WSJ:

A new proposal by Sen. Tom Carper would spell out how to boost competition in the private market by enacting government-run plans at the state level. States could act alone or in concert with others to gain more leverage in the marketplace, and would be bound by the same rules established for private companies using the national insurance exchange envisioned by the Senate Finance bill. Another option would entail states opening their workers' employee-benefit plans to the general public.

The Delaware Democrat's plan won praise from some in his party Tuesday as a way of bridging differences among them. "Conceptually, having the states take responsibility makes a great deal of sense," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key voice for moderate Democrats. [. . .] Another Democratic centrist, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said the Carper proposal was "very constructive."

(Emphasis supplied.) Now we can define the right wing of the Senate Democratic Party as in favor of the Carper Proposal (for yet another example of wonks not understanding political bargaining, see Steve Benen) and the House Democrats in favor of a robust public option (national plan, Medicare +5 rates, etc.) President Obama can swoop in and be the "consensus builder" - and put forth the Blue State Public Option - a national robust public option from which individual states can opt out. Nebraska and North Dakota can have their state run co-ops. Arkansas and Alabama can take a pass on the whole thing (no mandates, no public plan, etc.) 11 dimensional chess or just plain luck - this solution would work for me as a camel's nose under the tent health care reform worth passing.

Speaking for me only

Once upon a time, a President was called irrelevant and he fought back against the charge. And then he proved his relevance, even when the Congress was controlled by the opposition party.

Nowadays, Obama sycophants think they do him a favor by arguing FOR his irrelevancy, even when his party controls the Congress. Kevin Drum pushes back and reminds us when the "formlessness" problem started - during the campaign. The funny thing is Obama had a a second chance after the financial meltdown to capture a mandate for real change, but he appears to have decided he does not want such a mandate.

Instead, Obama has a mandate for multidimensional chess.

Speaking for me only

Via Yglesias, Benjamin Friedman is pretty funny:

Michael O’Hanlon [. . .] is for generals respecting the president’s policy decisions, except when he isn’t — cases where the general is obviously right, in that he agrees with O’Hanlon. (To me, this McChrystal incident shows the robustness of civilian control. McChrystal spoke too freely and got rebuked. The Republic seems OK. So does the Army.)

I am for generals respecting the President's policy decisions in all cases, even when the generals agree with me, as General McChrystal does on Afghanistan.

Speaking for me only

Led by the Obama connected (through John Podesta) Think Progress:

Lawrence O’Donnell [. . .] tells Politico’s Live Pulse that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) shouldn’t [include a public option.] [. . . I]s O’Donnell right? Does it make more sense to exclude the public plan from the Senate bill and add it during Conference? I think it does. The public plan has become a political wedge issue. Republicans have staked their entire opposition to reform on the public plan, effectively shutting out any meaningful discussion about affordability or insurance regulations.

My gawd. A "meaningful discussion" with Republicans? The Villagers, both "Left" and Right, are really pieces of work. But hey, Alan Grayson is right there with them, despite his bluster.

Speaking for me only

When FDR was running for President in 1932, the base of the Democratic Party was strongly in favor of the repeal of Prohibition. FDR privately agreed, but was concerned about the political implications of that position. His solution? He called for repeal of the federal prohibition but stated that the question should be left to the states to decide individually. Of course FDR won, Prohibition was repealed and in 1935, the federal government took over regulation of alcoholic beverages. A classic case of the camel's nose under the tent working.

Whatever one may think of the strategy employed by the Obama Administration to this point on health care reform, the question we now face is what is the best way to proceed. I come down squarely in favor of a Blue State Public Option as described by Andy Stern of the SEIU - Medicare +5, tied to individual mandates, subsidies funded by a surtax on wealthy individuals. This is a better course, both in terms of politics and policy, than the Schumer level playing field public option. I'll explain why I think so on the flip.

Two weeks ago, I wrote that if Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who heads up the US military effort in Afghanistan, threatened to resign if his recommendations were not accepted, he should be fired. McChrystal has continued to act in an unacceptable fashion and folks are noticing:

National security adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."

I have stated previously that I tend to favor Gen. McChrystal's assessment of and recommendations for the situation. But his behavior has been unacceptable. I believe the White House should adopt his recommendations and then sack him.

Speaking for me only

Is President Obama a wimp? Or a leader? This weekend the President's team has been pushing the story that the President is working for a public option:

Despite months of outward ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea for a final vote in the coming weeks. [. . .]

The White House initiative, unfolding largely out of public view, follows months in which the president appeared to defer to senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill as they labored to put together gargantuan healthcare bills. It also marks a crucial test of Obama's command of the inside game in Washington in which deals are struck behind closed doors and wavering lawmakers are cajoled and pressured into supporting major legislation.

The question is who is the President pressuring? Triggers and co-ops are not a public option. And thew White House can not possibly think that will fly with progressives. So what is the compromise public option the President will push for? Two options imo: (1) the Schumer level playing field public option; or (2) the Blue State public option. I prefer the Blue State Option. More . . .

Ezra's got his dander up:

[T]he drama came late in the evening. About one in the morning, Wyden's Free Choice Act came before the committee. But it never came up for a vote. [. . .] The proposal was doomed by the joint opposition of businesses and labor.

This was, in other words, a battle over the sufficiency of the status quo. And the Senate Finance Committee, hearing complaints from those who preside over a health-care system that works so poorly, sided with the status quo.

Funny how when it's a proposal Ezra cares about, it is an outrage that the status quo is being protected. When it's Medicare For All (which had as realistic a chance of being enacted as Wyden's bill - zero) or any public option for that matter, Ezra is all "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Ironic.

Speaking for me only

Via FDL, more adherents to the Blue State Public Option:

Steps away from the Finance Committee markup, SEIU Chief Andy Stern ducked into a private meeting Thursday with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

[. . .] Stern said states should be allowed to opt out of the government plan. "I'm in the fourth way option," Stern said. "If Alabama doesn’t want a public option, they should consider that question. I don’t think the citizens of Alabama will want out. ... I think we need a public option. I don’t think it needs to be triggered. The question is if there are certain state legislators who think it’s not appropriate for their state, they should have a right in some fashion to deal with it.

I think if they tie the individual mandates to acceptance of a public option, this is an acceptable proposal. I also think that with this opt out, the public option must be robust (Medicare +5), Wyden's exchanges should be expanded and eligibility for the public option should also be expanded.

Speaking for me only

Via Brian Beutler, Greg Sargent reports the new OFA Talking Points:

OFA Talking Points On The Public Option

How to talk with your volunteers:

[. . .]  The public option is just one small part of health insurance reform.

For some of us, no public option means no reform. Indeed, no public option SHOULD mean no mandates. And if BaucusCare becomes ObamaCare, then I say NO to ObamaCare.

Speaking for me only

Surprise, surprise, surprise - Lanny Davis loves him some Jim Cooper.

Course, Lanny Davis also loved him some Joe Lieberman too.

It goes without saying he hates progressive bloggers (Conservatives he likes, being a Fox News Democrat.)

That tells you something I think. Wonder if anyone is going to call Lanny Davis an interloper?

Speaking for me only

The Hill reports:

Obama administration officials tout the progress that has been made on healthcare reform, but as the debate heads into October, neither chamber has passed a bill. Some Democrats are privately concerned that the calendar is slipping away from them, noting that finishing healthcare reform in the election year of 2010 would be nearly impossible. In May, Obama stressed the need to act soon, saying, “If we don’t get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done.”

If "getting it done" means BaucusCare, better to NOT get it done. And if there is any doubt that the Obama Administration is considered to be wimpish:

[T]he White House is trying to light a fire under congressional negotiators, but it doesn’t appear to be working.

Once Obama let Max Baucus take over the process, this was inevitable. That was the price of "formlessness".

Speaking for me only