Four More Senators Sign Call For Public Option Reconciliation

FINALLY. Because here are the statistics:

Quinnipiac poll, 14 Jan 2010.

Nationwide sample, conducted 5-11 January 2010, 1,767 registered voters, MOE +/- 2.3%

Question #28. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?
Results:

Support: 59%. Oppose: 35%. DK/NA: 6%.
Democrats: Support 82%. Oppose 12%
Republicans: Support 34%. Oppose 59%.
Independents: Support 61%. Oppose 34%.

Liberals (self-described): Support 85% Oppose 11%
Moderates (self-described): Support 69% Oppose 26%
Conservatives (self-described): Support 35% Oppose 59%

Support fairly evenly spread across all age groups 18-55+ (spread 53%-68%)
Support even more evenly spread across all income groups $100K (spread 57%-62%)

****
Read those numbers again. 69% of MODERATES support a public option. 61% of INDEPENDENTS support it. Good God, over a third of conservatives, and over a third of Republicans, support it.

Can we tattoo these stats on RAHM EMANUEL'S FOREHEAD to remind him and the White House? remember, Independents aren't Centrists: http://dumprahm.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/rahm-and-centrism/

Maybe Lieberman will be one of the next co-signers. Apparently all he needs is to be asked.

You're giving yourself away when you use the word "ram". That's the new Republican lingo for anything that passes with a majority vote (as defined in the Constitution) but avoids a filibuster (which is not even mentioned in the Constitution).

Ditto. I called with congrats.

You do know that SCHIP was passed through reconciliation, right? (Not to mention the Bush tax cuts, which had severely negative budgetary consequences, because the Republicans wanted to pass them, so they used reconciliation.)

You do know that the public option has been scored by CBO as a significant budgetary cost-saver, right?

You do know that that's the purpose of reconciliation, right? (Well, OK, one quibble: reconciliation was intended to be used for unpopular cost-saving measures, and the public option is, has always been, and remains, as evidenced in poll after poll after poll, highly popular.)

So why would the rules not allow it? Please explain.

Beyond that, I don't have much of a problem with advocating Medicare expansion. As long as it's down to, say, age 1. One second, that is. Failing that, I'll take 45 years, for a start. (I admit it: I'm selfish. I'm self-employed, with pre-existings, have no health insurance, and I'm over 45.)

No but it does sound like they've decided to string you along for a while. It's no fun crushing someone's hopes if you don't raise them first.