Wyden's endorsement of a public option comes across like his position on the Iraq war - a change after he got an earful from voters. In 2002 at a "town hall" meeting in Central Oregon he gave the impression he was leaning in favor a voting for the war on Iraq. He got opposition in CO and, presumably, elsewhere and got around to voting against authorization to wreak slaughter and mayhem in Iraq.

Wyden's official web site pronoucement on the Healthy Americans Act has nothing about the public option.

I said it before and I will say it again - did anyone really believe Wyden was going to vote against the public option? If so, watch the Maddow footage and shame on you. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong, but I'm not (wrong).

I want the public option and I don't want to be excluded just because I'm covered through my employer. Even though I have pretty good coverage, if that changes, or if the public option looks like a winner, I want the exact same options that the uninsured will get under health reform. If Wyden can pull that off, things will never be the same for the insurance industry.

I hope to gawd this is for real and not some bullshit positioning maneuver....

Bill Bodden has repeated that story about how Wyden was going to vote for the war many times on BlueOregon. That's not what I heard. I talked to the senator prior to a town meeting in 2002 and he sounded very down on the idea of going to war in Iraq and he communicated that at his town meeting. He said there is no doubt that Saddam is a bad guy, but that there was inconsistent evidence about Saddam's role in 9-11 and he had questions about whether we could win the peace. Something to that effect.

Let's say you are right on public option and Wyden, which I doubt, Bill. Are you so crabby that you can't give the senator a way-to-go for listening to you and others?

"Look, all over America people are carrying these signs, public option, public option or bust. They`re wonderful activists..."

Is this what John Kitzhaber calls a "sideshow"?

It's not a "sideshow" to provide affordable coverage to millions and give private insurers some real competition in the market. If anything, it's a bit of a distracting sideshow for Kitzhaber to keep talking about changing how health care is delivered to folks who have no access (no insurance, can't afford it) to the system that delivers health care.

I think Wyden has shifted left on this issue after hearing from his constituents and I pleased at the approach he is taking now.

@ Jack Roberts The public option is not part of the Wyden-Bennett bill, so don't equate supporting one with the other. And it should be said that Wyden-Bennett has no shot.

Wyden's "Free Choice" amendment is a good one, but it involves a leap of de-linking from the present employer contracted health care plans. Choice is a strong selling point, and large majorities of Americans support the "choice" for a public option, even if they wouldn't choose it for themselves.

Mark: What I said is what I heard. Perhaps, Wyden changed his tune by the time he reached your group. As for his latest apparent switch, my point is neither negative nor positive. It merely stated he apparently changed his position after getting feedback. Did you check Wyden's site for the points he listed on the Healthy Americans Act? I didn't see anything there about a public option.

As for "Not Bill Bodden" what's your problem that you have to hide behind a pseudonym?

I have long groaned at the people who reduce everything to what Ed Schultz calls the 2-3 word culture--although sometimes it may be a longer phrase or an entire sentence.

"Support the troops" "the surge worked" during the Bush years.

What exactly did that mean--better funding and treatment for veterans, or just a slogan telling people to agree with Bush? That a surge of troops alone (without the Anbar Awakening and the other things that happened at the same time) turned things around in Iraq?

And so it has been with "we must have a public option". Even if every Democrat went to a microphone and said those words, it would not answer questions about who was covered, when the effective date was, etc.

Jack, would you be happier with "guaranteed competition with large insurance companies"?

What is it that the Mayo Clinic has just endorsed?

Sharon, you are right, "It's not a "sideshow" to provide affordable coverage to millions and give private insurers some real competition in the market.

However, it is valid to ask how "a public option" winning a majority of votes will affect the folks who are thrown out of their insurance in the next 6 months, or denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition in the next several months. Cong. Clyburn is right that the effective date of this stuff matters.

There are those of us who were born in the mid-1940s. If the effective date of these reforms is such that we qualify for Medicare before the effective date, why is nagging Wyden to "support a public option or we will run someone against you in the primary" going to help anyone like us or who has trouble with insurance next April or May?

It is easy to take one line out of any statement by any elected official or candidate who speaks in complete sentences and sometimes even intelligent paragraphs.

