All summer long the Courage Campaign has been mobilizing our members (I work for Courage as the Public Policy Director) to push Senator Dianne Feinstein to unambiguously and clearly support the public option. After our July action we started hearing from members that Feinstein staffers were telling people that DiFi backed a public option. But that wasn’t quite strong enough. So yesterday we launched our most recent action on this front, asking the senator to uphold Senator Edward Kennedy’s legacy and make a clear public statement for the public option.

Today Senator Feinstein released a very long and detailed statement on the matter. She says she supports a public option, but that co-ops can suffice:

Another way of stabilizing premium affordability is the public option.  Depending how the competition is structured, this “option” could compel insurance companies to lower premiums to remain competitive.  It remains a viable proposal. The public option should be one of a variety of choices for people who want improved coverage, giving them an option between a private insurance plan and a public one.  The public option is simply that-an option.  No one will be required to enroll in the public plan.  Instead, it would offer consumers an additional choice as they select a health insurance policy.  Instead of choosing between policies offered only by private insurance companies, people could choose to buy a public insurance plan.  Those that prefer to buy private insurance could still do so. (emphasis in original statement)

Unfortunately that paragraph is immediately followed by this one:

The purpose of creating a public plan is to increase competition so that premium costs can be controlled.  It is very clear that in the current market, private insurance companies do not control the price of premiums.  The public option will not replace anyone’s private insurance coverage, but it could prevent future premium increases as private insurance companies lower their prices to compete with a public option.  I am also open to considering a non-profit co-operative model, as long as it can accomplish the critical goal of controlling premium costs and spurring competition. Because insurance company profit taking has been so high, it will be very difficult to control premium costs without some non-profit option. (emphasis mine)

So it’s a mixed bag. Feinstein clearly understands the need for “some non-profit option.” Unfortunately she does not seem to grasp what Pete Stark understands: that co-ops are totally unworkable.

Clearly public pressure is working on Feinstein – we’ve pushed her to make a public commitment in favor of a public option. But this isn’t enough. More activism is going to be needed to secure her vote for true reform.