Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/reid-will-push-for-public_n_469483.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...483.html</a> It's baaaaack. Today Harry Reid announced he would support the public option via reconciliation if that's the legislative path the party chooses. It's good news, but they need to take a page out of the Republican book, give everyone the finger, and just do this stuff from the beginning, sans all the hand-wringing.
Originally Posted By mawnck +1. They won't, because they'll be scared of the GOP using it as a campaign tool. (They seem to be scared of a lot, huh.) I think it would work to their advantage, getting the wingnuts REALLY angry. REALLY angry people say and do the dumbest things for the cameras.
Originally Posted By DAR Yeah but the Halle Berry version was flop, just putting it out there, not implying anything.
Originally Posted By gadzuux A brief excerpt from a very sensible column today from Paul Krugman published in the NY Times. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02...man.html</a> >> California’s woes show that conservative prescriptions for health reform just won’t work. What would work? By all means, let’s ban discrimination on the basis of medical history — but we also have to keep healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that people purchase insurance. This, in turn, requires substantial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can afford coverage. And if you put all of that together, you end up with something very much like the health reform bills that have already passed both the House and the Senate. What about claims that these bills would force Americans into the clutches of greedy insurance companies? Well, the main answer is stronger regulation; but it would also be a very good idea, politically as well as substantively, for the Senate to use reconciliation to put the public option back into its bill. << There is NO sensible reason for anyone to oppose a public option. It's just that - an "option". All of the reasons that have been put out opposing it are world class BS - "government takeover of insurance", death panels, socialist agendas - all of it. What is true is that people who oppose a public option are ignorant and fearful and easily manipulated by people who don't have their best interests at heart. They have no valid reasons against a public option. So let's not let fear, foolishness and hateful politics prevent actual reform from taking place.
Originally Posted By Mr X Here's what's going to happen with the public option this time... <a href="http://www.joshreads.com/images/0410/i041010peanuts.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.joshreads.com/image...nuts.jpg</a> Politicians suck.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There is NO sensible reason for anyone to oppose a public option.> Of course there are. Pretending that opponents to your idea don't have reasons doesn't make your arguments more persuasive. It's not fear of the Republicans that's made some Democrats not want to push a public option; it's the knowledge that many Americans understand what a public option means, and don't want it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... many Americans understand what a public option means, and don't want it. << Then they don't have to have it. That's what "option" means. More to the point, they don't want anyone else to have it either.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << it's the knowledge that many Americans understand what a public option means, and don't want it >> I think you're right. Most Americans understand that a public options is a poor substitute for a single payer system, which is what they would prefer to have since it saves the most money and insures the most people.
