So I take it Obama has openly come out against a public option?

That sucks.

Can someone provide the quote? Thanks!

:)

In fact what do THEY expect

Gibbs and Siebellus, both said on Sunday that a public option wasn't a requirement

Conrad said similar things

The administration has been so concerned with "compromising" that they have forgotten their base

The conclusion that was jumped to here was also jumped to by the MSM, progressive groups, and most Democrats

If I was to bet right now, I would say there isn't going to be a healthcare this year. Progressives in Congress won't vote for one if it doesn't have a public option, most blue dogs won't vote for one if it does have a public option, and the republicans are going to vote against no matter what it has

Unless Obama starts acting decisively, and tell the Congressional Democrats that if they don't vote for it, they can forget about their pet projects getting to the floor, or support from the party. Where is LBJ when we need him?

A lot of independents voted for Obama and the Democrats because of healthcare. If it doesn't happen we can kiss 2010 away

Siebellus even came out today and said so...

be on the same message

I am sorry but too many games are getting played among Democrats, some coming from people within his administration

Obama should have taken a much tougher stand, and keep the people within his administration on message

It is not just the poor quality media conveying misinformation, he already knew what he was up against, or should have from the election, it is that they did not approach this fight agressively enough

Sec. Sebelius did not misspeak, she floated an idea. It was shot down. Standard White House protocol. Democratic or Republican. It's one of the stupider things about politics.

It wasn't the people that are calling them "nazis", "socialists", or the republicans who have said that they will do everything in their power to defeat the healthcare bill.

After 7 months in office if they better realize that compromise is not going to work.

If there is a public option, it will be in spite of the Democrats and administration, it will be because of the party base

:thumbsup:

There is no "quote", per se. But he has craftily begun using words differently to communicate his intentions.

It's very subtle, it's so subtle it's almost not there.

:P

of many do not use the same exact words to get their points across.

Evidently it isin't very considerate of them not to use words in lockstep.

<snip>>>

"(CBS) White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Face the Nation Sunday that President Obama is still in favor a government-sponsored health insurance plan -- but does not intend to replicate the beleaguered U.S. Postal Service.

The federal government would be able to successfully administer a health insurance option, Gibbs told CBS Anchor Harry Smith, even though the government-run Postal Service is facing serious financial problems.

"I don't think he was saying that what we were going to do is create the postal service for healthcare," Gibbs said. "The president believes this option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/16/ftn/main5245252.shtml

:thumbsup:

If he was FOR it, he'd be screeching like a lunatic making threats and demands about it!

Is there any wonder why healthcare is not making it?

Has he made threats? No. That's not his style, never was.

Who says healthcare is "not making it"? I don't see that at all. I see reform happening. Period. What shape it takes is another matter, but there will be reform. I will also bet that there will be public option.

to give contradictory statements

It's called politics. Familiar with it?

that didn't vote for them, they are way behind the curve

until Gibbs tears out his heart in the press room a la Molaram from Temple of Doom.

:shrug:

or perhaps some kind of twisted defeatist mantra?

we haven't had enough of that to last us forever yet.

:eyes:

it's all over the place. The fact that you need a direct quote must mean that you aren't a real Democrat and should find your own damned board to spew your anti-Democratic Pro-Obama bias. :-P :hide:

I will keep checking back to see if you ever get a quote, somehow I don't think one is forthcoming.

of killing baby bunny rabbits and drowning kittens to make a statement to that effect, yeah.

Also, he did order FEMA to start building final solution ovens at the internment camps...

















:sarcasm:

That program is code word classified.... "Beelzebub"... the Dark Lord Returns!

Nobody but the inner circle is aware of it.

His HHS secretary said it was "not essnetial."

He said, "if it's in the final bill or not."

All this was a switch from "it will be in the bill I sign."

In other words He turned coat on the issue, and is no longer really, truly supporting the public option.

But you know that.

I'm asking for a quote where he came out against it.

Thanks!

:hi:

You seem to want a literal statement.

But as you know, you won't get one.

This is the old shell game now, my friend.

He hasn't torpedoed anything. No bill has come across his desk. NO BILL HAS EVEN BEEN DRAFTED.

You're speculating and making a fool of yourself in the process.

I think that he was trying to point out the the nasty-ass insurance companies that this boy was so interested in protecting will still be able to survive.

When he said it no one reacted at all or thought anything of it. Fast forward to HHS sec's statement which was "not THE essential" and not "not essential" as you have misquoted and now all of the sudden taking "sliver" out of context means Obama does not support the public option.

Obama's point was that the insurance industry will survive. He just didn't want the little wet-behind-the-ears college boy to have nightmares over the CEO of United Health Care losing his huge bonuses.

He would sign a bill that didn't have it if that was the only way it would pass. If such a bill passes, it should have strong rate regulation, like there is in Switzerland, which has universal health coverage without a public option.

that should be obvious

"If he would sign a bill that didn't have it if that was the only way it would pass", then he can forget about it. The progressive will NOT vote for a bill that doesn't have it, and they won't have the votes

He has effectively removed his support from the public option.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8596712&mesg_id=8596712

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/greider

By William Greider

"...Barack Obama mainly did this to himself. To avoid the accusation of socialized medicine, he intentionally shrouded his objectives in bureaucratic euphemisms like "public option." What the hell does that mean? It doesn't mean anything..."


Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold
Posted by Andrew Coates MD on Monday, Jul 20, 2009
by Kip Sullivan

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/

"The people who brought us the “public option” began their campaign promising one thing but now promote something entirely different. To make matters worse, they have not told the public they have backpedalled. The campaign for the “public option” resembles the classic bait-and-switch scam: tell your customers you’ve got one thing for sale when in fact you’re selling something very different.

When the “public option” campaign began, its leaders promoted a huge “Medicare-like” program that would enroll about 130 million people. Such a program would dwarf even Medicare, which, with its 45 million enrollees, is the nation’s largest health insurer, public or private. But today “public option” advocates sing the praises of tiny “public options” contained in congressional legislation sponsored by leading Democrats that bear no resemblance to the original model...


...Hacker’s papers laid out these five criteria that he and the Lewin Group said were critical to the success of the “public option”:

• The PO had to be pre-populated with tens of millions of people, that is, it had to begin like Medicare did representing a large pool of people the day it commenced operations (Hacker proposed shifting all or most uninsured people as well as Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees into his public program);

• Subsidies to individuals to buy insurance would be substantial, and only PO enrollees could get subsidies (people who chose to buy insurance from insurance companies could not get subsidies);

• The PO and its subsidies had to be available to all nonelderly Americans (not just the uninsured and employees of small employers);

• The PO had to be given authority to use Medicare’s provider reimbursement rates; and

• The insurance industry had to be required to offer the same minimum level of benefits the PO had to offer.

Hacker predicted, and both of the Lewin Group reports concluded, that if these specifications were met Hacker’s plan would enjoy all three of Medicare’s advantages – it would be huge, it would have low overhead costs, and it would pay providers less than the insurance industry did...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803655.html

"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform."


Okay, well... I didn't realize I was some sort of extreme leftist.

and then pointed to the west. Clear and obvious indication that he is dropping the Public Option . . . from all of the various bills . . . none of which he wrote . . . or controls . . . because he isn't a member of congress.

His HHS said the public option is "not an essential part" of any health care reform.

We presume the HHS is speaking with the President's authority, as is usually the case, and comes from meetings she has had with the W.H.

People who think a part of a bill is just a "sliver," likely don't see it as an essential part...true?

What's important is what he HASN'T SAID...which is that he WANTS OR REQUIRES a public option. He has never said that. As he has said many times, "I mean what I say." He has said he PREFERS a public option.

So...he prefers it. But apparently will sign a bill without it, since he doesn't regard it as essential.

:rofl: