The Public Option Lives! Big Victory for Progressives

Harry Reid just announced that he'll include a public option (with a provision that allows individual states to opt out of it) in the version of the health care bill he brings to the floor of the senate. This is a huge (though still partial) victory for progressives. Over the weekend there was a flurry of reporting over whether Reid would include the opt-out provision, or the "trigger" provision favored by Olympia Snowe, which would not create a public option unless and until some time in the future when health insurance costs had not diminished. The fact of the matter is, as David Sirota wrote here, the trigger is simply a way to kill the public option. Had Reid included it in the floor bill, progressives would have had to muster 60 votes to pass an amendment to strip the trigger out and replace it with the opt-out language. There's no way they would have been able to do that.

But with the opt-out public option included in the unamended floor-bill, opponents of the public option will now have to get 60 votes to pass their own amendment killing it, and they don't have those votes either. This means that the opt-out public option will almost certainly be in the final bill that comes up for a vote in the full senate. That's huge, since the house will also have a public option (an even stronger one, without the opt-out provision).

Reid is essentially calling the bluff of recalcitrant senators like Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu, because the only way they can defeat the public option now is to join a Republican filibuster, something that I think Reid is gambling they won't do.

As I said on Maddow on Friday night, if you can't get members of your own party not to filibuster your single most important domestic policy priority, it's hard to understand why you even have a party to begin with.

Comments (70)

1. Why, I thought the Tea Partys and Town Halls KILLED the public option weeks ago?!?!?!?!?!?!??

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:49pm

2. This is a strategic blunder on the part of Democrats.

   The better political course would have been to not include a public option to get around the filibuster and to the floor for a vote, and "then" include a STRONG public option using budget reconciliation process with 51 votes.

   By including the public option now, you will give conservative Democrats and Republicans a chance to weaken the public option - perhaps fatally - in the final bill that they are not going to vote for anyway.

   Posted by Metteyya at 10/26/2009 @ 2:51pm

3. I like the "opt out", if we absolutely have to swallow a HC bill of one form or another. Let the Massachusetts model go forth and multiply in the most hospitable areas.

   Of course, I assume the great state of TX will opt out....please!

   Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 3:14pm

4. "This is a strategic blunder on the part of Democrats.

   The better political course would have been to not include a public option to get around the filibuster and to the floor for a vote, and "then" include a STRONG public option using budget reconciliation process with 51 votes...."

   ~Metteyya

   I myself have developed a strong "wait and see" attitude. When we make the assumption that the Democratic Party is actually working for the public interest we are only fooling ourselves.

   I think a good percentage of voters have figured out that the Dems will only adopt enough meaningful reform to keep the public from going outright apeshit. This has become a game to the party leadership.

   Until "we the people" demand something bigger and better, all we are likely to get are (shitty) door prizes.

   Here's a very useful link for those who are fed up with the gag gifts:

   www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23792.htm

   Nothing will change until we demand it.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/26/2009 @ 3:24pm

5. Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/26/2009 @ 3:24pm

   I concur. I will wait and see what actually comes of this bill, and what a public option truly means. I suspect that a public option will be run and managed by a private for profit company, will it actually compete, with private companies or will its cost be kept artificially high, as to not undercut the private companies.

   Just way too many questions about what a public option means to get excited yet. I would have a different title for this article. "The Public Option lives! A Glimmer of hope for America"

   Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 3:45pm

6. Oh my God! We're still debating 'public option'?

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/26/2009 @ 4:01pm

7. Oh my God! We're still debating 'public option'?

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/26/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Only in the media...mainstreet rejected the public option loud and clear at the town meetings and opinion polls....

   the only place it is viable is in the lefy loon circles, colums by authors like the Nation actualy pays,the MSM and Reids Office..even Pelosi is looking for the exit..

   Theyre ain't no public option.

   And none of what they are doing in Washington is health care reform..

   Posted by YourJomamma at 10/26/2009 @ 5:08pm

8. Dear Mr and Ms Progressive!

   Please, keep up the good fight for the public option!!! You are fighting for our successful future!

   Sincerely, - The Republican Party

   Posted by freiheit1 at 10/26/2009 @ 5:28pm

9. Let Reid do it! 40 moderate Demoncrats WON'T vote for it along with Republicans! Should be a great show!

   Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 5:31pm

10. Posted by Monsta' Maasch at 5:08pm

    Well said, Big Empty.

    A tribute to ya':

    Drivin' faster in my car. Falling farther from just what we are. Smoke a cigarette and lie some more. These conversations kill...

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jkFKR-udY

    Cheers, Dum Bass.

