TPM LiveWire

Todd: Obama Not Willing To Scrap Public Option


NBC Senior Political Reporter Chuck Todd

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

NBC News correspondent Chuck Todd said today that President Obama "is not going to throw away the public option," but will likely turn to the "trigger" option that's been proposed by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe.

"This president loves to find the middle ground," Todd said. "The middle ground to keep the Democrats together appears to be this trigger idea."

Todd said it would be a way for Obama to keep the public option alive and bring in the "left flank" of his party.

With the apparent departure of Sens. Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi from the negotiating table, Snowe has become the major GOP negotiator in the Senate. She supports a "trigger" option, in which a government corporation would offer a public plan in any state where fewer than 95 percent of people have access to affordable coverage.

Yesterday, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said that, although he didn't support such an option, it might be able to pass the House.

Join the Conversation!

66 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

September 4, 2009 1:07 PM   

This is based on nothing more that Todd's only (sometimes accurate, sometime not) imagination.

That said, I think the "trigger option" is not a good compromise and I seriously doubt it would "bring in the left flank".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 1:11 PM    in reply to agio

of course it wont.

and will someone tell me why Obama needs to find some so called middle ground?

he was elected to change republican rule and was given a congress to do it with.

now he needs to find common ground to satisfy..who?
the right wing?.

this white house is pathetic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 1:16 PM    in reply to JadeZ

Sad to say, he needs to find middle ground with the Ben Nelson wing of his own party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rwc

user-pic

September 4, 2009 1:50 PM    in reply to agio

Exactly. Unfortunately that Nelson wing is larger than most progressive activists realize. I think if the the White House and party leaders thought they could pass a strong public option through reconciliation they would do it. But the fact of the matter is 12 to 15 corporate Democratic senators won't vote for it. They don't have the 50 votes needed to win.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:27 PM    in reply to rwc

The Ben Nelson wing is not that large (Nelson, Lincoln, Pryor, Landrieu, Conrad, Bachus), but unfortunately they are probably big enough (and stupid/corrupt enough) to block health care reform through a fillibuster.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:56 PM    in reply to El Puerco

You really think they would filibuster it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:01 PM    in reply to Karl the Marxist

Not on their own, of course, but GOP is certain to filibuster, just like they filibuster everything. The real question is whether Ben Nelson et al. are so opposed to meaningful reform that they would join in. After all -- assuming Democrats cannot peel off a single Republican senator -- it only takes 1, maybe 2 Senators to join at this point to kill reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 5, 2009 9:20 AM    in reply to El Puerco

Will these DINOs ever pay for acting like this? Hell, no. Perhaps if they were threatened with something they would vote correctly but as long as Reid and Obama are not willing to punish them, where's the incentive to vote for your party?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:27 PM    in reply to rwc

They're not corporatists as much as they are representatives of more conservative constituencies than the ones Pelosi, Schumer, etc. represent. The only reason Blue Dogs like Nelson, Pryor, Lincoln, Landrieu, etc. stay in power is because they do vote more conservatively.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:03 PM    in reply to agio

first off, i never was convinced obama wanted a public option.

but that said, why the hell take this fight on ,suffer the damage he has and the party, turn the most vocal supporters off and gain nothing , if Obama and the white house hadnt worked this all out?

they look like clowns at best and I could argue its all deceit that failed(the progressives have fought back)because the republicans agreed to roll obama even though he was willing to deal with them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 1:27 PM   

I cannot believe a single thing that Chuck Todd says now that his reputation has been "sullied" by Jeremy Scahill.

As if Todd were a real journalist with an sterling reputation to begin with.

Hey Todd: STFU.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:39 PM    in reply to pablito

Right on the money.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 1:28 PM   

This is the reality of the Senate. As long as NY and ND have the same clout, we'll need to find "middle ground" with our own party.

I don't want to primary Conrad or Nelson or anyone else that is reasonable. Primarying Lieberman was fully worth it because of his ridiculous pro-war views and his general interest in GOP politics. Nelson and Nelson and Conrad and the gang are not the so out of Democratic mainstream. We're not the GOP. We are a big party with differing views.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 1:48 PM    in reply to Mateo123

I think the "trigger" option is probably what will end up in the bill, the realities of the Senate being what they are. And I think -- given those realities -- it's not a bad compromise.

