Snowe Still Opposing Pure Public Option -- Despite Weekend Reports to Contrary
Yesterday, I noted that reports had emerged out of Maine that, at a health care rally this past weekend, Sen. Olympia Snowe had changed course and come out in support of a trigger-free public option--a public option "available from day one," as reformers like to say.
That turns out not to be the case. Here's the quote that was first reported:
I believe that the reforms we are creating will result in more competitive, affordable and innovative options for Mainers, yet we can all agree that we must not leave universal access to chance. That is why I also support a public plan which must be available from day one.
And here's the full quote, provided by Sen. Snowe's staff:
I believe that the reforms we are creating will result in more competitive, affordable and innovative options for Mainers, yet we can all agree that we must not leave universal access to chance. That is why I support a public plan which is available from day one--in any state where private plans fail to ensure guaranteed affordable coverage."
You can read her full statement here. This will frustrate reformers--who coined the language Snowe's using here. It represents no change from Snowe's previous position--that the public option should only be made available, on the state level, if private insurance companies don't expand access and lower prices enough to get everybody covered.
"Throughout the entire health care debate, Senator Snowe has emphasized that we must first, reform health insurance, and if plans then fail to offer affordable coverage, a public plan should then be offered from day one," says Snowe Press Secretary Julia Wanzco. "Senator Snowe's position remains the same on this issue."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Well considering that private plans HAVE failed to ensure guaranteed affordable coverage in all 50 states (and DC), that isn't much of a trigger!
July 22, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck her. We don't need Snowe to pass healthcare. And if push comes to shove, is she really willing to filabuster to kill the bill?
John
July 22, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck all the Republicans. They are blatantly choosing the profits of drug and insurance corporations over the health of the people they represent. That is cruel, greedy, and immoral.
July 22, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM...you need to get aggressive and confirm your reporting prior to going to print. Press the folks you are getting your info from; otherwise you getting played and losing credibility.
July 22, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
These politicians act like they are discussing something slightly inconvenient for people, they don't seem to get that this is about people's lives.
July 22, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most apropriate way to make these blow hards aware of the tragedy many are enduring because of no or inadequate health insurance is to cancel the insurance provided by the government for all congressmen and senators. As they theatrically say "Until they talk the talk and walk the walk they will never totally understand the actual hardships." Think of all the money we would save and could be applied to the deficit!
July 24, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, it's not about getting her to vote for it. It's about getting her not stand with a filabuster. Any indication that she'd tolerate a public plan makes it more likely that she won't filibuster health care because of one - even if it's not what she'd personally vote for.
July 22, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...we must first, reform health insurance, and if plans then fail to offer affordable coverage, a public plan should then be offered from day one,"
Anyone want to explain to me how these two things are not mutually exclusive?
How can you have a trigger that waits to see if plans offer affordable health care AND offer a public option from day one?
July 22, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. You just beat me to it mardam.
July 22, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple.
Rules of logic do not apply to United States Senators, or anything they say. As no one in the MSM will ever point this out, there is no penalty for being absurd, in fact it is expected.
July 22, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. This is perfect example political doublespeak if ever there ever was one. It is nonsensical contradictory word confetti.
July 22, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or does her statement make no sense. If the public option requires an assessment or some "trigger" then it isn't available on "day one." She can't have it both ways. Its not even a reasonable obfuscation. It is a sentence with two obviously contradictory clauses.
The only way I can see to reconcile those two clauses is if she means that the assessment of affordability will be done on day one and immediately trigger the public option on its first day. Or maybe that its not the public option, but the public option "trigger" that will be available on day one. But neither of those interpretations are implied in her particular word choice.
This, in other words, is not the language of someone who is trying to make their wishes or intentions clear. It is the language of someone who is very deliberately muddying the water.
July 22, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now why would that be?
July 22, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sorry, I must have continued talking after you left the room. I do that sometimes..."
July 22, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
She may be trying to triangulate on this issue, to set herself up with enough flexibility that she can vote or not vote for the final bill depending on which is safest for her politically at the time. Thus, on the day it comes to vote for it, she can say, "well, I want a public option but only if certain conditions are met first, and that's why I voted against it." Or maybe the opposite, who knows. But either way it's just nervous political posturing.
July 22, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is to the lazy bums out there. Quit waiting for the rest of the country to pay for you health care. They don't owe you anything. Get out and earn it yourself and show your children you were a up standing American Citizen.
July 23, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like a true Republican.
July 26, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not American.
July 24, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Olympia opposes the public option. where have you guys been? She's as opposed to helping the peasantry as much as all the rest of the Republicans, its just she has better PR people. Those of us here in Maine know EXACTLY what's she's doing and where she'd like this all to go.......
In all her years in office, she has done very little to help the average guys. She's bought and paid for by the medical and insurance industries.
July 27, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink