If you give away the public option, what do you get? (Ezra Klein)

[Mass]

I have always been a strong supporter of the public option, but, after so much watering down, I am starting to wonder if it still means something.

This is why I was wondering about what Ezra Klein is proposing here. Rather than continuing to watering it down to a point where it does not mean anything in order to gain votes, why not try actually get something valuable in exchange from it? It used to be what negotiation meant: i do something for you if you do something for us.

(Granted, the GOP leadership does not want ANY bill to pass, but should they not at least try?)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/if_you_give_away_the_public_op.html

If you give away the public option, what do you get?

Most of the energy in the Senate right now is being directed into a mad rush for compromise proposals on the public option. This reflects the sense that the right compromise on the public option is a compromised public option. That's true to an extent, but you can define the public option so far downward -- a state-based, opt-in, trigger-dependent, nonprofit option, for instance, is seriously under consideration right now -- that you'd be better off trading it away for something that's more meaningful.

Candidates on that score would be a few hundred billion more in subsidies, a national exchange that's open to larger businesses, and tighter rating rules governing how much insurers can discriminate against people of different ages and demographic characteristics. The first would do more than a really weak public option to increase affordability, the second would do more to increase choice, and the third would just be a good idea. Having something called a public option is not, in the end analysis, as important as achieving the goals of the public option, and at this point, the policy itself is getting so watered down that it might be worth attempting to achieve its goals in a more straightforward fashion.

So far, I've not heard anyone discuss a deal along these lines. The horse-trading over the public option is taking place entirely in terms of the public option, and not in terms of the broader health-care bill. That strategy made sense for trying to keep the public option alive, but if the votes aren't there, that may not be the right strategy for letting it die.

[Skittles]

1. you get shit

and any fucking thinking person knows this

[Mass]

2. But you're getting shit right now. You will get a public option in name only.

[Skittles]

3. oh I know that