Life After the Death of the Public Option (Nate Silver)

Life After the Death of the Public Option
by Nate Silver @ 6:44 PM

From the President on downward, the White House now seems resigned to losing the fight over the "public option", a government-run insurance plan that would complete against private plans. It's time to re-assess the playing field in light of this development.

Is the public option really dead? Probably.

Perhaps the better question is whether the public option was ever really 'alive', meaning that it ever had enough votes to pass both the House and the Senate. We estimated based on committee votes that a bill containing a fairly weak public option -- like the one approved by the House's Energy and Commerce Committee -- would be a favorite to pass the House but probably only by a slim margin, with between 220-225 votes for passage (a minimum of 218 are required). And arguably, the conditions have worsened somewhat for health care reform since the Commerce Committee's compromise passed on July 31st.

It's the Senate side, though, where the public option was encountering most of its difficulties. Only 37 Senators, according to the whip count at Howard Dean's website, were firmly on board with the public option, whereas at least a few Democrats (Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Kent Conrad) had stipulated their opposition to it. There were nevertheless a number of scenarios under which one can imagine a bill with a public option having passed -- Lieberman, Landrieu, et. al. might be nominally opposed to a public option, but is their opposition so firm that they would vote to filibuster any bill that contained one?

The White House has evidently concluded that this is a real threat. I don't see any real obvious reason to doubt their assessment. For those who have come to a different conclusion, I'm all ears -- give me a detailed, practical (not theoretical) scenario by which a bill containing a public option passes both chambers and gets the President's signature. But I don't see it.

Keep in mind that, even if a bill with a public option made it to the Senate floor, it would be subject to an amendment that could strip that provision. Considering that virtually all of the 40 Republicans would vote for such an amendment, it would only need perhaps 10-12 Democratic votes to pass, something which it could quite possibly achieve. Now, progressives could try to filibuster that amendment. But if they did so, senators like Landrieu and Ben Nelson could then filibuster the overall bill with a clear conscience (or at least a good excuse).

Why doesn't the public option have the votes for passage? You'd think that a provision that is both fairly popular and money-saving was a good bet for passage. But the insurance industry really, really does not like the public option. We'd previously estimated that its lobbying influence has cost the public option something like nine (9) votes in the Senate.

This is an unpleasant truth. But just because it's an unpleasant truth doesn't mean that it's not the truth.

<SNIP>

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/life-after-death-of-public-option.html

oh well.

As Nate indicates, the votes were never there. Period. Folks can scream and wail about the President all they want...but that seems to be misdirected anger.

The votes are there.

Even your link doesn't assure that many. Anyway, I suggest you take it up with Nate.

The Democrats, including the President, have said they will use reconciliation if needed.

The dems have talked (at least off the record) that reconciliation could be an option employed. It was never clear that they would use it, nor could they enact non-budget-related policy under the reconciliation process.

50 votes were not on record in support of the public option anyway.

People are dying and you're worried about making sure the Senate sticks to their usual procedures. Unbelievable.

Please put that shit away. I don't make the rules.

Maybe you should get back to your "fuck you" shouts at the President.

Meanwhile, yes, people dying for lack of healthcare insurance.

Join us here in the real world sometime.

In the real world, Senate rules and procedure will not allow a public option to be passed with reconciliation.

So, let's say you cry and wail a lot. Guess what? The rules and procedures still won't allow it to pass.

Let's say you complain about the status quo and how it results in deaths and bankruptcies. Guess what? The rules and procedures still won't allow it to pass.

You could go on and on, but in the REAL WORLD, it can't pass. Only in your fantasy land fake world where the rules can somehow be avoided would they pass. It seems like the best solution to the status quo is to CHANGE the status quo with a bill that WILL pass.

n/t

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php



*edit - at 4:21 on the video

There seems to be some wiggle room on the "must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans" part. In theory, a co-op would do that.

...but then he goes on to mention the "public option". You're right.

I listen a lot and haven't heard it.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-16-09 06:02 PM
Original message

"Obama Demands: The Bill I Sign Must Include Public Option (July 17)"

(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8591389

And, from today..

"President still favors Public Option as Means of Creating Competion

and Choice."

Cross posted from LBN..

cravermi (19 posts) Sun Aug-16-09 02:21 PM
Original message

"President Still Favors Public Option as a Means of Creating Competition and Choice, says Gibbs"
Source: CBS News/Face the Nation

(CBS)White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Face the Nation Sunday that President Obama is still in favor a government-sponsored health insurance plan -- but does not intend to replicate the beleaguered U.S. Postal Service.

The federal government would be able to successfully administer a health insurance option, Gibbs told CBS Anchor Harry Smith, even though the government-run Postal Service is facing serious financial problems.

