Hey Nancy, Why Not Call the Public Option--GEORGE BUSH?

Yesterday, with great fanfare Nancy Pelosi suggested that public option of the Obamacare bill is doing poorly because of its name, and that it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different title. She was speaking at an appearance at a Florida senior center with Florida Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz and suggested that a better name would be "the consumer option." Schultz, suggested the term "competitive option."

The speaker said the "competitive option" idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.

"I think she's going to go up and test-drive it when she goes back to Washington," Wasserman Schultz said. "It might stick."

Both Pelosi and Schultz are totally wrong ! I have the perfect new name for the "Public Option" a new health insurance company run by the government designed to put the private firms out of business. I am not a fan of Obamacare or the public option, but I hate to see two members of the United States government looking so silly in public trying to come up with a name to mislead the American People. So being a Patriot, I will share my solution with the Congresswoman...they should call the Public Option--The George W Bush Option.

Naming the public option after our most recent ex-president will rally both liberals and conservatives around the plan. Just look at the facts:

doodoo by any other name smells as . . .

“Competitive option”???

When the largest “competitor” has the right to steal from the entire population (through confiscatory taxation)to keep itself going, including stealing from those who purchase from private insurers, it is still corrupt and very very wicked.

And, using the Democrats' semantics games, perhaps we can call "freedom" by the name of "tyranny," and no one will notice!

All of which reminds us of Lincoln's wise words:

"The world has never had a good definition of the word 'liberty.' And the American people just now are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not mean the same thing. . . the shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act. . . . Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty."

He went on to say that some would hold that 'liberty' means "that each in the society may do as he sees fit with himself and the earnings from his labors," while others would see it "that some persons may do as they see fit with other persons' labors.

Lincoln declared:

"Most governments have been based practically, on the denial of the rights of men. Ours began by affirming those rights . . . . [These opposing ideas] are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle . . . . It [the denial of individual rights] is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself . . . it is the same tyrannical principle."

Perhaps this Administration, which used Lincoln's symbolism for political advantage in 2008 should read some of Lincoln's ideas about liberty versus tyrannical government control. Source: "Our Ageless Constitution," pp. 74-75.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.