Along with many others, last night I flagged the New York Times article in which opponents of a ‘public option’ in the health care reform bill are saying that the ‘public option’ (which is essentially the federal government entering the field with its own health insurance plan) would be so efficient and inexpensive that it might drive for-profit health insurance companies out of business.
Why this is a problem for anyone else beside the for-profit health insurance companies, whose lobbying muscle in Washington kept them out of Dante’s third cirlce of hell, is not clear.
But a few readers written in to say, Look, Medicare (which is probably the closest analogue to what a public option might look like) isn’t perfect. Many doctors won’t accept Medicare, it doesn’t cover enough, etc. etc. etc.
I don’t think anyone who seriously follows health care policy debates honestly disputes that Medicare insures a ton of people with very low overhead. But you only need relatives in their sixties to know that people have problems finding doctors who will accept Medicare or who feel that Medicare doesn’t cover enough and so forth.
But this seems to me to be the heart of the case — and the real tell about the opposition to the public options within the insurance industry. If it’s really true that lots of the best doctors aren’t going to accept the ‘public option’ subscribers, then I have to imagine that’s going to put a big brake on migration out of for-profit health insurance and into the public option. In other words, the problem — to the extent there are ones — should be self-correcting. Assuming the ‘public option’ has to exist on something like the same basis as the private carriers, the private carriers only have something to worry about if the ‘public option’ is just demonstrably better insurance.
A big push to boycott GM seems to be gaining steam on the right.
In Ha’aretz today Aluf Benn has a good run-down of the history of US-Israel disagreements, understandings and negotiations on the issue of settlements. It’s a bit in the weeds and goes back to the late 1980s. But this is the critical issue. And it’s an inherently weedy one. So if you’re interested in understanding what this is all about, I recommend it.
The Dems seem (it’s not completely clear yet) to have just lost control of the New York state senate, because of two defections which may be rooted in intra-party disagreements over marriage equality.
Former Sen. Bob Smith (R) who lost his senate seat in 2002 to John Sununu (who himself got run out of town last year by Sen. Shaheen) is making a bid for a comeback … from Florida.
Barney Frank says he’s concerned about Arlen Specter’s “erratic behavior pattern” and thinks it’s reasonable for Dems to primary him.
President Obama spoke today to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the White House released this statement …
The President and Prime Minister had a constructive, 20-minute conversation. The President reiterated the principal elements of his Cairo speech, including his commitment to Israel’s security. He indicated that he looked forward to hearing the Prime Minister’s upcoming speech outlining his views on peace and security. The President also noted that Senator Mitchell would be in Israel again tomorrow as he starts his fourth trip to the region as the Special Envoy for Middle East peace.
(The White House released this photograph of Obama during the conversation — at least fun as a parlor game to see whether you can read anything into it.
A few random thoughts on this. First, the entire statement is contained in the second sentence, which is probably obvious. Second, the President has been so forceful and so clear on the issue of settlements that it will be extremely difficult for him to back down in any meaningful way without undermining the credibility of his own presidency and the USA more generally. It would also do profound damage to the country’s relations with its Arab allies. Third, I’m curious and somewhat dubious about the quality of the read Netanyahu and his advisors have on Obama and the US domestic political situation generally.
Late Update: Here’s the Israeli government’s statement on the call.
Reich: How hard will Obama push back against the opponents of health care reform?