Baucus Would Consider Supporting Schumer’s Public Option With Opt-Out, Aide Says
You may have heard that Chuck Schumer has been pushing a new idea for a public option compromise proposal — one that would create a Federal public option, but would allow states to opt out — and it appears to be gaining some momentum today.
Here’s another small step forward for it: An aide to Senator Max Baucus — who has played a central role in the health care debates, for good or ill — confirms to me that the Senator is taking a look at it and would be open to supporting it.
Baucus would consider supporting it “as part of an overall package as long as it achieved his health care reform goals while getting 60 votes,” the aide emailed.
There have been other signs of momentum for this proposal today. Howard Dean, one of the most respected voices on health care, told Sam Stein that if he were a Senator, he’d vote for it.
Meanwhile, TPM caught up with Senator Kent Conrad, who said he hadn’t heard enough about the new proposal to support it. But he did say positive things about another version of this proposal, suggesting he, too, could be open to backing the Schumer scheme.
Some Senate aides are privately skeptical of the Schumer-pushed plan, pointing out that there’s not even any legislative language on it yet, let alone real support for it. But Schumer has emerged as a central player in the health care wars, because of his clout on the Hill, his aggressive advocacy for the public option and his lucid analyses of the politics at play, so Senators who might otherwise be skeptical have to give his latest ideas a real hearing.
**************************************
Update: Here’s the aide’s full quote: “Senator Baucus will look closely at this proposal, as well as other proposals, and could consider supporting them as part of an overall package as long as it achieved his health care reform goals while getting 60 votes.”
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Aw jeez.
This is worse than coops, worse than triggers – this is the worst idea yet.
damn!
I’m with Dean as I mentioned in a thread yesterday.
Republicans and corporate controlled Dems will no longer get to sit back and throw rocks at this legislation and still get the benefits of it knowing it may very well pass.
It puts them in a HELL of a bind.
Did I mention it puts them in a bind?
On top of that, for those concerned about Federal powers, this puts this option back in the control of the states.
I think it’s smart legislation tbh if it’ll ensure we get a good public option states can choose to have if they want.
What will be interesting is this.
If this does go through, some cost comparisons can be done state to state and see if private competition only is more effective than having a public option out there.
Tena, maybe an issue like this will get all those non-voters off their behinds and really put some progressive leadership in state Governorships and at the state level to put in place and support legislation like this.
“Asked during the briefing just now about the idea of an opt-out public option, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was pointedly non-committal.
“I have not talked to them about that but I can certainly ask if that’s something that’s been evaluated,” Gibbs said, presumably referring to the White House policy shop.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/gibbs-dodges-on-compromise-public-option-idea.php?ref=fpblg
Greg,
Remember your thread about Speaker Pelosi suggesting “a watered down public option” to the progressive caucus? You said you were going to try and get more details. Could this opt out proposal be what she proposed?
“On top of that, for those concerned about Federal powers, this puts this option back in the control of the states.”
CAn anyone tell me how letting states decide whether or not their citizens get the same access to health care that people get in other states is national health care reform or fair?
Dude, that just holds the majority who are spread out all over the country hostage to the minority in red states.
Goddamn!’
‘
I don’t worry about me – but Texas has the highest number of uninsured people in the nation and I know very well that Texas will opt out if it is given the choice.
So how does this possibly reach up to 94% of the uninsured in the country? This makes no sense at all.
You know it’s a horrible idea if Baucus, the insurance industry shill, is for it.
As much as I like the bind it puts Repubs in, I really wish we had some legislative language to go with this. I’m like Tena, it seems like it could be a can of worms. I respect Deans opinion on health care but I just hope they know what they’re doing.
How many states does anyone think will opt out? Also, those are probably the same states that are the most broke right now, how will that work? Lots of questions.
As far Federalist powers go, let me tell you – there are no state powers when they come up against a national right. Letting states decide this is like letting states decide if they are going to integrate their schools.
No – this kind of Federalist argument is bogus. When there is a national interest, and that’s what Obama and the Democrats claim, then it is by god a National Interest.
Liam — I don’t think so. Pelosi’s office hasn’t even really looked at this proposal yet, let alone supporting it, as best as I can determine.
My Take, On The OPT-OUT proposal.
Granting states the right to opt out of a Public Option is one of the dumbest moves that the Democrats could ever make.
The States will not be putting any money into it, and they will not be administering the premium collections, and payment process, so how on earth can you give them any control over it. It is nuts.
Think of the precedent it would set. They can then make the same case for opting out of Medicare, and Social Security, and how could we argue against it, when we have just set the precedent with the Public Option opt out authorization.
Furthermore, The Private Insurance Lobbyists would have no problem getting state reps. to opt out. Those people are far easier to buy off than those elected at the Federal level.
What they will do, is buy off the legislators is big States, such as Illinois, and we know how easy that is to do. After they get a few States like that to opt out, then the Public Option will not have enough members to remain viable.
It is a dreadful idea, to give the States an opt out option. It would be like handing a gun to a mugger.
Imsinca – well, thanks for agreeing. There’s not a damn thing I can do about it but wait and see and I want to see reform pass.
This sounds great to anyone who is living in New England or major East Coast metropolitan centers, and people on the west coast – but that crescent of the US that runs roughly from East Texas through the Ozarks and the Appalachians to Pennsylvania are just screwed, from what I cvan tell.
Tena, I think this can really put Republicans on the run at both the state and Federal level. The more I think about it, the more I think it’s a brilliant strategy.
For instance..
Imagine if your neighbor, NM goes for the public option, and OK, TX, UT all opt out. Then in time, NM insurance rates become significantly lower than all it’s neighbors that opted out, if the people didn’t vote the bums out, I would be surprised.
I think an issue like the could really motivate people to get off their behinds and get out there and vote those that would rather support business over the American people.
Folks; We have to become as skilled at framing issues as the Republicans have been.
With that in mind.
The Opt-Out Provision is a threat to our National Security.
Health Care Reform is needed to rescue the nation’s economy.
That makes it a vital National Security Issue. Without a thriving economy, with good paying jobs for the working class, we will not be able to afford strong National Security.
The Current Private Insurance system is draining the economy of the ability to generate small and medium business jobs. That weakens our National Security.
We must take action now.
We need to pass The Patriotic People’s Option now!
Pass it on. We have to use Robust Tactics.
Do not let the Republicans weaken our National Security.
Demand that they vote for our Patriotic People’s Option.
Only those who hate America would vote against such a bill.
I’m gonna steel a line from my favorite all around swell guy, the Senator from the great state of South Carolina, Jim Demint….this will be their Waterloo.
“I think an issue like the could really motivate people to get off their behinds and get out there and vote those that would rather support business over the American people.
Much as I am pragmatic about politics, that is the single most cynical thing I’ve read – we’re talking about people’s health here – their lives.
There is no way to force anyone to vote Democratic in states that are strongholds of wingnuts. Don’t kid yourself.
“
What was turnout in ‘08? Something like 70%, roughly? It was higher than I’ve ever seen it but the Republicans held onto that crescent of the country I was talking about.
That’s the poorest part of the country, too.
Tena, nobody is going to get denied coverage. It might just cost more to those states.
Depending on how its set up that is…
>>>I think this can really put Republicans on the run at both the state and Federal level. The more I think about it, the more I think it’s a brilliant strategy.<<95%.
Will they or will they not be denied a public option?
Argh. Last try. RE: mike from Arlington | October 8th, 2009 at 03:42 pm
I agree entirely. It’s brilliant. And co-signed by Schumer and Dean. Conservadems are reluctant which is also good. Shows that it provides substantive reform while providing Conservadems political cover. It’s a political tight-rope, but so far this is the best solution.
I also like the reverse trigger, which goes something like this: the public option is instituted on Day 1, but will be phased out if private companies lower premiums to a certain level and cover >95%.
How in the hell can y’all talk about strategy when people are dying for lack of insurance?
I’m appalled and I’m out of here.
I think you guys should keep your powder dry until more details about this plan are made available.
It’s different, but not necessarily bad. When faced with a real-world choice (as opposed to a somewhat abstract, hypothetical political one) between having a public option and not having one, many (perhaps most) states will choose to offer the public option either immediately or ultimately. Ultimately, no state wants to have a reputation for having the highest insurance premiums in the nation. Since it’s certainly not a bragging right, it would eventually become a political liability, fomenting the eventual acceptance of the public option. I think the number of states initially opting out may not be quite as high as anticipated.
Also, on a side note, the percentage of people covered is not directly correlated with the existence of a public option. [Even Paul Krugman grudgingly acknowledges this point.] It’s possible to have no public option and still cover 94+% of the uninsured. Universality primarily depends on subsidies, mandates and Medicaid eligibility requirements, not the existence of a public option. The public option is a putative cost-reduction element, but cost-reduction and expanded coverage are not necessarily synonymous; you could have either one without the other.
Tena, like I mentioned. The whole part of wanting a public option was to keep the insurers honest on costs, right?
I don’t think there was ever an argument that quality would be lower without a public option.
Maybe I’m missing something on this though.
The Baucus bill forks out $500 Billions in our Tax dollars to subsidize Private Health Insurance Companies.
Our Patriot People’s Option is self sustaining, and gets no Government funding.
Here is where the Opt-Out Option will cost us more in federal subsidies.
The more states that opt-out, the more people will have to purchase from Private Insurance, which will cause the Federal Subsidies figures to balloon.
It makes no fiscal sense.
Tell them not to mess with our Patriotic People’s Option, which will not take one dollar in federal support, while Private Insurance will get at least $500,billion of our money.
That is an outrage, and Un-American.
The more states that opt out, the fewer members the Patriot People’s Option will have available to enroll. There can come a point where it could become to small a number to have any real impact. The Private Insurers know that. I would not be surprised if they are the one’s who came up with the suggestion, because the Robust PO was gaining traction.
The Private Insurance Gang can smother the PO baby in it’s crib, by buying off state legislators. This is not a reasonable compromise. It is a poison pill.
Liam
Will you stop being hyperbolic for a second and think about the political realities? If the Democrats pass health care reform with a public option that has an opt out then they have the opportunity to go balls to the wall. They can set the public option to MediCare rates because rural states like North Dakota or Montana can opt out. But the truth is NONE of the states will end up opting out any more than did any state turn down the bulk of the stimulus funds. Not only is this a win policy wise in that we will get the public option passed. Its a win politically because it puts Republic governors, many of them who fancy themselves Presidential candiates in 2012 or 2016 in the unenviable position of telling the residents of their state that they won’t have the ability to join in a public option. How do you think that is going to play in those poor southern states like Louisianna or Texas or Mississippi? Either the Republican governors can follow through on their rhetoric, opt out of the public option, then get tossed out by their own petard. Or they will have to accept it, just like the stimulus funds, and risk being called a flip flopper by their wingnut base.
WIN WIN WIN WIN.
@mike from Arlington:
Higher cost, through no public option, is lower quality- that’s what this is all about. Less access, less people covered, more people dying for lack of coverage- that is low quality. A public option helps keep the insurance companies honest and provides an option for those that can’t find coverage else where. It cuts costs and improves access, improving overall quality on average while doing so.
A state opting out would automatically lower the quality of health care in their state by doing so. I’m not sure I understand where you are coming from when you say a public option wouldn’t affect quality.
@sgwhiteinfla
The politics may be nice, but again all it takes is one state, say bankrupt CA or near bankrupt and conservative TX or a lobbyists buying a few votes in a purple state and we have 1 to 3 states without the option. Now that it is gone how many years will it take to get it back, even if it does prove unpopular? 2? 4? 8? 20? I don’t think the people in TX can 20 years for a public option.
Stop playing politics with people’s lives. Tena is 100% correct with that statement.
We are playing right into the insurance industry’s hands with this. They will not stop lobbying or pressing states to overturn this. They have more money than God as should be apparent by how long and how many missteps we’ve had in getting this legislation on the table. Max Baucus. I rest my case, right there in that one sleaze ball politician you can see the power of the industry over the Federal Congress. Think how much power they will have on the state level.
The **** the are pulling in Mass. should tell us that the Insurance Companies will stop at nothing- not the rule of law, not increased regulations, not an opt out clause, to stop reform. Please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKXWP2HuxGE
They will stop at nothing and an opt-out clause just gives them fuel for the fire to keep on going.
“I don’t think the people in TX can WAIT 20 years for a public option.”
But, then, you knew that, right?
I have just about given up on Sarge. He is all over the place. Not so long ago, when I was pushing for a Robust Public Option, he went off on me, because I was undercutting the chance for A Single Payer Bill. That was just very recently, after President Obama had come out against a Single Payer Bill.
Now Sarge has done a complete flip flop, and he is chastising me for not going along with an Opt-Out option, that will be far weaker that a Robust Public Option, with no Opt-Out.
Will the real Sarge, please stand up.
Liam – I can’t stand you, you know that, right? But you are right about the various positions taken on the public option on this board. Once was a time when most were in agreement that nothing but a robust PO tied to Medicare rates would be acceptable. Now it seems as if virtually anything – so long as it is called “reform” – will do.
I like it but I hate it. I live in SC. So I know we wouldn’t get it. But I’ll be glad people in other states are getting. But it’s not fair that they get it and we don’t. Politics…….sigh
TAX THE SICK: OBAMA’S NEW PLAN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on October 8, 2009
Printer-Friendly Version
Faced with a need to scrounge for revenue to fund his plan for health care, President Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus have come up with a brilliant new idea: Tax the sick!
In a new amendment to the health care bill, they propose to limit the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes.
Economic Crisis: Who’s To Blame? – Vote Now! Now, taxpayers may deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income. Obama and Baucus want to raise that threshold to 10% as long as the taxpayer is under 65.
Eight million Americans are sick enough and poor enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!
For a family earning $75,000 a year and facing out-of-pocket medical bills of $7, 500, this proposal would cost them about $600 a year in extra taxes.
And let’s remember who it is that they are taxing. This proposal affects people whose incomes are so limited and whose medical costs are so high that they exceed 7.5% of their pre-tax income.
Their proposal literally hopes to raise $20 billion over ten years by taxing sick people.
The Democrats defend their proposal by saying that it would discourage health care spending. But nobody deliberately spends 7.5% of their income on medical costs unless they are pretty sick and needy.
Obama and Baucus have singled out the sickest among the middle class for this heinous tax. (The poor will not have to pay it because they are eligible for Medicaid). Originally, the Democrats continued their war on the elderly by proposing to tax everyone who spends more than the 7.5% threshold on medical costs. But they retreated when it became clear that six million elderly would be hit with the tax. Now they just sock it to eight million sic k, middle income Americans.
This tax, and their desire to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $500 billion, makes Obama and Baucus unlike any Democrats I have ever known. Democrats, at least when I worked for Clinton, defended the elderly and the sick rather than cut the former and tax the latter.
Economic Crisis: Who’s To Blame? – Vote Now!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!
The Senate is a world unto itself, and Schumer is #3 in the Democratic Party hierarchy. While I think the writer over-read his aide’s comments, which were very generic, it might be acceptable to send a Senate Bill with a public option and a state opt-out to conference, thus giving Pelosi something to win in the give and take of the conference committee. It really is a 4-dimensional chess game at this point.
The object lesson for us all is Medicaid, where what it means to be young, poor and pregnant differs hugely from state to state. We need a coast-to-coast program! As Garrison Keilor said a few days ago, even Republicans and stupid people deserve healthcare in America.
The fact remains that big insurance by refusing care to patients and reimbursement to doctors over typos has ticked everyone off – both patients and doctors. They have a virtual monopoly over the whole process a hugely well financed lobby team and representatives on both sides of the isle.
A friend of mine recently laid off without children is paying $2,500.00 dollars a month for his COBRA – that is outrageous. Health insurance costs more than his mortgage – unbelievable.
When Bush implored people to go out and spend – well that’s kind of hard to do when you are buried in health care bills, filling and refilling out forms and in foreclosure because you made a typo.
The insurance companies and their representatives in Congress would love to perpetuate a business model that is crippling our economy – a bunch of great Americans aren’t they?
Paul Burke
Author – Journey Home
Well I’m from NY, so I’m very much in favor of Schumer’s plan, since we’ll no doubt get a public option. Then we’ll see how “conservative” Americans are as they flock to the coasts to get in on health care for all! Bring it on! The East and West Coasts look forward to our rise in population, quality of life, wages, and living standards.