Legal Commentary

Political Bargaining: Reconciliation, Health Reform, Subsidies And The Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat

I written for weeks now about the irrationality of certain "progressive bloggers" regarding political bargaining. Matt Yglesias' latest gives a clue why:

It’s worth noting, after all, that even the versions of health reform in congress that do include a public option would be better for the insurance industry than no bill at all. It seems to me you ought to be able to look an insurer executive or lobbyist in the eye and tell him, “I’m casting a vote that will help you get even richer” even while voting “yes” on the House version. To hold out for Baucuscare or nothing requires a sort of disturbed mindset that I’ve puzzled over before. And it’s striking that the people holding this position not only haven’t given any sort of actual reason for their view, but they’ve barely been asked to give a reason.

The reason why no one asks them is because people like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias (and Jon alter and Joe Klein) provide Obama and the Media cover to tell progressives to give up on the public option (indeed, the insurance industry now cites to Klein.) Forget about the merits of Klein and Yglesias' views on the substance (and I find their views quite weak), their complete obtuseness on the subject of political bargaining has been a wonder to behold. They truly appear to be clueless about it. The Steny Hoyers of the "progressive" blogs. "Serious" people. More . . .

People like Charles Schumer, Anthony Weiner and the Progressive Block must wonder if anyone knows how to play this game.

Schumer has, on a number of occasions, talked expressly about the reconciliation option. For two reasons imo. First, to take away leverage from President Snowe, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and other recalcitrants. Second, because I think he genuinely believes that is where we are going to end up anyway. He has trying to legitimize it politically.

Anthony Weiner, a Schumer protege, has talked up single payer is the best option, and the public option as, at best, a compromise that he would be able to accept. He tried to move the political spectrum on the issue. Remember, Weiner was known as a "moderate" when this all started.

For the Progressive Block, this is all new territory. They have never mattered this late in the game on any major issue. So they are trying to figure out how to play it. Hopefully, they will understand that they have only one play, if there is going to be a "health care reform" bill, it has to have a public option.

Now, if someone offers a bill that increases Medicaid coverage and offers subsidies for health insurance for the working poor, take it of course. But not with mandates and other "health care reform" provisions. Medicaid funding and subsidies for the poor are just funding issues. they are not reform issues.

If the insurance companies want a mandate, they know the price - a robust public option. Take it or leave it.

As I wrote before Leave the Gun (Mandates), Take the Cannoli (the Medicaid funding and subsidies for the working poor). We'll do health care reform at a more "measured pace" if we must.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 10, 2009 (boomark / email).