Sam Stein and Ryan Grim have a must read piece in the Huffington Post about Kent Conrad's opposition to the public option.
It goes through all of the key points -- his selective budget hawk views, the extent to which North Dakota is not representative of the nation in terms of health care delivery, and his financial support from the insurance and drug lobbies. But the real gem is at the end, where Sen. Conrad is quoted responding to criticisms of his half-baked co-op scheme:
"They have no votes on the floor of the United States Senate. And I am dealing with votes in the Finance Committee and the floor of the United States Senate. I am frankly not terribly interested in what these myriad groups all think. I am interested in what people who vote think[.]"
In this sentence, Senator Conrad encapsulates everything wrong with the health care debate, the Senate, and American democracy, in general.
It just so happens, Senator, that the American people also vote. And these people -- sometimes called "voters" -- overwhelmingly favor the public option to the tune of 77%. So, Senator Conrad should care what the actual voters think, not just the 1 out of every 3 million Americans who are in the U.S. Senate.
Secondly, he's being more than a little disingenuous in saying he doesn't have the votes. If Conrad were inclined to listen to his constituents, and not his campaign donors or inner voices, he'd be another vote for the public option. (Indeed, if he wanted to be true to his budget hawk reputation, he'd support the system most likely to achieve cost reductions.) He might even be able to bring along other voters. And, of course, the votes for the public option probably are there, if we're talking about an up or down vote. If Conrad wants to join the Republicans in opposing a cloture vote, I suppose that's his business, but it's not a matter of whip-counts.
Lastly, the people support a public option for a reason. Anyone who's had an experience with a health insurance company probably has had a bad experience with that company. We know that for-profit health care is about collecting premiums and then denying as much coverage as possible. In the absence of competition between insurance companies, they can also raise deductibles to the point where most people wind up never not going out of pocket. This makes health care outcomes worse, as people pass on regular checkups, and it also means that when people do seek out care, they have to spend money better spent on other things. Plus, even if there were real competition between carriers, it's no use when you've already paid into a plan that is pulling a bait-and-switch. People a lot smarter than Senator Conrad, like Jacob Hacker, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Peter Orzag, all recognize that a public option is absoultely essential to bringing down costs and improving health outcomes. (Oh, how I wish I could include President Obama on that list!) The moral and the economic arguemnts are all overwhelmingly in favor of the public option, which is why people -- and key interest groups -- demand it.
Senator Conrad's arrogance is not just in assuming there are only 100 people in the country who hold the franchise, even though he's himself an elected official. It's in thinking he's a senator because he's singularly wise and therefor need not consider the opinions, experiences, or judgments of the great unwashed. We deserve better from all Senators, but especially from Democratic Senators.