White House: public health care plan is negotiable

[TomClash]

Source: AP

White House: public health care plan is negotiable

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- White House officials said Sunday a government health insurance option is negotiable, signaling a potential compromise on an issue that President Barack Obama's liberal supporters consider do-or-die.

As Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, political adviser David Axelrod said a public plan is not the core issue in the health care debate. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs danced around a question about whether Obama would veto a bill without the public option.

The president "believes the public option is a good tool," said Axelrod, who joined with Gibbs in a one-two punch on the Sunday talk shows. "It shouldn't define the whole health care debate, however."

Their appearances came ahead of Congress' return this week from a summer break that saw eroding public support for an overhaul and contentious town hall meetings in lawmakers' districts.

Gibbs called the government plan a valuable tool. But asked if Obama would reject legislation that didn't include it, he responded: "We are not going to prejudge where the process will be."

"I doubt we are going to get into heavy veto threats" in the president's speech, Gibbs added.

Their comments on the public plan echoed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' remarks last month that a government alternative to private insurance is "not the essential element" in revamping the system to guarantee coverage for all and try to curb unsustainable costs.

(more)



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME

[Why Syzygy]

1. Apologists?

Please step forward.

They are leaning on the unrec button.

[mvd]

2. If true, I'll be very upset

I didn't see the word "negotiable" or something like it actually being in the article, though.

[TomClash]

5. We'll see

Even taking into account the AP spin, you have to wonder if we are getting the trigger that will never be pulled - at best.

[Why Syzygy]

6. Fair enough.

That could be editorializing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0622035320090906
WASHINGTON, Sept 6 (Reuters) - White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Sunday President Barack Obama will "draw some lines in the sand" in his Wednesday speech on healthcare.

Gibbs also said on ABC's "This Week" program that Obama still wants a public option included in healthcare reforms and believes it is a valuable tool to provide choice and competition.

Gibbs declined to answer a question as to whether the public option is essential for Obama to support healthcare legislation.

[mvd]

8. Thanks for the article

It appears the M$M IS editorializing big time again. I will get upset if the time comes, but I want to see what Obama actually says/does.

[Why Syzygy]

10. I'm thinking if they go with a 'trigger' option ..

it sounds like possibly a passable solution. BUT, the insurance companies are going to find themselves in the same luxury yacht in which Wall Street did. They aren't going to like being under the government's thumb.

[mvd]

11. Yep, the "trigger" isn't acceptable IMO

It couldn't take 5 years, and there need to be guarantees in there.

[pattmarty]

19. What is being talked about is a trigger that will never be "pulled"..............

........I have just heard that the Medicare plan D has a "trigger" in it for the price of drugs, and I am sure the way that POS bill was written that is a "trigger" that you will never see "pulled". Better nothing than a shit bill, I am willing to wait until EVERYBODY in the country is good and god damned pissed off so we finally can get Medicare for all passed.

[mvd]

21. Medicare for All would be best

:thumbsup:

[GreenArrow]

34. everything else is just an excuse

.

[Better Believe It]

35. Exactly! Just like the so-called "prescription drug benefit" trigger.

[BlueJessamine]

9. Or perhaps the Ap should be editorializing: Axelrod: Firm on public option

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6478405


Source: Politico

White House senior adviser David Axelrod tells POLITICO that the administration is not dialing back its support for a public health-insurance option as part of a reform bill, and that a comment he made on NBC’s “Meet the Press” was misinterpreted.

Axelrod told NBC’s David Gregory that President Barack Obama “certainly agrees that we have to have competition and choice, to hold the insurance companies honest. … He believes the public option is a good tool. Now, it shouldn’t define the whole health-care debate, however.”

The Associated Press, which often sets the agenda for how other news organizations cover Sunday shows, popped up a headline saying: “White House shifts on public health care option". The story's lead: "WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's top political adviser is backing away from having a government health care plan compete against private carriers.”

Axelrod disputed that interpretation in an e-mail.
“In no way did I back off our position,” he wrote. “I must have said half a dozen times that he thinks the public option is an important tool to bring about competition and choice that will help consumers. To say that it is not the whole of health insurance reform, in a country where 160 million people have employer-sponsored health insurance and would not even be affected by this, does not mean I am backing off!”

Indeed, Axelrod also told Gregory: “He said there must be an exchange where people can get insurance at a competitive price. He believes in competition and choice. The public option is an important tool to help provoke that where there is no competition. He still believes that. ... So we want to create a pool in which people who don't have insurance, and small businesses, can go and get insurance at a competitive price. And a public option would be a valuable tool within that group, that package of plans that would be offered, private and public.”


//www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26801.html

[GreenArrow]

33. except he's not firm

The PO is a "tool," not the only tool in the box and he won't qualify it as essential. He does say it --subjunctively -- "would" be a valuable tool in this battle for "health insurance reform."

[mvd]

3. See this article - Politico actually contradicts it

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26801.html

[Doctor_J]

4. na na...na na na na...hey hey hey...good bye

To Obama's presidency. Hate Radio will still be calling him a traitor, muslin, communist, etc., and now no one on the left will care enough to protest.

This is the biggest disaster in my life time (I'm 52)

[Connie_Corleone]

7. This AP article is bullshit!

There is NOTHING in this article that says the public option is "negotiable". There is a lot of subjective wording from the "reporter" who wrote this crap.

[PSPS]

12. Hey, it's president milquetoast. EVERYTHING is 'negotiable.'

I guess we'll all have to wait for the big Wednesday 'unveiling' to know for sure. But if Obama's performance to date is any indication, I'm not optimistic at all.

[Aramchek]

22. what have you ever done in your life that holds a candle to Obama's accomplishments?

oh, that's right.
not a thing...

[espiral]

28. How do you know?

...and what business do you have slinging around personal attacks at strangers in attempt to shut them up for having an opinion that you don't like?

[QC]

29. You tell 'em!

[PSPS]

31. That's easy: I've kept my promises.

Go ahead and blindly follow your so-called "great leader" who repeatedly demonstrates his untrustworthiness.

[dave29]

13. Axelrod himself has already debunked this, firing back at the AP.

He says they took his words out of context. There are a few threads already

[mother earth]

14. A trigger is just a pacifier for keeping things the way they are.

If the insurance companies were interested in right or wrong or health, for that matter, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, had they spent the money on the patients rather than lobbyists or CEO outrageous salaries, there might have been something to argue. Public option is not negotiable, either it stands, or we may as well keep the status quo.

What happened to hope and change? To hell with trying to negotiate with people who can't even state something comprehensible as an argument, they need their damned lies to sway the ignorant faction to their side.

Public option...nothing less will suffice.

Did they care about bipartisanship when Bush was lying us into a war that has put us into the debt they complain about? Did they care about spending then? If we can afford to war, we can afford the public option. Let the insurance companies cut their wasteful spending, and stay competitive and honest for a change.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Triggers will be repealed by Congress in 2013

when GOP regains seats in Congress after the health industry pours millions of dollars to defeat any potential public option supporter.

[Triana]

15. NO. It is NOT - NOT if you want to in any shape, form, or fashion, call it "Reform"...

...rather than YET another goddamned giveaway of public money to the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical industry. They are WASTING THEIR TIME if there isn't a viable, strong public option - AT LEAST. And even THAT is questionable as to whether it can be considered effective reform.

THE ONLY TRULY EFFECTIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM the US can implement is a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.


PERIOD.

:mad:

[Dragonfli]

20. a Public Option open to all is questionable at best as reform true, but unlike the campaign talk

It will only be available to the uninsured (and possibly very small businesses) at best according to what all the administration people are NOW saying. Sounds more like a dumping ground for those that the IC's don't want anyway. How can such a small pool do much of anything to bring down costs via competition? It won't even be in competition for the majority of the insured or even an option for that matter. Why is this rather dramatic change in what a public option would be (from the campaign rhetoric) not even being talked about?

How can it be called competition when it will not be allowed to compete?
How can it be called a choice when it will not be a choice available to most working people?

Why are we even talking about it like it will be an option for more than a very few, when the best we can hope for is it may be better than nothing for people like me who work in very small companies and have nothing at the moment?

It is a con game where even the pea in the shell is a ruse - even if we do manage to grasp it it will be a meaningless prop.

[Piewhacket]

16. OK. And my support of Obama has just become "negotiable".

[pattmarty]

17. C'mon, any intellectually blind person could see for the last month............

.............at least that the public option wouldn't be in the final bill. I was a naive believer in the "change". Obama has been a "pussy" on everything from Afghanistan, Iraq, GLBT, healthcare, his "great" no lobbyists in government (except for ALL of the "exceptions"), continuing the Bush wiretap/rendition and especially his handling of the banking mess. Barack Obama COULD have been a great president, but chose to sell out to the money interests. I don't want a shit healthcare bill, I would rather have nothing and when the populace gets to a point of rebellion, then maybe we can get Medicare for all.

[veritasvg]

25. Nothing...

...is what we're increasingly likely to get.

He'll be a one termer. I think that's a done deal.

[QC]

30. It's funny how all these political junkies don't recognize a hundred trial balloons

when they see them.

Is it some kind of intentional blindness?

[pattmarty]

38. I think we all want to "believe". The problem is we always look to a...............

..................person to lead us or for us to "believe" in. Hell, I really fucking did with Obama. But, after 8 months I think we all know (or should know) what kind of presidency we are going to get now. The Dems are going to lose a lot of seats in the House (and probably 1 or 2 in the Senate) because of him being, I don't know how else to call it, weak. As it turns out Hillary may have been a better President, we'll probably never know.

[colsohlibgal]

18. Predictable

Change we can believe in.........Not!!!!! Big money talks, we lose. End of story. For now...until things really go to Hell and many more people see their life tank like when maybe we get Weimar Republic type hyper inflation because our staggering debt (what you get when you throw away trillions on stupid foreign war/entanglements and slash tax rates for already filthy rich folk) gets the US dollar dumped as the world currency. That happening is no certainty but certainly possible sooner rather than later - ready for $900 loaves of bread?

What is certain that we're headed off the cliff because we have had no leaders who will stand up to the gilded power brokers for a long, long time - we need someone to do that emphatically like yesterday but Obama sure doesn't seem like he wants to do that. He'll disappoint us, but not them.

[and-justice-for-all]

23. Like hell it is...nt

[AzDar]

24. If this is true, so is his second term.

:puke:

[CakeGrrl]

26. People are still dancing to the AP's misleading tune

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8630852

[tooeyeten]

27. "public option" is not negotiable

Does the White House actually believe that Republicans en masse will vote for Obama in 2012 if the "public option" is excluded in the health care reform bill?

His advisers are dreaming.

[ProSense]

32. What Gibbs and Axelrod actually said:

here

[IndianaGreen]

36. Dear unrec crowd: BOHICA!

Close your eyes and think of England!

[AncientAtBirth666]

39. As much as I think we need the public option.....

.....I just read the bill and think that there's too much important stuff in it to risk losing if the public option will prevent it from getting the right number of votes.

If preventing insurance companies from terminating policies and outlawing discrimination based on pre-existing conditions both go through, I'll consider it a victory.