We're not reading clearly enough and are jumping to conclusions regarding the public option.

[Writer]

The headlines aren't saying that the public option is dead - we are merely interpreting it that way.

Here are quotes from a NYT article with the headline: White House Appears Open to Insurance Co-ops
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/health/policy/17talkshows.html?_r=1&hp

Kathleen Sebelius:

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition.”

Robert Gibbs:

“What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Rahm Emmanuel:

“We have heard from both chambers that the House sees a public plan as essential for a final product, and the Senate believes it cannot pass it as constructed and co-op is what they can do,” he said in an interview. “We are cognizant of that fact.”

From these quotes, I can't logically conclude that anyone in the White House is abjectly dismissing a public option. Sebelius didn't say it. Gibbs didn't say it. Emmanuel explained that the Senate said that IT may be some problems passing a bill with a public option attached. Other than that, this is merely speculation.

So why have we made this conclusion that the White House has abandoned a public option? Obama hasn't said a word on this, and just yesterday he was in Colorado explaining how this public option is supposed to function as a part of health care reform. The only message I take from this is that we should pressure senators to fight harder for a public option in their half of Congress.

That's all.

[madmax]

1. Thank you, Writer n/t

[emulatorloo]

2. Agreed -- call your Senators and Reps tomorrow and the day after that, and again and again

As you note, Obama has been selling the public option at town hall meetings all week.

[drm604]

3. Thank you. K&R n/t

[Oregone]

4. What a ridiculous distraction this shit all is

And its doing nothing but tearing people apart--best to forget about it. Either fight for Medicare for All or just accept the reform being sold as is.

[madfloridian]

5. The words Sebelius and Conrad are very clear.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/16/sebelius_signals_embrace_of_co.html?wprss=44

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius signaled on Sunday a willingness from the White House to embrace insurance cooperatives as the main plank of health-care reform rather than pushing for a public option in the final version of legislation being debated in Washington and throughout town halls across America.

"I think the president is just continuing to say, let's not have this be the only focus of the conversation," Sebelius, on CNN's "State of the Union," said about the focus of a public-option inclusion. "Coverage for all Americans, lowering the crushing cost for everyone, making sure that we have new rules for insurance companies, that they can't dump people out of the marketplace if you get sick, that they can't drop your coverage based on a pre-existing condition, that you can't be priced out because you're a woman instead of a man, and gender discrimination won't be allowed to continue anymore. Those are really essential parts of the program, along with choice and competition, which I think we'll have at the end of the day."

Further placing a public option in jeopardy, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a major player in the Senate Finance Committee's negotiations on reform -- considered to be the prime vehicle for health-care reform legislation in the Senate -- said on Sunday that hope for a government-run public option to be included in a final reform bill is all but dead.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option," Conrad said on "Fox News Sunday." "There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort."

Why aren't there enough votes for it? We have a good majority.

[emulatorloo]

7. I wouldn't believe Conrad if his tongue came notarized. He is talking out his ass

as far as I can tell.

[CJCRANE]

8. IMO the interpretation of Sebelius' comment is inaccurate. nt

[Writer]

11. No, that still doesn't say that the White House is abandoning a public option.

The first bold paragraph is loose speculation written by the journalist.

The second bold paragraph is a quote by Sebelius explaining that Obama wants to focus our public conversation about health insurance reform on other things than JUST the public option.

The third and fourth paragraphs explain Conrad's belief that there are not enough votes in the Senate - which is what Emmanuel had said. Again, I say that we should push our senators to fight harder for a public option.

But I still don't see where the White House has abandoned a public option.

[madfloridian]

19. They want to play down the public option, not focus on its importance.

Why is that?

We have a majority, why must we pander?

[liberalla]

26. "He doesn't want the Public Option to be in the RW's bulleye for 3 weeks...."

This posting by FrenchieCat is worth looking at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8592463&mesg_id=8592463">What President Obama doesn't want....

Dr. Dean was on MSNBC this morning and said they need Conrad's vote in the Senate Finance Committee, and thinks they are down playing the public option to get his vote. After it's out of committee, it's not the final version and they can add it in later.

