Obama Kept Public Option on the Field. You Must Get It Over the Goal Line.

After last night's speech, I have no idea what President Obama's legislative strategy is regarding a public health insurance option.

But I know he's made a public option more possible. And I know what needs to happen to get it done.

Some pundits are looking at the political comments Obama made about flexibility and compromise to argue he is trying to let progressives down easy. He said:

To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

Perhaps. He certainly is not making the lack of a public option worthy of a veto. He never has made public option a non-negotiable item, and he's not starting now.

But he also made the strongest, clearest argument why a public option is the surest way to achieve the goal of quality, affordable insurance for all:

...[B]y avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

And making that case is ultimately more important.

All the veto threats in the world don't mean anything if congresspeople are compelled to call the bluff. President Bill Clinton delivered a veto threat during the 1994 health care debate, and his own party responded by not giving him a bill at all.

But making a persuasive argument that soothes independent voters and energizes progressive voters can alter the political dynamic, compelling skittish congresspeople to do the right thing out of selfish political interest.

By making a strong argument for a public option in such a prominent forum, President Obama keeps the issue alive and in the headlines. In effect, he is saying to those of us who are already convinced: I put the ball back on the field. It's your job to get it over the goal line.

That may be unsatisfying. We all want reform to be easy. We all wish that a charismatic political leader combined with good poll numbers should be enough to implement the change voters seek.

Sometimes they are. But contested legislation often cannot be achieved with a speech and a snap of the fingers, even with the best of orators.

There will always be well-funded pushback. There will always be legislators afraid to challenge well-funded pushback, worried it will flip poll numbers. There will always be a need to show grassroots intensity to back up poll data and fire up the engine of change.

So with Obama making the case last night, now would be a good day to let your congressperson know his argument resonated with you. Call the House. Call the Senate. Sign the petition.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Follow Bill Scher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billscher

Comments

[yliza]

07:47 PM on 09/10/2009

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We the People need to speak up and make our voices heard. WE are the ones who need to put the pressure on the Ben Nelsons in the Senate to give us the kind of health care reform we need. Obama can't do it alone.

[tompoe]

05:49 PM on 09/10/2009

A huge majority of Americans want Single Payer, not a public option that dumps billions of taxpayers' monies into the pockets of insurance companies. So, why are we supposed to get excited about public option? Does it insure the tens of millions without insurance? Does it provide universal health care for all Americans? By the way, who took Single Payer off the table, to begin with?

[BLBass]

12:19 PM on 09/10/2009

2) What would have satisfied me? At heart Obama is right that a public option is a means to an end. He very carefully laid out the ends he would like reform to entail, and I don't think that list was complete. His "driving ideas" are what I consider necessary for any reform to go by that name -- end abuses like rescission and increase availability until (nearly) universal access is achieved -- but a public option is an added driver focused on making those reforms effective and, to use a loaded word, good. It's an admission that competition among insurers has not produced insurance that meets what should be our society's standards for quality/affordability. It's putting our foot down and saying these companies have proven themselves untrustworthy, so they may not like it but we need to step in and provide an example of how to do it right. I'm not inflexible; any plan that achieves those goals -- any means to that end -- will satisfy me. Without something directed at that ultimate goal, I think whatever its merits any plan is incomplete and needs a veto threat. There is no non-negotiable item, but there is a non-negotiable goal that has been missing from the President's table and is still absent.

[BLBass]

12:19 PM on 09/10/2009

1) We all want reform to be easy, but we knew this would be beyond difficult. I think we can be forgiven, after bearing through this August of excess, for hoping the President would take a firmer stand on helping make good reform easier. That didn't entirely happen -- as you say, he kept it possible, but left the heavy lifting where it's always been, in the progressive community. We're not shrinking from that responsibility, but I for one expected a bit more if only as recompense for the strategic errors that put us in the current situation.