Public option is dead. It's official.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am sure all the money that has been flowing into the Socialist coffers the last and then the next election cycles from the Health insurance industry has had nothing to do with this.

Can you form a sentence without the word 'socialist'?

He's special...and a Socialist who hasn't come to terms with his hideous true Socialist self.

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/16/us....care/index.html

A key Senate negotiator said Sunday that President Obama should drop his push for a government-funded public health insurance option because the Senate will never pass it.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad said on "Fox News Sunday."

His comment signaled a shift in the health care debate, with Obama and senior advisers softening their support for a public option by saying final form of the legislation is less important than the principle of affordable coverage available to all.

Edited August 17, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

I am sure all the money that has been flowing into the Socialist coffers the last and then the next election cycles from the Health insurance industry has had nothing to do with this.

Can you form a sentence without the word 'socialist'?

we're having a party, should we include you on the social list?

[rebeccajo 14]

I am sure all the money that has been flowing into the Socialist coffers the last and then the next election cycles from the Health insurance industry has had nothing to do with this.

Can you form a sentence without the word 'socialist'?

we're having a party, should we include you on the social list?

I have this image of luckytxn grabbing his wife by the ears and shrieking.........."do me, baby, do me like a socialist".

[dalegg 143]

I am sure all the money that has been flowing into the Socialist coffers the last and then the next election cycles from the Health insurance industry has had nothing to do with this.

Can you form a sentence without the word 'socialist'?

we're having a party, should we include you on the social list?

I have this image of luckytxn grabbing his wife by the ears and shrieking.........."do me, baby, do me like a socialist".

I think that's called Gang Bang.

[rebeccajo 14]

*nevermind*

Edited August 17, 2009 by rebeccajo

[SuperDuper! 230]

*nevermind*

I think that is what Obama said when he recently conceded that "national health care" does not have to be run by the Gov't.

Edited August 17, 2009 by itzallgood

[rebeccajo 14]

*nevermind*

I think that is what Obama said when he recently conceded that "national health care" does not have to be run by the Gov't.

I couldn't get my link to embed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am sure all the money that has been flowing into the Socialist coffers the last and then the next election cycles from the Health insurance industry has had nothing to do with this.

Can you form a sentence without the word 'socialist'?

we're having a party, should we include you on the social list?

I have this image of luckytxn grabbing his wife by the ears and shrieking.........."do me, baby, do me like a socialist".

roflmao

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/16/us....care/index.html

A key Senate negotiator said Sunday that President Obama should drop his push for a government-funded public health insurance option because the Senate will never pass it.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad said on "Fox News Sunday."

His comment signaled a shift in the health care debate, with Obama and senior advisers softening their support for a public option by saying final form of the legislation is less important than the principle of affordable coverage available to all.

(this is worth noting)

As a procedural matter, Conrad's point is largely wrong. If a reform bill reaches the floor, and every Democrat in the chamber agrees that the legislation should get an up-or-down vote, reform with a public option needs 50, not 60, votes. The issue, then, is whether there are some Democratic senators who would vote with Republicans on a filibuster. Conrad seems to be suggesting there are. Indeed, he might very well be one of them.

And with that in mind, it seems the White House is slowly beginning to make the case that health care reform may pass without a public option. We heard it this morning....

"I think there will be a competition to private insurers," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, "that really is the essential part, that you don't turn over the whole new marketplace [after health care legislation is enacted] to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition." [...]

Sebelius also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that "what's important is choice and competition." A public option "is not an essential element," the Cabinet secretary said Sunday.

...and we heard it yesterday.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it," Obama said. "And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else."

It's a point that's been coming up more and more lately.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is strategic. Consider any set of negotiations, in any context. One side says, "I'm dead-set against X under any circumstances." The other side says, "I'd really like X, but I'm willing to give up on it as part of our talks." Guess what happens to X? Any chance X is going to survive the negotiations? Not so much.

The same is true here. Even for Democratic policymakers in Congress and the administration who think quality, meaningful health care reform is possible without a public option, there's a temptation to tell them, "Shhh! If reform advocates signal a willingness to compromise on a public option, it's dead." Indeed, hearing the president's remarks yesterday, and Sebelius' comments this morning, it's hardly a stretch to think the proposal is, at this point, in very deep trouble.

Which then leads to the question of whether reform can still be worthwhile without a public option. Opinions, obviously, vary quite a bit, but I'm reminded of something Paul Krugman said recently: "It's not so much that the public option has to be in the final bill, but if it's not in, there better damn well be something else, some really serious reforms. In a sense, it has become a litmus test. If the bill does not have a public option, it's going to take a much, much higher bar on the rest of it to get me to accept it."

From where I sit, I really want a public option. I think a public option makes a lot of sense, it should be in the bill, and I applaud those who are fighting tooth and nail to get it in the bill. That said, as per Krugman, if lawmakers drop the public option, the rest of the legislation better be pretty damn amazing.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Obama's slippery health care shift

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/16/us....care/index.html

A key Senate negotiator said Sunday that President Obama should drop his push for a government-funded public health insurance option because the Senate will never pass it.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad said on "Fox News Sunday."

His comment signaled a shift in the health care debate, with Obama and senior advisers softening their support for a public option by saying final form of the legislation is less important than the principle of affordable coverage available to all.

(this is worth noting)

As a procedural matter, Conrad's point is largely wrong. If a reform bill reaches the floor, and every Democrat in the chamber agrees that the legislation should get an up-or-down vote, reform with a public option needs 50, not 60, votes. The issue, then, is whether there are some Democratic senators who would vote with Republicans on a filibuster. Conrad seems to be suggesting there are. Indeed, he might very well be one of them.

And with that in mind, it seems the White House is slowly beginning to make the case that health care reform may pass without a public option. We heard it this morning....

"I think there will be a competition to private insurers," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, "that really is the essential part, that you don't turn over the whole new marketplace [after health care legislation is enacted] to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition." [...]

Sebelius also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that "what's important is choice and competition." A public option "is not an essential element," the Cabinet secretary said Sunday.

...and we heard it yesterday.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it," Obama said. "And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else."

It's a point that's been coming up more and more lately.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is strategic. Consider any set of negotiations, in any context. One side says, "I'm dead-set against X under any circumstances." The other side says, "I'd really like X, but I'm willing to give up on it as part of our talks." Guess what happens to X? Any chance X is going to survive the negotiations? Not so much.

The same is true here. Even for Democratic policymakers in Congress and the administration who think quality, meaningful health care reform is possible without a public option, there's a temptation to tell them, "Shhh! If reform advocates signal a willingness to compromise on a public option, it's dead." Indeed, hearing the president's remarks yesterday, and Sebelius' comments this morning, it's hardly a stretch to think the proposal is, at this point, in very deep trouble.

Which then leads to the question of whether reform can still be worthwhile without a public option. Opinions, obviously, vary quite a bit, but I'm reminded of something Paul Krugman said recently: "It's not so much that the public option has to be in the final bill, but if it's not in, there better damn well be something else, some really serious reforms. In a sense, it has become a litmus test. If the bill does not have a public option, it's going to take a much, much higher bar on the rest of it to get me to accept it."

From where I sit, I really want a public option. I think a public option makes a lot of sense, it should be in the bill, and I applaud those who are fighting tooth and nail to get it in the bill. That said, as per Krugman, if lawmakers drop the public option, the rest of the legislation better be pretty damn amazing.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

It will take sixty senators to close debate, and have the vote that will send the bill to conference. The product of that conference will be brought under reconcilliation rules, and therefore, a simple majority (51 votes in the Senate) sends that bill to the President. What has been left unsaid in the press, but well stated by the members themselves, is that the product that emerges from conference is not expected to look like what goes to conference. The powerplay that is taking place among the various coalitions, is what they will support, and not support, in that final conference bill.

For instance, the Blue Dog Coalition will not support a public option that is subsidized by taxpayer funds. The Progressive Coalition still wants the Single-Payer option on the table, in the form of a substitute in the House when the House bill is being debated, something which they have been guaranteed by the Speaker for not blocking the legislation being read in Waxman's committee. However, they will not support any legislation that does not include a strong government (public) option, that extends Medicare to the uninsured. The House cannot pass any bill that does not have the support of most members of both coalitions, without going to the Republicans for the needed votes.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Say what?!

Did this convince anyone to let the feds run our health care system? Seriously . . . since the sudden demise of TOTUS, Obama's oratorical skills have declined considerably.

[thepizzadude 26]

I am sure all the money that has been flowing into the Socialist coffers the last and then the next election cycles from the Health insurance industry has had nothing to do with this.

Can you form a sentence without the word 'socialist'?

we're having a party, should we include you on the social list?

:rofl:

[Captain Ewok 1,901]

Please watch the jokes when it involves other folks family -- well intended jokes can come off the wrong way easily like this. Thanks .