Pollster.com

I heard that Harry Reid wants a public option with an states having the choice of opting out. Why even do a federal health care bill. Let the states deal with it. If California wants govt health care let them have it, IN CALIFORNIA. That is the same thing Reid is proposing except he wants all of us to pay the bill for those who do want it.

BO doesn't seem to be able to get the job approval numbers moving in a positive direction.

65% likability for the President. That is a very important number. It helps to explain why his approval numbers remain high in the middle of terrible economic times.

Bush had high likability numbers to for a long time...and I would not call 50 percent approval high.......

"and I would not call 50 percent approval high"

Well, I don't call it high either. I call it average.

Stillow, not even Reagan was above 60 on a regular basis; he was actually below 50 for much of his 1st term. Bill Clinton was only above 60 toward the end of his tenure, again, below 50 for much of his first term. It's impossible for any non-wartime president to have an approval over 60 without some sort of crisis that people approve the handling of. Average for our partisan environment is 45-55. If it gets above or below that range, then it's high or low.

"That is the same thing Reid is proposing except he wants all of us to pay the bill for those who do want it."

Last I heard, the public option was not going to be free insurance. You'd still have to pay and CBO estimated that only 10-15 million people would choose it. Probably people who are currently uninsured or have really high-deductible plans.

I don't want to live in government housing, and won't as long as I can afford better. But if things go bad for me, I'm glad it does exist, because at least it would keep me off the streets. That's the rationale behind the public option - it's a last resort or very basic entry-level option. It's not going to be a free golden nugget and the people that think so are going to be disappointed, while the people that are afraid of it are irrational.

I just said 50 was not high, I didn't say it was low. i agree, its pretty average, but it is a sharp decline from where he was not that long ago.

On hte public option...there will no public option.

@ Stillow:

"There will be no public option". I beg to differ. 60 House Democrats will not vote for any HC bill without a PO of some kind; that's enough to ensure that no bill, absent a PO, will clear the House. As for the Senate, Democrats only need 60 votes to end a GOP-led filibuster, not for the bill itself. It's highly likely--particularly if the PO is limited to those unable to get or afford private HC, implemented on a "trigger" basis, and contains allowances for state-by-state difference--that Olympia Snowe and Senate Blue Dogs will vote for CLOTURE, even if they vote against the bill itself.

I think there WILL be a public option, but it will be a weak one that will take effect years from now. In any case, whether Obama gets a strong bill, a weak bill, or no bill at all this year, he and the Democrats are going to keep trying for more over the years. This isn't going to be like 1994, where Bill Clinton and the Democrats totally gave up for a decade. The evolving nature of the electorate, the enduring economic hardships, and the ever-more-expensive existing HC system ensure that the demand for comprehensive reform--and a PO in particular--are going to get more, not less, over time.

So as for "Waterloo"--this could be the REPUBLICAN'S WATERLOO. If any non-trivial HC bill passes, and it decreases the % uninsured even a modest amount, the public will view it as successful--making the case for the liberal argument that people can improve everybody's lives using the power of gov't to alleviate inequality, and weakening the conservative view that the private sector should be trusted to handle everything. The political center of gravity could be shifted leftward, just like it was in the wake of the New Deal. Republicans didn't like having to change their tune then, and they don't want to have to do it now.

A public option remains on the table, but if a public option gets into the final bill it won't be the full coverage universal system with Medicare-pegged reimbursement rates, which is what the Democratic leadership in the House wants. It'd be more likely to be an opt-out negotiated rates programme or a trigger of such a programme.

"Republicans didn't like having to change their tune then, and they don't want to have to do it now."

It took them a while, but republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon figured out how to work within the system instead of rail against it constantly. It actually worked out quite well for them. Today's republicans would do well to learn from those lessons.