TPMDC
Lincoln: "I Would Not Support a Solely Government-Funded Public Option"
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has been tepidly supportive of a public option in the past, so her comments to reporters today come as a bit of a head-scratcher. "I would not support a solely government-funded public option. We can't afford that," Lincoln said.
This sounds to me like a hedge: there's a difference between a government-funded public option, and one that's financed by consumer premiums, which is what the House's health care reform bill will call for. Lincoln's office wasn't immediately available for comment to clarify this point, but we'll post her response when we get it.
Comments (23) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
JohnMcCSF
September 2, 2009 1:38 PM
The pressure is on the Dems to produce. Everyone knows it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
September 2, 2009 1:41 PM
Go after her Wal-Mart ass and primary her!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 2, 2009 1:44 PM
I don't see this as a head-scrather. She saying she wouldn't support something that she knows is not being proposed. It's like saying "I would never support a proposal to pull the plug on grandma."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
September 2, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
That's my read on it, too. I actually read this more as a message to conservative constituents. To wit: "I do not support a government takeover of health care (by the way, that's not actually what's being proposed, but by saying this, I make it look like I'm on your side and opposed to Obamacare even though I actually said no such thing)."
It's politician's double-speak, but it's understandable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PeninsulaMatt
September 2, 2009 2:30 PM in reply to Xantar
The irony is that her doublespeak might actually be HELPFUL to the debate since it could potentially help quell the outrage the crazies are feeling.
BTW: have you looked at a map of Obama / Dem support? Arkansas ranks pretty low. It is more like Oklahoma than Missouri. To get this sort of a response out of a Senator from that state is a pretty good sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrToast
September 2, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
Hell, maybe she doesn't know.
Maybe she's channeling Maria Bartiromo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
September 2, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to FreeRider
Honestly sounds to me like she's trying to communicate "I support the currently proposed public option, the one that isn't solely government funded" in a way that won't get her murdered by the other Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
September 2, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to mcc
Except she's supposed to be a Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
September 3, 2009 12:52 AM in reply to SqueakyRat
I'm confused. We are talking about Blanche Lincoln, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
September 2, 2009 1:47 PM
Tons of wiggle room here. Oh wait, I'm supposed to freak out right? OK....AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
September 2, 2009 1:51 PM in reply to plan69
And then you're supposed to declare:
"I'm sorting out which candidate I will vote for in 2010; Obama isn't one of them."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
September 2, 2009 1:58 PM in reply to plan69
Yeah, the concern troll baiting around here is getting a little tiresome. But judging from the number of comments, it's probably boosting visitor numbers. So it goes, I guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
September 2, 2009 2:19 PM
Slick chick, very slick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
September 2, 2009 2:26 PM
She is a US senator. She knows exactly what she is talking about.
"Solely government funded." (by which she means solely funded by tax revenue).
Medicare enrollees pay a share of the plan costs. Part B premiums for example are set to cover roughly 25% of the program costs. In addition there are deductibles and co-pays and no catastrophic coverage.
Medicaid has much less cost sharing, but states have flexibility to impose some cost-sharing. I would say close to solely funded.
VA- solely government funded.
"Public option"-if chosen within the exchange: funded by enrollee premiums, plus employer's share (for those who are going into the exchange), plus government subsidies for those who cannot afford it. Unless the only people who choose the plan are those with no medicaid eligibility but eleigible for the maximum subsidy, this is not even close to solely government funded.
Again, she knows exactly what she is saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
September 2, 2009 2:29 PM in reply to Economides
"She is a US senator. She knows exactly what she is talking about."
You ever hear Inhofe talk about policy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
September 2, 2009 2:36 PM in reply to mike from Arlington
I just mean she knows full well how government programs work, that no one is proposing a solely funded option and that even the government's main health care plan is not solely funded by the taxpayers.
In other words she offering her vote to the White House (for a price no doubt).
Hasn't ANYONE ever seen sausage being made?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FMArouet21
September 2, 2009 2:45 PM
What about a public option that works like a regulated public utility?
There would be no owners or shareholders. It could be an independent utility closely supervised by HHS. It would require no government subsidies to operate, other than income trigger assistance that would apply equally to all health care customers. All revenues for the public health utility would come from paying customers.
It would be purely an insurance arrangement permitting no profits and minimizing administrative overhead to something like 2 percent (like Taiwan) or at maximum 4 percent (like France). It would work just like any private insurance company in attracting customers for a range of policy options, and it should work far better than most insurance companies in paying out claims swiftly, i.e., electronically.
And there would be no multimillions of dollars in bonuses for managers or dividends going to shareholders (for there would not be any). While such a public health utility would need a quality control unit to detect fraud and would need to have databases to monitor standard fees and covered medications, it would not be wasting 20 percent of income on administrative staff whose job it is to try to deny claims and to give excuses for dropping customers from coverage, as private health insurers typically do.
My guess is that customers would flock to such an public health utility entity in droves and would force the private insurers to stop screwing their customers and start providing real value. And a public health utility should be completely tax revenue neutral, for it would pay for itself through customer premiums. It would be national in scope and therefore sustainable in an actuarial sense (unlike the chimera of local "coops").
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
September 2, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to FMArouet21
Is it your impression that the insurance companies are the ones who do not provide real value in health care? I suggest you look at the people who are providing the care, lots of which costs you money and does you no good medically.
Medicare is a public plan. They do not pay providers in a way that maximizes value to the beneficiaries. Not at all. They are wasting a lot of our money and allowing people to get worse care than they deserve.
How to improve delivery of care will be a big an issue for your pulic utility as it will be for Medicare or any other payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
September 2, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to Economides
It's my impression that my private insurance company spends 25% or more of the money that I give them on things other than providing care of any type to anyone.
How much of that remaining 75%, ostensibly spent on care, is wasted in the fashion you describe is another question altogether.
Is improving delivery going to make it any more effective, if the care itself is of dubious or unexamined value to the health issue it is supposed to address?
I don't think so - but I also don't think that's what you meant. I think you're right about the size of the issue for whomever the payer will be.
I think that any legislation we get is going to really need some anti-fraud provisions with extensive punitive damages - something with a genuinely deterrent effect. It should be sufficient to impoverish participants, "kill" any corporate "person" involved in it, and severely punish the beneficiaries of the criminal activities, be they venture capitalists or institutional investors.
Something with teeth.
Big, nasty teeth ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
September 2, 2009 6:48 PM in reply to Economides
I'm sorry Doofus, but in the end, regardless of how much money Medicare wastes in fraud, it wastes a lot less than private insurance, which devotes 30% of its costs to non-medical expenditures (overhead, profits).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
September 2, 2009 2:46 PM
I wouldn't support a solely government-funded pony for every child in the US but no one is proposing that anymore than anyone is proposing a solely government-funded public option. There's only $2 billion in seed money in HR 3200 for the public option and the rest comes out of premiums paid by policy holders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
September 2, 2009 3:24 PM
Obviously trying to walk back previous comments. I think you are going to see all of these Blue Dogs try to do the same, starting with Bacus!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
September 2, 2009 3:40 PM
This protracted discussion over the final votes of this handful of wishy-washy Bluedogs is irrelevant. Reporters need to start asking them about cloture and party unity vs a Republican filibuster. Any other reporting is ultimately unimportant if we already have the 51 Senate votes, with or without Biden.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?