We are, respectively, an Ear, Nose, and Throat Specialist who’s been in private practice for 36 years (who also holds a law degree), and an attorney. We know from first-hand experience that any program of healthcare reform must include a public option.

We are especially interested in seeing H.R. 676 become the law. This would extend Medicare to all U.S. residents, allowing all of us to receive high-quality, affordable health care from the physicians whom we, and not the insurance carriers, choose. Yes, we fervently support a single-payer system.

Every day we have seen private insurance companies take advantage of their insured. Private insurers have become increasingly more inventive in denying payment for legitimate medical claims as they continue to raise premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. And, of course, now, they cherry pick just exactly whom they will insure.

So it has become a fact of life that physicians have been treating more and more long-standing patients without compensation. And when patients do come in for care, they are much sicker, often requiring a more prolonged course of treatment.

And every day, as more and more patients lose their health care benefits, insurance carriers continue to rake in unconscionable profits.

It saddens us that those members of Congress who most loudly decry the public option have no problem accepting a public option for themselves and for their families. How do they have the temerity to deny to their constituents that which they so readily take for themselves?

The public option.
For every American.
Just like in every other industrialized nation in the world.
And just like our own Congress.

Choice (of public option) is crucial.

Stuart Selkin, MD, JD
Pamela Selkin, Esq.
Melville, New York

I understand the wish to compromise in an effort to find common ground, but there’s no common ground with people whose only goal is to see you fail.

Without a robust government-run public option — preferably a single payer plan like Medicare — the for-profit insurance companies will continue to hold us all hostage.

Sadly, I fear the problem lies with members of Congress who are more worried about losing campaign contributions from these for-profit interests than they are about losing votes.

the quickest way to be a one term President? Continue to forget who elected you, Mr. Obama, and why. We liberals demand courage, not capitulation at the first sign of lobbyist resistance. Single payer health care is what we ought to have. The public option is not an ambition or a bargaining chip: it is already the compromise, the sine qua non of genuine reform. Millions will remind your party at the polls in 2010 if you forget. Start by dismissing the Baucus sell out.

No matter what you offer, Mr. President, not a single Republican (with the possible exception of Snowe and Collins) will vote for anything. You could offer them the Republican wet dream and they would still vote no, just to have you “fail.” That is their only strategy. You must show them that there is no quarter where the American people are concerned. Engage in a little LBJ-style politicking and arm-twisting with the Democratic senators you need and forget the Republicans. There is no debate, no dialogue, and no reaching an understanding with them, because they will never, ever even attempt to understand. They have no desire to serve the American people. They want only to continue to line their pockets with lobbyist money, and have cushy jobs with month-long summer breaks, and government-run gold standard health care.

I worked tirelessly to help elect Mr Obama. I donated money and flew myself - with 30 friends - to Ohio to get out the vote. Will I do this next time having seen him abandon his promise of an overhaul of the corrupt Health Care system? Do I approve of government spending billions of dollars to subsidize the insurance industry? I can’t say I will. My friends feel the same. He’s losing his base by playing to the middle. This is not change we can believe in.

Oh, and I just LOVE the GOP spammers on here pretending to be campaigners - the OFA is as strong as its ever been. And if there are actual supporters of the president here - I would wait until you see what the president actually signs into law with regard to a FINAL health care reform bill instead of saying that he’s “abandoned” anything - BEFORE THERE’S EVEN A BILL - which there ISN’T. Does making it ILLEGAL for private insurers to deny claims based on pre-existing conditions sound like capitulating to you? Does a public option that at the AFL/CIO yesterday, he was FURIOUSLY campaigning for, sound like capitulating? You do realize that it’s been CONGRESS - and not Obama - who’s been working on a bill, yes? Baucus just gave the final committee’s bill - which the White House doesn’t like - and that STILL has no Republican support after all their concessions - what’s going to happen - I guarantee it - is that a strong bill with a public option is going to be put through with reconciliation (51 votes) and the Republicans are going to look like what they are: the party that tried to stop health care reform. This has all been a strategy. Some on the left just need to relax - the president plays the LONG GAME. Have you forgotten how they ran the campaign?

Exactly, Kelly. Thank you.

There’s not a single thing on the website anyway that mentions the public option being gone, which is the bizarre part of this “article” - it’s plain as day, right there.

I know for a fact that the OFA is TIRELESSLY campaigning for a public option - but, truth be told, part of that effort is also on people who campaigned for the president and who are simply sitting in front of their computers and not doing anything about this. CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS. NOW.

The Baucus bill is the worst of all worlds. My suggestion is that they drop the mandate for everybody under the age of 65 to buy insurance. At least the public will have the choice of voluntarily paying for inferior health care coverage or not.

Give up evrything but keep P.O. With P.O. in place , all other health benefites will follow …Please follow what We all voted for, no P.O. !!! who knows what will be the new congress will look like,…

Mark:

If it’s a game that the President is playing, it is one that has confused multitudes of his own supporters. What part of the game involves Rahm Emanuel telling groups that are trying to pressure recalcitrant Blue Dog Senators that they are “f*cking stupid?” Why does it seem that the White House is trying to conciliate not push those on the Right while it uses hardball tactics against progressives (see the war supplemental battle earlier this year)?

