Comments on: The Political Calculus of the Public Option

By: ktyson

ktyson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:47:36 +0000

I was delighted to get up this morning and read the news that Harry Reid is leaning toward the public option. Now let’s hold his feet to the fire so that he makes it robust.

Health reform means a lot to me. I’ve been studying the health care system for 30 years.

By: djfourmoney

djfourmoney — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:06:58 +0000

I’m starting to loose interest. We may get a PO but will it be really worth all the effort?

Jerry Brown torched CNBC yesterday, so weather its him or Gavin, Meg Whitmann stands NO CHANCE and we’ll have to have Health Care Reform on the State level.

Sorry

By: 2briteturnleft

2briteturnleft — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:41:18 +0000

Cudos Jane and thank you! You made believe I could matter in this fight and I consider myself a moderate so screw these guys and all their BS about the liberals making it tough on everyone..there are plenty of us out there who are just your average Tom Dick and Harriet that got screwed in the fight for CHANGE and refuse to accept SAME.

By: cbl2

cbl2 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:48:30 +0000

hey, those Wasserman-Schultz comments

she’s being a good Pelosi soldier. she also makes sense. but this is the beginning of their push in anticipation of Conference and they are just beginning to squeeze Reid, paint him further in to a corner. I’d be surprised if there weren’t a steady parade of loyalists and aspiring loyalists to come

By: cbl2

cbl2 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:13:47 +0000

Good Evening Jane and Firedogs,

Jane has changed the dynamic entirely

amen Mister Jimmy – as I’ve been saying, she has not simply led our fight, she has taught us how to fight. and although it will be some time (if ever) before we get the backstory, if indeed Reps Grijalva and Woolsey stand firm and have the numbers I think they have, it is because they have learned to function, found their actual footing as a Caucus – and either directly or indirectly Jane Hamsher had significant influence/impact on that – if they hold, it means no one can take them for granted again, and they’ll only get better – imagine taking the largest voting bloc in Congress out for a spin – tiresome that Nate

By: sunshine

sunshine — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:30:06 +0000

I agree! We have had 20 years of GOP presidents and Supreme Court Justices and 8 yrs 9 months of Dems. Lets make a mark in history as big as the New Deal! And also appoint some very real liberal SCJ!

By: xargaw

xargaw — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:27:02 +0000

I really can’t see states opting out of a PO. Sure, conservatives may gripe about it, but it does not cost the states any money and it is popular with the people. Since it is only an option, why would any legislator want to be the one to take away something that doesn’t cost any money to the state and is only an available option to the consumer. Opting out would be a loose, loose. If it gets a PO passed, let them have the opt-out. It may weed out a few more GOP reps come election time if they try to get their state to opt out.

By: sunshine

sunshine — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:50:55 +0000

Do the damn PO now, no half measures or it will just be campaign fissure for the next decade or longer with in fighting within the states legislatures and Governors and that would be used by the GOP to get their base out. If the PO does what we think it will then we’ll get many new voters in the up coming elections. Let’s do it right from the get go. Too many have lost their jobs and health care and I don’t see this countries employment and wages going up any time in the near future.

By: sporkovat

sporkovat — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:38:10 +0000

those are not the priorities of the Democratic Party anymore, not for more than 20 years, at least.

Legislation that benefits the public will hurt the corporations that prey on the public in that area, and the Democrats are as thoroughly corporatized as the Republicans.

And, as Matt Tabibi mentions, Wall Street actually has even more power and influence under (D) administrations.

Yes, there is a difference. Wall Street has MORE influence under Democratic administrations.
GS (Goldman Sachs) was Obama’s #1 private contributor. It gave 4 dollars to Democratic congressional candidates for every 1 to Republicans last year. This has been their history long-term. The Democrats very clearly bank their financial strategy on raising money from the financial services industry, and it’s been that way going back to at least 96, with the Rubin era

By: laurastrand

laurastrand — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:27:52 +0000

Geezus H. Christ on a cracker – the easiest way for the Dems to ensure long term majorities is to pass bold legislation that benefits the public in an obvious way – kinda like the New Deal, only in OUR lifetimes. My parents grew up in households that had Rooseveldts picture on the wall.