
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today that it's up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid whether to try to pass a public option via reconciliation.
Gibbs was asked for comment on the letter urging Reid to pass a public option with 50 votes. The letter has been signed by 20 senators so far.
"I think they've asked for a vote on the floor of the Senate, and that's up to those who manage the amendments, and to Leader Reid," Gibbs said.
A Senate leadership aide told TPMDC last week that such a measure can't pass without explicit support from the president.
Watch:
The letter, written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), has been signed by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). You can see the rest of the signatories here.
President Obama released his own health care proposal today. It does not include a public option.
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 2:30 PM
I think at this point it is ridiculous to assume the President will ever work for the Public Option.
I guess he is too busy making the penalty stiffer against those who dare to not buy "for-profit" insurance. What is the penaly now, 2.5% of annual income under his new proposal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 22, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
He increased the penalty for going bare by half a percent for a family of four (i.e. a family with children) in the 22-29k adjusted gross (not gross) range. His plan also increased the amount of subsidy for that level from 90% in the Senate bill to 94%. (House bill is 97%).
Assuming they get a plan that costs the 2008 employer provided average for a family of four, $13,375.00, the subsidies would mean a family making 22,000.00 would have the choice of paying $802.50 per year ($15.43 per week) for insurance or $550.00 ($10.50 per week) for the right to sign up for insurance after someone gets sick.
I really don't see how that's so terribly outrageous and I very much doubt any of the uninsured families with 22K per year in take home pay would thank you for depriving them of that choice because the idea they might choose a for-profit insurer from their state's exchange offends your ideological sensibilities.
The only way I can see to morally justify that stance is by assuming facts not in evidence, like, for example, assuming that the insurance they buy will be "worthless," because the insurers will never, ever pay a big claim, and they'll be allowed to get away with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
isn't this the thread where you argue that the letter is really a 3-d chess move by leadership.
either way, the apology for the penalty hike is duly noted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 22, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to Indie Pro
No, it's the thread where I call bullshit on acting like proposing that the government tax the rich to pay 94% of the cost of health insurance for millions of working poor families that have nothing now is a betrayal of the progressive cause and, indeed, of all that's good and decent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Okay.
Thanks for attaching it to my comment that points out that instead of proposing anything that cuts costs and cuts the deficit and offers more choices and competition, like the PO; Obama proposes a hike on the penalties for not obeying the mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 22, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes. He's raising it by $110.00 per year, less than two bucks a week, for a family of four with take-home pay of 22K. That's true. No question about it. The idea being to close the gap between the cost of going bare vs. the cost of going ahead and getting the insurance.
That's really only a big horrible thing if you're against the mandate, even one this weak, in principle. You are, I'm not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 22, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
And you really believe a family of 4 making $22K has an extra $800?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 22, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to bluebell
I believe an uninsured family of four that's clearing (not making, clearing--it's a big difference at that level) 22k, and yet somehow does not qualify for Medicaid under the vast expansion proposed under the bill--i.e. virtually none of them--will gladly come up with fifteen bucks a week for the peace of mind of being able to get their kids in to see a doctor before conditions become acute. They'll gladly pay that amount to get primary care for, quite possibly, the first time in their lives.
I grew up in East Kentucky. I know more than a bit about what 22K a year means. My dad was making a lot less than that--adjusted for inflation--the year he died, uninsured, in a V.A. hospital of a case of lung cancer that was caught far too late. And if he hadn't been a vet, he would have died at home with no pain meds and no oxygen to ease him on his way.
I know firsthand what the constant anxiety caused by not having any health insurance for themselves or their kids means to people are just getting by. And, at least for a lot of working poor people in Appalachia, paying a little bit each week for their insurance is going to be the diffence between feeling like they own it and earned it and are entitled to it and feeling yet again like useless victims and wards of the state.
No, a family scraping by on 22K in take-home pay doesn't have 800 bucks in a lump sum and there's no way in hell most of them could come up with it. But they won't have to. They'll pay it the same way you pay for everyting else when you're poor: a week or a month at a time, as the bill comes due. But it least, for once, they won't be paying more for it because just they don't have the lump sum in hand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mikael99
February 22, 2010 2:36 PM
If Obama fails on the public option he is a one term president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 22, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Mikael99
What are you talking about? It was dropped before and he was not the one that brought it back to life, and he is not the one hunting for Senators to sign it a petition to get it back. So if it fails again, look to the Senators who DID NOT sign the petition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to Viva!America!
It's in the House bill, and so could be part of the recon side car, I guess that is where he is dropping it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Only 20 Senators have signed on for a public option but it's Obama's fault if it doesn't pass.
You firebaggers are almost as good as the Republicans at this math thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 22, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to FreeRider
leadership isn't about waiting for 50 senators to sign on to something before you'll stick your neck out for it.
(especially when 'it' is something you claimed to support during the campaign.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 22, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Exactly. What's more, I suspect the WH doesn't want the PO reconciliation bid to succeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to FreeRider
I made a good faith effort to answer her question.
Here is yet another opportunity for Obama to help get the Public Option passed.
The votes are not there for anything yet, so votes must be won. Where does Obama put the weight of his endorsement? Let's judge him by his actions, or inactions.
He could endorse the letter, included the PO in his proposal, etc. He hasn't. I think that is what the commenter was commenting about. If he is not fighting for what you want, then it is fair to speak out against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Indie Pro and "good faith" don't belong in the same sentence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to FreeRider
now the personal attacks.
when will TPM honor their comment policy and ask you to stop attacking commenters.
TPMCafe is a venue for lively and passionate debate. But insults, personal attacks and the like make that sort of enlivening exchange impossible. If you just want to scream and taunt, please go somewhere else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Play victim much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 22, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
There are times when the maxim, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, applies. And sometimes the left in this nation -- and I consider myself a member of it -- is guilty of this. But the WH doesn't seem to be lifting a finger for the PO -- indeed in many instances over the last year it has seemed to be working against it. And besides that issue is the tax one. The House approach to tax the millionaires is by far a better approach that taxing health care premiums, both on policy and politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 22, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to rwc
I agree
except I don't think that maxim applies in this case, at this time. It may before the end. We'll see how it all comes down, and then make that judgement then. After all, you don't want to put the cart before the horse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 22, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to rwc
The only premiums they're going to tax are on high end policies that are used as a means of sheltering income for rich people. The first 28k of insurance premiums are exempt. The only dollars that get taxed are premium dollars that exceed 28K. To the extent unions were in these plans, they've raised the threshold considerably (to 28K) and they're giving them plenty of time to bargain for higher wages in lieu of policies that will pay for an emergency room visit and an MRI, without copays or deductables, for a hangnail.
The high end premium tax is a tax on the rich. It closes a tax loophole that companies use to enable their executives to shelter tens of thousands of dollars in income from taxation. It hits policies like the 44K all the health care you can eat for free that Goldman Sachs provides to its executives as a means of putting a chunk of their income beyond the reach of the tax code.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 22, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to Viva!America!
leadership isn't about waiting for 50 senators to sign on to something before you'll stick your neck out for it.
neither the white house nor the senate leadership has made any effort to have a public option included. (and both have done plenty to see that isn't.)
they will BOTH deserve to share the blame for its absence. but obama is the one who will suffer most.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Leadership would be pissing around for the next 3 months on something that has only 1/3 of your own caucus behind it, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
February 22, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to FreeRider
Would you and Indie Pro just get a room, please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to Powkat
Would you like that room to have a two-way mirror so you can watch? Perv.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
February 22, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to FreeRider
Last time I will bother to reply to you. It was meant a humorous request to stop clogging up every comment page with the same argument. However, you are obviously an angry person without a sense of humor and an overweening ego. So you are not worth the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to Powkat
Does that mean you don't want that 2-way mirror after all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
February 22, 2010 2:57 PM
This is nothing but political ping pong....I suspect the Senate leadership is using the "Letter for a Public Option" as merely a fund-raising tool and to generate a buzz from the base. The sad fact is neither the White House, Reid or Democratic Senators have any real fight in them for the public option and it will fade away as just another god idea!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 22, 2010 3:21 PM
Total cop out. That is what is pissing people off. Take a stand one way or the other. It really looks weak. People like when someone takes a stand, even if they do not get what they want. Total cop out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 22, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to Michael A
The people who are pissed off were born pissed off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 22, 2010 5:59 PM
Is he going to run as Pontius Pilate next time?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?