Aug
17
The simple answer is yes, if Democratic Senator Kent Conrad is to be believed. He is one of the chief negotiators in the Senate on a bi-partisan solution to Healthcare reform:
“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the U.S. Senate for the public option, there never have been,” Conrad said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.”
“So to continue to chase that rabbit is, I think, a wasted effort,” Conrad said.
Add to this some mixed messaging coming out of the White House. Kathleen Sebelius has suggested that the Public Option is not a deal-breaker for the White House:
On Sunday morning, Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made waves when she told CNN’s “State of the Nation” that the public option, the government alternative to private health insurance, is “not the essential element” of the administration’s plan. She added that the White House is open to health insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a government-run plan.
Even the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, seems to be walking back the suggestion that the Public option is a crucial part of the reform package:
What the president has said, in order to inject choice and competition, which will drive down costs and improve quality, that people ought to be able to have some competitor in that market. There ought to be a choice that they have. The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done through a public option.
Although it was later leaked that Sebelius “misspoke”, this does seem to be the start of a more ambivalent approach to the reform bill. The groundswell of public opinion that has resonated these last two weeks, in addition to the heel-dragging of blue-dog Democrats, is forcing the administration to re-think their approach. Obama has a lot of political capital invested in this bill, he needs a win, and that means passing a bill that he can spin as increasing choice on healthcare. If that means accepting non-profit co-operative insurers rather than a government plan, he will do it.
But this leaves two things up in the air. Firstly, how will liberals respond? On healthcare reform, government participation at some level is an essential element of reform. If Obama accepts the idea of a bill without the government option, he may well placate blue-dogs, but will alienate the liberal bloggers and congressional liberals. Instead of being attacked from the right, he may start being attacked from the left, and to placate them, he is most likely going to have to give up a lot.
The other interesting element to a modified bill, is how do Republicans react? There is a difficult choice for them. They can rightly see the declining support for the healthcare bill as is, a success. If the government option is dropped, do they accept their win, and in a spirit of bi-partisanship, allow the bill to pass. Whilst the strength of feeling on this debate has worked do far for Republicans, there will most likely come a time when obstructionism may be perceived as wilful and unhelpful by the American voter. Their recent bounce in electoral prospects may start to wane as the public tire of Town Hall demagoguery. So it may be to their advantage to back off oposition to a modified bill, thus keeping their powder dry for a future fight. Immigration and amnesty being the likely battleground in the nest year.
But continuing the fight must also be tempting for Republicans. They have Obama on the ropes right now, it could be folly to let him regain his feet. And there are still parts to the bill, aside from the government option, which are less than appealing to the conservative mind. There are still individual mandates which force businesses and individuals to buy insurance. And then there are the proposed tax hikes on higher incomes, up to 8%, never popular with Republicans. There will certainly be a temptation to attack those aspects of the bill.
But I think that if the Democrats do drop the government plan, the Republicans should dial down the rhetoric and hit the negotiating tables to try and create a bi-partisan version of the bill. Doing this may help them limit the fiscal pain of those proposed tax increases, it will allow them to appear magnanimous, and lastly, it will drive liberals mad, already upset at the loss of the government option. Buy the popcorn and sit back and watch the left start to attack Obama.
Obama and the Democrats have appeared surprisingly weak in only a short space of time. Despite their majorities, they appear to have been defeated on the substance of two signature bills, Cap and Trade and Healthcare Reform. Certainly, they were both difficult lifts, but if they were ever going to be passed, this must have been the time. If these can’t be passed now, what hope for future difficult measures like immigration reform and amnesty?
We live in interesting times.
Comments
39 Responses to “Is The Public Option On Healthcare Dead?”
Leave a Reply
And does anyone blogging here believe that the Public Option would have been dropped without the public’s, both Conservative and Moderate’s input at the Town Hall meetings, the calls and letter writings to Congressmen along with the pollings….Absolutely not.
An American
I believe this is more about the Republicans and their buddies in big insurance refusal to except democracy & The Presidents mandate from you the people- 10 million more voted for Obama than voted for McCain but your side has refused to except that most basic democratic fact.
But you’re probably right.
Come on THX…for once admit that’s I right. Americans are winning their fight against tyranny.
[...] Conservative Cabbie: Is The Public Option On Healthcare Dead? [...]
[...] Conservative Cabbie: Is The Public Option On Healthcare Dead? [...]
The French healthcare system is one of the best in the world and it is almost entirely government funded. All employed people pay 20% of their gross income for the social services afforded there and self-employed people pay even more than 20%.
Basically, hard-working people get hammered but not a single person in France goes without some of the best medicine in the world.
We had a similar system called CIMAS in Zimbabwe. We paid for the visit to the doc upfront and then had it refunded later, about 90% of it.
Have a read:
http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=197
Well, original Tony, as an American living in France (for the last 25 years) yes, I can say the French health system is great, in that the care is wonderful and it is basically “spare no expense”. But, the system is bleeding money with a deficit projected at 20,1 billion euros for 2009 – and if you don’t have private insurance added on to the state system, you end up paying around 30 % of your cost (this varies depending on what kind of care you’re getting – glasses and teeth are very badly reimbursed – getting 70 % of your cost reimbursed by the state system is considered good). Just my 2 cents, and i just discovered this blog, I will be back !
Expat…welcome!! You will have a great time on this blog. There are views from all spectrums and some quite intelligent and qualified people on it. There are probably only a dozen regular bloggers here but you would make an interesting addition to the team.
Thanks Tony ! i’m looking forward to it, and hope it will help my (rusty) English at the same time…
expat
welcome to cabbie’s blog.
THX
There is nothing that says you can not, or indeed should not, argue and protest against the policies of an elected government. Politics does not begin and end with a general election.
What interests me is where we end up after all the toing and froing of the Healthcare Bill. The adminsitration tried to push it to the left but, and this has only a little to do with the townhall meetings, they did not ever have the votes they needed in Congress.
Now, the question is, what’s the deal? To what extent will the final Bill introduce increased regulation to every aspect of the healthcare insurance industry?
We were discussing dialectics a while ago, the political processes that will result in a final Bill here are a case study in the dialectics of public policy evolution.
@Ronnie :
Absolutely, the question is what will end up being proposed ? I don’t know, health care is such a huge issue, I don’t feel you can reasonably get a Bill pushed through in a couple of weeks – especially as it’s such a contraversial (sp?) issue – between doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and then of course patients !
I read an article recently on a hospital in the States (I will try and find the link) that, after looking at their emergency room costs, opened up a clinic (funded by the hospital and the city I think) for all those people (mostly Hispanics) that were showing up at the emergency room for routine health care – they managed to reduce their costs hugely (sorry I can’t remember the numbers) but now the community is up in arms, because the clinic is serving illegal immigrants – something the hospital was doing anyway at a much greater cost !
Sorry, it just seemed such a pragmatic way to deal with a problem.
I will come back when I’ve found the link.
Expat, that’s a very good point and I am sure that this kind of thing happens a great deal because of the open nature of the current system. Two things bother me here.
Your story points out the absence of virtually any government control which allows pragmatic solutions to local health issues to be explored. Yet these solutions will, in many cases, upset the very people who are campaigning against any government control.
The second thing is that, with the major example of the healthcare Bill, we are now seeing exactly how the Obama administration approaches the creation of public policy – chaotic and public bargaining with their own Congressmen.
They must have known they didn’t have the votes in Congress and yet they went ahead anyway, as if to prove what their opponents have been claiming with regard to hubris and arrogance.
The resultant deal on the final Bill may actually be a victory for the Democrats, in the greater scheme of things, i.e. regulation, on this issue. But it sure won’t look like it.
@ Ronnie – totally agree – here is the link : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125027261061432585.html – give it a read and tell me what you think ?
Personally I happen to be against regulation – except in extreme situations or where a monopoly can take hold.
Government regulation so often leads to twisted behavior !
Expat, quite a lot of things can lead to twisted behaviour.
oh Ronnie – TRUE !
Thanks Expat, very interesting.
One you struggle through principles and ideology, you still have sick people to treat.
Expat, Welcome. We’re always happy to see reasonable comments like yours here.
Expat
You are very welcome to this blog. That was a fascinating article about the illegal immigrants that you supplied. A dileema to be sure. To open healthcare to illegal immigrants explodes the cost of health provision on people not entitled to it, whilst perhaps causing a loss of service to those who are entitled. However, basic decency prevents one from depriving a person of health services because they hapen to be illegally in the country.
The only way this can be dealt with is to seperate out immigration as a seperate issue. Assume everyone is entitled to healthcare and deal seperately with the immigration issue.
Hi Expat welcome aboard
Ronnie the election is a pretty important milestone in the democratic process but not one that the Republicans appear to recognize.
Doh
Not to recognize
THX
How so? Do you truly believe that if a party loses an election, they should just shut up for four years? They are called an opposition for a reason. An election is just part of a democratic process. It allows an administration to set an agenda, it doesn’t, under a system of seperation of powers, allow them to railroad any legislation they see fit through the process.
BTW, I haven’t forgotten about your Frum article, I’m just trying to work out how best to post it. On it’s own or editorialised.
thanks all – what is interesting in that article is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants ARE given care (I’ve been out of the States for so long that I sort of missed the ER requirement?) but this hospital managed to make some dollar and cents decisions that sound – well – sound !
And this brings me to another point :
‘46 million Americans don’t have health care’ This is a misleading statement isn’t it ?
And CC : totally agree with you – the Republicans (and all those who did not vote for Obama) are not living on Mars – and they definitely have the right to create a debate on any issue (thank God!)I mean, that’s what makes America America right ?
THX, if I had followed your logic on the role, not the importance, of elections, I would have sat on my hands during the Thatcher nightmare.
For that you must first have a frontal lobotomy. It is our duty to question everything that government does. We may elect a party to form a government but, if anything, that is just the start of the process.
actually, I should have said ‘that’s what makes a democracy a democracy’ !!
expat
Exactly. I wonder how those now complaining about how the right are fighting healthcare would have felt if they weren’t allowed to complain about Bush’s wars.
Ronnie of course I do agree but some on the American Right patently cannot bear the existence of a Democratic president and think that that the election was just the first skirmish in the battle.
Cabbie re Frum whatever you think best.
Good article don’t you think?
Well, THX, if they didn’t think that I would suspect that there was something wrong with them. It’s what they are for.
The Left didn’t sit quietly while Bush was President. The Right certainly did not sit quietly for Clinton.
It’s normal and mostly healthy.
Shouty woman Michele Bachmann says God has told her to run for President. Maybe she is Cabbies mysterious 2012 pick
That can’t be right. God told me to run for President!
Guys you need to get twitter it’s so much fun but not sure if you can tweet god
THX, God has spoken to Michelle directly. She has no choice but to run for President.
I’m just a little disappointed.
If we can believe what the NY Times says…the Democrats are going to go ahead with an even more far-left healthcare bill…is this just wishful thinking? God…I hope so. They might push it through but the Democratic party would lose in the next election…but it would be too late to stop the socialization of our healthcare…have these leftys lost their collective minds?
what’s with this preemptive destruction. first palin and now bachmann.
this country was founded by people who believed in God and expressed it regularly.
throughout our history all manner of people, leaders included, have talked about answering God’s calling, Divine providence, God answering their prayers and the like.
i am not a religious person but neither do i disparage the faith of others.
i believe we should judge the suitability of our elected officials on character and policy positions. all this religious stuff is very un-American.
shockwaver bachman has said that people who don’t agree with her are un-American
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_pN2IPAw6E
Where will end!
Religion should have nothing to do with a persons suitability for high office I suspect Obama is an atheist but just can say it because America is a very intolerant place of the non religious.
Well, if God chose her to run then she needn’t be troubled with having to think of policies or defend them in public. Its a done deal.
She must be a real nut case.
thx
you must have given me the wrong clip. she said no such thing on this clip.
I looked at that clip as well, she never said that – but she was ACCUSED of saying that – not the same thing.
I watched this clip too, I must say she’s got a handle on what’s going on in France :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP4hYkfwuTY&NR=1&feature=fvwp
I’ve never heard of this woman, but she doesn’t sound like the crazy person you’re saying she is THX – I reserve my judgment until I know more.