Politics 2000

Much of the past two days has been spent dissecting Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ statement that a public option isn’t an “essential element” to the health care reform winding its way through Congress. There has been some backtracking since then by the Obama administration.

Apparently, Sebelius misspoke. Apparently, a public option is just one part of far-reaching reform the president wants to implement soon.

Liberals are not happy one of their holy grails–possibly the holiest of grails–could be negotiated out of the health care bill in order to attract senators like Kent Conrad and Olympia Snowe. Pundits wonder what Obama got from Republicans in exchange for potentially dropping a government-run competitor to private health insurance companies.

Public-option opponents are guardedly optimistic. Some of them are floating the idea of health care co-operatives. Conrad said yesterday there simply weren’t enough votes in the Senate to approve a public option.

Apparently, there are about a dozen Democrats who don’t like the idea. When combined with 40 Republicans, they comprise the majority. If there were just a few dissident Blue Dogs, why not force the bill to the floor and compel the minority to filibuster if it chooses?

No, Conrad is probably right. Government involvement in health care–however one wishes to term it–would likely not draw 51 Senate votes.

Some liberals think a reform bill that lets private insurers avoid government competition isn’t truly reform. The White House is trying to find a middle ground that’s going to upset both political extremes.

To commemorate the one-year anniversary of Politics 2000, I’ll be reviewing some of the best posts here the rest of the week. I’ll also be doing my quarterly check of search engine terms.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS