I hope and pray for a robust public option. I hope and pray that it passes through Congress and is signed by the President two minutes after it's voted in. I hope and pray that Rush and Glenn both soil their panties when it becomes law and I hope and pray all the poor souls who are in need of this plan dance merrily in the streets upon it's announcement.

The announcement that Rush and Glenn soiled their panties.

I haven't seen this making national media or blogs. . .http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=136679&catid=3

Be careful re-reporting Politico's GOP-driven talking points. TPM is reporting that(and Jarrett appeared on TeeVee to refute the rumor) Politico's super-double-secret "source" report is merely an attempt to put Pelosi under pressure just as she works out the final details of reform. Seriously, considering the number of Republican offerings posted by Politico, it is hard, often; it is hard to tell the difference between that electronic rag and FOX News.

I hope and pray for a robust public option. -stevio

I refuse to get my hopes up that good legislation will pass. I remain firmly mired in my assumption that what ultimately passes will be a gift to the private health insurance industry, and that by not drawing a line in the sand, Obama has painted himself into a corner and will sign any reform bill that makes it to his desk, no matter how awful.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, but on this issue, I'm true to my chosen handle.

"One possibility is changing the nature of reimbursement rates, towards the "negotiated rates" option, but the problem with that is it costs more and would push the overall price tag over $900 billion."

Evidently, the Blue Dogs and other so-called centrists/moderates prefer a more expensive plan. Referring to such Dems as fiscal conservatives is laughable.

HEALTHCARE REFORM: THE ART OF COMPROMISE MEETS THE MARTIAL ARTS
The battle moves onto the next level. See “Healthcare Fighting (Kung Fu Mix)” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nc1VwJOb9Y

...by not drawing a line in the sand, Obama has painted himself into a corner and will sign any reform bill that makes it to his desk, no matter how awful.

Huh? That's exactly backwards. Had he drawn a line in the sand, he would have painted himself into a corner because any healthcare reform bill that wasn't exactly what he demanded would be seen as a defeat. In fact, the entire reason he might feel compelled to sign an awful reform bill was because he already painted himself into the corner by signaling his intention of getting healthcare reform. And the firmer he made his position, the more reason Republicans would have to oppose his demands. And if he wanted to avoid this position, he should have avoided campaigning on the issue at all.

As the failed neo-con foreign policy taught us, you should never write checks that your butt can't cash. Had he drawn a line in the sand and not gotten everything he demanded, he would look weak no matter how good the reform bill was. You shouldn't try to bully someone unless you're sure you can follow through with your threat.

And sure, we have no assurances that Obama's strategy will work, but had he gone with the strongarm approach you people demand, Congress would have most definitely have rejected him. The worst thing he could do to Congressional Dems is to make them look like they're his bitch, and they would have been forced to reject his demands merely to assert their own autonomy.

Sorry if Obama didn't turn out to be the ruthless dictator you wanted him to be, but he's working with the system we've got rather than the system you want. It's simply impossible for him to get healthcare reform by force. He has to convince Congressional Dems that it's in their best interests that they pass a good bill, otherwise, they won't do it.

Huh? That's exactly backwards. -Doctor Biobrain

I could not disagree more, of course, arguing with you about Obama's flaws is an exercise in futility.

A line in the sand gives Obama a chance to reject a bad bill. Because he's been so squishy about what he wants to see in the final bill, he can't say no to anything.

I'd much rather see him rejecting a bad, incomplete bill, than to have forced his hand into accepting an awful bill.

The goal has become getting a bill, any bill; not getting a good bill, and Obama has no political recourse for not signing at this point. His lack of leadership on this issue is what will ultimately force his hand.

There is an apocryphal yet operative quote attributed to French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader." Obama is following on this issue when he should be leading.

I'm not sure which congressman it was I heard on the radio recently, perhaps it was representative Grayson. Seems right in my head. Regardless, his point was that Obama has gone on about "his plan," but has never actually given them a plan, and this has led to wildly disparate bills in the house and the senate and contributed to the chaos surrounding the whole issue.

So again, I assert that because of the failure of Obama's leadership and because of the political consequence of that failure, he has no choice but to sign any bill that's presented to him. His actions have undermined his own power. If that's not painting oneself into a corner, than I guess I don't know what is.

And what the fuck do you mean "you people?"

A line in the sand gives Obama a chance to reject a bad bill. Because he's been so squishy about what he wants to see in the final bill, he can't say no to anything.

Really? Please explain why that would be. IMO, he can ALWAYS reject the bill if it's no good, as he's never suggested that any bill is good enough. His position has always been that he's been willing to compromise, but has definite ideas of what should be in the bill and that if it didn't include the public option that it needed to have a proper substitute. They've said that repeatedly. And that gives him plenty of room to reject a bill he doesn't like.

And since a bad bill is worse than no bill for him politically, it would behoove him to reject a bad bill and force Congress to send him a good bill. As long as Obama remains more popular than Congress, they're stuck having to give him a bill he wants. And this was made easier because, as you say, he doesn't have a plan but is waiting for them to send theirs to him. But if he had a firm plan, it would have been rejected and they would have handed him an embarrassing defeat. As I said, your idea would have been to paint him into a corner that would have led to defeat. So we would have gotten no bill (victory for you), but Obama would have suffered a humiliating defeat (victory for Republicans). But as things are, he can always reject any bill he doesn't like.

And had he drawn a line in the sand, Republicans could call his bluff and give him everything short of his complete demands and Obama would look like an extremist for not being willing to compromise. So we'd get no bill and Obama would look bad for not being willing to work with Republicans who were willing to compromise. But instead, Obama is in the enviable position of looking like the good guy against Republicans who were completely unwilling to compromise, and the poll numbers show that completely. So Obama is in the position of strength, while the Republican position continues to weaken. And that's why talk of us getting the Public Option is increasing, because Obama is winning.

