The fringe contingents of tea-baggers and town-hall-meeting disrupters, spurred on by their deceitful talk-radio gurus, like mustacheoed villains in an old melodrama, appear to be winning the battle.
I think that this is a crying shame, for the following key reasons:
- Proposed as the "alternative" to a public option is a seemingly vaguely defined notion of "nonprofit cooperatives," a model that some commentators have argued is virtually untested and has a shaky track record in areas of the U.S. where it has been tested.
- I have a sinking feeling that, without a public option, whatever plan ultimately passes will result only in a very limited change to the status quo. The non-profit cooperatives may not impose sufficient checks-and-balances on the for-profit insurers, with all their clout and public relations, marketing, and lobbying muscle.
- Non-profit organizations that DO become successful usually do so by acting a lot like for-profit organizations. I know that from the experience of having worked for a successful non-profit. And just look at Blue Cross/Blue Shield as a key example from the healthcare industry itself. So the differences between the private insurers and the non-profit "options" may end up being very superficial.
- As I have argued previously, I believe that the biggest flaw in our current system is also its most basic attribute: it is employer-based. Calling any new initiative a "reform" without substantively addressing this basic flaw is, in my opinion, highly suspect.
- The President's backing down on this issue in spite of a strong majority in both the House and Senate--and, for goodness sake, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate--is a testament to just how powerful are the special interests who support the status quo. For example, as I have discussed in a previous post, there is evidence that the one senator who arguably has the most influence on the process may be vulnerable to heavy pressure from the healthcare industry.
