White House: Public Option Not Essential--A Sliver Of Reform
Over the weekend, the White House enraged health care reformers by dangling the public option over the edge of a cliff.
On CNN's State of the Union, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the public option is "not the essential element" of reform.
And, at a Saturday town hall forum in Grand Junction, CO, President Obama himself said, "[T]he public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."
White House Office of Health Reform Spokeswoman Linda Douglass sought to contain the controversy late Sunday, saying "nothing has changed," and that Obama still believes the public option is the "best way" to lower the cost of health insurance and create competition in the market. But that will come as little solace to liberals, who have watched the White House waver over the issue for weeks.
The administration has been all over the map on the importance of the public option ever since it became the main battleground of the health care reform fight, pitting liberals against skeptics and raising the ire of reform opponents.
Back in July, Obama said health care reform legislation "must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family."
Later, though he issued a caveat: "I think in theory you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition. Obviously, sort of the legal structure of it is less important than practically how can it operate."
House progressives, meanwhile, have vowed to oppose a health care reform bill that doesn't include a public option--an inconvenient reality for the White House, and one which could set the stage for a major show down after the August recess comes to the end.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The House Progressives had better stick to their guns. Time to force the President to sic Rahm on the Blue Dogs for a change.
August 17, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm is the one who placed the BD's in the position they are in now. He told them that nobody would have power over them.
August 17, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn. Another morning parsing of the chicken entrails & tea leaves.
Can anyone keep up with what this reform actually is? Or might be? Between deals with Pharma, public options, coops, mandates, no mandates...
Remember KISS - Keep it Simple, Stupid. Medicare for All.
August 17, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Curiously, I find myself most disturbed not at the jettisoning of the public option -- though I believe very strongly that a public option is the only way to ensure that health care reform really works -- but rather at the administration's incompetent bargaining strategy.
Every step of the way -- from the economic stimulus to health care reform today -- the White House has consistently made three colossal mistakes: 1) Assuming the other side was capable of negotiating in good faith; 2) not maximizing the inherent advantage of having large majorities in Congress and instead seeking "bipartisanship" even though no one outside of the village really gives a shit about it; and 3) assuming a defensive posture, all too willing to make concessions without demanding comparable compromises from the other side.
All three elements came into play here.
I would hate to see health care reform pass without a public option. But if it truly is the only way to get legislation enacted that provides for universal or near-universal coverage and stops insurance company abuses, I'd rather see something passed than not. But I'm not convinced we're at that point yet. And I don't see the administration getting anything in return for this concession -- like iron-clad regulation and enforcement of the insurance industry and higher subsidies to ensure that everyone really can afford health insurance premiums.
This is just very disappointing.
August 17, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you posted except the bipartisan stuff.
Folks on the left keep saying the administration caves for the sake bipartisanship. Where? When? How?
With the exception of the stimulus which REQUIRED 3 Republicans, everything else has passed strictly along partisan lines.
The budget passed with Democrats only.
All 4 healthcare bills have passed strictly with Democratic votes. The Adminstration has been fine with this.
It's Baucus, not the administration, who insists on letting the republicans call the shots.
Please show me one time when the administration didn't move ahead with a proposal or plan because there were no republicans on board.
August 17, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you're saying and largely agree. Yes, when push comes to shove, they'll pass a bill with only Democratic votes. My complaint is that they compromise (sometimes even on the front end by offering initial proposals that are weaker than necessary) in an effort to get GOP votes. In the end, they don't get the votes, but we still wind up with legislative compromises that didn't need to be there in the first place.
August 17, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In the end, they don't get the votes, but we still wind up with legislative compromises that didn't need to be there in the first place."
Yes, that's right. The stimulus bill proved that the other side is negotiating in bad faith.
Here's a helpful reminder:
"NO GOP WILL VOTE FOR HCR, PERIOD".
August 17, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who's letting Baucus letting Republicans calling the shot?
August 17, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baucus is letting Baucus let Republicans call the shots.
Obama can't force Baucus to do anything and, apparently, neither can Harry Reid. The Finace chair does what he wants to do.
Lawrence O'Donnell used to be chief of staff of the senate finance committee. He says that when Mitchell was majority leader, Mitchell was on the finance committee. He often tried to push Moniyhan to do certain things. He was summarily ignored.
August 17, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree, Moose49. The White House has already demonstrated itself utterly incapable of strong negotiation.
All that talk about how Rahmbo and the others would twist arms to get things done was just talk.
