Today the Seattle Times editorial page, not always a hotbed of liberal sentiment, comes out in favor of the public option for health care reform. Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott, no surprise, is already on record supporting a reform plan with a strong public option. So is Washington Senator Patty Murray.
But Washington Senator Maria Cantwell? Not so much. Yesterday she said of the public option on KUOW's Weekday: "I don't think that's something we can get through the United States Senate." She prefers the idea of promoting regional health care cooperatives. Which puts her on the wrong side of public opinion, not to mention the wrong side of the president, who said today:
The public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies.
More on this in the next issue of The Stranger, but for now here's what Cantwell's office tells me:
Everything is on the table including public option and co-ops.
Which, again, is not what Cantwell said yesterday on KUOW. Here's another quote about the public option from her appearance: "I don’t think we can get the votes for that... While you can describe something that gives leverage in the marketplace, you have to get the votes.”
And Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota offers a perfectly circular argument: we can’t have the public option, because if we do, health care reform won’t get the votes of senators like him. “In a 60-vote environment,” he says (implicitly rejecting the idea, embraced by President Obama, of bypassing the filibuster if necessary), “you’ve got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together, and that, I don’t believe, is possible with a pure public option.”
15
18
21
Comments (22) RSS