I’m not getting excited yet, but there’s no way not to see this as a good sign:
The No. 2 Senate Democrat said Sunday that he’s “open” to health care reform that doesn’t include a government-run “public option,” the latest indication that the Democrats’ package could be scaled back as Senate negotiators try to hammer out a bipartisan compromise and constituents flood town halls to express discontent with the current legislation. . .
The Senate Finance Committee, the last of five committees to consider health care legislation, is trying to hammer out a bipartisan compromise by mid-September — such a compromise might leave the public option behind.
Asked whether Democrats could support such a bill, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said he’s personally willing to consider it.
I’m also glad to see that key Republican are wise to the “co-op” dodge:
But McConnell said that even if negotiators put forward a system of nonprofit cooperatives instead of a public plan — something President Obama reportedly is open to — he still wouldn’t support it.
“It sounds a lot like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to me,” McConnell said. “No, that’s not acceptable.”
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said a “co-op” could be a “government takeover” by another name, adding that he’d have to see the details.
The public option is dangerous because, with the power of the federal purse behind it, a public plan could undercut private insurers and drive them out of business, or at least reduce them to a boutique business out of the reach of ordinary people. That would usher single-payer in through the back door. (Which is the whole point.)
The co-op idea is no better. The co-ops would still be backed by the federal purse — take a look at what happened with Fannie and Freddie if you doubt that — but they wouldn’t even have the limited accountability that comes with being part of the government. In fact, if Fannie and Freddie are any indication, they would be even more stacked with liberals than the federal bureaucracy.
The only way a public or co-op option would make sense would be if it is required to break even. That way it couldn’t exploit the taxpayer to drive private insurers out of business, and we could see if it would find any real cost savings. (Not bloody likely.) But even if such a requirement were politically feasible, it would never be enforced. As soon as the agency/co-op ran out of money, there’s no question it would get a bailout, whatever promises were made when it was created.
Internet Scofflaw 