Last weekend, the Senate overcame the filibuster needed to stifle debate on the health care issue. The debate has begun on the issue, and the process to pass health care reform through Congress continues. However, the provision for a public option is a bit of an issue because Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-VT) is being a thorn in the Democratic bloc's side. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, Lieberman cannot be ignored simply because they need his vote in order to have the bill passed. Although he has a great desire to see health care reform pass in America, his vehement opposition to the public option supercedes that wish. Why would Lieberman be staunchly against a government option? As Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon points out, the government is inept when it comes to eliminating wasteful spending (since they are culpable of that every waking moment of every day), and that doesn't count the fact government doesn't know the first thing about controlling costs. Although Lieberman's view isn't that overtly critical of bureaucratic inefficiencies, he does realize that the free markets are the best way at relieving the issues at hand.
Prediction at this point: If the public option stays in the bill, the bill won't pass. Lieberman's not the only that is flustered by the provision. Harry Reid is even having trouble selling his pitch to a few other moderate Democrats. If Reid wants the bill to pass, he'll lose the public option. Presuming that he does chuck it out the window, odds are that the bill won't get passed before Christmas time. And when they're back in session, the moderate Democrats have to worry about pleasing their constituents (for once!) as the 2010 elections will be in plain sight for the American people. Although it still is possible that the bill could pass, I think a populist outrage for certain congressional districts will most likely block its passage.
If only people would realize that the mandate and the ability of the government to dictate what insurance policies must cover and underwriting rules lacking regulatory competition are just as bad as the public option.
ReplyDeleteThe government using the public option and trying to compete against real insurance polices as opposed to those that have to cover all pre existing conditions using community rating might just fail to destroy private insurance out of mere incompetence. However the individual mandate, state coverage mandates, and possibly federal ones as well put the government in as much control over our health system as it is in various socialized medicine countries.
I'm not going to disagree with you that mandatory health insurance would be disastrous. But based on the current health care debate, allowing the public option would open the floodgates and inevitably lead to mandatory health insurance because the public option would have such ridiculous strings attached for people to keep their current health insurance that they would de facto run the private health insurance companies out, thereby creating a governmental monopoly on health insurance. That's why a public option scares me more than anything--it would lead to your fear of mandatory insurance, which would lead to no control over our health care decisions.
ReplyDelete