    :D

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/26/2009 @ 5:36pm

11. My take-home pay was drastically reduced this year, not by taxes but by extortionate rate increases by Maine's monopoly insurer. Yet Maine's 'moderate' Repub senators, Snowe and Collins, continue to block effective competition for the insurance cartels, who apparently have carte blanche to further rob the public before tripping the 'trigger'. Who needs 'moderates' like these?

    Posted by samcrossett at 10/26/2009 @ 5:36pm

12. Posted by samcrossett at 10/26/2009 @ 5:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yea that 5% profit is just to excessive evil company.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 5:52pm

13. if the Democrats go through with this assault on the constitution, I stand ready to file the lawsuit against the US govt for usurping their authority in a fascist takeover of the US.

    This insane European socialist could mean the end of the US republic. The constitution would be rendered a worthless piece of paper.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:57pm

14. Of course, I assume the great state of TX will opt out....please!

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 3:14pm

    If Texas does opt out, it will be for purely Republican ideological and political reasons. Texas has one of the nation's highest levels of un and under-insured in the nation with some of the worst emergency room problems. And before you blame it all on illegal immigrants, it's not primarily the fault of illegal immigrants. It's the fault of employers.

    http://tinyurl.com/yfwssj9

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:09pm

15. Let's see....one, two, three....

    Yep, looks like the gangs all here. Happy the Fool, Nutlicker, Monsta', Arbeit Macht Frei, Oozing Pustule, and Auntie Socialist. It feels like Haloween already.

    Here's a treat....

    counterpunch.org/roberts10222009.html

    And while the Uber Wealthy belly laugh at you --and thank you from the bottom of their callous hearts-- I offer my heartfelt thanks as well.

    Thanks for destroying the Empire. It needed it.

    Peace, my freakish friends, ~B

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:15pm

16. Ya know, I wish we had started with the single payer option and had the public option as our "compromise option." But Obama is not as liberal as I am (much to the chagrin of our Republican brethren).

    And YJ,

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/26/2009 @ 5:08pm

    if the public option is dead in the country (killed by the town halls, etc.) why does every major poll released last week show that between 60-70% of Americans support a public option?

    I know that your side thought you controlled the debate during the summer (and you did) but with more and more information about what the public option truly is (i.e. NOT about killing grandma, giving illegals acces to the system and abortions running rampant...all LIES put out by your side) and the continuing stupidity of the insurance industry making stupid claim denials (which make great news footage at this time, have all given the People a better understanding of what a public option is. Too bad yu can't continue to scare everyone that socialized medicine will wreck our great nation. Didn't work with Medicare (which your side now wants to strengthen...how ironic is that!) and it won't work with the public option either, regardless of how Larry rants against the "betrayal" of the Constitution (and good luck with that lawsuit, Larry).

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:19pm

17. And before you blame it all on illegal immigrants, it's not primarily the fault of illegal immigrants. It's the fault of employers.

    http://tinyurl.com/yfwssj9

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:09pm

    Never forget, most employers of illegal immigrants, are immigrants themselves who likely, were illegals as well before some amnesties.

    When I was a custom home builder, all of 2 houses, nearly ALL my subs were English-speaking Mexican-Americans whose crews mostly don't speak English......other places where we see lots of likely illegals, are in the Tex-Mex restaurants. Same with nearly ALL landscaping crews....one such `employer' bought a Ford pick-up truck off me several years ago and I still see it around my neighborhood with the obligatory trailer (I had For Sale sign on it parked curbside and he saw it).

    Does it surprise you that established/legal immigrants would help relatives get a start in the US or, help their fellow villagers from Mexico?

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 6:30pm

18. By the way, Happy, I know I've never told your this before, but I think that jingley hat looks really good on you --now you can't say I never complimented you.

    Here's hoping you've gotten over feeling jilted in our relationship. And please understand that I never held it against you when you gave all those blow jobs to Dubya for (tax free) cash under the table. Everyone has to do what they think is necessary for their survival.

    I'll understand it if you keep me on ignore. I'm kind enough to let it pass when a cretin feels all dirty and stuff. It's all forgiven.

    And I promise not to beat you. Honest.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:44pm

19. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:57pm </i>

    You...can't do that, actually. There's no such thing as taxpayer standing if you're not talking about the Establishment Clause.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/26/2009 @ 7:34pm

20. It was not just loony lefties that have supported a public option for months. People who can walk,talk, and chew gum all at the same time (apparently not conservatives) have spoken to other people who realize the thieves have to be stopped. Our Constitution was written by upper class men who were breaking from an oppressive monarchy. They certainly did not envision the hogs that are currently eating at the trough. I don't think they thought it would be a system of throwing people to the dogs so to speak. How is the Droopster,who lets us know he padded his profit through the illegal game? It is a scandal these illegals,that make businessmen money but should be shipped out of here. I mean the next thing we should do is build a wall protecting us from this economic scourge. Oh, I guess we are already or is that to keep people in. Another Bush Administration boondoggle. Hey DuNcE he would have more money to tithe the church if your pals the insurance mob were not stealing his money. Perhaps you have to figure out who the good people are. Go consult with your pastor,he's the guy who wraps himself in the Constitution every time the need arises.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/26/2009 @ 8:01pm

21. Hmmmm.....it just struck me young Christopher just pulled a "Mission Accomplished" with this "Big Victory" piece.........can I say he just pulled a boner?

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:34pm

22. If Texas does opt out, it will be for purely Republican ideological and political reasons....

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:09pm

    Worth another visit back on this other point of yours.

    TX is a right-to-work state, and to my knowledge, has always been. And Dems controlled the state for a long, long time.....remember Ann Richards, LBJ?

    If by "ideological and political reasons", you mean we are pro-jobs, then I have to agree w/you, yes, opting out would be totally consistent w/the Repubs' general philosophies.

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:39pm

23. (from) Power Line Blog's John Hinderaker

    Health Care Regression: The Final Word?

    October 26, 2009 Posted by John at 5:45 PM

    Democratic efforts to pass a health care "reform" bill--any bill!--are reaching a crescendo in Washington and, to a lesser extent, on television nationwide where many millions of dollars worth of pro-"reform" commercials are playing, to what seems very little effect.

    Somehow, most voters are able to see past the Democrats' nonsensical claims and understand the implications of government health care. The Rasmussen poll writes what should be the epitaph for government medicine: after all of the hysteria the Dems have whipped up on behalf of their various plans, and all the calumny they have heaped on those who oppose them, the voters are unmoved: by a 51-45 percent margin, they oppose the Dems' plans. That's actually a bit of an improvement over last week, but with just one exception, approval of the Democrats' various bills hasn't hit 50 percent since June.

    Here's why:

    57% of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53% believe the quality of care will get worse. ... Just 18% say passage of the congressional plan will reduce costs, while only 23% believe it will lead to better care.

    Remarkable: by a margin of 3-1, voters think Obamacare will raise the cost of health care, and by more than two to one, voters believe it will make the quality of health care worse. Isn't that the death knell for government medicine? If not, why not?

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 9:13pm

24. I think one of the lessons learned in the healthcare fight is that was already known by team Obama during the campaign is that distortion campaigns can only be effective in a short window of time (1-4 months), and then they become counterproductive as the facts become more well known.

    It always bothered me that Democrats could not foil the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove distortion tactics with the facts. Now, with the blogosphere and longer campaigns, facts tend to prevail over distortion.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/26/2009 @ 9:30pm

25. facts tend to prevail over distortion.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/26/2009 @ 9:30pm

    obama is doomed.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 9:40pm

26. "Only in the media...mainstreet rejected the public option loud and clear at the town meetings and opinion polls.... "

    yeah, and those mainstreet townhall meetings had nothing to do with the......liberal media. those were entirely grass roots (not), and had absolutely no help from liberal fox news.

    maasch, fyi: more than 50% of americans support some form of public option. that's not "rejection"

    what IS, however, being rejected is conservativism.

    "if the Democrats go through with this assault on the constitution, I stand ready to file the lawsuit against the US govt for usurping their authority in a fascist takeover of the US"

    (quote of the day)

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:49pm

27. You...can't do that, actually. There's no such thing as taxpayer standing if you're not talking about the Establishment Clause.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/26/2009 @ 7:34pm

    I'm certainly glad that the law and the courts don't agree with you. You don't have standing to bring a suit on tax issues. But the constitutionality of a law has longstanding precedent.

    <Luke Meier, in Facial Challenges and Separation of Powers, available on ssrn, forthcoming in Indiana Law Review, argues that "federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged." Relying primarily upon INS v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, Meier contends the confused doctrine regarding facial vs. as-applied challenges should be inapposite whenever the challenge concerns power rather than infringements of rights.

    Caitlin Borgmann, in Holding Legislatures Constitutionally Accountable Through Facial Challenges, available on ssrn, and forthcoming in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, argues that the "traditional view of statutes as embodying constitutional and unconstitutional applications is unhelpful and misleading when such statutes deliberately or recklessly infringe individual rights." Borgmann contends that the "The legislative process is an adversarial one that is not conducive to neutral fact-finding, especially when controversial or minority rights are at issue." She concludes that

    Laws that infringe individual rights out of open defiance of clear constitutional precedents, or because of inattention to the facts, are fundamentally flawed and thus prime candidates for total invalidation.>

    http://tinyurl.com/yfvzfg4

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:34pm

28. what IS, however, being rejected is conservativism.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Another totally idiotic presumption that has No basis in fact;

    A new Gallup poll shows that conservatives outnumber moderates for the first time since 2004.

    Gallup's breakdown shows that 40 percent of Americans call their political views conservative, 36 percent moderate and 20 percent liberal. Last year, conservatives were tied with moderates at 37 percent. While Gallup first documented this trend in June, the finding has been sustained through the third quarter.

    DARLALOON doesn't even qualify as a 2o percenter!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 11:05pm

29. Laws that infringe individual rights out of open defiance of clear constitutional precedents, or because of inattention to the facts, are fundamentally flawed and thus prime candidates for total invalidation.> http://tinyurl.com/yfvzfg4 Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:34pm

    Wow. Good luck with that. There are probably hundreds of just such cases waiting to be weighed by the powers that be. It's a can of worms. No?

    But I admire your gumption and your willingness to quit your day job, spend your own money and time to advance such a case.

    There's probably a group of like minded individuals who will be happy to embrace your vision. Glen Beck, Mark Levin, Billy Cunningham, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity. I'm not kidding here. That's the 'A' team. If you feel so strongly about this, but, after we are supposed to win in Afghanistan you have no problem with giving THEM socialized medicine which is what we'd have to do... well, it's a funny way to protect America and Americans. By declaring the public option unconstitutional yet giving it to foreigners. It is a conflicted moral pursuit, that. There will be doubt in the early morning hours.

    I wish you well.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 11:35pm

30. mr. hayes,

    please tell us how this is a "big victory" for progressives?

    Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:51am

31. The rate at which Obama is spiraling downward -- nice but weak failed leader -- creates an ever more tempting op for a serious primary challenger in '12. Hillary? May be tapped out & too locked in. Bloomberg? Maybe. Labels don't deter him, he's had 4 different party registrations in the last 9 years. Going for the Dem nomination instead of the GOP (his current re-registration) might give him an even better chance of securing a nomination. His banker pals would zip up their wallets, denying Obama much of the big bucks, while he tapped no one but himself, say, $2 billion of his personal $16B pile.

    As for those who claim a Jew can't get it, that's what they said about a black man in `07.

    Posted by sloper at 10/27/2009 @ 02:54am

32. The constitution would be rendered a worthless piece of paper. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:57pm

    George W. Bush: "It's just a g-d damn piece of paper".

    It didn't take a european socialist to make that happen.

    All it took was for some of the premier capitalist stooges of the age to get a wild hair up their keester and start torturing people so that they could say that they were protecting America against a threat - that they didn't see coming. Supposedly.

    We are a sadly confused and waning nation. With a lot of nuclear weapons and an anger management problem. It's one hell of a reality show.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/27/2009 @ 02:58am

33. This is certainly no "Big Victory for Progressives". If anything it is just the "Camels Nose Under The Tent".

    However as a lifelong hard line socialist leftie I can see why "Progressives" might view it that way. Progressives are always satisfied with incremental painfully slow progress towards the goal. Leftists tend to see a more urgent need for immediate change without playing footsie with their enemy.

    Be that as it may, Reid's decision to include some sort of "public option" going in to the Senate floor is well advised. Harry must have been reading those polls recently taken in Nevada.

    A "Big Victory for Socialists" would have been single payer. Oh well...

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 05:53am

34. As an aside. I find the new Gallup Poll on political ideology interesting. 40% describe themselves as "Conservative", 36% as "Moderate" and 20% as "Liberal".

    The people who describe themselves as "Liberal" has remained constant at 20% to 21%. Very little change.

    The notable changes are that more moderates now consider themselves conservative.

    This change could have to do with the economy. Many people are out of work or their wages are stagnant. In a tight economy people are cutting back on expenses and are watching every penny. That could be the reason more moderates perceive themselves as being conservative.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 06:17am

35. But the main thing to keep in mind about this poll is that 56% of Americans describe themselves as being either "Moderate or Liberal".

    That is for the "glimmer of hope" people who still hold out for sanity in American Politics.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 07:14am

36. Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 06:17am

    Right-wing bloggers love to point out that Gallup poll. "See? See? The LARGEST portion of self-identified ideology is conservative! 40% call themselves conservative!!!".

    What they seem to "forget" is...SIXTY percent (60%) do NOT want to be self-identified as conservatives....nor why that is.

    Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 07:22am

37. BTW, again, sort of like "We won in Iraq"....our right-wing friends seem to be telling us contradictory things.

    Why, if the public "hates the idea of a public option", are Democrats pushing it....if it will mean electoral ruin for them in 2010 and 2012?

    Or why is Harry Reid putting it back in the bill, if "40 moderate Demoncrats" (as Rio/BigPoser said) will vote against it?!?!??!?

    Doesn't make much sense, does it? Of course, lately, they're sorely lacking on that quality it seems.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 07:25am

38. if the Democrats go through with this assault on the constitution, I stand ready to file the lawsuit against the US govt for usurping their authority in a fascist takeover of the US.

    This insane European socialist could mean the end of the US republic. The constitution would be rendered a worthless piece of paper.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --"would be rendered...worthless" implies you think it's not worthless yet. and since you think it's not worthless yet then you approve medicare!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 08:17am

39. --"would be rendered...worthless" implies you think it's not worthless yet. and since you think it's not worthless yet then you approve medicare!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 08:17am

    Actually no. As bad and as wrong as medicare is, it was directed towards only a small segment of the population.

    But Obama and the Dems are now looking at a total dismantling of the constitution.

    As noted by Thomas Sowell today.

    <October 27, 2009

    Dismantling America

    By Thomas Sowell

    Does any of this sound like America?

    How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

    President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

    What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

    Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

    Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.>

    http://tinyurl.com/yljgpc6

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:02am

40. A CRUEL DECEIT: PUBLIC OPTION

    Have Americans been hoodwinked into believing that the Public Option is the remedy and ultimate panacea for all things Health Care in this nation? This is clearly a subterfuge, and has gained critical mass through Corporate Media and the pandering of politicians led by Max Baucus ( $ 3 million plus from the Insurance Industry).With the so called public option, we have nothing more than the preservation of the status quo. The Insurance Industry will continue to make obscene profits, raise premiums, and exercise no restraint in the denial of coverage; all underwritten by legislative mandate. The only real solution to this country's health care nightmare is an expansion of an already proven model: Medicare. In a SINGLE PAYER arrangement like that of Medicare we would have guaranteed comprehensive universal coverage for all residents, from birth to death, 95% of all Americans would pay less for health care, with no co-pays, deductibles, or premiums. The myth that patients would have no choice in physicians, providers, & hospitals is simply not true. Cost of Single Payer when compared to the Public Option would be a savings of 400 billion dollars; primarily by reducing administrative waste, negotiating budgets for hospitals, and purchasing prescription drugs in bulk. Medicare's track record is a proven one; and with some modifications to infrastructure, single payer would create a high quality, universal health care system. The moral and ethical ramifications of the health care issue truly define America's resolve to live up to its promise and creed of justice and equality for all. The task of reform must not be entrusted to Senators or Representative whose treasury has been underwritten by the very people who stand to gain the most if

    Posted by startrev at 10/27/2009 @ 10:49am

41. I'm certainly glad that the law and the courts don't agree with you. You don't have standing to bring a suit on tax issues. But the constitutionality of a law has longstanding precedent. <Luke Meier, in Facial Challenges and Separation of Powers, available on ssrn, forthcoming in Indiana Law Review, argues that "federal courts are constitutionally compelled to consider the constitutionality of a statute on its face when the power of Congress to pass the law has been challenged." Relying primarily upon INS v. Chadha and Clinton v. New York, Meier contends the confused doctrine regarding facial vs. as-applied challenges should be inapposite whenever the challenge concerns power rather than infringements of rights. Caitlin Borgmann, in Holding Legislatures Constitutionally Accountable Through Facial Challenges, available on ssrn, and forthcoming in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, argues that the "traditional view of statutes as embodying constitutional and unconstitutional applications is unhelpful and misleading when such statutes deliberately or recklessly infringe individual rights." Borgmann contends that the "The legislative process is an adversarial one that is not conducive to neutral fact-finding, especially when controversial or minority rights are at issue." She concludes that Laws that infringe individual rights out of open defiance of clear constitutional precedents, or because of inattention to the facts, are fundamentally flawed and thus prime candidates for total invalidation.> http://tinyurl.com/yfvzfg4 Posted by antisocialist a

    --law review articles put forth by law school professors arguing for how they think the law should be does NOT constitute either the "law" or the "courts."

    good luck with that!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 11:52am

42. The only real solution to this country's health care nightmare is an expansion of an already proven model: Medicare. In a SINGLE PAYER arrangement like that of Medicare we would have guaranteed comprehensive universal coverage for all residents, from birth to death, 95% of all Americans would pay less for health care, with no co-pays, deductibles, or premiums.

