Obama Stands By Need For Public Option In Health Reform
Obama just addressed the significance of Arlen Specter's move into the Democratic party, saying, "I am under no illusion that I'm going to have a rubber stamp Senate. I've got Democrats who disagree with me." And boy is he ever right about that.
Republicans see things differently, though, and to them Obama said, "I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine." He added, though, that he can't accept a definition of bipartisanship that means agreeing with "certain theories of theirs that have been tried for eight years and didn't work."
As an example he suggested that Republicans should work with him on a health care bill, even if they disagree with him philosophically over the need for a public insurance option. That's an interesting case in point. A number of liberal groups have become concerned that the administration isn't as committed to a public plan as they'd like, and this suggests, at least to some extent, that he is.
| TOPICS: Arlen Specter, Barack Obama, Health Care, Republicans, Senate
Josh
Matt
Eric
A good compromise would be to have both an insurance side and a public side. Everyone is entitled to free public health care, but if you want personal care above and beyond what the government offers, feel free to pay extra for the insurance coverage that bests suits your tastes if you can afford it.
I'm in Europe at the moment with an American insurance policy and I'm getting killed financially, paying for regular medical services out of my pocket, filing out forms, filing for reimbursement and waiting for a check, minus the deductible. Whereas Europeans can go to any medical facility or doctors office and get medical care without costing them a single euro.
Health care shouldn't be considered a for-profit venture at the expanse of the public.
April 30, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Beetlejuice, that is a compromise that we can believe in!
April 30, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to tell whether he's saying that he stands behind it, or that it's a bargaining chip he's willing to trade away. I'll cross my fingers and hope for the former. It's really key to eventually developing whatever kludge they come up with this year into real, effective reform.
April 30, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined to think it's the latter. He did not campaign on a public option, and when I heard Zeke, Rahm's brother (a doctor, and health advisor to Obama) talk about what he envisioned, I was not happy. In fact, he talked about doing away with Medicare and Medicaid, rather than expanding them. The idea was that insurance companies would have to cover everyone and the government would give them extra compensation for the old and the sick -- a plan that totally sucks, in my book.
Throw out the waste of insurance, and spend health care dollars on health care. Simple, no?
April 30, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if what was said was that Medicare and Medicaid would all be rolled into one government plan.
April 30, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here it is: http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/archives/audio_files/extended_interview_with_dr_ezekiel_emanuel.php
If that isn't "clickable," go here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/cville_dem/2009/01/forget-single-payer-orthe-obam.php
The idea he was pushing was for everything to go private, with government subsidies as needed.
May 2, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard much noise from the grassroots demanding that Congress include a public option.
I've heard all sorts of groups clamoring for "reform now" in general terms; I've heard lots of grumbling about "why not single payer?", but not much about a public option, specifically.
Perhaps that's because the people who would be most likely to support a public option are the same people (like myself) who prefer single payer?
If that's the case, we may have a problem. If Obama thinks a public option is just a bargaining chip (i.e., expendable), he's more likely to use it.
Seems to me like we need a progressive meta-movement that coalesces around a number of fundamental health care reforms that can't be bargained with, starting with a public option, for example.
April 30, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, single payer and a public program are one and the same. How could one insurance company be chosen to be the payee? If there is single payer it would be non-profit and therefore public.
It wouldn't have to be free, either. If the risks and costs were shared across the board, AND was mandatory, it would be affordable. To those who could NOT afford it, the government could cover them as it does now, with Medicaid.
April 30, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The one sign from Obama that continues to give me hope that the public option will stay on the table is his proposal to offer direct student loans (cutting out the middle guy), which offers some insight into his whole way of thinking about providing every American with the essentials of opportunity that lead to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
On making college loans more affordable, Obama said,
"In a paradox of American life, at the very moment it's never been more important to have a quality higher education, the cost of that kind of education has never been higher. ... Yet, we have a student loan system where we're giving lenders billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies that could be used to make college more affordable for all Americans."
Seems to me the same principle applies to spending taxpayer dollars most wisely in pursuit of the goal of making health care more accessible and more affordable.
I think the idea is that offering both the private and public health care options side by side for a few years would eventually show the public option to be more popular, as well as more efficient & cost-effective than the others. I don't know if anyone has attempted to project how many people would eventually opt in to the public system, but ultimately, assuming a substantial majority of people opt in, eventually it would become more politically feasible to propose doing away with the private, subsidized options altogether (while still allowing for people to purchase private supplemental insurance for "upgrades").
April 30, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink