Bipartisanship: It's a trap!

[Askthepizzaguy]

GOP wary of pitfalls in Obama's health care summit

IT'S A TRAP!!!! Obama's call for bipartisanship nothing more than a cleverly disguised attempt to get the Republicans to express their better ideas, which he knows full well they don't have! Surely the GOP won't fall for such a cheap trick. Take evasive action! Move closer and engage those super star destroyers at point blank range! Pew pew pew!

Article:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100209/..._care_overhaul


WASHINGTON – Republican leaders expressed renewed skepticism Tuesday about President Barack Obama's call for a bipartisan forum on health care, raising questions about how much can be achieved at the televised event later this month.

After meeting with Obama at the White House to discuss jobs, House and Senate GOP leaders told reporters there might be room for bipartisan accord on that topic. They were much more dubious about health care, however, the president's signature issue that has been bottled up in Congress for weeks.

"It's going to be very difficult to have a bipartisan conversation with regard to a 2,700-page health care bill that the Democrat majority in the House and the Democrat majority in the Senate can't pass," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "It really is time to scrap the bill and start over."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made similar remarks, even though the White House says Obama has no plans to start the process from scratch.

With the two sides at such odds, some Republican activists privately worry that their party's leaders might be walking into a trap on Feb. 25 designed to portray their health care proposals as thin.

If so, a shaky showing by GOP leaders event could possibly embolden congressional Democrats to make a final, aggressive push to overhaul the nation's health care system, with or without any Republican votes.

Some Republicans doubt that scenario, saying Democrats have lost momentum for any plan that's certain to draw fierce criticism. But they noted that the White House has not backed away from its support of legislation similar to what the Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed separately last year over strong GOP objections.

"This is a clever tactic by the president to try to put the Republicans on the defensive," said John Feehery, a GOP consultant and former congressional aide.

The House's top two Republican leaders openly questioned Obama's sincerity and hinted they might skip the meeting if he uses the Democratic bills as the starting point for discussions.

"Assuming the president is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over?" said a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel from Boehner and GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

"If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate," Boehner and Cantor wrote.

That's how conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh sees it. He says Republicans should not be afraid of being called naysayers on health care — they should wear the label proudly. "Negotiating with Obama is a waste of time," Limbaugh said on his program Monday. "All it's doing is helping him fulfill a photo-op promise of having this stuff televised, and it's also to set (Republicans) up as the reason this didn't pass."

They asked Obama to rule out using "budget reconciliation" rules, which could allow Democrats to enact some health care provisions with a simple Senate majority, not the 60-vote super majority needed to overcome Republican delaying tactics. Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 seats.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the president will not rule out using reconciliation, but is sincere in wanting to hear Republicans' ideas.

In announcing his call for the bipartisan event in a CBS News interview Sunday, Obama was vague when asked whether he was willing to start from scratch on health care. But the White House circulated talking points saying the president is "adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate" shortly before Democrats lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority.

All presidents command a bully pulpit, and Democrats feel Obama was especially nimble in parrying House Republicans' arguments and criticisms at a Jan. 29 televised event. The Feb. 25 setting could offer him a similar chance to spar with his critics.

Liberal groups hope Americans will see the Republicans as obstructionists, possibly encouraging Democrats to use their still-sizable congressional majorities to enact their health care proposals via the budget reconciliation rules, without GOP help.

If the Feb. 25 meeting clarifies the sharp differences between the two parties, "that might be helpful," said Richard Kirsch of the liberal Heath Care for America Now.

But some Republicans said Obama runs the risk of appearing insincere if he convenes the bipartisan gathering without showing greater willingness to shelve or greatly change his party's proposals.

From my perspective, we've been debating this whole thing for quite some time. Republicans have had many ideas put into the bill, which tells me that two people are liars; those who say that the GOP has no ideas, and the GOP for suggesting that the Democrats are just giving them the cold shoulder. The truth is the GOP has had their say, they've been able to offer suggestions and ideas and many have been incorporated. Many of the ideas the Dems are suggesting are the ones the GOP themselves offered as a counter to Hillarycare. The whole process has been long and agonizing and deliberate, and most of it was televised. Now the GOP doesn't like that some recent negotiations took place off camera, fair enough. But when they will get to share a stage at a televised event where they can share their ideas (again), they are worried?

Why? This isn't a pundit's cable program where they will get shouted down and not allowed to speak. They will be able to have the floor and blow smoke for a good long time without interruption, all televised, and they can prove their point that they have better ideas. If the ideas are sound and the American people are listening, then they could easily score political points, gain ground in November, and perhaps even re-shape the debate about healthcare, because the Dems have their butts on the line come election time, and they are too chicken **** to actually follow their principles. They will vote however they think will get them re-elected. So, the Republicans will have more power in this upcoming televised event than they could possibly imagine, and they are shying away?

What exactly are they afraid of, is my question. I've been hearing lots of tough, aggressive talk lately. You'd think they'd be itching for a chance to verbally wrestle the Democrats to the ground. What gives?

---

I also love the "start over" talking point. We've had decades to discuss how to reform the system. We know what ideas both sides have, why are we kidding ourselves to think that something new will come up? There's only so many ways to pay for something, and only so many ways to reduce costs. Neutral experts have been consulted, the CBO has looked at the Dems' proposal and called it fiscally sound. We've been talking about it at length for, it seems, a year straight. Now we're going to trash all the progress we've made and start over? Nakedly, this means: Please delay until next election. Please delay until next election. Hopefully we can reduce the Democratic majority enough to ensure that with a couple Dems bought and paid for, the reform will never happen. Which is a good thing, since health care costs are approaching 1 out of every 5 dollars we spend, and other countries spend far less than that to cover everybody. But that's government, and government is wrong. We're much better off under the insurance companies who will toss us out for no reason, raise premiums at any time they wish, while making record profits. I'm pining for the "death panels". Please, give me a death panel. Ration me some healthcare. I'd stand a better chance under such a fictional system than with the 100% failure rate that the current system is giving someone like me, who has no money.

[PanzerJaeger]

Shouldn't this go in the "Thoughts and Commentary" thread. It is indeed a wall of commentary if I've ever seen one.

Edit... wasn't there some sort of Health Care thread, as well?

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's primarily about GOP opposition to both closed-door negotiation, and televised summits. You'd think one of the two options would be acceptable.

[Beskar]

He is just upset that you are not blaming Obama, but infact, blaming the people who are actually responsible for the problems in the country.

The United States really needs to reform healthcare, and the Democrats are mostly just being opposed, just for the sake of being opposed, it is not for the betterment of the American people. Being honest, I would really hate to be in American politics, due to the sheer nonsense you would have to put up with. It is pretty hard to do anything in the country where public opinion is influenced by people possessing the intellectual might of Adam West as Batman on an Acid Trip.

The entire nation is more concerned with money and war than the warfare of its citizens. Lobby groups purely influenced by how much money they can scam out of government constantly and the constant contention with tabloid-sensationism, the likes which paint the Sun and Daily Mail as respectable, unbiased sources of information.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Now, now... I was a bit snarky but there's an actual point in there.

You can either have a public debate, a public forum, and cameras in front of you, or you can elect not to. Most of what's happened so far has taken place in front of a camera that nobody is watching, let's not kid ourselves. If closed-door negotiation isn't your cup of tea (and quite honestly I like to have these people on the record with their ideas) then why not have a public summit, televised, so we can get all our naughty parts out in the open. This is a fairly centrist or even center-right country, no one is going to buy it if the Democrats don't let the Republicans have their say. This is what they've wanted, is it not, to be heard? Didn't we just listen to Sarah Palin lecture us about "stop lecturing, and start listening?".

Well, here it is. And to have several GOP leaders shy away from it just strikes me as more of the same two-faced rhetoric. Getting what you ask for shouldn't be a surprise or a bad thing, and you should be prepared to follow through. Where is the follow through? The only thing I see them following through on is their naked promise to obstruct Obama, no matter what. They've been consistent on that, even when he's proposing one of their own ideas.

This thread isn't about the nitty gritty of healthcare, or the Obama administration. I'm pointing out that this whole song and dance from the GOP leadership is naked obstructionism, disguised as a minority party upset they cannot get 100% of their proposals accepted. It's all-too obvious when they vote against their own proposals, but even more so when they demand the stage and the spotlight, and then shift themselves when they get exactly that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Lets assume for argument's sake that your assertions are not only correct, but also forgiving. Let’s assume that the GOP has absolutely no ideas of their own on health care. Not one single solitary one. Let’s assume that they are simply doing whatever they can to stop healthcare reform completely.

How does any of that justify passing what is widely regarded as a bad bill, full of buy-offs, accounting tricks, and massive new entitlements that even the Democrat's most rosy projections said would fall off the ledge into the massive ocean of unfunded liabilities we've already got after about 10 years?

And, in that respect, aren't the Republicans more accurately representing the wishes of the people by just saying "no"? People certainly want health care reform, but I've never witnessed such an outpouring of dissatisfaction with a particular piece of legislation in my life.

[Centurion1]

Personally, i just find politics as a whole distasteful. Im a self-described conservative and will vote republican but i truly am growing more cynical. These politicians border on corrupt. Like how they just convinently sent millions of dollars to senators states who were on the fence. Meaning: like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

My cousin is running for congress and i worry for him if he wins. If anyone lives in conneticut you better vote for him....... ill find out.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Personally, i just find politics as a whole distasteful. Im a self-described conservative and will vote republican but i truly am growing more cynical. These politicians border on corrupt. Like how they just convinently sent millions of dollars to senators states who were on the fence. Meaning: like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

Welcome to the teenage years .

Nearly every teen gets to that realisation, unless they are a complete nut who has a shrine to Beck or Moore in their room... The real point is that some grow out of it, and others stay that way, and abstain from voting. This is similar to how some more educated youths grow nihilistic, which must also be overcome (although I dislike to agree with that). Disillusionment is one of the main themes of teenage years. I am past the stage of political disillusionment, which I never really got - I simply acknowledged politics stink and moved on. However, nihilism is still very much a part of me .

One thing that really bothers me though, is the other things I read teens get, according to psychology/sociology books - the feeling that they are special. I mean, even as I child I realised I was one of the millions, little different, of little worth in the larger scheme of things. But for a teen to believe this? If the emos did not exist, I would not believe the books, but now I am not sure.

[Subotan]

Entitlements, pork etc. are all a product of the U.S. Political system, thanks to your checks and balances. It's not as if if the Republicans proposed a bill, that there would magically be no pork in it.

And, in that respect, aren't the Republicans more accurately representing the wishes of the people by just saying "no"? People certainly want health care reform, but I've never witnessed such an outpouring of dissatisfaction with a particular piece of legislation in my life.

What are they dissatisfied with? The legislation itself, or the huge, totally out of proportion kerfuffle that is the direct responsibility of a minority Congressional party that has been purged of moderates?

[Centurion1]

No im past it as well and realize that is how politics are. It doesnt make it any less distasteful to me. I feel not voting is just a waste and to think that your vote means nothing is a foolish concept. Yes maybe a single ovte means nothing but when huge blocks of people feel that way.....

[Askthepizzaguy]

Lets assume for argument's sake that your assertions are not only correct, but also forgiving. Let’s assume that the GOP has absolutely no ideas of their own on health care. Not one single solitary one. Let’s assume that they are simply doing whatever they can to stop healthcare reform completely

That's not quite what I'm asserting though. They have ideas, but they don't seem willing to vote for a bill that incorporates some, but not most, of their ideas. Which is fine, that's their right as the minority party. They can wait until they are in the majority and pass a mostly-GOP version of healthcare. (Don't hold your breath, the status quo suits them fine)

The disingenuous argument is being presented that Obama/the Dems aren't listening to the GOP. If that's the case, the bill wouldn't be filled with pages of their ideas; ideas which, when Republicans are asked if they would vote for the bill if those ideas are included, they still flatly say "no". So, unless the bill is written mostly by Republicans, they won't vote for it. The Dems are listening to the GOP, but they won't be doing things like privatizing medicare, so it's silly to propose it. It's odd to assume that when the Dems control the Congress and the White House (And I use the word "control" very loosely here...) they will pass a mostly GOP bill which includes ideas which are the exact reverse of what they want to accomplish, such as deregulation and privatization.

If you took a poll on how the public feels about the GOP's proposals, you'd get far more opposition to it. Health care reform in most people's minds does not mean less government involvement. The problem people have with the current system is that costs are flying out of control, in the grip of insurance companies and other interests which are private and for-profit. They want some price controls, or costs controls, or some regulation and oversight, some justification for the cost increases here, when they aren't flying out of control in other modern industrialized countries who cover more people. When the GOP proposes an idea which even remotely fits into it as a workable option, it generally gets included. When they propose reducing the existing government involvement, the Dems balk, as most people would. That can only favor those who are rolling in riches, while kicking those who have no viable healthcare system of their own.

How does any of that justify passing what is widely regarded as a bad bill, full of buy-offs, accounting tricks, and massive new entitlements that even the Democrat's most rosy projections said would fall off the ledge into the massive ocean of unfunded liabilities we've already got after about 10 years?

Source? The Congressional Budget Office says the bill is a cost-saver, and it isn't an unfunded mandate either.

And, in that respect, aren't the Republicans more accurately representing the wishes of the people by just saying "no"? People certainly want health care reform, but I've never witnessed such an outpouring of dissatisfaction with a particular piece of legislation in my life.

Where are the polls about how the public feels about the GOP plan? You would find such dissatisfaction. A majority supports a public option, which is much more in line with Democratic principles than GOP principles. And it's not a representation of the public by just saying "no", they want action. They just aren't really thrilled about this heavily-compromised proposal.

[Ironside]

It's simple, they dug themself into a corner. Obama listens to them, he gets credit for being a unifier (as he promised), Obama incorporates their ideas, he gets credit for it (for improving the healthcare). Since Republicans have decided to stonewall anything as thier main strategy, even at the cost of the American people (a failed bill will stop a reform for at least a decade), they cannot stop doing it without giving tribute to Obama. Since being obtrusive works and they don't have a decent alternative, they'll keep doing it until it starts to backfire.
A strong Republican leader might be able to get a decent credit for normalizing the US politics, but they don't seem to have one, so the tribute would go to Obama.

[Lemur]

This seems both timely and appropriate:

[Beskar]

*Post on how Republicans screw-everything up and blame Obama and the Democrats*]

I completely agree with that post.

[Husar]

I like the idea because the snow should not be plowed away!

[Louis VI the Fat]

* Incisive Facebook comment *

winwinwin!

[Vuk]

Come on, Bipartisanship my behind. Bipartisanship is a joke. If I want one thing and you want the exact opposite, we can sit down and talk all we want, but unless we change each other's minds (which in this case will not happen), we will not agree on anything. If they (Democrats and Republicans) were really interested in Bipartisanship and fixing the current healthcare situation they would lay aside all thoughts of sweeping reform, get together all the things they can agree on (tort reform, etc) that would help fix the current system (there are actually more than you would think), quickly pass those to 'put the finger in the dyke' so to speak, then go back to the fighting to get their opposing plans passed. Neither side gives a rat's tail about Bipartisanship, they only care about appearing like they do to the public. You are fooling yourself if you think that Obama is seriously trying to work with Republicans on this. (and Republicans are smart enough to know otherwise)

[Beskar]

You are fooling yourself if you think that Obama is seriously trying to work with Republicans on this. (and Republicans are smart enough to know otherwise)

Self-defeating logic for the win?

[Vuk]

Self-defeating logic for the win?

Really, just how?

[Husar]

Really, just how?

Maybe they're dumb enough not to see that he is serious, but I bet you never considered that option at all...

[Strike For The South]

Tort reform is a very very very very very very very miniscule part of healthcare reform, stop bringing that up. The fact that you do keep bringing that up makes me think you've drank to much Beckaid

[Beskar]

Really, just how?

Maybe they're dumb enough not to see that he is serious, but I bet you never considered that option at all...

It is self-defeating because regardless of whether or not Obama is serious about working with the Republicans, the Republicans are "smart" () enough, to know not to work with him.

In otherwords, the Republicans aren't going to work with him full-stop, so attempting to argue that Obama is seriously or not is pointless as the Republicans would not give him the time of day, anyway.

[Vuk]

Tort reform is a very very very very very very very miniscule part of healthcare reform, stop bringing that up. The fact that you do keep bringing that up makes me think you've drank to much Beckaid

Keep bringing it up? ...what, once? Keep bringing it up implies more than one Strike. I know that they are not really strict with math down South, but surely they taught you to count to one. Seriously, enough sarcasm and false accusations. If you want to say something, be honest, be upfront, and be serious.

[CountArach]

Keep bringing it up? ...what, once? Keep bringing it up implies more than one Strike. I know that they are not really strict with math down South, but surely they taught you to count to one. Seriously, enough sarcasm and false accusations. If you want to say something, be honest, be upfront, and be serious.

Well I'm not doing much at the moment, so here are some points about Tort reform (certainly not the sexiest sentence I've ever typed on this forum...):

Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.”

OUR medical liability system needs reform. But anyone who thinks that limiting liability would reduce health care costs is fooling himself. Preventable medical injuries, not patient compensation, are what ring up extra costs for additional treatment. This means taxpayers, employers and everyone else who buys health insurance — all of us — have a big stake in patient safety.
[...]
On the other hand, medical liability has improved patient safety — by leading hospitals to hire risk managers, for example, and spurring anesthesiologists to improve their safety standards and practices. Even medical societies’ efforts to attack the liability system have helped, by inspiring the research that has documented the surprising extent of preventable injuries in hospitals. That research helped start the patient safety movement.

When it comes to rising medical costs, liability is a symptom, not the disease. Getting rid of liability might save money for hospitals and some high-risk specialists, but it would cost society more by taking away one of the few hard-wired patient safety incentives.

Or this from a Harvard University economist:

While Obama vowed to address physicians’ malpractice worries in a speech yesterday, annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, said Amitabh Chandra, a Harvard University economist. Chandra estimated the cost at $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion, in a 2005 study. Insurer WellPoint Inc. said last month that liability wasn’t driving premiums.

Here is a summary of the study from WellPoint Inc alluded to:

According to the report the "key drivers" of spiraling U.S. health care costs
are:
-- Advances in medical technology and subsequent increases in utilization.
-- Price inflation for medical services that exceeds inflation in other sectors of the economy.
-- Cost-shifting from people who are uninsured and those receiving Medicare and Medicaid to the private sector.
-- High cost of regulatory compliance.
-- Patient lifestyles, such as physical inactivity and increases in obesity.

From the CBO report in 2004:

Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.

So Tort reform accounts for a very small percentage of total healthcare costs, and any savings from it would be minimal at best.

[Strike For The South]

Keep bringing it up? ...what, once? Keep bringing it up implies more than one Strike. I know that they are not really strict with math down South, but surely they taught you to count to one. Seriously, enough sarcasm and false accusations. If you want to say something, be honest, be upfront, and be serious.

Um, stop bringing up tort reform? The same exact thing I said in the first post an CAs was kind enough to back me up with stats. Do you have any stats to the contrary? I don't think you do, I think you are merley parroting what the right wing pundits say.

So I'm being honest, upfront, and serious...Stop bringing up tort reform because it is useless

[Subotan]

A far bigger cost is that of doctors being paid per treatment, and changing the perception of Americans that getting all those scans, examinations and tests don't make you significantly healthier, and may make you worse off.

[PanzerJaeger]

The disingenuous argument is being presented that Obama/the Dems aren't listening to the GOP. If that's the case, the bill wouldn't be filled with pages of their ideas; ideas which, when Republicans are asked if they would vote for the bill if those ideas are included, they still flatly say "no". So, unless the bill is written mostly by Republicans, they won't vote for it. The Dems are listening to the GOP, but they won't be doing things like privatizing medicare, so it's silly to propose it. It's odd to assume that when the Dems control the Congress and the White House (And I use the word "control" very loosely here...) they will pass a mostly GOP bill which includes ideas which are the exact reverse of what they want to accomplish, such as deregulation and privatization.

I would certainly question your assertion that bill is "filled with GOP ideas", but regardless, I'm not really sure what you expect. Anyone who follows politics understands that true bipartisanship only emerges when clear public consensus forces the two parties to come together, or more commonly, the opposition party to fall in line.

Recall the votes for the war in Iraq. Do you really think all those Democrats really wanted to authorize a war? However, public consensus after 9/11 was so strongly in favor of pretty much whatever Bush wanted, opposition was not politically viable for all but those in the most liberal districts and states.

Obama, and more specifically this bill, have no such public support. In fact, poll after poll shows a public highly opposed to it. What impetus does the GOP have to support a bill that includes measures diametrically opposed to their - and their constituents - core beliefs..... that also happens to be political suicide?

I mean, really, speaking from a standpoint of simple political survival, why would the Republicans willingly choose to attach themselves to such a disaster of a bill? Its not even polling particularly well among Democrats, much less independents and the right wing GOP base.

For the good of the country? Hardly. Despite what MSNBC would lead you to believe, health care is certainly not a public crisis. A growing concern that needs to be addressed? Certainly. But not the kind of emergency that required rushing through this abortion of a bill. Olympia Snowe, hardly a radical right-winger, said it best:

Unfortunately, the issue continued to be driven by artificial deadlines. I said from the outset, forget the deadlines. Let's just discuss how we can build strong support for the right policy in crafting health care.
Health care is a complex issue and not to mention costly. We had to get it right, there are so many facets to it. But unfortunately, they were really obsessed by arbitrary timetables that did not fit the complexity of the issue and the scale of it.

To be completely honest, this left wing whining about a united and strong… err obstructionist… opposition just seems to be cover for the fact that the Democrats completely squandered their supermajority. The Dems run everything, and up until a few weeks ago, the Republicans were essentially a powerless opposition. The failure of Healthcare Reform is due solely to the weak and ineffectual leadership of Obama and the congressional Democrats, and the fact that they were not able to get it done with a supermajority highlights how poorly crafted the legislation is.

If you took a poll on how the public feels about the GOP's proposals, you'd get far more opposition to it.

Orlly?

Health care reform in most people's minds does not mean less government involvement. The problem people have with the current system is that costs are flying out of control, in the grip of insurance companies and other interests which are private and for-profit. They want some price controls, or costs controls, or some regulation and oversight, some justification for the cost increases here, when they aren't flying out of control in other modern industrialized countries who cover more people. When the GOP proposes an idea which even remotely fits into it as a workable option, it generally gets included. When they propose reducing the existing government involvement, the Dems balk, as most people would. That can only favor those who are rolling in riches, while kicking those who have no viable healthcare system of their own.

Yep, please, someone take me out of the grip of those evil, amazingly profitable, insurance barons and place me gently in the arms of the government.

Seriously, did you crib that from Rachel Maddow?

Source? The Congressional Budget Office says the bill is a cost-saver, and it isn't an unfunded mandate either.

Yikes. Lets start with the doctor fix, and go from there. Clever accounting tricks aside, the math involved in insuring 30 million more people for less money just doesn’t work.

Where are the polls about how the public feels about the GOP plan? You would find such dissatisfaction. A majority supports a public option, which is much more in line with Democratic principles than GOP principles. And it's not a representation of the public by just saying "no", they want action. They just aren't really thrilled about this heavily-compromised proposal.

“Aren’t really thrilled” is the understatement of the century. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy the Kos narrative that the bill didn’t go far enough to the left. It just doesn't jive with the polling I've seen.

As for the polls you and Keith Olbermann constantly cite showing such strong support for the public option, they’re nothing but a farce built on misleading semantics.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."