You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 9

PLAYS: 3

(Joseph Califano - Two Years in the hotseat and a pink slip for the trouble)

During the early days of the Carter Administration Joseph Califano was appointed Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. By all accounts it was a strained relationship which eventually led to his firing in 1979. From 1977 until 1979 he was the center of several controversies, including the banning of Saccharine, Affirmative Action and quotas in the College system, the Medicare/Abortion issue, a National Health Insurance proposal, smoking and even the 1977 outbreak of Swine Flu (yes, there was Swine flu even then). Califano was not handed softballs, to be sure. As these two exchanges from a 1977 appearances on Meet The Press will attest:

Carol Simpson (NBC News): “Mister Secretary, the Swine flu mass immunization program was a disaster from start to finish, and I have a two part question: first of all, to find out whether your agency, given the same information as was given the agency a year ago, would have embarked on such a program? And secondly, what are you going to do now that the American people have really become frightened by mass immunization programs and what are you going to do if we have a similar vaccine in the future that might be necessary to be given to the people?”

Joseph Califano: “Miss Simpson, I am not prepared to say what I would have done had I been in the government a year ago. It is not clear to me in what ways different decisions would have been made. I intend to look at that thoroughly and carefully as I think that kind of public health decision is difficult as the Secretary has to make. The greatest damage the Swine flu program has done, aside from the human tragedy of the individuals paralyzed and killed has been the impact on immunization programs, particularly for children. There are sixteen million children in this country under the age of fourteen who have not been immunized against Polio, and a large part of that is attributable to the peoples fear about immunization programs. We’ve got to restore confidence . The first step we’ve taken is to open up the entire process for selecting the vaccines for next year. We’ve done that and we haven’t made the selections yet, but every fact that’s relevant to that will be available to the public. We also intend to have a substantial stepped up program of education for children and parents in the immunization area , and to try and get the children of this nation immunized.”

Nancy Hicks (New York Times): “President Carter campaigned on a promise to bring National Health Insurance to the American people. Does this still have a high priority, and if so when might we expect a legislative draft?”

Califano: “This has a very high priority. I regard the Social Security issue, the welfare reform issue, the American family issue and National Health Insurance is four central Presidential priorities for me. We would expect to have legislation before Congress next year in this area. I will be working with and recommending a program during this year.”

Hicks: “Beginning of the year or end of the year?”

Califano: “I don’t know whether it will be the beginning or the end of the year. If President Carter continues the way he’s going on other programs it will be the sooner the better, and closer to the beginning of the year than the end of the year.”

Needless to say, 1977 was not the year of Universal Health Care. Nor was 1978 or 1979 for that matter.

If they're already admitting to causing deaths, why should they care about a little girl's hearing?

What more do we have to do to fight back against these horror stories? What will it take to get these insurance companies to see the inherent immorality of focusing on the bottom line to the exclusion of all else? Think Progress:

One of the worst abuses of the private health insurance industry is its practice of denying claims to pay for necessary care for patients. This practice has become so rampant in the industry that a recent study by the California Nurses Association found that a whopping 21 percent of all insurance claims filed in the first half of 2009 in the state of California were denied by insurers.

As the story of six-year-old Madison Leuchtmann of Franklin County, MO, demonstrates, even children are victims of this insurance company abuse. Madison was born with bilateral atresia, which means she lacks ear canals in both ears. In order to hear, she wears a special device on a headband that allows her to make out sounds. Despite her disability, Madison is at the top of her kindergarten class and is slowly learning to read.

Yet Madison, due to her growth, will soon require a new hearing implant to be able to recognize sounds. Her hearing and speech therapist warns that “if she doesn’t get her implants by age seven, she’s not going to be able to blend her words. … She won’t be able to hear herself [talk].” Madison’s pediatrician, Dr. Randall Clary, also insists that without the implant, the girl may never be able to hear again. Unfortunately, the Leuchtmann’s family insurer, Cigna, has issued "one denial after another,” flatly refusing to cover the $20,000 bill for the implant. In a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, Cigna explained, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude hearing assisted devices,” prompting Dr. Clary to angrily respond, “This is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear canals!” Dr. Clary also told Fox 2 that he sees these sort of denials “on a weekly basis.”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1443)

PLAYS: (2319)

(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

Rich Stockwell, senior producer at MSNBC's "Countdown", writes about his experiences at the free clinic funded by viewer contributions:

New Orleans, La. — - It happened as I watched a 50-something woman walk out, after spending several hours being attended to by volunteer doctors. "She's decided against treatment. A reasonable decision under the circumstances," the doctor tells us as she heads for the next patient. The president of the board of the National Association of Free Health Clinics tells me why: "It's stage four breast cancer, her body is filled with tumors." I don't know when that woman last saw a doctor. But I do know that if she had health insurance, the odds she would have seen a doctor long ago are much higher, and her chances for an earlier diagnosis and treatment would have been far greater.

After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.

Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.

Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.
Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women.

Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working.

Countdown chose to highlight and raise money for the Association of Free Clinics because we knew the work they do is so vitally important and we wanted to show in real terms how great the need is. We invited several politicians to attend so they could see first hand how critical the situation is. All declined. Some explained that they talk with constituents all the time and know very well of the need for reform.

I have news for them, these people didn't need to speak. Their actions spoke far louder than any words. Having to get a check up and diagnosis at a free clinic because they have no other option tells you all you need to know. There are no words that can accurately describe the quiet desperation on the faces of the patients. Every single one I spoke to, and every one I heard talking with doctors, expressed their gratitude for the event and wished that they were held more often.

I got this via email yesterday, and gee, I hope the media covers this one (.pdf link to application for media credentials). Because there are all kinds of implications: Does the Catholic Church get to decide that, government health insurance will pay for the indefinite maintenance of someone in a persistent vegetative state because they've suddenly decided to up the ante?

And do Catholic hospital officials intend to override advance directives or medical powers of attorney? Remember, many people live in a community that has only a Catholic hospital. (While my father was dying from excruciatingly painful pancreatic cancer, he was denied a morphine drip by his Catholic pro-life doctor. The Saint said it might make dad might die a few hours sooner than he was "supposed" to, so this is more than a theoretical issue to me.)

I'd just like to remind everyone that the Catholic Church continues to make disapproving noises about unjust war and the death penalty, but I never see any public denouncements of the politicians who support them them. Instead, they throw their weight behind issues like this.

What would Jesus do? I'm guessing not this.

WASHINGTON-The full body of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will take into account the most recent Catholic teaching on care for the chronically ill and dying when they vote on a proposed revision of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services at their November 16-19 general assembly in Baltimore. The proposed revision states more definitively the moral obligation to provide medically assisted nutrition and hydration to patients in a "persistent vegetative state."

[...] "It would be useful to update the Ethical and Religious Directives by inclusion of references to these authoritative documents as well as byincorporation of some of their language and distinctions," said Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, Chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine. "It is particularly appropriate to do so since the recent clarifications by the Holy See have rendered untenable certain positions that have been defended by some Catholic ethicists."

The current Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services says, "There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient."

Along with other changes, the proposed revision says, "As a general rule, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic conditions (e.g., the 'persistent vegetative state') who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care."

To be adopted, the proposed revision must be approved by a majority of bishops present and voting at the November meeting.

Mike Stark catches up with Blanche Lincoln in Congress and asks her if she'll join the Republican filibuster. She has been virtually silent throughout the whole health care debate and Mike does a great job of getting her to say something on the record. What she said of course was nothing.

Stark: Can you see yourself filibustering or joining a filibuster?

Lincoln: I don't even know what the bill is going to be and I'm going to do what I think is most important for Arkansans and that is to look at the bill, to see if it's going to be helpful to Arkansans and the country in expanding health care...

She knows what's going on in this debate and gives a typical non-answer about supporting the public option like many have given up to this point. We at Blue America are running a brand new ad all over her state starting today so we can help her decide that filibustering health care is not in any one's best interests except the health insurance corporations that she's taken huge contributions from.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post writes:

The squeeze is on for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) on health care in the form of a new series of ads paid for by the liberal Blue America PAC that cast the Arkansas Democrat as bought and paid for by insurers. "Blanche Lincoln claims to fight for health care reform but whose interests does she really represent," asks the ad's narrator before noting that Lincoln has taken more than $2 million in campaign contributions from the health and insurance industries. The narrator concludes the ad by asking viewers to call Lincoln and "demand she allow an up or down vote on the public option." (This is the fourth ad paid for by Blue America targeting Lincoln this year.)

Polling shows Lincoln, who is up for re-election in 2010, holding relatively slim margins over a series of unknown Republican candidates. Lincoln's dilemma? How to walk the line between the conservative leanings of the Razorback State -- Obama took just 39 percent there in 2009 -- and the increasingly vocal and well-funded left within her own party who see the inclusion of a public option as a sine qua non for health care reform.

Her primary is the reason we targeted her originally and it's worked out very well so far.

Please help us continue running this ad and many more to come and join in on Blue America's Campaign for Health Care Choice. Donations are much appreciated.

And Digby writes:

Perhaps Lincoln should start worrying just a bit about what will happen if her Democratic base stays home. The numbers aren't looking all that good for her right now.

She's between little rock and a hard place but it seems to me that's easily solved at this point. She should vote for cloture, thus appeasing her base and then she can vote against the bill if she needs to appeal to neanderthals who want people to die quickly.

Believe me, none of her constituents will hold it against her. Most people think cloture is unpasteurized sour cream. And they like it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1378)

PLAYS: (2746)

Blue America just produced a new ad that highlights the many payoffs she has received from the health Insurance industry and demands that she starts representing her constituents who unequivocally support the public option. I'm not much of a NASCAR fan, but you can see that the comparison we use in this ad matches her role well.

If you can, please help us to be able to blanket the entire state of Arkansas with this ad, because for a Democratic Senator to filibuster health-care reform is to become an active member of the teabagger/Republican party. She needs to vote for cloture and give Americans the right to an up-or-down vote and to be true to the will of the good people of Arkansas.

Howie Klein writes:

No, as we've been telling you all year, there's only one weak link worth trying to beat into submission: Arkansas' corrupt and reactionary-- don't those two terms always seem to find a way of cuddling up with each other?-- senior senator, Blanche Lincoln. Blue America has run TV spots against Lincoln all summer and fall and she's watched her re-elect numbers dwindle down to a place where if a serious opponent-- i.e., one with big bucks to buy advertising-- jumped into the race, she would lose. She may lose anyway, even though her current opponents would probably do better if they toured together as a carnival show. Yesterday the RNC started trying to push her to vote with Republicans-- as she so often does-- and against health care reform.

This week Blue America and our friends at Donkey on the Edge have a brand new ad for Arkansas voters to look at-- the fourth in our series-- and the message is very different from the Republicans'. By all means, be the first to view it-- and please consider making a contribution of our Campaign for Health Care Choice page so we can run it deep and wide.

If you live in Arkansas and contact Senator Lincoln, please let me know. Contact me at crooksandliars-AT-gmail.com. We need your help and so does America.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1508)

PLAYS: (4297)

The other day, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told ABC News that he and his fellow Republicans were going to get tough with anyone who didn't toe the party line on "core issues" such as health-care reform:

Steele: So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you.

Well, there was one solitary Republican who crossed the party line on health-care reform: Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, who hails from a traditionally Democratic district that went up for grabs when ex-Rep. William Jefferson was busted for corruption.

Cao went on CNN Sunday and explained that his was a vote of conscience for the people in his district, "many of whom are poor, and many of whom have no health insurance."

He later commented further to a CNN reporter:

Cao chuckled when asked about the comment and said he "would like to remind" Steele that he and other Republican leaders trumpeted Cao's upset win over Democrat William Jefferson last December as a symbol of party diversity. Cao is the first Vietnamese-American member of Congress.

"He has the right to come after those members who do not conform to party lines, but I would hope that he would work with us in order to adjust to the needs of the district and to hold a seat that the Republican party would need," Cao told CNN.

As Republicans proved in NY-23 -- and as indeed they proved throughout the health-care debate -- they are becoming so ideologically blinkered that they rapidly losing the ability to have any kind of voice in Congress.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

[H/t Versha Sharma at TPM.]

