NEWS: REP. WEINER WITHDRAWS SINGLE PAYER AMENDMENT FROM CURRENT HEALTH CARE DEBATE

[andym]

Source: Congressional website

Washington, DC – Today, Representative Anthony Weiner (D - Brooklyn and Queens), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, released the following statement on his decision to withdraw his single payer amendment to H.R. 3962, the House health care reform bill:

“I have decided not to offer a single payer alternative to the health reform bill at this time. Given how fluid the negotiations are on the final push to get comprehensive health care reform that covers millions of Americans and contains costs through a public option, I became concerned that my amendment might undermine that important goal.”

“I am going to continue to press the case for health care reform in every venue I can. And I also will continue to press for a smarter, less-expensive, more-comprehensive alternative to the employer-based health insurance system we have today.”

"I've discussed the issue with Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, and agree with them that the health reform bill is so close it deserves every chance to gain a majority."

Read more: http://weiner.house.gov/news_display.aspx?id=1368

---

Thought that this was significant to many on DU (such as myself) who have supported Rep Weiner's effort.

[Captain Hilts]

1. See, we can't even talk about it. nt

[dpbrown]

51. No shit. Talk about being shut out

It's cheaper, it's more effective, and it covers everyone. We'd better not discuss it.

Wankers.

[sasquuatch55]

52. Hope the negative evils didn't get to you.

nt

[Aramchek]

2. smart of him. would have been a pointless rejection of Single Payer

[No Elephants]

11. Also prevents identification of those who would vote against it.

Single payer has been pending since, I think, 2003. Eventually, it garnered about 100 co-sponsors. Yet, it never got as far as the Congressional Budget Office.

[change_notfinetuning]

17. identification is exactly the point - this is Rahm's way to protect the guilty

[davidwparker]

39. Rahm Emmanuel won't be there after 2012

[John Q. Citizen]

25. This wasn't HR676. It was a re-worked bill. There has been no hearings, no mark up,

no debate, and as a single payer activist since 1990 I think this was a smart move on Weiner's part.

Not because of the other bill, but because of single payer.


I would far prefer to see the Kucinich amendment so states can act on single payer returned to the house Health care bill, than to see this voted down in 5 minutes with little debate.

We already know that most of the house who hasn't co-sponsored 676 would probably have voted against this bill at this time offered in this way. And even some of the co-sponsors of 676 might have voted against this bill. Has anyone actually seen it? Anyone know where we can read what the amendment says?

I think that instead of suffering a symbolic loss we were smart to live to fight another day, so to speak.

[JDPriestly]

42. If success for Kucinich's bill is the pay-off, then Weiner did the right thing.

If not, then I question why Weinder did not continue. Sooner or later, we will have single payer. This employer-based health care reform is a joke. It won't work. Fewer and fewer Americans have employer. And fewer and fewer employers are willing to pay for health care. Health care costs should be paid in the way that Medicare costs are paid -- based on the income of working people. In addition, health care costs should be paid by taxes on investment and capital gains income.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. I'm convinced we will get single payer in a state or states before we get it through Congress.

That's why getting the Kucinich amendment into the "Obama" bill is critical. It will make it that much easier to do.

[dflprincess]

75. Without the Kucinich amendment I don't think the bill is worth passing

What I'm worried about is that the insurance companies probably greased a lot of palms to keep the
amendment out of the bill.

[John Q. Citizen]

76. We are going to have to go pass a statewide bill and then we will have to litigate for

10 years.

It's the Democrats No Insurance Company Left Behind Bill

[bobbolink]

56. Is it OK if those of us who consider it a loss to say that?

?

[John Q. Citizen]

59. I don't understand your question.

[bobbolink]

64. I don't appreciate your denigrating and dismissing statement about "suffering a symbolic loss".

Can you understand that reasonable people can have differing views, and we don't all have to follow in the very same ruts?

[John Q. Citizen]

70. I'm not allowed to have an opinion that you might not like? And express it to someone else?

i think you need a nice cup of warm chocolate and to take a break.

You apparently don't understand that I can have an opinion that isn't the same as yours.

[bobbolink]

71. You can have all the opinions you want. But refusing to allow others that same

right is what I was pointing out to you, which you could see if you had your eyes in the place to be ABLE to see.

And telling someone to have a drink of anything is quite parental.

You're showing quite a lot about your OWN character, rather than the other way around.

[John Q. Citizen]

74. I think that instead of suffering a symbolic loss we were smart to live to fight another day, so to

speak.

Weiner, Conyers, and Kucinich did the right thing in my opinion. If you have another opinion, please share.

[supernova]

3. We live to fight another day

I think we should treat these separately:

Heath Insurance Reform (what's on the table now)

Single Payer or NHS type reform -- I personally favor this... Introduce and pass as a separate law.

[OneGrassRoot]

5. I tend to agree. What is on the table now is insurance reform, NOT..

healthcare reform. Perhaps keeping them separate is the only way to move forward. I wonder if I'll ever see true healthcare reform in my lifetime (and I'm only in my mid-40s!).

Oy.

[supernova]

10. I'm 47 and I think we will

see UHC before we are old.

I view the current bills as bills not as bills that will fix health care, but that will help defang the insurance cos. Consider:

1) They won't be able to discriminate for preexisting conditions. (My personal bete noir)

2) They won't be able to cap out lifetime benefits. So if you happen to get heart disease or cancer, they can't refuse anything above your (usually $500K limit)

3) They must pay claims. All of them.



All of this means that, after a few years, they will have much less discretionary $$ to have for lobbying. CEO salaries will still be the same. Heh. Then it will be a more hospitable atmosphere for passing single payer. (If in the meantime, we keep up the drumbeat for it.)

[No Elephants]

14. But not before many more die and go bankrupt.

And, I don't know when we will have 60 Senators, even in name only, and the House and the Oval Office all at one time again.

Further, such public option as is in this bill is destined to be very limited and costly to either the insured or the taxpayer or both. If I am correct, that will set back single payer, or even a robust public option, for a long time.

[supernova]

16. That is true

And many untold numbers of slaves died in bondage before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is very sad.

[JDPriestly]

43. Most developed countries (and some not so developed) have

single payer health insurance or something very similar. Why do we have to wait? Are we really that backward?

[pattmarty]

57. Yes we are. (see teabaggers for definition of backward)

[change_notfinetuning]

22. Until we let the South get their equivalent of 72 virgins (secession) we will

never have the chance we now have for real health care reform. Incremental improvement has the same chance as world population control. This was a one time chance for Americans to get it right, especially if the Supreme Court allows corporate campaign contributions, as is likely. Unfortunately, we as a people have failed to bring it about. We should apologize to future American generations, and those affected today.

[truedelphi]

79. You bring up very good points. We are getting this very shitty

Bill in part because of all the money we have been forced to pay to insurers. And now this bill guarantees that they will get even more money in the near future and forever. (Obama has already said he wants to be the last President to"have to deal with this issue.")

So if they have even more money once this is passed, we will never get out from under this. Money=influence and influence controls the Congress and the Oval Office.

And no where is there a pony in all this shit!

[Laelth]

21. And what happens when they don't? Seriously.

There has been very little discussion of the enforcement mechanisms of these bills. What's the remedy if an insurance company "breaks the law" and denies an applicant who has a pre-existing condition? You can't put a company "in jail," so no criminal remedy would work (other than a fine on the corporation), but who will get to sue to find guilt and get that fine assessed? What will the fine be? A slap on the wrist will be meaningless.

Without strong enforcement mechanisms, these reforms are useless, and I have seen no discussion of the enforcement mechanisms.

Personally, without the Kucinich Amendment, I feel passing this law would be worse than doing nothing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[supernova]

23. Then we keep working

I once had a boss who said to me (a lot) "the reward for great work is.... more work."

It's not something we can give up on. Ever.

[OneGrassRoot]

30. Thanks for the encouragement. :)

:hug: for your positive attitude!

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Yep, we need insurance so if things go bad that states can pass single payer.

What if a company requires a physical at their office and they put all their offices on the second floor?

Then what?

[John Q. Citizen]

28. They will be able to charge more money for pre-existing.

They will find ways around losing money. They will find ways to maximise income and minimize pay out.

They don't have to pay all claims. because people will file claims that the insurance companies will contend aren't covered. So they will fight those.

It's just like fire insurance or what happened to people in New Orleans. They will say it was flood damage instead of wind, etc. They will force people to go to court. It depends on what they think they can get away with.

In a few years the insurance industry will be rolling in discretionary money because they will collect about a trillion a decade in tax funded subsidies, and they will collect an extra trillion a decade from all those young healthy uninsured people who will be forced to purchase their product.

This is why the insurance industry has been signed on to these "reforms" since day one. That's why they meet at the White House all the time. That's why there aren't 24 hour commercials sponsored by insurance companies going on the TV to fight the reforms. That's why Dems are getting millions and millions in insurance company donations. Don't kid yourself. The insurance companies want the bill to pass.

[davidwparker]

40. ... at least a step in the right direction. Next time, just drop the Medicare

age requirement. That is simple enough for Americans to figure out.

Public option was too complicated in terms.

[pattmarty]

58. Well the only problem with "next time" is it will be at least 10 yrs..........

......and more than likely longer. If this POS turns out the way I (and many others) think, the Dems will be BLAMED for the mess and will be out of office to make "next time" even longer than 10 yrs. Scrap this bill, go for revocation of their anti trust provision, and go for strong regulations. Ie, no preexisting conditions, no lifetime "caps", no arbitrary cancellation of policy, and MOST IMPORTANTLY some type of cost controls. Hopefully then we can bring Medicare for all in incrementally.

[T Wolf]

48. I'm 57 and think I will get Medicare long before any of you youngsters get any sort

of real healthcare reform.

Maybe my children will see their children get real health care. Maybe.

[T Wolf]

49. Where does it say they must PAY ALL CLAIMS? My read is that everyone will be able

forced to buy a policy from the corps, but there is nothing that says the companies must pay for any procedures, etc. They will still be able to deny paying for anything they want.

[truedelphi]

80. And the Federal government is subsidizing its share of cost to the

Tune of One Hundred and Seventy Six billion dollars to come from penalties levied against those who don't pay for the mandated policies. Some Du'ers have said, well good, the mandates are against employers, but if employers find this onerous and don't hire people because of the iunsurance costs, who loses?

[bobbolink]

72. The question is, who enforces that?

[INdemo]

26. This is our last chance and now we will never see real healthcare reform

I cannot believe that with a Democrat in the White House,and a Democratic Majority in both houses we do have have real healthcare reform already signed and in effect..This is just unbelievable..It is obvious that yes we do have two corporate political parties and it is very difficult to tell them apart.. We have a president who is acting as if we have a Republican Majority in Congress, He said something a few weeks ago and probably the only thing he has said lately that was true..He said the healthcare reform issue would determine if he was a one term or two term President..
Kinda makes the term .."vote for real change" sound pretty ridiculous at this point.
But the banking industry and Wall street is sitting pretty good right now with how many billions of our tax dollars? And we cant get real healthcare reform passed with a cost of pennies on the dollar compared to the amount of the bailouts...

[supernova]

32. If you think you should give up

by all means do.

Me, I'll keep working.

[INdemo]

38. No I wont give up but when in our history is it possible for us to have

a Democratic Majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House and have this advantage again? This is a one shot deal and we are about to blow it..If the healthcare industry is this powerful now and have this much influence over our legislative process that power will only increase in strength and we have less chances of ever coming this close again.
In my lifetime I have witnessed many great accomplishments by Democrats who have in the past been dedicated to issues that serve the needs of every day main street Americans..But the tide has turned and they have sold us out in favor of their own best interests and are more interested in serving the corporate conspirators that now own our so called democracy.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. We need the Kucinich amendment put into the bill so states can pass their own single payer

system.

That's how this will happen.

It's like medical marijuana. Congress isn't going to pass it, but the states are doing it.

It's like Social security. States did it first, and then the Feds did it.

[JDPriestly]

44. Either Obama failed us or he doublecrossed us. Your guess is as good as mine.

But the blame for this rests on Obama's shoulders. And trust me, this mish-mash system is full of loop-holes and will be a disaster.

[enlightenment]

18. Some people will live.

Others will die in the interim. We have been waiting for comprehensive reform for 70 years. If what was on the table now was true health insurance reform, you might have a point. As it is, it's just politics as usual. The only way that single-payer or (preferably) NHS style reform will ever get any farther than a talking point is an amendment to a larger bill - US politicians are too craven and too beholden to their corporate masters to actually introduce serious legislation to the floor.

Pulling this amendment saves them from having to show their true colors, even if we already know them for what they really are.

[change_notfinetuning]

29. Indeed. CHANGE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDEN! If the shoe fits, Barak. . .

[Lorien]

66. A lot of people WON'T live because of lack of true reform

thousands more needless, preventable deaths will occur because some Dems want a "bipartisan" bill. Appeasing the RW means more to them than American lives. Despicable.

[tblue]

4. How sad. Good thing we have the White House and majorities in Congress.

Can't even vote on it!

[mikelgb]

6. Complete with "Hands off my Healthcare" propaganda ad.

cute DU, cute

[inna]

7. WHAT??? That's very disappointing.

Sounds like someone put a lot of pressure on him to withdraw it.

:(

[change_notfinetuning]

24. You mean like Guido? Rahm would never do that, would he, slime that he is?

[No Elephants]

8. Let's see if they lean on Kosmas as hard, or if their leaning is reserved solely

for progressive Democrats.

He withdrew his amendment while it was being voted on?

[bertman]

9. This whole thing just makes me sick. Glad I have health insurance.

:mad:

I used to be proud to say I'm a Democrat. Now, not so much.

[saracat]

12. I am so ashamed to be a Democrat today.This was craven.

[EndElectoral]

13. Good God. Weiner's amendment was all that was left. I can't get excited by any of this now.

[fascisthunter]

15. well, that was a great "Dog-and-Pony" show

I believe this Congress had no intentions of supporting a robust Public Option, and all this shit was just for show.

[Laelth]

19. Good. It would have hurt the single-payer cause more than it would have helped.

It would have only provided ammo to the opponents of single-payer. They would have said, "See. Single payer is so bad that Nancy Pelosi couldn't even get it passed in the 'liberal' House of Representatives."

It would not have helped us.

The Kucinich Amendment, otoh, is essential, and if it's not in the final bill, the bill is not worth passing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[onehandle]

20. Public Option now, Single Payer later.

Single Payer has Zero chance right now. Rep. Weiner and others just want to remind us that they will fight for this down the road.

[debbierlus]

27. There is NO public option. 2% of the population eligible for a plan that cost MORE then private

insurance isn't a public option...

Can we stop parroting the propaganda?

There is NO public option. It does NOT exist. There is a tiny provision to create a alternative government insurance plan that looks like it will be run by the PRIVATE insurance companies, it will cost more then private insurance, and it will only be open to a tiny portion of the population.

That is NOT a public option in any way, shape, or form.

It appears they just needed to stick some meaningless provision in the bill and call it a public option and the base will fall in line.

Support or don't support the legislation...whatever...just be honest about what it is!

[change_notfinetuning]

33. The only thing more shameful is the celebration that will follow the vote on

this betrayal. What real Democrat would vote for someone with no shame?

[debbierlus]

37. It is interesting that the majority here stated they would not support it w/o a real public option

And, yet, many are going to fall in line.

