White House to Abandon Public Option?

[Lord MJ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."

Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option.

Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.

Republicans say a public option would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan.

"We'll have the same number of people uninsured," she said. "If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured."

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said the Democrats' option would force individuals from their private plans to a government-run plan, a claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office supports.

"There is a way to get folks insured without having the government option," he said.

Obama, writing in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.

"In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing."

Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.

"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said.

Sebelius said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill.

"We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table," she said.

Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Johnson and Price spoke with "State of the Union." Hatch was interviewed on "This Week."

If this is true then my support for Obama will only exist because what is on the other side of the aisle is worse. I think I'm about to be sick right now.

[Dark Hellion]

I think I'm about to be sick right now.

I'd avoid this. If your article is fully accurate you probably can't afford it.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I honestly don't know what to say about this except that this pretty much proves that the Democratic Party is congenitally unable to live up to its promises, and that this fight is the most important of Obama's presidency because it's going to set the tone for the rest of it. The Republican Party and their tea-bagger allies are effectively being rewarded, and richly so, for tactics of shameless lies and assaults on civil society. Every time a Democratic Party initiative comes along in the next few years we can probably expect a similar mobilization of corporate-funded astroturf and fabrications. President Obama flubbed this and he's going to face political consequences for it.

I guess at this point the best we can hope for is House progressives scuttling any bill that comes their way without a public option, like Eddie Bernice Johnson was obliquely threatening in that article. If the House refuses to pass a bill without a public option, and they fight like motherfuckers in conference, we might end up with a public option after all. But I really, really doubt it'll happen that way.

[KlavoHunter]

He's giving up already?!?

I thought we were finally starting to make progress against the wall of shrieking ignorance being thrown up with effective ads like this one.

[Dartzap]

I think I'm about to be sick right now.

I'd avoid this. If your article is fully accurate you probably can't afford it.

Well played.


So how will this play out then if the opposition even vote down the idea of the co-operatives? Mandatory insurance from one of the ever-so-benovalant companies? Unless Obama uses legal ninja powers to get the companies to have low cost plans, I suspect the planned bill will be headed the way of the dodo before the recess ends.

[Duckie]

According to at least one story, the House Democrats have told Pelosi they won't vote for a bill without a public option. Ideologically, I presume, but also that they will get murdered in 2010 without this, even in liberal districts. Especially with primaries threatened against those who betray the reform (not by the leadership, amazingly, but by Howard Dean and some activists, because the Democrats are too spineless to whip their congressionals into line).

I wouldn't be too excited (never overattribute capacity to the Democratic party), but at least there are a few people who aren't industry-bought-and-sold scumbags in Congress.

[Junghalli]

I'm really hoping this article is jumping the gun in its conclusions.

What is up with the Democratic Party's complete lack of a spine? Is it just my imagination, or are they acting completely pussy-whipped here? I mean, it seems to me they're in the strongest position they're likely to be in for the forseeable future at this point, and they're still letting the right wing bully them out of any significant reform in the name of "compromise". WTF? What is wrong with these people?

And yeah, given the tactics the Republitards have been using this seems to me to be setting a terrible precedent. "Hey guys, lies and blatant fearmongering really works, keep it up!"

Am I completely misinterpreting the situation? And if not, why are the Democrats seemingly so eager to bend over and let the other side fuck them even when they have all the advantages?

[Mr Bean]

Given the current trend I will now predict the following.

The final bill will have

1. No Public option

2. But it will have "Co-ops" except there will be rules making it impossible for one Co-op to become big enough to be a default public option, IE no crossing state lines, no rewards after x number of members.

3. Contain no price controls or other drug laws to prevent the Drug companies to charge 100$ for a bottle of pills in New York, and 105$ for the same pills in Small Town Kansas, and 28$ in Ontario Canada when the drugs are all made in Mexico at 3$ and sold at 10$ a bottle there.

4.It will contain an insurance mandate or otherwise some hidden provision

5. No repeal of death panels, Insurance companies still able to deny life saving care to quibble about price and not be sued for negligence afterwords.

6. The only positive, people with Pre-existing conditions will no longer be banned from getting insurance, however their premiums will be much higher than average and Co-pays for things that have nothing to do with the Pre-existing condition will be three times higher than average.

[Duckie]

Lack of Spine about covers it. Harry Reid is the least effective Majority Leader in history. Also, Obama's completely braindead. He's pulled the same mistake twice now- he starts at a good compromise (Public Option) rather than a liberal position (Single-Payer). Then the Republicans scream until he makes a conservative position. See: Package, Stimulus.

He also has no fortitude, since he's not pushing his party at all or fighting back against slander. He had this problem even in the campaign, where he didn't fight back against his enemies at all, but his race helped him there and they came out looking bad with their terrorist/muslim/etc. claims. However, once in office, time and time again we've seen he's unwilling to engage the republicans in any significant battles (or even provoke them like with DADT and DOMA).

And in doing so like with the Union thing he's allowed the republicans to every single time frame the debate (Unions: "Abolishing Secret Ballots", Health Care: "Death Panels", Stimulus: "Spending", etc.)

As to why the Senate is spineless, it's because most of them aren't liberal. The Senate by nature overrepresents rural constituencies in the name of "balance" (some arcane line of reasoning determined by the founding fathers says that states deserve equal representation even if a state has 1 person in it and another has 19 million). Rural areas are conservative. As such, 50% of democrats in the Senate area actually "Blue Dogs", a term which means Republican in pig latin. Further, the Senate Leader (Reid) is afraid of fighting the Republicans. He wants to pass a bill but doesn't want to fight a fillibuster because it'd look bad, so he just dilutes every bill until some of the republicans vote for it, thereby taking the worst results of both methods and combining them.

The House actually performs pretty well, it's been passing things quite easily and authoring some pretty good legislation that usually barely eeks

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm curious as to whether they have enough votes to pass it in the Senate if it weren't for the filibuster. They could always try to force the Republicans' hand by making them filibuster it, and then portray them as obstructionists. Certainly there have been some brutal filibusters before, one of them being the filibuster by the southern senators to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which lasted from March 30, 1964, to June 10, 1964.

Of course, can anyone imagine Reid trying to do something like that, or having the capability to hold the Senate Democrats together through a long filibuster?

(some arcane line of reasoning determined by the founding fathers says that states deserve equal representation even if a state has 1 person in it and another has 19 million)

Well, it was a political compromise to get a modified version of the Virginia Plan for Union out of the Convention to be voted on. Not really "fair" or enlightened, but then neither was the "three-fifths" requirement on counting slaves as part of the population.

[Junghalli]

Am I the only one who thinks the article sounds like it's extrapolating kind of wildly from some statements?

[Guardsman Bass]

Am I the only one who thinks the article sounds like it's extrapolating kind of wildly from some statements?

It may very well be. Remember this thread, when Rahm Emanuel supposedly floated the possibility of dropping the public option, then Obama turned around and re-affirmed the need for a public option? It might be something like that again. This might be Obama testing the waters to see how the Democrats will react.

[Duckie]

I'm curious as to whether they have enough votes to pass it in the Senate if it weren't for the filibuster. They could always try to force the Republicans' hand by making them filibuster it, and then portray them as obstructionists. Certainly there have been some brutal filibusters before, one of them being the filibuster by the southern senators to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which lasted from March 30, 1964, to June 10, 1964.

Of course, can anyone imagine Reid trying to do something like that, or having the capability to hold the Senate Democrats together through a long filibuster?

There's easily enough. Every single bill has at least 50+ votes in the Senate save the ones that won't pass anyway. It's usually the last 5 that it comes down to.

However, Reid and the Democrats are afraid to start the fillibuster fighting. I don't know why, perhaps they're afraid the Republicans will frame the debate as Tyrannical Democrats given that nothing can apparantly stop Republcian control of the media from what we've seen. So he compromises. Since the Republicans never change position or compromise, that means he just slashes bills to ribbons until they're completely worthless (see Stimulus, Health Care Reform) and then passes them. Since Obama and the Democratic Leadership never start from a liberal position because they're all conservative clintonites (Obama too, perhaps) and/or bipartisanship-blinded idealistic nitwits (Obama too, perhaps), the Democrats in the Senate have to compromise away to the Republican Position or a facsimilie thereof.

Also that Reid has antitesticles. I would say he has no balls, but that's misogynist because there's plenty of women with no testicles who do fine as leaders. Reid has some kind of antimatter testicles that work in reverse making him a complete spineless douchebag. Possibly he's afraid of doing anything controversial because he's one of the most vulnerable democrats in the country to loss in 2010. Reid could easily call in the heavy artillery on this:

-Threaten Primarying, which would destroy half the Blue Dogs, albeit at the cost of several senate seats and risking loss of the majority.
-Cut off 2010 campaign funding for disobedient senators who do survive their Primaries, which would tank them. This would seriously risk the integrity of the Democratic Senate, but would guarantee ideological purity. Politicians need money for reelection.

Senators would grumble at that, and it would burn political capital like no tomorrow, but he could easily pass several bills just by invoking that, unless it provoked a mass defection of the Blue Dogs (a not insignificant risk). The Republicans basically ran their congress like that, before 2006 when they became so ideologically pure and shrunken that they barely have to threaten since there's only 2 moderate republicans left in the entire nation (down from 3 due to Specter).

[The Original Nex]

I'm not saying this article isn't accurate, but keep in mind that the AP is extremely reactionary and regularly sneaks editorial comments into their articles. The blogosphere is constantly calling out the AP for its "hit pieces" on the Administration.

[D.Turtle]

Of course, can anyone imagine Reid trying to do something like that, or having the capability to hold the Senate Democrats together through a long filibuster?

Question: Has Reid ever required the Republicans to actually go through with their threat and filibuster?
Answer: No.

As for the article: It will still take quite some time before any Health Care Reform is decided upon, I wouldn't be so quick with pronouncing parts of it dead. Of course, continued pressure from the left will be required in order to pass something resembling useful reform.

If however this thing does fail, you can be sure there will be a massive backlash from the left side of the spectrum in the form of primary challenges and the like. In that case, Arlen Specter will just be the start of things.

[Duckie]

Fivethirtyeight

Nate Silver's opinion: Public Option is dead, and it never has had the number of senators to pass the senate** due to insurance company lobbying of Blue Dogs even if the house forced it. If Reid brings it to the table, Republicans will amend it to remove the public option. If the Democrats fillibuster that, then Blue Dogs and Republicans will fillbuster the bill itself. Best thing to hope for is a mildly okay bargain (public option dropped for mandatory employer-provided healthcare and cost controls or similar) and for Obama to fix it in 2012, if the Democrats aren't completely anihiliated in 2010*.


*(which looks more and more like a possibility every single day to me)
**He's counted, and the number of senators on record for and against don't match up without strict lobbying and pressure, and the pressure on the senate is going the other way (especially with many Blue Dogs needing insurance company donations to stay afloat in their home districts, which he measured in a previous article).

[Junghalli]

I'm not saying this article isn't accurate, but keep in mind that the AP is extremely reactionary and regularly sneaks editorial comments into their articles. The blogosphere is constantly calling out the AP for its "hit pieces" on the Administration.

That's interesting. The article does strike me as journalism of very questionable quality. Let's take a look at what's actually there that they're basing their pronouncements on.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."

Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

TL;DR: some people who may or may not have some kind of vested interest in whether or not a public option goes ahead think it won't fly and some people indicate the Democrats may be open to a co-op option. Also President Obama says that a public option isn't completely essential to his plan. This means the public is pretty much certainly DOA.

Honestly, it's pretty depressing if it's true but at this point I'm not about to admit defeat based solely on an article like this.

[Alyeska]

Obama has been letting Congress make this bill through supposed bipartisan work. Obama can completely change the game with one simple action. Veto the bill that comes to his desk. Declare it a failure and tell Congress they can't be trusted because they let politics compromise the bill.

[Duckie]

He'd be commiting political suicide on something this big, potentially. He could get away with almost vetoing the defense bill over the F-35 engines, but the right and the left alike would end up crucifying him in some huge confusing orgy of media blitz. He's got to step in while he can to fix it, not just flip the chessboard over and say 'try again'.

[Alyeska]

He'd be commiting political suicide on something this big, potentially. He could get away with almost vetoing the defense bill over the F-35 engines, but the right and the left alike would end up crucifying him in some huge confusing orgy of media blitz. He's got to step in while he can to fix it, not just flip the chessboard over and say 'try again'.

He could win initial support from the Right for vetoing the bill, but he would also win left support because the bill in its current shape also pisses them off. He isn't vetoing healthcare. He is vetoing a piece of shit bill.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Best thing to hope for is a mildly okay bargain (public option dropped for mandatory employer-provided healthcare and cost controls or similar) and for Obama to fix it in 2012, if the Democrats aren't completely anihiliated in 2010*.

*(which looks more and more like a possibility every single day to me)

I seriously doubt it, because however badly the Democrats are doing the Republicans' numbers are still mostly ugly, and I think their frontal offensive against health care is expending political capital rather than building it. As I said above the White House folding on this issue is going to encourage the GOP to make more use of the tactics they've been using lately, which is good for shouting down Democratic initiatives but bad for building the kind of coalition you need to win elections. It's really a continuation of the same downward trend of alienating independents and moderate Republicans to appease the reactionary base. The Republicans are solidifying the raving wingnut vote, yes, but they represent a minority of the electorate and it alienates independents and drives centrist Republicans out of the party. The electoral strategy of allying with the most reactionary elements worked in 1994 but a lot has changed since then. If the Republicans run in 2010 with the same tactics they're using to defeat health care reform, then they'll be tagged as the party of the senseless mob and get curbstomped again.

Think about President Obama doing a stump speech for some congressional candidate in the Midwest, say, and Republican protesters show up outside with prominently displayed pistols and big signs about how the tree of liberty has to be watered by the blood of tyrants. That GOP candidate's numbers would drop so quick that you could almost hear it.

[Straha]

I'm curious as to whether they have enough votes to pass it in the Senate if it weren't for the filibuster. They could always try to force the Republicans' hand by making them filibuster it, and then portray them as obstructionists. Certainly there have been some brutal filibusters before, one of them being the filibuster by the southern senators to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which lasted from March 30, 1964, to June 10, 1964.

They don't need to worry about the Filibuster. It's only because Reid is a chicken shit that they don't ever god damn fight for bills through Filibuster. And with a 60 vote majority I can tell you exactly how they could have killed the efficacy of the filibuster:

Schedule the debate on the bill for right before the summer recess that Congress is taking now. The threat of a filibuster boils down to "We'll delay this bill so long that you won't be able to pass what you want to pass, when you want it." By making it the last bill before recess and then delaying the recess until the bill is passed Reid and co. would have called the Republican bluff and forced either a floor vote or a filibuster. Then, assuming they can't get cloture (and, if they cracked the god damn whips they might get close), they make a couple campaign ads talking about how the current U.S. system endorses fraudulent spending in the billions totalling perhaps 40% of total government spending on Healthcare, and then run those over and over in filibustering senators' home states. Now the Republicans who do filibuster (not the ones who merely vote 'no') get tarnished as being pro-graft, greed, and fraudulent big government spending and against expanding healthcare to all Americans. It's not enough to get the donors to change their mind, but if it jams their phone banks they might stop the filibuster. Then, after they've scared some Republicans away from filibustering, the Democrats just wait out the yellin' and hollerin' and get the vote they want. End of story.

Of course, the Democrats are too chicken shit to do this for any number of reasons. That and Harry Reid is an incompetent moron who was behind suggesting Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court (true story, and he's gone on record saying she got a rough deal.) Dumbass.

[Dave]

He could win initial support from the Right for vetoing the bill, but he would also win left support because the bill in its current shape also pisses them off. He isn't vetoing healthcare. He is vetoing a piece of shit bill.

The public wants this bill NOW, not after multiple runs through Congress.

[Alyeska]

He could win initial support from the Right for vetoing the bill, but he would also win left support because the bill in its current shape also pisses them off. He isn't vetoing healthcare. He is vetoing a piece of shit bill.

The public wants this bill NOW, not after multiple runs through Congress.

They can get shit now, or they can wait to get something that is a little less shitty.

[SirNitram]

Yet the House Bill remains to have the Public Option, and the Dodd bill will have it. And the Finance Committee can be rolled over.

I don't put too much stock in this story, honestly. The spokesperson who supposedly refused to say said the President wants the Public Option and will fight for it, this morning, on Meet The Press. So scratch that. And Obama's MT townhall was exceptionally well run as for the Public Option.

And had this beautiful moment. After speaking of his plans for it, he hugs Max Baucus in public.

Go on, Baucus, kill this bill.