My headline is a simple question . . .

Did the President once back the idea of single-payer and/or the public option?



What brought all this to the present again.

People here at the Cafe being accused of being lonely, silly, selfish people.

Read the following statement. It can be found here in my other blog thread.

"I see much selfishness from people here, Ripper. You know, the type that says 'Since I need healthcare, I'm behind a healthcare program'..."

--snip-

"Here's my take on TPM recently: a bunch of lonely people who would like to take pot shots at rather like-minded people because they have such impotent rage."

--snip--

"It's because the silly people on the left like to beat each other up rather than band together."

Wow ... People are so selfish? A bunch of lonely people? And silly people on the left? What a load of crap. But it does not surprise me in the least taking it from that source.

What reasonable person would wish to "band together" with such a narrow-minded, judgmental individual such as that?

Now let's take a trip in the way-back machine.


2003 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&





And now the folks who supported the President's original "single payer" stance and held his feet to the fire should be "drug tested" as Robert Gibb's suggested?

Then came the Democratic debates:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnLFdVt9egA&





NOTE: In the first video from 2003 did anyone notice Obama say anything by adding the qualifier "...starting from scratch?"

Here's his exact words from PolitiFact.com:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer  health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

So ... After Obama was hard pressed to change his stance during the debates the majority of the true believers eventually bought into the "public option" idea and somehow that has now been conflated by Robert Gibb's to somehow be the "Canadian health care system"?


So ... why did Robert "Sink the Titanic" Gibbs conflate the public option with that of the Canadian health care system?

Here's an informative snippet from Brent Budowsky at The Hill - Pundit's Blog that lays it out much better than I can on how all this may play out come November.

Regarding Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, two points. First, he does not speak for himself, he speaks for the president and the White House chief of staff, who has a renowned contempt for the Democratic base. Second, obviously, an attack on the Democratic base during a midterm election that will be decided on turnout will go down in history as one of the dumbest acts since the Titanic stopped for ice.

It is interesting that Gibbs mocked and scorned the people he called professional liberals (an expected attack from the people I call professional hacks) over their alleged obsession with the Canadian health care system.

No, Robert, the concern of liberals, which in this case I fully share, was the surrender on the public option, not the Canadian system. Liberals are being scorned for supporting a public option the president claimed he supported. It was the public option that was the most popular piece of the far less popular health care bill.

What infuriates liberals is being scorned for backing what the president said he backed, and then being slandered over the Canadian health care system. But Gibbs does not speak for himself, he speaks for the president and the White House chief of staff. Calls for his firing ignore the truth of what is happening and miss the heart of a very big matter.

And don't overlook this: If you're too busy or simply too damn lazy to go to that link, the story is actually about Elizabeth Warren.


~OGD~