Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Isn't the Public Option an Option?
On Monday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) announced that although he strongly supports the so-called public option, he wouldn't vote to add it to the health care bill by way of the reconciliation process. Many senators say that passing the public option by way of reconciliation—a procedure which bypasses the threat of a filibuster so that the Senate can pass the bill with a simple majority—would come across as being too partisan. Now White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says there aren't enough votes to include a public option, even using reconciliation.
The reason to include a provision for a government-run health care plan is simple. As Glenn Greenwald says, if you're going to force people to buy health insurance, you should probably give them an alternative to the private plans they don't use as it is. Allowing people to buy into a government-run health care program ensures that everyone has access to a minimally-acceptable standard plan. Giving people the option to use a public plan would hardly amount to a government takeover of the health care system. If people didn't like the plan, they wouldn't have to use it.
For all the angry rhetoric about socialized medicine, the public option is actually quite popular. Reuters found in December that almost 60% of Americans—including almost 60% of independent voters—would like a public option provision in the final health care bill. It even appearslist of 51 senators who seem to have expressed support for a public option. And 24 Democratic senators—including six committee chairs—have signed a letter asking that the public option to brought to a vote under reconciliation rules, saying it could reduce health care costs by billions of dollars. to be popular—more popular than the health care bill itself—in the states of key senators who are on the fence. Liberal activist site FireDogLake compiled a
Although reconciliation smacks of back-room dealings, it's hardly undemocratic. By bypassing the filibuster—which actually has no basis in the Constitution, but is itself simply a customary procedural rule—it would put the public option to be put to a simple majority vote, rather than allowing a minority of senators to prevent it from passing. The argument against reconciliation is, in essence, that it would be inappropriate to pass major legislation without getting the Republicans to buy in. But the Republicans have made it clear that they intend to block whatever plan the Democrats propose anyway. And using the reconciliation process to pass a major piece of legislation is hardly unprecedented. As Timothy Noah points out, reconciliation was used to pass welfare reform, COBRA, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. And, as Ezra Klein says, it's been used more by Republicans than by Democrats. "It's done almost every Congress," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says, "and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else."
Even so there may not be 50 votes in the Senate for the public option. Many senators are reluctant to use the reconciliation process to pass something as polarizing as the public option. And there may never have been 51 votes for the public option in any case. As Glenn Greenwald says, many Democrats were, like Jay Rockefeller, happy to express support for the public option in theory when they believed it would never come to a vote. But that doesn't mean that when it comes down to it that they are willing to give it their vote. An August whip count found only 43 firm votes for the public option, and one of those was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). The White House might be able to drum up the rest of the necessary votes. But it's not all that clear President Obama was ever all that serious about the public option. And, as Nate Silver argues, President Obama may be right to feel that the appearance of bipartisanship—even if there is no chance of winning any Republican votes—is more important than the public option. But if, as Ezra Klein says, the key to holding on to Congress is mobilizing the Democratic base, then passing the public option "may be the party's last, best hope to give its passionate supporters the win that would reinvigorate them for 2010."
77 Comments so far
Show AllWell, who's for voting in a Nader or Kucinich now? Had enough yet?
I think people blogging on this site have had enough and will vote for a third party next time, including the likes of Norm Solomon.
But, the general public is not engaged. I believe fully 35% will fall for the same old campaign tricks and vote the way their "daddy did." Many others will say "what's the use," and stay home, given the election to the hard core who can get out the vote.
So not much will change this mid term election is my prediction. And Obamageddon will be re-elected in 2012.
By the way, does anyone think Obama was not a groomed shill of the ruling elite? Where did he come from, all of a sudden? What other shills are in line?
DCH, i agree about the 'shill' that obama is. Someone recently called him a 'trojan horse'.
I thought it was apparant from the campaign. I don't think he is that intelligent. I mean it. I never understood why everyone thought he was/is so brilliant. He is terrified of any sort of change.
The powers that be actually preferred him to Mccain. I think he was a completely controllable hack. This was my take on it. He reminds me of a manchurian candidate. And the word 'candidate' is key here.
That is literally what he is. Not a professional politician, but a professional candidate. A new low in the post-post modern world.
No one i truly respected was on his bandwagon. I found it quite a pathetic and demoralizing moment in our history when everyone was patting themselves on the back for voing for a biracial male. It felt like a Coke commercial. It *was* a Coke commercial. Remember....That Disneyesque Christmas time ad?
