Sanders Stands on Principle: No Reform w/out Public Option

Sanders Stands on Principle: No Reform w/out Public Option

Sanders Stands on Principle: No Reform w/out Public Option

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to get the 60 votes he will need to break a Republican filibuster and pass a health care reform bill, he’s going to have to include a robust public insurance option.

Without that basic protection for consumers and taxpayers, Reid will lose the vote of Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats but has made no secret of his frustration with attempts to dumb down reform.

“I strongly suspect that there are number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option,” says Sanders, who supports development of a single-payer “Medicare for All” system but has indicated he would accept a milder reform if it controls against insurance-industry profiteering.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to get the 60 votes he will need to break a Republican filibuster and pass a health care reform bill, he’s going to have to include a robust public insurance option.

Without that basic protection for consumers and taxpayers, Reid will lose the vote of Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats but has made no secret of his frustration with attempts to dumb down reform.

“I strongly suspect that there are number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option,” says Sanders, who supports development of a single-payer “Medicare for All” system but has indicated he would accept a milder reform if it controls against insurance-industry profiteering.

“The American people want a public option that would compete against the private insurance companies, whose only goal in life is to make as much money as possible,” says Sanders. “If we do nothing, the dollars we spend on health care will nearly double in the next eight years.”

Sanders has not gotten as much attention as conservative Democrats who have grumbled about Congress doing “too much.”

But the Vermonter’s objection highlights that danger of doing too little.

Sanders is positioning himself as a leader in the fight for real reform.

“It is my intention to do everything I can to see that a strong bill is passed which provides universal coverage in a cost-effective way,” he says, while admitting that: “This is going to be a very difficult, complicated and contentious process which I hope and believe will, in the final analysis, succeed.”

What’s the key to success? Getting President Obama and his administration engaged in the fight for a strong public option.

“We need them in there with guns blazing,” says Sanders. “This country faces a major health care crisis. With 46 million Americans uninsured, 45,000 dying each year because they don’t get to a doctor when they should, almost 1 million going bankrupt because of medically-related bills and health costs scheduled to double within eight years, it is imperative that we pass strong health care legislation that will address these issues.”

Sanders is tight about the need for Obama to get more actively and aggressively involved.

But there is also a need for progressive senators, who back the public option, to join Sanders in signaling that they will object to a dumbed-down “reform” bill.

That’s not a threat.

It’s a way to help the majority leader keep his promise to deliver health care for all while controlling costs.

When progressives make their demands clear, Reid will have far more leverage to push for real reform.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x