TPMDC
Brown: Obama Implicitly Demanded a Public Option
Brian Beutler | September 9, 2009, 9:54PM
Share
Send to a friend!
On a conference call with reporters just now, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said that Obama's decision to adopt Sen. Max Baucus' $900 billion financing scheme was a "major concession," but gave Obama high marks for his statement on the public option.
"He wants to always be open to ideas...but he sets his standard. And the standard is it's gotta offer better choice... it's got to discipline insurance companies... and it's got to bring prices down," Brown said in response to a question from TPMDC. "The other options don't even come close to doing it."
Brown's statement amounts to a belief that Obama has implied a demand for a public option. Obama has insisted that the plan he signs must increase competition and bring prices down. But though he's said he's open to triggers and co-ops, Brown says those options fall short enough that they likely won't meet the President mark. "I think he laid it out in a way that only a public option will get us where we want to go."
I asked Brown whether he would be supportive if Obama ultimately came to the conclusion that one or both of the alternatives--a co-op or a trigger plan--do meet his criteria. Brown said he'd have to wait and see, but said he'd only be supportive if he were convinced that the policies on offer would meet those goals.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- High-End Grifters
- Another Huckabee Pardon
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- CBO: Health Care Reform Will Lower Out-Of-Pocket Burden For Most Consumers
- 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
- 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
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- 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
- The Pivot
- Basic Investment Advice
- Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
rynato
September 9, 2009 10:15 PM
If Obama is implicitly demanding a public option... how does that change the game? We still have the same middle-of-the-road'ers who won't go for it, don't we? Public option, lose enough of the center to count. Lose the public option and lose the left.
Maybe I don't get it. But yes, I want a public option to keep those insurance SOBs honest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
September 9, 2009 10:22 PM in reply to rynato
I want a public option thats stronger than what the president proposed. Every one should be free to buy into it. Thats the only way it will even pose a threat tpo big insurance
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
September 9, 2009 10:49 PM in reply to 3star2nr
One step at a time.
A strong Public Option, even if initially limited in availability, sets us on the path. Once in place, it's relatively easy to expand access.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
September 10, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to mjshep
I rewatched the speech. Obama kinda made a public option a requirement. Also Im sure alot more than 5% will sign up for it.
If you have expensive private insurance, you can cancel your policy. You would now be "uninsured" and can enter the excahnge and opt inot the public option. It was a very smart political move . And a very smart way to phrase it.
I think we're gonna get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnacherForester
September 9, 2009 10:20 PM
"Implicit" is the refuge of those too fearful to be explicit. We waited all this time and "implicit" is the best they can come up with? Color me distressed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
September 9, 2009 10:25 PM
Major concession my ass. The ONLY good thing about the Baucus bill is how it is paid for. Taxing the gold plated plans is a great way of lowering overall costs in the long run. THAT IS A FACT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
September 9, 2009 10:50 PM in reply to theone718
The Baucus bill will not be the Senate bill or the final bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sisterkevin
September 10, 2009 3:11 AM in reply to theone718
TY theone718 -
"Implicit" is the refuge of those too fearful to be explicit.
I have never seen anything talked around like the PO. It's almost a Sat Nite Live skit. Laughable if it were not so depressing.
Can anybody in this crowd talk straight!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 9, 2009 10:46 PM
Here's how co-ops would work. This is the second time I've stolen this post from fivethirtyeight.com. It was posted on Nate Silver's piece titled: Analysis: Public Option Is Likely Popular in Most Blue Dog Districts.
Wayward Son said...
Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota used premium payments to fund $15 million in employee bonuses, cover $35,000 for a retirement party and pay for other questionable expenses, according to a state audit released Tuesday.
..
Company officials said Tuesday that changes were already being made when Hamm ordered the audit in March, following criticism of a sales managers' trip to the Grand Cayman Islands that cost $238,000. The company's chief executive at the time, Mike Unhjem, was fired later that month.
..
Hamm said that of the $418 million in the company's administrative expenses over the past five years, the audit found "millions and millions of dollars in excessive expenses."
The report said that premium payments funded nearly $15 million in employee bonuses that were almost assured regardless of performance, a $3.5 million investment in a hotel in Fargo and sales reward trips to resorts totaling $1.2 million.
----------------
And yes, BCBS of North Dakota would have qualified as a "non-profit co-op" under the Senate Finance Committee's plan.
September 9, 2009 8:29 AM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lamonth
September 10, 2009 6:47 AM
why doesn't congress just pass .05 national sales tax to pay for healthcare reform. This way, everyone in america will contribute to the plan. also, this money should go into a healthcare fund and can only be allocated to healthcare related expenses and cannot be collateralized with gov't notes
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
September 10, 2009 7:15 AM in reply to lamonth
Great idea. Tax the poor to pay for Universal Health Care. Maybe we should make it a full percent and use it to give the wealthy another tax break. After all, its been. like, six years since they had one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lamonth
September 10, 2009 9:05 AM in reply to cawleybo
tax the poor. i am sure the poor would gladly pay a 1/2 cent national sales tax if it would mean getting healthcare for their family. you can also exclude life necessities from the tax ie milk, bread clothes valued under $100. look, the country is going to have to solve this problem as a whole and the poor will have to sacrifice for the betterment of society just like everyone else
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
September 10, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to lamonth
Not a challenge, just a question: Would a national sales tax pass constitutional muster? The 16th amendment enumerates the right of the Federal Government "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration" but it says nothing about taxing transactions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?