The Law of Unintended Consequences

In my previous post, I suggested that President Obama's intimation that the creation of a government controlled public-option would not be a sticking-point in the ongoing negotiations between the Senate Finance Committee's "gang-of-six" on a health care reform draft bill was a shrewd tactic designed to galvanize his liberal base of supporters.

According to an article published today in the Washington Post, the White House has been taken aback by the fury expressed by its allies in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, AFL-CIO, et al. at the notion that a public-option may be scuttled.

An article in today's copy of the New York Times states that the White House has determined what they had long suspected, and quite frankly, feared: The Republican Party has no desire to forge bipartisan health care reform legislation, and seeks to politically damage President Obama.

Its claim has been advanced in recent days by the public comments of both Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on the palatability of any compromise bill to Senate Republicans. Additionally, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently wrote a letter to PhRMA CEO, Billy Tauzin, advising him against abiding by the terms of the agreement to reduce prescription drug costs that was reached between the pharmaceutical lobby and the president.

Unfortunately, President Obama has equivocated on his support for a health insurance exchange that includes a public-option, and now there is criticism abound regarding a perceived lack of intestinal fortitude by him.

I firmly believe that the president believes strongly in the merits of a public-option; as opposed to a cooperative. However, he seems to be willing, as a matter of practicality, to make some concessions in his effort to advance long advocated health care reform.

As a supporter of his, I would be extremely disappointed if he were to sign a reform bill that did not include a public-option, but I am not prepared to concede the public-option to either health insurance providers, corporately funded conservative interest groups, centrist Democrats, or Republicans without a fight. If Americans want a public-option, then they must be willing to go outside of their homes, beat the streets, and fight for it; because no one is going to deliver health care reform to them on a silver platter.

"I need your help. Change is never easy – and it never starts in Washington. It starts with you. I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors, and spread the facts."

- President Barack Obama (Belgrade, Montana - August 14, 2009)

Public Debate

This past weekend, President Obama and officials of his administration suggested that a federally administered "public-option" is not an integral component for health-care reform legislation. Today, many of the president's liberal supporters are dismayed, if not outraged, that the White House may be intimating a willingness to concede on the creation of what they argue is a vital cost-controlling mechanism for any revamped health-care system. Some have said that any legislation devoid of a public-option that is enacted would not constitute reform.

I do not share these sentiments.

Contrarily, I wonder if President Obama is attempting to galvanize his liberal base; spurring them to mobilize and challenge the scurrilous accusations leveled at him by his political opponents.

One can only hope.