Grim path forward for the public option (Updated)

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 13:28


The path forward for the public option is grim.  Here is what it faces:

  • Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln and Ben Nelson all appear to oppose cloture on a health care bill with the current version of the public option in the Senate.  The new "compromise" they are working on has nothing to do with the public option at all.  It isn't even the non-public (co-op), non-option (trigger) that Carper had floated for a while.  It is something else entirely:

    Following the meeting, Pryor declined to get too specific, but did say that a leading proposal involves increasing the ability of the Office of Personnel Management -- which oversees the federal employee health plans -- to negotiate on behalf of individuals and small businesses. Pryor told a HuffPost and an AP reporter that it was unclear how exactly it would be set up, but that it would take the place of the public option managed by the Health and Human Services Secretary.

    This isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it certainly is not a public option.  Then again, the co-op trigger wasn't even close to a public option either, so maybe it really doesn't matter.

  • Reconciliation is probably a dead end.  Even though there appear to be enough votes for a public option to pass through reconciliation, few Senators are discussing reconciliation as an option right now.  What's worse, a reconciliation bill would have to go through Kent Conrad's Budget Committee, which almost certainly make sure that a Social Security / Medicare "commission" be attached to any health care bill (update--commenter JasonCNJ corrects me on the process of reconciliation) be passed in exchange for a public option that went through there. Trading the public option for an undemocratic cut of Social Security and Medicare is not something I, or I bet many public option supporters, would be happy with.

  • Killing the bill from the left in the Senate is not going to happen.  While some people think that Roland Burris and Bernie Sanders have claimed they will block a bill that lacks a public option, they really haven't.  A spokesman for Burris specifically told me he has not committed to voting against cloture on such a bill, and Bernie Sanders has simply said he would be "very reluctant" to accept such a bill.  Further, keep in mind that not long ago Sanders was taking the lead in trying to get all Democrats to vote for cloture on the bill.  Doesn't seem to me like any Senate Democrats will filibuster the bill from the left.

  • At this point, reinstating some form of the public option during in conference committee is probably the best option.  The conference committee would take place in January, giving us more time to pressure Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu and Ben Nelson (who is actually more focused on Stupak-language), to accept cloture on a bill without a public option.

    However, during a conference committee, the pressure would largely fall on House Progressives to fold yet again.  Fifty-eight of the sixty members of the Progressive Block already backed down from their threat to kill the bill if it lacks a public option tied to Medicare rates, making it difficult to draw a new line in the sand.  Further, the current major fight in the House is actually over the Stupak amendment, which will not be in the Senate version of the bill (Ben Nelson's Stupak amendment will be defeated either later today or tomorrow).  Given that there are competing blocs threatening to kill the bill in the House if the Stupak amendment is included or removed, expect that fight to take precedence.

The possible paths for the public option are all pretty poor.  This has led some to start asking what Progressives would consider accepting in exchange for the public option.   The only two ideas I have ever thought of are:

  1. A trigger written by the Progressive Caucus.  That gambit was already floated, and rejected, by Senators like Susan Collins.  Plus, Lieberman is opposed to even the trigger.

  2. The Franken amendment which would require 90% of all health insurance dollars go to providing health care.  Currently, the House bill only requires 85%.
Overall, the best bet would be to get the Franken amendment in the Senate bill before the conference committee, and keep up the pressure for the public option in the conference committee.  Then, when the conference committee is over, we review our options, and decide whether or not that final version of the bill is worth passing.

Update--Medicare buy-in compromise?: Ezra Klein reports that allowing Americans aged 55 or older (instead of the current 65) is gaining steam as a possible "compromise."

F*ck the triggered co-op.  The OPM plan, plus the Franken amendment, plus lowering the age to buy into Medicare, would be a helluva a lot better.  

Chris Bowers :: Grim path forward for the public option (Updated)

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Grim path forward for the public option (Updated) | 77 comments
I know this isn't even beginning to be floated (0.00 / 0)
but trading the public option for premium caps?  I'm sure that would garner as much opposition as anything, but it at least has the flavour of a real compromise.  
I'd be cool with that (0.00 / 0)
I always thought price controls were an alternative to the public option.  Don't hear much about that in discussions right now, though.

the Franken amendment might do something in this area, though.

[ Parent ]
Progressive should nuke the filibuster instead. (4.00 / 5)
Enough is enough. This blackmailing, and undemocratic strongarming by the effing obstructionists has to stop. Kill the filibuster, and full speed ahead!

As for "asking what Progressives would consider accepting in exchange for the public option" it should be crystal clear by now that progressives won't get anything from Nelson and Lieberman. So, wasting time with that question is useless. Apply all available forces to get back to democratic majority rule instead.

Reality (0.00 / 0)
You can count the number of Senators willing to kill the filibuster on one hand.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Perhaps. But let them then explain their undemocratic stance... (4.00 / 3)
...to the public. If I understand this correctly, Reid can go nuclear, needing only one accomplice. I'm sure Franken would volunteer. And Reid has to be aware he needs the progressive, because his numbers at home don't look good. Let him surprise the whole effingly powerhorny Senate crowd by raising the issue, and then let's see how they react under that pressure. Everyone voting against it will have a very hard time explaining this to his constituency. Prolly it will fail, but there's at least a small chance in this.  
[ Parent ]
It's really not possible. (4.00 / 1)
I think he needs a majority of senators to change the rules or at least a majority of the majority.

Only a very tiny percentage of voters actually know about all this procedural shit, and an even smaller number actually care. Senators get away with murder (often literally), getting away with some obscure procedural vote that takes half an hour to explain what it's even about is nothing. They can just make some sort of buzzing noise about "respecting the tradition of blah blah blah" and they'll be fine.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Well, I guess Senators can read polls, too. (4.00 / 1)
"Senate 2010: Democrats 56 (-4)". This means that after 2010, they won't have a chance to get anything done, if the rethuglicans oppose it. And the GOP gangsters will oppose almost everything, as is clear now. If Dems can't deliver anything, this will unseat many of those effing Senators in the next primary or general election. So, preserving their ability to deliver legislation is essential for them. And wiht the filibuster, this will be gone in 2011. Hmm, this may make them think twice.

Actually, the coming stalemate in Senate rquires to get rid of the 60 vote nonsense anyhow. Why not do it now?

[ Parent ]
Why do you assume they want to get anything done... (4.00 / 1)
The conservadems are extremely annoyed that they are forced to actually get something done.  Most of them would actually prefer to be in the minority, where they could sit on their asses all day and pretend to be all "bipartisan" by doing nothing.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Except for those lush committee chairmanships... (4.00 / 1)
but Ben Nelson isn't senior enough to be in line for anything, yet.

I bet if Republicans take control of the Senate, Joe Lieberman will hop ship to their side.

[ Parent ]
They still get to be committee chairs... (4.00 / 1)
...the minority gets a chairmanship, too.  It's slightly less powerful, but they still get to influence legislation and they are inclined to work with a republican majority.  For a conservative democrat, life in the Senate minority is pretty good.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
Are you sure they get a chairmanship?  You might be thinking of ranking member, which is not the same as chairman.  I've never heard of a minority party member getting to be the actual chairman.
[ Parent ]
re: lieberman (0.00 / 0)
I bet if Republicans take control of the Senate, Joe Lieberman will hop ship to their side.

wouldn't his seniority be reset if he jumps ship?

[ Parent ]
Depends on how nice Republicans are, and how strong Lieberman's bargaining skills are (0.00 / 0)
I think the players involved are free to set their own rules regarding committee seniority.  Arlen Specter got shafted in whatever committee he was on - Judiciary? - but Jim Jeffords actually got the Environment and Public Works chairmanship (from Harry Reid) out of his defection.

That said, if Republicans already have the majority (e.g. 51 seats without him) then they don't need him and have a much stronger position.  On the other hand, if Lieberman is in a Jeffords situation (Senate split 50-50) then Lieberman will get whatever he wants for his switch.  It really depends on who needs the other more.

