The Federalist Public Option And Political Bargaining
The debate in progressive circles over the Federalist Public Option (see here and here) mistakes, in my view, the basic state of play in the political bargaining on health care reform.
In the House, the debate is between the Progressive Block view that the public option needs to be robust (Medicare +5) or level playing field (negotiated rates.) the good news is that the house seems headed to passing a national public option. there is no doubt which of these is superior - the robust public option.
In the Senate, where the Federalist Public Option is being debated, the option of a robust public option is not even in the conversation. the best you will get out of the Senate would be a meek level playing field public option, which is not a sure bet at all. Triggers, co-ops, the Carper opt-in (which is not really an opt in but rather providing for state run public options) and nothing at all are still in the mix. For political bargaining purposes, it would be a major step forward if the Federalist Public Option became the Senate position on the issue. More . .
How we got here can and will be debated. But this is where we are. Where do we go from here? That is the question. The absolute best we can possibly do in the Senate right now is the Federalist Public Option.
In my mind, it is a no brainer. After the Senate adopts it, then we can talk. But right now, the battle is in the Senate. Which is why I am a strong proponent of the Federalist Public Option right now.
Speaking for me only
| < Thursday Morning Open Thread | 217: Progressive Block Close To The Magic Number For A Robust Public Option > |





