Jane Hamsher at FDL took more hyperbolic criticism at GOS for calling out Lynn Woolsey on her political naivity Lynn Woolsey: Closing Barn Doors Since 1993
Lynn Woolsey writes an op-ed in Roll Call today on her commitment to a public option, pandering to liberals who would indeed have to be “f*#king re#!rds” for it to make any sense. It comes on the heels of her public announcement that she will break every single pledge she’s ever made to vote against a health care bill without a public option.
It’s a paean to the importance of said public option, but the kicker is at the end:
Piecemeal tweaking of the health insurance system will not address this growing problem. We need to reform our health care system, and the public option must be included.
I will fight to include the public option in the final version of the health care reform legislation.
If it is not included, however, it will rise from the dead once again.
The day after the health care legislation is passed, I will introduce a bill calling for the public option.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Well, I agree with Jane. If either Woolsey is that politically naive about the Senate or thinks that progressives are that stupid to believe that a stand alone bill with a public option has a snowball’s chance, then she should step down as the chair of the Progressive Caucus.
But there is more that really had me amazed at those who so loudly claim that this bill is the beginning of health care reform
President Obama has said that this bill will make health care insurance competitive but as Jon Walker at FDL points out the bill no longer does that because there is not only no public option but the bill does not remove the anti-trust exemption nor a national exchange. Those three things would have made the bill only slightly more palatable. But considering all the other bad provisions such as restrictions on a woman’s reproductive right to choose an abortion, the so-called “Cadillac Tax” on policies that actually do provide health care but are expensive and the mandate that criminalizes the uninsured, this bill is just one of the worst pieces of legislation that I can remember.
Why did this happen? It’s because the so-called progressives don’t fight for what they want. Look at the difference between how Bart Stupak got his anti-choice amendment pushed through compared to Lynn Woolsey’s weak plea for a watered down public option.
Bart Stupak put together a small coalition and decided to fight for his abortion restriction language. Fighting requires one to make use of every tool and hardball tactic at your disposal. Stupak’s gang became an immovable object, which gave Democrats only three choices: go around his group, accept being stopped cold by his group, or move heaven and earth to find a way to meet their demands.
As was pointed, Woolsey’s response is to pass the bill because she is going to resurrect the Public Option in another bill the next day.
Does she think she’s Jesus? Raise it from the dead? Is she serious? Does she think we are all that stupid?
How has she fought? Did she even try to beat Stupak at his own game? Did any of the progressives? Are they really progressives?
These health insurance companies are reprehensible, possibly criminal, as they raise their rates to push more sick people off their rolls and keep the profits from the healthy insured who can afford to pay their exorbitant premiums until they get sick. President Obama says they are evil then why is he forcing us to buy their insurance? Why is he not strongly advocating for a public option? Why isn’t the Democratic Congress?
There is only one way that this bill would work as is. The one provision that no one has even mentioned except for Jon Walker. Take out the profit motive, like the Swiss, and force all health care insurance companies to be non-profit.
The messaging would make sense of Obama were pushing for a Medicare-for-all system that would completely marginalize or eliminate the private insurers. It would make sense even if the bill only had a simple public alternative, like a public option or Medicare buy-in. I could understand the message even if the bill had a broad state waiver provision that would allow for states to possibly create single payer plans. I might even except the messaging if Obama was pushing for what Switzerland did by forcing all private health insurance companies to become highly regulated non-profits. It might even be accepting if there were only the new consumer protections but no individual mandate.
Why must life and death be profitable? What is wrong with the American value system that there must be a dollar figure on a person’s life? There is no problem funding weapons of mass destruction, unjust wars and killing indiscriminately, American’s look the other way.
It is time that voters all over the country, not just in Massachusetts, send a very loud message to the DNC/OFA and the White House that we aren’t going to take this any more and we are not ready to make nice.
h/t to ek hornbeck who had two of the links in yesterday’s Afternoon Edition