Open Left

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.  

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:32:50 PM CDT

[ 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.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:36:11 PM CDT

[ 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"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:40:11 PM CDT

[ 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.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 12:45:45 PM CDT

[ 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.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:00:21 PM CDT

[ 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.  

---

by: lambert @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 13:08:14 PM CDT

[ 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.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 14:27:17 PM CDT

[ 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.

---

by: MattD @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 15:02:49 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]