McAuliffe Comes Out Swinging: Without Public Option, Health Care A "Failure"

Former Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe is demanding his party take a stand on health care legislation that the president and many others aren't willing to take: Pass a bill with a public option for insurance coverage or don't pass anything at all.

The long-time adviser to the Clintons, striking an atypically progressive tone, urged the White House to get more assertive in its handling of health care reform and described a bill without a public plan as a "failure."

"If we don't have the public option, we are wasting our time," McAuliffe told the Huffington Post. "To chalk something up and get something that is not the right thing to do is morally wrong... To pass something just so you can go home and go into election saying we passed something is not why lawmakers are sent to Washington."

After a bit of silence following his loss in the Virginia Democratic gubernatorial primary, the former DNC chair has come out swinging on the year's most important legislative issue. On Thursday, McAuliffe agreed to host a fundraiser with the first Virginia pol who insisted that a public option be in the bill. The offer, he said, extends to Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner -- both of whom have been sour on the idea of a government-administered option for insurance coverage. He's also involved in whipping support in Congress for the public option.

In adopting this position, McAuliffe finds himself in unusual company. The figures who have publicly gone to bat for the public option to date -- most notably another former DNC Chair, Howard Dean -- are predominantly from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It is the same group that has viewed McAuliffe skeptically in the past for his pro-business demeanor and "third way" political ethos.

"Howard [Dean] and I have had the benefit of literally traveling to every city and county in America and hearing the horror stories that American families go through because of the inefficiencies of the health care system and the profiteering of insurance companies that is going on," McAuliffe explained of his new alliances. "It breaks your heart."

Indeed McAuliffe's insistence on a public option is driven by his experiences both in politics and business. He argues that it is an economic imperative to help alleviate the health care costs that are burdening companies and families. And he derides Republicans for using the same playbook they did during the Clinton years -- drawing the debate into sideshow topics like death panels and tax hikes.

"I think for a lot of [Republicans], they could care less," McAuliffe said, when asked if the White House was wasting its time trying to recruit bipartisan support. "They aren't interested in reforming health care. Their interest is bringing the Obama administration down. That is clear. Many of them have publicly said that."

But the onus of health care reform is on Democrats. McAuliffe knows that without defections, the party could pass a robust public plan in both chambers of Congress. And while he stressed repeatedly that the issue should be non-partisan, he also insisted that lawmakers would be abandoning their responsibilities by trying to tackle health care in a piecemeal way.

"Right now, [Democrats] have the House, the Senate, and the White House," McAuliffe said. "I'm not a believer that we should get something done, chalk it up as a victory, and move on. That is, to me, the worst argument. If we are going to do it, do it right. And if we don't do it right now it is never going to happen. ... The president of the United States ran on this issue. It is the moral thing to do. So let's do this."

"A bill without a public option is not necessary and it is ultimately counterproductive," he added. "If we do it incrementally and don't cover those 46 million people we are trying to put a Band-Aid on a gigantic sore that is out there festering....

"I think what the White House ought to do is stand up," McAuliffe said. "Put everybody on the record. Where do you stand? Do you want to cover these 46 million Americans or not? I think we ought to have a head count. Let the American public know where people stand on this issue. Because without the public option forget all the rest... To get in and fight for a win that doesn't accomplish and care for the people who most need it in this country to me is not a win. It is a failure. You can sugarcoat it. You can put any icing on it that you want. To me it is failure."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[StevK]

03:24 PM on 08/26/2009

With a Public Option - the country fails. Leave healthcare alone. Fix the Medicaid or Social Security morass first.

[chicagoexpat]

05:30 PM on 08/23/2009

but, really, how early in the day did he make these statements? Was it before or after his "morning" bottle of rum got drained?

[jemborg]

03:46 PM on 08/23/2009

Wow! I'm a freedom loving Aussie and I find this paranoia over decent pubic health care amazing.

We've had it for almost 30 years.

I've expounded on this in many of Huffo's threads but let me simply say... America you deserve better, do not believe the Conservative lies.

NB: It took two goes in my country to get universal Medicare established. The Conservatives got rid of it when they got voted back in. The Labor Party re-established it at the next election after that. And although they have undermined it every time they got back into power the Conservatives don't dare try to get rid of it again. What I am getting at here is you have to push HARD for it- it's NOT going to happen through bi-partisanship.

[nacygordon]

02:09 AM on 08/23/2009

We must understand WHY 47 million are under or unisured. This is not about charity. This predominately working class group, like other humans, are triggered for survival. When death knocks, they use emergency rooms and they cannot pay. Hospitals can't turn them away. They are sicker and more costlier when they do show up. They try to stay away. It's not a moral issue.
Consequently, like any other retail loss, this debt passes on to the consumer in pricing. With the government paying a masssive percent of the national health care product in military health care, Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, soon we will fail our soldiers, the elderly, and the few in the big picture who need us. We are not a nation of canibals. We are proud for humanitaranism, industry, wealth and strength. We don't want millions of working patriots in harms way.
Insurance handles risk. Those who can't afford it or have been shut out for Wall Street reasons (13-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan Dies After CIGNA Denies Liver Transplant) are in our WHY problem: the COST of insurance. Susan Dentzer told Jeffrey Brown on PBS that premiums went up 91 percent from 2000 to 2007, yet wages only rose 24 percent. There is no explanation.
We need health care reform THAT INCLUDES A PUBLIC OPTION FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE INSURANCE now because absorbing the costs of our uninsured will kill us. Our 230 year cause will not survive.
Nancy Gordon

[StevK]

03:28 PM on 08/26/2009

Explanation is over regulation and interference by the boneheads in Washington - Government interference - No Tort reform.

Fix social security and Medicaid before you go dorking up the country for good. Can't wait till mid-terms to throw this entire group out --

[Montgriz]

06:22 PM on 08/22/2009

This guy happens to be right on this issue, but he is a scumbag rejected by voters repeatedly...He is a Clinton holdover and represents all that Americans are now rebelling against when they see the liberal progressive side.....

[Wanod]

04:29 PM on 08/22/2009

WOW! Go Terry Go...A Democrat with a voice, you go dude. None of that mini mouse crap, they're suppose to be doing the American work, not hiding under their desk.

[StevK]

03:27 PM on 08/26/2009

There's a reason he got trounced. His views are not mainstream.

[JoeySoCal]

04:21 PM on 08/22/2009

Denial of Coverage = Freshly Manicured CEO / Corporate Bureaucrat = Death Panel = Dead Grandma

[JoeySoCal]

04:19 PM on 08/22/2009

"And if we don't do it right now it is never going to happen. ... ***The president of the United States ran on this issue.*** It is the moral thing to do. So let's do this."

[JoeySoCal]

04:14 PM on 08/22/2009

To win an argument or push an agenda solely through emotional appeal is often dishonest and wrong. This is the bedrock practice of the Thug party.

To win an argument or push an agenda through appeal to reason is generally honerable.

Ironically, with the general public, it is impossible to win using reason alone, competent and effective emotional appeal is a skill that is required in large quantity.

The democrats are expected to implicitly have the reason portion. There job then, is to get the emotion portion. Get it. It is all too simple to fail--> Denial of Coverage = Freshly Manicured CEO / Corporate Bureaucrat = Death Panel. Plain and simple.

By the way, emphasizing the ability to ***continue with a single health care insurer in moving from job to job*** is a gaping untapped market of import and would go a long way to address the financial problems, as well as to draw support.

[bannorhill]

04:02 PM on 08/22/2009

So is the goal to fix health care or is the goal to have government run health care?

They are NOT the same.

[lightnessandjoy]

07:56 PM on 08/22/2009

No, the goal is for the government to provide health insurance just as a private insurer does, but without the exorbitant overhead costs and denials of service that come with the private insurance system. Medicare- 3% administrative overhead; private insurers - up to 30%. In other words a more cost effective system and, of course, all of you who love your private insurance with your premiums supporting exorbitant administrative and advertising costs and multimillion dollar salaries for CEOs can continue with your own program. The huge pool of members in a public system would also provide the clout to negotiate lower costs with medical providers and drug companies. The rest of us, who are interested in access to good medical care at a more reasonable cost, can choose to join a national health care program. Competition! The free market system! What's not to like?

Voila! Everyone is happy.

[bannorhill]

08:54 PM on 08/23/2009

If the government is to provide health insurance just as a private insurer and provide competition then why do taxpayers have to pay $236,000,000,000.00 a year (starting in year 10) to run the program?

The government does not give money to private insurers so they can run their health care. Why should the government plan get money to be competitive?

Is government that inefficient that is can not even compete with private insurance and multimillion CEO's without a $236 BILLION dollar a year bailout?

[StevK]

03:31 PM on 08/26/2009

It is not the government's job or constitutional right to provide healthcare. That's ludicrous. Everything wrong with this country starts with a government program. Unbelievable. Medicare -- great example you give-- they have about 80$billion in Fraud every year and are going bankrupt -- how about an example where the facts are true?

[nacygordon]

03:10 AM on 08/23/2009

The goal is to do SOMETHING....we are in trouble! Do you have a solutions?

[bannorhill]

10:28 PM on 08/23/2009

Fix the problems.

Which problems do you want to fix?

Cost ... get tort reform. It will reduce unecessary testing expenses.

Droping of patients. Make a law that patients can only be dropped for nonpayment or fraud.

Make insurance policies portable. If you are covered by one you can freely move to any other without limitation on pre-existing conditions.

That is better than a plan that will cost every tax payer $775 a year and only cover 5% of the citizens.

[JoeySoCal]

04:01 PM on 08/22/2009

To win an argument or push an agenda solely through emotional appeal is often dishonest and should wrong. This is the bedrock practice of the Thug party.

To win an argument or push an agenda through appeal to reason is generally honerable.

Ironically, with the general public, it is impossible to win using reason alone, competent and effective emotional appeal is a skill that is required in large quantity.

The democrats are expected to implicitly have the reason portion. There job then, is to get the emotional portion. Get it. It is all too simple to fail--> Denial of Coverage = Freshly Manicured CEO = Death Panel. Plain and simple.

By the way, emphasizing the ability to ***continue with a single health care insurer in moving from job to job*** is a gaping untapped market of import and would go a long way to address the financial problems, as well as to draw support.

Let me restate: I didn't poor myself into the election for "electronic medical records". Mr. Obama, every time you use that is a wasted opportunity. While I appreciate it, it does not resonate with your audience.

[JoeySoCal]

03:40 PM on 08/22/2009

This is an important post by Mihailo:

I'm getting nervous. I understand the idea that Obama may be waiting for the matter to reach the Joint Conference Committee before he puts all his muscle into getting a public plan option. ***However, he should be framing and arguing the issue in a more focused way.***

By now, the Democrats should realize they will absolutely go back to being a minority party on Capitol Hill, and Obama will become a lame duck after one year in office, if the Public Plan Option is not enacted. Progressives will make sure of it.

[gvc]

08:06 PM on 08/22/2009

So you're saying progressives are just as irrational as the dead-enders that think Palin is a credible candidate?

[nacygordon]

03:35 AM on 08/23/2009

I agree with you that the Democrats should keep their integrity by including a public insurance plan. Those election victories were very inspirational not only to us, but to the world. Most US citizens approved the democratic agenda. For this administration to fail in delivering health care reform with optional public health insurance, would be a travesty. We just have to talk loud enoug and believe hard enough, like we did during all the elections, that, yes we can.

[JoeySoCal]

03:39 PM on 08/22/2009

To crystallize this post:

"OK we now need like 20 Terry McAuliffes to go out there on as many news outlets as possible and ***repeat like a broken record." ***

And if we don't do it right now it is never going to happen. ... ***The president of the United States ran on this issue.*** It is the moral thing to do. So let's do this."

[Skiwee]

01:13 PM on 08/22/2009

I don't see Terry as someone that warms people's hearts. Somehow I don't believe his getting into the fray will help the Public Option cause.

[nacygordon]

03:14 AM on 08/23/2009

Think of Terry as a proverbial stone crying out, okay? Why don't you help the fray of public opinion then?

[Skiwee]

04:52 AM on 08/23/2009

I don't see him as trustworthy, that's all!!!

[Okieborn]

12:23 PM on 08/22/2009

Thanks Terry !!!!
Please spread the Word !!!