
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says there's no sense in trying at this point. The public option should be put aside for the moment, so that health care reform can pass unperturbed--particularly because the measure on offer has already been watered down to a great degree.
"I fought for a meaningful public option, both in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor," Rockefeller says in a new statement. "My version didn't pass out of committee and other versions were watered down. Unfortunately, there simply has not been enough support to date to pass a strong public option, despite these efforts."
I will continue to support viable options for enacting a robust public plan. Right now, however, there is no value for the American people in diminishing a meaningful public option so substantially that it exists in name only -- and that is why we must focus our attention on the many great private health insurance reform ideas on the table today.
Rockefeller took a similar position on the issue of drug reimportation--a policy he supports and which may have had enough votes to pass in the Senate, but which was met with resistance by leading Democrats seeking to preserve industry's support for health care reform. You can read the entire statement below the fold.
"From the very beginning, I have supported a strong and meaningful public option that would lower costs for consumers and hold health insurance companies accountable. That is why I introduced the Consumers Health Care Act (S. 1278), which would have saved consumers at least $50 billion over ten years. I also supported the House's public option approach, which would have saved consumers more than $100 billion over ten years."I fought for a meaningful public option, both in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor. My version didn't pass out of committee and other versions were watered down. Unfortunately, there simply has not been enough support to date to pass a strong public option, despite these efforts.
"I will continue to support viable options for enacting a robust public plan. Right now, however, there is no value for the American people in diminishing a meaningful public option so substantially that it exists in name only -- and that is why we must focus our attention on the many great private health insurance reform ideas on the table today.
"We need to continue the forward momentum on health care reform, and find ways to hold health insurance companies accountable and to lower costs for consumers. This is why I am fighting for other effective ways to achieve these health insurance reform goals, including a minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement and the creation of a federal authority to review premium increases -- both are included in the President's proposal along with a number of other critical health insurance reforms.
"I do not oppose reconciliation, and have long made the case for exploring all avenues available to pass health reform."
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM INITIATIVES THAT PASSED IN THE SENATE BILL:Requiring Health Insurance Companies to Spend 85 Percent of Consumers' Premium Dollars on Actual Medical Care (i.e. minimum medical loss ratios). As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Rockefeller has led several investigations into health insurance industry practices and their impact on consumers. A recent series of investigations uncovered disturbing information about the percentage of consumers' premium dollars that health insurance companies actually spend on medical care, instead of marketing and profits. Senator Rockefeller subsequently joined Senator Al Franken (D-MN) in introducing the Fairness in Health Insurance Act (S. 1730), which would require all health insurers to spend at least 90 percent of premium dollars on actual medical care. Rockefeller also pushed, unsuccessfully, for a minimum medical loss ratio requirement during the Senate Finance Committee's health reform mark-up. After the Finance Committee mark-up, Senator Rockefeller worked with Leader Reid, the Congressional Budget Office, and the "Gang of 10" Senators to make sure that strong medical loss ratio requirements would be included in the final bill. Ultimately, the manager's amendment requires health insurers to spend at least 85 percent of premiums (85 percent in the large group market, 80 percent in the small and individual group markets) on actual health care services, not administrative costs, marketing campaigns or profits. This provision is also applied to grandfathered health plans.
Stronger Prohibitions on Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits. On May 21, Senator Rockefeller introduced the Annual and Lifetime Health Care Limit Elimination Act (S. 1149) to prohibit insurers from imposing annual or lifetime limits as part of any individual or group health insurance policy. The Finance Committee health reform bill included a provision to eliminate annual and lifetime limits on coverage, but only in the individual and small group markets. During the Finance health reform mark-up, Senator Rockefeller filed an amendment (C3) to strengthen the underlying language regarding annual and lifetime limits. Chairman Baucus ultimately included language prohibiting insurers in the large group market from imposing "unreasonable" annual or lifetime limits on coverage - with the term "unreasonable" undefined. Senator Rockefeller continued to push for a full prohibition on annual and lifetime limits. Ultimately, the manger's amendment bans lifetime dollar limits on coverage and, prior to 2014, tightly restricts use of annual dollar limits on coverage to be sure individuals can access needed care. These restrictions are based on criteria developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Annual dollar limits on coverage will be completely prohibited beginning in 2014, when the state health insurance exchanges are operational.
Independent Federal Data Center to Provide Objective Medical Charge Information to Consumers and Providers. For many years, the commercial health insurance industry has collected medical charge information and used this data to calculate reimbursement rates for health care services delivered outside their networks. The private entity that collected this data and calculated payment rates was a health services company called Ingenix, a subsidiary of United Healthcare. Recent investigations by the New York Attorney General and the Senate Commerce Committee exposed the flaws of the Ingenix system - its calculations systematically underestimated the actual market costs of health care, which meant that consumers paid more for out-of-network services than they should have under the terms of their health care coverage. As part of the settlement they reached with the New York Attorney General, United Healthcare and other New York-based insurers who used the Ingenix data agreed to contribute money to start up a non-profit entity that would provide accurate, independent cost data to insurance companies, providers, and consumers. The manager's amendment includes a provision to create an independent federal data center to collect medical charge information from private insurance payers, analyze and organize this information, and then make it available to consumers, health insurance payers, providers, researchers, and policy makers.
Additional Insurance Transparency and Reporting Requirements. On May 14, Senator Rockefeller introduced the Informed Consumer Choices in Health Care Act (S. 1050), legislation to help consumers obtain the information they need to make informed choices about health insurance coverage. He subsequently held a Commerce Committee hearing on Consumer Choices and Transparency in the Health Insurance Industry on June 24. Wendell Potter and others testified that health insurance industry makes it as hard as possible for consumers to understand the terms and benefits of policies. While both the Senate HELP and Finance Committee health reform bills included some provisions from S. 1050, Senator Rockefeller redoubled his efforts to improve transparency after hearing details of the insurance industry's efforts to intentionally consumer consumers. He filed an amendment (C12) during the Finance Committee's health reform mark-up to strengthen the transparency provisions. While his amendment was not adopted during the Finance mark-up, Leader Reid strengthened the transparency and reporting provisions as part of the merged Senate bill. Additionally, Senator Rockefeller successfully secured language in the manager's amendment requiring insurers (including grandfathered plans) to publicly report on a number of indicators that show how well they treat both consumers and providers within their network. These provisions will help consumers make informed choices of the health coverage they buy.
Federal Studies of the Large Group Market (including the Self-Insured Market). Senator Rockefeller has fought consistently to apply the health insurance market reforms and consumer protections to health insurance in every single market, including the large group market.
In an effort to protect consumers in the self-insured market, Senator Rockefeller filed an amendment (C1) to the Senate Finance Committee health reform mark that would have applied all of the health insurance market reforms to the self-insured market. While he was able to successfully extend the prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits to the self-insured market as part of the Finance-passed bill, he was not able to secure the application of the remaining reforms to the self-insured market. At Senator Rockefeller's urging, Leader Reid included several of the provisions from the HELP-passed bill which applied many of the insurance reforms to the self-insured market - including no pre-existing condition exclusions, no rescissions, dependent coverage up to age 26, and a mandatory internal and external appeals process - as part of the merged Senate bill. However, other critical reforms - such as minimum medical loss ratio, minimum creditable coverage, and a prohibition of discrimination based on salary - still do not apply to the self-insured market. Ultimately, Senator Rockefeller was able to secure two comprehensive studies of the large-group market in the manager's amendment to help inform reform of this market in the future.
Immediate Elimination of Pre-existing Condition Exclusions for Children. The manager's amendment would immediately eliminate all pre- existing condition exclusions for children under age 19. Senator Rockefeller secured inclusion of this key insurance reform for children as part of the "Gang of 10" negotiations between moderate and progressive Democrats. This provision is based on legislation he reintroduced earlier this year - the Pre-existing Conditions Patient Protection Act (S. 623). Senator Rockefeller also filed an amendment (C2) to the Finance Committee health reform mark to immediately eliminate all pre-existing condition exclusions for children.
Icon
February 24, 2010 10:04 AM
Though I disagree with Rockefeller's reasoning, I agree that the bottom line is that the bill should not be stopped if it doesn't contain a public option.
There's many great provisions in the Senate bill, and the failure of the public option to clear the Senate can't be allowed to sink the rest of the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 24, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to Icon
I don't think Rockefeller was every really for the Public Option. I think he was just giving his buddy Max Bacaus cover.
Also, he knows the White House struck a deal with the for-profit hospital lobby to limit its cost reductions to $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for a White House promise that there would be no meaningful Public Option. It's no worth fighting for without Rahm-Bama backing the PO.
According to The NY Times:
"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,'"
http://dumprahm.wordpress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
February 24, 2010 10:18 AM
Rockefeller: Because the public option wouldn't be "robust," let's not pass a public option at all.
The problem with Rockefeller's reasoning is that starting with a weak public option is a likelier path to a "robust" public option than starting with no public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 24, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to Eric Jaffa
I remember when all the progs and trolls were complaining that the public option wasn't good enough and now those same folks are complaining because it's not in the bill.
