home

White House Again Supportive Of Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:46:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Today is a day where the Obama White House been speaking up for the public option. Again, via Jed Lewison:

[BILL] BURTON: The President thinks that the public option is the best way to achieve choice and competition and bring down health care costs for the American people. And he will continue to ensure that it is achieved in the final health care reform legislation.

(Emphasis supplied.) Perhaps we have Mike Allen's anonymous White House source (Rahmbo! (cough!) Messina! (cough)!) to thank for this, but it is a very good thing.

Speaking for me only

< Skin In The Game: Progressive Groups Demand More From Obama On the Public Option | Friday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    White House Again Supportive Of Public Option | 14 comments (14 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    And he will continue to ensure that it is achieved in the final health care reform legislation.

    When did he start working to ensure the PO is in? Or does this mean any type of PO including a trigger?

    Sorry, I think I got lost in a dimension . . .

    "Ensure" is a strong word. Intended? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:55:37 PM EST


    Parent
    No clue (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    like I said, I'm lost in a dimension when they start using words like "committed", "pushing for" and "ensure". I'm also very aware of all the different "options" that have been considered a "public option" and have very little trust in the Obama word-spin machine . . .

    Parent
    I'm with you on this (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    What exactly is he ensuring. Is he ensuring that a real public option will be in the final legislation or is he ensuring the "goals" of choice and competition and bring down health care costs for the American people?

    A so called variation of the public option, including a trigger, can always be labeled the public option and Obama will claim that it has achieved the goals" of choice and competition and bring down health care costs for the American people.

    Parent

    What gets me is the word 'continue' (none / 0) (#10)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    as if he had anything to do with encouraging a public option except in very general vague and pablummy (sp?) terms.

    Parent
    It does seem to me (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    that Rahm and company's little fingerprints are all over the "anonymous sources."  I just hope that the White House remains pro-public option.  My head is spinning from all the waffling.  "He is.  He isn't.  He can take it or leave it.  He likes the trigger.  He wants the public option."  It's getting old.

    One blanket statement is not enough. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    Burton says Obama supports "the" public option.  "The?"  Oh, no - there is no "the."  So which one, in what form?

    Are we talking Medicare + 5%, are we talking with or without a trigger?  Opt-out?  Opt-in?  What level of subsidy?  Mandates to go along with it?  Or not?

    Does he see BaucusCare as a starting point or does he like HR3200?

    Is there anything that is non-negotiable with regard to a public option?

    It's just not possible, or honest, to be for "the" public option, when there are so many variables.  

    He might as well have told us that Obama's for all the good ideas...

    Confused... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:56:41 PM EST
    I thought that the promise was clarity.  No back room deals a la the Clintons.  Now we have this "his for it" , no " He is against it".  In the end we will end up with something.  Whatever it is will be bad.  He will have a means of escape, cause there will be a trail of reports and comments for either side.  

    All we are doing with the play by play trying to read the entrails is giving Obama and the Dems an excuse:  "Look, we were for it, we tried".  

    The deal is made, the insurance companies, the pharmas etc.  will get the best deal.  We the people will not.  All this back and forth is noise to make us imagine that there is a rational  democratic process taking place.  

    We are enabling this bad behavior.  

    On the contrary (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    "his for it" , no " He is against it".  

    Actually, he's BOTH for it and against it.  For Obama, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

    Parent

    I read this differently (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by heineken1717 on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    I think he's saying "choice and competition and bringing down costs" will be achieved, not necessarily that the public option will be achieved.  Notice how the word "achieve" in the first sentence comes before "choice and competition," not before "public option."

    For those as unsavvy as moi, Bill Burton (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    is assistant WH press sec'y.

    Well, if he is moving to take credit (none / 0) (#6)
    by jes on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    then it is very good news indeed.

    Good sign (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:13:27 PM EST
    Since I don't think the WH would use words like 'ensure'  unless they thought it was already done.

    However, triggers don't count in my mind. Can't tell about Obama's.

    Public Option: 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back (none / 0) (#14)
    by PoorMansLobbyist on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:50:07 PM EST
    I am concerned about the approach the White House is taking.  It feels like they are more concerned with getting a checkbox for bipartisan support than for having a strong public option.

    The cost of one Republican's vote (who may not even vote for it in the end) clearly isn't worth a resulting poor bill.

    The current Public Option being discussed sounds very weak and set up for failure.  If a state wants to opt out, then it should be consistent and also opt out of USPS and force its residents to pay five bucks every time they need to mail a letter.  After all, a USPS presence would put FedEx and UPS out of business, right?  Isn't that the argument?

    I have many more thoughts on the current state of the public option in a blog post at blog.poormanslobbyist.org.

    White House Again Supportive Of Public Option | 14 comments (14 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment