Community | October 25, 2009 | 27 comments

Senate Pushes For Public Option Without Obama's Support

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

Image
Chique
President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.

"The leadership understands that this is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top," said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.

(Continued at Link)
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Current Tonight,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Obama,  Barack Obama,  Health Care,  White House,  22 more
  3.     
    |

27 comments // Senate Pushes For Public Option Without Obama's Support

  • Theekshani
    • 0
      Theekshani  

    • "public insurance option with a state opt-out clause"
      Meaning all the red states will never have public option and those without decent health insurance will start flooding into states with public option? No good. Try again Senate, and do a better job next time.

    • 2 years ago
  • ocanada
    • 0
      ocanada  

    • I knew he was on the wrong side of reform. Weak and hackneyed all this time simply because this is a political game from the white house. The White House could have ended this discussion months ago with a public option and firm support for it its because of their foolishness that reform is withering on the vine and people will be forced into the horror of the Bachus bill. The Bachus bill the White House supports is tantamount to leaving a flock of sheep to be watched over by a wolf. Feeding the insurance companies profit motive and bloating it further with no strong assurances for either competence or competition. The Presidents plan is not worth supporting and as a Democrat I think that Democrats need to learn that they will end up in the political wilderness if they keep pandering to the right.

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
  • VoyagerFilms
    • 0
      VoyagerFilms  

    • We need a public option, and better still there should be a single payer system. Leaving health care to be run by people with profit motive is like putting Hitler in charge of Jewish affairs, the proverbial Fox watching the hen house.

      Let's just do away with it now. I support the public option and the end of insurance companies as we know them.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • JohnA
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  
    • Image

    • The AP seems to disagree, according to the article

      "Obama has said he strongly supports a public option as a way of driving down costs by providing competition to private insurers."

      To be fair the majority of the article is just about Senator Schumer declaring that the Democratic caucus is on the brink of wrangling up 60 votes.

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
    • 0
      Chique  
    • current89:

      Yeah, confusing isn't it - - depending on where the information comes from. I hope the AP is right. This article stating "Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks" sounds like a cop out to the insurance industry to me. Since we get bits and pieces of information every day that seem to conflict it feels like a roller coaster ride for those of us depending on this passing.

    • 2 years ago
  • ocanada
    • 0
      ocanada  
    • current89:

      The White House equivocates constantly about the public option. It is their dithering that is primarily responsible for the divisions of the Democratic caucus on this issue. It is quite simply a failure to lead by this president and a dissapointment that bodes ill for climate legislation and the employee free choice act his other legislative priorities.

    • 2 years ago
  • neocongo
  • extracrazykiwi2008
    • 0
      extracrazykiwi2008  

    • If our employers drop or reduce our health insurance coverage to save money, they everyone would be on board for a single payer or a public option. I have free health insurance from my employer, but that may not always be the case in the future. Lets think about all those that can't afford to buy health insurance. One day you or I maybe one of them...

    • 2 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  

    • The opt out would allow states to do just that, meaning that most red states would not have a public option, and be left to their own devices to fix their health care deficiencies. They could later, "opt in," but hell rarely freezes over.

      Look at how difficult this fight has been with a Democratic President and majorities in Congress. Now imagine how impossible it would be to get a public option at a later date in a red state with a Repub governor and Repub majorities in their state congress.

      President Obama, and a solid majority of Americans want a public option for ALL Americans. The opt out is a cop out. A trigger option is even worse, and there is sigificant evidence, contrary to this article, that Obama does not support a trigger. We can get the votes for a solid public option. And if it's not bipartisan, too fucking bad.

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
    • 0
      Chique  
    • neocongo:

      Yeah it seems like including every state is the only way to go. Leaving it up to individual states at the beginning would prove to be a nightmare for those where it's not available and defeat the purpose. I agree.

    • 2 years ago
  • neonbunny
    • 0
      neonbunny  

    • Wtf happened to single payer? All I've been hearing about is the retarded public option. If single payer health care does not happen, your government has pussied out to the insurance companies.

    • 2 years ago
  • anikhanj
  • kyackr
    • 0
      kyackr  
    • neonbunny:

      my understanding is.. that single payer system is not the same as a public health insurance option. single payer is .. everyone pays into the same government run not for profit health insurance fund. the public option is just to provide a option one can choose if you don't like the coverage and expense of your for profit corporate health insurance provider ..

    • 2 years ago
  • neonbunny
  • Progresshiv
  • JonRaymond
  • Chique
    • 0
      Chique  
    • JonRaymond:

      Single payer would be my first choice and when it was looking close to impossible to get passed, there was still some hope for public option. This is disturbing to say the least.

    • 2 years ago
  • Chique
  • thecoyote23
  • Ihatethemall
  • CalPal
  • Ihatethemall
  • kyackr
    • 0
      kyackr  
    • Ihatethemall:

      i thought you were anti obama ..
      obama is pushing against the public option now ? .. like you
      .. according to this ariticle

      i take it you have a sweet health insurance situation?
      no concern of the bull shit discrepancy between ever increasing corporate profits and increasing denial of health care ..
      what's the problem with giving them some competition

      you are so focused on hating them all.. (politicians)
      ? well. you should focus your attention to the corporatism that is behind failure of american politics
      as far as the we the people aspect of america anyway.
      maybe you just have a lot of health insurance stock?
      and are paranoid it's value will fall

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos