It looks like the public option may be gaining strength again in the Senate:
The idea of creating a government-run health-insurance plan, once on life support in the Senate, is making a recovery among Democrats writing health-care legislation.
So far, no one is talking about a nationwide Medicare-like plan of the sort sought by many liberals, but several variations short of a national plan are being considered.
One would establish a national plan only if other proposals in the Democrat-led health overhaul fail to expand insurance coverage. Another would create a government plan, but allow states to opt out. Still another would allow states to opt in to a government plan, or experiment with their own plans. Prospects are growing that one of these variations -- or a blend of them -- will make it into the final Senate bill.
Not sure what the WSJ is talking about there. All of those options it mentions are a national plan, though there's quite a difference between only potentially creating such a plan (the trigger option), creating it but leaving it up to the states to join or not as they wish (opt-in), and creating it and forcing the states to actively reject such a plan for their citizens while their neighbors enjoy it (opt-out).
The Senate Finance Committee turned away from the public plan in favor of creating a network of nonprofit cooperatives. Just three weeks ago, the panel delivered a bipartisan rejection of two public-plan alternatives, in what looked like a critical defeat for the idea.
So what changed?
But a funny thing happened: It wouldn't die. Several factors explain why compromise versions of a public plan are gaining traction. For one, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded the cooperatives proposed by the Finance Committee "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country."
Also, private health insurers stepped up attacks on the Finance Committee bill, fearing it would saddle them with too many unprofitable customers. The committee had embraced cooperatives in part as a nod to insurers' concerns about a public plan, but the attacks led Democratic senators to look less favorably on the industry.
Or maybe, just maybe the Dems are finally getting it through their heads that a public option, done properly, would actually be wildly popular across the country, with both Democrats and Republicans:
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public...
57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)
If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.
Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance, either through their employers or on their own or through Medicare or Medicaid. That number rises to 71 percent if the government were to provide subsidies for many lower-income Americans to help them buy coverage. With those qualifiers, a majority of Republicans say they support the mandate.
Do it, Senators - include a robust public option, preferably an opt-out national plan if you can't do Medicare For All. Only the insurance companies will love you if you don't.