"I don't think he was saying that what we were going to do is create the postal service for healthcare," Gibbs said. "The president believes this option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition."

Read more.. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/16/ftn/main52452...


Kathleen Sebelius is saying one thing about the public option. However, Robert Gibbs is saying another.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Cross posted from GDPHopeOverFear (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-16-09 07:43 PM
Original message

"Crooks & Liars: White House reiterates its support of the Public Option"

Oh, the Republicans have been having a field day with this mantra - that employers would shunt their employees into the public plan. But they're really upset for the same reason Sebelius mentioned as a positive: Job lock. Above all else, the Republican party stands for cheap, disposable labor with no rights or protections. God forbid you should have a public option - you could up and leave your job anytime you wanted!

In the meantime, the White House released this statement late this afternoon:


"Nothing has changed. POTUS has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."


Everybody....... caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalm dooooooooooooown.

Take deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaths.

Please."

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/say-what-sebeliu...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

sign a bill that doesn't have one in those links. Am I missing it?

All I see is a "headline" that says Obama demands it, but he words just say he supports it, is in favor of it and thinks it's best. He does say he insists on an "insurance exchange," which could be done through a co-op such as the one Ron Wyden(OR) has proposed.

(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

RIP U.S.A

I'm expecting a "compromise bill in the works" meme in the MSM. Call it compromise, triangulation, whatever.

The RIP U.S.A. storyline will be represented well in some of our lefty corner enclaves though.

how many had a committment to single payer?

:-(

We must have some kind of public option.

It seems there's an epidemic of hand wringing this weekend over the *demise* of the public option in a bill that doesn't yet exist. And more sources of unrest here, here, and here, just for a few examples.


It's high time to shift the discussion.



Lost in the shouts of anguish are these facts:



The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is performing a cost analysis on Single Payer this month, during the Congressional recess.


When Congress resumes next month, there will be introduction, debate and a full floor vote on Single Payer legislation HR 676, as a substitute for HR 3200, the Democratic leadership’s “public option” bill.



THIS is the pressure point for our efforts, imho, to bring Single Payer/Medicare For All into the public discussion, pronto. We don't have a moment to waste, because it's already mid-August. We must not allow this discussion to be drowned out by the Screamers Organized By The Deep Pockets.



The facts:


1. Medicare is a single payer system.


2. Medicare is not "socialism" in that the government does NOT own or run the hospitals, and does NOT employ the physicians. The private physicians and hospitals merely submit their billing to the government for payment.


3. Medicare is not a "starting from scratch" single payer system. It is in place and is highly popular with recipients.


4. Medicare has an approximate <3% operational overhead, whereas, private insurance demands 15-20% to administer and skim off their massive profits. With the insurance company monopoly over health care, one out of every three health care dollars is spent on administration/management and NOT on providing care.




That is why medical costs continue to rocket into the stratosphere. Insurance companies devour more and more profit by denying health care to more and more people. They are *middle men* in that they do not provide care... they deny care to increase their profits. Insurance companies are the weak link that directly contributes to the untimely illness and death of millions of Americans every year.


It's why they must be entirely removed from our health care delivery system.

:shrug:

Nate's analysis doesn't account for the possibility of passage through reconciliation but we don't know if it would survive the Byrd Rule and it would expire in 10 years.

There's a big difference between voting against cloture or voting to strip the public option from final bill with an amendment and voting against the final bill. Any Democratic senator that didn't vote for cloture would be committing political suicide as they'd have literally no sway with 80% of the Democrats in Congress, all of whom would be looking to stab that fucker in the back at every opportunity. And I'm not convinced there are 10 conservaDems who will have the balls to strip the public option from the bill through an amendment.

The public option isn't dead just because Kent Conrad's an asshole and says so.

maybe even before it officially *expires*. If not, well, it will expire or, more likely, be repealed sooner and replaced with something else. We'll never know until we try and it's not like a public option will make things worse than what they are now, so why not jump in? :shrug:

Concentrate on just expanding medicare and letting people buy in. The rest is just a big giveaway to the insurance companies.

It would be much harder for Republicans to frighten people about medicare. Everybody knows what it is and most people trust it. From there, try to parlay public support into more votes.

I agree with Nate that what there is now is dead or should be. Dropping the public option is going to cost Obama support and he's short on that already.

He sees the passage of hcr even with no public option as a win for Obama and Dems, but Republicans could vote for it, because it's a bonanza for their big insurance constituency. They could also point to their killing the "death panels" and say they'd gotten the administration and congressional Dems to accept a Republican bill. This would boost the GOP by letting them take credit for the popular aspects, hurt Dems by making them look contemptible for caving to the minority party, while leaving Republicans free to blast Dems for negative consequences of the legislation, such as predictably higher premiums.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.