Most accounts I've seen have Oregon Senior Senator Ron Wyden playing coy on the public option, suggesting that he might or might not support it. I've had a difficult time figuring out what exactly Wyden's position is on the matter, but he did seem to take a small step towards, "standing in the way [of the public option]," as he said he wouldn't when he signed a letter along with major health care reform roadblocks such as Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe urging a delay in the reform effort. That letter allowed for the push to slow to a halt leading into the August recesses, that allowed the anti-reform brigades time to organize and present their fake populist outcry against health care reform.
I'm not sure what Wyden's position is precisely here, beyond that he understandably likes his own bill. When it was first drafted a couple of years ago Wyden's bill was an excellent roadmap for what passable health care reform might look like given the slim Democratic majority of 2006, with of all people Robert Bennett of Utah as its cosponsor. The thing that's odd about this whole thing, however, is that Wyden won the argument before it began, his Healthy Americans Act was the first coherent presentation that I'm aware of, of the "health care exchange" model that forms the basis of the Senate HELP Committee bill, the House Education and Labor Committee bill, and the Obama outline plan. There are only two major differences that I'm aware of:
1) to Wyden's credit, his bill seems to advance insurance portability a little bit more effectively than the health care exchanges presented in the House and;
2) Wyden's bill contains no public option
Clearly the second is the more contentious issue, oddly given that a public option advances the goal of health care portability more effectively than anything else in the insurance exchanges that are presented in the bills that have been passed out of committee. This is very strange, given that its the first difference that Wyden's bill is more effective on, there may also be some very specific cost-containment measures in Wyden's bill that don't exist in other bills, but many of those could easily be added in by amendment. That the public option has become the point of contention with Wyden is very strange, since a well organized public option that assumes Medicare providers will participate in the public plan, ties reimbursement rates to Medicare rates, and allows for drug price bargaining by Medicare and the Public Option would provide tremendous downward pressure on private health care costs.
Back when he introduced it, Wyden's plan was a good outline for bipartison, effective health care reform that promoted universal coverage. Since that time however, it has become obvious that the goal of the Republican Party on many issues is to block the Democratic majority from any accomplishments, this was apparent from the stimulus debate and from Republican repositioning on the once bipartison Employee Free Choice Act, as well as to block any health care reform. This is part of why the debate has had nothing to do with the actual proposals, with half the debate being about Canada and Britain (solutions that are not being proposed by anyone with power) and the other half being about blatant lies and distortions. While Wyden's proposal could pick up Republican support in 2007 I seriously doubt that it could today. Nonetheless I'm not opposed to having a vote on Wyden's plan, but his waffling on a public option is just plain bizzarre, as Jacob Hacker (linked in previous paragraph) argues compellingly, Wyden's plan too would benefit from a public option. Its time for Wyden to stop playing whatever game he's playing here and get on board with the public option, its hard enough to pass health care reform over the objections of conservative Republicans, they don't need help from progressive Democrats.