JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 23, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Liberals who basically support the Obama administration's approach to health care have believed all along that it favors a public option, but isn't willing to sacrifice the whole bill in order to get it. Many left-wing critics have been slamming us as dupes, parroting the empty gestures of an administration in the pocket of the health insurance industry.
Today, Glenn Greenwald, writing in the New York Times, says a-ha!
[T]he plan President Obama unveiled does not include a public option. If he were truly in favor of it, why would he exclude it from his own plan?
That question is especially difficult to answer now that (a) it is widely assumed that the only way health care reform can pass the Senate is through the reconciliation process, which circumvents filibusters and thus requires only 50, rather than 60, votes for passage, and (b) numerous Democrat Senators support a public option through reconciliation.
It now seems obvious that White House’s claim of support for the public option was a pretense used to placate the progressive base (in fact, it seems committed to excluding the public option very likely because it would provide real competition to the health insurance industry and is thus vehemently opposed by the industry and its lobbyists).
The lying Obama administration has been exposed! Or perhaps not. Health care reform is still hanging on for dear life in the House. The dynamic is that the Democrats are going to lose some votes from pro-life members who insist on Bart Stupak's language. They need to make up the votes by persuading Blue Dog and other centrist Democrats who voted no for the original bill to vote yes this time. Many of those centrists said at the time of their original vote that they preferred the Senate bill and opposed the public option. Restoring the public option, aside form sucking up a lot of time by introducing another big fight, would greatly complicate this already-complicated task.
That's why Jay Rockefeller opposes adding the public option to the bill at this point. Rockefeller is the author of the public option. So it seems like the fear that reopening this debate will sink the whole bill really is the reason for the administration's reluctance. Or maybe Rockefeller's in on the pretense, too.
4 comments
I always knew Rockefeller was squishy. Just like that corporate shill Bernie Sanders.
- miceelf
February 23, 2010 at 12:41pm
- Agreeing which public option will be put to a vote is the first step and I don't think we're there. Even though we hear from those inside Congress or the White House (and pundits and journalists) who favor a public option, I haven't seen the specific configuration the Senate will coalesce around. More problematic is what approach would be easier to sell to a public who is even less clear on what they mean when claim they do favor the option. Is it the version in the House bill that would get an up or down vote? I recall that was rejected by the Senate, they only came close to passing an option when it included an expansion of Medicare. (And Lieberman balked) It is easy to take the affirmative position on a public option and not explain which specific proposal one is championing. And that's the major problem with HCR in general, getting from a concept people favor to presenting details they accept. Of the various components, the public option has had more variations than funding, cost or the other fundamental features. More troubling, nothing has divided people (since Clinton) more than the role of the public sector and how large that role will be. Until I see public option means the House version (or a concise outline of an alternative) and that is what would be added and voted upon, the bigger squabble won't be a simple yes or no. It will be far from easy or quick finding consensus on the definition of a public option as it will be legislated.
- michael
February 23, 2010 at 12:50pm
Who knows, who cares if Obama prefers the public option-- or whether he prefers green peas to black beans? He's proven that he's NOT going to act in any significant way on public policy matters involving either . The Neville Chamberlain, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan of his time (and, unfortunately, of ours).
- gdbittner
February 23, 2010 at 2:30pm
I know that you fellas at TNR and he have had your, um... differences, I actually quite like Glenn Greenwald. IMO, he's crushingly erudite, except in instances where he is not. Speaking of which, he and the la la land types at FDL, etc. are embarassingly wrong on this, as per Jonathan's post. Frankly, I don't understand how people so smart as Greenwald and many others in the left wing blogosphere could be so stupid on this issue. Before recently, I had thought such adventures in crankdom to be the sole-provenance of the right wing blogosphere. I was wrong. The question I have for these folks is this: what possible carrot or stick could the insurance industry dangle at this point to cause the Obama administration to piss off one badly needed constituency in this drive to salvage the signature initiative of his Presidency?? After this year, the ability of Democrats to legislate against the obstructionist tactics of what could be a GOP majority in either or both of the houses of Congress is going to be precisely zilch. Why are progressives so willing to believe that Obama's happy to jeopardize his legacy and be forever labeled as ineffectual for what- speaking engagements when he's an ex-President? Really- what then? Is he just too dumb to know what's riding on this? On top of this, the public option the House passed is ridiculously trivial. It's going to cover a smattering of millions, and none who receive employer based care and would not be allowed to piggyback on Medicare rates- this hardly gives it the bargaining power to make any difference. It would also likely end up with relatively high premiums, as more sick found their way onto its rolls according to several analyses, including that of the CBO. Do these people further think that the insurance industry is singularly disturbed by this provision of the House bill, such that they support it otherwise? So to summarize progressives: the insurance industry is omnipotent. The insurance industry loves the senate bill. Hmm... I guess that explains why the Senate Bill is about to breeze onto the President's desk.... er.... It is self-evident that the administration wants a bill passed and isn't terribly particular about the details in question. So long as the bill reforms the worst abuses, significantly augments coverage and has some degree of net cost curve bending, they'll be ecstatic. They will be both ecstatic from a political perspective and ecstatic to have accomplished what they in their mind set out to accomplish against very powerful interests. It is difficult to watch the people whose concerns and interests I largely share do so much harm to the course of action I am confident would do the most to further them.
- I Majorajam
February 23, 2010 at 3:32pm