Windy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:17 PM
Original message |
Obama just stated at the AARP town hall that he WANTS A PUBLIC OPTION... |
|
just letting everyone know.
|
Kittycat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:18 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Wants and Demands are two completely different things. |
Davis_X_Machina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Lex est quod rex vult. n/t |
Windy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Its up to congress to put the bill out. I hope that the public option obama wants is in there. |
|
I am going to continue to contact members of congress and have signed the petition regarding the public option that has been cirulated by Leahy/Durbin/Scheumer...
Others should do the same
|
DJ13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. "Its up to congress to put the bill out. " |
|
When Bush was President legislation routinely was written within his administration, then acted on by the Congressional Republicans (and many Dems).
This issue deserves nothing less than the same from the Obama administration.
|
Inuca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. In fairness, not always |
|
Remember immigration reform?
|
DJ13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. The reception that legislation recieved from the voters needs |
|
...... to be the model we adopt to defeat any health care bill that fails to provide a strong public option.
Sure it might embarrass the WH, but its our lives at stake here, not theres.
They HAVE the best health care already.
|
Jennicut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
10. Yes, and Cheney sat in on their meetings. |
|
No one was allowed to get out of line and Cheney interfered on a regular basis. We don't want to go back to that way either.
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. Problem is, some people do want to go back that way. |
|
Edited on Tue Jul-28-09 01:31 PM by Nicholas D Wolfwood
They just only want it to happen when the President has a (D) after his name, which is hypocrisy.
|
DJ13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. Strong arming Congress is a time honored tradition |
|
Edited on Tue Jul-28-09 01:32 PM by DJ13
Used by both party's in the past.
At least, back when our party had balls and principles they wanted to uphold.
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. You may not remember it, but during those "good ol' days"... |
|
Congressional majorities of the same party as the President actually fought back with as much, if not more vigor. By today's standards, FDR might as well have been working with Tom DeLay's House of Representatives the way Democrats fought with him over power.
|
Inuca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:27 PM
Original message |
|
not just the Senate Finance Committee. There will be two bills in the Senate that will have to be reconciled, the Baucus/Grassley nastiness and the much better one from Kennedy/Dodd. And whatever they eventually vote on, will have to be reconciled with the House. Not that I am not worried and frustrated (a LOT), but this is far from over.
|
Kingofalldems
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Fake Democrats will not like this one bit. |
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. What was their name again, the "Blue Balls Democrats"? |
Missy Vixen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
I'll bet I was a registered (and voting,) member of the Democratic Party before you were born.
So, in other words, those of us who call it the way it is -- President Obama's insisting he "wants" a public option, but doing virtually nothing to make sure it happens, such as any attempt to rein in private insurance companies -- are now "fake Democrats"?
Oh. It was criticizing him, right? We must never point out that he's inconsistent. :sarcasm:
|
Kingofalldems
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. My post has absolutely nothing to do with you |
|
Read the next post. That's who I am talking about. BTW, Were you born before 1949?
|
RUMMYisFROSTED
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message |
redqueen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:33 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Glad he's not backing down... but I wish he'd threaten to veto a bill without it. (nt) |
|
Edited on Tue Jul-28-09 01:34 PM by redqueen
|
Laelth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I enjoy hearing him speak. |
|
And that was a wonderful presentation, but one part of it was disturbing to me.
"Nobody will be forced," he says. That's simply not true. Many people who lack insurance now will be forced to buy it (whether they can afford it or not) or become criminals.
Evidently, that is a price the President is willing to make me pay to get this reform. I will not give him credit for generosity, however.
:dem:
-Laelth
|
MarjorieG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. His whole rationale is dispeling misinformation and reassuring about change. He knows he will |
|
push public option, or there is no competition. Forceful noise now will not get us through the committee, but as reconciliation and conference work done, explainging the why of it more necessary.
Meanwhile, Obama is looking reasonable and oh so articulate. Having listened to as much bi-partisan co-operation BS as he can for show, as well as real principle of our guy.
|
bkkyosemite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
18. For the first time Obama called the Public Option controversial!! And his staff Melany Barnes was |
|
more happy in an interview today about the bi-partianship instead of the public option when asked. Wishy washy.
|
bvar22
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
20. We are going to get something they label a "Public Option", |
|
but if HR 3200 is any indication, it will be an ineffective token that is NOT available to most Americans, and will do NOTHING to "keep the Health Insurance Industry Honest" or "drive down the cost of Health Care".
The 72% of Americans who support a REAL "Public Option" are going to be Screaming Pissed when they see what our "Democratic" Congress has done.
|
bkkyosemite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. And the unions are pushing it hard in commercials on TV HR3200...We need to pusy HR 676 |
MarjorieG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Anyone remember what he said about drugs, after praising the dinut deal. Can we negotiate as he's |
|
claimed as a cost saver, or will we have to add it in reconciliation? Let's push this, if so.
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-28-09 02:15 PM
Response to Original message |
23. What kind of public option and is he willing to fight for it? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:52 AM
Response to Original message |