http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/20...

Q I want to go back to the public option. When it was initially conceived, it was thought of as a massive entity whereby over a hundred million people could conceivably get coverage, structured like Medicaid. Today we're talking about it being a co-op or a public option with triggers. Do you think the debate has switched a little bit too far away from a robust public option, and is the President sad in that we've moved so far to the left that we have to compromise it down so much?

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, run that whole series of caveats by me one more time.

Q The public option was initially conceived, intellectually, as something that would handle 100 million uninsured people, or people who want to get insurance.

MR. GIBBS: Well, remember, just -- let me -- I'll interrupt as we go along. And I think we've discussed in here, there would -- there's conceptualized a firewall that would not allow somebody to simply shrug off the insurance that they're offered as part of their employer-based system in order to simply go into some sort of public option. So I'm not entirely sure that's where this whole [thing] started out, but finish the last part.

And, apparently Obama's been open to co-op's all the while:

Q In terms of Chuck's question about the co-ops, I was a little confused that you didn't have an answer to that, because the President himself at various events --

MR. GIBBS: You didn't seem confused that I didn't have an answer to the previous question, but go ahead.

Q Well, I'll give you one. The President himself has said at various events that, hey, you know, if it's co-ops, I'm open to that idea too. So is that not operable anymore?

MR. GIBBS: No, I think -- the President has said, look, this is an idea that people are looking at. I think -- maybe I'm wrong, I thought Chuck's question was whether we supported one over the other. I think the President has discussed a myriad of options, but I don't think he's laid down a marker picking one over the other.

manages to get dressed in the morning without having a crisis over what to wear.

I really don't understand why this fence-sitting is taken as a good thing by so many - I get "being open" to a range of ideas, but at some point, if you can't commit, you have no business calling yourself a leader.

He didn't just commit, he stayed the course.

Whether it was lawful, constitutional, or even sane to do as he did had no bearing on his decisive actions.

/snark

Go running back to the Decider. Just don't ask me to help, let alone come along.

Why would anyone want to "shrug it off" for a public plan?

there's conceptualized a firewall that would not allow somebody to simply shrug off the insurance that they're offered as part of their employer-based system in order to simply go into some sort of public option.

In the most recent (July/Aug) issue of the AFT publication, On Campus, Randi Weingarten has a long lead article on Healthcare reform, which contains this remarkable statement:

[HPAE President and AFT Vice-president Ann] Twomey had an opportunity to speak with President Obama [...] She outlined a number of considerations that should be part of any healthcare reform proposal:

[...]

• Retain employer-provided insurance and favorable tax treatment for these plans. Our unions negotiated these plans, often in lieu of salary increases. These plans cover more than 160 million Americans and are the bedrock of our healthcare system.

So... my own union was pushing them to keep the employer-based system in place? How do we reconcile this with the fact that many AFT locals have endorsed HR 676?

Yes, our union fights for our health coverage. MY own local, PSC-CUNY, has had to use part of a recently negotiated retroactive salary increase to cover a shortfall in the Welfare Fund, which pays for (among other things) health insurance for adjuncts, who are not covered by the NYC employees plans (long story). I'm sure we would all have rather had the salary increase paid out. Wouldn't it be better if unions could be delivering improvements over basic coverage to their members, instead of trying to squeeze blood out of stones like this? I mean, seriously, Randi, WTF???

>Oh, it was so much better when we had Bush!!

At least he was a Republican, so Democrats were allowed to complain about him.

... is trying to destroy the thread? It wasn't on point to begin with, and it hardly ever is, as long as you're talking policy, in exactly the same way as the point that Obama is a better choice than his Secretary of State is hardly ever on point and is also toxic. (The inverse, that Obama's Secretary of State would be a better President than Obama is also toxic, and has destroyed vast swaths of entire sites).

Anyhow, let's remember that your arguments are not you. I'm making a point about the toxicity of a certain argument, not about any one poster.

NOTE "Destroy" in the sense that Gibb's fantastically bad responses ("shrug off") are being lost, when they should be in the process of being sharpened and propagated. All for a point that's been gone over over and over again! Opportunity cost, people. Opportunity cost!

my belief – my opinion – that he has managed to articulate broad strokes on health care that have been heard and interpreted in many different ways, depending on where the listener comes down on the issue. When Obama says he wants to cover everyone, those of us who believe single-payer is how that can be accomplished want to believe he is on our side, in principle. Those who come from the private insurance, free-market world hear that and envision millions more from whom premiums can be collected and acres of profit.

When he says he wants to control costs, same thing. And what that is allowing the Congress to do is have a variety of competing strategies for accomplishing these broad goals, with all involved believing they are carrying out the president’s vision. And the end result is a plan that will not just be ineffective in terms of improving actual health CARE, but will be doing very little to reduce costs and release the stranglehold on the economy.

Suppose Obama had called the leadership to the Oval Office and said: “When I was running for the Illinois Senate, I said there would come a time when we could, as a nation, do single-payer. That time is now. I won this election by a good margin, we hold both houses of Congress. The people want it. And I want a single-payer bill, everybody in, nobody out. Lower the qualifying age for Medicare now, work out the details of a full single-payer plan to follow. Get the single-payer advocates and experts into hearing rooms, on TV, hold press conferences. If you run into opposition – and you will – send those people to me.” Clear vision, clear goal, clear plan. Why should that be so hard? At best, it works, At worst, vast numbers of Americans will know their president cares about them.

It doesn’t matter to me how Bush would have done it. It doesn’t matter to me that Bush could commit to some of the worst policies we have ever had. It does matter to me that Obama is making too many of those bad policies his own policies, but that’s on Obama, not Bush.

And it matters to me that months into this, Obama still can’t decide what to do, whom to please, what the political calculus is. He’s like the quarterback, stepping back to pass, receivers wide open downfield, and he’s dancing in the pocket. Looking left, looking right, hearing footsteps, downfield receivers screaming and waving that they’re open. And he can’t let go of the ball, can’t decide what to do. Right now it's looking like Obama's going to get sacked, and sacked bad.

Let's just hope he can hang onto the ball, at least.

That is really just the epitome of the *cough* "creative" *cough* class response to "all those little people" who are trying to better their lives: i.e. they are "simply shrugging off" that for which they should be so fucking grateful that their masters allow them.

Shorter Mr. Gibbs, if they do not have bread, let them eat cake instead.