Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebilius caused
an uproar on Sunday when she
described the creation of a new government plan as “not the
essential element” to health care legislation — even though
liberals have long described it as the heart of President Obama’s
health care proposal. Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad
said, “The fact of the matter is, there are not the votes in the
United States Senate for the public option. There never have
been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a
wasted effort.” Conrad has proposed the idea of a non-profit
co-op as a substitute for a fully government-run plan, but
liberals have dismissed the idea as inadequate.
The White House’s decision to at least back off the idea of a
so-called “public option” is not totally surprising, as it’s been
pretty clear for awhile that the Obama administration wants to be
able to sign some form of health care legislation this year
rather than risk total defeat. But this also sets up the dynamic
that I’ve been writing about
for months — dropping the creation of a new government plan
modeled after Medicare may help woo moderates, but it will also
lose liberals. While Conrad says that legislation with a
strong government-run plan did not have the votes to get through
the Senate, it’s not clear that a bill could get through the
House that did not include such a plan. Remember, 57 House
Democrats signed a
letter last month saying they could not support a bil that
did not include a government plan that they viewed as strong
enough.
Meanwhile, today, the front page of the website the Campaign for
America’s Future, which has been pushing the idea, reads “No
Surrender on the Public Option: Talk of compromise in the White
House and among Democrats in Congress does not change this basic
fact: There is no reform without a public
health insurance plan. This week, we are refusing to back
down.” A
straw poll of liberal activists at the Netroots Nation
conference in Pittsburgh this weekend found that 53 percent said
they couldn’t support a bill that didn’t include a new
government-run plan, compared with just 26 percent who said they
could.
tom| 8.17.09 @ 12:51PM
If you call it a gvt. provided plan or a co-op run ,financed and regulated by the Federal Government what difference does it make what you call it?
tj| 8.17.09 @ 1:53PM
A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option” should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother? Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name. Also check the so called "" Stimulous Bill" death panels already installed and in place"" End run around OUR Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE PEOPLE are "TUPID"