Health: Obama Backs Public Option

On Wednesday President Barack Obama provided some crucial input into the health care debate by declaring, "I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans." By so saying, the president sides squarely with Democratic progressives and has likely driven off practically all congressional Republicans. You can see recent articles in Politico and Roll Call here.

During his campaign against Hillary Clinton, Obama consistently questioned whether requiring people to buy health insurance would work. He then said it should only be required for their children. Now he seems to have been won over, accepting the idea she espoused, that "If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it." It will be up to congress to write in the details, perhaps with a sliding scale. Those with employer plans could obviously keep them.

Up to now, Obama has been silent on details, preferring to let congress chart its own course. As real "tensions" have emerged among Democrats, though, the administration decided it was time to put the influence of the popular president to work to nudge the process along. Progressives are convinced that without a public portion along the lines of Medicare the big insurers and HMOs would simply continue the current expensive and restrictively rationed system that leaves 47 million people uninsured and at least that many more with "coverage" that still leaves them vulnerable to bankruptcy in the case of catastrophic illness or injury.

Republicans, on the other hand, see any public option as a foot in the door toward a total government takeover that would throw private insurers out of business and eliminate consumer choices. As mentioned before in these columns, these supposed advocates of free competition are pretty obviously scared to death of what might happen if their private health contributors actually had to try to compete against a not-for-profit system.

Congressional Democrats emerged from a meeting on Wednesday that examined a report from the Council of Economic Advisers, "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform" that predicted a net income gain for a typical family of four of $2600 per year by 2020 and $10,000 per year by 2030 if health is overhauled. See a synopsis of the report here.

Obama has made health a top priority and has said if it doesn't happen this year it may not happen at all. Roll Call reports the schedule is to get bills out of both houses of congress by the August recess, reconcile them in a conference committee report in September and pass for his signing by October. Many Democrats seem newly invigorated by the president's clear direction. "The president says get it done. Get it done right because we only get one chance," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) "This strengthens those of us advocating for a public option, which is the only way to keep the private insurers' feet to the fire," agrees Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y.)

Perhaps Harry Truman's 1947 vision, that any American who is sick would be able to go see a doctor, will finally come to pass this year. Or perhaps not. The opposition will be fierce and well-funded. Just today, my own congressman, conservative Republican Devin Nunes put an editorial in the Fresno Bee touting his "better alternative." It follows the outline of John McCain's campaign plan, offering a tax rebate for individuals or families and "voluntary state-based solutions." Left unanswered are questions such as how people will be able to afford the "better alternative" when the tax rebates cover only one-third the cost of a typical family policy and what happens if states and companies decide not to "volunteer" to play ball. Such distractions are just more of the same rhetoric that have prevented progress for 62 years. Those interested in actually addressing the problem should contact their representative and Senators right away.