Week of October 25-31: PUBLIC OPTION MADNESS
This week’s most pressing issue, apart from the whole Fox News Debacle, was probably the public option’s confirmed debut onto the senate floor. After months of debate and speculation, the public option has arrived—with the small caveat of an opt-out option for states that do not wish to be a part of the government plan. Let’s see how the media storm ensued:
The New York Times: “Public Option Push in Senate Comes With Escape Hatch”
Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn’s October 26th article did a good job of explaining the situation to readers: Harry Reid’s decision to include the public option as a risky, but finally set decision in the Senate this week would lead to heated debate and a somewhat unknown future. Implicit in the title is a sense of failure, as the public option can be opted out by states. The second graf does the most here to explain the gist of the article:
His proposal came with an escape hatch: A state could refuse to participate in the public insurance plan by adopting a law to opt out. Even so, the announcement was a turning point in the debate over how much of a role government should play in an overhauled health care system, and it set the stage for a test of Democratic party unity.
Certainly, after what seemed like an eternal debate over even including the option, having anything is a good sign. The Times, however, is only too aware of this possibility, as their final graf explains:
But Mr. Reid’s decision will not be the last word. The Senate will probably spend weeks on the health care bill and could vote on dozens of amendments, including several to alter or eliminate his version of a public plan. At any stage, 60 votes could be required.
Overall, the piece did a good job of explaining the issue, fairly neutral.
The Washington Post: “Reid Says Health Insurance Bill Will Include Opt-Out Public Option”
Something curious here is the words “opt-out” are only added into the title on the browser bar, not the title above the story itself. Purposeful? I can only speculate.
Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery’s article begins:
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid announced Monday that he will include a government-backed insurance plan in the chamber’s health-care reform legislation, a key concession to liberals who have threatened to oppose a bill without such a public option.
This article stressed the idea of the “Cadillac Tax”, a tax on some of the most premium health insurance coverage:
Even in its current form, health economists said the Cadillac tax is probably the most powerful tool in the bills to reduce costs. The Senate Finance Committee’s bill would impose a steep levy, probably about 40 percent, on the most expensive policies, a move that would encourage insurers to stop selling them, employers to stop offering them and workers to stop choosing them.
This stress on how the bill would be paid for was the main concern of the Washington Post article. This differed from the Times and many other organizations, who focused on the political angle mainly.
Let’s shift to the blog scene:
Politico.com: “Most Liberals Can Live with Compromises”
Patrick O’Connor’s article focuses more on Nancy Pelosi’s compromised house public option bill, but through the angle of Reid’s decisions in the Senate:
In the end, most liberal lawmakers were willing to stand down in this months-long fight because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced earlier this week that he would seek to include a public option in the Senate bill.
The most interesting aspect of the politico article is O’Connor’s use of “liberal” instead of Democrat. Subtle, but definitely noticeable.
Talking Points Memo: “The High Drama Behind Reid’s Public Option Decision”
Brian Beutler’s article was definitely intriguing. Using multiple unnamed sources, Beutler argued that the entire public option debate was fueled by political tapdancing from Reid as well as the Obama admisitration:
Much of the hoopla surrounding Reid’s decision centers around a tense Thursday night meeting between President Obama and Senate health care principals—including Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—at the White House. But according to sources briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations, things began boiling over earlier in the week, when a key question was, Who’s going to take the blame when the public option doesn’t make it in to the base health care bill?
Although the unnamed sources don’t carry the clean-cut accountability of The New York Times or The Washington Post’s articles, they do present a fascinating side story:
The source described the back and forth between Senate health care principals and the White House as a “sort of stare down where the two sides were saying, ‘you be the face of pulling it out.’ Reid wants Obama to do it to give cover to his caucus, Obama wants Reid to do it so he’s not the bad guy on the public option, and can still walk away with a win with reform, with bipartisanship, and with a card for everybody running for re-election.”
Maybe this won’t go anywhere. Maybe it will. But this week, TPM provided probably one of the most interesting angles on the public option debate. (Although definitely not politically neutral).
The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly haven’t put up any full articles on this issue, and since blogs are, well, blogs (of which I have already posted above), I will refrain from putting that angle into the mix this week. Perhaps an update later in the week.
Anyway, that’s it for this week’s media politicking.
-Kellie Mejdrich
