President Obama Will Have To Take Sides On the Public Option

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 17:16


We are almost inexorably heading for a showdown on the public option between the House and the Senate. President Obama will have to play referee.

As Kent Conrad has declared that there are not enough votes for the public option in the Senate, today the Senate Finance committee released a health care "reform" proposal without a public option.

However, House Progressives have drawn a line in the sand on the public option, saying that they won't vote for health care reform without a public option. This has led Speaker Pelosi to declare that there are not enough votes in the House to pass health care reform without a public option, and to strongly reiterate her personal support for a public option. the House released a health care reform bill with one:

Where the Senate Finance Committee's outline of a bill didn't include a public health insurance option for people to buy into, the House version includes a robust public plan that would operate nationally and compete with private insurers on a level playing field to keep them honest.

The public plan would be self-sustaining and not subsidized by the federal government, although an upfront infusion of capital would be needed. It would initially be tied to Medicare reimbursement rates, to capitalize on the existing infrastructure, but would evolve into a separate plan that paid higher rates. Participation by doctors would be voluntary.

So, there you have it. The Senate appears to be unwilling to pass health care reform with a public option, while the House claims it is impossible to pass health care reform without one.

As long as we hold the Progressive Block on health care together in the House, this debate is ultimately going to have to be settled by President Obama himself. The direction where he throws his weight will have a lot to do with how much support the Democratic Party deserves from progressive activists for years to come.

Chris Bowers :: President Obama Will Have To Take Sides On the Public Option

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

President Obama Will Have To Take Sides On the Public Option | 70 comments
Obama needs to be a "referee"? (4.00 / 8)
No, Obama needs to be a player, not, still again, a passive actor, with some mild preferences, but who waits to align himself with the winning side so that he can be the Grand Marshall at the victory parade.

Obama could change the game by putting his own skin in it -- declaring, for example, that he will veto any legislation that fails to include some kind of public option.

Of course, that will never happen. People imagine that Obama has compromised on so much policy already so that he can bring about The Big One, health care reform. In fact, what we should expect out of a politician who has compromised on just about everything is still further compromise on The Big One.

That is almost certainly what we will get.  


he does play -- he sends Rahm to force things, like all the tax-cuts and GOP buy-in things in stimulus, and war funding, etc -- (0.00 / 0)
that's what Obama does, so his prints aren't on anything.

he's a coward, but totally is involved in everything.

[ Parent ]
You're right that in that sense (4.00 / 1)
he plays.

But he does so both at minimal cost to his own clout and with minimal use of his own clout.

If he were to take a very public, very emphatic position on the public option, he would be defying Democrats in the Congress to vote against him. That would be putting skin in the game. He might lose such a fight. But he might also win it, gloriously. And it is certainly the most effective way to force Democrats to be Democrats on the issue.

But it will never happen.

[ Parent ]
If Obama wants glory (4.00 / 1)
He would be better served letting the whip count get to 48-49 votes and come riding in on a white horse so he can claim to be what swayed the final votes (preferably Republicans, in his mind) to put a health care bill over the top.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
they even did it on Iran -- "Obama aides toned down Iran resolution" (0.00 / 0)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

The White House worked with House Democrats to moderate a fire-breathing resolution circulated by Republicans to rebuke Iran for its post-election crackdown on dissent, according to an Obama aide. ....

During day-long wrangling, White House officials worked with Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) to convince Pence that a harsh bill would provide Tehran with an excuse to drag America into their internal debate, according to people familiar with the situation.

"We made it clear that we didn't want to make the U.S. a foil in a debate that has nothing to do with us," a senior administration told me this morning. "This is a debate among Iranians."

they do it this way on everything -- it's really foolish to expect different behavior on health -- or on climate or ....

[ Parent ]
wasn't it just a few days ago that you were (0.00 / 0)
arguing against the value of the uprising in iran?  
[ Parent ]
this is about how they operate and influence Congressppl and legislation, etc -- (0.00 / 0)
the Iran example is just one of many == they always work behind-the-scenes to get what they want.
[ Parent ]
He has come out pretty emphatically on it... (0.00 / 0)
...and publicly, too... he's not shying away from it, even though it would make his job significantly easier if he did.

