death to the public?

Amidst the rejection of not one but two public option proposals by the Senate Finance Committee, the viability of any public option plan appears increasingly dim. Adding insult to injury, these two proposals failed to pass despite the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans on the Committee 13 to 10. if the Republicans are the Party of No then the Democrats appear increasingly the Party of Maybe, Maybe Not. Although Chuck Schumer, the author of one of the flouted proposals, vowed to fight on, it's hard to believe that any plan that includes a public option will pass as long as Democrats remain unable to keep their party in line. Barack Obama, who was never as devout a proponent of the public option as his bygone rivals for the democratic nomination, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, has failed to insist on a public plan. Even if the president changed course now, it's unclear whether it would make much of a difference. now that much of his political capital appears to be squandered (at least for the moment), aligning with a progressive president might not be an appealing option for those wavering blue dog Democrats concerned with their prospects of reelection in largely conservative states.

It's hard to find a silver lining in the current health care debacle. At least the Democrats of the Senate Finance Committee stuck (closer) to their guns on the subject of abortion, rejecting a proposal by Republican Orren G. Hatch of Utah that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to cover “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.” Yes, that's right, Hatch doesn't want to merely prevent federal money given in subsidies from going towards abortions themselves, but from going towards any health care plan that deigns to include coverage for those procedures. Although this is a significant victory for women, it's hard to take much solace in it as it concerns the rest of the health care debate. After all, a party's ability to reject proposals has rarely translated into any ability to pass one.

better than nothing?

This appears to be the new philosophy of Democrats vis-a-vis the health care debate in the wake of Ted Kennedy's death. Instead of rallying around the ultimate champion of health care (as many hoped initially hoped), the White House, at least, appears determined to continue its strategy of seeking increasingly unacceptable compromises with the Republicans. Just when the absurd idea of having a "public option" run by a health insurance co-operative (yes! let's have a non-profit reporting to the government on healthcare--what a brilliant way to cut bureaucracy!) seems to have momentarily blown over, the Obama administration is now investigating the possibility of transforming the public option into a "backup" plan.

Under this version of the plan, the public option would only be offered in states where fewer than 95% of residents had access to "affordable healthcare." Although Congress would set barometers as to what qualifies as "affordable" on a sliding income scale, there is no indication that the government would determine what services need be covered in these affordable healthcare plans. Without a public option that would cover some minimum level of benefits, health insurance companies can easily come up with relatively cheap (read: the maximum amount allowed by Congress's sliding scale of affordability) policies that provide the most meager amount of coverage. Instead of being a legitimate insurance program that would increase competition and bring down costs, the public option would just become another loophole that insurance companies could work their way around.

Furthermore, by only allowing a public plan in states where fewer than 95% of residents have access to affordable healthcare, the plan defeats one of the primary purposes of universal healthcare: namely, that it is, in fact, universal. Although the bills in Congress would provide tax subsidies and other incentives for people to purchase coverage, there is no guarantee that affordable healthcare plans would be available. So, in the end, we're left with a system that will charge people who are not on approved health plans, but refuses to guarantee that affordable coverage will exist.

Will this plan be better than the current system? Perhaps. But, unlike the arguments made by Obama's remaining supporters on the left, that is not enough. The Democrats have the opportunity to truly reinvent how healthcare in this country works, not just to throw on a few Band-aids that leave the current system more or less intact. What the Democrats will eventually regret is allowing this opportunity to provide true, affordable, universal healthcare to slip through their fingers. Furthermore, no matter how much the Dems bend over backwards to accommodate the GOP and the more conservative members of their own party, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Republicans will ever accept any reform. The more the Democrats have been willing to compromise, the more the Republicans have dragged the debate farther to the right. Days after the ill-advised health-care coop plan began to gain traction, GOP leaders in Congress summarily rejected the idea (Jo Kyl, the Senate's number two Republican, dismissed it as "a government plan by another name.")

The Republicans are too afraid of any sort of public option to ever agree to a plan that allows one in any capacity. And for good reason: a government healthcare plan would significantly increase competition for private insurance companies. It would essentially force them to lower prices and improve care or drop out of the business (you know, the way capitalism is supposed to work). It seems that the big, inefficient government is just better at providing healthcare than the private sector: people on Medicare are significantly more satisfied with their coverage than people on employer-based insurance plans. Private insurance is not a solution to our health care problem, it is the problem.