TPMDC
Rockefeller On Reid And The Public Option: It Comes Down To Who You Are
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) suggested today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ought to act his conscience on the public option, and include it in the health care bill that comes to the floor.
Speaking to reporters outside the Senate chamber, Rockefeller sounded confident that the public option would be in the final reform package. Asked whether Reid should heed the will of the Democratic caucus (which overwhelmingly supports the public option) or do what he deems is most politically expedient, Rockefeller said it's up to Harry.
"He's got to look at both, but--I think it's sort of the time I think when it comes down to who you are. I mean that was obviously in Olympia's case, right?"
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) broke with her party yesterday, becoming the only Republican in either chamber to vote for a health care reform bill at the committee level since hearings began months ago.
I asked Rockefeller whether letting states opt out of the public option is a compromise he agrees with--and though he left the door open to ultimately supporting such a provision, he responded with some pretty harsh words for it.
"I don't start out favoring that," he said. "You know, opt out is sort of like trigger. It sounds good, it makes people feel good, but the question is, Is it good? And I don't think it really is. If it's the only way you can get the votes, then that's a decision that will have to be made over my head."
Comments (21) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
blmack
October 14, 2009 1:20 PM
I think the opt-out option is almost as good as the straight-up public option. Even if a state initially opts-out, the pressure to opt back in will be overwhelming when citizens start realizing people in other states are paying less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 14, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to blmack
I tend to agree. We all know that "triggers" are designed to make sure they never actually get pulled, so that idea deserves to be DOA. But the opt-out could turn out to be a handy alternative way to give numbskulls like Snowe what they really want- a chance to preen themselves on being "moderate"- without actually weakening the bill much in practice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Capn Chucky
October 14, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to blmack
Opt-out is fine. Let's just make sure that the pool of money stays the same, so when Texas and Mizzippi opt out, the leftover money flows to the states that didn't opt out. Because it's fer damn sure that the populations from those states will flow to the states that didn't opt out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 14, 2009 1:52 PM
Hey Rock,
I hear there is a Majority Leader position opening up. Care to throw Your hat in the Ring?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 14, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to _jonny_5_
No thanks. Good on health care, but bad on intelligence oversight and obscenely bad on regulating coal mining.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 14, 2009 2:04 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
...And from a State that is no longer dependably Blue. Point well made.
I really do prefer Durbin(Maj Ldr), Schumer(Whip), both of whom are next in line for these positions.
Rocky has been (more than)good at advocating HCR though. He does deserve credit for standing up for what he believes in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
timba
October 14, 2009 1:57 PM
With the caveat that we're all probably in blue states (I'm in CA), I agree that the opt-out seems acceptable (but the opt-in, which forces each state to invent its own, is criminally insane - just as much of a ruse as the triggers and coops).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aimzzz
October 14, 2009 2:09 PM
If we don't get the strong PO, opt-out is the only thing that comes close. Agree with setve-- trigger is the illusion of enforcement. We've gotta keep pushing for the the real deal
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 14, 2009 2:12 PM
Notice how everyone always starts out with "I prefer this" or "I favor that". But when a direct question is asked, such as "I asked Rockefeller whether letting states opt out of the public option is a compromise he agrees with?", you never get a direct answer.
I don't think this kind of article is worth all that much. Seems like just noise to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
October 14, 2009 2:14 PM
The big question in my mind is: will employers still provide good insurance? Or will they drop coverage and let people go on the Public Plan?
I work for a high-tech firm here in Texas, the home base of the company is in California. As long as my company provides good or superior coverage, then Texas can opt-out.
It has already been shown that the poor, starving, unemployed people in Texas have no power and cannot vote out the Republicans. As long as most of the well-paid employed people in Texas have coverage from their jobs, Texas can opt-out forever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
October 14, 2009 2:32 PM
All good points but keep your eyes on the Pres. Don't know if he can be trusted on Public Option. I think he's waiting for a crack in the Progressives armor. Everyone wants cover (anything to stay in office) and the Pres, IMHO, is inclined to make that happen if he can. Something about this opt-in-opt-out new idea. Looks like it "makes sense" but makes me feel nervous, like a setup before the sleight-of-hand "magic". Watch every word, every persuasion, every "we gotta pass something" Hail Mary pass. Sad but true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 14, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to Cornelius
exactly my feelings
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
October 14, 2009 2:33 PM
Reid ought to act his conscience on the public option and his constituents’ should act their conscience on voting for Reid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
October 14, 2009 2:34 PM
My God, if it's in Reid's hands, you can kiss any meaningful reform goodbye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
October 14, 2009 2:50 PM
this whole questioning of opting in and out makes no sense. how can you choose to opt out if you never opted in? and if you opt in, why would you want to opt out?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 14, 2009 3:21 PM in reply to neesy08
I gather your state participates in something that looks like Medicare (in theory) by default, and that if the state legislature or whoever doesn't want to participate in this national public option, they opt out.
The weaker (and totally useless, as far as I can tell) proposal has states opting in to multistate options. So California, say, joins New York to offer a public option to their residents, with a shared risk pool. But of course there's a lot more political engineering involved, and it opens the door to divide and conquer tactics by BigPharma to sever such alliances. Much less reliable.
I do hope whatever the legislation, they allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Bigger pools should mean cheaper premiums. Wyden is keen on this, and Snowe has expressed support for it, too, if I'm not mistaken. This feature would also reinforce the argument that the public option, too, should be national in scope, and not some balkanized, regional or state-based program. If the insurance companies are national, so is the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Dan
October 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Senator Rockefeller is on the right side of this issue. Too bad he did not display any balls when Bush was torturing and using the telecoms to spy on Americans
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 14, 2009 3:10 PM
If Ezra Klein's take is correct, it looks like those 'dark corners' of the Senate aren't reliably pro-p.o.:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/what_olympia_snowe_got_for_her.html
On the bright side, the opt-out is perfect political cover. An optional option...I don't see how you can be more reasonable and moderate than that. Isn't Rahm supposed to be a part of this? And wasn't he supposed to be a master puppeteer when it came to forging majorities? Seems pretty lame to me so far, but maybe he's pulling his punches for some later time, dunno.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 14, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Yes, he's a master puppeteer, but you are assuming his goal is to fight for a strong PO. I think it is the exact opposite.
He and the Obama White House cut a deal with the insurance lobby months ago (see Robert Reich column from a few weeks ago)to kill or neuter (coops, trigger, etc.) the PO in return for the insurance industry not fighting the rest of the reform bill and not financing GOP opponents in 2010. I think Rahm will be putting the screws not on the conservadems but on the progressives to cave in and back a bill without a strong PO. I'd love to be proved wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 14, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to rwc
OK, but the AHIP report seems to have gotten Obama's back up. That doesn't seem to be going according to plan (if you're right).
If there's no real public option (something like Medicare) then I really hope Schumer, Rockefeller, Kerry, the guy from OH, gang up and nix the whole thing. Honestly. It would give single payer a shot in the arm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bobatkinson
October 14, 2009 4:25 PM
Just curious as to why Dodd is in the negotiations today rather than Harken. I thought Harken had taken over the HELP committee. When did Dodd become the man?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?