home

Political Bargaining: Progressive Senators Should Offer No Public Option/No Mandate Amendment

As my post below seems to indicate, the endgame for the Obama Administration is Snowe's Trigger as the "public option." But there are still political bargaining actions that progressives in the House and Senate can do to stop the Obama/Reid/Snowe plan. Of course the Progressive Block in the House needs to reiterate that it will not vote for such a proposal. But in the Senate, Progressives have options too.

One would be to offer an amendment to the likely Obama/Snowe/Reid bill that would make the inclusion of individual mandates be dependent on the inclusion of a public option (Steve M. refines my idea and makes it much better - make the mandate be subject to the Snowe trigger.) Why would Republicans vote for this you ask? Because they SAY they oppose individual mandates and this would be a way to strip them out of the bill.

Do the Republicans mean it? Probably not. But their bluff can be called. If 25 Democrats (assuming some Republicans vote for mandates - Snowe, Collins and Grassley to name 3), then mandates without a public option can be stripped from the bill.

At the very least, this would be a smart move politically, making Republicans own the mandates with the centrist Obama Democrats. Then the crappy health care reform bill that Obama seems to favor will be the High Broder (Obama/Snowe/Ben Nelson etc.) bill, not a progressive bill. My suggestion is based on my view that health care reform without a public option will be a disaster. If you think the public option is not an essential element of health care reform (the view of most of the Dem wonks, like Ezra Klein and Jon Cohn), then you would disagree with this proposal.

Speaking for me only

< NYTimes: Obama Administration "Looks Favorably On" Snowe's Triggers | Good Intentions And Good Policy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Clueless in Congress (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:07:58 AM EST
    Via Susie Madrak:

    I just got off a conference call with Arlen Specter where I asked him why the Democrats don't talk about the wave of entrepreneurship that would be unleashed if people knew they could leave their jobs, start a business and still get affordable health coverage for themselves and their families.

    He was surprised, said it hadn't occurred to him and wants me to give him names of people who would start their own businesses if they knew they could get affordable insurance.

    If you're interested, send me your contact info and a brief summary via the contact form.

    When the people who are making decisions about the future of health care are not even smart enough to connect these simple and obvious dots, how much confidence should any of us have that the Democrats understand enough about the issue to make the right policies?


    One other requirement (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    to unleash that wave of entrepreneurship is that we need to fix the dire situation in the credit markets right now.  Lack of credit is probably the #1 thing that keeps people from opening a small business right now, even moreso than health coverage.

    Parent
    Chase (none / 0) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    Maybe Chase will begin spreading a bit of the 3.6 billion profit around!

    Parent
    Sad truth is (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:58:12 AM EST
    Like Arlen, I don't think there would be such a wave.  Suzie is being a bit idealistic, I think.

    I suspect when you ask people why they don't start their own businesses, health insurance is NOT their #1 reason (other reasons, business loans, taxes, RISK)....besides the fact that even if health insurance is affordable people still have to pay for it themselves if they're on their own.

    Parent

    I don't think it's that Arlen doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    think there would be a wave, I think Susie's point was that the whole concept had not even occured to him - which casts things in a less kind light.

    What I read in the comments section to Susie's post are things I hear from people all the time - that people cannot even consider changing jobs because they can't risk being without insurance, or being made to wait through an exclusionary period before they would be covered - or who know they would never be able to get insurance on their own, or afford what is available.

    I agree that health insurance may not always be THE factor that keeps people from striking out on their own, but it is A factor - and often a big one.  

    That Specter somehow never saw the current employer-based model as handcuffing people to their jobs is what struck me - it's just so obvious, isnt't it?  I mean, if we can see it, shouldn't the people who ultimately fashion the policy and pass the laws be able to see it?

    Parent

    It's a very big factor (none / 0) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    to people with families, and people who have not experienced being uninsured.

    I'd love to see the government use a big chunk of stimulus to grant and loan money to startups and get the unemployment numbers heading the other direction.

    Entrepreneurs are the risk takers we need to be encouraging right now.

    Parent

    I think there's a reasonable chance (none / 0) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    that there are people who would be excellent at starting competitive insurance companies that would budget their business so it does what it is supposed to do and what its members need it to do. I'm quite sure that Seattle isn't the only metro area to have creative business people and physicians who have been trying to get out of the grip of these insurance providers for awhile now.

    What we have now is not the only way to manage healthcare even if these DC folks don't find a way to get a public option in place.

    Parent

    It would look like this (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:21:10 AM EST
    Notwithstanding any other provision of this legislation, none of the provisions in the mandate section of this bill shall become effective until such time as there exists a functioning public option which meets the following minimum requirements: Medicare+5, etc.

    In other words, it's a trigger.  A good trigger!

    If we're making wish lists, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by dk on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:26:20 AM EST
    I would amend your amendment by including after the words "public option" the following:  ", available to all,".

    Parent
    Very nice refinement (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:23:27 AM EST
    A Mandate Trigger.

    Well done.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:41:59 AM EST
    Now if only Harry Reid would take my calls...

    Parent
    I think it's a done deal (none / 0) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    I just don't believe there are enough real Democrat's left in the Senate to fight this. This is the bill Obama has always wanted. If you listened to Emmanuel, there never was "public option".

    I think Democrat's are going to cave again. We'll hear the same old song that we heard with the Patriot Act, Medicare Part D and  Fisa. "They know it's not a good bill, but anything is better than nothing. And we can be assured that they will fix it if we just reelect them again".

    I've called and written to both my Senator's, but as I live in Illinois, I don't expect them to cross Obama.