Is it safe to trust the new compromise on the health care public option? The Democrats in Congress are so often like Lucy with the football it's hard to know. Is there a non-silver lining to what appears to be a reasonable compromise?
What I'm talking about is what seems to be a relatively elegant solution to the public option showdown. The best version of it is a strong public option, just like we crazy liberals want, but with the ability for states to individually opt out of it. Works for me, and should work quite well for the red states–they get to see the thing in action and find out if it works while others give it a try. It's a breath of fresh air in this stale debate.
That's far, far better than individual states having individual public options, because the bargaining strength of a non-profit alternative comes in large part from sheer size. A state-level public option couldn't, most likely, adequately compete wiht large insurers, and so it would be fairly useless. Not to mention the prospect of 50 miniature health care "debates" just like the guns of August. Heaven spare us that pain.
From TPM:
Both conservative and liberal Democrats seem to be open to a new public option proposal floated by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Carper (D-DE) to allow states not to participate in the plan if they decide they don't want to.
A Baucus aide tells me "Senator Baucus will look closely at this proposal, as well as other proposals, and could consider supporting them as part of an overall package as long as it achieved his health care reform goals while getting 60 votes."
Along the same lines, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told Politico that he likes the idea of leaving the decision up to the states.
On the other side of the party, Howard Dean says, if he were a member of the Senate, he would vote for the proposal, not because it's his ideal public option, but because it would represent real reform.
