I Could Not Agree More With Jane
This is exactly what I mean about critical thinking. Jane is thinking critically--you know, in the good, let's actually talk about facts and substance sense. Those who hear/read a headline to the effect that "the public option is in" and start going all gung-ho, yeah, we win!, are not thinking critically. Not in the least. And if they don't start doing so, they will be duped in the end. There are a lot of things out there being called a "public option"--so you'd better make sure which one they're talking about before you go getting all excited. And so far, as Jane notes, we have no real details from Reid...and no real reason I have heard all Summer to be optimistic that they are talking about a "robust" public option.
But above all, remember the process. Reid's statement, for whatever it may be worth is, at best, only part of the on-going negotiation process--with the House, with the White House, and with the insurance companies. Remember the real options:
1. No public option.
2. Watered-down b.s. option which only mandates insurance companies get more money by mandating everybody buy insurance--from the insurance companies.
3. "Robust" public option.
4. Watered-down or robust option with state "opt-in" provision.
5. Watered-down or robust option with state "opt-out" provision.
6. Watered-down or robust option with "trigger" provision (i.e., public option never gonna happen--but don't it make you feel better to think so?).
So, there you have it. 1--We don't even know which public option Reid is suggesting states can "opt-out" of; and, 2--Whatever it is Reid is talking about, it is intended to be the Senate's high bar position, in order to get whatever we are going to get in the end below that. That's how negotiation works. The Senate says, this is the most we can do. I know, I know, you might think the House potentially having a stronger position would mean the Senate and House would compromise somewhere in between, such that the result would be above Reid's "option" and below that of the House. Unfortunately, that's not my impression of how reality is likely to work. It is my impression that the Senate will say, this is the most we can do, the insurance companies will pitch a fit, and the real negotiation will be to get somewhere between the hard bottom line of the insurance companies (i.e. status quo or some "clear skies" proposal which in fact makes pollution worse) and the Senate position. Why that should be so is both offensive and a mystery to me, but such it is. I gather it has something to do with money.
But above all, remember the process. Reid's statement, for whatever it may be worth is, at best, only part of the on-going negotiation process--with the House, with the White House, and with the insurance companies. Remember the real options:
1. No public option.
2. Watered-down b.s. option which only mandates insurance companies get more money by mandating everybody buy insurance--from the insurance companies.
3. "Robust" public option.
4. Watered-down or robust option with state "opt-in" provision.
5. Watered-down or robust option with state "opt-out" provision.
6. Watered-down or robust option with "trigger" provision (i.e., public option never gonna happen--but don't it make you feel better to think so?).
So, there you have it. 1--We don't even know which public option Reid is suggesting states can "opt-out" of; and, 2--Whatever it is Reid is talking about, it is intended to be the Senate's high bar position, in order to get whatever we are going to get in the end below that. That's how negotiation works. The Senate says, this is the most we can do. I know, I know, you might think the House potentially having a stronger position would mean the Senate and House would compromise somewhere in between, such that the result would be above Reid's "option" and below that of the House. Unfortunately, that's not my impression of how reality is likely to work. It is my impression that the Senate will say, this is the most we can do, the insurance companies will pitch a fit, and the real negotiation will be to get somewhere between the hard bottom line of the insurance companies (i.e. status quo or some "clear skies" proposal which in fact makes pollution worse) and the Senate position. Why that should be so is both offensive and a mystery to me, but such it is. I gather it has something to do with money.
Comments
Post a Comment