The President is not as ideological as the average DUer...

[kentuck]

Most of us want a public option to compete with the private insurance companies. In fact, most of us might actually prefer a single-payer system?

However, the President is a pragmatist. He wants to improve the system. He wants to cover those without health insurance. He wants to make it possible for people to keep their homes and not go broke if they have a serious illness. When he said the public option was just a "sliver" of healthcare reform, he was serious. That is what he believes.

But ideological Democrats do not want to give more to the insurance companies. They want another option besides private insurance. That is why they demand a public option. It's a degree of change that is being debated and whether it is enough to call it real "change"?

[pampango]

1. And I think he really believes in toning down partisan rhetoric, though

I don't know how long he can hold on to that. How long will he stick with a self-perception as a post-partisan, post-racial president, when it is apparent that others do not hold the same view?

He has the numbers in congress to go the partisan, ram-it-down-their-throats road, but he'll have to give up on his inclination not to aggravate the partisan divide and go for broke.

[kentuck]

3. I think he will try to get some Repub votes right until the end...

He does not want to be a "partisan" President.

[YOY]

2. "Ideological" implies that it would never work. That it is based in some noble but impossible idea.

We can clearly see by looking at other nations that it clearly does.

"Ideological" is not the word for it. That word describes communism. It looks great on paper but it doesn't work well at all.

Beg to differ.

[kentuck]

5. I think it implies that more is possible than pragmatists may think..?

including the President. And should not be construed in a negative way.

[YOY]

7. I won't argue but I do feel that single payer is the pragmatic solution.

It is tested. Works. Can be implemented. It solves the problem.

The only thing I can honestly think of criticising it for is the possible unemployement of folks...but the DHHS will need a boatload of contractors and employees to get this thing running. They would basically migrate over to the new system.

Now the executives? They're fucked. Hope they diversified their company. Don't feel too sorry for them.

[kentuck]

8. I agree.

The bureaucracy is already in place. All you really need is your SS#. Instead of taking money out of your paycheck for the insurance companies, cut it by 5% and put it into the Social Security Health Insurance Fund instead. When you go to the doctor, all you would need is your SS#. All the doctor would need to get reimbused would be your SS#. The middle man, the insurance companies, would be taken out of the equation. Sounds very pragmatic to me.

[scheming daemons]

4. ...and thank God for that....

[alarimer]

6. Health care reform WILL NOT WORK until the profit motive is gone

Pragmatic or not, the only thing that will guarantee health care for all is a Medicare for all system. EVERYTHING else is a giveaway to the insurance companies.

pragmatic = throwing liberal under the bus.

Sorry for using that term but pragmatism simply means throwing out core values in the name of "getting things done".

A bad bill will be worse than no bill at all.