But please, explain to us this theory that suggests that Democrats want to be bullied by Obama. Yes, I realize there are some progressive Dems who say the same things you say, but that doesn't mean that it's true. And I assert that there are many more Congresspeople who would be forced to reject Obama's plan had he shoved it down their throats. In particular, the Blue Dogs and "centrists" would be more vocal in their opposition to his demands, and many more Dems would either have to reject him or admit that they're following his orders. I fail to see how it would be otherwise.

BTW, Obama isn't the leader of Congress. Reid and Pelosi are. Obama is the leader of a separate branch of government, which doesn't write laws. So not only do I agree with Obama's strategy on this, but like the whole separation of powers thing. This isn't a dictatorship.

But one point I agree with: Arguing with you is indeed an exercise in futility.

And that's why talk of us getting the Public Option is increasing, because Obama is winning. -Doctor Biobrain

What they are calling a public option isn't shaping up to be an actual public option. It's already so limited in it's scope that any power to be a competitive force in the market is severely diminished, and it only seems to be getting worse as we talk about triggers, opting in, payment above and beyond Medicare rates and even more limiting factors.

I know things can change, but I haven't seen any movement on it to convince any rational observer that things are getting better. They'll weaken it and make it ineffective, but the bullet point will still be there, right under a banner reading 'Mission Accomplished.'

And since a bad bill is worse than no bill for him politically... -Doctor Biobrain

I don't think Obama or anyone in his administration believe that, though. A bad bill will still have some redeeming qualities, and those will be touted as victories, while the massive overall failure it has become is downplayed.

Kind of like the stimulus.

BTW, Obama isn't the leader of Congress. -Doctor Biobrain

Never said he was. He's the leader of the Democratic party, though. And it's the height of naivety to think the president cannot or should not exert some leadership with the congress during his tenure.

Obama is the leader of a separate branch of government, which doesn't write laws. -Doctor Biobrain

Right. The executive branch has never written legislature before. What was I thinking?

But please, explain to us this theory that suggests that Democrats want to be bullied by Obama. -Doctor Biobrain

I gave you an example where a sitting congressman said there wasn't enough leadership from the White House. How delightfully deceptive of you to equate leadership with bullying.

This is a perfect example of why I said it is futile to argue with you. I make a supported claim that Obama failed to lead on this issue and you twist it into 'bullying.' I know you believe that Obama can do no wrong, and nothing can shake you of that belief, which is why continuing the discussion is akin to madness.

Here's to hoping you're right.

It is absolutely necessary to clarify that the "robust public option" under debate here is a program that will only be available to around 10% of the American population. This is a victory for progressive values? This is an example of the democratic party successfully representing the interests of its constituents?

Whether this limited form of the public option accomplishes anything positive will depend on the nuts and bolts of how it is structured and administered. Best case scenario: The program successfully competes with private insurance plans resulting in growing popular support and creates political pressure to expands its availability.

In the event that the structure of the public option fails to allow it to succesfully compete - whether by creating too small a risk pool, or too unhealthy a risk pool, or insufficient pricing power, or simply poor bureaucratic design - it will be worse than useless. It will simply become another example of the fabled public sector incompetence.

In the absence of any public option, the whole "reform" effort may yet end up being a colossal failure. Once again it all depends on the gritty details of the new regulations of the insurance industry. It is easy to imagine the individual mandate forcing people to buy insurance that simply isn't worth having; ie., the out of pocket expenses would be so high that people would be forced to pay cash for all the services they need anyway, even though the cost of the premiums would be subsidized by the taxpayer. In this event, we will simply be prolonging the status quo; and the eventual collapse of this federally subsidized private system will be a long, painful, and expensive process - longer, more painful, and more expensive than doing nothing at all.

It seems to me that there is a general sense of optimism and satisfaction among mainstream progressive media outlets and blogs. This is not entirely without basis in reality, and cynicism is no answer, but the fact remains that this whole reform effort could still be a complete failure. It is important that the progressive community not be perceived as supporting a bill that does not provide real improvement, or we will regret it in the future.

I gave you an example where a sitting congressman said there wasn't enough leadership from the White House. How delightfully deceptive of you to equate leadership with bullying.

Yes, you gave an example of one Congressman who wanted Obama to do the same thing you want Obama to do, and I acknowledged that and rebutted it by pointing out that there are far more Congresspeople who wouldn't be happy with this. In fact, as I said repeatedly, they'd be upset about it and would be forced to reject Obama's plan or risk looking like his puppets. And you ignored this competely and acted as if I somehow ignored your point.

And the reason I call this "bullying" is because that's what you're wanting him to do. Congressional Dems are obviously reluctant about supporting the public option and your solution is for Obama to pressure them into supporting it. Or could you imagine that all these Congresspeople who are causing us problems would have gone along with Obama's plan, had he merely created one? Now who's being naive, doubtful?

I'm not going to argue with the rest of your points, as you've already ignored most of my points the first time, but I will note that your suggestion at what all "rational observers" know merely highlights the limits of your thinking. Believe it or not, but rational people can disagree with you. In fact, rational people can even (gasp!) support Obama.

And yes, it's been duly noted that you will deem any healthcare bill that passes as a complete failure, just as you did with the stimulus. Any rational observer would say that the stimulus was successful, even if it should have been more. You, on the other hand, have decided long ago that Obama is a weak-kneed sell-out who can never do the right thing and you'll grab failure from success every time to prove it.

But hey, what do I know? You have no respect for anyone who disagrees with you, so I must obviously be wrong about everything.