If Obama threw away the public option tomorrow, the bill would be signed and done next week...  it's the only "issue" that is holding things up besides cost...

A few weeks ago, Baucus was ready to throw away the public option, met with Obama, and suddenly it was back in... now, it looks back out (although the finance committee staff says it will still be in there--the draft is not complete)... maybe Obama will have another talk.

Next week, Obama officially launches his campaign for health care... We shall get a better idea of where he's willing to draw the line in short order.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Yeah, he was like TOTALLY against telcom immunity (4.00 / 1)
until he was for it...

I'm all but convinced that this is all a game for him, a way for him to validate his wonderfulness daily. How anyone can so detach themselves from the reality and consequences of their actions, I will never quite understand.

I sincerely hope that I'm wrong on this one. I don't believe that I am. He will cave on the public option, have them throw in something that sorta kinda looks like a public option (Associations! Coops! Mandates!), and call it a fair bargain. This is what he does.

100% ego.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
This has been his operating mode (4.00 / 1)
since the Illinois Senate. It was probably too much to expect him to change now.
[ Parent ]
What, you mean "promise, betray; rinse, repeat?" (0.00 / 0)
n/t
[ Parent ]
referee????????? (4.00 / 7)
franklyO has it precisely. Was LBJ a "referee" on Medicare? No, he was the chief proponent. If Obama wants this, and it is not clear to me that he cares, he needs to fight for it. Obama needs to fight for this as hard as he did for the supplemental.

It is not enough to pass legislation. They need to pass something that would actually make things better.

[ Parent ]
He doesn't want it (4.00 / 2)
Or, more accurately, he honestly doesn't care. He's set for life and this is strictly for the riff raff. If it requires political capital on his part and doesn't predominantly benefit his rich and powerful new friends, he's not going to fight for it. Period.

Even if I'm overstating, he's done more than enough by now to legitimize such a view of him. Which means that maybe he's not a sellout, but merely just a coward. What's the difference, in terms of bottom line results? None that I can see.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
hasn't he already taken sides? he's never demanded a public option, nor (0.00 / 0)
made it non-negotiable.

he's gone out of his way to ensure that it's only an "option" and "idea" and not necessary, in fact. (as opposed to the focus on costs, and the "crisis" that is Medicare, etc)

that is taking sides.

and Rahm is already ensuring the Senate gives Obama what he wants -- (0.00 / 0)
as usual.

making them include a real and truly-public public plan is not part of that, except in terms of what they can spin as a public plan -- as opposed to making them not raise taxes, for instance, and other non-negotiables.

[ Parent ]
"spin as a public plan" (4.00 / 2)
Yes, I think a weak, or fake, "public option" might even be worse than no public option in the long run. Conservatives, lobbyists,  and compromisers can set it up so it is under-funded, becomes the dumping ground for the people with pre-existing conditions and expensive-to-treat conditions, that there is no real "even playing field", so the for-profits don't have to change their ways of doing business, etc.  I'm afraid many Dems would accept such a plan as a cya for themselves. The point is that a fake, or weak, public plan would enable the conservatives and lobbyists to put off any real debate over any real reform for many more years. And they would love  a public plan that fails, proving to themselves once again that government plans don't work. That's what they already do with Medicaid for the poor and State high risk insurance pools.  
[ Parent ]
yup --- and they're cutting Medicare/Medicaid at the same time to pay for this -- (4.00 / 1)
further ensuring that "govt plans don't work"

and now they say Baucus is cutting the subsidies for the poor to get a better CBO score by keeping the entire bill under 1 trillion.

[ Parent ]
"Democrats Scramble to Cut Costs From Health Plan" (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Not subsidies for the poor.... (0.00 / 0)
...but for the middle class... which is pretty much political suicide...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
All the plans (0.00 / 0)
do not allow the person's health status or history from being used to deny or rate them.
[ Parent ]
It's great when you reply to your own posts (0.00 / 0)
you can pretend you're having a debate that way.
[ Parent ]
Why isn't the public plan subsidized? (4.00 / 1)
Wouldn't that make it cheaper for consumers, and thus, inherently better?

Any public plan (4.00 / 6)
will be cheaper then private plans beacuse they'll have roughly 20-30 percent less overhead costs on ads and administration and stuff like that. It will also hopefully have the power to negotiate prices which would give it another advantage to make it cheaper.

Why subsidize it when it's already going to be much cheaper? It's a nearly impossible political fight to win that is much less important than negotiating power and just having a national, day one public plan.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
A subsidized plan would probably kill things (3.33 / 6)
It feels like the sticking point is some politicians who aren't necessarily hostile to a public option, but are much more strongly influenced by desiring a reputation as deficit hawks.  It might even help passage if one could stipulate that the plan will repay any "upfront infusion of capital" over the long term.  Progressives can always agree to that, but lie and work to remove it later.

I tend to go with the position Howard Dean had in 2004: you don't work to improve both access and actual care at the same time, you get everyone access to the system first so that everyone views it as an entitlement so that they are invested in the idea of reforming health care.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
but private HMOs are not entitlements and will never be -- they're for-profit middlemen inserted into the "system" (0.00 / 0)
"access to the system so that everyone views it as an entitlement" is not the goal of this "reform", and isn't even desired by those who wrote any of it.

the total failure of the current private HMO and employer-based "system" is the entire problem.

no version of this "reform" removes them -- it's the opposite, in fact -- it officially embeds them as "the system".

[ Parent ]
Uprated to counter-troll (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Clear abuse of troll rating (0.00 / 0)
Uprated.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
bec it's not really public at all -- this is just Schumer's compromise of a compromise of a compromise -- (0.00 / 0)
Ezra Klein -- CAN CHUCK SCHUMER SAVE THE PUBLIC PLAN?
-- http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b...

Don't underestimate the importance of Chuck Schumer's proposed compromise on the public plan. The Senior Senator from New York is not freelancing on this. Max Baucus asked him to work out the details of the public insurance option. And so he did. The public plan he has proposed will not be subsidized by the government or partnered with Medicare. It will not be supported by tax revenue or guaranteed access to hospitals and doctors. It will compete on a "level playing field" with the private insurance industry.

...


[ Parent ]
Why on earth (4.00 / 5)
should a government insurance program have to be self-supporting? That is equivalent to the people who demand that public transportation systems be self-supporting, except that health care is even more essential than transportation.  This is one where I disagree with Dr Dean. The conservatives will be delighted to watch an underfunded public program struggle to care for the sickest people in the population who can't get private insurance (unless we make major changes in the insurance rules, ones that would cause full-blown hyperventilating in Congress). The struggling program will then be their ammunition in the next stage of the debate when they point to it as an example of an awful, costly government program that doesn't work. We need Medicare for everyone, or at least everyone who wants it. The structure is already there. There have been compromises there too, but it is a successful program. It is nowhere near self-supporting.  
[ Parent ]
My thoughts exactly (4.00 / 2)
If healthcare is a right, then being self-sustaining on membership fees isn't a virtue.
[ Parent ]
Except that unlike public transportation and similar government programs (4.00 / 2)
national health insurance could charge people differently based on ability to pay, charging richer people more to be able to subsidize poorer people. Any shortfall would have to be made up from somewhere, and better that it come from within the system than fromo outside. This would be one way to do it, along with eliminating the 30% overhead that private insurers add, lowering medical costs through administrative efficiency, better case management, best practices, an emphasis on preventive medicine, purchasing power, fraud reduction, etc.

I think that this could be self-sustaining in the long run, once a critical mass of people joined it and all of these efficiencies were put in place and optimized. It would require a massive initial loan, but so do all startup ventures. Captialism is inherently debt-based, something that some deficit hawks often dishonestly forget. It's not about current debt or deficits, but whether you reach solvency at some reasonable time horizon. Like, oh, buying a house.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
You can get rich people to subsidise poorer people anyway (4.00 / 1)
It's called a progressive tax system. No need to include it within the system - it's much better for the optics for it to be free at the point of use.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
I'm very concerned about this aspect of the public option plan (0.00 / 0)
What I'm worried about is that the public option, with its lower rates and better services as we intend for it to have, will be overloaded with poorer/sicker people.  The rich won't go to the public plan; they'll go to some Cadillac/Lexus health care plan instead, where they can comfortably avoid mingling with the diseased masses.  The public program won't be able to soak the rich(er) and it will be overwhelmed with health care costs and collapse.  Now, if we had Medicare for All we could do what you suggested and charge the rich(er) more, but we won't have that thanks to Max Baucus and his ilk.
[ Parent ]
Gibbs seemed to do so (4.00 / 4)
at today's presser. According to Dave Corn's twitter. Helen asked about the public option and according to Corn's twitter feed Gibb's said that O would not cave on a public option to win the votes of cons.

