home

Deciphering Obama's Latest on the Public Option

President Obama has promised Americans clarity in his speech tonight on health care. I hope he does better than he did on Good Morning America today. What did he say? No one knows for sure. Even the journalists can't agree on what he said. Check out the different versions in the Washington Post and LA Times. (Clue: It all depends on the meaning of "it.")

According the the Washington Post, Obama will argue strongly for a public option. But if the final health care bill (not the public option per se) adds one one dime to the deficit, he won't sign the bill.

He said there were "principles that, if they're not embodied in the bill, I will not sign it," but he ducked a question on whether those include the public option. Instead, he cited as an example, "if it's adding one dime to the deficit, if it's not fully paid for, then I will not be supportive."

According to the LA Times, he said the public option is a good idea but if it (the public option) passes and adds one dime to the deficit, he won't sign the bill. [More..]

Obama says in a TV interview that he wants legislation passed this year and that it must include basic principles or he will not sign it. A 'public option' must not add to the deficit, he insists.

....Yet the president declined in the interview to draw a line in the sand on a so-called "public option," offering government-run health insurance to those who cannot find coverage privately.

Asked if the must-sign elements include that option, the president said: "I will give you an example -- if it's adding one dime to the deficit, if it's not fully paid for," then he will not sign the legislation.

So, did he say the public option must not add one dime to the deficit or he'll torpedo the whole bill, or did he say the whole health bill must not add one dime to the deficit or he'll torpedo it? According to the New York Times, he meant the whole bill:

And he drew only one line in the sand, saying he would not sign a bill if it increased the federal deficit.

If three mainstream media accounts of a short interview are this discordant, I think the problem with Obama is still his lack of clarity. Either that or he's hedging his bets and purposefully obfuscating. Which seems to be what ABC thinks:

When asked if after his speech the public would know if he would sign a health care reform bill without a public option, Obama avoided answering the question directly.

"Well, I think what the country is going to know is exactly what I think will solve our health care crisis. They will have a lot of clarity about what I think is the best way to move forward," Obama said. "I'm not going to give you a preview of it before tonight. I want everybody to tune in."

Obama's necessary ingredients, according to the LA Times:

Demanding a plan that is fully financed, without adding to the federal deficit, one that improves the insurance coverage that Americans already have and one offering coverage for those lacking it.

According to WaPo:

... a health care plan shouldn't increase the deficit, that it should cover the uninsured, that it should have insurance reforms in there so that people who do have health insurance have better protection."

In the event the bill as a whole adds to the deficit, how will he determine that the public option is the offending ingredient as opposed to another portion?

Maybe it's just me that's confused. You can watch for yourselves here.

< Tide Turns: Big Wednesday In The Village | Justice Sotomayor, Judicial Minimalism And Citizens United >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    if the deficit is now the determining factor it means the following probalby:

    1. People are going to be mandated to buy private insurance.

    2. People will be fined who dont buy private insurance.

    3 The money from the fines will be used to subsidize only a few people's private insurance plan.

    4. There will be no public option.

    "Fully paid for" by (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    what?  Medicare cuts?  The devil will be in the details . . . if any even are detailed tonight.  I expect that, instead, much still will be left to Congress, but Obama will count on the public's short attention span (and some idolatry) to be able to say that he tried.  And that old folks are just cranky.

    Parent
    Details? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    Come on this is Obama giving a speech.

    Parent
    If Obama's speech contains the same (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    rhetoric on the public option as his comments in the past, Webster will have to revise its definition of clarity.

    clarity
    noun
    1, speech that leaves the meaning to the discretion of the listener
    2. WORM
     

    Gibbs was unintelligible too (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:07:17 PM EST
    whilst doing his rounds this morning - except of course on the subject of bipartisan concensus which he was firmly advocating.  Rolling eyes.

    When is the war in Afghanistan (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    going to pay for itself?  When is the military industrial complex going to pay for itself? We already have numbers that the public option will save billions, but if it costs one dime today to save billions tomorrow is it torpedoed?

    I said in another thread (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    we'll have to guess what Obama means, and whatever we guess, he'll tell us we guessed wrong.

    A la FISA revise: if you were (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:27:34 PM EST
    Listening you'd have known I'd vote for it

    Parent
    The "trigger" is looking (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:32:15 PM EST
    better and better as an escape hatch.  Then all will be fine;  it was tough sledding but we won, there is a public option.  Oh, the trigger part? The trigger will kick-in at some future point (no time line, of course) if our expectations for private insurance are not entirely satisfied. Satisfaction? Oh, that will be based on health care/insurance industry data with some input from the Sec of HHS (you remember her, Governor Seb.. whatever) or her successor.  And just what will the public option be exactly?  Not important, we have one and it will lead to something bigger and better someday.   Now, on to Afghanistan, we need to increase the troops..........:;)

    According to Baucus, a trigger is not (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    the flavor of the month.

    Interestingly, Baucus noted that while triggers are on the lips of reporters and anonymous White House sources, it's not something that's been discussed much on the committee level.

    "It is funny, I keep on reading about that trigger, but there have been no discussion about that," he said.

    But whether it's triggers, or co-ops, he's not optimistic about the prospects for a genuine public option. "I think frankly, with increasing conviction, that a public option can not pass the Senate." TPM

    Why go for triggers when you can go for eliminating state insurance regulations and use co-ops as the justification.

    Max Baucus' plan had the name of Liz Fowler, a former WellPoint VP who now works for the Finance Committee, in the metadata. When you have WellPoint personnel instrumental in writing the laws, you get little provisions like this:

    Interstate Sale of Insurance. Starting in 2015, states may form "health care choice compacts" to allow for the purchase of non-group health insurance across state lines. Such compacts may exist between two or more states. Once compacts have been formed, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Insurers selling policies through a compact would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state where the policy is written or issued. dday



    Parent
    Yes, I noted that as well. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    Bye, bye state regulations, except for just one state-- perhaps a state of small population with a laid-back and friendly legislature.  Psst, want to get in on my office real estate deal in Helena?

    Parent
    Other than the mandates (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jack Okie on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    what regulations are you concerned would be subsumed by the compact?

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    if New York thinks it is important to have tough insurance regulations for the protection of its residents, then why would it elect to join a multi-state compact with states that don't believe in tough regulations?

    Parent
    Here's my guess (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    I don't have health insurance, and I'm not going to get any.

    Here's my guess (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by lambert on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    You don't have any insurance, and you'll be forced to buy insurance that won't cover you when you need it.

    Parent
    better guess, (none / 0) (#15)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    lambert!

    guess I should fold my hands, wait patiently, and watch for that ol' camel's nose.

    Parent

    Unless, as I keep saying... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lambert on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:10:55 PM EST
    ... the camel turns out to be a vampire squid.

    Parent
    Unless the tent, itself, (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    is a mirage.

    Parent
    Hmm, so now we have BMD, too? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    Obama = Big Mirage Democrat?

    Parent
    Here's my guess (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    My health insurance already costs as much as my rent, and it's only going to go up. Oh, and I will be fined if I don't keep on buying it.

    In other words, my health insurance premiums are about to become a federal surtax, with penalties (plus interest?) for nonpayment. How could it be otherwise? The health insurance companies invest our premiums, so how can they possibly be solvent?

    A bailout by any other name--"health care reform," "health insurance reform"--is still a bailout.

    Parent

    Worse than that (none / 0) (#21)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    Mandates without public option = Tyranny

    See you in debtor's prison. Maybe you and I and kmblue (and kdog!) will all be sharing a cell.

    Parent

    It would be an honor, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    my sisters and brothers (h/t kdog).

    Parent
    Do they have health care (none / 0) (#25)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    in debtor's prison? ;)

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#29)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    But it's not very good! (Though it is taxpayer-funded.)

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:45:56 PM EST
    they'll sell it as a new retirement program when Social Security goes bankrupt.

    Parent
    Stand and deliver But for whom? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:30:38 PM EST


    The ship has sunk (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    If we're not going to get any HCR unless it doesn't cost anything, I think it's a safe bet we're up the proverbal creek without a paddle.

    I want to hear and see this same rhetoric out of DC with every other spending bill that comes up in Congress. How are they going to justify all their pork projects back home after this? If it doesn't pay for itself, it should be vetoed.

    Amen (none / 0) (#27)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 03:27:18 PM EST
    to that!

    Parent
    oh noes (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 04:09:06 PM EST
    from Salon's War Room:

    White House: Public option "a means," not an end

    WASHINGTON -- President Obama still thinks a government-run public insurance option would be the best way to make private health insurance companies lower their prices and compete fairly, but his speech tonight will "make clear" that he sees it as "a means to an end, not an end in and of itself," a senior administration official told reporters this afternoon.

    Previewing Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress, the senior official -- who the White House insisted remain anonymous -- said the talk was an attempt to shift the focus of the national debate about healthcare back to the goals behind reforms and the concrete improvements reform legislation should bring. People have been "very focused on the trees, and not the forest," the official said. "Tonight's the night when he can describe the forest."

    Oh no.  If he talks forest, it will be Shakespearean in it's tragedy (Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane).  I'll be lying in the tall grass, watching the branches walk by.

    yup. we're gonna get the (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    philosopher and law school prof, not the car mechanic we need.

    Parent
    I like that analogy. (none / 0) (#33)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    Obama shows exactly who he (none / 0) (#10)
    by my opinion on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    represents. It's not us.

    Trillions for the rich and not one dime for good citizens that are suffering (although in actuality we could save huge amounts of money if we just followed the great examples of systems in other counties.)

    Doublespeak ! (none / 0) (#12)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 02:07:44 PM EST