[ Parent ]
Ok, that's naive, maybe. (0.00 / 0)
But I'm still under the impression even Senators have to show some successes if they want to be reelected. Especially if their party is in the majority, nominally. Oh, and pls note, no legislation passed = no pork passed.
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
But I'm still under the impression even Senators have to show some successes if they want to be reelected.

They only need to convince slightly more than 50% of the voters that their opponent will likely do very bad things and cannot be trusted.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Ah, just like Deeds did, you mean? (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, I remember his tremendously successful slogan "wait 'til you see the other guy" and how positively this payed off!
:-/
[ Parent ]
exception meets rule (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I don't think its most. (4.00 / 1)
I think if there was no effing filibuster, the damn Senate would have already passed a better than House version of the PO.

It is time to demand a return to democracy in America, starting in the Senate.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
I'd love that (4.00 / 2)
that would be the first trade I take. But, its true--we aren't even close to 50 Dems willing to nuke the filibuster.
[ Parent ]
Prolly true. But this would make the obstructionists pay a price... (4.00 / 1)
...for their undemocratic stance. Difficult to explain why a Dempocratic is voting AGAINST the democratic rule of the majority, right? Voters won't have much sympathy for this, especially in light of the obvious failure of the Senators to deliver meaningful legislation.

And then, don't forget that many of the Senate fools don't even KNOW what the nuclear option is. Many won't know what to do and may simply follow Reid's lead. Hell, this may have a chance.  

[ Parent ]
America is not a democracy (0.00 / 0)
It never was a democracy and it was never intended to be. America is a republic and the way it was set up clearly indicates this; 2 Senators per state regardless of population? Electoral college instead of popular vote? The reality is, people are very divided on this issue, its not like if you put this to a popular vote, it would get 80% to 20%.

There is no mandate for a public option and I don't see how anyone could advocate changing the way government works to push through a particular piece of policy is in any way more democratic than the gripes you have.

[ Parent ]
The constitution says nothing about the filibuster. (0.00 / 0)
So, republic, shmepublic, what's your point? The HCR bill with the po can muster 50 votes in the Senate, therefore it should pass. Period.
[ Parent ]
Also, excuse me pls, but are you a conservative? (0.00 / 0)
Not that this should be an issue excluding you from discussions, but knowing this would prevent people from wasting their time trying to convince you. Well, I looked into your contributions so far and haven't found anything showing you're a progressive...
[ Parent ]
Please stop making this distinction. It relies on a misuse of terminology (4.00 / 4)
The democracy/republic distinction is a distinction between a Roman-style republic and an Athenian-style direct democracy.    It is a distinction about forms of government, the latter of which is EXTREMELY rare, both historically and geographically.  

When people talk about Democratic governments, they are talking about the mandate to rule coming from the people.  It is a statement about the philosophy of government, independent of its form.  The Soviet Union was a federal Republic, too.  It was hardly democratic, though.  In the sense that the mandate to rule at least theoretically comes form the people, the United States is a type of democracy--leaders are chosen in multiparty elections, or are appointed by people chosen in multiparty elections.  

In no way is it a direct democracy, but no one is making this claim.  And yes, there are clearly undemocratic elements in the American government, but there are undemocratic elements in any system of government, including the Athenian democracy (where only male citizens were allowed into the Assembly).    

[ Parent ]
Pet Peeve (4.00 / 4)
Yeah, this "we're a republic, not a democracy!" meme is one of my pet peeves--a republic and a democracy aren't mutually exclusive. We're both! We're a democratic republic.
Not that you're wrong about the Constitution being designed to limit democracy, and our democratic expression is still limited compared to other countries, but we are, and, for roughly 200 years, have been a democracy.

Not to mention the public opinion is actually very popular, and the American people aren't all that divided on it at all.

Also, what kind of logic is that last paragraph? Yes, how could we ever dream of making government more democratic and effective! That would require "changing the way government works", and apparently that's the worst thing you could ever do, ever!

[ Parent ]
What the hell is this? (0.00 / 0)
I am sick of having a progressive discussion sidelined by Fox News. As I have said before, banning doesn't happen enough.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Also, pls think of the impact on the GOP! (0.00 / 0)
It certainly would make it more difficult to threaten Dems with the nuke option in the future (in case rethuglicans gain the majority again, not totally unilkely), if this had already been tried and failed. Hmm?
[ Parent ]
The determination of the opposition is truly something to behold. (4.00 / 2)
Digby has said it a number of times with respect to an array of issues.

Powerful people, from outside and inside the Party are desperate that the liberals are not seen to win this battle. It changes the balance of power in ways that extend far beyond the health care debate and they know it.

I'm not sure they're not using a bazooka to skin a rabbit.  Apparently, those powerful people see something I don't.  Small concessions to the populace might go a long way to pouring oil on otherwise very troubled waters.  I guess I should feel flattered that they fear liberal power as it would appear that they do.  I wish I shared their confidence in all of the damage they imagine we might cause.

I guess this:

Overall, the best bet would be to get the Franken amendment in the Senate bill before the conference committee, and keep up the pressure for the public option in the conference committee.  Then, when the conference committee is over, we review our options, and decide whether or not that final version of the bill is worth passing.

is about as good as it's going to get going in.  We could get that concession and still press to kill it.  Not that we'll necessarily be allowed to be successful getting the concession OR killing it.  But, one way or t'other the only way to play is to keep some cards in our hands, even if we might decide to try upending the table with all of the chips later.

Having just now seen this,

The OPM plan, plus the Franken amendment, plus lowering the age to buy into Medicare, would be a helluva a lot better.

I'm not sure what we lose by staying at the table.  
Progressives voting NO is meaningful even if they don't filibuster (4.00 / 2)
At least it makes a symbolic statement that this is not the kind of "reform" our movement stands for.
Amen! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Ezra's compromise (4.00 / 8)
I always thought the main appeal of the public option was as a path to eventually getting something resembling universal single-payer. But any sort of public option that survives this process would clearly be so watered down as to be meaningless.

But if Medicare gets lowered to 55, and coverage is expanded for people in their 20s through parent's plans or expansion of SCHIP (I don't know - what's the status of those proposals?), then you'd be approaching universal coverage from both ends of the age spectrum, and I could sort of see it being possible to continue to expand the margin at both ends through future reform, eventually moving towards something like a Medicare-for-all situation... I don't know. I like the idea of that compromise.

(By the way, if this is true, I like how the "compromise" with the scary "government-run" public option would be to expand the totally awesome and newly beloved by Republicans government-run Medicare.)

Yeah (4.00 / 5)
Lowering the age of Medicare, plus raising the age of SCHIP, put us on the same path. This could work.

Lowering the age of Medicare to 55 might even cover more people than the opt-out public option. But we should probably demand more than just lowering the age of Medicare.

[ Parent ]
If we're demanding more than that (4.00 / 1)
how about just demanding a lower age?  
[ Parent ]
50? 45? (0.00 / 0)
At that age range it's very likely that becoming Medicare eligible will mean a reduction in premiums compared to private insurance for those just outside of eligibility. Could provide a very stark contrast that would drive further expansion of Medicare eligibility.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
If its being bought, then it will 'save' medicare, (which needs no saving btw) (0.00 / 0)
We need anyone able to buy in at any age, say its Saving Medicare by Funding It. Then have a separate system of topping up what people can afford to buy into Medicare.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Further demands (4.00 / 1)
Extend Medicare eligibility - eligibility, not "buy-in" - to everyone under 18.

Offer Medicare buy-in to 18-25 year olds.

[ Parent ]
Actually, forget the 18-25 year old part (4.00 / 3)
offer Medicare buy-in to EVERYONE between 18-64 inclusive - that should've been the public option to begin with.  And it'll force PO opponents to have to attack Medicare.

That would be quite ironic if the efforts to weaken the PO ended up making it stronger than even the original proposal.

[ Parent ]
44 (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Almost 30 year gap... (4.00 / 1)
Not that great, though I suppose it's another inch forward... I, of course, happen to fall just at the beginning of that range.  Maybe in another 30 years they'll lower it another 10 years.

I currently have decent insurance through my job, though I'm not crazy about it.  It's pretty expensive and doesn't cover a bunch of stuff, plus has a deductible before they'll even pay for much of anything (this includes just a simple checkup even).  I kind of hoped that something that actually would give me, you know, an "option" would pass, but I suppose that was too much to ask, as even if the public option passes, my understanding is that I wouldn't even have access to it anyway.

[ Parent ]
Lowering Medicare eligibility by 10 years every 30 years (0.00 / 0)
means we'll have Medicare for All in... 2189!

Btw, don't know where you got that 30 year number from, because it's been over 40 years since Medicare was created and set at 65.  Which means it'll take even longer at that rate.

[ Parent ]
I just kind of chose an arbitrarily large number of years... (0.00 / 0)
To what I figured someone would decide they needed to tackle health care again.  Once this bill is done, it's going to be a long time before it's visited again unless there are big, unintended issues that crop up from it.
[ Parent ]
This will get a huge price tag from CBO. (0.00 / 0)
You can't just give millions of people Medicare without making them buy into it, or having the government set aside massive additional reserves. If this option is included in the bill it will be something only higher income people can afford, not progressive reform.
[ Parent ]
Allowing them to buy into it would be a huge coup (4.00 / 5)
It's the public option under another name.  Not with universal eligibility, but the public option didn't have universal eligibility anyway.  
[ Parent ]
What will progressives accept in place of a public option? (0.00 / 0)
I thought that the PO was the line in the sand, so this question is a bit surreal.

Hearing it offered up as the latest concession is almost as surprising as finding out that President Obama is not the latest messiah.

So the answers are: In no particular order

1) Status quo and another shot at HCR another day. Kill the bill is it has no PO, if it passes without one - run away from it.

2) Non-profit, private, health insurance companies with strong governmental regulation of the private companies.

3) A single payer option that is not run by the central government. Create a single non-profit company that runs national healthcare - from top to bottom. Not a "public" option because it is a privately owned non-profit.

4) Vote yes anyway and hope that "any old bill" is good enough.

I prefer #2. It keeps the private ownership that the Conservatives always talk about, yet takes away the profit motive. Its a "PO once removed", meaning the government doesn't run it directly. A true compromise. The Left gives up public ownership and the Right gives up profit.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

#2 (0.00 / 0)
with strong governmental regulation

strong governmental regulation?

the current bastards?

yeah right...

[ Parent ]
Look, if you're gonna trust the government to run (0.00 / 0)
a single payer system, you should trust them to regulate a non-profit system, no?

But, I take your point.

The reason I'm not choosing #3 is that I think it would take too long to set up. Who is gonna be able to buy up all the hospitals and put physicians on salary?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
There is a big difference in the Medicare system, that provides a service that people who feel thats its theirs defend like hell, (0.00 / 0)
and a "regulatory system" that is just crying out for corruption. If grand pa doesnt get healthcare, a few million voters are immediately up in arms, regulatory systems do not have that kind of citizen buy-in, they dont feel like they own it.

And BTW, although it resembles wisdom, wears the same clothes and has a haircut, cynicism is the opposite of wisdom, as it creates inaction. Wisdom demands extra pre-action thinking, and may prescribe further actions, cynicism does nothing.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Regulation < Direct Action (0.00 / 0)
As the old saying goes, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

I'll take government directly providing health insurance over government trying to make powerful insurance companies provide health insurance any day.

[ Parent ]
I'd take that too (0.00 / 0)
but the question was what would one accept in place of a public option.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Strong regulation (4.00 / 1)
as defined by what other countries have means the government gets to veto excessive payments to providers. Anything less is just a fig leaf.
[ Parent ]
I am not clear about why this is the central issue of regulating insurance costs, and regulating (0.00 / 0)
the provision of services.

"You can't stop treating someone because you want to, or because they were treated yesterday, or because they have hands, or were beaten by their husbands."

That's one central regulation.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Reconciliation (4.00 / 3)
Reconciliation may or may not be dead, but it has nothing to do with Kent Conrad.

While a reconciliation bill would have to go "through" the Budget Committee, the Budget Committee is specifically prohibited by law from making any substantive changes to any of the bills referred to it. The sole function of the Budget Committee is to compile the bills sent from different committees, re-style and re-format the titles so it all makes sense, and send it to the Senate floor without amendment.

Conrad would not be able to attach any amendment, let alone a Medicare commission amendment, under reconciliation.

Good to know (4.00 / 1)
But he could still block such a bill, demanding a commission in separate legislation, right?
[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
The reconciliation law actually thought of pretty much everything. Remember, the law is designed to make it easier to get unpopular deficit-reducing legislation to the President's desk.

The Budget Committee is performing a purely "ministerial" function in its reporting. The refusal of the Chairman to post the bill would violate Senate Rules (Title 2, Chapter 17A, Subchapter I, if memory serves) and permit a privileged motion to discharge the reconciliation bill from further consideration in the Budget Committee.

Pursuing reconciliation without the support of the Budget Chairman would be difficult but I think his abilities to gum up the works wouldn't be too bad. Certainly, given the ministerial functions of his job as Budget Chairman, his powers (whatever they may be) would not extend to his ridic Medicare commission idea.

As I mentioned, there may be plenty of other reasons why this process might not work (or be a good idea) but fears that the Medicare-commission proposal would become tied to the bill isn't one of them (at least according to the text of the Rules as I understand them)

[ Parent ]
Franken amendment (4.00 / 1)
is a good but wonky idea that has low appeal for the general public, while generating voracious opposition from insurance companies and Wall Street. It will weaken insurers for sure giving providers even more of an advantage in payment negotiations. Therefore, even though it would probably encourage more HMOs (which tend to have high loss ratios), costs will probably not decrease. If past behavior is any guide, expect the White House to oppose it.
re: medicare buy-in (0.00 / 0)
would this lower the medicare eligibility age for everyone or just those that want to enroll?
Don't really like where things have gone (4.00 / 2)
I feel like we started the game on a 100 yard field, got to the 20 yard line and they decided to lengthen the field to 300 yards, move the goal posts accordingly and penalize us 20 yards to boot.

And bets on Rahm working against us behind the scenes?

what happens with pre-existing conditions? (4.00 / 1)
If I understand correctly, the current Senate bill allows insurers to continue to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions until 2014, because that's how long it will take to get the exchange up and running.

If they kill the public option, does that mean insurers will never have to stop discriminating because of pre-existing conditions?

Based on what I know now, I see little benefit to passing this bill.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

I thought... (4.00 / 1)
That the discriminating against pre-existing conditions was a day 1 type of thing... Essentially, a new regulation on the current insurance industry that would prevent them from discriminating against pre-existing conditions.  That's what they've been selling anyway, I haven't read the specific provision.
[ Parent ]
True, pre-existing shyte is gone no matter what happens here. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Where did you get that? (4.00 / 2)
The exchanges are not touched... pre-existing condition bans have not changed at all.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
correct (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
like Medicare expansion (4.00 / 4)
One of the things I like about the Medicare at 55 buy-in is that it sets the precedent for expanding Medicare by lowering the age limit....Medicare is the American version of the single-payer option.

The most logical compromise to me (4.00 / 1)
would seem to be allowing a vote on Stupak (or even votes to pass it) in exchange for votes for a final bill including a public option (or even something more).

I know some people here would see me hanged for suggesting that we pass Stupak but I think it's worth it, especially since Stupak will probably get killed in conference anyway and the DeGette pro-choice block will likely be stronger than the PO block.

Burris quoted yesterday (0.00 / 0)
TPMDC:

"My position has not changed at all," said Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL). "I've compromised from a single payer, to a strong public option with Medicare plus five, to now a negotiated bill with an opt out. So I've made my moves."

Burris went on: "I sent word, some time ago, back to the president that if the bill comes up and they need sixty votes and there's not a public option in it, it's always been my position that I would not support a bill that does not have a public option in it."

Whether he actually has the stones to follow through...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

still does not read to me as he will fillibuster (0.00 / 0)
fillibustering is the key that will break the situation toward progressives. The white house is depending on conservatives to do their leg work through being hardnosed negotiators. If the progressives do the same, things change.  
[ Parent ]
still does not read to me as he will fillibuster (0.00 / 0)
fillibustering is the key that will break the situation toward progressives. The white house is depending on conservatives to do their leg work through being hardnosed negotiators. If the progressives do the same, things change.  
[ Parent ]
re: burris (0.00 / 0)
if the bill comes up and they need sixty votes

don't 'sixty votes' mean cloture?

[ Parent ]
I want to hear the word filibuster (0.00 / 0)
I learning not to trust them unless they say the exact word.
[ Parent ]
you're paranoid (0.00 / 0)
same with me, you can't trust those bastards...
[ Parent ]
I don't trust them even when they say the words (0.00 / 0)
I trust them even less when they don't. At least with them saying the words, I can avoid the spin later.  
[ Parent ]
That's the way I read it (0.00 / 0)
Cloture (ending or not ending a filibuster) is the vote that requires 60 to succeed.  

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
I would like to see the Kucinich Amendment reinstated... (4.00 / 3)
That is the one that allows states to set up single-payer.
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Question about the OPM proposal (0.00 / 0)
is this the same thing as opening up the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to all uninsured Americans?

If so, would this have the same effect as a proper public option in providing people with a cheaper and better health insurance company they can use?

re: opm (0.00 / 0)
It's not a public option. It's essentially an exchange within the exchange. Now maybe it's a good substitution for the exchanges--just open up the FEHBP to people instead of creating, in the House's case a national exchange, or in the Senate version multiple exchanges. If they got rid of the exchanges in return for this, it would get rid of the Ben Nelson/Bart Stupak political problem (though it would still extend the Hyde problem to millions of women) by getting rid of the need for their amendment.

But it's still not a public option, like most of the "compromises" we've seen floated in the Senate. Here's Jacob Hacker, the healthcare expert who authored the original public option idea, on the latest developments.

   They represent abandonment of the public plan idea altogether. One proposal that is being floated, for example, is the chartering of a national nonprofit plan, similar to the "cooperatives" that Senator Kent Conrad has advocated. But the whole point of the public plan is to create a plan that is up and running quickly and constructed on the existing infrastructure of Medicare so that it can create competitive pressure for insurers and serve as a backup for consumers on day one. In 35 states, after all, the largest private insurer enrolls more than half of privately insured patients. Many of these plans are nonprofits already--the problem is that they don't face a credible alternative.

   Another, even stranger idea is to offer the nonprofit plans available in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) within the exchange. Since the FEHBP is itself a form of exchange, this amounts to offer a new set of private plans within a new set of private plans. How is that going to provide real pressure on private insurers in a consolidated insurance market in which nonprofit plans already have a large presence (and often act little differently from for-profit plans)?

   In short, the new compromise proposals are anything but. They represent calls for advocates of the public plan to eat their crumbs and be happy. But a majority of Senators support the public plan. At least two--Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and Senator Burris of Illinois--have said having a real public plan in the legislation is a precondition for their support. Those who believe in the public plan-and, more important, who believe in the principle it embodies: that no American who lacks access to good insurance should be forced to buy coverage from the private plans that got us into our present mess--should stand firm in the face of these non-compromises.

   This includes President Obama. He made the public plan part of his promise of change in 2008. Now he needs to put his weight and influence behind the public plan and its essential goals, rather than allow them to be gutted. This is in our nation's interest. It is also in his and his party's political interest. A bill that forces people to take private insurance but doesn't create competition or a public benchmark is a prescription for unaffordable coverage, runaway costs, and political backlash. The "middle ground" is nowhere to stand if it's going to crumble beneath you. [emphasis mine]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...
[ Parent ]
I thought the point of the FEHBP-centered plan (0.00 / 0)
was that even if the insurance companies in FEHBP are private, that the FEHBP pool's large number of customers gives it a lot of bargaining power.  So if all uninsured Americans were in that pool, FEHBP would be able to negotiate lower rates for them.
[ Parent ]
Grim path forward for the public option (Updated) | 77 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox