Pixel Tracker

Saturday, January 19 , 2019, 7:05 am | Fair 45º


Joe Conason: A Winning Compromise on Health Care?

Democrats move to let states opt out of the public option, giving the party a political edge and Americans a true shot at choice

The Senate leadership’s decision to include the “public option” in its health-care reform legislation seemed at first almost miraculous, especially to anyone who believed the hundreds of obituaries recited in the media during the past several months. But by acting on their convictions rather than their fears, the Democrats could ultimately find that the politics of consumer choice can be turned to their advantage for years to come.

Joe Conason
Joe Conason

Prognostications by the Washington press corps are so often wrong that it is usually safe to bet against the pundits — but in the case of the public option, their skepticism was warranted. While polls have consistently shown strong majorities in favor of a Medicare-style insurance plan, the combined opposition of the Republican minority, the right-wing media, and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries appeared easily powerful enough to kill any such proposal.

Besides, too many influential Democrats in both the House and the Senate — notably Connecticut’s Joseph Lieberman, whose wife long worked for major health-care and pharmaceutical interests — took their direction from lobbyists who want to kill the public option. (Lieberman, the self-styled “independent Democrat,” has threatened to join a Republican filibuster.)

Meanwhile, White House political operatives were sending mixed messages, with President Barack Obama’s support for the public option subordinated to the illusion of bipartisanship. Propaganda against “government-run health care” has been dominating the debate.

But prospects for the public option brightened when Democrats led by Sen. Charles Schumer fashioned a compromise that would allow states to “opt out” of the public insurance plan. By leaving that decision to the states, the Schumer amendment recapitulates the political theme of choice in health-care reform. Suddenly, Republican opposition to the public option can be seen for what it really is: curtailing consumer choices and coddling insurance monopolies.

The reason Schumer’s scheme is superior to other compromises is simple. Unlike feeble alternatives proposed by some of his colleagues — all of which would delay implementation indefinitely, or diminish the public-option’s scope — the opt-out plan would allow for success in the real world. As the default position, requiring specific action to reject the government plan, the public option will have a strong chance of prevailing in most states. And should most states actually permit the public option to be offered alongside private insurance, the government plan will wield enough market power to reduce costs significantly across the board, just as its proponents expect.

Of course, there probably would be a number of states where Republican governors and legislatures decide to opt out, at least initially. Sadly, the places that most need the public option, such as Mississippi, where insurance monopolies create both poor coverage and poor health, are the most likely to reject it. But over time, if the government plan proves to be cheaper and better than the private monopolies in those states, the demand for change will intensify.

Then families will learn that their friends and relatives in public-option states are paying hundreds of dollars less every month for the same coverage (or better). Consumer agencies will report that the government plan, like Medicare, doesn’t abruptly cancel insurance for people who become ill or chisel their benefits as private insurers too often do. Business owners will discover that firms in public-option states have lower costs — because even companies with private insurance plans benefit from the competitive effect of the government plan.

In a democratic society, this experiment — again assuming its success — should result in growing pressure on politicians who insist on frustrating progress. It’s hard to imagine an issue that could more sharply frame the division between consumers and labor on one side, and abusive corporate power on the other. Over time, for struggling Democrats in Republican states, that could mean becoming the party of choice in every sense.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.