POLITICS: The Public Option is the Only Option

Alright, first post and we already have a debate going. I think I am going to like this blogging thing!



Here is my problem with the argument that we should pass any bill even if it does not have a public option. The current bills up for debate have no real cost control built into them. On the contrary, depending on which one you are looking at, they will probably increase costs. In general here is what is on the table:

1) Require everyone to buy private insurance.

2) Require insurance companies to cover all who apply.

3) Subsidize individuals and families that can't afford their premiums.



Now, it's an unqualified good to cover everyone regardless of preconditions. Bravo for that. But, forcing everyone to buy insurance is not going to be popular. And how are insurance companies likely to respond to having to cover everyone? Trust me, they already know.

If there are no controls on what insurance companies can charge as part of the bipartisan or even "monopartisan" bill (placating Blue Dog Democrats) then they are likely to raise the premiums on the folks that they would have denied coverage to under the old rules. Many of those folks won't be able to pay for their premiums, and thus the government will kick in with the subsidy. In that case we will have secured a very lucrative profit center for already wealthy insurance companies at public expense. So what you would have is all the costs of (in fact a lot more of the costs of) a government program without any of the real benefits.



Republicans will be able to come back and point out the sky-rocketing cost of such a system. Not to mention that you will create a stigmatized subsidy not unlike Medicaid, food stamps or AFDC (and we all know how well that turned out--AFDC was highly unpopular and killed by the stroke of a Democratic president's pen).



Now given those circumstances, it might be that the political winds will shift in favor of a public option to control those costs and reign in the insurance companies. That's one possibility. But the more likely possibility, it seems to me, is that the GOP will rail against government inefficiency and the subsidy program will be eviscerated to the point that it no longer covers everyone. And worst of all, if it all really goes south it could set back efforts to extend government intervention in the economy on the behalf of the poor and middle class another generation. Right Wing talking heads of all ilk will Swift Boat it into being a symbol of government ineptitude that "proves" the government that governs least governs best.



So, I would rather see a loss for the Democratic party than a loss for the progressive philosophy. After all, a Democrat with the economic policies of Richard Nixon would be considered radical today, but in the zeitgeist of that time period he was considered quite conservative. We should be about changing the political zeitgeist, not just winning an election. And who is to say that the cost controls wouldn't blow up before 2012? Maybe I am presenting a false dichotomy, but from up here on the "exalted heights" of Flotaria, that's how I see it!



The public option is the only option.



Actually, I have a secret weapon that the president could use to get us the policy that we really need: a single-payer, Medicare For All bill. But I am saving that for after his speech.



I welcome your comments.