Not all, but many

[Aramchek]

50. you're wrong and you will be proven thus. I doubt you'll ever admit it though.

[saracat]

45. There is no "down the road". To believe that is to put your trust in the

politicians who have betrayed us and that is delusional.

[No Elephants]

82. This public option will set back any kind of real reform for years and year.

[indimuse]

35. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

omg! :mad:

[SandWalker1984]

36. The Democrats have sold us out on true health care reform!

Thursday, November 5, 2009
Deceit has its price
By Bruce A. Dixon
BAR - November 4, 2009

The “public option” in the president's health care bill is like the “clean” in clean coal. One harnesses the awesome power of the word clean and attaches it to coal, which is anything but. Likewise Democrats deploy the rhetorical power of the words “public” as in “everybody in, nobody out” and “option” as in choice to describe an arrangement will be neither public or for most, an available option.

The president said it himself in early September. his public option will be neither public nor optional for any more than a tiny percentage of Americans, and unlike his wars and bank bailouts, has to be “deficit neutral.” It will force millions under penalty of law to buy the deceptive and defective products of greedy private insurers.

Most alarmingly, the Democratic version of the public option will be rigidly means-tested to ensure that only the poorest get in, and financed with a John McCain style tax on those who receive nearly adequate benefits from their employers. This is a patented recipe for ghettoizing and socially stigmatizing those who do avail themselves of the public option, setting one segment of society against another poorer one, the exact reverse of the everybody in, nobody out spirit of social security and Medicare.

And though we are told that insurers will not be able to deny policies on the basis of pre-existing conditions, there is mounting evidence that insurers intend to enforce the same discriminatory requirements by claiming that conditions such as diabetes, overweight, smoking and more are the result of patient behaviors and “lifestyle choices” for which the insurance company cannot be liable UNLESS IT IS ABLE TO CHARGE MORE. The president has even deceitfully lowered the number of uninsured referred to in all the Democrats' pronouncements by subtracting the 12 or 15 million undocumented from all its numbers, as though they are expected to live in our midst as an underclass with no access to health services.

In the year since the last election the president has made concession after concession to drug and insurance companies, to private health care providers and their lobbyists. The White House, establishment Democrats and their echo chambers in the corporate media and even on the internet have worked hard to suppress voices advocating the simple, practical and elegant solution of single payer Medicare For All, which is still favored in polls by a substantial majority of Americans.

The longer the health care reform drama takes to unfold, the shabbier the president and his party are looking. With overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, the Republicans can no longer be blamed for anything, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are sending signals that they may not be able to pass the president's health insurance reform this year. They can't blame Republicans for this because there are not enough Republicans to stop legislation in either chamber. The Republican talking point on health care now is that the president is spending too much time on it, and needs to concentrate on something, anything else, like sending another 40 or 50 thousand troops to Iraq.

Ever men and women of their word, Democratic leaders in Congress have stripped out of the president's bills any chance for states to pursue their own single payer regimes, and backtracked on promises to allow a floor vote on the Medicare For All measure, HR 676.

Deceit has its price.

For the rest of the article:
from http://obamboozled.blogspot.com/2009/11/if-democrats-dont-pass-health-insurance.html

*************

Should anyone be surprised that this is coming from Ms Impeachment, Single Payer, Will stop the War is off the table Pelosi's House?

This is more of Obama-Orwell's corporate "chains" that you can believe in.

[JDPriestly]

41. I am so sorry to hear this. Weiner has let us down. Weiner has let

the whole nation down. If he did not have the courage to follow through on this, he should not have said he would. I would like to know the real story behind this. Did Weiner get anything in return for giving up on single payer?

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Let's examine the pros and the cons, OK?

First of all, as a single payer advocate since 1990, I know of no one who believes that if Weiner had offered his amendment that it would have passed. Right?

We already know who in the house supports single payer because they have co-sponcered the Conyers bill, HR676, and they have said so.

So what would we have won, or what woul;d we know then, if there had been 5 minutes of debate and a vote?


Why would that have advanced the issue, or conversely, why would it have hurt the issue?

Pros. We could have said that Nancy kept her word, and we got a vote, and we lost big.

Cons. We could have said that Nancy kept her word, we got a vote and we lost big.


So the next time somebody goes to lobby their congress critter on single payer they tell you, "Oh, we voted on that. It lost." How does that help us?

Did you see the letter from Conyers and Kucinich?

[JDPriestly]

62. We would have the CBO estimates on the cost.

That would have stung proponents of employer-based insurance. It would have revealed the absurdity of the proposed bill -- which I support out of frustration at the unwillingness of the Obama administration to look at the most rational solution -- single payer.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Did the CBO score it? According to the Conyers/Kucinich letter it was scored and it came in bad for

us.

So it would help single payer to publicize that?


Have you seen the Conyers /Kucinich letter??

[JDPriestly]

68. I haven't seen that letter.

Of course, there is a problem in the scoring process. If the total cost of healthcare is paid by the government, the CBO will score it as more expensive than if the total cost is actually higher, but more of it is paid by the insureds. The CBO is mostly interested in the impact on the federal budget. Of course, I don't believe they every scored the bail-out which is going to be disastrous for our federal budget. They only score programs like healthcare reform.

[John Q. Citizen]

69. Here it is.

http://kucinich.us/index.php

From Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers
Thursday, 05 November 2009

Dear Friends,

We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. Your work, in communities across America, has been instrumental in helping at least ten states create single payer movements, with many more states to come.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.

The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.

Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich

[JDPriestly]

73. Thanks.

[No Elephants]

83. Please see Reply 11. Even if you are a co-sponsor of a bill, you may not be in favor of it.

[slipslidingaway]

78. I would like to know the whole story as well, I've been skeptical...

for awhile now, things just were not adding up.

[makeanoise]

53. and big corporate health care smiles....

Thanks for nothing....

[graywarrior]

54. Shocking, and yet so predictable.

[joeycola]

60. agree. damm!!

[bobbolink]

55. So, Weiner was taken out to the woodshed, and given a talking to.

Too bad that treatment wasn't given to LIEberman instead!

:nuke:

[maryf]

61. Don't you wish you were a fly on the wall...

I guess "Weiner" is no misnomer...another fucking politician...hhhmmm, wonder what they offered him?

[bobbolink]

63. I've often wished we had the inside info. It really has to be a dirty business.

I don't dismiss Weiner, nor Grayson.

I firmly believe that Weiner's heart is in the right place, I'm grateful he's there, and I seriously doubt that I (or any other DUer!) would be able to stand up to the pressure that must be exerted. I know that I don't have that much strength, and I question that anyone else here does, either.

As for Grayson, while I'm sad that he is so willingly going along with it, I really do understand his point, and it is the only valid one... that "If I can prevent one person from dying needlessly, then I have to go with what we have" (not a direct quote, but the gist of it. I can in no way fault him for that, nor do I think any the less of him for doing so.

I regret seeing so much territorial bickering about this on DU. I don't think this is a black or white issue. There is lots of gray area on this, and reasonable people can disagree.

[maryf]

84. Thanks Bobbie...

little knee jerk reaction, hope you're right... :)

[Wednesdays]

67. *facepalm*

It's like they're dangling a piece of red meat, and we're all a bunch of yapping puppies.

[slipslidingaway]

77. I'm curious as to why Weiner did not push more for his SP amendment...

publishing his amendment on a website, asking that people call the Dem leaders to make sure a score was done in a timely matter and then published for all to see.

Yet he set up a website a few weeks ago to push the public option.

In early August there was a post on DU saying that Weiner had stated that SP was being scored over the August recess, when I followed up with his office a few weeks later they said nothing had been sent to the CBO yet.

The whole story has not made sense to me since September.

:shrug:

[waiting for hope]

81. I wonder who got to him ......

Hummm, makes you think about what strings are being pulled and by whom.