An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Is it Triggertime?

Buried in the weekly Sunday back-and-forth wrangling over the health care reform bill – and the public option in particular – was a particularly important comment from Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson today:

I think [Obama] has to say that if there’s going to be a public option, it’s going to be subject to a trigger.

Nelson added in his remarks on CNN that this shouldn’t be just a “hair trigger”, but “I mean that one that would only apply if there isn’t the kind of competition in business that we’d hope there would be.”

Nelson hopes that such a trigger might bring some Republicans over – in fact, Olympia Snow is already on record as supporting it. Chances are decent that Susan Collins will back a triggered public option too.

What’s intriguing about this is how little different a trigger COULD be from a triggerless public option. Remember that the public option was slated to go into effect in 2013 under each of the House and Senate committee plans. The trigger, as far as I have seen, would also kick in in 2013. The difference, of course, is the conditions necessary to pull the trigger.

As Nelson lays out, the conditions for pulling the trigger would be the failure of private insurers to lower costs (presumably just premiums but perhaps deductibles too). In other words, the public option becomes a back-up plan if the private health insurers do not begin to bend the cost curve downward themselves. Private insurers have a real incentive now to keep premiums down. Failure to do so would introduce a public option to the national health exchange and would cut even more significantly into private insurers’ profits.

Perhaps just as important, President Obama seems open to this possibility too. He reinforced his support for the public option – and did not mention triggers today (neither did his advisers). But with a handful of centrists holding up the trigger as a real compromise, I don’t see how Obama could resist on Wednesday.

The co-op was a terrible idea – perhaps the worst example of “process centrism” wherein somebody offers some milquetoast split-the-difference option that serves nobody well. The trigger is a different animal. The substantive mechanism at the heart of it – a public option – is intact. The only questions is whether or not it comes into existence at all.

There’s a real risk, of course, that the trigger is not pulled – and not for the right reason. In the case of Medicare Part D, a public prescription plan trigger was put in place – and never pulled. Many progressives believe it was not pulled because of Congressional weakness, not because drug prices actually came down enough to avoid the trigger. Indeed, progressives have expressed unwillingness to go along with a trigger – mostly because of the Part D experience.

But the politics are very different here. If Obama, Baucus, Nelson, Snowe and other key centrists can get 60 votes in the Senate for a triggered public option, it would then be up to the progressives to actually craft that trigger. In the end it might get altered in conference committee, but if the progressives can be convinced to write a strong trigger that would really take effect absent private cost savings, and the centrists stay on board, we may finally have a real end game here – and not have to go through reconciliation!

And that would be quite an interesting and ironic end to a summer filled with town hall hysterics. Instead of pushing centrist and right-leaning Democratic Senators and Congressmen away from comprehensive health reform, the overall effect may have been to push the wobbly center to come up with a real workable compromise with the progressives.

Of course, a lot can happen between now and Wednesday when Obama gives his speech. But I suspect that if Obama mentions a public option with a trigger – and specifically cites Nelson and Snowe – then we will see momentum swiftly move in that direction.

This is a rare chance for Obama. A triggered public option is not perfect. But if it gets us to 60 votes – and thus avoids the Swiss cheese result of reconciliation – we may end up with a very significant legislative victory for Obama.

  • Silhouette
    No.
  • I'm not buying it Elrod. Even the insurance companies know that if we don't get something now they are going to be faced with something even more onerous in a couple of years if they don't make some changes - see we already have a trigger.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    I think I have taken a pretty hard stance on this site for a public option and I would like to say I back this 100%. I will admit a good deal of my backing is political because it would make Obama and the Dems look very grown up and the current crop of elected Repubs look like they had been crying wolf for no good reason.
    I also think it is workable though, if the progressives craft the public plan and at least help to draft the trigger itself I think costs will come down or a big scary demon will come ruin the healthcare corps game plan and they know it since the progressives are less likely to create a trigger that cant be pulled. Contrary to the propaganda and fear mongering progressives are not socialists nor communists but pragmatic and experimental(which I admit has its down sides). I really do not think they care if its public or private, they care that it drives down costs and takes care of the nations citizenry. They just fail to see how the free market itself can accomplish this because history is currently on their side(and no getting rid of medicare/caid to allow for "free market" fixes is not a safe bet for our most vulnerable but if you can prove it works they may sign up for it but otherwise it sounds like doubling down on crazy). If we do nothing, I cant wait another 12-16 years for this to happen and neither can the nation. If they can get a good plan if it has a trigger, I say go for it. Obama is not Clinton, he will not say my way or the highway. Like a smart politician he will take what he can get now and add to it later which is exactly what I think the best plan is here.
  • Silhouette
    Except that the GOP may have gained control by 2013 [what a coincidence, just after the end of Obama's first and possibly last term]. Any "trigger" put in place by then will be quickly and quietly dissolved so that the public never tastes the unforgettable sweet nectar of nearly-free health care. Then just as quickly and quietly any stays in place to regulate insurance will also dissolve and suddenly at the breakfast table you'll open your premium and start to see it on a monthly increase. Just like BigOil does with gas prices when they know we're distracted with other issues.

    Why 2013? That's the key to understanding this latest pitch from MedMob. The bottom line is that 2013 keeps us from ever realizing the public option. "The trigger" is on a time bomb set to explode any hope of affordable care once the GOP is back in..

    Remember the soothing private insurance ad that supposedly supports "reform" of itself? Remember how it ends, the last line of the dialogue? "Supporting change that Congress can build on?" Yeah, more like that it can dismantle in 2013. At least they weren't lying.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    Which is why they expect people to show up to keep them in power. Its the same trick the Repubs picked of "cutting taxes" while actually just delaying them being raised again. To keep it from happening you have to vote for them. Not saying I prefer the method but if costs come down it will make them look good and I am saving money, if they do not he will campaign on insuring the public plan goes into effect and going after medmob since they could not keep their side of the bargain. Its not the best result but it is an intelligent strategy and sadly thats what politics are all about.
  • Silhouette
    Oh, you're saying that the dems are trying to kill the public option with the trigger thing right? They know the numbers are 70% or better in reality in support of public option. And that they'll keep the fickle masses of their base together to vote them in again under the same "we promise" platform???

    That sounds like a clever spin on a spin to me. You expect me to believe that the dems have organized to such an extent that they're willing to piss off the 70% right now, string us along and somehow the GOP spin machine won't have them spun into losing the next time around for [irony alert] "failing to bring the public option to fruition during their reign?"

    I highly doubt Rahm and the gang are up to that "strategy"..lol...

    I think they'd better pass the public option now and put it as a feather in their cap. All they have to do when people are LOVING their affordable health care in 2012 is remind them with soundbites how if the GOP gets in again, they're going to lose it. THAT is a strategy I can believe will pay off for the dems..



  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    I really, really hope you are right and I am wrong. I also may just be Bushing Obama and the dems wrongly but I am a bit untrusting of getting anything out of dems and have already been stunned by some of the moves that have been made and I am really happy with that. From my view our best Republican president since Eisenhower was Clinton(number 2 would be H.W.Bush but he was still a bit extreme for me) who actually governed somewhat responsibly but a dem he most certainly was not. I hope Obama stuns me yet again, I set my expectations low but have so far be pleasantly surprised many times already.
  • Miket78
    This blog post is dumb. There is zero chance Susan will support any form of the public option; she has said this every chance she gets. She hates Dirigo, and any public option is a federal version of the same.

    Do your research next time.
  • Leonidas
    No triggers are stupid in this case, it would just give the the Democraats government a mechanism to get what they can't get via Congressional vote despite having majorities in both houses and the presidency. They would just keep adjusting the bar and the environment until they could set the trigger off.

    The public option is dead dead dead unless the democrats want reconciliation, and a piece of legislation full of swiss cheese, to bring government to a virtual halt during their remaining time in power, and to lose even bigger in 2010 when that swiss cheese automatically expired.

    Co-ops have some potential for compromise but triggers are something no halfway intelligent Conservative or blue Dog should support.

    Tort reform, opening up insuarnce markets across state lines, reforms in pricing of medical services by hospitals, and a few more areas can be worked on with bi-partisan support. As soon as the administration realizes the liberal wing of the democratic party has neither the Congressional not the public support it needs we will all be better off, and the moderates and pragmatist can actually get something done instead of having to listen to the progressives prattle on about something that independents, conservatives, and moderate members of their own party aren't really buying.

    If they can't even convince their own party they aren't going to convince the American people.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    So only the Republicans wish list of reforms or the highway, nice of you to put yourself so firmly in a single camp that you can basically be ignored as NEITHER side has all the right answers and both massage the facts to get their pets through and deny the other sides regardless of their legitimacy. If any Republican ideas make it into the final draft it will basically be a gift from Obama at this point due to stances like yours.
  • DLS
    Hopefully the Senate won't be as stupid as the House, and if there is a trigger, at least it will be based on reasonining and negotiations that show some adults, at least, were involved finally with this effort.

    The "public option" is the core of what the lib Dems want -- it is the federal expansion strategy that is close to if not 100% of what the Dems really want at this time. (They have paid mere lip service in the House to actual reforms.) In order to get the children in the House to cooperate with the Senate, the public option may have to be retained, even if it's "tamed" by some kind of "trigger" (which is but extra words that few will necessarily believe will constitute any kind of serious constraint, even if the children will howl at anything that resembles the word "no"). Moreover, the real, intelligent details of any legislation involve actual reform elements, totally separate from the public option. What will be traded or offered in exchange for retention of the public option, or what will be demanded or gained in exchange for reducing or omitting (removing) it, is the key negotiation strategy question.

    And in addition to all that comes Obama and his increasing problems of his own making, in aligning himself with lib Dems (who alienate the intelligent, moral public) and even with such people in his own administration. Obama is in need of damage control and recovery of his own reputation as well as of the health care effort. Rather than any "trigger" attached to the public option, I believe what's most important is what Obama does this month -- not limited to increasingly-untrustworthy words in the speeches he makes, either, but in what he leads people to believe he will actually do. He needs to make the Dems and the health care effort coherent and purposeful, where he and the Dems have been failing increasingly.
  • DLS
    "They would just keep adjusting the bar and the environment until they could set the trigger off."

    That's if they even bothered actually to pay attention and respect to the "bar" or restrictions at all.

    "Tort reform, opening up insuarnce markets across state lines, reforms in pricing of medical services by hospitals, and a few more areas can be worked on with bi-partisan support."

    Of course. Note that I have deliberately omitted tort reform from the examples I've provided, not only because this is a liberal Web site and I would anticipate ridiculous abuse as I've seen with other issues, but also because, more importantly, I don't believe tort reform has any good chance given the Dems in Congress.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC