home

Harkin: I Will Vote Against PO But I Am PO Supporter

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:48:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

One reason to have an up or down vote on the public option is to clear the brush of people like Tom Harkin. Jon Walker reports:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) spent most of the year claiming he was a champion of the public option. Now that there is a possibility of getting a public option with a simple majority using reconciliation, Harkin has made clear that he will actively work to kill the public option, while tying himself in incoherent, illogical knots trying to justify his actions–while still trying to claim he supports the public option.

As Walker demonstrates, a vote for a public option amendment will not threaten anything. Harkin shows yet again again that he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer AND has trouble with the truth. At least for me, that is my realistic goal for up or down vote on the public option --smoke out the fakers, like Tom Harkin.

Speaking for me only

< Will Conrad Use The CBO To Kill The Health Bills? | PA-Sen: Specter Leads Toomey In Latest Q-Poll >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Harkin: I Will Vote Against PO But I Am PO Supporter | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:04:34 PM EST

    The problem with an up or down vote on a PO is much like an up or down vote in a flier's bill of rights for 26 inch wide seats, free cocktails, and three feet or so of legroom.  Those three features are all quite popular but most folks fly coach.  

    Umm (none / 0) (#34)
    by beowulf on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    That's because big seats, free booze and extra legroom would cost the airlines more (and they'd pass the cost onto fliers).

    A public option saves money.  In fact, the more robust it is, the bigger the cost savings.   Cutting out private insurers is more analogous to buying plane tickets without tacking on travel agent commissions.

    Which would be no-brainer unless we were burdened with a president foolish enough to promise that if you're happy with your current travel agent you can keep them.

    Parent

    A public option saves money. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:32:39 AM EST

    Is that why Medicare spending is growing at an unsustainable rate?

    Parent
    that's like saying (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    airline tickets are growing at an unsustainable rate.  But people still have to fly (get health care).

    A public option is still coach compared to private insurance.  Where spending is growing at an even higher unsustainable rate.

    Parent

    Harkin would not vote against (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    the public option if it were a close vote....

    If you get to 40, I think you get Harkin onboard.

    I'm sick of all of them (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:06:06 PM EST
    I can't work up enough interest in their latest B.S. to even spit.  People are broke, people are broken, people are sick......whatever man...my personality isn't one w