The Public Option Fight Gets Engaged in Public for the First Time Next Week

by: Mike Lux

Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 18:30


The most conservative committee in Congress is finally getting ready to consider the first public votes on the public option, with amendments by Schumer and Rockefeller that will likely be considered on Tuesday. The Finance Committee, led by two of the most conservative Democrats in the House or Senate -- Max Baucus and Kent Conrad -- will be the first place the public option finally sees the light of day, getting debate and votes in front of everyone.

Given the poll numbers, and Baucus' past statements supporting the public option, you would think this would be a no-brainer, that no Democrat would want to risk alienating voters who overwhelmingly support it, or the fired-up party activists and donors who have been passionately fighting for it for months. Look at the polling analysis just done by Health Care for America Now:

Support for Individual Mandate Contingent on Public Option: The polls, conducted by Anzalone Liszt Research and Lake Research Partners for Health Care for America Now in mid-September, each found that likely 2010 voters oppose "requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a private health insurance plan" but support "requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a health insurance plan with a choice between a public option and private insurance plans." A mandate that individuals have coverage or pay a fine is a key feature of health care reform proposals that require insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Nationally, voters oppose a mandate to purchase private insurance by 64% to 34% but support a mandate with a choice of private or public insurance by 60% to 37%.

"Requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a private health insurance plan"

National: Oppose 64% to 34%
House  Swing: Oppose 60% to 34%
Maine: Oppose 55% to 35%

"Requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a health insurance plan with a choice between a public option and private insurance plans"

National: Favor 60% to 37%
House Swing: Favor 50% to 46%
Maine: Favor 55% to 40%

Note: In all three polls, half of those surveyed were asked each question.

All of the health care reform proposals that have passed Congressional committees to date, including three House committees and the Senate HELP Committee, include an individual mandate and the choice of private or public health insurance. The Chairman's mark introduced into the Senate Finance Committee includes the individual mandate without the choice of a public health insurance option.

With numbers like this, and with the entire Democratic base mobilized intensely around the issue, you would have to be politically tone deaf as a Democrat to oppose this, but this is the Senate Finance Committee, so public option advocates are likely to lose these votes. The question, though, will be the margin. On a committee this conservative, far more conservative than the Senate as a whole, if we only get seven votes for the public option amendments, that would have to be considered a major political victory, and a sign that the public option can definitely get a majority vote on the floor.

Of course, the traditional media won't report it that way -- anything that goes against their cast-in-iron conventional wisdom belief that the public option is dead will not be reported. Chuck Schumer nailed it last night on Rachel Maddow: this is just the first step, in the most conservative possible setting. This vote is all about laying the ground work for the Senate floor fight and the conference committee fight after that, both of which are far more favorable to public option advocates. With polling numbers like those above, and an activist base on fire on this issue, it is going to be more and more difficult for Democrats to vote against the public option when they have to vote in the light of day.

Mike Lux :: The Public Option Fight Gets Engaged in Public for the First Time Next Week

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Just a fantastic article Mike. (4.00 / 1)
This is a message that needs to get out, a seven is more than good enough. It is a question I was wondering how to ask earlier. That begs the question, where and what happens next, and what can we do to mobilize for the actual starkly important vote. (Although I realize if the PO gets 4 votes that would be a shock and it would be starkly important)

What next, how or who can we pressure, where to put the shouldwer right now. Can we begin new ads, can we call a specific couple of reps, are there pressures for three we can pull off.

I hope for a Joe Sestak to announce a candidacy on Saturday in Some Senators Home town, a Single Payer Dem. or some such.

The post by Big hurt today on the CBS poll on the public Option showed a majority of Republican voters supporting it.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


the momentum of reason (4.00 / 2)
I keep thinking the sheer logic of the public option (it's popular; it keeps costs down while improving health coverage for more people) and the sheer illogic of excluding the public option (mandate to buy insurance + no public option = political suicide for Democrats) would eventually overtake the centrists' ridiculous posturing and shilling for the health care industry. But we'll see just how stupid the Democrats can manage to be...

[ Parent ]
those Democrats. (4.00 / 1)
Those specific addled brained, bought off and "pretending to be"  Democrats. I refuse to let them sully many good Democrats, NY Rep Weiner is the first example. And a long history of good democrats who enacted for this country just about everything worthwhile since 1930.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
I would agree with you... (4.00 / 2)
Except that part of the problem is the institutional behavior of the party itself. For example, you can lose a Democratic party primary, and key members of the party will still back you up against the Democrat. And all the committee chairs get their position by seniority, rather than vote by the caucus - which is why we've had addle-brained Baucus doing his best to mess this whole thing up for us. And then there's Harry Reid... Look, the Republicans run circles around the Democrats on party discipline. Yes, there are lots of good Dems, but the disorganization of the party is part of the problem.

[ Parent ]
More Better Dems (4.00 / 1)
More primaries, more democracy, every contest, every race is a discussion. We live in a time now, were everything we do is important. Tehy used to suggest that Obama was doing too, now we know we have to trot just to keep up.

We need more democracy, more questions, more answers and more discussions. With rspect, taking every issue seriuosly, deciding. And deciding to act. Based on facts.

Committees are congress and tradition, btw.

But with more discussion on issues, we'll get more better democrats.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
What key dems (0.00 / 0)
backed Lieberman over Lamont in the General Election?

I can think of a handful of conservative dems, but no KEY Dems.  


[ Parent ]
Chris (4.00 / 2)
Bowers has done great posts on who to target on Finance.

[ Parent ]
America wants to be governed differently. (0.00 / 0)
They had their chance and they were wrong. They near wrecked the country.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
connecting the dots... (4.00 / 3)
Nationally, voters oppose a mandate to purchase private insurance by 64% to 34%

and

Congress Rarely Passes Unpopular Laws
by:  Chris Bowers

To repeat, Congress is pretty cautious. They rarely pass anything that is unpopular, because they usually pay a heavy political price when they do.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...



Why should the public trust Obama with healthcare? (0.00 / 0)
Although David Sirota nailed Obama a lot sooner than anybody else on the left, and OpenLeft has been right out there in front with exposure of the flood of lies emanating from the Obama White House, when it comes to healthcare...

Let's pretend that Obama's compulsive dishonesty doesn't really matter.

Is that guy even capable of telling the truth about anything?

And now when anybody with an IQ above single digits understands that we should have a single-payer system like every other civilized country...

The face attached to that idea is Barack Obama, and it is not about color, as identity-fanatics on the left always pretend.

It's about honesty.

The Democrats nominated a stinking con-man, and all Republicans could find to run against him was a senile dinosaur and a freak from Alaska, and now here we are...

Most people understand that they will never understand the details of legislation, and all they have to rely on is the integrity of their representatives.

The integrity of their representatives! What a fucking joke!

So now a lot of seniors are listening to talk about cuts in Medicare, and maybe they get lost in the infinite details, but one thing they know for sure...

The guy who would be running the public option is a liar.

Obama is a liar, everybody knows it, and even progressive sites like OpenLeft have had to admit it over and over and over...

But when it comes to the healthcare "debate," everybody on the left pretends that it really doesn't matter that nobody but fools and sucklers could possibly trust the stinking con-man at the top of the ticket.


Luckily, or just logically, we dont have to trust "Obama" (0.00 / 0)
We can watch the votes in congress, and see what's being passed ourselves.

It has nothing or little to do, as many complain bitterly, with Obama, except his exhortations to pass 'a' health reform.

Later, when bills like this get passed, Obama will be able to make strong suggestions, but now, he is not in the branch that passes legislation.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Well, despite your rant, a strong majority of people seem to trust him. (4.00 / 1)
You may not like it, but there you go. Go figure.

[ Parent ]
That silly claim is contradicted by most polls. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is as always "better than Republicans," which is still the only excuse for electing that clown, but otherwise...

The good news is right at the top... eventually something may get better, but as for now, with Obamacare...

It goes too far (24-15), will hurt "me" personally (28-21 and 26-23), make costs worse (27-19), make the quality of healthcare worse (30-14), and make it harder to see a doctor (32-14).

What a rousing vote of confidence for the con-man-in chief!

(But, yes, Buckwheat, Obama is still "better than the Republicans," and dogshit is also "better than the Republicans.)


[ Parent ]
hey crazy person (0.00 / 1)
that same poll says this;

34. Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think has better ideas about reforming the healthcare system, Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

Obama- 52%
Republicans in Congress- 27%
Both- 2%
Neither- 11%
DK/NA- 9%

you might want to pick a poll that DOESN'T contridict what you're saying.  


[ Parent ]
Just as I mentioned at the top of my comment. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is as always "better than Republicans," which is still the only excuse for electing that clown, but otherwise...

And DTOzone replies...

"Whut?"

"Whut?"

"I musta missed sumpin'..."

"Whut?"


[ Parent ]
If you are so angry with Obama (0.00 / 0)
Then why dont you help find a primary challenger to him for 2012?

[ Parent ]
Dude, I recruit all the time! (0.00 / 0)
For example, when the drooling, brain-dead, sold-out Democrats fucked over Paul Hackett in 2006, he almost had to get a restraining order to keep me off his back!

"Don't give up, Hackett!"

"Don't drop out of the race, Hackett!"

Night and day!

You think Kucinich will run in the primaries against Obama?

How about Wesley Clark?

Tell me what I can do to make it happen!  


[ Parent ]
Paul Hackett vs. Sherrod Brown (0.00 / 0)
I'm really glad they fucked over Paul Hackett for Sherrod Brown, gotta tell ya.  

[ Parent ]
Harharharhar!!! (0.00 / 0)
DTOzone does it again! A new record!

Harharharhar!!!

"But...duh?... for... uh... whut? Whut? Whut?"

"Whut kinda record?"

"Whut?"


[ Parent ]
Sherrod Brown is a progressive (0.00 / 0)
Paul Hackett was a Blue Dog who just happened to oppose the war in Iraq.

Jacob Freeze; wuh? huh? buh?

yeah


[ Parent ]
If you had a name... (0.00 / 0)
...maybe you wouldn't be quite so "brave."

"DTOzone" is obviously nothing, and maybe you should explain why you're ashamed to post under your real identity.

Aren't you proud of the insults you distribute so "bravely" on the internet?


[ Parent ]
change the subject much? (0.00 / 0)
lol

[ Parent ]
IMAGINE Support IF Pathetic Sack of Shit Sold Out Dems (4.00 / 1)
could do more about messaging than fucking whine about how thieving, cheating liars cheat so they can lie and steal! DO THE MATH:

- 100's of elected DC Dems

- 1000's of staffers doing media, communications, press relations, public relations, whaaa yadda yadda

- TENS OF MILLIONS IN SALARIES

and instead of burying these lying AHIP thieving scum, 'death panels' gets 3 weeks of air AND we the peeee-ons get lectures from our highly credentialed politically incompetent 'leaders' on how all they can do about tea baggers and glen beck is piss and shit in thier diapers -- then go back to their nice neighborhood, pick the kids up from the nanny, and have the maid clean up the mess!

ugh.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


Wow seeboss84 this is more than ususally thread bare as an argument. (4.00 / 1)
But I take it you are angry at the "people who run" the Democratic party

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Definitions (4.00 / 2)
To call someone like Kent Conrad a "conservative" is to give him way too much credit.  He's a bought-and-paid-for political hack.  Spread the word.

The Conrads of American politics have to be marginalized if a progressive Democratic Party is to emerge.


When it's "Medicare-like", voters do indeed... (4.00 / 2)
... support the reform overwhelmingly. Instead of relying on the HCAN't poll, look at what the Times asked (via Avedon):

So: "57. Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan - something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get - that would compete with private health insurance plans?" Despite all the propaganda that has eroded this figure since Obama has been in office, 65% still say yes.

Unfortunately, the public option simply isn't "like" Medicare coverage, except insofar as both are government programs. Contra Lux's premature triumphalism, as soon as Medicare-like is removed from the equation, support drops:

But dig this: Question 38 asks, "Do you think you understand the health care reforms under consideration in Congress, or are they confusing to you?" Only 37% think they understand, while 59% think it's confusing. (And not without good reason!) And Questions 41-50 make it abundantly clear that though most people do want the government to do something to improve our healthcare situation and think in fact that even Obama is understating how bad the situation is, most don't support the plans that are being proposed and think Obama is at best overstating the potential of the plan to help them.

Yep.

What the data suggests is that voters want Medicare: Single payer. The data also suggest that "progressives" haven't done real well explaining [a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan], since people are still confused.

Too bad the Dem leadership and "progressives" didn't put Medicare for All on the table (a decision Dr. Dean calls "a terrible mistake".

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


The poll clearly shows voters want the CHOICE of Medicare... (4.00 / 1)
...and if you define Medicare as single payer, that's not what the people want anymore. Obviously, the public is in favor of a plan consisting of Medicare coverage, but without being mandatory, leaving them able to opt for a different offer. And that is support for the public option, and not single payer. Imho that's totally understandable, people are simply careful, and want to have a safeguard if the government ran plan turns out to be a desaster.

[ Parent ]
Medicare IS single payer for over 65 (0.00 / 0)
It's not me defining it that way, that's what it is. Just like VA is single payer for the military, not me defining it that way.

* * *

But I take your point. In fact, you're right and I'm wrong on the polling.

The problem is that in reality, you can't get there from here. If Medicare is just one option among others, then you don't get the cost savings and you don't get the market pressure. So what the public option does, besides confusing its branding with Medicare, so that when it fails, Medicare goes down, is induce, well, "You can have your cake and eat it, too."  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Lambert, when we talk about Medicare and choice, it's obvious... (0.00 / 0)
..people are not referring to Medicare as a single payer system. And there is nothing in that plan that would prevent it's success in competition to the private plans. The cost reduction may not be as high, but still significant. And why should Medicare "go down"? That's ridiculous. You wanna suggest that it couldn't compete with the insurers? That's a weird idea.

[ Parent ]
However, thx for acknoledging I have a point! (0.00 / 0)
Very fair of you, and I appreciate it. And to return the compliment, I have to say you regularly give me food for thought here. Imho it's the controversy between different fractions here, public option supporters and single payer enthusiasts, that helps us all sharpen our ideas and finding the areas where they still fall short. And it's the different views, and arguments, that make our discussions so exciting. Hooray for OpenLeft!
:-)

[ Parent ]
Medicare IS single payer for over 65 (0.00 / 0)
It's not me defining it that way, that's what it is. Just like VA is single payer for the military, not me defining it that way.

* * *

But I take your point. In fact, you're right and I'm wrong on the polling.

The problem is that in reality, you can't get there from here. If Medicare is just one option among others, then you don't get the cost savings and you don't get the market pressure. So what the public option does, besides confusing its branding with Medicare, so that when it fails, Medicare goes down, is induce, well, "You can have your cake and eat it, too."  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
wyden's bill (0.00 / 0)
from the quotes below I understand wyden's bill doesn't have a public option, but gives everyone the choice of what plans are in the exchange

now IF the schumer amendment is adopted and we have a public option and then the wyden amendment is adopted too, does that mean everyone can choose the plan they want and one of those is the schumer public option? the best of both worlds?

--------------------------------------------------------

ezra

Enter Wyden. The Free Choice Act is not a health-care-reform bill. It is best understood as a reform of the health-care-reform bill. In particular, it reforms the nature of the Health Insurance Exchange. Under the bills being considered right now, the exchange will be limited to the uninsured, the self-employed and small businesses. Maybe it will be expanded over time. Maybe not. In addition, it is barricaded by what's called a "firewall." The firewall essentially bars individuals from entering the exchange so long as their employers offer them a basic level of health-care coverage.

The Free Choice Act starts by setting the rules for the exchange: Within five years the exchange is open to all employers. More importantly, it's open to all people. The firewall is extinguished. But as the late, great, Billy Mays would say, that's not all!

The key component of the Free Choice Act is called "cash-out." Under the Free Choice Act, if I decide that I don't like any of the health-care coverage options being offered by my employer and would prefer to choose from the many options being offered on the Health Insurance Exchange, my employer has to give me a voucher that covers 65 to 70 percent of the cost of the lowest level of exchange plan. (That is the average portion that an employer pays of his employee's health insurance premiums.) I can take that voucher and, along with whatever money I want to throw in, choose a plan on the exchange.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

digby

But there is one legitimate reform that could lower costs for both individuals and the government, increase competition in the marketplace, and provide the best coverage at the best cost for everyone. That would be Ron Wyden's Free Choice Act, and it's what I think progressives ought to really push at this point.
...
We keep hearing the mantra of "if you like what you have, you can keep it." Wyden's reform preserves that. But it also opens up the health insurance exchange to everyone, and forces both insurers and the public option into real competition. The public option would not be walled off simply to those who don't have insurance from their employer or certain small businesses. It would have the opportunity to get market share to compete with private insurers. And for the first time, insurers across regions would compete with one another, as the companies inside the exchange would be able to entice workers who get insurance through their employers. All of this could actually change the dynamic in the insurance market and force competition on price and quality, rather than the current competition among insurers, which is "who can pay for the least amount of health care." It gives individuals the freedom to choose without stripping them of their bargaining power - in fact, it empowers them more. And it strengthens the public option, by opening the market to potentially tens of millions more consumers.

The employer-based system is nice for some, but it really delivers health care inefficiently, and Wyden's Free Choice Act would allow over time for an alternative to emerge that maintains the economies of scale to allow that alternative to compete. And this would save money, as it encourages cost effectiveness since everyone is competing on price.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com...

nate

Wyden, as you may know, has his own version of health care reform, which is entitled the Healthy Americans Act (HAA). The HAA is, in some ways, a more radical restructuring of the health insurance system than any of the other plans currently being contemplated by the Congress. It would completely remove the benefits tax exemption, create a national health insurance exchange (which would be open to everyone including those who opted out of their employer-provided coverage), and set some rather explicit cost-containment targets.

I'm on record as being a fan, as are a lot of health care policy wonks like Ezra Klein. The interesting thing about Wyden's bill is that it has co-sponsors from all over the political spectrum: not just centrists but also fairly liberal Democrats like Jeff Merkley, Ted Kaufman and Daniel Inouye, and rather conservative Republicans like Idaho's Mike Crapo and Utah's Dick Bennett.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

nate

With that said, and as strongly as I've argued for the public option, I do ultimately think it's a means to an end, the end being lowering health care costs relative to the quality of service provided. I think the public option would be the best way to achieve this because I don't think the insurance industry is ultimately doing anything to "earn" its profit margins and administrative costs: it's mostly just economic rent resulting from barriers to entry within the industry. But if there are plans that can remove market distortions and lower costs without a public option, those deserve a fair hearing. Namely, this would mean removing the taxpayer subsidy for health care benefits and having some mechanism to induce competition in the market. The Wyden-Bennett bill that Mankiw mentions would do the former, and would hope to accomplish the later through increased transparency and giving consumers a more direct choice of their insurance provider; indeed, it's the only plan on the table that would strive to end the illogical regime of employer-based health care, except for Pete Stark's single payer-ish alternative. (This doesn't mean you'd lose your insurance -- it just means you'd be buying it directly rather than having your employer buy it for you).

But the insurance industry, I'm guessing, doesn't think much of Wyden-Bennett; neither Wyden nor Bennett have received particularly much from health care PACs, nor have many of the bill's co-sponsors -- this is a definite positive indicator. The danger in the health care debate is ending up with something that, while it might accomplish other worthy goals like portability and univerasl(ish) coverage, ultimately entrenches the rents to the private insurance industry. The public option and Wyden-Bennett are different ways to avoid that, and either is likely to be preferable to whatever Max Baucus winds up putting on the table.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

Wyden's amendment is not on the docket.... (0.00 / 0)
...or at least that was reported, yesterday...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Tuesday, I think (0.00 / 0)
Wyden on Countdown certainly sounded like his amendment would be voted on soon, like Tuesday.

BTW, Wyden's amendment is perfectly compatible with the Public Option.  In fact, it makes the Public Option available to everyone, which is not true in any of the plans.


[ Parent ]
"Cash out" sure is a good idea. More like the German system. (0.00 / 0)
Even though a main difference is, here in Germany, both the employer and the worker pay about an equal part of the premiums . So, it's clear that the money your company pays is part of your salary in the first place, and not an extra the employer "generously" puts on top. And this also makes it clear that of course you chose the insurance, because it's your money.

So, yup, "cash out" makes sense, a move in the right direction. But why oh why can't there be a single bill which includes ALL the goodies?  


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox