Weekly Pulse: Pelosi Champions Public Option

By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger

A plan to reform health care that includes a robust public option would actually cut the deficit, according to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). For the purposes of this analysis, a robust public option was defined as one that reimburses doctors at Medicare rates plus five percent. The latest CBO estimate is critical for Democrats because President Barack Obama said he wouldn't sign a health care bill that adds to the deficit. (There's a double standard at work. Health care has to pay for itself or save money. But as Jo Comerford notes for Democracy Now!, the president has no compunction about bloating the budget with defense spending.)

As health care reform moves into the closed-door, intra-party negotiation phase, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi is emerging as a champion of a the public option. Pelosi has always said that she can't pass a bill without some kind of public plan, though she has wavered about how tough that plan should be on payouts to providers. But according to Brian Beutler of TPMDC, yesterday's "favorable CBO report seems to have settled all that, and Pelosi's decided to go all in for a public option."

And why not? A clear majority of Americans now favor a public option, as John Byrne reports in Raw Story. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Tuesday, 57 percent of respondents favor a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers. That's an increase of five percentage points in two months.

Two bills made it out of committee in the Senate, one with a public option (the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee's effort) and one without (the Senate Finance bill). So, proponents of the public option are putting pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include one in the final bill. The Progressive Change Campaign is running ads in Reid's district asking whether he's strong enough to back a public option. Reid might be more susceptible than usual to progressive pressure because he's up for reelection and facing dismal poll numbers, according to Alex Koppelman in Salon.

The public option has come back from the abyss several times, thanks to a combination of popular appeal, political courage, and determined progressive activism. But Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent argues that Democrats shot themselves in the foot by taking single payer off the table early on. Single payer health care would abolish private health insurance and cover everyone through a Medicare-like system. It would be an easier and cheaper way to achieve universal coverage than any of the options Congress is considering now, but it's an anathema to the insurance industry.

As Lillis observes, a basic principle of negotiation is to ask for more than you think you're going to get and negotiate down from there. But the White House made a point of shooting down single payer in May and Congressional Democrats held but one hearing on the prospect. Talk about lousy business skills.

By choosing the public option -- not single payer -- as the left-most negotiating point, Democrats left themselves with few places to go but toward more conservative proposals for insurance reform, experts say, including the co-op model and a system of triggering public plans only if private insurers fail to meet certain cost and coverage targets. In the blood sport of congressional negotiating -- which dictates that you over-ask, and then move toward your goal during the subsequent bartering -- Democrats were asking merely for the public plan they wanted in the final bill.

While we're on the subject of preemptive concessions to unreasonable political parties, Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality Check describes how Democrats have bent over backwards to accommodate the anti-choice lobby on funding abortions under a public plan. Democrats have proposed elaborate bureaucratic workarounds to make sure that abortions are only covered by private money. Still, anti-choice militants like Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn) are accusing them of backing abortion fieldtrips for school kids. Speaking of starting high and negotiating downward, Dems should threaten to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds for most abortions. Let's see what the anti-choicers are prepared to give up in exchange.

In a sense, it's reassuring that legislators are taking the public option seriously enough to argue about how it might pay for abortions. If they didn't think we were going to get a public option, it would be a moot point.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

There's more...

"Keep your powder dry.",

Pick your fight, give it your best shot, wait for the moment to be right; all battle related cliches with more or less the same meaning: be strategic in your timing to increase your chance of victory. We hear them often whenever caution is urged, and even when inaction is urged. But common to them all is an implicit call TO action, when the moment is right.

For the Democratic Party, and for health care reform, that moment is right now. Tens of thousands of us, each working at our own levels, have worked for years to restore the Democratic Party to strong majority control of both houses of Congress, and to return a Democrat to the White House. Doing so required acts of compromise too numerous to be tallied, some from the left, some from the right. But working together we greatly increased our forces. For what?

There's more...

Progressive Whip Count IN, And We Have the Numbers...

We have some major developments on the Hill tonight. The whip count from CPC is complete and was shown to the leadership today. According to the Hill at least 150 House members have signed on to a Medicare tied PO. Of great NOTE -46 DEMS SIGNED A LETTER TO PELOSI STATING THEY WONT SIGN ON TO THE BLUE DOG NEGOTIATED RATE PO. Also, they stated they WILL NOT VOTE FOR A NON MEDICARE PO.

There's more...

Cheney's Secret Death Squad

Cross-posted from the irreverent Motley Moose.

Remember when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had the temerity to suggest that the CIA had lied to her in briefings regarding the use of enhanced interrogation techniques?

Was the CIA also masking the truth about the "Executive Assassination Ring" directed by former Vice President Darth Cheney, the same one Seymour Hersh talked about back in March of this year?  

"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it," he added. "It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths. Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."

One theory floating around Capitol Hill seems to suggest that this is indeed the case.

There's more...



Sometimes listening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can be torture. It is right now as she tries to explain what the CIA did or did not tell her about torture policy or practice.  She says that she was not briefed about actual use.  The Republicans are trying to make a big deal about her supposed knowledge of the use of torture. However, what difference does it make?

Torture is a crime. It is a violation of our treaty obligations. We engaged in torture.  The only question is who should be held to account and to what extent.

Whether Ms. Pelosi knew of actual or only intended use is of no consequence. Whatever the Republicans think she should have done about it applies in either case.

homer   www.altara.blogspot.com

As the Republicans push this diversion, thinking that somehow inaction by Pelosi excuses their defense of torture, they are just prolonging their losing strategy ofdefending actions that are against American values and against the law.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads