Congratulations on successfully making your second post.  

While we appreciate your enthusiasm for involvement with Democratic politics, we must warn you that we don't appreciate misinformation, fallacies, or trolls.  Obama doesn't own the "corporate dems in the Senate;" in fact, the Blue Dogs who are obstructing the process are largely corporate Democrats.

Obama hasn't been stalling on the issue, and in fact wanted this to have been taken care of already.

Obama has no wish to make progressive Democrats "take it in the neck in 2010."  That would be extremely counterproductive to his ambitious agenda.  

In short, don't be ridiculous.  Contribute like an adult or leave.

Stoic....dont be put off. Unfortunately, anyone who disagrees with certain elements here are called trolls and frauds....in their opinion dissent is not allow.

Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to "bend the cost curve" (slight whistle on the "s").  He has to know that the only real way to do this is with a public option.  So he can legitimately say that a public option in and of itself is not a necessity, but bending the cost curve is.

uh, it's been eight months since he's taken office and about two of those months have been taken up by talking about health care reform.  another two were taken up by the stimulus bill and its various satellites.  give the guy some time.  it takes time to undo twenty-eight years of Reagan.

It's your first comment, congrats!

While we're on the subject, "cowardice" is a word that I use for hiding behind sock puppets when posting on internet blogs in an attempt to make your completely fabricated position seem stronger.

if LBJ were in the White House today, we'd already have a much more functional and less expensive health care system.

This is interesting considering in five years, LBJ couldn't pass a much more functional and less expensive health care system outside of Medicare and Medicaid.

I think it's also because he's so mild mannered and Clark Kent-ish most of the time.  Nobody expects him to bust out with the cape and heat vision.

and makes clear that no bill without a robust public option will get his signature, I'll happily praise him.

And if he goes the other way, what will you say?

Conversations with a number of White House officials make it clear that, at this point, even they don't know. The argument was raging as recently as last night, and appears to have hardened into two main camps. Both camps agree that the cost of the bill has to come down. The question is how much, and what can be sacrificed.

The first camp could be called "universal-lite." They're focused on preserving the basic shape of the bill. They think a universal plan is necessary for a number of reasons: For one thing, the insurance market regulations don't work without universality, as you can't really ask insurers to offer standard prices if the healthy and the young don't have to enter the system. For another, it will be easier to change subsidies or improve the benefit package down the road if the initial offerings prove inadequate. New numbers are easier than new features. Creating a robust structure is the most important thing. This camp seems to be largely headed by the policy people.

The second camp is not universal at all. This camp believes the bill needs to be scaled back sharply in order to ensure passage. Covering 20 million people isn't as good as covering 40 million people, but it's a whole lot better than letting the bill fall apart and covering no one at all. It's also a success of some sort, and it gives you something to build on. What that sacrifices in terms of structure it gains in terms of political appeal. This camp is largely headed by members of the political team.

Both camps accept that the administration's proposal will be less generous than what has emerged from either the HELP or House Committees. The question, it seems, is how much less generous.

I really hope that Obama's line in the sand isn't for a bill that's less generous than the HELP version, which is already weak compared to HR 3200, which is weak compared to the Ways and Means bill.