The Public Option Just Might Happen

A healthcare reform bill made it out of the House last week. And things are looking up in the Senate, where a Daily beast article reports that Joe Lieberman will not join Republicans in filibustering a bill with a public option.

That means that there is definitely a chance now for a public option if Lieberman really doesn’t filibuster. No way, the public option gets 60 votes, but could it get 51? I think so. Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, Lieberman, and Baucus will probably not support a bill with a public option. But that is only five votes. In fact, this might be an ideal situation for Democrats. They can get the public option, and moderate Democrats from red states can say they voted against the plan, and not suffer the wrath of voters in 2010.

Now, any healthcare bill that gets through the senate will have to be reconciled to the House version. But I expect Pelosi to be able to not lose any more votes on a substantive House bill. So after all the doubts expressed on this blog and elsewhere, we may have the public option after all.

Tuesday's Election

Republicans won big last night in Virginia and New Jersey. What does that say about shifting public moods, or what’s going to happen in the 2010 midterm elections?

Not much I don’t think. Each race had its unique features. Many observers said that Creigh Deeds ran a poor campaign, focusing entirely too much on a controversial 20-year old master’s thesis written by his opponent, Bob McDonnell. In New Jersey, Corzine had a difficult tenure that left many openings for his Republican opponent.

In short, I think these two races offer too little information from to extrapolate on broader national trends. Thoughts?

Is Lieberman Just Bitter?

The fact that Joe Lieberman is set to block the public option has many liberals irate. In this post, I also took him to task, and questioned the logic behind his move. But I’m not sure there’s an ulterior motive here.

Some are now saying that Lieberman opposes the public option purely out of spite. He is angry that he could not win the Democratic nomination in 2004, and that he lost a primary for his Senate seat in 2006. So now he’s getting payback.

The problem is that Lieberman also opposed many of President Clinton’s proposed reforms back in the 1990s. Was he bitter then?

Also, remember that Lieberman is not the only holdup on the public option. Senators Bayh, Landrieu, and Nelson have also expressed concern about the public option. I have said before why I think a public option is good, and hence why they are wrong, but I don’t think it’s fair to ascribe malicious motives to any of them.

New York Special Election Reevaluated

The Republican nominee has now withdrawn, and in a twist, has decided to back the Democratic nominee. I’m not sure who will win on election day. But I have reevaluated the opinion I expressed in an earlier post about this race.

I thought that the move by conservative leaders to move against a moderate was misguided at best. And that would be true in most circumstances, but it isn’t necessarily here. In the Senate, I would say this sort of action is almost always bad. Especially now when the Democrats theoretically have a filibuster-proof majority. A Republican who votes with her party some of the time and still caucuses with it is a net asset.

But in the House, each vote becomes marginally less important, since there are more members. One more seat would not make it any easier for Republicans to pass legislation. And it would still be unlikely for them to be able to stymie President Obama’s initiatives.

Moreover, remember that this is a special election. Whoever’s elected will only be in Congress for a year before the next election. So I think there’s value for the Republican Party in sending a message that a person has to toe the party line on certain issues to get party support.

Now let me add several caveats. First, as I said before, the Republicans shouldn’t even think about doing this in the Senate right now. Second, Republicans should not do this in a truly moderate district. In one that’s split 50-50, they should allow for some deviation on certain issues to maximize chances of electing a Republican. Third, it’s probably best not to do this in a regular election law, when these things get more media coverage. Other voters in other parts of the country could gain a more negative impression of the Republican Party as being hostile to moderates. But in a special election like this, most voters nationally aren’t paying attention.

Obama's Basketball Game

Obama is in hot water for something other than healthcare. And he is in trouble with someone other than conservatives for once. Some feminists are upset that a recent White House basketball game included no women.

I can see their argument. The logic goes that a lot of times, patriarchy is not entrenched by mean spirited men who wake up every day thinking about how they can keep women down. Rather, they unconsciously entrench male privilege by excluding women from social outlets like golf games where males can gain more face time and exposure with the boss.

But I can’t help seeing Obama’s point of view too. It’s unlikely that he is going to use these basketball games to choose who the next Secretary of the Treasury is. He probably just wants to play a game once in a while to relax with people he knows play at his level, which is high for a forty-eight year old. Should he have a pollster pre-approve every last recreational activity he does? Is that a fair burden, even for someone as admittedly political as the President? Should he have gender quotas for every activity he does?

What do you think? Take today’s poll?

The Public Option is Probably Dead

The only way to get a public option in healthcare reform is now reconciliation. Joe Lieberman opposes the public option, and I bet Evan Bayh and Mary Landrieu ultimately will as well. Even if only Lieberman votes to sustain a filibuster, then the Democrats can’t get to the magic number of 60 votes to invoke cloture.

I posted here earlier about reconciliation, and what I think of it as a tactic, so I won’t repeat.

I would say that the Democrats shouldn’t make the public option an all-or-nothing proposition. They should be able to get a package which provides generous subsidies to the uninsured, and ends deplorable insurance industry practices like denying care for preexisting conditions. That is a victory.

And they can get the public option eventually. The current reforms will cover people, but they will also be really expensive. A few years from now, people will want to keep the universality of the healthcare system, but cut down on the costs. And the most effective way to do that is to have a robust public option. Alternatively, if the new subsidies end up not being as expensive as I fear, perhaps there will be no need for the public option, which I would be fine with.

Lieberman Logic

Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) won’t support a public option under any circumstances. He said “It's going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now, and if it doesn't, it's going to add terribly to our national debt.”

But presumably, Lieberman supports expanding coverage. I fail to see how expanding coverage simply by providing subsidies to purchase private insurance will help our serious deficit situation. If Lieberman is really serious about making sure that the millions of uninsured and underinsured purchase adequate insurance, then that will cost plenty of money.

In fact, it might cost more. With the public option, the government can make an effort to keep costs under control. Private insurers will have no incentive to do so. They’ll get money from the government no matter what. If Lieberman wants to end discrimination for preexisting conditions and enact other reforms to protect consumers, then private insurance will cost more. Who will be paying those premiums? The government and the taxpayer.

If anything is going to expand the deficit that will. Granted, Medicare has problems that must be addressed. But instead of using those problems to preclude the possibility of more government involvement in healthcare, why not try and reform it? Some of you readers think that will be more difficult than I’m claiming. But if Lieberman can reform the private insurance market, why can he not reform a government program?