The proof is in the pudding---if the "we must have a public option" folks can't answer questions about who is covered and when the effective date is--but by golly if you ask questions you don't support helping ordinary Americans---they aren't going to solve anything.

If the public option is not part of the Finance bill, how does Wyden's choice amendment help?

I am tired of all this talk, let's get something done finally!

@ Theresa Kohloff

I believe Ron Wyden is planning to include his "Choice Amendment" later,after the bill is out of the finance committee, but can't be sure about that.

"I am tired of all this talk, let's get something done finally!"

Kim: The odds are that talk is all we are going to get. The prominent plans out there are mostly sponsored by recipients of generous campaign donations from the insurance-medical-pharmaceutical (IMP) complex, and as long as they keep talking up their various plans nothing gets done. But apparently talk ain't cheap. Someone said recently that the IMP lobbyists are spending $1.4 million a DAY to fight reform.

Senator Wyden is one of the only Senators willing to approach health reform from a reasonable and functional point of view.

On the Rachel Maddow show he said he'd support a public option IF and ONLY IF it gave all people, including those already covered by their employer but don't like it, the option to enter into the exchange. Kari wrote post earlier this year that explained this problem perfectly.

The term "public option" has been a buzz word for Americans, as well as certain Senators, on both sides of the aisle who have not taken the time to actually understand what it would mean.

Senator Wyden should be commended for his willingness to go against any plan or idea, regardless or party, that won't amount to true health reform.

The senior senator has found out that 80% of the people in Oregon want a public option. Why did it take so long? And please, what is your obsession with insurance? Health care has nothing to do with insurance. You have been to other nations. You have been to civilized nations where health care is a right. We demand that right. Do you understand?

It's about time someone spoke up!

If you think the insurance companies are going to lower their cost while having a monopoly over the process – well I’ve got a bridge to sell you …and I think Wall Street should be completely unregulated – I trust strangers with my money…and pollution is good and we should take all of the air bags out of the cars….

When industry has an iron lock grip on distribution and the markets – the government is driven by the people to take corrective action create competition and safe guard the markets and its assets through the rule of law. It’s our saving grace. Our market systems depend and only will thrive on competition; unregulated markets are a roller coaster ride of boom, bubble and burst.

Individual businesses operate at a cross hair as to what is good for the markets and its assets and resources – those resources are not only minerals, timber, coal and oil but you and I and the air we breathe. Individual businesses want to eliminate all competition in order to maximize their profits – from the guy that runs Kinko’s – who worries about Copy Connection opening up down the street to Microsoft out maneuvering Firefox to be the only player in the operating system market, to AT&T wanting to be the only Phone Company, or Cable wanting to shut out Satellite from operating in your neighborhood.

The winner takes all mentality doesn’t take into account the whole system. Each sector of the economy impacts each other. It needs to be maintained through the rule of law in balance to operate at its most efficient. That’s what governments do and what government is for. The pure free market system is a myth. It doesn’t exist and as an economic model is pure anarchy.

Unfortunately a bill of goods has been sold to a section of the public – so much so they are willing not to vote their pocket book but emotionally respond to buzz words and fear mongering and to protest against their own self interest.

The media is a powerful tool well underestimated by the millions sitting on their sofas watching it passively every night. But well understood by those who want to shape public opinion – not for the public's own good but for their own profit and powerful self interest.

As we are forced to re-regulate the markets because of the enormous damage done to our economy by the unregulated markets, foreclosures, unemployment and stagnating wages, and as we are forced to roll back the enormous take of the middle men who run the insurance sector, and as we are forced to wean ourselves off oil and dirty energy sources that are crippling our economy by holding back innovation, invention and the clean energy job sector – we are going to hear all kinds of horrible things about those elected leaders pragmatic enough and smart enough to know that change is necessary.

We are going to hear horrible lies, distortions of truth and promotion of violence as the status quo looses part of its grip.

The bellyaching coming from their media outlets is going to be enormous.

But at the end of the day if you vote your own pocket book and don’t care what happens to the millionaire strangers trying to pull the strings in Congress, and don’t take up their causes as if they were your own, and keep your eye focused on what is best for you and your family – then the Country will be fine.

There is nothing dirty or evil about the words “Public” or “Option” – in fact those words are what make this Country go!

