They just aren't all that bright. Here's Mary Landrieu:
Asked specifically about polling data showing the public option with strong national support, the conservative Democrat added, "I think that when people hear 'public option,' they hear 'free health care.' Everybody wants free health care. Everybody wants health care they don't have to pay for. The problem is that we as government and business have to pick up the tab, and as individuals. So I'm not at all surprised that the public option has been sold as free health care. But there is no free lunch."
This is pretty foolish. For one thing, Mary Landrieu, as a senator, takes advantage of a very generous health care plan that lawmakers give themselves. "Everybody wants health care they don't have to pay for"? I suppose that's true, but it's odd to hear the comments coming from someone whose coverage is subsidized by taxpayers.
Free lunch? When has the public option ever been described as a free lunch? Even teabaggers don't callit a free lunhc. No reputable pollster has ever suggested in any poll on the issue that the public option is free health care. Could it be that Mary Landrieu hasn't been paying attention at all over these last months and just doesn't have a clue what any of this means? Yeah, I think that's pretty darned likely.
Embarrassing enough, but this one is way better. Blue Dog anti-public option leader Mike Ross has another idea.
Ross (D-Ark.), who had emerged as a leader among centrist Blue Dog Democrats opposing the public health insurance option, has suggested something his colleagues consider even more drastic – opening Medicare to those under 65 without insurance.
He made the suggestion in meetings with House Democratic leaders and brought the idea to the closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting Thursday.
"I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice," Ross said in a statement to The Hill.
Medicare would then compete with private insurers across the age spectrum. It would be open to those who don't have insurance through their employers, the same people who would be covered by the public option already under discussion.
But Ross said he would want reimbursement for providers to be at a "much greater rate" than it is now. Medicare reimbursement rates have been a sore point for rural lawmakers who feel that Medicare shortchanges their hospitals.
Let's take that deal! But I suspect Ross doesn't get that he just endorsed his liberal colleagues' Medicare for All scheme, or the Progressive Block's stronger public option that provides higher reimbursement rates. It's a bit of a head scratcher, coming from Mr. "I can't support a public option" Ross.
It all goes to show that the knee-jerk opposition fromt eh Blue Dogs and ConservaDems to what they perceive as "liberal" policies is just that--kneejerk. Landrieu just doesn't have a clue what she's talking about, and Ross just mouths words about "government bureaucracy." But the thought that healthcare reform is going to be whittled down into something they could vote for when they don't understand the very basics of the issues is just a little bit frustrating.