Udall, Bennet Vow To Fight Public Option Filibuster

Simultaneous blastmails delivered a short while ago, those dratted Conservadems at it again:

The public option will provide Coloradans much-needed competition and choice for health care. And with the majority of Senators, Representatives, and the American people supporting a public option, its passage would seem inevitable.

But in fact, the public option is in real danger.

That’s because the quiet threat of a filibuster effectively holds the public option hostage. Through the filibuster, Senators can delay debate on the public option indefinitely, preventing the Senate from ever holding a democratic, up-or-down vote on the issue.

On behalf of the people of Colorado, we’ve written an open letter to all United States Senators asking them to stand up for people and not the profits of the insurance industry. If you agree that the public option deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate, then please take a moment to sign our letter.

Click here to sign our open letter calling on members of the Senate to refrain from filibustering the public option.

Gov. Bill Ritter’s name is also all over this open letter, which we find a little odd being as how he’s, well, not a Senator and won’t be much help overcoming a Senate filibuster. Of course there is this new Washington Post/ABC poll that makes health care look like a good place to throw down for any candidate, not to mention that getting this health care reform thing right just might be good for the state budget, too.

0 Shares

20 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Barron X says:

    .

    So now it is “conservative” for Bennet to fight for the “public option,” which will consume lots of “free” money ?

    Which way is up again ?

    .

    • Danny the Red (hair)Danny the Red (hair) says:

      what costs money is subsidies to buy insurance.  The public option will save taxpayer money.  The public option is paid for with premiums.

      The legitimate conservative critique of the public option is two fold: 1. competition by the government will hurt the large insurance corporations 2. As a matter of philosophy more government is bad.

      My response is 1. So what?  If the government can do it cheaper, why do I care what happens to health insurance corporations?  If I don’t like what the government is doing, at least I have a vote.  2. Government does many things well and should do things that the private sector has proved unable to provide or provides in such a way as to undermine America.  Just as we decided that public education was critical to a functioning democracy, I believe health care is critical to a just society.

      I know you disagree, and that is what makes you a conservative, but that is why we have elections.  

      • Libertad says:

        Said it before and here it is again.  

        These slimey politicians (team pelosi) better have a freaking public option where by I can jetison my employer benefits day 1.  I want access at a lower cost to take up the public option. At least its a back door to single payer.

        These slimey bastards inability to do anything substantive has resulted in my barring thousands of extra $s in costs to cover for the Illegal Alian and Loafer cost shift.  

        They aren’t doing a thing about them, so I assume why pay more when I could pay less.

        I’m sure there will be some odd insurance products I can buy for all the things and inadequecies of the public option.

      • peacemonger says:

        It is also paid for by cleaning up the system. Duplicate tests, sending bills back and forth between doctor/ hospital/ insurance co/ patient ad nauseum, having paper charts, etc., create a lot of overhead.  The reform bills include efforts to streamline and make everything officiant.  Having records on-line means better communication between providers and that results in fewer tests being ordered.  Specialists won’t like that, but primary physicians will love the fewer hassles, as well.  Having information better organized and documented means fewer mistakes, too, and malpractice insurance should do down in price, in theory anyway.

        If we can get some preventative measures in the final bill, that should lower costs. Nutritional counseling is a whole lot cheaper than a triple-bypass.

    • sxp151 says:

      “those dratted Conservadems at it again,” it sounded to me like it was meant ironically. Not sure where the “free” money comes from, but the CBO estimate is that the public option saves about $100 billion.

      So fighting for the public option is both the politically liberal thing to do and the fiscally conservative thing to do. Yes, this has caused some heads to spin.

      • MADCO says:

        if it’s even possible that TABOR will enhance male anatomy, where can I get some? And no wonder the taxpayers of Colorado love TABOR.  Why doesn’t everyone else?

        • sxp151 says:

          could we afford to keep it as policy?

          I love how everyone in that commercial has to talk so euphemistically, even the “doctor” who can’t say “penis.” Every time I watched that commercial, before I started muting it, I’d have to imagine what it would be like if he were your physician.

          “OK Mr. 151, apparently I’m supposed to give you a prostate exam. So let’s see, I put on a latex glove, done, and you pull your pants down, done, and then I put OH MY GOD NO WAY! That is SO gross! Geez Louise, I’m not doing that, I mean, NUMBER TWO comes out of there!”

      • peacemonger says:

        “So fighting for the public option is both the politically liberal thing to do and the fiscally conservative thing to do.”

        Exactly why Obama probably wanted Michael Bennet in the first place. Ritter did not make the decision alone.

  2. silverandblue says:

    If the  healthcare bill is passed without a public option, won’t Bennet look like he lost this battle?

    Healthcare is the most important issue for the administration and the nation, but voters are headed for a bad case of healthcare fatigue.

    Is Bennet so insecure on the issue that he feels he must keep going back to it?

    Maybe he actually believes he is the next Ted Kennedy.

    Or as Lloyd Bentsen would say:

    “Mike, I served with Ted Kennedy, I knew Ted Kennedy.  Mike, you are no Ted Kennedy”

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      looks like English, but it appears to be words strung together at random.

    • redstateblues says:

      Now you’re saying he’s fighting too hard for it? You might want to reconcile that talking points list at some point.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      For the millions that have died, lost their homes, lost their kids, their eyesight, their homes or now suffer from debilitating health problems because they have been screwed over by the health care industry–in their honor I am going to suggest that you are a heartless fuck.

      Healthcare is so 2009? What the fuck is wrong with you? I want my Senators fighting for the public option. I want them fighting for it every fucking day until we get 59 of those bastards to sign onto it. I want them to fight for me because my life literally depends on it.

      The fact that you would put your partisan bullshit ahead of millions of folks who have lost their lives, their jobs and their homes to rising health care costs makes me sick. Your selfishness and myopic concern for one stupid fucking Senatorial race over every thing else makes me sick.

      If you want someone who doesn’t seem that interested in fighting for your very life and hasn’t been all that engaged on a single progressive issue except his own political career, then yeah, I’ll happily admit that you’re supporting the right guy. Romanoff is lucky to have you.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.