I’m hearing from sources about a letter to Harry Reid from a collection of liberal Senators, led by Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Sherrod Brown, insisting that Reid publicly commit to putting a public option in any health care bill that reaches the Senate floor.
There’s a big difference between having a public option in the bill before the fact or trying to get it in by amendment. It’s likely that amendments to the bill will require a 60-vote threshold, therefore it would take 60 votes to get a public option into the bill if it’s absent, or 60 to get one out of the bill if it’s present. Nobody has said that there are those numbers of votes to do either of those actions, so, whether the bill comes to the Senate floor with a public option or not is a crucial decision. The four people in that room making that decision are Max Baucus of the Finance Committee, Tom Harkin of the HELP Committee, Harry Reid and someone from the White House. A lot of this will depend on the White House’s inclination, and they certainly floated their support over the weekend. But Reid’s public statements have been noncommittal.
The liberal faction in the Senate, led by Rockefeller and Brown, but also for the first time including Sen. Barbara Boxer, want a real commitment. According to sources, Sen. Reid will meet with this faction at 5pm ET today. Senator Reid’s office confirms that this meeting will be held. So presumably, some kind of accommodation will be offered, although the liberal Senators in the meeting will seek a definitive commitment, I’m told.
There have been various statements from public option supporters in the Senate about wanting to see it in the final bill, but, to my knowledge, this is the furthest it has gone. Some Senators, like Sen. Boxer, are going on the record insisting on a public option for the first time. Of course we don’t know what form this "public option" will take – the Wall Street Journal reports today that Tom Carper’s state-based approach is gaining support among Senate moderates, and Debbie Stabenow in a press conference today confirmed that this is a possibility:
In a press conference this morning with other Democratic senators, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) — member of the Senate Finance Committee and a supporter of a robust public option — says it’s a "broad definition."
"The states are one way to go," she said
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who also sits on Finance and supports a public option as enthusiastically as Stabenow does, added, "There are state options that are devised in such a way that only a region of the state is included, in which case that’s not really a significant public option."
"If the whole state is included in a public option — they have that option — well that’s a much more significant standard than some that have been proposed," Menendez told reporters.
I would assume that Reid may offer this as a "compromise" inclusion in the bill. We’ll see if the Brown-Rockefeller faction will take the deal. Certainly they are pushing very hard for a higher standard than that. And with the House of Representatives now close to getting majority support for a public option using Medicare +5% rates, perhaps that gives them some leverage, too.



15 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Calling their offices to show support for their endeavor, with a strong message … failure is not an option !
Sherrod Brown – (202) 224-2315
Jay Rock – (202) 224-6472
Barbara Boxer – (202) 224-3553
That’s very encouraging news. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that room this afternoon.
I believe (provisionally – I need to see a lot more on it) that a state-based (state-government operated) but centrally funded and regulated PO could work if policy prices to consumers AND reimbursement rates to practitioners and drug companies are mandated to be set according to national benchmarks (perhaps modeled on Medicare), possibly with some local variants allowed but subject to strict controls.. economically speaking, that could get me to the same place as a single national PO. They key is that standards of operation and prices for services/reimbursements are set nationally or at least set nationally within a band of permitted variations.
The operative words in your comment: “regulated”, “mandated prices”, “mandated reimbursement rates”, “national benchmarks”, “strict controls”. Those involve a heap of amendments to make it work. And each amendment will be opposed.
When Senator talk about state-based, they are talking about regulated by state insurance commissioners. The Baucus bill even as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners writing the regulations. So you need to ask how public spirited is the insurance commissioner in your state? Or how much in the insurance industry’s pocket?
via Jon Walker:
well… Garamendi was decent in that respect.
But I know what the issues are here. What I’m saying is that we need to articulate a position on the state issue – instead of parroting back what the conservadems say they want or are willing to offer, we need to say what is it we need: and that is price and reimbursement rate regulation as effective competitive to private sector insurers, on the one hand, and healthcare providers/pharmas on the other. I don’t care what they call it as long as they give us that much – they can call it a state-based PO and have the insurance commissioners run-’em, with central regulation, they can call it a national PO, it doesn’t matter. That’s the minimum PO we need or a deal is meaningless.
thanks very much for the heads up on this David.
So far this whole health care debate has revolved around BHO and the “Audacity of Nope”… No public option, no single-payer, no sticking much to his itinerary for change. From Justice to Corporate ass-kissing it’s seems like it’s just more of the same.
wonder if having AFL-CIO Members are on the Hill today bolsters them
I hope I am wrong. But the figures just came out on Max the Insurance Man’s plan and they are dazzling. Wanna bet they use this as a ceiling to shut out the better plans? If some GOPers sign on RhamObama will wet their pants to keep them no matter what the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party wants. Hate to be so cynical and pray I am wrong.
he. well, he better hope they’re not too dazzling or his real constituents, the insurance companies, will start thinking they’re not gettin’ a good enough deal.. what’s a good corporate welfare bill that doesn’t actually cost the public some money?
The last minute change that undoubtedly helps the figures was re instituted at the request of the insurance companies, that being to firm up the mandate by including a very high penalty/tax on those not purchasing the insurance companes’ offerings. Also they are asking for a options to decrease coverage.
I’m hoping that this dance is real. I’ll be looking for signs of Kabuki.
evil pr*cks
“We tried, we tried so hard!” — content of liberal Senators’ fundraising letters from this day forward.