White House Official Lays Ultimate Slam on Howard Dean: "He's Irrelevant" The Left is Mostly Baffled

Via Memeorandum
Ooh burn, such a low blow against the champion of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Savannah Guthrie reveals the anger over health care debate is not reserved for Joe Lieberman but for Howard Dean who in recent days has called for the death of widely despised health care bill.

Mika Brzezinski I won’t name names, but I heard it from several people in the Administration: Howard Dean, very not pleased, with Dr. Dean speaking out about health care reform and this plan.

Savannah Guthrie: Yeah, very irritated. Yes, isn’t it fascinating they don’t seem to be too angry at Lieberman, they’re reserving their fervor for Howard Dean, but actually, one senior official who I talked to this morning paid the highest insult which was to call him irrelevant to the entire health care debate. You know he kind of had his moment in the sun in the last week when this Medicare expansion looked like it was going to be the thing that broke the logjam between the progressives in the party and the moderates, but, of course, because of Lieberman, the Medicare expansion is gone, and now Dean is having what one official called “a tantrum.”

And they think it’s just not helpful, but they say he’s irrelevant because, bottom line is, even though he was meeting yesterday with all the Democrats, a lot of liberals did blow off steam, there’s a lot of frustration, they’re annoyed that the public option is gone, that then they compromised to do the Medicare extension, now it’s gone. At the end of the day, the moderates are holding sway over this bill, but at the end of the day the President’s been able to hold them in line and they think progressives will be with them.

Dean hasn't been shy in his criticism of the current health care bill

"This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG," former Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean told "Good Morning America's" George Stephanopoulos today. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works. "This is an insurance company's dream, this bill," Dean continued. "This is the Washington scramble, and I think it's ill-advised."

Obviously his call to kill the bill has the White House enraged.  Dean's statements reflect the thinking of much of the left wing blogosphere who are baffled by the attitude towards both Dean and Lieberman:

 Joe Lieberman, who held a legislative gun to President Obama's head and threatened to kill all of health care reform, endangering the Democrats' prospects for holding on to control of Congress in the next election and endangering the President's chances at being re-elected, got personally thanked by President Obama yesterday. Thanked for trying to kill health care reform, thanked for shilling for the insurance industry. Howard Dean, who is simply advocating for the President's own campaign promise, is now being dissed by the White House.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake explains in a piece written for Politico; it's all about those secret deals the White House made:

The Public Option is Really Most Sincerely Dead

Via Memeorandum

Without the benefit of the coroner, we can only take the word of some nameless Democratic senators who  say they have a tentative deal to drop the public option from health care legislation.  Senator Harkin (D Iowa) reportedly doesn't like the agreement but will "support it to the hilt to pass health care legislation."  Well, that makes me feel better already.  Good to know Democrats will support any ole piece of garbage legislation just to claim a win on health care.

So what's not to love with this new agreement.:

In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage, with the possibility of greater government involvement if needed to ensure consumers of sufficient choices in coverage.

Additionally, the emerging agreement calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population.

Oh joy!  Expanding Medicare to include the 55-65 age group will probably do wonders for the deficit.  The public option will be replaced by a private option with a government panel to oversee the process, what could go wrong?  If anything can go wrong it will surely come in when the "possibility of greater government involvement" contingency kicks in.

So, is the public option dead?

In his comments to reporters, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option," the Medicare expansion or a fallback in case private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan envisioned to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management. One possibility was for the agency to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.

Okay then, the public option is gone but Reid says it is included.  Someone will have to run a few of those CSpan clips so we can figure out whether it is in or out.  Oh wait there aren't any.   Michelle Malkin sums up the problem with Democrats and the "public option:"

Hell if I know if the public option is really dead or not. As usual, there’s no concrete language for the public to see. Only public press conferences alluding to vague backroom door agreements. Safe bet: The public option is a Democrat policy toe fungus that may disappear temporarily, but will come back with a vengeance later.

For what its worth, the lefty blogs that aren't having a heart attack on hearing the news the public option is dead are reporting that the plan that is left is a trigger.  Music to Olympia Snowe's ears I am sure, though she reportedly doesn't like the Medicare expansion.  Mary Landrieu (D LA) is opposed to the Medicare expansion as well; odds are that gets tossed out to get 60 votes.   If you weed through all the muck, you're left with a plan with a trigger, which is going to pass.  Erick Erickson comments that it is time for the Republicans to put up a serious fight, their current strategy is not working.  I have to agree.

Famous B Movie Monsters - Updated

B Movie Monster Hall of Fame

The Thing that Wouldn't Die

 

The Brain that Wouldn't Die

The Blob

Godzilla

 

The Robust Public Option 

 There's no public option like a "robust" public option

But Everyone Loves the Public Option, Don't they?

As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”

It just will not die, take a look at the top thread at Memeorandum. 

Update: It might be nearly dead

Mike Allen reported on "Morning Joe" that Pelosi took a count on that "robust" public option and didn't have the votes.  I will post a video when it becomes available.   Politico report at the link.

More from same show - Lawrence O'Donnell public option is a mirage to hide the real problem they have no clue how to pay for this whole fiasco.   Also continued focus on public option is to keep left thinking they will get their fantasy right up until the last minute.  

Public Option Propaganda Continues

The public option propaganda continues, sustaining itself on a Los Angeles Times reprint of the "Obama is secretly pushing the public option" article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune yesterday.   Chuck Schumer reports that things are moving along just blissfully in his efforts to include the public option in a final bill.  It is positively sunshine kisses and rainbow lollipops all around from his report:

"Inside, we were all happy," Schumer said, adding that he and other Democratic senators are targeting Baucus, along with Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) for additional votes on the public option.
He maintained that the final bill to pass through all of Congress would have a public option, whether the Senate passes it initially or has to rely on a budget manuever in the conference report to avoid the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

McJoan, diarist at  Daily KOS, was celebrating in the end zone one minute, while unloading  on Blanche Lincoln the next.  Meaningless polls showing the voters in Nebraska are just wild about the public option are de rigueur in chastising those timid moderates who can't see everyone loves the public option.  I am stunned that Blanche Lincoln is not convinced of the massive support in her state for the public option after seeing that all important Daily KOS poll.

It could be these moderates are worried about their political hides come midterm elections.  The President, however, is only really concerned about his own re-election.  Chuck Todd makes this revealing statement in the following clip as the Hardball cheerleaders rationalize the lampooning of their hero on Saturday Night Live.  Chuck makes the point very close to the end:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Will the moderates vote for a public option that voters fear will cause them to lose their current health care coverage? It's highly unlikely unless these noble moderates are willing to sacrifice their seats.

H/T: Memeorandum

He Writes It, He Writes it Not

President Obama is running out of petals on his health care daisy. After a grueling month of August, Obama hopes to change his fortunes with a high risk speech before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday. Needless to say, there is a fair amount of speculation about the content of speech number 111 on health care.

CNN reported earlier the President is working on a draft of legislation in advance of this meeting. Chuck Todd at MSNBC claims there is no such effort. He reports the White House is attempting to put in legislative language, areas of agreement in the 5 bills that are currently written. We can say with certainty, the "public option" is one area that doesn't qualify as "in agreement."

Obama held a conference call with a group of Progressives who made it clear they can't support a bill without a "robust" public option. Plumline reports one reaction after the call:

Grijalva says Obama signaled that discussions about the public option would continue even after his big speech before a joint session of Congress next week. That may be an indication that Obama won’t be mentioning the public option in his speech, but doesn’t want liberals to despair at that prospect.

Said Grijalva: “I didn’t come away from this discussion feeling that we were dead.”

CNN reports the White House continues to lean away from the public option:

A source close to the White House says the administration is leaning toward dropping the public option, and continues to zero in on trying to convince Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe – who has long pushed for a trigger option — to come on board.

Keith Hennessey nails it, I believe, in his prediction Obama will keep the left at bay right up until the moment the public option drops out of the bill.

While the public option continues to be the most contentious issue, it is far from the only danger from a conservative perspective. As Hennessey notes:

Democratic staff drafted these bills with a belt-and-suspenders. If (when) the public option is removed from the bill, other provisions would still turn health insurance into a public utility. Even without a public option, government employees or people appointed by the government would define standard benefit packages and cost-sharing for all health insurance. The government would regulate relative premiums and redistribute premium revenues among insurers, and have authority to place limits on insurers’ profits. A government-appointed board would define guidelines for quality care and for health care delivery models. Government guidelines labeled “advisory”have a tendency to become de facto standards over time, whether or not they are legally mandated.

Legal Insurrection points to the expansion of the role of the IRS as another means government will wield an increasing presence in health care.

Driving a stake through the public option may infuriate the left but the administration may plan to use that to their advantage:

The bottom line, said the source, is that the president would have to "move to the center" on the issue eventually, "and it's not a bad thing to have liberals screaming at him" — that development will help sell the deal to Americans, "convince them it's a good, moderate deal, if liberals are mad."

