I am puzzled by the reasoning of those who oppose the public option.

On the one hand, they claim that the government can’t do anything right and that a public health insurance plan would be a disaster.

On the other hand, they argue that the government plan would be so desirable that it would drive private companies out of the business, leading to the virtual destruction of our healthcare system.

Not only do they err in holding two wholly opposing points simultaneously, both of their arguments are wrong on their own terms.

Some consumers will think the public option better than what they have now, and they will choose it; others will think their current plan is better, and they’ll stick with what they have.

The irony is that the people who most oppose giving consumers that choice are the ones who claim to protect choice – as long as it is for the status quo.

People talk about a bipartisan agreement on health care as if it's the highest goal.  We had an election in 2008, and the Democrats won the presidency and significant majorities in the House and the Senate.  The notion that those of us who won the election with a solid majority should compromise 50/50 with those who lost; well, then, why not randomly choose sides?  Why not just make it a game like a color war at summer camp?  Why have elections?

“I am amazed that people can lament spending and forget the elephant in the room. And when the elephant forgets the elephant in the room, I suppose it's even more surprising, because it is massive military spending now and for the future that is the problem.” [April 2, 2009 House of Representatives Speech by Congressman Frank on Military Budget]

“We had bullets and guns…The bullets which helped destroy the financial system were primarily the irresponsible subprime mortgages… And the guns were the instruments by which these irresponsible loans were distributed throughout the financial system.”

“The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy.” 

“I think we've suffered from an extremism in this country in the past of relying only on private-sector activity and having too little government. It's possible to have too much government, no question. But it's possible to have too little.” 

“When [the Republicans] had a President they were supposed to support, they had to do things that made them uncomfortable. Not all of them, but their leadership and many of them voted for the TARP. They couldn't wait for George Bush to leave town so they can throw off the shackles of responsible public policy. Now they can simply revel in their negativism. They can vote to kill the program today and tomorrow to show George Bush how much they don't like him.

Since January 2007, when Democrats became the majority party in the House and Barney Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he has done more to reform Wall Street than Republicans in the previous twelve years.  Already, under his chairmanship, Congress has taken major steps to curb abusive subprime loans, to restrict CEO compensation and  to limit bonus plans which encourage excessive risk-taking, to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and to expand consumer protections for credit card holders.

By David Goldstein and Kevin Hall, McClatchy Newspapers, October 12, 2008 "As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

“I am in favor of trying to help lower income people get the advantages of homeownership…But almost by definition, the large majority of poor people are going to need rental housing. And we will never alleviate the terrible housing crisis that affects so many people in this country if we do not do a much better job of building decent, affordable rental housing.” (Statement of Rep. Frank, Financial Services Committee hearing on proposed 2003 budget; February 18, 2002)
Click Here For More

What I have tried to do every time we've had a major bill, I'll be honest, is to use the leverage I get as chairman because there are things that everybody needs to put in for the poor people, to put in something for the people who don't otherwise get a fair shake.

"Since becoming Financial Services' chairman last year, Frank has surprised many with his appetite for bipartisan compromise." (Frank, Known As Irascible and Liberal, Reaches Our to Republicans on Housing Rescue (excerpts), by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, AP, May 7, 2008)
Click Here For More

Asking the White House to support more government intervention was "like asking me to judge the Miss America contest — if your heart's not in it, you don't do a very good job." (May 13, 2008; New York Times)

"The free market system is the foundation of our prosperity, but as we confront the damaging consequences of irresponsible mortgage lending, all but a few of zealots now understand that enforcement of standards of honesty, openness, and responsibility is necessary to prevent the sort of abuses that have brought us to the present crisis." (Excerpt from Frank's response to the President's radio address, 01/19/08)
Click Here For More

One aspect of the subprime mortgage crisis that deserves special attention is that it was in large part a natural experiment on the role of regulation. And the results are clear: Reasonable regulation of mortgages by the bank and credit union regulators allowed the market to function in an efficient and constructive way, while mortgages made and sold in the unregulated sector led to the crisis. ("Lessons of the Subprime Crisis"; Boston Globe Column by Rep. Frank, 9 – 14- 2007.)