Thanks for posting this. I can't stand to watch Snuffleupagus, David Gregory, or Chris Matthews at this point but I appreciate reading what Press Secretary Gibbs stated.

I agree that mandates without a real public option 'now'(sans trigger) is an insult, outrage, and a political disaster.

The "trigger" is just a tool for pushing the public option of the table for now, so it can be killed for good at some later time when people are paying attention. It's the latest trick of Rahm, Nelson, Snowe and the other employees of the insurance industry in the US government. I don't think it is going to work.

President Obama... once again just now stated . . .

... that he believes we need a strong public option to help drive costs down!

Before the 30,000 members at the AFL-CIO Labor Day Picnic in Cincinnati.

~OGD~

State-by-State Co-Op Option
This should be dead-on-arrival. Currently, States enjoy exclusive control over the health insurance agenda because of the Tenth Amendment - health care is not a Federal responsibility as mandated in the Constitution so it becomes a responsibility of the States. And State representatives and senators receive tons of contributions to their state re-election coffers from said health insurance corporations. In fact, it's well known almost all States have just token health insurance representation because the insurers have divvied up the markets to suit their regional monopolies. And they work together to decide who should get insurance, who can't qualify, what services will be covered and how much the insuree has to pay out-of-pocket. Giving the States a say in this Legislation is a serious mistake - they 're responsible for the current problems of the system and to keep them at the helm will surely wreck whatever Legislation Congress passes. So long as States act as single individuals, the Legislation is ripe for exploitation by the insurance industry. That's why the Federal government needs to run it, not the States.

Trigger
They only work if there isn't a method by which it can be disabled. Also, it has to be written in such a manner that it can't be misinterpreted for it to be disarmed for political purposes. And no grace periods! Once one party steps over the line, the trigger snaps and everyone is in the same boat - no exceptions. So the trigger has to be written in such a manner that everyone understands exactly where the line is and if they even toe the line, it could trigger the option and everyone gets hauled onto the carpet. There also needs to be severe penalties if a member of Congress or insurance industry actively or stealthy works to override the trigger - serious penalty, not a handslap.

Public Option
In David Goldhill's essay, How American Health Care Killed My Father in The Atlantic, the funding for the public option is already available. Mr. Gold hill points out a simple fact people choose to ignore in this debate. Simply stated, employer-based health insurance, on average, costs more than $12,000 per family to a company providing health insurance benefits to its employees. Mr. Goldhill has experience running several companies and company divisions of various sizes during career, so he knows that employee raises, as well as entry-level hiring salaries, are tightly limited by what it costs companies to provide health-care benefits. And this is the hidden jewel ... the employer isn't paying for employee health care - you are. It comes out of your potential wage increase. So technically, employee health benefits are equilivant to a intangible, hidden salary that one cannot leverage. It's something we've already earned.

Health Savings Accounts
As for the conservative community who has fears of runaway federal budgets and deficits if such a program were to be forced on everyone, perhaps a second option could be offered to ease their concerns. Here, Mr. Goldhill suggests health savings account—a vehicle where people would contribute a minimum percentage of income (think that $12,000 the company pays for your health benefits) as a pre-tax, subject to a floor and a cap in total dollar contributions. The income percentage required should rise over a working life, as wages and wealth typically do. His concept for these accounts would allow participants to withdraw money for any purpose, without penalty, once the funds exceed a ceiling established for each age, and at death any remaining money should be disbursed through inheritance. Our current methods of health-care funding create a “use it or lose it” imperative. This new approach would ensure that families put aside funds for future expenses, but would not force them to spend the funds only on health care. Unfortuntely, he doesn't go into much detail as to whom would be responsible for administering such an option ( it'll have to be worked out in Congress), but at the very least, it should satisfy the conservatives to a tee.

The Compromise Solution
What we need is compromise - each side willing to give a little ground to the other so that a meaningful legislative package can be created that services the needs of each without overstepping too much into territory the other side will not support.

In the short run, both options could run simultaneously. However, over time one of the options will have a significant advantage over the other. The option that shows signs of being dysfunctional can be quietly be laid to rest and those remaining participates moved to the ongoing option.

We have already seen conservatives are locked in a battle with themselves and are confusing us with their own internal enemies. So we need to find a method by which we can ease their self-induced anxiety and fears of the unknown that is unknowable. By offering both options that pander to both political ideologies, we take the fight out of the process. And that's the key - remove the anomosity so saner heads an prevail.