« List of Dem Senators who oppose, don't support the public option | CarlBentham's Blog | Update: List of Dem Senators Who Don't Support the Public Option »
An Inconvenient Truth: Nixing the Public Option Might Be the Only Hope for Reform
I noted in an earlier post that there are at least 22 senators that need to be convinced to support the public option, and a handful of them seem to be leaning against the idea. The ones that are going to be toughest to convince include Bill Nelson (NE), Mary Landieu (LA), Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Blanche Lincoln (AR), and Mark Pryor (AR).
I'll be keeping you updated with the latest on who's for and who's against, but as a rational agent I am compelled to admit there's a very good chance the public option will not pass the Senate.
It's infuriating, it's unfair, and it's completely disappointing, and it's all thanks to the anti-democratic institution called the Senate. It's enough to make the nuclear option seem mighty attractive. But progressives might have to suck it up and take what we can get. A modicum of reform can set the wheels in motion for further reforms, and it would be much better for President Obama's image than a catastrophic legislative defeat.
The good news, as Ezra Klein points out, is that there are immensely important aspects to reform that have nothing to do with the public plan. These are things that can dramatically affect how many people are covered and how much the country spends on health care. I'm not going to explain it any better than he does, so I encourage you to check out Ezra's article and keep those non-public option details in mind.
So anyway, I'm going to keep routing for the public option, and I hope everyone else does too, but we should definitely stay informed on the possible consolation prizes.
I'll be keeping you updated with the latest on who's for and who's against, but as a rational agent I am compelled to admit there's a very good chance the public option will not pass the Senate.
It's infuriating, it's unfair, and it's completely disappointing, and it's all thanks to the anti-democratic institution called the Senate. It's enough to make the nuclear option seem mighty attractive. But progressives might have to suck it up and take what we can get. A modicum of reform can set the wheels in motion for further reforms, and it would be much better for President Obama's image than a catastrophic legislative defeat.
The good news, as Ezra Klein points out, is that there are immensely important aspects to reform that have nothing to do with the public plan. These are things that can dramatically affect how many people are covered and how much the country spends on health care. I'm not going to explain it any better than he does, so I encourage you to check out Ezra's article and keep those non-public option details in mind.
So anyway, I'm going to keep routing for the public option, and I hope everyone else does too, but we should definitely stay informed on the possible consolation prizes.
Advertisement
Sorry. I do not want a consolation prize.
Ezra is wrong on this one. Reform with no public option, available to everyone, at the very least, is no reform at all.
"Reform" with mandated coverages, by private insurers, with no public option, and government subsidies is the worst of all possible worlds. You can write all the rules for private insurers you want, but you can count on that they will be full of loopholes and honored mainly in the breach. The subsidies will be enormously costly as we will be subsidizing private profits and we will still be in the thrall of companies whose main objective is to deny health care.
This won't be the consolation prize, it will be the booby prize. No thanks.
I, for one, prefer nothing. Let the Senate take the heat, or let Obama get off his perch and twist some arms.
July 7, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insurance lobbyists are literally (used correctly) referring to this as "the holy grail."
July 7, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think my headline accidentally came off as really urgent and presumptuous. Also, I should’ve left out the ‘inconvenient truth’, in the sense that you’re not deluding yourself if you don’t choose to consider the possibility of failure. I should have added a paragraph or two emphasizing that we absolutely have to keep putting pressure on Congress and intimidating them into the public option. I’m with you on that, which is why I’m writing, emailing, and thinking about faxing; doing this all while—shhh…— pretending to be a resident of other states.
We have to keep in mind, though, that health care reform always has the potential to be a legislative failure, with millions of human tragedies happening as a result. So if it ever does get to that point, where every option has been exhausted and too many of the 22 remaining senators are cemented into positions against the final bill, it wouldn’t make sense to walk away with nothing. Accomplishing no reform, as opposed to some would just worsen the blow to Obama’s historic election prestige, and deprive people of the benefits of a slightly better health care system. So I think it wouldn’t hurt to devote the smallest amount of attention to what other improvements we can salvage from compromise.
July 7, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reform? What a joke! If you are right and I expect you are all we're going to get is a very conservative, preserve the status quo at all costs, bailout for the usual corporate giants. Medicare and Medicaid will be cut. The middle-class are only costs to be cut.
Meanwhile, back to all the free wars and dust off that "mission accomplished" banner.
July 7, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell with that.
If there's no public option, the play is to get 41 Senators to oppose it and filibuster. If this goes beyond October without legislation, the democrats can make a bill with anything they want and force it through on a simple majority vote (if I understand reconciliation correctly). I'm pretty sure that's already in motion.
There is no real downside to using reconciliation to force a public option from the democratic standpoint - the public option is polling around 70%. This bipartisan bullshit is all a power game by the "moderates" milking money - and Reid is about done with it, apparently. The ace in the hole is with the progressives if something doesn't pass. That's what made Sander's statements so powerful.
There is no way this isn't going to Obama's desk this year. Why would you think everything Ezra mentions wouldn't be included in a reconciliation measure?
July 7, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate has already voted by a large majority to forbid the use of reconciliation, and so 60 votes will be needed to pass health care reform legislation.
July 7, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
citation?
July 8, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is no public option there is no reform.
You worry about whether a bill with a public option can pass the Senate. I think what you need to worry about is whether a bill without a public option can pass the House. I think there may be enough progressive representatives to rightly kill a sham bill that fiddles with the edges of the system, but leaves unchanged and unreformed the basic system of a phalanx of unaccountable private middlemen blocking your access to health care.
July 7, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see a bill with a strong public option, but only 50 some supporters. And when the Republicans/Corporate Democrats filibuster, let it go on for days, stopping all other government business and drawing the entire country's undivided attention and disgust.
July 7, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you think if we cave on public option, Blue Cross and Blue Dogs won't still fill the bill full of holes the size of Joe LIEberman's ego so that the reform winds up nothing more than a corporate pork bill designed to force you to buy an insurance policy that is totally worthless and guts Medicare and Medicaid besides? The only reform they want is to cut costs and WE are the costs they want to cut. It's expensive having a middle class. They'd prefer to do without.
July 7, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
July 8, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look: either you believe in something or not. Much of this sounds like "triangulation".
Here is the nuclear option: convince all (not just Democrat) Senators that they will make enemies for life if they don't do the people's business.
If they were more scared of not being re-elected, they would listen to the electorate more.
Otherwise, we get the government we deserve.
Instead of big, complex issues, let's simply take it 1 Senator at a time. While you can't vote against someone outside your state, you can let them know that you will donate to their opponent.
Ultimately, the insurance lobby doesn't put people into Congress. You and I do.
July 7, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Carl...the best we can get by your estimation can't be called reform and won't result in anything changing. Insurance will remain unaffordable for even more Americans and a golden opportunity for real change will have passed. The Democrats cannot realistically expect to have larger majorities in the future as compared to now. Reform is either now or never. Nor will I ever tout anything that is passed without a public option as anything but a Democratic Party cave-in and failure of leadership.
July 7, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so. But what are we gonna go about Joe, party of Joe?
Hope you had fun the weekend
=D
July 7, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe's gotta go Bwak...his time has passed. He is now part of the problem and not the solution.
I had a great weekend, thanks for asking...which I gave a cliffnotes version of here Bwak.
*_*
July 7, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most likely outcome may be a "public option lite", perhaps involving a trigger mechanism rather than incorporation into the law from the beginning.
I tend to agree with Carl that an inadequate bill that increases insurance coverage, even if it does not control costs, would be better than nothing, because if nothing passes now, the prospects for something far better would be dismal probably for at least the next 4-5 years, and perhaps much longer. On the other hand, I would probably favor nothing at all over a change that leaves as many Americans uninsured as before.
July 7, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink