Progressives Successfully Pressure Reid on Public Option
By Matthew Rothschild, October 26, 2009
Score one for progressive pressure.
Harry Reid and Barack Obama seemed primed for junking the public option until progressive forces rallied their troops and flexed their muscles.
A group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, at boldprogressives.org, even ran an ad in Nevada, putting Reid on the hot seat.
Other groups, including the AFL-CIO, let the Democrats know, in no uncertain terms, that we would not settle for less than a public option.
Progressive talk radio also played a part, with Ed Schultz, especially, banging away day in and day out on this issue for months.
Sen. Dick Durbin acknowledged the effect of the campaign on the Democratic leadership.
The toughness of progressive Senators like Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold and Tom Harkin, who held their ground for a public option, also was instrumental.
Helping the progressive cause, too, was a series of recent polls that showed—wonders of wonders!—that the public actually wants the public option.
But what kind of public option will it be?
First off, the opt-out choice will weaken the clout of the public option if many states take it.
And second, how soon will the public option be available?
And third, how many of us can join it?
We’ll have to check the fine print, but Obama’s public option was paltry, allowing only those without health insurance to join.
But if you’re getting private insurance through your employer, even lousy insurance, you won’t be able to get Obama’s public option.
And what 65 percent of Americans actually prefer is the ability to join Medicare. They favor a system of Medicare for All Who Want It, according to a New York Times/CBS poll last month.
So the Reid bill, while preferable to a “trigger” or to co-ops (which still may be in the bill, by the way), is a far cry from the most sensible solution.
That would be Medicare for All.
And the next best idea, Medicare for All Who Want It, isn’t on the table, either.
But Reid and Obama have gone farther than I thought they were, so I’ll eat half a plate of crow.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Receive a full year of the print and digital versions of The Progressive magazine for only $14.97.
Comments
While this bill is still a watered down version of what I'd like to see, like you said, it's still farther than I ever thought they'd go--particularly since a month ago it looked as if the nail was already in the coffin of the public option.
The principle grouse I have with this newly revised bill is the state by state basis to opt-out of the public option. Here where I'm from, Virginia, our House of Delegates and Senate are largely Republican and for the last two elections our governor is a Democrat. That's about to change since it looks as though we'll be electing McDonnell, who graduated from Pat Robertson's (yes, that Pat Robertson) Regent University with a law degree. This after the state finally voted for a Democrat for president for the first time since Lyndon Johnson. If McDonnell's in, I can tell you that if VA is given the opportunity to opt-out of the public option, they probably will--despite the vast numbers of self-employed in the construction industry which would love a public option.
The state opt-out should be a ballot initiative on a state by state basis and not something for the state's general assembly to decide. The Democrats need to add that language into the legislation.
http://www.jeffreypillow.com