It's A New Week In Obamacare-Land

Wow. Major news over the weekend:

Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

So, the 'public option' is dead. AWESOME!!! As a result, the Lefty blogosphere is having a conniption, which is just about priceless to behold. Still, the reality is that support for Obamacare is plummeting, and no amount of spin can make up for it:

Rasmussen: 54% Think No Bill Better Than ObamaCare

With support for ObamaCare itself down to 35%.

That's good, but we need it up to 60%. The Democrats know two things: 1, this is their last, best opportunity to socialize the health system, and they will not let this moment pass unless the consequences for going full-retard are politically catastrophic. A lot of Blue Dogs can be bought off, and not just with pork: Promises (illegal as hell) can be made that anyone who loses his seat due to his vote can be set up in style as a top lobbyist. Obama's said he's willing to be a one-termer, shoving a politically unpopular socialist agenda down America's throat, if that's what it takes. And I believe him.

2, no matter how much opposition there is to this bill, the liberal base loves it -- partly just because they want to score an all-mighty "win" for their Earthbound God -- and so for wavering Democrats, this is a lose-lose proposition. They can either lose the moderates and independents, or they can lose their base. Both are critical. Many Democrats, even the Blue Dogs are hopes are pinned on, will likely decide that if they're going to lose a critical bloc of voters, they might as well "do the right thing" and commit America to the grueling misery of socialism before they're out the door.

All of this majority-opposition is nice and all, but we need a passionate supermajority to let the Democrats know that this will not merely be a painful vote, but a potentially devastating one.

Bear in mind 70% of the public was strenuously against Amnesty, and yet they tried to push that through three times (IIRC), and each time they were only short by a vote or two. (And the final votes were deceptive, as many Senators' votes were released by the whips when it was clear that they were one or two votes shy -- had they had those one or two extra votes, many of the "nays" would have bit the bullet and voted "aye.")

Obama and the Democrats will pass this over widespread public objection, so long as the damage is moderate. Only if the damage is truly grave will they stop.

This is what we've been talking about all along - in order to stop Obamacare, there needed to be such a tremendous grass roots uprising of opposition that enough politicians feared the ramifications of pushing it through enough that they backed off. Apparently, that has happened.

It's interesting to note that this AP article clearly makes it sound like the GOP stalled this thing. While it's true that the levels of GOP opposition are extremely high, there are enough Democrat votes to have shoved this into law anyway. What really happened was that the Dem leadership realized it was simply too politically damaging to pass it over such high opposition. Good for all of you for getting actively engaged! That's American democracy in action!

Now, let's be real. That bit from Sebelius about it being 'not essential'? Bull. It most certainly is essential, and they have no intention of passing up this moment in time to get it done! I do think it's probably correct to a certain extent that they are getting desperate to take even a watered down deal in order to claim a victory, though. To walk away from this entirely would be to hand a gigantic PR coup to the Right for all elections in the future that involve Barack Obama.

But, rather than actually take it off the table, you can bet they're just devising a new strategy. From what I've already seen, it's probably going to be a question of simply renaming it, perhaps to 'co-ops', as Sebelius mentions above. But let's look under the covers at what they mean by 'co-op':

If by health care “co-op,” Congress means allowing private associations to collectively buy health insurance for their members or operate a health insurance exchange, or allowing people to buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer, then those would be positive, pro-consumer developments.

However, simply slapping the word “cooperative” onto a new “insurer,” but then specifying that the government — not the policyholders — picks the board of directors (as Sen. Schumer wants), or that taxpayers will subsidize it, or that it has to pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, would just be an exercise in trying to disguise a “public plan.”

To make it even more simple:

In liberal Washington today, leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are talking up co-ops that would be:

• Run by the government, preferably the federal government
• Funded or subsidized by the government, or
• Includes plans chosen by the government.

A co-op with any of these three features is obviously unacceptable. A real co-op is:

• Run by its members,
• Funded by its members and other private sources, and
• Controlled by its members.

Thus, the danger is still present; we'll have to see the actual verbage before we know how they'll play out. Call me cynical, but I doubt very much we'll see them propose the good kind of co-op.

On the Senate side of Congress, the new name goes by 'Medical Advisory Council':

I'm still slogging through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill (615 pages long), but I can tell you this much. The bill retains the HBAC provision, although it's been renamed the Medical Advisory Council (Sec. 3103, pages 62 - 71) and is now subject to Congressional review, that will ration your health care, set standards (controls) for private insurers, and likely drive all non-government subsidized health insurers out of business.

So you see, we may have won round one, but our political opponents are more than up to the task of generating another round.

Remember: you can call a cow patty a hockey puck or a frisbee, but the fact of the matter is that it's still a big round piece of cow crap.

Still, things could get even more interesting on the Left in the coming weeks. Hot Air suggests some serious in-fighting:

The big question will be whether liberal Democrats will allow anything to pass without a public option. Three weeks ago, I would have said that Democrats would have passed anything to allow Obama to escape this trap while saving face. I’m not sure that’s possible any longer. The biggest threat now would be that both the Senate and the House might pass separate bills without public options, and then have it restored in conference committee. This is no time to get complacent.

Indeed, complacency will kill America.

Rather than be a complainer and a whiner, I like to be able to present alternative solutions. Here are two, the first of which comes from John Boehner, House Minority Leader:

“If our goal is to spend a lot of money for lousy results, a government takeover of health care will do just fine. But if we want to lower health care costs without raising taxes or putting taxpayers on the line for trillions of dollars in new government spending, there is a much better solution.

“The second proposal – the one I support – is patient-focused, not government-focused. It would lower health care costs without creating new government programs or raising taxes.

“This plan scraps some of the worst parts of our current system, reining in the junk lawsuits that drive up costs on everyone. It helps small businesses band together across state lines to provide their employees with high-quality, low-cost coverage – the same coverage provided by big companies and unions. As I’ve said before, if a company like General Electric can do it, why not a local restaurant?

“This proposal uses targeted tax relief to help businesses cover the administrative costs of providing coverage. It offers incentives to low-income families, giving everyone access to coverage they can afford.

“And remember how we successfully tackled welfare reform in the 1990s? This common sense plan takes a similar approach and gives state governments the tools they need to design innovative programs that make health care more affordable.

And if we must go with an alternative naming scheme, how about this from Heritage:

The most positive outcome for the health insurance co-op idea would be if Congress amended the tax-code to allow member-owned health insurers to operate as non-profits, just as decades ago Congress authorized non-profit, member-owned credit unions. America has a long history of member-owned cooperative insurers — known as “mutual” insurers — offering life, auto and property insurance. Indeed, some of them are large and well known, such as Mutual of Omaha, or Northwestern Mutual Life. Offering the option of the same kind of direct consumer-ownership in health insurance not only makes sense, but might also prove to be quite popular.

Don't accept Obama's favorite premise: opponents of Obamacare want to sit around and do nothing. That's simply not true; I don't know of any serious person who doesn't think our health care system needs to be reformed. The key is exactly how that reform is done. Obama wants the government to run and control the new system; conservatives want just the opposite.

This news that the 'public option' is dying is extremely good news - it means that the grass roots opposition to it is huge and widespread. Now, we need to keep that momentum going and channel it into a market-based plan that will truly lower costs, increase choice and quality, and keep government as far away from our health care decisions as possible.

If that happens, America will be better and stronger because of this debate. Keep it up!

There's my two cents.