I would rather see Obama go down in flames fighting for a public option...

Universal Healthcare
Public Option


Even if he lost the battle, it would so fire up the base even more.

We gain when we stand and fight. We lose when we settle for half a loaf. Or, in this case(which is what a bill without public option would be)a slice. And a slice spread with shit to be precise.

Settling for slight change always means demoralization and defeat.

down in flames would hurt the dems. Some of you all must live on an alternate planet.

It wouldn't actually BE reform. And you also know that if it's out in this bill, it's out for good. Nothing that big ever gets added later.

And remember, the public option does have majority support, so he can't lose by fighting for it.

complicit, that would be far worse. If it is missing price control and choice, it fails every bit as much as if nothing passes. But that apparently is in a blind spot for an alternate "some of you".

will be totally demoralized if we don't get it and this includes myself. It has taken 15 years to get back to this fight. Some of us don't have another 15 years. If we can't get the public option maybe we can break down some barriers and get our foot in the door so the debate will continue. If Obama goes down in flames it is over. IMHO

I assume that means you are referring to the Clinton effort. It did not have a public option - the fact is that Obama is highly likely to get something at least as good as what was proposed in 1993. He is actually likely to get a public option.

Not getting a public option, will be bad for cost containment, but he would have gained the biggest expansion of healthcare since the 1960s, the elimination of pre-existing conditions and all the rejections that leads to. It will NOT be "going down in flames".

and also of the Repubs winning back congress in 2010 and loosing the White House in 2012. I am being far too negative. I do agree with you and believe we will get a public option bill passed by Christmas.

But, in the unhappy event that it isn't, consider the spoken reason that a public option is needed. It is the best way we have to bring down the cost by making private companies compete with an efficient public plan - driving their costs down too.

If it passed without the public option, the increasing cost to the government will bring them back to "fix" the system very quickly. In effect, REALITY will be a "trigger" to add a public option likely within a year or two, which is before a public option would have been ready anyway. As to 2010, I think passage of a bill even with just the 85 - 90% that some Senators speak of there being agreement on. will be positive for most people. That and the fact that, in spite of the Republican effort to say there has been no recovery, the numbers disagree and the majority of people are seeing that there is the beginning of recovery.

Now, that does not mean I don't want a public option or I don't think it really important. The reason I say they will come back is because the costs will dictate that. It will have meant an extra time period where the cost continues to sky rocket. Adding a public option will then be far less complicated than all that is being done now.

if he fights for and passes a public option he won't go down in flames. if he gives in to the repukes, he'll flame out.

n/t

if he simply asked us to come to Washington
to talk some sense to our elected Congresspersons.
Democracy in action so to speak.
If even 10% of the people who voted for Obama showed
up on Capitol Hill to tell Congress how we feel about
HCR, it would pass with a strong public option.

even if he never had another major accomplishment!

It would not fire up his base nor provide any lasting benefits. nt

throughout this fight,
And yet they demand everything.

:shrug:

As it is, A lot of DEMS are still waiting or "demanding" for him to do this b/f they get behind him.

No one wants to get all worked up over supporting some insurance give-away or some crap put forth by "Blue Dogs."

It's sort of a chicken/egg thing, I guess.

You should be pissed off at the throngs of "Blue Dogs" and "centrists" who are failing to get energized enough to counter tea baggers.

WHERE ARE THEY? Our noble "centrists" dont need those dirty, hippie "far left" freaks to get things done, do they?

But seriously, maybe no one is getting passionate about Obama's positions b/c they either disagree with those positions, or they cant figure out exactly what his position is.

Maybe "Centrists" are not offering passionate & vocal support b/c they dont really believe in anything.

If DEMS are going to be "centrists"- then you need to expect CENTRISTS to get off their butts and counter Obama's critics.

Maybe this admin should stop waiting for "the far left" to do the work of "centrists."

He couldn't possibly lose to Reagan!

Wait, what year is this?

All elections, no matter how much time has passed & no matter how much circukmstances have changed, are to be compared to Nixon/McGovern '72. Or Clinton in the 90's.

"We Must be centrist like we were in the 90's! If we are too far left, it's McGovern '72 all over again! Stop saying far left stuff like McGovern!"

Say it like that.

;)