If we don't get a strong, robust public plan option in health care reform, we lose everything.
That's the analysis of Chris Bowers at Open Left, and he's probably right:
[I]f the public option is watered down to a "trigger," then don't expect any major progressive legislation to come from this Democratic trifecta. On any issue. Ever.
Real health care reform--aka, a public option--is the lowest bar for progressives to clear with the current congress. It has the most lobbying behind it, bringing in not only health care reform groups, but also unions and mutli-issue groups like MoveOn. It only requires 50 votes in the senate, whereas Republicans will force 60-votes on virtually everything else. It is a very popular, not only in absolute terms (60%+), but also relatively popular compared to other major Democratic agenda items like climate change. And President Obama won't have a 60%+ approval rating forever, either.
The bottom line is this: if we can't get our most popular major agenda item, during the peak in Democratic popularity, when we need only 50 Senate votes, and on the issue where we have given our strongest lobbying and activist efforts, then we aren't going to pass meaningful progressive legislation on anything else.
Yes, this is about getting true health care system reform. But this is also about defining whether the Obama Administration is willing to fight for any progressive legislation. How hard President Obama pushes for a public option (a real one, not an industry-backed facade, as detailed by economist Robert Reich) will signal whether he will be able to succeed in fulfilling any of his campaign promises in a substantive way, rather than simply a superficial way. If he can't pressure conservative Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (IN), Ben Nelson (NE), and Arlen Specter (PA) to back him on this one, he will be subject to their whims on every single piece of legislation that his Administration presents. If that happens... well, I hope you have fond memories of the Clinton Era "small change" programs. Because that's all you're going to get.
Ultimately, this is about more than health care system reform, but it is also about health care system reform. The United States enjoys similar levels of efficiency in its public health care spending as Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan; the U.S. spends about 6.2% of GDP in this sector and the other countries spend from 6.0% (Japan) to 8.0% (Germany). On the other hand, the United States spends 6.7% of its GDP on private health care, compared to a range of 1.8% to 2.7% in those other countries. I am a firm believer that health care should be considered a human right, and that a health care system must focus first and foremost on promoting and protecting the health of Americans, and that profit-motives take a distant backseat to providing necessary and quality health care. But the numbers cannot be ignored, and for all the conservative chatter about the competitive disadvantage that automaker union health care benefits create, the disadvantage is a symptom of the cancerous growth of for-profit financiers, a.k.a. private insurers. A robust public plan option that is real (i.e., not an imaginary future option that the "trigger compromise" promises), efficient (i.e., not forced to take on the inefficiencies of the private market that another "compromise" requires), and effective (i.e., competitive and free from state-based insurance lobbyist influence, by having a single national pool rather than smaller regional pools) is the minimum of what is needed to even beginning fixing our health care system. It is necessary, not sufficient, but have no doubt that it is neccessary.
51 votes are needed in the Senate; Gov. Howard Dean's campaign for the public plan option counts 36 supporters so far. The only way those who haven't taken a position yet are going to be swayed toward the public plan option is by hearing from their constituents, and in large numbers.
MoveOn.org's Petition to Congress
Stand With Dr. Dean
Contact a United States Senator
0 comments:
Post a Comment