by Max Brantley
Yes, that's the ticket. Take U.S. Rep. Mike Ross' suggestion and run with it. (Yes, I know he opposes it and that he said he was just throwing it out for discussion for who knows what reason.)
But every time I read something head-hurting about how Olympia Snowe is in charge of U.S. health legislation and about the vagaries of a public option trigger, whatever that is, the simple clarity and good sense of Medicare for all overtakes me.
John Brummett's plunge into this morass today includes an evasive answer from Sen. Blanche Lincoln on triggers. For or against? She came out on virtually all sides of the question in various news accounts on the subject last week, though it seemed as if she was mostly negative. The headline on this story, for example, said she was "open" to triggers, but continued:
But Lincoln said she isn’t ready to add a trigger amendment to the health care bill currently being cobbled together from two bills approved by separate Senate committees.
“I would rather wait and see down the road, and I would also like to see what it’s coupled with — I mean, a trigger with what?” she said. “A trigger with perhaps more regulatory teeth into a co-op plan that’s going to give it the ability to be more competitive? What actually does the trigger produce? They’re still working on that.”
Medicare for all. That's my ticket. Even Mike Ross could understand it. And 70 percent of the Democrats in his district favor it.