Why does this game involve giving Big Pharma what it wants? Why does the White House’s game involve coddling banksters but telling auto worker retirees that they have to give up hard won benefits?

Please. Who should we believe–you or our own lyin’ eyes?

I haven’t given up hope that we’ll get health care reform with a real public option. But so far, Obama is not looking like an FDR or LBJ. He wants to conciliate people who hate him and is dismissive of those who support him (his advisors refer to us as “the left of the left” & Obama himelf equates the extremes of Right and Left–who is this Left that equates with the Tea Party crazies?)

BOOOOOO to OFA and the DNC!!!!!

I am 73 years old and I am a life long progressive Democrat. I am a retired psychologist who practiced for 45 years. During that time I experienced first hand, both as a patient “covered” by medical insurance and as a provider for patients “covered” by medical insurance. Over the years,I have seen, first hand, insurance “coverage” go from competitive, reasonalby priced (and reasonably reimbursed) coverage to a complete debacle in which the “insurance” companies have become INVESTMENT COMPANIES who use patients and providers as sources of wealth to feed their investment enterprises, their CEO’s, their investors, their enormous donations to politicians and their advertising budgets. In essence, the patients and the providers are merely pawns in this government sanctioned and government supported bonanza. I have seen the harm it does to patients whose benefits are foreshortened and whose premiums are too expensive to pay. I have seen rationing of care based on irrational, self-serving decisions by the insurance companies. for years I’ve heard the insurance companies make empty pledges to do better next year. Tp to put it simply, this is capitalism gone wild, it is a disgrace to the concept of capitalism and it is a disgrace to the concept of democracy.

I strongly supported President Obama before and since he has been in office. I am from California and I strongly support our two Democratic senators. I have supported the Democratic party.

If the public option is not a part of the upcoming insurance reform then it does not deserve to be called a reform. Despite any restrictions that might be place on insurance companies in such legistation, they and their cohorts in the Federal and State government bodies will find loop holes and exploit them for more self-serving bloating. More importantly, it will not work and it will doom any future efforts at true reform.

Please, please, please Democratic senators, representatives and President Obama take this opportunity to curtail medical insurance fraud once and for all. Put a strong public option in the upcoming health care legislation. Please, fellow Democrats throughout the Country demand that our representative stand up for those who elected them.

Dr. Ladd McDonald

Hank - with respect - if you’re confused, you haven’t been paying attention.

Giving “Big Pharma” what it wants will get a health care reform bill passed when otherwise, it wouldn’t. There are those of us on the left who understand that actually getting something big done means you can’t get 100% of what you want - it’s either that, or get nothing at all.

As for your “auto workers” comment - it’s not that simple - I’m sure you know this. Chrysler and GM failed on their own. They were given loans by the government. They failed to provide any changes to their companies that would fix the problems that got them their or make them profitable in the future. They were already laying off 47,000 workers as a result of them not keeping up - and in this president’s first 100 days, let alone in the last 8 months, he’s reversed almost all of Bush’s anti-worker laws, and (fact, by the way) done more for worker’s rights than most presidents do in a single term. He just risked trade relations with China, for goodness sakes, siding with American tire workers by imposing stiffer tarrifs on Chinese imports because tire workers lost 7,000 jobs; and he’s still meeting with reps of the auto retirees to this day - allowing Chrysler and GM to go bankrupt was only AFTER the initial auto bail out and the company’s refusal to change, including auto CEO’s paying themselves hefty sums with the initial bail out money that could have gone to employees to help cushion their lay offs. It’s not about believing me - it’s about believing the facts, as opposed to biased soundbite distillations of nuanced and complicated arrangements, Hank. Obama most likely knew from the start that he wasn’t going to get Republican support on ANYTHING - but he had to at least make a real effort to try, otherwise he’d be seen as abusing the Democratic majority he has - he’s not “dismissing” the Left - he’s trying to explain to the more rabid “just shove it through!” Left that THINGS DON’T GET DONE THAT WAY. He’s playing the Republicans for all they’re worth. Have you noticed that his approval ratings have shot up again? CNN/OPR: 58%? Majority supports his health care plans now? WashPost 54%? That in the middle of all of this - he NEVER ONCE fell below 50% (except of course in the right-wing-owned, overly Republican-sampled Rassmussen, always the outlier). Apart from that, just look at the over all balance of what he’s moved through in terms of worker’s rights - not just for labor union members, but for salaried workers - sorry, I don’t want to get into some big discussion here - just pointing out that some should take a step back.

Anyway - with specific regard to this article: apparently the author didn’t click his own link as they’ve actually made the language about a public option STRONGER - not weaker. I’m wondering why the author hasn’t updated it.

Mark,

The new petition’s call for a public option is an endorsement of Obama’s recent stated position - that he wants a public option, but is willing to scrap it.

The original wording has been entirely changed. Removing “must” means they won’t demand it.

To people watching closely, the message from OFA is clear.

Here’s TPM: “The site used to say that health care reform ‘must… [g]uarantee choice - Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor - including the choice of a public insurance option.’

Now, it’s backed away from that insistence. The new language on the site urges members of Congress to support President Obama’s health care reform principles, which include a public option–but doesn’t characterize it as a make or break issue.”

Firedoglake: “OFA Waves ‘Bye Bye’ to Public Plan”

If a strong public option is dropped, there will nothing left that’s worthy of the label of reform. In fact, it’s hard to believe that the public option amounts to a worthwhile reform. Only a single-payer system covers all and meets the nation’s real health care needs.

Democrat are screwing-up health care reform — again. I’ve voted Democratic in every election starting in 1968. But if the Democratic Party bungles health care reform this time, the sun will never rise on the day when I vote for another Democrat for any office.

Mark,

How in the world do you think that change makes OFA’s position on the public option stronger?

First, it’s worth noting that they’re endorsing a weaker public option than the one endorsed by their original petition.

It does reflect the reality of HR 3200, but it’s a weaker option than OFA had been demanding.

Second, you’re citing Obama’s “plan,” which they’re urging Congress to support. They’re not saying Congress MUST support it.

Original language: Health care reform “must… [g]uarantee choice - Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor - including the choice of a public insurance option.”

Can you not see this distinction?

I have been a consistent supporter of President Obama, but I will not be an apologist for him.

Any insurance “reform”, such as those Obama advocated in his speech, that doesn’t include a STRONG public option amounts to a gift to insurance companies.

Andrew, nobody’s being an apologist for the President by pointing out the fact that the author of this article jumped the gun and has misinterpreted something.

We’re pointing out the FACT that the ENTIRE comment - not just “MUST” was removed - to now show ONLY the president’s plan - which says that it INCLUDES (no vagaries there!) THE PUBLIC OPTION.

YOU - as well as the author of this article - have taken a RE-DESIGN of the site - to jump the gun because it’s something you’re afraid will happen.

The language on the site - that mentions a public option - instead of saying it “must” or should” include one - now says - it DOES INCLUDE ONE.

This is not calculus.

Should we try this in SANSKRIT now?

I prefer this analogy: Instead of ‘Employees must wash hands,’ the sign in the bathroom says ‘Employees should wash hands.’

I’ll try explaining one last time: You’re right that the site says his plan includes a (weak) public option, but the petition does not demand that Congress pass his plan. Thus, OFA does not demand that Congress include a public option.

Moving forward, I’ve got an idea: If a bill passes with or without a public option, you come back to TNA and one of us will eat crow.

Organizing for America has not ONCE changed its position on the public option. The public option is probably the single best way to guarantee affordable health insurance for all Americans. However, it is only a means to that end. Any option which provides Americans with security and stability, which offers the opportunity of quality health care for all, is acceptable. The public option is not the key aspect of health insurance reform.

This article is presumptuous, inflammatory, irresponsible, and would be libelous were it in a legitimate journalistic format.

With respect,
Alex Brant-Zawadzki
volunteer
Organizing for America

What I am reading from this, is someone has changed the wording on the site, for some reason…softening the message slightly…reducing one of the main points of the campaign to just another line of “what we want”…not “what we demand.” Why would they do that?

Unfortunately, major reform is what we all contributed to and worked hard for. I feel we have a majority of people in the US that want and need a public option as a MAIN part of the health care reform…no ifs, ands, or buts! In politics, wording is very important, and weakening or changing your message ever so slightly, shows signs of compromise. The author is not “jumping the shark” to bring this to attention. Those that want this reform can’t sit back and trust our legislators to find their way on their own. We already know the Republicans and insurance companies, as a whole, oppose it. This is why it is so important that we need to DEMAND what we want and voice it clearly.

Obviously a slight change in wording…or weakening the message does not sit well with many, or the comments demanding a public option on this and other sites would not be made. Mark will never understand, and Andrew, nor anyone else will be able to make him understand. Thank you Andrew for offering the simple, but easily understood washroom analogy. Words do make a difference!

This is why our rallies were never given permits across the U.S. scheduled on September 13th. They never even notified us. Just marked them ‘Activity Cancelled’ on the site. When I emailed them asking about our permits, I was ignored. Still no answer.
No more time or money for OFA.
Funny thing, they haven’t asked us for our signatures on this yet!

[...] good catch from The New Argument. The Democratic party’s organizing arm, OFA, seems to have changed the language on it’s [...]

[...] of events that tends to run against their ideal healthcare proposal. Sites such as FireDogLake.com, TheNewArgument.com, and Florida Progressive Coalition Blog have all had entries carping about the OFA flip [...]

[...] of events that tends to run against their ideal healthcare proposal. Sites such as FireDogLake.com, TheNewArgument.com, and Florida Progressive Coalition Blog have all had entries carping about the OFA flip [...]