It’s The Public Option or Nothing

Posted on 07/01/2009 at 11:15 am by Bob Cesca

Ezra Klein lays out the three degrees of the public option:

According to early documents and consistent reports, the health reform plan that the Senate Finance Committee is considering won’t have a public option at all. Rather, it’ll have some variant of Kent Conrad’s co-op compromise. The House plan, meanwhile, has a strong public option that can use Medicare’s bargaining power to negotiate low rates and a large provider networks. And Ted Kennedy’s HELP Committee, we learned today, will endorse the “level-playing field” public option, wherein the government’s insurer has no advantages over the private market.

In order: 1) Co-ops: weak and doomed to fail. 2) Level playing field: Iffy costs and premiums. 3) Robust public option: robust.

In order for healthcare reform to pass the House, it has to be #3 or a mixture of #2 and #3. I can’t imagine the TriCaucus voting for co-ops. So at this point, wouldn’t it make sense for anyone with healthcare reform as a high priority (like the president, for example) to put his full weight behind the public option? Nothing else will pass the House — at least not now.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jan

    like the president, for example) to put his full weight behind the public optionOne can only hope. We’re all waiting and dying for him to stand up and say ENOUGH.NO bill will come to the floor of the House or Senate without a public option. And not some watered down co op crap.See? That wasn’t so hard now was it.

  • ec

    Obama should have learned from his dealings with the banks that he will never be able to beat the insurance companies at their own game. There will never be a level playing field.Must have public option.

  • http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/ Political Party Pooper

    As I suggested to Bob earlier, alright, then how about we pull back health care reform for now, and WORK ON LOBBYING REFORM! Then, once we’ve eliminated the lobbyist’s money, let’s see how strongly our elected officials oppose a public option.I think that if the President just mentioned that, he’d see a bunch of these opponents begin to support a public option. Because after all, telling the press that lobbyist reform is necessary definitely implies that there is something wrong with the relationship between our elected officials and lobbyists. How many of our politicians want to answer questions like, “So, Senator Kerry, what IS wrong with that relationship. Could it possibly be that it looks too much like bribery?”Or how about, “So, Senator Baucus, insurer A gave you $150,000 over the last ten years, and didn’t expect a single favor? Wow! They’re really patriots!”