On Sunday, I wrote a diary outlining my current view of the political dynamic in play regarding the public option.
It was, and is, my opinion that there will be no public option without a major change in strategy by supporters of the public option. We had a very vigorous and generally cordial debate yesterday, but I was not convinced my reading was inaccurate or unjustified.
Today, we find three additional pieces of evidence that the public option walkback continues unabated. Sen Grassley's Bloomberg interview Sunday, President Obama modification of terminology from Health Care Reform to Health Insurance Reform, and this first official WH statement supporting my thesis:
MR. GIBBS: Again, maybe I want to be clear for Laura and for you. I don't believe that the President has come down one versus the other in terms of denoting co-ops equal to or above public option. I can talk to the health team about that.
Please follow me after the jump for updated evidence and updated recommendations on how to address this turn of events.
Before outlining today's event, let me reiterate what I said yesterday regarding the possibility that an administration walkback is underway:
I have been called a defeatist for even bringing up this possibility. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I believe that this is the realist position. I understand that many here have worked harder than almost anyone in the media to enable real health care reform. And I think I speak for most in saying we are extremely proud of what you have done and recognize this community's accomplishments.
However, I strongly believe that the sooner we all accept that this is the current trajectory, the sooner we can determine a new strategy to knock the current political reality off course (or back on course depending on your perspective).
As a recap, I pointed out the following 4 "events" or "tells" that I believe are evidence of the boat slowly changing direction at the Captain's direction:
1. The President has not proactively mentioned the public option in a public forum for the past week.
2. None of the Administration's public surrogates have proactively mentioned the public option since last Monday.
3. This trial balloon floated from the White House last week. You can call it the "walks like a duck" meme.
4. The President's original choice for HHS, is quietly advocating around Capitol Hill that the public option is dead on arrival.
Please see my original diary for explanations on these items.
Today, we have three new "tells" backing up the idea that the public option is no longer truly on the table.
1. In Monday's WH Briefing, Robert Gibbs explicitly stated that the President has not expressed whether he prefers a public option or a co-op plan. For additional context, here is the full exchange between WH reports and Robert Gibbs Monday.
MR. GIBBS: No, I think -- the President has said, look, this is an idea that people are looking at. I think -- maybe I'm wrong, I thought Chuck's question was whether we supported one over the other. I think the President has discussed a myriad of options, but I don't think he's laid down a marker picking one over the other.
Q Wait, so we should -- it's fair to say that the public option co-op, public option is a principle, and if co-op fulfills that principle --
MR. GIBBS: Well, again --
Q I mean, you save one over the other --
MR. GIBBS: See, this is --
Q I know. I mean, look, I'm responding to her answer --
MR. GIBBS: Right, in which I think I've pretty clearly delineated Laura bringing up the fact that the President, in many interviews -- I think maybe even with John Harwood, a network you're familiar with -- where he discusses the option of looking at that.
Again, maybe I want to be clear for Laura and for you. I don't believe that the President has come down one versus the other in terms of denoting co-ops equal to or above public option. I can talk to the health team about that.
Q My impression wasn't that he had picked one over the other. My impression was that he was open to all of them.
MR. GIBBS: Right, well, that was more for Chuck's instant analysis.
Q No, I understand. So he hasn't picked -- so public option is not the preference over co-ops?
MR. GIBBS: Chuck, just let me get an answer to your question. I promise we'll -- yes, sir.
Hmm...well according to many here, this is news. One of the main arguments against my supposition yesterday was Obama's previous statement that he would only sign a bill that included a robust public option.
That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.
Well, apparently, according the Robert Gibbs, no longer just a diarist like me, this statement is no longer operative.
2. Chuck Grassley stated in a Bloomberg interview that the President has told him he is open to "alternatives" to the public option.
Clearly, this statement is open to interpretation, but it fits all of the other information that is coming out. He may have simply got ahead of himself. Or he could just be making stuff up. I simply present it as another piece to the puzzle.
3. The President has begun using the term health insurance reform as opposed to health care reform
In his opening remarks, the president let slip that health reform at its core was about health insurance reform. After a few words about his Recovery Act, the president said "we must rebuild it (the economy) stronger than before. And health insurance reform is central to that effort." He did not say reform was fundamentally about covering the growing ranks of the uninsured, or making certain that insured people have enough coverage when serious illness strikes, or guaranteeing health care as a right without having to buy an insurance policy to pay for it.
Some have no issue with this change in terminology according to comments in the previous diary. However, a front pager made the following argument about the difference today:
That's "insurance reform," not healthcare reform. Without a public option to create competition, to keep the insurance companies honest, how many loopholes do you think they'll find to restrict coverage and maximize profits.
I can not be forceful enough. As a supporter of public option, WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!!! Our strategy is clearly not having the intended affect. Let me reiterate my caveats from Sunday.
I will readily admit that the House is likely to pass a public option. I will readily admit that the Progressive Caucus states they won't sign off on any bill without a public option. I will readily admit that Chris Dodd is making noise in the Senate.
"There is a false assumption that anything you can work out with a handful of Republicans will be embraced by Democrats in the House, the Senate and across the country. That is totally wrong."
But none of that will impact the final calculus because none of those items has the ability to move recalcitrant Senators off of their paid and bought positions of "No Public Option". All Congressional reporters are stating that conservative Democrats in the Senate are the ones pushing back on the public option the hardest, not Republicans.
Let's be clear. I could be wrong. And if I am, terrific. I will happily write a mea culpa diary once a robust public option is signed. But for those that consider discussing this possibility counter-productive, I ask a simple question.
What if I am right?
In poker, if you see a tell and know your opponents hand has you beat, you have two options. You can either fold, or you can bluff to try to push the opponent out of the hand. Right now, we are doing neither. We are, quite literally...calling...and calling...and calling.
Clearly, folding is not an option. While I fully support the efforts pushed here and elsewhere to continue calling Senators and Congresspersons, I simply do not believe this will be enough to save the public option. It will take something much more dramatic.
I made three recommendations yesterday, that I will reiterate below. But I would like to add a fourth today, that I think is even better.
During our Sunday discussion, Gravedugger made a fantastic suggestion, that I would like to strongly support.
We need to have a different kind of demonstration.
We need to have the Wise County Fairgrounds annual clinic equivalent set up on the mall.
Open a giant free clinic on congress's doorstep. Let them dare to ignore it. Dare them to volunteer.
Dare them to even come and look.
Meanwhile, thousands of people will descend on the mall to get health care, forming an utterly massive protest.
Vera Lofara followed up with a diary requesting support for helping organize this effort. It did not get significant traffic, so I would like to reiterate her request.
However, there is a catch, I don't know exactly where to start organizing an event such as this. It is an amazing and constructive idea, and I am sure someone knows how to organize an event of this proportion. There are many non-profit organizations who support health care reform and clearly they could be convinced to contribute any money that is needed.
If we mobilized armies of people to go out and campaign for Barack Obama, surely we can all work together to mobilze an effort such as this one. I am a worker-bee, tell me what to do and I will get it done to the best of my ability, but I know there are organizer out there in this blogosphere, who know exactly how to get this done.
Can we discuss this, and if possible move forward, time is wasting and people are in need of help.
Please feel free to continue discussing this option in this diary or others.
Other potential actions that we can take to address the current change in direction include the following:
1. Mass Demonstrations on the scale of the March of Washington or the Million Man March.
I personally believe this would be the most effective way to make our voices heard. Otherwise, the only voices truly being heard are the lobbyists. However, as Markos states, many times demonstrations of this scale are hijacked by other interests and don't have their intended effect. Many have asked why don't I organize one. While that is a great debating tactic, it is actually silly. I am not an organizer and clearly don't have the skill set or audience to be effective. However, I do have the ability to provide the recommendation to a broader audience that may have the appropriate tool set to make this happen if there is a general agreement. However, I view this as the least likely option.
2. Begin building on our strengths instead of focusing on our weaknesses.
The standard plan is to call Senators leaning against the public option and true health care reform. Clearly, this is not having the intended effect. We have clear majorities in both the Senate and the House. As an alternative, we could focus on providing a backstop for liberals and progressives in the Senate and the House. We could attempt to get more Senators and House members to support the Progressive Caucus' bottom line of no public option, no support for any bill. This position has to hold up after conference. This means calling supporters and asking for more, instead of calling opponents and asking for a minimum. Why is the majority voice being muted? It could be because we are amplifying the minority voice through our emphasis.
3. Work unwaveringly to convince the President to issue a veto threat for any bill that does not include a public option.
This is the most dangerous strategy. It is the All-In option. It means the President is willing to put his re-election at risk, but it also tells wavering Blue Dogs and Conservative Senators, you are going down with me. Everyone needs to clearly understand, that a major failure in the first year puts them at risk more than the President. He has three years to recover. They have one year. I would make it abundantly clear the Clinton was re-elected while many Congressman on his side were out of work 2 years earlier. This is not a make friends option. It will cost incredible political capital. But this is the big play. Call their bluff. Who do you trust, the lobbyists who say they will support you enough to overcome mass public disapproval of Democrats, or me, the person who got you elected? Force them to make a decision. In poker, that is usually a winning strategy, but it also can cost you a lot.
I believe it is critical that we "change the game". The Baucus plan, with co-ops instead of a public option has made its way into trial balloon territory. Once it gets out of committee, we will now be relying on Majority Leader Reid to reel it back in.
I don't think I need to tell everyone that if we rely simply on Senator Reid, we might as well close up shop now. We can still put the public option back in play, if we are willing to change course. But first, we have to decide that a change of course is required.
I am open to your opinions. Please discuss below.