yeswecanandwedid
(440 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:02 PM
Original message |
I would rather see Obama go down in flames fighting for a public option... |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-24-09 09:05 PM by yeswecanandwedid
Universal Healthcare Public Option
Even if he lost the battle, it would so fire up the base even more.
|
stray cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:14 PM
Response to Original message |
1. and let the gop give us reform in 2012 |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. There's no way having Obama go to the mat for the public option would help the GOP |
|
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.
|
ChimpersMcSmirkers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Yeah, it's not like Obama's campaign promise of health care reform going |
|
down in flames would hurt the dems. Some of you all must live on an alternate planet.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. You know as well as everyone else that, without the public option |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-24-09 10:52 PM by Ken Burch
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.
|
quakerboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
14. If it goes down without a whimper, with dems |
|
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".
|
nevergiveup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:15 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Most of the folks I know who are fighting for a public option |
|
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
|
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. 15 years to get back to the fight?? |
|
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".
|
nevergiveup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. Yeah, I am thinking of the Clinton fiasco |
|
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.
|
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
16. I am completely with you and hope that is the case |
|
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.
|
Doctor_J
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:16 PM
Response to Original message |
3. this is a false choice. |
|
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.
|
Dr Fate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
20. Exactly. He is more likely to go down in flames if he does NOT fight for the PO. |
The River
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
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.
|
LaydeeBug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:56 PM
Response to Original message |
6. He won't go down in flames for it...that's sort of the POINT of our majorities. nt |
iceman66
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-24-09 09:58 PM
Response to Original message |
7. He wouldn't go down in flames, he'd go down in history as the next FDR |
|
even if he never had another major accomplishment!
|
Flabbergasted
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message |
12. He shouldn't expend all his political capital in the first year if he doesn't have to. |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-25-09 12:38 AM by Flabbergasted
It would not fire up his base nor provide any lasting benefits. nt
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. 1/2 of his base has sat on their ass and complained about every fucking thing |
|
throughout this fight, And yet they demand everything.
|
bigwillq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. Where is your proof of that? |
Bluenorthwest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
18. Thus spake Zarathustra! |
Dr Fate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. If true, would not have happened if they were 100% sure he was demanding a public option. |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-25-09 11:07 AM by Dr Fate
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."
|
joeycola
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
22. It is a democracy in case you are new to the concept. |
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 12:44 AM
Response to Original message |
|
He couldn't possibly lose to Reagan!
Wait, what year is this?
|
Dr Fate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-25-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
21. No no- it's more like McGovern in 1972! |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-25-09 11:02 AM by Dr Fate
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.
;)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:39 PM
Response to Original message |