Why Continue to Fight For a Public Option?

[Joanne98]

By: Jane Hamsher Monday November 30, 2009 1:25 pm


There have been no shortage of people arguing that the public option is now so “weak” that it’s no longer worth fighting for, and that we should instead try to “kill the bill.”

As the Senate begins debate today (currently airing on CSPAN2 and being liveblogged by Jon), the fact is they are going to be debating between two choices: a bill (A) without a public option or a bill (B) with a public option. Not one single member of the Senate Democratic caucus has said they want to (C) “kill the bill,” so at this point it’s likely to fall short of the 60 votes needed and not a realistic proposition.

If the bill gets through the Senate without a public option, members of the House have said they will kill it and (C) becomes realistic. But they’re not going to “kill the bill” they just passed, which is what advocates of (C) are calling for, as evidenced by the fact that they just voted for it.

So. Let’s talk reality. Goldman Sachs says that if a bill passes (A) without a public option, they expect insurance company stocks to rise 47%. If it passes (B) with a public option, they expect stock prices to fall by 36%. And if nothing happens (C), they expect them to rise by 59%.

Of course, all of this completely sidesteps the greater argument for a continued fight. The public option battle has become a proxy war over who controls government, whether Congress has the slightest responsibility to reflect the will of the public, whether Democrats from Obama on down can just casually abandon their campaign promises in the wake of unrelenting influence peddling and whether progressives are going to take a stand for something and refuse to back down.

But even if we’re only considering the narrow points of the above argument, those advocating that everyone should stop working to pass (B), a bill with a public option, need to take responsibility for the fact that if that happens, the default at the moment is (A) a bill without a public option. It is not (C), nothing. It would be helpful to know why they think (A) is better than (B), because we’re not dealing in fantasy here, and that is the inevitable outcome in the scenario they are advancing.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/30/why-continue-to-fight-for-a-public-option/

[waiting for hope]

1. Those numbers from Goldman scare

me - only because I feel that they stack the deck by doing that. And the third option of doing nothing only tells me that the insurance companies plan on raising their rate to an even higher grossness of pillage. I still want a Public Option, there will be NO reform without it and most people here understand that.

K&R - Jane Hamsher has been tireless in her reporting and advocating.

[JDPriestly]

4. Goldman has a terrible history of predicting the economic outcomes

of certain actions. Had Goldman been capable of predicting the economic impact of the excessive derivatives trading, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

I have about as much confidence in Goldman Sach's predictions as I do in the predictions of the Onion's astrologer. Ridiculous.

Economic predictions depend on your assumptions. Besides, what difference does it make to me how the public option will affect the stocks of insurance companies? I'm not investing in them. In fact, even if I had a lot of money, I would not invest it in private insurance companies because I believe that they are run in an immoral way.

[waiting for hope]

6. I agree - they are immoral and the very reason

why I'm so disgusted with Geithner - if he had just a touch of morality in him, there would already be regulations in place for the soul sucking companies like Goldman, JP Morgan and the like.

[JDPriestly]

5. Goldman's prophecy is one of those self-fulfilling prophecies.

This is how Goldman will invest if there is a public option. Goldman -- a bunch of self-centered jerks. That's all they are. They only care about themselves. If there is a Hell, that's where the people at Goldman's are headed.

[derby378]

2. Jane, Jane, Jane...

(C) is better than (A) because in (A), we are forced to buy health insurance from the very people who made health insurance the big mess it is today. That means we settle for (B) and nothing but (B), because we have a Constitutional right not to be forced to pay our hard-earned tax dollars to health insurance CEOs who have demonstrated that they don't give a rat's ass if many of their policyholders live or die due to lack of access to care.

[Prometheuspan]

8. Ahm'nnn

"(C) is better than (A) because in (A), we are forced to buy health insurance from the very people who made health insurance the big mess it is today. That means we settle for (B) and nothing but (B), because we have a Constitutional right not to be forced to pay our hard-earned tax dollars to health insurance CEOs who have demonstrated that they don't give a rat's ass if many of their policyholders live or die due to lack of access to care."

Stop the crazy ride, and just get off. One side of a false duality is just buying into the false duality.

Quit making deals with satan, and give us universal single payer, or fail like you deserve to.

In any case, show some spine against the insurance companies, don't just give them everything they'd ask for to bribe them into
compliance, its shameless.

[derby378]

9. You act as though I'm against single-payer

I'm not. Might be the best thing for us. But there's not enough spine in Congress to get it done. That's why we need to work even harder during the 2010 mid-terms to clear the Democratic Party of dead weight.

[xchrom]

3. but don't we continue to rationalize

that any bill passed -- even one w/out a public option is progress?

:shrug: i think we're all circle jerking at this point.

[Prometheuspan]

7. test the mettle of "change"

"whether Democrats from Obama on down can just casually abandon their campaign promises in the wake of unrelenting influence peddling and whether progressives are going to take a stand for something and refuse to back down."

So far, i'm scoring change without substance, even if this thing does pass. If it doesn't, I'm scoring an epic fail.

Either way team obama should abandon everything its doing and actually bring in 10 thousand scientists instead of being sucked into
the washington influence peddle nonsense, which is still the core problem our civilization has.

Bluntly, my answers for every last one of our problems are light years ahead of this administration.... and i am only one person.

If that is so, then imagine what a large team of real scientists could do for us?

And... also... Say...uhmmm.. you folks wanna start a think tank?