You know, I really love the Obamas. By now they are probably wondering just what in the heck they have gotten themselves into. I just want to hold them in my big strong arms and protect them from this insidious republican public onslaught.

Don't forget to sing Kum Ba Yah while you at it.

No denying its a tough job, especially for a rookie of limited experience, but thats why you don't put in people who can't hack it or who feel its above their paygrade. Are some criticisms unfair, sure, same with Bush, same with Clinton, but it comes with the job.

I don't believe there are enough votes without the public option.

I know there aren't enough with it.

In the words of Dr. McCoy: He's dead Jim.

This time the President will be telling us what he wants to see in health care reform now, as opposed to what he wanted to see during the campaign, or David Axelrod's chain-mail missive of August 13 outlining in detail what the administration expected to see from health care reform then.

Speaking of which – I am doing my part. I have been diligently forwarding David Axelrod's chain-mail to every e-mail address I can find as he requested me to do.

“Obama's health care plan — 48% favor it and 51% oppose”

Favor strongly, 25%
Favor only moderately, 23%
Oppose only moderately, 10%
Oppose strongly, 41%
No opinion, 2%

Continue working on those bills this fall and make relatively minor changes before passing final legislation, 25%

Continue working on those bills this fall but pass final legislation only if major changes are made, 28%

Start work on entirely new bills that would not be ready until some time next year, 25%

Stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system, 20%

No opinion, 2%

Which would make you feel more secure, the Obama plan, or the existing system?

Current health care system, 52%
Obama’s proposed system, 44%
No opinion, 4%

PUBLIC OPTION

Favor, 55%
Oppose, 41%
No opinion, 4%

but –

Favor strongly, 27%
Favor moderately, 28%
Oppose moderately, 11%
Oppose strongly, 30%
No opinion, 4%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/09/02/…

Will Obama save this foundering S.S. DemCare? Or on September 9 will he be a lib Dem figurehead?

Huh? From yesterday's poll:

Extremely important: 58 percent (41 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Quite important: 19 percent (35 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Not that important: 7 percent (12 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Not at all important: 15 percent (8 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Total important: 77 percent (76 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)
Total unimportant: 22 percent (20 percent in June 2009 NBC/WSJ poll)

So many Medmob/GOP bots, so little time.

Guess what? 70%, yes, that's 70% of the american public wants the public option….

Reality is so harsh at times…

What's your bet on approval of the public option?

Do y'all remember the Iowa Electronic Markets? They provided “betting” on the candidates last year.

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…

Well, there is “betting” on the public option, too.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd….

There's nothing wrong with abandoning the “public option.” The public increasingly opposes it as well as the effort in general. The only big question about the nature of the opposition is how much truly is specific to this and how much instead is more general, given the record of the lib Dems this year.

Not only is abandoning the public option moderate, but it is commendable on the basis of public opposition (for such good reasons) alone; moreover, it would be not only moderate and sensible but smart and welcome if abandonment were accompanied by real reform of the existing system “in exchange.” Revival of this or other incrementalist measures is possible at any time it is propitious.

The CEO of United Health received ONE OF EVERY $700 spent on health care. That.Is.Outrageous.

That's not what the “public option” is, not quite, not yet, but that is what they really want, and your idea is more bold as well as more honest (i.e, it is better) than what the Dems are doing now or just the essence of it.

“I do think either everyone should be able to pay it in pre-tax dollars, or no one should. “
That leads me to another example the Dems might try instead. Transparent, risky, but it's there.

If there's a restart of this effort, some other incrementalist measure will be tried, and among those I've listed would include expanding the scope of Medicare. Leaving aside the poor and children (the idea being to take the easiest incrementalist steps to universality as the strategy, leaving ordinary taxpayers last so they'll demand they become benefiaries, eventually), a revisitation of a Clinton idea perhaps might be tried (though it would be, as with the “public option,” obviously transparent as an incrementalist takeover strategy):

“Would you like to buy into Medicare before age 65?”

Specifically, Clinton appealed to those many who currently have obsolescent views about retirement, and who want to retire eariler than 65 (the opposite of reality and how entitlements should be set up); he said that Medicare should be available to retirees (people) beginning at age 55 rather than at 65.

It goes against reality (retirement entitlement ages should begin at 70 or beyond now). But –

Do you remember? Hell, Obama could have Charming Billy himself out campaigning for this.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/07/us/clinton-pr…

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/18/us/clinton-pu…

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=…

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan…

* * *

“Deduct “insurance” (pre-payment) costs? I'd say, why not all health costs? (GOP, where are you?)

I do think either everyone should be able to pay it in pre-tax dollars, or no one should. Level playing field. Oh, and eliminate any limits on the ability of Medicare to negotiate relentlessly for lower costs -for doctors, hospitals and drugs.

That's been a progressively worse characteristic of the behavior in Washington all year. Kids playing…

Challenge to those Dems and libs with pretensions to adulthood — again:

Strip (remove) everything else from the legislation and have a straight, up-or-down, vote on this if you truly have faith in it and in your view of the public's view of it.

Meanwhile, in the world, there's already talk among some Dems that I heard about today of some kind of (different, less controversial or inept form of) incrementalist strategic choice to replace the universalist “public option” strategy. (The alternatives have always been there, beginning with expansion of the less-controversial “safety net” approach, leaving all children and eventually everybody for later, as is logical.)

Don't be surprised or too upset [chuckle] if the Dems start over — even though I doubt they'll admit failure.

Now take that against a common sense check………if the Dems had something people really and truly wanted, the people were given a straightfoward honest explanation of it and the Dems were perceived as honest and trustworthy, do you believe for one second that 32 people could derail it with some “mean and nasty” commentary?

Of course, not.

Moreover, not only the proponents but the legislators themselves (like Conyers) have spoken or written about not reading the legislation that is being proposed (almost all the time, the House bill and its amendments).

That only adds to the concerns of the public that things are inept as well as out of control, generally.

“Press the reset button.”

Sadly, it's almost certainly going to be worse than that. [sigh]