TPMDC
« Poll: Republican McDonnell Leads In Virginia Gubernatorial Race | Home | Rahm To Meet With House Democrats On Health Care Tonight »

Reformers Want To Believe Obama On Public Option--But, Privately, Some Have Doubts

After it became clear this morning that reformers were up in arms--or would soon be up in arms--about White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's suggestion that the President might be willing to support a triggered public option, Obama, still traveling in Russia issued a re-statement of his support for the public option to put out the fire. And by mid-day, reformers had largely cooled off. Privately, though, some acknowledge that the President's statement isn't actually a contradiction of Emanuel's.

"It's not a direct contradiction, no," said one reformer. "But the President's saying what he's said all along, which is that he supports the public option, and in the end that's what matters."

Let's go to the record, shall we?

Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal that delaying the public option with a trigger mechanism might satisfy the President. And the President responded: "I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals."

This is a restatement of Obama's position: That he supports a public option, but that reform efforts must lower costs, expand options, and guarantee quality, and he'll entertain any plan that accomplishes those goals. In other words, his goal is a plan that works. But that doesn't go nearly so far as to say--as Sen. Chuck Schumer has said repeatedly--that he opposes a trigger.

In other words, the differences between Obama and Emanuel on the public option are largely rhetorical. But keep in mind, Emanuel's done this before, very recently, and he always seems to spin in the same direction.


21 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Exactly right. I did a diary on dkos saying the same thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/7/750855/-Obama-and-Rahm-are-saying-the-same-thing.

user-pic

In other words, the differences between Obama and Emanuel on the public option are largely rhetorical.

Yes, indeed. So why has media jumped all over this non-story? Obama has been entirely consistent: he wants an effective plan that is the most cost-effective. He believes (as he has consistently stated) that the best way to achieve that goal is through the public option, but if some magical plan, heretofore unheard of, is devised that meets those objectives but without a public option, he'd no doubt agree with that.

You can argue about the need for a public option, or whether Obama is doing enough, or whatever, but this whole stupid kerfluffle over the supposed difference between Rahm's and Obama's statements is just stupid.

user-pic

Shorter Obama: "Focus on the goal, not how you get there."

What a sellout.

user-pic

The President needs not speak gobbledeegook.

user-pic

funny how Insurance stocks bucked the Market trend today, aint it ?

oh and p.s., Emmanuel is meeting with the House Dem Caucus tonight at 7 est - no doubt to get them all aboard on his 'triggers' -

for those not too following closely, triggers will virtually kill any chance of a Public Option

Call Your Rep - tell Her/Him to Just Say No to Rahm

user-pic

The House Dem Caucus is NOT for the trigger so let's see what he has to say.

user-pic

And if what the insurance companies have done so far is not enough of a trigger, what would be?

The liberal reps need to stand firm and let Obama and company know that they will vote against anything without a public option.

Obama has been known to claim the earth and do a complete fold before and lie after the fact. See his history with Exelon.

user-pic

It's funny how similar this is to 1993. It's like our caucus refuses to acknowledge that it will lose 50 seats in the House if it doesn't establish meaningful health care reform.

With respect to the public option, one topic that has not been addressed -- and that I would like to see addressed -- is that the public option would likely lower costs because the size of the pool of beneficiaries would be so large. If you stick 100,000 from suburban Missouri in one pool, the costs aren't spread too far. If you stick the entire state in one pool, things would seem to improve. If you get, say, 60,000,000 into one pool, things would almost certainly improve from a cost perspective. The negotiation capacity alone would be great.

user-pic

This is nonsense. Anyone with a hint of understanding of this knows it all falls apart without a public option. What's the game?

user-pic

Funny how different versions of this article have been running for months and yet the reaction is as if this is all new.

David Axelrod said it best that the WH is not going to draw lines in the sand. They believe it is the fastest way to end any type of participation on health care reform.

user-pic

The game is that people hear what they want and believe what they want and the media needs something, anything they can jump on.

user-pic

Very true; but what always seems odd to me is that almost all liberals seem to want to hear that Democratic politicians are selling them down the river, and jump all over any hint of softness. Not that it's unjustified by the past, but it gets to be a tired overreaction after a while (remember the Social Security flap a few weeks ago?). It's like deep down we want Obama to fail too. It's not so bad here, but go over to OpenLeft and you'll see it in full swing.

user-pic

The hard left is like a battered woman who finally got out of an abusive relationship and found a nice, decent guy. Every time he raises his hand to wave goodbye, she ducks and screams "see, I knew you were just like the other guy and would hit me one day."

They keep looking for signs that Obama is going to betray them.

If he doesn't phrase something exactly right they say "he's setting the stage to cave."

When he does say it exactly right they say: "Words are cheap, Mr. President!"

user-pic

FreeRider - you and I are in complete agreement.

user-pic

Eh freeloader what about the flip flop on telecom immunity?

user-pic

I have no patience for OpenLeft and all these people wanting miracles in 6 months. The man is doing an incredible job. Hia trips abroad have been masterful.

I am willing to give him 4 years to accomplish some more things and another 4 years after that. After all, who else could we possibly vote for. No democrat in their right mind will run against him and heaven only knows there isn't a decent rethug out there to challenge him.

Forget about voting green or independent. It is a wasted vote.

user-pic

I'm getting sick of Obama-speak. Too many trial baloons seem to be floating around. And too many clear-cut campaign statements get contradicted by his actions.

I'm just not that into him anymore.

user-pic

I'm sure he cries himself to sleep over that every night.

user-pic

I am sure you are a troll and I agree with FreeRider.

user-pic

Thank you, lousgirl! These people are so ridiculously impatient.

I advise them to read biographies of Lincoln and FDR. Both operated in exactly the same way as Obama. The radicals in their parties were constantly screaming "sell out" and "aha! traitor!" because they weren't throwing red meat to the base 24/7.

In the end, Lincoln and FDR transformed this country by taking what seemed to be a measured cautious approach that was actually quite radical.

Had they listened to the party radicals, they would not have accomplished 1/10th of what they did.

user-pic

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address