Transcript - It Sure Looks Like President Obama Supports A Public Option

[TomCADem]

I have yet to find any statement by President Obama saying that they do not support or favor a pubic option. As I understand it, the attacks on the public option are coming from Republicans and the conservative Democrats. So, why are there so many posts accusing President Obama of throwing liberals under the bus and sacrificing a public option?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-Organizating-for-America-National-Health-Care-Forum/

###

So that is absolutely critical. Now, one of the options we want to provide them is a public option, and there's been -- this has been a confusion around this -- (applause) -- there's been a lot of confusion about this, so let me just clarify. I think a public option is important. And let me explain why.

We're going to have a marketplace where people can select the options that work best for them, the insurance plan that works best for them. A lot of those choices, the overwhelming majority of those choices, will be private insurance options, just like members of Congress have -- they're allowed to choose from various proposals or various plans that are part of the federal employees' health plan.

But what we do think is if we have a public option in there, that can help keep insurers honest; it can provide a benchmark for what an affordable basic plan should look like. And so even though we've got a whole bunch of insurance regulations that ensure that any private insurer that's participating in the exchange is giving you a fair deal, this is sort of like the belt-and-suspenders concept -- it means that not only do they have to abide by these regulations, but they also have to compete with somebody whose interest is not just profit but instead is interested in making sure that the American people get decent care.

Now, having said that -- (applause) -- having said that, I want everybody to be clear that the public option is just one option. It will be voluntary. Nobody is talking about you having to be in the public option. Only -- the only thing that we're talking about is this being available to you as a choice, expanding consumer choice. And we think that's a good idea.


###

[NYC_SKP]

1. kick and rec.. nt

[autorank]

2. Sure doesn't

Last paragraph:

Now, having said that -- (applause) -- having said that, I want everybody to be clear that the public option is just one option. It will be voluntary. Nobody is talking about you having to be in the public option. Only -- the only thing that we're talking about is this being available to you as a choice, expanding consumer choice. And we think that's a good idea.

What a fine example of newspeak. "Nobody is talking about you having to be in the public option." Hey, guess what nobody ever talked about that. It's a smokescreen statement to mask what the real truth is - no public option, period. You can just as easily make the argument that "tough regulation" will keep the insurers honest and giving up the public option is worth getting all of the other benefits.

Sorry. Prepare. It's coming.

[Cha]

3. There's absolutely no reason to take

the negative road on this.

[autorank]

4. Negative road?

I'm just reading the comments and interpreting them. Nobody ever said that we'd be dumped in the public option without choice. So why raise that even. It's a diversion. It's just what it is.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. I'm kind of sort of skeptical myself, BUT I disagree with your

assertion that nobody ever said we'd have no choice but the public option. That is what EVERY Republican is saying.

[autorank]

11. Reboot

I read the OP hoping to find a strong statement for the public option, which is the entire meaning of this process, presuming it's widely available. If we don't get it now, we'll not see it for a long time. There's always some peel off of the big majorities either party gets and anything less than the majorities now in the House and Senate would make it impossible. I saw no endorsement of the public option but I've heard a lot of back tracking from Sibilius when she floated the trial baloon a few weeks ago and then the leaksk to test the water of the liberal base that KO picked up on and Hampshire at FDL. I believe both of those sources. We're reduced to playing games when the case for the overall package including the public option is huge. Look at these numbers from Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html

That was just a few weeksk ago. If the case had been hammered in this most important of debates, we'd be rollig but it wasn't. The liars and venomous and deranged comments of the "death panel" folks went unchallenged except on the internet news sites and by a few honest corporate media types like E.J. Dione, and that's just recently. There just wasn't the heart there for the public option or a strong victory on the overall package.

I agree with your point but mine is valid too. That argument is not meaningful to anyone who would support this because the opponents are all in lock step. The real argument should be - we're going to have a public option because the insurance companies are cynical bastards who pay their CEO's up to $300 mil. a year (Unitedhealth) inflate costs exponentially, and deny claims to the seriously ill until they die (at ahich point, an approval may come through).

This is all part of raising the pressure - the debates here, the KO editorial, the many articls saying, hold fast.

We'll see this week. But a trigger at a later time is a loss because, as is clear from the past, you need big majorities of Democrats to win, given the Blue Dogs and other poseurs who are sitting at the table but refusing to do any work to bring home the bacon or tofu;)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

7. You just said exactly precisely what he said

Nobody ever said that we'd be dumped in the public option without choice. According to your interpretive genius, that means you oppose the public option too.

:crazy:

Hillary would not be doing any better. The grapes have turned into raisins. Let it go.

[johnaries]

13. ExCUSE me? WTF? Autorank, I remember many of your posts

from the past and loved many of them. But I'm sorry. This is one of th most paranoid posts I've seen anywhere.

and, indeed, many people ARE talking about being "forced" into the public option. One of the most popular RW memes is that the Public Option is stealth single-payer (I only hope) because private insurance can't compete. One of my RW co-workers is afraid our company will decide to pay the extra taxes rather than insurance and "force" us into the Public Option.

My old friend, sorry to come down so hard, but this post makes no sense whatsoever.

[treestar]

14. No he is reassuring those people who think they won't have "choice"

And that we will all be forced into that commie public scheme.

[cleveramerican]

8. He needs to take the reigns, if your right

He needs to get everybody in a room and decide what exactly WE AS A PARTY support and will not compromise on.
He needs to lead this party, talking about it ain't cuttin' it

He needs to do this before his address to congress.

[TomCADem]

9. So, He Should Start Issuing Ultimatums? What About Outlawing Post-Claim Rescission?

I don't agree that going in and throwing down ultimatums is necessarily the best approach. I think President Obama has made his support of the public option very clear. This is not a dictatorship.

[cleveramerican]

15. he needs to get his and congress' story straight

before he can hope to explain it clearly enough to gain widespread support.

[Arugula Latte]

10. I think you mean take the "reins" so he can "reign" over out country and "rain" on the GOP's parade.

:)

[autorank]

12. Unless he was being poetic /ironic in his use of "reign"

:shrug:

[falcon97]

16. He supports it, BUT

he's willing to trade it. The general manager of a team can like all his players, but he'll trade one of them if he thinks it can make the team better. It's not an exact analogy because, most of us would agree, trading the public option just in the name of getting a bill passed can't- by definition- be improving it.