No one should be fooled or otherwise mollified by the screaming on the left that a bill without a public option is harmless. It is merely stage one in ending Obama's "Fatal Attraction" to government take over of our health care.

Poll Shows 77% Support for Public Option

See even Soros looks surprised at those results. He shouldn't be however, since his organization MoveOn.org sponsored the study. Who knew the public option would actually gain support after all the arguing this summer? Let's take a look at the credibility of this sample, shall we? Question two asks: "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?" A whopping 58% of Republicans answered extremely important. Where did they find these Republicans? Did they pay ACORN workers to find them? Still this is the headline, major headline mind you, at Huffington Post. This news ought to keep everyone all "Wee-Wee'd UP"

Life Support for the Public Option?

Remember the words of caution about declaring victory in the war on the "public option?" Mark Ambinder has this report in "The Atlantic:"

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President.

Ambinder reports the official claimed Kathleen Sebelius had intended to echo the President's message and there was no intention to change the White House messaging. What exactly is that message you might ask? Good question, make sense of this confused message if you can:

the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

Good thing they didn't pass tort reform, I think I might sue for whiplash. Hold on to your neck brace, there's more:

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

So who do we believe the anonymous official or Rita Skeeter?

Ambinder reported earlier in the day:

Before the health care debate began in earnest, I can tell you that very senior White House officials believed that some form of public plan was absolutely necessary to ensure that the overall bill would be seen as a cost-cutter. That opinion changed roundabout three months ago when it became clear that even a public plan with a trigger mechanism -- Rahm Emanuel's preferred option -- just didn't have the votes.

This supports what Kent Conrad said "to Chris Wallace today as well. Clearly the White House will not stand or fall over the public option; failure to pass reform of any kind would be a huge loss for this President.

If HuffPo is any indication of the outrage on the liberal left, it is worth noting this story had over 17,000 comments. Many commenters vowed to bombard the White House with letters of protest. It could easily be an effort to assuage their outrage. HuffPo's headline now is in bold red: Mixed Messages. Holy cow, I agree.

Pulling the Plug on the Public Option

Breitbart reports the White House is signaling a willingness to drop the controversial "public option" and looking to move toward a compromise with Republicans:

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives. Such a concession is likely to enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Hot Air has the latest from Conrad who confirms the public option will not have votes to pass in the Senate:

“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the U.S. Senate for the public option, there never have been,” Conrad said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.”

“So to continue to chase that rabbit is, I think, a wasted effort,” Conrad said.

Hot Air also has video of Sebelius retreating from the public option.

The likely compromise would involve the cooperatives proposed by Kent Conrad I mentioned last Sunday. The cooperative plan outlined in Time Magazine called for:

"the creation of 50 separate cooperatives, one for each state. Each cooperative would be nonprofit, run by a board of directors elected from within the ranks of co-op members. They would essentially act as self-insurers, meaning premiums paid in by members would cover the cost of claims. The theory is that co-ops would be able to offer health insurance at lower costs for individuals and small businesses — who now must pay some of the highest rates for commercial insurance — because they would create larger risk pools. States with smaller populations could join with nearby ones to form regional alliances with larger pools of members.

Republican Richard Shelby is quoted as being open to looking at these cooperatives:

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.

Kent Conrad is a key member of the Senate Finance Committee and seated at the grown up table, where the President's plan appears to be taking shape.

While the retreat from the public option may appear a victory, the mere fact the Administration spent much of August promoting it despite evidence it would have always been difficult to pass in the Senate, is an indication the President always preferred a large government plan. Much of the outrage expressed in town halls and reflected in polls made it clear the public was not inclined to see another massive government program created in the process of health care reform. This may be retreat but we can't call it surrender. It is far too early to call this victory and this is no time to become complacent.
UPDATE: American Power declares this win a "skirmish" in the longer battle to victory see warning here.

President Repeats Post Office Gaffe in Colorado

Earlier today in Colorado, a student asked the President how an insurer can possibly compete with a public option that has no requirement to meet expenses that private insurers meet. The young man was willing to debate "Oxford Style" which gave the Obama quite a laugh. While explaining that he believed it was possible to create a public option that would be required to compete on the same level playing field insurers must, Obama reverts to the example of UPS and Fedex doing much better than the US Postal Service.



The President clearly admits that unless all barriers could be removed to permit a quasi public/private insurer to complete on a level playing field with private insurers there would be legitimate concerns about competition with a public option. I will be interested in seeing if these barriers can indeed be addressed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might benefit from the imposition of such restrictions as well.