August 17, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on #1 and #3. As for #2, the problem here isn't the Republicans. It's the Blue Dog "Dems" who represent otherwise Republican constituencies and are under pressure to take the Republican line here or risk getting voted out of office.
August 17, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, the Blue Dogs are the biggest hurdle. Still, the problem with them is less the constituencies they represent and more the special interests they're raising money from (e.g., Mike Ross and UnitedHealth as per Business Week 8/6/2009).
I think the White House has been too solicitous of them and insufficiently willing to play hardball to keep them in line -- though the fault probably belongs as much or more with Pelosi and especially the incompetent Reid. I don't sense that the White House has made the argument to the Blue Dogs that failure to enact health care reform would lead to a GOP sweep in 2010 in which the Blue Dogs would be the first to go. Nor have they done the kind of savvy numbers crunching that would allow the most vulnerable Blue Dogs to vote no while twisting arms to ensure there are enough votes to pass (as the Republicans under the scumbag DeLay were always able to do).
August 17, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much all members of Congress are getting money from some interest group or another. But I think that is less the issue here than where these Blue Dogs are coming from. Pretty much all the Blue Dogs come from districts and/or states that McCain won last year and that Bush won twice. They only keep their jobs by voting conservatively most of the time (and, to a lesser extent, getting federal money earmarked for their district or state). Ask Tom Daschle and Tom Foley what happens when you're a dem from a republican state and you don't take the Republican side enough.
August 17, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Foley lost because 1994 was a Republican sweep election. (Remember that before that year, he was regularly elected from a conservative district despite having a fairly liberal voting record and then becoming speaker.) The main reason 1994 was a Republican sweep election was because Democrats controlled the White House and Congress and still couldn't pass health care reform, convincing the voters the party was incapable of governing. If the Democrats fail to pass health care reform this year, voters will get the same message. And if 2010 is a Republican sweep year, then the Blue Dogs will be the first to go (just as the few remaining moderate Republicans were largely swept aside in 2006 and 2008). Why the Blue Dogs don't get this is beyond me.
August 17, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree totally.
There's also been almost constant dissonance on what's negotiable or not. It seems like this is the 100th story we've had on the public option being jettisoned because someone in the administration has "misspoke". They can't even get their messaging straight. How could they possibly have walked into this fight this unprepared?
August 17, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, rather shoddy reporting at TPM this morning. Maybe because it's Monday?
The White House has already walked this story back, claiming that Secretary Sebelius misspoke.
There have been 6 stories about the public option over the weekend:
Gibbs Reaffirms WH Support for Public Option
Douglass Reaffirms WH Support for Public Option
Sebelius Says Public Option "Not Essential"
WH Offical says Sebelius Misspoke
Conrad says he won't vote for Public Option
Conrad clarifies, walks back statement
That's 2 positive, 2 negative, and 2 corrections to BOTH negatives.
And yet, what are we treated to this morning? THE SKY IS FALLING FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION!!!!
Come on TPM, you all are better than this.
August 17, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thin you're seriously miscalculating. This White House has developed a pattern of floating this kind of trial balloon, often on a Friday, to see what kind of pushback will develop over the weekend. It is ESSENTIAL for people to keep pushing back against unacceptable proposals each time they do this. They wouldn't be doing ANY "waking back" if there were no pushback.
August 17, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Push back? YES!
See my comment below and following the link there to my Cafe blog.
~OGD~
August 17, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no miscalculation. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a trial ballon. But it's also a trial ballon that got popped, hard and fast.
It's the reporting I take issue with. The story isn't about this being a trial ballon. It also completely ignores the fact that the statement had been corrected already by the WH, claiming she misspoke. There was just as much support for the public option over the weekend (more even, when you count both corrections), and yet the headline today is about how the public option is DOOOOOOOMMMMED!
It should also be noted that if you watch the clip, the framing is that she's talking about how everyone has become fixated on the public option. Given that Sebelius has never been very good at messaging, it's entirely possible that she did just misspeak.
And if it was a trial ballon, the best thing to do is to pop it. And the correction from the WH means that this one got popped. If they weren't getting pressure, they wouldn't have issued a correction.
I'm not saying we shouldn't pressure them when this sort of thing happens. In fact, I see it as an opportunity TO push back and make them correct themselves. But the way this was reported annoyed me. It's been happening more lately here on TPM, and it's just starting to dissapoint me.
August 17, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
gosh, you'd think the SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES would have the most current talkingpoints and wouldn't go on a national program unprepared and unknowing of what's negotiable and what isn't...
that the admin is not fighting tooth and nail for this option is sickening. surely, they must realize that when they fail with this key piece of legislation, the republicans will smell blood and challenge every single piece of legislation that democrats try to introduce.
August 17, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this "shoddy reporting" is becoming the norm. It has been going on at Huffpo for a long long time so much so that I only check in now to see what kind of misleading headlines they have on their website. I started coming to TPM for that reason and now they seem to be doing the same thing.
A friend of mine (without health insurance and many health problems) called me yesterday as soon as he saw the Huffpo headlines saying Public Option Dead and then he called me later in the evening to say he heard the same thing on both CBS and NBC.
I told him until I hear the President say it, I won't believe a word. Now it seems it is all being backtracked. Sebelius may be a smart woman, but she has the pulse of a dead person and she lacks the ability to put any passion into her statements. I saw her at a Town Hall Meeting and she was shamefully unable to articulate a message
August 17, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in the previous thread, imagine if we end up with something like Baucus's mishegoss- alienating both young voters (by mandating that they buy overpriced, crappy insurance) and oldsters (by cutting Medicare reimbursements to pay for the rest of the bill.) Could there be a quicker way for the Democrats to commit political suicide and kill prospects for real reform for a couple more decades?
August 17, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe Baucus cuts medicare reimbursements. NOBODY, NOBODY supports that, especially conservatives like Baucus.
August 17, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch Beck's capitalistic cure to health care. He essentially says to let rich people pay for expensive treatments, while the rest of us wait years for the price to fall. Sure beats a public option.
Here is the clip.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2575
August 17, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell . . .
I wouldn't watch Beck even if I was paid to see him jump off a cliff.
~OGD~
August 17, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. I might watch to see him plop into the muck when he landed!
August 17, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they hadn't said it, they wouldn't have "walk it back". In Sebelius wasn't alone. Snowbama himself minimized the public option.
I'm am so frigg'n tired of lying sacks of shit, AKA politicians.
August 17, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No No No you are misreading this. Repubs are sayings the public option is a government takeover. How do you dispel that? You make it seem like the public option is pretty insignificant. I am talking about the "liver of..." comment. The Sebelius comment was DEFINITELY a trial balloon that got popped......quickly.
August 17, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Not essential" implies that there are equally important components of a potential HCR bill including the public plan. That said, the White House needs a better message control, i don't think the Kathleen Sebelius is the voice for health care reform.
August 17, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not essential in the Senate bill. Gets them past the need for a 60 margin vote. If the House votes for it, then they can put in back in during negotiations and only need a 50 vote margin.
August 17, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. We can't give up without a fight. We can get this passed. The numbers are there.
August 17, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's pretty much the plan.
If you listen to what Sibelius and Obama are saying, it is that the plan must include competition for private insurers and choice for the public. They say how that is accomplished is not as important as the goal itself.
What others, like Jay Rockefeller, have made clear, is that there is no other way of achieving those results other than a public option.
Let a co-op plan be floated, then expose its flaws, and there will be many. Stick to the essential requirements of choice and competition and, voila, the public option becomes the only way forward. All this without fanning the flames of right wing craziness and opposition. It comes down to"Look we tried the co-ops and everything else, and this is the only method that will work."
The public option sets off the fears of a "government takeover" and providers a convenient rallying cry for the right, which wants no reform. Why not appear to be reasonable and not use the words "public option" in the debate, but make sure it is in the bill anyway, since it is the only thing that will accomplish the goals even R's can't attack?
I think that Obama is putting his opponents in a box by getting them to have to agree that competition and choice are essential,(and who can argue against that?), and then demonstrating that the public plan is the best, if not only, way to achieve it.
And, yes, after the conference committee does its work, the bill will only need 50 votes to pass, which will be there.
August 17, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What others, like Jay Rockefeller, have made clear, is that there is no other way of achieving those results other than a public option.
Let a co-op plan be floated, then expose its flaws, and there will be many. Stick to the essential requirements of choice and competition and, voila, the public option becomes the only way forward. All this without fanning the flames of right wing craziness and opposition. It comes down to"Look we tried the co-ops and everything else, and this is the only method that will work.""
This is correct. The PO is really the only way that is going to work and keep costs down. We just dont have the money anymore for the old industry boondoggle way.
August 17, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what else is not essential?
My money.
My support.
Go cheney yourself Obama. You are a stinking coward, nothing more. You are a failure as a president and as a human being. Get out of my face.
August 17, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like it or not . . .
It IS all your Fault . . .
