According to Greg Sargent, Dean means to throw his considerable weight behind a Democracy for America campaign "to build support for the public insurance option in Congressional districts across the country." Arshad Hasan, DFA's executive director, puts it pretty starkly. “We’re drawing a policy line in the sand," he said. "We’re saying that if the public option is not included, it’s not real health care reform."That's a bit of a weird line to draw. Dean's health reforms in Vermont did not include a public insurance option. His health reform plan in the 2004 campaign did not include a public insurance option. As a matter of policy, I should say that I strongly favor a public insurance option. But it's hardly the main determinant of real reform: It's more the most politically controversial element of reform. And though I'm glad to see progressives fighting for it, it shouldn't become the be-all end-all determinant of success. You could imagine a very poor health reform that includes a public option and a pretty good health system with no public option at all. At the end of the day, things like subsidies, Medicare's negotiating power, delivery system reform, comparative effectiveness, and system-wide integration are probably much more important than a public insurance option. Making that the sole effort of your campaign looks to me like going where the controversy is rather than where the policy needs to be. THE RETURN OF HOWARD DEAN.
According to Greg Sargent, Dean means to throw his considerable weight behind a Democracy for America campaign "to build support for the public insurance option in Congressional districts across the country." Arshad Hasan, DFA's executive director, puts it pretty starkly. “We’re drawing a policy line in the sand," he said. "We’re saying that if the public option is not included, it’s not real health care reform."That's a bit of a weird line to draw. Dean's health reforms in Vermont did not include a public insurance option. His health reform plan in the 2004 campaign did not include a public insurance option. As a matter of policy, I should say that I strongly favor a public insurance option. But it's hardly the main determinant of real reform: It's more the most politically controversial element of reform. And though I'm glad to see progressives fighting for it, it shouldn't become the be-all end-all determinant of success. You could imagine a very poor health reform that includes a public option and a pretty good health system with no public option at all. At the end of the day, things like subsidies, Medicare's negotiating power, delivery system reform, comparative effectiveness, and system-wide integration are probably much more important than a public insurance option. Making that the sole effort of your campaign looks to me like going where the controversy is rather than where the policy needs to be. 
