The Note
Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet

Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.

To email Rick Klein, click here.

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

« Previous | Main | Next »

Daschle Folds on Federal Public Health Care Plan

June 17, 2009 6:07 PM

ABC News' Elizabeth Gorman reports:

In an attempt at bipartisanship, three former majority leaders of the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole, offered their solution today to the biggest obstacle to achieving health care reform -- a public option.

"While I feel very strongly that consumers should have the choice of a national, Medicare-like plan, my colleagues do not. . . But we were concerned that the ongoing health reform debate is beginning to show signs of fracture on the public plan issue, so in order to advance the process of developing bipartisan legislation and to move it forward, it's time to find consensus here," Daschle said.

"We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreements on one single issue," he said.

In a blow to President Obama and many of his Democratic allies in the health care fight, the plan recommends that there be no federal public option, but rather state or regional public-sponsored networks that would compete with private health plans, according to the summary released today by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

"If you want to stop this thing dead in its tracks, or dead on arrival, in my view you put the public plan in it," Dole said when asked whether there were any non-negotiables to deal with when drafting the bipartisan recommendations.

"I had a lot of trouble with [individual] mandates just as Tom had trouble with the public plan. ... But if we can't compromise, how do we expect anyone else, how are we going to get a bill passed," Dole said. "We weren't going let two or three issues derail our total effort."

The White House praised the Bipartisan Policy Center’s approach in a statement that continues to touch on only the broadest of goals. 

"This group of extraordinarily experienced legislators agree with the President that health reform must be enacted this year because the status quo -- skyrocketing health care costs, rising premiums, swelling deficits – is unsustainable," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

"With this report, they have demonstrated what can be achieved with bipartisan effort. The Bipartisan Policy Center has produced a significant report, and the White House applauds their efforts," added Gibbs.

Both Dole and Daschle agreed that for health care reform to truly be considered bipartisan there would be at least 20 Republican votes needed.

"My colleagues and I believe this modest compromise could bring about a bridge that any riffs in the debate might otherwise generate," Daschle said. "I believe there will be a compromise on the public plan option in the very near future – if not our approach, then it will be one of the other proposals already being considerd as they circulate."

The bipartisan plan, which Dole said is totally cost neutral, taxes medical benefits of premiums exceeding $15,000 annually.  As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama opposed any such taxing of health care benefits.

"Someone has to give; better everyone puts in the pot," he said.

Last Monday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Sen. Kennedy's health care proposal at $1.3 trillion over ten years.

UPDATE: After much attention was paid to Sen. Daschle's comments, the former majority leader spoke with the Washington Post's Ezra Klein about his personal continued commitment to a public option and his willingness to compromise to get health care reform across the finish line.

 

June 17, 2009 in Health Care | Permalink | Share | User Comments (37)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

BS. I want a public option! Republicans and bought dems know it won't destroy the private industry, they're just scared that their cronies there won't make as much and so won't have as much money to fill their campaign coffers.

Posted by: shame | Jun 17, 2009 6:41:23 PM

Why am I not surprised? Because, unfortunately, I've been waiting for the democrats to back down and settle for almost nothing. I wonder if they realize that they're reinforcing the GOP image of them as wishy-washy do nothings for a lot of people?

Posted by: jan | Jun 17, 2009 9:26:22 PM

daschle has seen the light.not your typical handout seeker.

Posted by: catman | Jun 17, 2009 10:04:45 PM

Let's get past the deception by the democrats, that it's possible to add 47 million people to health insurance with an MAJOR increase in total health costs. Do the math. The question that needs to be addresses is simple, is the primary goal to insure the 47 million or is it to decrease the cost of healthcare? It's one or the other...

Posted by: DoctorBID | Jun 17, 2009 10:12:16 PM

Another loss for barry :))
public option was a disaster anyway!!

Posted by: Duh | Jun 17, 2009 10:27:17 PM

I don't get it. How is a state or regionally covered public plan different than the Big Government public plan, except that the states and regions don't have the Big Printing Press to outlast the private plans. Nevertheless, a cheap government plan (whether it's federal or local) will drive out of business a more expensive private plan (with all its options), when enough human resource departments see that the govt.one is cheaper for them. Except, that when the government is involved, it is not really a free market in the end.

Posted by: djtx | Jun 18, 2009 1:20:11 AM

DoctorBID: Is not about either. This is about making health care more affordable for many people. The 47 million uninsured are just some of the casualties of a bad system.

It wouldn't be about insuring 47 million people anyway. Probably 30 million could pay their way if the government got the insurers to do away with medical underwriting for illness, etc. Most of the uninsured have been forced out of the insurance market.

As far as lowering costs, its probably impossible overall. Unless you want to stop medical progress and freeze it at 2009, newer more expensive things will come their way. Until we develop as a species into a far more morally acceptable group, we are not going to be pulling the plug on each other because of costs.

A public option would never have made it anyway. It would have cost too much at a time when we can afford nothing. There is always room for adding it later, if and when we can afford it. I don't like the idea of taking money from the already crappy Medicare and Medicaid, but it seems that Obama will do anything to win votes - and he considers the elderly and poor apparently dispensable.

Posted by: Jon F | Jun 18, 2009 4:10:52 AM

Well Mr & Mrs America, what do you expect from lobbist? That's what Mr. Daschle has been over these last years, I am sure the health industry has paid him thousands. No worry, the Democratic Congress is still in control, and people like Bernie Sanders won't be bought! Healthcare, and profit, cannot co-exist! CEO's making millions, Doctors having to settle for whatever, while private insurance raise the Doctors and Drug Companies expectations, because they can charge your for it will soon come to the end. If the healthcare industry would have made changes earlier, to their cherry picking, and the Drug Companies to their charging Americans for their losses elsewhere, the change that is sure to come, would not have been necessary. But then, GREED would not be part of the picture.

Posted by: D B Workman Sr | Jun 18, 2009 4:32:09 AM

Typical Washington politics. The dems will take credit for passing a healthcare bill, while the GOP will make sure it's so watered down it's virtually worthless. Everybody wins except the American people who either have no health care or are struggling to pay for ever more expensive private policies that cover less and less every year.

Posted by: Patrick | Jun 18, 2009 5:09:43 AM

I really don't understand why people are calling this a total loss. While some people may have wanted a "public option", this doesn't mean that there will be no reform.

I have one of the expensive private policies that cost me about 50% of my income after taxes. That's just for the insurance. Its crappy and I pay lots out of pocket as well. But I am now hopeful that the government will now regulate these insurers and prevent the practice of discrimination by medical underwriting. This is why many of our policies cost so much.

The public option was scrapped because no one could find a way to pay for it. Since America is more than broke, I am not surprised. I don't think that many of us would like the enormous price tag on increased taxes, etc - that would have been inevitable. Any other method of raising revenue would surely have put us into a deeper recessionary spiral.

This does not mean, however, that significant regulation of these people can't be achieved. There are also extensive provisions for generous government subsidies for those who cannot still afford a policy.

If you want to blame someone, blame President Obama for committing all our financial resources and then some before this issue was discussed in Congress. We have been given this option because we have been deemed to be less important the alternative fuels and pollution control. If less money had gone there, we would have had more for health care.

Posted by: Jon F | Jun 18, 2009 6:27:34 AM

Folks this is just a recommendation by three former politicians who have always been in the pockets of the corporations. A majority of Americans support a public option and most Dems in the House and Senate have pledged to not support reform without a public option.

Posted by: Mark from atlanta | Jun 18, 2009 8:22:27 AM

Government must stay out of health care.
Another Iran do what we tell you we know what's best. You are a Radical if you think for yourself. We want no opposition do you here. We will not tell your story if you oppose our plan.
Sounds like Iran, supprised the internet is not down yet.

Posted by: Mario | Jun 18, 2009 8:53:54 AM

Let's see......repubs supported spending millions on the Iraq war without question, but they won't support healthcare reform that will help millions in their own country unless it's watered down and not intended to help anybody? Typical.

Posted by: js45601 | Jun 18, 2009 9:52:12 AM

Wait - what's this going to do to ABC's prime time hour of adoration? Guess this may free up some time to talk about Bo, what the prez had for breakfast and maybe we'll even get to watch all the journalists bow to Obama (or will Diane curtsy?) I bet NBC is pea-green with envy right now. ABC - you go girl!

Posted by: Nel | Jun 18, 2009 11:29:16 AM

What a freakin puppet. Bloated money grubbing private interest groups win again..... When will they ever learn.

Posted by: KMG | Jun 18, 2009 11:32:15 AM

As a former South Dakotan I am very disappointed in Mr. Daschle. At least the Democrats are finally coming out of the woodwork. I always thought you obtained insurance to "insure" that when you needed to use it, the funds would be there. " Insurance should not be tied to jobs, all pre-existing illnesses should be done away with (everyone has some type of pre-existing illness, or will), all insurance forms standardized and, if we keep private insurance, it should be regulated in some way. I believe a plan like Medicare for all would work. I have been on Medicare and a supplement for 3 years and have been totally happy. If everyone was paying into one plan this could work. Most people pay into health insurance for years but only start having health issues in their later years, so after everyone paying in all those younger years the funds would be available when needed. I can't believe all you democrats are "giving in" to the lobbyists, insurance companies and the giant drug companies with markups on prescriptions that are unbelievable! Exactly how is your "government health insurance plan" working for you? And you get to keep it after your retirement. We would like to have that same type of coverage. We should be able to keep our insurance forever and stay with our existing doctors for a much better continuity of care.

I am also on Social Security and that has "run like a clock" for me. Please, please handle this in a humane way for all the uninsured (we are already carrying that cost), and for all of us Americans. I know you can do it, if you want to. Please don't let President Obama and all the citizens of our country down this time.

Posted by: lc | Jun 18, 2009 12:01:40 PM

Daschle, Baker, and Dole are not interested in health care reform. I wonder why?

Posted by: Maddogg | Jun 18, 2009 12:08:51 PM

No public option=no reform. A robust medicare-like public option was already a compromise. The majority of americans want single payer and over 75% want a public option.

What do we get? Backstabbed. Again.

Posted by: PS | Jun 18, 2009 12:17:20 PM

I am SO glad Daschle couldn't be bothered to file his taxes properly, because he's obviously not the guy we need leading the health care fight.

Posted by: iLLogicaL | Jun 18, 2009 12:33:28 PM

Without a Strong Public Option (not a "co-op" and no 7-year trigger!) Any so-called "Health Care Reform" bill will simply "rearrange the deckchairs" on our current "Titanic" healthcare problems.

I am calling my Representatives EVERY DAY on this, and I hope you are too.

Posted by: Scott Wa | Jun 18, 2009 12:41:16 PM

Post a comment