Public Option Is Centrist

Bob Cesca explains that the public option for health care is indeed centrist:

The reality, however, is that a healthcare reform bill with a robust public
option is both extraordinarily popular and fiscally responsible, while, on the
other hand, the kind of "centrist" bill that David Brooks wants is actually more
expensive and generally more corrupt. In other words, a bill without the public
option can hardly be called "centrist" by any definition of the term.

If Brooks wants "fiscal restraint," as he writes in his column, he'd
endorse the public option. What I'm about to write is old news, but with the
apparent prevalence of breaking news stories on cable news about bears wandering
into suburban swimming pools, I suppose it's easy for people to forget.
Nevertheless, here it is. You may recall that the CBO scored the Kennedy HELP
bill as costing around $1 trillion over ten years. But that was an early version
of the bill without a public option included. What did the bill cost with the
public option inserted into the mix?

$400 billion less.

Less!

The public option reduced the price tag of the HELP bill by $400 billion.
By Grabthar's Hammer, what a savings.

How is this not indicative of fiscal restraint and centrist politics,
Mr. Brooks? The public option is the very definition of fiscal restraint and
anyone who opposes the inclusion of the public option in a final healthcare
reform bill is actually in favor of spending more money -- not less. To the tune
of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Additionally, I'm not aware of any centrist voters who are particularly
in love with the idea of a healthcare reform bill that contains mandates but no
public option escape hatch. As I wrote last week, this is without question a
transparent, massive and compulsory government handout to corporate criminals.

Such a bill would require us to buy a policy from a private health
insurer -- the same corporations that are currently denying coverage to paying
customers and literally getting away with murder; the same type of corporation that
randomly tripled my monthly premium, forcing me to either cancel my policy or go
out of business. Every American citizen would be mandated by law to pump their
cash into a system that's inherently corrupt and, from a production standpoint,
wholly worthless. The public option, though, would provide an option of good
conscience for those of us who find it morally repugnant to financially support
the private insurers.

There's no ambiguity here. The public option is resoundingly popular, fiscally conservative and morally sound. It's centrist, it's liberal, it's conservative. Unless you don't believe in, you know, numbers.