An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Democrats Increasingly Optimistic About Public Option In Health Care Reform

The public option is dead. Long live the public option.

That’s the situation now prevailing on a key sticking point in health care reform. GOPers hate the public option because they say it would symbolize the Obama administration’s encroachment into the private sector and be a huge step into socialized medicine. Democrats are split, with some progressives nearly making support of the public option in voting a litmus test for “real” Democrats akin to what Republicans conservatives have done on the issue of abortion to members of their party who dare support it.

But now not only hope (for some) springs eternal on the public option…but now Democrats who support it have have some press reports declaring the option alive. And their analysis is echoed (somewhat) by Republican Senator John McCain, the New York Times reports:

Several Democratic senators voiced optimism on Sunday that Congress would pass a health care bill containing at least the germ of a government-run insurance program. Their expectations were grudgingly seconded by Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

“I think the Democrats have the votes, and in the House, Blue Dogs bark but never bite,” Mr. McCain said on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” using the nickname for conservative Democrats . “So I don’t think they have a problem over in the House side. In the Senate I think the Democrats are very aware that they don’t want a repeat of the Clinton failure in 1994. So I think it’s very likely they will get something through. But it’s not clear to me what it is.”

Mr. McCain of Arizona was among of the senators appearing on the Sunday morning television talk shows, which again focused on health care and Afghanistan. The senators’ remarks came after Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, told President Obama on Thursday that he would try to press for a government-run insurance program. With five health care bills under consideration in both branches of Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already said that the House version of the legislation would include the so-called public option, but other key senators have previously said it would be difficult to round up 60 votes needed to guarantee that the legislation would not be blocked by a likely Republican filibuster.

One question is what kind of public option — a full-blown government-insurance plan, or something like a “trigger” provision, which would create a government-run or nonprofit plan if insurance companies did not cut costs within a set period of time or under certain conditions.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer sounds more optimistic than ever:

New York Sen. Charles Schumer said today “that we’re very close to getting the 60 votes” Democrats need to move forward with a health care reform bill and he believes that the final legislation will include some form of the public option.

Schumer said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he and Majority Leader Harry Reid have been talked to Democratic senators across the ideological spectrum about a public option plan that would allow states to “opt out.”

Schumer said the plan differed from what liberal Democrats were pushing for because they wanted a “much more government-oriented program” that imposed rates for providers and mandated that everyone must obtain insurance. He said that under his proposal, the new entity would operate on a “level playing field” because it would have to negotiate rates like private insurers and that people would not be required to take the government option.

He said the government would set-up the public plan but after three months, it would “have to play by the same rules” as private insurers as far as requirements and then pay back the start-up money back over the course of several years. But he insisted that the only way to bring health costs down was to provide competition to private insurers because they would not do it on their own.

Be sure to read this Reuters Factbox.

  • DLS
    "Anyone in a position to actually make it dead who considers it thusly is a tyrant."

    Well, that is overdoing it, to say the least. But it has probably not gone unnoticed by some Dems.

    I've seen no commentary yet about the idea of the states being able to "opt out" of the federal public option scheme (whatever it happens to be, the kind of substance along with paying for it that still is missing). Earlier there was a seeking of Republican votes for Dem legislation in order to label it "bi-partisan" for political cover. That's the real issue, political cover with this controversial undertaking.

    The state "opt out" provision is also a form of political cover, because it is less than a full "mandate" on the public as a result, something that is always going to be controversial. (That it may achieve cover in Congress by again seeking GOP votes is a story within the story.)

    And -- it also raises a political game and takes us to Sil's emotional stance. What it does is put pressure on the states. Consider what the states face in deciding whether to participate or to withdraw from the federal program. Will withdrawal be excoriated at a "race to the bottom" by cruel, heartless, selfish, tyrannical [chuckle] state governments in the clutches as well as the pockets of the lobbies of the established interests, or hard-core right-wing ideologues? (Yes.) Consider what withdrawal or what participation would mean insofar as it would affect Dem and GOP electoral prospects next year.

    Coda...

    Note how, as our threads on this site reveal about ignorance of or contempt for constitutional federalism not only in the details, but even at a philosophical level, we have inverted federalism here, a presumption of federal authority and a parental and elitist attitude that "perhaps" the states might be "permitted" to opt out of what is being proposed. I'm surprised some of the lowlier types didn't also call this "generous."
  • DLS
    "insurance company profit margins"

    Not a single proponent of federal intervention so far has taken a left-wing "public utility" concept approach to this (as with utility companies providing electricity or water, for example), either limited to hospitals and high-capital-cost things, or health care provision in general, approaching health insurers in a more highly regulated form. (Of course, that would involve government oversight but not replacement of the private sector, which is what the vigorous advocates of "reform" have actually wanted all along, instead.)

    Not a single proponent has also viewed this from a more grown-up and respectful-of-federalism viewpoint, either, and sought first to have health care access and affordability resolved primarily by state and local governments. (Ignorance of or contempt for constitutional federalism is commonplace, as threads on the subject on this Web site have revealed.) But it's federal takeover in particular that has always been sought.
  • DLS
    "Evil railroads"

    Some wanted the railroads nationalized in an earlier time. Then during the '73 and circa-'80 oil supply shocks, modern extremists wanted the oil companies nationalized. There's a good deal of impatience and resentment among those who demand a public option -- hint: they consider that a tremendous gift to the opposition, a deep sacrifice from what "ought" to exist, namely instant federal health care for everyone.
  • DLS
    Jeff Davis: Silhouette has routinely posted bogus statistics on this site, on a par with the signs the truly fringy types shown occasionally on television in favor of "reform" have displayed, saying "83% Love the Public Option." That's a laughable lie, of course. Pew and other better sources have consistently shown marginal favoring of a public option at best, with perhaps half that being strongly in favor of it.

    (It's these actual, credible, real-world, truthful statistics that still indicate there is support for the public option, and among supporters, many who strongly want it, which is a major reason why I've insisted all along the public option is not dead, far from it, and I am not surprised at "discovery" of its recent "revival.")
  • DLS
    The public option never was dead until legislation was passed without it, or legislation failed to be passed.

    It's a shame that the stupid arguments ("competition" lies and anti-insurer demagoguery, presentation of anything from Washington as magical as well as another piece of candy for kids to enjoy) haven't died.

    Clarity and purposefulness are still in the queue (is if the Dems are rationing them instead of struggling to express them). But eventually, the Demmies will make some kind of progress. I still wonder how they will manage to pay for their scheme, though, especially when they cannot avoid taxing Democrats.
  • JeffersonDavis
    Is that anything like filtering out "Yes we can!"

    You and I agree on several issues, shannon. This isn't one of them.
    I don't believe the crap from either the left or right on this issue. Pelosi and Reid could care less about the people who get healthcare - and the GOP is no better. Pelosi and her gang have constituencies that will benefit directly from public healthcare. As always... follow the money. It's just as bad as is the case with the repubs.

    I maintain that we should heavily regulate all industries involved before we nationalize an industry.
    Nail the healtcare, pharamceuticals, insurance, and trial lawyers to the freakin' wall. Then, if that doesn't work, I say go ahead and pursue a public option (within the bounds of the Constitution, of course).
  • JeffersonDavis
    "a clear majority of americans supporting [the public option]"

    CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. (Oct. 16-18)
    Favor: 49%
    Oppose: 49%
    Unsure: 2%

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. (Oct. 15-18)
    Approve: 48%
    Disapprove: 48%
    Unsure: 4%

    CBS News Poll (Oct. 5-8)
    Approve: 47%
    Disapprove: 42%
    Unsure: 11%

    AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. (Oct. 1-5):
    Support: 40%
    Oppose: 40%
    Neither: 17%
    Unsure: 3%

    Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. (Oct. 1-5):
    Favor: 40%
    Oppose: 42%
    Unsure: 18%

    Pew Research Center Poll. (Sept. 30-Oct. 4):
    Generally favor: 34%
    Generally oppose: 47%
    Unsure: 19%


    Yeah, right, silhouette. That's a "CLEAR" majority isn't it?
    http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
  • dduck12
    Ironically, I think the insurers and Big Pharma found out that "dealing" with the White House is not so straight forward. I thought these guys were supposed to be the crooks and am disappointed that they found out they are not adroit enough to deal "the White House/Chicago way".
  • Leonidas
    B) They're spending much of their shareholder profits FIGHTING Health Care Reform...


    And Big PHARMA is on trying to pass Healthcare reform after their backroom deal with the Obama administration was made.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/intern...
  • peggybradley
    You can get instant quality full coverage medical insurance for entire family at the best price from http://bit.ly/39pFJx
  • shannonlee
    I hope the Dems can manage to pass this thing...they just need to ignore the conservative white noise. After a while, they'll learn to filter out the cries of Noooooooo.
  • SteveK
    As I've pointed out in the past:

    A) Health Insurance PROFITS have increased six fold in seven years...
    In 2000, they had $2.4 billion in profit. By 2007, it was $12.9 billion.
    B) They're spending much of their shareholder profits FIGHTING Health Care Reform...
    And 999 out of 1000 of you aren't getting a penny of the $1.4M / day the industry is spending to defeat Health Care Reform.
    The Health Insurance Industry is spending:
    - 1.4 million dollars a day
    - 9.8 million dollars a week
    - 42 million dollars a month
    - 511 million dollars a year

    And ALL this SHAREHOLDER MONEY is being spent trying to fight any and all health reform... Reform to help middle America... But still Leonidas, casualobserver and the other health insurance shills here keep trying to spin the facts and make them appear to be something that they are not.

    Keep up the good work boys... we'll get the single payer plan the rest of the first world nations have and we so desperately need. All you've got to do help us show the industry's greed to another 2 to 5 percent of the voting public.
  • Silhouette
    With a clear majority of americans supporting it, anyone who considers the Public Option "dead" is teetering on extreme arrogance. Anyone in a position to actually make it dead who considers it thusly is a tyrant.
  • casualobserver
    @@I never found the notion that insurers were raking in the dough these days to be very persuasive. But I'm not sure how relevant it is.@@

    Not very other than to debunk what certain proponents are spreading around......those fearmongering types ya know that TMV likes to rail against............

    "There have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now," Obama said during a prime-time news conference. "At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits, and premiums are going up. What's the constraint on that? ... Well, part of the way is to make sure that there's some competition out there."



  • elrod
    United numbers have suffered because private businesses have cut health benefits as a cost-cutting measure. I never found the notion that insurers were raking in the dough these days to be very persuasive. But I'm not sure how relevant it is.
  • casualobserver
    Ironically, those United numbers largely come from their Medicare/Medicaid administration contracts and not their own insurance product margins. Kinda blows the whole liberal meme.
  • Leonidas
    In a related item the AP mentioned insurance company profit margins:

    FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co...

    In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."
    Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

    Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.


    Furthermore it draws some comparisons:

    Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

    The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

    HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

    The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

    UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.


    Evil railroads, beer makers and evil tupperware!!!!!
  • dduck12
    If you still think big gov. can run a business, tune in to CBS's 60 minutes tonight. Medicare fraud is rampant and in the Florida area in this story, officials estimate it is more lucrative than the drug trade.
    Oh, yeah, a public option wouldn't have those problems, Pelosi and Reid might say.
  • dduck12
    Don't like Schumer, do like his PO LIte. If they try, the dems can get a partial victory with a reasonable PO. To be truly effective and competitive, and offer a quality insurance product, the PO has in effect to be a full fledged insurance company. Crazy suggestion: find an existing quality health insurer and but it. Pay enough of a premium and they will sell. The alternative is to go from scratch, hire experienced insurance personnel and do it quickly (according to Schumer; dream on). Can't be done, you will wind up with a poor competitor, sucking at the teat of the government and propped up until it turns into a FNMA look alike.
  • Barbara_York
    This country is going to be more than just one with an insurmountable deficit soon. It is going to be bankrupt. How can those who support this legislation possibly justify adding more money to the deficit at this precarious time? Some of us out here understand that there needs to be some reform to the healthcare bureaucracy; however, we also know it is more important at this singular moment in time to step back from the brink and stop any spending until the toxic assets that continue to lie on the books of companies are taken care of and our economy is back on sure footing. This is the pivotal moment -- either selfish political aims will win or our country will. It cannot be both.
  • shannonlee
    We've all always known that Dems had the numbers, just never the heart. The only question is do they have the courage. We still don't know the answer to that question. Historically they do not. Which is why Americans still don't trust them on issues like defense...even after BushCo left office with 2 unfinished wars.

    My message to Dems...

    "Show me the money" ie, pass a public option like you have a pair.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC