Is the Public Option really dead? : On Obama's method

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | August 18, 2009 at 03:34 pm

244 views | 6 Recommendations | 8 comments

Is the public option really dead? Has Obama truly acquiesced, and given up all extremeness in his change platform, caving in in the eleventh hour? Has the debate been shelved for good - Or merely temporaily adjourned, and, as Nietzsche says, therefore destined to re-emerge even stronger?

One thing is clear: Obama would like to radically and fundamentally alter the tone of our nation. If we are pessimists, this is pernicious; if we are optimists, we eagerly await such a transformation. Health care reform is one aspect of a myriad of changes and alterations Obama has in mind. There is no point in speaking of socialism or fascist plans: The important thing, whether you are pro or anti Obama - and I am unabashedly pro - is that our nation is going through this transition/crisis/ apex of necessity. It is no accident that we have wound up where we are. There is an inescapable law of causality, a natural chronlogy, to soical evolution within the histroical process.

Therefore, I conclude that Obama is not backing down, but rather, biding his time. He is one, I have noticed, for making a pretense of being unconcerned, dispassionate. But this is merely a mask, behind which he calculates his next moves. Some see this as not quite right, making him a bit dangerous ; I think it is his shrewdness.

So, to get back from the abstract , to the paticular details, in this case, we will use the current crisis of healthcare reform ( but it applies broadly to all of Obama's plans and undertakings). From the blog ( from the opposing side), Stop Socialism Now: http://stopsocialism.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-public-option-in-health-care-plan-is-by-no-means-dead/

This is quoted by them, from the Wall Street Journal:

Yet the public option wasn’t some afterthought, or merely the obsession of Congress’s leftward fringe, says the Journal: A new government-run program would crowd out private insurers by undercutting them on consumer prices, courtesy of an intravenous drip of taxpayer dollars and its monopsony power to force doctors and hospitals to accept sub-market rates. As millions of people gravitated toward “free” coverage, the public option would also vastly expand federal management of the practice of medicine, shaping the treatments and care patients can receive to save on costs. There are plenty of other ways of “getting there” without a public option — namely, through the federally chartered insurance cooperatives now gathering momentum in the Senate: The idea of creating member-owned co-ops in the states, as Senator Kent Conrad originally proposed, isn’t necessarily harmful. But if regulated as advertised by Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, they’d be satellites of Washington and have 50 open checks drawn on the Treasury, creating the insurance industry equivalents of Fannie Mae.. . . If Democrats decide to centrally plan the insurance market, in what sense is that different from a public option?

(Source: Editorial, “The Public Option Goes Over,” Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2009.)

And David Limbaugh, a formidable force on the right, now claims openly that Obama's acquiescence is only apparent, and a smokescreen and ploy for sneaking it in after the bill has passes. (See :http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2009/08/new_column_publ.html)

Of course, I am not in agreement with all of the particular conclusions which are thereby drawn. But it does illustrate Obama's method. As the King said of Hamlet, Yea, though it be madness, there be method in it.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Rory Cripps

at 17:24 on August 18th, 2009

I think that the problem for health care reform is that the majority of Americans ( a slim majority albeit) that vote don't trust their government and whenever they pull the voting lever, they hold their noses and hope for the best. The majority of Americans that don't vote, seem to support the plan. But why should a politician give a crap about those that don't vote--there's nothing in it for him or her. President Obama's poll ratings have been on a steady decline since the election. Democrat politicians--who want to get re-elected--don't want it on their voting record that they supported major legislation that could, potentially, further bankrupt the nation and result in substantial tax increases and that could have a leveling effect upon the private health care that roughly 70% of the American population currently receives. Politicians love their jobs--indeed who wouldn't love a job where you could vote your own pay raises and pass laws to your benefit and get lots of freebies from lobbyists? Politicians want to keep their jobs and the only way to do that is to have it on their records that they supported a winner as opposed to a loser.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 17:28 on August 18th, 2009

Yes, I see your point. I just think Obama is a bit beyond a mere politician: I see him as being one of those "inspired men" that Hume spoke of, with all the talents and dangers which that implies. But yes, you are correct about the Dems thinking ahead to re-election, and not wanting to back an unpopular or disasterous piece of legislation. Thanks so much for your remarks.

Rory Cripps

at 18:41 on August 18th, 2009

smkovalinsky: President Obama, to achieve what he achieved is definitely "a bit beyond a mere politician"! I couldn't agree more! And I give the man a lot of credit. I like nothing better than to hear a president that is articulate. It's quite a change from "W". But he's got to get out there and convince the majority of Americans that he has their best interests at heart. I disagree totally with those that assert that Americans, that don't support him, do so because he's an African American. I don't buy it for a minute. Perhaps I'm naive but I believe that Americans only want to see their president as someone that they can trust and put their full faith and confidence in. If and when that happens, all things are possible. Simple/plain honest truth has always resonated with the American people. Machiavelli and Shakespeare are, for the most part, alien to American's core belief system.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 19:26 on August 18th, 2009

Rory Cripps and rng: Excellent points; I do think it is true that honest truth is more in tune with, and resonates more soundly, than any machinations of a more sinister kind. I do believe, however, that Obama has the mark of an "inward thinking" man, while he outwardly bides his time. This is simply the impression I have received. But yes, the data supports his case; why he is engaging in this sleight of hand is a bit perplexing. But I think this is what he is used to doing: Outwardly appeasing, inwardly formulating his next move. Thank you for your excellent remarks, both.

a211423

at 08:24 on August 19th, 2009

It was suggested last night that the public option is still on the table and could be passed through reconciliation. Reconciliation bills once on the floor cannot be debated longer than twenty hours, amendments are significantly controlled, cannot be filitbustered, and can pass with a simple majority.

We elected Obama for change, and now is the time. History will show this president and congress as the elected officials who stood up for the American people against the special interest and the insurance companies and their investors. The public good trumps all other options, and those who demonstrate this vision deserve our highest praise.