Last week, Think Progress wrote a piece about how the media was falsely equating Cantwell’s “basic health plan” amendment with a public option. Since then, the problem continues to persist, so I think it needs to be addressed again.
Politico has repeatedly referred to her amendment as a public option alternative, “quasi state-based public option,” and “quasi public plan option.”
MSNBC has two videos up on the health section with Cantwell talking about her amendment labeled “small victory for public option” and “nearly public option passes Senate committee.’” MSNBC’s first read also repeated the claim that it is as a public option.
The Hill claimed that Cantwell’s amendment would “enable states to form their own public options.” In another article about Democrats trying to come up with a form of a public option it was called “optional state-based public plans.”
This confusion is not just limited to news organizations. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has also claimed that Cantwell’s amendment is public option.
I do not want this falsehood to continue. I don’t dislike Cantwell’s amendment. In fact my biggest complaint is that the amendment is far too weak. I think it should be strengthened and expanded, but that is a side issue. The important thing is that it is not a public option. It is a fact that I have repeatedly pointed out, as have others.
I know Cantwell has a responsive communications staff. I hope they contact these news organizations and ask them to stop falsely claiming that Cantwell’s “basic health plan” is some type or form of a public option. It would be unfortunate if the progressive grassroots were forced to attack a decent idea because some political operatives tried to use it as an excuse for not including a real public option as part of health care reform. If the same media sources continue to equate Cantwell’s amendment with a public option, I will be forced to continue speculating that Cantwell (or some members of the Democratic leadership) wants this falsehood to persist.
I honestly do hope that we can debate Cantwell’s "basic health plan" idea on its own merits, completely separate from the issue of a public option. I would like to see how a much improved version could make it into the final bill.
16 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
This is the game: rename something Public Option, maybe even something progressives can support. Then folks will look around, see all the progressive support, and mistakenly assume it really is Public Option.
But it’s not.
I don’t dislike Cantwell’s amendment. In fact my biggest complaint is that the amendment is far too weak.
Don’t really get that. If it’s way too weak, isn’t that a good reason to dislike it?
Yup. Everybody knows we’re screaming like hell for a PO, but rather than include one, the line is “we just don’t have the votes” so it’s back to mollifying us because we’ll always fall in line at election time. I hope this time we can put an end to that assumption.
What’s with all the sea lions? Saw a story about that on FOX of all places.
but, but, but teh media _is_ the message!
bush redux :P
Is that an ‘Aye!’ from the third estate?
Olbermann is just finishing his moving Special Comment, calling for people to donate for free health clinics in the six states where there are Democratic Senators blocking the public option.
I do not know exactly where to send a donation.
Can someone help?
Am I the only one that thinks TP is regressive?
This isn’t Late late Night where we can go off topic anytime we want?
Jankees won!
yup!
http://www.google.com/search?h…..038;aqi=g2
lol
Thank you!
The organization is called the Fountain Clinic and is based in Michigan?
Speaking of false equivalences, what’s up with this group Progressive Media circulating a YouTube Mash-up entitled “Progressives aren’t the only ones to support an individual mandate….”
Since when did the individual mandate become a Progressive cause??!?
As for the Cantwell amendment being broadly mischaracterized I agree with you. It’s actually a quasi Medicaid expansion. I’ve gone round and round about this and finally concluded it would be much better if it were an *actual* Medicaid expansion. As is, it’s enough of a mixed bag that I could do without it in the final bill.
Bullseye.
One of the primary virtues, as I view it, is that Cantwell pulled the rug out from under the GOP crapola about ’state’s rights’. In fact, the risk of a hodgepodge of rules and standards is a nightmare; however, she did demolish this banal GOP claim.
However, the number of people actually covered under her plan is small; the ‘public’ would not be covered.
Nor would the monopolistic control of healthCos be broken up; these corporations would have to bargain with states to lower costs. But over time, it does not build in the kinds of ‘feedback loops’ that competition needs in order to function and adapt properly to changing circumstances.
Cantwell’s amendment was a terrific political strategy in exposing the GOP’s flawed claims.
But it was **not** a solution for health insurance cost containment. It does not introduce genuine competion into the system, and so it can’t move us toward ‘wellness models’.
This is the substitute for a public option? A plan where two people making minimum wage that have two kids are too rich to participate? A plan that would force the poorest of the working poor to buy health insurance when it probably makes more sense economically for them not to buy health insurance at all. The people who qualify are hovering just above the cut off for Medicaid. If they get sick they may qualify for Medicaid because they don’t get sick pay, or they get fired for not coming to work. If they have to declare bankruptcy they have less to lose. There is no guarantee that they would not have to declare bankruptcy even if they did get health insurance with this plan.
I read through the whole thing and missed the bit explaining how the amendment is not a public option. I’m sure there is an explanation somewhere, but I don’t see it here.