The Public Option is Popular, Moral and Inexpensive, Therefore It Must Die

[babylonsister]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-public-option-is-popu_b_275845.html


Bob Cesca
Political Author, Blogger, and New Media Producer
Posted: September 2, 2009 06:59 PM

The Public Option is Popular, Moral and Inexpensive, Therefore It Must Die

snip//

The reality, however, is that a healthcare reform bill with a robust public option is both extraordinarily popular and fiscally responsible, while, on the other hand, the kind of "centrist" bill that David Brooks wants is actually more expensive and generally more corrupt. In other words, a bill without the public option can hardly be called "centrist" by any definition of the term.

If Brooks wants "fiscal restraint," as he writes in his column, he'd endorse the public option. What I'm about to write is old news, but with the apparent prevalence of breaking news stories on cable news about bears wandering into suburban swimming pools, I suppose it's easy for people to forget. Nevertheless, here it is. You may recall that the CBO scored the Kennedy HELP bill as costing around $1 trillion over ten years. But that was an early version of the bill without a public option included. What did the bill cost with the public option inserted into the mix?

$400 billion less.

Less!

The public option reduced the price tag of the HELP bill by $400 billion. By Grabthar's Hammer, what savings.

How is this not indicative of fiscal restraint and centrist politics, Mr. Brooks? The public option is the very definition of fiscal restraint and anyone who opposes the inclusion of the public option in a final healthcare reform bill is actually in favor of spending more money -- not less. To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

snip//

I can only recall the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq when the establishment press and most of Washington got it so wrong. Deliberately or accidentally -- it doesn't matter. It's wrong and it's deceptive. And they're doing it all over again.

What we can conclude at this point is that the press and the far-right have managed to largely change the terms of the debate without regards to reality. Knowing this, we have a couple of months here to set the record straight and to achieve a robust, affordable, portable and reliable public health insurance plan. Considering the dishonesty and insanity of the opposition, it ought to be a winnable fight.

Alright Washington people, you're dismissed. Except for you, Bartiromo. You need to go here and learn about Medicare before you go on television and make an ass of yourself again

[yourout]

1. and a Democratic Idea.

[babylonsister]

2. Yes, that'd be the main reason. nt

[timeforpeace]

3. Now I see why some people were so desperate to get a bill, any bill, rammed through before August.

[babylonsister]

4. Do tell! nt

[snake in the grass]

5. When a conservadrone starts with the argument that...

...we can't afford it, I say the following: After 9/11 and 3000 deaths we had enough money to go into Iraq and blow nearly 4 trillion in less than 10 years. 22,000 people die every year because they have no access to health care. That's over seven 9/11s per year, and we can't afford 1 trillion over ten years to prevent that?

These people are hopelessly stupid!