TPMDC

Key House Progressive: This Public Option Compromise Stinks

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, isn't pleased with the public option rumblings she's heard out of the Senate, and suggests that, unless the final product has the same impact as a public option, her Caucus could reject it.

"I am looking at, Where's the competition in this compromise?" Woolsey told me today. "Are we offering competition to the private insurance providers? I don't see where that is. That's what the public option was all about was having competition so that premiums don't spike."

"We have 30 million new customers for the insurance industry, and what, we don't let them choose an option that would be less expensive?" she said incredulously.

Woolsey said the Medicare buy-in plan is a good one, though too limited.

It's, "a great idea," she told me, "I would love Medicare for all."

But she worries that the people the buy-in is meant to help might still be blocked out, "Are we providing subsidies for those individuals?" she asked. "Can they afford it?"

Woolsey insisted that the House won't simply swallow what the Senate passes--there will be a conference committee between the two chambers, and a deal will have to emerge that pleases both bodies.

"It doesn't come back to the House like that," she said. "It'll go to conference."

"We need to know exactly what the compromise is. I've already heard that some of the people who [negotiated it] don't support it, so who knows.... When we know that, we will be taking our position."

Comments (17) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

December 9, 2009 4:00 PM   

Good on them!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 4:27 PM   

Shit sandwich (ht Atrios)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 4:29 PM   

Wow...she has to know what's in the bill before she supports it? What a weird concept.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 4:36 PM   

This is the best the Democrats will get through the Senate. The House will have to approve it in the end.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 5:58 PM    in reply to David Dunham

Then we need a new Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

slb

user-pic

December 9, 2009 6:05 PM    in reply to bluebell

Actually, I think what we need is to re-structure the way the Senate works.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 4:52 PM   

Think about it.

If we force Americans into individual mandates and fine them if they refuse to submit to the mandates, without offering them a strong, subsidized, affordable public option to choose, the shitstorm that will unleash will rival the Vietnam War Era protests. It will be a disaster.

We HAVE to have a strong PO in this bill. Or, drop the mandates. That would be fine with me as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 5:10 PM    in reply to willia451

The mandate isn't really that strong. If you refuse to get insured, you owe a fairly modest surtax on your federal tax return. I doubt people will be marching in the streets -- at least not the ones you're thinking of.

That said, it's important that we have a mandate of some kind in order to get a whole host of other things, including community rating, a ban on pre-existing conditions, etc.

Forest for the trees, folks. This "deal" (based on what we know so far) is better than anything I thought we'd get from the Senate. I say they should vote it through fast, and ping-pong the bill to the House unaltered, and to the President's desk before Christmas. This way the process never again enters the strike zone of Joe Lieberman & Co. in the Senate. Conference would be a shitstorm of biblical magnitude.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 5:29 PM    in reply to willia451

Are you mocking the Left for their tendency to overreact? 'cause the things you've been saying are getting unbelievable absurd.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 5:07 PM   

Go Lynn! Stick to your guns for us!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 5:33 PM   


They all have questions.

They all want to see the score first.

They all think that improvements could, should and will be made.

Yet some get get jeered while others get cheered.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 6:35 PM   

Unless Rep. Woolsey knows of a way she can change the math, she needs to shut up, quit whining and root for the positive elements of his compromise bill which is pretty much all she will get, and which is still better than what we have now. Every clown in the Democratic party from the left to the right and in the middle feels the need to get on his/her soapbox and declare an ultimatum. Please, we're sick of it. We, the Democratic voters who put you into power know that a moderate compromise bill is all we can get. So quit the grandstanding and go do something. Otherwise, you'll be reduced to whining as the minority party come January, 2011.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 6:50 PM   

I can't help but notice how many progressives are pretending that the reconciliation option does not exist now that it's obvious that Democratic leadership doesn't want to go that way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 10:16 PM   

I'm with Woolsey. You'd think the Senate Dems are trying to throw congress back to the Republicans... after they do as much as they can for big business, who has never had the good of the public at heart.

Remember who these weak conservative Senators are and replace them ASAP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 9, 2009 10:35 PM   

this was major legislation and what did our president do - he hid behind the white house and did not fight for anything specific in this bill. all our president said on major legislation is that he would like his broad outlines contained in the bill. i am sorry, what kind of piss poor leader is the president - let me remind you, major legislation. he did not fight for anything by using the bully pullpit called the public arena - except some broad outlines crap. this guy is a trip. i bet he fought to make the pharma language jive with what he and his crew agreed to in their secret meeting

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 10, 2009 7:27 AM   

At this point, I WANT Lieberman--or someone else--to filibuster. The health insurance industry has been awarded 30 million more potential customers by the corporatist whores that populate our Congress. Vote this monstrosity down and lower the Medicare eligiblity age to 1.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 10, 2009 8:07 AM   

Make that age 0.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on