Now get to work and quit your frickin' whining.
;^/
~OGD~
August 17, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drunk already? It's early! Like I always say down Bonnaroo-way, PACE YOURSELF. Drink plenty of water. Use lots of sunscreen. And pace yourself...
August 17, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you are a fucking troll. You are not kidding anyone.
August 17, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be trying not to be boxed in, or a trial balloon or may be bad messaging.
The WaPo blog entry which prompted liberal blogs like HuffPo to pronunce it "dead" was half based on Sebelius and half based on that jackass Conrad. Why trust some Blue Dog prick's self-serving opinion???
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/16/sebelius_signals_embrace_of_co.html?hpid=topnews
Whatever it is, it is not definitive.
Remember, there are several committee bills that include a PO, and these need to be reconciled.
If you get rid of the PO, doesn't the whole thing become more expensive? And these jackass BlueDogs claim to be fiscal conservatives???
Not too late to fight for this.
Don't play into GOP playbook and pre-emptively surrender. It's not over until November. ANYTHING can happen between now and then.
August 17, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal blogs should be more carefully of eagerly trying to preempt and predict news. HuffPo did the 100pt headline yesterday about PO being "dead", and are now having a big headline about "mixed messages".
WaPo started this partly on what Conrad said. Keep that in mind, and in the future, take any selfserving BlueDog comments with a huge grain of salt. They are not your friends.
August 17, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reaction is not to what Conrad said, it's to what Obama himself, and his HHS secretary, said. Just to remind you:
Sure sounds to me like a trial balloon for throwing the public option under the bus. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors.)
August 17, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The reaction is not to what Conrad said, it's to what Obama himself, and his HHS secretary, said."
Wrong. It was both.
Sebelius said it was an important part but not essential. How does that equal "dead"?
But then Conrad said it was dead. And WaPo and HP and others ran with it.
I have no doubt it was a trial balloon. But liberal media shouldn't surrender so easily.
Declaring it "dead" very loudly doesn't help us keep it in the bills during reconcilliation any.;
August 17, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
How pathetic. With 257 Dems in the House and 60 in the Senate, the message of hope is:
"It's not over until November. ANYTHING can happen between now and then."
What a complete mess this has turned out. Obama should just walk away. Hillary could be running the show now, and we all know that she has more balls than him.
August 17, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What a complete mess this has turned out. Obama should just walk away. "
Yeah, because all important progress has come from QUITTING when the going gets tough?
August 17, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Obama should quit to prove he's got balls.
August 17, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of Hillary's balls really helped her get healthcare through in 1994 didn't it?
If you think Hillary or Edwards would even be attempting healthcare in this economy, you're dreaming.
Nobody expected Obama to push ahead with healthcare after the economy tanked. It was a total surprise when he did. He would have been forgiven for not even trying.
August 17, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My disappointment is that Obama is largely governing the way I expected Hillary to -- from more of a defensive posture rather than as a game-changer.
August 17, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another troll heard from!!!
Hillary would never have been elected!! Period!! McCain would be in office todat. No way would the young folks and independents show up at the polls the way they did for Obama
August 17, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks they know what's really going on here is deluding themselves.
If this was Bill Clinton's administration, we'd already have half a dozen unauthorized leakers eagerly explaining the Administration's strategy in minute detail--then all you'd have to figure out is which ones were lying because they'd lost a policy fight and they were trying to relitigate it in the press, and which ones were more or less telling the truth to counter the people who were lying to relitigate their own agenda.
With these guys,we still just don't get that kind of leakage, so we end up doing all this crazed speculating like Kremlinologists used to do. And the hell of it is that sometimes they're doing exactly what they seem to be doing and sometimes they're engaging in some FDResque byzantine machination that we in the blogosphere could understand if we had the inside dope--which we don't--but that are beyond the comprehension of our shallow degenerate political press.
I do think it's kind of interesting that this broke while all those DFH bloggers were congregating in Phillie, but I have no idea what, if anything, that means. It's all just really exhausting.
So this time, I think I'm just going to take a pass on this outrage train--it's just too crowded and sweaty. We'll likely have a better idea what's going on in a few days. That may seem like an eternity to those of us wrapped up in the Internet sixty second news cycle, but some of us can remember stories took as long as a week, or even months, to unfold and develop.
August 17, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we will have a better idea where things stand once it gets through the finance committee and the final bills are starting to be worked out. They can compromise things in that bill then just put them right back in during the final bill. Some say well the finance bill is the final bill but i call BS on that, i don't think conrad or bacus has the ballz to support a filibuster on health care reform because it has a public option. They can vote against it if they want but they better vote to break the filibuster.
August 17, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"They can compromise things in that bill then just put them right back in during the final bill. "
YES YES YES YES YES
It's not over til its over. Currently about 5 bills and most have the PO.
And it can in fact be inserted at any time til it is signed.
August 17, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we have months to go. And it is never over til its over.
Until it is on the President's desk, anything can be added or removed.
August 17, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the biggest weaknesses of people on the left is that we tend to be more thoughtful, more forgiving, and take more of a wait and see approach when we hear the wrong noises coming out of our representatives. In real life, these are good qualities to have. But in politics, it results in a unified and loud message coming from the right and a more disparate and weaker message coming from the left. The result is usually that the right wins.
I'm not saying that we have to immediately start writing all caps letters full of threats about primary challenges or third parties every time we hear something we don't like. But we should certainly register our concern. Even if they're only floating a trial balloon, then we're not really helping by not playing our part and showing what the reaction to that balloon is.
August 17, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you The Commenter!!!
August 17, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As simple as it can be framed . . .
No public option? Mandatory coverage?
GO POUND SAND!
~OGD!
August 17, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would rather see NO reform, on any level, than see us capitulate on the public option.
We've already compromised by not pushing for national healthcare (like Great Britain has) or single payer (such as Canada).
All we're talking about is adding a public option to GUARANTEE affordable access to insurance for all.
The people that don't have coverage today, don't have it for a reason for Christ's sake. Its because they either can't afford it. Or, private insurance won't cover them. Or they've been dropped through no fault of their own.
How are Co-ops going to guarantee them coverage? Its still private. Who would cover them? No one wants to cover them today. Because there is no profit in it. What makes anyone think they will be able to be covered in a Co-op? Even if the Co-Op is non-profit, the private insurance companies are not. Force private insurers to do it? No. This is NOT the Soviet Union.
The public option is there, to insure folks the private sector will not. Its the ONLY safeguard against no coverage for the uninsured.
Again, I'd rather have nothing. Than see us back down on this. Its not a matter of getting a bill or not getting a bill. Its a matter of standing up for what's right. And accepting the consequences (good or bad) for our actions.
If this is not the time, if we don't have the support right now, then its not time. And we have to accept that. But we MUST keep fighting for what we KNOW is right.
In 10 years, when heathcare costs have doubled, and instead of 50 million uninsured, we have 100. Or more. People will be screaming for reform. Regardless of the Party in control. Because insurance will be costing them everything they have to stay covered.
How many people are going to have to die unnecessarily or prematurely in this country, to get this done?
No. We have to keep fighting. That might sound extreme, but its where I'm at.
These people were elected for a reason. We've had two wave elections. We have 257 democrats in the house. And 60 in the Senate. And we have a democratic president. If they can't stand for this, after all we've done for them to get them in power, then I just don't know what to say.
I'm stunned.
August 17, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>In 10 years, when heathcare costs have doubled, and instead of 50 million uninsured, we have 100. Or more. People will be screaming for reform. Regardless of the Party in control. Because insurance will be costing them everything they have to stay covered.>>
That's what they said when they walked away from reform in 1994. How's that working?
The only way we'll get the healthcare we ultimately want is to get SOMETHING now.
August 17, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, not if the "something" is actually WORSE than nothing. And an individual mandate without any effective mechanism for holding down premiums qualifies.
August 17, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Over the weekend, the White House enraged health care reformers by dangling the public option over the edge of a cliff."
No, it wasn't the White House, it was the media who declared the public option dead. They claimed that the White House has abandoned the public option and most of you fell for it for the 100th time. And for the 100th time, the White House has to clarify it's position because they left out a word or didn't mention public option at all. Some of you are so bent on believing that Obama is a complete failure and a liar that you don't even question what you are reading and the source of the information. It's all true as long as it confirms what you already believe.
August 17, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, this is total BS. READ the quotes from Obama and Sebelius in the original post. This is not about "omitted words". This was a very obvious trial balloon to gauge the reaction to dropping the public option. I mean, how many fucking ways can you read the phrase "not an essential element"? That's crystal-clear.
August 17, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is BS.
Half of the media tealeave reading was based on what Conrad said, declaring it "dead".
Are you really that gullible? A blue dog says its dead, so it must be true???
Sebelius didn't say it was dead, so I'm not sure how you make that leap, other than fantasy.
If I say I'm tired of my job, does that a resignation letter?
The "dead" part comes from Conrad. That's a fact.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/16/sebelius_signals_embrace_of_co.html?hpid=topnews
August 17, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, telling your employer that you no longer care whether you have your job is a pretty good way to lose it. Feel free to go ahead and try it if you don't believe me.
August 17, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not if you company values your work. If you're good enough, they might even reject a resignation letter.
Point is, all you have is hints and "signals".
The fact is that the PO is NOT dead yet, the Pres still is talking about it and pushing for it, and it still exists in several of the bills, and can reemrge in a compromise bill during reconciliation. These are facts, my friend, that you cannot dismiss.
And I think the correct response to this trial balloon is to PUSH BACK and not fall into the trap of pessimism and fatalism of quitting and backing down. My beef with some liberal bloggers is the seeming eagerness to trumpet doom , which in my book only helps our enemies.
August 17, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much sound and fury over a public option without defining what it means. And a public option that individuals can't choose, only employers choose. Until and unless there is individual choice it's going to look like a GOP talking point, "govt. health care forced on the public." And that means delinkng health care and employment. Only Wyden is ready to do that.
The Exchange for now is the essential element of the plan.
August 17, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong... public option means a medicare style program. If you don't want it... keep your crappy rip off HMO.
Ask retired people about medicare. They go to most doctors and hospitals and most loath the private insurance offers to replace their medicare... I have a number of retired relatives... I asked them all. It's not perfect but everyone of them said it was better than the HMO they had before they retired.
Try and take medicare away from the retired... you would have to pry it from their cold, dead hands...
August 17, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is politics. No one is misspeaking. President Obama has been hedging his language on this for a while. Sebelius went from "I support a robust public option" to "a public option is not the essential element of reform".
Maybe for her, it's not essential.
But for me, it is.
No "co-op" is going to have the size and influence to compete with the health insurance crime syndicate .
August 17, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Kent Conrad would be open to weaning farmers from the Federal teat by giving them access to "non-profit coops" in place of government subsidies. Right, Kent?
August 17, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That kind of depends on how they set it up, doesn't it? If you have a nationwide co-op, or a small number of multi-state co-ops, that collected premiums and insured losses in competition with private insurers, it would have the size and influence you're talking about, now, wouldn't it?
Set up fifty or a hundred, or a thousand, and you're basically just setting up the health-insurance equivilent of credit unions. The insurers will hate them and foam at the mouth and lobby against them, like banks do about credit unions, but they'll just be minor nuisances that won't really affect the products the insurers offer or their pricing. Like credit unions.
August 17, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."
- Well, true, just like the hinge is just a tiny sliver of a door. But without the hinge, all you've really got is a big plank of wood likely to fall on your head.
without the public option to contain premiums, all you have is a mandate that gives insurers 50 million new clients to screw, all you have is anti-discrimination rules that provide an excuse to increase premiums, all you have are subsidies for low-income households lining insurers' pockets.
Glad to see house dems ready to vote against this bill. Sad to see the administration betray the country...
August 17, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your talking point on public option that I think even wingnuts and their MSM friends will get (via Nate Silver):
"The CBO estimates that the public option would save about $150 billion over the next ten years -- that's roughly $1,100 for every taxpayer. I'm certainly not thrilled to have to pay an additional $1,100 in taxes because some Blue Dog Democrats want to placate their friends in the insurance industry."
It's as simple as this:
The public option will save each taxpayer $1100.
Strip it out, and pay $1100 more.
Keep it in, save that thousand bucks.
Sound like a good deal?
August 17, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."
- Well, true, just like the hinge is just a tiny sliver of a door. But without the hinge, all you've really got is a big plank of wood likely to fall on your head.
without the public option to contain premiums, all you have is a mandate that gives insurers 50 million new clients to screw, all you have is anti-discrimination rules that provide an excuse to increase premiums, all you have are subsidies for low-income households lining insurers' pockets.
Glad to see house dems ready to vote against this bill. Sad to see the administration betray the country...
August 17, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have volunteered for President Obama's campaign and have made over 2,000 phone calls over a 2 month period. I, like many progressives, doctors, nurses, etc., strongly believe a single payer system to be the easiest, most effective way to deal with the health care crisis.
With the understanding that we live in a world of compromise, progressive have settle on the compromised position of a public option in order to accommodate the interests of the much too powerful insurance industry and its representatives in Congress, the Republican party.
The elimination of the public option would be an unacceptable capitulation to the will of the minority (70% of Americans have consistently supported single payer over many years) and for this reason, it will not be something that I, and many other progressives would support.
The President, and the Democratic party should better pay attention to the following: any health care bill that shall pass without a strong public option will simply be seen by progressives like myself as a mandate to deliver more customers to private health insurance companies; and if that is what comes to pass you will have lost my support for the foreseeable future.
If the Democratic party capitulates to the pressures of big business and deny the people the choice of a strong public option, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the party as the representative of working people. I, for one, will actively begin working to build a truly progressive party to the left of the apparently centrist, corporate driven Democratic party.
August 17, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we start comparing him to Hoover yet?
August 17, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually we can compare Obama to Gorbachev...
Now you all hold your tongues. I am not calling Obama a socialist...
He is clearly a crony fixed market capitalist since Harvard has always been the biatches of Wall Street and Obama is clearly into corporate owned governance...
Dmity Orlov has an excellent comparative theory...
The US is currently in a similar collapse mode to the Soveit Union.
Reagan ushered in the Brezhnev era of "kleptocracy" where insider looting and corruption increased exponentially to the point where the entire system, economically, politically became dysfuntional.
In the US it ran 1980 to 2008.
Then appeared the savior... for them Gorbachev for the US Obama.
The Gorbachev period was defined by massive oligarchy looting of all the public goods. It accelerated to where the criminality was right out in plain sight.
That is exactly where the US is today.
Bank criminality. Wall Street's massive looting of Treasury and Fed and the tax payer is getting handed every toxic asset Wall Street, the Fed and Treasury can stick into Fannie, Freddie and the Fed balance sheet so the tax payer can eat it...
Along with your unemployment and foreclosure...
The looting and criminality of the oligarchy and Wall Street are right out in the open now. Everything the public owns is being stripped away and we are being saddled with the debt.
We are fast becoming the peasant serfs of Russia...
Now that's change you can believe in...
August 17, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corporate Shill Obama strikes again!
1. Wall Street fraud?
No reform or criminal prosecutions, just more massive bailouts to the criminals...
Now let's move on...
2. Foreign wars for no other reason than corporate profit?
Massive escalation for more profit...
Now let's move on...
3. Health Care Reform?
Turn it into a massive de facto bailout/welfare program for health insurance corporations and the pharmaceutical industry...
And... let's move on.
Add in a couple of lauded speeches, rape the American tax payer some more for your hedge fund buddies, tell the people how hugely things have improved for them...
Rinse and repeat.
August 17, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I, for one, will actively begin working to build a truly progressive party to the left of the apparently centrist, corporate driven Democratic party."
While noble, that will truly hand power to the far right-wingers. And yes there is still a huge difference between the main parties. Just look at Supreme Court Justice nominees for starters. Women's right would be destroyed. As would many existing environmental protections.
August 17, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This fear mongering tactic no longer works. The Republican party is in shambles and what's emerging is a one party state controlled by corporate Democrats with an extremist Republican party on the right.
The American people need a true progressive alternative. Now is the time for true progressives such as Dennis Kucinich to split from the Democratic party and create a viable alternative.
August 17, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I am a tired about hearing about "the death of the public option".
The deathers are getting loads of coverage by the mainstream media, so it is hard for rational voices to be heard. That is just reality. If you want real reform, you have to fight for it.
This morning I took the time to email and call the White House, my Democratic senators, and the DCCC and DSC as well as a couple of quick emails to Max Baucus and Kent Conrad to call them out on their bullshit. We need to keep the pressure up. I have no patience for people that throw their hands up in defeat every time the going gets rough. If you feel strongly about this, make a few phone calls, send a few emails, write some letters to the editor, and attend town hall meetings whenever possible. Winning an election is only the beginning. We are all responsible for getting the health care reform that is needed.
August 17, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think those of us expressing unhappiness haven't also been doing that? Just yesterday, for example, I posted a message in the White House site strongly urging the President to stand firm on the pubic option and pointing out the policy and political costs of failing to do so. As to Congress, I only have one Dem Senator (Sherrod Brown) whom I have messaged in the past; he's firmly on board with us. "My" Thugs- Voinovich and LaTourette's Disease- are obviously hopeless.
August 17, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what Obama was getting at. He was trying to point out that everybody focuses on the public option bringing down insurance prices when in fact it's only a sliver of the bill that works to do that.
The new regs that will force real competition in the health insurance market: the exchange (as opposed to the government protected monopoly racket we have in most states now) and the lower insurance company costs that'll come about from making their most egregious practices illegal, will necessitate they cut out of whole lot of actuaries who deny care and an army of file fudging nitpicking clerks who make patients' and doctors' lives miserable.
Plus paying for best practices for best medical outcomes on the provider side instead of fee for service will result in lower costs for insurance companies too.
It changes health insurance from a racket which is a cancer on American society and industry into what it is supposed to be, a true free market checked by protections for the consumer, the tax payer and business. Insurance companies will see their cost of doing business go down, they'll have access to 50 million new customers, so they'll be able to make money in competition with the public plan if they don't invest all our premiums in stupid stuff like mortgage backed securities full of Alt ARMs.
That's why the CBO says by 2019 only 4% of Americans will be covered by the public plan and 96% will be covered by for profit insurance companies.
August 17, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And how has the credit card industry worked out for you?
August 17, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the credit card industry have to do with health care? Try staying on topic. Do you think our government can do nothing right? Do you think we can't rein in the insurance companies?
August 17, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has to do with the fact that corporations can always find loopholes to circumvent legislation.
Health care should be a public service, not a for profit business.
August 17, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is without the regulations that outlaw the worst practices of the health insurance companies and the measures that cut costs for everybody including them, a public option is worthless. Those other reforms are the most important part of the bill. That's what Obama was saying. You can stamp your feet and throw in the towel, withhold your support, and point fingers, because you don't understand that. Just because you read a misleading headline at TPM or a badly written AP story, doesn't make it true. BTW giving up is exactly what Republicans and the insurance companies would like you to do. You can stand up and can demand the whole package, or just as the going gets tough cave in and become one of the kewl kids who say we lost when the fight isn't half over.
August 17, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The White House message machine has been utter failure. Its like amateur hour. You have the president, the HHS and the press secretary all saying something totally different.
August 17, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama et. al. are crashing in the polls NOT because of the right--who he never had--but because of us, lefties who worked, gave and believed only to find Obama doesn't have the Chicago elbows of Richard Daley. Midterms. Count me out--what is the point of voting and then having those voted in not follow through?
August 17, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop believing everything you read. These are the same people who told us he was losing in November.
You have to learn to believe little of what you see and nothing of what you read these days
August 17, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anybody else besides me confused by all this flip flopping Obama and the administration is doing in regards to public option? Perhpas the reason the GOP are winning the message war is because they have a consistent message, whereas the Dems keep changing their tune?
I honestly thought Obama would be better than this, based on how he ran his campaign. or maybe it is to cause the GOP to have a false sense of security?
Whatever the game plan, I wish he would give us a clue.
August 17, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Hartmann has posted his letter to the President and has asked everyone to copy it and send it to the President under their email address and to ask all their friends to do the same:
Dear President Obama,
I understand you're thinking of dumping your "public option" because of all the demagoguery by Sarah Palin and Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich and their crowd on right-wing radio and Fox. Fine. Good idea, in fact.
Instead, let's make it simple. Please let us buy into Medicare.
It would be so easy. You don't have to reinvent the wheel with this so-called "public option" that's a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won't - just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy you're so comfortable with.
Just pass a simple bill - it could probably be just a few lines, like when Medicare was expanded to include disabled people - that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.
So it's revenue neutral!
To make it available to people of low income, raise the rates slightly for all currently non-eligible people (like me - under 65) to cover the cost of below-200%-of-poverty people. Revenue neutral again.
Most of us will do damn near anything to get out from under the thumbs of the multi-millionaire CEOs who are running our current insurance programs. Sign me up!
This lets you blow up all the rumors about death panels and grandma and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. Those who scorn it can go with Blue Cross. Those who like it can buy into it. Simplicity itself.
Of course, we'd like a few fixes, like letting Medicare negotiate drug prices and filling some of the holes Republicans and AARP and the big insurance lobbyists have drilled into Medicare so people have to buy "supplemental" insurance, but that can wait for the second round. Let's get this done first.
Simple stuff. Medicare for anybody who wants it. Private health insurance for those who don't. Easy message. Even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can understand it. Sarah Palin can buy into it, or ignore it. No death panels, no granny plugs, nothing. Just a few sentences.
Replace the "you must be disabled or 65" with "here's what it'll cost if you want to buy in, and here's the sliding scale of subsidies we'll give you if you're poor, paid for by everybody else who's buying in." (You could roll back the Reagan tax cuts and make it all free, but that's another rant.)
We elected you because we expected you to have the courage of your convictions. Here's how. Not the "single payer Medicare for all" that many of us would prefer, but a simple, "Medicare for anybody who wants to buy in."
August 17, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink