The strategy session with President Obama will be streaming live at 2:30 pm today. You can watch it online at barackobama.com, but Organizing for America has put together a helpful streaming widget, so you can watch it right here, too, if you want.
Check out the stream below:
Obama Calls Health Plan a ‘Moral Obligation’ - New York Times
President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.
Kennedy, looking ahead, urges that Senate seat be filled quickly - Boston Globe
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality at a critical time in the national health care debate, has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a Senate vote when his seat becomes vacant.
Democrats prepare to push health care without GOP - Associated Press
Publicly, President Barack Obama is still calling for a bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation's health care system. Privately, Democrats are preparing a one-party push, which they feel is all but inevitable.
Dems recommit to bipartisan health deal - The Hill
Senate Democratic leaders and negotiators have recommitted themselves to a bipartisan healthcare deal, despite an August recess characterized by partisan sniping that prompted senior White House officials to consider a go-it-alone approach.
Senator Calls for Narrower Measure - Washington Post
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a key Republican negotiator in the quest for bipartisan health-care reform, said Wednesday that the outpouring of anger at town hall meetings this month has fundamentally altered the nature of the debate and convinced him that lawmakers should consider drastically scaling back the scope of the effort.
Health Care Uproar Swallows Whole Foods - NPR
Whole Foods has taken pains to distance itself from founder and CEO John Mackey, but it may be too late.
House Democrats expand health insurer probe - Reuters
Top Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee are questioning dozens of health insurance companies about executive compensation and other practices.
Public Option Support Used as Fundraising Tool - Roll Call
Liberal bloggers say they have helped raise more than $160,000 in the past 24 hours for about 60 progressive House Democrats who have pledged to vote against any health care plan that does not include a public insurance option.
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll—August 2009 - Kaiser Family Foundation
The August Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slim majority of Americans continues to favor moving forward on health care reform now despite an intensifying ad war and a political climate of contentious town hall meetings that coincide with rising concerns about the reform effort.
Critics who called out the NBC poll for excising the word "choice" from its question about a public option for health insurance will be happier by next month's survey, which will ask the question both with and without that key element.
Supporters of the public option were upset by Tuesday's survey which, after the language change, found support for a government-run alternative to private insurance down a staggering 33 percent, to 43 percent, in just two months.
NBC's White House correspondent Chuck Todd told the Huffington Post on Wednesday afternoon that pollsters Bill McInturf and Peter Hart will ask respondents two questions regarding the public plan for their September study.
The first: "Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?"
The second: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?"
It's good to hear that that NBC and the Wall Street Journal are going to ask people what they think about the actual bill this time around. Makes you wonder what bill they were asking about this time…
Yesterday, Chuck Todd on NBC defended his network's biased poll, which eliminated the notion of choice from their question about a public option and then acted like it was news when support dropped. Here's that mindblowing defense:
On Hardball earlier this evening, NBC's Chuck Todd claimed that they changed the wording because the word "choice" "biased" the question.
Todd didn't explain what is "biased" about describing a plan that offers people a choice between a public plan and private insurance as offering a choice between a public plan and private insurance.
Today, he's singing a different tune:
That's right, Chuck. When you actually tell people what's in the bill, they like it. When you give them right wing spin, they don't.
Which begs the question: Why would NBC and the Wall Street Journal poll Americans on what's not in the bill in the first place?
UnitedHealth, the country's second largest private insurance company, is urging its employees to attend the anti-health reform teaparties:
Last week, UnitedHealth Group–the second largest health insurance company in the country–sent out a letter to its employees urging them to call UHG's United for Health Reform Advocacy Hotline to speak with an advocacy specialist about health care reform. The advocacy specialist, according to the letter, is there to help UHG employees write personalized messages to elected officials, and to arm them with talking points to use at local events in order to better oppose the public health insurance option.
TPM has obtained the letter, which you can read here, but a UHG advocacy specialist was not willing to provide TPM with a copy.
However, a source who's insured by UHG–and who also obtained the letter–called the hotline on Tuesday and says the company directed him to an events list hosted by the right wing America's Independent Party, and suggested he attend an anti-health care reform tea party sponsored by religious fundamentalist Dave Daubenmire, scheduled for today outside the office of Blue Dog Rep. Zack Space (D-OH).
Remember what's happening at these events:
And they're being funded by Washington lobbyists.
Now, they're being helped out by UnitedHealth.
The insurance industry's own front group says it is for reform:
The Campaign for an American Solution is a grassroots effort whose mission is to build support for workable health care reform. The Campaign recently conducted a national listening tour in which health plans and Americans from all walks of life had candid, transparent discussions about how we can work together to improve health care.
And yet, UnitedHealth is asking people to go to events where there is no interest in substantive discussion, only shouting NO.
I think it's pretty clear which side the insurance industry is on.
Debate's Path Caught Obama by Surprise - Washington Post
President Obama's advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president's top legislative priority.
Democrats Seem Set to Go It Alone on a Health Care Bill - New York Times
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise - Associated Press
Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?
Kyl Says Cooperative Health Plan Won't Win Support - Wall Street Journal
The number two Senate Republican said Tuesday replacing a public health care option with a nonprofit private cooperative wouldn't win any more Republican support, saying they are essentially the same thing.
House demands compensation data - Politico
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has sent letters to dozens of major health insurance companies …
PhRMA defends itself from Boehner criticism - The Hill
The prescription drug industry’s lobbying arm is defending its deal with President Barack Obama in the wake of criticism from House Minority Leader John Boehner, who charged it with “appeasing” the Obama administration.
Snowe takes to the street, talks health care - Sun Journal
A "Main Street walk" turned into a Main Street stop for U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe on Lisbon Street on Tuesday, as Mainers intent on selling their influential senator on the merits of a public-option health-care plan crowded around her.
Grassley says status of 'public option' is unclear - Des Moines Register
U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley said Monday that he was unsure what to make of suggestions that President Barack Obama would drop proposals for a new government-run insurance plan.
Frank LoBiondo Supports Taxes To Fund More Private Health Care - Irregular Times
U.S. Representative Frank LoBiondo likes to present himself as someone who’s against raising taxes in order to support health care reform. In a recent statement, Representative LoBiondo explained that he would vote against Democrats’ health care reform legislation because the legislation would increase spending, thus requiring higher taxes and a bigger federal budget deficit.
Health Care for America Now and AFSCME have some new ads on the air, going after the GOP leadership and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Representative John Boehner (OH-08), Representative Dave Camp (MI-04), Representative Mark Kirk (IL-10), Representative Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Representative Dave Reichert (WA-08), and Representative Patrick Tiberi (OH-12).
Here's the Burr version:
We're putting $650,000 into the campaign, and we're hoping they'll let us know if their positions were in fact influenced by the insurance money they've taken, or maybe they're just too comfortable in Washington.
Senators and Representatives, you can feel free to leave your answers in the comments below.
In June, an NBC/WSJ poll asked this question [pdf, question 32]:
“In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance––extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?
And the people spoke:
41% Extremely important, 35% Quite important, 12% Not that important, 8% Not at all important and 4% Not sure.
Thus, 76% of people in America supporting a public health insurance option.
In late July, the same poll asked a different question [pdf, question 28]:
“Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?”
And, unsurprisingly, they got a different answer:
46% Support, 44% oppose, 10% not sure.
Now, in August, they've asked the same question as July, and support has slipped for their skewed question three percentage points, within the margin of error. This is now being touted as only 43% in favor of a public health insurance option.
These polls are not comparable. The first poll (June) accurately framed the question - should people be able to choose a public health insurance option. The second poll (July and August) pushed them towards an answer by leaving out the essential question of choice and asking a yes or no question.
Respected pollster Celinda Lake confirms this point:
Poll after poll shows that large majorities of Americans support reform that offers a choice of a public health insurance plan or private insurance. In fact Americans strongly support having that choice rather than access to only private insurance. Choice is a key value.
Jeff Liszt, Partner in Anzalone Liszt Research, adds:
National polling has consistently shown strong support for a public health insurance option that provides choice and competition for Americans. As with any complicated issue, questions about healthcare reform are sensitive to the wording of the question. The use of different language (NBC no longer tests whether people should be given the choice of a public plan) helps explain why NBC's current results look so different from their earlier polling which showed 76% support for the public option, and so different from recent national polling by CBS/NYT and Quinnipiac, both of which show over 65% support for a public health insurance option.
Richard Kirsch, our National Campaign Director, continues:
One can only wonder why the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll removed the concept of choice of a public option after 76% of Americans say they want that choice. By dropping what the President proposes and what the public strongly supports - giving people a choice - from their list of questions, the NBC/Wall Street Journal pollsters misrepresent reform and raise questions about their own agenda.
Polls in June and July showed overwhelming support for a public option, 72% and 69% respectively when folks were asked if they wanted the option of choosing a public plan.
Claims that these polls show a change in support for a public health insurance option are wrong. The only thing that's changed is the way these media firms asked their questions.
Update:
Via Media Matters, Chuck Todd apparently thinks accurate describing health reform as a choice is "biased:"
On Hardball earlier this evening, NBC's Chuck Todd claimed that they changed the wording because the word "choice" "biased" the question.
Todd didn't explain what is "biased" about describing a plan that offers people a choice between a public plan and private insurance as offering a choice between a public plan and private insurance.
Aside from the absurdity of describing the original question as "biased," it is important to note that the first question frames the topic of a public plan in terms of its effect on consumers — it indicates that they would have a choice between a public plan and private insurance. The new wording frames it in terms of the plan's effect on private insurance companies by emphasizing that they would face competition. The new wording is only passingly about consumers.
It should come as no surprise that a poll question that adopts the insurance companies' point of view yields results less favorable for a public plan than one that focuses on the impact on consumers.
Sam Stein writes yesterday in the Huffington Post that the notion that co-ops will do anything to solve our health care crisis has already been debunked:
The U.S. General Accounting Office produced a report on cooperatives in March 2000 that was mostly sour on the idea. Using five different co-ops as examples, the study concluded that on the key function — lowering the cost of insurance — these non-profit insurance pools came up well short.
"The cooperatives' potential to reduce overall premiums is limited because (1) they lack sufficient leverage as a result of their limited market share; (2) the cooperatives have not been able to produce administrative cost savings for insurers; or (3) their state laws and regulations already restrict to differing degrees the amount insurers can vary the premiums charged different groups purchasing the same health plan."
…
And without a large number of participants, co-ops essentially were subject to the whims of the insurance market, unable to use market influence to get consumers better deals on coverage. "None of the purchasing cooperatives we reviewed had a large enough market share to create bargaining leverage and therefore had a limited ability to significantly increase the percentage of small employers offering coverage in their state," the study found.
Fellow blogger Scarecrow noted the same thing, highlighting a Commonwealth report with similar findings. As Senator Rockefeller explained, co-ops are untested, unstudied, and so far, cannot work:
Without a public health insurance option, health reform will not result in lower costs. Therefore, without a public health insurance option, health reform will not work.
Need more evidence? The New York Times dumps all over co-ops today, saying they're "ill-defined." What's more, apparently a current insurance industry bad actor, Blue Cross Blue Shield, could be a co-op:
Mr. Conrad’s own state demonstrates the uncertainties surrounding cooperatives. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota dominates the state’s private insurance market, collecting nearly 90 percent of premiums. As a nonprofit owned by its members, the company would hope to qualify as a co-op under federal legislation, said Paul von Ebers, its incoming president and chief executive.
It's fairly clear that if co-ops mean Blue Cross Blue Shield, with their double-digit rate hikes, we're going to be stuck with the status quo.
That's the policy reasoning. Now for the politics.
Co-ops are being sold as a bipartisan deal. Accept co-ops in the Senate, we're told by those negotiating this deal (Senators Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad on the Democratic side, and Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe on the Republican side), and we'll have a bipartisan deal that can pass the Senate.
That's wishful thinking. As the Times said, "What is certain is that, as a substitute for a government plan, the co-op concept disappoints many liberals and stirs little enthusiasm among insurers or Republican lawmakers."
Republicans as a party in the Senate oppose the co-op proposal:
There's a lot of GOP leadership in that above list, but even more importantly, two out of the three Republican Senators negotiating themselves oppose co-ops. Senator Grassley is opposed and Senator Enzi is really opposed.
On top of that, the only way Grassley will support a bill is if a ton of other Republicans support it as well:
In an interview today on MSNBC's "Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R) said he'd vote against any health-care reform bill coming out of the committee unless it has wide support from Republicans — even if the legislation contains EVERYTHING Grassley wants.
"I am negotiating for Republicans," he said. "If I can't negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I'm not a good negotiator."
When NBC's Chuck Todd, in a follow-up question on the show, asked the Iowa Republican if he'd vote against what Grassley might consider to be a "good deal" — i.e., gets everything he asks for from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D) — Grassley replied, "It isn't a good deal if I can't sell my product to more Republicans."
In short, Grassley says he's willing to walk away from legislation in which he gets everything he wants.
So how is there a bipartisan deal here? Even if Grassley and Enzi agree on a deal in committee, it's unlikely to get their support on the floor. And with GOP leadership so set against co-ops, I don't see other Republicans voting for it, either.
Public Option Called Essential - Washington Post
Several leading Democrats voiced concern Monday about an apparent White House shift on health-care reform, objecting to signals from senior administration officials that they would abandon the idea of a government-run insurance plan if it lacked the backing to pass Congress.
Alternate Plan as Health Option Muddies Debate - New York Times
The White House has indicated that it could accept a nonprofit health care cooperative as an alternative to a new government insurance plan, originally favored by President Obama. But the co-op idea is so ill defined that no one knows exactly what it would look like or how effectively it would compete with commercial insurers.
Liberals revolt over public option - Politico
The White House’s signal that it’s willing to back off support for a public health insurance option has sent congressional liberals into full revolt, bluntly warning the administration that no legislation will pass without a government-run plan.
Where Is Kent Conrad Getting His Whip Count? - Huffington Post
There are 60 members of the Senate's Democratic caucus — so why is Sen. Kent Conrad insisting that that there aren't enough votes to pass a public health insurance option as part of comprehensive reform bill?
Boehner Blasts PhRMA On Deal With White House - Kaiser Health News
The drug industry’s decision to agree to $80 billion in concessions to the White House was short-sighted, will hurt drug manufacturers and their customers, and "has all the markings of a deal gone sour," House Minority Leader John Boehner wrote Monday to his former colleague, Billy Tauzin, who now heads the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Sixty House Liberals To White House: No Public Option, No Health Care Reform - Greg Sargent
One interesting side plot in the health care wars: The debate over the public option has suddenly reminded us that there are in fact two houses of Congress, something that’s been easy to forget amid the media obsession with the “bipartisan” negotiations in the Senate.