Pelosi: Health care 'public option' needs new name

[red states rule]

Do Dems think the voters are so stupid to fall for sticking a new label on Obamacare?

Pelosi: Health care 'public option' needs new name
Oct 26 02:49 PM US/Eastern
By MATT SEDENSKY
Associated Press Writer

SUNRISE, Fla. (AP) - A government-sponsored "public option" for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as "the consumer option." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term "competitive option."

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

"You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said. "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."

Pelosi said that was a misconception and that any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid. She also said such an option would ultimately drive down government health care costs.

The speaker said the "competitive option" idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.

"I think she's going to go up and test-drive it when she goes back to Washington," Wasserman Schultz said. "It might stick."

As for having the votes to pass such a measure, both women said a public option would survive. They wouldn't get into numbers of congressional supporters, but said it was simply a matter of picking which type of public option to pursue.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[CSM]

In reply to your opening question: YES!

[red states rule]

In reply to your opening question: YES!

They still have to sell this to Dems who are scared of the wrath of their voters

If the "public option" is so great, Reid and Pelosi would not need to try to fool the voters by changing its name.

Dems are so drunk with power they are ignoring the voters and they will start paying for it next Tueday

[sgtdmski]

Why do they think that if the Public option will not pass, the consumer option would.

Unless the idea changes, the word change means nothing.

If you want my support for the public option this is what you need to do.

First, any federal government insurance company must be held accountable to the same laws and regulations as a private company is held.

Second, the government must write into law that no taxpayer monies be made available to support the option, in other words, the monies used by the government company must come from premiums and investments, the same as private companies.

If anything else is allowed, it does not mean competition, but rather an unfair advantage given to the government option.

The whole reason Public Option is failing is the fact that the people realize that the idea of the option will be supported by the public and not enterprise like the current system.

dmk

[red states rule]

The Dems can't seem to do anything right. When will they learn Obamcare is a total failure like the so called stimulus bill?

Reid Hits Roadblocks in Bid to Pass Health Bill With Government Insurance Plan

Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman said Tuesday that he would support a Republican filibuster against the health care reform bill unless it's changed. Key Democratic moderates also said they were uncertain how they'd vote, expressing deep reservations about the public plan.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was struggling Tuesday to drum up the support necessary to pass a health care reform bill that includes a government insurance plan, with key moderate Democrats backing away from the package ahead of a crucial vote.

Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman said Tuesday that he would support a Republican filibuster against the bill unless it's changed. Key Democratic moderates including Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., also said they were uncertain how they'd vote, expressing deep reservations about the public plan.

And Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, the only Republican to have voted for any version of health care reform, reiterated Tuesday that she's "disappointed" in Reid's proposal and will not support the government option.

The wavering, and in some cases crumbling, support for the package demonstrates how much of a gamble the Nevada Democrat took by unveiling a bill Monday that includes the controversial government plan but has no Republican backing. And it's a reminder of the warnings made months ago by Senate Democrats like Kent Conrad, D-N.D., that a public plan simply does not have the votes to pass and should not be included in the final bill.

With a 60-vote Democratic majority, Reid would need all 60 of them to cut off debate and bring the bill for a vote. Though he was known to be short of the 60-vote threshold before Monday's announcement, some Democrats hoped that by calling it a fait accompli, he could convince those lawmakers with reservations about the bill to vote at least to cut off debate -- even if they planned to vote against the bill in the end. Then Reid would need only 51 supporters to pass the bill.

Though Reid's proposal was pitched as a compromise to appease conservative Democrats, lawmakers like Lieberman said they are still concerned it would add to the deficit and leave taxpayers on the hook for bailing out the government.

"If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage," Lieberman told reporters, adding that he's willing to vote to bring the bill to the floor for debate.

Reid's proposal would create a national insurance plan that state legislatures can vote to opt out of if they can demonstrate an alternative. The plan would be set up with government seed money and then run by a private, not-for-profit board and supported by premium payments.

"The devil's always in the details," Nelson said, expressing concerns about how hard it might be for states to opt out of the government plan.

"The question is, is this enough flexibility for states to account for their own circumstances? And the answer to that is perhaps. But I'd like to wait to see what's in the language," Bayh said, raising concerns that some provisions could "substantially increase the deficit."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...vernment-plan/