Public Option: This Is How It's Supposed to Work

Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would submit a health care reform bill with a national public option that states could choose not to join.

This is how democracy is supposed to work. The highest ranking member of Senate was able to hear the will of America's progressive majority over the din of the insurance lobby and the right-wing noise machine, and was responsive to the majority.

But that's mere idealism. From a practical standpoint, this is how the modern progressive movement is supposed to work.

In 1993, there was no significant progressive movement putting positive pressure on the Clinton administration. Many naively assumed having a Democratic president and Congress was enough, the hard work was done, and we could kick back with a Crystal Pepsi and let democracy work its magic.

We learned the conservative minority had many tricks up its sleeve, and was able to smear and fear to death any attempt at major progressive reform.

The election of a uniquely compelling figure in President Barack Obama threatened to bring back some of that complacency. A false notion persists in some corners that the president should be able "ram through" any legislation he likes.

But Obama himself has always stressed that real change is too hard to be accomplished by one person, even the president. Without a progressive movement pushing good ideas, debunking conservative information and countering special interest pressure, any attempt at reform will suffer the right-wing meat grinder, spooking even the biggest congressional majority from acting.

Over the last several years, the infrastructure of a modern progressive movement has been falling into place. There may be plenty of kinks to work out, but the movement has been making its mark.

As Roger Hickey explained in his recent post, beginning nearly three years ago, Campaign for America's Future played a significant role in adopting the good idea of a public option from Prof. Jacob Hacker and helped put together the broad-based Health Care for America Now! coalition to educate and rally the public around it.

That was enough to get the idea embraced by the top Democratic presidential candidates in 2008, as well as many congressional candidates.

Then in 2009, as the legislative debate unfolded in the traditional media, leading liberal bloggers and cable TV commentators were able to put a hot spotlight on the idea, largely because it was a single idea that was easy to grasp but powerful enough to be fundamental to the debate. Grassroots energy was well channeled, not shattered on the shoals of opaque wonkiness.

(Contrast the health care experience with the climate debate, and to a lesser extent the financial reform debate, two areas where we lack a singular policy goal to hold up to the grassroots as a main target of activism.)

Bloggers also kept the grassroots fire stoked throughout the course of debate, countering the potential momentum killers from the paper-thin analysis of the pundits or the rampant lies by the lobbyist-backed Tea Party outbursts.

The building grassroots pressure buoyed the attempts by Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer to overcome the naysaying from fellow Democrats Sen. Max Baucus and Kent Conrad.

Both repeatedly asserted, without producing evidence, that it was impossible to get a version of the public option passed in the Senate ... regardless of what the people actually want. Yet the progressive movement amplified the sentiment found in poll after poll, letting Senators know that the idea was not just popular, but also had an intense constituency that would remember on Election Day if their representatives failed to execute the public will.

This is more than just brute democracy however. The main reason folks got behind the public option in the first place is that it is a good policy idea that could withstand right-wing attack, not that it is a symbolic prize for blind ideologues.

As conservatives tried to claim people would be forced into a fascist government takeover, progressives calmly noted the public option would simply offer an affordable choice in addition to private plans. As right-leaning Democrats wailed about the deficit, progressives stressed the public option was a money saver.

When crunch time came, and Senators began to realize all the other compromising done to appease right-leaning Democrats and special interest lobbyists risked making reform unaffordable to many working households, the merits of the public option shined even brighter.

But those merits would not have been heard without a progressive megaphone.

We have pushed the limits of Establishment debate, buried the right-wing lies and gave people a stronger voice in their democracy.

That's how it's supposed to work.

And it can work again, and again, and again.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

 

 

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

Comments

[niblik]

When the "people spoke" while electing the previous president everything seemed to be fine and Republicans were more than happy.

Now that they have fallen out of favor and seen a Democrat elected President the system is suddenly broken?

[cathyvv]

Public Option with an 'opt out' clause for states is a really dumb idea. First, some states are so poor that they will HAVE to opt out iunless the federal gov't foots the entire bill. Second, some states have elected representatives who are so opposed to any kind of health care reform, that, even though their constituents need health care reform, they will opt out. Third, If I live in a state where there is no public option, am uninsured and I become ill, I will find a way to move to a state that does have a public option. Assuming that each state can have it's own 'flavor' of public option, word will spread about which state offers the best "public option" deal, and that state will be overwhelmed by new residents.

[Wajzatha]

Public Option is supported by the majority of the people in the US. No state should have the right to opt out. My state MI will opt out and if there is one state in the nation who needs the public option the most is Michigan.
The president has to go to congress and ask point blank, who is for and who is against. Count the votes and tell congress, all people who voted for public option will have the public option for their districts. People who voted against won't and I wish the nay sayers good luck with their next election.
Thank you, let's move on to the next project.

Henk Lubben

Sault Ste. Marie, MI

[FogBelter]

Bill, fine post. Where the Progressives need to bring the fight now, in the context of an Opt Out Public Option, is what form the included Public Option takes. If States are allowed to Opt Out of the program then those States that utilize it should be allowed to build a Public Option that is robust and doesn't hedge in meeting the needs of their State's citizens.

The Public Option needs to keep costs down, Medicare plus 5% seems workable, but it also needs to be comprehensive and universal. The Public Option should not be limited to a small pool of Americans that are uninsured, it should be a choice available for everyone in the State that wants it ... it is from the large pool of members that the savings are realized (as was pointed out on the Rachel Maddow Show). The States should also be able to use their clout to bargain for the best possible prices with the Pharmaceutical companies for Drug prices, same with Medical Equipment Companies. An anemic Public Option isn't worth the effort that has been put forth thus far.

And, frankly, States that intend on Opting Out should have no influence whatsoever on the type of Public Option plan that the States that wish to use it provide ... they're out.

The fight isn't over, we haven't earned any laurels to rest on yet. Let's saddle up and get this Public Option thing done the right way.

[Jefferson78]

So when polls show a majority of Americans oppose this health care legislation, how do you justify continuing to push for passage? Are we not a democracy?

[Veronikaleblanc]

What poll? Be specific.

[txrunner]

I would like to be called a progressive.

I am self sufficient, productive, and supportive of my family. I earned and education, earned a successful career, and also had the opportuntiy to take a spouse.

I've paid my taxes on time, I've paid my bills on time, I've assumed a mortgage that I can afford and have made my payments on time.

I would like progressives to be those that do not require government financial support. I would like progressives to be those that have identified the key indicators to self independence and have captured the American Dream. I would like progressives to be what people should be striving to be.

And, for those that require government financial support, I would like for them to called FEDERAL DEPENDANTS.

Seriously? Who is leading this nation? Imagine what this country would look like if the majority of the people were truly progressive and didn't require FEDERAL DEPENDANCE??? There would be much fewer jobs in Washington DC, and their positions would be far less important.

[medicinecat]

Did you make up your own definition of Progressive or did you get it from Limbaugh? Hannity?

You're not a Progressive at all. Just a tired, ol' Republican. And you lost. So hit the road. We real Progressives have to clean up your neo-con mess and you're in the way.

[Jefferson78]

Excellent definition. Too bad more people don't acknowledge the individual's responsibility to themselves and to the good of the state.

[DrInsula]

Hey Cicero, "striving for what people should be

[Bastiat]

If this is a good example of democracy in action democracy is little more than mob rule. Americans have been conditioned to believe that there is something irrefutably just about a majority-decision. But what, may I ask, is just about a majority forcing its will upon an unwilling minority? Perhaps it's our warped view of what a majority really is. Strictly speaking, a majority could be merely 50% + 1. Can we really say that "the people" have spoken when nearly as many may have spoken against something as for it? It's telling that commentators called President Obama's victory a "landslide­." Pardon me, but is 52% to 48% (popular vote) really a "landslide?" We need to take a good, hard look at our political system and the process by which we make decisions which will materially affect all Americans. If we don't, we risk creating the legislative tyranny which Thomas Jefferson and others warned us against.

[niblik]

Let me see if I get this correct.

When President Bush was re-elected it was a mandate from "the people" and Republicans were more than happy. Those that had protests against the govt were "Un-American" and traitors.

When President Obama was elected its now some kind of horrible attack on our country and the election process was somehow slanted against the Republicans? There must be some kind of conspiracy that is blocking true Americans from their rightful place in the White House?

There was an presidental election, and after years of Republican rule a Democrat was elected this time. All done legally and not only with the popular vote but with the electorial vote as well. Absolutely no conspiracy and the election was completed using the same voting process which elected the previous president.

You can't have it both ways. Stop demonizing your opponents and put your own house in order before complaining about others.

[medicinecat]

You said it beautifully.

[niblik]

So its fine when the electoral process works for the Republicans but its something subversive when a Democrat is elected President?