Health Deals Anger Former Obama Staffers, Supporters

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Health Care

(AP)

President Obama has said in recent weeks that he still supports a government-sponsored health insurance plan, or "public option," but he has stopped short of calling it a necessary element of health care reform. For tens of thousands of his supporters, that is not good enough.

More than 70,000 former Obama campaign staffers, volunteers and donors have signed a petition, spearheaded by the liberal group the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, saying as much.

"We worked so hard for real change," the petition reads. "President Obama, please demand a strong public health insurance option in your speech to Congress. Letting the insurance companies win would not be change we can believe in."

The PCCC is organizing the petitioners to gather in front of the White House today just after Noon, to protest the potential abandonment of the public option, a proposal the president once said "must" be included in a reform package, as part of a health insurance exchange, or "marketplace" from which consumers can choose from various insurance plans.

Of the more than 70,000 who have signed the petition, more than 400 are former Obama staffers, about 25,000 were volunteers for Mr. Obama and 40,000 donated money to his presidential campaign.

While the Senate is still working on its own versions of health care legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will pass a bill that includes a public option.

Additionally, at least 60 members of Congress who have said they will only support a health care bill with a public option. That is enough to kill a piece of legislation without a public option, given that Democrats can only afford to lose 38 members of its 256-member caucus to pass a strictly partisan bill, as the Hill newspaper points out.

Still, drawing lines in the sand on issues like the public option may not make it any easier to accomplish reform. The Hill newspaper reports that at least 23 moderate Democrats have already told their constituents they will vote against the president's health care reform plan, and many remain undecided.

Meanwhile, a former staffer for another president is warning in a Washington Post column that liberals should forget the notion that health care reform must include a public option.

"Unless liberals rethink this premise, and fast, Democrats will squander their best chance in a generation to end the scandal of the uninsured, bring health security to every American family and begin the long-term process of getting national health costs under control," writes Matt Miller, who worked for former President Bill Clinton.

Health Care Tops Congress' Full Agenda

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

19 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 19 Comments


by ModerateJoe September 8, 2009 4:22 PM EDT: Only a ROBUST Public Option can fight corporate health insurance greed by exposing their blind pursuit of profit. The majority of Americans and the world at large will see Democrats as useless wimps if this is not included in and passed as an integral part of real health Insurance reform. If it is not included Democrats will lose power in 2010 and 2012, and not regain it for many years to come.; Reply to this comment


by ibsteve2u September 8, 2009 2:56 PM EDT: Do you know one group of people who really benefited from - and whose greed was enabled by - "trickle-down" economics?

People who could set their own fees.

Go look at this Kaiser Foundation report, and consider the chart on page two and the linkage between when health care costs went crazzzzzyyyy and the Republican tax cuts...

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdf

Republicans...are bad for the business of America.; Reply to this comment


by nh4ronpaul September 8, 2009 2:55 PM EDT: This administration is done, stick a fork in it!; Reply to this comment


by ibsteve2u September 8, 2009 2:38 PM EDT: What did they give us - $600? - as an "economic stimulus payment"?

lollll...gee, what will happen to the economy when that sum - or two, or three, or four, or even more times that - is subtracted from the disposable income of 46 million Americans?

egads...yet another way to enrich America's corporations at the cost of the national interest.; Reply to this comment


by spiritwalk September 8, 2009 2:31 PM EDT: Obama's supporters actually believed he would do what he promised. How cute. It is so refreshing to know that grownups can still retain such childlike innocense.; Reply to this comment


by prometheus21 September 8, 2009 1:57 PM EDT: "Additionally, at least 60 members of Congress who have said they will only support a health care bill with a public option. That is enough to kill a piece of legislation without a public option, given that Democrats can only afford to lose 38 members of its 256-member caucus to pass a strictly partisan bill, as the Hill newspaper points out.

Still, drawing lines in the sand on issues like the public option may not make it any easier to accomplish reform. The Hill newspaper reports that at least 23 moderate Democrats have already told their constituents they will vote against the president's health care reform plan, and many remain undecided.

Meanwhile, a former staffer for another president is warning in a Washington Post column that liberals should forget the notion that health care reform must include a public option."

What kind of incoherent propaganda is this?

The first sentence above says that 60 members of the House of Representatives (the actual part of our government whose sole responsibility it is to craft this legislation -- if they don't pass something, than NOTHING GETS PASSED -- contrary to what the media seems to suggest REQUIRES the President to apparently propose legislation) will NOT vote for legislation THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLIC OPTION.

The second sentence in the first paragraph above SEEMS to suggest that Democrats in Congress have some kind of partisan plan which WILL NOT INCLUDE the PUBLIC OPTION, and that this would be difficult to pass if the 60 Representatives mentioned try to block this PARTISAN DEMOCRAT legislation WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION.

Does this make any sense to ANYONE? Is anyone aware of this DEMOCRAT PARTISAN legislation in the House that will refuse to include the PUBLIC OPTION, and this wrangling with pro-public-option Democrats by a Democratic majority who doesn't want the pubic option in their partisan legislation? ***?

Or is this more twisted propaganda that is so ill conceived as to be utterly inchorent in its attempt to misinform?

Furthermore the second paragraph in quotes above goes on to conclude that 23 moderate Democrats (much less rather than much, much more than 38 Democrat caucus members required to pass partisan legislation) have told their constituents they will vote against the PRESIDENT's health care reform plan. That's right, 23 Representatives will vote against, not legislation CREATED and/or PASSED by the House of Representatives, but legislation apparently created by Obama. Of course the article fails to even mention the specific's of "Obama's legislation" that these moderates will vote against. Especially since the same "free press" indicates Obama is willing to compromise on the public option, while 60 House members who actually will create and/or pass the legislation will not compromise.

28 vs 60. 38 being the magic number of Democrats the Democratic Caucus can afford to lose in Democratic partisan legislation that doesn't require Obama to do anything other than to not veto his own party's majority.

Everyone following this, and comparing it to what Stephanie Condon is "reporting" above?

Oh, and then let's throw in A former Clinton administration staffer's opinion. That's right, A person not from Congress, not even from the current administration. Like it would be that hard to find twenty - fifty people in the Clinton administration opposed to a public option.

INCREDIBLE DISGUSTING IN YOUR FACE PRONOUNCMENT BY CBSNEWS that YOUR first amendent right for a FREE PRESS is ********.; Reply to this comment


by rightbehind September 8, 2009 1:50 PM EDT: The DNC should advise those 23 democrats against public health care they'll be taking their chances with republicans coming 2010. I wouldn't wait. I would let them know now to be looking for other sponsors because we will be looking for their replacements.; Reply to this comment

by daisyjingles September 8, 2009 1:20 PM EDT

The big insurance companies are working hard to defeat the public health care option because they are like OPEC now and want prices to stay the same or increase.

Money is all they care about. Look at the high percentages of people with denied claims. Have you ever waited in an emergency room while a hospital waits for an insurance company to decide if your doctor is right about an emergency procedure?

A public health care option would force these OPEC-like health insurance companies compete for the paying customers: the people of this country.

Reply to this comment


by piBen11 September 8, 2009 3:33 PM EDT: I strongly concur with you, daisyjingles, that without the public option plan there will be no true competition in the Health-Care sector of the economy. The so-called Co-ops alternative is a deceit by the Insurance Industry to obstruct true reform of the Health-Care sector. I can't imagine how Co-ops could compete with large and well-established Insurance companies. That is like a competition between pop&mom grocery stores and mighty Walmart. Can you imagine such grocery stores influencing the market actions of Walmart in 100 years? No, such a competition is a joke that is not funny. So it is with any other alternative to the public option. The establishment of the public option is the only possible way of changing the behavior of the well-established Insurance firms. I challage any Republican Senator or anyone else to produce any contrary argument supported by financial or economic principles. Most Republicans argue that the Gov't Option will lead to Government takeover of the Insurance Sector of the Economy. That is a blatant false assertion, not supported by any decent economic or financial principles. Note, the same Republicans often tell us that the Gov't is too bureacratic, lazy and never does anything right. How in the world would an inefficient Gov't agency as the public option beat the privately run Insurance companies to dominate the Insurance market that is supposed to be competitive in design? That is impossible, if not hilarious. This argument can only be made by those who are not well vast with economic or financial principles. In the parlance of finance or economics, any well supervised competitive markets, the dominate firm is usually the most efficient, most innovative one among the rest. In this case, the firm or agency that will dominate such a competitive Insurance market will be the one that provides the most service as needed at the least cost. So, it is safe to say that if what the Republicans are saying is true that the Gov't option will dominate the market; then, the Gov't option will provide the most service per cost, which is very good news for the Country as whole. Obviously, what we, the Country, want is an efficient Insurance market where we obtain the best desired service at the least price. That is always the dividend of any competitive markets. And we can only achieve it if we have the public option in this reform.


by lovegetpeace September 8, 2009 1:11 PM EDT: Folks,

As long as the cost of Private Health Care insurance increase at the average 11% of the last 30 years, Universal Health Care will become law sooner or later before 2022.

According to all conservative and liberal economists, no nation can survive when Health Care consume over 31% of the nation's GDP. Presently, Health Care spending consumes 17% and expected to reach 33% by 2022 if nothing is done.; Reply to this comment


by spiritwalk September 8, 2009 12:57 PM EDT: Insurance lobbyists paid off the GOP
by gopparrotslie September 8, 2009 12:38 PM EDT

They paid of both sides in Congress. No matter how you look at it, whatever plan is being put forth, the private, for profit insurance companies are in a win-win situation.

No matter how it comes out the government will end up forcing Americans to be mandated to pay huge sums of yheir income to virually unregulated insurance corporations whose main incentive is not providing health care, but making profits for their investors.

These corporartions were not blind to what happened at AIG. They will take all this mony in, return nothing in the way of health care and after they have bled the company dry get a bailout from the government.

This is truly the culmination of the American dream for capitalists. Getting the government to force its citizens to pay you money and giving you free reign to take all the profit you can get and walk away free when it is over.

What a country.; Reply to this comment