Part of the split you are seeing right now in the progressive blogosphere over the fate of the public option is actually less than meets the eye. You have some people who are trying to provide detached analysis (here, here, here, here, and here), and some people who are engaged more in political advocacy (here, here, and here). Because these are two different approaches, there seems to be a bigger gap between the two sides than actually exists.
The detached analyst in me is telling you that the progressive effort to pass the public option through the Senate with 60 votes is going to fail and that it would be a mistake to actually follow through with the threat to kill any bill without a public option. That does not mean, however, that I think they should stop making that threat or stop fighting as long and as hard as they can for the best possible health care bill.
Remember that we still have a few options. One possibility is to wait until October 15th and pass the health reform as part of the budget reconciliation process that only needs 50 votes to become law. Another possibility is that we pass a bill that uses the co-op concept and we tinker with it going forward.
With so many progressives in the House now sworn to oppose any health reform bill that lacks a public option, the House is probably going to be forced to vote on a bill that contains one. That’s good. We should fight for that, and we should fight to get it to pass with more than the bare minimum of votes. With a decent bill sent to the Conferees, we have a shot at getting the most bang for the buck in the final product. However, it looks like the Senate will not be able to achieve cloture on a bill that includes the public option. In theory, that’s not a huge problem because the Conferees could adopt the House’s language. But, then the bill would have to go back and be passed through the Senate again. And that’s where the problem lies.
What’s going to happen is that the Conference Report will be designed to get 60 votes in the Senate. When the House gets this watered down bill back, the progressives are pledged to vote against it. Unless a bunch of Republicans cross-over to support this bill, the progressives should have the clout to kill it. When it gets to that point, the question is: should they keep their promise.
My answer on this is a conditional ‘no.’ First, let me explain the condition. If the strategy for going to a budget reconciliation process is fleshed out, well understood, agreed upon within the caucus, and has the momentum to pass something better, then the progressives should keep their promise. But, if it looks like we have no idea how the reconciliation process is going to work and what it is capable of producing, then my answer is ‘yes, break the pledge.’
The reneging can be rationalized or spun as follows: progressives will have had an opportunity to vote on HR676, the single-payer plan. Presumably, they will have voted for it. They will have voted for and passed a House bill that included a public option. Therefore, they would have cast two votes for decent health care plans, and they can argue that they fought as hard as they could. The other elements of the bill that will end rescissions of health care policies, end the denial of coverage for people with preexisting conditions, increase portability, increase subsidies, and expand coverage, are all too good to torpedo.
Provided that Pelosi tries to pass a public option plan, this is exactly how I anticipate this all going down. I can’t say it is a happy outcome. My best advice for progressive members of Congress is to really study how the budget reconciliation process works and master the details. They need to know whether the president is willing to go that route and what they can hope to get out of it if he is. Only armed with that information can they make the best decision on what course to take and how to strategize for it.
from what i understand, the single payer vote is symbolic onle, and is not expected to pass.
so my response to this:
…would be a raspberry.
Why don’t you just admit it: the democrats sold us out on health care.
this is a self-inflicted wound, and i have no intention of supporting a party that break a promise THIS big.
It’s not really ‘The Democrats,’ Brendan. It’s a very small number of them.
…which explains why i hear so many democrats calling their colleagues out publicly, shaming them for their spinelessness. did you hear bob casey this past sunday? the man was on fire!!
oh wait, that’s only happening in my imagination.
“It’s just a little dirty, it’s still good, it’s still good…. It’s just a little slimy, it’s still good, it’s still good…. It’s just a little airborn, it’s still good, it’s still good….”
And just what party had a CHANCE of passing single-payer?
I don’t see any now or on the horizon. So this is an illegitimate beef, IMO.
neither party had a chance, which is why it was stupid for the progressive caucus to back down on voting against a bill without a public option in return for a symbolic vote on single-payer. it’s a waste of time and money, never mind political capital with the voters.
basically my beef is this: don’t pretend doing nothing is the same as doing something. and that’s exactly what a symbolic vote is: doing nothing but doing it very loudly. and yet you have well-meaning people like our host writing that this symbolic vote is something our reps can bring home to show the people what they’ve done.
it’s offensive. Do, or do not: there is no try.
there ya go!!!!! You can bet that you are not alone.
Caving in as USUAL. Not all, but most. But what is the worst thing is everyone is playing politics with people’s lives. Our lives. Our kids lives.
And in the end? A watered down crappy bill that probably won’t cover enough people, insurance companies continue to feed at the trough and get richer.
And us? Well, 3 years from now we’ll still be sitting in the ER, waiting in line for a health fair like in CA and here in VA. But by then, there will be 65 million uninsured people instead of 47 million.
Obama continues to think any bill is better than none. And he might be right I don’t know. The politics of this are not going to be better down the road. So I am extremely upset that we can’t get a good bill passed now. It might be our last chance.
i do not believe that no bill is worse than a bad bill. simply don’t believe it. and any bill without a public option isn’t going to be worth shyt.
Mm, well isn’t the most important things, after all, to basically get everybody insured, make it impossible to discriminate on pre-existing conditions, and regulate coverage more so they can’t dump your insurance if you would get sick?
Getting the premiums and costs down is of course way overdue, but if they manage to pass everything else, and people still go bankrupt over the bills, wouldn’t the support soon be there to pass the public option or something else?
so lets wait and do it in increments? And how many more will die because they coulodn’t get to any care?
Yeah, you’re right about that. And I’m no doubt displaying my ignorance as a foreigner with an interest in the wellbeing of your country, and my friends and family in it.
Now, nobody is happier than me with the news of Hamsher’s pledgers and that the game apparently is on as for getting something worthwhile passed with the public option in it, in one way or the other.
Why such fear scuttling the deal? If the liberal wing of the party stands strong and scuttles the deal then they can focus the mind of their weak-kneed comrades. It the best approach for a long-term solution. The next reform proposal will have to include a public option or else face the same fate. A short-term compromise that gives away the store to the insurance companies and Big Pharma only delays real change.
Scuttling a deal and playing hardball the only thing Democrats understand. If Obama and the other conservatives can’t get a bill passed without the liberals then maybe they should join forces with the liberals next time instead of the Blue Dogs and Republicans. Maybe they will let the liberals at the big boys’ table next time instead of writing deals with Baucus, Grassely, Tauzin, and the insurance and pharma industries IN SECRET. This is Obama’s fault. Not liberals. Not the screaming idiots at the town halls. Obama and the conservative Dems for working out a weak bill with the enemy then demanding support from his ‘base’.
Just listen to the fear in the minds of conservative Dems and their enablers . . . telling liberals we have to pass what we can now . . . and selling us on an insulting symbolic vote so dipsticks like Jay Rockefeller can vote for a public option the whole time knowing their vote is safe and Obama’s compromise will eventually pass anyway. They get the best of both worlds: money and real votes for the insurance and pharma industry while pretending to be on the side of liberals so liberals will continue to midlessly support a conservative and right-leaning party (and liberals aren’t suckers for always getting abused?). When Obama supporters guaranteed a public option this year I never thought it would simply be a symbolic vote that didn’t mean anything. Oh well, the big boys need to make insurance reform happen (give money to insurance companies) and the conservative Dems are usually able to take progressives for granted.
If we can do this satisfactorily with budget reconciliation, then I agree with you.
If we want progressive change we have to play hard ball. Scuttle that compromise masquerading as reform!!!!! There’s a reason these weasels in the Dem party are finally trying so hard to get liberals votes–they need liberals to pass their insurance bill. Don’t take the bait. If they really wanted liberals input in the bill they would have included liberals in the negotiating and would have included the MINIMUM that liberals demanded. Instead of working with you now Obama and the ConservoDems are just putting a gun to your head and telling you to support the industry/Blue Dog/Obama bill. The way you change this dynamic is voting NO!
I appreciate your reasoned and well-thought out response, Booman.
Politics is “the art of the possible” – not the way to all that we desire. The sooner progressives learn that EVERYTHING involves compromise, the more quickly we can fight to make better choices to the compromises are as painless as possible.
I do think if we had set the bar much higher to begin with, the “compromise” position might have been the public option. But since we basically started there, our compromise will probably not have that, or will have something so watered down it will be useless.
It’s tragic what lobbyist money and the lack of an independent press have done to our country.
After so much debate about the public option, any bill that passes now by Democrats will in the minds of the voters be “the public option”.
Congress is looking at this vote bassackwards. What would they like to have in 2010?
People who are getting affordable healthcare as a result of prompt implementation of single-payer
People who are getting better private insurance with the security that they won’t be blocked because of pre-existing conditions, won’t have their coverage dropped when they use it, won’t have limits on annual or lifetime claims BUT people are still waiting for exchanges to be set up and the public option to begin
Who knows what Kent Conrad has in mind and when it will kick in
The status quo
Now if you are running for reelection in 2010, which record would you rather run on — even in Alabama, even in Utah, even in Oklahoma?
I’ve been arguing that forever. But, apparently, protecting the health insurance industry in Nebraska and Connecticut is the most important consideration for these people.
I know what conrad has in mind. I also know what nelson has in mind. And I also know what the rest of the “physically conservative democrats” have in mind.
They all want their next big checks from the insurance industry!!!
Don’t give me that crap about who knows…..!
Well, there’s that too.
But what exactly is the co-op system and how does it operate? No one knows, I suspect including Conrad. But if it should pass – whatever it is – would you want to run for reelection in 2010 based on how it was actually affecting people.
Can’t believe how this is being framed: you are either a smart, cold blooded realist or you ain’t. Nice.
The fact is that we’ve waited 60 fucking years for this. 60 fucking years. We’ve heard the dems try to get our votes on the promise that IF they could get a majority, then we could get this done. This is the big prize.
Towards that end, we’ve given to the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, individual candidates. We’ve made phone calls, we’ve knocked on doors, we held our noses and did what we needed to do to get to this moment.
And now we are being screwed by a few senators who think that getting money from the insurance lobby is more important than good legislation and the interests of the PEOPLE.
I can say this with complete confidence: if we don’t get a public option I’m done with ’em. I’ll still go vote for my rep and one good senator, but money or anything beyond? No fucking way.
Now, the ‘realists’ want us to believe that this can be ‘fixed’ later. Uh huh. If it can’t be fixed now, I give the chances of an opportunity to be ‘fixed’ down the line at apx 0.
there ya go!!! what a joke. my only question is: is obama willing to blow his place in history? I can’t believe it but it just might be true.
It’s one thing for Obama et al to try to save face with calling some bullshit a ‘victory’. It’s quite another for liberal/left blogs to provide cover.
On providing cover:
there is a degree of ‘even if you honestly think that, you shouldn’t be saying it.”
I try to err on the side of telling it how I see it rather than pushing for the outcome I prefer. I do both, of course. But I prefer to do honest analysis pieces and keep my advocacy explicit and separate.
And if so, why? I don’t want to be unfair here.
I’ve generally been very measured in my critique of Obama and Democrats in general.
But I find it interesting that within the past week we’ve seen a sudden slew of commentary from LW bloggers basically saying that there never was a chance for a Public Option, with the implication that we should have known that all along. And that if we end up with a shit sandwich, we are still supposed to enjoy it, or at least accept it. Maybe I’m perceiving this wrong, and my apologies if so.
It’s important to remember that the public option is THE COMPROMISE. Obama made a huge mistake in making it clear that he was taking single payer off the table from the start, thus the public option became the default progressive position, when it should be the fallback, compromised position.
Imagine the Republicans handling an issue like this– they would have shot for the moon, and would have ended up with a bill that they could live with. Obama and the Democrats didn’t set their aspirations high enough, and we are going to end up with a watered-down piece of crap bill that is designed to save face politically for the administration. Worse, it will be decades before we can muster up the political momentum for another crack at healthcare reform.
It all depends on what the House does with the Weiner Amendment that substitutes HR 676(single-payer) language for the HR 3200 (public option) bill.
I’m not expecting it to pass (it would require 15 Blue Dog votes), but it does set the frame for the debate on HR 3200.
Screw Nixon, we don’t need to compromise on reform. Why take what we can get when we can take what we want!
…35 years later
You say that “One possibility is to wait until Oct. 15 and pass the health reform as part of the budget reconciliation process that only needs 50 votes.” Sounds like an excellent idea to me!