Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 OPINION 
25

Face It: the Public Option's a No-Go

'Political litmus test' wouldn't be effective anyway

Share

(Newser) – The public health care option is simply a “political litmus test” pushed by left-wingers to represent their side of an “ideological war”—and it’s time to give it up, writes Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post. “There is nothing about having one government-owned health insurance company that is likely to change the competitive dynamic and bring costs under control,” he notes.

For a government-run plan to bolster product and price competition, it would have to be so big as to “immediately unite doctors, hospitals, and drug companies” against it. As for the argument that it would match Medicare's ability to keep administrative costs as low as 2% or 3%, after collecting premiums, marketing itself, and maintaining a reserve—which Medicare doesn't do—that figure would balloon. But there’s plenty we can do, including some measures already on the table, like bringing national insurance companies to virtually every market, and others, like beefing up antitrust laws, that aren’t yet in a bill.

Former DNC chair Howard Dean has strongly backed the public option.
Former DNC chair Howard Dean has strongly backed the public option.   (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
Protesters gather in front of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless' Stout Street Clinic in Denver, Colo., on Aug. 6, 2009, where Nancy Pelosi toured the facility and spoke about health care.
Protesters gather in front of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless' Stout Street Clinic in Denver, Colo., on Aug. 6, 2009, where Nancy Pelosi toured the facility and spoke about health care.   (AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

The public option is the Maginot Line of health-care policy, and just like those stubborn French generals, liberal Democrats have vowed to defend it even if it means losing the war. -

If there is anything that's been made clear over the last two weeks, it is that the public option is a political non-starter that threatens the entire reform effort. It's time to let it go. - Steven Pearlstein

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
25 comments
VIEWING:
 
Fondue
Aug 19, 09 8:41 AM CDT
Pearlstein is grabbing at air. Republican after republican has argued that the public option is unfair to the private insurers. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
IN RESPONSE:
Snowleopard
Aug 19, 09 8:48 AM CDT
but if the public option is unsubsidized and isn't allowed to aggressively negotiate rates with the pharmaceutical companies, what's the difference between a government run public option and non-profit coops? (answer: some non-profit coops have even lower administrative costs that medicare, and the health reform bill might actually get passed without a public option). if you want to make healthcare accessible to more Americans, the emphasis needs to be containing costs, so that people can afford treatment.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
Snowleopard
Aug 19, 09 8:49 AM CDT
oops, than* medicare
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Fondue
Aug 19, 09 9:02 AM CDT
I'll say it again, Blue Cross Blue Shield WAS a co-op. Local co-ops might be okay, but not on a national level. However, you still have repubs like Jon Kyl calling co-ops a "trojan horse" for a public option.
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
IN RESPONSE:
JonmarkP
Aug 19, 09 11:32 AM CDT
If the public option is such a non-starter, why are the insurance and pharma companies dumping millions of dollars *per day* to fight it, when they clearly don't need to? This smells just like bullshit, to me. God-damned Right-wing "journalists" are tools tools, every one.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.