Do you want a public option? With Update

Remember the trigger? (4.00 / 1)

Last night I was thinking that maybe we should have negotiated more with Snowe on her proposal for a "trigger" for a public option.  I thought it was a bogus idea at the time, set up so that it would never actually get activated, but seeing as we ended up with no public option at all...

I'm in favor of single payer and saw the public option as a weak alternative.  I'd be happy to see it back in the bill, but I don't think there is any chance of any Senate R, including our twins, voting for it.  We don't even have all of the Dems on board.

Apologies for being a pessimist, but this whole episode has left me feeling very discouraged.  I'd join in any lobbying effort, though.

---

by: marisol @ Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 21:40:36 PM CDT

I know what you're saying, but... (4.00 / 2)

...let's be clear that Snowe was given an almost ludicrous amount of time/attention both from Senate Democrats and the White House.

At a certain point, she decided she didn't want to negotiate in good faith, and that was the end of it. Her own intransigence cut off any prospect of a deal.

And, to her discredit, it doesn't seem to have been about substance. Rather, it was a calculated decision to shut off her brain and join the Kill The Bill caucus.

Not exactly a profile in courage, but there it is.

---

by: collinswatch @ Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 22:23:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good points (0.00 / 0)

you're correct, she did get plenty of chances to participate.  Her refusal to even attend the last WH meeting was really petty and another indication that she wasn't looking out for Mainers' interests.  I have very few positive things to say about the modern Republican Party, but they sure do have discipline, don't they?  

---

by: marisol @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 23:06:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Long odds for sure, but the (0.00 / 0)

alternative I see is this:

With no alternative to the for-profit insurers, coupled with a lack of a national rate increase review authority (the Senate Parliamentarian removed it), premiums are going to skyrocket now that denial of payment for previous conditions is banned (the main reason why costs are high here in Maine). Actual health care costs are going to continue to increase faster than inflation, further driving up premiums. Healthy people will quickly realize that it is much less expensive to pay the penalty for not having coverage than having it, diminishing the pool, compounding the problem more. Businesses will have little choice but to drop this perk, adding to the mess.

And all this will be blamed on the Democrats, and by inference, progressives like you and me that wanted a single-payer system from the start, not what was passed.

So it may seem like it's not worth the effort, but there is actually a lot to lose. I understand that the law can be improved as others have been, but will it?

---

by: Gerald Weinand @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:41:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tactics Conundrum (0.00 / 0)

First and foremost, I'm on board to execute steps that lead to single payer.  A true national public option's introduction into the mix could easily expose private health insurance to the type of competition that openly demonstrates that a public government program can provide more cost effective solution than the private waste, fraud, and abuse of insurance companies.  The accusations of the right were correct as far as I was concerned that the public option compromise exists as a step toward single payer; we ought not to apologize for that either.

To that end, the tactical questions are:

Would reconciliation offer a 51 (including Vice-President Biden) vote opportunity in the Senate at present to obtain single payer through amending the house passed reconciliation bill?

Is there a Senator ready to sponsor such an amendment?

Would the House then pass the amended measure?

The answers to all of the above are "I think so".  Of course the danger is that the re-introduction of single payer gums up the political process so completely that the House reconciliation gets changed to an unacceptable degree with all manner of other measures that it ends in defeat and saddles us with the weaker Senate bill only. That would of course mean that a public option or single payer returns to needing a 60 vote filibuster overriding action.  (There has even been speculation that Republicans might call for the reintroduction of a public option as tactical maneuver.)

Right wingers on the radio waves, Fox, blogs, and tea parties are screaming that we are jamming this health care legislation down their throats.  Let me be clear, I'm all for doing that, we won an overwhelming mandate to do this in a national election and ought not to be timid due to some opposing polls engineered by destructive lies and slander from the right.  

Back here in Maine, I'm willing to call and write Senators Snowe and Collins but I think it is only to scold; pleading with them seems obscene.  I do not believe they can be swayed at all.  In my mind, they had their chance.  Thus informing them of what we want and how we feel about legislation is fine but realistically they are now completely captured by the right.  Defeating them at the polls is the only real answer.

I would like to see a news conference this week with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid stating that have made a deal to include a public option sponsored by Senators Schumer, Bennet, or Sanders on behalf of the people they serve, in the House reconciliation bill which also excludes all other amendments.  I'd support that; I'd do what I could to help instigate this proposed action.  But I do not see our Maine Senators, who vastly contributed to the current situation with their tactics of delay, as playing any positive role whatsoever.  Senators Snowe and Collins may hold the fasces of office but they hardly represent us.

Some added perspective on reconciliation amending:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.denverpost.com/comm...

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

---

by: Bruce Bourgoine @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:26:37 AM CDT

Another strategy (4.00 / 1)

is outlined by David Waldman at Daily Kos: using the threat of a public option amendment to thwart Republican attempts to derail the bill. See this diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Under one his scenarios, the bill would get sent back to the House for reconciliation again, so pressure for the PO would need to be placed there, too.

I like the idea, Gerald, and I'm thinking a strong grassroots push for a PO amendment right now could have an impact on the political game in DC, if not actually acheiving the goal yet.  

I've already sent a message to Michaud and will go do the same to Snowe and Collins.  Why not?

---

by: marisol @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 21:27:23 PM CDT