TPMDC
Nelson: Public Option May Be Popular, But Opt-Outs Are Really Popular
Brian Beutler | October 20, 2009, 3:49PM
Share
Send to a friend!
For weeks now, Greg Sargent has been making the point that, though polling shows the public wants health care reform to be bipartisan, what it really shows is that people think bipartisanship is nice, they'd happily scotch it if that's what it takes to secure a public option.
That doesn't exactly square with the pronouncements of some conservative Democrats--particularly Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)--who say bipartisanship is a crucial part of health care reform's legitimacy with the public. I caught up with Nelson earlier today and asked him to speak to the poll's findings.
"Well, there are different kinds of public options.... What was interesting in the poll numbers that I saw, that while there's support for public option generally, generically, when you start talking about it specifically as it relates to states being able to opt out or opt in, have their own, the support overwhelmingly goes up to 76 percent."
And what of the idea that people would prefer a partisan bill if it meant a public option rather than a bipartisan bill that scraps the public option?
"Well, I don't know. It depends on what the public option is. Once again, were talking about the public option as though there's a single definition or a single concept. There are multiple concepts about a public option and the problem is we all talk about it as though they're all the same and they're not. So that's why when somebody says 'are you for a public option?' Define the public option and I can tell you."
That doesn't quite get to the heart of the contradiction between Nelson's paeans to public's desire for bipartisanship. But Nelson does seem to accept the idea that the public wants a public option, even if that means a Democrat-only bill, and using the data to argue that what people really want is a compromise on the public option.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Fox News Threatens Pink Slips For On-Screen Errors
- Harry Reid, and What Happened to the Public Option
- Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid
- Al Gore: I'll "Outcrazy the Crazy"
- The Public Option Dead End
- Affidavit From Ex-Editor Miniter Details Inner Workings Of Wash Times
- Sarah Palin Explains Her Qualifications: No Ivy League Education
- More Thoughts on the Public Option
- What Did We Learn From Saturday's Health Care Vote
- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom Loses Patience in CBS5 Interview
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- November 22
- I Call Bullshit.
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- Steele: 'Moderate Democrats Sacrificed Their Principles'
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- Intel Inside? Prove It.
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Filibuster Thwarted ... For Now
- I Call Bullshit.
- Is Everybody Disappointed In Obama?
- Establishment Reality
- THE EXPERT AS THE DANGEROUS WHORE
- The Cast Has Assembled
- Bernie Sanders: I Want My Leverage!
- Clinton Not Attending Health Care Event Because it's Politicized?
- Time to contact the FCC
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Docb
October 20, 2009 3:58 PM
He is lying out his mouth...Opt-outs are a relatively new term invented by the knucle-daggers afraid to do their job..
BS..call him on it 1.800.828.0498 or 1.877.264.4226.
Shameless and venal...liars!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
October 20, 2009 4:01 PM
"when you start talking about it specifically as it relates to people who are being forced to buy expensive insurance less expensively, the support overwhelmingly goes up to 76 percent."
There. That's better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
October 20, 2009 4:25 PM
Geez, Ben, I didn't realize that you didn't know what "public option" meant. Let me help you with that.
Think of it this way: you know all those people that the private insurance companies don't want to insure, because they're people who get sick sometimes or have had to see a doctor at some point in their life? The public option is the insurance company that won't turn those people down.
You see, if you don't give people an alternative to the private, maximum-profit-driven insurance companies, then tens of millions of people have to go without health insurance, and tens of thousands of people have to die each year because of it.
Were you able to follow that, Ben, or should I type slower? Now, aside from your dedication to those corporate benefactors who fund your campaigns, is there really any reason for you to try to block a public option--or try to screw it up with some bullshit opt-in/opt-out nonsense?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Karl the Marxist
October 20, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to chimpale
How is this company organised? Is it for-profit? Is it federal or state-level? Under which department does it operate? How is it funded? What is the coverage level provided? Are all eligible, only low-income, or only those without insurance? Are there premiums or co-pays? Does it offer HSAs? Does it have a hospital/doctor network, does one have to only go to VA facilities for example?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
October 20, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to Karl the Marxist
Step one: Admit you have a problem.
Once the blue dogs are willing to admit that the private insurers are standing in the way of health care for millions of people and won't get out of the way unless those people have somewhere else to go, the discussion can turn to specifics.
Opt-in, opt-out, co-ops, triggers, etc. are all tactics intended to help keep the private insurance companies' fingers in the till.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 20, 2009 4:26 PM
I'm not sure this story was worth the time it took to write. The man didn't really say a damn thing.
Worthless POS. Nelson I mean. Not you Brian.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
October 20, 2009 4:30 PM
Hell, gimme the HELP public option with the ability for states to opt out.
States will opt out by public referendum in 2010. No more Democratic turnout problems!
A public option referendum would be our gay marriage ban.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Flybynite
October 20, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to Miles
Miles has it right. The opt-out would be a political goldmine, a gift that would keep on giving for years to come. In exchange for a few nearly deserted or hopelessly backward states that would barely affect the initial effectiveness of the public option overall, once up to speed the GOP would have to run campaign after campaign to fight in favor of higher premiums. What's not to like?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
October 20, 2009 7:08 PM in reply to Flybynite
"What's not to like" is Neanderthal Republicans that run my state and hold onto power by stirring fundamentalist controversy, all of whom would be happy to yell "Communist Atheist Health Care" and keep us from seeing real reform in this particular "hopelessly backward" state. Can all our sick, poor and uninsured come live with you, by any chance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
October 20, 2009 7:26 PM in reply to Flybynite
"What's not to like" is Neanderthal Republicans that run my state and hold onto power by stirring fundamentalist controversy, all of whom would be happy to yell "Communist Atheist Health Care" and keep us from seeing real reform in this particular "hopelessly backward" state. Can all our sick, poor and uninsured come live with you, by any chance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
October 20, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to Miles
WOW do I love this idea! Please please please let us put the Public Option on the ballot! I would love to see neanderthal republicans have to go out everyday and tell working and middle class voters that they cannot get the same good affordable coverage their friends in other states are getting. This would end the lies and the bullshit and hopefully end the republican party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 20, 2009 4:43 PM
Compared to the way Nelson was talking about the public option in August and September, this is big progress. He's talking like a guy in the process of rationalizing away his prior opposition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 20, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I think that's the value in something like an opt-out provision. It gives some of these guys an easier way to rationalize their acceptance of the public option. That's really all it is - rationalization. No state is going to opt out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 4:44 PM
are Reid, the Senate Dems and the Whitehouse (those who are currently negotiating the bill combo) looking for a weasel option on the public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 20, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Hey Indie... (lets see if we can forge some agreement today)
As far as the Opt-Out, It's hard for me to see it as a Bad idea.
If HCR mandates coverage and allows states to opt-out of the PO (Therefore mandating expensive insurance), it would seem to me state legislators in "Opt-out-ed" states would do as they did when Sanford/Perry/Palin tried to Opt-out of the stimulus.
These state legislators are less bound by national ambitions and would see the prospect of neighboring state's citizens and buisnesses benefitting from the curbing of the costs of insuring themselves or their employees that they would overturn their Blowhard Governor wishes like they did in SC, AK and TX.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
for me it depends on what the public option tied to the opt out looks like.
Otherwise, it isn't too bad as a further compromise and a way to win a good public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 20, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Fair enough...
Although with the Opt-out it would be reasonable to think the PO could be a little stronger and not offend the likes of Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and the Ladies from Maine, at least from a cloture standpoint. They can do this knowing that if it's not popular in their respective states the burden is then on the state legislatures. Sure they are passing the Buck to their states, but what do you expect from these folks, a Profile in Courage?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 20, 2009 6:15 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
with the Opt-out it would be reasonable to think the PO could be a little stronger
I'd say even a little more stronger than what you're saying here. : )
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 20, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Agreed, I'd Rather a stronger bill w/ an Opt-out than a weaker bill with no Opt-Out.
Of course thats easy for me to say, I live in New England, where there is little chance of our elected officials opting-out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
October 20, 2009 5:28 PM
No weasel, no trigger, no opt out. We have to have decent, affordable health care without health insurance companies mucking up the process. Get out of the way. Single payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
October 20, 2009 5:31 PM
If an opt-out compromise were to pass, it would be today's shameful equivalent to the Missouri Compromise.
I voted for health care for ALL, not health care in blue states only.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
October 20, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to CJ
It doesn't bother me one bit that the redneck backward states would have to suffer from their own ignorance. They have been holding the rest of us back for generations on civil rights and human decency. The healthcare debate is just the latest way in which the redneck swamp states have decent intelligent people in Blue States suffering and dying because our Federal government cannot pass decent smart laws to govern the insurance scam business.
If the morons in the deep south and the mountain west get sick and tired enough of falling behind the rest of us they will join the public option soon enough. They need to wake up and throw out the republican corporate whores they are still so in love with. Let them choose. I am tired of good people dying so they can have their redneck pissing contests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
October 20, 2009 6:49 PM in reply to hollywood
People from red states who voted for Obama don't have the numbers deliver to deliver the electoral votes. However, they did contribute to his campaign, contributed to the campaigns of out-of-state Dems through ActBlue and other progressive organizations, delivered votes to help give Obama a mandate, elected Democratic Congressmen to represent their districts, and were critical to delivering a Democratic majority via both their contributions and their votes. Not to mention the fact that many made long-distance telephone calls to raise money and generate Democratic votes, wrote long letters and traveled to other states to canvass.
Essentially, what you are saying to these is people is thanks for the help. Now, go fuck yourselves.
You've just ended all progress that arose out of the 50 state strategy. Well done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
October 20, 2009 11:56 PM in reply to CJ
Wow! you mean the 50 state strategy succeeded in getting a bulletproof majority in the Senate to pass healthcare? Apparently that did not happen. Now we need a strategy that moves us forward where 45,000 people are not dying every year for lack of insurance. We need a strategy that puts the republicans on the defensive. How about setting up a strong public option in most of the civilized parts of the country and see how long it takes for the rest of the backwater to throw out the conservatives that keep them down and join the progress. That's exactly how Canada got to universal coverage, by starting it up in the socially advanced parts of the country and letting the braindead conservatives get on board later. The most revered man in Canadian history is the guy that established universal care there. Democrats could use this issue to dominate the politics of America for a generation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 20, 2009 11:51 PM in reply to CJ
Strongly disagree. Opt-out gets you a stronger PO, and a new political third-rail for the GOP to grab onto with both hands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
October 20, 2009 5:31 PM
Why bi-partisan? We don't need bi-partisanship until we get some Republicans who are logical, idea-oriented, reality-based, problem solvers. The current crop could not care less about real American problems like decent, affordable health care without profit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
October 20, 2009 5:34 PM
Opt out! Wasn't that what the Civil War was about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 20, 2009 5:37 PM
I think the opt out is a good compromise If the only way to opt out is via special election.
I.e. the people decide to opt out NOT members of congress
I think this would be the best compromise.
Also Ben Nelson is a closet republican. We need to get rid of his backward thinking obstructionist ass
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 20, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to 3star2nr
Remeber the ratios on senate commitees are based on the 60/40 ration of the entire senate. I say we just kick him of any commitees of consequence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
omajaydmay
October 20, 2009 5:45 PM
I just called Senator Nelson's office, and the staffer I spoke with was just like the Senator: old, blandly nice, and completely full of crap about health care. He gave me the same noncommittal bull that Nelson always spouts. He did say Senator Nelson views the health care debate like a football game - and that we're still in the first quarter. Apparently for Senator Nelson, that would be perfect, as long as it meant the fourth quarter didn't come until after his 2012 reelection campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 20, 2009 6:59 PM
Sen. Ben Nelson comes from a strongly Republican state which has had a past history of electing Democrats to the Senate. Sen. Bob Kerry's carreer shows they can do much better than Ben Nelson. Progressive Punch rates him poorly because he has only a 53.20 life time record of voting with the progressives. And only a 35.39 % of voting with progressives in crunch situations in the current session.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
October 20, 2009 8:02 PM
Unlike many here I don't support any of the gimmicks being touted in lieu of a true public option that brings down costs and is available to all Americans.
I don't want to see opt-outs, trigger, state vs. state, or any other gimmicks. I don't want the fight that we've been living through shifted onto the states!
So as far as I'm concerned either they give us a 'true' public option or they can shove their mandate!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
October 20, 2009 10:35 PM
If a person's twisted verbiage could actually twist his flesh, ol' Ben would be looking alike a strand of alien DNA. Guys like this will do anything to prevent a straightforward bill from passing, and instead give us some Rube-Goldbergian contraption with 157 moving parts, the 157th of which is the consumer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 20, 2009 11:48 PM
All for a state-level opt out. Gets more support for a stronger, more robust PO, and it tees up having state GOPers voting to remove choice in healthcare for their constituents right before the 2010. Love it.
ANd don't forget, Medicare was rolled out as an opt-in, and is now a political third-rail for GOPers to try and remove it. This is even more aggressive and would really call their bluff and they would have nowhere to go but sign on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nebraska
November 18, 2009 3:47 PM
I veted for Ben Nelson. I am now very dissapointed in his lack of having a spine just to please a few in our state.
I will not be voting for him again unless he grows a pair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?