Posted on 10/26/2009 5:19:43 AM PDT by CutePuppy
Democratic senators continued to remain bullish on the chances of creating a government-run public option as part of healthcare reform.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted Sunday that last week's Medicare doc fix vote was a sign of trouble to come for Democrats in trying to rally enough votes to push through a government-run health insurance option.
Senate Democratic Caucus chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Sunday that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is very close to getting the 60 votes needed to move forward with a healthcare reform bill in the Senate.
Schumer echoed the calls of several senators who this week said that Democratic negotiators has garned the 60 votes necessary to invoke closure on the measure. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week put it in even stronger terms, saying that Reid had 60 votes for a “robust” public option.
According to Schumer, Reid is leaning strongly toward including a provision that would allow states to opt out of public health insurance if they want to keep private insurers.
Schumer added that the liberal senators are able to live with an opt-out public option under which states could decline to participate in a public program.
We need some competition for the insurance companies, Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” A government-run insurance plan would have to play by the same rules as the insurance companies and it would negotiate rates with the providers, Schumer said.
Having a public option would bring competition to states that only have one or two insurance providers, Schumer said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to predict whether or not Democrats could garner 60 votes to invoke cloture on healthcare reform or if the GOP would filibuster the bill. But he did say that Republican success in blocking the 10-year Medicare reimbursement rate increase showed that Reid lacks the votes for broader healthcare reform.
“We do know that we had the first vote in the healthcare debate last week, and it was a bipartisan majority, 100 percent of Republicans and 13 Democrats agreeing that we should not borrow a quarter of a trillion dollars at the outset,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
The 12 Democrats and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) ranged from moderate to liberal. Most cited the lack of budget offsets in the bill.
McConnell said that “all the nervousness is on the Democratic side,” because of the defections on the so-called “doc fix.”
“We know there is nervousness among Democrats over this increasing view that Congress is acting like a teenager with their parents' credit card, not worried about who's going to have to pay the bill,” he added.
But two key moderate senators indicated that they would be open to voting for healthcare reform with a public option in it.
Centrist Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) voted against the “doc fix” but said that the vote will not serve as a bellwether for the main healthcare reform bill.
I don't think that the vote last week should be any signal to America that we have lost the will to move forward and fix the ridiculously difficult and expensive healthcare dilemma we face in this country,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“Mitch McConnell is busy on politics instead of policy,” she added.
McCaskill said she supported the public health insurance option but has not “drawn a line in the sand” regarding which type of option she would support.
She stressed, however, that any plan, if included in the final bill, would be limited in its reach.
I think what we're going to end up with is having votes on a number of choices,” she said.
The first-term senator cited three plans: the ability for states to opt-in to a nonprofit public health plan, the ability of states to opt-out from such a plan, and option to trigger a nonprofit plan if insurance companies do not address costs within a preset timeframe. She said that 25 to 30 million million would be eligible to buy insurance from a public “exchange” and that most would still receive insurance from their employer.
“The devil we know is much worse than what we are proposing to do,” she said. You can't be a serious deficit hawk,” and not pass a bill, she added.
McCaskill’s support for the public option is a key indicator that more moderate Democratic senators are getting on board with the plan that just weeks ago was opposed by the group.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), one of the most important holdout votes, said that he is “not excited” about an opt-out public option. But he said he may be open to an arrangement under which states can decide whether to choose government-run healthcare insurance.
“I could look into one that states can opt in,” Nelson said on CNN’s State of the Union. He said he cannot decide on how he would vote until he sees the “underlying bill.”
Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has said all year that a public option could not attract the needed 60 votes in the Senate and did not include it in his panel’s bill. But last week, Democratic senators suggested that negotiators are leaning toward including a plan, which is starting to attract broader backing.
McCaskill even said moderate Republicans could be encouraged to jump on board with the Democrats’ bill.
“If we got more moderate Democrats in the fold, the few remaining moderate Republicans come along,” she said.
But Democratic leaders still must hammer out key details before they can determine the integrity of their voting bloc.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a noted liberal, said that he would not support a public option “trigger” because it would be an invitation to the insurance industry to manipulate the situation.
He said “at this point, I think we need to do something fundamental,” stressing his support for a more powerful public option.
First off, any plan with states' opt-out options cannot be called "national" or "universal" and can't possibly be scored by CBO or any economic or statistical entity for costs. And none of these plans even try any longer to claim that it will "save" money, the question is now only "how much it will cost us?"
Second, if states can opt in or opt out of national plan, why is there even a need for "national" plan to begin with? It simply shows that states (or cities, or even "communities") can do their own tailored plan for their denizens, if they want to, without the need for "one size fits all" pseudo-national program.
So why the gimmicks? Because if the program is "national" / "federal" then federal government will be able to use the money from states that "opted out" (most likely, the "red states") to finance the states that chose to "opt in" (most certainly, the "deep blue states") thus rendering opt-out meaningless at best, and fiscally damaging to the opt-out states, at worst, since they would derive no financial benefit from opting out.
Since this gimmick is so blatantly transparent, Republicans could easily explain it to not only the constituents in their own states, but also threaten to cut off transfer of funds from opt-out states once they take back Congress - which should put the fear into the hearts of the potential opt-in states' beneficiaries - if they won't be able to get a free ride on the backs of other states, these states would go bankrupt financing health care run and managed by the federal government.
GOP has the opportunity of a lifetime to drive the stake through the heart of these (and any future) "universal" healthcare or "insurance" bills, simply by exposing and mocking these scams and gimmicks to the "great unwashed" who might think it's something different.
Will Republican blow this natural opportunity for easy public relations coup, while Democrats keep digging?
It’s time to burn up the phone lines and the fax machines and the email inboxes of your elected officials in Washington, and at home. This legislative tripe will spell the demise of the highest quality healthcare system in the world and bring us one giant step closer to the socialist ‘utopia’ envisioned by the anointed one and his 0bamunist minions.
It’s time to take back the country.
You won’t be able to opt out of paying for it though
Bad news. Another second approach would be to contact those liberals you see on MSNBC Schulz, Maddow, Olbermann and tell them Pelosi and Obama are about to sell them out with this opt out.
The liberals in the house have kept Pelosi from moving forward, they want the full public option.
Are they going to let us opt out of the higher taxes?
What these liberals are up to is this. Get the health care package passed at any cost, then gradually put the insurance companies out of business over the next 5 - 10 years.
Naw....We know how this works....you want some money...you gonna luv the plan...
The “opt out” will be “disincentivized” HEAVILY - guaranteed.
If they aren’t able to get an eventual, inevitable single payer system with this bill, there’s no reason to pass it.
Control is the goal.
I think the liberals know that a true ‘national’ plan cannot pass constitutional muster, so they are using gimmicks like opt-in, etc.
The ‘trigger’ option is only there to get votes. Single-payer advocates can vote for it knowing the trigger will be pulled in the future and market-based proponents can vote for it because that is what it will look like initially until the trigger is pulled.
The only Opt-Out I’m interested in seeing is where State Legislatures pass a state level law rejecting the implementation of any federal mandates/programs/taxes on anything related to healthcare.
Electronic records via the stimulus plan was the beginning...No REAL reason for everyone to be electronic...
Most likely an admission that this is unconstitutional. They will price it so low at first that no one will opt out.
Especially Ed Schultz.
AND MY SUPPLEMENT IS GOING UP 58% AS OF JAN 1ST....BECAUSE OF THE FED GOV PAYMENT SHAFT JOB. The notice was VERY specific as to the Fed Gov payment.
That's the real point of "national" health care, the only "universal" option in it will be paying for it with no opportunity to "opt-out". If Republicans can't exploit and explain this to people, they will become Whigs.
I don't know how they would even start going about setting the prices - on what cost or actuary bases, for what contingent or contingencies, using Medicare / Medicaid [bankrupt] models or city / county medical centers, etc. etc. etc.
I'd like to see the validation of how CBO came up with their estimates and why several were off by hundreds of millions from each other? methinks, they just pulled some numbers out of the air, based on discounted insurance industry "averages". Which, as experience with Social Security and Medicare has shown, will be off by miles, as well.
Communists don’t believe in money so economic restraints are meaningless to them.
if they pass this with an opt-out there will be an immediate stampede of jobs and residents into states that have opted-out, which will not sit well with the Democrats who are running places like New York, Massachusetts and Michigan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.