White House Thinks Trigger More Progressive Than Opt-Out: Mark Whitaker

According to NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker, some in the White House -- and on Capitol Hill -- think a 'triggered' public option is preferable to an opt-out plan, regardless of political realities.

"There is a view I have been hearing from the White House, and people on the Hill as well, that actually the compromise that Olympia Snowe favors, which is the trigger, is actually more robust -- to use the progressive term -- than the opt-out," Whitaker told David Shuster on MSNBC Wednesday afternoon. "What I'm hearing from some top aides working on health care in the White House is that they actually think ultimately the trigger may be more effective in driving prices down and creating competition and they were actually surprised when Olympia Snowe started to propose it."

The White House pushed for the Senate to choose a triggered public option, which would only come into effect if the insurance industry failed to meet certain benchmarks. Public option advocates saw the compromise as basically no public option at all. At the time, it seemed the Obama administration was merely bending to political realities. Now, they apparently think the trigger is better policy, whether or not it increases the health care bill's chances at passing the Senate.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Emucrat]

Well, a trigger with a strong government-run health care option that competes with private insurers AND that is open to all Americans would be much better than a weak government-run option with the right to opt out.

In fact a trigger would go into force in all states because private enterprise will fail to offer affordable health insurance such as described in the House Health Care bill.

[cybexg]

No, a weak public option with an opt out is better than a trigger. When is the last time that a trigger put into place via a legislative act (and negotiation) was ever activated?

If the trigger is used, the P.O. will NEVER come about (and yes, if I am proven wrong I will admit it).

[PhilipTaylor]

If competition works for Starbucks/McDonalds then it can work for Health CARE!

FORCE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COMPETE ON AN INTERNET EXCHANGE WITH MEDICARE PUBLIC OPTION!

Combine the Wyden Plan and Medicare together to give 100% of Americans access to Competition and Choice!

[PhilipTaylor]

EMANUE1 = C0NRAD = C1inton Democrat = DLC = a MASSIVE PROBLEM FOR DEMOCRATS!

DLC = Democratic Leadership Council = CORPORATE LOVING DEMOCRATS

DLC = BLUE REPUBLICANS = WALL STREET OWNED AND OPERATED GOVERNMENT!

DLC = Shift Democrats away from left = hails President Bill Clinton as proof of viability of third way politicians = Harold Ford = Republican in DEM CLOTH = OWNED BY Wall Street BANKS!

DLC's philosophy = Economic Populism is NOT Viable = People are IRRELEVANT

DLC states it “seeks..mainstream values, .. non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions."

DLC supports Health Insurance via tax credits for uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care.

DLC supports some forms of Social Security privatization but opposes financing private retirement accounts with large amounts of borrowed money.

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq!

2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance.

The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left".

2005 DLC's Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements .. and cautioned "Democrats need to distance themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."

EMANUE1 = CL1NTON Reincarnated!

[benglert01]

are they losing it?

[Coastalthinker2]

How is a "trigger" which means NO COMPETITION for the private insurance companies, "more progressive". ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!

[globality]

Trigger = democratic loss

Trigger = no campaign money

[toggan]

Yes, it means no campaign money and the bottom line: No votes.

[breal123]

Obama tricked us

I though he was on are side
He sold us out

hope it was worth it

[JayeSF]

Be calm....the WH has waffled before and basically they straightened up when there was a progressive outcry. This is just typical political worminess which they have displayed from time to time... just keep pressure up.

[Coastalthinker2]

What has the White House "waffled" on that has turned out to benefit progressives in the end? So far, I see that "compromise" means "sorry progressives, you lose".

[grandtrunk road]

I began to think that the White House favored a trigger since early September when my Congressman, a member of the Progressive Caucus was quoted in Roll Call as saying that he was open to a trigger. When I called his office to complain, I was told that the votes just weren't there for a PO. I figured that was the conventional wisdom endorsed if not promoted by the White House. I wouldn't be surprised if the trigger wins the day in the final bill. So brace yourselves.

[toggan]

I am very anxious to vote the in mid-term election 2010. Perhaps the White House will understand exactly where I stand and others like me on their lack of strong support and push for a robust public option. "They" need to go for broke on a stronger public option or all who trivialized this bill may be sadly disappointed at the polls. Obama needs to stop listening to Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel on how to play the Health Care Reform game.

[Coastalthinker2]

Read this article from January 2008 by Sam Stein. Maybe what we are seeing is EXACTLY what the President wants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/edwards-campaign-asserts-_n_79790.html?show_comment_id=10887695#comment_10887695

Maybe we need to put more pressure on Congress to represent "we the people", especially the Democrats to do the "right thing" and not compromise solely for the Corporations who benefit from this current bill. I don't think President Obama is necessarily going to do what is in our best interests anymore.

[JackWhistle]

Umm.. No. They still just want to get that one freaking Republican on their side. They have once again decided to throw us out in the hopes for some more conservative support (like that will ever happen).

[JayeSF]

Exactly - now what are they gonna do - try to convince folks that the trigger s actually more progressive !!! This smacks of rationalizing " we need snowe - folks are gonna freak if the public option gets weakened any further - so - um- so let's try to snow America into believing the trigger is the more 'liberal' option !"

[GrandmaBEE]

If they don't fix this bill to reflect what the American People want, need and deserve. There will be a trigger and when pulled by the people most of these politicians will lose in the next election cycles.

[Coastalthinker2]

Succinct, to the point, and true.

[WinterParkMom]

I don't know who's advising the President on this, and why he's not using his own common sense, but a trigger will leave us in EXACTLY the same place we are in right now. People like me, who cannot afford insurance NOW, will still not be able to afford insurance after the passage of any bill, and the inane criteria for the trigger will allow it to NEVER be pulled. It will give subsidies to people, who will then give that money to insurance companies. I prefer to see my tax dollars pay for 1000 abortions than to give it freely away to insurance companies who want to gouge me out of my hard earned salary.

[clover2]

Tirgger = Dithering

[windup]

Oh yes, I'd love to hear the 2 year long debate on what criteria would trigger the public option. Or am I being generous. The 10 year debate, by which time premiums will cost half our salaries, and the number of uninsured dead will be 400,000, if the 40,000 a year is accurate.

[JayeSF]

Precisely. The industry would do everything it could to either go end-around the trigger, or eviscerate it entirely !

[MarieNat]

Errr, if that's what they think, they are wrong.