Tweet
Ezra Klein writes:
This reflects the sense that the right compromise on the public option is a compromised public option. That’s true to an extent, but you can define the public option so far downward — a state-based, opt-in, trigger-dependent, nonprofit option, for instance, is seriously under consideration right now — that you’d be better off trading it away for something that’s more meaningful.
What Klein does not realize is that this is not about compromise; this is about power. If the Democratic holdouts wanted to achieve the same goals as those that could be gained through a public option (keeping insurance companies honest, bringing down cost, insuring value for your premiums, focusing on people not profits, ending immoral practices, etc.), but were against the idea of a government-run public option, there could be a “compromise.” Some combination of very strong regulations might have been acceptable. It would have needed to include things like a robust risk adjuster, a high medical loss ratio, a requirement that all insurance plans be non-profit, a special claim reimbursement appeals court, narrow rating bands, repeal of the insurance anti-trust exemption, precisely defined benefits packages and cost-sharing structures, a single reimbursement negotiator for all exchange plans, etc.
The first problem is that Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu don’t want to keep the insurance companies honest. They don’t want reform to accomplish the goals of a public option. They are defenders of the insurance industry, and not the greater American population.
The other problem is that unless Harry Reid is ready to play hardball with reconciliation, chairmanship stripping, or the nuclear option, this handful of conservative Democrats have all the power. They have no reason to compromise because their is no downside to holding firm. Without leverage, there can’t be compromise. These conservative Democrats want to show everyone in Washington that they are in charge. What they want from progressives is capitulation.
The progressives have said a public option is a must-have. A majority of both the House and Senate would vote for bill with a public option. If progressives are forced to surrender the public option, to try to “trade” it for something better, then they must officially admit that Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman are the infinitely more powerful bloc. If progressives give up on the public option, they will cede power and influence in Washington for a very long time. Even bigger than health care, if the entire Democratic party exists only to give Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu sole power to design every peice of legislation, the progressive grassroots needs to reevaluate why they even vote for Democrats.
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Of course. That’s why it’s time for the progressives to “just say no,” as well. The let Harry Reid and the Administration figure it out. They’ll soon arrive at the conclusion that they need to bring Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, and Lieberman into line. They ought to start by stripping them all of committee assigments an object lesson, and then continue on with reconciliation, or, my oen preference, the nuclear option.”
Took the liberty of quoting you.
I agree 100% with you. It’s now or never.
The administration & leadership have the votes to do things the hard way; it’s just a question of whether we make that the path of least resistance.
[Mod note: Please do not suggest that violence be carried out on anyone. Thank you.]
Well, if I was a betting man, then I would bet on the progressive caucus to fold because that’s what they always do.
Several quick points:
1. I really think the jobs bill now trumps health care as an issue. Even if you were to pass this particular health care bill, and its not shaping up to well, it won’t have any effect by 2010. The Obama presidency, at least in terms of passing progressive legislation, effectively ends if he loses either the house or the senate. However, in my darkest speculation, I’m beginning to think that there are people who would like that. Afterall, we can’t pass any meaningful legislation because House Committee Chairs Bachman, Wilson, etc., won’t let us. Oh, we can pass all the NAFTA, hard right war funding we want and if we have to get SOMETHING accomplished…
2. I’ll say this again. We need a third party. The Grayson moneybombs prove that we can run viable campaigns. Its called the 5/25 plan. You need five senators and 25 house reps. We can’t put any pressure on the Senate’s Inferior Four because they look at their senate career as a stepping stone for more lucrative lobbying work or the Wynn/Clinton/Daschle career path. You need one Grayson moneybomb to run a viable house race and four moneybombs to run a viable senate race. You need people of your own that aren’t beholden to Rahm Emanual or the center right management that runs the DNC. You want people who are beholden to Jane Hamsher and Markos and Bowers…but you have to create the candidates and the runs. You might want to take a look at the possible Nader run in Connecticut. I mean, if you’re looking for a stubborn guy that would use senate rules on behalf of the public….
You lost your “power” when you lost the possibility of a public option open to all, as well as when you lost the state single-payer Kucinich amendment. You want it back? Kill the bill.