About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

First Revision

by: Dean Barker

Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:54:32 PM EDT


First Read:
First thoughts: Public option or bust, From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg

For the past several weeks, we've wondered whether progressives were crazy for turning the public option into the Holy Grail of the health-care debate. After all, neither Obama nor the other Democrats running for president ever made it a central part of their health-care pitches during the campaign.

Candidate Barack Obama:
The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers,

...(1) OBAMA'S PLAN TO COVER THE UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health care plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees.  The new public plan will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.

Candidate Hillary Clinton:
For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare, and the health insurance plan currently offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either government-run program, but aides stress that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the Clinton plan.
Candidate John Edwards:
I am the only candidate to propose a specific plan that guarantees true universal health care and also gives Americans the option of a public plan.
Candidate Bill Richardson:
If you like your current health care plan, you can keep that coverage.  Individuals, families and small businesses can choose to purchase the same coverage that members of Congress enjoy.
Candidate Chris Dodd:
My plan creates a health insurance marketplace based on, and parallel to, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHB) so that every American has access to the same health insurance as their Congressperson. Every employer and individual will be given the chance to go to the marketplace to purchase high quality health care or if they wish, keep their existing insurance.
And then there's Kucinich and Gravel, who ran on single payer.
Dean Barker :: First Revision
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
First Revision | 10 comments
A central part of their pitches? (4.00 / 1)
All the Democratic candidates agreed that there should be (at least) a public option, so why would they bring up the public option in campaigning against each other in the primary?  And McCain wasn't for universal healthcare at all, so why debate the fine points with him?

Legislating is partially about electoral politics, but campaigns are entirely about electoral politics.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin


I'm not sure I follow this (0.00 / 0)
But, if I do follow correctly, I disagree. I think they fell all over each other to talk about their healthcare plans.  

[ Parent ]
At no point was emphasis placed on those details of healthcare reform on which all the Dem candidates agreed. (0.00 / 0)


--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin


[ Parent ]
The problem is Chuck Todd's leap in logic (4.00 / 3)
He says, "Obama didn't make the public option the central focus of his campaign, so why be surprised if he doesn't pursue it?"

Douglas points out that campaigns are about differentiation. In a year when a public option of some form was table stakes for the whole field, of course it wasn't a focus.

By Todd's logic, we should not be surprised if Obama declares that Gravity is not real. He did not make gravity acknowledgment a focus, after all.


[ Parent ]
Table stakes (4.00 / 1)
OK, fair enough.

But they should ante up!

Tangentially -- this year we have an unusually high percentage of primary challengers who are out of their previous office. I think Dodd and Kucinich are the only ones. Edwards is out of office, and Biden and Clinton are in the executive branch.



[ Parent ]
HRC? (4.00 / 1)
What about Clinton? Didn't she support a public option? Why yes she did:

For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare, and the health insurance plan currently offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either government-run program, but aides stress that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the Clinton plan.

But you are right to quote all of these former candidates. How is it possible that people who do political reporting for a living aren't very good at doing a bit of homework?    

"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." -- Molly Ivins  


Not taking a (0.00 / 0)
shot at you. I am referring to full time paid journalists who are supposed to know this stuff, or at a minimum, have an intern do some homework for them.

"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." -- Molly Ivins  

[ Parent ]
Excellent! (0.00 / 0)
Will update the post.

I couldn't find public plan language from both her and Biden in Mike C.'s straw poll question.


[ Parent ]
They don't read position papers and they don't listen to the candidates. (0.00 / 0)
They or their editors formulate questions that fit their or their cronies' preconceived notions and then they report whether candidates answer as they expect.  That's how our media end up so self-referential.  It may be because they intentionally disregard their own role as questioners--something which some people do without thinking.  Journalists are taught to behave as if the persons they are reporting on are the originators of and respondents to questions.

[ Parent ]
It's really a bit shameful how much more useful, (4.00 / 3)
transparent, and balanced Mike Caulfield's straw poll here was, than anything coming out of NBC or the other news networks.

Take a time-out, Chuck. Just shut up until you're ready to tell us why you can't do journalism as well as moonlighting, part-time bloggers.


[ Parent ]
First Revision | 10 comments

Is there something wrong with majority rules?
Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox