TPMDC
Sebelius: If Senate Leadership Wants A Public Option, Obama Will 'Absolutely' Fight For It (VIDEO)
Kathleen Sebelius on Rachel Maddow
Share
Send to a friend!
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said last night that if Senate leadership moves forward on a public option, President Obama will "absolutely" fight for it.
On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow asked Sebelius about Sen. Michael Bennet's (D-CO) letter that calls for Senate leadership to put a public option into the health reform bill through reconciliation. So far, 18 Senators have signed the letter.
Maddow asked if the administration would fight for a public option, should the senators bring it "back into the fold."
Sebelius: "Certainly, if it's part of the decision of the Senate leadership to move forward. Absolutely."
She added that the "president said from the outset he thought that was a great way to provide cost reduction and competition, but if that is not the choice of the majority moving forward, there are other ways to get there."
Watch:
Comments (66) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
libdevil
February 19, 2010 9:36 AM
See, that's what leadership looks like, letting somebody else decide what you're going to stand up and fight for!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
February 19, 2010 9:38 AM in reply to libdevil
Yet betcah.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 19, 2010 9:42 AM in reply to libdevil
Give it a break. You complain because they dropped it and now because it may be alive you still complain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
February 19, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to lousgirl84
No you are wrong. My point is I don't believe for a second Obama gives a shit about the public option. If he did, why doesn't he tell them to pass a Public Option or better yet, Medicare as they had originally? No, he has his proxy (not himself) say he will do something if the Senate does something. That is Doubletalk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 19, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to VictorLH
Exactly. How pathetic! Obama should be out front leading the charge for the public option, not meekly saying he's 100% behind it if the Senate leaders are.
It seems there are one of two things going on here (or maybe a combination of): The White House doesn't think it can win the battle and doesn't want to be seen as losing; or it cut a deal with insurers not to push for a PO in return for the industry not bankrolling the GOP. The combo is it cut a deal because it thought it couldn't win.
Either way it stinks. The biggest reason the WH is losing support among the base and the indies is because it is seen as making deals on HCR with the industry and lobbyists.
The poll just the other day in Colorado where the Dems are in trouble spelled it out clearly. The public is adamantly against the Senate bill and mad at the Dems for caving to the special interests yet big majorities of Dems and Independents favor the Dems using reconciliation to pass a Medicare-like PO open to everyone.
They would gain seats in Congress this fall if they did that. But they won't because too many of them are corporate whores.
What the WH doesn't seem to understand is, if they fought hard for HCR that didn't suck up to corporate interests and still lost, they would retain the loyalty of the base and most indies for making the honest effort, and because they are seen as not doing so, even if they win some reform, they are likely to lose ground in the fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 21, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to rwc
Right. Dems need to trust the process and stop condescending to indies who are not centrists. Americans want results. Obama has wasted this opportunity to lead on policy. Medicare for all would've won broad public support. Once it had been enacted, any sunset provisions wouldn't have mattered. People would've loved it. Now...too late.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 19, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to libdevil
Because, what, you live in a country where President rules over the Senate?
Let's blame Obama for SCOTUS too!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
February 19, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
February 19, 2010 10:05 AM in reply to libdevil
Absolutely.
These people are such a disappointment! Either you're for the public option or you're not for the public option. Christ.
I am reading Plouffe's book about the election. It's a great tale. It does make me sort of see what is going on now, though. Any sort of conventional wisdom -- Republicans will NEVER come on board, for example -- is rejected by Obama and Axelrod. It's frustrating. Here we've waited for over a year to get this done and we're not getting it done!
Stand up, Obama. Change is not easy. It's impossible, though, if you don't fight for change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
February 19, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to Mateo123
You've only waited a year? Lucky you. I've waited decades for this to happen. The Dems poll numbers would soar. Many of the negative numbers are more about not getting it done than being totally against all the policies. I can understand where Axelrod and Obama are coming from, but they should now know that the Repubs will not work with them. There are no moderates left in the Repub Party. Just do it Dems!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
February 19, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to Mateo123
I'm for a public option.
I'm also for single payer.
Generally, I also favor pie -- perhaps even a federal program that flings pies directly at those most needy, via the sky, using re-purposed anti-ballistic missile technology freed up by the dismantling of the military-industrial complex.
Obama might be "for" all of these things as well.
But, as much as we might like to see our preferences somehow transmitted into action via autocratic decree, we live in an (exceptionally messy) democracy. And as much as we can point out the staggering flaws in our institutions, those very institutions are what keep us from living in a society that is exponentially worse.
Accordingly, given the range of potential outcomes in this Congress, I would much prefer to remember 2010 as the year we finally signed a sweeping health care reform bill into law -- as opposed to looking back on how we "almost" got one through the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 19, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Pubic Option. Single Payer! Pie!!!
What's not to love eh? But you lost me at the America being a democracy part. We are not even a messy democracy. When 70% of your citizens want something, and your House of Representatives has passed it and your President says he is for it ..... and it is still impossible to get .... you are NOT A DEMOCRACY! You are in fact some fake democratic facade with some very rich very greedy fascist corporations pulling the levers of power and getting what THEY WANT and that my friend is NOT A DEMOCRACY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 19, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to hollywood
exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LNAB
February 22, 2010 5:28 PM in reply to libdevil
well, Obama's proposal certainly clarifies Kathleen's lies...err comments about the presidents agenda.
I agree with many here. Obama HAS NO INTENTION of actually reforming health care in any meaningful way, particularly if it impedes the robbery by...err profits of his major campaign contributors
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LNAB
February 22, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to libdevil
sure validates my thoughts about Obama and his "leadership"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vvdinko
February 19, 2010 9:41 AM
Sadly, it will never happen because the ones who actually make the decisions have all been bought and paid for. Its the AMerican way!
Ed
www.anonymous-tools.se.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 10:08 AM in reply to vvdinko
Thanks for your contribution, Lord Haw-haw. I guess there's nothing to do than go home and slash our wrists. (Or maybe vote for Nader, which amounts to the same thing.)
Of all forms of trollery, I hate despair trolling the most. And it's the kind that most triggers my suspicion of Republican sock puppetry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 19, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
So, you're saying that anybody who doesn't drink the kool-aid isn't welcome in your alternate universe? Maybe you should grow up just a bit more....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
February 19, 2010 1:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Of all forms of trollery, I hate despair trolling the most.
So, equating a vote for a third party candidate to suicide is somehow antithetical to despair? Getting to choose only between the evil of two lessers is your idea of Hope?
Say it ain't so, Steve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to Schmed
When one of the two parties with a chance of winning has completely lost its mind, has lost all grip on reality, has fully embraced economic crankery, anti-intellectualism, nihilism and sadism and violence as its ideology, yes, voting third party is tantemount to suicide.
I know this because we ran that expiriment in 2000.
And I'm dead serious about that. The cowardice, fecklessness and incoherence of the Democrats pisses me off as much as anyone here. But that's quite irrelevant right now because these aren't Ike's Republican's or Nixon's or even Reagan's. They're worse, even, than under Bush. They're DeMint's and Bachmann's and Yoo's every hateful fool who spewed filth at CPAC today.
If the Republicans wither away or are gripped by a sudden attack of something resembling sanity again, I'll reconsider.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 21, 2010 10:42 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I'd argue that now is the time to hold Dems' feet to the fire, as supporters (generally) of progressive policy! The Democrats need the base to push them to do stuff that's hard to do, like going up against the guys that paid to get them elected. Now that Dems are in the majority, we have to push for the most progressive policies possible. Expect more of your leadership, not less. Get them to stop condescending to some mythical 'middle America', and to stop equating indies with centrists. The President can't force Senators to do anything he wants, but he does have total media access. With the help of good staff (which he doesn't have) and a few elected officials, he can take the game to the people. At least that's how I see it. The Republicans are in complete disarray. Now is the time to push for the best possible policy, which will win elections later. Dems need to trust the process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ImpureScience
February 22, 2010 9:38 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 19, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You've got them pegged -- so do I. The phony outrage is beyond amusing. They don't fool you and they don't fool me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LNAB
February 22, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
man...that crap might have worked in 2008 with the DNC bot... but no more... the Precious has a record now
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecs
February 19, 2010 9:43 AM
The time for talking about it is over!
The time to get it done is now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
February 19, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to georgecs
Co-sign!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
February 19, 2010 9:49 AM
Maddow & Sebelius: Hard to tell 'em apart. They both got goose necks, narrow heads, and Mitt Romney hair-dos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
February 19, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Glad you've focused in so sharply on what's important about these women - how they look, not what they think or what they do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
February 19, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to libdevil
That's what happens when your thinking originates below your waistline and not above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 19, 2010 9:51 AM
I am sure that Obama will push hard to get 50 Senators for reconciliation. However, I can't say the same for the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 19, 2010 9:53 AM
Basically the problem rests with the Senate. House had it, WH supports it .... Senate can't seem to get the job done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JZ
February 19, 2010 9:58 AM
I hope this isn't another pipe dream. Last thing we need is the base getting all excited again just to have the football pulled away at the last second. I am very skeptical of the public option getting through. Either way I say pass the damn bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onecrappyusername
February 19, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to JZ
'if senate leadership wants a public option, obama will fight for it' translates to 'if the senate fights for it, so will obama'.
Nothing to get excited about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 19, 2010 10:02 AM
Wait a minute. First Obama was all for a public option. Then he claimed he'd never heard of it, nothing to see here, go on back home. Now his Administration is saying, "[F]rom the outset he thought that was a great way to provide cost reduction and competition."
Hope and change. Seems we finally have both. We can hope he doesn't change his mind again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 10:12 AM in reply to EastWest
"Then he claimed he'd never heard of it, nothing to see here, go on back home."
At no time from the moment he rolled out his health plan during the campaign until now did Obama or anyone in the White House ever say that, or anything like that. What Sebelius said on Maddow is the exact same damn thing they've been saying since he was inauguarated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
February 19, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Not true. Absolutely not true. Before Sebelius' appearance yesterday, the Administration has repeatedly said that a public option was never something Obama wanted or supported. That was in direct contradiction of speeches Obama had earlier given that openly promoted a strong public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 19, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to EastWest
Please point out anywhere that he actually said that they did not want or support a public option. Anywhere, any time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
February 19, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Of course he never said he didn't support it, in fact he has claimed to support it. But he never has made any attempt to push for it. He says one thing and does another.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 19, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
"...the Administration has repeatedly said that a public option was never something Obama wanted or supported."
Recognize that? It's a direct quote from the post to which I was responding. So did he say that in the real world or did he only say that in your imaginary world? Which is it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 19, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
That's a fucking lie. He always supported it but said it wasn't the only thing about health care reform that was necessary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 19, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
where did you get the quote from, and who said it. post the link please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 21, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to lousgirl84
He promoted the public option in clear, unambiguous language, then walked it way back, saying it wasn't the only way to control costs and assure competition, that it wasn't really an essential element to health care reform. And, of course, he was right. He's usually right. (In fact, he can be quite the stirring orator.) But he's unwilling fight for bold policy initiatives. It's really a character flaw. Since the campaign, bipartisanship has been his leitmotif. But bipartisanship makes for awful legislation. He needed to take this issue directly to the American public, to use his rhetorical skills to campaign for the best possible health care reform legislation possible. He could've done that. He got himself elected - this would've been easy, by comparison. He didn't. By his own admission, single payer was the most rational health care delivery system. But he just hates confrontation. He's never done pleading with Republicans to come on board. What a waste.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kJCUWzUl
February 19, 2010 10:10 AM
"public option" is back as a media headline. Congress (which found it quite easy to vote for the Iraq war), will not pass anything that does not benefit the insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kmac
February 19, 2010 10:25 AM
Public Option is a "must" at this point if we are to continue to believe in the platform of HOPE & CHANGE! The outcome on this one item will more or less dictate the total direction of 2010 and whether or not the man we elected can do the job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
February 19, 2010 10:28 AM
Sorry JZ but yes this is another pipe dream. But you know maybe this time it will be different. I mean, Sebelius didn't call the PO a "sliver" this time... but then again she didn't say it wasn't. D'OH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
janinsanfran
February 19, 2010 10:32 AM
Yeah -- and there's this nice bridge to Brooklyn I have for sale over here.
If the President wanted a public option, he'd have fought for it last fall when it mattered. The real question is: what part of the medical industry did he (or Rahm) promise there would be no such thing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 19, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to janinsanfran
LOL!!!!!!!
Oh those Rahm conspiracy theories and bridge for sale jokes NEVER ever get old.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 21, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to Viva!America!
I thought it had been firmly established that he cut deals with Pharma and AHIP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
February 19, 2010 10:40 AM
The White House is not dumb enough to promise a bipartisan summit and then try to force through a public option plan. If the GOP walks away from a centrist proposal, fine. But they cannot make this the only deal in town.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
February 19, 2010 10:41 AM
Good lord. These people are so deluded. How on earth are they going to get this passed? With magic jelly beans and voodoo? There are only 59 Dems of which Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln are pretty much out of the game which gives you just 54. And the big elephant in the room is whether one can even use reconciliation, a legal matter that has yet to be confirmed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Obey
February 19, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to jsdc007
On the Reconciliation front, the best thing is probably to follow Bush's precedent and fire the Parliamentarian if he/she doesn't accept the PO passing through reconciliation. It's an indirect way of gutting the Filibuster...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 19, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to Obey
Whatever stands in the way of a huge majority of Americans getting what they want and need should be run over with a freight train and left for dead! Republicans are willing to fight, cheat, and steal for the benefit of a few wealthy corporations. The GOD DAMEND DEMOCRATS had better be willing to FIGHT WITH EVERYTHING THEY HAVE to get what the vast majority of Americans want.
This is war! FIGHT! People are dying! FIGHT!
History will not give a fucking shit what some arcane rule of reconciliation said about supermajority budgeting. History will reward the men and women who deliver HEALTHCARE TO THE SICK AND DYING AND BANKRUPT AMERICAN PEOPLE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martingauthier
February 19, 2010 11:01 AM
What is the most frustrating to me is that the case for the public option should be so easy to make:
1) Polls have consistently shown the public supports it
2) Ju-jistu: competition in the marketplace is the essence of freedom and democracy (according to Rs). Well, that's what this does - injects competition. Competition will create efficiencies and cost savings, which is dogma to Rs.
3) It doesn't matter what is proposed, Rs will oppose it and demonize it as socialism, freedom-destroying, granny-killing, etc. So might as well pass what you want.
4) Challengers will run in opposition to this in the fall, so Ds should get something enacted that has positives to tout in time for the campaign season.
Make the sale!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
February 19, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to martingauthier
you dream
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
February 19, 2010 11:20 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. The polls would change big time. Many of the negative numbers are from folks who voted for change and don't see it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 19, 2010 11:21 AM
Sorry to be a broken record but if your Democratic senator has not yet signed the PO/reconciliation letter please call his or her office.
Here is the current list:
http://whipcongress.com/?source=letter#house
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
February 19, 2010 11:26 AM
I refuse to get my hopes up yet again, so at this point, as the saying goes in Missouri, "show me" that you're serious (all the Dems, not just Obama).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
February 19, 2010 12:13 PM
There seems to be some sort of rift in the time continuum ... have we transported 9 months back in time?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AndrewM24
February 19, 2010 12:17 PM
Have I missed something. The NY Times is reporting reconciliation will be used on the White House proposal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lduvall
February 19, 2010 12:19 PM
Obama with absolutely fight for it - - - IF? IF??? I thought presidents were supposed to lead, not follow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DoubleFelix
February 19, 2010 12:30 PM
I watched that interview last night and I didn't hear it the same way. If there was ANY support for the public option, it was tepid and begrudging. Maddow pressed her on this repeatedly and each time, Sibelius went back to "what we really need is competition", as if letting Aetna and Wellpoint carve up the California market would accomplish anything.
Maddow pressed the public option as an answer to the "competition" point and Sibelius would have none of it.
In fact, Sibelius blew the public option off. She most certainly did not indicate any new level of Obama support for it -- and absolutely no reason to believe he would lead in that direction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 19, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to DoubleFelix
Yep, I watched it too. Maddow was like pulling teeth to get sebilius to even say the words. Tepid and begrudging is being generous. It was pathetic the response. I really don't understand why they don't go full bore on it. Even if they don't get it at least they tried. What is the difference in the political fallout? Don't try and get hammered or try and get a pass because you fought what you believed in and will keep fighting. Very disappointing. Very.
I wish he would bring out the guns blazing on the issue. He has the outrageous hikes that he can use to show that it is absolutely necessary and the criminal insurance industry cannot be trusted.
Maddow actually did an excellent job in the interview and explained why it was necessary, because people do not trust the insurance industry. She really did an awesome job in clearly explaining why it is necessary. Kudos to her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 19, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to Michael A
Michael I watched the interview. I didn't see it as pulling teeth for Sebellius to answer. You have to also understand that Sebellius is not a type SA personality but in case you didn't know it she kicked the insurance companies asses when she was attorney general in Kansas. I would not sell her short.
I also believe the dems know they have to get health care passed and reconciliation is the only way. I am still very hopeful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 19, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Oh, I am not selling her short. She obviously was struggling and had marching orders, not that having marching orders is a bad thing. The issue I have is with the marching orders.
I distinctly remember maddow's question, in effect it was "So there have been some senators pushing to renew the public option, is the administration behind the public option?"
Answer: Again, in effect, "Well what we really need is competition. We need to get rid of the monopolies and get the free market to work. There are alot of good things in the reforms like caps on administration expenses, etc., etc. The bottom line is more competition." The word public option was not used, not once and she dodged the question. I was like puke, barf, yuck.
Maddow then pressed her why it was necessary. Went through all the reasons and people don't trust insurance companies,etc., etc. Then there was another dodge. Then Maddow pressed again and that was when sebelius said if the congress and senate passes it obama will sign it, or something to that effect. That is evidence of zero support, which is what I have a problem with. Lead for pete's sake.
Maddow then concluded the interview with another push for the public option.
I viewed it as no support from the administration, unless the 500 plus congress fools, bought and paid for, can agree to it.
By the way, it is funny how people have different perceptions of things. I actually vividly remember the interview and the reason why is because of how maddow handled it and what she was saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 19, 2010 3:42 PM
I am going to watch it again and see what a I missed if anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
February 19, 2010 5:22 PM
nothing the dems could do to return the the repubs to a majority in both the house and senate faster then to pass the public option. they know this, its time you libtards did. its about jobs, jobs jobs. unemployment stays high the dems lose, it goes down, then work on healthcare. as usual, the libtards never face reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?