Reactions to the ABC Health Care Special and the President's Lobbying Efforts

Taegan Goddard has a quick roundup of responses to ABC show, with links. General take, the president found a friendly forum, pushed hard for the government-option, and was able to avoid answering unpleasant specifics while demonstrating that he understood the issue.

Politico covers the president's efforts to lobby governors, including Gov. Gregoire.

“There’s no perfect unanimity across the table in terms of every single aspect of reform,” Obama said after his meeting with five governors. “I think everybody here wants to make sure that governors have flexibility, that they have input into how legislation is being shaped on the Hill. ... And we’re committed to working with them in the weeks and months to come to make sure that when we get health reform done, it is in partnership with the states, where the rubber so often hits the road.”

Obama encouraged the governors — two of them Republicans — to continue pressing the need for reform this year. The urgency of the issue was something everyone in the Roosevelt Room agreed on

That urgency, as we've noted previously, is not shared by the public, But given increased skepticism regarding the high cost of the proposal, the president and Congress can only win by scoring quickly.

As we've noted earlier, the disturbing costs continue to climb. Today, the Seattle Times reports that Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, says that a $1 trillion health care bill is feasible. Oddly, that's at the low end of the spectrum. (Anyone else tired of Congress rounding everything to the nearest trillion?) Baucus didn't provide details.

The Seattle PI.com reports that Gov. Gregoire weighed in on the public option, suggesting a state role as well.

Gregoire said if a public plan is OK'd it should also be run on the state level. "If a public plan can be developed ... why not?" Gregoire asked. "The fear is that a public plan is step one to government health care. If a public plan plays by the same rules a private plan, what's the concern, what's the threat?"

The threat, of course, is that the public plan won't play by the same rules, a point made, for example, in this dissection of Robert Reich's WSJ argument for the public option and in this IBD editorial. From the editorial:

But the public plan would enjoy unique financial privileges. It's hard to imagine Congress letting it fail. If it comes up short, the government will find ways to get it the money it needs — if not through direct outlays, then through borrowing with an implicit or explicit guarantee. Private insurers would probably have to try their luck with Chapter 11. There is no level playing field when the government is in the game.

And government wants it that way. The public option, as I wrote in this Puget Sound Business Journal op-ed (subscription required), allows supporters to get single-payer without the political hassle of a frontal assault.