Should Obama Veto a bill with no Public option?

[Skink]

He can do that right?

[yourout]

1. If he wants to get re-elected he will.

[Avalux]

2. YES (to both questions). n/t

[stillrockin]

3. yes and yes

[boobooday]

4. yes

[Vincardog]

5. If whatever passes MANDATES citizens buy PRIVATE insurance and provides no relief for the uninsured

unemployed and un-insurable; HELL YES

[kevinbgoode]

29. ABSOLUTELY

I will not support this President, and this Congress, if they FORCE people to purchase PRIVATE insurance.

Right now I blame the Blue Dogs big time. They KNEW this was going to blow up over the recess, and they stalled deliberately. I don't think the Democratic Party understands that if the teabaggers shook them up with their loud crap, that isn't a fraction of the yelling they are likely to get from members of their own party if they fuck this up any more.

[MindPilot]

6. Yes n/t

[DJ13]

7. Yes

If he fails to take that stand he shouldnt be President.

[mth44sc]

8. Yes

period

[Barack_America]

9. It's the least he can do.

If he does not I can only regard one of his biggest campaign promises to be a flat-out lie.

[Wapsie B]

10. Yes and I hope someone from this team is reading this.

No public option no vote.

[tritsofme]

11. Veto a bill produced by his own Congress?

That makes a lot of sense.

[saltpoint]

12. He needs to gather the troops and make it entirely, explicitly clear that

he will not accept a bill without a vigorous and sustaining public option.

Bring in the Democratic leadership to this gathering. Bring in the goddam health insurance companies' executives.

He should take no questions from those gathered.

[nightrain]

13. yes x2

No weak public option. We need a strong, unmandated one that is affordable, if this is all we're going to get.

[HughMoran]

14. This is posted every few days

Yes he can, and yes he should.

[robinlynne]

22. ...You forgot to ask, will he?

[Critters2]

15. He damn well better. nt

[Fridays Child]

16. yes

[rug]

17. Without it, nothing changed.

[rurallib]

18. You should have put in a poll so we could see the 100% yes response at a glance

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Probably depends on what is in the bill

If the bill's positive aspects outweigh it's negative one, he should probably sign it. If not, then of course he should veto it.

But don't expect Congress to spend one more minute on this topic if he vetoes the bill.

[babylonsister]

20. Yes, it depends. That's an unanswerable question to begin with, without

knowing details.

[robinlynne]

21. YES!!!

[Vidar]

23. Absolutely.

[jannyk]

24. Hell Yes!!!!

[tabbycat31]

25. hell yes n/t

[Scarsdale Vibe]

26. No, too many dying because of rescission, pre-existing conditions, and lack of coverage.

Having a public option is far preferable to not having one, and single-payer would be far preferable to a public option, but I'll take a bill that reduces the number of unnecessary deaths and does something to contain health care costs. Ideological purity is worth nothing to someone dying of cancer that can't pay for treatment.

[kevinbgoode]

30. There will be no reduction in health care costs.

and a limited public option that is forced upon people without their consent will break this party. It is an absolute outrage that our elected officials cannot deal with an important domestic problem. And worse, that they are so easily petrified by the drama queen whining from the extreme Right.

[Umbral]

27. Yes, he should also veto the bill if it has a castrated public option. nt

[Blasphemer]

28. It's become clear that he would do no such thing... nt

[FatDave]

31. No it hasn't.

He has repeatedly said he won't sign a bill without a strong public option. When I see him go back on this, then I'll be concerned.