Prognostications by the Washington press corps are so often wrongthat it is usually safe to bet against the punditsbut in the case of thepublic option, their skepticism was warranted. While polls have consistentlyshowed strong majorities in favor of a Medicare-style insurance plan, thecombined opposition of the Republican minority, the right-wing media, and theinsurance and pharmaceutical industries appeared easily powerful enough to killany such proposal.
Besides, too many influential Democrats in both theSenate and the Housenotably Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman, whose wife longworked for major health care and pharmaceutical intereststook their directionfrom lobbyists who want to kill the public option. (Lieberman, the self-styled"independent Democrat," has threatened to join a Republicanfilibuster.) Meanwhile White House political operatives were sending mixedmessages, with President Obama's support for the public option subordinated tothe illusion of bipartisanship. Propaganda against "government-run healthcare" has been dominating the debate.
The Opt-Out Compromise Increases Choice
But prospects for the public option brightened whenDemocrats led by Sen. Charles Schumer fashioned a compromise that would allowstates to "opt out" of the public insurance plan. By leaving thatdecision to the states, the Schumer amendment recapitulates the political themeof choice in health care reform. Suddenly, Republican opposition to the publicoption can be seen for what it really is: curtailing consumer choices andcoddling insurance monopolies.
The reason that Schumer's scheme is superior toother compromises is simple. Unlike feeble alternatives proposed by some of hiscolleaguesall of which would delay implementation indefinitely, or diminishthe public option's scopethe opt-out plan would allow for success in the realworld. As the default position, requiring specific action to reject thegovernment plan, the public option will have a strong chance of prevailing inmost states. And should most states actually permit the public option to beoffered alongside private insurance, the government plan will wield enoughmarket power to reduce costs significantly across the board, just as itsproponents expect.
Of course, there probably would be a number ofstates where Republican governors and legislatures decide to opt out, at leastinitially. Sadly, the places that most need the public option, such asMississippi, where insurance monopolies create both poor coverage and poorhealth, are the most likely to reject it. But over time, if the government planproves to be cheaper and better than the private monopolies in those states,the demand for change will intensify.
Then families will learn that their friends andrelatives in public option states are paying hundreds of dollars less everymonth for the same coverage (or better). Consumer agencies will report that thegovernment plan, like Medicare, doesn't abruptly cancel insurance for peoplewho become ill or chisel their benefits as private insurers too often do.Business owners will discover that firms in public option states have lowercostsbecause even companies with private insurance plans benefit from thecompetitive effect of the government plan.
In a democratic society this experimentagainassuming its successshould result in growing pressure on politicians whoinsist on frustrating progress. It is hard to imagine an issue that could moresharply frame the division between consumers and labor on one side, and abusivecorporate power on the other. Over time, for struggling Democrats in Republicanstates, that could mean becoming the party of choice in every sense.
© 2009Creators.com.
