Here's Markos of Daily Kos with a message to President Obama on the public option and health care legislation:

We're not talking what we really wanted - we really wanted single payer - so we already compromised from our position. I think the public option at this point is sort of our Waterloo, This is where we stand and fight.

I'm watching Big Brother 11 (seems all but certain Michelle will be leaving tonight) and America's Got Talent. What's got your attention, on TV or elsewhere? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Ezra's latest is much better:

How you'll judge Max Baucus's framework depends on how you understand the goal of health-care reform. . . . It really would insure tens of millions of people. . . . It really will expand Medicaid and transform it from a mish-mash of state regulation into a dependable benefit. . . . The main disappointment is that insofar as you see the bill as a vehicle for moving us towards a better, more efficient, less costly system, there are some problems. In particular, this bill seems to block off . . . possible points of expansion. . . . [T]he co-op plan is an interesting policy proposal, but unlike a public insurance option, it's difficult to imagine it growing into anything significantly stronger than what's outlined in the paper.

To follow Ezra's point, if this is where health care legislation is heading, it is no longer reform, but merely providing relief to the poorest among us. And that is an absolute good. That is the cannolis. Let's take that. But let's leave the "reform" (the mandates and the co-ops), or the gun.

If we are giving up on positive incremental structural reform, and to me that means a public option, then let's leave reform out altogether. Let's take the money for Medicaid and other coverage expanding programs, and leave out the mandates. And that makes a reconciliation bill quite doable. Then, maybe, we can do health care reform right later.

Speaking for me only

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

lilburro has a great catch:

Ezra [Klein] favors incrementalism vis a vis the Baucus plan because it sets up a call center:

The emphasis here, however, is on making them easy to use: "The exchange will provide a standardized enrollment application, a standard format for describing insurance options and marketing, call center support and customer service." It's not clear why you'd do all that if you weren't planning to let them expand.

So whereas enrolling 10 million people is meaningless, setting up a call center is a monumental gain in health care reform destined to bring us to universal health care. WTF???!!

(Emphasis supplied.) My question is will the call centers be multi-lingual? I mean, since illegal aliens are sure to be using the "exchanges," we need to make sure there is a Spanish speaking option at least. Without it, the "expansion" seems doubtful . . .

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein writes:

This will not be a popular post, I fear. But one of the themes I'm seeing in a lot of the commentary is that the absence of a public plan is essentially equivalent to the absence of cost control, and the presence of a public plan is pretty much the presence of cost control. For the public plans on the table, that's not true, at least not in any way I can see. . . . The strongest public plan on offer is in the bill being considered by the House of Representatives. . . . The vast majority of Americans would be ineligible for the public plan, even if they wanted it. The CBO estimates that by 2019, the public plan would have a likely enrollment of 10 million Americans . . . The end result is that the public plan is unlikely to have a very large customer base, which means it will be unable to use market share to bargain prices far lower than private insurers.

So, Ezra argues, the public option is badly flawed because it is too incrementalist (and implicitly, not an important part of health care reform.) Of course, Ezra can not imagine the public option being expanded later. But Ezra is not usually so skeptical of potential expansion of health care reform initiatives in the future. When it is an initiative he likes, Ezra is gung ho for incrementalism:

As longs as the Progressive Block holds, no health care reform bill without a public option will pass the House. But with Mike Ross' "shocking" opposition to the public option, the question came to me - what Democrats are against the public option in the House (of course all Republicans will oppose any health care reform bill). The Hill provides this handy dandy list of the 23 who have announced their opposition:

John Adler (N.J.), Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.) Rick Boucher (Va.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Betsy Markey (Colo.) Eric Massa (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Charlie Melancon (La.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Tom Perriello (Va.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.)

As you can see, of the 23, 16 are from the South or other Deep Red states. They were always nos, and nos to any health care reform. Who are the other 7? Let's discuss them on the flip.

While this is not surprising, it is worth noting. Via Steve Benen:

Key Blue Dog Democratic Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.) [said] "[a] government-run public option is the wrong direction for health reform in this country and I will oppose it in the U.S. Congress[.]"

Benen goes on to detail Ross' negotiation with Henry Waxman on the issue and the fact that Ross actually has already voted for a public option. But no one who was thinking could believe he would vote for it in a final bill. But the larger point should be made - Mike Ross opposes Medicare.

Speaking for me only

The accomodationist wing of the "progressive blogosphere" has nice things to say about the Baucus proposal. Ezra Klein writes:

It'll be hard to say anything definitive on the Baucus proposal before we can see all the details. At the moment, Politico has the clearest rundown of what people think they know is in the plan. But in advance of the president's speech on Wednesday, we do seem to know Baucus's most crucial contribution to the debate: the number $900 billion. . . [T]hough it's less than one might hope, it's a lot more than many were beginning to fear. . . . The number I'd begun to hear was $700 billion.

My gawd. Did Ezra miss the stimulus bill sausage making? Set aside the basic flaw in the Baucus proposal - it has jettisoned the idea of competition from a public plan (the only part of reform that I think can work, I do not believe the US regulatory state can efficiently regulate the insurance industry). Even from Ezra's accomodationist perspective, he must know there is no way in hell the $900 billion number (btw, a large chunk of that comes from Medicare "savings") survives. Meanwhile Matt Yglesias incredibly compares the Baucus proposal to the Switzerland system. That defies belief.

Speaking for me only

It's pretty obvious President Obama is going to push a compromise bill. The latest reports on the details of the compromise bill make little sense to me. I'm waffling on whether to support it at all. Here's the latest:

...remarks by the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, on the flight to Cincinnati reflected an effort by the White House to play down the importance of a public option to the larger overhaul. Mr. Gibbs said a public option would not affect most Americans — up to 180 million — because they already have insurance through employers. (my emphasis.)

So then why do we need this? [More...]

Thanks to the LA Times for publishing this glossary of health care terms, including "single-payer system", "public option", coops, mandates, universal health care, the "gang of six" and more. It's short and you don't need a Ph.D. to understand it.

President Barack Obama today spoke about health care to the AFL-CIO in Ohio:

In Monday's speech, at the AFL-CIO's annual Labor Day picnic at Ohio's Coney Island amusement park, the president drew wild applause when he spoke of his support for a government-run insurance plan, one of the most contentious health reform issues.

"I see reform where Americans and small businesses that are shut out of health insurance today will be able to purchase coverage at a price they can afford," he said. "Where they'll be able to shop and compare in a new health insurance exchange. And I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."

But, what does that mean? [More...]

Steve Benen writes:

Republicans aren't looking for concessions; they're looking to kill the legislation. . . . It's hard not to be impressed with these negotiations. Dems say, "How about a public option that would offer consumers a choice, and lower prices through competition?" Republicans reply, "No." Dems say, "OK, how about a system of non-profit co-ops"? Republicans reply, "No." Dems say, "How about a trigger, which would bring added competition to the system if private insurers fail to meet certain benchmarks?" Republicans reply, "No."

Anyone with a brain knew this. But here's the question, why do we need Olympia Snowe's vote? Steve writes "It's one thing to entertain the idea of a trigger to bring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) into the fold[.]" Wait up, why do we need her in the fold? What do we get substantively for having Snowe in the fold? Can someone explain to me why Dems are even talking to her? There will be 60 Dem votes in the Senate soon enough (when MA replaces Ted Kennedy.) So why do we care about Olympia Snowe? What does she bring to the table? And at what cost?

It would be somewhat funny (in a tragic way) if Snowe goes for a public option but extracts the price of stripping out all the subsidies Ezra Klein loves so much. That would be damned ironic. All of Ezra Klein's deal breakers could become the bargaining chip for the public option. I wonder how he would feel about that? But that might be what is at stake if the fetishization of Olympia Snowe continues.

Speaking for me only