OK, I'm confused. While I can't say that I am a big fan of Ayn Rand, I do generally agree with the statement that A equals A, but A does not equal "not A." I imagine that self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" like the Blue Dogs agree with Rand on this matter, too.
Or do they? First, twenty Blue Dogs, or 38.5% of the 52 member caucus, have signed a pledge with Health Care for America Now stating the following:
Our government's responsibility is to guarantee quality affordable health care for everyone in America and it must play a central role in regulating, financing, and providing health coverage by establishing...
- A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.
The twenty Blue Dogs were signed this pledge are Jason Altmire, Michael Arcuri, Joe Baca, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Leonard Boswell, Chris Carney, Ben Chandler, Jim Cooper, Jane Harman, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Tim Holden, Frank Kratovil, Patrick Murphy, Mike Ross, Loretta Sanchez, Adam Schiff, Zach Space, Mike Thompson and Charlie Wilson.
Now, Blue Dogs only take specific policy positions when two-thirds of their members approve. However, even though 38.5%, or more than one-third, of Blue Dogs have signed a public pledge stating that "our government's responsibility is to guarantee quality affordable health care for everyone... by establishing... a public insurance plan," the Blue Dogs have now released an official coalition statement declaring that any public option must not be a guarantee (emphasis in original):
While the Blue Dog membership has not endorsed a public option, we feel that should a public option be included in comprehensive health reform, it should adhere to the following conditions at a minimum...
- Available Only as a Fallback: The availability of a public option would occur only as a fallback and in the absence of adequate competition and cost containment. Fundamental insurance market reforms and increased choice through the Exchange should improve access and contribute to lower costs. However, should the private plans fail to meet specific availability and cost targets, a public option would be triggered and be allowed to compete on a level playing field subject to the conditions outlined above.
It is simply not logically possible for the government to "guarantee" the establishment of a public health care plan, and for the establishment of a public health care plan to be conditional on future events. If something is conditional, then it is not guaranteed. Anyone over the age of six should be able to understand that, as it is the age of reason.
What is the position of the eight members of Congress--Merrion Berry, Jim Cooper, Mike Michaud, Mike Ross, Loretta Sanchez, Zach Space, Mike Thompson, and Charlie Wilson--who actually signed both pledges? Those eight actually make up a majority of the Blue Dog task force. Further, which is the actual Blue Dog position--guaranteeing a public option, or making a public option conditional based on future events? In fact, is there even a public position at all? If so, has the Blue Dog coalition abandoned their longstanding rule requiring approval of two-thirds of their members before adopting a policy position?
It really is confusing. One might be tempted to call the members who signed both documents either careless or intellectually dishonest. One might even be tempted to say the same thing about the Blue Dog leadership for allowing its two-thirds rule to be violated. However, given that we are dealing with such a studious and principled group, surely there must be some other explanation.
Feel free to offer an explanation in the comment. And, whether or not you have an explanation, sign up to fight for a public option with SEIU and Open Left. |
