|
I actually could see a so-called "co-op" working - IF it's national in scope, gets startup funding from the federal government, and is open to everyone. (Whether that's what Conrad, Baucus and Grassley are cooking up remains to be seen - and I'm fairly skeptical of that group.)
Part of what frustrates me right now is that for all the (important) focus on the public plan, the proposal for the national exchange is festering. The exchange is critical because it is only in the exchange that ANY public plan (in whatever form - pseudo-Medicare/Schumer model/"co-op") would exist, and it is only in the exchange that the most tightly-regulated private plans with the strictest cost-control measures would exist. Only people with access to the exchange get a choice in their insurance and only people with access to the exchange get the option of choosing any public option.
Yet right now, even the House's "strong" public option only exists within the exchange. The House bill *does* give the administrator of the exchange the authority to gradually expand it, but it is never explicitly permitted to get to the entire population. That means that if you have crappy insurance through your work, you'll probably have to keep it.
So frankly, I would be willing to take a (national) co-op, if it means a national exchange that EVERYONE can buy into, if the alternative is a strong public option but only in a very limited, restricted exchange.
I'll add, however, that I wouldn't get *TOO* worked up about what Baucus presents. It still has to pass the full Finance Committee, where more liberal members will want to strengthen it, then it has to go to the floor and be merged with the HELP committee bill, which DOES have employer mandates AND a public plan. And then it has to be reconciled with a more liberal plan passed by the House. Ultimately, conference is the most important step - what emerges from conference is very difficult to filibuster, and so could much more easily pass with under 60 votes. Moreover, the White House has openly signaled (in a conference call with liberal bloggers) that that's where they plan to apply pressure. The immediate goals seem to just get something out of committee, then to just get something passed by both houses. So I also wouldn't be shocked if the House passes a bill WITH a public option, the Senate passes a bill without one, and the conference committee bill DOES have one.
I'm not urging complacency, BTW. I go very up and down with health care reform - optimistic one day and pessimistic the next, but it's important to remind oneself that it's the nature of our political system that major legislative battles are EXTREMELY torturous and always look messy and like they're going to fail - until they pass. (Read up on the history of Civil Rights legislation and Medicare and Medicaid passing.)
|