Matt Taibbi is a national treasure. And what a crazy life story. Check out the professional basketball career in Mongolia. He is this generation's Dr. Hunter S. Thompson without the excessive drugs. He has a good heart, a magnificent sense of outrage and the tenacity to wade through massive piles of data and explain the situation in a humorous, accessible way. If we make it through these times, Matt will deserve a statue.

Kari writes "the final bill may include a public option, but 180 million Americans won't get access to it -- a problem that Senator Wyden's "Free Choice" proposal (pdf) seeks to fix."

That's just not so. Wyden wants people to have a choice (that's true and good) but he yet to embrace the public option as one of those choices always available.

Once again Kari is blinded by his love of Wyden.

Kari, your repeated attempts to mislead people about Ron Wyden has become so chronic and blatant it has become lying by omission.

Taibbi noted an idea that is already a given for most people fighting for a robust public option from the start. Wyden didn't propose a "new" idea (it was a fighting point right here in Oregon last year with the Oregon Health Fund Board process that Wyden has himself cited). One even wonders if he actually offered it as a "poison pill" both against the continuation of the employer-provided insurance and against a robust national public health insurance option open, both of which his bill does not allow, since, as "RealPublicOption" notes, he has never actually become a true advocate for a real public option to this day.

He could have worked with the finance committee to get that in their lame bill, but instead he decided to see what he could get for Ron out of it by doing it this way. And no one should be misled by Kari's lies by omission here: Ron has not be on the air saying "I will not vote for any bill that does not have a real public option anyone can join from day 1, and, incidentally, this provision guarantees a people have the only true choice, the choice of a public option." No all he is proposing is that EMPLOYERS, not you or me, have the choice to go into the Exchange, even if it doesn't have a public option.

More importantly, his proposal as currently written, does not say that if an employer offers crummy insurance, that your or I should have the choice instead to buy into a robust public national insurance plan if we would like to. So your cite to Gibbs comment is dishonest --- Wyden's proposal wouldn't change the key point of Gibb's comment, that we'd be stuck if our employer only offers bad insurance.

Taibbi is a lot of things, but he isn't attuned to every twist and multiple, dishonest, selfish motives a Senator like Wyden has. It is clear that the goal of his story was not to pump Wyden or his top goals for health insurance (non-)reform, just this one detail that is already a given with those fighting for morally and economically sound health insurance reform. It's your attempt to spin it which makes you a liar by omission.

The question now is if you been worked with Wyden's staff who pays you to plant this dishonest spin in this discussion forum. You didn't even give your standard, ethically challenged disclaimer, as the first comment.

Wyden also appeared on a tv program (the Ed Show, I think) and said point-blank that his choice proposal would make the public option available to everybody. It was pretty unambiguous. And there is no way a cynical and brilliant guy like Taibbi would be touting Wyden's proposal if it didn't tear down the firewalls to the public option.

Taibbi mentions Wyden in the same breath with Kucinich and Sanders and this is somehow Kari's fault? How stupid. Get over it - Wyden does some pretty good stuff.

t.a., here is the reason you are wrong about any crack in the wall being a victory. First, I am fighting for a public option harder than most and the current bills moving won't let me participate. So it's personal. The millions of us fighting for public option by and large won't be allowed to use it. But beyond that it will only be available to the currently uninsured who are certain to have had less health care than they should have over the years. Less healthy risk pool means higher costs means the Republicans will crow for decades about our failed experiment. Open it to all, now, and public option gets the same risk pool as Aetna, ODS, Blue Cross and public option will be a triumph.

TA wrote:

"shhh, don't tell anyone. it's single-payer."

Yes, we know.

And it's only by being dishonest about their real intentions (yourself excepted) that Democrats have gotten this far.

Do you really think the way to build trust with the American people is to have your party lie to them?

This is all well and good, but is Wyden's free choice proposal going anywhere since it depends on de-linking employment and health insurance?

As far as single payer is concerned. Yes, I'm for it. But the political reality is that Dennis Kucinich lost the primary, and no one else was promoting it, in the primary or general election. So all this push for single payer should have happened in the primary season and should have been front and center in the election.

The national media is trumpeting the argument that health care reform is teetering on the brink of collapse. The fact the Senators such as Wyden are sitting on the sidelines is used to bolster this argument

Wyden may ultimately support the proposal including a public option which currently has the most Democratic support. However, he has given the impression that he is sitting on the sidelines waiting for the Senate to jump onto to his prosposal for health care reform (so far -- not many takers).

If Wyden doesn't get off the sidelines soon and get in line the majority of his Democratic colleagues, the effort to get health care refrom passed may indeed collapse. After collapse, it is unlikely we will get another shot at reform anytime soon.

I don't know exactly what Wyden has up his sleeve or how he plans to achieve his health reform goals in this congressional scrum, but now that the Baucus Finance Committee proposal has finally been released I for one am thankful that Wyden hasn't signed on to the bill. He's now not the only liberal Democrat balking at it, according to the Associated Press:

"Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he was not at all pleased with some compromises Baucus made with Republicans. Rockefeller said they would weaken the Medicaid program for the poor, and undermine state-based consumer safeguards for people who buy health insurance on their own. And that was only the beginning of Rockefeller's complaints. Baucus' plan lacks a government health insurance option, which Rockefeller sees as essential to holding down costs."

Fight for a good bill, not just any bill, Mr. Wyden, and while you are at it, how about connecting with Rockefeller. He is making a lot of sense.

Kari wrote:

"his Free Choice proposal would allow you the option to de-link your employment and your health insurance"

You've already got that option.

No one is forced to take employer coverage that they dont want.

@ Kari

I would like it if Wyden's "free choice amendment" was included in legislation on the table. But I see no evidence that is happening. With all the claims to his "clout" in the Senate, where is it?

Is Chuck Schumer the "go-to" guy in the Senate on health care? He says he's for doing budget reconciliation on most things, and that it's doable, breaking up the legislation into pieces, doing some on 60 votes and some on 51 votes.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/schumer-lets-use-reconciliation-wherever-we-can.php

Great idea, Jack. There are some advocates of the public option who say, "Fine. No public option. Entirely private system---but one like Switzerland where health care is a regulated utility".

But there are those who don't want to discuss Switzerland's plan, just say they don't want socialized medicine.

Holy shit, you guys just continue to obfuscate. READ THE WHOLE TAIBBI PIECE: http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/09/07/sick-and-wrong-by-matt-taibbi/

Matt Taibbi is in favor of SINGLE PAYER, not Wyden-care.

All that’s left of health care reform is a collection of piece-of-shit, weakling proposals that are preposterously expensive and contain almost nothing meaningful...

The president and the Democrats decided not to press for the only plan that makes sense for everyone, in order to preserve an industry that is not only cruel and stupid and dysfunctional, but through its rank inefficiency has necessitated the very reforms now being debated. Even though the Democrats enjoy a political monopoly and could have started from a very strong bargaining position, they chose instead to concede at least half the battle before it even began.

heard the fox news scum this morning complaining that with a public option people would leave insurance companies because the non-profit option would be less expensive. gasp......how horrible.......americans paying less for healthcare and corporate bloodsuckers making less profit of the misery of others

jack roberts: why do you republicans need to profit off of everything? maybe the people you accuse of being blinded by ideology just think that our well-being shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold by insurance companies.

are you in favor of privatizing the marines, the army, navy, fbi? should everything connected to our well being be in the hands of ceo's?

joe white guy: republicans have no business talking about things like trust

New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit (Bill Maher) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-not-everything-i_b_244050.html

Paradoxical that we don't think it's right to profit off other essential public services, like police, fire, water, military protection, or judicial services. But profiting off sick people is somehow glorious. Why isn't the care of the sick like other essential public services?

All I i know is that President Obama had better put his stamp on this issue tonight or its all over. He has only himself to blame for the absolute mess this has become, with his touchy-feely,"Bi-partizan, wish-washy stuff. If he again capitulates to the Corporatists in the Senate we need to give up on him and work towards 2016.

Don't bother trying to get trolls to use actual facts and not invent their own, Kari.

Bill R. - You ask a stupid question, but at least you are not intentionally making shit up. " I would like it if Wyden's "free choice amendment" was included in legislation on the table. But I see no evidence that is happening. With all the claims to his "clout" in the Senate, where is it?" Are you criticizing Bernie Sanders for not having the clout to get single payer in the bill? No one ever said Wyden had the clout to write the health bill. That honor goes to the committee chairmen, Rangel, Miller, Waxman, Kennedy (Dodd) and Baucus. Be thankful Wyden isn't simply giving up because Baucus said no the first time. Remember, neither Wyden nor Schumer nor Rockefeller were allowed in the room by Baucus with the "Gang of Six."

Now for intentional distortion. There is this from above - "Wyden's proposal wouldn't change the key point of Gibb's comment, that we'd be stuck if our employer only offers bad insurance."

If this dope had bothered to read Wyden's choice proposal, they would know that Wyden's proposal specifically allows the people who receive coverage from their current employer to get un-stuck from bad coverage. It doesn't even have to be bad coverage for people to get into the exchange under Wyden's proposal, it can be coverage that they just prefer that happens to be offered in the exchange, including the public option.

Never mind the actual facts, the same dope says this - "No all he is proposing is that EMPLOYERS, not you or me, have the choice to go into the Exchange, even if it doesn't have a public option." Wrong again, guy who can't or won't click on a link and read. Wyden's choice proposal gives everybody who is either insured or has only one choice from their employer the freedom to get into the public option or any other coverage made available in the exchange.

"I'm not really sure a lot of you understand what a public option really means or how it would work."

It's quite easy to be patronizing when speaking only in platitudes, eh Jack?

"...it sounds like Blue Cross/Blue Shield should already be accomplishing a lot of what you say you want from a "public option," i.e., a nonprofit health care provider that doesn't have to operate so as to maximize profit for shareholders."

Read the news much Jack? Per the LA Times and a recent CNN report, Blue Cross of California, a subsidiary of WellPoint, encouraged employees through performance evaluations to cancel the health insurance policies of individuals with expensive illnesses. One Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

Blue Cross of California and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period.

So Jack, let's talk specifics: How many people are you willing to kill for an additional 1% increase in ROI? That's really what it comes down to, isn't it? To make a profit, you need to be willing to deny coverage to the most medically challenged.

dehtbfp wrote:

".americans paying less for healthcare and corporate bloodsuckers making less profit of the misery of others"

I trust that you aren't hypocritical but you truly avoid those bloodsucking profiteers -- the doctors. They do make a profit too, you know. A quite handsome one.

Does everything have to be for profit?

No, it doesnt. But it's one of the easiest ways to get someone to work their tail off for you.

You have advanced medicines developed by bloodsucking for-profit American pharmaceutical companies. But I trust you don't take any of those either, in order to be consistent with your leftist principles.

American pharmas worked their tails off to make a profit. But don't you dare compromise your high principles by making it worth their while.

Bill R wrote:

"Why isn't the care of the sick like other essential public services?"

Why don't you start up a non-profit pharmaceutical company and find out?

So many of you have forgotten the new 1st Commandment, which is of course "What is in this for me?". If you remember the new 1st Commandment constantly in every aspect of your personal and professional lives, all this stuff will become so much clearer. Disappointed in health care? Buy stock in the company that does the best job of screwing people out of coverage while maximizing premium income. Disappointed in drug companies? By stock in the company that makes the most money, even if that requires paying a few billion here and there in fines and kickbacks. The bottom line is what counts.

And, while I am passing out helpful advice, for those of you with elderly parents who have a few bucks, you may want to start keeping an eye on the expiration of the estate tax bracket bonanza. If Mom or Dad does not kick the bucket by 12/31/10 it could cost you big dollars. Might be time to have "the talk" with Mom or Dad. Or else, get one of those fluffy but heavy pillows and have it in a handy place in case nature needs a "helping hand".

May God Bless the Republican Party, and may God Bless Money.

Do you really think Wyden would vote against a final bill that has public option in it?

Kari, your dishonesty continues.

It is irrelevant whether Wyden would vote for a bill that includes a public option. Where the rubber meets the road, and which exposes Wyden for what he isn't, is whether Wyden would vote for a bill that has a mandate WITHOUT a strong public option. That means if a bill is offered on the floor with a mandate, but without a strong public option, will Wyden fight to get a public option added, with the threat he won't vote for the bill. And ultimately carry through on that threat if a strong public option is not added?

Jack-ass Roberts wrote:

I'm not really sure a lot of you understand what a public option really means or how it would work.

Some of us know a hell of a lot more than you could ever hope to Jack Roberts about health insurance and reform proposals, including all the different things that have been called a "public option" with varying degrees of dishonesty. That includes the legal intricacies of fiduciary obligations, and the potential for corruption and failure of for-profit, not-for-profit, non-profit private, non-profit quasi-public, and true national health insurance.

Here's what the public option should be: Medicare Part "E" = Medicare Part A + Medicare Part B that any person or employer can buy into by paying a premium. People will flock to it, it will be the best possible way to spend our health insurance dollar, and small and large businesses would welcome it as the best and fastest way to dramatically improve their bottom line. And that's based on my experience as a business owner who had to buy insurance for employees at one time, for myself as another, and as someone as an employee of other businesses who has had input to the decision on what insurance we should buy for employees.

bradley, you too are an dishonest idiot, just on different dimensions:

If this dope had bothered to read Wyden's choice proposal, they would know that Wyden's proposal specifically allows the people who receive coverage from their current employer to get un-stuck from bad coverage.

Wyden's proposal allows employers to do what they want. It allows individuals to do nothing, even if their employers choose to have poor or unsuitable coverage so long as it meets certain minimum standards.

I have read Wyden's proposal and asked his office to clarify the misleading details.

His sentence "The Free Choice Proposal gives every American the ABILITY to either choose to keep the coverage they have or pick a plan that works better for them and their family. does not say it gives them the CHOICE. He follows that sentence with details about the choices employers have, and only the last ditch things employees can do (hence the word games of "ability" not "choice") when their employers choose not to offer certain health insurance alternatives.

In the only other section that mentions individuals: Free Choice Will Help Working Americans. In the first sentence he does not actually say people can opt out of a plan their employer offers so long as it meets the limited criteria above. He talks about "workers will be able to keep the coverage they have or go to the exchange", note again the deceit of the ambiguous construction around the word "able" rather than the word "choice" in a proposal headlined "The Free Choice Proposal". He doesn't in fact refer to employer-provided health insurance in the first phrase of that sentence, nor say that people may reject employer-provided insurance that meets the criteria above to enter the exchange in the second phrase. Nor does he provides specific details that clarify what he means as he does above for the choices and control employers have.

Instead, what he says in the second sentence that expands on the first sentence is refer to how low income workers may not be totally out-of-luck if they work for a scumball employer, because that employer may have have to offer a voucher. Although the pittance he gives with one hand he takes away with the other because he says that voucher will offset any tax credit for health care for which that same low income worker may be eligible. And of course, it is still the solely the employer's choice to either offer coverage that meets a certain minimal standard or the voucher. There is no universal employee choice to select the voucher mentioned in that second sentence.

So the only ability of individuals to choose that Wyden explicity provides in the juxtaposition of those two statements is that low-income workers working for scumball employers who don't offer the minimum can still get some limited assistance from their employer. And the most one can claim by reasoning in the negative, is that an employee may make the unrealistic choice to forego employer contribution and foot the entire bill to buy into the exchange.

But there is no choice that gives anybody with insurance they judge to be unsuitable for their needs to go to the exchange. In other words, just as with the proposal Gibbs referenced, Wyden's dishonestly entitled "Free Choice Proposal" does not give anybody whose employer offers insurance that meets minimal standards the right to opt out to the exchange if the individual feels the employer's offering does not meet his or her needs. And I challenge you to cite text that states that.

And by the way, as much as I like Obama, he in fact started out his speech with a lie when he said that we needed to build on what we have, which is why we can't move to a strong national health insurance plan. We already have a large national health care system and a national health insurance plan that is larger than Canada's: The VA and Medicare. With a bill that would be once sentence long, we could build on the best we have by allowing anybody to buy into one or the other. (Or simply raising taxes in an amount equivalent to the buy-in premium).

(Jack I listened carefully and critically to every sentence of his speech and compared them to the facts, and his previous statements.)

Ezra Klein says this in his article entitled: "The Idea That Could Save Health Reform"

"And the potential upside of this idea is huge: It gives the currently insured a bevy of new choices, creates real incentives for cost control, and begins the hard, and necessary, work of building a better health-care system. Wyden's Free Choice Act will not decide whether a bill called "health-care reform" passes the United States Congress. But it might decide whether that bill actually is health-care reform."

Some of he leading liberal voices fin journalism, Jonathan Cohn, Ezra Klein, and Matt Taibbi, all think the Wyden choice proposal is real and important enough to devote a lot of time and space to the idea. Stand Up And Invent New Lies thinks he knows better. Maybe he ought to get his own column on Loaded Orygun and compete head to head with those well known propagandists.

Joe White wrote: "Do you really think the way to build trust with the American people is to have your party lie to them?"

Where are those weapons of mass destruction?

Jim (in an effort to sidetrack the discussion of Democratic dishonesty) wrote:

"Where are those weapons of mass destruction?"

Is this what passes for cleverness in liberal circles nowadays? Simply answer everything with criticism of George Bush?

If you want, we can get into a discussion of how Saddam Hussein intentionally deceived the Western intelligence services in a bid to bluff Iran, with whom he had just fought a long and bloody 8 year war.

Saddam lied and people died. Yes we know.

If a madman steps into the street waving a gun and the cops shoot him, but later find the gun wasn't loaded, are the cops the bad guys? I don't think so.

Before you pull out the one-dimensional responses Jim, you really oughta think it thru.

Now back to Obama's dishonesty. Why isn't he being forthright about his desire to destroy private health insurance using the power of the Treasury?

At least a few honest Democrats are willing to admit that their goal really is to destroy the insurance that the overwhelming majority of Americans have and want to keep. Why isn't your guy among them?

Wow Jack, now you're trying to school me on the business of health insurance and non-profits?

Do you even know how to read a balance sheet or calculate ROI? Do you really believe non-profits don't make a profit? Since the answer is obviously "no" may I suggest you try to read a little article by Diane Lund-Muzikant:

"It's time to call a halt to the excessive salaries and bonuses earned by Oregon health insurance executives. Who gives them the right to draw huge salaries while increasing our insurance premiums and causing more people to forgo health coverage?

As an example, while Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon raised individual policy rates by 26 percent in 2008 and is asking for another double-digit increase this year, its president and CEO, Mark Ganz, is the highest-paid insurance executive in Oregon. After receiving an 11 percent raise, his 2008 salary and bonus totaled $872,665. In fact, Regence handed out raises to its entire executive team, according to documents filed with the Oregon Insurance Division.

So what did Regence do that resulted in its leaders being rewarded so well? If you take a look at the company's performance last year, it's hard to find the merit. Not only did the state's largest insurer lose 32 percent (334,228) of its members, bringing its enrollment down to its lowest level in five years (776,647), Regence's profit margin barely reached 1 percent. However, the company collected more in premiums than during the previous year.

Yet, Regence scored on one important front: to the dismay of consumers, its executives persuaded Cory Streisinger, Oregon's Department of Consumer and Business Services director, to approve a 26 percent rate increase on individual policies last year (insurers can raise group policies at-will, without state approval), which is being challenged by a disgruntled customer. Regence is back again this year, this time asking for a 19 percent hike.

Regence isn't the only insurer that gave raises to its executives last year. The regional president of Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Andrew McCulloch, received $691,830 in salary and bonus, while Robert Gootee, CEO of ODS Health Plan/ODS Dental, was next in line, taking home a total of $668,188. Jack Friedman, CEO of Providence, received $484,277 in salary and bonus, while Majd Fowzi El-Azma, CEO and president of LifeWise, was paid $360,848. Chris Ellertson, CEO of HealthNet, received $248,639."

So cry me a ----ing river about the poor insurance companies just trying to do the right thing.

Oh, I almost forgot - another 60 Americans died today without treatment and without insurance. But I hear Mark Ganz had a nice bottle of Cab with dinner tonight.

The fact that you insist that Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a shining example of a "nonprofit health care provider that doesn't have to operate so as to maximize profit for shareholders" when CNN and the LA Times beg to differ shows that you don't know Jack.

Scott in Damascus wrote:

"Blue Cross of California and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period."

If the policyholder was dropped in violation of his policy, then it would seem that current law need only be enforced, not changed, right?

I mean, if it's already illegal, then what's left except to enforce it?

Now if they were not dropped in violation of their policy, then are you saying the BC should have covered them regardless of what they were paying for?

Alot of "ifs" in your question there Joe. Why don't you read the article and the numerous lawsuits that sparked the investigation in the first place? It's not my job to educate you. Learn to google on your own. It's called "personal responsibility."

Wyden has not supported the public option and is part of the forces that are fracturing the democratic party on this issue. -All for "His" bill. This is not the time for self aggrandizement. He should be pulling with the party. We won't get this chance again in the near future. I am extremely disappointed in his leadership on this issue. I didn't like his vote for the bankruptcy bill either. He has corporate debts. Time he goes the way of Gordon Smith. We need someone more in touch with the people.

Funny stuff there Jack. You have all the typical red-stater talking points down in a circle-jerk-short-on-details style only found in 3rd times the charm bar exam flunkies.

You speak glowingly for the days of perfect harmony among for-profits and non-profits that will, in your world, magically insure everyone at a greatly competitive price. Oh bullshit. In 300+ major markets over 60% are controlled by a single insurer. Arrogant jackasses such as yourself refuse to admit that these carriers are not only creating monopolies and oligopolies in many regions, but they also control the other side of the equation as well – enrollees. Because these insurers capture the largest member blocks, they are also the biggest purchasers of health care and can dictate prices and coverage terms.

In the past 12 years there have been more than 450 mergers among health-care insurers. As they've consolidated and eliminated duplicative functions, they're not passing the savings in personnel and administrative costs on to consumers (see the executive bonus and salaries in my previous post). Naturally rate increases in Oregon, as in every market, are higher than ever and growing at double-digit pace for 2010.

Regulated free market my ass!

As it exists today, there is no competition but rather collusion between the seven insurance corporations. These seven companies (Aetna Inc., CIGNA Corporation, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, WellPoint, Inc., etc.) underwrite the majority of policies for the smaller independents.

So yes Jack, a public option (while I support single payer) will most certainly operate differently than Wellpoint.

Yeah, great stuff there Jack. I especially enjoyed the “public sector = private sector” wage comparison.

Scott in Damascus wrote:

"Alot of "ifs" in your question there Joe. Why don't you read the article and the numerous lawsuits that sparked the investigation in the first place? It's not my job to educate you. Learn to google on your own. It's called "personal responsibility.""

Notice first, that my first two questions are rhetorical. The third question asks your opinion. I would think that your opinion would probably not be included in the article (unless you wrote the article), nor in any of the legal documents (unless you were one of the participants).

Since there are 20,000 separate incidents, I gave a general answer what the procedure should be under the two possible scenarios of each (A. they were dropped in violation of their policy, or B. they were dropped and no provision of the policy was violated)

Can you figure it out from there, or do I need to break it down a bit further for you?

If, in any given instance of the 20,000, they were dropped in violation of their policy, then it's ALREADY illegal. The law simply needs to be enforced. We don't need another law to make illegal what is already illegal.

If, in any given instance of the 20,000, they were dropped and no violation of their policy occurred, then what do you suggest? Should the insurance company be punished for following its contract with the policyholder?

Scott in Damascus wrote:

"As it exists today, there is no competition but rather collusion between the seven insurance corporations. These seven companies (Aetna Inc., CIGNA Corporation, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, WellPoint, Inc., etc.) underwrite the majority of policies for the smaller independents."

This shows a basic misunderstanding.

Most midsize and large corporations are 'self insured'.

The 'insurance company' provides administrative support and a reinsurance policy that is seldom used.

It is the employer that collects the premium and shells out for the claims, and keeps the difference as profit.

Michael wrote:

"Wyden has not supported the public option and is part of the forces that are fracturing the democratic party on this issue. -All for "His" bill. This is not the time for self aggrandizement. He should be pulling with the party."

It's called leadership.

Did you elect a man, or a sheep?

I don't even support him, but I think he's doing what he believes to be in the best interest of the country.

Maybe you don't want that.