Did Kathleen Sebelius Misspeak, Really?

Did Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius misspeak when she said earlier today that the Obama administration was willing to drop the public option in favor health insurance co-ops? It depends on who you talk to in the administration:

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

But another White official said in an e-mail "that Sebelius didn't misspeak.'The media misplayed it'." That was quite a misplay since it came from Sebelius herself on national television.

Then there is the wiggle-room interpretation of Health and Human Services Secretary's words:

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

"Nothing has changed.," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."

I suppose the President could think that the public option is the "best way" to lower costs, etc, but still find co-ops an acceptable way if they make it to his desk in a final bill. It's not as though the President is saying that the public option is the only way to go.

Here the wiggling is explicit:

Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before. (emphasis mine)

If that is not enough indication of hedging, there are the words of President Obama himself:

On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it," Obama said. (emphasis mine)

It sounds as though the President is trying to have it both ways for the time being. He wants to keep the favor of the liberals and progressives while signaling to Congress and Americans afraid of the public option that he is willing to drop the public option in favor of a relatively more bi-partisan approach: viz., the co-ops. He doesn't want to take a stand.

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House ready to drop 'public option'? (msnbc.msn.com)
• The End of the Public Option? (firedoglake.com)