bluestateguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-25-10 04:24 PM
Original message |
Looking back on all of it now, would you have liked to have seen a "trigger" public option? |
|
Yes, yes, I know we all wanted either a real public option or single payer.
But if that was not in the cards (for whatever reasons, we can debate that somewhere else), do you think this bill would have been better or worse with a "trigger" for a public option? Or is it better to just drop the pretense and not have a public option at all, if a real one can't be put in the bill?
|
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-25-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I thought the "opt out" idea wasn't horrible. Where states could opt out of the PO after a few year |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 04:30 PM by emulatorloo
Basically I couldn't imagine any states telling their citizens they are going to opt out after having the PO for several years.
Medicare expansion I liked too -- pissed me off that Lieberman killed that after supporting it before.
I am an optimist, I think there is going to be another push on the public option at some point.
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-25-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Absolutely--it would serve as a check and balance against the mandates |
|
I'd settle for a lowering of the Medicare eligiblity age--and if the Rethug AGs win their court case, well, the Dems wouldn't have any choice in the matter, would they?
:evilgrin: rocktivity
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-25-10 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Sen Bennet of Colorado could have made a PO happen today |
|
The Reconciliation Bill had to go back to the House where the leadership said they had the votes. Bennet said he had the votes, too. Done deal.
That's what I wanted to happen. Unless of course Bennet was just play acting and so were some of his "supporters" in the Senate.
|
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-25-10 04:37 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Yeah, I posted during the trigger debate that it could of been huge leverage |
|
I never saw an equal playing field public option doing much good.
What would of done good was a looming single-payer trigger. Essentially saying, 'clean up or you will be gone'.
Back then, by giving up the public option in a weak form for a strong potential one wouldn't of been such a loss. Eventually they gave it up for nothing anyway to get the votes. Maybe those votes would of been there if it was a potential good option, rather than a real watered-down one. Maybe it was never supposed to be around anyway, and was just a carrot for progressives.
No one listens to me though, so fuck it.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:00 AM
Response to Original message |