Maddow: Public Option Dying Because Of Dems' Political Collapse (VIDEO)

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow went hard after President Obama Monday night for his willingness to give up a public health care option.

Noting that health insurance stocks did great Monday even as the rest of the market slipped, she asked, "How did we get here? how did we get to the foretold death of the public option and UnitedHealth awesome Monday on Wall Street? We got here through a collapse of political ambition and the resultant downgrading of expectations for this once in a lifetime, stars-aligned political shot at fixing the system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy."

After going through the models for public health care both inside the U.S. and without, and pointing out that even Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) originally supported a public option, she concluded: "Why is the public option dying now? It's dying because of a lack of political ambition. The Democrats are too scared of their own shadow to use the majority the American people elected them to in November to actually pass something they said they favored."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[RZoroaster]

09:07 PM on 09/14/2009

I like Rachel Maddow but she's off base on this one. Obama's flexibility is true bipartisanship and not weakness. Its called the high-road. And its true, as Obama said last week that the public option is only one facet of the plan. A national, government regulated co-op would be pretty much just as good! See this:

http://thefactofmyignorance.com/politics/all-about-healthcare-co-ops/

I'd rather have 95% of what we want than nothing at all!

[Free2Speak]

09:38 AM on 08/21/2009

Rachel is real....she is the only democratic pundit out there that I believe has convictions.

[fumdazzle]

09:35 PM on 08/20/2009

Rachel does a hell of a job on most issues but her research is lacking on the "public option" issue. She claims Medicare has lower overhead than private insurance. Not true. The often-cited difference in overhead in Medicare as compared with private insurers is not factual. Claims processed by fiscal intermediaries contracting with Medicare totaled 109 million for October 2008. If this most recent figure represented the average monthly volume the annual total would be 1.3 billion claims processed. Medicare expenditures totaled $468 billion in 2008 for 45.2 million beneficiaries, an average outlay of $10,400 a year per beneficiary. These figures yield a 3.4% "overhead" cost however this percentage is a total distortion of reality. None of the following costs generated by CMS are included:
 Informing beneficiaries about Medicare benefits
 Determining eligibility and enrolling beneficiaries
 Mailings to update beneficiaries about the program
 Negotiating carrier and fiscal intermediary contracts
 Monitoring and evaluating performance by these contractors
 Supervising movement of large sums from federal to private coffers
 Administering a large and cumbersome bureaucracy dealing with private firms scattered around the country, including significant travel expense for staff visits

This list doesn't include the huge cost of fraud in the Medicare program, not seen in the private sector. The comparison made with private insurers, who count as overhead every dollar not spent on an actual benefit, is nothing less than a complete sham. A public plan would share this same reality.

[brklynivn]

04:03 PM on 08/23/2009

And of what the huge dividends private insurance pays to its stock holders, many of them overseas equity groups? What of the 20 million dollar salaries private insurance pays for its executives? And you're saying there's less fraud with private insurers?

[Jim8737]

12:14 PM on 08/19/2009

Here's an idea:

Campaign Contributions from health Care industry to 2008 Presidential Candidates
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H&cycle=2008&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U

Top 20 Presidential Candidates
Rank Candidate Amount
1 Obama, Barack (D) $19,459,386
2 McCain, John (R) $7,393,547
3 Romney, Mitt (R) $2,283,350
4 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $2,075,197
5 Richardson, Bill (D) $775,870
6 Edwards, John (D) $587,941
7 Thompson, Fred (R) $537,429
8 Huckabee, Mike (R) $491,202
9 Thompson, Tommy (R) $67,811
10 Nader, Ralph (I) $62,251
11 Tancredo, Tom (R) $31,600
12 Vilsack, Thomas J (D) $30,700
13 Hunter, Duncan (R) $27,430
14 Barr, Bob (L) $22,550
15 Keyes, Alan L (R) $12,100
16 Gravel, Mike (L) $11,721
17 Baldwin, Chuck (3) $6,050
18 McKinney, Cynthia (3) $4,840
19 Curry, Jerry Ralph (R) $4,600
20 Root, Wayne A (L) $2,500
21 Cox, John H (R) $2,300
22 Smith, Christine (L) $1,250
23 Ruwart, Mary J (L) $1,200
24 Grasso, Peter Samuel Jr (I) $1,000
25 Clark, Wesley (D) $950
26 Allen, Donald Kenneth (I) $200

[Disciple1]

01:29 PM on 08/19/2009

What are you implying? Are you suggesting that the President is a puppet of the health insurance companies and therefore will sabotage the healthcare reform effort due to his misplaced allegiances? Caveat: If you are so stating, please be aware that there is no evidence to support that thesis. After all "healthcare INDUSTRY" could also include the DOCTORS/NURSES/PARAMEDICS etc., who, at the moment, largely SUPPORT reform.

[Jim8737]

03:10 PM on 08/19/2009

I'm just stating some facts. You can draw your own conclusions. I have drawn my conclusion.

[Lolasmom]

07:29 PM on 08/21/2009

This is totally depressing. Thanks for posting.

[bobm0001]

12:10 PM on 08/19/2009

Isn't this disgusting? Americans elected Democratic majorities so we can finally address the issues that have plagued us for decades. Yet, those we have elected have cowered under the onslaught of lies of people who have never read the legislation. The insurance industry and their lackeys at Fox and in Congress are going to stand in the way of change again.

[GiannaX]

10:30 PM on 08/19/2009

I love the Fairweather d o o m and g l o o m e rs.

[Carl Klapper]

11:40 AM on 08/20/2009

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the political parties don't care about you. They only want to get jobs for their real members: career politicians. That is why they are ignoring ideas from us that would really reform health care. They would rather push a fake reform that will not kick insurance out of medicine.

[VinceTeeter]

11:31 AM on 08/19/2009

What we have here is bipartisanship, when Demowimps cave in to Rushpublicans

[ndnndpendent]

10:32 AM on 08/19/2009

I am a Montana voter and I do not trust Max Baucus, I am a lifelong Dem but recent independent. I voted Dem EXCEPT for Max Baucus. It is foolish for Obama to trust him with handling this most important issue.

WHAT really is a PUBLIC OPTION? Rachel provides examples of single payer--Medicare. I understand what universal health care is---such as the British National Health Service or the system in France: couverture maladie universelle (universal health care). In France, health care is considered a public safety issue. France has the number 1# health care system in the world, according to the WHO.

I am not sure what a PUBLIC OPTION is, other than a pile of horse sh*t made up by Max Baucus to appease Republicans and his campaign contributors. We need to ask ourselves what a PUBLIC OPTION ---IS: before we support it! Where has it worked? How is it implemented!

I want more answers!

[jmpurser]

09:53 AM on 08/19/2009

Rachel is right. If this was a REAL debate on health care reform we'd be arguing about whether to go with single payer or national health care. Both are proven winners domestically and internationally. Instead we've got a massive corporate welfare bill with a pretty wrapper called the "public option".

Well said Ms Maddow.

[BobFreukes]

08:04 AM on 08/19/2009

Here is the math on the public option-
There are exactly 17-19 people, in the whole country, who are holding up heathcare reform. The house of representatives wants it, and has ample numbers to pass it. The presidents says he prefers a public option. Finally, in the senate, by even Kent Conrad’s whip count, 41-43 senators of 60 democrats (over two-thirds) will vote for a public option. By my count, that leaves 17-19 senators standing in the way of passing this thing!
It’s not 100 house members holding up what the majority of democrats want. It’s 17-19 senators. 4 out of 5 bills under consideration contain the public option. The republicans don’t count here, and refuse to participate.
Why not put the whole weight of the arm twisting on the 17-19 senators? We have the majority of democrats in all 3 branches of government in favor of a public option. The progressives, labor unions, the AARP, and 71 percent of democrats in general favor it. Yet, 17-19 people can hold up reform ?
Time to explain it to them in terms they can understand. Fall in line,or lose party financial support, labor will sit on their hands in your next election, and you will face primary opponents.
Give them a bone if they play along. This is politics, as practiced for long as history remembers.

[aablinko]

07:50 AM on 08/19/2009

It'll never happen. too much profit at stake in the private sector.

RT
www.web-anonymity.us.tc

[capitaldysfunction]

05:14 AM on 08/19/2009

Something else to mull about the public option. You won't qualify for it without meeting income limitations. That will be disconcerting to a lot of people.
The present plan might as well have been written by the Sopranos. Or the Republicans. Medicare For All (a single payer plan) was never discussed or invited to the table. Max Baucus of Montana, didn't invite anyone to discuss Medicare For All. Yet even Barack Obama himself says single payer is the better plan.
Medicare For All takes Max Baucus and Senator Conrad off the table invitation list (the Senate Sopranos); it disinvites the private health insurance companies; it will not involve Americans having to compare the complexities of multiple private health insurance company plans. Whereas in the Soprano plan some will not qualify for the public option; many will discover the private health insurance companies charge handsomely; insurance CEO's will find a lot of ways to deny payouts. And to raise premiums. Frustration will grow. Inquiries will be made as to why insurers are not properly regulated. Republicans will say "I told you so! The government can't do anything right." The electorate will smell something bad. A Democrat electoral disaster in 2010.

It doesn't have to be. Scrap the Soprano Plan. Medicare For All.

Oh! And one more party to not invite to the table: the Rethugs.

[helen]

02:15 AM on 08/19/2009

As long as things stay the way they are, we have legalized discrimination against the sick...

[apoyo]

12:37 AM on 08/19/2009

I am so sick of these lefties coming down hard on the administration for things that they barely understand.

These ego's sure must be heavy to carry around.

[PWM]

10:11 AM on 08/19/2009

I agree. Obama has to get the bill out of committee and if he has to drop the public option there is really no problem. There is not enough support in the Senate for the 60 votes, but if the public option is removed, the bill will pass. At that point it goes back to the house where an amendment can be made to add the public option and when it goes back to the Senate, the Dems will only need 51 votes - which they have. Obama has to play a political game to get the public option.

[drklassen]

01:49 PM on 08/19/2009

This is a silly way to look at it. See, watering it down so that it ultimately changes nothing, or worse yet, fails merely gives the Repubs ammunition on just how badly the government works (ironically not realizing that it is because of *them* it isn't working).

The best path is to use the bully pulpit to do something right---Repubs aren't going to vote for it no matter what it looks like so screw 'em. Arm twist the hold-out Dems --- are they worried that they won't get reelected? So what's more important to them, doing this right, or keeping their job?

[shmazz19]

12:31 AM on 08/19/2009

Okay here's what Obama and the Dems need to say. Are you currently insured? Are you happy with said health insurance? If yes then shut the F & * K up!!! If not then here is a viable option for you. Obama has tried to bring the right into the debate and it hasn't and won't work. What the administration and the "democratic" congress needs to do is take a page from the GOP playbook. Ram this down there throats. For the better part of the last decade we've seen what a party in total power can accomplish. Maybe after a few politically unilateral decisions/­rules/laws are passed, the conservatives will see that they have to engage in open HONEST debate to get their voices heard!

[emmacop]

01:41 AM on 08/19/2009

I see. So we can only engage in an open HONEST debate when I shut the F__K up.

"For the better part of the last decade we've seen what a party in total power can accomplish". Before I shut the F__K up, Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency from January 2001 to January 2004.

Math wasn't your strong point, was it?

[CarbonDate]

08:10 AM on 08/19/2009

2001 - 2007, genius. 2003 wasn't even an election year.

I mean, if you're going to impugn somebody else's math skills, at least get *your* numbers right.

[PWM]

10:13 AM on 08/19/2009

It appears it is not your strong point.

[Carl Klapper]

12:23 AM on 08/19/2009

See my earlier post about real health care reform:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/maddow-public-option-dyin_n_261811.html?page=6&show_comment_id=29285028#comment_29285028

Also my municipal medical departments cause on facebook:

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/317772/22089535?m=6d54c0aa

As a populist, I am not in favor of either party position. In fact, I am extremely anti-partisan, to the point of not wanting my tax money spent on primaries, and find Rachel Maddow's incessant partisanship tiresome. Perhaps she is intelligent, but she has never shown herself to be an independent thinker, and this video segment underscores this.

Sorry to upset your worldview, but Nixon also was pushing a universal health care system. In fact, wasn't it TR who started the ball rolling with his proposal for universal health care? Both initiatives were derailed by Democrats, Nixon's by the brouhaha the Democrats brought over typical political partisan espionage at the Watergate hotel. Seems the Democrats only want universal health care if it is their initiative. With the exception of Ted Kennedy, the only sincere politician in that party, who was negotiating with Nixon and Wilbur Mills.

That being said to set the record straight, I disagree with the national approach to health care. Medicine is deeply personal and should be provided directly at the level of government closest to the people.

[drklassen]

01:51 PM on 08/19/2009

How does having the government pick up the tab make medicine impersonal?

[GiannaX]

10:32 PM on 08/19/2009

I take it you will turn down Medicare and Social Security?