Harkin: Public Option Chances Grim

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 13:46


One of the Senate's leading advocates for the public option sounded pretty negative last night.  From Salon (emphasis mine):

"I hate to say it, but I am not certain we're going to be able to get a public option in this bill," Harkin said with a sigh, in an interview on the eve of President Obama's bipartisan healthcare summit. That phrasing may sound relatively optimistic, but the way Harkin discussed the public option made it clear he didn't see much hope for the plan for now. "That doesn't mean we stop trying... I keep reminding people that this bill is not written in stone, like the Ten Commandments, for ever and ever. This is a law, it's a bill, we change laws all the time around here -- that's what we do."(...)

But Harkin did say he expected the public option to come back before Congress another time, possibly before any healthcare legislation even takes effect; most of the provisions in the bills under consideration don't kick in until 2014. "At some point, we're going to revisit the public option, I can assure you of that," he said. "It may not be this year, it may be the next year or the year after. We have a couple, three years in between there to start thinking about having a public option... Every poll shows that it has vast support. That's only going to grow."

Saying that he is "not certain" about getting a public option doesn't sound bad.  However, saying that "at some point, we're going to revisit the public option," sounds like waving the white flag for the public option on this round of reform.

No matter what happens, Harkin is absolutely right that it is important to keep pushing for the public option. To strengthen your negotiating position, and to prepare for future fights, it is important to round up as much support as possible.

As I have long said, there is more than one way to get an expansion of public health insurance.  In addition to a new public option program to be sold on the proposed insurance exchanges, expansions of Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP--all of which are public options, and currently have more than 100,000,000 enrollees combined--would also be public option victories.

Chris Bowers :: Harkin: Public Option Chances Grim

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Harkin: Public Option Chances Grim | 17 comments
"expansions of Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP" (0.00 / 0)
Make much more sense.  It would be easier.  The laws are already written.  The bureaucracy is already in place.  These programs have most of the provider regulation necessary to insure a stable initiation of service.  And, for the most part, these programs are either deemed acceptable or necessary by the voters.  But remember how long the sensible proposal of Medicare buy-in lasted in the Senate.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
Expansions of existing programs (4.00 / 1)
still have to be made available to everyone who doesn't have insurance (e.g. by being placed on the insurance exchange).  No more of this age-bracket BS.  People who aren't in a narrowly-defined age category deserve access to public insurance too.
[ Parent ]
Once the reforms are passed then we can assume that (0.00 / 0)
1.  Young people will be working and have access to an exchange
2.  Eventually the age will be lowered
3.  Medicaid is available for those not working
4.  People over 50 are more likely to need a public plan

The main reason a person would support expansion to Medicare would be to get a toe in the door to single payer.  Remember, you'll still be paying full price for Medicare if you are less than 65.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
Now Or Never (0.00 / 0)
After 5-8 new Republicans are elected in the Senate and the media spend months screaming about how "Democrats losses in the Senate were directly due to moving too far and too fast to the left!" how much sentiment do you think ANY Congressman will have to tackle "Medicare for all"?

That's right: NONE! With 52 or 53 Democrats (Joe Lieberman doesn't count and Lincoln and Baucus barely do), we'll be lucky if Republicans aren't controlling this chamber in effect, if not in name. Obama will immediately announce that his new highest priority is "deficit reduction" and that he will "reach out" to Republicans to reduce the deficit by cutting the budget.

This is to say nothing about the probability that Democrats will lose upwards of 30 seats in the House and have a bare majority in that chamber.

This talk about "doing it later" will seem like an article from the New Deal era by next January.  

If there's not a bill passed with a P.O. in the next month it will never happen in the next 10-15 years. Period. I hold out zero hope for it because Obama still refuses to fight for it and pressure recalcitrant Democrats to approve it. Without his leadership, there's no chance the Senate is going to do anything - Sen. Bennett's efforts notwithstanding.

[ Parent ]
My response to liberalmav was hypothetical (0.00 / 0)
Of course a public plan won't actually be passed.  I couldn't agree more with your statements.  This bunch of assholes that call themselves Democrats won't do anything that would decrease their donations or ruin their chances for a K Street job.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
One of the main points of having a public plan (0.00 / 0)
is that the individual mandate should not force people to buy private insurance when they otherwise would not have done so.  This principle is non-negotiable, and a Medicare buy-in that is age-specific rather than based on insurance status does not uphold it.

If we're gonna assume that "eventually things will get better!" as the pro-Senate bill people constantly tell us, then we could pass the most craptacular bill ever and cheer it as a victory because "hey, it'll improve over time!"  Hell, the Republicans could take back control of Congress and we could call it a win, since after all, Democrats could always regain control in the future.

Medicaid's eligibility, as well as that of other public health insurance programs, are not very expansive.  We need to make sure that there's some kind of public option available to potentially anyone who lacks health insurance.  Right now I fear there are significant cracks in the public health insurance system.

[ Parent ]
As long as there's no vote, the rats can hide (4.00 / 5)
It drives me crazy that's there's not be a stronger push from lefty blogs to demand an actual vote on the PO. We just let Reid and Gibbs and the rest of 'em get away with meekly saying "We don't have the votes". It's totally a Cover Your Ass stance. As long as there's no vote, no one has to be officially on the record. And the "good guys" get to keep looking like "good guys" because gee, they're really, really trying, but there's nothing they can do.
And the "bad guys" who side with the ConservaDems never have to be fully exposed.

And the "good guys" really aren't very good because ultimately they care more playing the "Let's Cover Our Asses" game (aka Senate "Comity") than serving the public and standing up for what they supposedly believe in. And besides, it conveniently covers their asses too because they never have to actually go on record with a vote that might upset the insurance industry.

Enough with "We don't have the votes". Oh yeah? WELL, either PUT IT TO A FUCKING VOTE or GIVE US THE NAMES of the "No" voters.  

That's not the way they play the game (4.00 / 1)
The "Good Guys" might say they agree with you, but they aren't going to vote for something that will lose campaign donations.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
I believe that's what I said. (4.00 / 2)
And besides, it conveniently covers their asses too because they never have to actually go on record with a vote that might upset the insurance industry.

[ Parent ]
I should have quoted what I was referring to (0.00 / 0)
either PUT IT TO A FUCKING VOTE or GIVE US THE NAMES of the "No" voters.

Actually I agree with everything you said.  I'm just more pessimistic that they'll do what you asked.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

[ Parent ]
That's cool. Sure, they might not do it, (0.00 / 0)
but I think it's very much worth the effort to put the pressure on them so at least we don't make it so damn comfortable for them to keep hiding and evading. Let them feel some fucking heat, is my point. We might not win right now, but it very likely could pay dividends down the road. At best we get victory and instant gratification. At worst, we've laid down another brick in a better, stronger progressive movement. So in a way, it's kind of win-win.  
[ Parent ]
huh- article updated with dfa response, sources saying harkin favor r and po? (4.00 / 1)
just got this from adam- dfa responds to harkin showing 62pct fo iowans want the pub opt. funny- lines have been updated to the article -itcites sources saying harkin has told colleagues he favors reconciliation and passing the pub opt if need be. uhhh
http://www.salon.com/news/poli...
this is not subtle or complicated stuff. (4.00 / 1)
Americans get that the house and senate bills are sellouts, and it's going to make for a Democratic rout in 2010 and maybe 2012, too.
[ Parent ]
Progressives need to reaffirm (4.00 / 2)
that without a strong PO, expanded Medicare, or something similar that we are taking our ball and going home.  Go ahead and blame us for killing it, without those provisions it deserves to die.  

This was crap last summer, it was warmed over crap at Xmas, it has matured into a fine vintage of crap today.  The only time we get any respect or even get close to a PO vote is when we threaten to kill the whole thing.  

Just tired of all the talk.  Let's vote on what we want or stop the kabuki nonsense.

Harkin is a weak old man (4.00 / 2)
How many times over the last year did Harkin say some version of "there will be a public option"?

And yet, here we are.

Weak, Harkin, pretty fucking weak.

BS (4.00 / 2)
"At some point, we're going to revisit the public option, I can assure you of that"

That's right up there with "We'll fix it in conference"

Harkin claimed 55 votes (4.00 / 3)
John Stewart showed a clip of Harkin saying he had 55 votes for the public option---back when his alibi was that 60 votes would be needed.

Now 55 votes are more than enough, but they have vanished?
Shouldn't Harkin be asked who has backed out besides Jello Jay Rockefeller?

Harkin: Public Option Chances Grim | 17 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox