Public Option: Off Again, On Again...Which Is It?

It was only last Sunday that the White House apparently signaled it would abandon the so-called "public option" from the health care "reform". After the (old) new resolve, seemingly, to go it alone which emerged just yesterday, now the "public option" is back on again.

The White House Press Secretary blames it on media's misunderstanding the President's words. (Mais bien sûr. Aber natürlich. Ma naturalmente. 当然.)

'PUBLIC' HUMILIATION: PREZ IN DOUBLE-FLIP ON HEALTH OPTION (8/19/09 New York Post)

"WASHINGTON -- The White House fell into full retreat yesterday from its earlier surrender of Democratic plans for a massive new government-run insurance agency as part of its health-care reform bid.

"The Obama administration now says it remains fully behind the idea of a "public option" for government-run insurance, despite clear signals over the weekend from top officials that the public option is not a deal-breaker and is just a "sliver" of the overall reforms it seeks.

"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs blamed the media for misunderstanding the administration's support.

""The president prefers the public option as a way of doing that," he said. "If others have ideas, we're open to those ideas and willing to listen to those details. That's what the president has said for months."

"The public-health option would be a federally run health-insurance program, similar to Medicare or Medicaid, that would provide insurance to millions of low-income and uninsured Americans. Supporters believe it would compete with private insurers, forcing them to lower prices."[emphasis is mine]

Medicare and Medicaid are broke, if we care to recall.

How could these supporters believe the government-run program would compete with private insurers, when the President himself compares the government-run program with United States Postal Service?? Since when USPS is a competitive, viable service? (Answer: never.)

Here's an article from Bloomberg on Obama going postal:

Obama Goes Postal, Lands in Dead-Letter Office: Caroline Baum (8/18/09 Bloomberg) [emphasis is mine]

"Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009

"No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles...."

"That didn’t stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.

"When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.

"What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?

"What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?"

You can read the rest of the article by following the above link.

(One of the favorite antics of the local post office in my area seems to be to close one or two of the 4 windows when the line is the longest, around noon-time. So the postal workers get their deserved lunch break on time, and the customers get their deserved wait doubled.)

Tweet

Matt Taibbi: Health Care "Public Option" Was Just for the Show

Matt Taibbi, a Rolling Stones magazine editor who has gained notoriety by attacking Goldman Sachs as "great American bubble machine", says Obama's "public option" was meant to be ditched from the beginning, a dog and pony show to placate the supporters. He thinks that there was a hand-shake deal from the beginning with the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry that the administration would initially push for "public option" but that the option would be quickly ditched ("so don't worry"?).

He suspects this (dropping the public option) is what they wanted to do all along. If they want to placate Republicans, dropping the public option wouldn't do the job, he argues, and shakes his head saying "it doesn't make sense...", that the White House and Democrats are kowtowing to Republicans for nothing.

Well, if he thinks the opposition is Republicans only, he's mistaken. At least he doesn't use the words like "evil-mongers", "un-American" or "right-wing wackos", as lots of left-leaning blogs like to call them.

He still allows a possibility that the White House says the public option will be dropped, but Republicans don't seem to change their minds, then the White House and Democrats can say "OK if that's the case we'll go it alone" and the public option will be on again.

Here's a clip from Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC.

(She gets her news from Daily Kos?? Oh boy.)

Tweet

White House to Drop Public Option?

Or are they simply changing the label?

According to AP,

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' (8/16/09 AP) [emphasis is mine]

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

"Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers."

Health insurance cooperatives??

"With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims."

So the "seed money" to the tune of $4 billion to be paid by taxpayers (whether the taxpayers like it or not; I've seen much higher numbers, too) will create these co-ops, national structure with state affiliates (i.e. structure clearly mandated by the government) but "independent of the government" - you mean like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government-sponsored enterprise) independent, or Social Security Administration ("independent agency" of the government) independent?

If it walks, talks, quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and the duck is called "the government".

The mastermind behind this co-op plan is Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee.

"Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

""It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides.""

Mr. Conrad thinks it is membership-run when the government provides $4 billion dollars and the board appointed by the Health Secretary dictates the national and state structures. He dare calls it "a competitor" for the for-profit insurance companies. Talk about unlevel playing field. But clearly Mr. Conrad and his supporters on both sides of the isle at Congress don't seem to care a bit.

"Obama, writing in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.

""In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing.""

At this point, I have no idea what the President is babbling about. Cynics and naysayers? They are the people who don't want to fund your grandiose projects with their hard-earned dollars. Scare tactics? You mean the actual sections and subsections of the bill H.R. 3200 that an increasing number of taxpayers are actually reading? They are scary indeed. As for "doing nothing", I have a feeling that if this bill dies, Dow Jones Industrial Average, which has lagged the other indices around the world, will do a very rapid catch-up by jumping 3, 5% in a day.

(Mr. President, didn't you say just about the same thing when you rammed through the so-called "stimulus" package back in February, that if Congress did nothing it would be a catastrophe? And as soon as it was passed and the stock market tanked afresh in response, you recommended Americans buy stocks because they were cheap.)

The AP article then mentions Section 1233 (Advanced Care Planning) of the House health care bill H.R. 3200:

"Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.
"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said. "

"Sebelius [Health Secretary] said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill."

Is the Secretary saying this because this particular section has caused such an uproar throughout the country, or was the section merely a trial balloon from the beginning, a bait, if you will, to lure the critics and brand them "evil-mongers" and "un-American" - if they get away with it, great; if not, no big deal?

I wouldn't hold my breath.

What about other monstrosities like:

• Section 141 Presidential appointee to run Health Choices Administration, that will decide every aspect of the health care for the "rest of us" (remember, Congress will be exempt)
• Section 163 The government will have direct electronic access to your bank account to make sure you have money to pay for the service
• Section 401 Surtax for people without health care plan that is "acceptable to the government" (who knows what's "acceptable" to the government?)
• All the porks scattered throughout to fund "community-based" activities (there's no definition of "community" but you can make a good guess).

The whole bill should be ditched, as far as I'm concerned. While we're at it, ditch the climate bill, ditch the financial "reform" bill, too. We simply cannot afford it. Even if we can afford it, what's being offered is the worst possible solution that will increase the government intrusion into private lives and further disrupt the market.

Tweet