“Let’s see them stop that shit in an election year. Polls show overwhelming support for the PO, and most of the time majority support for single payer. So, let’s do this in an election year. Maybe contrary to CW, that’s the BEST time to do this.”

But I can’t agree with this:

“But my fear is this. Some bullshit, cop out plan will pass. And then we’re “done” with health care reform for another generation. Look how long it took to try again after Clinton passed nothing!!! You know how long it’s gonna take if they pass a bullshit bill???”

I don’t think a bullshit cop-out plan will end the movement for health care reform. Not now. The movement’s too strong. If we don’t get a good result this year we’re coming back in 2010 for enhanced Medicare for All, single-payer. The only think that can kill the return is a really robust PO which might work. Anything else is just BS, and won’t fool anybody.

Ditto re shootthatarrow @ 31.

But my fear is this. Some bullshit, cop out plan will pass. And then we’re “done” with health care reform for another generation. Look how long it took to try again after Clinton passed nothing!!! You know how long it’s gonna take if they pass a bullshit bill???

To extrapolate from your remarks: I too fear a “crap bill” — full of mandates and IRS enforcement, but without any cost controls. Then, as Mr. & Mrs. America realize what hit them [they open their pay envelope to see ever-increasing deductions for that wonderful "required" health care; the abuses by the insurance companies continue unabated], AND they realize that it was DEMOCRATS who foisted this shit upon them . . . . they are going to be turned off to the Democratic party for DECADES.

Why oh why can’t Obama and Rahm see this? [Answer: because they're too fixated on their picture of the Rose Garden "signing ceremony" and the political ads they can make from it.]

Jeeze, has EVERYONE in this administration/White House drunk the Kool-Aid, ’cause it’s not too far of an imaginative projection to see this ending DISASTROUSLY for Dems.

What I also see is Republicans coming out of the woods to vote for something if it’s a shit bill. There’ve got to be a few retiring Republicans who don’t care, and who can’t WAIT to hang this anvil around the Democrats’ necks.

In fact the NYT story of the day is another weak trigger proposal that unnamed House Democrats are said to be pushing. The NYT helpfully added that the PO is “not necessarily as crucial” as the public thinks. Good thing I still have COBRA, because reading this almost gave me a stroke.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/another-public-option-but-still-not-for-you/#more-10345

Although it would help to have the elements of a viable PO plan determined with some degree of mathematical rigor, it would appear that as currently conceived a PO plan would be viable as long it satisfied the following conditions: a suficciently large number of participants with the requisite raio of low risk to high risk cohorts, in the plan. Currently there is 47 million uninsured participants that are eligibler for the PO with the requisite ratio of participants needed. Hopefully this would suffice for the time being.

The fact that there is a mandate is in fact helpful since by the PO plan providing lower premiums, you would likely have a larger number of low risk enrollees in the PO plan.

At some point it would be necessary to in fact show the political clout of the galvinized progressive movement. Some exercise of this clout has to become apparent.

There’s nothing in the Constitution preventing Single Payer from being passed tomorrow, and taking effect next week. Nothing.

Other than the will to do so.

And for those who think “anything” is better than “nothing” please explain to me how an individual mandate without a public option (or with a bullshit public option) is better, please. Not only are we keeping an unnecessary level of “profit” but we’re also keeping out a necessary curb to costs.

Sometimes, yes, IMO, “anything” can be worse than “nothing.” So, like I said, I just disagree with you.

As far as an incremental approach, well, that’s why I support a strong public option. I’m told it’s politically not feasable to get single payer today because of how our “framers” built the system. OK, Fine, in that case instead of being stubborn then I’ll accept a strong PO. Then, an incremental approach to getting there is fine by me. But what if what passes doesn’t take a step toward’s fulfilling that incremental approach??? Is that still better than nothing???

I just don’t buy that “anything” is better than nothing when, if IMO, the “anything” not only doesn’t get us any closer to the end result incrementally, it actually makes getting there harder and longer.

Of course, as usual, YMMV.