TPMDC
Stabenow: If We Can Scrap The Public Option And Gain Support, 'That Works For Me'
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Share
Send to a friend!
After a press event supporting a patient's bill of rights, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)--a staunch public option supporter, told reporters she'd be happy with a health care bill without a public option, so long as it accomplishes the public option's imperatives of lowering costs and providing competition.
"If we can do the same thing [as a public option] through another mechanism, and get broader support, I'm willing to look at that," Stabenow said.
"For those of us who want a public option, we have to look at why did we want it: Not the name I didn't support the public option because of its name. I supported a public option because of what it did. So if we can accomplish it without calling it that, that works for me."
Stabenow said the CBO will play a big part in determining whether any of the compromise proposals actually succeed on that score. "That's why these things, we can't immediately say yes or no to, because we have to look at it in the context of the whole bill, making sure we're keeping our commitment to lower the deficit," she said.
Whether liberal and conservative Democrats can reach accord on the public option--and what accord they actually reach--are perhaps the most crucial unresolved questions hanging over the Senate health care debate. We'll be keeping an eye on all of it.
Comments (15) | 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.
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 12:40 PM
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is now leading a group including Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) to introduce an amendment that would require 90 percent of the money consumers spend on health insurance premiums go directly to health care costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve
December 9, 2009 10:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
And they are supposed to pay for their own operations out of what? Good luck ever speaking to anybody if you have a problem with anything. Good luck appealing a denied claim. This is the typical idiotic measure you expect from somebody with no concept of the term "unintended consequences".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 7, 2009 12:45 PM
This title is misleading considering that she said "If we can do the same thing [as a public option] through another mechanism, and get broader support, I'm willing to look at that".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrToast
December 7, 2009 12:58 PM
And what did the public option do? Well, it prevented people from being legally forced to buy health insurance from a private corporation.
So I'd like to hear how are you going to achieve that without a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
December 7, 2009 1:13 PM in reply to DrToast
Stronger regulations on health insurers and providers. Non-profit status for both. Compensation caps on exec's. Standardized form. Rapid payout. Cost savings from removal of profit, exec, comp. advertising, pr, lobbyists, etc. reflected in premium costs. Cost saving measures for Health providers same. no profit, no $M exec's, no advertising, no collection dept.s less admin with standard form. Plenty of room for cost cutting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve
December 9, 2009 10:10 PM in reply to Jackster
Something called jackster blurted: "Stronger regulations on health insurers and providers. Non-profit status for both. Compensation caps on exec's. Standardized form. Rapid payout. Cost savings from removal of profit, exec, comp. advertising, pr, lobbyists, etc. reflected in premium costs. Cost saving measures for Health providers same. no profit, no $M exec's, no advertising, no collection dept.s less admin with standard form. Plenty of room for cost cutting."
And why exactly do you think any company of individual provider will be providing you with either insurance or health care if they can't make a profit???? You think doctors and mental health professionals spend years in school and spend 100's of thousands of dollars so they can make no profit and live in a cardboard box because you happen to be too cheap to pay for healthcare? Yeah providers are just going to trip all over themselves for that deal (snicker). People like you who will do all you can to avoid paying for anything are a major reason why costs are so high now. All the people who pay their medical bills subsidize the deadbeats who don't. As a provider I can tell you if you get what you are aking for you better start practiciing do it yourself medicine because you aren't going to be getting care from anybody else. Let me know how your first do it yourself surgical procedure goes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
December 19, 2009 9:53 PM in reply to Steve
Like it matters now...
Non-profit does not mean, without fair compensation.
Doctors should make a fair and generous wage based on their skills and performance. Do you get paid huge wages based on your debts?
Many helth care providers and some insurance companies are non-profit and the quality of their product and services do not suffer. Health care is NOT a commodity. Compassion should not require insane excessive wages on the backs of customers.
regards,...something called Jackster
Caring, try it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 7, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to DrToast
The problem is that although progressive bloggers see the primary function of the public option as being to hurt the insurance companies, Washington just doesn't and never has seen it this way. Why would they?
To the people here saying we shouldn't have a personal mandate without a public option, a serious question: How do you plan to communicate this to Congress? They're not reading our comments here, buried on a random story on a liberal news blog. There has been no public push I've seen to have the personal mandate stripped. There's been no big-name pressure from the blogosphere or left-wing pressure groups on this, hell, just six months ago progressive bloggers and lawmakers were demanding the personal mandate be included. There's been lots of campaigning, congressperson contacting, ads on the public option, but on the mandate there has been crickets.
The personal mandate is pure evil-- do you have any idea how to communicate this to Congress? And without it being communicated that this is what the grassroots believes (assuming it is in fact what the grassroots believes in the first place)-- do you actually expect Congress to act on it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 7, 2009 1:28 PM
Nothing does what the public option does. That is exactly why the health insurance companies are desperate to sabotage it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve
December 9, 2009 10:14 PM in reply to wbgonne
And what, other than push the country a little closer to an unsustainable national debt, does the public option do? It always amuses me the people who are perfectly willing to turn their healthcare over to an organization, i.e. the federal government, which mismanages virtually everything it touches. And if you bleieve creating a third giant federal health care beauracracy will cut costs I have some beautiful ocean front property to sell you, in Kansas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
December 7, 2009 1:31 PM
no public option, no mandate.
period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
December 7, 2009 1:36 PM
I think the most intelligent thing to do at this point is scrap the public option... they're at the point of a just pretending to give us one anyway with a 'trigger'.
And KILL THE MANDATE!!! As Well!!
Otherwise I think this entire dialogue has been one really sick way to soft sell the American public on a health insurance company bailout(en'rich'ment program) in the form of a mandate.
Then get whatever reforms you can get to increase competition and reduce costs without those two elements.
If you can get a requirement of percentage of premiums to be spent on care, great, no rejection for pre-existing conditions, great, make it illegal and enforceable that health insurers cannot dump people because they get sick, great...
get rid of that ridiculous anti-trust exemption...etc.
We are not getting a real public option so we should not be agreeing to a mandate with penalties.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 7, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to synchronicity
sounds good.
or they could keep the mandate, but not enforce it.
Tell the insurance industry that's something that can be fixed down the road. Incrementally. Don't let the good be the enemy...blah blah blah
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 7, 2009 2:17 PM
another friggin idiot who has passed the ball to insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve
December 9, 2009 10:22 PM
There are too main things that drive up the cost of healthcare.
1. Frivilous lawsuits
2. People who don't pay their medical bills.
Everybody who pays insurance premiums and/or for their care pays to subsidize both items one and two. The solution to number 1 is tort reform which may be promptly found unconstitutional by the courts since it limits the right to sue in court which is a constitutional right. Number 2 is easier, Legislatively force people to pay their bills even if they have to do it in small monthly payments. Either they pay for their services or you do. Your choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?