thehouse1
The idea is that a public option would only be triggered at some point in the future by some failure in the private health insurance market. The trigger has little broad support but is still readily defended by Republican Olympia Snowe. It now appears that the only way health care reform will be passed under regular order is with almost all the Democrats, the two Republican senators from Maine, and at most one or two other Republicans. While I think the likelihood of the trigger option being included is small, the fact that it is supported by Olympia Snowe and Rahm Emanuel means it deserves closer scrutiny.
There are many parts of health care reform that potentially violate the Byrd rule and potentially could be stripped out of health care reform if it passes using reconciliation. Yet it is important to remember just how much of health care reform could be easily passed using reconciliation. Many of the important provisions do directly relate to government revenue. Harry Reid recently said that reconciliation could accomplish 65 percent of what his party thinks is necessary.
The Washington Post has recently taken to publishing straight up lies. The article states:
Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has just let his preference be known about the public option. He claims wants a public option that is not government-run like Medicare but instead, a "private entity that has direction from the federal government so people that don't fall within the parameters of being able to get insurance from their employers, they would have a place to go."
Poll 65 votes Show Results What does Reid mean by a private "public option"? Something that will in fact be a lot like Medicare A new quasi-government company like the FED, FDIC, Corporation for Public Broadcasting Conrad's Co-ops No idea 65 votes Vote Now! What does Reid mean by a private "public option"? Something that will in fact be a lot like Medicare 8% 5 votes A new quasi-government company like the FED, FDIC, Corporation for Public Broadcasting 15 votes Conrad's Co-ops 12 votes No idea 33 votes
In the heated debate over the public option what is often overlooked is that there is not any one "public option." There are in fact several different public options being proposed. They run the gambit from the very robust to the weak and nearly useless. I'm going to try and explain the different configurations of the public option proposals and place them on a rough robust-to-weak continuum. The continuum does not just represent a left/right divide on the issue, but also a divide on their potential cost savings. The more robust public option the more money it will save the government and the consumer.
Poll 42 votes Show Results What is the minimum "robustness" you would settle for? Medicare Buy In Medicare Rates Plus Medicare Rates Plus With Opt Out Level Playing Field National Semi-Independent Non-Profit Small Regional Co-ops No public option is needed 42 votes Vote Now! What is the minimum "robustness" you would settle for? Medicare Buy In 21 votes Medicare Rates Plus 7% 3 votes Medicare Rates Plus With Opt Out 5 votes Level Playing Field 7 votes National Semi-Independent Non-Profit 7% 3 votes Small Regional Co-ops 0% 0 votes No public option is needed 7% 3 votes
I'm very impressed that Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake.com has had so much success raising money to thank House members for standing up for the public option. In the past week her "Stand Up For The Public Option" page on ActBlue.com has raised $397,684 for progressive Democratic House members.
It appears that Baucus group still has a lot of very important issues the have not been agreed to. It also appears the co-ops idea may already be dead because of attacks from the left and right. Can Obama get away with supporting a bill with zero alternative to the current health insurance companies?
Upload logo
Choose a logo image in .gif, .jpg, or .png format.
Delete logo
Choose File