Monday, December 14, 2009

Riddle Me This, Batman.

Democratic Plan A: pass a really good bill with either a strong Public Option or a Medicare Buy in.

Democratic Plan B: fuck up and pass nothing.

Why is there no Democratic Plan B: pass the shortened, Lieberman approved bill and then ram a separate "Public Option" through under the budget--a Public Option that would start immiediatly because it was really some form of "Medicare for all." I understand that under the Byrd Rule it would have to lower the deficit--but I think the various CBO scorings show that it can or does sufficiently to pass that bar. And I understand that the Democrats don't want to do it as part of the Budget because it will all have to be reauthorized at some future time. But if you had already passed the bulk of the health care reforms under the regular system you'd have all those goodies and structural changes to back you up with the voters. And if the Public Option you forced through reconciliation started on day one and enrolled a ton of people in every state you'd have a built in voting base that would fight tooth and nail not to be thrown back into the private market. You could then go ahead and argue for the next two election cycles that we must have more and better Democrats in the Senate in order to permanently pass the Public Option.

Can someone explain to me why this can't be done?


No comments: