As many of you know, I have written multiple diaries and comments that has attempted to provide evidence that the White House is not committed to including the public option. In those diaries, we had some very good discussion (and the normal ad-hominem attacks that we could all do without). However, over the last three weeks, my impression of the situation has not changed. Unfortunately, my assumption was reinforced during the Grand Junction Town Hall.
Let me begin by saying I personally thought our President was magnificent during the meeting. He was powerful, thoughtful, empathetic, and firm. Anyone that listened to him and didn't think major change was needed either thinks our President is a bald faced liar or they are a complete idiot.
However, I found it interesting that many did not view this session as a continuation of the walkback from the public option. The preponderance of the evidence says otherwise. Follow me after the jump to find out why.
We are clearly being prepared for the public option not being included in the Finance Bill and likely not being included in the conference version. It is actually crystal clear if you understand how DC generally works using trial balloons and careful wording.
While the President made a powerful argument for the public option today, two key items made his current view of the probability of actually getting it passed readily apparent.
First, in all three town halls this week, the public option was not included as part of his prepared remarks. This is one of Washington's oldest tells. Once something that was previously part of the standard stump speech for an issue i removed, you know that it is no longer part of the critical path. It clearly means the politician is attempting to limit discussion of the policy, positively or negatively. We can argue over the politics, but it is tough to argue over the fact that a decision has been made to de-emphasize the public option. But this is not the most ominous sign.
The following statement made by the President during the town hall is the most telling.
This is a legitimate debate to have. All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else, like the fact that we can help Nathan make sure that he doesn't suddenly find himself -- (applause) -- completely broke in trying to treat his son.
That is the hyperbole that comes out when you are trying to push back, not when you are unequivocally supporting a policy. This is Politics 101. Does anyone really think those pushing for the public option forgot about Nathan's plight as the President stated. The President knows public option advocates haven't forgotten those who are most affected by the current system. He knows that public option advocates understand the stakes here. However, this is just what is necessary to start the distancing process. This is the prep work that has to be done before it gets pulled. It has been going on for a month now.
The public option is in ICU. Yes, the President wants it. I don't doubt his integrity and honesty in this regard. But he also wants a reduction in the itemized deduction limit and mentions his request in every speech. Is anyone here saying that is going to be in the bill just because the President keeps bringing it up? Clearly, the President has made it clear that just because he advocates something doesn't mean he has to have it in the final bill. When you call something that once was the central tenet of reform is now called a "sliver", it is very difficult to argue it is not being de-emphasized.
The most ironic thing I saw all week was Mike Ross' incredible defense of the public option at his town hall on Friday. He was clearer and more articulate on it than anyone I have seen, including President Obama. Now of course he said he didn't know if he would vote for it, but darn if he didn't seem like he was convincing some real skeptics in the audience who you could tell started figuring out that it wasn't a public takeover.
When Blue Dogs are your best advocates, but won't vote for it, you have a problem.
To all of who think this is just going to be worked out in conference, I will tell you again. Forget it. There is a reason President Obama has primarily talked about the finance bill. It has always been the bill the WH was planning on pushing. If the WH keeps saying they want a bipartisan bill, and the only committee that has had any visible Republicans at the table was Senate Fnance, who do you think the WH is relying on for their bill. If the WH has made a deal with PHARMA, and no other committee is aware of the deal, which bill do you think the Administration is relying on?
I wrote this last night, but in late breaking news this morning, apparently HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated that the Administration is willing to accept co-ops.
"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says Obama still believes there should be choice and competition" in the health insurance market — but that a public option is 'not the essential element.'"
The public option is on its last legs, and the sooner we all accept that, the sooner progressives can srategize appropriately. I have said this for three weeks now, and I will continue to push this until the walkback ceases or the public option is dropped.
Let me be very clear. I am not an alarmist. I am a realist and analytical to a fault. At this point, we all need to get realistic. Those who want to fight for the public option better get a move on if you want it. On the other hand, I think those who think passing a bill is more important could be very constructive be writing some diaries stating why no public option is acceptable, as opposed to calling those with differing opinion's defeatist, which has become common place for some reason.
(Defeatist, Socialist...it seems to be the debating tactic of choice these days to add an "ist" to a word to stifle discussion. I am not sure why.)
This is where the rubber meets the road. As stated in my previous diaries, I think there are still 2 of 4 viable actions available for those who still believe a public option is essential to real health care reform. (I no longer believe a pushing for a veto threat is productive, and mass demonstrations are likely not possible to organize at this late stage.)
- We should bring Remote Area Medical Foundation (RAM) to the National Mall.
Open a giant free clinic on Congress's doorstep and a walkthrough by Obama would drive the message home in way that no one could avoid. The images would be too powerful to ignore. Let them dare to ignore it. Dare them to volunteer. All doctors in Congress including Sen Coburn, Sen Barrasso, and Rep. Price should be invited to participate. Meanwhile, thousands of people will descend on the mall to get health care, forming an utterly massive demonstration of why health care reform is essential. It would also provided a needed service to large swaths of needy citizens in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. H/T Gravedugger.
- Continue building on our strengths instead of focusing on our weaknesses.
We have clear majorities in both the Senate and the House. We should continue to focus on providing a backstop for liberals and progressives in the Senate and the House as recommended daily in slinkerwink'sdaily diaries. We could attempt to get more Senators and House members to support the Progressive Caucus' bottom line of no public option, no support for any bill. This position has to hold up after conference. This means calling supporters and asking for more, instead of calling opponents and asking for a minimum. Why is the majority voice being muted? Is it because we are unintentionally amplifying the minority voice through our emphasis.
A public plan is part of the 2008 Democratic Platform.
Covering all Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options.
Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with direct financial assistance through tax credits and other means.
The only question remaining, is how hard are Democrats willing to fight for it and if there are any viable alternatives that won't set Democrats back for a long time due to unconstrained costs after reform is implemented.
FDR was, of course, a consummate political leader. In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
I still believe we have an opportunity to make the President insist on the public option. But other's are welcome to disagree.
Let the debate begin.
Update [2009-8-16 17:0:49 by justmy2]: Kent Conrad is making news all over the place on FOX News Sunday.
- He just said their is no deadline on September 15 and the Finance Committee will not be bound by that date.
- He confirmed that the end-of-life provision has been removed from the Finance Committee but didn't really give a reason why.
Which side is he on? Ours or the insurance company's?