Sounds good to me. (Of course we can't stop making noise). I tend to think the President is playing a smart and strategic game to get the real reform he wants and a public option.

[BobRossi]

6. Yeah, this is pretty vague.

"Conrad, the chairman of the Senate's budget committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/ns/politics-white_house

[PopSixSquish]

9. Kent Conrad is Not the President nor Would He Be On the Conference Committee

to reconcile the House and Senate bills...

[emulatorloo]

10. Conrad has an agenda, I trust him to tell the truth as much as I trust Grassley to tell the truth

In otherwords, not at all.

[FrenchieCat]

12. We are the weak link, I believe......

We are the ones that give up and throw our hands up in the air
at just any small indication of anything not going our way.

This wasn't supposed to be easy,
and it certainly wasn't supposed to do itself.

I'm tired of the losers who cry everytime they hear something they don't like,
but don't actually do shit about it other than believing every fucking thing they
read from the very corporate interests who don't want shit to change.
The only things that these loser do is warn us that they won't support this president anymore.
Some folks need to grow the fuck up and grow themselves a pair...cause they are the ones
that we are waiting for...and thus far, they ain't showed up except on-line to lament.

[CTLawGuy]

15. +1

NT

[LisaLynne]

18. I learned a long time ago that anybody who ...

is telling me to stop working and give up isn't helping. Be realistic, of course, but giving up at the slightest (oftentimes imagined) setback is just self-defeating. I'm done doing the GOP's work for them.

[madamesilverspurs]

25. It's been disappointing, to say the least,

seeing all the negativity. By noon I was pretty sure that I'd missed the memo that instructed "crap all over Obama today". And counselling patience gets you unrecced into oblivion in short order. Yuck.

[Jennicut]

27. I waited to see this morning what the deal was before I made up my mind

Posters predicting the apocalypse were perhaps a bit off here....or maybe very off.
We need to stop reacting so quickly and see where things fall for a day or two.
Also, Rethugs want us to be disorganized and want infighting. We are simply playing into their hands.

[masuki bance]

13. Sunday talk shows by major administration officials are calibrated

very carefully. This is a coordinated effort to plant the seeds for acceptance of no public option.

This is obvious to all except the politically naive or willfully ignorant.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I think the Administration is trying not to make this the centerpiece

of health care reform, as they damn well know that the Republicans and their loonies and the media have an entire month to attack it with all that they've got.

Of course, there are some here naive enough to believe that the Public Option should be in the bullseye for as long as possible. These are usually folks who don't know how to win anything, although they certainly know how to whine.

[grytpype]

16. Thanks for the sanity.

[LisaLynne]

17. As annoying as it was, actually in the long run, this might help us ...

I've seen a lot of defeatist stuff this afternoon, but also a LOT of calls to action and a lot of people taking action or planning action. That's what we need. I think a lot of us, myself included, worked so hard on the election and had put up wiht so much during the Bush II years that we just wanted to relax a little. However, with what we're up against in this country, both from problems beyond our control and those caused by the ignorant minority, we really don't have that luxury. We have to rally and I saw that spirit here today -- anger that we thought the Public Option was being forgotten. We need this to be a reality check and a kick in the pants. We need to make a better showing than the other side. We don't need to stoop to their shouting idiocy, but we can stand up and make ourselves heard.

[Laelth]

20. What part of Rahm's statement is unclear?

He said that he's aware the Senate will not pass a public option, yet the President intends to keep working for "health insurance reform." If the President's still pushing for it, knowing full well the Senate will not pass a public option, then it seems logical to conclude that ...

The President has abandoned the public option.

What part of that logic is faulty?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Laelth]

22. And you're rude, but what's your point? n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[donheld]

23. DU jump to conclusions? NEVER

:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

24. I think all of them is saying that a public option is preferable but no one is saying

that Obama will veto plan that does not include a public option. Other indications from Obama are that the bill that will be going through is Baucus's bill, although he has not said that in so many words. I totally agree with your statement/sentiment that we should pressure Senators because this is not yet writen in stone. However, I don't know if that will do the trick.