Yes, just long term enough to vote out that pansy liberal Obama who actually wants to do something to save americans. Once he's out the study can be concluded that a healthcare system is a good idea, but dropped anyway by the next health insurance backed republican president.
Special interests were at work on both sides of the debate. Having those long term studies over multiple UHC's and HCS (healthcare systems) and dropping the issue is different from not having the studies at all. To my knowledge, Presidents are still democratically elected in this country.
To note:
Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.
"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.
A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.
"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of
health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."
(this comes from the first of those two articles in my update post).
I think the timing of a political push for UHC was bad because of the recession that we are facing now.
A question: how exactly did Mr. Obama want to save Americans? Could you be more specific please?
