Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Neuron Culture

David Dobbs on science, nature, and culture.

Search

Profile

dobbspic I write articles on science, medicine, nature, culture and other matters for the New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, Slate, National Geographic, Scientific American Mind, and other publications, and am working on my fourth book, The Orchid and the Dandelion, which expands on my recent December 2009 Atlantic article. In August 2010, I'll be moving to London for a year to work on the book. I'll also serve as a senior fellow at City University London's MA science journalism program.

You're encouraged to check out my third book Reef Madness: Charles Darwin, Alexander Agassiz, and the Meaning of Coral, which traces the strangest but most forgotten controversy in Darwin's career; subscribe to Neuron Culture by email; see more of my work at my main website; or track Twitter feed, my Google Reader shared items, or my Tumblr log, which gets it all.

Twitterature>

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter

    Worth Noting

    Recent Posts

    Recent Comments

    Categories

    « Catfish v mosquitoes in foreclosed swimming pools | Main | "YouTube! That's why I became a writer!" »

    Nate Silver's top ten reasons the public option is surging

    Posted on: October 21, 2009 6:45 AM, by David Dobbs

    1. The tireless, and occasionally tiresome, advocacy on behalf of liberal bloggers and interest groups for the public option. Whatever you think of their tactics -- I haven't always agreed with them -- the sheer amount of focus and energy expended on their behalf has been very important, keeping the issue alive in the public debate.

    2. The fact that the CBO thinks it will save money.

    3. The seeming inevitability of health care reform, which neuters the voices of those who aren't opposed to the public option per se so much as the entire project of health care reform.

    4. The fact that the locus of power has shifted from the Gang of Six -- Bingaman/Conrad/Baucus/Snowe/Grassley/Enzi to the Group of Six -- Pelosi/Dodd/Obama/Reid/Baucus/Snowe.

    5. The "innovation" of the opt-in/opt-out family of compromises, which have more liberal "street cred" than co-ops or triggers and are potentially also much more politically advantageous.

    6. The fading from memory of the tea party protests and the "government takeover" meme.

    There are four more -- I didn't want to steal the thing outright, so you should follow the link below. Also of interest is Aaron E. Carroll's HuffPo piece on why, even as a single-payer advocate, he feels the public option is less than vital. His valid point is that the option doesn't necessarily provide coverage to more people than other measures do. But I think he downplays one important aspect and misses another. First, he says that it'll save only about $110 billion over 10 years. We need to save more -- but that's plenty of reason to include a public option. And he misses altogether the other reason people want a public option: It will, symbolically at least, declare that coverage of everyone is a direct public good and even obligation, just as Medicare establishes that we agree we'll look after the elderly. This has not just symbolic significance but long-term political and policy significance. And it gives people (and potentialy companies, down the line) at least the chance to vote with their feet and their wallets for whether they want private insurance or a government payer to look after their insurance money. These are less than feel-good issues. . That said, a public option runs a risk of collecting just the highest-risk, most heavily subsidized part of the risk pool. You can call that a zero-sum game, I suppose, if you figure those people will be insured anyway (as they should be) in a heavily subsidized, take-everybody private market. But on the books, it'll weigh heavily on public monies and look like more a loser than it really is: the public option market would bleed while the private market would gather the healthier, wealthier customers and look healthier than ever. Which could in turn be used as an argument against public solutions.

    Posted via web from David Dobbs's Somatic Marker

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook
    Find more posts in: PoliticsMedicine & Health

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/122856

    Comments

    1

    Dang, I wanted to read the rest of it, but FiveThirtyEight is apparently not available in China.

    All jokes about "showing democracy" aside, I really don't understand why it would be. Must be the service that hosts it.

    Posted by: GAC | October 21, 2009 9:40 AM

    2

    Ignore the liberal blogosphere at your peril, I've always said.

    Posted by: Greg Laden | October 21, 2009 9:50 AM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.