Obama Says Public Option Will Be Back

[dgdavisjr]

From Raw Story:


http://rawstory.com/2010/03/obama-pr...n-bill-passes/

Obama promises progressives he’ll revisit public option after bill passes


By Sahil Kapur
Friday, March 5th, 2010 -- 11:45 am
Stumble This!

156Share




Progressives may be denied their overriding health care priority this time around, but according to President Barack Obama, it won't be over with this bill.
Obama urged leading progressive Democrats in a closed-door meeting Thursday evening to back the health care bill, placating their concerns about the public option and warning them that the liberal agenda was at stake.
Obama told the group of House members he thought the public plan didn't have the votes this time, but reportedly assured them he'll revisit it after the bill's passage, warning that failure would imperil the issue for a generation.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said after the meeting that Obama's message was, "If this opportunity passes, much of our agenda, on the progressive side...it would be difficult, if not impossible for a generation to get back to this issue," according to Talking Points Memo.
"To maintain a strong presidency we need to pass this bill," Grijalva summarized Obama's remarks.

The congressman noted in a statement to reporters he was "encouraged" after Obama "personally committed to pursue a public option after passage of the current bill."
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) added, "He encouraged us to understand that this is the beginning of health care reform, not the end of it — and that we will fix it later, as we have with Social Security and Medicare," in an interview with The Plum Line's Greg Sargent.
"He doesn’t believe the Senate has 51 votes for the public option," Woolsey said. She added that Obama "thanked" the assembled, telling them their advocacy made the bill much stronger and that this wouldn't be the end for health reform.
Grijalva and Woolsey, the two co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have lately withheld their support for the bill but sounded sold on it by last night.
Sargent reported that Woolsey said "she's now a definite Yes on the Senate bill" even if it excludes the public option. The congresswoman last week told Raw Story that if the public option fails she would introduce it in a separate package soon after its enactment.
"It's pretty compelling," said Grijalva, who on Wednesday told Salon he's leaning toward voting no, of Obama's remarks.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Obama told them in the meeting that "31 million people will have health insurance as a result of this bill."
"I think [this] resonates for a lot of people," Lee added.
A progressive health reform priority, the public option was approved by the House in its November bill. But liberals grew uneasy about the Senate bill in December, mainly because of the provision's removal.
The meeting came one day after Obama urged Congress in a televised speech to "get it done," even if it means using reconciliation to amend the Senate bill before calling for one final motion.
According to Huffington Post's senior congressional correspondent Ryan Grim, other attendees included CPC Health Care Task Force co-chair Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus chair Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), and Reps. Danny Davis (D-IL), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Madeleine Bordallo (Guam) and Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands).

[Laura]

Honestly, I'll believe it when it's signed, sealed and delivered, and available to the American people!

[dgdavisjr]

The origional idea of a public option was an uncomplicated buy-in to Medicare for a younger (and probably healthier) age group. This would have widened the risk pool and increased revenues by bringing in money from people who would tend to use the service less while lowering the number of uninsured and uninsurable people who depend on emergency services and government supported free clinics as their primary provider of health care.

A good idea was turned into a boondoggle by special interest groups and RepublCon obstructionism that could find no easy way in all this to make a corporate buck and who felt any defeat of Democratic White House initiatives was a good thing for them, no matter how bad a thing it might turn out to be for us. If President Obama pushes for a re-introduction of this before the mid-terms you will need to buy some cotton balls to plug your ears with in order to tone down the right wing scream machine.

And to be capable of supporting it the Democratic Party as a whole will meed to have spinal implants done.

[blindsquirrel]

Like I believe him now... what happened to rolling back the Patriot act and changing the way we look at war? Why not Medicare for all and throw in a private option for those that prefer to be gouged by insurance companies?

[webhead]

Like I believe him now... what happened to rolling back the Patriot act and changing the way we look at war? Why not Medicare for all and throw in a private option for those that prefer to be gouged by insurance companies?

It is my understanding OBama does not have the Constitutional power to issue an Executive Order to enact a public option or to include all in Medicare. Only Congress can do this, and right now there are only 58 Democrats and 1 Independent in the Senate, so the 41 Republicans are preventing this from now happening. Increase the number of Democrats in the Senate while also increasing the Democratic majority in the House, and a public option will be done.

Where have you been the last nine months? Haven't you paid attention to the Republican Party of No's actions??

[dgdavisjr]

Executive Orders (according to Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executi...ited_States%29

Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution.

According to this, President Obama could just write it into law himself. The downside of that idea is that the next president could just overturn it with another such order.
An example of this happening is when President John F. Kennedy wrote an executive order revoking the authority of the Federal Reserve (not an actual branch of the U.S. government but a private coalition of banking and financial entities charged with overseeing the nation's money supply) and handed it back over to the U.S. Treasury (an actual branch of the U.S. government). That's the reason that paper money issued during 1963 has U.S. Note printed on it instead of Federal Reserve Note. President Lyndon Baines Johnson overturned this in early 1964 returning the control of the money supply to the Fed where it has remained ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11,110

[blindsquirrel]

It is my understanding OBama does not have the Constitutional power to issue an Executive Order to enact a public option or to include all in Medicare. Only Congress can do this, and right now there are only 58 Democrats and 1 Independent in the Senate, so the 41 Republicans are preventing this from now happening. Increase the number of Democrats in the Senate while also increasing the Democratic majority in the House, and a public option will be done.

Where have you been the last nine months? Haven't you paid attention to the Republican Party of No's actions??

I don't believe you missed the sarcasm but I do think you missed my simple point I don't trust him to do what he says he will do.
On the campaign trail, September 7th, 2007 he promised the immediate removal of our troops from Iraq. Although Obama promised our exit, we are still there. His withdrawal plan ended up being exactly the same as George Bush proposed (begin withdrawal in one year and everybody out in 18 months). Obama said that we would change the way we look at war yet kept the same Secretary of Defense (war) and appointed a corporate imperialist to the office of Secretary of State.
Durning this time there has be no attempt to prosecute war criminals or war profiteers. What has changed in the way "we" look at war?
Obama promised a "change you can believe in" … Where's the change? Bush was about bailing out corporations that included war profiteers such as AIG while Obama has done the same.
His views on education are twisted, that is , rather than asking students what they want and how he can help them, he believes that students should write essays on how they can help the president.
Likewise Obama told the American People to "keep the heat on him" and hold his feet to the fire to insure that he follows the will of the people. Most Americans want a single payer insurance plan yet Obama refuses to support the will of the people while colluding with the same insurance companies from which the American people are seeking relief. Rather he is putting the heat on the American people to "embolden members of Congress to pass healthcare legislation" (see Obama adds fire to debate > http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,4592274.story )

These are a few of the reasons I find it hard to believe, let alone believe in Barrack Obama when he says "The public option will be back."
Besides he should get his head screwed on straight and realize that it's private insurance that should be optional.

[N.U.]

I'll believe it when I see it, Barack.