If you have "no place to go," come here!

Do "public option" advocates have a double standard?

Valley Girl's picture

Kip Sullivan makes the case that they do:

There is very little difference between the co-ops and the “public option”

What accounts for this strange behavior, this willingness to see no problems in the “option” proposals and to see calamity in the co-op proposal? The explanation lies, at least in part, with the failure of the “option” movement’s leadership to acknowledge that the puny version of the “option” written up in the HELP Committee bill and HR 3200 does not resemble the large version originally proposed by Jacob Hacker.

Rockefeller, Dean, Hacker and their colleagues in the “option” movement are doing a great job of leveling legitimate criticism against the co-op proposal. Their criticisms are aimed squarely at the question of how the co-ops will get started and whether they will ever grow large enough to take substantial market share away from the insurance industry. But they adamantly refuse to level the same criticism at the “option.” They should tell us why. I doubt they will do that. I doubt it because there is no rational explanation for this double standard. And no one likes to admit to behaving irrationally.

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"leveling legitimate criticism against the public option proposal," too. Just in a difference sense of "leveling."

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Speaking of leveling:

"Bill Nelson, Tom Carper Support Schumer 'Level Playing Field' Public Option " -- I believe this is an approach to hobbling the public option so it isn't especially competitive.