Olympia Snowe Still Opposes Public Option Because it's Too Good
Among the major developments yesterday in the health care reform debate was Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster health care legislation that contains a public option. As many folks have pointed out, Lieberman's arguments, including his claim that the public option will be a burden on taxpayers, simply do not wash.
Among the people who understand this fact is Senator Olympia Snowe, the focus of a bizarre delusion that a single Republican vote for watered down health care reform constitutes a "bipartisan" solution to a problem that, if not tackled aggressively, threatens to swamp our economy in the next decade.
Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler asked Senator Snowe whether she agreed with Lieberman that the public option would be a significant financial burden on the government. Her response: "no." In fact, and not for the first time, Snowe explained that she was opposed to the public option because it's too good. Really. Here's what she said:
"[triggers] obviously can have a maximum impact...certainly, not as comparable to a full public option and what they want, but on the other hand what you're doing with the public option is basically crowding out the private sector, because of the government's, you know, inordinate advantage in the market place." (Beutler's emphasis).
Snowe later elaborated that the public option would "drive[] the industry out" and clarified that "I believe in, to the extent possible, to allow the private sector to provide a solution."
This is not the first time (see item#3) Snowe has argued against the public option because it would be too good for ordinary Americans. But of all the bizarro-world aspects of the debate about health care reform, this may take the cake. A robust public option would save the government money while providing many more Americans with affordable health insurance and because this is bad for an oligopolistic industry whose profits have exploded in the past ten years at most Americans' expense, this is a bad outcome.
Of course, Snowe is claiming to stand on principle in asserting that better is worse. She believes, she tells us, that it's better for the private sector to provide a solution even, apparently, if it's an inferior solution. This principle runs contrary to the founding texts of modern economics, including the writings of Adam Smith. For Smith, the division of labor, private exchange and self-interest were to be praised to the extent that they achieved ends worthy of praise - namely what Smith called "universal opulence." Private economic activity was not praiseworthy as an end in itself. In those instances where private economic interests were not likely to produce better outcomes than the government, and Smith enumerated plenty such instances, the government should certainly step in.
Snowe, by contrast, is articulating a blindly ideological view, one that asserts, against common sense, that even when the outcome is likely to be inferior, we should prefer "private" solutions (whether large, privileged corporations are 'private' in the sense that is ordinarily meant is another question). Whether that sort of incoherence is better or worse than Lieberman simply lying about the public option, I cannot say.
Of course, ascribing Snowe's views to blind ideology might be a charitable view of her motivations.
Jonathan Weiler's second book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in Contemporary American Politics, co-authored with Marc Hetherington, is just out from Cambridge University Press. He blogs daily about politics and sports at www.jonathanweiler.com
Follow Jonathan Weiler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonweiler
Sahil Kapur: So What if a Public Option Leads to Single-Payer?
The conservative indictment against a public option is deeply ironic, and when closely examined, consists of two entirely contradictory cases about the nature of government.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Whether public option is better or not depends on your values.
If you hold the value of doing the most good for the public as a whole as the highest value, then the public option could be the best option because it represents a kind of competition that private sector competitors have to be very good to beat. Similarly, public option is better than single payer because it has to be very good to beat the private sector competition. Hmmm......
If you hold the value of making sure all services are provided by the private sector, no matter what the effect on the outcomes for the public, as your highest value, then public option is not attractive.
It seems that some on the right have forgotten what is important. All that matters is what works best for the public. Those who genuinely believe that it is better to be all private sector whether the result is better or not, are confused. Those who believe in private sector only because it is to their personal advantage are corrupt.
Similar to the Lewin Group, republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance cartel. While 66% of her constituents support a public option, Blanche Lincoln opposes it (Lincoln has received over $3.7 million in “campaign contributions” from corrupt insurance lobbyists). While 57% of Ohioans support a public option, John Boehner opposes it (Boehner has received over $4.2 million in “campaign contributions” from corrupt insurance lobbyists). Connecticut has a public option, yet Joe Lieberman oppose it (Lieberman has received $3.1 million from the insurance lobby). Louisiana ranks 49th in healthcare, yet Mary Landrieu oppose the public option (Landrieu has received more than $2.3 million in “campaign contributions” from corrupt insurance lobbyists). Rather than invest in the working-class, corrupt politicians have taken sides with their insurance cartel pimps. Every Member of Congress pays approximately $530 per month for “gold option,” unlimited family coverage, which includes affordable copays and deductibles, with no preexisting condition clause. During a town hall meeting, Eric Cantor (R-VA) sarcastically told an uninsured woman with breast cancer to sell her house and seek charity; even crueler, Paul Brown (R-Georgia) told one of his uninsured constituents in need of life-saving maintenance medications to “pray.” Like Grassley said, “If you want the public option, join the Army.” Boehner: picking big business over Americans is Un-American, and I am ashamed to call you an American. Public option: 175 million Americans say yea, while 50 senators say nay.
Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln are democrats.
John “take the money” Boehner, the United States Senator from UnitedHealthcare.
Tom “where’s my check” Coburn, the United States Senator from Cigna.
Jon “no maternity care” Kyl, the United States Senator from Blue Cross / Blue Shield
Mitch “show me the money” McConnell, the United States Senator from Aetna.
Blanche “let’em eat cake” Lincoln, the United States Senator from WellPoint.
Joe “not for the people” Lieberman, the United States Senator from MetLife.
I've lived in Maine, and the people there are exactly the ones who need a public option the most. Poor people, living in the backwoods, who have no access to an ER. Exactly who is Snowe representing?
I don't care what a Senator from Maine thinks, and what a Senator from Maine is will to do to get herself re-elected.
The rest of the Democrats in D.C. need to get on board with that idea, too. Snowe only has the power to screw the pooch if you give it to her.
Time for real Democrats in the Senate to use the "nuclear option." Cut the number of votes needed for cloture to 55. Pass it on.
The public option is just an attempt to get to single payer, which is no competition.
Propnents want public option to compete with private insurers because the "competition" will drive down prices but they refuse to open up the States to all insurance companies which would create the competition they claim to want. So why do they want a gov't run "option" instead of just opening the market to all insurers? The only reason is because those in gov't wants the power and control. They'll run it in the red until they drive out all other insurance companies, which will leave no competition, and get to single payer. By then it will continue to go deeper into the red every year and the american people will be made dependent on the gov't in yet another area of our lives. This is another ponzi scheme in the works like social security and medicare and on and on.
Nonsense. Even in systems with single-payer like Canada and systems where the health service is nationalized there is still private insurance and private practice.
Just scaremongering from conservatives who cannot admit to themselves that their philosophy doesn't work and their policies completely and totally failed America.
states laws n rules are needed becasue the fed govt is too busy lookign at the big picture instead fo individual hardships caused by these very insurers,
I know why states have different rules, for the longest tiem the fed govt ignored the plight and thye had to protcet themselves, but now that the fed govt has the guts to actually take this on.
does nto mean to me the states laws should be suddenly null n void.
reminds me of that whoel predatory lending arguement, see where that got us.
Single payer is the real solution. It can eliminate all health eliminate the insurance middlemen and save money, up to 25% of today's cost right off the top.
I favor the public option because otherwise I see no change whatsoever except higher costs for insurance.
Yet I do not understand how the public optin, a governmetn insurance company, will lower costs. Insurance is all about statistics. The more a policy provides, the more the costs will be and the higher the premiums will be. So how will a public insurance company show any significant cost reductions over private insurance, especially if the public option is "competitive" and offers more coverage than private insurance.
There seems to be no effort to analyze the medical system to determine where the money goes and how to lower costs. The current system is not organized to provide preventive care for all citizens which might lower costs through improved public health.
Also, we always hear about how expensive emergency rooms are. So why don't hospitals open a 24 clinic next door tot he ER and tell people without emergencies to simply walk next door and avoid the high costs of treatment in ERs. This argument never made sense to me and leads me to conclude that the industry is not being honest about its arguments.
Single payer has some paper advantages of reduced adminstration in theory. However, the atmosphere of non-competition is deadly to attitude and performance over time. It is just human nature that if there is no comparative standard to hold an organization accountable, it will drift away from efficiency and high standard results.
Public option, if implemented competently, is the best option because not only does each competitor need to prove themselves each day against their competition, private industry and public bureaucracy need to prove themselves every day against each other.
The commentator above makes the case for why public should be more efficient than private in theory. Those on the right often hold it as almost a religious value that companies in competition are more efficient and effective than government because of their flexibility and competition.
It is in the interest of the public to have each of these theoretically superior systems prove their worth every day. The public option will do that if it is not implemented with some kind of artificial impediments or subsidizes.
This blogger has blatantly imposed his own thinking and interpretation on to Olympia Snowe's quotation. "the government's, you know, inordinate advantage in the market place." This comment does not implicitly imply that she thinks a government option is an inherently better plan.
Most people would argue that Microsoft has an inordinate advantage over Linux and Apple in the technology sector, or that Aetna has an inordinate advantage over a local mom and pop insurance company in some small town or city. But, many would also argue that the smaller companies offer better products and service.
The government would not only have a simple revenue advantage but they obviously don't have to maintain a balanced bottom line or positive cash flow. Additionally, they are allowed to create a federal plan that can be sold nationwide while no private company is allowed to sell across state lines at this time. I would say that is an inordinate advantage over any private company in every way; except possibly quality of service and pricing which will remain to be seen.
Each state regulates the standards for medical insurance in their state. A federal public option would need to conform to those state standards. In the same way, any company is free to set up shop in any state, but they choose not to and choose instead to focus on individual markets where they stand to maximize their profitability. There is no contradiction in the concept of a public option as long as it is not subsidized and it has to live within the same regulatory environment as it's private competitors.
I think it's truly pathetic how the Obama administration has wasted time courting Olympia Snowe on this issue when she's so firmly attached to the school of thought that the private sector has all the answers. Yeah, right, lady, as if the private health insurance companies provide comprehensive and affordable insurance to all....
Snowe never had the intention of bi-partisanship. Her mission was to act as a Judas goat and lead our flock to the legislative slaughter of it's efforts. To obtain her vote on cloture we must make her constituents as aware as possible of the issues. Every carrot must have it's stick.
Jonathan is imprinting his feelings onto Olympia Snowe quotation provided in this article and basing an entire blog on one misinterpreted quotation. The government having an 'inordinate advantage' doesn't necessarily imply that she thinks a government option is an inherently better option.
The statement "the government's, you know, inordinate advantage in the market place" doesn't implicitly or contextually mean anything more than saying Microsoft has an inordinate advantage in the technology industry over Linux or Apple, or Blue Cross Blue Shield has an inordinate advantage over some mom and pop company in a small city or town. Many people would argue that the smaller firms offer a better quality product over the the company with the inordinate market share.
In this particular case the government would not only have a financial advantage in terms of simple revenue but they obviously have no requirement to maintain a healthy bottom line and balanced budget like a private firm, but they would also be a federal plan that can be sold nationwide even though no private insurance company can sell across state lines at this point. The government has an "inordinate advantage" over private firms in every possible way; except possibly the service and quality of care provided.
conservatives oppose this because the federal government has no authority to enact such legislation.
for example the broad brush of the federocracy will paint the same plan for california, texas, and new york even though the standard of living is vastly different.
it will remove more of your rights and liberty for the express purpose of taking care of you.
it will empower another generation of people with an entitlement that will bankrupt this nation.
look at romney care. as a comedian once said,
how far can we make it on one engine?
all the way to the scene of the crash.
we will probably beat the ambulance there by half an hour!
medicare, medicaid, social security, are broke. the post office is 2 billion over budget. cash for clunkers cost not $4500/car but $24,000/car, do i need to mention fema? why on earth would you allow washington to run healthcare? stupidity.
WHAT??? Then most conservatives do NOT understand the Constitution (wait...th
It is an easy and rational argument to make that health care and hence, health insurance impacts interstate commerce. Hence, the federal Government has the authority to act -- see Commerce Clause.
Stupidity is pursuing the same failed conservative policies that didn't work under Ronald Reagan, nor did they work under either Bush presidency.
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not create a single job nor do they bring prosperity for anyone but the elites at the top.
But conservatives keep trying. ("I just know this time it will work")
These programs are not "broke". There was plenty of money to bail out wall street and plenty of money to fund an Iraq War that Dubya lied the nation into.
A simple lifting of the cap on FICA will ensure Social Security's funding in perpetuity.
The conservative movement has absolutely nothing to offer America.
I did not know that the standard of living varies by state. I have not noticed this in my travels. Perhaps the author should get out of their holler every once in a while.
The standard of living varies from one geographical area to another (compare Appalachia with, say, Martha's Vineyard or Park Avenue, and compare that with the South Bronx). Regardless of whether one lives in a luxury high rise or a primitive cabin with an outhouse, everyone's life is worth promoting and preserving equally. Someone in Appalachia may have to travel farther to reach a hospital, but once there, he or she should get the same care offered to everyone else in this country.
They might be surprised to find out that Scandinavian countries with those horrifying "socialist" policies have a higher standard of living than we do.
Olympia Snowe's position is indefensible, no question about it--and yet the president continues to court her, ostensibly in the name of "bipartisanship". That should worry everyone, even staunch Obama supporters who have been uncritical of the man so far.
What is so sacred about health insurers? If they're not meeting our needs, they deserve to go! To see how absurd Snowe's logic is, substitute "buggy whip makers" for health insurers. Yeah, let's protect buggy whip manufacturers!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
