
The jury is still out on whether President Obama has cinched 60 needed votes for health care legislation. But before there's any clarity liberal and conservative Democrats will have to reach accord on the public option--an issue Obama eschewed in his presentation to the caucus this afternoon. So where are things now?
With the blessing of leadership, and the help of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), liberal and conservative Democrats are continuing to meet to find a solution. "I called and personally asked five moderates and five progressives to work things out and the issues that they care a lot about: Public option, small business," Reid said at a press conference after a rare Sunday caucus meeting. "And they've had, I don't know how many meetings, but many."
"Progress is being made and that's not just talk. They've made a lot of progress."
On the table are a number of ideas, including affixing a public option to a trigger, and potentially allowing states to opt in to a public option. Starting last night, some senators began discussing a separate plan to let the government negotiate premiums with private, non-profit companies on behalf of some insurance consumers--much as they do for federal employees.
Details remain scarce. "People are discussing it," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said today. "But, you know, there's probably not enough detail not enough meat ton the bones at this point for people to reach any final judgment."
"I'll feel comfortable when it's out," said public option foe Joe Lieberman (I-CT). "I don't understand exactly this new proposal. If it's private, and there's no federal government financial exposure and the government's not creating an insurance company--that's the one [idea] I've been concerned about."
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), who's been working with moderate and conservative Democrats on the issue, declined to comment. It's unclear, for instance, whether such a policy would sit alongside a government plan, or whether it would replace the public option altogether. The latter would put Democratic leaders in the uncomfortable position of selling something as a public option that's not a public option at all.
"Well, I don't think much of it, frankly, compared to a public option," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told reporters last night. "I'm willing to talk to anybody about anything but they haven't sold it yet."
We should know more soon. If Democrats need to dramatically alter the bill to bring all members of their caucus aboard, they'll have to do so shortly, if they hope to have a bill voted out of the Senate by Christmas.
Cal Gal
December 6, 2009 5:51 PM
OK, here (not in the story linked on the front page) is the "60 needed votes" canard.
The Democrats could pass health care reform by using budget reconciliation, just like the health care reform known as COBRA was passed. (The "BR" in COBRA stands for Budget Reconciliation.)
The ReThugs didn't hesitate to use budget reconciliation to pass the biggest, stupidist tax cut in my lifetime. Why can't the Democrats show the same moxie and get THIS done?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
December 6, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to Cal Gal
OK, got my links mixed up, but the point stands. And I must say I've always thought all they had to do was open the FEHBP to private individuals who were willing to pay both halves of the premium, and to employers willing to pay the same amount the feds pay as an employer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bouncing_b
December 7, 2009 12:43 AM in reply to Cal Gal
"I've always thought all they had to do was open the FEHBP to private individuals who were willing to pay both halves of the premium, and to employers willing to pay the same amount the feds pay as an employer."
Not really. FEHB premiums are relatively low because federal employees are healthier than the overall population. If FEHB was opened to everyone, the premiums would have to go up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh Marshall
December 6, 2009 7:56 PM in reply to Cal Gal
The larger point on 60 votes is arguable. But the COBRA examples is false. We looked into it a while back and found that out. The current reconciliation law passed in the same legislation AS COBRA. So it didn't happen under that legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarsThorwald
December 6, 2009 9:18 PM in reply to Josh Marshall
This is 100 percent correct, based on my research.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 6, 2009 7:26 PM
For all the people who keep citing the public option polls as a reason to pass this thing, it will be absolutely hilarious reading the reactions if the public option has to be stripped to get this to pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
December 6, 2009 10:19 PM in reply to masanf
No, it would be a shining example of the grinding boneheadedness of Congress, and the degree to which they represent their contributors more than their constituents..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
December 6, 2009 8:15 PM
I think the most important news is that the public option is NOT off the table. For a charged item like this these guys are keeping their cards close to their chest, just like they did with bringing the bill to the floor.
I think its politics, and they will have it in the final bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pablito
December 6, 2009 8:29 PM
"...and the government's not creating an insurance company--that's the one [idea] I've been concerned about."
You mean like Medicare, Lieberman, you know-nothing, craven useless POS?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 6, 2009 8:40 PM
It should have always been Medicare for all. There was no way to combat it politically. But then, there was no intention of health insurance reform. It's a cash cow, no different the farm subsidies we dole out every year and pay homage to every four years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
December 7, 2009 3:59 AM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
The Cash Cow in healthcare is your and my fat ass. The insurance companies FARM us like a herd of cash cows that they cull at will ..... for fat profits. I feel like the meat in some steaming financial soup. Insurance companies CONSUME human beings for billions in profits. How many dead humans can we tolerate? Harvard says over 40K every year. What pigs we really are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
janinsanfran
December 6, 2009 8:46 PM
These people make me sick. They aren't negotiating health care reform. They are negotiating insurance company protection. They give a damn about people. All they care about are their own cushy behinds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
December 6, 2009 8:48 PM
As long as they remove the mandate,
they can remove the public option or trigger it or whatever.
Revoke the anti-trust exemption and just get as much competition and reform as they can without either and get as much competition and reform as they can without them.
I won't accept their mandate without a true public option... as far as I am concerned we were sold on a public option instead of single payer by the our politicians and it has all been a scam to get us to accept a mandate no matter what they give us in return.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 6, 2009 9:27 PM in reply to synchronicity
Exactly. No public option should mean no mandate. Anyone who supports a mandate without a public option is arguing for nothing better than a subsidy for the private insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
December 6, 2009 10:22 PM in reply to destor23
Moreover, there can't be personal mandate without a public option that's available to everyone, regardless of income - unlike the current proposal. That would have the added benefit of expanding the pool; as it is it's likely that there would be too few people in the PO to get decent rates (which is an integral factor that's been largely ignored in the whole debate).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann H
December 6, 2009 10:49 PM in reply to midnight rambler
You guys are confused. If they take out the mandate, that is the whole ball game. You can't require insurance companies to take everyone without individual underwriting (ie, pre-existing condition exclusions and extremely high rates) without requiring everyone to have insurance. Nor does the public option work any better without the mandate; it gets all the sick folks and sinks under its own weight. Like it or not, the mandate -- nearly universal coverage/participation -- is key to many of the reforms. That's why it is in there.
What you want is the deepest possible subsidies with the mandate, so that premiums are actually affordable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 7, 2009 2:09 AM in reply to Ann H
Right; reform without the mandate is like trying to build an arch without the keystone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 8:00 AM in reply to slb
Reform requires BOTH a mandate and a public option. The mandate without the PO is just a gift to insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 6, 2009 11:19 PM in reply to midnight rambler
Eligibility for the public option is not based on income in any iteration of the bill. I'm not sure where this particular canard started, but it is and always has been untrue. Moreover, the public option will almost certainly be more expensive and offer less coverage than the average large group market plan.
In regards to McCarran-Ferguson, I support it as a matter of principle and think the anti-trust exemption is absurd, but the CBO has already said it would basically have no impact on costs or the options available to most people. The FEHB buy-in being considered would be much more effective on that front than repealing McCarran-Ferguson, and if HuffPost is correct, it appears that it's going to be considered as an amendment apart from the public option debate (which is good news).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lynn Dee
December 6, 2009 9:30 PM
Here's my idea for getting to 60 -- soak a handkerchief in chloroform, press it to Joe Lieberman's nose, tie him up and gag him, and stash him in a closet until Obama signs the bill. Hire a Joe Lieberman impersonator to vote yea on all bills necessary. Or, for fun, have the impersonator vote yea on all procedural votes and no on the bill itself.
This worked quite well on a number of the old I Love Lucy shows, and I see no reason why it shouldn't work here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
grenadine
December 6, 2009 11:53 PM in reply to Lynn Dee
Lynn, I like the cut of your jib.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 7, 2009 9:03 AM in reply to Lynn Dee
It'd be easy enough to come up with a Joe Lieberman dummy. I mean, look at the original.... But wouldn't we need to do the same for Lincoln, Nelson, and the rest of the self-proclaimed "moderates"? That's a lot of dummies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 7, 2009 9:40 AM in reply to Lynn Dee
Hey, something a lot like that worked for the Republicans for years until they were finally forced to admit that Strom Thurman was actually dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?