To Promote the General Welfare
Over the last few days we have been graciously informed by the media pundits of two critical facts regarding the seemingly interminable debate over health care reform: first, that President Obama's decision to postpone his trip to Indonesia next week means that a final deal among Democratic legislators is at last ready for prime time; and second, that the agreement -- according to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- will exclude from the American people the opportunity to choose a government-run public plan as an alternative to private insurance. Though we have heard this last assertion before, this time the death knell for the public option seems to have a ring of truth.
For those of us who at times suffer from short-term memory loss when it comes to the opera of American politics, it may be useful to recall that the public option as presented last year with the full support of the president was passed by the House of Representatives and only bargained away in the Senate when Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)voiced his intent to support a threatened Republican filibuster if the public plan was included in the Senate bill.
In spite of the fact that as much as 68% of voters in Lieberman's home state of Connecticut had consistently polled in favor of the public option, the independent legislator adamantly stated that he was in opposition due to "philosophical and economic reasons." Mr. Lieberman's economic fears were quickly exposed as lacking in true substance when the Congressional Budget Office reported that the public option would be effective in reducing the federal deficit over a ten-year period. The senator's philosophical arguments echoed the same anti-big government takeover sentiments espoused by Republicans who refused en-mass to have anything to do with the health reform bill.
"I'm being more stubborn and certain about this," Lieberman said. "I think it's such a significant step for the country to create another entitlement program and to have the government going into a business, I feel like I've got to say no."
Both of these issues were dealt with in a column by Paul Krugman who pointed out that the idea of new health reform legislation amounting to a dangerous government takeover of health care is absurd when the government already runs over 50% of the health system via Medicare, Medicaid and the VA.
Many critics quickly came to believe that real reasons behind Lieberman's stance were his well-known ties to insurance companies. The health insurance industry has donated to Lieberman's electoral war chest nearly a half million dollars during his time in office.
During the Senate debate last year, a number of alternatives for the public option were considered, including giving the states an opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of the plan or instituting a "trigger" mechanism that would enable the public option to be launched only in the event that the insurance companies do not meet their new obligation to provide low-cost, non discriminatory health care for the majority of the country. Now that the Democratic leadership has decided to bypass the threatened Republican filibuster by employing the tactic of budget reconciliation, and are therefore certain to get a final bill passed, they are claiming that they do not have the Democratic votes to include the public option in any form. Are the American people justified in feeling that they are being dealt cards from the bottom of the deck?
Over the last few days we have been graciously informed by the media pundits of two critical facts regarding the seemingly interminable debate over health care reform: first, that President Obama's decision to postpone his trip to Indonesia next week means that a final deal among Democratic legislators is at last ready for prime time; and second, that the agreement -- according to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- will exclude from the American people the opportunity to choose a government-run public plan as an alternative to private insurance. Though we have heard this last assertion before, this time the death knell for the public option seems to have a ring of truth.
For those of us who at times suffer from short-term memory loss when it comes to the opera of American politics, it may be useful to recall that the public option as presented last year with the full support of the president was passed by the House of Representatives and only bargained away in the Senate when Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)voiced his intent to support a threatened Republican filibuster if the public plan was included in the Senate bill.
In spite of the fact that as much as 68% of voters in Lieberman's home state of Connecticut had consistently polled in favor of the public option, the independent legislator adamantly stated that he was in opposition due to "philosophical and economic reasons." Mr. Lieberman's economic fears were quickly exposed as lacking in true substance when the Congressional Budget Office reported that the public option would be effective in reducing the federal deficit over a ten-year period. The senator's philosophical arguments echoed the same anti-big government takeover sentiments espoused by Republicans who refused en-mass to have anything to do with the health reform bill.
"I'm being more stubborn and certain about this," Lieberman said. "I think it's such a significant step for the country to create another entitlement program and to have the government going into a business, I feel like I've got to say no."
Both of these issues were dealt with in a column by Paul Krugman who pointed out that the idea of new health reform legislation amounting to a dangerous government takeover of health care is absurd when the government already runs over 50% of the health system via Medicare, Medicaid and the VA.
Many critics quickly came to believe that real reasons behind Lieberman's stance were his well-known ties to insurance companies. The health insurance industry has donated to Lieberman's electoral war chest nearly a half million dollars during his time in office.
During the Senate debate last year, a number of alternatives for the public option were considered, including giving the states an opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of the plan or instituting a "trigger" mechanism that would enable the public option to be launched only in the event that the insurance companies do not meet their new obligation to provide low-cost, non discriminatory health care for the majority of the country. Now that the Democratic leadership has decided to bypass the threatened Republican filibuster by employing the tactic of budget reconciliation, and are therefore certain to get a final bill passed, they are claiming that they do not have the Democratic votes to include the public option in any form. Are the American people justified in feeling that they are being dealt cards from the bottom of the deck?
Comments