Public option: good enough for us, but not for them
By Tom Chambers • 3:05 p.m. July 20, 2009 • 0 Comments • 0 Trackbacks
Tags: health care, judd gregg
Last week the Senate committee drafting the upper house’s version of health care reform barely passed a provision that would require Congress to enroll in the “public option” and forgo their current health insurance program.
Ten of the 11 who voted against the amendment were Democrats:
In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the “public option” — a new federal insurance program like Medicare — but if it’s good enough for the middle class, then surely it’s good enough for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats disagree.
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats — with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy — voted nay.
In other words, Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse won’t themselves join a plan that “will offer benefits that are as good as those available through private insurance plans — or better,” as the Ohio and Rhode Island liberals put it in a recent op-ed. And even a self-described socialist like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, who supports a government-only system, wouldn’t sign himself up.
Rep. John Fleming is proposing a similar amendment in the House.
How quickly will the “public option” die if liberals in Congress are forced to sign up?
The only Republican senator to vote agains the provision was Judd Gregg, who said it “will be so bad that I don’t think anyone should be forced to join.”
Is it any wonder Gregg decided not to take that commerce job?
