Should Obama veto any bill without a public option?

[kentuck]

At the rate it is going, Obama will be the big loser if we do not get meaningful health care reform or if he gets a bill without a public option?

With that being a good possibility, should he not consider vetoing any bill that does not have the public option? That way, he could claim some sort of victory, although many would call it a pyrrhic victory. But, the public may see it as something else?

If he comes out ahead of time and promises a veto of any bill that does not have a public option, he will be seen as keeping his promise. Because, it would not be worth signing anyway.

[backscatter712]

1. Absolutely, he should.

Though I think he should wait until the bill hits the Senate floor, maybe even until it's in the conference committee (when he's going to do his real arm-twisting) to make any veto threats.

[Wapsie B]

2. Yes he should.

Even if it's simply fully funding Medicare and putting everyone into that system he should not sign a bill that contains anything less.

[jocapo]

3. With extreme prejudice

[alsame]

4. Yes. nt

[tridim]

5. Hasn't he already stated exactly that?

It's hard to keep track with the noise on DU and the media.

[Walk away]

6. As far as I am concerned he might as well pack his bags...

and head back to Chigago if doesn't veto any bill without a public option. On this issue the American people have clearly spoken. If he isn't on our side then what is he doing there?

[ramapo]

7. NO

A veto would go under the old adage, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Despite that being a very odd saying, an Obama veto would deprive millions of Americans of whatever reforms do make it into the bill. Most critical is the end to the pre-existing condition denials, which cost millions of us the opportunity to be insured.

I would very much like to see a strong and viable public option. I would much rather see single-payer. The public option bill in the House is a nightmare of complexity. So much so that I think some of the Republicans actually have a valid point.

I hate to see Democrats caving in but until I see what is in the legislation, I will withhold final judgment. Obama should not get into a threat down over the public option. He would likely put himself in a no-win situation.

[Walk away]

13. I think it's the 48.000.000 people without health care who are in a...

no win situation. Without a public option the crooks in the health care business will find a way around reforms. They are probably working on it now so they can be ready to screw you before the new rules go into effect.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. What specific problem do you have with the public option...

... as envisioned by HR3200?

[Political Heretic]

40. You are full of shit.

Legislation without a public option - which is already an extreme compromise falling far short of what American people deserve, isn't health care reform. Period.

the elimination of the pre-existing condition is fucking irrelevant for me BECAUSE I CANT AFFORD FUCKING HEALTH CARE. That's where MILLIONS of Americans are.

By your reasoning, no one should ever veto anything, or ever take a stand on anything because there's always some shitty bone being thrown and apparently you think we must always take it.

I am one of the Americans you are talking about. I bet YOU have health care, while you wax eloquent about what we can and can't afford. I don't, and I'm telling you I can't afford bullshit to be passed in the name of "Reform."

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. +1

:applause:

[ramapo]

49. So everybody remains fucked?

You think a veto would force these bastards to go with a public option?

No Fucking Way, a veto would be the end of any chance for reform, not just this year but for a long time.

I'm with you. I want a public option. I really want single-payer. And I'd like to go to each of these spineless, gutless SOBs (aka our "Representatives) and make them uninsured.

You see, I do have a personal stake in this...

My son had the audacity to have a brain tumor when he was sixteen. Now he is 22 and thankfully very healthy. But he has been denied insurance and been told he will NEVER EVER be accepted as an individual insured. So right now he is fucked.

He is on the brink of being uninsured when his student policy runs out. Now he could move to another state, one in which he doesn't want to live, but one where everybody is guaranteed insurance but at a hefty premium.

Right now I do have health insurance but if I leave my job and move out of my home state of NJ, I won't have it any longer because I have pre-existing conditions.

I have yet to see how the affordability problem is being addressed...even with the public option. I haven't seen that the public option is free or even cheap.

So don't tell me that I'm full of shit when I spend a part of each day worrying about my soon to be uninsured son.

[OHdem10]

8. It is breaking my heart to observe Obama appear, I said appear

to have been a Centrist DLCer in hiding.

I never thought Obama to be a Liberal necessarily, but I believed
him when he said he would put Working People First.

He must simply tell them he is willing to let Health Care
go down because he will not betray this important promise.

It takes more character to lose over principle than to
be willing to sign anything just to have a bill. This is not
being a pragmatist. There are no principles when one is
willing to sign anything just to sign something.



T

[Beetwasher]

9. He Will Not Be Presented A Bill W/Out A Public Option

The bill that comes out of the Senate/House conference will have a public option. I guarantee it.

[Enrique]

14. a veto threat might be necessary at some point

but there's probably some sense in not making that threat until it is necessary.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Agreed. n/t

[bvar22]

24. It will have something called a "Public Option",

but if it is anything like the current bill in The House (HR 3200), it will be BOGUS.

A "Public Option" (in name only) that enrolls LESS than 10 Million Americans by 2019, and forbids enrollment from those receiving Health Insurance from their employer in NOT a "Public Option".

[Beetwasher]

29. Says Nostradamus

:eyes:

[bvar22]

36. No. Says the Congressional Budget Office.

The Bean Counters (CBO) are the most credible source in Washington DC.
You can roll your eyes all you want to.
The CBO doesn't care because they just do the math, a skill you should learn.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says about HR 3200, the current bill in The House:

*ONLY 10 Million Americans will be covered by the Public Plan by 2019.
Big Insurance should be very happy.
With the MANDATE and only 10 Million in the Public Plan after 10 years, they will be raking in the money.
Billions of it will be YOUR Tax Money buying Resorts and Yachts for the Big Insurance CEOs.

If the Public Plan only enrolls 3% of Americans, will they have any negotiating power to drive down Health Care Costs?

"Most importantly, the CBO coverage tables undermine the conservative claim that a public option would eliminate private insurance and erode employer-sponsored coverage. The House bill actually increases the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million (in 2019) and shifts most of the uninsured into private coverage. By 2019, 30 million individuals would also purchase coverage from the Exchange, but only 9-10 million Americans (or approximately 1/3) would enroll in the public option, the rest would enroll in private coverage."

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/14/house-bill-comes-in-at-1-trillion-undermines-gop-talking-points/

*Health Insurance will be mandated for all Americans, but Providers will be able to refuse Public Plan Participants.

Provider participation is voluntary – Medicare providers are presumed to be participating unless they opt out."

*The Public Option "should" be about 10% cheaper than Private Insurance.
I guess that is something, but a Publicly Owned Government Administered Plan that is open to ALL Americans could cut costs by at least 25%. (Difference between Medicare and Private Insurance administration).



*Many that are receiving Employer Based Insurance will be locked out of the "Exchange" and forced to keep their more expensive insurance.

"Under the main health bills being debated in Congress, many people with job-based insurance could find it difficult to impossible to switch to health plans on a new insurance exchange, even if the plans there were cheaper or offered better coverage. The restrictions extend to any government-run plan, which would be offered on the exchange.

<snip>

But critics argue that the rules run counter to suggestions from health care reform advocates that an overhaul could provide people with a broader choice of insurance options. The rules, they say, could be especially unfair to some lower-income workers who are enrolled in costly job-based insurance. Also, they argue, the restrictions would hurt the proposed public plan by limiting enrollment."

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/healthquest/for-many-workers-insurance-choices-may-be-limited-after-health-care-overhaul

There are many other details that need to be examined, but the one MOST glaring is the prediction that ONLY 10 Million will be enrolled in the Public Option by 2019. That is minuscule compared to what America is demanding.

Do you believe that the 72% of Americans who are calling for a "Public Option" will be satisfied with this?

[Beetwasher]

39. So You've Seen The Final Bill?

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

41. And I garuntee you that option will be shitty, garunteed to be no threat to private insurance.

Big Insurance isn't going to allow a bill that contains any sort of public option that could seriously compete with them.

[Beetwasher]

50. Whatever You Say Nostradamus!!! Tell It To Sherrod Brown:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/28/758754/-Sherrod-Brown:-Well-get-a-strong-public-option

[BlooInBloo]

56. That's a reasonable prediction.

[global1]

10. And He Should Send It Back Until They Get It Right.......nt

[avaistheone1]

11. Yes.

I suggest he support HR676.

