White House Blurs Stance on Public Option

(CBS/AP)  President Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to drop a government-run health care plan from any overhaul. The White House says that's not a shift. Actually, it is.

Fierce proponents of a government-run health plan for months, Mr. Obama and senior administration officials, bowing to pressure from Republicans and skeptical voters, suggested that such a public option is not do-or-die.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," the president told a town hall-style audience in Grand Junction, Colo., on Saturday. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

CLAIM: "I challenge you guys all to go back and see what we've said about this over the course of many, many, many, many months, and you'll find a boring consistency to our rhetoric," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

THE FACTS: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama said a new public plan should offer comprehensive insurance similar to that available to federal employees.

In the first half of the year, Mr. Obama said repeatedly in speeches, weekly radio and Internet addresses and town halls that he wants a health care overhaul that has a taxpayer-funded public health insurance option. He has said the plan would compete with private insurance to keep costs down.

"That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family," he said on July 18.

More coverage of Health Care Reform

And in a June 3 letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Mr. Obama said: "I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest."

When Mr. Obama hedged this weekend in Colorado - and other administration officials followed suit - liberals cried foul and the White House insisted that the rhetoric hadn't shifted.

"Must include" became "whether we have it or don't have it."

Gibbs repeated the claim, however, in a meeting with reporters Tuesday morning, saying news stories suggesting the administration was ready to abandon the public option were overblown.

Gibbs said there was no intention to indicate a change in policy. "If it was a signal, it was a dog whistle we started blowing weeks ago."

Now, facing growing unrest among fellow Democrats in Congress, the White House appears ready to tackle health care without Republican support, arguing that the GOP is more concerned with handing Mr. Obama a defeat than reforming the system.

[smoknmirrors]

Hey Gibbs, who you calling a dog?

[smoknmirrors]

First, let me congratulate the authors of this TimePiece on excellent investigative reporting. There is no doubt about the President's "parsing" his earlier commitments, his campaign promises, and his current bowdlerized version of his health care reform planning.

Let me predict something for future reference. If, and that is a big IF, the Republican/Blue Dog Coalition is successful in securing a "cooperative" approach to this health care reform problem, rather than an "exchange" similar to the federal employees system provided for them by taxpayer money, this is the way it will work.
The AARP will establish a national cooperative, with a component offering health insurance through United Healthcare, and negotiations between the member run, member controlled AARP cooperative and the UHI company will resemble the sweetheart agreements that used to prevail between labor unions and employers. Negotiations on costs, benefits, etc., will pretty much be non-existent. There will be NO clout on the part of the public, because the cooperative will control the outcome and the Insurance Company will control the cooperative. So you can forget all about real reform, all that talk about removing pre-existing conditions, portability, etc. Except, the cooperative may offer some shadow insurance companies to "compete" with its MAIN component. These may offer two types of coverage: first cost plans (in which the first $50-$100 of a doctor's visit is paid without a deductible or the first $500-$1000 of a hospital stay is paid without deductible, but the balance is on the customer. Major medical plans with larger coverages but also larger deductibles, like say the first $5000 is on the customer, etc. Pre-existing conditions will still require two year waits, if covered at all, and the deductibles will be higher, the premiums higher and the benefits lower for those specific or related conditions.

Will there be competition? Maybe. Sam Walton and Humana may want to play in the game. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and some non-profit cover may be offered. Different states will have want to get into the game, maybe even cities, like Atanta, will grab onto some insurance partnerships. The critical thing is that the rules and outcomes will remain in the domain of the insurance companies.

One interesting outcome will be that these "cooperatives" will be funded by the federal government in the initial stages. The Cooperative/Insurance Co complex will make the Military/Industrial Complex seek emergency care. And the taxpayer, who thought he was getting health care reform, will need resuscitation, but it won't be covered. Stupidity is a pre-existing condition.

[Mikem400]

If a "socialist" health care system mean Americans do not have to die because they got cancer just after being laid off then I'm all for it. I'm retired Navy and Uncle Sam provides my health care (TRICARE). Never had any problem. If we can blow over a trillion dollars in a needless war (Iraq) then we can find the money to help Americans that is unless you believe Iraq is more important then keeping your fellow American healthy.

[hungry1968-16]

by jgg00000008 August 19, 2009 2:49 PM EDT
it amazes me that you are ready to move on with something that you don't know what it is, or how it's going to be paid for.






Define "move on".

[mycommentspg]

The White House seems to sway in whatever direction the wind blows, no apparent strong stance. All they and Congress know how to do is throw away the taxpayer's money. mycommentspage.blogspot.com

[way2ski]

Health care reform is worse than making sausage! My desire would be universal single payer health care. Since single payer was ?off the table? from the beginning, I threw my support behind the ?public option?.

Now the President has decided that health care reform is at risk with the public option, so he tactfully threw it under the bus over the weekend. OK, we still have the insurance reforms- can?t be denied, can?t be dropped, one of those yet to be described co-ops, and of course the other motherhood: cover everyone, improve quality and reduce cost?

Here?s the rub- when the sausage is made, will the choices of plans and co-ops still include the mobility that was implicit in the Government public option? The public option would?ve been ours to use regardless of where we live. I haven?t heard anyone say that mobility will be available with the co-ops (I realize they?re not even embryos yet? just a gleam in some entrepreneur?s eye), or any other private plan. Co-ops tend to be very local in nature- not at all like a public plan would be.

I have Harvard-Pilgrim. It?s only valid in Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire. If I move to Vermont, they would cancel my policy. This is a huge casualty of having thrown the public option under the bus! I hope I can stomach the sausage when it?s done!

[hungry1968-16]

by credibility2 August 19, 2009 1:59 PM EDT
Did the WH really think the intelligent and informed would fall for this spin and lie?







This is exactly why the "intelligent and informed" voted for Obama last November.

[DaVicar5]

Well, Hungry....I'm probably the most "intelligent and informed" person in the Country...and I had no problem seeing through this guys lies!

[credibility2]

Did the WH really think the intelligent and informed would fall for this spin and lie? I guess just because Obama was elected, the WH has concluded that everyone is gullible and will believe everything. My, my, my, mustn't be truthful and admit to possibly having erred in judgment? Isn't this the same sort of accusation the Dems did against the last president and his party? The memories are conveniently short and already being re-written.

[Mikem400]

Intelligent and informed believe Obama wants to kill there grandmothers mmmm no comment.

[swin5]

I you were going to hire somebody to totally overhaul the country's health care system, would you even consider hiring somebody who's resume listed their only job experience as 'community organizer'?

[whosaid1]

as some "oldtimers" use to say .... "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with B.S." ....the White House is doing a lot of the latter....here lately.

[whosaid1]

Sorry ...Questionews....noticed after the fact, that you had used that line...but then again with the amount of BS flying around, it's not bad to use it twice......