Which means what exactly? That single-payer isn't "off the table" after all? Hard to tell from the NYT article reporting his comments. They were based on a meeting he had with Congressional Democrats and what they said he said.
The senators, who met with Mr. Obama at the White House, said he also set forth a timeline, calling on Congress to send him a comprehensive health care bill by October.
“He wants the bill through the Senate and the House before the August recess, so we can conference and have it done in September and signed in October,” said Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. “He said we need to be unflinching and unflagging.”
OK, he wants it in a hurry. Bad news. Fast means fucked. Big Pharma and HMO industry lobbyists will end up writing it because they're the only ones with the time to spend on something as hairily complicated and arcane as health insurance policy. But what does President Obama want in the bill? It would seem he's dead-set on a public "option" believe it or not.
In response to a question from Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, Mr. Obama said that it was important to include a public plan option and that such a plan could help control health costs.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, one of two dozen Democratic senators who met with Mr. Obama, said the president “spoke very enthusiastically about a public plan” that would compete directly with private insurers. The president’s words were comforting to Democrats like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
“The sentiment in the room, with the president and the rest of us, was that a public plan option will keep the insurance industry honest, will give people more choices in their health care and can save significant amounts of money,” Mr. Brown said.
Hmmm. A public plan primarily used as a stalking horse? It's on the table but as a threat aimed at for-profit insurance companies infamous for ignoring threats because all they have to do is scream "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!" to make Democrats will fold like wet toilet paper? Why do I think that isn't going to work?
Not that I think intimidation isn't a semi-legitimate role to play but single-payer ought to be an option because it's the best choice. Mass tried one of those public/private partnerships a couple of years ago and the private sector scuttled it so quick people are already wanting out.
We ought to know by now that you can't compromise with the greed that runs Big Health. If they've got so much as a finger in the pie, they'll eat it all. They're not interested in partnerships and they for sure aren't interested in low-profit sick people. In Mass they skimmed the high-profit demographics off and left the high-cost sectors to the state plans. Money poured into their coffers and out of the State Treasury. Anybody who thinks they'd do anything at the national level is kidding themselves.
But at least a public option is on the table, even if it's just a gun leveled at the groin of the insurance grifters. I suppose that's better than nothing.
I don't know why you think that single-payer will help. It's just going to make things worse. Single *provider* is the solution adopted in most other countries (though to my knowledge only Canada prohibits other options; only Canada has US to provide it for them)
Posted by: Just An Australian | June 03, 2009 at 05:19 PM