THE HILL
 

White House undermines public option; here is the countermove

By Brent Budowsky - 10/29/09 08:21 AM ET

For those of you who did not see it, watch the tape of Chuck Todd's report this morning. Todd reports (correctly) that White House aides are telling him that the trigger is preferable to the public option for this reason: If conservative states opt out under the public option, the poor in their states get no protection. OK, so here's the response:

Let’s pass a public option with an opt-out provision for states, PLUS a trigger so that if opted-out states fall short of reasonable standards, the public option will trigger in for them too.

If our goal is the best healthcare for the most people, my compromise is the best policy, right? Let states that want the public option have a program from day one, and if states opt out, then the public option should be triggered if those states fall below acceptable standards for health insurance.

The goal here, folks, at least for those of us who support healthcare reform, is to make healthcare better for everyone. The trigger alone is a license to legalize abuse across the nation, before a trigger is triggered, and as we know, if this happens, the insurers who have bought their influence in Washington will be back lobbying again to prevent any trigger from doing anything.

On the other hand, if we pass a public option with a state opt-out provision and add a trigger that sets minimum standards for states that do opt out, we have a national standard for everyone and true healthcare reform.

The good news, and it is good news, is that the White House is coming out with its true position of preferring the trigger over the public option the president says he supports. Better we know this clearly and wage the fight on this basis rather than the phony pretense that the president supports the public option when in truth he does not.

The bad news is, our climb remains high.

The real news is, let’s go for the true compromise that takes the best of all worlds. Let’s pass a nationwide public option now, allow states to opt out if they choose, and add a trigger that would establish a public option for the opted-out states if they fall short of acceptable standards.

And above all, let’s end this farce where the president says he supports the public option while he opposes it.

Time to put the cards on the table and wage the real fight for healthcare reform.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/65361-white-house-undermines-public-option-here-is-the-countermove

Comments (14)

Brent, what is the current public debt amount? At what rate is the money supply being increased by?BY Bud Brentosky on 10/29/2009 at 10:58
Why don't we just throw the Constitution in the trash while we're at it. Brent, you're a menace to society.BY Brenda on 10/29/2009 at 11:02
Brent, wouldn't the poor in any states that opt out qualify for Medicaid anyway?BY Melissa on 10/29/2009 at 11:09
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=AMBNSBY Farnsworth on 10/29/2009 at 11:17
Brent, You have a non-compromising position. You are entrenched with the idea that the Federal Govt can successfully run Health Care for all when in all its history it has never shown it has that capacity. This is a power grab by so[***]ts, like yourself. You try to hide under the phrases like "evil insurance companies" "outrageous profit" "public option". You have already admitted the other industries you have targeted. Its transparent, its counter to the founding of this country and at this point ridiculous. Only 20% of the country is liberal, this is your last shot at grabbing power and managing everyone's life for them. You are going to fail, which is a good thing.BY Jon on 10/29/2009 at 11:28
@Melissa The house bill expands coverage for the poor by allowing them to qualify for Medicaid—I believe they use a 150% threshold based on current poverty rates ($33,075 for a family of four), and that's much better than providing govt subsidies provided in the SFC bill.BY Theard on 10/29/2009 at 12:41
It's a good idea; I endorse it.BY Barry Schwartz on 10/29/2009 at 12:46
@Theard: Thanks. Assuming the information put forth by these WH aides is accurate, the argument seems a bit disingenuous. If the threshold for Medicaid were expanded and then you also have SCHIP for children and Medicare for the elderly, I don't see much reason in the argument that "the poor get no protection." Here is the link to the House bill if you don't have it. I won't have time to begin reading it until later tonight. http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdfBY Melissa on 10/29/2009 at 12:59
the federal government is not good at running anything. The overcosts, fraud, abuse and graft run rampant and once it is in place, it takes more than an act of Congress to get it changed or eliminated.BY moey on 10/29/2009 at 13:49
@Melissa- Here is the link that outlines parts of the house bill due to begin immediately. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-Immediately-102909.pdfBY Theard on 10/29/2009 at 14:19

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.