[This is crossposted in two parts at Loaded Orygun, Oregon's Progressive Community. Also, note the presence of an update at the end...]
It continues to be a busy and visible time for Senator Ron Wyden, as he rides the cable and print junket for his "Free Choice" amendment to the Finance Committee inkblot. We've got two TV clips for you, a long interview that frankly makes my Spidey sense tingle in a bad way, and then a news piece from yesterday that simply makes me want to retch. So grab that sandwich and let's dig in!
We'll start with the videos. Note the way they're being presented viz Wyden's position on reform, as here at Blue Oregon but also headlining the YouTube original of the Ed clip--in short, that he's suddenly on board, talking less about plans without public options, more about plans that have them--but also, conveniently, Free Choice running alongside. And the pitch is that the news is happy--yay, he's off the fence! Is he? I'll let you watch.
{go below decks for vids and commentary!}
First is Ed Schulz, then Rachel Maddow. He says much the same in both, but Maddow asks some really piercing questions that throw him off his game at bit at the end of hers:
Now Maddow:
(grrr---here's the URL for the vid. Anyone know how to embed MSNBC video without having it cough up?)
Both clips follow the same general pattern: Wyden says something nice about the PO, like she's really pretty if she'd only use a little more makeup...and then he drops the bombshell on the hapless legion of option-bots who apparently don't know that the initial eligibility to the public option would not include every living American citizen: hey, hapless option-bots, you're fighting for something you probably can't get! Wyden really appears condescending to "activists" whenever he talks about this, those poor ignorant progressives and union people who say they want a public option because that's what they read at HuffPost.
And then, as if to dispel the confusion and collective ignorance with a magic parliamentary elixir, from under his silk handkerchief he pulls--voila!--the Free Choice Amendment! Wyden has taken to pitching Free Choice like Clorox--the key additive that actually does all the cleaning work you don't get with public detergent alone. Because it's not clean clothes America wants, which would be boring old fully covered health care in this laundry metaphor--it's the bright whites and sharp colors you get when you can choose where to shop. The additive--choice--has become the central element for Wyden.
But here I have to ask--why? Why is choice the Prime Directive on reform? Let's think about what the situation really is. Despite appalling millions without coverage, the vast majority of us have some kind of health care--and as societally disastrous as it may be, every single person in this country can always get acute/emergency care to save their lives, as long as they can make it there.
And while it's something of a trope, it IS true that large majorities of those people say they are satisfied with their health care. And yes, the care is satisfying. The actual humans who provide the services at clinics and hospitals are good-hearted and take care of them. That is not the problem. Caring, attentive medical professionals we've got.
The question is their insurance. If you ask people are they getting value for their health care, that is, if the price they're paying is reasonable for what they get, the answer is hell no--and that can only go up, as premium costs are slated to literally double in the next decade under the status quo.
So the cost of their insurance, private or commercial, is a huge headache. But the key emotion that is motivating a desire for change is, ironically enough, fear--the same emotion motivating the most derisive opposition. Opponents have an irrational fear of government; proponents fear their health care will go POOF for almost no reason, right when they need it--in fact, directly because they need it.
People are scared of losing the coverage they now have, and even if they keep it they've got no idea how to afford it. Under Wyden's core principle, I don't see the lack of options being the driving force in people's health care decisions. Oh, why can't I pick Humana instead of Allied Health? The truth is, with many employers you can indeed choose among provider companies. That's not the problem.
And so then the question is, will any old health exchange reduce costs when we all have to buy it, and there's still largely a fixed and limited cabal of providers in each state? I don't see that case being sufficiently made for co-ops, and I don't think any Democrat rationally believes a fully private market for health care will ever work on the behalf of the patient instead of the shareholder.
Let's split this post up, and talk in Part Two about why an interview with the Huffington Post's Kathleen Wells makes you wonder if the happy talk and handclapping about Ron Wyden's come-to-Jesus moment may be premature, and who his new friends are in their collective attempt to Gang their way to glory...
It must be noted that true to his staff's word this summer, they said when a bill was presented in Finance he would have plenty to offer--and he is indeed an active member of the current debate, and a respectful representative for our state. He's a gentleman, and we're glad for that.But his discarded reticence hasn't, to my mind, brought us any closer to his actual positions and predilections when it comes down to the nitty gritty of a final bill. There's a difference between "committed to" and "open to," and Wyden's consistent use of the latter when referencing a public option leaves a big trap door open, allowing him to say later "Well, I was open to it, but never committed to having it in for passage." Contrast that with Jeff Merkley's language, or Jeff Rockefeller's language, or even Maria Cantwell's. It's pointedly weaker and softer in tone.
That's a little semantic, But read through his in-depth interview with blogger/lawyer Kathleen Wells at HuffPost a couple of days ago, and check out more of his language:
Kathleen Wells: I read a summary of your Plan and it's an exchange. What about the public option?
Senator Wyden: I'm open to the pubic option and I've said that to your publication and others. What's important for folks to know, and what I was struck with this summer [is]: I had town meeting across my state. I had eight town meetings across Oregon. I headed into a gym in a community and up against the wall there would be lots of folks with public option signs [stating] "Public option or bust." I'd say, "Folks, I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to hold the insurance companies accountable and trying to put the consumer in the driver's seat. Are you aware that the way these bills are written now, more than 85 percent of you would be legally prohibited from choosing a public option?" People practically fell out of the bleachers.
I happen to think that choice, whether it's private sector choice or public sector choice, is the key to competition. Competition is the key to holding the insurance companies accountable, turning the tables on the insurance lobby. It's almost as if the country has been having this debate between the ideas of private option versus public option when what we really ought to be thinking about is "no choice" option.
That's a tell, to me. Competition is what drives down costs, and for Wyden the key is not a more efficient and cheaper option from the get go, but the idea that you can choose from among options no matter who provides them. That's like being lethally injected but getting excited because the drugs come in different flavors. And you simply aren't committed to serious reform if you don't think public or private matters.
The other thing that's bothersome in this answer is that it's a total non-sequitur. Wyden's position on the inclusion of a public option--which he doesn't specify in his amendment as only being workable with a public form available in the exchange--is that it's too restrictive.First of all, I think this is misleading in some ways, because what Wyden doesn't tell you is that at least one of the bills has a graduated eligibility provision, with discretion for even broader eligibility down the road resting with the Secretary of HHS. Beyond that, the option is restrictive for a reason, and that's to prevent a flood of Americans ditching their private plans all at once and overwhelming an infant public insurance system, while simultaneously bankrupting an industry that--while clearly suspect in its utility---onetheless employs many Americans.
But beyond that, it's a dodge--the limited eligibility issue is just a lead in for him to pitch the Free Choice provision. He's not discussing the merits of public vs non-public, he's just saying the committee's version of the public option doesn't cover enough people. To make another analogy, he stood by (or more fairly was shut out by the Baucus Caucus) while the coverage umbrella was being designed, and now he wants to talk about it being too narrow--but here's the thing: the Finance bill has no 'public umbrella' in it. Nonexistent is pretty fucking narrow.
To not actively back the establishment of the one true crucial element--downward cost pressure from a lower overhead, profitless public program--while pushing an amendment that only really works if that public program is there...it's pragmatically backwards. And it risks being worse than nothing if it's slapped onto a co-op or triggered bill.
Unfortunately he offers an even more absurd defense shortly thereafter:
Kathleen Wells: Isn't a public option the best way to ensure competition?
Senator Wyden: I have said I'm open to it. What I hope your readers know is that the [Baucus] bill, as written, doesn't let 85-percent of the people get it. So, let's do what is going to help consumers most first, which is to provide choice. Over the last couple of months, enormous amounts of money and grassroots activity have been devoted to this subject and nobody has ever told activists that more than 85-percent of them wouldn't even be allowed to get access to the public option. Whatever you do, whether it's private or public, start by giving people choices.
Right now, the exchanges are basically going to be available to a small number of people. So, most of the time when I'm on the phone-I was on the phone with some of my progressive media folks the other day and they were talking all about public option, and I asked them where they were-and I said, "Guys, you won't be allowed to choose a public option." There was just, a long pause on the other end of the phone and somebody said maybe we shouldn't be for it anymore.
Again, he totally avoids the question being asked of him--isn't the PO really the key part that increases competition, reduces costs, and provides a controllable point of care for those without coverage? He answers by getting a bit defensive about being "open" to the PO--and then downplays its value by essentially declaring its limited availability as a disqualifying feature. At the end, what is he trying to tell us--that we shouldn't be for it, or advocate for it, or care about it so hard, simply because in his view it doesn't let enough people take advantage of it? Bizarre.
And note, along with everything else he repeats, he's not concerned about whether we're given private choices or public choices--meh, it's the choice that counts! Does that sound remotely like someone who will work hard to get a PO into the Finance bill, or someone who will vote no on a trigger or a co-op bill, either in committee or on the floor of the Senate? Not to me it doesn't.
But the single strongest nail in the coffin of good faith is who Wyden now wants to hitch his negotiating star to. You'll never guess:
Seven Senate centrists — two Republicans, four Democrats and one Independent — are stepping up their activity after a bipartisan group on the Senate Finance Committee produced a bill with only Democratic support after months of negotiations.
"We believe the door to bipartisanship shouldn’t be completely closed and we’re doing what we can to keep it open," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, a centrist Democrat from Louisiana who has joined the Senate group.
The new Senate group includes GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Landrieu and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Four of the members — Snowe, Collins, Lieberman and Nelson — played a significant role in helping pass Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package.
"We’re going to be ready to do everything we can to play a constructive role after the bill comes out of committee," Lieberman said. "We’d like to see healthcare reform pass this year, and we don’t think it can be passed unless there is a bipartisan agreement [that] the bill comes to the center."
Lieberman said the group formed initially out of concern over Democratic plans to create a government-run insurance program, which critics fear would drive the private insurance industry out of business. But since those early talks, the bipartisan group of senators has focused more on the potential impact of healthcare reform on the deficit.
Wow, where to begin. I want to start at the beginning of that excerpt, but it's hard to ignore Joe Lieberman saying flatly that the group of seven got together explicitly to concern-troll the public option. He claims they've moved on to broader concerns--deficit control and the Broderian "bipartisanship"--since.
If you want a fine, strongly reformative health care bill, you couldn't have picked a group of Democrats who would be LESS likely to agree to one than these jokers. Landrieu and Nelson are almost sure No votes on any bill with the public option, although they might vote for cloture. McCaskill has been down on it as well for much of the summer, spooked at least in part by the town halls. And Joe Lieberman--oi. Notice that these are some of the same people who were "key" in the passage of the stimulus bill--key in the sense that they were there at the ready to water the bill down where it could do the most good. Sound familiar?
Honestly, I feel dirty just being represented by someone who would stand with these specific people and assert by his action that they are honestly committed to serious reform--when they've spent the entire year demonstrating just the opposite. That Wyden has chosen these as his kindred colleagues on the subject is...sad. I think there is every reason to suspect the level of honest committment to reform with this group, and if Wyden is joining them in their concerns, how am I supposed to take that? If his name is going to be on things this group is proposing, I want Ron Wyden far, far away from my health care bill.
UPDATE, 1PM--
Wyden's Chief of Staff, Josh Kardon, sent me a response a bit ago that says in an email titled "Hill Story is False", in part: "Ron isn't a member of their gang, if they do have such a gang. They never called for confirmation and had they done so, we would have said "absolutely not."
Josh isn't a liar, but he IS a parser sometimes. Note that the article itself doesn't necessarily report a formal "gang" having been created either, and allows that there have been no formal meetings. But is Wyden in frequent contact with them as part of an informal group of Senators who share concerns and goals? That's something of a different question. I have inquired as to any pending request for a retraction/correction from The Hill, given that Kardon appears to be categorically denying any involvement on the grounds elucidated in the article. Until such a public denial and request for correction are issued by the Senator's office, I think the fair thing to do is note his objection to me, and let you take the Hill story under advisement on that basis.