"In the end, trust begets competition, competition begets a public
option, and a public option begets the necessary ingredient that enables
every single American to afford health care. Without trust, Americans
will remain screwed." [http://tinyurl.com/...]
"Barack Obama says he supports a public option but claims there aren’t 51 votes in the Senate to pass it in reconciliation. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says he would aggressively whip the 51 votes for the public option if Nancy Pelosi would send him a House reconciliation bill that includes a public option. Nancy Pelosi says she won’t include a public option in House reconciliation bill because there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to pass it. It’s looking more and more like a game of 3-Card Monty."
"It’s all Kabuki theater to cover up the truth that President Obama made a backroom deal with the for-profit hospital industry that the final health care bill would not include a national public option."
If this reporting is accurate, the President has misled (lied?) the Public by his frequently repeated statement that he believes that Public Option is the best way to lower costs, foster competition and keep the insurance companies honest but would consider input about other alternatives if they are achieve results equal to or better than the Public Option. Do notice that the author is an attorney – so false reporting is unlikely.
After reading the article which of the three is applicable and desirable from your point of view.
- Is this case of misleading (lying?) a prosecutable offense?
- If true does it warrant impeachment by the Congress?
- If neither 1 nor 2 apply or not carried out, should Obama and his team wear ribbons of shame, i.e. publicly apologize and show contrition? In addition, the President and Congressional leadership remedy this sabotage by either including the Public Option in the Reconciliation Package or pass a law adding the Public Option.
First is preferable, but can only occur if the issue gets acknowledged in time. I am a little surprised that the story has not been picked up by the media. Perhaps because it was published on Saturday. Or the reporting is false, unlikely considering the author is an attorney.
Obama, Durbin and Pelosi All Point Fingers at Someone Else for Killing Public Option
UPDATE
There are some comments defending President Obama's definition of HCR sans PO. Some suggest that realism requires that we accept the HCR as it is. That Critics of HCR are stupid ideologues. Here is a note about the importance of PO. ["Public Option: An Organic Solution for the Core Problems in HCR"]
Michael Moore posed some serious questions about HCR and PO, on the HCR segment in Countdown-MSNBC yesterday. He said if the President answered those questions directly in a public forum, Moore will support the HCR in its current form. I will be happy to follow Moore's lead on this one.
A plea to the President in a missive I wrote a while back: [Mr P neither you nor the Nation deserve this]
In any case this note is not about HCR flaws or lack of a Public Option. It is about the top man prevaricating. As for as impeachment or prosecution options came to me as two possible consequence. May be "impeachment" should be replaced by "censure". As for item 1 I am just asking a question and one knowledgeable reader pointed out the "lie has to be under oath" to be a prosecutable offense.