Countdown to Health Care: Crossing the Finish Line on the Public Option

In just a few short weeks, the public option has moved from afterthought to center stage. This happened because the American people made their voices heard and overwhelmed the insurance companies and special interests.

And although we're close to the finish line on health care, now is not the time to relent. There are still those who oppose a public option and will stand in the way of once-in-a-lifetime reform. The prelude is over. The real battle has begun.

Those who support the public option will prevail, but only if we follow the formula that got us here.

Left for dead a few weeks ago, there are four reasons why the public option will survive this intense fight, despite millions of dollars in insurance industry money pushing in the opposite direction.

First, we gave the American people direct access to Congress. Though polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support the public option, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle treated the issue as a marginal part of the debate.

We were able to use the Internet to cut through the Washington apathy and reach the millions of Americans who support a public option. My site alone (www.CountdowntoHealthCare.com) amassed over 60,000 signatures for the public option. Hundreds of thousands more have joined Facebook groups or Twitter campaigns dedicated to a real public health care option
Using the Internet, those of us fighting for a public option were able to create a direct conduit to the halls of Congress. We opened up the process beyond the usual crowd of lobbyists and special interests, and turned an experiment in open government into results. We showed that a vocal minority with deep pockets can't overwhelm the will of the people.

Second, because we were able to make this debate truly public, it became about merits rather than insider politics. And when that happened, my Democratic colleagues recognized that the public option is the only solution to the main problem with our nation's health care system: costs.

We pay too much for health care, and, as a result, millions of Americans either can't choose the quality coverage they want, or can't afford health care at all. Millions more simply pay higher premiums each year, slowly eroding their financial stability.

The only way we can truly contain these skyrocketing costs is by providing real competition to an industry starved of it. A public option, with less overhead and free of the profit motive that plagues insurance companies, could do this.

Despite the merits of the argument and despite the public outcry, the minority opposing the public option has been loud and well-financed. A healthy dose of misinformation hasn't hurt, either.

But I commend my colleagues in the House and Senate who, undeterred, worked to deliver a public option to the American people. Speaker Pelosi never wavered, and insisted on the importance of a strong public option, even when she worried that she might not have the votes from some of my Democratic friends.

In the Senate, it took some creativity and determination, but they got it done. My predecessor in the House, Senator Chuck Schumer, first proposed the idea of an opt-out public option a few weeks ago, which would allow states to leave the program by 2014. It's an intriguing proposal, and one that I believe has real promise if we give the public option a chance to get up and running before governors can choose to pull the plug.

Despite the fact an Independent, a Republican and two Democratic Senators have reservations about a public option, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to let the minority trample over the demands of an entire nation. He embraced the opt-out proposal as a central feature of the bill he plans to bring to the Senate floor.

Third, we used our majority the right way. Last year, Americans sent a clear signal when they gave Democrats a majority in order to deliver a "change" agenda. Health care is at the top of that list. Americans have suffered for too long under the burden of endlessly rising health care costs. Our job was to rise above the back and forth of politics and come up with a plan that could contain those costs.

That's what a majority is supposed to do.

Now we need a fourth and final element: the President. Back on September 9th, President Obama said he supported a public option, but insisted it was only one means to an end, and asked us to keep an open mind.

Now we need the president to stand up again and help push the public option past the finish line. Only he can provide the momentum we need to pass a bill. No voice is louder, no appeal more inspiring.

We're on the cusp of health care reform that includes a public option. This is further than the skeptics ever thought we would be, but there is still work to be done.

An unprecedented grassroots movement in favor of the public option, amplified by the Internet, has changed the nature of our political debate. But I worry that Congress may revert to old habits of political rhetoric and distraction.

We also know that the minority opposition will not rest until the President signs a bill. Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Independent, has said that he would filibuster the bill with Republicans. If the forces of obstruction will not rest, then neither can we.

Americans who want quality, affordable health care need to make their support for a public option heard. With their voices and, hopefully, one last nudge from the president, we have a chance to turn a long awaited dream into a reality.

 

Comments

[vgoss]

May I suggest a boycott of the insurance companies? If we save all of the thousands of dollars we pay in premiums, in addition to the outrageously high deductibles, then we could pay our doctors and nurses what they earn, rather than the CEOs and CFOs of the insurance companies, who actually provide no services to us whatsoever.

[Solandraguy]

Here's what I would like to know considering that the passage of this bill is about the Dems saving Face to say they passed domething AND the 2010 election.

That said Iike to know WHAT IS PLAN B AND WHEN. If Dems maintain their control as is, WILL THEY TRY AGAIN FOR A ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION OR SINGLE PAYER> OR HAVE THEY GIVEN UP?

[truthbagger]

Rep. Wiener thank you for looking out for those of us who work for a living. Have you considered running in 2016?

[xena]

Rep Weiner, while I truly respect and admire you for your good fight, and I'm sure you're not happy with the outcome so far, I feel the Dems have (taken from Judge Judy's book title) peed on our legs and told us it was raining. The bills in the Senate and the House so far are a scam. There isn't a public option for ALL. There isn't any attempt to reign in premiums or out of pocket expenses. They don't even start until when? 2013? The opt-out is a joke. I live in Indiana and my Gov. is Mitch "the blade" Daniels. What are the chances my family will have? We've almost lost our house because of out of pocket medical expenses of over $20K in 2 years. That's with insurance. What have you done for middle income citizens with employer health insurance? Nada...

[dogwatch]

All we will get is a foot in the door. The entrenched insurance industry is trying to stop us from entering. The best that we will do is get a foot in the door. This battle will go on for years before we finally get the insurance company out of our lives. We have led the rest of the world in many advancements, but this is not one of them, as a retarded system fights desperately to leave millions of Americans uncovered in order to make profit. That is an inhuman trade.

[Awake-and-Sing]

The "foot in the door" is not does not morally justify forcing tens of millions of people who cannot afford usurious premiums to buy for-profit insurance at extortion level rates under heavy tax penalty if they don't.

[dogwatch]

There are two pains. One is leaving things as they are. The other is making all the change that you can toward a better future. This is going to be a compromise. Neither side will be happy. It is the way democracy works. We voted for change. We will get a little. Not a lot.

[jmpurser]

As a progressive I've come to the opinion that the Democratic party should oppose this bill. It is truly terrible. It sacrifices real health care reform in order to save the insurance industry. If the "public option" EVER could have made a difference (and I doubt that was a possibility) the current crippled version certainly cannot.

Scrap this terrible corporate welfare bill and start over. If you can't deliver single payer then resign for failure to execute the duties of your office.

[Bardmess]

Back to the streets (I hope) and demand single payer.

[Paramendra Bhagat]

Well said. Well put.

[krocklin]

Weiner, Kucinich, Grayson - are they enough? We now need Biden and others. Otherwise the Middle class is diead.

[truthbagger]

Biden seems to have more reasonable views than Obama. Wish we had the campaign version of Obama instead of the "real" version. Is it that hard to stand up and demand a real public option?

[ajwriter]

What public option are we talking about here? One that isn't really an option for the majority of us? Hardly worth fighting for.

If, by a public option, you mean extending Medicare to every American, that's worth fighting for.

We should have Medicare for all. Keep the under 65 crowd separate from over for first 5 years to appease seniors and see how it will work. Allow people happy with their insurance to opt for private if they want, to appease the Republicans (and even allow them to buy insurance across state lines, but make private insurance rates support the regulatory structure necessary to keep this from being just an outright public shakedown, and remove public subsidies of private insurance by taxing that benefit as income if it is given to them through their employer.)

Medicare for all will benefit the broad public immediately, affect hundreds of millions of Americans positively immediately, and demonstrate the savings of such a plan almost immediately. The proposed public "option" will do none of those things.

The government is bending over backward for people happy with their insurance (mostly people who've never really needed it), but doing nothing for those of us with coverage who would have to think hard about putting on our brakes if our insurance company CEO or any of its adjusters walked in front of our cars (i.e., most of us who have truly needed our policies) .

[jmpurser]

The "public option" was NEVER intended to be anything but a smoke screen behind which Obama could kill single payer and with it the hope of real health care reform.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Agreed.

Cenk Ungyr and Miles Mogelescu have to be right about what it really going on.

The whole Obama/Eman­uel/Baucus "reform" effort is an insider deal to trade a mandate for people to buy overpriced for-profit insurance at extortion level rates with NO robust public options to lower costs (a.k.a. administrative overhead and exorbitant executive pay and bonuses) in exchange for the lion's share of insurance industry campaign cash in 2010 and 2012.

Progressives had the audacity to get in the way of their fat deal. Now that progressives actually expect the President to keep his campaign promises and a watered-down public option (in name only) is still alive, they are having trouble killing off what's left of the public option without the President's fingerprints all over it.

It never occurred to them that progressives would actually stand up for themselves, and their anger at Weiner explains the leaks from the White House about Weiner needing to "man up".

Giving away the store before negotiations ever began, refusing to draw a line in the sand and stand up and fight for the public option, deals with big pharma, should all have awakened everyone to the fact that the President's campaign last year was a total scam, assuming you weren't paying attention to his other broken promises and betrayals.

We are supposed to pretend there is a game of multidimensional chess going on. It's more like three-card monty and we're on the losing end.

[TXfemmom]

We need to go to a single payor system. All individuals, employers and investor class should have to pay into it. That puts everyone on an even playing field. Then, have a public sytsem which would be covered by just the taxes paid into this.

Then, each individual would be able to take the money which would be spent on the public system and go to a private insurer and pay the difference, if they so desire or can afford to do it.

That would give everyone the choice, make everyone pay their fair share, and everyone would be covered. If one becomes unemployed, one goes on the public system if one does not want to continue with the private, but coverage would continue.

The public option could begin the reforms needed, such as paying far less for specialties and far more on primary care, less on pharms, and less for high-tech things. We have far too many MRI machines and that drives up costs, cut the number by 40% and utilize them sixteen hours a day and lower the individual cost by 40%. Go to Certificates of Need for Open Heart Programs and concentrate them so the basic, expensive expenditures serve more people and are utilized fully. That could cut the cost of Open Hearts by 30 to 40%. Those things could save BILLIONS. Multiply that in one hundred ways, get better care, and save, save, save.

[jmpurser]

AGREED!!!

[truthbagger]

"Fairness" is an attribute America lost about 20 years ago. It was why we led the world in all areas for so long. When the system is not fair then everyone feels free to screw everyone else.

[telee]

If one follows the development of the emerging health bills, it is clear that this is a glaring example of corruption, and a failed democracy. The deals made by the president and various congress people have been formulated to maintain and increase the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and private health insurers. Revenue neutral is maintained by taking monies from medicare etc. with no saving from the price of drugs or insurance costs. The proposed public option is a joke since only 2-3% of the people will be eligible. Nothing is better than this bill. WE need a progressive party, not a one party system that represents the special interests. Same arguments apply to the bills to regulate finance; again the significant changes have been eliminated from the Barney Frank. NO significant change. Public money has been used to bail out the financial sector which is guilty of fraud. Aside from the McClatchy investigation of Goldman, there have been no congressional hearing, no investigations by the justice deparment etc. Just more crapolla. Another words we're out of the recession but who gives a damn about the people who are suffering in our country and all over the globe from the financial collapse. And then there is the war in Afghanistan. No revenue neutral requirements when it comes to war funding.
We should be disgusted with our politicians.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Conservatives are unhappy with the Republican Party. Progressives are unhappy with the Democratic Party.

Maybe BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats need to be abandoned and replaced by a new Conservative Party and new Progressive Party. At the least when you vote for a party then you are voting for a set of principles as well.

Right now the only thing we get out of a two party duopoly is varying degrees of corporate control.

We'll never constitutionally ban corporate money from politics. However, we can form a political party which does not accept corporate contributions as a matter of principle. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean any politician or party has to accept this form a legalized bribery. It's not "unilaterally disarming". It's choosing to find funding from honorable sources.

We also need electoral reforms that allows new parties and independents to flourish. Runoff elections, ranked-choice voting, even proportional representation should all be embraced by progressives.

Right now our corporate-financed duopoly doesn't serve the interests of democracy nor the American people.

[truthbagger]

Progressives have had to accept that we are stuck voting for the lesser of evils sans an armed revolt.

[TXfemmom]

Obama and Congress would serve the country well, were they just to do one thing right now. Pull back Medicare Part D into the Medicare System, and then put all the Federal Health Care programs under one umbrella for pharmaceuticals. Put Tri-Care, the military, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Insurance, the VA, and all health care either partially or completely funded by Federal Money in one pot and then TELL THE PHARMS THAT WE WILL NOT PAY MORE THAN THE AVERAGE OF THE OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES.

Talk about being able to cut the deficit. That would result in HUGE savings with just one action. Then, let Medicare save the 27% in administrative costs over these private plans. Require them to use half of it to improve benefits, and with the additional savings from this act, the could cut overall federal expenditures by hundreds of billions per year.

Make it clear to all those Medicare beneficiaries that they would get improved coverage at smaller cost to them, and the MEDICARE PEOPLE WOULD HAMMER ANYONE NOT GOING ALONG WITH IT.

Then, require that all private insurers also adhere to those costs for reimbursement for pharms within two years and that the savings be passed on through lower premiums and co-pays. That could decrease premiums by $100 to $150 a month for the average family plan.

[TXfemmom]

Anyone who loves this country should want to see our health care and insurance industry reformed. We spend twice as much as Canada and France, which has the highest rated system in the world based on availability and results. France spends $3,700 per capita and we spend $6.700. On a purely economic situation, that puts us in a position where we cannot compete with the word for jobs.

Then, we have the human toll upon the people of this country. Anyone who fights reform must truly hate this country and its' people.

[TXfemmom]

I just love this guy. He is intelligent, grounded, and right on the mark.

Last night, I saw him when he was discussing the Wilson Guy of SC, and he referred to the guy as being one taco short of a combo.

[Coinyer101]

So, eligibility of only 2% of people is acceptable to you Rep. Weiner? The rest being mandated to buy private insurance, from the very companies that put us in this predicament, is ok with you? What is it about this P.O. that is 'optional', anymore?......., nothing...­...,that's what. And when this fails to lower costs, it will become a valid argument for conservatives to use against further expansion of eligibility....., Kucinich is right....,"Is this the best you can do?".......,



Kucinich/Sanders 2012

[Awake-and-Sing]

So fanned and so faved!

[truthbagger]

If only 2% join the public option then it is doomed to failure, unless concentrated in a geographic location. It will simply lack the bargaining power of the entrenched crooked insurance companies currently operating.