Privately, Barack Obama strongly backs public option

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-healthcare-obama-1003-oct04,0,1969667.story

--snip--

Despite months of seeming ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched an intensifying behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea in the weeks just ahead.

President Barack Obama has long advocated a so-called public option, while at the same time repeatedly expressing openness to other ways to offer consumers a potentially more affordable alternative to health plans sold by private insurers.

But now, senior administration officials are holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring to the Senate floor later this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides.

--snip--

about Obama's strategy to end up with a public option, or some such thing. This sounds very consistent with that theory. Or it would, if I could remember the theory.

that has been discussed on television for many weeks. See #16 below.

1. Let the Congressional committees pass whatever bills they want, because you know at least the house bill will have a PO. This ensures that no one feels like their toes are being stepped on. There's a lot of egos in Congress. They don't take kindly to being handed a complex bill written by the White House and told "pass it." That didn't work in 1994.

2. Favor the PO but be non-committal. This does a couple of things. First, and most importantly, it doesn't box Obama in if the bill ends up NOT containing a PO but is still an overall positive bill, i.e. a bill that regulates insurance practices like rescission and denials for preexisting conditions, Obama is not FORCED to veto it. (Some think that he should veto it, but I'm not sure about that. It may be the best bill we get at this point, and those insurance practice reforms look pretty good themselves-are they something you want to pass up on?). Second, it doesn't give a target for the Republicans. If he drew the line in the sand at the PO, that would be what they would focus all their time and energy trying to defeat.

3. Once a bill passes both houses (to pass even one house would bring us farther than 1994), go into conference committee and ensure that the PO ends up in the conference report (i.e. the final bill that the president would sign if passed AGAIN by both houses). You can do that as long as the PO has passed in at least one bill (or even if it hasn't passed at all--it's unclear).

4. Once the conference report has passed the House, which it will, start/continue a campaign to get all Dem senators to "commit to cloture" at the very least--meaning, no matter how they vote on the conf report, they vote to stop a filibuster. If they feel that the PO is bad politically for them, they can at least vote against it without killing it for everyone else. Get 50 votes for the conf report (Joe Biden = 51).

+1

:thumbsup:

sometimes it doesn't. I am thrilled if this report is true! I believe, there's a decent chance of a P.O. working it's way to a Senate vote within a month, and I'm very hopeful we can get a couple more votes - still, I believe they still can force it if they really want with the 50 vote plan.

needs to have a President who takes a public stand on this issue.The President has the bully pulpit and I cannot understand WHY he doesn't use it.( and the chess BS doesn't work for me, and we don't have to kiss elephant ass on this one)

and spin the eventual outcome, whatever it is, as a great victory.

to prevent DUzzyness from over-spinning.

Why will that help?

Then he can say why he's ___ and ___.

But, yes, if he's for it, coming out with detail information as to why he's for it would be the best...

Most on here were only advocates for single payer until Obama kept pushing PO and then he got Dean to back him on it. He's always been for PO and he hasn't shied away from it. The article is misphrasing a lot. Every time I hear an interview and he's talking about health reform, he talks about how he doesn't understand why people don't like the PO.


If you claim you haven't heard that, based on your statement that is what you are uderlying...then you don't listen to the President.

to get anything out of them.

Lincoln, Fucking Ben Nelson (Mutual of Omaha), and probably Conrad and Lieberman are fucking anchors. Others also suck but can be pressured or bought/leased.

That would make it very hard for these Democrats to change their mind later. By not demanding it publicly, he can make the necessary deals in private to get everyone on board.

Why would it force them to come out publicly against it - the public - and their constituents want it. Having the president come out forcefully for it should actually give them backbone, I would have thought. :shrug:

If Obama demands something they hate, they might pledge to publicly vote against the whole bill. Better Obama waits until it actually matters (winning their votes on the Senate floor) so he can maintain maximum leverage and make a deal.

Claiming a big conspiracy by the corporatists that supposedly "own" Obama is much more ideologically appealing!

wayyy to complicated for us to understand.:think:

.... 'cause half of DU says so. (heh)

Of course he does, he always has. Anyone who doubts otherwise needs to read the 2010 Budget, written LAST SPRING, and see that he made it possible to get it done via reconciliation.

I dont understand why some of us are having such a hard time grasping the idea .... unless, perhaps, we dont WANT to. ;)

And I don't buy that crap about centrist dems would have to oppose it if he backed it publicly. Their constituents want it, they'd probably feel pressure from back home to get behind it also.

..... otherwise they'd been for it from the jump.

I live in the Blue Dog belt and voters here are convinced that "big government is trying to take over our lives!!! ahhhh!!!!"

It's easy to look at poll numbers and see a slight up-tick in favorability for health care reform and scratch your head as to why the Blue Dogs are dragging their feet. But those numbers are across the board, and members of Congress are not elected nationally. Support HAS gone up ...... in regions that were already blue. And it's gone down in regions that were already red. Now, there are currently more blue areas than red areas, so that's why you're seeing support over all go up ..... but Rep. So and So from such and such Red Dog state only has to worry about HER voters .... and a lot of her voters are worried about Obama trying raise their taxes so he can kill grandma.

If you doubt me, come down here and stay with me for the weekend .... I'll show you around town. ;)

Is it so "risky" to say that the president HAS NOT given up on the public option?

Confusing at best.

accepting ads from right-wing groups?

An automated service picks up on certain keywords/topics being discussed and displays ads that seem relevant. Sometimes, this can cause undesirable stuff to pop up, but that's not the admin's doing. Most of the time, the advertisements are benign and provide revenue for the site's upkeep.

By the way, if you prefer not to see any ads, a donor star takes 'em away. :)

I will never contribute to DU again.

I just wanted to present the option in case you weren't aware. :hi:

looking at me.

;-)

I think you mean 19 year old supermodel.

The fact that he won't fight for it in public is all that matters.

What happens is public is p.r., not legislation.

And we're losing it.

it's a war for Senate votes right now. Very different.

You may care about Gallup polls, but they don't pass legislation

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He has always downplayed the PO, saying it is only "one tool' and indicated there are other options. There aren't .

He also says IF there's a BETTER way, he's open to suggestions.

one of the tools" and muddied the issue. That is why Gibbs won't answer Helen Thomas when she asks why the President isn"fighting for the PO or IF he is going to fight for it.He may have changed his mind as he did on the mandates.he used to be opposed to the mandates.

He expressed that most media, and people are focusing on that----from the right to destroy health care reform and from the left who seem to think that's a panacea (which is also helping in narrowing and marginalizing the issue). Health care reform is entails a massive overhaul. Talk should not be around ONLY the public option or whether there are death panels or not. You don't get proper dialogue and conversation this way. The entire thing needs to be looked at. How does this affect good or bad Medicaid and Medicare or other health care provisions? How does this affect our total costs? How are companies buy insurance for their workers are going to manage the changes? How do the employees get affected if at all?

Then there are the immediate costs to implementing new computers, making things more efficient and functional. How does dental care fall into play? One of the things that bugs me is if my medical records are computerized on a national system how is security going to be maintained? No one here bloody talks about the whole issue...only one or two aspects. He didn't muddy it, he tried to open it and you are closing it again. He has supported the PO from the beginning and hasn't faltered---he only said it's only one tool and he's right...because they are using many tools to bring down national and social costs.

or used by just 5% of the populace. none of the other stuff matters. As the newspapers outlined yesterday and as is posted on DU. the insurance companies will STILL be able to cherry pick, and without the PO in place none of the other issues can be controlled.

What that means is that when you get medicare you need to have a insurance provider alongside your little card. I had GHI along with my medicaid card when I was on medicaid. So even if there was a strong insurance option, chances are there would be a health insurance provider connected to it, since there alread is for medicare and medicaid. Meaning the doctors are on an insurance plan which accepts medicare/medicaid. I need to know what exactly you think the insurance companies are going to be able to "cherry pick" if there are strong laws, rules and regs (which Obama has stated will be outlined and enforced) for all insurance companies. Sure depending on the President in place the amount of enforcement and oversight might tend to change or lag...however with him in charge he has stated that they will try to minimize fraud within the new plans. The strong PO can utilize aspects of a health insurance---since, at least in NY, that is going on.

That;s what started all this in the first place.

If and when this bill is signed into law I think that a signing statement made by President Obama trying to strengthen the bill will tell us that he is actually for a public option or a single payer system.

If he does nothing but sign the bill that will also tell us where his priorities are concerning health care.

I have no idea what the legal impact of a signing statement is but I would hope President Obama would make some kind of statement trying to write into law that all Americans have a legal right to health care (not health insurance).

Obama is the last white hope.

Obama has spent months selling the plan and most are favor of it. This is about Senate arm twisting and actaully getting a bill passed.

doing enough, they must've not seen these paragraphs of the article:

"Administration officials are also distributing talking points and employing other campaign-style devices to rally support for passing a bill this fall.

The White House initiative, unfolding largely out of public view, follows months in which the president appeared to defer to senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill as they labored to put together gargantuan health care bills.

It also marks a critical test of Obama's command of the inside game in Washington in which deals are struck behind closed doors and wavering lawmakers are cajoled and pressured into supporting major legislation....

And when Pennsylvania Democrats came to the White House recently to celebrate the Pittsburgh Penguins' Stanley Cup win, Obama pulled some of them aside and reiterated his commitment to the public option even as Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was preparing a bill without one."

ibid

The Finance committee would have gone without a PO even with Obama's pressure, IMO. When the final bill comes up for debate, we can judge both Obama and Congress more.

Wouldn't it be nice if Congress gave Obama a bill that's even better than what he asked for?

if he pressures conservadems to vote for a public option, that would do the job.

Yeah, but I think that he is asking for a strong public option.

I've noticed a lot of people might be hard of hearing or reading when ever his speeches are available on the matter.

and so are a couple of Senators!

I'm not about to sit here and spout credibility. I know how to read and write and speak and I understand English perfectly fine. I don't need a reporter to tell me what they heard to be the fact when I heard the same thing and interpreted it differently. If she chooses to misrepresent the words of the President as so many have done in the past then she's nothing more than a tool for the media. Her place is to give the news unbiased. However if it's an opinion peace as so many news articles have become--then that's her perogative. I have heard the words of the President and take them at face value. He has said, and I will reiterate, countless times that he supports a Public Option and wants on in the bill...he has NEVER shifted from that argument. You choose to ignore and you also prefer listening to someone who also chose to ignore his words---because it fulfills your agenda (whatever that is).

but neither the media nor his haters hear him. :shrug:

The President has been for the PO all along. It's too boring for them, so they make a tempest in a teacup so they have something to rattle on about 24/7.

I guess thinking it is 9/10 of the battle. :eyes:

I think what's happening is the WH is aware the Democratic base wants the public option, or better, and it's trying to find some way to get something, anything, called "the public option" into the final Senate bill. That doesn't mean it will be what people here consider to be the public option.