But I haven't seen the video yet.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

they talk as if they are for the right thing, but don't follow-thru (0.00 / 0)
they do the opposite in private.
[ Parent ]
The clearest sign on this point (4.00 / 4)
Seems to be his willingness to go through the reconciliation process.  If Obama were as weak and vacillating as some say, then he would never do such a thing.  If it is clear he has 50 votes and caves on reconciliation, then he probably is as weak as people say.  If he doesn't have anywhere near 50, then that doesn't prove a thing.

Obama seems to be the sort who builds to a crescendo, so he's unlikely to come out firing with both guns blazing on his priorities.  Obama is probably going to plan on delivering a major speech just before an actual vote in the Senate and he's going to build toward that moment.  That seems to fit how he has acted in the past.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
that depends on whether GOP buy-in (even just 2 or 3) is still important to him, and (0.00 / 0)
whether he wants what conservative Dems in the Senate want (which is what HMOs want), or not.

all indications on this and on other bills is that he does want what they want, and never wants what the House wants or what progressives and liberals want.

(and on healthcare, on what the vast majority of Americans want)

on the stimulus, it was Obama himself who wanted so much taxcuts -- and who sent Rahm to ensure it was the percentage he wanted -- that those elements helped get him some GOP votes was a bonus -- and he bought off ppl like Specter in other ways by putting other things they wanted in.

[ Parent ]
Reconcilation: screw the conservadems (4.00 / 2)
Conservadems oppose reconciliation because it takes away their power.  If 50 votes suffice and the Dems have 59, that means that we can lose nine Democrats and all the Republicans and still get a strong public option.

The thing about being a swing vote is that lobbyists shower you with money.  It's a very lucrative position to be in.  Kill their power and the money will dry up.

[ Parent ]
is Obama in agreement w/Daschle? "I'm willing to compromise on most things to bring the package across the line. " (0.00 / 0)
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com... --

Listening To The Serious People

...
What I did say is that I'm willing to compromise on most things to bring the package across the line. The plan we agreed to yesterday was that states could offer public plans with a federal fall back. That's not my first, second, or third choice. But given the concessions my colleagues made on universal coverage and an employer mandate and everything else, that's the essence of compromise. ...

[ Parent ]
Daschle walked those comments back today.... (0.00 / 0)
...now he's claiming to want a public option and reconciliation...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
nice! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Chris had it right (4.00 / 2)
If Obama caves on this--and anything short of a real public option, not the watered-down kind that some have proposed, will be a cave--then he will cave on EVERYTHING, and we will have elected either a phony, or a coward, or both. I hope it's neither.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
I'm totally convinced by your brilliant argument. Why hadn't I thought of that before?  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
That is good news. (4.00 / 2)
I'm hopeful.  Obama did not cave on the stimulus at the end, even though I thought it was too small in the beginning.

Maybee I'm naive, and I have critcized Obama, but I think he will do the right thing here.  

[ Parent ]
I think we can get a healthcare bill (4.00 / 3)
that ends up like the stimulus. Not perfect by any means, but still a huge, huge step forward.

But that's only if we really organize. Beacuse the forces lined up against healthcare reform are much more powerful then the Paulites and Club for Growth that opposed the stimulus.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
he caved in the beginning ... (4.00 / 2)
... but I think it was a rookie mistake, one that he learned from.  He pre-compromised, starting with a position calibrated to please Republicans, but he still got virtually no Republican votes.  The blue dogs and Maine Republicans cut another 100 billion out of a stimulus that was already too small.  Had he started larger, they still would have asked for a cut, but the final bill would have been larger.
[ Parent ]
If that's true it's terrific news (4.00 / 1)
the House is aiming for a floor vote on the week after the 4th; it's almost time for Obama to wade out there and lay it on the line.

I was very impressed with his trip to the AMA.

[ Parent ]
Great, just in time for the 1 year anniversary of FISA (0.00 / 0)
Quick, anyone got any chicken entrails?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
why is the House plan just like Schumer's is what i want to know -- (4.00 / 1)
why isn't it in any way better for us?

they've given up too, it seems -- and it's being sold as a better option when it sucks.

I assume you all saw today's statement (4.00 / 2)
Statement by the President on the Progress of Health Care Reform Legislation in the House

Today, the Chairs of several Committees in the House of Representatives unveiled their health care reform proposal. This proposal would improve the affordability, availability, and quality of health care and represents a major step toward the our goal of fixing what is broken about health care while building on what works.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_...

Positive, but not what Chris is looking for.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

i can't believe that's the whole statement -- could it be weaker or more generic? (4.00 / 2)
they might as well not said a thing.
[ Parent ]
I can't argue with that. (4.00 / 1)
But that's really the whole thing.

Here's the Dachle-Dole reponse, a little longer, but also doens't really say anything

Statement from Robert Gibbs on the Bipartisan Policy Center's Health Reform Proposal

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_...

"The Bipartisan Policy Center, led by three distinguished former Senate Majority Leaders, has produced a serious and detailed proposal for health reform that reinforces the importance of the President's core principles: lowering costs for families,  businesses and governments;  guaranteeing choice of doctors and plans; ensuring quality and affordable health care for all Americans, and adhering to fiscal discipline that does not add to the deficit.

"This group of extraordinarily experienced legislators agree with the President that health reform must be enacted this year because the status quo -- skyrocketing health care costs, rising premiums, swelling deficits - is unsustainable. With this report, they  have demonstrated what can be achieved with bipartisan effort. The Bipartisan Policy Center has produced a significant report, and the White House applauds their efforts."



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
the "bipartisan" DC Village elders have spoken -- ugh. (0.00 / 0)
costs, costs, costs -- that's DC's focus entirely.

not on care.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's lame lame lame (0.00 / 0)
Do they simply want to be on the record, proving that they tried? This really doesn't look as if healthcare was THE major Obama campaign issue.
:-/
[ Parent ]
"If healthcare goes down this year, you are going to end up with single-payer care much sooner than anyone expected," (4.00 / 5)
Private insurance companies push for 'individual mandate' --
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously -- a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage -- is not adopted.

The customer base for private insurance has slipped since 2000, when soaring premiums began driving people out. The recession has accelerated the problem. But even after the economy recovers, the downward spiral is expected to continue for years as baby boomers become eligible for Medicare -- and stop buying private insurance.

Insurers do not embrace all of the healthcare restructuring proposals. But they are fighting hard for a purchase requirement, sweetened with taxpayer-funded subsidies for customers who can't afford it, and enforced with fines.

Such a so-called individual mandate amounts to a huge booster shot for health insurers, which would serve up millions of new customers almost overnight.

...
The best way for the industry to preserve the private insurance market -- and derail the campaign for a single-payer system -- may be to go along with more palatable proposals on the table now, said Jeffrey Miles, a healthcare analyst and president of the Miles Organization, a Los Angeles insurance brokerage firm.

"If healthcare goes down this year, you are going to end up with single-payer care much sooner than anyone expected," he said.

... In a recent letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for example, Jerry Flanagan of the Santa Monica-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog wrote that adopting an individual mandate without a public alternative would amount to "a bailout for HMOs -- whose greed, waste and indifference to our health have created the current mess."
...


I remember reading that quote.... (4.00 / 2)
...and I find it hard to believe...

If health care goes down this year, it's the end of reform for a generation... I don't care how bad it gets... this is about as bad as it can get... there will still be ideological obstructionists to prevent something worthwhile from passing...

I remember when the Clinton health plan went down... things were very bad then, so everyone assumed that it would be revisited at some time....

Well, it wasn't...

And if this fails, it won't....

