TPMDC
Key Senators Say Dem Leadership Entertaining Idea Of Weak Public Option
Brian Beutler | October 7, 2009, 12:46PM
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Share
Send to a friend!
In recent days, Senate Democratic leadership, and even the White House have been sounding a bit more bullish on the public option than they had in recent weeks. Majority Leader Harry Reid even went so far as to say that 'some kind' of public option will be in the Senate bill at the end of the day. But just how great a range of ideas is under discussion at this point?
In a press conference this morning with other Democratic senators, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) -- member of the Senate Finance Committee and a supporter of a robust public option -- says it's a "broad definition."
"The states are one way to go," she said
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who also sits on Finance and supports a public option as enthusiastically as Stabenow does, added, "There are state options that are devised in such a way that only a region of the state is included, in which case that's not really a significant public option."
"If the whole state is included in a public option -- they have that option -- well that's a much more significant standard than some that have been proposed," Menendez told reporters.
Liberals and health care reformers--including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have intentionally spent months making it clear that state-based plans don't meet muster. They say that the definition of a public option implies that it's available as soon as the legislation takes effect, that it's available nationally, and that it is accountable to taxpayers.
In the House of Representatives, for instance, the fight right now is about how the public option will reimburse providers--not about its extent or it's date of implementation.
Still, Menendez isn't ruling out a public option that matches the reformers' criterion. "I think that Sen. Schumer's [level playing field] provision...has a lot of appeal, and I would hope that we move forward in that direction and maybe some further tweaks to it that would make it more acceptable to others who have some concerns."
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Top 10 Things You Didn't Know Before Reading Plouffe's 'Audacity To Win'
- The Biggest Dem Scandal You've Never Heard Of
- From Dollars To Death Panels: How Republicans Distorted Debates On Capitol Hill
- Party Crashers: Who Are Michaele And Tareq Salahi?
- Friends In High Places: The Salahis And The Famous People They Take Pictures With
- Secret Service Director: We Are 'Deeply Concerned And Embarrassed' Over Party Crashers
- The Salahi-Obama Meeting
- New Statement Out from Secret Service
- Police chief: Woods' wife helped after accident
- Backlash Grows Against NC Health Insurer's Anti-Reform Campaign
- From Dollars To Death Panels: How Republicans Distorted Debates On Capitol Hill
- TPM Reader Challenge: The Sex-Scandal Haiku!
- CT Report: Green Party 'Picketing' Ralph Nader In Hopes He'll Run For Senate
- FUN REPORTERS: Where the Hell IS Sam Kinison When We Need Him?
- The REAL Patriots were the Republicans who voted for Obama.
- Why is Healthcare Reform Too Expensive, While the Sky is the Limit For War?
- Secret Service Investigates State Dinner Party Crashers
- Hey Prez! Do you feel lucky? (Army Study: Pashtun men's blood testosterone levels 3X U.S. Norm! Tom Ricks: "Afghans are Clint Eastwood with a turban..." )
- The Biggest Dem Scandal You've Never Heard Of
- Secret Service Director: We Are 'Deeply Concerned And Embarrassed' Over Party Crashers
- Big Deal or No?
- New Statement Out from Secret Service
- Does It All Fit Together?
- Watch Out
- Let The Scrubbing Begin!
- Why is Healthcare Reform Too Expensive, While the Sky is the Limit For War?
- FUN REPORTERS: Where the Hell IS Sam Kinison When We Need Him?
- Haiku Contest?
- Bumps
- Democratic Party: Get Your Dumb War On
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
JEP07
October 7, 2009 12:58 PM
Here's a chance to read between the lines. Fully aware that even the most conservative Republican congressional districts still sport majority constituencies in FAVOR of the public option, (certainly, that majority increases the bluer the district, but even the reddest districts would be hard-pressed to pretend a majority of their voters opposed to the public option) then WHY DO THESE DEMOCRATS TIPPYTOE AROUND THE ISSUE?
Who are they afraid to offend?
Certainly not the majority of voters, or they would be touting a "robust public option."
So it must be their primary campaign contributors they so carefully word their responses towards. From what I read here, it sounds like, between the lines, they are saying "Hey, insurance industry contributors, we're doing everything we can to keep the public will from realization, so you guys can get even richer, but we have to say SOMETHING to assuage our voters' concerns that, once again, we represent YOU, not THEM.
Seriously just WHO ARE THEY POSTURING FOR, AND CAN'T THEY SEE IT IS OBVIOUS, TRANSPARENT AND HYPOCRITICAL?
They believe in democracy until the day after the election, then it's back to the same old same old.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 7, 2009 1:01 PM
My favorite plan is a reverse trigger: include a strong public option from the beginning and remove it only if the premiums for private insurance go down by a certain percentage.
More seriously, a state option is too feeble and would not work.
As one of your constituents, Sen. Stabenow, a state option is not sufficient. Hang tough for something that works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 7, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to AJM
Ezra Klein seems to think Carper's outline is not totally unworthy. As long as the provision permitting states to join in multi-state compacts were maintained, it has a shot at working.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_many_public_option_comprom.html
It also at least lets one dream of the prospect of a single multi-state public option compact that includes every state except South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas (and maybe Wyoming and Idaho). Let the Teabagging states opt out of "socialism" and rely on the benevolent holy embrace (or grasp) of the Invisable Hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
October 7, 2009 2:57 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Jon Walker offers a counterpoint:
more here if you're interested:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/10/07/if-kent-conrad-and-ben-nelson-like-it-it-must-be-bad/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 7, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to izzatxeaux
not to mention:
in the 30 states that already provide their employees with coverage through so-called mini public options or co-operative options, health care costs have not decreased. They’ve increased. The coverage may be good, but the price is still unaffordable.
The problem is, when you slice a robust Medicare-like public option 50 different ways, you rob the plan of any real ability (i.e. market clout) to lower health care spending or change the way care is delivered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
October 7, 2009 3:16 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I have lived in the following states, over the course of my life:
- Texas
- Indiana
- California
Two red states and one state constitutionally incapable of doing anything. I am so incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of expecting my home state to do the right thing.
And frankly, I'm sick of this situation where every single state has a wildly different situation wrt health care insurance availability. I'm actually kind of attracted to the provision proposed in some versions of the HCR bill that would allow insurers to compete against state lines (which it's still not been explained to me how that provision, if successful would interact with Carper's "compromise").
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 7, 2009 7:16 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Brilliant! I'll take 'socialized medicine'!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 7, 2009 1:35 PM
the people want a public option, a public option could lower premiums by 10 percent, save the government some $150 billion over 10 years, and lower the cost of the overall bill (by reducing subsidies)
why on earth would they want a public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
October 7, 2009 1:39 PM
Will Dems Settle For A Weak Public Option To Pass Reform?
Answer: Yes.
This has been another episode of short answers to stupid questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 7, 2009 6:28 PM in reply to LarsThorwald
perfect
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
October 7, 2009 1:39 PM
One thing us Democrats are good at is taking something good and completely jellydicking it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
October 7, 2009 1:42 PM
Will the next Pope be a Catholic?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
October 7, 2009 2:28 PM in reply to Why oh why
Would that be the pre-Vatican II definition of Catholic? if so, they better be quick about it. That breed is dyin' off (and Benedict is trying to roll back the clock as hard as he can).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 7, 2009 1:44 PM
The dynamics of this are unlike anything I can ever recall. In neutrally-worded polls, the PO is overwhelmingly preferred. BUT, in polls connecting it with either Congress or Obama, it enjoys somewhat less support, and markedly less support in Blue Dog states. This puts the Blue Dogs in a quandary. How do they navigate these competing dynamics? I think it's a real possibility that they could be triangulating themselves right out of a job. This, BTW, is exactly why Obama and the Dem leadership CANNOT try to squeeze the Blue Dogs - doing so actually makes it harder for them to vote for the plan. It also explains why they are putting so much effort into a veneer of bipartisanship - it makes it an easier sell in these Blue Dog states.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 7, 2009 2:51 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
It's also one of the less nefarious reasons why Obama and the WH have downplayed the importance of the public option. They're trying to make the debate focus on people who already have insurance, are afraid of losing it, and wary of things sounding like government plans. The WH may very well scuttle the PO if it's make or break, but they want the strongest bill they can muster, which means avoiding that kind of trap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 8, 2009 7:35 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
The public option may suddenly get lots more popular in the Blue Dog states now that some of the conservative commentators have discovered that it is popular nationally and are backing it. Where is the real,etc. I'm interested int he dynmaics of that switch. Did the right wing noise media discover that they were losing any semblance of being, um, fair and balanced? Losing advertisers? Losing viewership? Finally caught up on their thinking and discovered they weren't scared of the insurance version of government run colleges? What gives? That our current insurance mess is part of our business problems and that the Republicans were in danger of scuttling any fix whatsoever?
The Blue Dogs are going to be in more trouble if they vote against it than if they vote for it. Sen. Lincoln was flat out wrong when she claimed that her constituents didn't want it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
October 7, 2009 1:45 PM
I know how to cut 485 billion from the bill.
Remove the 485 billion in subsides for the health insurers that was put in to help them cover the new 40 million people they already priced out or dropped for being sick.
Create a public option that will take all of them on, and anyone else who wants to come in.
Win win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
October 7, 2009 1:45 PM
A weak option is electoral suicide! When this overhaul takes effect it will not be judged on how many votes it was passed by but WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS! These endless word games will not be remembered one bit in the voting booth in any of these Senators states. People will vote for Democrats because they now have DECENT RELIABLE HEALTH INSURANCE and they will give credit for it to Democrats now and for the rest of their lives. This is such a great opportunity and such a no-brainer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
October 7, 2009 2:00 PM in reply to hollywood
You're giving the public option magical powers it doesn't have. Particularly when, thanks to the unions, 160+ million Americans won't have access to it, the public option doesn't have the magical power to provide decent, reliable health insurance -- that's in the community rating, the minimum benefits package, and the subsidies. All the public option has the power to do is lower the cost of the bill by 5-10 percent and premiums for people in the Exchange by a little more. That's all the magical powers the public option has. 160+ million Americans who are walled off from the Exchange won't get this benefit.
So the idea that the public option is the most important policy -- unless your central purpose of the bill is to put in a public option -- is ludicrous. What's most important is what level of coverage Americans will be required to have; what percentage of their income they will be required to pay for this coverage; what latitude insurance companies on the Exchange will have to vary premiums; and who has access to the Exchange. That will determine the bill's political fate more than anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
October 7, 2009 3:57 PM in reply to jimbomoron
Let's talk some magic ..... with a public option offering an insurance policy that does not need to make a huge profit or support a huge corporate empire the never ending skyrocketing cost of insurance would have a HUGE IMMOVEABLE PUBLIC TRANSPARENT PRICE ANCHOR that would make the obscene price increases we have all gotten used to a thing of the past.
My insurance company, the largest in California just raised my rates by a WHOPPING 28% over last year with absolutely no explanation other that ...."our costs have risen so we need to raise our premiums accordingly" I nearly passed out! What fucking costs? What prices have risen during the most severe recession since the 1930's by 28% OTHER THAN MY GOD DAMNED HEALTH INSURANCE! This is on top of raising the rates by 30% last year ......
A public insurance option would make these increases FATAL to these greedy fuckers by inducing a mass exodus of policy holders to a stable reliable affordable public plan. They would either need to stop gouging their customers and/or start controlling their costs or go out of business.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 7, 2009 7:15 PM in reply to jimbomoron
Is there anything regulating the minimum benefits package in the Senate bills?
As for the lower premiums...more than 5 or 10% less than what I pay now? I'll take it!
Finally, I bet private insurers will be able to get around a lot of regulations, and doubt the government's ability to police them. Much prefer the peace of mind of something backed by the federal government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
October 7, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to hollywood
Hold the phone a minute! So, if the Dems screw the pooch with the lack of a public option, do the people go running back into the arms of the country-wrecking, We Work For Corporate America Republicans who they've voted against for the past two cycles? Yeah, the Dems suck but Republicans are suckier. If your second carton of milk turns out to be sour too, do you go back to the first one and hope that it improved over time?
3rd party is the only way to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
October 7, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to Schmed
They may not vote Republican, but they may stay home on election day, allowing the fired up Republican base to steal wins in places they have no business winning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
October 7, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to Schmed
Third parties on the left will make absolutely no difference in any way in my lifetime or yours.
The only third party that could help move this country forward would be a right wing Christian party split off from the Republicans. That would screw the Republican nominee out of the base of fascist whackos that helps them win elections in Red states. That is what we really need, and have the Progressive Left stay in the Democratic Party to help move the whole game farther to the left and to common sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 8, 2009 7:58 AM in reply to hollywood
What we need is careful targeting of our efforts based on ideology. If you live in a state where you can elect Bernie Sanders, more power to you. If you live in a benighted Texas district, vote for the incumbent's primary opponent every time -- don't let them accumulate seniority. Send your money not to the party but to the candidate who is closest to your views and has a chance to win. Target individuals who are causing problems.
If the Blue Dogs, etc., make it clear that they cannot be counted on to vote as Democrats get rid of them.
There is no point in having a majority that is passing things we should be filibustering but the best deal is to have in place 60% of the Senate who support what we want. That takes hard work and strategy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
October 7, 2009 1:55 PM
I actually think the state plan can work if the states are allowed to pool together. Imagine a robust public option in states New York, California, New Jersey, etc which have LARGE populations and they pool together. They would have strong bargaining power because they are large population centers.
As oppose to red states who don't want it ie Wyoming, Idaho, etc who even if their is a national public option, their numbers would be so small that they wouldn't have much effect.
Luckily the blue states (except for Texas) are the large population states.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kw_1981
October 7, 2009 2:04 PM
"In the House of Representatives, for instance, the fight right now is about how the public option will reimburse providers--not about its extent or it's date of implementation."
its
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
October 7, 2009 2:15 PM
Yes.
"This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions."
The rationale expectation is that they will behave in the future as they have in the past. They long to pose for holy pictures. The substance matters only to a minority of their number and not the con Dems who run the joint.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
October 7, 2009 2:20 PM
maybe we could just strip out any form of government insurance all together, shovel tax monies to private insurers to cover the now-uninsured and just call that a "public option." it'd probably fool me at least
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
October 7, 2009 2:47 PM
Dem leadership has also entertained a strong public option, a fake public option, and no public option. The fact that they were entertaining a weak version of one isn't news, but the fact that the floor on the public option (in the Senate at least) has gone from nothing to at least weak is news. The momentum is moving in the right way, so long as the process doesn't lock down in a Conrad/Baucus inspired round of legislative stupidity.
Bottom line, once again: the Dem leadership will pass the strongest bill they think can get the votes. Whether they can marshall up the votes to strengthen the bill or have to ratchet down the bill to cobble the votes will be the test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
October 7, 2009 3:07 PM in reply to fbacon2
Way to talk sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
October 7, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to fbacon2
I keep thinking, every notch closer to "good" we can move the final senate bill makes the probability of the outcome in conference being good that much better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sashimi
October 7, 2009 3:26 PM
The Senate chamber - where Hope get crushed by the bags full of cash.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 7, 2009 3:31 PM
It is beyond pathetic that we are even having this conversation. The people want an accessible and robust public option. Obama campaigned on this. The Democrats have the majority. It is outrageous that the insurance industry and Pharma have a seat at the table and the people do not. Our Representatives behave like felons. Frankly, if they mess this up and it looks like they will, I am finished with all of them.
I have attended campaign functions in my town at community centers, the library, a local hotel, where the candidates talk about fighting for the people if we will send them to DC. They talk about the opposition and special interests as the bad guys. They ask us to canvas our neighborhoods and give them money. "I need your help. I can't do this without you." is their constant appeal. We work for them. We support them, and then they go to DC and we are invisible and their BFF is special interest money. Their new mantra is "we tried, but we didn't have the votes." They are crooks and we act like abused spouses. When will we say "enough!" Either we get a decent bill with an accessible robust PO or we should be done with them. Why invest in them with our time, our energy and money, only to be discarded as fools. Our vote is all we have. Collectively it is even more powerful than money. Let all those that betray the poeple discover this fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mld678
October 7, 2009 3:31 PM
Government run health care – the so-called “public option” - presents serious challenges for us. The private sector and competitive market forces are the best means to meeting health care needs. Watch this video from the U.S. Chamber http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/media/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
October 7, 2009 4:20 PM in reply to mld678
Hahahahahahaha.
Hahahaha.
Ha ha ha.
Hahahahahahaahaaaha.
I'm stunned that Team Market, whose motto is "COMPETITION IS KING!" and whose central belief is that "The Gub'mint cain't do nothin' right!" is so afraid of the "public option" and "government-run health care". If the government ruins everything it touches and is doomed to fail at an initiative of this scope, then it shouldn't be much competition. So what's the issue? What are you so afraid of?
Over 40 million people lack health care right now. And those of us who have it are being charged more every year to receive less. Why isn't the market working for us now, in the absence of a government-run public option? The private sector you love so much IS the problem with health care right now. If they're "the best means" to meeting health care needs, then we're all doomed. Unless, of course, the "us" you mentioned, is insurance industry fatcats, in which case yes, the public option is going to seriously challenge you.
(And is this link going to take me to the friends of the same Neanderthal Chamber of Commerce that is missing an Apple-sized lifeboat because of their Neanderthal stance on Global warming?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
October 7, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to mld678
The private sector and competitive market forces MY ASS! You can jerk off all you want to the chamber of commerce porn videos, but it is the absolute most fucking ignorant thing to think that healthcare is a commodity just like cars and clothes and movies. The entire civilized world has long long ago grasped this profoundly simple idea, but only in America do we continue to stuff our money up some billionaire's asshole hoping he shits us out a turd big enough for dinner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
October 7, 2009 6:15 PM in reply to mld678
Who's "us". The US Chamber of Commerce.
Because I know that ain't "me".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 8, 2009 7:52 AM in reply to mld678
You mean we haven't succeeded in 8 years of Rethuglican rule in de-regulating health care to make it work as well as the stock market? ....oh, wait.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 7, 2009 4:03 PM
Of course they would. We won't let them cheat us though. Not this time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?