Home » Public option or no?

Comments

Public option or no? — 8 Comments

  1. Reid seems also to be trying to continue the shell game with health care legislation–everyone has some idea of where (what) the thing might be, but no one knows for sure because the leadership is so busy creating confusion by floating about 6 different ideas, while having the actual content of whatever bill is going to emerge remain a mystery. Some things are known, but no one knows quite which version of the bill they’re in. When something actually finally emerges from this baroque process, people will be scrambling to figure out what the hell it is.

    The Republicans need to finally muster the cods to quit trying to adapt this bill, or “improve” it, or whatever it is they think they’re doing, and just work their sweet butts off mounting a unified effort to STOP the danged thing. They can propose alternatives, if there are to be any, later. MUCH later.

  2. I know this comment is off the subject of Neo’s head post, but in view of the EPA’s pincer movement on carbon control I can’t help wondering–should we wake Huxley if Waxman-Markey fails and the regulators kick their program in? 🙂

  3. betsy,
    If the EPA does the regulating it can be reversed quite easily when a new, saner president is elected. Laws, on the other hand are much harder to change. That’s one big reason why we don’t want a Healthcare Reform act. It will be very difficult to repeal/modify.

  4. Classic case of misdirection, most likely; they say there will be no public option, but semantics are their stock in trade, so maybe they’ll simply call it something else.

    By any other name, an’ all… 😡

  5. Well then Congress will have little trouble flipping Obama off by refusing to buckle under this transparent blackmail attempt, right? Even if it takes a bit of gumption, they’ll block cap-and-trade because regulations will be easier to roll back.

  6. betsy,
    No, the dems will use the so-called threat to justify passing cap and tax. We have to remember the dems are driving the bus. (Heading over a cliff!) The Republicans are not united because the MSM demonizes them quite effectively when they try to stymie the dems. Most are more interested in their futures (getting re-elected) than they are in doing what’s right. If you watch C-Span or Fox News you will see that the Republicans have opposition and alternative plans for everything the dems are doing, but their message does not get out effectively. Calling them the party of NO has been a very effective tactic.

  7. Jimmy,

    I was being ironic–sarcastic even. I know they’ll pass the danged thing.

    I think the Repbulicans may be more united than people would know from watching the MSM. I also think being characterized as the party of NO is doing them a fair bit of good these days. The party of YES is the one that’s tanking in the polls and scaring people witless, after all. Most people don’t want what these guys are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to pass. So my thought is, far out about that. The GOP could benefit from calling themselves the party of NO these days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>