If the choice were between a) a good health care bill with a triggered public option; and b) watching the entire reform initiative die, it would be entirely reasonable for the president and his team to cling to what some have begun calling the "Snowe trigger."

That's like offering a choice between getting a unicorn and getting no pony at all.

Without a "robust" public option, i.e. one that most Americans can sign up for, then health care reform will simply become another transfer of billions of taxpayer dollars to corporations.

As has been documented here previously, "triggers" end up never being pulled. And if there is no public option, then reformers are counting on the insurance corporations to cut their profits (and for the corporation CEOs to cut their compensation by a few million dollars) just because Congress asks politely.

Better no bill than one that costs billions but doesn't improve the situation.

It seems to me they just want to get a bill out of the Senate with any sort of public option in it. I would HOPE the plan would then be to gut the trigger and opt out aspects of it during commitee and get an up or down vote on a bill that's in line with the other 4/5ths of the bills currently out there.

Am I missing something?

Once any organization switches from "what's the best result?" to "how can we get this done as quickly as possible?" that organization is screwed.

In my view the desire for bipartisanship is fundamentally mistaken. For one thing, one Republican vote -- Snowe's -- doesn't make passage bipartisan. For another, complete ownership of the health bill by the Democrats is very good for the future political success of the party. Finally, didn't Obama learn the lesson from the stimulus bill, namely, compromise with the right, even though you don't have to, and you get a lousy bill that doesn't do all it's supposed to do????

I don't buy it. There are hundreds of positive things the White House could offer Snowe in exchange for her vote. That is how American politics works. If they're pushing for a crappier bill even as the better bill is gathering momentum, it's because they really want the crappier bill. At least Reid finally seems to have accepted that it is better for his political future to have some kind of public option.

If Reid manages to corral 60 dems to support an opt out provision then screw Snowe. Maintaining the illusion of bipartisnship is not worth weakening the final bill. Look at how well kissing up to Snowe helped on the stimulus bill.

It was clear after that debate that Snowe doesn't care about policy she just wants to see how much she can make others dance. She is on a power trip and does not care if she hurts her constituents in the process.

And on side note, if Reid actually has managed to pull off this compromise I'll take back half the bad things I've said about him. Because that's actually a decent job of legislative manuvuering on his part. The kind of stuff we've been wanting to see from him for the last 3 years. The White House should be rewarding him. NOT undercutting him.

Dan Pfeiffer, a top White House aide on health care policy, told Marc Ambinder, "The report is false."

This, in actual reality, is the ONLY direct answer/quote on this that ANY journalist actually has .... all the rest is simply made up speculation ... without any other, actual, Obama offical being quoted at all ........zero ......

Unlike Bush (Iraq/Afg, Prescription drug bill, tax cuts) President Obama has yet to F*ck up, Big Time.

We're playing no-limit Texas hold 'em here, so let's not second guess Chicago Barry until everybody's all in and the cards are face up on the felt. . .

It seems to me they just want to get a bill out of the Senate with any sort of public option in it. I would HOPE the plan would then be to gut the trigger and opt out aspects of it during commitee and get an up or down vote on a bill that's in line with the other 4/5ths of the bills currently out there.

I think that is probably right. From what I have read, the WH has been doing their own whip counts and they are just not very confident in Reid's counting skills. They know that if Reid is wrong and he doesn't have the 60 votes then the bill will basically die a slow death. But if they (the WH people) are right about the count then they would much rather take the lock to move the bill forward safely and worry about fixing it in conference.

So, I think from their perspective this is not about taking yes for an answer. It is about taking maybe for an answer with a catastrophic result if that maybe turns out to be a no.

If Chicago Barry had come out walloping his opponents, then "Repub's in doubt" would have remained Republicans.

His willingness to reach out, in spite of getting spat upon by the GOP loonies, is converting Republicans to Independents and Dem's.

He's smart.

The White House, if these reports are accurate, is pushing Reid to put up or... consider alternatives. That's not a surrender or giving up on Reid so much as pushing for some progress. If it inspires Reid to actually get his version done, good. If it doesn't and Reid gets some other version done, not bad. And if it causes Reid to blow it entirely and there's no bill that makes it through the Senate, that's the worst possible outcome.

There are few certainties about healthcare. First, Obama isn't going to veto whatever bill arrives. Second, I'm one of millions who is not going to be entirely happy with what comes out of Congress. Aside from that, everything's uncertain.

the big problem is, the progressive movement as a whole will never trust a President who says "Screw the public option, I want triggers!" to then stand strong in reconcilliation.

I've said this a thousand times: You can blame triangulation for the present state of American politics. Nobody trusts anyone anymore.

I brought up this issues two weeks ago and have seen no NATIONAL attention given to supporting or denying it in our media. Senator Schumer quite specifically said that Reid could put the public option into the final Senate bill and it would then require 40 votes to REMOVE it...if that is TRUE why doesn't he just do it...if it isn't someone explain to me WHY Schumer said it and it got quickly tapped down???????????

The long term advantage of splitting the GOP caucus by getting Snowe is important. Everytime something passes with even one GOP senator makes it easier for them to defect. The goal is to build a long term governing majority in both houses of Congress that does not depend on one or two Senators who can hijack the process. Snowe has committed with her Finance Committee vote -- she is for health care reform -- and will pay the price with the GOP rightwing for that -- no matter what she does now. Publicly announcing that we don't want her vote now does no particular good.

Cowering from the word "Socialism" in a smoke-filled room

Shalimar: If they're pushing for a crappier bill even as the better bill is gathering momentum, it's because they really want the crappier bill.

Absolutely. That's Occam's razor.
Every other interpretation is Hollywood curlicues.

Dan: We're playing no-limit Texas hold 'em here, so let's not second guess Chicago Barry until everybody's all in and the cards are face up on the felt.

Oh please. Cut the theater. We are trying to get a bill passed here. This isn't some tense spy story set behind the Iron Curtain. Which begs a key question: What happened to all that talk about "greater government transparency"? I didn't vote for someone who was going to cower from the word "socialist" in a smoke-filled room. But apparently, that's the chicken-shit Chicago salad I got...

Just stop

Tom in MA: The goal is to build a long term governing majority in both houses of Congress that does not depend on one or two Senators who can hijack the process...

The goal of every politician is to get reelected.
And that short term goal always matters more than any long term goal.
That's one of democracy's basic flaws.

Which leads to this obvious conclusion:

Chicago Barry will have an easier time getting reelected if he comes across as a reluctant socialist rather than a staunch one. That's why his team wants The Trigger.

I've liked the idea of opt out ever since I heard it. It will get the guys we have been worried about for months, Baucus, Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, etc. I would imagine Snowe will come around too since she has alreaday committed treason and Nazi attrocities in the the crazy eyes of the republicans. It is too late for her to back out now on a technicality. If she does, then she will look stupid. Not to mention her contituents want a public option. She would have pleased nobody at that point, which makes no sense. She will want to be on the right side of history and is just trying to look like she drove a hard bargain and forced concessions like in the stimulus bill.

At this point they should just do the right thing and let Senators like Snowe reflect on their responsibilities and how they woud like to be remembered.

It will be interesting to see who is telling the truth.
It wouldn't be the first time TPM decided to emulate the fact free speculative journamalism of the Times.

Is this about Snowe or is this about the corporate interests that she and the White House both represent? I really don't get the percentage, politically, in having Snowe on board. Nobody cares about bipartisanship. How is "We passed the healthcare bill without any Republican votes because Republicans don't want what's good for America" worse than "We watered down the healthcare bill to suit one Republican senator from a very small state"?

What, exactly, are the metrics that pull that trigger? And what policy, exactly, falls into place when that trigger is pulled? And given the rabid hatred of the GOP toward ANY kind of health care reform, what assurances do we have that a future congress that tips even one vote more in the GOP’s favor will agree that the trigger has been pulled and some vacuous policy has become law? Count me among those who say that progressives may have a bill, but we the people haven’t a pot in which to provide a urine sample.

I was initially in favour of accepting an opt-out compromise but I have some serious misgivings and here's a suggestion that I haven't seen raised -- Obama may actually want to govern as Pres. of the entire country ("not Red States/Blue States" etc.). An opt-out sets an unhealthy precedent, for the long-term as well as for the rest of Obama's term/s. Will the states with a small or large right-wing majority be able, with a threat of filibuster, be able to opt out of anything national they don't like? Reproductive rights? Civil rights? Public schools? Environmental regulation of any kind?
While I am appalled that millions and millions of people in New York, California, etc. could be denied a decent health-care option by a couple of senator from North Dakota, Montana, etc., indeed I often wish the South had seceded so the rest of the country could join the rest of civilization, I also think we have think about the progressives and the duped poor who live in the right-wing states, but also step back and think about the bigger picture than this one (albeit important) piece of legislation.

Screw the Snowe trigger. I'm fed up with hearing from or about Olympia Snowe. First, she's not in charge and second, I don't think she's a very deep thinker about this subject or any other.

The President cannot possibly convince Snowe (and Collins, and perhaps even a couple of others) to finally support a bill that lets states opt out of a public plan? Give me a freakin' break! What a defeatist attitude.

Or is the real problem a secret promise by Obama to the insurance industry to scuttle any real public option? An opt-out right is still a real public option for most (if not all) of the country. Even a regional public option (serving large populations) is a real one. A trigger is nothing.

The problem isn't that the President wants support from both parties, it's that he's given up the high ground before one shot was fired.

The Republican party is on the ropes. None of their views represent the majority of America's wants or desires. It's no longer the President's job to compromise with them - he's done enough. It's the Republican's job to start compromising or get even smaller and less popular.

Obama knows this - and we know this - his "cover" is gone. So any action by Obama to "compromise" at this point is just a sell out to big business and nothing more.

Obama, please re-read the preamble, it says "we, the people", not "we, the insurance industry", and do the right thing.

A public option with a trigger is no public option at all. So why is Snowe so damn important?...to save political face. Either way...triggers don't work and never have so there will be no public option and the dems will lose political face anyway.

"Look how badly the dems screwed up reform even with a majority" A trigger being pulled multiple times is what made reform necessary and now they add another one??? Just pathetic.

Now I know why so many progressives are saying opt out is "tolerable"...it's just to avoid a failure "trigger" or no bill at all (which is redundant).

"...Publicly announcing that we don't want her vote now does no particular good.
Posted by: Tom in Ma on October 24, 2009 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK
I disagree if getting her vote means putting the public option on hold...that is no reform at all just political face saving...which will backfire on dems and Obama especially.

If "happiness is a warm gun", then "Snowe's trigger" doesn't belong there.

Now I know why so many progressives are saying opt out is "tolerable"

Opt out is popular with progressives because it is seen as a political winner for the party. Public option in this scenario equals Medicare, so there is the expectation that states which opt out will be begging to get in a few years from now and the Republicans who choose to opt out will end up paying a political price for making the wrong decision. Whether the actual public option which eventually passes with an opt out is strong enough to actually be as popular as Medicare is still open to question.

There is also a "they deserve it" element to it that most progressives won't admit to. It would be nice if everyone got the public option, but if states opt out then that is their fault for electing right-wing leaders. Such an attitude flies in the face of traditional progressive compassion for the poor since many people don't have the money to get out of the regressive state they live in, so I doubt anyone is really saying this proudly.

No state, no matter how Red it is, will have the guts to deny the right of their citizens who are being required to buy insurance (with or without assistance) to choose least expensive possible alternative. The "they deserve it" sentiment is not aimed at the citizens of these states, but at the hypocritical Republicans who bluster on and on about socialism. Their credibility will take a massive hit when local debate exposes the true nature of the public option -- and they do, indeed, deserve it.