Administration officials tell New York Times Obama has "not given up" on the public option

Third paragraph:



I think the problem here is that the media can't wait. Each of them are fighting to be the "the one" who finally declares the public option dead. Wait for the damn speech and see. The media keeps screwing up. We have gotten conflicting report from anonymous sources as to the WH's position on the public option.

How low can the media sink?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/health/policy/03care.html?hp

I would think so. :crazy:

I will not vote for either democrats or republicans.

And this is not an idle threat. I have told them as much.

I think they are starting to get the message... why the confused message... and yes, make no mistake Rham wants to jettison it.

Now if they get rid of it, and replace it with Medicare for All, then I am definitely on-board.

have collapsed into pointless infighting that will not help us get a bill passed.

The Divisions in the White House Over Health-Care Reform

This is health-care reform's endgame, or close to it. Next Wednesday, Barack Obama will give a prime-time address before both houses of Congress. But that's not all he's giving Congress. The administration is going to put a plan down on paper. The question is what it will say.

Conversations with a number of White House officials make it clear that, at this point, even they don't know. The argument was raging as recently as last night, and appears to have hardened into two main camps. Both camps agree that the cost of the bill has to come down. The question is how much, and what can be sacrificed.

The first camp could be called "universal-lite." They're focused on preserving the basic shape of the bill. They think a universal plan is necessary for a number of reasons: For one thing, the insurance market regulations don't work without universality, as you can't really ask insurers to offer standard prices if the healthy and the young don't have to enter the system. For another, it will be easier to change subsidies or improve the benefit package down the road if the initial offerings prove inadequate. New numbers are easier than new features. Creating a robust structure is the most important thing. This camp seems to be largely headed by the policy people.

The second camp is not universal at all. This camp believes the bill needs to be scaled back sharply in order to ensure passage. Covering 20 million people isn't as good as covering 40 million people, but it's a whole lot better than letting the bill fall apart and covering no one at all. It's also a success of some sort, and it gives you something to build on. What that sacrifices in terms of structure it gains in terms of political appeal. This camp is largely headed by members of the political team.

Both camps accept that the administration's proposal will be less generous than what has emerged from either the HELP or House Committees. The question, it seems, is how much less generous.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_divisions_in_the_white_hou.html

Keith: "White House will not confirm tonight that the public option is sacrosanct."

"Axelrod non-committal on public option."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32665484

The administration seems to have played this far too coy for their own good.

I know Obama (and especially Rahm) wanted to muddy the waters on a PO because they were likely hoping to barter it away to obtain other concessions, but by this stage they should have no illusions that the liberal base that got Obama elected have made the PO a line in the sand they dare not cross, so they should have all been on message at least the last two weeks clarifying that Obama stands firm on the need for a strong PO.

But.......instead they still seem to be trying to treat the issue as a "maybe", like its a bad smell they can say was just a figment of the imagination, which tells me they still would rather throw it away to obtain something else in their version of "reform".

into infighting over this bill.