Simon Galperin's Blog

What the Public Option Really Means to Us

2009-10-14T15:51:45Z

The public option has been debated by MSNBC and Fox News, Democrats and Republicans, "patriots" and "socialists" but it is fair to say that it is more than just a talking point or a potential policy disagreement. To many people across this country, roughly 216 million if we apply the recent New York Times poll to the general population, see this as something much greater than the significance of the Democratic or Republican parties, greater even than the labels of liberal orconservative; it is something more along the lines of, but not nearly as meaningful as, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without the metaphor, in plain terms, it is phrased thusly: does the system work?

Yes, the public option will force health insurance companies to lower prices because they will be competing with a company that isn't out to make a profit but who's primary concern is the well being of those it serves but few, if any, of these private insurers will go out of business because of it.

Some see it as a "government takeover of healthcare" and refuse to recognize that it is the government providing exactly what the name suggests: a public option. The most obvious public option that competes with private companies is the United States Postal Service and while it hasn't faired well in recent years with UPS and Fedex having expanded their infrastructure, the point of the USPS isn't to compete with UPS or Fedex but to offer a lower-cost alternative to the average American citizen. (Fedex even uses the United States Postal Service in areas where they do not operate.) So the public health insurance option, in essence, is founded on the same principle as the Postal Service: low-cost, acceptable-quality service for the average citizen who cannot afford what is offered by the private sector.

Do we let children, who could otherwise not afford to attend private school, not receive an education? Do we let Americans, who could otherwise not afford food, go without the money to buy it? The answer to both of these questions is no and it only requires one to follow simple logic to see that we cannot allow Americans who cannot afford health care to go without it as well.

Having said that, the debate over health care reform, as well as the coming cap and trade legislation, has once again revealed a more somber side to our government.
It is the very thing that begets doubt in our system of government, particularly doubt in the of faith we instill in our legislative branch.

It has shown us that our representatives are often more concerned with re-election than with making tough decisions that may put their careers in peril but that in turn will benefit the people which they serve; that playing chess with the issues at hand will crown them the victor in the next election year even if they lose some pieces during the game.

I feel confident in saying that they have underestimated the newly rekindled Progressive nature of the American people. The passage of a public option, which is necessitated by the need for liberal support in the House (and what I am sure will be much strong arming by the White House), will signify a cultural shift in Washington. That the change that dominated President Obama's campaign may very well be on its way. While Senator Baucus may not realize it, those who vote nay on the public option have little chance of being re-elected by their Democratic constituencies. (Senator Baucus actually supports the public option. Its the people that give him money to run for re-election that don't.)"Putting politics before the people..." will be the phrase uttered on television ads and radio stations across congressional districts from sea to shining sea. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few progressive Republicans winning primaries with similar expressions. However, Americans have seen political turmoil like this before.

I referenced civil rights legislation to health care reform not because I am trying to downplay the importance of a law that has insured the Constitution's application to all ethnicities and women. Legislation as monumental as that could have only come from the Great Society. However, if we see the legislation abstractly, without noting its specific intent, we will see that the dilemma that faced the United States government of 1964 is very much the dilemma faced by the United States government of 2009: what am I willing to risk for the sake of the people? The thoughts are the same: This legislation is long overdue and people are suffering for lack of it. Am I willing to step up to the plate and perform the duties that the people have entrusted me with or will I indulge my ego and hope to preserve this lifestyle?

So what will it mean when healthcare reform, including a public option, is passed?

It will be proof that the system actually works. That the people Americans have elected into office aren't just employed by health insurance companies and energy conglomerates but that they care. That they, like their constituents, have a stake in the future of this country and the prosperity of its people. That they can see into the generations ahead, as the Founding Fathers did, and make decisions that may not favor their party line and may not get them re-elected but will ultimately prove beneficial to our nation.

The Left Wing Identity Crisis

2009-07-13T19:51:05Z

In the beginning of May in 2007 MSNBC's Chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd declared that the GOP no longer agreed on the definition of Conservative. Todd cites the inconsistencies between Barry Goldwater, George W. Bush and every Republican in between as the reason for the question that now bewilders most Conservatives: What do we stand for? In the months following Barack Obama's election many on the left side of the political spectrum seem to be having a political identity crisis of their own.

Bill Maher recently said it best: "The Democrats are the new Republicans"; and many liberal voters may just agree. Take a look at the American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009. It requires only 15% of energy to come from renewable resources by 2021, despite strong scientific opinion suggesting the requirement should be 25% to 40% in order to avert consequences of global warming that may be catastrophic. The latter requirement being the strong, science-based legislation those who voted for President Obama were promised. Lets not just blame this on the re-election obsessed Congress either. Todd Stern, Obama's envoy to the climate change talks held in Mexico City, rejected the 40% standard proposed by the U.N. stating that those levels are "not feasible given where we're starting from." Maybe its because we're starting from the pockets of the utilities industry?

This typifies the dilemma facing those on the left. We got on the direct flight to progress, so what's with all of these stops? Can we support our captain when he supports the mutiny happening on board the ship? Special interests convinced Congress to give away 85% of carbon emission credits; money that would be used to offset rising energy prices for Americans. A fact that is now the crux of the Republican party's national energy tax argument. The Democrats may have been better off negotiating with the Republican party on nuclear energy and oil than wheeling and dealing inside their own while hanging Progressivism out to dry.

Today's real left doesn't have their head in the clouds. It is aware that to move forward negotiation is inevitable but why are the Democrats negotiating with special interests and not with the other half of the country? A reduction in carbon emissions by 25% or more by 2020, a larger push to begin using renewable resources (say 20% by 2020), and a tax on carbon emissions would have appeased the Democrats. The Republicans would have gotten a piece of the pie too: limited offshore drilling and construction of oil refineries and nuclear power plants. Not only would we have tackled climate change but energy independence as well. Not to mention create plenty of jobs.

That is the goal of today's progressive left: real bipartisan support for a progressive cause being accomplished to its full potential in the interest of the nation and the world. Progressivism should not be the goal of any one party but of the congregation and certainly not of any one political ideology.

It seems as though another shot will be dealt to the progressive cause in the guise of health care reform. With the momentum for expanded Medicare coverage already there it would be foolish to let special interests undermine the Obama Administration's message but it is already too late. One can only imagine what the hospital industry and pharmaceutical companies will get for the cost cutting measures. The message of hope and change in the future, a message that would appeal to the legislation's pioneering nature, has been lost in bank accounts of special interest on its way to the Congress.

But Congress is not alone in its beguiling ways.

Politico.com published an article in December of 2008 that summarized the worry that had begun to plague the left-wing community: that then president-elect Obama would not hold true to many of the pledges that had won him the hearts, minds, and most importantly, the votes of liberals. Disappointingly, many of its predictions have come to pass.

Mr Obama has not repealed the Bush tax cuts. His no-nonsense, straight-forward declaration of objection to Don't Ask Don't Tell has now been brought into the realm of the political middle way: avoid alienating someone by alienating someone else. Within months of his election, he receded on his pledge to enact windfall profit taxes on oil companies and it seems to many that governmental transparency has come with some fine print.

But can we blame him? The Democratic party never had the essence of progress that got Barack Obama elected and made sure to bring him back down to the reality of the government's "You do this for me, I'll do that for you" existence after his election.

And that leaves liberals in a quagmire; who is representing the left's interest? One can only hope that President Obama is just navigating the political mire until the nation realizes that a progressive presidential branch needs to be supplemented by a progressive legislature. Still, even the definition of progressive is vague and rising unemployment may spur voters to punish the Democrats instead of look to the future. Until then, liberals are left with a party impersonating them and giving them a bad image.

And we can only hope that real change is just slower than we expected.