TPMDC

Are Pro-Public Option Senators Mourning The Loss Of The Medicare Buy In?

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Joe Lieberman is the man of the hour. But though he's threatening to filibuster the Democrats' health care bill, he did not speak at an impromptu caucus meeting on the legislation this evening. Perhaps that's because he appears to have won this round: The Medicare buy-in--the key feature of a public option compromise reached tentatively last week--is now being discussed in the past tense by some of its most ardent proponents.

One member who did speak, according to a source briefed on the meeting, was Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who offered an impassioned plea. "Don't let these obstructionists win," Specter reportedly said. "I came to this caucus to be your 60th vote." His words were met with a loud applause, which was audible through the doors of the LBJ room, and down the hall toward the Senate chamber.

But that applause may belie the reality--that the chief items on the Democrats' wish list appear to be dead or dying. The public option is gone from the Senate bill. The Medicare buy-in, which was supposed to take its place, is on life support at best.

Walking in to the meeting, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) was asked whether the buy-in, and a triggered public option would be stripped from the compromise.

"[L]ooks that way," Harkin said. "There's enough good in this bill that even without those two."

After the meeting, Senators were largely mum about what was discussed. But neither of two public option enthusiasts--Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)--had much positive to say.

"I want to see health care reform," Brown said. "There's going to be a good bill."

Rockefeller wouldn't discuss the Medicare buy-in.

"I can't answer that, obviously, and I think I probably shouldn't," Rockefeller said.

Rockefeller said that the hours he spent negotiating with nine other senators on the public option compromise, which now seems mostly out of play, were worth it. "Absolutely," he said.

So is it real reform without a Medicare buy-in?

"The answer to that is yes. Is it perfect reform? The answer to that is no. But does it help the people where I come from? Yes.

"500 things [in this bills] and you take one out and say, well, without that is this really reform. Could it have been better? Yeah. But it could've been so much worse if we'd just decided not to do anything because we didn't get everything we wanted."

Comments (46) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

December 14, 2009 8:13 PM   

Aren't these guys the Progressives in the Senate?

Why are so few willing to admit that the Progressives in Congress also caved right along with the other Dems? Why aren't more of you calling them spineless and making empty threats?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 8:37 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

There's a big difference. 90% of the Dem Senate caucus wnat to get a health reform bill...badly. A handful don't give a sh@t! Which group has more leverage?

And I don't want to hear anything about reconciliation. The prospects for passing a big, complex health care bill that way are weak at best.

It's not as simple as passing tax cuts!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 9:18 PM    in reply to rover27

For one, you have never seen me champion reconciliation. I do not champion something where I do not understand what the pros and cons are.

My observation is that when the Lefties in Congress cave,er, compromise - Liberal supporters pat them on the back and say, "aww did the big meanie Rahm make you vote? it's okay you did your best." However, when the WH or other Dems compromise, er, cave, they are are pummeled. They get called sell outs.

I'm just calling for people to stop playing favorites with members of Congress when it comes this vote. Everyone, with the exception of 4-5 people, compromised.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:01 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

...you want progressives to attack the people who pushed their interests? In equal proportion to the people who didn't? Why?

I get what you're going for. You don't like that people are attacking Dem leadership and the WH for compromises that the progressives also decided to make. But in a similar fashion that's kind of like saying they should be just as angry at the White House as they are at Joe Lieberman since they all ended up backing the final bill. (Presumably will)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 11:25 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

Did they cave? Seems to me they've been fighting for months for this. They didn't cave, they lost, there's a difference

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 11:38 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

As usual, Viva is talking out his/her ass, and Viva's premises are false.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 8:40 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

You're right. The progressive Senators are just as spineless as the leadership! In fact, the electorate is spineless too. Jesus, we let these Senators walk right over us.

I'm through with this whole nation. Gonna emigrate to Norway, where they understand the legislative process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 9:03 AM    in reply to Viva!America!

From a game theory standpoint, it's pretty easy to figure out. Lieberman and his pals on the right are the hostage takers. We're the ones trying to save the hostages. The hostages are the hundreds, or thousands, of people who will die each year because they don't have health insurance.

We care about the hostages lives and want to save them while Lieberman is more than willing to cap them if his petty, venal demands aren't met. And, unfortunately, we don't have a SWAT team sniper option availible to deal with Lieberman (though it makes for some diverting daydreams).

The fantasy that we can just ditch this thing now and come back and pass a better bill under the next Congress (no doubt Speaker Bachmann and Majority Leader DeMint will be very receptive to it) is just that, a fantasy. If we don't give Lieberman what he wants, he caps the hostages. He's a sociopath. He doesn't care.

Benen and Yglysias have blogged about this very issue over the last couple of days.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021442.php

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 8:38 PM   

All the pretty ornaments in the bill are not worth **** to people who can't afford them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 8:39 PM   

Once again, the progressives get screwed. The public option--the one thing that the progressives managed to keep in the bill that was even remotely close to what they wanted, i.e. single-payer--gets whittled down to practically nothing, and then is thrown overboard for this medicare buy-in thing. And then, when people start getting on board (reluctantly or not), that is taken away because Holy Joe throws another snit.

I have been thinking that dibgy has been exaggerating by presuming that the only real reason to throw out even such a weak, terrible public option that we keep hearing is "meaningless" (If it's meaningless, why not keep it in?) is to poke a stick in the eye of the left-wing; to show the left that no, they still have no pull in Washington, even with overwhelming control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. I didn't want to believe her. But it's pretty hard to set aside her assessment now, isn't it?

When these clowns start talking about how much else is in the bill, you know they've caved. This bill does nothing to reduce costs, does nothing to put pressure on the insurance industry, and will only be funneling millions of new customers their way. What a damn travesty.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:48 PM    in reply to dougom

MERRY CHRISTMAS, INSURANCE INDUSTRY. I agree with DOUGOM. The American people have been screwed. Democracy has been subverted by blackmail and the Whitehouse and the Senate leadership have been complicit. These are our American values, folks. Obama talks about maintaining our values so this must be what he is talking about. If Washington can line their pockets and pass crap for political bragging rights at the expense of the American people this must reflect our values. He who screams loudest and intimidates the most blatently wins! Lie, Cheat and do whatever you have to do to get the corner office in the industry you are protecting. It's the American way. This is nothing but a giant handout to the insurance industry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 8:48 PM   

IMO take what you can get now. This simplifies things considerably. The next step is to add a robust public option to a budget reconciliation bill later on and stick it to these bastards.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 8:50 PM   

You're dreaming, expat. The Republicans will count this as a victory; the health insurance industry lobbyists will be emboldened by keeping cost controls out. The weak-kneed Democrats will have no incentive to put such a thing in a bill.

Nope; we've been screwed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 8:57 PM    in reply to dougom

Everyone keeps saying this bill is too complex for reconciliation. So simplify it. Pass the 500 or so nigilly bits now then lower the boom by putting a basic
Medicare plus 5 public option in a recociliation bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 9:16 PM    in reply to expat46

They can't implement the private insurance controls through reconciliation, so you would lose all of those (no pre-existing conditions, no cap's, etc)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:08 PM    in reply to fsudirectory

As Expat said; the idea is that you pass the private industry side of the bill through the regular process and the public side, (the disputed part) through reconciliation separately. I have not heard any reason why that can't be done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 11:33 PM    in reply to Kevin Sutton

Because Lieberman would vote against the industry regulations because he's upset we pushed the public option via reconciliation and all we have is a public option with no industry regulations or recession banning.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 8:35 AM    in reply to dtOZONE

maybe they're hiding the fact that they'll push a stand-alone public option bill after this one passes from leiberman and other senators. i pray that this is what reid has up his sleeve.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 9:14 PM   

Honestly, over time I've become less interested in the public option or its compromise alternatives like the Medicare buy-in, than in strong regulation to control costs and sufficient subsidies to make the individual mandate affordable. Like most people I don't really understand all these bills that go bouncing around. But I suspect a lot of liberals who want the public option so badly as to consider it a "bad" bill without it or without these alternatives, are really engaging in a partisan war of choice rather than a thoughtful understanding of what different mechanisms in these bills do and don't accomplish. Now, some people really see the public option as the infant version of single payer or something similar in the future. And I respect that. But just because we don't get that now doesn't mean we shouldn't take what we can get, call it victory, and keep fighting for even more in the future.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 9:21 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

well said.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 6:45 AM    in reply to DCCyclone

We had strong regulation in the financial industry. How did that work out for you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 9:18 PM   

If there's no robust public option and no Medicare buy-in, then Progressives should band together to trim this bill further. Cut out the mandate and simply regulate the insurance industry. That would show some incremental gain without forcing citizens to hand over our money to those who resist real reform.

If something is better than nothing, make sure it's something the base supports. Don't couple it with a major giveaway to corporate obstructionists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 9:19 PM   

Are they stripping the mandate? You can't have a mandate without consumer choice!

And what about the Franken 90% Ammendment?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 9:41 PM    in reply to Cy Guy

What is the status of the 90% mandate?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:14 PM   

The Democrats should have just rolled over and accepted the health insurance dream sheet without all this posturing and play acting. But I suppose this way they got more than they expected

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:23 PM   

The WH is about as good as keeping it's healthcare promises as Tiger Woods is at keeping his marriage vows.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:36 PM   

Don't cave. Let the obstructionists filibuster. It will enable the American people to see what this debate is all about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:56 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

I agree, they should've let the reps ans conservadems burn it to the ground and ran on needing bigger majorities to give th eamerican people what they want

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:50 PM   

Will they lose the Sanders vote?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:52 PM   

Obama sold out the public option in the summer in a back room deal, thy've been faking it ever since.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 10:55 PM   

I'm unregistering as a Democrat if this bill has no real reform in it. I AM YOUR BASE. You are losing me you FUCKING IDIOTS.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 11:27 PM    in reply to theone718

clearly, the base, you are not

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

December 15, 2009 12:47 AM    in reply to dtOZONE

He meant to say former base, and that he clearly is. That make you any happier or Obama's poll numbers any better?

Obama's pissed that the White House's role leaked out. Why is he upset? According to you his base should be standing up and applauding -- not just the insurance companies.

And, oh, I did not vote for Obama in part because I recognized in time that he would make wonderful proposals and settle for something virtually worthless every time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 11:00 PM   

Let me get this straight. There is no public option but everyone legally has to buy insurance from the same insurance companies that overcharge now and get their drugs from the same companies that have jumped prices up by 9.6% this year, and the government is going to subsidize the poor, .... how is this going to cost everyone less and reduce the deficit?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 11:03 PM   

Sen.s Brown and Wyden both said that "activists" help them get this far and how great "activists" were, That's the strategy now, say nice things to the "base". They never understood that it wasn't the hard left who wanted this, it was 60-70 percent of the american people. Now they are pandering to progressives thinking it's a small group of disappointed folks. They better realize and fast that midterm loses will be greater and Obama may be down for one term, good job guys.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 11:31 PM   

I can't help thinking that Democrats could've played hardball on health care and produced a lot better bill. If a principled no nonsense hardass like Russ Feingold or Sherrod Brown were shepherding this bill through the Senate there would have been a more effective outcome. There is no fear of opposing the leadership.Caving to Joe Lieberman is like a stick in the eye.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 14, 2009 11:47 PM   

Lieberman's ego trip is great news for the GOP. They get to watch the Dems produce a bill that sucks and voters will hold the Dems responsible for it. Not that the GOP will have anything to offer anyway. They'd like the whole issue to go away.
I don't blame Obama. Rahmbo if he's all for caving to Lieberman. But most of the blame goes to Reid.
Neither party cares about the people they represent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 6:50 AM    in reply to jeffgee

Just like the stimulus. Watered it down until it was far less effective then we needed. Didn't get any republican votes. Now unemployment is 10 (as predicted) and everyone - except Obama apologistas - hates it. And good luck getting a meaningful second bite at that apple, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 12:41 AM   

A familiar pattern has re-emerged. The Republicans in Congress are ruthless, and the Congressional Democrats are gutless.

Our system of creating legislation is a double-edged sword. All too often, in order to accommodate enough people to support a bill, it becomes bloated with amendments and neutered by the need to compromise.

This can also impact the leaders of the cause -- the danger in trying to be all things to all people is that, more often than not, you end up being nothing to no one.

No public option? No single-payer proposal? No expanded Medicare plan? Big mistake.

Since single-payer appears to be off the table, with respect to calling this health care REFORM, without the public option there's no there there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 2:26 AM   

These are the same cowards that voted for the invasion of Iraq.

This country is a joke.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 3:54 AM   

David Rockefeller is the one you'd want. I read his book, "Memoirs." Lousy read, even lousier dude. The genocide technology goes back to him. He's close to 80 years old!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 5:45 AM   

Now we will have individual mandates with no PO, no medicare buy-in plan, no 90% Medical loss ratio.

The End. Change we can believe in??? How about "no choice for you, fool." How about "open up your wallets and give us money, or we'll just take it".

Oh well. The body stinks from the head down. Always has. Always will.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 8:50 AM   

It takes a LOT to make me say this, but screw the Democrats. This did it for me. I am done, no more donations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 9:15 AM   

This bill, without a public option or medicare buy in, but with a mandate is a pile of garbage and all the perfume the dems spray on it doesn't make it smell better. I'm a 60 year old smoker; under the Reid bill, my premium will be 4 1/2 times as much as a younger person; under the Baucus will, which they're talking about reinstating, my premium will be 6 1/2 times as much as a younger one. When you take that ratio and add on the base increase for covering preX, which will all happen now, there is no way to afford it. Small employers will either drop coverage or drop older employers.

And this group of dems can actually act like they've done something good!!!!!! They are guaranteeing that I won't have insurance so pardon me if I can't celebrate with them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 15, 2009 9:17 AM   

Is there anyone in journalism or the media who is capable of relating what is actually still in the bill. I think we have absolutely no idea what is being touted as still 'important legislation'. We know from Al Franken that 'portability' is still there. If that was your chief concern then I guess you are covered.

Does anyone know what there is in this bill that actually gets health care for people without insurance? Can anyone explain who these oft referred to 30 million who will have health insurance actually are? Surely that isn't just the Medicaid that they are expanding to 130% Does the 30 million just come from people who will be REQUIRED BY LAW to buy insurance?

I assume there still a hell of a lot of expense included in this bill. The only changes I hear are those that could have just been mandated by legislation any time in the past 20 years. If nothing else could some reporter or one politician PLEASE tell us what is left in the bill!

One is left to assume that the answers would cause more of an uprising than the loss of a worthless Public Option. If I am wrong then tell me why for godsake!

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