"I'd like to teach the world to sing...........I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company".....It's the real thing...."
Please, not 2012 too. Please...no......
I'd had enough LAST time and wrote in Dennis. Too bad more people weren't born with "bull shit detectors".
No they haven't.
If an election were held next Tuesday, 99% of voters in this country would support only Democrats or Republicans. In fact, most would only vote for incumbents - even the ones they hate.
Here is mathematical proof that the public isn't fully represented in the Senate: 60% of the public wants a public option included in the final bill; less than 50% of Senators would vote for it. There is at least a 10% disparity. The public is also handicapped by the fact that ignorance abounds. If the truth were more widely disseminated by MSM, more of the public would be for the option thereby showing an even greater disparity between the electorate and the elected officials.
The audacity of Helping Oligarchs Pilfer Everything.
Hamster,
Good one!
I'll quote you!
The public option is liberal nonsense! The most effective, humane and cost efficient system is a single-payer system as they have in most western countries. The public option is a joke.
I agree, Thalidomide.
Single payer is the best way to go. The Public Option sounds like a slippery slope to me, if one gets the drift.
Here's a great point-by-point comparison of single-payer and public option.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf
Sixty percent of American who favor a public option do not fear some aspects of "socialism". The corporate capitalists are scared to death of a shift in American social consciousness. They are holding their fingers in the dike to prevent the slightest shift to socialism, even to the detriment of the common good. The powers that be, corporate interests, Wall Street and the ruling wealthy elite are insistent upon ramming the greed of capitalism down the throats of the American people. In spite of it all, that sixty percent for the public option tells me that America is waking up.
"The corporate capitalists are scared to death of a shift in American social consciousness."
You've hit the nail precisely on the head. It's not just the insurance and pharmaceutical industries who are worried about a "socialized" system for handling health care funds without private skimming. The much broader concern is that ANY such move in the direction of a so-called "mixed economy" could expose the ENTIRE phony system of "negative value capitalism" to the extreme danger of recognition for what it really is.
If the masses ever began to realise that their "capitalist" system of "free enterprise" economics is as perverted as their "democratic" system of "republican" governance, who knows where it could lead. The exploding myths could have all kinds of nasty repercussions.
Yes, RV. The oligarchs 'saw' all kinds of "nasty repercussions" arising from "exploding myths" in the 60s. The result was the ascent of the Neo-Cons based on the theories of Strauss using Bernaysian 'public relations' techniques.
Now, some fifty years later, everyone has jumped aboard the "America-is-best-"they"-hate-us-for-our-freedom(s)-as-long-as-"we"-keep-consuming-and-making-weapons" gravy train as it chugs over the "fractional reserve-AGW" cliff.
RV
Single Payer is not "socialized medecine" which you know, but it scares them because its quite simple and the darn thing works fairly well for everyone.
Whats your suggested alternative to the "capitalist" system?
Agreed. That's why I put "socialized" in quotes. In fact it's not about medicine either. It's about money collection, handling and dispersement with no medical benefit whatever. In fact, just the opposite where treatments are denied to increase private profits.
I'm not against capitalism per se if it actually fulfills the theoretical benefits of a truly competitive, value added, free market system that rewards individual initiative. But that requires regulatory oversight and, in some cases, where the profits are actually being derived from value negative money skimming, the only logical replacement is a non-profit alternative. That's usually called a "mixed economy" approach and seems to work reasonably well in most countries.
"As Glenn Greenwald says, many Democrats were, like Jay Rockefeller, happy to express support for the public option in theory when they believed it would never come to a vote. But that doesn't mean that when it comes down to it that they are willing to give it their vote."
Yes, and I'm happy to express support for Democratic candidates this November in theory. But that doesn't mean I'm actually willing to give any of them my vote when it comes down to it.
Bipartisanship = Collusion
It's what keeps that whorehouse in business.
Snoop,
That's what I'm thinking too.
Obombus bombs again.
AD
"The argument against reconciliation is, in essence, that it would be inappropriate to pass major legislation without getting the Republicans to buy in."
Seems reasonable. When the republicans had control of the government a few years ago, they went out of their way to get input and approval from the democrats.
Somehow I doubt that the "buy in" they're actually concerned about is the other half of the Republicrat Party, but it ain't easy pretending that you just can't do what you really, really, honestly would like to do if you could.
WTF is Neuville, mini-think? The appearance of #@*&% "bipartisanship" is worth the PROMISED SINGLE-PAYER Saving of Actual AMERICAN LIVES?! That's not COMMUNITY; it's Despicable DEPRAVITY! And Obamanible, at that!!
There will be no serious reform, there is no will to get it done. This last push for a public option is just a show to win back some left leaning liberals and have them continue to chase the carrot. The liberal Senators will sign on to a public option so they can use that as evidence that the Democratic Party is not completely co-opted by corporations. They need the story line that,"We tried but we just did not have the votes." At the same time the corporate wing will oppose reform, and get re-elected. The machine works beautifully, designed to limit the rabbles influence.
The problem is not too much partisanship, but not enough. If the Democrats were as partisan as Republicans we would have single payer. Obama stop being a stalker! The Republican do not want to hang out with you. You are starting to look like a High School kid who just got dumped by his first love and won't let it go. "How can we make it work? What can I do to change? It can not end like this. Bi-partisanship is what is meant to be. PLeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!" It getting pathetic.
I don't believe Obomba is doing this dance to please the Repugs, he's doing it for his coffers.
The Repugs are probably in on the whole charade playing along with Obomba.
I wonder if Obama pays Republicans to call him a "socialist?"
LOL!
Without medicare for all or even a public option, without a real jobs program that gets people back to work, without suspension of home foreclosures what is to bring us to the polls?
"As Glenn Greenwald says, many Democrats were, like Jay Rockefeller, happy to express support for the public option in theory when they believed it would never come to a vote."
At least no one on this thread has commented yet that we need to elect MORE Democrats. We could have 100 Democratic Senators and the whole House of Representatives, too, and we'd still be on the outside looking in while our government sells us out to the corporate interests time and time again.
Heheh. You could try Daily Kos. :)
Exactly, but we have to take the next step. Such as, this year running a strong write-in campaign in each and every Congressional district as an independent who supports a single-payer bill. That level of organization will provide a base to go to the next step, running on the ballot in 2012. Are you willing to be considered for a write-in candidate in your district?
F*ck all Democrats.
I'm glad to be done with those hags!
Jay Rockefeller was caught with his pants down and his corporatist butt showing. Of course not all of them are such obvious corporatists, as the corporate elites know they do not have to buy every single Congressperson, just enough to get the job done. That is why we still have Kucinich and a few others who are not so deep in the pockets of the corporatocracy. Buying every one would not only be a waste of money, but would make it easier for the masses to understand what a charade it all is.
The public is not an 'option'.
...but Americans have no problem with being forced to take (not choose) a PRIVATE shit option.
I swear, Americans are the dumbest things on this planet. Twenty years of The Simpsons has established the baseline for the average Joe's brain power. I know it sounds smug but I have to say it again. SO GLAD I LEFT THE USA!
So how do you like that Harper guy? He just might take away from you everything you moved to Canada for.
I gladly donate to the campaigns of people like Kucinich, Nader, Sanders - as well as those on the Green Party ticket. But I think we're basically conceding defeat if we place all of our eggs in that electoral basket.
I think many here would agree with the conclusion that the electoral system is designed to restrain Progressive reform/revolution. That system has only become more effective, perhaps even reaching new heights with the election of Obama. Incredible mass discontent was channeled right into support for his campaign, which has an indisputably corporate-friendly agenda.
Electorally, I wonder if a mass boycott wouldn't send a stronger message than a third-party vote.
But, that aside, we need to keep in mind that the electoral system is simply not useful for achieving meaningful change. As Chomsky/Zinn/etc. point out repeatedly, that change comes from social movements - from the bottom-up. Let's not dissipate too much energy worrying about what happens in November.
In the meantime, it doesn't hurt to throw out as many incumbents, including the President, so as to send a message. It may turn out to be an alternating bought Democrat, bought Republican pendulum swing, like it was during the 19th century Gilded Age, but the threat of losing office is the only weapon we have short of mass movements.
A mass boycott sends no message at all. Almost half of voting-age Americans already don't vote. An election boycott is giving the corporatists exactly what they want.
We need to grow a people's party from the grassroots up. Get active with the Green Party and help Greens take power in cities, then states, then nationally.
just read "Confessions of an economic hitman" by john perkins. You'll see the tactics the USA has used for decades against developing nations and indigneous tribe world-wide has finally come home to roost.
They're now turning the gun sites on the working and middle classes of America.
Luckily they've dumbed us down to the point where to actually stand up and shout "BULLSHIT" is akin to a terrorist act.
And soon they label us all "terrorists"
believe me it's coming.
[The public option] "may be the party's last, best hope to give its passionate supporters the win that would reinvigorate them for 2010."
Boy, I certainly echo that sentiment. If the Dems don't pass a public option, I'm permanently pulling my support for the Democratic Party. So listen up guys, this is your last chance to get it right or you're finished!
Why wait? Do it now! Guaranteed, there will be no public option.
Don't hold your breath!
This is just another bailout of corporate america on the backs of the average American Citizen. The insurance companies are in a death spiral. Healthy people are dropping their policies because of the bad economy and the fact that premiums are just too damn expensive. This leaves a higher percentage of sick people in the pool, which requires the insurance companies to raise their rates to keep their profits up. This is unsustainable and everybody knows it.
So the solution to keep the private insurance companies going is to force people to buy the defective product they sell. Imagine if they decided to bailout GM and Chrysler by forcing every American to buy a Chevy or a Dodge. This is EXACTLY the same thing. It is total B.S.
So another can gets kicked down the road. Poorer people will be subsidized by borrowed money. That will raise the debt, that will at some point require big tax increases or cuts to social programs or both. We all know that will be the final solution because neither party will touch the bloated military budget.
I know it will be painful in the short term, but maybe the solution now is to do nothing. Let the insurance companies put themselves out of business. Once they are gone then the only solution would be single payer.
Well said!
Forks, this is a mandated insurance scam to bailout a parasitic industry that has weakened its host. The lipstick on this pig would be the public option, a way to make it not so blatant that the federal government is going to use its power to make us buy a product that we don't want because it doesn't work. I hope the D Party is deserted in mass for passing this pig without its lipstick. I hope people refuse in mass to go along with this fascist scam.
The private profiteering in government subsidized care is crashing the system. The R Party presents a false choice between gummit run and private. They get away with ignoring the billions currently subsidizing private profit. The question is whether government is used to deliver benefits to corporations who can lobby for favors, or if government puts a public interest above the back room dealing of favors for votes. We need to get rid of the privatized profiteering in healthcare. We need more public service, more public utility and less delivery of public interest to campaign contributors.
In short, we need improved Medicare for All.
Correct! Single Payer is the answer.
Nothing will be done with regards to the pubic option because the health care industry is paying to make sure nothing is done.
Why is the public option not an option? It never was intended to be an option, only an obfuscation. Republicans won't pass a democrat majority sponsored anything. They just won't vote for it no matter what it is, purely out of party loyalty and hatred of Obama.
The democrats won't pass anything that would endanger their corporate gravy train so they have the difficult task of trying to look like they're doing something that's really really hard. The president is in the same boat. So the solution there is to mumble and be unclear and refuse to explain and add hundreds of pages to idiotic bills when actually two or three pages would get the job done. The construction of the public option concept is just a big wall of bullshit to hide behind.
So is the idea that we should pass this turkey and fix it later. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is like saying don't let the bridge be the enemy of the Viper pit. If it is worth doing later, it is worth doing now. If you really have a plan for doing it later, use the same plan now.
But this is the real plan of Congress: pass this gift to the corporate medical care allotment industry, then act like you are so exhausted with the effort that you couldn't even LOOK at another health care bill for ten to fifteen years.
Remember that commercial where the woman put a quick cake mix in the oven, then flicked flour all over her face to make it look like she'd slaved all day? The corporate cake mix has already been assembled and the difficult task of Congress is to make it appear that it was their idea and that they are doing it for the benefit of the people. The public option is just a prop in this theatrical farce.
Well said!!
Bravo--well said.
I love the cake commercial analogy!
-"many Democrats were, like Jay Rockefeller, happy to express support for the public option in theory when they believed it would never come to a vote. But that doesn't mean that when it comes down to it that they are willing to give it their vote."
-"the appearance of bipartisanship—even if there is no chance of winning any Republican votes—is more important than the public option"
...More important, ...to whom? To the people dying every year because they can't afford a doctor? No, I don't think so.
I can't help but be amused by some of the posters' comments. There seems to be consensus that the Democrats are not really interested, not even interested in doing something that would save thousands of American lives every year.
On the other hand, rather than act on this new found wisdom, the consensus seems to be that since so many others are still deluded enough to vote for the Dems, why bother voting for people that DO want to pull America's health system into the modern world.