The public option is a bit of a fail safe. If we are right and it works, insurance companies will lose out only because it is such a good deal for consumers. I don’t see that as bad. If we are wrong, the public option will fail and no harm will be done.

Frankly, much of the opposition to the public option strikes me as self-contradictory.

Whether arrogant ignorance or ignorant arrogance, it is ubiquitous throughout the land.

Unpleasant, dim-witted little piss-ants, fortified with vitriol and encouraged by those who use them to their own ends, are happily, if mindlessly, spreading their “good cheer” in places where they haven’t a clue but imagine that they are destroying equanimity and good will, when all they really accomplish is to convince any who encounter their spew that the quality of the trollish set is rapidly going downhill …

The dustbin of history awaits.

Now that, slowereastside, approaches the sublime.

Unfortunately, post Bush, it is far too nuanced to become the catch-word term it deserves to be.

DW

Survey says

A new study finds that a majority of physicians support the creation of a public health care option.
A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) study published in Monday’s New England Journal of Medicine shows that 63 percent of physicians support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. If the additional 10 percent of doctors who support an entirely public health system are included, then approximately three out of four physicians nationwide support inclusion of a public option. Only 27 percent support a private-only reform that would provide subsidies for low-income individuals to purchase private insurance.

You are a fool or a liar if you believe these numbers. Only the kool-aid drinkers on this site believe this… This blog is comical to read. It is a great source of entertainment… It reminds me of Jon Lovitz’ character on SNL when he was telling outlandish lies. The only difference is that you dumb@sses on this blog gobble it all up.

Remember all the commercials that started “Three out of four doctors recommend…” or “Four our of five Dentists recommend…”? Well, three out of four Doctors DO recommend the Public Option, so why haven’t some of these 75 percent of doctors run a commercial stating their support for the Public Option?

We trust Doctors when they make a medical diagnosis and prescribe, often-lifesaving, treatment and medication, so why are 75 percent of U.S. Doctors suddenly NOT trusted when they diagnose that our current healthcare system is ill, injured, needs repairing, needs reform? Why?

Think of the current U.S. healthcare system as a body, a body with a diseased heart -caused by health insurance and pharmaceutical company greed- and with both legs cutoff below the knees -representing the missing uninsured/underinsured/preexisting condition citizens.

And three out of four American Doctors are prescribing a Public Option heart transplant, replacing the diseased for-profit heart with a Public Option heart that will at least give American citizens a choice and give some legs to our healthcare system.

she only mentions think tanks and media. maybe unions were not included (i find that hard to believe, but who knows?).

The AFL-CIO convention endorsed single-payer and called the Baucus bill bullshit but Trumka only works for/publicly endorses the Pyrrhic Option.

Something’s behind that discrepancy …

one thing i will say though is that the talk of market competition is just nonsense and trumka of all people ought to know it. it’s one of those neoliberal fallacies that market competition always leads to good outcomes and not a race to the bottom. but health insurance, like “free trade,” in weakly regulated markets are examples of where market competition race to the bottom.

good to see you too, dwbartoo!

Mr. Trumka is a politician, of sorts, after all …

I find it hard to believe as well.

And those who know, for certain, are all politicians …

It ultimately comes down to a question of trust.

And then, how much is deserved?

How did Bill Clinton put it?

Something about” …what is the meaning of is?”

I think the sum total of my “trust” could be transported in a teaspoon, with room to spare …

Always good to “see” you, selise, btw.

DW

It is interesting that Trumka said that Rahm had NOT pressured the union(s) to cease and desist …

here’s what sara robinson said (on ian masters 9/22, my rough transcript):

sara: …he [obama] went to left wing activists and said, “don’t you push for single payer and don’t go leaning on the blue dogs. and if you do, we’re going to go to your funders and have your funding cut. he went to all the liberal think tanks and media outlets and they said we hold your purse strings and if you cross us on this, if you don’t come over to the center with us on this, we’re going to cut your funding. that was horrifying, i work for couple of those left wing think tanks.

but it was a sign that rather than let their left flank take the edge of the window and drag it all the way over and talk about really radical things like single payer. and then obama could cut a deal that was somewhat to the right of that but not very far and get a lot more. we were a strong negotiating thing that he had going on and they cut us off on at the face [i'm not sure about this sentence, hard to hear --s]. jane hamsher has written about this.

ian: i was going to say just to follow up on the fdr analogy, fdr said to the liberal activists, “make me do it.”

sara: obama says, “get out of my way.”

she only mentions think tanks and media. maybe unions were not included (i find that hard to believe, but who knows?).