When Did “Something” Start Meaning Public Option?
Sunday morning I was watching the weekly political talk shows as I do every weekend, and a guest host sitting in for Bob Scheifer, John Dickerson, said something that caught my attention and caused me to stop flipping back and forth from program to program. He was interviewing Texas Senator John Cornyn and as the Q&A was about to come to a close, he said to the Senator, “you are in charge of making sure Republican Senators get elected…CBS had a poll last week that said 61% of Americans want something to pass…and only 29% don’t want something to pass. Are you worried about being in the category where you only have 29% on this question of healthcare?”
Senator Cornyn answered the question quickly with an arbitrary position statement and the interview concluded, but the discussion remained fresh on my brain for some time and as I shuffled through the daily programs and articles of a relatively mundane Sunday, I continued to hear about this something. It was everywhere. As if the White House had put out a massive media blitz for the use of this word, I heard it everywhere and begun to wonder what this something really was.
I went looking for guidance on the matter and though to myself, “who better to clear up the matter than the always straight-talking White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.” In clarifying the President’s position on healthcare reform, Gibbs said “This is a problem that has been on the radar screens of the American people for a long, long time, and that they demand something be done about it.” There was that something again. No help there.
What about White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel? Appearing on Face the Nation he cleared the muddy waters by saying that there was a projected 10% increase in premiums if nothing was done and we stayed with the status quo. When asked about the President’s position on the Public Option he said there were two (2) main points…to which he offered four.
1. We must bring down costs
2. The President thinks it’s (public option) important but it doesn’t define the whole debate
3. The President is very involved in the debate – “how else do you think an issue (healthcare) such as this that has been debated by 5 presidents has reached this moment?” He said it has only happened through the collective efforts of the President, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. The President has and will continue to offer “guidance” to the Congress on the issue.
4. There are four bills (all “very similar”) that must be merged and “all parties” have helped in the process – he clearly was not talking about political “parties” with this point.
So Emanuel and his two four points were no help. He told us what nothing was and would do, but gave us nothing on the issue of something except that the public option does not define the “whole debate.”
So as I dug a bit more, I found that others may have a different perspective on IT not defining the “whole debate.”
Co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raúl Grijalva, of Arizona clearly sees the public option as defining the debate as he recently released a statement saying “A trigger would be a surrender.” If a time-weighted provision that would bring forth the public option is a “surrender” then a victory must be something massive. The truth is that most progressives see even the public option as a defeat. They want a full-blown single payer system, not the watered down public option plan that would drastically alter the face of 1/6 of our nation’s economy.
So what about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? What does she think this great something is that all Americans are clambering for? She recently said after meeting with President Obama that the “overwhelming majority” of House Democrats support the public option. Well if House Democrats are supporting a public option, then it must be the will of the people. Still no help there.
After finding no clarity on the issue, I decided to do what every member of my ill-informed generation so often does… I Googled it. I was going to type in something, but I assumed I would get ten million somethings; so I narrowed the search to “healthcare ‘we need to pass something’” and I got 365,000 results. And wouldn’t you know it, right there at the top of the listing was a gift from a higher power – a reference to the great Michael Moore. Maybe he would have the answer. I clicked on the link to his organization Healthcare Now and what did I see? Their slogan… “Do Something Now.” More of this something!!
After sifting through about ten pages of results, I realized that “something” really could be just about anything; or perhaps – dare I even say it – nothing at all.
I have no doubt that there are millions of Americans who support healthcare reform of some kind. In fairness, Republicans have been trying to chip away at Medicare for generations with plans for Health savings accounts and efforts in the private sector. Democrats have been pushing for a government-run plan for generations. Conservatives have been calling for tort reform for decades. Liberals have been insisting that we move toward a single-payer model since the Great Depression. Americans clearly want something to be done in regards to healthcare reform, but does this mean that they want an entirely new system or to hand over the current system to the federal government? Of course not.
Americans want the best value for their healthcare dollar; they want competition, they want choices; they want to know that their doctors and health professionals have their best interest in mind; they want affordable healthcare coverage; and they want to be able to refrain from purchasing it if they so choose. The truth is we do genuinely need healthcare reform on some level, but assuming that the public option is the something that all Americans are asking for is simply misguided and deceptive. Just because Americans want something does not for a second mean that they want Everything.
Trackback URL
I love this article. I have heard so much ’something’ that my head feels like it is going to explode.
I am not as lighthearted as you are on this issue, but I can understand your frustration with this debate. Both sides speak in greater tones than are reflected in public opinion. REpubilcans would like you to believe that something means nothing and democrats want us to believe it is everything.
I think that it’s true that most Americans are confused about what they want specifically in terms of programatic changes to the delivery and financing of healthcare. Most are confused about most policies, for instance whether or not to stay in Afghanistan. Polls are most determined by the whim of a mushy, uninformed middle that sways this way and then that. So the only poll that really matter is the one taken on election day in the voters booth.
So what matters in the time between elections is insider opinion rather than voter opinion, and that’s where the struggle over healthcare is being played out, and these insiders, especially those who are opposed to healthcare reform. It’s easier to say No, because you know what you’re going to get–more of the status quo. It’s scarier to support reform–it always is–because it’s terra incognita.
Regardless what most Americans think or don’t think, there is nevertheless a very serious problem that in a republic must be dealt with by our elected representatives. And the debate at this point is not what a confused precisely supports but what well informed people believe to be the best course of action. If we’re agreed that there are serious problems, the debate should focus on what the best ways to slove them might be.
I support the public option because I see it as an essential element in insuring a robust solution to the problems currently plaguing the system. It’s particularly important if individual mandates are part of the final bill, because without it it will force people to buy products at prices fixed by a cartel further inflated by the subsidies. What else prevents these companies from jacking up prices at their whim? Certainly removing the anti-trust exemption will be an important part of any reform, but introducing a financially self-sustaining publicly managed, non-profit, low administrative overhead insurance program serves the public interest if no private-sectore non-profits are willing to work seriously to control costs. I have a hard time understanding why this is so objectionable. It seems to me the only reasons are ideological, not pragmatic.
I genuinely appreciate your well thought out response. It is certainly not the usual tone that I encounter around here lately when someone disagrees with my position on this or any issue for that matter. I will attempt to address your main points, but please forgive me if I miss something.
As I said in the piece, I genuinely agree that reform is needed. As someone who has been on the unenviable end of the healthcare industry intimately throughout my life, I have a thorough understanding of the inadequacies of the current system. That being said, I simply fail to see the need for a complete overhaul or subjugation of the entire system. I think the reform process can be done incrementally over time and needs can be assessed as progress is made. I feel confident that the healthcare dog is out of its cage at this point something is going to have to be done about it one way or the other, and I would simply prefer that reform evolve over time rather than through one large and partisan action.
From a pragmatic perspective rather than an ideological one, I firmly believe that if the current course is continued in a partisan effort, it will surely be undone by a Party empowered with a mandate to do so after midterm elections and then the debate will begin anew with any sense of perspective lost in the process.
I believe that if both parties genuinely wanted to hammer out the high points of healthcare reform it would have been completed by August. I agree with you completely that the current “debate” is nothing more than both parties grasping at their desirables and ignoring their unmentionables. Both sides have allegiances that they will NEVER admit, so determining the high moral ground is fundamentally discernible.
As for the public option or its evil step brother the single payer system, I simply cannot support them because I believe in capitalism in EVERY aspect of our economy. Call that ideological if you would like, but I believe our nation was founded on capitalist principles and I would appreciate that legacy surviving my generation.
I believe in the private sector and I firmly believe in the charity of our nation’s citizens and their ability to provide for those less fortunate if they are given the freedom to do so, the benefit of tax deductibility, and the constant value of their hard-earned dollars. While I certainly feel that all Americans should have access to health coverage, I will not ignore the great work of organizations like St. Judes Children’s Hospital and other for-profit entities that provide health services free of charge to those who cannot provide for themselves.
If there was any entity that the federal government should be in the business of creating or facilitating, it should be the largest non-profit – CHARITY – in the history of this nation that would be PRIVATELY funded or perhaps even dare I say subsidized to provide insurance for those CITIZENS that are in need. I simply do not believe that placing more power in the hands of our federal government or creating more bureaucratic institutions is the answer here. Establishing parallel entities at the federal level to perform the same or similar tasks that are already under way in the private sector (on meager budgets squeezing dollars from dimes) is the proper course. I am of the belief that providing further assistance to these organizations in addition to necessary and agreeable reform of the industry as a whole is the only reasonable action that should be taken at this point. I am not “okay” with the status quo, but I do not believe that the way it seems like it ought to be is always better than the way that it could be.
see Public “Charity” Option
http://republicanredefined.com/2009/09/15/public-charity-option/
I think this is a very good plan. I believe we are a few days late on this suggestion at this late hour however as the ship has sailed
[...] When Did “Something” Start Meaning Public Option? [...]
I am not entirely sure about how this is not a pragmatic argument. I think the general tone of the article was the very definition of pragmatism with a hint of sarcasm mixed in. I do believe that some are quick to assume more is at play that was intended here.
Great post and great site. I found it from another site and am very impressed. I definitely like your message here. It is extremely well written
This little attempt at humor overlooks one major issue. Americans do want a public option and the polling shows it. They are tired of their healthcare dollars being mismanaged and they are tired of the monopoly. they want to provide for those without and they want the government to do it. Check the polls.
[...] When Did “Something” Start Meaning Public Option? By T. CHRISTOPHER [...]
[...] debate and every discussion since this matter came into the spotlight has seen a Republican turn to Medicare as his/her [...]
jNA1A6 kmcxdpmztifz, [url=http://nhrflpkaivga.com/]nhrflpkaivga[/url], [link=http://vmmwzocprjvz.com/]vmmwzocprjvz[/link], http://oqhuagyoxpng.com/
[...] that anyone is ever actually surprised by superfatty Michael Moore, but this one seems a bit ridiculous even for him. So what’s his new move you ask? He [...]