In case you were wondering if Paul Kirk was going to follow his friends in the insurance industry … apparently not. He's in favor of the public option.
“Senator Kirk believes there should be a public option to keep costs down and keep insurance companies honest,” says his spokesman, Keith Maley. “[D]uring his short service in the United States Senate, he looks forward to seeing what can be done to reach that goal.”
His spokesman might choose to use more forceful language than “seeing what can be done to reach that goal”; but it's clear enough. I don't think this should be a surprise. Certainly Ted Kennedy supported it, and it was in all the plans from the Dem presidential candidates last year; and the Baucus framework of late last year, which TK very likely helped shape.
The tea leaves are hard to read on this, but it's worth noting that a.) public opinion is strongly in favor of the public-option — 65%!; b.) doctors support a public option; c.) The vast majority of Democrats support a public option; d.) certainly the vast majority of involved, active grassroots Democrats support a public option.
This explains the recent boldness on the part of Schumer, Rockefeller, and other Dems on its behalf. One might argue that the conservative Dems have the rest of them over a barrel, since health care can't pass without them (or without the apparently-considerable risk associated with the reconciliation move).
But one might also argue that it's the conservative Dems at risk, since if they vote against cloture (much less the bill itself) they'll be blamed for the failure of an otherwise achievable goal, and for going against widespread public opinion — for the purpose of defending insurance companies from competition.
And with that, they would:
- create a circular firing squad within the party,
- destroy relationships and “comity” within the Senate,
- completely obliterate the mutual-defense dynamic that keeps a party viable (think campaign $$$);
- outrage the activists, who write checks and make phone calls;
- kneecap a new Democratic presidency at its outset;
- oh, and by the way, prevent millions from getting health coverage.
Again, all for the purpose of defending health insurers — not the most popular lot these days.
It's hard to see that as a strong position for Conrad, Nelson, Baucus, et al. They've still got a lot to lose from Democratic implosion, and a lot to gain from the Dems continuing to flex muscle. Think of them as holding a bridge hand with a doubleton king-jack. Good cards, but they can be finessed.
So the question may well move from “Will the many liberal Democrats vote for a bill without a public option?” to “Will a few conservative Democrats vote for a bill with a public option?” Again, the argument moves to our ground.
I wonder if Senator Baucus (and, I suppose, the “blue dogs” by implication) are playing a variant of the good-cop/bad-cop game — put up an initial bill without a public option (and thus giving them a way to say to their conservative constituents that they “tried”), knowing full well that the more liberal Democrats will put the public option back in as an amendment. If the Democrats, in caucus, already know they have the votes to pass the amendment (but not before some high-profile pandering by the blue dogs), then what’s the harm?
<
p>If this is the play, then we can expect that the bill that finally comes out of the Senate will have a public option (with Senator Kirk’s support), and the conservative Democrats will still be able to claim that they “did the best they could.” They’ll have been given the chance to oppose it, and they’ll then get points for “party loyalty” when they ultimately vote in favor of the amended bill (with a public option).
<
p>I frankly don’t care so long as the public option is in the final bill. If not, then I think the bill should be defeated — particularly if it has a mandate in it.
<
p>Compulsory health insurance, without a public option, is nothing more than a flagrant subsidy to the already-profitable health insurance industry, and should be defeated.
Has the definition of “the public option” been written out anywhere?
<
p>The NYT poll question that Charley linked to asked:
<
p>
<
p>If so, then that isn’t the same as the “revenue neutral supported by premiums” description that Obama provided in his address to Congress.
<
p>And it certainly isn’t quite competition with private industry. Afterall:
<
p>
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…
<
p>And then there’s the fact that Medicare coverage in MA is more expensive but provides more services than Medicare coverage in other states. Is that what you have in mind when you talk about “the public option”?
<
p>It seems to me that when I hear people like yourself — and I’ll include me in there with you — when we talk about “the public option” we mean something completely different than anything we have today. But that something is nothing like what the politicians are talking about when they talk about “a public option.”
<
p>What is your understanding of “the public option” or “a public option”? Do the differences matter?
<
p>
the stop-gap stand-in for government-sponsored single-payer universal health care. The baby-step towards the only approach that will actually solve the problem.
<
p>The health insurance industry is fighting this tooth-and-nail because they know a public option is the beginning of the end for them — as it should be.
<
p>It is a fight that those who genuinely want affordable health care for everyone must ultimately win.
<
p>I think it’s time progressives start helping politicians of both stripes figure out that the next universal health care bill is going to be far more painful for health insurance companies than this one.
I would also add the clearest problem facing conservative Dems if the health care bill goes down: it will drag down Obama’s ratings, making their own position far more tenuous.
<
p>Many (though not all) of the Blue Dogs are in tough-hold districts that are consistently competitive or even Republican-leaning. Given that incumbents’ ability to hold these districts has at least as much, if not more, to do with the overall political environment than their own idiosyncrasies, their numbers will mirror Obama’s to a large degree. They will suffer the most (because of the marginal nature of their district) if Obama is polling poorly.
<
p>The best situation for them is something like what BrooklineTom mentions above: make some noise about opposing the public option, but don’t sabotage the bill (or, for that matter, the public option). That way they can deflect criticism from their Republican opponent during the campaign while keeping the President’s polling numbers (and the overall political environment) as favorable as possible.
but I do think that tends to be the case in the House more than the Senate. Moderate Dem senators manage to get reelected often, even in wave years. Furthermore, if a senator isn’t up in 2010, he or she will have more time to weather the storm. I do agree about 2012 elections and Obama’s popularity, but that’s a long way away.
<
p>House members, on the other hand, really have to sweat votes like this.
Yeah, he sure might. And you might want to hear from the actual Senator himself. And you might even want the Senator to answer questions about what he means by support. Does he mean it like Schumer means it, or like Baucus means it?
The worst case would be if he makes some noise about supporting the public option, but doesn’t really push for the bill, maybe saying that he did the best he could, but the votes weren’t there.
I’m less surprise that Senator Kirk would say this, than that anyone would mistake his statement for a serious committment.
I completely disagree with your assessment of the public option opponents Charley as shills for the insurance industry. While Baucus and Carper have pretty obvious ties (Baucus in terms of contributions, Carper because of Wilmington’s insurance industry) to the insurance industry people like Blanche Lincoln are facing tough re-election contests in fairly red states where both the President and the public option are unpopular. Similarly Charlie Melancon is running against Vitter and is opposing his ties to the President with his house votes. Also a lot of Blue Dogs are genuinely committed to fiscal conservatism, a value that our party once championed, and are worried that this plan will cost too much. Lastly Senators like Ben Nelson are in states with a ton of seniors and seniors overwhelmingly oppose the public option since it will be paid for with Medicare cuts. So while it is self interest I respect self interest in differing to one’s voters than self interest in differing to insurance companies. That said if any of these politicians had principles and listened to Edmund Burke they know they have a responsibility to be smarter than their constituents and vote for the best interests of their constituents even when their constituents don’t realize what is good for them.