TPMDC

Obama to AFL: I Believe a Public Option Would Improve Quality, Bring Down Costs

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In prepared remarks to the AFL-CIO, President Obama will say, "I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."

Not much meat there, though he will caution, "I'll have a lot more to say about this Wednesday night, and I don't want to give it all away."

But surely reformers--and AFL leaders who've vowed to oppose health care reform legislation that does not include a public option--were hoping to hear more.

You can read the full text of his remarks here.

Join the Conversation!

37 comments

Recommend Recommend (1)

September 7, 2009 1:48 PM   

Triggers work both ways, Mr. President. Your support for the public option will TRIGGER my 2012 vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 7:00 PM    in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

As a measure of how this is going, labor leaders reportedly asked Obama to please not screw up their other legislative priorities.

The Presdient said there is now broad agreement in Congress. Unfortunately the agreement centers around an unworkable plan that wouldn't have been seriously considered if not for unprecedented industry lobbying. As soon as the general public wraps their head around the concept of an individual mandate health care reform is dead.

Hillary 2012

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 1:55 PM   

It is looking more and more likely that the public option is dead. But I have a question. How removed from reality are these right wing wackos when they do not think that the insurance industry is making obscene profits? Case in point, George Will in this video.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2815

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:05 PM    in reply to atticus1104

I disagree. If anything, the public option is gaining momentum; due in large part to the assurance from progressives, some moderates, minorities, and labor (all the base of the democratic party) that health insurance reform, without a viable public option, is unacceptable. No reform bill will pass without it.

We need to keep up the pressure. Pressure. Pressure.

Write your representatives and the President, RIGHT NOW!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:30 PM    in reply to willia451

I agree. The public option has renewed steam, because progressives have demonstrated the guts to make a stand around it. This is why Nelson, Snowe and company are desperate to come up with some sort of deceptive half-measure like the "trigger".

Here is my hopeful reading: Obama stated clearly and early in the speech that the opponents are offering no alternatives. So they are on notice: they have two days to come up with something that will deliver the improved quality and cost-cutting pressure that the public option can deliver, or else he is going to come out swinging for the fences on the public option Wednesday night.

They won't be able to come up with such an alternative.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:45 PM    in reply to willia451

Agreed!

President Obama has RIGHTLY been leaving the work to the Congress, where it belongs. And it has gained him an advantage: he's stayed out of it, except to repeatedly encourage bipartisanship, and the Republicans have shown themselves as opposed to anything and everything.

Now they can be ignored without too much concern over political damage.

There WILL be a public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:48 PM    in reply to JNagarya

Boy, I hope your prognostications are correct. I'm weary of the folks who are trying to convince me that any warm bucket of spit will do for the time being; until we can get PO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 7:37 PM    in reply to 714Day

I don't see anyone trying to convince me that les than public option will do. Possible alternatives roughly as effective; but not anything against it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 9, 2009 12:32 PM    in reply to JNagarya

Well, I'm glad you haven't encountered anyone who has tried to suggest a watered down bit of business minus PO may just be the ticket for the starting gate. I was speaking of my own experience on this and other sites, like DKos, or HuffPo. I have not been persuaded.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 4:31 PM    in reply to atticus1104

Then you didn't hear his speech today. The public option sounds anything BUT dead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:47 PM    in reply to Scientific

Fire it up!

Are you ready to GO!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:04 PM   

My preference is for single payer, mainly because it would be the most cost-effective. Barring that, I am adamantly in support of a public option. But one possibility that I don't see anyone discussing would be a really basic medical plan, without frills (chiropractic, etc.) which:

1)would cover hospitalization;

2)would cover, say for instance, 50% of doctor visits up to a certain amount, after which it would cover 100%;

3)would allow companies to buy into the plan for their employees;

4)would allow for some limits on litigation on doctors;

5) would allow the insurance companies to sell the frills.

I would find this kind of plan acceptable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 4:42 PM    in reply to chigger

Is chemo a frill? The problem with these basic policies is that they wind up not covering the kind of healthcare that people actually need delivered today. Hospitalization may not cover most of the expenses incurred in the hospital and after most procedures they kick you out either the same day or within a few days into a rehab facility. For example, if you want to actually recover after a heart bypass or a knee replacement, you have to get the full rehab.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:10 PM   

Opps, forgot one of the most important elements:

1)would cover hospitalization;

2) would cover preventative care 100%

3)would cover, say for instance, 50% of doctor visits up to a certain amount, after which it would cover 100%;

4)would allow companies to buy into the plan for their employees;

5)would allow for some limits on litigation on doctors;

6) would allow the insurance companies to sell the frills.

It's simple, easy to understand, and a good beginning.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:22 PM   

The public option will only be dropped if we the people do nothing. We need to make our Congresscritters more afraid of us than they are of the lobbyists and the punditry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:36 PM    in reply to Ryan

Agreed. And we also, somehow, need to make the Corporate Mass Media a little afraid too. After all, here we have Obama give his speech followed by David Schuster and Chuck Todd over @ MSNBC saying how Obama's including the public option will be kowtowing "to the left."

And last week we have the USA News poll showing that, even after 5-6 weeks of T-bag abuse and punditry that 77% of the public still strongly favor the "choice" of a public option.

They've got their corporate scripts and do anything and everything to sandwich all messages into those scripts. But through my poor public school education, I can't quite figure how 77% of the US population is "to the left."

A nice thought (3/4 of the country are to the left), but t'ain't so.

It's not right vs. left. It's us vs. corporate vampires. That's the shape of the fights ahead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:51 PM    in reply to TheRealFish

"But through my poor public school education, I can't quite figure how 77% of the US population is "to the left.""

77 per cent of the population IS to the left -- of the one-third or less who are just to the left of Hitler, Reagan, and Goldwater.

Not all of those 77 per cent are left of CENTER.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:25 PM   

AND, another issue I'd like to see attached to a plan would be that employers who bought into the plan would get some sort of break on workers' compensation. I know, I know, workers' comp is run by the states, but maybe something creative could be worked out. Those rates are small business killers, which is why you see so many of them claiming the employees as subcontractors, when they're obviously employees.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 2:57 PM   

A failure to be bold would be a catastrophic miscalculation. I can't see Barack making that blunder.

Here is why:

His presidency is being vigorous eroded from the right by racists who will only continue to oppose anything and everything he proposes. If Barack said "breathe" these people would turn blue.

So about 30% of our population is now essentially ungovernable. Hate is all they have to contribute going forward. He won't ever win these people over. They are committed to being disagreeably disagreeable in the worst way.

Given all that...

To lose his base now is to bet his presidency on the brain power and ardor of the soft middle. Unless he plans to frequently appear on American Idol, the low-attention voter can't fuel his presidency. So to let erosion set in on his left would be fatal in a Jimmy Carter sort of way.

But far worse:

If Barack caves on the public option he will be trying to chase cap-and-trade down the right-wing rabbit hole too.

So the stakes are simply ginormous. Barack realizes all this. He isn't arrogant and he isn't a dummy. He must be bold and he will be bold.

I bet my finest pipe tobacco on it...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 3:06 PM    in reply to liberal historian

This comment was magnificent. I hope you're right. But regardless, great stuff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:56 PM    in reply to liberal historian

Agreed.

That thirty per cent (or less) of screaming unhinged haters, though, will push the more moderate -- especially important being the independents -- to support Obama as the (only) alternative to the loons.

I'm an agnostic, but I'll say again what I've said several times since the election: we are blessed to have President Obama. I see him as being transparent -- a good person, and not only smart as a whip but brilliant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 3:27 PM   

The public option will remain alive as long as we continue to kick, scream, march and rally. Strength is in numbers, and we have the numbers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 4:32 PM   

i wouldn't bet a cheap cigar at this point...

certainly he is signaling capitulation...

but he knows what that will do...erode the base and embolden the enemy

i think right now the brain trust that is rahm axelbama are furiously trying steer this mess into failure on their terms.

he comes out strongly demanding PO..... lets blue dog senate defeat it..blames defeat on blue dogs. health care reform collapses, but barry never much cared about it in the first place. he just thought it was his historical moment and rushed in with out a strategy.

never fail to understand that these guys have grandiose visions of themselves.

problem is...as so often stated...had he exhibited LEADERSHIP from the get go we would have real reform.

question is : do we abandon him or fight for the other issues of concern?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:23 PM    in reply to intimperate

I have the answer to that question. We cannot abandon him until at least 2012. Until then, we have to keep pushing and keeping the pressure up for what we know is right.

The President says his preference is for a viable public option. Ok. We have to help with that. By doing everything we can to support it. I too would have liked to have seen him come out strongly for a public option from the beginning. And exercised a little more leadership in that area from the get go.

But these cheese dicks in Congress have to help too. And we have to keep pressuring them. It can't be all on Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:58 PM    in reply to intimperate

He IS NOT signaling capitulation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:32 PM   

Instead of a public option, why not just let those who would qualify for a public option buy into Medicare? It's not "Medicare for All," and there would be no need for a new bureaucracy.

Why isn't anyone suggesting this? As far as I'm concerned, it's actually better than a public option because the infrastructure is already there and because we wouldn't have to worry about a public option that turns out to be emasculated by not being allowed to negotiate low enough rates.

It also seems like a much easier sell, since it's a program that has already proven to be both very popular and very effective.

I would really like some comments on this. Why isn't this being proposed?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:48 PM    in reply to jpearson

"Instead of a public option, why not just let those who would qualify for a public option buy into Medicare? It's not "Medicare for All," and there would be no need for a new bureaucracy."

I think because it doesn't introduce any competition for the insurance companies, so there would be no motivation to cut their prices.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 7:11 PM    in reply to chigger

If X million people could buy into Medicare, wouldn't that provide the same competition that a public option would? If private insurers offer competitive rates and policies, those X million might consider them; if the rates and policies are not competitive, those X million people will choose Medicare.

Or am I missing something here?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:56 PM    in reply to jpearson

I've been supporting Medicare as a substitute for the public option. If those who buy in pay a little more than cost, this could be sold as a partial fix for Medicare; instead of worrying seniors because we are taking funds from Medicare, when it is already in financial trouble, we could be selling this as helping Medicare by bringing in more in premiums and giving some under-65 people a personal stake in supporting Medicare when the shortfalls begin a decade from now.

I really wonder if Baucas was trying to kill health care reform from the start; his methods for funding it have all been ways to increase public outrage and undermine the President. Taxing health care benefits undermines the President's promises of no new taxes on those earning under $250K and that you could keep your plan and it might get cheaper. Taking funds from Medicare to do reform may be the only thing that could upset seniors and convince them Democrats were not on their side. Both are stupid moves if they are not sabotage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:32 PM   

The thing that strikes me is that he would have been better off politically if he had never broached the subject in the first place, rather than broaching it and then abandoning it. Once he introduced the topic, he needed to be the driver, not the passenger. Now he just looks wishy-washy. I can't see how his advisors didn't foresee the outcome. From now on his supporters are going to shy away from getting on board with anything else he brings up. He would look better, lose less support if he just toughed it out by giving it the best try he can. And I do mean his best--not some half-assed try. He could have done it, too, which is the sad thing about this. What a train wreck.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 6:02 PM    in reply to chigger

He didn't abandon it. The Constitution stipulates that CONGRESS shall make the laws -- and that is what he allowed to happen. And now that the far-right loon-dust is starting to settle -- the far-right has "blown their wad" -- the hard work can get done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 9:39 PM    in reply to JNagarya

"...The Constitution stipulates that CONGRESS shall make the laws -- and that is what he allowed to happen.."

Right, and Hillary Clinton was sitting on her thumb back in the nineties just waiting for Congress to send her husband a healthcare bill to sign, as if Presidents never send proposals to Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 11:05 PM    in reply to chigger

No. But things might have worked out better for the healthcare if she had.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 8, 2009 12:27 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Oh, trust me, I'm not defending Hillary's process. She invited the wolves to sit down with her at the table to develop the plan, when she should have just let them provide information for consideration, not participate in the development of the plan. And, of course, the wolves then ate her for supper.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 5:54 PM   

Maybe a trigger is the best compromise after all. The conservatives think it is a backdoor into a single-payer system, and the liberals think it is a sell-out to the insurance companies.

Sounds pretty good to me. A two-way conspiracy theory with so much victimhood on both sides.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 7, 2009 6:00 PM   

I don't know why people cannot figure out the dynamics have not changed on the public plan since day one.

The president wants Congress to pass a bill with a public option.

But the president is not going to stand in the way of any universal healthcare reform if Congress cannot pass a bill with a public plan.

Passing nothing is the only non-option.

All the tea-leaf reading and hand wringing is ridiculous.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

September 8, 2009 12:40 AM   

No substantial reform will pass. I'd make book on it.

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