Congressional Dems Won’t Back Down From Public Plan
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Health Care
They say they won’t pass any plan that doesn’t have a public option in it, and that inflexible position could scuttle the whole thing.
House liberals are warning the Senate, Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama that a government-run insurance option must be included in any health reform bill, or else the powerful bloc will vote it down.“Usually, we work behind the scenes to strengthen legislation,†said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the 80-member Congressional Progressive Caucus. “We’re careful not to take on our party’s leadership, or President Obama.
“This time, however, is different.â€
Woolsey made it clear that she and many of her colleagues will vote to kill a health care plan if it leaves patients at the mercy of private health insurance companies.
Would they literally cut off their noses to spite their faces? Are they that shortsighted?
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 25th, 2009 and is filed under Democrats, Health Care. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Justin,
Why is it considered an inflexible position could scuttle the whole thing or shortsighted when Progressives finally stand-up for their constituents, yet I don’t seem to have seen similar language from you when Republicans and Conservative Democrats have made the same argument from the opposite side (not voting for a plan that contains a public option).
As Rep. Lynn Woolsey stated, usually the Progressive caucus works behind the scenes to get things done, but this time they’ve decided to make their wishes known publicly in order to counteract the drift in the wrong direction to what they consider a very important piece of legislation.
You’ve decided to frame their comments it as they would literally cut off their noses to spite their faces, why? Why not instead frame it as; the Democratic Progressive caucus after weeks of standing by and hearing talk from Republicans, Conservative Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats and some close to the White House has decided to make their wishes known publicly; that their will not be a Health Care bill without a public option. Hooray for them for standing up for their principles. That would be the more honest setup for your piece, but I guess yours works just as well.
~ L
June 25th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Because the money for a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage has to come from somewhere and we’re learning that neither real estate nor the stock market go up forever and apparently debt matters…
who knew?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I have to admit that I’m a little attracted to Nancy Pelosi. I don’t usually go for that clueless-but-opinionated type, but it really works for her.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Simon.. weird, I was just going to say that same thing about you.
Maybe they’re right though, maybe any reasonable plan needs to include those things. I don’t think we should be at the mercy of private insurers, i’ve been screwed plenty of times by them.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I’m outraged, absolutley outraged that Simon would objectify Pelosi in such a way and not see her as a person with ideas and feeling, but simply a piece of meat.
Next thing you know we’ll be reading stories about Pelosi and a mysterious man jetting off to Argentina….
June 25th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Gerry, one of the advantages of not being a liberal and not describing oneself as a feminist (although I’m very sympathetic to it) is liberty from the mindnumbing shackles of political correctness. :)
June 25th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
One of the things about moderates that really annoys us liberals is that they make up nonsensical political positions that nobody’s thought of before, declare said positions to be “moderate,” and then insist everyone follow their lead. These co-ops are a perfect example. The American people recently voted the Dems in on a platform of expanded public health care. Thus, by definition, using the government to cover more people (aka: the public option) is moderate.
That said, if the Senate truly balks at passing a public option, and the reconciliation process looks like it will be unhelpful, she will compromise. But she’s letting the Senate know they’d better give the public option every chance to get to 60 votes, and then seriously consider reconciliation, or they ain’t getting nothing.
The thing you moderate folk have to keep in mind is leftists oppose the co-ops because we aren’t sure they’ll work. Conrad’s plan could work, but it could also result in yet another group of high-paid executives leeching money out the health care system. And if it doesn’t work we’ll probably be stuck with it for a decade or more, just like we were stuck with HMO’s “saving money” since Hillary care died 15 years ago.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:42 am
A public plan can still incorporate measures that would keep the government from exploiting its advantages and achieving dominance without earning it. Democrats are right to keep the debate on this turf as long as they are ready to address relevant concerns. Chuck Schumer has a public insurance plan that means to keep the government on a short leash, and Jay Rockefeller also has used his experience in the matter to offer a good plan. There has been no plan or offering so far that justifies abandoning of the public option, especially not when there is so much support for it. Democrats buckling on this because they value lobbyists over their constituents would result in reform originating from an ideologically skewed basis, and that would cost them.
If there is a non-public plan that isn’t flawed and risky like Conrad’s then democrats should show some flexibility. Clinton failed because he lumped congress with a finished plan and told them to pass it. Obama has set some guidelines and let the experts nail things out. Those opposing a public plan have not really justified equating non-public plans with public plans in the realm of possibilities.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:05 am
I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on these self-styled progressives thumbing their noses at their President, much of their party’s leadership and the Senate and taking down whatever plan (if any) finally garners enough support to pass.
A “public” alternative, as opposed ot a coop, expanded private insurance, various government direct and indirect subsidies of private plans and other possibilities is not something that the average American sits around pining for. After all, if you already have coverage — or get coverage under a new plan — you probably won’t care whether its run by a public entity directly or not.
This is very much inside baseball for people with vested interests.
If Obama gets some sort of reform that he can crow about, even if one with a score of comprises, these members of Congress will not rain on his parade.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Nick, the people voted the Dems in because of Bush and a multi-year track record of misguided overseas adventures, not because people were sitting around saying, “Gee, I wish the government would give me another entitlement.”
And the opposition to co-ops because progressives aren’t sure they’ll work? Let me make sure I understand this–progressives *are* sure that a public option will work? Really? Does that surety come from data or does it spring forth, full-blown, from the breast of hope and change?
June 26th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Chris, when you say, “screwed by private insurers,” are you meaning that you’ve needed or wanted something and the insurance provider has said that it won’t pay for it? You think the government will be any different? A public plan isn’t about getting anything you want, whenever you want. Realistically health services will be even more rationed and controlled/restricted than they are now–you can’t expand a service, keep the price down, AND increase the amount of service provided. Pick two of those, if we’re lucky.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:26 am
The thing is that the worst possible thing that can be done right now is to just build on what is already there. The problem is systematic – that doesn’t mean you have to replace it, but you can’t tweak it either. Conrad’s co-op plan has been tried and it did not go very well, slowly fading away and lot leaving change for the better. There still doesn’t seem to be a legitimate point against a public plan apart from the sane concern that the government will be able to compete unfairly and come to a dominant position without any real merit.
The thing is that none of these “sensible” and “moderate” democrats are concerned about eking out the best bill. They are beholden to the people who find the status quo very cushy and profitable and they would be all for the public plan if it weren’t for lobbyists. Nationwide the support ranges from 60 to 70 percent and I recall seeing half of republicans approving of a well-designed public plan. So if more than half of voters approve of a public plan and about half of the minority republican party has no ideological opposition to one such a plan, how can it be seen as “moderate” or “centrist” to place oneself to the right of the majority, bipartisan opinion and suggest a diluted reform because of lobbyists?
Most congressmen change their minds about important issues not based on facts or out of a multi-perspective grasp of the issue – they change based on a political race schedule and lobbyists. While it might be argued that some entities – such as some unions or ideological left-wing groups – could be pushing for a public reform, there are many entities, including other unions, who are privileged by the tax exemptions for employer-distributed benefits. The anti-public group with the most lobbied money are the private insurers who have a profit motive and most easily brings in a profit by avoiding having to provide HC to their customers, leaving society with the effects of this denied HC.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/06/24/potter-tnrtv.aspx
It’s obvious that one has to go above street-level and ignore the situation for average Joe and Jane in order to find most of the opposition to public reform. Once again, money talks, and I am relieved to see these “self-destructive” democrats “cut off their nose” in order to oppose the “centrist” democrats.
A public plan must keep the government on a leash (Rockefeller and Schumer address these concerns but they don’t please enough republican ideological fixations and therefore can’t be “centrist”) but beyond that point there is no reason to try and avoid removing the tax exemptions for employer’s HC offers and reform towards a public system. A non-public reform will be bad for Americans and it would therefore also be bad for the democrats in 2010. NB: democrats should only pursue their own interests if there is no conflict between their political gain and the interests of American voters.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:12 am
ExiledIndependent – I am screwed by my insurer every time I fact 8-15 percent increases in premiums, decreases in coverage and higher co-pays.
What world of insurance utopia do you live in? These are nationwide concerns. Then the number-crunchers tell us we overpay – that Norwegians pay 60 percent what we do and that most of the world gets better results – fewer dead babies.
We are being screwed because we don’t have a choice. There is no level playing field. There is no free market.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:11 am
One of the things centrists and independents hate about both liberals and conservatives is when they describe events in such a way as to leave out every part of the story that makes their argument weak and idiotic.
The sentence by Nick quoted above leaves out so much of the whole story about the last election and about the range of views of the people on healthcare that I won’t even try to provide the missing depth and breadth of context.
I support a public option at some point, if and when we undertake comprehensive reform. But half measures are killer. We’ll all get caught in the crossfire, and the public option will be a dumping ground for the old and sick and unfortunate at huge expense. A system that creates lots of winners and lots of losers instead of trying to spread costs equitably NOW for something everyone needs is doomed to bring us all more pain, unless we can stay inside the shrinking bubble of the chosen lucky few.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I wonder where all this is going. To read comments like Chris’ and bmoreKarl’s, one gets the impression that they believe healthcare is a right to which we are all entitled regardless of their ability to pay for the service. Why should that be so? Presumably, the answer is that because healthcare so critically important to human beings that we won’t function long without it, it is thus an extraordinary service to which we are entitled ex deo (or ex partum, for our liberal friends).
But so, too, is food. Lack of access to healthcare may take years off your life, but for want of food, you’ll be dead in a few weeks. And like healthcare, food is a commodity that you can buy from a chain of providers. (Surely no one would think it relevant that the commodity in healthcare is usually characterized as a service while the commodity in food is usually characterized as a product, even though in both cases the consumer is purchasing the endpoint of a chain of services and products.) Like healthcare, food can be obtained from many providers. Does Chris think that “we should be at the mercy of private [food providers]” such as WalMart or ConAgra? Is that a reason for extending government control of food, for creating a single government controlled source of food just as the left’s ambition is to create a single government controlled source of medical services?
June 26th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Sometimes it seems like a panem et circenses approach to acquiring and maintaining political power. The party that promises the most free goodies gets elected.
And Karl, I live in the same world that you do. The world where people from across the globe come to America to study medicine and receive the best treatment possible. When’s the last time you found an American doc who said, with a touch of pride, “I studied in Norway! Suck it, Belgium!”
June 26th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Simon: I would say, based on your fantastic hissy fit about Sarah Palin , that you usually do go for the”clueless-but-opinionated type” – just not the Democratic ones.
You have lost all credibility. I wish you would keep your bombastic posts to yourself. I’m so tired of your hypocrisy.
That said. I support a thoughtful, prudent public option. I believe it’s a necessity. It doesn’t look like that’s what we’re getting. I wonder how it would be possible, in the current climate, to produce something worthwhile.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Simon Said:
But so, too, is food. Lack of access to healthcare may take years off your life, but for want of food, you’ll be dead in a few weeks.
So if you were King you’d abolish food stamps?
A public option would allow people to choose their favorite health provider, just as food stamps allow the poor to choose their food provider.
ExiledIndependant Said:
Chris, when you say, “screwed by private insurers,†are you meaning that you’ve needed or wanted something and the insurance provider has said that it won’t pay for it? You think the government will be any different?
When I read that sentence I was thinking of rescission. Somebody buys a policy, discloses all their health information to the insurance company, gets diagnosed with cancer, and gets their treatments approved. But the whole time some insurance company bureaucrat is going over their medical record with a fine-tooth comb looking for things that they didn’t disclose. One breast cancer patient literally got cut off because she hadn’t mentioned a zit.
Then there’s the wonderful case of Michigan State Rep. Mike Simpson. His daughter died of cancer, and the very next day they got a letter from the insurance company refusing to pay for treatments that had already been approved. He went bankrupt.
Most cases aren’t that dramatic, but I have never met anyone who actually likes their insurance company.
And the opposition to co-ops because progressives aren’t sure they’ll work? Let me make sure I understand this–progressives *are* sure that a public option will work? Really? Does that surety come from data or does it spring forth, full-blown, from the breast of hope and change?
We know it would work because every time we have tried a public option in health care it’s worked pretty well. In fact the more socialized the system, the happier it’s users. The VA has no private element at all. There is no competition, and no profit motive. Every single doctor is a federal employee.All the machines, and hospitals are US Government property. It is cheaper than any private insurance despite the fact it covers sicker people, and the people it does cover give it the highest approval rate of any health system in the country.
MediCare comes second. MediCare providers are private companies, but MediCare itself is almost 100% public. It has competition because the government spends $15 Billion a year subsidizing them.
We also know it would work because of the arguments “moderates” use against it. They’re all complaining a public option would drive private insurers out of business because it would have “unfair competitive advantages.” How the hell you gonna drive these guys out of business if you ain’t offering the same thing they do a lot cheaper?
And given that these same”moderates” went after the UAW for costing more than their Mexican competitors, why are they trying to protect the insurance companies from a competitor that would kick it’s ass?
June 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Simon you bring up an excellent analogy, however mistaken your intentions were. If we were to compare the “food” industry, generalization there, to the health insurance industry it would be like there’s 3 food stores in your state, they all set the prices together, when you get in there the food is rotting and super high priced and when you complain, it doesn’t matter because that’s the only place you can buy food from. You want to switch stores, even though the other 2 aren’t really any better, but you can’t because you have to wait till the end of the year to end your subscription to the store you’re at (they make you pay for an entire year up front). That doesn’t sound like a situation that needs some government intervention?
And yes, I think access to health care is a right. But in reality Simon, all the people who can’t afford insurance GO ANYWAY! They go into the urgent care clinic, or the Eroom, and then never ever pay their bill. We pay for it. It’s no different than socialization right now.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:18 am
A public option increases socialism, but we have had medical socialism in this country for decades with Medicare and Medicaid.
We will soon be in the same boat as Canadians were only the very rich can afford high qaulity medical care and with out a long line.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Chris, I like your extension of the food analogy. But the fixes to those problems you state are more flexibility and increased competition. Neither of those require a government provider.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Analogies can be fun, but are not always apt. Often they break down. Analogies are prone to adoration when we are trying to discern some sort of magical universal principle that always applies the same way, time after time. But such principles have proven elusive.
I can’t grow a doctor or a steroidal anti-inflammatory drug in my yard. I also don’t need years and years of training to grow a tomato or shop for groceries or understand what food is or what to eat.
So, I think its fair to point out that we don’t need massive reform of the provision of food because it’s a simple enough thing that we can keep handling it the way we have been. It seems to be working OK. If and when that is not true, folks might well entertain reform. Right?
But tit’s not true of healthcare that its working swell. Healthcare needs reform not simply because of any special underlying principle but because the system is all messed up.
It’s defensible to argue that healthcare is an important right worthy of, what did Simon call it, “ex deo” deliverance. But isn’t the point of deliverance that it is only clamored for when there is distress?
It follows that things which we regard as “ex deo” entitlements need only be guaranteed as rights when folks are having trouble securing such things.
But then, I don’t even believe in things such as intrinsic rights that have always existed and were just floating in space waiting for us to discover them. I think human rights are no more and no less than what we as humans can declare, establish, defend, and provide. Not that God isn’t marvelous.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Analogies can be fun, but are not always apt. Often they break down.
Analogies, even apt ones, ALWAYS break down if you extend them far enough. Their value is in illumination, not actual description. The map is not the territory.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
Well, I was trying not to be a complete turd in the punchbowl, and there you go dropping a steamer. No wonder no one likes you. :-)
Seriously though, that’s true for sure. Analogies are models that you use to help further your understanding. When they begin to fail in that service, they are to be discarded.