Ceci Connolly -- Ridiculous Reporter | 35 comments
A line drawn in shifting sand (4.00 / 1)
I assume -- since there was no attempt to clarify this matter -- that Green did not define for Our Cece what the "public option" actually is, which is hardly remarkable, since so far as I can tell, public option is nothing more than a set of vague talking points and principles, not embodied in crafted legislation (unlike HR 676, which oddly, or not, is a line in the sand that could actually be defended on the basis of proven success in other countries, unlike whatever it is that Green's "proxy" might turn into when operationalized).

Some line in the sand! A line drawn in shifting sand, that can be blown away by the slightest political wind.... For example, "public option" when embodied in legislation will be crafted to eliminate any possibility of evolving into single payer, or so says Sibelius.

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

Nice appeal to authority there (0.00 / 0)
Sebelius is expressing an opinion on something she really doesn't have control over.

Personally (and yes it is just my opinion, and I don't have control over the legislation either) I don't see how you could craft any kind of public option that would not be open to evolution into single payer.

For example say we have a public option that allowed unlimited enrollment and CBO subsequently did a study showing that we could gain nation wide cost savings by expanding Medicare to cover those people who take early retirement under Social Security. Or decided that we should move people whose chronic illnesses allowed them to continue in the workforce at a lower level than they were before to draw partial benefits under DI which would then offer them access to Medicare. Or say decide that it would be more cost efficient to move some children getting family care under a premium based family plan under the public option over to SCHIPs? Once you have universal access there would seem to be little way to establish leak-through barriers that would prevent incremental movement of more and more people over to single payer over time.

I am not sure where Sebelius is coming from, though I'll be sure to click through. But if the argument is that we should give up the public option because it will prevent single-payer sometime in the future, well just say that I need to be shown how that works in practice. Because the overall premise doesn't make sense.

[ Parent | ]
Quoting the Secretary of HHS ... (4.00 / 1)
on adminsitration policy is an "appeal to authority"?

Hardly.

I'd call it evidence of intent, myself -- especially since the administration hasn't retracted it. Forgive me, therefore, for not reading the rest of your coment....

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 | ]
The Administration is not writing the bill (0.00 / 0)
By all means don't read the rest of the comment. Why learn something about the way the health care debate is actually unfolding between the Tri-Committee bill and the HELP and Finance versions in the Senate?

Get self-important much?

[ Parent | ]
Ok, I will! (4.00 / 1)
Excerpting:

For example say we have a public option... Or decided that ... Or say decide...  Once you have universal access there would seem to be little way to establish leak-through barriers that would prevent incremental movement of more and more people over to single payer over time.

First, thanks for proving my point that public option is no "line in the sand" because there's no there there. The "mush" is so great that it overwhelms "the goodness. I see definition after definition -- unlike single payer, which is embodied in legislation -- and because there are so many definitions, there's no way to hold anybody accountable for anything.

Second, thanks for this: "[T]here would seem to be little way..." Forgive me not being re-assured by "seems." Frankly, I, I assume like you, am not an expert in how legislation can be crafted. So, on this matter, I'll take a former state legislator, governor, and administration spokesperson as the subject matter expert on how legislation can be crafted. If that be argument from authority, in addition to evidence of intent, then so be it.

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 | ]
That doesn't prove your point at all (0.00 / 0)
I could have said "no way" and been a dogmatic asshole. By saying "seems" I was issuing you an invitatation to spell out some examples about how you could in practice establish a firewayll between a public option and single payer. I gave some examples of how leak through would work, you provide nothing and then brag about how that validates your opinion.

"unlike single payer, which is embodied in legislation"

A version of single payer may be embodied in legislation but there are all kinds of varieties of single payer programs out there, Canada's single payer is not at all like Britain's single payer, which in turn is not like Germany's single payer. If you think 'single payer' is a hardened concept while 'public option' is hazy I suggest the mush here is somewhere between your ears.

"Frankly, I, I assume like you, am not an expert in how legislation can be crafted"

Why would you assume anything about me? For example one of my best friends in college is currently the floor director for the House Majority Leader. I suspect there is very little Rob doesn't know about the legislative process given his more than twenty years of progressively greater responsibility in moving legislation. For all you know we have lunch together every week. As it happens I haven't seen, spoke or written to him since I flew up to Seattle to visit him in around 1982, at this point he might not even recognize my name. But you had no way of knowing either way.

