Quote of the Day: Arlen Specter on the public option

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He may not support the sort of universal single-payer system that many of us would prefer, but his vocal support for a public option in any reform bill is nonetheless admirable, not least coming from a former Republican:

I urge my Senate colleagues to support a robust public option plan. It's important that the President's ideas on the public option be implemented to maintain a level playing field.

The public option will create competition in the marketplace and will help to provide affordable choices for American families. It will also allow us to greatly expand the number of Americans with health insurance, and that is an imperative.

Shouldn't that count, sort of, as bipartisanship? (Seriously, given how narrow the GOP has become, so much a party of the far right, shouldn't "bipartisan" also mean anything that receives the support of moderate Democrats, centrist Democrats, and former Republicans like Specter? I suppose a bipartisan reform bill with a robust public option would ideally also receive the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, but the Democratic spectrum in Congress is sufficiently broad these days that it cannot be written off as narrowly partisan. Indeed, it seems to me that any reform bill that receives support across the party, including from the likes of Specter, ought to be considered to be, in a way, bipartisan, even if no Republicans sign up for it.)

**********

For more public option news, see Josh Marshall. I must say, I don't like this whole "opt-out" compromise being tossed around -- Chuck Schumer says it's being "very seriously considered," Howard Dean says he'd vote for it -- but Steve Benen may be right that states might only threaten to opt out:

I can't help but wonder exactly how many states would go through with the opt-out. When the stimulus debate was underway, plenty of right-wing governors said they had no intention of accepting the recovery funds. They changed their minds when partisan spite was overwhelmed by policy necessity.

The same could happen here, especially given the national popularity of the public option. It's even easier to imagine some states opting out, and then opting back in when they see other states benefiting from the public-private competition.

Of course, there would still be the possibility of millions of Americans, those unlucky enough to live in one of the opting out red states, would be left without a public option, and hence without health insurance. Which is reason enough to oppose it.