TPMDC

Nelson: Speech Was 'Game Changer'; Snowe? Not So Much

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

We already know that House progressive leaders are giving President Obama's health care speech positive, if not overwhelming reviews. But they're engaged in a bit of legislative tug-of-war with Senate centrists, particularly over the public option. So how did conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans react?

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who's come out in support of the idea of triggering the public option, said "I think it was a bit of a game changer."

That's about as positive a review as you can get. But right now all eyes are on Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and her response was a bit less enthusiastic.

"I appreciate that President Obama shared many of the details of his vision for health reform at this pivotal and historic moment, and signaled a willingness to work across party lines," Snowe said. "At the same time, as I continue to oppose the inclusion of a public option in any package, I would have preferred that the issue were taken off the table as I have urged the President - given that any bill with a public option will not pass the Senate and this divisive subject is unnecessarily delaying our ability to reach common ground."

However, she added that she's "encouraged the President recognized that we cannot leave this imperative to chance - and acknowledged the safety net plan I have proposed is a 'constructive' idea 'worth exploring.' Such a fallback plan would be offered if, after we have implemented landmark insurance market reforms, private insurers fail to deliver the affordable coverage Americans require."

Which basically means, even though the speech allayed Democratic concerns across the spectrum, we're still on trigger watch.

Join the Conversation!

50 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

September 10, 2009 9:10 AM   

As someone commented yesterday:
Let Roy Rogers keep Trigger.

Triggers are for kids.

Don't let Olympia have the role of She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:18 AM    in reply to ttarleton

LMAO! Who said that?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 12:30 PM    in reply to ttarleton

She can vote for an up or down vote and still vote against the bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:28 AM   

I first heard it from Rumpole of the Baily, (Leo McKern) but I think it goes back much further than that. Either way, Olympia makes a point - thanks to blue dogs a public option may not pass the Senate. Makes a big case for campaign finance reform in my book. Corporations, and especially insurance companies and pharma companies, can't die from cancer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:03 AM    in reply to yakative

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS is presently working to undo what little campaign finance regulation we already have.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 12:58 PM    in reply to yakative

"She Who Must Be Obeyed" is originally from H. Ridder Haggard's She.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:38 AM   

Snowe is full of just like the rest of the Republican obstructers and reactionaries. If Nelson, that creepy old sell out of a Democrat, says it's a game changer, then it's clear the dynamics have shifted and the Democrats need to plow ahead with all the speed and force that they can. No more delays. no more allowing the Republicans and Baucus to stall things even further.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:09 AM    in reply to oleeb

She's "encouraged" about the bill itself, but does she still want to filibuster? Of course she does. Pathetic. She needs to be hammered on voting for cloture.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

September 10, 2009 11:51 AM    in reply to Shrubbit

Doesn't seem to have dawned on her that a bill without the public option is not going to pass the House. If she holds out for a trigger, she may very well be the one who kills health insurance reform. That's not what her voters want. It looks like she is toadying to the Republican Right while using a trigger mechanism as simply cover with her voters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:44 AM   

i don't care if snowe votes for reform. i'd be more than happy for her to vote against it. all i want is her vote for an up or down. nobody is saying she has to vote for the actual bill.

why is it that now, if you're against a bill, the default position is to vote against even having an opportunity to vote against it?

i mean, they've basically gotten rid of the filibuster mechanism altogether and made a rule that it takes 60 to pass a bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:08 AM    in reply to nova voter

EXACTLY.

The White House should be pounding any Republicans still even rermotely considered "moderate" (Collins, Snowe, etc.) about whether they are going to refuse to let the Senate even VOTE on the bill.

The bill will pass if it comes to the floor. I'd bet that almost no Democrat has the *blank* to vote against it on final passage. They know they'll never get through a primary if they do. So instead they are hiding, like cowards, behind proceedure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 12:03 PM    in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness

But that's smart politics and we are talking about Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 12:22 PM    in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness

"Up or down vote! Up or down vote!" Who used to be chanting that? I seem to remember it was ReThuglicans. My memory must be going bad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:53 AM   

If Snowe is unwilling to join us then we look to clear procedural hurdles. This is insane. They needed 50 votes to pass the Bush tax cuts (and because of Democratic weaknesses, they exceeded that). Those tax cuts are driving the deficit. And, meanwhile there are still 50,000,000 people without insurance and we need 60 votes to help those 50,000,000? No way.

I see 50 senators passing the public option and I see it passing the House with about 10 votes to spare.

There are 50, but Obama has -- absolutely has to -- take out Emanuel or whoever is feeding the leaks that the progressives are the problem. If he wants a public option, he can get a public option. But, his shop has to aggressively court people just as he encouraged people last night.

The worst of all worlds, though is this:
individual mandate with subsidies up to 200% of poverty or something like that. Forget it. If we have an individual mandate, we have to have meaningful subsidies (as in: 400% of poverty level) and a public option. Anything less will be treated as a massive tax increase on working people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:53 AM   

I hope the Dems have reached out to other possibilities in the Republican Senate Caucus. The belief is that they need one vote to give the Conservadems cover to vote for the eventual bill - even if it included the Public Option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:54 AM   

”At times, I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office. " -- Lindsey Graham


Jeez. "Combative?" Have you watched any of those town hall meeting Mr. Graham? The President was civil compared to the Tea Baggers (then again a wolverine is civil compared to the Tea Baggers.) If you want him to stop being "combative", then stop the bickering and fighting and lying on your side of the aisle.


And "dignity of the office?"-- tell that to Rep. Joe Wilson.

It takes two to play "partisan."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:31 AM    in reply to illlich

These folks live in their own reality. That is an assinine statement

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:42 AM    in reply to illlich

Well, give him some credit: at least he didn't say "uppity."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:55 AM   

I think Obama made a good argument, while remaining open to other's ideas that would accomplish the same as the Public Option.

Otherwise, there is no good argument against a public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:41 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

And Snowe makes an incoherent, ridiculous argument. She is opposed to any inclusion of the public option but proposes to make implementing one conditional on the actual market behavior of insurers.

As I have argued elsewhere accepting "the trigger" is accepting the public option in principle and in fact except it puts the onus on the insurers to meet expectation rather than on the government to successfully implement something rather complex. In other words she supports inclusion of a public option, so long as it is conditional on continued market failure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:21 AM    in reply to Economides

There are states with no competition, and states with little competition.

What is a trigger gonna do for those forced to buy insurance in those states?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 12:53 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

1. There will be an exchange. This is the only way the public option presents itself as a choice, and it is the same place where other insurers can and mostly will enter the market.

The boundaries of the exchange are of course crucial. The broader the boundaries the more companies offering insurance you are likely to see. The Part D experience is at least somewhat instructive here.

2. Under the new rules for insurance the competition will mostly be about who can create the biggest risk pool--not who is best at denying care. In some ways it will be better to have fewer very large insurers for the whole country aggregating risk (thereby lowering average expected payouts) and having the scale to implement a more sensible reimbursement system that reward value of volume.

3. The role of health care providers is more important than the insurers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 1:50 PM    in reply to Economides

see my usual response to your comments below.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:22 AM    in reply to Economides

a trigger is kicking the can down the road.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 1:14 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

A trigger is a mechanism to enforce good behavior just lie the public option is. If you think threats have no impact that's your business, there are many many examples where they actually work. The head of the Wisconsin state health plan has said that he was sucessfully able to use the threat of operating a state plan to get firms that were the only insurers in a county to change behavior.

Look, everything that insures are doing now to fight the public option is based on the threat that there might be one. Therats work.

The other thing you are missing is how the threat changes the political frame. It gets everyone to focus on the behavior of the insurers. Think of it as probation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 1:46 PM    in reply to Economides

I know your position, like I know you know mine.

I'm sure you know my usual "argument" response.

But instead, I'll repeat myself:

what about people forced to buy insurance where there is little or no competition? (as the President mentioned in his speech). Indeed, the boundaries are what we are talking about. Perhaps you are also advocating the Republican idea of allowing people to buy across state boarders, taking away the state rights of regulation. I don't know. But as it stands now, as I understand it, the trigger flips a big ole bird to people forced to buy insurance in places like Alabama. Here's your exchange, there is only one choice. But hey, if the insurance companies keep acting liek they do, then maybe we'll do something.

The tigger is, indeed, kicking the can down the road. While, I know, you see it as a threat, it can also be used as a free for all until the trigger goes into effect.

meaning, A trigger that does not go into effect for 2, 3 or 5 years gives the Insurance Industry 2, 3, or even 5 years to charge what they like to people forced to buy their product.

To you, this is impossible. Even though the behavior of the industry would suggest otherwise. I'm not willing to trust them.

Lastly, triggers can be removed, and as Paul Krugman pointed out, usually are.

I've linked and posted the Kaiser studies showing that subsidies will not cover everyone. I've talked about how subsidizing the insurance industry is distasteful to me on a whole. In the spirit of comnpromise, I've held my nose at that. I've held my nose at all these proposals, because single payer is the better cure. I'm compromising. The trigger does not work for me. The PO is the compromise.

I do appreciate your vigilance. As you can see, I share that attribute.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 3:18 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

1.We should create a national market for insurance or at least a regional one. Doing it state by state would be at the very least wasteful--setting up exchanges do cost money.

2. I do not see the point of keeping state regulation. The reform proposals set powerful national regulations on insurers so they are already preempting state prerogatives. This is as it should be. There should be one set of national regulations. The Republican proposal to allow interstate sales with state of origin regulation is of course a blow job for the insurance lobby. It allows a race to the bottom as we have in the credit card industry. It is a fraudulent idea.

3. You see the period before the trigger kicks in as the last week of high school for seniors. Party time. I see it as putting the insures under the microscope. If the insurers believe they can avoid competition by not drawing attention to themselves they will. Happens in markets all the time. If they go wild then guarantee the very thing you say they don't want.

4. Triggers can be undone, but so can publicly run insurance plans. If a public plan is a sine qua non for you then you have to tell me what you are going to do to fix Medicare screwed up reimbursement policies that reward inefficiency. If congress creates it, congress can screw it up or sell it to the highest bidder. All of these mechanisms are equally vulnerable.

5. Insurers are bad because they deny people care in all sorts of disgusting ways. They are not the ones making health care unaffordable. In fact better insured people spend more than those who are not insured, or not generously insured. Costs are driven by factors such as technology development and diffusion, over-utilization of care, rising income, trends in health status and aging, and fee for service type incentives that reward quantity over quality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 4:07 PM    in reply to Economides

I don't know why you like having the same conversations over and over.

1. A public option is the best guard. Tje exchange has yet to be set up, but with a public option, you know competition will be king, regardless of the structure.

2. States Rights will play a role here, we'll have to see how it plays out. Again. A public option is the best guard in this unknown.

3. Uncertainty. You trust. I'm skeptical. I think my way is safest.

4. A trigger is easier to undue than a program. See medicare.

5. As always, here you are being deceiving to score points in an argument. It is rather undiginified. Obama admits the Public Option will bring the competition needed, and being a govt run program will allow certain costs to be negated, which will effect the cost of premiums. The Krugman sees it. Obama sees it. You don't. I trust them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 9:04 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

#5 Competition for insurers should lower costs or restrain cost growth by a small amount in places where no or little competition exists. To pretend that lack of competition or merely profit-motives are a major reason for unsustainable cost growth is foolish. The President surely does not believe that. NO health economist in the country would tell you that.

To pretend that a public option, which I would happily support, will make a major impact on cost growth is simply to misunderstand what drives cost. If it were true then you'd have to explain why Medicare cost growth has completely different origins.

Anyway I'll leave you alone, now. I am curious whether you ever read the Atul Gawande New Yorker article from June and what you thought of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:05 PM    in reply to Economides

A trigger is a mechanism to enforce good behavior just lie the public option is.... Think of it as probation.

I can't help remembering that Philip Garrido had a parole officer..... to, y'know, enforce good behavior. A fat lot of good that did Jaycee Lee Dugard, or her two kids, fathered by Garrido after he abducted Jaycee when Jaycee was 11.

I trust I don't need to explain the analogy any further.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:24 AM   

Sounds like more political mumbo jumbo to me dude!

RT
www.anon-tools.vze.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:25 AM   

I applaud the president for laying out specifics last night, however, nothing new was really established. Yes. He took on the critics in the media and republican party--that's always a good thing, but he left most of the reform in the hands of the insurance companies and he offered once again, faint support for the public option. That said, i'm glad he didn't throw the public option under the bus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:29 AM   

Can someone explain how these 6 people got on the Finance Committee. I mean we have a Senator from Montana, with a small population, a senator from Maine with a small population, a senator from Iowa with a small population, a senator from North Dakota with a small population, so how did these folks get to decide what the majority of americans need!!!!

Thanks for answering

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 12:28 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Seniority.

But the real question is how these 6, who are only a fraction of the committee, became the only ones in on the "negotiations." And THAT is because the Chair of the Committee is from one of the most rural, unpopulated states in the country.

Don't forget: the Senate is not meant to represent citizens. It represents states. The House of Representatives is called "the people's house" because it DOES represent citizens.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 3:05 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

Thank you Cal Gal. I am a Cal Gal too

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

wyt

user-pic

September 10, 2009 10:30 AM   

Depending on how the "safety net" is designed, couldn't it look a lot like a first draft of a public option?

Also note Obama spoke of "a coop," not of "coops" as an alternative. Yet what's the difference between a single, national coop and the public option, if that's defined as self-sustaining and not dependent on public funds? If it's a single, national coop rather than a different coop for each state, is the difference more than semantic? Letting those receiving the public option have a role in governing it - isn't that all the "coop" aspect would mean?

So call the first iteration the "McCain-Snowe Safety Net," and the second the "US Health Cooperative," and let them brag that there's no longer a "public option" in the bill. Sounds fine to me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:42 AM    in reply to wyt

We'll see. Both a national exchange and a national coop are more desirable than cutting them up into 50 pieces.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:32 AM   

I first heard it from Rumpole of the Baily, (Leo McKern) but I think it goes back much further than that. Either way, Olympia makes a point - thanks to blue dogs a public option may not pass the Senate. Makes a big case for campaign finance reform in my book. Corporations, and especially insurance companies and pharma companies, can't die from cancer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:39 AM   

What is that scares the pants off of Repubs like Snowe and others about the public option?? Are they that much in bed with the insurance companies~

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 10:52 AM   

I'd love to have Ms. Snowe tell us what would replace PO for cost effectiveness. I think she opposes PO for the same reasons the foolish Mr, Wilson shouted "It's a lie!" during the speech. She has an intractable mind once she's collected all of her eggs are in one basket. She may not be a flaming jerk like Joe, but just as rigid. They "negotiate" with similar flexibility.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:03 AM   

Baucus BS. The Big Snowe job. Give the phonies & the useless the oppurtunity & they'll prove that their phony & useless. Another one bites the dust.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:10 AM   

I live in Maine & getting Snowe to sign off any real HCR bill is not going to happen.

ME residents support a public option (according to Nate Silver) and I know her office has been inundated with calls/emails asking her to support a public option.

She will not budge.

In order to get her vote, any cost containment measure will have to be severely compromised.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 12:30 PM    in reply to PorkBelly

Time for you up there in Maine to elect a Democrat, at least one, to the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 1:33 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

Believe me, we tried with Tom Allen against Collins last election.

Snowe & Collins have ridiculously high approval ratings and reputations (which are not entirely undeserved) for being moderate.

It's hard to guess at this point, though, who would be a better choice than Tom Allen and he lost by more than 10pts.

On the upside, we have Pingree & Michaud in the House who are stand up Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:25 AM   

Don't drop the public option: DROP OLYMPIA SNOWE!
Time to drop on this (non existent) bipartisanship nonsense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:34 AM   

She says, "...any bill with a public option will not pass the Senate..."

She means, "I will not vote for the public option, and you cannot get it done without my vote."

This is not something eshe is powerless to do something about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 11:43 AM   

Memo to Sen. Snowe" The pitch black hair looks stupid. You are an old lady, show a little gray.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 1:13 PM   

In the past two elections, New England voters have purged our delegations to the House of any taint of Republicanism. It's time for us to finish the job and get rid of dinosaurs like Snowe and Collins - they're an embarrasment to New England.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 1:23 PM   

"I'll get your public option, my pretty, and your little dog too!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 10, 2009 3:48 PM   

Snowe: "...as I continue to oppose the inclusion of a public option in any package..."

Hey, Senator: nobody *cares* what you oppose. The American people rejected your party and your candidates. They put Obama in place. Elections have consequences. You are not significant. Go away.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on