Sacrebleu
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
February 24, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to lousgirl84
A weak public option would be a good start.
No public option would be a bad start.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 24, 2010 10:38 AM in reply to Eric Jaffa
I remember when all the progs and trolls were complaining that the public option wasn't good enough and now those same folks are complaining because it's not in the bill.
Sacrebleu
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
February 24, 2010 10:19 AM
Relitigating this now would just be a disaster and would likely kill the whole thing. Pass the damn bill and try to create a public option at some time in the future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
February 24, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to IndyLinda
Like next year when there will probably be fewer Democrats in the Senate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
February 24, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to Eric Jaffa
Well then. We'd better do some damage now, so that when you patriots take over again, you spend all your time being frustrated.
I'm down with that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 24, 2010 10:39 AM
"I fought for a meaningful public option, both in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor,"
That depends on what you mean by "fought". Rockefeller: rewriting history one second at a time. Just another snake oil salesman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rawresolve
February 24, 2010 10:45 AM
This guy worked overtime to cover up the massive domestic spying program and data collection on Americans. He for a while showed a little of principled backbone on health care. Now here we are again.
Imagine if he put the same effort in serving the needs of the American people as covering up crimes and blatant violations of what's left of the 4th Amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pete Bilderback
February 24, 2010 10:50 AM
Honestly, Rockefeller is making some sense here. The public option had been watered down so much that many were questioning whether it would be effective anyway.
Once we have an insurance mandate in place, if costs are not kept under control (and I see no reason to expect they will be) there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to create a true, robust, public option.
I think many people are making the mistake of thinking that whatever is in this bill will be all we ever get. But that is actually a very unlikely scenario. Once you get the ball of reform rolling (which the President's plan certainly does) it will be very difficult to stop. This is why the Republicans have fought tooth and nail against any kind of health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
February 24, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to Pete Bilderback
Going from a weak public option to a strong public option would be easier than going from no public option to a strong public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pete Bilderback
February 24, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Eric Jaffa
Maybe, but not necessarily. Once you create a new bureaucracy it will be harder to change it. It might be better to build a big enough ship in the first place rather than trying to retrofit a life raft into an ocean liner.
But the basic, inescapable, fact is that once we have mandatory insurance in place, there will be tremendous pressure--from voters on both the left and right--on Congress to provide an affordable, government run option. If you look at history, these kinds of big reforms rarely happen all at once, but certain things happen later as an inevitble result of taking the first steps.
Also, remember, the public option was a compromise proposal in the first place. Personally, I'd prefer to see every man, woman and child in America automatically enrolled in Medicare, and the insurance industry reduced to the roll of providing supplemental insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 24, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to Eric Jaffa
I agree with Mr Bilderbac on this. If the current HCR bill does manage to control costs, then a public option, however desirable it might be on ideological grounds, isn't necessary. If the current HCR does not adequately control costs then there will be more room to argue for some kind of public option.
This bill is the first step toward comprehensive HCR, not the last. It is going to take a generation at least to get it right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Flybynite
February 24, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to Pete Bilderback
He makes a lot of sense. Insisting on a public option is going to get us nothing. And that will be a disaster, electorally and for millions of Americans. We need to wind this up now and move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 24, 2010 10:51 AM
This is the democratic party. Not enough votes for popular policy, plenty of votes for the industry and big money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 24, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to Indie Pro
with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and a democratic party all ready more concerned with keeping the money from the Insurance and Pharma, and the Senate bill cementing the worst of our system and merely throwing money at the problem, this is looking like a failure of reform -but a boon for democrats, because they will keep telling you to elect them, and give them money to fix the problem they were unwilling to fix this time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
February 24, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Except that many will not get reelected. They, of yet, have failed to realize that. Much like many on here who continue to call progressives whiners and idiots for continuing to push for the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
February 24, 2010 10:56 AM
"I fought for a meaningful public option, both in the Senate Finance Committee...,"
Really? Was that when you and the majority Democrats were marginalized by that asshole Baucus when he eleveted the Republican members to parity on his commitee? You didn't say a word, you just took it.
Rockefeller is a perfect example of what is wrong with so many Senate Democrats. They talk a good game about being liberal and so forth but are to cowardly to actually legislate.
With their putting parlimentary rules or senatorial coutesies above governing they insist on treating the collegial rules of their chamber of the national legislature, not governing itself, as their job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 24, 2010 11:01 AM
Good on ya, Rock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Monster
February 24, 2010 11:07 AM
We can give away- what, eight ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?