TPMDC

Citing Lack of Public Option, Pelosi Offers Light Criticism of Baucus Bill


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she hopes the Senate Finance Committee health care bill improves over time. But she's also glad that it's finally been unveiled.

"The fifth and final Congressional committee is now putting forward a product that will move this historic debate forward," Pelosi said.

But, she added, "The House bill clearly does more to make coverage affordable for more Americans and provides more competition to drive insurance companies to charge lower premiums and improve coverage."

"[W]e hope to see modifications that result in the Senate bill better reflecting the work of the House to make health care more affordable for all Americans and promote competition that is key to keeping costs lower. I believe the public option is the best way to achieve that goal," Pelosi said.

You can read the entire statement below the fold. Note that earlier this month, Pelosi said a bill without a public option--like Baucus' bill, for instance--could not pass the House. But she seems recently to have backed away from such an absolute position.

"Assuring the affordability of health care for all Americans and requiring accountability for insurance companies are two of our central principles in this reform.

"We look forward to studying the impact of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman's mark on America's families and businesses, and on the cost of health care. The fifth and final Congressional committee is now putting forward a product that will move this historic debate forward.

"We are pleased that Senator Baucus' plan mirrors some key provisions in the House proposal, including sweeping insurance reforms and consumer protections. The House bill clearly does more to make coverage affordable for more Americans and provides more competition to drive insurance companies to charge lower premiums and improve coverage. The House bill also does more to help seniors afford prescription coverage, closing the donut hole completely, while the Baucus proposal simply reduces the cost of brand name drugs in the donut hole.

"As this proposal evolves, we hope to see modifications that result in the Senate bill better reflecting the work of the House to make health care more affordable for all Americans and promote competition that is key to keeping costs lower. I believe the public option is the best way to achieve that goal."

Comments (10) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

September 16, 2009 1:34 PM   

Is Max Baucus the best Senator that the health insurance lobby can buy or is this a tactic to get the ball rolling and come back to it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 2:35 PM    in reply to make

Yeah, at this point we just need this bill out of committee so the process can move forward.

It is actually good news that no Republicans will support the bipartisan bill. It makes it harder for the ConservaDems to hide behind President Snowe's skirt. Now the ConservaDems have no excuses for an insurance company giveaway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 4:44 PM    in reply to make

Would the raucous Baucus Caucus mock us, shock us or talk us to death?
Would Snowe know "no" is no go fo' sho'?
Would Reid indeed cede the deed we need to succeed?
Would Nancy fancy necromancy? is Plan C too chancy?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 1:49 PM   

So today it looks like TPM has decided Nancy Pelosi supports the public option. Right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 2:34 PM   

Harry Reid also gave a statement about the bill but it was so quiet nobody heard it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 1:16 PM    in reply to theWalrus

Good one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 2:58 PM   

I am having a really hard time getting on board with a plan that requires everyone to purchase insurance (or pay a fine of $3800) from a private or publicly traded corporation. It's very difficult to imagine how such a plan -- even with subsidies -- works over the long run. Take the simple issue of subsidies. When the going gets tough, it will be easy to cut those subsidies. Yet, the law will still require all of us to purchase insurance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 17, 2009 1:18 PM    in reply to Mateo123

Me, too.

All these government programs that are "means tested" to an absolute cut-off point are horrendous. Whether it's 133% of poverty level or 400% of poverty level, the person one percent higher gets screwed.

If means testing is necessary, it should be on a sliding scale and connected to the actual cost of health insurance where each person lives.

Single. Payer. Now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:09 PM   

"is now putting forward a product".

A product? From the Law-Making Factory?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 16, 2009 3:11 PM   

Thank you Nancy. I hope you win.

Baucus' plan sucks for two big reasons:

1) No public option
2) Far fewer subsidies for middle class to help pay for compulsory insurance.

The House bill does both of these. IF you require people to buy, you have to help them buy it. Baucus' "Savings" all come on the backs of the working class. The couple trillion in "savings" is from slashing these subsidies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on