Public Option A Test Of Obama's Political Strength

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:26:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Is President Obama a wimp? Or a leader? This weekend the President's team has been pushing the story that the President is working for a public option:

Despite months of outward ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea for a final vote in the coming weeks. [. . .]

The White House initiative, unfolding largely out of public view, follows months in which the president appeared to defer to senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill as they labored to put together gargantuan healthcare bills. It also marks a crucial test of Obama's command of the inside game in Washington in which deals are struck behind closed doors and wavering lawmakers are cajoled and pressured into supporting major legislation.

The question is who is the President pressuring? Triggers and co-ops are not a public option. And thew White House can not possibly think that will fly with progressives. So what is the compromise public option the President will push for? Two options imo: (1) the Schumer level playing field public option; or (2) the Blue State public option. I prefer the Blue State Option. More . . .

IWhy do I prefer a Blue State Option?Because a Blue State Option (the one where states can opt out of the plan) should be a robust public option (Medicare +5) paid for by a surtax on the wealthy and tied to an individual mandate.

Why? Because I believe health care reform should be structured to WORK wherever it is implemented. A "pass anything" mentality is ridiculous. If the program does not work, it will not be worth passing.

Since the Dem Senators from Nebraska, North Dakota and Arkansas do not want health care reform that works for their constituents, they should be allowed to brag about that.

An opt out provision for health care reform (funding for MedicAid expansion (which is NOT health care reform) should not be contingent upon not opting out) is the way to go. That would leave a real health care reform initiative operating in those states that want it. For those that do not, well, they will over time.

Speaking for me only

< Supreme Court Begins New Term | McChrystal's Disrepect For The Chain Of Command >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Public Option A Test Of Obama's Political Strength | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

As long as it's a national (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:11:47 AM EST

public option, not the state-by-state thing, which would be a patchwork disaster, IMHO.

: My position too (none / 0) (#28)
by cawaltz on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 01:22:06 PM EST

Particularly when you look at what a mess Medicaid is as a result of giving the state authority on what it looks like. There are places where you would be hard pressed to find a doctor that accepts Medicaid. Unless it is very specifically written in what these state options would be required to look like and cover I could see another disaster.

It's time to put up or shut up (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:23:50 AM EST

Maybe Krugman sent him an advance copy of his op ed on the political climate that has existed in this country for the last thirty years!.

Obama needs a win. Just look at the field day the right wingers have had over something as trivial as the Olympics.

If Obama flounders on HCR, he may as well pack his bags and head home. The one time media darling will find himself on the outside looking in.

Unfortunately, I think Obama will (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:35:14 AM EST

consider it a win if anything labeled HCR, regardless of the quality, passes.


He won't control the message (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:46:32 AM EST

I don't think the right wing or the media will allow him to declare victory on just any bill. If it turns out to be a weak "Republican Lite" bill, it's going to be a loss for Obama. Democrat's don't seem to have the ability to put lipstick on a pig. (Republican's are masters of the art)!


: Once it is implemented, if it doesn't work, (none / 0) (#23)
by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:06:49 AM EST

the Dems will be held accountable for it. Will it wind up being a loss for Obama in 2012 since implementation is not until 2013? Don't know.
When I see well meaning people and groups lobbying for "Obama's HCR" without any idea what it will actually contain, I have to wonder if they will buy the notion that it is a bad bill even if it is. They have already put themselves on the line for it. Easy enough to discount what the right wing and media says(if MSM goes that route) as just attacks against the president that they supported.

: Actually, Republicans (none / 0) (#27)
by daring grace on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 11:11:37 AM EST

will declare anything the president signs as 'socialism' etc. They're ludicrously depicting him that way now.
So I don't think it's a case of worrying about how the Republicans spin it. He might as well push for a 'robust public option'.
Will he?
(shrug)
There have been so many conflicting messages from the WH on this I've mostly been ignoring them until I see what bill he signs or doesn't. I'm pressuring congress critters, for all the good that does either.

The first, and most obvious, question (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by Anne on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:38:00 AM EST

I have is, how does a president who promised transparency explain one more example of behind-closed-doors deal-making?

The second question is, how successful can a reform effort be when the president arrives late to the effort and whatever arm-twisting and cajoling he does will be more about passing a bill he can sign than about the policy the legislation embodies?

As for the Blue State Option, I'm pretty much opposed to a plan that most likely would add the limitation of geography to a plan that already limits participation on the basis of employment. On top of that, I don't think you can guarantee that plenty of Blue States would not also opt out, and then where would people be? What if, because of the weak way in which reform is being structured in general, such an option does not prove to be the success it was envisioned to be, and it just becomes one more argument against any government involvement in health care - the example of Medicare notwithstanding?

Too many people are succumbing to the push to just pass something, instead of holding fast to elements that will reform the system to the benefit of the people; this is going to lead to passage of legislation that, in reality, proves to neither expand access and affordability, nor sufficiently regulate the industry.

: echoes of the... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:54:42 AM EST

... Copenhagen debacle in some ways. turns up, turns on the charm, gets voted down. I really hate talking about this because the RW have latched onto it like leeches. he's my guy too, but turning up at the last minute is what the 7th cavalry do in he movies, real life isn't like that. legislation isn't either. he thinks he can fix it all with a grin and wink or something.

I think that this is Rahm propaganda (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:55:14 AM EST

aimed at allowing Obama to point the finger at the Senate when he is signing a disasterous bill with mandates and without a public option and trying to call it a "win" for the administration.

Seems to me that they've miscalculated on too many levels to count at this point. Because if this is true and not propaganda, they're doing it because they realize how unpopular their "reform" will be amongst voters (as opposed to the villagers) will be with mandates and no public option. In addition, the White House has gone on the record like desperate little fools proclaiming countless times that "they just need to get 'something' passed" - which means that every Senator with his or her own agenda knows they hold the upper hand.

It really is amazing to me that they haven't been much, much better at the game of negotiating. On the other hand, I get the sense that the White House has really been rudderless in this debate. I don't really think that there was clear concensus on what they thought ought to be in this legislation which basically made it impossible for them to develop and execute an effective strategy for dealing with the Senate members.

Now the Obama Administration is in the position of having to take on Democrats who they allowed to put their ideas out without any private vetting. Senators have big egos. The game is on now, but it is a whole other game that the Obama Administration is likely to lose. The Obama Administration can't just come out and say that Max Baucus is a corrupted old fool as they probably should. They have to allow him to save face and that may well come to him prevailing - and all at the expense of the American Public's needs.

Great...just what the issue needs: (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Anne on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:26:50 AM EST

a finger-pointing president. But I guess the farther away we get from the Bush years, the more he will have to cast about for someone on which to blame his lack of leadership and principle.

Ahhh...politics.

Or maybe we're seeing a "gifted campaigner" running into the same problem he's faced every time he won an election: the reality of having to do actual hard work in order to make things happen. It's not glamorous, it's not sexy, it can't be done in front of huge and adoring crowds; it's b-o-r-i-n-g.

The one thing I disagree with you on is that they know the reform will be unpopular with voters; I think most of them do not understand the issues well enough to know what will and won't be unpopular, and since the implementation isn't slated to begin until 2013, it's far enough away that right now, they just don't care.

Sadly, most of the voters do not understand what may be about to happen, either; could any random person on the street even explain what "the public option" is that is being fought over? Well, no, because "the public option" is still just an idea-within-an-idea, and it changes shape on an almost-daily basis, moving farther and farther away from being what people need it to be. If Obama and our esteemed legislators would just listen to their constituents they might have a very good idea of what the goal for any reform effort should have been: expanding access to affordable CARE and reining in the out-of-control insurance companies.

This isn't a sport, where getting the "W" is all that matters; if it was, I guess Obama would be taking the Eric Mangini role.


: I think it is very, very late, but (none / 0) (#25)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:32:56 AM EST

I believe that the White House is scrambling now because it finally sunk in with them that all those polls about a public option showing better than 70% support for the idea might be one of the most "bipartisan" concensus they've seen in a long time.
I agree that they don't care about the public option per se, but I do think they've finally envisioned how ugly a political picture they could have on their hands for 2010 if Obama signs an unpopular bill into law. Remember that while Rahm doesn't really give a damn about "The People", he does care about maintaining power in the Congress. I think they are looking down the road a bit here and getting worried about the President's agenda being derailed by a 1994-like loss at the polls.

I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by mentaldebris on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:57:39 AM EST

They seem to have wised up to the message leaks. I've noticed the leaks and talking points have virtually stopped in the past few days (not even a Sunday news show PO whisper?), and now you have this gem which strikes me as more of a way to silence the PO advocates since this will likely put many in a wait and see mode. (I'm flashing on the "I got this." Obama picture.)

The trajectory up to now has the administration either directly pushing back against the public option or marginalizing it via talking points which have always resulted in massive pushback. Unless they've done a 180 (the poll results are starting to seep through the bubble?)this strikes me as a strategic message move at a time when public pressure on Congress for the PO should actually be approaching the boiling point.


Not to use Limbaugh's IOC Talking Points... (none / 0) (#1)
by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:35:05 AM EST

... but does Obama have a functioning inside game?

I see no evidence of his parliamentary ability outside of the fix that occurred in the primaries. Looking back that primary looked like pure opportunism spiced cash from God only knows what insurance/media/defense backers.

who authored the Blue State Public option btw? (none / 0) (#2)
by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:36:31 AM EST

did Franken sponsor it or was that a different amendment?

: As I envision it (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:48:16 AM EST

Andy Stern of the SEIU.

Just one small question (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:37:27 AM EST

about your take on a successful plan. All the wealthy of America will be taxed for the public option that States can opt out of?

: strictly speaking ... (none / 0) (#4)
by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:41:20 AM EST

a public option, single payer, etc pays for itself by an comparison private coverage. If the autoworkers Union put their cash into it, and the miners, steelworkers and (maybe not the teamsters, yet.) it would free up masses of capital and those workers would have lower premiums. No one needs to be taxed for a public option if it's done right. It's a savings and a way to deliver better coverage all in one go.

: Yes (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:47:44 AM EST

"Some Version" (none / 0) (#7)
by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:48:22 AM EST

That is the whole crux of the matter.

What type of plan will the Dems put the "public option" label on and will it be constructed in such a way that it will be viable or not?

Will it be a real plan that has the ability to succeed and flourish in the market place or will it be a mechanism devised to only quiet the majority of the country who support a public option?

I think the version I favor (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:49:33 AM EST

will work. And it will work in a way that it will lead to expansion of it nationwide.


: The only thing that bothers me about a Blue State (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by steviez314 on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:04:19 AM EST

public option, is that it already feels like we're living in 2 countries, and that sometimes we're only weeks away from another civil war. The Blue State option feels satisfying, but somehow also wrong.
I also wonder what kind of precedent this sets for the future. What is the potential for a Red State unlimited gun buying option?
Wouldn't there be any constitutional issues involved? It just seems that a national policy would set a much better precedent.

: Maybe (none / 0) (#16)
by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:33:16 AM EST

but since we don't know what "some version" the powers that be will decide will receive the "public option" label, I don't see any benefit of arguing what would be required to make it work.
From my POV, I will continue to lobby my congresscritters for a nationwide public option based on Medicare +5 using the Medicare provider list and less restrictions on who is eligible to participate. I, personally, believe that is the strongest negotiation stand those who want a viable public option can take at the moment.

I do not want it to be a welfare provision... (none / 0) (#9)
by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:50:45 AM EST

...it should be something that people see taken out of the check and returned to them with valuable services like consultations and treatment. The income redistribution should primarily be taken out of blue cross, united etc and given back to patients and doctors.


: Designed correctly, a "public option" (none / 0) (#14)
by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:16:48 AM EST

would not need to be a "welfare provision." The restrictions on who may participate in the exchange and access the public option are what could turn it into the "welfare provision." Size restriction is one of the major problems.
The design of what is labeled a "public option" is the part that has concerned me from the very beginning.
Let's leave out my concern that the current idea is to take something that is not a public option and just slap a public option label on it.
To do this we can examine the "Waxman - Blue Dog" bill that has been passed in the House. This bill has been promoted as a "level playing" field public option. Look at the components and tell me it is a level playing field.
The public option would have to start from scratch and negotiate rates and set up a provider networks. The major insurance companies already have provider networks established across the country and rate structures in place that can easily be tweaked to accommodate the new policies. The government will provide start up costs for the private insurance entities and the public option in the exchange. The private insurance companies do not have to repay the start up costs but the public option must repay them within ten years.

I think the blue state (none / 0) (#10)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:51:59 AM EST

option is more controversial than a nationwide public option. Based on MT's objection above about taxing the wealthy, and Steve M's from last week:

Public option or no public option, you obviously can't have mandates without subsidies for those who can't afford the premiums. Are those subsidies going to be funded by the states who don't participate as well as the states who do? Cause yeah, if everyone is paying anyway, you better believe the non-participating states will want to sign up! This strikes me as an important detail.

You're going to get legislators to vote for this?

: The main breakthrough must be getting a (none / 0) (#11)
by Salo on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:58:26 AM EST

union to purchase some sort of public option. Although it appears the rules as currently written in the bills preclude this possibility.

: Depends on how much is non-optional (none / 0) (#12)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:10:33 AM EST

IOW, if only the public plan part has an opt-out and everything else -- mandates, subsidies, ins. co. regulations, etc. -- is mandatory for all states, then yes, absolutely, you tax every state the same. As I understand it, the reason for the taxes is the subsidies, not the public option itself.
In fact, in a hypothetical state with no public option available, the cost of the subsidies for private insurance to cover everybody will be higher, not lower, than in states who do have the public option.