October 19, 2009 4:16 PM

What's the Future of the Public Option?

By
Molly Kordares
Topics
Washington Unplugged
As President Obama's top advisers made the rounds on Sunday morning talk shows yesterday, the newest health care question appears to be whether the White House will continue fighting for a public option.

Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff, told John Dickerson yesterday on Face the Nation that a public option is important to Mr. Obama, but "it doesn't define the entire process of health care." Similar messages were also delivered by advisers David Axelrod on ABC's "This Week" and Valerie Jarrett on NBC's "Meet the Press."

As Obama continues health care negotiations, the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and Center for American Progress' Jennifer Palmieri joined Sharyl Attkisson on "Washington Unplugged" today to debate the future of a public health care option.

The Center for American Progress supports a public option, but Palmieri agreed with Emanuel saying it isn't crucial.

"We think the most important principle is that you put cost controls in place so that eventually costs will go down…and that people get more coverage," Palmieri said, adding that a public insurance plan "may help do that."

On the other hand, Cannon said that the problem with a public option is that "the government can't really compete on a level playing field with private insurance."

Because of this, he said the government will "subsidize its own plan, heap costs on private insurers" and eventually drive them out of business.

The panelists also discussed who would be affected by a public option and made predictions on what to expect in the final legislation.

Watch the show above, which includes the full debate and a piece by CBS News' John Bentley on the hotly-contested campaign for governor in New Jersey.

"Washington Unplugged" appears live on CBSNews.com each weekday at 12:30 p.m. ET. Click here to check out previous episodes.

Add a Comment
by abbe91 October 20, 2009 7:46 AM EDT
A good start would be to repel the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 October 20, 2009 8:03 AM EDT
Health Insurance is a big money maker for the private sector. They want to protect those profits and increase them, so they lobby for laws in their favor. We should agree on this, or we have no basis for discussion. If we can agree on this, then the rest that stems from that will be obvious. It is not a debate of privater versus public sector, it is doing what is right for the people of this country and so far we have a ways to go yet.
by faceofus October 19, 2009 10:32 PM EDT
I wonder how the MSM feels about Anita Dunn's brag how they controlled the media during the presidential campaign?
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 October 19, 2009 7:01 PM EDT
If there is a mandate with no option, the Democrats could lose in 2010 and that is just what the opposition wants....wake up!
Reply to this comment
by auntc3 October 19, 2009 5:46 PM EDT
with out a public option what the point; if you want to get a hold on insurance premiums, deductibles, out of pocket and donut holes, you need a public option. That is the only way to control the insurance companies, unless you want to federally control the insurance companies...They need some kind of control as they are ripping of the American public day after day. Cutting benefits and increaseing premiums...Its got to stop. If it dont...we Seniors are just going to CANCEL our Policies all together and take our chances...
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook