Obama deflates hopes for meaningful public option
Politico is reporting that during a White House meeting last night with the Congressional Democrat leadership, President Obama stated his preference for the ‘trigger’ option put forth by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). The trigger would allow a public plan to ‘kick-in’ should private insurers fail to expand affordable coverage to more Americans.
In revealing his leaning toward the trigger, Obama took a pass – at least for now- on the ‘opt-out’ compromise creating a national insurance program that would permit the states to opt out if they don’t wish to participate. This, despite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s belief that he can likely muster the 60 procedural votes to break a Republican filibuster and then pass a bill, including the ‘opt-out’ plan, with a simple majority vote.
Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reported that she lacks the votes in the House to pass the ‘robust public option’ she has continuously promised was within her grasp. The House will, in all likelihood, pass a bill containing a public health option, but rather than a program based on paying Medicare rates to health care providers, it will likely require that the public option plan negotiate with providers to set prices in the same way private insurance companies do.
Clearly, Obama has not gotten over his desire for a bi-partisan healthcare reform bill in the Senate.
In recent days, two administration officials have told CNN that the prevailing White House opinion is for the Senate health care bill to include a so-called “trigger” mechanism proposed by Snowe that would bring a public option in the future if thresholds for expanding coverage and lowering costs go unmet in coming years.
The source familiar with Thursday evening’s meeting said Obama “pushed for a so-called trigger, because it’s the more bipartisan way to go,” due to Snowe’s support for the concept. A critical White House goal in passing a health care bill is the ability to call it bipartisan, so Obama officials are wary of doing anything to alienate Snowe.
Via CNN
By passing up the much meatier public option opportunity, Obama will succeed in keeping Sen. Snowe in tow while possibly gaining additional GOP votes in the Senate for this watered down version of reform. At the same time, the President will badly disappoint his base as he goes the politically safe route to insure that he gets a victory – if not meaningful health care reform.
But is this only about bi-partisanship? As I noted in an earlier post, there could be another, more cynical, political piece to Obama’s preferences.
We know that the majority of Americans favor the public option. We also have good reason to anticipate that the private insurance companies will fail when it comes to changing their ways in order to avoid the pulling of the public option trigger. The result is an excellent Democratic issue for the presidential election of 2012.
While progressives and independents may be angry with Obama for chickening out when he had the opportunity to do something significant with health care reform, when push comes to shove, who will they want to have a finger on the public option trigger? Obama or a yet to be named Republican candidate who could never support pulling the trigger, unless that candidate happens to be Olympia Snowe.
Such a move also allows Obama to continue vilifying the private insurance industry, a group that promises to only become less popular with the voting public over the coming years.
While Obama’s favoring of the trigger may be a clever way to create a strong campaign position, he should remember that a lot can happen between now and the next election. While the public option trigger may look like a terrific campaign ploy today, other issues – like the whole war thing – could easily overcome it in a heartbeat.
Those who supported Obama in 2008 voted for real change. The trigger doesn’t meet that test. The opt-out provision comes pretty darn close.
Let’s hope that the Democratic leadership in the Senate can convince the President that he can do better.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Rick I think your take on this is wrong, I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts even with a trigger Snowe won’t support a public option. The president wants her to leave the table under her own steam, not have it appeared she was pushed away. There are a lot of signals coming from the Senate that no one is counting on her vote, either to pass the bill or to end cloture. To quote Margret Hamilton from the Wizard of Oz, “these things must be done delicately”.
I think what is important in the post are the reports that Obama is favoring the trigger over the opt-out option. Whatever his reasons, how can this be a good thing? What do you imagine his reasons are?
In response to another comment. See in context »P. S. The president promised on the campaign trail that he would strive to make bipartisanship a reality, he has to give the appearance that he is working towards that goal. I don’t think for a minute he believes it will actually happen in regard to health care or for that matter much else.
Fine. Again, why does he appear to be taking the easier road on the public option?
In response to another comment. See in context »Look, a short while ago you and many others were “complaining” that the president wasn’t giving enough support the public option. Now we are actively seeing the White House working for a public option, once Snowe walks away from the table after rejecting the trigger he can work too bringing the Dems all to supporting “Opt out”. I think the real question here is why is Snowe out of hand rejecting an idea she originally floated.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m still complaining. Yesterday, it appeared that he was going to back the opt-out. Last night he said otherwise. How is this a good thing?
In response to another comment. See in context »I think you’re giving too much importance to the dance. Also don’t forget this president likes to be “pushed”.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by obamaupdates and PanObama, Adam Sandler. Adam Sandler said: Obama deflates hopes for meaningful public option: Politico is reporting that during a White House meeting last.. http://bit.ly/3sVKlF [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Amy Johnson, john. john said: Obama deflates hopes for meaningful public option: Politico is reporting that during a White House meeting last.. http://bit.ly/1qU7Qz [...]
I would bet the “administration officials” include Rahm Emanuel.
From Huffington Post:
Rahm Emanuel suggested that the White House would be comfortable with legislation that had a public plan “triggered” in only by worsening economic conditions.
“The goal is to have a means and a mechanism to keep the private insurers honest,” Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal. “The goal is non-negotiable; the path is” negotiable.
It was, White House aides insist, far from a commitment to a trigger option. But a source close to the administration, who has been in contact with the White House on health care matters, said that Emanuel has been “floating” the trigger compromise since January.
“Rahm’s problem with this is he is on the more conservative end of the Democratic Party and he is a very political guy,” the source added. “He is working for a way out without a bloody fight. The problem is he doesn’t mind taking that fight to the left. And what I worry could happen is the left will just quit.”
Once again we are left with the puzzle of Obama and his obsessive dependence on Clinton’s people. While Snowe is shielding Obama’s position of bipartisanship, she is also providing cover and excuse to dismiss public option thus giving the insurance industry most of what they want.
Looking at Rahm’s background this may made sense to him. He was the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he is a guy who thinks about elections i.g., New York and Virginia governorships. Perhaps he is thinking of political coffers that will suffer without insurance money.
In any case this move is nothing short of infuriating sabotage of Obama’s own aspirations. Watch for Obama to walk this back amid a collective congressional HUH???
If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc: http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php
I honestly just hate the tepidity of it. I want to see bold legislation, even if it’s legislation I oppose. At least then the process of hammering it out on the floor will have a reasonable starting point.
Agreed. The Singapore model you cited in your posts is pretty intriguing, too, but whatever happens, it has to be big. 18% of our economy is health care spending, and that number is only going to go up – a lead anchor tugging down our potential productivity, one that our competitor nations simply do not have.
As for the “trigger,” has that thing not already been pulled? Like a decade or two ago? How much rope do we have to give these people?
In response to another comment. See in context »And all this time I thought Olympia Snowe WAS the president.
“Those who supported Obama in 2008 voted for real change. The trigger doesn’t meet that test. The opt-out provision comes pretty darn close.”
Rick…come on. If this gets passed it will have massive consequences and it will change our health care system for the better. Because remember…practices like rescession are over and that’s something we should all be cheering.
Like E.D., I wish we were going with something far more sweeping (Wyden-Bennett), but politics is the art of the possible and so that’s what the White House is doing. If he had a supermajority it would be a different story, but he doesn’t.
Justin – I don’t mean to sell short what is likely to be accomplished. Clearly, there are some benefits. However, I think it is now possible to make further gains and we should be pushing it as far as we can. Certainly, we won’t get everything done. But if Reid thinks he has the procedural votes to overcome a filibuster – and 51 votes for an opt-out option, why not go for it?
In response to another comment. See in context »“But if Reid thinks he has the procedural votes to overcome a filibuster – and 51 votes for an opt-out option, why not go for it?”
He does, he will!
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, to answer…
Because health care is simply ONE problem and if Obama goes “all in” on this one and doesn’t compromise, well, it completely undermines his bipartisan message in the election and he’ll lose any moderate Dem and Repub support for future legislation. I think may people forget…it’s only 9 months into his presidency. There’s a whole host of other things he has to think about, including continuing to revive the economy, very high unemployment, energy reform, immigration reform, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea…as well as problems that have yet to be revealed.
I just don’t see the logic in pissing off nearly everybody but his base. Bush tried that and look where it got him. True, it may not result in the health care that we think is right, but we both know that these things take time to evolve anyway. Get the important stuff passed first, grade the road and pave the road halfway and then let the subsequent years finish it out.
In response to another comment. See in context »Justin- if there is one thing we have learned over the past nine months, it is that there will be no bi-partisanship on much of anything. While I very much supported Obama’s approach, I’ve been surprised by how little it has paid off. He has not gotten GOP support on any key issues so far. They are out there hammering him on TARP and stimulus, they are against Cap & Trade to a man/woman; we’ve seen their behavior on health care. The only hope for bi-partisanship is for the populace to send the message in 2010 that there is a price to be paid for this type of behavior. While I certainly don’t expect the GOP to agree with Obama on many things, and that’s perfectly fine and the way it is supposed to be, they really should have taken up the opportunity to participate. Obama offered them this – they threw it in his face.
In response to another comment. See in context »If I saw any reason to believe that there is a future for bi-partisanship, I would agree with your analysis. I don’t see it. History will not remember that it was the GOP who would not participate on health care. History will remember that Obama could have done something great – but pulled back.
Justin- Sorry, didn’t respond in full.
In response to another comment. See in context »While there are important items that will get resolved, I can’t join you in saying that we will be getting the important stuff done while setting things up to move forward in the future. I could -and probably will – write a book about how much important stuff is not included. Indeed, some of the most important stuff hasn’t even been discussed.
Further, our history tells us that if we use this opportunity to pave the road halfway for the future, we’ll end up with an unfinished, washed out, half a road that will have to be entirely repaved when we get back to health care in God knows how many years.
Passing healthcare that covers the uninsured, prople with pre-existing conditions, caps, inability to drop someone who is ill, etc. is major change. The Clinton administration passed the Commodity Futures Act, repealed Glass Stegal, North American Free Trade, DADT. Love them both, but the crisis started then.
Medicare passed when I was in Jr High by Johnson.
Even with a weak or trigger, this is the most Progressive legislation since 1966. I’ll accept it in any form actually. I volunteer at a hospital and it breaks my heart to see people sitting for hours when they are really sick because they are uninsured. I have excellent healthcare w/retirement. I want every uninsured person who needs it to have it also. This bill would be a MAJOR CHANGE.
“I’ve been surprised by how little it has paid off.”
No snark intended but Rick why are you surprised? Look what happened to Lindsey Graham a few weeks ago at a town hall meeting. The party decided last summer that the best way to deal with Obama was to demonize him, pretty hard to go to your rabid base and say you’re working with everything you’ve labeled anti-American.
The anti-bi-partisan stance of the Republican party is hard, but it’s brittle. Because it so obviously stands against the better interests of the American people, the Republicans can only hang on for so long before they crumble. And like that other edifice propped-up by hate, when it falls, it will collpase like the Berlin Wall.
Obama is taking the right stance. The more he proposes common-sense solutions that help Americans, the more ridiculous he makes the Republican knee-jerk reaction.