TPMDC
Warner: I'll Vote For Public Option if Health Care Reform Legislation Contains Costs
Brian Beutler | August 27, 2009, 4:53PM
Share
Send to a friend!
A spokesman for Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) confirms to me that Warner would vote for a health care bill with a public option. "It's not a make or break thing--he wants to see a health reform bill that contains costs, and if it includes a public option...he would vote for it."
The blog Blue Virginia first reported Warner's position this afternoon, though Warner's office notes that his support for any legislation--public option or no--is contingent upon its ability to control costs.
Warner has been ambivalent about the public option in the recent past, but this is the clearest indication yet that he'd support the measure.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Another Huckabee Pardon
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- CBO: Health Care Reform Will Lower Out-Of-Pocket Burden For Most Consumers
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Family Guy Mocks Chris Matthews' Inflated Ego
- Latest High-Flying Accused Ponzi Schemer Has Ties To Indiana Guv
- Limbaugh: Obama Is 'Wimpy Little Man-Child'
- Obama Issues New Orders On Afghanistan
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- Dems Add Entitlement Reform To Packed Agenda Ahead of 2010 Elections
- Huckabee Cites System's 'Failures' In Response To Washington Police Killings
- Gibbs: Social Office Not Problem With Dinner Crashers
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Why Have We Subjugated Ourselves?
- Why Have We Subjugated Ourselves?
- Obstructionism Trumps Transparency
- Progressives (and Obama) are Doing Better Than We Think -- and We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone
- Jeff Goldberg Faults Obama For Suggesting Settlement Expansion Leads To Violence
- A Dime In My Pocket
- Great Moments in CNN Journalism
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- Basic Investment Advice
- Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
- The Pivot
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Chris
August 27, 2009 4:55 PM
Fair enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
August 27, 2009 5:27 PM
That's a little more solid that what we constituents have been hearing, but I'm still pretty uncomfortable with it. Warner's few communications on the subject have been about costs and absolutely ruling out single-payer (never mind the contradiction that if you're really concerned about costs above all else, single-payer is the most effective.)
The problem is that Warner has never said much about what he means by "costs." Does he mean health care costs for us, as compared to our likely costs without reform? Does he mean costs to the federal government, no matter if it's an investment which lowers costs to consumers by a larger amount? Does he mean CBO scoring, which includes only savings which can be established under strict criteria, leaving out many of the widely expected systemic savings that are the whole point of health care reform?
I hope he's using his business skills to make sure we have a well-run, workable system. But I remain concerned that it sounds too much like the Blue Dogs, who think it's reasonable to cut the number of people covered or reimbursement for low-income people to cut "costs" below some arbitrary number, and can't seem to see the very real costs they are imposing on the country by doing so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jzap
August 27, 2009 5:36 PM
Well. Consider that health care in the U.S. costs twice as much as in other industrialized countries. Where's all that extra money going? Cut some of that off, and costs are automatically controlled.
Of course, if most of that extra money is going to fuel health-insurance companies' profits, they're gonna squawk like crazy and do everything they can to defeat reform. And that's exactly what we've been seeing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 27, 2009 5:50 PM
+1 YAY!!
We're getting a public option! We're getting a public option!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaraV
August 27, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to FreeRider
Still not counting my chickens...losing Teddy was a big blow. It's possible people will rally behind the cause in the wake of his death. But losing that one vote was big when you're counting on your fingers and toes for votes. All of a sudden, all eyes are on the MA legislature.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
August 27, 2009 5:55 PM
Contain costs ... um, isn't that what the public option is for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrToast
August 27, 2009 6:03 PM
He'll vote for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 27, 2009 6:06 PM
If he's primarily worried about controlling costs he should be a vocal advocate for single payer.
Are these people hypocrites, stupid or bought? I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive categories.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
August 27, 2009 6:50 PM
Here's how to tell a progressive from a liberal. A progressive votes for healthcare reform because it controls costs. A liberal votes for healthcare reform because it saves lives.
Unfortunately, we do not have a liberal party, we have a beancounter party.
The death of Kennedy sure does remind us that the Democratic Party once had a heart and soul. Now, it has accountants.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
August 27, 2009 7:11 PM in reply to bluebell
As I said above, I'd be happy with bean-counting in this particular case if they did it COMPETENTLY, because then it would be clear that single-payer is the only way to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
August 27, 2009 7:23 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The only way to go if you actually intend to deliver healthcare to all Americans, but unfortunately for a number of Democrats that is not a priority at all. It's easy to cut costs. All you have to do is stop delivering care. The Republicans wouldn't have such an easy time convincing folks that the Dems are going to euthanize granny if the Dems were talking more about care and less about cutting costs. Dems aren't talking cutting taxes or delivering more care. All they're talking about is cutting costs. I figure a smart guy like Warner knows how to focus to achieve a goal. His goal is cutting costs. Period. I don't want a guy like that having anything to do with my health because that guy is looking at a spreadsheet. He doesn't see me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
August 27, 2009 7:39 PM in reply to bluebell
You know, you just can't make it up. I'm hearing a "debate" on Lou Dobbs. The labor guy is selling public option as a cost cutting system. The insurance industry hack is selling universal healthcare, and improving Medicaid and Medicare. No wonder Americans are confused!! The Dems are trying so hard to be conservative they have allowed the Republicans to pretend to be liberals!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
August 27, 2009 7:21 PM
There is the cost of premiums to people who buy private insurance.
The out-of-pocket costs of people with insurance after they get treated.
The cost to federal government of its total health-care related spending.
The cost of the entire health care system within our society.
Saying "control costs" without indicating what costs is vague.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?