But I don't cosign your acceptance of Nelson & Conrad. We need to make chairmanships elective, instead of assigning them by seniority. That's how the Senate GOP does it, and it's part of why they're more disciplined than we are -- the implicit threat keeps people in line.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:46 PM    in reply to Alex39

Agreed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:50 PM    in reply to Alex39

+1, the question for the Democrats in the Senate going forward is, how are we going to get better at party discipline, so we don't do this every single time on a tough issue?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 1:34 PM   

?!?!??!?!?!!How do people who lost an election i.e. Snowe et al get to dictate to the ones who won - the DEMOCRATS?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:17 PM   

"he was elected to change republican rule and was given a congress to do it with."

I am so tired of hearing this nonsensical line. He was given no such thing. Wake up and smell the coffee.

If he had really been given the congress to do this, they would have done it two months ago. What he was given was a Democratic party that is really two parties, since it now incorporates all of the centrists and moderate conservatives who would have been Republicans ten or twenty years ago. This is the reality he is trying to deal with.

It's truly sickening to see the left setting itself up to turn power back over to the right by embracing this "Obama betrayed us" meme.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:08 PM    in reply to Virginia

Yes, it's the fault of "the left." Not the fault of "the centrists." Give me a break. We actually draw a line in the sand for the first time in ten years and it's our fault? What some here fail to understand is if this bill passes without a public option - the party's doomed. We're leaving. We're tired of having our votes taken for granted. And, apparently, if it passes with a public option - the party is doomed. So, it's over. This is classic leadership fail and you only have one person to blame - Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:50 PM    in reply to DA in LA

Why don't you flagelate yourself a bit more? I'm sure it feels good.

There are other issues besides health care, you know? Throw Obama overboard and you are throwing every progressive cause overboard. Hello Huckabee!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:32 PM    in reply to Virginia

Oh, thanks. I didn't know there were other issues. Tell me, which issues have liberals had go there way in the past 10 years? Maybe you haven't noticed, but no party represents my beliefs. So, why stick around?

People like you might want to figure our a way to keep us around rather than chastising us. Because you need us. And we're done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 6:21 PM    in reply to Virginia

There's no question that Obama's foreign policy has been a huge improvement, and that matters a lot. But domestically, exactly where has he pushed even a liberal policy, not to mention a progressive one? I'm pretty sure that even the limited torture investigations now beginning are Holder's doing, against Obama's wishes. I live in Chicago; once upon a time, I was an enthusiastic supporter. I worked in his Senate campaign in the Democratic primary, for goodness sake. I've been disillusioned for a while though. Whatever his actual beliefs may be, Obama is governing from the dead (emphasis on dead) center, not even the teensiest bit to the left. So yeah, who needs him? Heighten the contradictions, as we used to say.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 7:20 PM    in reply to Volodya

Yeah, that stimulus package was sure a page right of GWB's playbook, what with tax cuts to the working class and government spending, don't even get me started on the budget...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:26 PM   

It's not about Obama betraying us. It's about the whole of the Democratic membership in Congress betraying us. Let the progressive bloc hold up any and all health care legislation that does not include a robust, non-triggered public option. Anything short of a robust public option available on day one will not be meaningful reform and simply won't stick.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:50 PM   

If these so-called "centrist" Democrats are really reasonable, then they are subject to the same pressure they exert on the rest of the Dem caucus. If the progressive senators band together, show some guts, and tell the blue dogs that they won't vote for a bill without robust competition now, then reasonable, outnumbered blue dogs will seek find some face-saving solution for themselves. (Of course, it would help if the progressive Democrats had some leaders.)

But these senators are not reasonable. They just want to get re-elected. They don't give a shit about the health mess that people are in.

The blue dogs are the tail of this party, steady while the rest of the party waggles this way and that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:51 PM   

Trigger my ass! Either commit to a public option or don't so we all know where we stand with each other but don't play these idiotic games. Seriously!

A triggered public option is an absolute lack of committment a waste of time, money, and energy. Spare us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:56 PM    in reply to synchronicity

It's called politics.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:51 PM   

Oh, and when Chuck Todd ventures beyond obvious arithmetic, he's embodying the Peter Principle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:03 PM    in reply to exregis

Good one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:41 PM    in reply to exregis

He'll only report news if he thinks it will do any good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:53 PM   

The political reality is that neither Obama nor the progressive faction in Congress has the power to deliver everyting we want. Which means there will be compromise which won't satisfy us but will probably make things better for millions of Americans. It will be a starting point. If we can elect more and better Democrats, we can build on it in the future. But if we turn on our own side, we lose everything. That's why this talk about "betrayal" is poison. It nauseates me every time I read it (which is frequently). We're setting ourselves up to turn the country over to the worst elements in our society, and God help us if that happens.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:06 PM    in reply to Virginia

The devil is, as always, in the details. Assuming the individual mandate is in for sure, a health care reform bill with reasonable subsidies but no public option is probably better than nothing at all. But a healthcare reform bill with a mandate, inadequate subsidies (3x poverty level, as is the case in one of the House bills) and no public option is probably worse, both policy-wise and politically, than just scrapping the whole thing and starting over in a couple of years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:37 PM    in reply to agio

couple of years = 10-20

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:42 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

Maybe so... after the Dems lose again, and regain again control over the government.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:52 PM    in reply to agio

Hope you don't get develop a pre-existing condition and lose your job in that time frame (the "other" or "fake" reform in this bill, regulating the insurance companies)...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:52 PM    in reply to Virginia

It nauseates ME every time I hear advice to "hold our noses and compromise." The PO IS the bloody compromise already. Why are progressives always expected to be the ones to surrender? Don't the Blue Dogs have noses to hold? (Maybe not; they're an odd breed.) I find it very hard to believe that if Obama and Reid exert maximum pressure, including plausible threats to primary hold-outs, they can't come up with 51 votes to pass decent reform through reconciliation (anything better than decent is already off the table.) How many Blue Dogs are there in the Senate anyway? The actual names bandied about come to distinctly

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:34 PM    in reply to Volodya

We're done surrendering. The White House and Congress just don't know it yet. Hopefully it's not too late by the time they figure it out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:55 PM    in reply to Volodya

Because the Blue Dogs don't really care about health care reform. They have us by the balls and they know it. They'd be quite happy to walk away and have nothing done. What the party needs to do is reassert ways to increase their leverage over individual members (particularly in the Senate), so that there are non-policy ways of exerting leverage over individual members (committees are a good place to start). Otherwise prepare to see a repeat of this same scenario again and again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 6:07 PM    in reply to Philv

They have us by the balls ONLY if there are at least 10 of them in the Senate. I'm not sure there are. And who's to say that Ms. Snowe won't hold HER nose and vote for a bill including an untriggered PO? Wouldn't that be following the will of her constituents? Why need there be only one shot at this? Put a reasonably progressive bill out there; if it can't muster 51 votes, THEN maybe it makes sense to water it down some more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 6:12 PM    in reply to Volodya

Because that isn't the way DC works--you never bring something to the floor if you don't have the votes, that's what the whips are for, knowing exactly what the vote count is beforehand. What do you think the narrative will become if this is brought to a floor vote in the Senate and fails (due to a filibuster or whatever)? They won't get a do-over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 6:28 PM    in reply to Philv

I understand the process. There's a pretty broad consensus among the Dems in favor of SOME sort of health care reform though, even among the constituents of Baucus et al. So I see no reason in the world why a do-over with a watered down bill wouldn't be possible in this instance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 7:23 PM    in reply to Volodya

Because Obama's ratings would tank and individual members who were really happier being in a minority when they didn't have to vote on stuff will head for the hills. Politicians are perhaps one of the most vulnerable groups to CW out there, thus the mess we're in right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:58 PM    in reply to Volodya

Not sure what happened to my post. It was supposed to end "The actual names bandied about come to distinctly fewer than 10."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 2:55 PM   

So it appears that some of the people here would rather have it all or nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:10 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

It appears that some people here would rather have something decent than nothing at all. No public option = poor reform = for the insurance companies. That's not hard to understand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:21 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

Some here would rather have nothing than a policy that is worse than what we have currently.

What's worse? A mandate and no way to lower health care costs. Subsidies, unless keyed to medical inflation, will not matter. That's because medical inflation is increasing linearly -- by a factor of two -- compared to regular inflation and (we hope) wages. Even a subsidy at ten times poverty will eventually be insufficient.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:31 PM    in reply to exregis

Help me understand the math here. 60 Senators need to vote in favor of a bill for it to pass. Democrats currently have 59 (60 when Kennedy's seat is filled), and some of them have already publicly stated that they will not support a public option.

So an all-or-nothing result means nothing. Nothing will happen until the Democrats get a super-duper majority in 2080 or so.

There must be something constructive that can be passed that doesn't include the public option. Or am I wrong?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:37 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

It's actually more aggravating. We only need 51 Senators to vote for the bill, and another 9 to agree NOT to join in the inevitable GOP-led filibuster.

You would think asking 9 Senators to, you know, support their party instead of the opposition, would be a no-brainer. Sadly, not the case in this Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:41 PM    in reply to agio

Good point. The same thing happened with the civil rights bills that finally got through in 1960s. The only difference was that it was Senators in the Democratic Party leading the filibusters back then. Perhaps the nuclear option a few years ago would have actually been a good idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:37 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

Yes, you are wrong. 51 Senators are needed to vote for a bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 3:56 PM    in reply to DA in LA

Assuming there is no filibuster.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:33 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

A cloture vote needs 60. But I'd like to see the Blue Dogs filibuster their own party or vote against cloture.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:37 PM    in reply to DA in LA

That would be quite the trick, seeing as the Blue Dogs are in the House and the filibuster is a procedure only used in the Senate.

The Senators we need to worry about are not Blue Dogs. Lap dogs, perhaps; or even bitches. But not Blue Dogs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:35 PM    in reply to agio

Technically, yes, but Nelson and others are considered blue dogs by many.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:19 PM   

There must be something constructive that can be passed that doesn't include the public option.

1. End insurance company abuses, like preconditions and denial of insurance. But that will necessarily premiums not lower them. And the insurance companies oppose this without a mandate.

2. Mandate rational care (sometimes called rationing) where unnecessary medical procedures don't get reimbursed. Doctors and hospitals won't like the income hit and Republicans will never vote for this without malpractice insurance capping. This is where savings must ultimately come from.

3. The US pays for the training (that is, residency and internship) for every single physician in this country. About $100,000 per resident per year goes to teaching hospitals and some of that money pays the residents' salaries. There's also an associated board that decides how many residencies of each kind each teaching hospital is allowed each year. Change the formulas to drastically reduce the number of specialist positions in favor of family physicans. Medical students won't like this.

4. Move to a no fault medical injury system, where minor problems will result in less compensation and major problems (like blindness) will result in more. Tie that to a rigorous process to penalize physicians who make too many "mistakes." The whole ethos of physicians not reporting others' mistakes has to be overcome here.

5. Ban prescription drug advertising.

6. Mandate a single set of insurance policies for all insurance companies, policies that are clear and easy to compare.

7. Mandate a single electronic process to submit all claims, freeing up physicians to spend more time on their practice.

8. Regulate insurance companies closer, wherein the companies have to justify denials and not the other way around.

9. Don't pay for poor medical practices, like surgery for back problems or by-pass surgery, unless alternatives have already failed or we have an immediate emergency.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:20 PM    in reply to exregis

But that will necessarily raise premiums not lower them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:40 PM    in reply to exregis

Reading over your intelligent list of desiderata it strikes me as ironic that if we don't establish a public option to compete with private insurers, the only other way to bring down costs is to rely on much more intervention by the government in so-called "free marketplaces".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:51 PM    in reply to agio

That's part of the point I was making. Without a public choice, we can't lower costs without much more regulation of the medical-industrial complex. In fact, without much more regulation in general we can't lower costs. The public choice provides an easy entree into one-sided regulation, especially if coordinated with Medicare, Medicaid, the VA medical system, and SCHIPS.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:23 PM   

10. Require Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies in the Medicare Part D prescription program. Congress specifically prohibited Medicare from doing so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:32 PM   

Seems to me skilled politicians, like the ones in the White House, can probably count votes in the Senate. If the Obama team thought they could get 51 votes for the public option, why would they be willing to compromise?

Don't forget, the way the Dems got the majority in the Senate is by running a bunch of guys who would probably be Republicans if it wasn't for the crazy right wingers running that party.

What's the old saying? Don't make "perfect" the enemy of "possible"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 5, 2009 9:29 AM    in reply to gustav56

Amazing when they wanted the bank bailout they didn't have to worry about counting votes. Whenever it comes to giving money away to defense contractors, banks or other corporate benefactors but OMG if its for the average American all of a suddent the Dem leadership including Obama is incapable of getting support, incapable of twisting arms,incapable of going out and selling the policy. Somehow he didn't even need to twist arms to pass it with no penalties for banks or executives who created the financial mess.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:38 PM   

Wouldn't trust Chuck Todd as far as I could throw him.

Disregard anything that comes out of this windbag's mouth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 4:57 PM   

Looking at exregis's insightful list above -- I'm on board for all of this. Obviously a couple of these proposals wouldn't have a snowball's chance of passing right now, but a lot of them seem like they could pass in one form or another. The point, I think, is that something constructive can be passed.

I'm not trying to be a pain here, but I just don't see how the bill is automatically worthless, as some have suggested, if it contains a trigger or even if it lacks a public option altogether. Obviously, advocates need to be able to play hard ball to get at least some of what they want, but at some point (and I don't claim to know where that point is), they need to know when to compromise to avoid tearing apart the coalition and live to fight another day.

Yes, it would have been nice if the White House had not tried to negotiate with Senators who turned out to be bad-faith negotiators (some of this was predicatable, some of it wasn't). It would be nice if Ted Kennedy were still alive, if Tom Daschle hadn't taken some lousy perks from lobbyists, and if more senators were willing to negotiate in good faith rather than follow a scorched earth policy. But that isn't what happened. We are where we are.

I don't want to see those of us who fought so hard to get Obama into office get thrown off by this. From a political angle, if nothing of substance passes, the GOP wins, completely. That has been their aim from the very beginning. It seems to me that something of substance that Democrats can take back to Americans and point to with pride can pass. Whether that has to include the triggered or trigger-less public option, I can't say.

But I will say that I would rather have Obama-Reid-Pelosi passing a health care bill now than Palin/McConnell/Cantor in four years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:37 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

The point you can't seem to understand is that we have compromised. The PO is the compromise. It's a pretty easy point to understand. Give it a shot.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 6:09 PM    in reply to CommunityOrganizer

I think it's pretty safe to say that among those who prioritize health care reform, there are two major areas that are completely failing right now: cost and access. Almost everyone at TPM is concerned about cost (or at least that's what it looks like from the comments), especially since increasing access has a negative effect on decreasing cost if done the wrong way.

And most people here would favor a single-payer, government system, so they already view the public option as a compromise(as DA in LA pointed out)--getting the insurance companies out of the business of medical insurance is the goal, so any reform bill that attempts to fix the cost side of things without greatly advancing that goal is seen as anathema. Never mind if it would work or not, in terms of lowering costs, (and of course everybody, including me I guess, is an expert on this). People feel like this is the chance to finally make a big move in the direction of single-payer. Anything less is not acceptable.

That's my take anyway. I totally disagree, for tactical and practical reasons. If we're so sure that the insurance companies will be unable to deliver what a public option would, why wouldn't a correctly constructed trigger simply give us the public option in two/five years? Certainly a shorter time horizon than you're going to see any public option if there is nothing passed at all. Others will, no doubt, disagree.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 4, 2009 5:44 PM   

We're here to pop this trial balloon.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on