not by the federal government but by a non-profit board with some seed money from the federal government that states would initially participate in because of lack of affordability. The question is should there be an opportunity for states to opt out later on and if so, within a year, within two years, within three years?"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/carper-senat...



Not a full loaf, but waaaaaay more than half.

[dionysus]

1. kick

working on any books Will?

[WilliamPitt]

3. No

Working on truthout and getting/being married. The next book will come next year, after I move to SW NH with the new bride and have some peace and quiet.

[roguevalley]

43. the south better get ready to opt out because you know your

cone heads will do that. balkanization, thy name is America.

[dionysus]

60. ever been to the kittery trading post? cool store.

[Thrill]

2. Good News coming from him.

Sometimes he acts like a Southern Democrat.

[LynneSin]

9. Carper knows his seat is beyond safe this election so he'll do the bidding of the insurance co.

With the special election for Biden's seat coming up in 2010 and the only popular republican in Delaware running for it (A man who has yet to lose an election), no one will bother challenging Carper for his seat this year

[treestar]

30. I still don't get why he can't do the bidding of the people

Since his seat is safe. He doesn't need insurance co. funding. People will vote for him without thinking since they know his name. Still not understanding why this state is like this, but since it's so, he's in no danger and ought to therefore be free to do the right thing.

Maybe the Ins. Cos threaten to take jobs out of the state or something.

[LynneSin]

58. Because the people are no threat to him and the insurance industries are profitable

nuff said

[treestar]

59. But how can he benefit from their profits?

He'll stay in his seat as long as the people recognize his name (wasn't he governor or something - that must be how the brain dead voters here reason) - so what's it to him if the insurance companies dislike him?

I keep calling his office and they keep insisting he is not against the public option, too, so maybe it's not quite one or the other.

[WilliamPitt]

4. I love that someone negative-rec'd this.

DU is mean now.

[YOY]

7. Everytime I say something to that extent I get shit on.

I wonder if they'll do the same to you...

[WilliamPitt]

11. Poop Helmet at the ready

(I googled "poop helmet" and this is what came up first)

(seriously)

( )

[Joe Fields]

13. don't sweat the small stuff. you're a happily married newlywed.

[NNN0LHI]

21. Shit I just recommended it and it didn't even register because some a-hole unrecommended it

[MNDemNY]

26. A-Hole here.

phiiit.

[ddeclue]

5. Want to understand how vulnerable state by state PO is? Look at the numbers:

43 states have balanced budget requirements, 13 states are Republican controlled and another 8 have at least one house controlled by Republicans.

These facts plus a lot of high pressure lobbying by the insurance industry means that only a few New England states will end up having anything like a REAL public option if we do it state by state and we will be giving the insurance companies 50 chances to screw us under the national news RADAR by "reforming" insurance in ways that will make the insurance companies happy like a kid at Christmas if we do this state by state.


STATES W GOP LEGISLATURES:

FL, GA, SC, TX, OK, KS, MO, SD, ND, AZ, UT, WY, ID = 13 - i.e. if you live here forget about a public option

STATES W MIXED LEGISLATURES:

TN, KY, IN, OH, MI, PA, VA, MT = 8 - You've still got a good chance to be screwed if the lobbyists can twist enough state level Democratic electeds arms or work to replace them in upcoming elections.

http://www.ncsl.org/?TabId=12651#t1

States with Balanced Budget Requirements: 43 - If you live in one of the "balanced budget" states you can also forget about a public option for budgetary reasons - it won't get passed because it will either require state funding or they will be afraid that it might in the future.

Governor Must Submit Balanced Budget
Legislature Must Pass Balanced Budget
Cannot Carry Over Deficit

Alabama
C, S
S
X

Alaska
S
S
X

Arizona
C, S
C, S
--

Arkansas
S
S
X

California
C
C
X

Colorado
C
C
X

Connecticut
S
C, S
--

Delaware
C, S
C, S
X

Florida
C, S
C, S
X

Georgia
C
C
X

Hawaii
C, S
--
X

Idaho
--
C
X

Illinois
C, S
C
--

Indiana
--
--
X

Iowa
C, S
S
X

Kansas
S
C, S
X

Kentucky
C, S
C, S
X

Louisiana
C, S
C, S
X

Maine
C, S
C
X

Maryland
C
C
--

Massachusetts
C, S
C, S
--

Michigan
C, S
C
--

Minnesota
S
S
X

Mississippi
S
S
X

Missouri
C
--
X

Montana
S
C
X

Nebraska
C
S
X

Nevada
S
C
X

New Hampshire
S
--
X

New Jersey
C
C
--

New Mexico
C
C
X

New York
C
--
--

North Carolina
C, S
S
X

North Dakota
C
C
X

Ohio
C
C
X

Oklahoma
S
C
X

Oregon
C
C
X

Pennsylvania
C, S
--
--

Rhode Island
C
C
X

South Carolina
C
C
X

South Dakota
C
C
X

Tennessee
C
C
X

Texas
--
C, S
--

Utah
C, S
C, S
X

Vermont
--
--
--

Virginia
--
--
X

Washington
S
--
X

Wisconsin
C
C
--

Wyoming
--
--
X

Puerto Rico
C
C
X

Total
44
40
38

[LynneSin]

6. Honestly, Carpers greatest relief is the fact that there is another senate race in DE in 2010

Because honestly, this plan is nice but he's still giving in way too much to the insurance companies. But with Mike Castle running for Joe Biden's old seat, everyone is going to focus on that race and Carper pretty much can sleepwalk to a 3rd term as senator.

The opt-out is nice but essentially red states and those who live in them are fucked. Because they'll opt out of the plan in order to play into the GOP agenda. At least in Delaware I know it would be very difficult for our governor to opt out of the plan.

[WilliamPitt]

8. "Because they'll opt out of the plan in order to play into the GOP agenda..."

...and we'll win those states two years later and fix it.

If they can't get it right now, we have to help them later.

[LynneSin]

12. I hate to say it - some of those states are hopeless

I can't see us winning a state like Utah or some of those southern states - they are beyond hope.

[Joe Fields]

10. Nice words. I'll believe it when I see it actually happen.

To paraphrase a line in my favorite movie, Lonesome Dove, ..."They are too leaky of a vessel to put much faith into."

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. State by state guarantees "unequal" coverage.

And guarantees a lot of people moving into states with good coverage.

[ddeclue]

15. um NO.. it guarantees NO coverage in most states outside of New England

and people will NOT relocate in large numbers for healthcare or we'd all have fled to Canada years ago. People move for jobs (to some extent) but not healthcare.

[galloglas]

54. And pretty much assures a SCOTUS lawsuit

regarding equal opportunity, equal access, whatever. And that puts it all in Limbo (just where the GOP would like anything that can get signed by Obama)

[Occam Bandage]

16. I'm not pleased with the opt-out. nt

[damntexdem]

17. How widely available?

What type of "non-profit" board?

[MNDemNY]

23. You know, former insurance execs and the like, people with "expertise".

[rvablue]

27. Exactly. I'm going to have to learn a lot more about this, but right now

I'm not liking the sound of it.

It's like getting the PO, but not.

[rucky]

18. Who are we compromising with?

We won't win a single R vote with this, and cloture is still up in the air.

[MNDemNY]

22. Carper's ass-monkeys, I presume.

[MNDemNY]

19. Not even close.

A bill that contains this should be killed. Remember folks this is the only shot we get at this for decades.

[MNDemNY]

20. A non-profit board filled with Insurance company cronies.

You know damn well that frickin' Carper would love that. BC/BS is so far up that mans ass he has insurance cards comin' out his ears.


A bill such as this must go down.

[galloglas]

24. Rivers Spit, do you not see that

"Not a full loaf, but waaaaaay more than half." is no better than being on your opponent's ten yard line when the opponent is allowed to move the goal posts back as far, and as often, as it wishes? Which they will do if there is ever a chance of anything substantial being changed. You must understand that "at the end of the day" (Carper speaking) they will never allow us to "get to the end of the day".

