Certain things tend to make sense, and others don't.
Whenever there are two possible theories, if you have a number of facts that work under one theory and simply don't have a plausible explanation under the another, it becomes clear which theory is less likely.
For an example, there is a small contingent here arguing that reform without a public option is still worth passing, because a combination of caps and subsidies could create affordability by itself. I gave this theory quite a bit of consideration with an open mind this past week, but I came to the same inescapable conclusion:
The insurance companies have focused all their resources against the public option. This suggests they have determined it is the only thing that will truly force them to bring down their costs, which means they have determined that other measures like caps will fail to do so. What drives this point home is that caps and mandates sound like big bad government with MUCH greater ease than a public option does ("government price fixing!" - "government making you do something!"), so when there isn't a peep from insurance companies vilifying caps OR mandates, despite them being such an easy target compared to the public option, one has to be suspicious.
In addition, our history suggests that while Republicans will try to gut BOTH regulation enforcement and existing federal programs when they are in power, they will have more success dismantling the former than the latter, because voters speak up right away if someone is even thinking of taking away their benefits (SS/Medicare), but are generally not aware if someone is failing to enforce regulations until it is already too late; this history suggests that caps (a regulation) cannot ensure affordability by themselves the way the public option (a government program) can.
There is also the analysis of Howard Dean and many other credible voices on the subject. Why would they be so off the mark on this issue?
All in all, there are too many facts that simply don't have an explanation under the theory that caps and subsidies alone can create affordability just like a public option.
For an additional example, there are a number of people here certain or at least fairly confident that Obama has turned his back on the public option and can't be trusted on health care. To that I would respond by outlining the two possible scenarios going forwards:
- Obama signs a public option into law. He fulfills his campaign promise of affordable and universal care, satisfies the will of 3/4 of voters, thrills his small donor base enough to guarantee all the money he needs for re-election, gets a big victory in the media, honors the memory of his dead mother by preventing similar scenarios from recurring, improves our economic situation, cements his legacy, strenghtens his ability to be effective for the rest of his term, and creates an electorate grateful to Democrats for generations.
- Obama pushes for a crappy bill in conference and signs it, dumping the public option and the guarantee of afforablility. He goes against 3/4 of the public leaving only the 1/4 of the population that hates him anyway, breaks his campaign promise in an unequivocal way that will definitely be brought back to haunt him in future elections, pisses off his entire small donor base and volunteer organization in a way no amount of corporation donations could mitigate, is branded as a loser in the news media, allows his mother's tragic story to be a recurring nightmare for countless others, worsens our economic situation, squanders his chance at a legacy by blowing the only chance at changing health care in a generation, weakens his ablility to be effective for the rest of his term, and creates an electorate prime for a 2010 massacre by passing health reform that makes things worse.
I find it illogical to believe that Obama would have gotten where he has if his political instincts were so poor as to pick the latter over the former; it's a pretty clear choice, with one road leading to rewards and the other to disaster. There is no ambiguity. The news media knows that a bill is passing anyway but that the fight is over the public option, so whether or not a public option is passed is the way in which they will brand Obama as a winner or as a loser; the idea that they would label "getting any bill through" a VICTORY for Democrats is delusional, and I don't see how Obama got to where he is if he were that politically inept.
There's also the matter of all Obama's campaigning to town halls around the country, and defending the public option in detail at just about every question and answer segment. I find it illogical that he would bother to make so much effort to do that if he was just planning on dropping it all along. What purpose would it serve? Sure, he wants to keeping progressives on his side until the conference process - and it would have been one thing if he had said just a couple sentences about preferring the public option and moved on, but taking several minutes at each appearance to walk each crowd through the policy? Why bother?
Most importantly, Obama's argument for the public option initially, as well as his insistence all year that he will only accept an alternative if it met the same goal of affordability, suggests that he understands the policy aspect quite well that universal reform without affordability would make things worse just like we do; for him to then intentionally torpedo 2010 by passing health care reform that people will blame in two years for things being more expensive is unfathomable, as it would show a complete lack of political instincts that would have made Obama's rise to the Presidency impossible.