I dunno, Bob. This "trigger" plan is more than a little alarming:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/12/803466/-The-Corporate-Empire-Strikes-Back:-Corporate-Dems-Seek-Alternative-To-Public-Option.-Again.

I still don't see how any bill with the PO (robust or otherwise) gets through the Senate.

I'm really sick of these anonymous sources. I read this on the plumeline yesterday and I'm not happy about it but, the leak will likely spark more push back from Progressives. We'll see how this plays out. The whitehouse may be forced once again to come out and clarify. I just want them to open up the public option to everyone. I think Wyden is on to something.

If these exchanges are available to everyone, then those who currently have insurance may see their premiums drop. The insurance companies will either compete or loose customers. Personally, I'd like to see them pushed out of business someday.

I'd also prefer no trigger at all. It's bad enough that we have to wait until 2013 but, to not have it set in stone that the public option would be starting and instead waiting to see if the trigger will be pulled sounds like bullshit. And how do you campaign for 2010 on that? Expect a huge push back!

Uh oh Bob, now you're sticking up for the trigger. How long before Lee comes on to ask where you draw the line?

I've always thought the trigger sounded reasonable, but other progressives have always told me, don't buy it, they'll word it so that the public option could never be established. I don't know what to believe.

I still think if you're mandating that people buy insurance, you have to offer it through the government at a reduced cost.

They can't think they can get away with forcing us to purchase insurance from just the private industry. It's clear that many of the cash whoring Democrats who claim to be deficit hawks aren't interested in a wide open public option. It's the only way to bring down cost.

I'm glad several bloggers have started a boycott of the DNC but, what we need is to burn up the interwebs with a clear message that we'll stay home in 2010 and 2012 if a strong and robust public option without triggers isn't passed. We'll remind them of what just happened to Deeds when he turned his back on the Democratic adgenda.

I'm sure that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow would do extensive reporting on the line in the sand drawn by the left. We need to do exactly what we did when they Rahm tried to sell us out. They won't get away with this and they need to hear it loud and clear.

Got that right Rox. I'm sick of this shit.

I am not happy with the boycotts. They are boycotting the President. And calling him weak and ineffectual. I am sorry I cannot support anything like that. Who has nothing to do with Congress getting off their asses and creating legislation.

And we really don't know what the hell that health care bill is going to look like until it comes out and heads into conference.

I will reserve my judgement then. I will keep calling my congresscritters and senators about passing some form of a health care bill.

Anonymous source is anonymous.

Until I see the president himself, or atleast Gibbs, say he supports a trigger... I wont believe it.

we'll stay home in 2010 and 2012 if a strong and robust public option without triggers isn't passed. We'll remind them of what just happened to Deeds when he turned his back on the Democratic adgenda.

I won't be staying home in 2010 & 2012. There's no way I'd help the GOP to regain power after the mess they made of the world in the last decade. And Deeds may have been defeated but it remains to be seen if Virginians are the real losers in that election. Perhaps a threat to back a primary challenger would be more effective?

At any rate, Ashby's right, it's another anonymous source - quite possibly the same one who yesterday said that Obama had decided that he was sending 40K more troops to Afghanistan.
Really - stop falling for this shit!

Four words: triggers never get pulled.

But let's assume this (entirely hypothetical) one is different. In 2013, the trigger would be pulled and the federal government would have to create/expand the bureaucracy to enroll/handle millions of people in Medicare+5, which would not be the work of a moment. This pushes the date of actual action back another three or four years at least; meanwhile, the political wrangling would start all over again. At best, something minimal might happen by 2020.

Trigger = bad idea.

Adding: Ashby and ceu are dead right. Unless and until the White House makes an official statement of support for a trigger, this is just a rumor.

I've read 600 pages of the bill now, and have 18 policy statements so far. The rest is garbage. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this bill is starting to read like, "See! We did something without doing anything at all!"...and you said it couldn't be done...

Trigger schmigger. If there is a trigger, it will never be pulled, because we all know how much you liberals hate guns.

:D

If the Democrats pass a shitty bill, they will be the one's helping the GOP back to power. While all aren't likely to stay home, many will. The base will feel betrayed once again. As for primaries, it won't be easy finding good Democrats to run all of the conservadems out of office. While I think some of them will loose reelection, many won't. Deeds was an awful candidate from the start but, he was never able to inspire anyone. Virginians weren't the ones to see that.

I just think a shitty bill will have a serious impact on the Dems and this should be made clear to the party before 2010, not after they've lost not just seats, but strong support from the left.

Sorry, The people of Virginai weren't the only ones to see how bad a candidate he was. With 61% of Democrats saying he was too conservative, running away from the public option and the progressive adgenda is what did him in. It can happen to many of them as well. If the Dems roll over and bow to these duplicitous Dems, they'll all but seal the party's fate.

I'm usually onboard with Rox, but I'm thinking that if the progressives pull the same bullshit the conservatives just did in NY-23, we'll get the exact same result they got -- our candidate will lose and we'll end up with not only the bluedogs to deal with, but the Rs will pick up more seats. Where would we be then? Hell, we have a healthy majority in the House now and look how that shit is working out. There has to be a better way than sitting home and watching this shit get worse and worse as we are "proving" our point and how tough we can be.

I'm glad several bloggers have started a boycott of the DNC but, what we need is to burn up the interwebs with a clear message that we'll stay home in 2010 and 2012 if a strong and robust public option without triggers isn't passed.

Personally, in an election between the lesser of two evils, I'll always show up to vote for the lesser of two evils. ConservaDems beat Republicans every time. Anybody who asserts that they're the same are arguing contrary to the facts.

That said, primaries matter. We're learning now more than ever that all Dems are not alike. Let's not blame the bunch for the actions/inactions of a few. We need to get activated in the 2010 primaries and beyond.

Finally, given the overabundance of ConservaDems, significant progress can't happen in two election cycles. Evidently, it's a lifelong process. Endurance is required.

Trigger = Bucket of Poo

Hype = Anonymous Source

Don't believe "Teh Hyperpooble" (TM)

Not only have the anonymous sources been wrong, but it seems to me that they are usually the exact opposite of what they say. So I think we'll be hearing from the President himself soon.

Of course, if it was actually up to him, we wouldn't be shitting our drawers. It's up to Senator Reid.

I just shit my drawers again.

>>Anonymous source is anonymous.

Ashby, I think this should be phrased,"Anonymous source is ANONYMOOOOOOUUUUUUUS!"

Can we just stop paying attention to "anonymous sources"? We go through this every week with White House rumors. If there's a pattern, it's that rumors are never, ever true.

I'll be happy to be an anonymous source.

They don't come much more anonymous than me, so I'm highly qualified.

Maybe if you changed out of your pj's and came out of your parents' basement, you wouldn't be so anonymous. Have you thought of that, oh unnamed source??

I believe the anonymous source. It's been clear to me for months that Obama would support only something less than what I want. This is yet another confirmation that he has abandoned reform that I already knew he didn't support.

Here's something that's a good read:

"Anonymous Source Sez Something That Will Enrage Progressives"

A lot of people seem confused about 'anonymous sources' - they aren't anonymous to the reporters. They are sources supplying information who wish to not be named...and I think in many cases because the White House is floating trial balloons. Calling sourced pieces 'rumors' indicates you don't know the difference between reporting and and rumors.

But - I'm surprised everyone is missing thi0s. We had a source on record - Chuck Shumer.

I think this is what he meant by the White House was more 'substantive." In other words, it's a policy position, too.

The White House has been pushing the trigger. And when that's what passes, some people pushing the White House positions will try and get you to forget all the reasons that this is a horrible policy.

We had a source on record - Chuck Shumer.
I think this is what he meant by the White House was more 'substantive." In other words, it's a policy position, too.

So...what you THINK Sen. Schumer meant by what he said means that the anonymous source MIGHT be true?? Yeah, ok.
Of course, the other reason why some so-called journalists use anonymous sources is to push an agenda not in keeping with official positions, or because some of them just make shit up.

Lee sez:

"...and I think in many cases because the White House is floating trial balloons."

Honestly, they can't be that green. Especially seeing as how every time they 'float a trial balloon' the Progressives, you know the real ones and not the fake ones like us here on the blog, immediately shit their pants in an I Told You So fury.

These 'anonymous sources' probably grab a tub of popcorn, call a reporter and say 'the public option will cover therapeutic Baby Jesus Butt Plugs' and then sit back and watch the shit storm.

But in any case, we should just kill the bill. Not because I believe it should be killed, but just so you'll shut the fuck up.

Shumer's comment was kind of confusing at the time - it was a non-denial denial of sorts. This makes it make more sense to me.

Another factor to consider with the trigger - I thought one reason for the timeline of rolling out the Public Option is that it would take a long time to get set up. That does make some sense. So, that time starts when the the trigger is pulled.

The trigger is a way to kill the public option in utero. Nothing needs to get started. This is where the White House has been leading us for months now.