The Public Option, and Why Letting It Snowe Is Foolish
The debate over health care has had its share of strange issues. But one has been stranger than the others - which is saying a lot, considering the lunacy of these others.
For example, claiming that the Administration wants to kill its senior citizens is certainly a classic. (I was going to say "golden oldie," but didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.)
Watching tea baggers turn on their own, eating conservatives like Lindsey Graham, that was another bit of odd street theater.
My personal favorite has been the convoluted twisting of illogic as conservatives have attempted to claim out of one side of their mouths that a public option was bad because the government is too incompetent to run anything - while out of the other side insisting that the government is just too good and would be uncompetitive. Even Lewis Carroll wouldn't have attempted writing jabberwocky this contradictory in Wonderland.
But the biggest lunacy has been the Herculean effort to reach the magic number of 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, in order to show bipartisan support. That attempt appears to be over, almost, but there's still a lot of dancing going on. And look at what shenanigans it took to get us here.
(To be clear, I understand getting 60 votes to block a Republican filibuster, but that's another matter. Close, related, but different.)
Mind you, I understand the desire to have bipartisan support. In a perfect world, showing the nation that not only Democrats but also Republicans are concerned about the public's health and both want to provide the choice of a public option that 77% of the country has said it's in favor of. But this is not a perfect world (if it were, the Chicago Cubs wouldn't have gone 101 years without winning the World Series). So, trying to get one Republican senator, not inclined to vote your way, to vote your way and dismantling the desired result in the process is an exercise in pointlessness.
But let's say Olympia Snowe did vote for a health care bill. In what universe does anyone think the America public would suddenly view health care as "bipartisan." Because of one vote?? That one vote wouldn't show bipartisanship, it would shine a beacon on the imbalance.
The public understands that the Republicans are against the health care bill. They understand this not because of grasping political subtleties - but because Republicans have said so. Republicans have said - literally - that it was not in their interest to pass a health care bill. In every instance in the House, Republicans have voted zero for health care. Zero. So, if somehow there was actually one, single, lone Republican vote for health care (or, let's dream of miracles, two!), the public wouldn't leap up and say, "Oh, my, it's bipartisan!!" They know Republicans are against a health care bill, and Democrats are pushing it. Know it.
Republicans are against a health care bill. We Get It.
Yet there is a greater reason why this pursuit of one, lone Republican vote - and even any Blue Dog Democrat votes - is lunatic in the hopes of "bipartisanship," all at the expense of watering down the choice of a public option that almost all Democrats in Congress want, the nationally-elected Administration wants - and 77% of America wants.
Why is it lunatic? Let's answer it with some questions.
What was the vote in Congress when it passed Social Security?
Do you care?
What was the vote in the Senate and House that passed Medicare?
Does the answer matter to you?
What were the vote totals that passed the Civil Rights bill?
Are you glad that it passed?
Do you think most Americans are thrilled that all of these bills passed? Do you think there would be national outrage if any of them were revoked? Does it make even the slightest different to you today whether the original votes were bipartisan or not?
Democrats in the Senate and House have been saying that health care and a public option are critical for the American public and for the nation's economic strength. The White House has been saying it, too - that health care and a public option are critical for America's health and the nation's economy.
It doesn't matter one single whit if - today - there is bipartisan support for a health bill. It would be nice. But It Doesn't Matter. If a strong health care bill is as critical as the House, Senate, White House - and American public - say it is, then what matters is passing it in as strong a form as possible. And not gutting it for the sake of one, empty Republican vote.
If Republicans want to be on record against health care, let them. Let them run on that record.
Let Democrats be the party of health care.
When you're facing crushing medical bills. When you're facing being unable to afford any health care. When you're facing catastrophic illness. When you're facing financial ruin. When you're facing death:
You don't care about bipartisanship. You care about health care.
History shows us that no one will care about bipartisanship. They never do. They care that people saw what was necessary and acted on it. For the public good, for now and forever.
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
The President's stance on this issue isn't fitting the bill (so to speak).
It's becoming pretty evident he's just a politics-as-usual president with a glossier than usual veneer. I was hoping, probably naively so, for something else. But what are you going to do? If enough people decide he's the poster child of how "wishy" met "washy", it may very well cost him his second term.
Great article! Please send it to the president and everyone in Congress.
Of course, if the goal was to derail true health care reform all along, the constant evocation of "bipartisanship" might be just a smokescreen to cover the Obama administration's lack of effort. Let's bear in mind that the president and those who speak for him have not been consistent with regard to the public option. In August, Obama (in)famously called it just a "sliver" of reform, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said the public option was "not the essential element". And in September, Robert Gibbs reiterated the administration's position: the public option is "a means to an end, but it is not all of health care." (This statement, incidentally, was made *after* Obama's Sept. 9 televised address on the health care problem.)
Bear in mind also that the only alternatives to the public option that have been discussed are co-ops and Olympia Snowe's trigger nonsense. The American public did not ask for bipartisanship or reform in name only; we did not say that we wanted to wait until 2013 (or some point even more distant) to see a positive change in our wreck of a health care system. We've suffered long enough and we want change *now*.
Amen, Mr. Elisberg. Amen.
I think its already been watered down too much in the Senate, and now Lieberman is showing his true colors. (Lets hope he gets kicked out of the Democratic caucus and loses his chairmanship).
I am concerned about letting states opt out, but that might come back to haunt anyone who takes their state in that direction. If it passes with that in it, we will see how many politicians really want to join Leiberman in political suicide.
I would love to see a Congressional Investigation into how much the insurance companies are spending on their opposition to health care reform and whether they are attempting to write it off as a business expense. That should not be allowed.
The pursuit of Olympia Snowe's vote was for the cover of bipartisanship, but not for the reason you think.
It is so they could come up with a plausible cover to try and squash progressive dissent when the public option was killed so that the deal with insurance industry for a mandate without a public option could go ahead.
Read Cenk Ungyr's blogs here on Huffington Post about what this Kabuki theatre has really been about.
Agreed.
Absolutely. Reid and the Dems don't pursue a robust bill because they don't really want one themselves.
I'll let you in on a secret, Obama only cares about the appearance of reform. So passing "health care reform" is all that matters. And if its favorable, even if only privately stated, to pharma and the medical insurance industry than even better!
Prove it.
His backdoor maneuvering to pressure progressives and to push the most watered down bill possible.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