    Posted by startrev at 10/27/2009 @ 10:49am

    You obviously know nothing about Medicare.

    Not one of your statements reflects what Medicare coverage provides.

    First of all, No Premiums? What do you think FICA medicare deductions are-premium pymts

    Secondly, no deductibles only applies to hospitalization.

    3rd, medicare does not cover doctor visits except a one time visit after enrollment.

    4th, all part B expenses that are covered by Medicare are subject to a 20% deductible.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 12:57pm

43. The public option is DOA a big defeat for Regressive Liberals!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:23pm

44. h THIS "option":

    As I said on Maddow on Friday night, if you can't get members of your own party not to filibuster your single most important domestic policy priority, it's hard to understand why you even have a party to begin with.

    What Dems are doing is "opting out" of getting Independent's (like me) votes in 2010.

    Posted by kdelphi95 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:04pm

45. If by "ideological and political reasons", you mean we are pro-jobs, then I have to agree w/you, yes, opting out would be totally consistent w/the Repubs' general philosophies.

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:39pm

    Yep, pro jobs, anti- sick and dying people. That just about sums you up to a T.

    Rep. Grayson was right about the Republican philosophy of "don't get sick and if you do, die quickly." Thanks for proving that Hap.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:14pm

46. We are not going to get anything near affordable concerning HC are we, sigh... .

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:28pm

47. I want them ALL voted out of office, repub and dem alike, vote them out NOW!

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:29pm

48. I'm not thrilled by the notion of an "opt out option." Nor am I thrilled by the achievement of a "huge" "partial" victory. We can only hope that the House shows more backbone than the Senate. Or if the opt-out option becomes law, that no states will opt out! That would be a real possibility if the decisions were to be made by the voters rather than by the politicians.

    Posted by bandz at 10/27/2009 @ 4:28pm

49. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009@12:57 You obviously know nothing about Medicare.

    Antisocialist: Single Payer as a public option would not be Medicare, but an expansion of a concept/model as pointed out in my original post. The issue is SINGLE PAYER (HR 676 and S 703) not Medicare. Your points are well stated within the context of your limited knowledge and your focus on Medicare . Without exploring all the nuances of Medicare, it is reasonable to conclude that the establishment of an infrastructure like that ( IN CONCEPT ONLY)of the Medicare, sans premium payments, deductibles, or co-pays, will remedy many of the personal economic burdens Americans face today. Remember we are talking about a solution to this nation's most significant problem; our economy compounded by health care costs. It is apparent your vapid approach to this debate, is a convoluted round about, designed like that of a shell game, to HIDE the real issue: SINGLE PAYER.

    Posted by startrev at 10/27/2009 @ 4:29pm

50. I want them ALL voted out of office, repub and dem alike, vote them out NOW!

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:29pm

    Denise has finally embraced anarchism

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:29pm

51. Anti, HAHA!

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 4:35pm

52. Anti, if I was embracing anarchy, I wouldn't be "voting" them out.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 4:37pm

53. Anti, if I was embracing anarchy, I wouldn't be "voting" them out.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 4:37pm

    what do you plan to replace them with?

    I understand if you say 3rd party,because that's how I vote. But I've not seen you embrace 3rd party before.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:59pm

54. I'm mulling it over, there have been a few 3rd partiers I've liked thru the years, just not enough to vote for them, I've always considered myself a cradle to grave dem, but that may be changing if the dens keep acting like repubs.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:24pm

55. Anti, that was a very limited version of who I'd vote for, the dems don't always disappoint, but when they act in their own best interest instead of the peoples, then I want them out and will consider voting for a third party.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:26pm

56. Anti, that was a very limited version of who I'd vote for, the dems don't always disappoint, but when they act in their own best interest instead of the peoples, then I want them out and will consider voting for a third party.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:26pm

    Don't let this moment spoil our disagreements, but well done! that shows maturity of thought.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 5:30pm

57. Why thank you Anti! Agreed.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/27/2009 @ 5:32pm

58. OH MY! The republic is at stake! The republic is at stake! OH MY! AHHHH! I'm scared!!!!

    HEY GENIUSES! I have a great High IQ idea!

    How about trading Public Health Care for one of the other public programs that Depublicans despise? You know there are so many useless socialized programs it's hard to count, like the United States Postal Service. Worthless!

    or the FDA, a complete waste of time!

    or even better, Socialized Security, the most unfair distribution of wealth ever known to man.

    Well we can't consider trading Medicare because Depublicans have found out that seniors are easy to scare!

    It's only a matter of time before any one of these other public albatrosses brings the USA down, down, down. The republic is at stake! The republic is at stake!

    My golly! Oh no, they're taking away my freedom to die! Oh no, they're taking my right to go bankrupt! Oh no, they're taking my right to mail a letter! Oh no, they're taking away my right to sell rotten tomatoes! What'll we do??? Wimps afraid of your own shadows, are you gonna run and get your guns to protect the insurance oligarchy?

    I never heard a bigger bunch of right wing and libberrtarian cry babies in my entire life. OBAMA AND THE DEMS WON! GET OVER IT. Stop crying about Obama, go to work will you, pay your fair dues to our society which is in large part, responsible for all our successes. You know, like the majority of Americans who truly work hard and care about our families, our neighbors, and this country.

    Today is the first day of the rest of our lives and we can start anew with the America we love. The land of opportunity does not need $2000 per month private health insurance premiums. I know. A little old retired man told me so. OH MY!

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/27/2009 @ 8:21pm

59. Sounds like some of these yahoos are finally listening to what most Americans want in the Healthcare Reform. Public Options are demanded by most people. What's so hard about figuring this out?

    Posted by sheila60 at 10/28/2009 @ 06:48am

60. Isn't the public option just a red herring? Think about all the issues that progressives dislike about insurance companies. Collusion-companies work together to set prices in markets. Spreading market share- different companies taking different states as their own. Monopolizing hospitals according to Ed Rendell so he couldn't even get a competitor into Penn. Now what would be the best way to solve these problems? The public option? Let's say there was something that could stop companies from doing all these things. Stop them from price setting and monopolizing markets and colluding. Wouldn't that solve the problem? We're all so focused on the public option. In reality this is just protecting the real win for American consumers. If the public option is dropped now, they will next attack the Antitrust legislation added to it. The antitrust legislation is the real crux of change and with or without the public option, will lead to real change. Look at Co-ops again. Why wouldnt coops work? because the insurance companies would come together to drive them out of business. Put in anti-trust legislation and a co-op would have a chance. States themselves would be able to break the strangleholds on their own states and invite in competitors. Don't give up on the public option, but understand that it is not the most important part of the legislation. Getting rid of the anti-trust exemption is.

    Posted by prum36 at 10/28/2009 @ 4:31pm

61. Isn't the public option just a red herring? Think about all the issues that progressives dislike about insurance companies. Collusion-companies work together to set prices in markets. Spreading market share- different companies taking different states as their own. Monopolizing hospitals according to Ed Rendell so he couldn't even get a competitor into Penn. Now what would be the best way to solve these problems? The public option? Let's say there was something that could stop companies from doing all these things. Stop them from price setting and monopolizing markets and colluding. Wouldn't that solve the problem? We're all so focused on the public option. In reality this is just protecting the real win for American consumers. If the public option is dropped now, they will next attack the Antitrust legislation added to it. The antitrust legislation is the real crux of change and with or without the public option, will lead to real change. Look at Co-ops again. Why wouldnt coops work? because the insurance companies would come together to drive them out of business. Put in anti-trust legislation and a co-op would have a chance. States themselves would be able to break the strangleholds on their own states and invite in competitors. Don't give up on the public option, but understand that it is not the most important part of the legislation. Getting rid of the anti-trust exemption is.

    Posted by prum36 at 10/28/2009 @ 4:32pm

62. Happy:

    Good for the great state of Texas. The 1st place on people uninsured, one of the top on obesity, and....yup we will opt out....

    Republicans....they don't have a heart

    Posted by Frank42 at 10/28/2009 @ 10:09pm

63. "if the Democrats go through with this assault on the constitution, I stand ready to file the lawsuit against the US govt for usurping their authority in a fascist takeover of the US. "

    And I look forward to you being laughed out of court. Please, please use the word "fascist".

    Incidentally, to address standing you'll have to show "...that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, 8" Flast v Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)

    In Flast, that provision was the Establishment Clause.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/28/2009 @ 11:00pm

64. THE LIEBERMAN BETRAYAL--IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON

    Lieberman is shameless about his connections with the health insurance industries. He has not only taken more than $1 million dollars from them in campaign contributions, but has amassed thousands of STOCKS from the industry. The same is the case with many of the so-called "conservative Democrats who oppose real health care reform that will benefit the people, not the industry. If this is not CONFLICT OF INTEREST, what is? When a member of Congress says he is opposing health care reform with public option, they should be called out for what they really are. Journalists should ask them to declare how much of health industry stocks they hold and how much they have taken in campaign contributions from the industry. Many of these corrupt politicians will most likely end up in the Boardroom of health insurance companies when they leave Congress. Political mobilization by progressives should be focused on shaming these corrupt politicians out and making sure that they are never again entrusted with the people's business. They are no friends of humanity! They are consumed by selfish individuality of the worse kind. The Democratic caucus should immediately end its fruitless marriage with Joe Lieberman and strip him of his chairmanship of Homeland Security Senate Committee for a start.

    Dr. Sam

    Posted by drsam8 at 10/29/2009 @ 07:36am

65. What was a compromise to begin with has just been pared down further and its being called a victory due to its mere inclusion. This is exactly why I don't call myself a progressive or why I didn't vote for Obama. Progressives need to realize that being a movement solely to elect Democrats is not a recipe for success.

    Posted by nkurland at 10/29/2009 @ 11:01am

66. My take-home pay was drastically reduced this year, not by taxes but by extortionate rate increases by Maine's monopoly insurer. Yet Maine's 'moderate' Repub senators, Snowe and Collins, continue to block effective competition for the insurance cartels, who apparently have carte blanche to further rob the public before tripping the 'trigger'. Who needs 'moderates' like these?

    Posted by samcrossett at 10/26/2009 @ 5:36pm

    Ditto for pretty much everywhere else USA

    We're getting quite a show from D.C. folks. We've got the good guys (depending upon your stance on the public option) the bad guys, and then we've got the ugly Joe Lieberman and the bluedog dems.

    I call it a show becuase 10 to 1 says the decision has already been made. We'll get some watered down, crappy legislation full of loopholes and phrasing that will empower the insurance industry to continue on with it's rape of the U.S. population.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/29/2009 @ 1:01pm

67. What should progressives do?Support Tom Cobern as he filibusters unemployment insurance extensions? That is about as absurd as supporting this Democrat on Democrat compromise bill. How the Democrats are defeating their own bill is amazing.The new name could be the Great American Water Can/Insurance Plan.You can wash your hands off it.I want real experts to tell us how much of this legislation is lobbyist written. After all this time there is still not a plan to pay for the water can.Our countries history is one of shared hardships and perseverance. Therefore there must be a sensible plan to pay for this "reform?".This tax the rich thought pattern just doesn't fly with me.The whole reason for this is to control the gouging and greed of the money handlers.I haven't seen that in this bill. I think the Republicans have been amazed that with just a few tiny nudges that the Democrats have looked like a group of incompetent bunglers in the health cxare debate. Just saying no has allowed the Republicans to take a breath and decide how to counter attack the Democrats.The winners look to be the insurance industry. Someone has to step up for the Democrats. The President has been embarrassingly silent at a time when he is needed. If your legacy is diffidence then you were a failure. That has marked the first ten months of this Administration towards the common American. If the government had supported Wall Street like it has supported the middle class the Stock Exchange would be half empty. So I exhort you to show up Mr. President. Make your words ring out not just fall flat on deaf ears.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/29/2009 @ 7:23pm

68. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:34pm </i>

    Sorry, all, to have to reach back so far into the discussion thread, but...anti, this post has literally nothing to do with what I posted.

    What I said is that you can't sue the government for spending too much money, even if in spending too much it exceeds constitutional boundaries.

    Here's why, and this is the standing issue I was talking about. For you to have a claim, at least two things have to be true. First, your claim has to be anchored in law, and I feel like that's what you were getting at. Second, YOU have to have standing to sue for the particular violation claimed. Here's the problem: in order to have standing, you have to be able to claim an injury-in-fact to you, i.e. the law must have harmed you in some way. Courts have specifically said that being a taxpayer and having to pay more taxes does not count as enough of an injury. Nor does "paying taxes to a government that uses more power than it's entitled to." Otherwise, taxpayers could always sue the government if they thought it was spending too much.

    So no, anti, your suit would get kicked out of court and get nowhere. "I'm a taxpayer who has to pay taxes to a government that's gone too far" is not an injury-in-fact...so you don't have standing...so your suit goes away.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/29/2009 @ 9:52pm

69. Thrawn, actually taxpayer standing does exist if 1) it deals with the government using it's spending power and 2) the plaintiff can cite to a specific violation of the Constitution like the Establishment Clause. The case of Flast v. Cohen.

    Posted by brunowe at 10/31/2009 @ 1:07pm

70. <i>Posted by brunowe at 10/31/2009 @ 1:07pm </i>

    True; I mentioned that caveat in the first post, but I think I may have forgotten to carry it over.

    However, it's even narrower than you're saying. To my knowledge, the Establishment Clause is the only clause of the Constitution with respect to which the Court has ever found taxpayer standing to exist.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/31/2009 @ 6:48pm