I was watching the Senate Finance Comm. hearing on CSPAN last night. Wyden showed his experience with the process. All he did was say "I have a question of counsel. If we vote for this amendment, what will be the effect on....".

Some of the people on the committee didn't like the answer, but that sure resulted in a substantial debate!

There was also an amendment about about use of plain language as well as CBO estimates in posting information for the general public. Sen. Conrad read some legislative language, "Section D part 3 is to be replaced by half of part 4" kind of thing. Sen. Roberts said everyone on the committee should understand the legislative language and he knew Sen. Conrad was talking about .....except that Sen. Conrad had been reading from some other section of the bill.

Jack, I read your intelligent Oregonian column. Glad to see you going beyond "we must have tort reform" or claiming it is the answer to everything.

If the Texas model were really all anyone needed to make the cost of medical care go down, McAllen and El Paso should have the same medical costs, but according to recent studies they vary widely.

You said in your column "But maybe it's time to consider a more radical reform, such as a system of no-fault insurance for medical malpractice similar to the workers' compensation system. "

I heard a doctor on some show or other saying another possibility for reforming malpractice ("a bigger problem than lawyers want to admit, but not as big a problem as some doctors think it is" was the quip) would be mandatory arbitration as a first step. Anyone could then take it to court if they didn't like the result. BUT the arbitration report would be accepted as evidence.

Another idea. Professions are always talking about "best practices". In education it has been determined that students learn in different ways. Some do better by hearing, some by listening, others by doing things. Some students need more help than others. More attention is now being given these days to "middle" students--the students who are not gifted, not remedial, but need a little extra help understanding some subjects so that they can aspire to college.

By the same token, there are currently accepted medical practices.

If Republicans are worried about government making the decision on best practices, why not some famous medical school studying the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and other well know medical organizations (what have VA and military hospitals learned in the last 10 years, esp. in dealing with amputees and other medical situations?) and then they could publish a list of "best practices" to be followed in this country.

Then if a doctor could say "I followed the list of best practices, here is the evidence" that would be a valid defense for a malpractice suit.

Or course, that means having an intelligent discussion.

"We must have tort/malpractice reform" is no more a serious political platform than "we must have a public option".

Jack, maybe it is time to have a discussion with your Republican friends. Republicans who are admired outside of "the base" are those in the Oregon legislature like St. Sen. Jackie Winters and Frank Morse, nationally like Sen. Olympia Snowe. Only members of the GOP can decide if it wants to be just a "base" party or appeal to those who voted for "Democrat candidates". (Hint, if members of the "Republic" party want to win elections, they might pay better attention to their use of words. I am currently registered as a Democrat, but after a really annoying Democratic primary in a previous decade, I got so mad at "you must support the nominee and not ask questions" that I registered NAV and stayed that way for 6 years.)

Which leads to today's announcement news---Paul Kirk as interim US Sen. from Mass.

I was active in the Democratic Party when Paul Kirk was DNC chair. I would humbly suggest that before the GOP will again have national success, they might look for their own Paul Kirk. He took over a party where some had thought Mondale was the greatest candidate ever and were crushed that he'd been creamed by the Reagan landslide. Others active in the party had thought the election was lost the night Mondale was nominated. Another faction thought the future was in the south and formed the DLC (originally formed as a group which appealed to southern white males until they started doing outreach to the rest of the country).

Under DNC Chair Kirk, "pleasing the base" was demphasized in favor of winning elections. In 1985 a visiting former Dem. Gov. from what we now call a "red state" spoke to an Oregon Dem. State Central Comm. meeting in Portland and the theme of the speech "the purpose of the Democratic Party is to win elections". That some argued with that speech should give you an idea of where the Democratic party was back then, before the 1986 takeover of the US Senate by a larger number than anyone predicted. [I was taking a seminar class the fall of 1986 and for one paper collected every US prediction I could find--none were even close.]

It is hard for some people to get beyond the talking point political culture. However, a Republican running for office saying that alternative forms of malpractice reform include a system like workers comp, a system with mandatory arbitration as the first step, etc. could easily inspire intelligent debate.

But are there Republicans who want intelligent debate? Are they drowned out by the loudmouths who only want to tell people what is wrong with Democrats but not offer specific solutions? (Hint: "we have this idea, you should support it and not ask questions" doesn't count as intelligent debate over specific ideas.)

Like some Democrats over 2 decades ago (esp. those who had a hard time coping with how badly Mondale lost) does the GOP want to be the party of "Republicans are infallible, Democrats are the focus of evil in the modern world" and if voters don't like that attitude, not their problem?

I believe that we need to pay close attention to details. I've seen Wyden at town hall meetings take out his insurance card and explain how members of Congress choose their health insurance provider.

Does "public option" mean that sort of system? Or does it mean "if you meet income criteria and don't get health care coverage from your employer"? What is the effective date in the legislation--this election cycle, the next one, or the one after that?

Slogans don't answer those questions. But the intellectually lazy don't care about that--intelligent discussion means having to think. Maybe that is just too much work for them.

I'm glad that Senator Wyden supports making a public insurance option open to everyone, but making "choice" the central issue is also a easy way to oppose single-payer. And single-payer remains the approach that can best supply good healthcare to the most people for the lowest cost, and would do so without a cumbersome, heavy-handed personal insurance mandate.

From one of my favorite essayists, Lewis Lapham: We Expect Immortality From Medicine -- and It's Destroying Our Health

"Another view is that the embedded influence of Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine were easier to conceal when spread out over several committees, where the lobbyists are themselves former congressmen, senators and their top staffers, and many current members and staff look forward to the same career paths. These are the men and women who wrote what is and will be the president's health insurance reform legislation. The result has been a half dozen versions of a thousand-plus page bill, chock full, as Rolling Stone's Matt Taibi points out, of deliberately obscure references to other legislation. "

The above is from an article by Bruce Dixon: Why the Public Option is Doomed To Fail, and What Can Be Done About It

I think the reason Wyden keeps making choice the central issue - at least for him - has nothing to do with making it easier to avoid voting for single payer, Jake. That seems to be rather easy to do as not one member of the Senate committees is fighting for single payer.

If I understand him correctly, and I agree with him on this, he knows that right now under the Obama plan most Americans will still experience job lock and frustration with our insurance companies. Wyden says only 12 million of us will get public option under the current bills (I vote for Oregon getting it first, base it on per capita support by state!), and that number sure won't put any pressure on insurance companies to change a single thing they are doing today. If only 12 million Americans will get the public option, I want that number to grow. But if Congress is too wimpy to expand the public option to everyone, why not at least make insurance companies compete on a level playing field? Why do I have to simply take whatever crap insurance my employer gives me with no voice in the matter?

bradley,

Arguments do not remain private possessions. If "choice" becomes associated with good healthcare policy, it will be used to oppose single-payer whenever it becomes seriously considered. I do not believe that is necessarily Wyden's thinking.

I support a bill with a public option over one without it, and a robust public option over a limited one, but the challenges to a successful public health insurance program are considerable enough to make me believe that Congress will eventually seriously consider single-payer. When that happens, I do not want "choice" used as a red herring to oppose the idea.

Jake Leander is prescient re ways that the DP will find to oppose Medicare for All, the only sane alternative. Corporatists will find a way.

And I agree with Jack Roberts about "public option", which is bullshit linguistic obfuscation. It means anything we "hope" it will mean, just like Obama-ism.

Well bleep me once again. I must eat my words and concede that Wyden may be the angel in the grass this debate has waited for. His approach may be the best shot for doing a robust public option on reconciliation.

Cudos to Chris for pointing out the fallacy of Obama's rhetorical forked tongue on "choice." A choice to merely switch private carriers is no choice at all- especially when exchange pools will encourage more monopolization.

And shame on the AFL-CIO. Methinks the leadership's kickback from their insurers is showing. However, Oregon head Tom Chamberlin is open about his preference for single payer so apparently he is not on the take like it would seem the national leadership is motivated in this regard.

And I must repeat- I believe Republicans should have the right to pay 30% or more greater premiums for dicey coverage in their sacred madcow private sector. I also believe Republicans should shun doctors and have their end of life discussions with insurance adjusters.

<h2>My main reason for supporting a robust public option is pure spite for anyone stupid enough to buy private insurance if a non-profit public plan is available.</h2>