Prediction: there will be no "trigger" Public Option, irregardless of the White House wants

[bluestateguy]

The liberals in the House won't vote for a bill that comes out that way, and triggerizing the public option will lose more votes than it gains in the House and the Senate.

Already it appears that in the Senate while you might get Snowe, Conrad and Ben Nelson with a trigger, you would lose Burris, Finegold and Rockefeller, and perhaps even more (Sanders?). So right there it is a losing proposition. In the House the same thing would happen. Gravala has already made it clear that the Progressive Caucus is not on board with this idea, so any handful of Blue Dog votes this scheme gains would be more than washed out by losses on the Left.

I'm aware that the White House allegedly prefers a trigger to an opt-out bill (if all the anonymous sourced BS stories on Politico and even Huffington Post are to be believed), but I'm not sure that that matters anymore. This White House wants a bill, even a flawed bill, so as not to repeat the Clintons strikeout of 1994. That's their political calculus. So if the choice comes down to going with the liberals with a real public option or no bill---because the trigger won't have the votes---then I am absolutely convinced that the White House will go with the liberals.

[MarjorieG]

1. Hiw are you aware , for certain, what WH wants, in either getting out of Senate/final combined bill.

[BzaDem]

2. Sorry... the Congressional progressive caucus really has no leverage.

If Ben Nelson and co. threaten to vote no, it is because the would rather see no healthcare bill pass than see the one on the floor pass. So if the liberals also voted no, Ben Nelson/Joe Lieberman/etc would be jumping for joy. All they would have to do is say to the liberals, "OK, you don't want a healthcare bill? Fine. Come to me once you fully change your mind."

And change their mind they will. Progressives actually want a healthcare bill. They want to ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and they want to cover tens of millions of more people. They (being good people) are not going to want to screw those with pre-existing conditions and those that can't afford insurance.

They don't have leverage, and they never had leverage. Their threatening to vote no was simply to move the negotiations leftward (which is a good thing) -- but they won't vote no in the end.

[ReverendDeuce]

3. "Irregardless" is not a word...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

Just FYI...

[bluestateguy]

4. I use it, and will continue to do so

I will not give in. Irregardless will always be a word to me. People who don't like that can find someone else to talk to.

[Toucano]

5. How unfortunate. n-t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. I'm with you 100%, buddy!

Count me an irregardless fan too!

And for all intensive purposes, irregardless is a word, like it or not.

[tkmorris]

27. I REALLY hope you were trying to be funny there

Dry humor is so hard to pick up on on the internets.

[LVZ]

19. Then maybe you should change your username to ruralredstateguy

"ain't" can sometimes be cute but "irregardless" is just, well, uneducated.

If you want educated people to discount your opinions because of some sense of joy in being contrarian, I suppose that you can continue doing so. OTOH, if you prefer that more people actually read and evaluate your opinions rather than quickly dismissing them, then I would suggest using standard English.

BTW, in case you could not guess, I didn't bother to read your original post.

[JVS]

8. It's cromulent.

[smalll]

14. Seriously, don't.

Do you want to know what really gets the goat of us "grammar Nazis?" It's not general ignorance or under-education -- it's when people violate the rules of English in an attempt to gussy themselves up -- to be pretentious.

This is why things like "impactful" or "irregardless" are so bad. Or why we cringe at otherwise perfectly average salt-of-the-earthers who clearly find the need, when writing headlines to OPs, to throw in a lot of uncalled-for apostrophe Esses, because they feel it somehow makes their verbiage more formal and proper.

Another example -- people who use the pseudo-lawyerly "said" for no good reason at all (viz. "I called up and spoke to my Senator's legislative assistant, to push for the public option, and said to "said" assistant ... (de blah, de blah, de blah.")

Or the people who say, "I feel badly."

Or the nerdy Renaissance-Faire goers who sprinkle their posts with "methinks." ( :puke: )

None of us grammar Nazis get verklempt about true ignorance; what sticks in our craws is clueless pretention. :shrug:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. No soup for you!

[LVZ]

24. another pretentious phrase: "at this point in time" instead of "now" n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. I am K&Ring this thread for the sole reason that it uses my favorite non-word

"Regardless" is short, ugly and choppy. It leaves you feeling empty and non-complete.

"Irrespective" is snooty and pretentious.

"Irregardless" flows beautifully and rolls off the tongue....irregardless....irregardless....irregardless....

I don't care if it technically contradicts its intended meaning....it still sounds a hell of a lot better than "regardless" or "irrespective."

My next topic shall be: Why can't we divide by zero?

[bluestateguy]

9. kick

:kick:

[MiniMe]

10. The President doesn't want it

Remember he told us, don't believe rumors unless you hear it from my lips.

[Iggo]

11. Unrec.

I don't want to see that word on the front page.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. It will happen irregardless of what you think!

Irregardless now! Irregardless forever!

I swear, it is my favorite non-word. The reason it comes up so often is because it really should be a word even though it is isn't.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. It will happen irregardless of what you think!

Irregardless now! Irregardless forever!

I swear, it is my favorite non-word. The reason it comes up so often is because it really should be a word even though it is isn't.

[Iggo]

21. Ha!

If it meant the opposite of "regardless", and was used that way, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Die, "Irregardless"! Die!

[rucky]

12. Rec'd

just to counter the unrecs for using the "i-word"

[Lasher]

13. Unrec. The count will not change now regardless of your vote.

[rucky]

23. A little help here!

equal rights for made-up words!

[Hippo_Tron]

15. White House prefers the trigger is unsubstantiated bullshit

The White House prefers a strong public option. What they are willing to settle for is ambiguous and anybody claiming to have information about what they are willing to settle for is likely full of shit. We can certainly analyze and speculate what they are willing to settle for but we can't know for certain.

[annabanana]

20. What about applying a trigger to an "opt-out" plan?

Put the public option in operation everywhere for a minimum amount of time and THEN if the State doesn't like it they can quit?

[Occam Bandage]

22. Irrecing your thread.

[Obamanaut]

25. unrec

[bluestateguy]

26. Looks like I was right

nt

[GirlinContempt]

28. irregardless isn't a word

Sorry. I know, I'm being a word nazi.