| Congressional Democrats have finally put forth their proposals for health care reform, and both chambers' leaders have included a public option -- a federally-run insurance program that people can choose if they don't like or can't afford private health insurance.
It's a good idea -- it's coverage that can't be refused, and will force the private providers to operate more like non-profits and less like money-grubbing robber barons when it comes to people's health. The critics (read: Republicans and their allies) are making critiques that just don't ring very loudly. As Josh Marshall put it a couple of days ago: these 'problems' sound remarkably like 'the point' of the whole exercise. Most of the argument here is that a big government plan would just provide the insurance 'service' much more efficiently and cheaply than private carriers. And that the private carriers wouldn't be able to make any money off selling the service any more. But this is the argument that single payer advocates routinely make -- namely, that a lot of the money that goes into private health insurance goes to paperwork, much of which is tied to finding ways to deny people coverage. That, and the need to earn profits on providing the service. Makes sense to me. The groundswell behind this effort is going to be really, really difficult for Republicans in Congress and their allies in the health insurance profit industry to counter with the same old "we're opposed to government-run health care!" mews.
The really interesting thing that's happening in Washington is the political ninjitsu being performed by the Obama Administration to get this thing done. Back in the early 90s, President Clinton's health care plan was undone by conservative Blue Dog Democrats who wanted concessions elsewhere upfront, and wouldn't budge. In 2009, those same Blue Dogs are making noise, but two things are different: a couple of Blue Dogs are already expressing support for a public option, and President Obama is pushing Pay-As-You-Go rules for future congressional business.
The move is a political one, to be sure -- Obama is not afraid of deficit spending, nor is he afraid to put things on the nation's credit card. He shouldn't be afraid of these things -- prudence is more important than any hard and fast ideological rule in politics. But by pushing the PAYGO rule at the same time as the health care debate really starts revving up, he's taking the most serious roadblocks -- his own party's conservative wing -- off the road. |
