I think they’re doing what they’ve done all along — keeping their options open. If it turns out that Obama can’t get a public option, he still wants to be able to claim victory. This kind of talk lets him do that. Nothing more to it than that, I think.
johndsays
They already floated the trial balloons with HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius’ comments in Aug. They weathered the criticism from the left and have probably weighed that compared to criticism from middle America (and independents) and decided anything is better than nothing. One of the slams against Obama in the elections was his 132 “present” votes where he seems to have a problem taking a position. I think that “trait” was reinforced when he did take a position of the “Crowley-Gates” episode and it blew up in his face. Look for more “present” type statements from him going forward.
<
p>I was struck by these words in the story…
<
p>
On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.
“We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition,” an aide said. “There are lots of different ways to get there.”
john-from-lowellsays
From latest OFA blogs: We’re in Buckeye Country
By Sean Knox – Sep 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pm EDT
The OFA bus rolled into Ohio today. On the way to Columbus, we took a detour at the Dayton Miami Valley AFL-CIO to meet with supporters there.
Speaking with reporters today, leaders of the AFL-CIO argued that any final health-care legislation must contain the so-called public option to compete with private insurers, and that any Democrats who stand in the way won’t receive its support.
“It is an absolute must,” said AFL Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, who likely will become the organization’s next president when it gathers two weeks from now in Pittsburgh. “We won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have a public option in it.”
Trumka also implied that members of Congress, including Democrats, who don’t back health-care legislation with a public option risk losing the labor group’s support — something he mentioned yesterday when he said, “Today, more than ever, we need to be a labor movement that stands by our friends, punishes its enemies, and challenges those who, well, can’t seem to decide which side they’re on.”
On an Indiana Night
posted September 01 3:06:13 PM
On a gorgeous Indiana evening, 800 people came out to hear first hand accounts of how our system hurts everyday Americans – families, small businessmen, and people who never thought they had a reason to fear going without insurance. But Indianans also stood together for the change that needs to happen: guaranteed coverage for all, including the choice of a public option, with consumer protections to ensure that coverage is never taken from the sick or denied to those who need it most.
<
p>From an OFA email dated Aug 22 And he made plain his stance on the public option: “So let me just be clear: I continue to support a public option, I think it is important, and I think it will help drive down costs and give consumers choices.”
Jeremy Bird
Deputy Director
Organizing for America
bostonshepherdsays
What percentage of likely voters do they represent, 6%? 8%? Yes they have a pile of union dues with which they spend on campaigns, but an OFS bus visiting union-organized rallies (don’t these guys work?) is supported to be a sign that most American want the public option?
<
p>So Trumka torpedoes Blue Dogs who might NOT vote for a public option (i.e., socialized health care)? How does that further their agenda? It furthers mine.
<
p>Look at the polls. Each week that passes shows further erosion of support for Obamacare. It seems to me if Obama insists on a public option, he’ll get little or even nothing.
<
p>As opposed to massive regulation of the health insurance industry.
p>Could you at least lobby against it without lying.
<
p>It’s socialized insurance and is nothing new to this country.
johndsays
It could be that people are using a common vernacular “socialized health care ” to refer to “socialized insurance” and that may in fact be technically incorrect… but do you think people are “lying” when they do this?
<
p>I have heard people referring to the upcoming flu virus as H1N1 while others refer to it as Swine Flu. So is Obama lying if he meant to say H1N1 instead of Swine flu?
<
p>
Obama said. “We are closely monitoring the emerging cases of swine flu in the United States. This is obviously a cause for concern and requires a heightened state of alert. But it is not a cause for alarm.”
<
p>
There is no evidence at this time that swine in the United States are infected with this virus strain and therefore, this is not an animal health or food safety issue,” Bill Hall, acting assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an e-mail.
The emerging H1N1 virus strain is a mixture of genetic material from other swine, bird and human flu strains, Hall said.
“Referring to this virus strain as ‘swine flu’ mischaracterizes the genetic makeup of this virus and inaccurately conveys the notion that the virus is being transmitted by swine,” Hall said.
<
p>Let’s not call a mistake or even a misinterpretation a lie unless you can prove Bostonshepherd is truly lying.
… get confused. But not Bostonshepherd. He knows we’re talking about insurance and not socialized health care.
huhsays
False equivalencies take an argument nowhere.
johndsays
My only point is we probably should be careful calling people LIARS! It’s part of my new civility outlook but I’m afraid I’m not getting much cooperation.
<
p>If we want to split hairs then maybe the term Healthcare Reform should be the first phrase to go away since the bill is almost completely about health insurance reform. But I’m not ready to call the House Democrats a bunch of liars… that wouldn’t be very civil.
huhsays
No hair splitting involved.
christophersays
Last time it was Sebelius that started this chatter, but I think if the President doesn’t insist on the public option the House will. The article also indicates the President will get more aggressive about dictating terms to Congress, but what bothers me is his willingness to buck his base. When will he get it through his head the bipartisanship hasn’t been working so well? It’s the public option that should be considered the compromise with the reach being single payer. The President’s leadership on this issue has left quite a bit to be desired.
liveandletlivesays
Compromise is important, but it’s being taken way too far.
johndsays
then what exactly have the Democrats compromised on?
<
p>And maybe I’m mistaken but I believe the Senate is where this bill either passes or dies so the House really wags the dog.
christophersays
As I indicated above, however, many of us feel that single-payer should have been the goal, with public option being the compromise.
johndsays
at this point I don’t perceive the Democrats as having compromised or “given” on anything so I think they should be careful about saying the Republicans are the party of “NO” compromise. And single payer was not the starting point on this one.
liveandletlivesays
the starting point was to do nothing. The maximum that could be done would be single payer, for which there was (and still is) a loud cry for. The middle ground is a health insurance exchange, which would include private insurers, and a public option plan that one could choose if they wanted.
Having only private health insurance plans to choose from is no compromise on your side, even if strong regulations are put in place.
I don’t get why you are so worried. The bills that are being proposes will allow you to keep your current status quo.
I think they’re doing what they’ve done all along — keeping their options open. If it turns out that Obama can’t get a public option, he still wants to be able to claim victory. This kind of talk lets him do that. Nothing more to it than that, I think.
They already floated the trial balloons with HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius’ comments in Aug. They weathered the criticism from the left and have probably weighed that compared to criticism from middle America (and independents) and decided anything is better than nothing. One of the slams against Obama in the elections was his 132 “present” votes where he seems to have a problem taking a position. I think that “trait” was reinforced when he did take a position of the “Crowley-Gates” episode and it blew up in his face. Look for more “present” type statements from him going forward.
<
p>I was struck by these words in the story…
<
p>
From latest OFA blogs:
We’re in Buckeye Country
By Sean Knox – Sep 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pm EDT
——————–
Have you heard the stated position of the AFL-CIO?
On an Indiana Night
posted September 01 3:06:13 PM
<
p>From an OFA email dated Aug 22
And he made plain his stance on the public option: “So let me just be clear: I continue to support a public option, I think it is important, and I think it will help drive down costs and give consumers choices.”
Jeremy Bird
Deputy Director
Organizing for America
What percentage of likely voters do they represent, 6%? 8%? Yes they have a pile of union dues with which they spend on campaigns, but an OFS bus visiting union-organized rallies (don’t these guys work?) is supported to be a sign that most American want the public option?
<
p>So Trumka torpedoes Blue Dogs who might NOT vote for a public option (i.e., socialized health care)? How does that further their agenda? It furthers mine.
<
p>Look at the polls. Each week that passes shows further erosion of support for Obamacare. It seems to me if Obama insists on a public option, he’ll get little or even nothing.
<
p>As opposed to massive regulation of the health insurance industry.
“…public option (i.e., socialized health care)”
<
p>Could you at least lobby against it without lying.
<
p>It’s socialized insurance and is nothing new to this country.
It could be that people are using a common vernacular “socialized health care ” to refer to “socialized insurance” and that may in fact be technically incorrect… but do you think people are “lying” when they do this?
<
p>I have heard people referring to the upcoming flu virus as H1N1 while others refer to it as Swine Flu. So is Obama lying if he meant to say H1N1 instead of Swine flu?
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Let’s not call a mistake or even a misinterpretation a lie unless you can prove Bostonshepherd is truly lying.
… get confused. But not Bostonshepherd. He knows we’re talking about insurance and not socialized health care.
False equivalencies take an argument nowhere.
My only point is we probably should be careful calling people LIARS! It’s part of my new civility outlook but I’m afraid I’m not getting much cooperation.
<
p>If we want to split hairs then maybe the term Healthcare Reform should be the first phrase to go away since the bill is almost completely about health insurance reform. But I’m not ready to call the House Democrats a bunch of liars… that wouldn’t be very civil.
No hair splitting involved.
Last time it was Sebelius that started this chatter, but I think if the President doesn’t insist on the public option the House will. The article also indicates the President will get more aggressive about dictating terms to Congress, but what bothers me is his willingness to buck his base. When will he get it through his head the bipartisanship hasn’t been working so well? It’s the public option that should be considered the compromise with the reach being single payer. The President’s leadership on this issue has left quite a bit to be desired.
Compromise is important, but it’s being taken way too far.
then what exactly have the Democrats compromised on?
<
p>And maybe I’m mistaken but I believe the Senate is where this bill either passes or dies so the House really wags the dog.
As I indicated above, however, many of us feel that single-payer should have been the goal, with public option being the compromise.
at this point I don’t perceive the Democrats as having compromised or “given” on anything so I think they should be careful about saying the Republicans are the party of “NO” compromise. And single payer was not the starting point on this one.
the starting point was to do nothing. The maximum that could be done would be single payer, for which there was (and still is) a loud cry for. The middle ground is a health insurance exchange, which would include private insurers, and a public option plan that one could choose if they wanted.
Having only private health insurance plans to choose from is no compromise on your side, even if strong regulations are put in place.
I don’t get why you are so worried. The bills that are being proposes will allow you to keep your current status quo.
Even if it goes down this year.