I was inspired by Shakesville’s Quote of the Day yesterday, (sorry, been busy!) which was the always inspiring (laughter / horror / disgust ) Michelle Bachman complaining that the public option “would offer equal or better benefits than any plan—but cheaper.”
I was listening to NPR this morning, and they had an interview with one of the representatives from Tennessee who identifies as a “blue dog” democrat. He is in some group that is trying to work out a “bipartisan” bill with 2 other blue dogs and 3 republicans. According to the NY Times today, a similar group in the senate is most likely coming out with what will be the successful Senate version of the bill.
So, what we have, is bills written by groups shutting out the liberal democrats that were elected en masse to reflect the public’s will. 70 to 80% of the public want a public option. So….
…this Tennessee representative today said he is one of the few in the group who actually was OK with the public option (way to represent- snort) as long as it operated on a level playing field.
I’m sorry, sir, does this mean the public option has to be expensive, bureaucratic, confusing, and deliver few benefits with poor service? Is he agreeing with Michelle Bachman that a public plan that covers people and isn’t prohibitively expensive was somehow unfair or undesirable?
So, if it works, it’s bad. And if it doesn’t work, it’s good?