Specter: Schumer Has It Right On The Public Option
Speaking moments ago to a large and animated crowd of union organizers and health reform advocates in a brewing house just North of the Capitol, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) said he supports a public insurance option.
"Schumer has it right about having a public component," Specter said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has taken a lead role on negotiations over the public option in the Senate Finance Committee, and earlier this year proposed a compromise: the committee's health care bill should include a public plan, he said, but one that competes on a level playing field with other insurers. Such an entity wouldn't be able to use its sheer size to set prices the way Medicare does--but it could nonetheless incur savings in a host of other ways, and in so doing drive down the cost of health insurance in the private market.
Perhaps more importantly, though, the Schumer proposal is in line with the principles of the major reform campaign Health Care for America Now--and, as such, just about every major health care and labor organization in the country.
Before Specter switched parties this spring--and for a brief period afterward--he said he did not support the public option. But as a Democrat he's facing different pressures--notably from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who plans to challenge Specter in next year's primary--and he's begun tacking to the left as a result.
HCAN hosted today's event, which also included rallying, lobbying, and other town halls with members of Congress. The Pennsylvania forum--which also featured a Sestak appearance--was a standing-room only affair. Both the ground floor and the balcony levels of the Capitol City Brewing Company were filled seemingly beyond capacity, with many guests forced to sit on the staircase or stand in the nearby entryway to the National Postal Museum.
"Health care is a right," Specter said. "Your presence here has a big effect. You will get health care this year."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Writing the book on political survivalism...
June 25, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take whatever I can get to move the conversation to the left of where it has been for the last 30 years.
Does anybody else feel like their entire adulthood has been marred by the generational shift to the right that they didn't want any part of?
June 25, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 25, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But have we really moved to the left here? I think the headline is pretty misleading. Didn't we read in the last week a piece at this very site talking about how Schumer's "compromise" public option effectively gutted the plan? His deal is the state co-ops, right? Which would still be subject to wildly different state regulations, would have tiny risk pools, and basically couldn't hold costs down or provide a benchmark for private insurers?
If that's what Specter is for, I'm not impressed. On the other hand, it looks likely that the house version is what we'll really see votes on, so he may have some time to figure out whether he's on board with a real public plan.
June 25, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're thinking of Kent Conrad. He's the one who floated the terrible co-op idea in the name of "bipartisanship." Schumer criticized Conrad pretty strongly for it, and he's the one pushing for a public option.
June 25, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at this from HuffPo. Kerry suggesting a TEN YEAR trigger. I fear the public option is quickly becoming just another con.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/kerry-pushes-for-public-o_n_220822.html
"Under the plan floated by Kerry, a public health care option would only be triggered by private insurance companies failing to meet certain criteria after ten years."
June 25, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That article is bogus. The Finance committee doesn't even have a public option. Kerry was trying to sneak it in there in some fashion.
June 25, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. For better or worse it's probably going to come down to what gets sneaked into the bill!
June 25, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was stunned to see such utter nonsense coming from Kerry. His idea is a plan for destroying HC reform.
ANY plan that stalls for time or is put out there under the guise of a test is just the desperate measures of stalling until private ins lobby can figure a way to prevent HC ins reform...by trying to get more repubs elected or the right dems or just time to come up with a way to keep private ins profiteering for as long as possible.
Kerry...JOHN KERRY of all people. We don't need 10 more yrs of "look see". People are dying out here. How disappointing Kerry. Just pathetic
June 25, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If these goobers think all the so called "public option" is supposed to do is "drive down the costs of the private ins market" they are completely missing the point.
We are done with private ins. profiteering...period. We want a governmental plan we can all be a part of that makes sure health care is a right and not a privilege, and that there is no incentive for denying coverage. How can a "for profit" plan ever compete with a "not for profit" plan?...and that is exactly the point. Quit trying to cater to private ins. lobbyists or their republican pets on leashes.
Their comparison is like saying, "a public police force option will drive down costs in the security market." Police protection IS not for profit. Fucking goobers.
June 25, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
I turned 18 in 1981. 'Nuff said on that.
This, in particular, is why I have to clean the coffee off my keyboard everytime some loony DLC conservadem "centrist" here on the TPM boards starts babbling on about us on the "far left". Compared to where we are now, at least on the domestic policy front, Richard fucking Nixon was on the far left.
Those "centro"-dem 'tards who call us "far left" can't be bothered to check beyond the borders of our country to see what a real political spectrum that hasn't been poisoned by 40 years of Heritage/AEI garbage looks like. That, and/or they have trouble remembering anything that happened before the last episode of American Idol.
June 26, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why you let Sestak run.
June 25, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yeah. Flame to ass.
If Sestak isn't successful challenging him for the Senate run he should be rewarded for pushing Arlen to the left.
June 25, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can thank the good citizens of Pennsylvania for this turnabout. Now if they could get him to support single-payer....
June 26, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any time the words "level playing field" appear in context of health insurance options, they must be rapidly and loudly screamed down.
"Such an entity wouldn't be able to use its sheer size to set prices the way Medicare does"
- Why TF not!!! I don't see politicians complaining that Wal-Mart undersells the local drug store, that Microsoft undersells or buys up competitors, or that Exxon sells diesel cheaper than locally-produced biodiesel.
Capitalism doesn't require a level playing field. Free market fanatics complain about any attempt to level anything. So if the government can create a larger risk pool and negotiate better prices, have at it. Government exists to promote the public interest, not protect private insurers. If government can provide more efficient health insurance and health care than private insurers, then it's time for private insurers to take there place in history with the lamplighters and livery stable owners. And good riddance.
June 25, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's what they're talking about. I believe the fear is that a 900-lb gorilla will force providers to lower prices below what is fair. Believe it or not, too LOW of a price is not necessarily a good thing in the long run.
June 25, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In virtually every civilized country, the government provides or substantially subsidizes all health care, the doctors in those countries maintain high standards of living relative to their country, and the quality of health care is rated as superior to the U.S. There are plenty of doctors who work for the VA who are qualified and talented. Many more doctors cater to patients on Medicare, and they are still in business. A government option will NOT price doctors out of the market, and may prove substantially beneficial.
A major current problem with access to care is that the system in the U.S. strongly favors specialization and we are actually facing a shortage of general practitioners, who are the front lines of health care providers. More government involvement in price structures could increase payments to GPs and flatten payments to specialists to encourage more doctors to become or remain GPs. And make adjustments as needs shift.
June 25, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Arlen Specter we're talking about; the guy who is always painfully fair minded right up to when he stabs you in the back. What I take away from his statement is that he'll acquiesce to a public option as long as it is so hobbled that it cannot give private insurance any reason to lower profit margins or give providers any reason to charge less.
June 25, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Arlen Narcissist - NOT To Be Trusted.
Just look at the $$$ - we Know how he will vote.
2008
Health Professionals $724,033
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $584,211
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $522,518
June 26, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
why not?
The health insurance has no real competition -- employees don't know how much they are paying in lost salary, it's all subsidized by the govt with tax breaks, and big insurers tend to dominate their region with defacto monopoloies.
I think they need so strong competition to keep it honest.
June 26, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If, as Kent Conrad says, they don't have the votes to pass a robust Public Option...how exactly does this count as anything close to brave or noteworthy??
June 25, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Latest I heard is that Baucus wants to tax our health benefits but give us no public option. It's as if they are trying to write a bill so awful that no one will support it.
June 25, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter ROCKS!
Today's featured photo on http://www.healthcareforamericanow.org/
Surrender Sestak
June 25, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't believe Specter until I see his vote on health care. Fortunately he will have to vote for health care reform before he stands for reelection as a "Democrat", so I won't have to trust him.
June 25, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bull. Shit.
Without a serious challenge from Sestak, ol' Arlie would have sat comfortably where he is, relying on the good ol' boyz in the Senate and former Club member Obama to support him. Which they were doing. Sestak is doing Arlen, and Pennsylvania voters, the favor of reminding Arlen that he might actually have to be accountable to them rather than merely to his fellow Versailles residents.
June 26, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish California had a senior Senator just like Arlen
June 25, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do...she's called Dianne Feinstein...and we don't trust her either.
June 25, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today, Feinstein responded to my passionate plea for a public option, with a very lukewarm recital of her own concerns, namely that any new health care bill will cost too much. That means she understands that insurance companies will suffer if we get the public option, so she is opposed to it. Nothing is worse than a dino unless it is a senile dino.
June 25, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that's snark, johnmccsf, otherwise your credibility, rapidly circling the drain as it is, is going straight down into the main sewer line.
Both Specter and DiFi talk the talk. Right up until they stab you in the back, as noted puthread. Sometimes DiFi doesn't even talk the talk. She was one of the prime movers in bringing us Michael Mukasey as AG. That sure worked out well. And her hubby is up to his shoulders in the "defense" (cough) contracting racket. Guess which committees DiFi sat on until the indie press here in CA exposed them.
June 26, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Mr.E. I could not agree more!
The old model of healthcare is functionally obsolete. It is unfair, unworkable, and unsustainable. You say "Government exists to promote the public interest, not protect private insurers." That is EXACTLY CORRECT. It is amazingly instructive to see the fascist Republican party line up 100% in favor of private insurance company profits at the expense of public health and moral decency. Nothing in life is more sacred to Republicans than making a dollar off some frightened desperate human being. I am thrilled to see the new Democrat Specter take the side of the public he represents and back the public option.
June 25, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't this the same guy that went on Meet The Press right after he switched parties and said that he did not support a public option that competed with private insurance companies? Make up your mind Arlen!
Specter might be on the right side of the issue NOW and maybe his vote will be important come the time when this actually comes up, but I'll still be voting for a REAL Democrat in Joe Sestek come the primary in May. Specter is just a political opportunist with no real core.
June 25, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figure that when we find the fine print, it will be more like Schumer is on the wrong side than Specter on the right side.
June 25, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
does anyone remember former Sen. Wofford of PENNSYLVANIA!?
he upset the big GOP man Thornburgh to win a senate seat because he backed a real health care plan.
that's how the Dems can win future elections.
remember, that senators and congressmen all have an excellent "socialistic" health care system, as do most citizens of western Europe.
call it socialism? we call it Common Sense!
June 25, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone remember what happened to Wofford next?
June 25, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter really is trying to be all things to all people. He'll be whatever you want him to be. His proposal public option that doesn't threaten health insurers is pathetic. He gets to pretend to be on the side of unions even while the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries (which spent $126 million dollars in the last election cycle) continue contributing to his campaign. The man deserves his tanking poll numbers.
A side note, Democrats need to insist on a public option, but they should consider a compromise in which medical tort reform is exchanged for moderates' support of the public option. That, rather than caving on or watering down every good idea, might actually offer the prospect of meaningful bipartisanship.
June 25, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly why Specter running, whether he wins or loses, is a good thing. He will be as progressive as anyone at least for these next year and a half.
June 25, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus (blesses himself), ITS OK WITH ME!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT THE HELL DO I CARE ABOUT MOTIVES?
REPUBS HAVE MOTIVES ALL THE TIME.
I will take this a free vote.
Ha!!!!!!!
June 25, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arlen Stroud aka Survivorman
June 25, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He only switched parties because he saw he couldn't win as a republican. Just like Lieberman, they stand for whatever gets them reelected.
June 25, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you know what to expect. I'd take that over Chucky Schumer, until the country moves right again at least.
June 25, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm getting confused on what the public option really is. It's being marketed as a lot of different things right now and I think it's fair to say that not all public options are created equal.
If it is the state co-ops idea, then the so-called public option will be too weak to compete with for profit insurers.
There can't be any parsing on this. Single payer could not be confused with anything else.
But "the public option" is quickly becoming the most ambiguous concept floated in modern politics.
June 25, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm getting confused on what the public option really is. It's being marketed as a lot of different things right now and I think it's fair to say that not all public options are created equal.
You're confused because there are different public option proposals being talked about. Some of them will be effective, some won't be. (Single payer has never been on the table. Obama did not campaign in support of it and it couldn't get 20 votes in the Senate). There is no overwhelming support in Congress for a public option no matter what. I think there will be support for an effective public option but there is going to be a lot of debate and a lot of horse trading over this in the next few weeks. Spector supporting a public option is a great thing and it really doesn't matter whether he is doing it to win the new election or out of principal.
June 25, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get that. But the way it's covered in the media is as if there's only one public option. Either you're for it or against it.
Let's just leave the congressional Republicans out of the conversation because they've elected to be against everything.
As I see it, they're not even part of the debate on anything anymore.
The debate is between the different kinds of democrats and independents and moderate Republicans.
We should really move the conversation forward at this point, beyond "will there or won't there be a public option" to "what public options are on the table and what is acceptable and what is not?"
June 25, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I prefer to call the public option "Medicare for everybody who wants it". It's almost "Medicare for all". I'd like to use Medicare as the standard and make everybody with other ideas explain how their idea is different.
June 25, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter's last comment deserves to be noted: organized public support makes a difference. Also true is this: private insurers are mobilizing against the public option because they see that it is a harbinger of the end of their business model.
There are lots and lots of people making money from the system, and they know that the party may be over. They will spend and spend to keep the money flowing in.
June 25, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we heading for another Medicare Part D? If so would our president have the balls to veto it?
June 25, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I want a variation on "Medicare for All", but also with the ability to bargain with the full force of its clout.
June 25, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
VETO! I think Obama should threaten to veto any bill without a public option. He needs 50 votes exactly plus Biden. I think we can still do this. I think some greedy "centrist" Dems need their asses kicked and/or their pockets stuffed with cash .... whatever works.
June 26, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine that it's come to this? Folk are thrilled that a Senator comes around to the idea that it's a good idea to have "a public component" in our national health system? A public system isn't allowed to be mentioned in the debate, as advocates of a single-pay system get hustled off in handcuffs. But we're thrilled when someone says that it's a good idea to have even a public component. We sell our public health to the monied interests. Free markets have become our false God, as we follow the "hidden hand" of the mystical market as though it were the holy spirit. Pagan capitalism, I'd call it.
June 25, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad I know. The Rethug-fascist party is 100% against any public option whatsoever. What does that tell you about worshiping capitalism? Nothing is more sacred to conservatives than making a profit .... even if someone has to die. 50 million without insurance and the fascist answer is more subsidies for insurance companies.
Puke.
June 26, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Specter is a toad. He has NEVER taken a position that wasn't completely politically calculated. His being is uncluttered by a single moral principle.
June 26, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the politician's sign on for the plan instead of opting out of it I will consider it. In the meantime I will keep the plan I have.
June 26, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The truth is -- someone already knows exactly what this is going to look like. Who thinks it isn't all written and tied up with a bow? All this backing and forthing is just theater.
I would love to see what we will be "given" as a health care reformation!
June 26, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any talk of "level playing fields" is ridiculous.
The insurance industry wants what every giant industry in America wants.
It doesn't matter if its Big Oil, Big Pharma, defense contractors, or the insurers. None of them want to "compete" in a "open market" in that name of "free enterprise". They all want one thing .... a monopoly, a stranglehold, they want to be your only option.
June 26, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
As my brother used to say while working on Wall Street years ago "all I want is an unfair advantage". It was funny then but not so today.
There's no "level playing fields". Never has been. But that's OK with me as long as I have a chance to play on the same field. Without a real public option plan for Americans we won't even have a chance to play. Anything short of that will be a slow burn. Big Pharma and Big Ins will simply give in to pre-existing conditions, lower or cap their premiums (temporally), and when "HC Reform Bill" is signed in the Rose Garden the slow burn will begin the next day.The Insurance Giants will double their donations (to u know who - and it won't just be 'Pubs), hire more lobbyists, and slowly begin to dismantle the "reforms". Guaranteed people. This is why passage of a public option is so critical. They can't make a public option plan "go away" once it's law and culture. They can't push it back in the tube. But without it it will just be a matter of time before Insurance and Pharma once again control your health options, as if there is such a thing (talk about Big Gov) and the status quo will again return. This will be a monumental disappointment and tragedy equal to, for me, the assassination of President Kennedy.
June 26, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
My email has been inundated with organizations who don't like the thought of a one-payer system, trying to sell me on the usual sterile thoughts for for-profit health insurers. My family has exceptional health care, because of my years with an academic background. But my step daughter received ruthless pre-existing condition clauses and finally succumbed to Cancer.
Other family members suffered because of the monopoly by the mega insurance companies, whose bottom line is massive profits for their stockholders. Health care must exist for everybody, not just for the few as it is now. Commercial insurance--FINE! But let their be a government health care system similar to Europe. Choose your own doctor and do away with corrupt PPO and other wasteful plans. Do away with co-pays, premiums and deductibles, because in a nationwide pool everybody can afford it. Our car-makers will be on an equal footing with foreign imports.
Lose your job and you are unlikely to afford what is called health care. Only the wealthy families, and relatively stable employees don't want to upset the apple cart. As usual the status quo are trying to undermine any new plan for the whole legal population. No options, no exception--we all pay our share into a Universal government health care plan. With the arrival of the Obama administration we have two issues that are going to be a lightening rods, and in my way of thinking should be placed before the AMERICAN VOTER AS A NATIONWIDE REFERENDUM. HEALTH CARE AND IMMIGRATION REFORM. Of all the current issues in the chambers of Washington, these are the capstone problems facing this nation of Hurricane force. If our elected public servants try to pass immigration reform or a massive health care plan without the general publics voice, their could be massive ramifications on a grand scale.
Both overwhelming problems caused by years of neglect, must be resolved. Already special interest groups are spending millions of dollars, filling the airways of propaganda and corrupt info-commercials, to frighten people. Instead being mouth pieces for the special interest lobbyists, they had better take note that their whole careers representing supposedly the will of the people is in jeopardy. Because of these enormous cost attributed to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and HEALTH CARE--the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S INPUT SHOULD BE MANDATORY?
Forget the University professors, economists, think take tank scientists and the Chamber of Commerce, ACLU, Unions, big church and business entities--THE PEOPLE--should--HAVE THE LAST WORD? Both have their own cataclysmic cost problems to the American taxpayer. THE ONLY WAY TO SATISFY THE LIBERALS, DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, ATHEISTS, EXTREMISTS, PROTECTIONISTS, OPEN BORDER AND FREE TRADERS--IS BY A STATE TO STATE FEDERAL REFERENDUM.
June 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink