Sources: White House Pushing Back Against Senate Public Option Opt Out Compromise

not everyone trolls on the internet. only a very small number of misfits do.

Well then, we finally agree on something.

My point was that your argument that the trigger option could be a good thing depends on some very big IFs that I think are unlikely to happen; hence the lottery analogy.

Yes, a trigger that "set[s] difficult goals for private insurance, and defaults to a strong public option" could be a good thing, but given the current political atmosphere, I don't think it likely that any trigger setup that would get votes that a strong public option get on its own would set anything but token goals for the insurance industry, or that in the unlikely event that the industry fails to meet even those very modest goals, that what would ensue would be anything but a token public option.

I mean, the whole reason most of these guys are pushing for a trigger is that they want a way to protect the insurance industry from real reform and real competition without looking like that's what they are voting for. I don't see them going along with any trigger that is actually likely to get pulled or to have real consequences.

I'm with you on this one. Denying that he campaigned on a public option is like Grassley denying that he made the "death panel" claims.

I'm saying he never even mentioned "public option." That's a lie. He talked about access and affordability but never public option. He started talking about that about six months ago--after he'd been elected.

I think he wants a public option but it was never a campaign promise.

And I bet you'd never even heard of such a thing six months ago and now you're convinced you can't live without it.

that's another lame discussion that misses the point and fails to see health care reform holistically.

again, he's outcome oriented: improved public health, lowered costs, improved efficiency, less overhead, more prevention.

there's many ways to skin that cat.

look around the world and every developed country has different solutions. Japan is more private, employer based, with government subsidy and very tight regulation of fees. insurance companies profit by upselling cadillac (lexus?) plans. some other countries are single payer, but with widely varying approaches.

even within the public option there are many approaches.

asking which one he supports now is a stupid question. he has to lead by following, as they say. he has to time carefully when he switches from pushing from behind closed doors, to getting out ahead for the winning plan.

so far he's doing great and all the panicked kibitzing is really pathetic.

every day i hear from some pundit or poster that healthcare reform is dead, derailed, Obama sold out, etc.

and yet every day progress is being made and so far outcomes are as good or better than i think anyone realistic ever expected.