How about a HARD trigger?

[stevietheman]

I've long considered myself a progressive, but more specifically, a pragmatic progressive.

We might end up having to do some compromise to get this health care legislation through.

In that vein, I previously brought up the idea of a _national_ (rather than a regional) co-op. I know it is a shit sandwich, but I wanted to test the idea and see if there was a possibility with that. I think the biggest reasoning that this idea wouldn't work is that it's not anywhere near the table, so to speak. Nobody is talking about it, so it's not going to happen.

On the other hand, a public option trigger IS on the table, clearly, RIGHT NOW.

However, this trigger has a big problem that no sane progressive would accept -- it is a soft trigger -- that is, there is no guarantee of a public option becoming available as it would supposedly kick in if the private health industry didn't meet particular benchmarks. And benchmarks can be fudged.

Maybe the answer, then, is a HARD trigger. Let me explain this concept (it's actually much easier to grasp than the current soft trigger).

How about we give the private health insurance industry the next five years to cover all of us currently without insurance. A running start, if you will. Blasphemy to progressives, yes, but read on.

After the five years are up, no matter what, the public option becomes available. No benchmarks. It just becomes reality. Then, if anyone isn't satisfied with their private insurance, they can switch. If they are satisfied, they will stay.

This idea would give the private insurers five whole years to shape up or potentially lose a big chunk of that new business they got in 2009/2010 from the exchange.

I realize that many progressives hate the idea of compromising on the public option. I hate it immensely. But I also want a really good package to pass that covers a lot more people and adds an array of consumer protections. And I want the Democrats to maintain their power in Congress after the 2010 elections.

Thoughts? Slams? I can take it.

I just want a good result out of all this -- we can wait on the perfect, in my estimation. After all, we did that with Social Security and we ended up with the near-perfect over time.

[WyoHiker]

1. My First Reaction: Five years is a bit long, how 'bout 3? (or even 2)

[stevietheman]

2. I admit five years is an arbitrary period. But I figured I would throw out a number. n/t

n/t

[WeDidIt]

3. Only if you add the current trigger on the table

and if the insruance comapnies don't meet those guidelines in the next two years, they are all out of business and we are under single payer.

Really hold the Sword of Damocles over their heads between now and five years from now so none of them do the "pocket as much as you can because we go belly up when the timetable runs out."

[WyoHiker]

16. I live in Wyoming, Sentaor Enzi's state.

He once spoke at my coffee shop, though I doubt he remembers me.

I've emailed him the two trigger idea.

Let's see what, if anything, happens.

[WeDidIt]

17. Enzi's only goal is to kill any health care reform

He likes poor people dying.

[WyoHiker]

18. His goal is to keep his job in a state that went for McCain/Palin 65-35

(only oklahoma was worse.)

[David Zephyr]

4. Let the rationalizing of cowardice begin.

.

[stevietheman]

5. If the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there.

In the face of that, one who fights for what might not be possible is the true coward, the coward who would throw everything away for the perfect result that is unachievable.

[David Zephyr]

6. Oh, so it's now "No, he can't"

Can't lives on won't street.

Leadership is the word you are grasping for.

As I said, let the rationalizing begin.

[stevietheman]

9. Final legislation always requires rationalizing, and putting perfect ideas off...

to a later day. That's my reading of the process after watching it all my life.

[WeDidIt]

10. Perfect is single payer

BArely tolderable is the piece of crap public option in HR3200.

You're saying "don't lett the barely acceptable be the enemy of the completely crappy but we get to claim victory."

[dflprincess]

25. +1

[RandomThoughts]

7. Here is the trigger.

If the insurance companies that are privately owned preform in an accountable way, people will chose to stay with them. If they do not each person will choose to pull the trigger based on their view and go to a public option.

A trigger that only starts the public option is saying that the same people that want to stop the public option get to decide if it is needed.

Why not let the competitive forces of the market and the choice of what people want be the trigger.



The only reason they want a trigger is because it pushes it down the road where they can stall or stop the legislation.

But more importantly why let the scorpion ride on your back and say you will only throw him off if he later decides to bite you... again.

[man4allcats]

8. How about we just stop bending over?

Here's why, and here's the solution.

[BzaDem]

11. You are talking about the current version of HR3200.

That public option doesn't start until 2013.

[t0dd]

12. No.

We've given the insurance companies enough chances. And don't say if the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there. Bush got through whatever the hell he wanted. We have reconciliation. It might be a "risky" maneuver, but its outcome is what the American people need and deserve.

[stevietheman]

13. Reconciliation is a very iffy process for something like this.

It would be much better if we could avoid that, and use the normal Senate process.

Then, the House-Senate committee can put the full public option back in if they want.

I don't think most of the commenters here understand Congress much at all. This is about GETTING A BILL OUT OF THE SENATE. Helloooo!

[WeDidIt]

14. Then LET IT DIE!

because anything without a complete, untriggered public option will make matters worse.

[treestar]

15. That's because the votes were there!

Get on your Senator!

[t0dd]

22. We can get 50 votes in the Senate for the public option. Trust me. nt

[BzaDem]

20. Bush did not get through whatever he wanted.

His first tax cut will expire after 10 years because of reconciliation. His second tax cut was cut in half (more than in half actually).

[t0dd]

23. Yeah but

he still got that tax cut through using reconciliation. If the public option is passed by reconciliation, it won't expire. It won't happen. It'll be here to stay.

[tomm2thumbs]

19. use the Bush Tax Cuts concept of a 'Sunset Clause' - do it for 6 years with automatic expiration

it has to be renewed in 6 (or 10) years or it will automatically expire.

If people hate how it worked out, they will let it expire with no complaint and won't have to raise a finger to stop it from ending. If they loved it, they will clamor to save it like Medicare if it were threatened. Either way, it would give you a 'trigger' but you could point at Bush's tax cuts and say we are doing it the way YOU did it so what is your complaint?

[bobbolink]

21. "I want the Democrats to maintain their power in Congress after the 2010 elections."

And therein lies your problem.

By continuing to advocate compromise after compromise, and selling out to the corporations, that is exactly what you would accomplish.

[bemildred]

24. How about they can compete with the "inefficient" public sector if they feel like it?

If corporations cannot do better than the "inefficient" government, who needs them?

[stevietheman]

26. The less than zero recommends is troubling

It shows that we're likely to lose it all due to the lack of the ability to compromise on a very important issue.

[ThomWV]

27. If our current situation isn't Trigger enough then pray tell what in all of hell is?