TPMDC
Nelson: There's Support For New Medicare Option
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is perhaps the Democrat most reluctant to sign on to major health care legislation. Cautioning that he and the rest of the group of 10 senators negotiating a public option compromise have plenty of work left to do, he says that the newest option--allowing some under 65 to buy insurance through Medicare--has some traction.
"This is not necessarily a final decision for all those 55-65, it would be one option," Nelson told reporters. "You're still faced with What do you do for the people below that?"
Nelson described it as, "just another idea being kicked around, that there probably is support for--the question is how much."
A fairly positive sign, given the source. More developments are expected tomorrow.
Comments (31) | 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.
masanf
December 7, 2009 6:33 PM
Man, talk about trying to parse every last sentence for something favorable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
December 8, 2009 2:44 AM in reply to masanf
The man is a hero, a saint. As far as we know he hasn't grossed us out with any gag-inducing shag. Given his bizarre take on fundamental human decency, we owe him our understanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 7, 2009 6:37 PM
Well he didn't say he was going to filibuster it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 7, 2009 6:51 PM
There is support to allow the public to buy into Medicare????????
Hell, that's all we wanted in the first place. They should have just done that in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 7, 2009 7:27 PM in reply to Darrius
that's not really how i read this. i read it as the medicare age threshold being moved down by like 5 years, and the medicaid threshold being moved up a bit, to 300% of poverty (i read in the AP story that's like $66,000/yr for a family of 4).
so the big concern i have is (as nelson said) what about everyone below the new age threshold or making, say, $70,000 with a family of 4? as far as i know, it would still be crippling for such a family to have to pay 100% of their premiums in the private market. because for that (what i have to think is a) massive donut hole in the middle, there is still little or no low-priced alternative to keep the private insurers honest with their premiums (i.e., no competition). so whatever the insurance companies lose out on in the 55-65 demo and the new medicaid demographic, they can just make up for by gouging the living hell out of the middle class small businessman. or am i missing something?
i will never understand the resistance against the public option (i mean, i understand it in terms of wanting obama to fail, but i'll never understand what the ARGUMENT against it is).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 7, 2009 7:28 PM in reply to nova voter
oops, that "or" in the first sentence of the second paragraph should be an "and," i suppose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 7, 2009 8:44 PM in reply to nova voter
The argument is "The government is bad." There is no credible argument against the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
December 7, 2009 10:10 PM in reply to nova voter
Dude - Medicaid up to 300% of the poverty line. This is actually pretty awesome, much better than anything I have seen. Do you have a link to the AP story you mentioned?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 7, 2009 11:56 PM in reply to El Puerco
It is not possible to pay for Medicaid for everyone up to 300% of the poverty line without bankrupting every state in the union.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 8, 2009 6:58 AM in reply to masanf
You are quite simply wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 8, 2009 7:10 AM in reply to masanf
AP changed it.
here's how it read originally -- see second paragraph:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1925869,Senate-health-care-legislation-12-07-09.article
here's the new version:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9267438
hell of an edit.
there is this bone, though:
"As the search for compromise intensifies, several Democrats also said a plan by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was receiving new interest as a means of injecting additional competition into the insurance system. It gives states an option to negotiate with private industry to provide group less expensive coverage for lower income residents. Currently, the bill allows that for any state's residents up to twice the federal poverty level, about $44,000 for a family of four, but that could be raised if negotiators decide they want to do so."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 7, 2009 10:41 PM in reply to nova voter
The argument is "The government is bad." There is no credible argument against the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wordie
December 7, 2009 8:56 PM in reply to Darrius
Shhhh...if the GOP realizes that, this option will go down in flames too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 7, 2009 10:45 PM in reply to Wordie
Right, I better keep that quiet.
Noooo, I must have a public option. I demand a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
December 7, 2009 8:01 PM
Maybe someone on TPM can go back to see what Nelson said when the Opt-In/Opt-Out was first suggested. My thought is Ben-Ben is willing to say there's "support" for anything that waters the bill down, then draws a new line in the sand in hopes of watering it down some more.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lifeofreilly
December 7, 2009 9:11 PM in reply to tosh
You're right - back then, he was also making semi-supportive noises.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
December 7, 2009 10:00 PM in reply to tosh
I don't think Nelson was the real stumbling block on the latest public option. It was Joe/Snowe etc who were going to filibuster it. This latest plan will only be more sellable if it can get one of those two... or they go the reconciliation instead with whatever plan Reid prefers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 7, 2009 8:16 PM
There is also support for a wholly government run option, a trigger, co-ops, etc. With ten people in the room there is probably support for a whole bunch of things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
December 7, 2009 9:37 PM
Here's an idea. 50 to 65 buy into Medicare. 49 and under buy into Medicaid. Set premiums on an income based sliding scale. Establish co-pays. People will be paying into the system so it will support itself, just like the public option would have. Seems pretty simple. Focus on improving Medicare and Medicaid, remove insurance companies anti-trust exemption, and establish consumer protections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
December 7, 2009 9:59 PM
Could states put Medicaid on the "exchange"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
December 7, 2009 11:44 PM
Come on, what is the worst thing that could happen?
The best health care in the world could go the same as our educational system, second rate and on the way down.
But acording to The Supreme Leader it will not cost anything, and He never lies....Right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 7, 2009 11:59 PM in reply to inokeah
Rush? of course he Lies....for $20 million a year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 8, 2009 7:13 AM in reply to inokeah
you think the U.S. has the best health care in the world???????????? i can't begin to imagine what metric you're using.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 8, 2009 11:40 AM in reply to inokeah
Troll Fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
December 8, 2009 12:06 AM
Inokeah: Wow, that does suck. And the French will be pissed if the best health care system in the world suffers. Because they have it. The U.S. clocks in at No. 37, between Costa Rica and Slovenia. Of course, the World Health Organization is a bunch of socialists (I mean, 'World' is right in their name) so they are probably lying about those rankings. I personally look to AHIP and the US. Chamber of Commerce for the real truth.
As you obviously do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
December 8, 2009 3:50 AM
Memo to Nelson: When your abortion amendment fails, STFU about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 8, 2009 7:25 AM
Can't we please just come up with a good bill and make these idiots actually filibuster?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 8, 2009 7:30 AM in reply to cawleybo
The thing is: you don't need to actually filibuster to filibuster at this point. You can't force them to do the whole reading-the-phonebook, sleeping-on-cots filibuster until after it comes back from conference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gdb
December 8, 2009 9:30 AM in reply to Stroszek
Actually, you do need to actually filibuster if 50 Dems plus Joe Biden insist on it (but that MIGHT hurt somebody's feelings in Club Senate). Actually, 50 Dems plus Joe B could also vote to eliminate the filibuster--- if they had a pair of collective cajones somewhere among them. Senate rules can be changed by majority vote... and it's time to be rid of an early 19th anachronism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 8, 2009 11:41 AM in reply to gdb
Seconded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 8, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to Dorn76
Thirded
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?