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.
