Public Option back on table - Obama Aims to Fix Intraparty Fissure

I'm getting the impression a lot of people here don't understand the meaning of "I don't know".

When they hear someone say, "I'd like to discuss various options for healthcare reform; here's my preliminary ideas, but I don't know yet whether they're the best option.", they read it as complete conviction to push through that one plan.

When they hear the same guy say, "OK, many people don't seem to like the public option bit of my plan; let me reiterate that this is not the final word, just a proposal, and point out that the public option is not a deal-breaker.", they read it as (1) complete abandonment of a previously firmly held position, and (2) taking the public option completely off the table.

o when the same guy comes back to say, "Here are some of the reasons why I thin a public option might still be a good idea.", they get to deride him for "completely changing his position" yet again!

I wonder how they ever get through any negotiations in real life.

Are you honestly saying that this was all some sort of fakeout? Really? Gee, must have been some fakeout then..considering it just ended up pissing off both the left and right. Way to go.

Second, even if we were to assume for a second the narrative you are trying to suggest, I could see maybe Sebellius going out and saying this, and perhaps Gibbs going and saying this, but Obama? People seem to forget that Obama said:

Are you suggesting then Rahm (for whatever reason) would orchestrate an event that would have the President doing a double flip flop, very publically, in a matter of days? (first he was for it, then it didn't matter, and he's for it again??) IMO, I don't think Rahm, let alone any chief of staff, would put any President in that kind of precarious, untenable situation.

Further, were Rahm to try and do something like this, he would ensure that he have some sort of back up. (I mean there is a reason why he earned the nickname "Rahmbo" or "The Enforcer" while serving in the Clinton White House) But he doesn't -- the 60 votes aren't there and the 51 votes don't seem to be either. After all, that is the reason why these Dems are being threatened with primaries. If the votes were already there, that wouldn't be necessary.

I think it's fine if people want to say "Yes, he's handling this well" or "No, he's not handling this well" but to suggest "it was all a ruse" is a bit disingenuous. The critical suspension required for that to be true -- "Obama pissed off the left and right, but not to worry, it's all by design!" is a bit much, IMHO.

I see marathon has joined the ranks of Alphaman and Raoul by going full retard.

That might have been true if circumstances were as you suggested, but I don't see how this is supported by the facts.

Remember, were it left up to Obama, the bill would have been "signed and delivered" a month ago. Clearly then, it was not something preliminary. And if 'he didn't know yet whether they're the best option', then what was in that bill that was supposed to be passed last month? It's as if the previous recklessness with which this bill was trying to be barreled through is completely glossed over. Honestly then, how do you even humor that kind of contradiction?

I think it's important that health care be improved, but let's do it properly.

But that wasn't a public option bill, now was it? I might be wrong. Can you show me a link?

I'm not going through that monstrosity but here is a statement that I think has the same effect:

Link to the article.

Anyway, it seems to mention several times that the public option was part of the original bill. Of course, the original bill, which was lousy to begin with, is now unrecognizable as to content.

I don't take "this is a final bill" from "we expect the final bill, with which we will come up at some point, to include this option from this bill".

You initially asked me to show you where the public option was in the previous bill. I did. Now you're saying, "Well, it wasn't the final bill." Well, if it wasn't a final bill, then why was Obama insisting "HEALTH CARE MUST BE PASSED" before Congress leaves for recess? How can they call for the passage (substantively if not procedurally) of such a bill, when something like this is not already more or less sorted with some certainty? Is it because they just wanted it passed so they could say "oh look, it's passed, HC reform done"...review and approval of the final contents be damned?

And that doesn't even being to say anything about the fact that, Obama, over the last two years, always has intimated "It's about the public option."

No. I asked you to show me that there was a bill that included the public option and was touted as finished rather than preliminary, because everythign I remembered was exactly as in your quote: We have a proposal for a bill, but it's not the finished version.

Here is your original question as simply as I can put it:

You asked "was that a public option bill." I cited where the bill included a public option.

Then you mention something about 'final' bill. Fine, let's discuss the bill that Democrats were not only calling, but trying to make, final last month. As I recall, Obama initially ordered the House and the Senate to vote on it before the recess (ie. make it final, make it law). What exactly then would be made into law if not a final bill? How can you even call for something to be made law if it is not nearing its final form?

Now, I can't speak with certainty about Congress, I haven't worked for them, but when I did work for the CA Legislature, by the time a bill had reached a Congressional Vote, the substance of the bill had been ironed out. Certainly, the matter of including a provision, that is comparable to including the public option in this bill, would have been sorted much earlier in another bill.

Anyway, as I mentioned above, the original proposed amendment, which was lousy to begin with, has now changed unrecognizably as to content. I guess maybe that's why people are thinking it's preliminary.

It's really something -- piss off both the left and the right (I don't think even Bush ever did that), push forward a piece of legislation that was bad from the gate; and then when people start to ask about it, change it all around so it looks nothing like what it originally was. And then blame everyone else.

How exactly would this work? Let's say you ran a more liberal candidate in a primary against the Senators who are not on board, and the more liberal candidate won. As I understand it however, most of these Senators/Representatives are from the more conservative areas of the country, and these seats often flip back and forth between Democrat and Republican. Would a more liberal candidate then have a better chance at the seat?

Yeah. If the bill has changed, after they said it would still change, then those are probably two important reasons for calling the version of the bill that existed before the change, and concurrently with the expressed will to change it, preliminary.

Then what was Obama calling a vote for back in July? Something that's still changing? There was no will to change it, they were ready to get it done with before August. The only reason they have an opportunity to even change it now is because they weren't allowed to get it done before the recess.

Further, even if there were provisions to be wrapped up, a component of the basic structure of the bill like the public option, should have been figured out a long time ago. It's why commentators like Arianna Huffington were on MSNBC saying "We don't even know what to defend!"

Come again? They said that because at that point, there was a finished bill that wasn't going to change anymore?

I think it had more to do with the varying message that was coming out of the WH; especially when all last year, Obama was the one who pretended he thought the public option was a 'must-have.' But that was when Obamatons were duped into believing everything he said, or that he actually cared about those suffering due to the health care system.

And I ask again, if the message was varying, how did you know with complete certainty what the final message was? It seems to me that only one of those two things can be happening at a time.

For all intents and purposes, the bulk of the bill was considered final. (Pick your issue -- the public option, the deal with Pharma, the deal with hospitals that no public option plan would have the ability to contract at Medicare rates for hospitals, in one way or another, are expected as 'given'. They've been promised as much.

It's when that went from final to varying on this issue is what made many liberals angry.

Look, at this point, if there are options that people want to pursue, fine. But at least be honest about it. The public option was mentioned several times by Obama as key part of his Health Care plan. It's much better IMO then to say "ok, i'm changing mind....instead of saying ''i never said that in the first place."

No, they probably said it....because they had no fucking clue what the bill was even about outside of that Obama wanted to present all those uninsured Americans with a public option.

In case you didn't notice, neither the WH nor Congress did a good job at presenting the bill, at all.

You're a fucking moron if you think that the public option wasn't part of the actual bill. Or going to be part of.

Obama has talked for a few years now about presenting public health care to the US.

There are quotes, articles....not only by him, but by members of Congress, and members of his administration.

I suppose we shouldn't take all those at face value?

The most recent article I could find.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

So, Obama's own spokesman makes a public statement and says the Whitehouse isn't necessarily abandoning the public bill, which implies of course that it was actually on the table, and that it was Obama's idea, considering he runs the Whitehouse....and you're trying to still deny it?

I wonder if Anc is going to keep denying it as billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to set it up.