Why Reid Shouldn’t Include The Public Option In The Merged Senate Bill

Lawrence O’Donnell — who served as Senate Finance Committee staff director during the debate over President Clinton’s failed health care reforms — tells Politico’s Live Pulse that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) shouldn’t merge the Senate Finance Committee’s health bill with the HELP Committee’s far more progressive alternative. Sen. George Mitchell tried that in 1994 and Republicans went line-by-line successfully defeating the bill Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Tweets: 10 (as of 2009-10-05)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Derek Hawkins - Oct 5, 2009 - 5:52 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Derek Hawkins - Oct 5, 2009 - 5:53 PM PDT
Derek Hawkins
3.2
by Derek Hawkins - Oct. 5, 2009

An odd perspective, especially coming from the notably liberal Think Progress. Volsky stakes his case on the quote from O'Donnell -- not a bad idea, except he doesn't mention the host of other problems the Clintons had pushing reform in '94 and why they failed in the end. Circumstances are different this time around, as we've seen throughout the course of this months-long debate.

Excluding the public option from the Senate bill could broaden the health care debate. Republicans will complain that they need assurances that a public option won’t be ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Fabrice Florin
3.7
by Fabrice Florin - Oct. 6, 2009

Interesting opinion about tactics which might help Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid push through a 'public option' bill through the final 'conference' reconciling House and Senate health care bills. Though largely speculative, this article helps us understand how the political process works in Congress, and how democrats and republicans are scheming to win the health care reform fight.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Randy Morrow
3.5
by Randy Morrow - Oct. 7, 2009

This article makes the argument that the Public Option should be withdrawn from the Senate bill and then added later "in conference".

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Jo Bobenhouse Smith
5.0
by Jo Bobenhouse Smith - Oct. 6, 2009

This is an intriguing piece detailing O'Donnell's historyical involvement; the who's who and the necesssary political game(s) that will be played in the passage of a health care plan.

See Full Review » (5 answers)
Cynthia Gilbert
4.1
by Cynthia Gilbert - Oct. 6, 2009

Great article. It is not clear whether or not they are correct in their suggested strategy, but at least they are giving some good analysis of what may be going on behind closed doors.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Ben Ross
2.0
by Ben Ross - Oct. 12, 2009

Totally miss's the headline....Forgets to even ask that ?. Does not ask who is paying O'Donnell....or ask what happens if the dems ignore GOP. Quite the chicken little approach to hard knuckle combat. Spineless!

See Full Review » (4 answers)
margaret draper
4.3
by margaret draper - Oct. 6, 2009

If this is true, why have we not heard more about adding the public option in again in conference? Is there any guarantee that the public option would end up in the bill if the baucus is chosen over the help proposal. I don't think the author makes in clear how this would work.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
Judith Bello
3.6
by Judith Bello - Oct. 6, 2009

This is an opinion piece with validating facts. I don't know if I agree, but it clearly lays out the strategy the author is recommending and a logical reason to use it. As such it is well done. I don't know anything about the website it comes from.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Kiku Botura
3.0
by Kiku Botura - Oct. 6, 2009

The supports Lawrence O'Donnell's opinion that the public option should be left out of the Senate's final bill, protecting it from being dismantled, and then reintroduced at the final conference. The argument is that other elements will be addressed, and the gaping hole in the assumption is that HOW the insurance will be provided will not be addressed in Senate. I don't believe that will be the case, some mechanism will be provided one way or another, and the discussion of HOW will be had. By leaving it out, it makes it harder to include it in the final conference. I completely disagree with this opinion, and find the logic flawed, although interesting and well written.

See Full Review » (18 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Good
from 11 reviews (48% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
2.0
Fairness
2.0
Information
3.6
Insight
4.0
Style
3.7
Accuracy
2.0
Balance
1.0
Context
3.4
Depth
1.0
Enterprise
2.0
Expertise
3.6
Originality
3.6
Relevance
4.2
Transparency
4.0
Responsibility
3.6
Popularity
3.1
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
2.8
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

  • Reform, not overreach

    Perhaps the most significant element of reform involves bringing market forces to bear on health care insurers. Creating a health care "exchange" allows for affordable, ...
    Posted by Derek Hawkins
  • A Texas-Sized Health Care Failure

    THE Senate Finance Committee has for the moment rejected the idea of creating a public health insurance plan. It’s difficult to see how Americans will be able to find good, ...
    Posted by Kristin Gorski