Tuesday, August 18, 2009

"PO or No!"

Probably the best suggestion I've heard for a rallying cry in favor of the public option in the current health insurance reform debate.

"PO or No!"

Teddy Partridge over at FireDogLake.com has more:
Can't get a much simpler slogan than six letters, three words: PO or No! (h/t TimO). Either health reform contains a public option or there's no health reform. This is the "now go make me do it" chapter of Barack Obama's presidency.

No public option? No health care bill in the House.
No public option in the conference report? No passage of the conference report.
No public option? No walking back from Progressive Caucus promises: no bill.

Andrea Mitchell can say "they won't do that" all she wants about the Democratic United States Senators with an identifiable conflict of interest, either familial or campaign-finance based. But in the House, there are 60 progressives (others say 100) who say: "PO or No!"

I don't think we've had a simpler. more succinct lefty slogan since "No Blood For Oil." Let's hope "PO or No!" turns out better than that one did.
Speaking of Andrea Mitchell, she may need to either finally retire or at least get a decent pair of reading glasses. Watch how she mangles the blog's name when she begins and ends her interview with Jane Hamsher yesterday.

And Jane did a terrific job (as usual) with Mrs. Greenspan's lame beltway-opined interview. The current public option plan IS the compromise, the middle ground, considering the Democrats originally wanted single-payer health insurance, This point seems to get lost in the raucous din of the conservative insurance shills:


hampshire said...

Thank god debate is over..
po is good for HCP. according to me...

Anonymous said...

Dems; PO or shut up and go back into hiding for another couple of decades and while you're there try growing a couple. JC Sr

vagabondblogger said...

Where the hell is the reform without the PO?! As someone said, yesterday morning, co-ops are bound to fail - look at Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And the Republicans don't even support that. I agree, it's PO or NO!

Anonymous said...

so whatever happened to
"A 35 year old woman, married with three children
A 39 year old man, married with no children
A 32 year old single woman who works as a legal secretary
A 38 year old single man who works as a research scientist at the National Cancer Institute
... I'll tell you what the research says and see what you think."
I'm really curious to what the research says.

West Haven Bob said...

It's time for Congressional Dem's to say "Screw the GOP; if your idea of compromise is all take and no give - and you'll STILL oppose the compromise -- GO AWAY!".

Let's just move on...this compromise dog just won't hunt.

carterman said...

WHB, you got it right. The only thing dragging this debate out longer does is leave larger rhetoric void only to be filled by gun toting teabaggers. Which reminds me, CTBob, are you going to weigh in on these nuts out in Phoenix that are bringing loaded guns to political rallies?

CT Bob said...

They covered the gun thing over on My Left Nutmeg a day or two ago, and I would have said pretty much the same thing.

Even though I'm a legal gun owner and possess a valid CT handgun permit, I still think a person has to be a complete asshole to not only carry their gun to a public event such as a town hall meeting, but to also publicly DISPLAY the thing!

Although, out west some states probably still have laws that require anyone carrying to NOT conceal it. That's how New Mexico was when I spent a summer out there 30 years ago. You could get arrested for hiding a gun in your pocket, but not for using a visible holster. Weird.

West Haven Bob said...

Bob - I presume you mean whether it is registered or not, right?

The gun nuts conveniently forget two words in the 2nd amendment: "WELL REGULATED"


I have an opinion on my blog about this: westhavenbob.blogspot.com

(sorry for the gratuitous plug there!)