Updated with a poll because I'm really curious as to what it will take to get the Public Option inserted. PS Slinkerwink and nyceve, you two around? What do you think?
Ok, I admit it. I’m a "conservative" and what’s more, I’m a Republican that has never voted for a Democrat in my life. I know that won’t get me a lot of high marks here but I think this background is somewhat useful to know with respect to this diary. One other important point is that I’m a strong supporter of the Public Option and I’m simply baffled by the failure of the Democrats to pass a bill that contains this provision. So apparently I’m missing something and I just can’t figure it out.
Follow me over the fold if you care to enlighten me and if you still want to salvage the slimmest of hopes for the Public Option.
I’ll start off by throwing you some good old fashioned red meat. As a Republican, I want to publicly denounce "my" party on the way "we" have acted this past year on a great many issues but specifically on healthcare. By and large, "our" biggest contribution to this process has been that "we" have lied, obfuscated and issued talking points totally without substance. As a person that supports free markets and relatively small amounts of government intervention, I can’t tell you how pissed off I am when I hear Republican leaders repeat, time and time again, how the Democrats are attempting to "socialize" medicine through a complete "government takeover" of our health system through "Obamacare".
STOP IT!!!!!!! It’s a lie! You know it and I know it and I’m sick of it.
A true government takeover of healthcare would contain two key items and they are both missing here. Namely, the medical profession (nurses, doctors, administrators, and other support staff) would all become government employees and the private health insurance industry would be replaced with a single payer government insurance plan. Neither of these are happening. This isn’t a government takeover of healthcare. Just stop the lying.
With that said, it must be admitted that single payer would be a government takeover of the health insurance industry and so I don’t support it because, as I said, I’m a conservative. But at the same time, I’m intellectually humble enough to say that I don’t necessarily discount that single payer may be a better way to go.
There is a real question in my mind as to whether the inherent inefficiencies of a government run program would create costs in excess of the negative attributes of a private insurance system (ie the need to produce a profit, the need to pay high salaries for executives and the large administrative costs associated with attempting to deny or delay coverage). To put it another way, progressives reflexively support government run insurance becomes it fits their political world view. Conversely, conservatives oppose it because it fits "our" political world view.
However, I am, in the words of Andrew Sullivan, a "conservative of doubt" and I don’t proclaim to know near enough about the healthcare/health insurance industry to know what would happen in the real world if we went to a government run health insurance program. And hence, I, as a "conservative" support the Public Option as a way to try and determine if a government run health insurance system can either offer the same insurance at a lower cost or if it can offer better insurance at the same cost as compared to private insurance.
Now, in my opinion, generally speaking one of two things will happen with a Public Option. Either the Public Option will produce the results that progressives believe it will (expanded coverage, lower costs, less denial of claims, etc.) or it will be a flop and under perform the private insurance market as conservatives claim.
If it is the former, as a "conservative" I simply don’t see the harm. The reason I support a free market system run by private enterprise is not because it is philosophically pleasing. No, I support a free market system because it, in my opinion, produces better results and allocates our scarce resources better. But if a government run health insurance system can produce better results than the current system, isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t it something that conservatives should be happy to admit that "we" were wrong on?
And if a government run system is just inherently worse than private insurance then that is the best argument possible against going to a single payer system. Either way, as a "conservative of doubt" I am humble enough to know my own limited ability to know what the actual result will be but I do know that if progressives are right then we will get a better system. If the conservatives are right, the country will learn that some progressive ideas are simply good on paper but don’t work in the real world.
Now, I want to make two other quick points and I would love some feedback, especially from the likes of slinkerwink and nyceve.
- As a conservative, I would like some safe guards put in such that the Public Option is not given any unfair advantages over private insurers. I brought this point up in prior discussions on Daily Kos and the typical (and fairly predictable) response was (I’m paraphrasing) "the insurance companies have been given an unfair advantage for the last fifty years and so I don’t give a damn if the Public Option is given some advantages because the private insurers have raped us". While I understand the sentiment, this argument doesn’t do much to get wavering moderate or conservative Democrats in the Senate to want to support the Public Option. Give those wavering Democrats some additional support to risk going out on an electoral limb by supporting a fair, free market option that is given no advantages and just happens to be run by the government.
- You progressives need to either call the bluff of Republicans or stop wasting our time. What I mean by that is that either you believe in the benefits of the Public Option or you don’t. If you do believe in it, now is your only time to get it. But in order to get it, IMHO, you have to give up the notion that the Public Option has to be available in all 50 states.
Look, if a government run system is better than private insurance, the Public Option will prove it. The states that choose to opt out of the Public Option, which are the Red States, will be hurt by this and there will be an understanding in those states that a) Progressives/Dems were right and b) we should elect people that support the Public Option. Further, if the Public Option is truly as good as Progressives say, then it will eventually open the door to Single Payer.
By offering the conservaDems two key concessions and by selling it to them in a way that mirrors their conservative philosophy, you (hopefully) give them the political cover necessary to vote for the Public Option. If you are right about the advantages of the Public Option, it will be bad for the good people of the Red States (Democrats and Republicans alike) for the years between now and when those states allow the Public Option to come in to those states. And I can understand how you progressives don’t want to leave anybody behind but if the Public Option is better system, then by insisting that every state has to have it and making it politically unviable then everybody gets left behind.
Fortunately, for your cause, by leaving those unfortunate people in the Red States behind, you can help turn them Blue by showing that your ideas actually work better. That is, if the Public Option is truly as good as you believe it to be.
So my advice, FWIW, is don’t give up on the Public Option but use conservative language to help persuade the moderate and conservative Democrats that this is a free market approach and it is optional on both a personal and state level. In short, the Public Option is a progressive solution that "conservatives of doubt" can support because it will either lead to a better solution or it will lead to more conservatives being elected.
Of course, I’m just an ignorant Republican. So what am I missing?