"If public option advocates want to prove Gibbs wrong, now's their chance."

[Cha]

"WH: PUBLIC OPTION LACKS NECESSARY CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT.... There's been ample speculation in recent days about where the White House stands on the public option, and how far it's willing to go to help make it happen. Last week, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the administration would "absolutely" support the provision if that's what lawmakers decided to pursue, and yesterday, Robert Gibbs said the issue is up to the Senate leadership.

So, why does it seem as if the White House is reluctant to stick its neck out on this? Apparently because the West Wing doesn't think the votes are there.

Gibbs said flatly that the White House doesn't believe there's enough support in Congress to get it passed.

Asked directly whether the President's failure to include the public option in his proposal means he views the public option as dead, Gibbs didn't exactly dispute this interpretation.

"There are some that are supportive of this," Gibbs said. But he added: "There isn't enough political support in the majority to get this through."

It's certainly possible that Gibbs' analysis is correct. In the Senate, public option supporters have quickly put together an impressive group of signatures in support of the provision. But even now, the total is less than half of what's needed -- and Rockefeller's comments yesterday make it seem as if a Senate majority may not materialize, regardless of what the White House signals.

But let's also not overlook the House. In my conversations with aides this week, there's a strong sense that the majority is going to need a few (or more) Dems who voted against reform in November to vote for it now. The White House, then, is very likely thinking about how to shape the reform package to make it more attractive to some of the Blue Dogs whose votes will be necessary to ensure passage.

What's more, I realize that Gibbs's response today seems unexpected, but it doesn't strike me as all that surprising -- if the White House thought the votes were there for a public option, the administration would have included the idea in the proposal unveiled yesterday. The fact that the president's version of reform didn't include the idea should have made it pretty clear that the White House thinks, correctly or not, that public option support remains insufficient.

"I should note, though, that Gibbs's comments need not be the end of the public option. The White House is under the impression that the votes just aren't there to pass this specific measure, but if proponents on and off the Hill want to prove otherwise, there's still time to do just that. Gibbs didn't say the president opposes the public option -- Obama has said repeatedly he supports the idea, and would like to see it in the final bill -- he just said he thinks the public option lacks the support it needs in Congress."

If public option advocates want to prove Gibbs wrong, now's their chance."

—Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[quiet.american]

1. I asked someone "out there" yesterday, what were the goals of the public option?

I decided to Google to find an answer to my question, and came upon this very interesting read from the "Father of the Public Option," who offers support for the Senate bill. If he can bring himself to do so, I have to wonder what it would take for those who daily freak out over this to at least take another look. In reading what Prof. Hacker recommended as improvements to the Senate bill in lieu of the public option, it seems to me Obama listened and listened well. Some snips, (The article is from December 20, 2009).

Why I Still Believe In This Bill

Now that the core demand of progressives has been removed from the Senate health care bill--namely, the public health insurance option--should progressives continue to support the effort?....

For me, the question is particularly difficult. I have been the thinker most associated with the public option, which I’ve long argued is essential to ensuring accountability from private insurers and long-term cost control. I was devastated when it was killed at the hands of Senator Joe Lieberman, not least because of what it said about our democracy -- that a policy consistently supported by a strong majority of Americans could be brought down by a recalcitrant Senate minority.

It would therefore be tempting for me to side with Howard Dean and other progressive critics who say that health care reform should now be killed.

It would be tempting, but it would be wrong.

<snip>

The public option was always a means to an end: real competition for insurers, an alternative for consumers to existing private plans that does not deny needed care or shift risks onto the vulnerable, the ability to provide affordable coverage over time. I thought it was the best means within our political grasp. It lay just beyond that grasp.

<snip>

...the bill also contains a requirement on individuals to have coverage, which has become the main target of criticism from the left. Without the public option, this mandate amounts to forcing people to buy private insurance without creating an affordable public alternative with which insurers must compete.

But the correct response to this critique is to make the requirement less necessary by providing greater assistance with the cost of premiums and by facilitating enrollment in the exchange--in other words, by making coverage more attractive and easier to obtain.

(From what I can see, this is exactly what is in Obama's proposal. Check.)

The lack of a public option also makes even more imperative tough requirements on insurers to make them live up to their stated commitment to change their business model and slow the spiraling cost of coverage. The most important way to do this is to move away from the Senate bill’s state exchanges and toward a national exchange such as that contained in the House bill.

(Check.)

The federal government needs to be directly involved in implementing and enforcing strong national regulations of insurers and creating the new exchange. Otherwise, the effort for reform might fail at the hands of hostile governors.

The federal government is the only entity big enough and powerful enough to ensure a highly consolidated private insurance industry follows the law. It can and must demand transparency and obedience to the new rules. Insurers must open their books, and subject their rates, administrative costs, and profits to federal review. These new rules must apply to all plans, not just those within the exchange. And states should have authority not only to enforce these rules, but to innovate beyond them as well.

(Check.)

These are not politically unrealistic goals. Most are already embodied in the House bill. In bridging the differences between the two bills, Democratic leaders and the President must insist on a final bill that delivers on these fundamentals.

Well, we'll stay tuned.

[Cha]

3. Thank you, qa.. Brilliant information!

But, the Public Option is the magic word and its exclusion grabs attention with negative melodramatic headlines!

[NJmaverick]

2. I suspect the Obama administration will not be proven wrong

[Cha]

4. I suspect that the Obama White House

is going for the best strategy to get this done and hopefully it's the best outcome possible under the seige of mouthbreathing antagonists.

[IndianaGreen]

5. There were 60 votes for the Medicare Buy-in

until the treasonous rat Joe Lieberman reneged on Harry Reid.

The Medicare Buy-in is the public option that can pass, assuming those Democrats that claim to be on the side of the people don't turn out to be corporatists, such as my POS Senator Evan Bayh (who is running against Obama in 2012, in case you are wondering why he is on TV so much).

[quiet.american]

6. Why Lieberman is given so much rope continues to frustrate.

And glad to see the back of Bayh, for whatever reason he's been putting out there for his "running for the hills." Can't stand him.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Because he's necessary.

He's still a stop on the road to 60 votes, unless we want to blow up the filibuster (and our previous comments on that topic make that pretty damn impossible). You can't exactly choke him and then expect him to go your way, especially since we primaried him out in his last election.

It sucks, absolutely, but there's no way around him unless Republicans want to cooperate even marginally... and they don't.

[Clio the Leo]

7. exactly ...

... get on the stick Jane! You have President and the Senate Majority Leader saying they will gladly stand behind a bill that contains a PO IF there is the support for it ... see how many Senators you can move!

(although I supect the method you're using with Rocky wont work)

(if you have no idea what I'm talking about, dont worry, you dont want to know)

[freddie mertz]

9. I agree with the argument in this piece.

The best way to find out who is really supportive of what, and see if we have the votes or not, is to put the public option up for VOTE in the Senate, under reconciliation if need be.

Same thing with Medicare buy-in.

I've been signing all the petitions and sending the letters, as I am sure you all have been too.

Let's get it on!