Don’t Compromise for Nothing

Something that I think has tended to go missing in the controversy over the idea of a public health insurance option is that for all the rhetorical ammunition conservative politicians have fired at this idea, there’s no evidence that they support any of the rest of the health reform agenda either. For example, the AP wrote that “Enzi likes an idea proposed by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., to set up nonprofit cooperatives that would enable groups to put together their own health care plans.” The implication here is that if liberals are willing to trim their sails, kill the public option, and use a co-opt model instead that Enzi—the top Republican on HELP and thus a crucial player—could support the bill. But as Brian Beutler points out it isn’t true:

Enzi is the ranking member of the Senate HELP committee, and he’s been a harsh critic of the health care bill that’s come out of that panel. I talked to his spokesman this evening, who said the AP didn’t get things exactly right. More accurately, Enzi supports the Finance Committee’s process, which he said has been more transparent and bipartisan in spirit. He says the co-op proposal sounds promising, but he needs to learn more about it before he offers his full support to the provision.

But, crucially, even if Enzi does decide that co-ops are a great policy idea, he in no uncertain terms, withholds judgment on the greater bill. This is a common position in the GOP, and, frankly, a common legislative tactic in general. It’s not necessarily a wink and a nod toward a ‘no’ vote, but it raises concerns among Democrats–or at least it should–that Republicans might try to weaken the bill only to turn around and vote against it.

Recall that the appeal of a robust public option is that it will allow us to cover more people at lower cost. If Republicans succeed in getting Democrats to ditch the public option, thus increasing costs and reducing coverage levels, then they’ll be in a perfect position to pull the football away a second time and complain that the bill is now too expensive and gets too little bang for the buck. When you’re legislating, compromise is necessary, but it’s extremely foolish to compromise without firm assurances of actually getting something. I think it’s also worth noting that the most moderate, most “gettable,” Republican Senators—Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe—have been pretty quiet on the whole subject. It makes a lot more sense to try to zero in on the specific concerns (generous coverage for lobster-related injuries?), if any, of the people who actually represent the marginal votes in the Senate than to focus on superficial rhetoric from people who aren’t committed to any kind of reform.

Note also that as Ezra Klein explains here there’s a related dodge around the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act which seven Republicans are co-sponsoring without actually committing to support. This lets certain people get duped into belief that there’s a bipartisan alternative in the Senate that Barack Obama and Democratic legislative leaders are unaccountably letting lie.