home

Jim Cooper "Supports" A Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:21:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kos polled Jim Cooper's (D-TN) district and it turns out people are not happy with his behavior regarding a public option. Cooper responded saying, he did too support a public option:

The whole premise of the poll is that I oppose a public option, and that is simply not true. I have repeatedly said that I’m FOR a public option[.]

Kos rightly notes:

We never said, "Jim Cooper opposes the public option" or anything along those lines. So if his constituents think Cooper is opposing the public option, that's his fault.

But Kos misses a point Cooper rightly makes:

I will continue my fight for health reform. We need to cover EVERYONE, and we need to do so responsibly so that we don’t bankrupt the country. This has always been my position, this is the President’s position, and I will continue to work with him to get the job done.

If people doubt Cooper's commitment to the public option, and there is absolutely good reason to, then there is good reason to doubt Obama's commitment to the public option. Obama "supports" the public option just like Jim Cooper does.

Here's the solution - let Obama firmly commit to the public option and I bet Jim Cooper will too. Of course, that assumes the President is relevant.

Speaking for me only

< "Which Way Home" Premieres on HBO Tonight | AG Eric Holder Launching Preliminary Review of CIA Abuse Cases >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Jim Cooper "Supports" A Public Option | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Being 'for' somehting is not the same as (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:43:33 PM EST
    being 'against' something that does not have what you are 'for'.

    I am 'for' having filet mignon for dinner tonight. Will I have it? No - too inconvenient, expensive, etc.

    Well, that is where we part company (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    because I am for lobster tonight.

    But I won't have what I want, either.

    Let's scream at each other in a town hall, anyway.  Beef death panels vs. seafood death panels!

    Parent

    Guess who also supports a public option? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    Baucus

    That is the reason he is working so hard as a member of the Gang of 6 to give us this:

    If you think your insurance is expensive and doesn't cover much now, wait until the Senate Finance Committee bill gets jammed through the Senate:

       In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76% of policyholders' medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65%, meaning insurers would be required to cover just about two-thirds of patients' healthcare bills. According to a committee aide, the change was being considered so that companies could hold down premiums for the policies.

        Most group health plans cover 80% to 90% or more of a policyholder's medical bills, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Industry officials urged that the government set the floor lower so insurers could provide flexible, more affordable plans. FDL
    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    it sounds like the insurers are getting everything they want in this bill.

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#7)
    by hookfan on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    35% out of pocket expenses, plus deductibles, plus no control of premium inflation!!!! That won't bankrupt the country will it? Pfffttttt. . .

    Parent
    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 04:30:41 PM EST
    the final bill will have something Obama and his fan club refer to as a public option, but that in reality has no recognizable relationship to a public option as understood to mean a viable competitor to insurance company offerings, and that will in fact have the practical effect of the opposite: enhancing insurance company profits and raising costs, while limiting access.  

    i remain unconvinced (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 04:39:06 PM EST
    that pres. obama wants a public option plan. like digby and greenwald, i feel that if he truly supported it, it would have been done. he's expended no political capital on it, and doesn't appear likely to anytime soon.

    w/o bankrupting the country (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:27:22 PM EST
    well, congressman, that would require priorities, among them not financing overseas military debacles for decades (which we are looking at now), not feeding the military industrial complex, corporate welfare, and on and on.  if the government were really in the business of doing the people's bidding, i doubt we'd be in this position.  then again, in many ways, we get the government we deserve.

    You mean we'd have to stop (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:30:37 PM EST
    playing world policemen? Oh heavens, you're going to give me the vapors. Everyone knows if that happens the terrorists win. (snark because a war against a tactic was a stupid idea to begin with).

    Parent
    Oh yes, the public option is what would (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    bankrupt the country.  At 1 trillion over 10 yrs it is less than the cost of the wars we are in right now, not to mention a fraction of either the financial system bailout or the 'normal' defense budget. But those things aren't bankrupting the country, no way.

    Parent
    the government is mostly OK... (none / 0) (#10)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 04:35:38 PM EST
    the Constitution remains a remarkable manifestation of human imagination, magnanimity, and capability. Its the politicians and their plutocratic, corportist puppet masters that su*k.

    Parent
    Obama shoudl treaten a veto (none / 0) (#13)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:32:18 AM EST
    of any bill lacking a robust public option.  To my mind that would be the option for individuals and employers to obtain their and their employees coverage through Medicare.

    Jeez I wish I could type (none / 0) (#14)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:32:49 AM EST
    THREATEN A VETO

    Parent
    Jim Cooper "Supports" A Public Option | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment