The advocacy community is worried. It sees the public plan as an essential element of reform—a bridge, perhaps, to a single-payer system that would cover all Americans as a matter of right. The Institute for America’s Future, which is part of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, gathered reporters on a conference call last week to push the virtues of a public insurance option, with Berkeley political science professor Jacob Hacker making the case.
The most telling news from the call came from Rep. Pete Stark, chair of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee. Stark, who was on the phone, told reporters that, without a public plan, reform might be ineffective. Then he delivered this message: Congress is likely to take a slower approach to health reform; voting on comprehensive reform wouldn’t happen until early 2010, because Congress has too many pressing priorities, such as the economy, and smaller-scale health care issues, like reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). He also said he had to give everybody a hearing, especially the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and big PhRMA, all of which are likely to oppose a public plan for different reasons.
As for the insurance industry, Stark said, “They’re going to be easy to roll because nobody likes insurance companies.” It’s not likely AHIP, the insurers’ trade group, will let that happen, and it has begun to mobilize its own grassroots supporters, who can be counted on to tell Congress they like private insurance just fine.
And there you have it, the battle map for a public plan. It all should make for make for some interesting copy. ABC News began to get it with a reasonable story about the press conference. We will be watching to see if other media outlets do the same.

Almost everything in the reform discussion is about structure and financing. Very little is actually about care. And what is so insidious is that as time is arching on, tens of thousands - actually make that hundreds of thousands of people are dying of preventable health problems - everything from malnutrition, toxicity from contaminants in food, water, air and consumer products to lack of primary care, lack pf preventive healthcare and inaccessibility and unaffordability of life sustaining and health restorative care.
At the basis of this is a failure to look at health care from a basis of face to face direct care/low technology to a tertiary/high complexity/high tech/high cost basis.
So the dithering continues and people continue to suffer and die, while the supply of primary care providers continues to dry up without any plan toward restoring, remediating and replacing it (physicians and baccalaureate prepared registered nurses).
The Obama health team is bringing nothing new and significant to the table. it may only mitigate the rate of preventable harm and deaths, but it is doing nothing to change the root problems.
Posted by Annie on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 02:58 PM
"Such thinking is likely to seep into mainstream reporting."
Sorry, but isn't it the responsibility of the press to report the news and not advocate for one point of view? Or has that now gone completely out the window?
Posted by JLD on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 07:51 PM
Yes, we obviously cant have any ideas "seep" in and pollute the approved "narrative" that is being generated by the "objective" press now can we.
Huh, uh oh, Im at the Columbia Journalism Review...the bastion of objectivity.
heh.
Posted by bill on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 11:12 PM
Yes, we obviously cant have any ideas "seep" in and pollute the approved "narrative" that is being generated by the "objective" press now can we.
Huh, uh oh, Im at the Columbia Journalism Review...the bastion of objectivity. Is this what is taught as objectivity here.
heh.
Posted by bill on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 11:14 PM
Yes, we obviously cant have any ideas "seep" in and pollute the approved "narrative" that is being generated by the "objective" press now can we.
Huh, uh oh, Im at the Columbia Journalism Review...the bastion of objectivity. Is this what is taught as objectivity here.
heh.
Posted by bill on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 11:16 PM
The creation of a Federal Health Board sounds somewhat reminiscent of DHHS' National Center for Health Care Technology (1979-82) whose charge was to assess the value of established and new technologies. Although its tenure was short-lived, one should learn from the reasons for its demise.
Posted by Dennis Cotter on Mon 29 Dec 2008 at 04:39 PM
Nice blog.Yes, we obviously cant have any ideas "seep" in and pollute the approved "narrative" that is being generated by the "objective" press now can we.Thanks..
Posted by Buy Avodart on Sat 21 Mar 2009 at 05:45 AM