Chris Cillizza picks the winners and losers from yesterday’s health care summit. Among the losers is the public option:
Public Option: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) were the only ones to mention the issue that dominated the health care debate for months on end last fall — and that was in the context of it being sacrificed as a compromise to Republicans. And, as Fix colleague Alec MacGillis pointed out, Obama was very careful to emphasize that people shopping for coverage on the new health insurance exchanges he is proposing would be choosing only among ‘private plans.'”
Actually, here is the president’s reference to the public option.
When it comes to the exchange, that is a
market-based approach, it’s not a government-run approach. There were criticisms about the public option; that’s when supposedly there was going to be a government takeover of health care, and even after the public option wasn’t available, we still hear the same rhetoric. And it turns out that what we’re now referring to is we have an argument about how much we should regulate the insurance industry.We have a concept of an exchange, which previously has been an idea that was embraced by Republicans before I embraced it, and somehow suddenly it became less of a good idea.
Now, I don’t care for the passive-aggressive way in which the president drops the public option here, but his point is solid. The Republicans pretended to object to the public option because it would represent an expansion of government influence on the health care industry, but what they really object to is the president passing a major piece of legislation, no matter what is in it. I think that that was the lesson Obama wanted to demonstrate to the American people with yesterday’s summit. What he needed to do is make it as plain as possible that there are no possible concessions the Democrats could make to gain bipartisan support. The Republicans are simply objecting to everything and will give the administration zero votes even if he makes more concessions.
From that standpoint, the summit was a success. It allows wavering Democrats to tell their constituents truthfully that all efforts were made to make the bill bipartisan but it proved impossible.
Now, I would take that a step further and pass the bill the president campaigned on (which included a public option) since it’s clear that making compromises didn’t win the support of any Republicans and didn’t make the bill more popular and didn’t wring the most savings out of the system. I would pass the bill that is best from a policy point of view. And I think it would be easier to pass this bill (in the House, at least) with a public option than without one. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I don’t think so. Although I do recognize that we might have a bit of a problem with the parliamentarian if we put a public option in reconciliation, I’m inclined to push a bill that is, you know, popular.
However, I don’t see any signs of a pivot.
I think the Democrats on the hill fear they’d all be swept out of office if they passed a public option. I think the truth is far from that, but the fear is genuine, and that is why we won’t get it.
Let’s face it. The other side got on their phones and made their voices heard. Our side got on the blogs and talked to each other.
I think that’s pretty dismissive of the hard work people have been doing at Organizing for America, Health Care for America Now, MoveOn, and other organizations.
Not to mention all that laborious K-Street bribery.
The results speak for themselves.
I think what the left doesn’t seem to get is that a room full of 50 angry people from their district is more persuasive to a congressperson than a petition with 50000 signatures on it from all over the country.
Something like 1.2 million got on the phones yesterday, according to MoveOn. What makes you think the fear is genuine, unless you mean the fear that they will be swept out of office by corporate money?
I think it’s less about who gets on the phone and more about not being able to count on our side to get out and vote.
Realistically, what I’d really like to see now is the Senate bill/reconciliation package pass immediately. Then in the next year or two, when all of the government take over horror stories don’t come true, have the Democrats craft a Public Option bill designed to pass through reconciliation and push it through. Maybe, we’ll lose control of the House or Senate before then, but I just don’t see the PO happening in this pass.
If there’s any pivot it will show up in at least 51 Senate votes to put the public option to an up-or-down vote in the Senate regardless of what Republicans decide.
Obama really has put it on Harry Reid to do some persuading. And one of the first who needs persuading is Kent Conrad (resisting strongly any characterization here) and Jay Rockefeller. Any idea how the public option polls in ND and WV? Or he has to convince Mitch McConnell to allow an up-or-down vote on the public option, which succeeds to the extent that McConnell thinks he can embarrass the Democrats. My bet is that McConnell understands that the opponents of the public option want to stab it in the backroom not in the sunshine of a well-publicized Senate floor session.
At a minimum, we should revisit the Medicare buy-in.
Totally agree. And what about triggers or opt-ins or strengthening the ability of states to build their own public options or even single payer? Im OK with us winning every battle we can at the federal level and then making it easier for more progressive states to get creative. I’m also OK with the trigger concept assuming the language is written by a progressive so its not a joke.
I’m strongly in favor of this approach. Allow people from 50 or 55 to buy into Medicare. Why make the system more complex by adding a new program that will likely be too small to be successful? Go with the brand name people know and keep it simple.
And if it will help get it passed, I’m make the reimbursement rate +5% for those under 65.
That’s what makes the most sense to me. It would get something real and helpful in place for a lot of people. It would become obvious that it makes sense to keep lowering the buy-in age. And, should the Dems show any good sense, it could be put in place way before 2014 or 2018. If I’m thinking right, it should also make any mandated coverage for the rest pretty cheap.
Yes, the situation is ripe for the Medicare buy-in. It was always a better bet than the “Public Option” which could mean so many things, both good and weak.
My other minimum standard for a reconciliation fix is make as many of the good things in the bill take hold immediately, not 3 years down the road. That is a humanitarian and political disaster as far as I’m concerned.
keeps the ~10 conservative members of our caucus happy for future battles
keeps the “village” from piling on Obama that he’s a partisan idealogue siding with DFH’s. Nothing will stop the GOP from saying it, but the “referees” ie, the village elders and the establishment media such as Wash Post and CNN will basically sit on their hands while the Dems pass it through reconciliation (because Obama dropped the PO and made liberals mad).
Again, don’t hate the player, hate the game.
The Village elders may control the cocktail wienie supply, but the public has caught on to the GOP. And most, including more Republicans than you imagine, don’t like the GOP’s strategy.
The passage of any bill with no Republican votes is really winner. If the public finds things they don’t like in the law, Democrats can pledge to fix them if there are more Democrats elected in November on that mandate. And folks pushing the public option (or single-payer for that matter) need not retreat but keep pushing the issue.
Unless the insurance companies suddenly become as smart as OPEC, they will keep the issue alive for the public.
The predictable Republican campaign strategy will be to demand immediate repeal.
What’s your source re Republicans turning off to this strategy? I’d love to believe that but need some evidence.
My Republican friends, admittedly of the economic conservative somewhat libertarian variety. If it’s happening in my neck of the woods, its’ probably happening elsewhere.
And I believe a recent poll showed about 10%-20% of Republicans thought healthcare should pass even if it isn’t a bipartisan bill.
Shave 10%-20% of base voters and there is some serious election trouble there.
Mine is anectdotal; the survey questions can be interpreted several ways. But ordinary citizens don’t like obstruction by either party. They just have to be clear about who’s doing the obstructing.
Just to speculate: any chance Obama and his people are angry at Reid for pushing the public option and therefore losing Olympia Snowe’s support?
As a result, Reid needed unanimous Democratic support (leading to the Cornhusker Kickback, caving to Lieberman on Medicare buy-in, and still losing the public option,among other ugly compromises) to pass a bill on the Senate floor.
I could easily see that being a factor behind the White House’s stance.
(Other factors might include:
If inclusion of the public option ruins passage of the President’s package, I’m going to be really upset.
Not since Teddy turned down Nixon’s plan have we come so close. Don’t screw it up now.
As you yourself pointed out, Boo, the summit was not the place to push for a public option. I don’t see anything in his statement that says it’s dead. Cillizza’s summary does not mesh with Obama’s statements as far as I can see.
Not sayin’ we’re going to get it, but I do think the dismissal of it is more propaganda than reality. We’ll see. Personally I’m starting to think the community clinics and Medicaid extension might in the long run have better potential as building blocks for a better system anyway. Or, of course, the most sensible of all, Medicare for all.