NP: Pearl Jam, Binaural

I can hardly hear anything today over the gnashing of teeth from the hysterical left over the "death" of the public option in the current health care debate. But I'm struck by how similar this whole situation is to last week's USA-Mexico soccer match.

Yes, that seems like a non-sequitor. It's not. Let me explain.

Much as I don't think American soccer fans would have argued with a prediction of a 2-1 loss at Azteca Stadium two or three months ago, I'm hard-pressed to imagine that the most important thing to the left-wing at the outset of the health care debate was the presence of the public option in the version of the bill that comes out of the Senate Finance Committee. Both post hoc expectations fly in the face of reality, and both tend to ignore the big picture.

Also, if the U.S. had gotten a draw in Mexico, the fans most upset over the loss would have complained about not winning, much as I think the far left would complain about not getting single-payer if and when they get a public option, which I still think might happen.

Now, my full disclosure here is that I trust Barack Obama, much as I trust Bob Bradley with the U.S. soccer team. Both might make tactical errors here and there -- Bradley used the Confederations Cup to test the fitness of DaMarcus Beasley and a couple other players, and Obama left it up to Congress to write the actual health care bill(s) -- but I think both of them are very cognizant of their ultimate goals. Everything I've seen from both men tell me that they have a strong fundamental grasp of what they're trying to do, and what the obstacles are. They understand the long game here, above the fray of who got playing time this week or what's in which version of the bill prior to reconciliation.

So, if you filter the narrative through the "President knows what he's doing" lens, you start looking for what the White House is doing when they say the public option isn't the be-all or the end-all of health care reform. I half-heard Chris Matthews tonight asking if this was Obama playing "Rope-a-Dope," and he very well might be. To mix some sports metaphors, I think he's looking for an opening in the offensive line to run through.

The stated goal has never really been "we need a public option" as much as it has been "we need quality, affordable health care for all Americans." The public option has always been a means to an end. The point of "debate" -- and I'm going to put that word in quotes pretty much forever from now on when talking about American politics -- is whether or not that's possible if you leave it up to the insurance companies.

Now, just change the words "leave it up to" to "require." Is regulation an acceptable substitute for the public option? By making the fight about the public option, has Obama just gotten the industry to accept regulation? And if not, will the insurance companies look at the terms of the regulation, and decide maybe a public option isn't so bad after all, freeing up those lawmakers in the middle to go ahead and vote for it? Is the right question to ask at the next White House press briefing "does the President still prefer health care reform that includes a public option?" Because if he's still fighting for it, that means there's more going on than is being talked about in the media.

I'm not saying this is definitely what's happening. I am saying, however, that this scenario seems at least as plausible as the "Obama is a secret socialist" and the "Obama is selling out to the insurance industry" narratives that have dominated the "debate."

Of course, if you want to extend the analogy, that means that health care reform has as much of a chance as the U.S. does of winning the World Cup. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut. But don't come crying to me if we get universal health care with a public option, because I don't really think that's dead yet.