Trigger > Federalist Public Option?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:43:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Many health reform advocates have objected to Federalist Public Option. From single payer advocates, nationwide robust public option advocates, even level playing field public option advocates, I see the logic of their arguments. But d-day offers (btw congrats d-day for the FDL gig) an objection to the Federalist Public Option that makes no sense to me - one that argues that a trigger is superior:

Nelson, a former state Insurance Commissioner in a state with a Republican legislature and Governor, probably understands that an opt out would mean that Florida gets bubkus. Obviously, his positive comments on the trigger mean he’s itching to sell out, but not in a way that would deny his constituents at least a fig leaf of a benefit. The politics of the opt-out haven’t been thought out entirely by supporters; in states like Florida it probably loses Democratic votes. [. . .] If the opt out doesn’t bring in additional votes and in fact loses some, I’m not sure why it’s being discussed as an option.

The idea that it loses votes is surmise. But certainly it makes no sense for health reform advocates to disfavor the Federalist Public Option in favor of toothless and empty triggers. Do not let triggers be a viable political alternative and Dems will get in line is my theory. But allow them to consider triggers as acceptable, and many will run to it. D-Day's thinking makes no sense to me.

Speaking for me only

< Shooting The Messenger | If >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Trigger > Federalist Public Option? | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

These people have no idea what (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:45:14 PM EST

they're doing; I can't remember the last issue that had so many people contorting themselves in so many ways just to avoid confronting the truth of what would be the right thing to do.

I feel like we're all just trapped in some mad advertising/branding campaign and this is all about latching onto the perfect combination of words and labels, as opposed to developing the best policy.

Whatever sells, wins.

Take it one farther (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:54:55 PM EST

I was also thinking it felt kinda like a creative campaign mtg. Only the meeting has been crashed by salesmen and buyers etc that think they are creative.

I think my all time favorite quote from one of those meetings early in my career was:

We can't do that. It won't work, we've never tried it before.

Followed by really bad idea from said buyer . . .

I can't tell you how many have stopped by our mtgs to run an idea "up the flag pole" who are literally clueless but trying to figure out what will sell with their customer base. All they do is derail the process.

And yes, I have years worth of dents in my forehead. And I'm really good at picking my jaw up off the floor quickly . . .


To the degree directed at me (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:49:21 PM EST

I reject you charge. You can disagree with my thinking, but I think I have been pretty clear in explaining my thinking and it has been consistent in approach. I may be wrong, but my logic has been consistent throughout.

If not directed at me, then never mind.


: For the record, my comments were in no (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:56:15 PM EST

way directed at you. You have been consistent, and I understand where you're coming from; we come at this differently, but I think our goal is really the same.
I totally understand your thinking, but I am so incredibly frustrated at the entire process that it just makes me crazy.

It is time for the people to take back (none / 0) (#13)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:49:17 PM EST

their government. Every pol is starting from the point of their own personal agenda: what's best for them and their career, and can they have their cake and eat it, too? do they dance to the demands of the corporations that keep them fat and happy and hope their status as incumbent will keep them in office, or do they work for the people who sent them there and risk having to win on their record with a limited budget.

Since I don't vote for the person who ran the most campaign ads, my choice for them is to risk working for the people.


Shadow boxing (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by koshembos on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:20:23 PM EST

The vagueness of the public option and the danger of the divisive yet vague federalist options will both lead to negative side effects.

We are all debating repairs to Obama's mind boggling abdicating of leadership on health care reform. No repair, public or federalistic, will do much good.

In ten years we will revisit health care reform, this rime, however, our cost will not be twice as high as European countries' cost, it'll be more like five times as high and quality of care much worse than today.

The Federalist Public Option (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 12:26:07 AM EST

is fine by me. Makes much more sense than triggers to me too. It is just my opinion but triggers are essentially baloney at best....triggers in four years maybe? A Federalist Public Option has four years for all the states to think about it too and it becomes pretty obvious that after four years of thinking about this....everybody is onboard.

lemme 'splain (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by dday on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:15:45 AM EST

I had a second draft of this written that was a bit clearer but got eated. In that draft I stressed that I certainly don't agree with Nelson that a trigger would represent anything of value to his constituents. But clearly by his comments today, he does. He thinks that he can say the trigger forces insurers into some minimum acceptable standard of coverage, while with the Federalist Public Option, his fellow Floridians get nothing, as he assumes that the state will opt out, given the political landscape. DWS said pretty much the exact same thing today. So this tells me that the Fed PO is a problem in Florida. And there may be other states.

I don't want to give the impression that I think triggers are AOK - I'd probably get fired from the FDL gig on day one if I did! - I'm merely trying to see it through Nelson's eyes. He thinks a Federalist Public Option would mean that his state would opt out and his constituents would not benefit. I don't know if that's entirely true, but it's his perspective. And he voted for Schumer's level playing field, so he's not a detractor of the PO per se.

Honestly we shouldn't cotton to any of these compromises.

: You blew it dude (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 02:39:59 PM EST

Today tells the tale.

Not logical (none / 0) (#1)
by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:01:01 PM EST

I think the idea that a trigger would result in less vote losses than the Federalist concept is ridiculous.

The idea of the trigger may pacify some independant's and Republican's but it would lose more Democratic votes over all.

If Nelson is really worried, he should be demanding that Medicare benefits are protected. That would do him more good in Florida than any trigger.

test (none / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:00:21 PM EST

toothless and empty triggers (none / 0) (#9)
by Dadler on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:18:02 PM EST

come on now, those triggers won't be toothless or empty...for the insurance industry. they'll be chewing and feasting until their bellies are full. bursting.

sure (none / 0) (#12)
by dday on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:17:04 AM EST

but that won't help Bill Nelson get elected again. And Bill Nelson is probably more interested in extending the career of Bill Nelson than anything else.