Why Health Care Reform will Definitely Pass

Two big things have happened in the last 24 hours that basically bushwhack the way to getting some sort of Health Care Legislation to sit on the Resolute Desk by the end of 2009.

First, PricewaterhouseCoopers, who created a report sponsored by the insurance industry saying health care insurance premiums would rise faster as the result of Democratic reforms, put out a statement (thanks Politico) that let on that they weren't directed to evaluate the effects of the entire bill, just part of it. More specifically, just the parts that cost money, not the revenue generating portions to offset the costs. Oops! The fact that they are throwing their customer under the bus on this one means they are getting some serious pressure to come clean by the White House. If even a big accounting firm can't make your numbers look the way you want, you are out of luck. This 11th hour report seemed like it was going to cause a major problem with the passage of the Senate bill, but now it looks more like a desperate attempt by people who know they are on the wrong side of history.

Second, earlier today, Senator Olympia Snowe (R - Maine) announced that she would support the passage of the Baucus bill coming out of the Senate:

"When history calls, history calls. I happen to think the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress."

She also added:

"My vote today, is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what it will be tomorrow."

Which may mean she would vote against the final bill if it includes the public option, but her support means the Dems are almost certain to avoid a filibuster. Now the Dems technically already have 60 votes (58 Dems, 2 Ind). However, Snowe's support provides coverage for the more conservative/Blue Dog senators (Lincoln, Nelson, Conrad) to support it, at least to get it to a final vote.

As for what the final bill will look like, well, surprisingly, a lot like the Baucus bill looks now, and I don't think I would have guessed that 2 weeks ago. However, it is likely it will include some sort of Public Option. The first option is that there will be a triggerpoint of premium increases that would set in motion a Public Option. That threat alone is probably sufficient to keep rates lower, which is one of the primary goals of the public option (eliminating pre-existing condition exclusion would be the other). The second option I just caught wind of yesterday which is to have a Public Option as the default in all states, but that states can choose to not offer them. There is a wonderfully perverse justice wrapped into this one. Conservatives that don't want the Public Option can work toward making sure their state doesn't have one and really shouldn't care what happens in other states. However, once states without a public option see benefits occurring in neighboring states with the Public Option, they will clamor for it. This also utilizes the Behavioral Econmics concept of the Status Quo Bias, whereby people are less likely to change something that is already in place.