Assumptions, like opinions are dangerous. Like assholes everyone has one, and holds others. But far better to judge me on what I write or have written elsewhere than on your conclusions about my authority.

[ Parent | ]
Well I linked through (4.00 / 1)
And it was hard to understand what Sebelius was trying to say, and still less why we shouldn't make a public option a non-negotiable demand.
__________________

When I was a kid my Dad had off and on access to family coverage through his jobs but never to my knowledge had to use it. As a retired military guy (and prior to the 'reforms' which gutted dependent coverage) we had access to the public option of using military clinics and hospitals for medical and some sort of military insurance coverage for dental and vision. We grabbed the military option because all you really had to do was show your military dependent ID.

I was born in an Army hospital in 1957 and still have the original bill. Somehow my Mom managed to run up a $2 bill for something or other, maybe candy. Otherwise that particular public option covered three days in the hospital. I am not the only former military kid that managed to be born and make it to adult hood under that public option. And I don't remember having to wait in month long wait lines to get that care.

[ Parent | ]
She actually didn't ask about the substance... (4.00 / 4)
...she asked about the political strategy.

...but I'd describe it as "a head-to-head competitor with private insurance, starting immediately." That eliminates the trigger and co-op.

Feel free to get more wonky than that, but I think that does the trick.

Note: she didn't say I couldn't define the public option...you're actually raising a third issue.

She said I couldn't defend the need for a public option. Which is ridiculous.  

[ Parent | ]
My point is not that YOU cannot describe it (4.00 / 1)
but that there is no definition that all advocates agree on (unlike, say, HR 676, which is already crafted, and single payer, which has been implemented in other countries).

Where, then, is the line in the sand, and what then are the advocates advocating for?

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 | ]
It' Fuzzy, But Not Non-Existent (4.00 / 1)
Which, of course, is all part of its mushy goodness.

Or was that a Twinky?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent | ]
Stop stealing my lines! (0.00 / 0)
I've seen enough "mushy goodness" -- and empty calories, too, I might add -- from this administration to be satisfied with it.

Incidentally, my point does remain: We've somehow managed to create a situation where there's a lot of advocacy for a policy that (a) has no clear definition and (b) doesn't "make him do it" exactly because it is mushy. Yay!

And I'm not real happy with the joke, either -- given that a lot of lives, a lot of money, and whether we get the right to health care instead of some sort of for-profit reinforcing Rube Goldberg device all hang in the balance.


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 | ]
Bluster? or Obfuscation? (0.00 / 0)
The outlines of the public option are pretty clear. It means some variation of Medicare for All. Of course the details are unclear. But you might as well say that F-22 legislation is inherently fuzzy because we don't know exactly how many planes will be produced and where every sub-contract will be awarded.

Medicare Part A is open to everyone that has a certain minimum numbers of quarters of participation. Medicare Part B and D are in prat premium based. The exact shape of Part D and the tradeoffs needed to achieve it (like the 45% rule) were not known until the legislation took final form and got signed by Bush. That doesn't mean the concept of government assisted drug coverage was inherently fuzzy. Or that Medicare Parts A and B were when originally legislated.

[ Parent | ]
Yet ANOTHER definition! (4.00 / 1)
I haven't seen Medicare for All anywhere! Presumably Green, Hamsher, and the various commenters on the FDL list would have used that very, clear, and simple slogan if matters were really that clear, right? Instead of the rather anondyne "public option?"

Just so we're clear on provenance, can you give me a link to the authoritative, sorry, "pretty clear," definition, then?

NOTE As far as the F-22 legislation, I think there are better analogies. The administration wants a bill,  some bill, any bill. A scenario is entirely possible where everything ends up in conference, at which point all the sausage making gets done behind closed doors, and the bill is then passed NOW NOW NOW with nobody really knowing what's in it -- as indeed you yourself have just proved we don't. The history of passing bills NOW NOW NOW is very bad, including as it does the USA Patriot Act, AUMF, and TARP. And all this could be avoided if only public option's advocates could settle on what they mean when they advocate it, and "make him do" that!

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 | ]
Not unique to public option (4.00 / 1)
That dynamic can happen with ANY large, complex bill.

Even a single payer bill COULD easily be ruined in conference. And the final version would likely be too long to understand before voting.  

[ Parent | ]
Krugman has been saying "Medicare for all" (0.00 / 0)
for at least two years.  And it's not just Krugman.  That's a pretty standard understanding of the public option.
[ Parent | ]
Ceci Connolly -- Ridiculous Reporter | 35 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox