8 September 09 (pm)

Posts
Here is rational Republican response to the Obama school speech.

Bad Political Reporting (from Nate Silver): don’t expect headlines to get it right:

“Obama is fast losing white voters’ support”.

A reasonable person might expect the punchline to be either that the manifest decline in Obama’s approval ratings is particularly steep among white voters, or that race-related issues are responsible for Obama’s current slump. A reasonable person would then click on the chart accompanying the article and discover…

That President Obama’s drop in approval ratings among almost every subgroup of white voters is between 9-11 points among white non Republicans and 12 points among white Republicans. The overall drop: 10 points. Duh.

Health Care

Paul Krugman: what should the President do during his speech tomorrow:

President Obama will give his big health-care speech tomorrow. Let’s hope he does it right.

What does that mean? It means not playing professor; it means not having the speech read as if it were written by a committee (like that woefully weak op-ed in the Times a couple of weeks back); it means showing real passion about health care, which has been sadly lacking so far. [...]

Oh, and about the public option: yes, it should be in the speech — and not just because it will lower costs. From personal discussions I know that the individual mandate really gets peoples’ hackles up,because they see it as a giveaway to the insurance industry (you may recall that many Obama supporters made precisely that case during the primary). Yet the individual mandate is necessary — so it’s crucial to have the counter-argument that look, people can choose the public option. Yes, some senators will fight against that option tooth and nail — but that’s for later.

What I hope Obama realizes is that this speech should not be aimed at Kent Conrad or Susan Collins. A national address is not where you do your backroom deals. This speech has to be aimed at regaining the trust of the American people. It needs to be something with vision and sweep, not an item-by-item detailing of what the administration is prepared to concede.

He notes that we should call the Republicans out on their claim that somehow they are the defenders of Medicare.

What about the public option:

Paul Krugman:

The first is that I suspect that Ezra and others understate the extent to which even a public plan with limited bargaining power will help hold down overall costs. Private insurers do pay providers more than Medicare does — but that’s only part of the reason Medicare has lower costs. There’s also the huge overhead of the private insurers, much of which involves marketing and attempts to cherry-pick clients — and even with community rating, some of that will still go on. A public plan would probably be able to attract clients with much less of that.

Second, a public plan would probably provide the only real competition in many markets.

Third — and this is where I am getting a very bad feeling about the idea of throwing in the towel on the public option — is the politics. Remember, to make reform work we have to have an individual mandate. And everything I see says that there will be a major backlash against the idea of forcing people to buy insurance from the existing companies. That backlash was part of what got Obama the nomination! Having the public option offers a defense against that backlash.

What worries me is not so much that the backlash would stop reform from passing, as that it would store up trouble for the not-too-distant future. Imagine that reform passes, but that premiums shoot up (or even keep rising at the rates of the past decade.) Then you could all too easily have many people blaming Obama et al for forcing them into this increasingly unaffordable system. A trigger might fix this — but the funny thing about such triggers is that they almost never get pulled.

How do we get a public option in? Robert Reich:

The White House is looking for a way to be in favor of a public option but also get enough Blue Dog Democrats — many of whom hail from swing districts and states, and therefore need some cover — to vote for it. One such cover is a Republican Senator from Maine, named Olympia Snowe. If she votes for the bill, Blue Dogs can calm their constituents — who have been worked up into a lather by the right — by saying “you see? Even a prominent Republican senator is voting for this.” [...]

The beauty of Snowe’s proposal is that it seems to offer Blue Dogs a way out and liberal Democrats a way in. Nobody has to vote for or against a public option. The public option just happens automatically if its purposes — wider coverage and lower costs — aren’t achieved. And the trigger idea seems so, well, centrist.

The problem is twofold. First, it’s impossible to design airtight goals for coverage and cost reductions that won’t be picked over by five thousand lobbyists and as many lawyers and litigators even if, at the end of the grace period, it’s apparent to everyone else that the goals aren’t met. Washington is a vast cesspool of well-paid specialists who know how to stop anything resembling a “trigger.” Believe me, they will. [...]

The best way to give Blue Dogs cover is for the President to explain clearly and boldly why the public option is essential to health care reform, and why he’s ready to veto any bill that doesn’t include it. That’s also the only way to give the nation a good chance of getting true health care reform. Hopefully, that’s what he’ll do Wednesday evening.

As an aside, Reich has a nice summary of previous attempts.

Here is a pessimistic view of what might happen.

Advertisement