From CNN Friday:
-- Democrats met Friday in hopes of achieving consensus on one of the biggest sticking points in the health care battle, while the House majority leader predicted final legislation will include a public option.House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says of the public option: "We ought not to just focus on that."
The question is what form it will be in, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, told CNN's "American Morning."
"We'll have to see how that legislative process goes. The public option is a priority for us, it's our objective, and we think that in some form, a public option will be available," Hoyer said.
You know, this is getting to be a bit like the Hokey Pokey: "You put your public option in, you take your public option out. You put your public option in, and you shake it all about ..."
Not as catchy? Hmm. That's funny. I laughed.
We're still talking trigger, which means we're more in Olympia Snowe territory than Debbie "please-ignore-my-conflict-of-interest-on-telecommunications-issues" Stabenow territory (thank goodness). That's because pretty much everyone -- well, everyone except fringe liberal progressives and Stabenow herself -- understands the reality, which is that the kind of public option Stabenow wants is DOA.
... DOA as in, it can't pass.
But here's the thing: If the final version of the bill includes a trigger mechanism, can liberals still accurately say that it includes a public option?
Note that my question isn't whether you think they will say that it does. (Talk about your fish in a barrel scenario.) My question is whether you think they can accurately say that it does. In other words, is the possibility of a public option still a public option, even though it may never kick in?
Anyway, it looks like it's all going to come down to ... wait for it ... semantics. You know, because they're just words, after all.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement