It's all about Snowe this Christmas

Despite being the only person in Congress (both in the Senate and the House) to compromise with Democrats and vote for a version of the health care legislation, Snowe (R, Maine) has signaled her opposition to the new compromise bill being put forth by Harry Reid. The compromise would effectively give each individual state the ability to opt-out of the public option if it so desires. However, Snowe's hard-stance refusal shows her unwillingness to step an inch past her current concession on health care - regardless of the weakness behind any public option, she has reined in her liberal side for this issue.

For those of us worried that she was about to pull an Arlen Specter, we can take a breath of relief.

Snowe is not alone, however. Lieberman (I, Connecticut) has also expressed skepticism over the opt-out provision. In an economic state such as ours, any Senator should be; allowing the federal government to take-over such a core component of health care - the insurance industry - will amount to a government corporation that can avoid the pitfalls of the marketplace. The independents are correct to be fearful - or as the Associate Press puts it:

Moderate Democrats...fear a public plan could drive insurers out of business and take over the marketplace...The one Republican who has so far lent her support to Democratic health overhaul proposals, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, said she was "deeply disappointed" by Reid's decision. Snowe had supported allowing government insurance in individual states only if the private market wasn't providing sufficient choice and competition. Among the moderates whose support is in question are Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Landrieu said in a statement that she's still "very skeptical" about a government plan run from Washington but would keep working with Reid to find a "principled compromise. "Nelson "is not committing how we will vote regarding any proposal Sen. Reid is advancing," said spokesman Jake Thompson. Lincoln, who's up for re-election in 2010, said through a spokesman she intends to study the details and decide how to vote based on the impact on her home state.

If liberals decide to go for it all and retain the public option, they will find themselves in a political showdown with Senator Snowe. Democrats have already tripped her up once, and she doesn't seem to want to be put in the same situation once again. Before the new year, we will see Senator Snowe really stick it to the Democrats the way the GOP base wants her to. It will probably Snowe this Christmas - but if it does, it definitely won't be fluffy and white.

Got Reid? Get Real.

In a recent news release on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nevada) has opined his strong support for the public option as it makes its way back into discussions surrounding the Senate bill. His use of rhetoric is undoubtedly skillful, but there remains large skepticism about the truth behind his claims - namely, whether the public option can, in fact, force competition and accountability by the private health insurance industry. It seems fundamentally the opposite. Shouldn't government "take-overs" of any private market actually serve to undermine competition? After all, the government functions for the word of politicians, not to fill any profit margins. Shouldn't the fact that Amtrak and UPS - both government entities of a generally private sector of the economy - were, for the most part, utter failures lend credence to anyone who opposes the public option?

This isn't to say that there aren't actually valid justifications for a single-payer health care system. Yet, most of these advantages lay uncovered, and with the major non partisan governmental body (namely, the Congressional Budget Office) showing unwavering skepticism to Obama's agenda, the bar has been raised for the liberals in Congress. Mr. Hoff, of the Heritage Foundation, expresses the point with utter clarity:

Advocates of the government insurance plan assure us that it would compete with private insurers on a level playing field. In reality, the "competition" would be rigged, with the government plan enjoying a number of advantages.As a result, the government plan would likely capture a large percentage of the insurance market, marginalizing and undermining private insurance. For example, the Lewin Group estimates that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act,[2] the health reform bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives, would reduce the number of Americans with private insurance by 83.4 million and that the new public plan would cover 103.4 million people.[3] Coupled with the federal regulatory system that the legislation would impose on the remaining private plans, this would clearly by itself constitute a government takeover of health care.Even worse, the federal takeover would accelerate. The private plans' relatively small market share would likely render them increasingly uneconomical and lead to a death spiral in which private insurance would serve an ever-decreasing share of the market.

Mr. Hoff continues:

It is unclear whether the government plan would be subject to a number of requirements that the private plans would be required to meet. It would appear to give the HHS Secretary and the Health Choices Commissioner the discretion to decide these ambiguities in favor of the government plan and to find that various requirements do not apply to the government plan because of its overriding mission to offer a low-cost plan. However, even without including these potential advantages,the government plan would clearly be free of a number of requirements and expenses that private plans face.

Doesn't it strike you as odd? How can a bureaucratic organization claim to be on an even playing field with other private insurance corporations when it has the power to regulate and define vital concepts that implicate the entire industry? What democrats fail to see is that any game where the players are the referees is doomed to an inevitable fate of corruption.