More trigger talk?

MORE TRIGGER TALK?…. Talk of a public option “trigger” as part of health care reform gained some attention earlier this month, but it quickly faded. Brian Beutler reports this morning that a key Republican senator is reviving the idea.

This idea sort of came and went a few weeks ago, but some legislators just can’t let it go. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)–a potentially key moderate on the Senate Finance Committee–hasn’t forsworn signing on to a health reform bill that includes a public option. But she’s holding out to see it affixed to a “trigger mechanism,” which would, in theory, give insurance companies a years-long window to lower costs on their own and only “trigger” the public option if they failed to do so.

“If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market … the public option will have significant price advantages,” Snowe said. But this was her argument against making the public option available as soon as the bill becomes law.

It’s a reminder of why this policy debate has been so frustrating — a few too many of those involved believe we must avoid positive developments.

As you’ve probably heard, a public option would improve the system by lowering costs, expanding access, and using competition to improve efficiency. Those who like the idea of a “trigger” argue that if we pass a reform package and private insurers can lower costs, expand access, and improve efficiency on their own, we wouldn’t need a public option. It’s better, they say, to wait for the system to get really awful before utilizing a public option to make things better.

The problem should be obvious: if proponents of such an idea realize that a public option would necessarily improve the overall system — and they must, otherwise there would be no need for the trigger to kick in when things got even worse — then why deliberately delay implementation of the part of the policy that lawmakers already realize would help?

Or, put another way, if Snowe knows a public option is a good idea, there’s no reason to push it off to some arbitrary date in the future, as the system deteriorates in the interim.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation