Obama and the Public Option

| Mon Oct. 26, 2009 8:28 AM PDT

Ezra Klein and Jon Cohn both report that the Senate leadership is getting a little annoyed with President Obama regarding his support for various flavors of the public option.  They want to know exactly where he stands, and he's not telling them.  Ezra:

If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody.....Since the administration is considered the most important actor here, no one knows quite how to structure their strategy so long as the White House refuses to fully show its cards.

And Jon:

Supporters of the public plan have made headway by seizing on a proposed compromise first introduced by Delaware Senator Tom Carper — a proposal under which the federal government would create some sort of national public plan, but still allow states to opt out of it....But when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid briefed the president at the White House on Wednesday, Obama responded with a series of tough questions — not rejecting the idea, but not rushing to embrace it, either. When word of that meeting leaked out, public option supporters took Obama's reaction to mean that the administration continued to prefer the "trigger" compromise, under which a failure by private insurers to deliver affordable coverage would trigger the creation of a public plan.

I think this is a case where my sympathies may be more with Obama than with the Senate leadership.  My guess is that Obama (a) supports a strong public option but (b) doesn't really care about it that much.  Like it or not, that's just the way he feels: he'll support anything that Reid can deliver 60 votes for.  So if Reid tells him flatly that he thinks he can pass opt-out, but he needs a full-court press on, say, Nelson and Lincoln, I'll bet that Obama would be on board as long as his own staff agreed with Reid's assessment.

But is Reid telling him anything that clear cut?  Nobody knows for sure, but I'm sure not getting that impression, and no president is going to lay the full power of the Oval Office on the line without that.  This is hardly something unique to the Obama presidency.

Bottom line: everyone's getting frustrated, but this is just a very tricky issue.  It's literally something where one or two senators can make or break it, and Obama might or might not have the leverage to get them on his side.  Either way, though, it strikes me that Reid needs to deliver a very clear message on whip counts, who the holdouts are, and possible bribes to get them in line.  He's really the key player here, not Obama.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Public Option

Why reinvent the wheel? Allow a buy-in, with subsidies, into Medicare for people not currently eligible. Call it Medicare Part E. Allow an opt-out.

Obamacare

When the vote is this close (60 for cloture), and Obama isn't willing to unambiguously back Reid's play, then I say a pox on Obama's house. This is not only stupid politics, but tellingly cowardly as well. I say screw Olympia Snowe and her bullshit form of politics, and ram this thing through. I don't think the people close to this have any idea how much of a rebellion they'll engender if they mandate coverage without the public option for cover against the predatory bastards in the health insurance racket. Snowe's idea about a trigger is not only dim-witted, it's an insult to every working stiff. And make no mistake about it, it's the working stiffs who will end up picking up the tab for this man's wavering all over the political map, and it's those same stiffs who will remember come next election cycle. I for one am disgusted with Obama's intellectual approach to the shit which forms the basis of presidential politics. The man needs to develop some balls, and fast, or else everyone will be pushing him around for the next three years.

I agree and...

I share your anger. Where is the Obama I voted for? There has been NO presidential leadership or use of the bully pulpit on the healthcare issue. Obama campaigned eloquently on a public option! A trigger plan with a mandate is practically meaningless. A plan that depends on the good will of profit-based insurance companies to keep costs down (and consequently makes the idea of subsidies practical)? Give me a break. Personally I wonder whether 'politico supremo' Rahm Emmanuel causes Obama to stray from his core values in search of political wins rather than taking principled stands. I don't have any proof that this is the case. Just a hunch and in any case not any sort of justification for Obama's lack of leadership. This from Dan Balz (WP, Oct. 25):

"Administration officials sent equivocating signals. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, driven by a pragmatic desire to get a bill through Congress, appeared willing to sacrifice the public option, if necessary, to reach the larger goal."

Kevin, is Obama the president

or is he irrelevant? He's made himself irrelevant to the form any health care (really just health insurance) reform is going to take, and you think that's fine and dandy and as it should be? That's flat-out ridiculous.

There's a middle ground between laying the "full weight of the Oval Office" behind something very specific early in the game and being a bystander all the way through the process.

And actually, this is more important (gasp!) than the Obama presidency.

My take is slightly different

I think Obama does care about the public option, but he's worried about passing the bill at all.

Scenario: Reid puts in an opt-out option, and Lincoln and Nelson (or whoever) vote with the Republicans to prevent cloture. Okay, now they have to strip the provision to pass the bill, which should be possible. But have you pissed off Snowe now? Are Lincoln and Nelson angry that you've made them cast a vote that will make them the targets of the activist base? Do Republicans vote with liberals to avoid stripping the provision, as Ezra has suggested is possible? Does the bill lose momentum from the defeat at cloture? Maybe Lincoln and Nelson vote for cloture, but Byrd gets sick or dies? There's so many things that could go wrong.

The bottom line is that you don't want to pass the most important legislation in decades with no margin for error.

Having said that, I do think Obama is being too risk-averse. The political virtue of putting a public option in the bill is that the left wing will feel that it had a swing at the ball. If you don't give them that, you are much likelier to have a lefty-moderate impasse that could kill the bill too.

Geez, you act as though

Geez, you act as though Obama is a spectator, but he isn't and he could potentially sway those one or two Senators. I would understand your point if Reid was short something like 5-7 votes on closure or 15+ votes on the bill but that is not what we are talking about. This shows how gutless Obama is, and aside from the pluses and minuses of him being forcefully on this bill I will guarantee you his performance so far on this issue (particularly if the public option is not in it in the end) is going to poison how a wide swath of Obama's biggest supporters view him and how much they will be willing to pound doors, make calls and donate next time around.

Truly Breathtaking

Staggeringly obtuse that Kevin looks at this situation and concludes--after months of infuriating, utterly disingenuous shilly-shallying from Obama--that it is *Reid* and not *Obama* who "needs to deliver a clear message."

Can anyone cite a case where a President genuinely wanted a contested measure to pass and refused to lift one finger to round up votes? It's totally unheard of.

Kevin says Obama doesn't care at all about the Public Option. At least that's close to the truth. The truth is Obama actively opposes it but thinks he can keep the base quiet enough by paying lip service. Then at least he's kept his promise to Big Health not to push for it, while gaming the press into pretending that he "prefers" it.

This is so dishonest it's astounding, but looking at Kevin Drum's response, clearly it's working. Kevin actually believes--at this late date--that "if" anyone *really* wanted Obama to deliver a full-court press on holdouts, Obama would deliver. As if no one thought to ask Obama up to this point. At least Kevin acknowledges--because he's not a total fool--that a President carrying on a full-court press to round up votes for contested legislation is an existing, known phenomenon and not some fantasy concocted by ideologues. Indeed, it's unheard of for a President with any leadership ability whatever to sit on his hands and mute the bully pulpit in the middle of a fight that President actually wanted to win. The plain fact is, on the public option, Obama wants it to lose, but doesn't want to fahe consequences to his base for going on the record with that. And the reason? Ask PhRMA and the other groups Obama's made deals with.

Leadership

Of course, Obama has to *wait* for someone to ask him *really* *really* clearly, and really nicely, to, um, lead, and put his own shoulder into rounding up votes. It never could or should happen that the, uh, titular head of the Democratic Party would take the initiative to use the bully pulpit and the weight of his office to push for the key bottom-line measure being clamored for by the vast majority of Americans and his own Party's entire base, in some of the most important legislation in decades. Waiting around to be asked, and asked *so clearly* that there can be no doubt he misheard or jumped the gun--that's what is called leadership.

I remember someone said, if

I remember someone said, if you're going to be the war president, you probably should win the war. I'll add, if you promise so much change that you have to invent a new word for it, you should deliver change that actually is transformative. If Obama can't get 60 votes from a 60 vote caucus, he is a failure.

How do you know Obama isn't doing anything?

So far everything has been unrolling pretty much as well as possible. There's a senate bill with a public option in it. There will be a house bill with a public option in it.

Every time the bill hit a road block the Democrats have just carefully worked around it. They made the compromises they needed to to get the bill out of the Finance Committee, knowing they could just add the public option back later.

My bet is that the opt-out public option will now be weakened in some easy-to-understand way, in order to let conservative Dem buy some credibility with their voters. The bill will then pass the Senate.

In reconciliation most of the changes will be reversed. The conservative dems will then be free to talk about they were betrayed, and will be allowed to vote against the final bill, which will pass with more than 50 votes but less than 60.

It's all theater.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
What becomes of Janesville, Wisconsin, now that GM's left town?
The other side of Gitmo.
American Holidays