Your rah-rah for this utterance of Carper's is more like a Philippe Petain prop than one from the French Underground. Sixty years on who comes off the best in those two differing views?

[Raven]

29. I know I'll be criticized for this because Will is my kid but, you

have made a good point...did you have to diminish it by making a nasty play on his name? Did that further your argument?

[WilliamPitt]

32. Whatever to the name-calling

What the absolutists up-thread fail to see is that this kind of news means the Public Option is still in play, and may actually survive...granted, the 'no compromise' people won't like it, but neither do I. This news, however means things are moving in our direction...and may move more still if we push hard enough.

But yeah, who am I kidding? We should all kill ourselves because the public option is still in play, but didn't come down the goddam chimney wrpped in a bow under Santa's armpit last year. It doesn't already exist?! ARGH! Well, let's abandon all hope of getting it done, despite the fact that this news (along with a lot of good House movement) moves the ball in our direction.

Not. Done. Yet.

(unless you're an up-thread poster)

(sigh)

[Raven]

33. I agree to the "whatever" but I have always hated that cheap shot. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

34. Been used to it for 30+ years

William ___ Pitt

Arm
Cherry
Peach
Slime
Etc.

It's a shortcut to thinking in a debate like this.

What do you think of my assertion above?

[Raven]

41. My answer is in a small poem:

I agree
The apple does not fall far from the tree.

What is the saying about Rome not being built in a day? This President inherited an abysmal mess. There are so many things that have gone begging for years. We are making a dent in one of the most important social problems and there will be more to come if we get our figurative foot in the door. I haven't decided yet but I'm thinking that the "opt out" may be an interesting approach: let the people in the states with republican maniacs that vote to opt out because God told them to watch the benefits that flow to the states that don't opt out. We'll see.

[Cleita]

42. It's really easy to fix this by opening up Medicare to all who want to buy

into it regardless of their age and extending it to those who can't afford health care otherwise with government subsidies. What will happen is that there will emerge a sliding scale of affordability. As much as I hate means testing, in this case we could get a real public option that performs like a health care plan for everyone should perform. To me that's the half a loaf. The insurance companies are still there but then they will have to compete with Medicare for sure. Anything else are complications which are designed to make health reform fail. You are an investigative reporter. Go investigate. There is loads of information out there, or go to the local hospital waiting rooms and ERs. Interview real people who have to deal with the system. You will see why complicating our already Byzantine system is not a good move.

[Cleita]

45. So you still think that a shell game being played under your nose

is really a public option? You didn't clarify your position to me with this post either.

Calling this a public option when it isn't is kind of like calling a turd a chocolate bar.

[galloglas]

52. Bingo!!

"like calling a turd a chocolate bar".

Yeah. A good analogy. It is what it is and it ain't what it ain't. So we should look at what is out there and see what we think it is.

Will reports that Carper says something that Will considers encouraging. OTOH, my thought is that Baucus tried to soothe our feathers some few weeks back with soft words that meant nothing. Who yet knows what Carper really means or wants?

In the end, I think what we have is the old "glass half full, glass half empty" thing. Cleita and I are more concerned about it being half empty aspect while Will is looking up at the half full aspect.

And, indeed, if Carper says something relevant and Will is pleased, it is worth reporting here at DU. What we should NOT be doing is reading the OP and coming to the conclusion that "it will fill up soon enough". Because "it ain't there yet". And it won't ever be if we don't continue to fight like Hell (the only reason Carper is speaking at all is the fierce opposition to rolling over on the issue of the public option).

[HughMoran]

55. Heh, I knew what your punishment for being optimistic would be

The hate-filled purists unreced the heck out of your thread and gave you the usual "it's not perfect, so we can't like it" arguments. Welcome to the new DU - all freeper-like, all the time!

[galloglas]

48. The name should NOT be offensive

It was not meant to be and carries no hidden nasty meanings.