Don't get your hopes up... I wish his prediction was accurate (in which case, I would delay reform), but history says otherwise...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
To support my point... (0.00 / 0)
Look at California...  The state is about to implode, and yet there are enough obstructionists willing to let the state destroy itself rather than do something positive about it...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
That quote reminds me (0.00 / 0)
of when John McLaughlin said that if health care were to go down in 1993, then we would have single payer by 2000.
[ Parent ]
I called Woolsey again (4.00 / 5)
and her office staff assured me that there is no way she is backing down on the public option. She said that no plan at all was better that a compromise that did not include a public option.

The leadership of the progressive caucus is firm on this. Even if Obama were to decide to come down on the wrong side, I think he'd have a hard time splitting any of the progressive caucus off from the position taken by their leadership.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

NYT today - Obama "open to" particular compromises, like substituting member-owned insurance coops for the public plan." (4.00 / 1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06... -- On Health Care, Obama Tries to Seize the Moment

... But there are profound disagreements on other proposals, including the Medicare cuts, tax increases to pay for the subsidies, and the public-plan option, which insurers regard as a threat to their existence. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, has been searching for a compromise that might attract Republican support.

Although the Democrats may be able to pass bills without Republican votes, bipartisanship is important to Mr. Obama because it would set the tone for the rest of his term. The essential tension of the coming few weeks will revolve around whether the Democrats can maintain momentum while working to satisfy Republican concerns. Mr. Obama is leaving the details to Congress while pronouncing that he is "open to" particular compromises, like substituting member-owned insurance cooperatives for the public plan.

...


Yeah, he said that last week... (0.00 / 0)
...then, the next day went to a town hall and reiterated his strong support for a public option...

Everyone is assuming that he's going to cave, but, so far, he's been firm...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Imagine he ran on THAT slogan! Instead of "change", "open to compromises"! (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, THAT would have been a sure winner. Just what the people want. More of the same old same old.
|-(
[ Parent ]
Three words. (0.00 / 0)
Perfect. Enemy. Good.

I swear to you he will say those words, in that order, and it will be over. We will have to found a new political reality: The Progressive Party.

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of, that it'll be up to Obama (4.00 / 2)
The last time something like this happened, with the senate pushing a conservative-friendly bill, the house pushing a liberal-friendly bill, and everyone looking to Obama to see which one would prevail, Obama went with the senate version, total capitulation, and sent shock waves through the left because it revealed what he was actually made of.

I'm referring to last summer's FISA bill, of course. And I fear that we're going to see a repeat of it here, with Obama coming out with his by now patented patronizing concern trollish words about how we all have to be realistic grown ups and accept that we can't all have ponies and how this was a good compromise that will keep us all healthy and save money blah blah blah. This is what he does. This is how he operates. This is who he is.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong here. But I wouldn't bet on it at this point.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

The eventual "plan," no matter what's in it (0.00 / 0)
will be greeted, received, and touted, by EVERYBODY as a TERRIFIC VICTORAY for the LITTLE PEOPLE, and a terrible DEFEAT for the greedheads.

It won't matter a bit that it leaves the status quo essentially untouched.

cost (4.00 / 1)
There can't be a financial problem with true reform. We already pay twice as much as any other first world country for our WEALTH care system. All it takes is the courage of our representatives to actually represent. Given that the overwhelming public majority want a real public option, and that the huge leak of money (in the current system) goes to the insurance leaches who produce NOTHING, the answer is: close the leak! All proposals that leave any private insurance in the system are doomed to failure because cost reduction and more inclusion are impossable if it interfers with profit. There is just no way the people and the profiteers can both be pleased with the outcome. The rape-public-cans are old hands at prefeering the exploiters over the public, if the dems fail in this "signature" issue they have became just as corrupted, and the only hope will be a new party. The problem now becomes communicating this to faltering dems.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR
Here we go folks... (0.00 / 0)
do or die.  where does obama stand?

how about single payer or die.  let it all fall apart until the system falls apart and single payer is the only option.

ive never been one to discount the "darkest before dawn option."

Here we go folks... (0.00 / 0)
do or die.  where does obama stand?

how about single payer or die.  let it all fall apart until the system falls apart and single payer is the only option.

ive never been one to discount the "darkest before dawn option."

excuse the stutter...eom (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
President Obama Will Have To Take Sides On the Public Option | 70 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox