George Stephanopoulos asks five questions about health care.
1 – What is “death with dignity” for the public option? Is it better for the president to sacrifice it himself? Or convince Democratic leaders behind closed doors to come to him? Some will argue for taking the public option issue to the floor, passing it through the House and sacrificing it in conference – but once you’ve gone that far, it may be impossible for House Democrats to back down. So, giving it up on the front end in some fashion is likely the preferred option.
2 – How do you get the price tag down, likely down to about $700 billion? At that cost the most unpopular tax increases will not be necessary. And moderates in both the House and the Senate have already signaled that they can live with it at that level. Which leads to question 3…
3 – Can you still make a convincing case that the country is on a path to universal coverage? What mix of phase-ins and triggers are necessary to make the case?
4 – Can these kinds of compromises attract any Republican votes beyond Olympia Snowe? If not, can they survive the procedural and political hurdles of the reconciliation process?
5 – And finally, how do you communicate all of this to the public? An address to the joint session of Congress is the leading option, either next week or the week after. The president is calling Congressional leaders today to discuss.
The president has already announced that he will be giving a speech before a joint session of Congress one week from today. But don’t you think Georgie begged the question right there in question one? Why give “death with dignity” to the public option if the House can’t pass the bill without one?
george is just one more corp tool. his show on sundays is a joke (as is the rest of the sunday funnies)
“death with..” is simply one more hook for the wingnuts to advance their program to destroy obama.
“Curious George” would do better!
I’ve always found it questionable that Stephanopoulos ended up on the news. He’s a former (Clinton) administration figure, for crying out loud. That should bar him from serving as a journalist with any news organization that cares about even the appearance of independence and objectivity. The same applies to everyone else spinning the revolving door between government and the news media; I’m not just picking on Clintonistas here.
That aside, as far as question #4 goes, I think we should not only not seek a single Republican vote, we should make damn sure that we don’t get a single Republican vote. We should be actively seeking provisions that will drive the handful of surviving GOP moderates away. That way, when America wakes up one morning and discovers what a great deal modern socialized health care is, the Democrats can claim 100% of the credit for it. The campaign ads will write themselves. “Seen a doctor lately? Well, odds are you wouldn’t have if the Republicans had gotten their way.”
Stephanopoulous might be a Clintonista but his move and subsequent behavior stabbed Clinton in the back. Looks like he wants to do the same to another Democratic president.
He seems like an ambitious little fraud.
I agree, Corvus, the Dems have a political weapon in their hands of nuclear proportion. The question is will they use it and blow the GOP to smithereens?
“death with dignity” for the public option is going to lead to an obituary for the Democratic control of congress in general in 2010. And probably an obit for Obama’s 2012 ambitions as well.
1 — How about acknowledging that the public option is inevitable? Is it better for the president to speak up for it himself? Or tell Democratic leaders to get off the dime and do their jobs. Some will argue for sacrificing it in conference, but once you’ve gone that far, it may be impossible to stop. So getting on the train before it leaves the station is likely the preferred option.
3 — What is this asinine fixation with the price tag? We are already paying more for health care than any other industrialized nation, we’re just not getting what we paid for. By definition, Medicare For All would bring down overall costs, and forty or fifty million healthy, younger participants buying into the system would correct the current funding imbalances.
3 — The case has already been made. Somewhere between two out of three and three out of four Americans want universal health care with a public option already. All that remains is to act on the professed will of the people.
4 — Would any Republican dare to stand in the way of the inevitable? And if they did, how many could keep their seats in the next election?
5 — And finally, how do you justify ignoring the clear will of an overwhelming majority of the American people? The question is not how do you communicate all of this to the public. They are light years ahead of Congress. The question is why are they taking so long?
What part of “death with dignity” don’t people understand?? It’s not a forced death, but an option for those with no hope of recovery and a certainty of a painful period before a natural death. As a senior citizen, I’ll take that option should it become available.
“Why give “death with dignity” to the public option if the House can’t pass the bill without one?”
I was just listening to Nice Polite Republicans, I mean NPR, and heard a representative helpfully explain it: the bill going INTO conference must have a public option, but it is not so important coming out.
Isn’t it awesome being a democrat? even when you win, you lose!
How about this one: How much are you, personally, willing to pay for each element of health care reform? Are you willing to work longer hours? Are you willing to, perhaps, give up a vacation? Are you willing to cut your budget for other essentials?