[Romulox]

12. Without a public option, the bill will be nothing much more than a subisidy to private insurers.

Shouldn't a bailout of the insurance industry go through TARP?

[Laelth]

15. Yes, he should veto.

He should also veto any bill that forces the uninsured to buy insurance (from any source, unless it's 100% subsidized), as such a provision will be political suicide for the Party.

:dem:

-Laelth

[blue_onyx]

38. Yes, I completely agree

A mandate is wrong and goes against what he said during the campaign.

[PufPuf23]

16. Yes - Obama should veto if the health care bill

is not public health care with a private option.

Better no change than marginal change with corporate entitlement in the details.

Lets join the modern humane and civilized world.

What was that about having the same health care as Congress?

Health care should not be tied to one's employment.

And good health care makes for better employees and easier for small and entrepreneurial businesses.

Lack of health care destroys families and lives physically and financially. Why plan for the future when a medical emergency can destroy all?

Monies to insurers should go to more medical and associated schools so we have more doctors, nurses, and other health care providers.

People want those jobs and people want the health care. A shuffling paper economy sucks in so many ways.

[kath]

22. +10

Great post!

[PufPuf23]

48. Thank you! Alas one can dream the obvious. nt

[Missy Vixen]

17. Truthfully? He won't

My husband goes back to work tomorrow. We're not rich, but I will donate $10 to DU when the non-public option health care bill is signed into law.

Anyone who still believes that President Obama will actually veto a public-option-less bill after this morning's news should put down the crack pipe.

[Beetwasher]

18. Delete

[WeDidIt]

20. Damned straight he should!

He won't though.

This is going to be nothing short of welfare for insurance companies.

[phantom power]

23. I think he should veto anything that isn't Single Payer.

But hey -- "that isn't on the table" -- so I guess we'll have to settle.
:eyes:


Yes, I think that he should veto anything that doesn't include a meaningful public option. I actually think the GOP is right about one thing. If Obama can't deliver a meaningful improvement to our health care cluster-fuck, it will be his waterloo.

[izzybeans]

25. YES

[rocktivity]

26. He should--and I think he will

Though at this point, I believe that anything less than single payer is fiscally, politically AND morally irresponsible.

:headbang:
rocktivty

[Arkana]

27. He's already said he would.

He stated unequivocally that the bill he signed MUST include a public option that would be allowed to compete directly with private insurers and keep them honest.

[tridim]

31. Yes he has, the real question is why are people on DU ignoring what he has already stated?

[Arkana]

33. I can't imagine...

:sarcasm:

[rvablue]

28. YES! n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

30. Honestly?

As much as he would like to stand on principle, I'm sure he would rather have a weak bill than no bill, sad to say. That's politics in America. Change comes incrementally. I sure hope there is an 'act II' because look what Clinton's fall-back attempt to equality in the military gave us - 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'.

I don't think Obama wants a 'not quite what I envisioned' legacy on his hands with health care.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Yes

[Laurab]

34. Yes. nt

[lefthandedlefty]

35. What if it don`t have it and the senate gets 60 or more votes?

isn`t that veto proof?

[dysfunctional press]

37. only if he plans on running in 2012.

otherwise- he should take the big payday from big insurance and big pharma and be done with it.

[wryter2000]

42. Yes, but

He should scream at the top of his lungs why he's doing it. The RW talk machine and the corporate media will try to paint him as being against health care reform or against his own bill.

Hell, even screaming probably wouldn't work.

[jmondine]

43. Damn Straight

[Parker CA]

45. Yes.

[road2000]

46. Yes, absolutely.

[GreenTea]

47. Of course. 76% of the American people want a Public Option.

[donheld]

51. Yes

[t0dd]

52. yes

[tblue37]

53. YES!

[budkin]

54. Absolutely

[Vidar]

55. Yes.

[HughMoran]

57. Yes

[jberryhill]

58. Yes

Make it THE issue of the mid-terms, and if the voters can't figure it out, then that's that.

[BradXXX]

59. YES!

he should most definitely veto any bill without a STRONG public option.