For however long Will wish to write as William River Pitt as opposed to William R. Pitt, the pun will be inevitable. One cannot say the name, aloud or mentally, without the association popping up. There are literally millions of people who have names that have word play built into them from birth. From my perspective, the question to be asked is whether it is meant to be demeaning or not. And, believe me, this was not meant to be demeaning.

But, as I would with my own brothers, golfing buddies, fishing friends, etc., I am highly likely to use those puns and wordplay when calling them out on issues we may disagree on (though noting I more often agree with Will than I disagree). Like frat house names, I suppose. But if the name actually offends Will, as opposed to just feeling he got needled for being too trusting of our elected leaders, I will happily apologize for its use and discontinue it. But, I want to hear it from him.

Frankly, though, I think the moniker is funny as were many of the nicknames I suffered from in my life. And, I most often heard them when one of my friends would zing me. So if Will thinks it offensive, I will cease. But having been called "Billups" many times (derived from my given name, Philip, in a fashion way too long to tell) I will readily take ribbing like that as long as it is not meant to be insulting. Teasing I take, insults I dislike. So if Will thinks it insulting, I will pack it up even though I still think Rivers Spit (and Billups) are perfectly fine jibes.

[jonnyblitz]

50. there's nothing wrong with sticking up for your kid. nt

[galloglas]

53. I agree

perhaps, being the parent, one is less likely to see humor in funny names your kid collects over the years.

When I was about 16 months old my Dad read me "The Night Before Christmas". However, I was not very good at pronouncing "sugarplums" (as in "visions of sugarplums danced in their heads"). It seemed to always come out "schusspom". And my Dad's brother, apparently tickled pink, immediately christened my "Schusspom".

Well, my Mom didn't mind the name at the time but, some decades later when my Mother was talking long distance to my Uncle Paul and updating him on family, and he could not place her youngest (me) when she called me Philip, she was not really pleased when he said, finally remembering me, "Oh, sure, Schusspom!"

So no offense taken and I hope none was given. I will wait to see.

[WilliamPitt]

37. See post #32

...and do better with the name mocking. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one, I could buy you and sell you.

Cheap.

[rvablue]

25. Sorry, but I can't say I'm thrilled by the "non profit board" idea

I'll need to know more.

[joeunderdog]

31. If you know much about non-profits, you know they aren't non-profits. nt

[WilliamPitt]

35. ?

Truthout is a non-profit...and I can tell you, we make no profits.

[tkmorris]

47. Isn't Blue Cross/Blue Shield non-profit?

That word, "non-profit", has become awfully hard to define in practice lately. It seems entirely possible that such an organization (the one discussed in the OP, not BCBS) could call itself non-profit and yet still be about as useful as an anvil on a lifeboat. I am not knee-jerking against it mind you but I am quite skeptical.

[WilliamPitt]

49. Skeptical is good

Beware the broad brush.

[MNDemNY]

56. NO

[rvablue]

36. Hence, my comment.

On the face of it, I can't say I'm least bit happy about this.

But it seems to be one Rep. spouting this, so I'll wait and see.

[Cleita]

28. Not even a meatball Will.

This isn't going to benefit those who needs health care the most and by default those who are going to need it the most down the line in the future and that is all of us. There will come the time when we will be at the mercy of our health care system and I hoped it would be a good one that covered everyone with comprehensive and quality health care. This does nothing like that. I'm surprised you are for it.

[Joe Fields]

38. Hey Will, how about a real conversation sometime?

You throw stuff out and let it lay there. Why not engage with us?

[WilliamPitt]

40. This is my 10th reply in this thread.

Which makers me 25% of the conversation.

How about you find something genuinely relevant to complain about.

I mean, for a change.

Sir.

[Joe Fields]

44. Don't overdo it.

I'll admit, 10 replies is close to an alltime record for you.

[WilliamPitt]

46. I'd offer the same advice to you

But you've heard it so often, I'll assume you know better.

[WilliamPitt]

39. SEE POST #32

for clarity.

(((facepalm)))

[Kingofalldems]

51. Expect Fox news to go into full blown smear/lie mode tomorrow

Starting with that godawful morning show.

[bdamomma]

57. they need to get on with this, and give the people what they want.