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1261)

PLAYS: (2043)

Donna Edwards tells her story of being a young mother without health insurance and how she is paying America back with her vote for health care reform.

Edwards: I collapsed and was taken to an emergency room. Without health care I was treated as one of those uncompensated and now it's time for me to pay the American people back with a vote for comprehensive health care reform. This bill will take the burden off of providers and Americans for paying the costs of uncompensated care and safeguards for the health of all Americans.

She's been a solid progressive voice in Congress. We need more like her. I watched the endless insanity of the Republicans in the House on full display all day and night Saturday. It made me sick, watching them line up like replicants, making sure they used the same talking points over and over again. When they talk about "freedom," all they do is smear what that word means to the world. C&L Annette emailed me and said we should start calling them the Republick Party. I like that.

You won't read much about their behavior during a crucial time in our history because the media shields the nuts who are loose in the halls of Congress.

Howie Klein writes:

I love Donna Edwards. Her short speech about why she was voting for health care reform made me cry last night-- and not fake Glenn Beck tears. Like Donna, there was a time in my life when I couldn't afford health insurance-- or health care-- either. Americans deserve better than predatory insurance companies thriving on misery. This is why America needs more members of Congress like Donna Edwards and less like Paul Ryan, Suzanne Kosmas and John Barrow

Via Raw Story. Actor/comedian Andy Cobb once did ads for Blue Cross in Florida. And now CIGNA's Wendell Potter has someone to talk to:

Teaming with the liberal Brave New Films, a former Blue Cross pitchman is now pitching against Blue Cross.

Andy Cobb, who once tried to sell Floridians on a Blue Cross health insurance plan, says he's fed up with the industry.

"I was a spokesman for BlueCross and Blueshield of Florida," Cobb says. "Call me a spokesjerk. People who make money for buying things you don't need. And we're telling you lies."

"They, by which I mean I, make money by standing in the way of reform," Cobb says in the ad, which appears as a spoof of something like a freecreditreport.com ad. "It's time for change."

"That's why I'm calling on leaders from the spokesjerk industry," Cobb continues. "The freecreditreport.com guy. The Shamwow dude. And Senator Bill Nelson, recipient of big money from insurance companies -- to lead us. To walk away from their cash cows and tell American people the truth.

"And us spokesjerks, we'll be fine," Cobb adds. "There's plenty of room in entertainment for people who tried to sell you the worst product in American history. Private health insurance."

And here we have another nut job Republican who claims health care reform will destroy America. Where's the outrage by the Villagers over these statements?
Media Matters:

It's an impressive feat, but there may not be a Republican member of Congress who has been more openly scornful of President Obama's plans for health care reform than Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA).

In July, Broun declared that the public insurance option "is gonna kill people." Later in the month, he argued that "ObamaCare" would "give every single one of those illegal aliens health insurance." At a town hall meeting in September, Broun literally walked away from a constituent who couldn't get health coverage after telling him, "If you have a suggestion, send it to me." And, just a few weeks ago, he introduced "alternative" legislation that would eliminate Medicare altogether.

Yesterday, Broun escalated his attacks on the Democratic reform bill, saying that its passage "destroy America as we know it today."

Right -- if a liberal like Grayson calls out Republicans (who have no health care plan), they get their freak on. But I guess they have already been immunized to conservative insanity.

Oh, and we have Rep. Gohmert saying this: Dems Would Allow Seniors To "Die Off More Quickly"

This is standard conservative behavior that never gets mentioned by the media. It only comes up when a liberal is attacked and then they spend 24-48 hours to defend themselves and are forced to use these outrageous statement made by Republicans. And of course they have no traction, because of the defensive position the media puts liberals in.

Good for Joe Sestak for recognizing the problem. Let your congress person know you support the bill, even if you can't afford COBRA yourself. Keeping health coverage on the political radar is an important step towards affordable universal health care:

Laura C. Trueman has spent much of her career promoting affordable health care. Now, she wishes she could find some herself.

Laid off from her marketing job at a managed-care company late last year, Trueman was able to keep her health insurance thanks to a provision in the federal stimulus bill that gave furloughed workers the right to purchase their old employer-based coverage at a 65% discount. The subsidies, which last up to nine months, were designed to give workers like Trueman time to get back on their feet.

Today, with the job market weak, Trueman is still without a job, and her family is bracing for an uncertain future. With the subsidies, she and her husband, a self-employed attorney were paying a manageable $460 a month for their health insurance; starting Dec. 1, the cost jumps to $1,313. They can ill afford the increase. They're already having trouble making their mortgage payment, and fear they might lose their Northern Virginia home.

“It has really made a huge difference for us,” she says of the insurance assistance, adding that the higher payment “would be a real stretch.”

Since 1985, a law known as COBRA has given laid off-workers the right to hold onto their employer-based health insurance for up to 18 months so long as they continue to pay the premiums, including payments that their employers used to make on their behalf.

In the past very few people could afford this option, but the government subsidies have changed that, and now enrollments appear to be growing sharply. Hewitt Associates, a Lincolnshire, Ill., consulting firm, recently estimated that the rate at which workers were opting for coverage under COBRA had doubled compared with pre-subsidy levels.

Although federal officials do not have figures on the number of people participating in the program, millions have been eligible. The law covers anyone laid off between Sept. 1 of last year and Dec. 31 of this year.

But with the first discounts having gone into effect March 1, many people are about to see the benefit expire, including many who remain unemployed. The Obama administration and some members of Congress are talking about whether to extend the subsidy. Some lawmakers aren't enthused because of budget concerns, but backers say the subsidy is a crucial lifeline for people still hunting for jobs.

Just this week, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn., introduced legislation that would extend from 9 to 15 months the total allowable time an unemployed worker and her family could receive the subsidized COBRA assistance. The legislation would also extend the subsidies to people laid off through June 30, 2010, widening the window of eligibility by six months. A third provision would give an extra six months of undiscounted COBRA coverage to people who were laid off early in 2008 before the subsidy law took effect.

I was laid off in July 2007, just before the subsidies kicked in. But at this point, I'd be happy just to be eligible for another six months.

As always, the devil is in the details. But it sounds like Congress is punting to the states on more than the public option - and since our states are smaller and our local officials more amenable to bribery contributors, this could be a real disaster. Let's wait and see what's in the final bill, but in the meantime, we'll have to keep a close eye on things:

The debate over whether to let states opt out of any government-run health insurance plan overlooks a key facet of the health-care measures being assembled in Congress: When Washington is done, the shape of any new health-care system is likely to be finalized in Lansing and Boise and Baton Rouge.

Besides the opt-out choice, proposed last week by Senate leaders, health-care legislation being drafted on Capitol Hill would delegate to state officials a multitude of momentous decisions, from what benefits are offered to low-income families to what hurdles to put in front of private insurance companies before they can raise premiums.

"The fact is that state programs are going to look different," said Judith Solomon, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. "Where some people might be expecting national health reform, we're facing the real possibility that what you get is going to depend heavily on where you live."

The prospect of state control over the new system holds both promise and peril, said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has advised Democrats on health reform. "The plus side is that states are uniquely positioned to reflect the tastes of their residents and market conditions. Plus, we can really learn from the different approaches states take," he said. The downside "is that states can screw up and not meet . . . minimum standards."

Oy. I'm betting on the downside.

The health-care package unveiled by House leaders Thursday comes closer to national reform, health policy experts said. It would create a national marketplace where those who lack insurance could shop for policies, including a plan designed and administered by federal health officials. States would play a supporting role, helping to design the largest expansion of Medicaid in 40 years and to develop high-risk insurance pools for people in immediate need of coverage.

The package under development in the Senate is a different story. A bill approved by the Finance Committee would leave virtually every major decision to state officials.

Rather than create a central marketplace for insurance, that measure would permit each state to establish its own "exchange" and decide which insurers have access to that market. States could let low-income families shop the exchanges or offer them some other kind of coverage, such as policies already offered to state employees. Under a provision authored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), states could even bypass the exchange mechanism and try to expand coverage in other ways.

The Finance Committee bill did not include a government insurance option; Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he would add one before bringing a package to the Senate floor. But to appease Democratic moderates wary of a big new program, the availability of the public option, too, would be subject to state discretion.

Reid's opt-out plan is opposed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), the only Republican to support the Democratic-led reform effort. Snowe is pushing for a "trigger," which would create a public plan only in states where private insurers failed to offer policies that were broadly affordable.

Given that the Senate presents the larger political hurdle to passing legislation, political analysts expect its state-choice approach to prevail. That means that a White House signing ceremony for a health-reform bill could become a prelude to 50 state legislative battles over how to expand Medicaid, how to set up the exchanges and how to enforce new insurance regulations, as well as whether to give state residents access to a public plan.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1658)

PLAYS: (1095)

Sen. Joe Lieberman says that health care reform is important but not so important that he would vote for a bill that includes the public option. The "independent Democrat" blames those that insist on having the public option for his threat to filibuster health care reform.

"I'd say to the people who are all of a sudden making the public option -- a government health insurance company -- the litmus test here, they're stopping us from getting something done," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1229)

PLAYS: (743)

(h/t Heather)

I can see that Ben Nelson and the Conservadems/Baucus Dogs have a plan. They bitch and moan about the effect a public option would have on the poor, poor health-insurance industry, so if they do have to vote for a public option in the Senate that clearly benefits Americans and not his favorite donors, they will only do it under the provision that the states "opt in" rather than "opt out."

His hair has been saying this for a while now.

Nelson's hair doesn't explain why he favors the "opt in" version and Harwood doesn't bother to ask. And he can count on the media to not inform America what the differences are in an opt in or an opt out version of the PO so when we complain about it the Villagers will attack us. He was interviewed by John Hardwood, a Villager of the highest order on MSNBC.

Here's what Ben Nelson's hair said:

Harwood: You'd agree that unless a comprehensive health care bill would pass that it would cripple his presidency.

Nelson's hair: Well, I don't know that we should conclude that some form of health care reform won't pass. I believe that some form of health care will pass.

Harwood: What in your mind are stoppers, things that, knowing this place, things that either because you oppose them or other senators oppose them, simply can 't be in the final product to have it pass?

Nelson's hair: Well, it's very difficult to see how that CLASS Act that was in the HELP committe bill would make it [that's long term care provisions] I think also any kind of public option that would undermine or destabilize the private insurance that 200 million Americans have, I don't see that that would make it. But some version such as an opt-in, for the states with a state option, that could very well be in.

Digby alerted me to this clip and she astutely writes:

But I am still suspicious that there might be a play to make opt-in the reasonable alternative to opt-out. It just keeps cropping up in all kinds of places, often from White House reporters. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Harwood thinks that Nelson will stick with them on cloture and I haven't heard otherwise. (and if Harwood asked him he didn't say, the putz.) But he certainly keeps dangling himself out there as a vote for opt-in, so if this thing really comes down to the wire I could see it happening. Again, I don't think the village media have clue about just how different the two things are. It's just bumper sticker slogans to them.

The Hill reports that Sheldon Whitehouse also trumpeted the same thing.

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."
Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

I'm doing some digging around to see what's really happening and I'll have news soon. Reid is already having the "opt out" scored by the CBO, but my sources indicated that the Senate has not sent out the "opt in" to be scored. From what I'm hearing. The "opt in" would not pass the House conference.

I know I shouldn't feed the ego that is Lieberman, but do you want to know how awesome Joe is, Mr. President?

Read this from the Weekly Standard.

Joementum 2012?
Is he the greatest senator ever? He fought for victory in Iraq, he's fighting for victory in Afghanistan, and he's fighting to save us all from Obamacare. Who needs Olympia Snowe when you've got Joementum?

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on October 27, 2009.

And we must never forget TNR's love for Joe.
(h/t Atrios)

And key Democrats correct Lieberman on the fiscal awesomeness of the public option. Are you listening, Joe?

I wonder how Connecticut feels since they support the public option by a wide margin:

Connecticut voters support 64 - 30 percent giving people the option to buy health insurance from a government plan.

Maybe it'll be Palin/Lieberman 2012 for this new crowd of voters.