Update: corrected misspelled word in title.
I wish I had heard a line in the sand for the already compromised position of a public option, what we got was weasel words. While I did not see the speech live (at the office as I type this) I read the speech as prepared, and when it comes to the public option, the weasel words are there and bodes very ill for the public option.
Why is below the fold.
Midway through the speech we get to the part abotu the public option:
"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange."
Conditional statement. Can vs. need to, or have to. This is the chicken switch statement.
"Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance."
So it won't lower costs for private health insurance? Weak ass shit.
"In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up."
Very weak ass shit. This makes the PO worthless unless you can make it robust enough to make it an attractive and viable option, to pressure private insurance to lower prices and increase coverage.
"To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."
So you will not fight for the public option, and are open to "other ideas". Sorry, that is hand on the PO chicken-switch and frankly, will lose my support going forward if this administration fucks us over the PO.
"For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring."
No they are not. Hat-tipping crap like triggers and co-ops as being ideas worth exploring means I will explore telling this administration to go fuck itself gently with a chain-saw. That is language of selling us down-the-river. I hope this administration proves me wrong, and does indeed make the PO a line in the sand, but this ain't it. This is weasel-worded horse-shit folks.
I want to support the President, who I worked and donated my ass off to elect. But this is weak-tea (at best) and will not cut it. Robust public option, no triggers, as a minimum.
Non-negotiable.