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.
RECENT POSTS
- The Note's Must-Reads for Wednesday, November 25, 2009
- ‘Top Line’ with Sally Quinn -- Inside the First Obama State Dinner
- GOPers to Biden: Stop Using Stimulus Jobs Numbers
- Exit Ramps: Democrats Grow Restless on Afghanistan Strategy
- The Note's Must-Reads for Tuesday, November 24, 2009
- RNC's Communications Chief Resigns
- A Better Palin Than Tina Fey?
- ‘Top Line’ -- ‘America’s Next Great Pundit’
- ‘Top Line’ at the Movies: ‘Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo’
- Mass. GOP Gov’s Candidate Chooses Openly Gay Running Mate
THE NOTE CATEGORIES
- 2010
- Afghanistan
- Bill Clinton
- CIA
- Congress
- Democratic party
- Environment
- Financial Reform
- GOP
- Gov. Mark Sanford
- Gov. Sarah Palin
- Guantanamo
- Health Care
- Hillary Clinton
- Immigration
- Iran
- Iraq
- John McCain
- Mitt Romney
- North Korea
- Obama Agenda
- Politics Live
- President Obama
- Republican Party
- Ronald Reagan
- Sen. John Ensign
- Senate
- Sonia Sotomayor
- Stimulus
- Sunday Shows
- Supreme Court
- Ted Kennedy
- The Note
- The Note Must-Reads
- Top Line
- Vice President Biden
- Virginia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Public Option: It's Back
October 22, 2009 3:17 PM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:
The public option. The idea was believed to be dead. Liberals wanted it, but Senate vote counters insisted it simply could not pass the Senate. The dynamic, however, has changed. The public option may be back from dead.
I am told that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is leaning toward including the creation of a new government-run insurance program – the so-called public option – in the health care reform bill he will bring to the full Senate in the coming weeks.
Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.
This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.
And Democratic critics of the public option would get a chance to go on-the-record with their opposition by voting for an amendment to strip it from the health care bill. Under Senate rules, such an amendment would need 60 votes to pass. And while there may not be 60 votes in favor of a public option, there are also not 60 votes against it. So, it would remain in the bill.
The downside: The move would almost certainly cost Democrats the support of Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the sole Republican who now supports Democratic health care reform efforts. Asked today if she would vote to block a bill with public option, Snowe told reporters, “On the public option? I'd say I'm against a public option, so yes."
Another important point: Reid’s version of the public option is different from the more liberal version advocated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in two key ways: 1) Reid’s version would allow individual states to opt-out of the program, giving public option critics the chance to say that their states retain the right to scrap the idea; and, 2) Under Reid’s plan, the new government insurance program would have to negotiate payment rates with health care providers. Under Pelosi’s, payment rates would be tied to the lower rates paid by Medicare.
This is not a done deal. I am told that Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) – who worked for months to get Olympia Snowe’s support for the bill and has consistently said a public option cannot pass the Senate – was apoplectic when Reid told him he wanted to include the public option. “Baucus went to DEFCON 1,” said a source familiar with the negotiations, referring to the alert level the military uses for an imminent attack on the homeland.
UPDATE: Snowe gave an interview to Bloomberg TV today where she reiterated her opposition to the inclusion of a public option that would kick into gear immediately -- and said it may not be possible to finish a bill this year.
“A public option at the forefront really does put the government in a disproportionate position with respect to the industry,” Snowe said on “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
She added: “Christmas might be too soon. . . . We should give it the time it deserves.”
2nd UPDATE: A spokesman for Max Baucus denied the Senator was upset with Senator Reid.
"From the moment he recommended a public option in his white paper nearly a year ago, Senator Baucus has made clear he would support a public option or any other mechanism to ensure choice, competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate," said Baucus spokesman Scott Mulhauser.
Mulhauser dismissed reports of Baucus being upset as rumors, adding "I hear Jon and Kate may be getting back together if you want to chase more rumors down rabbit holes.”
October 22, 2009 in Health Care | Permalink | Share | User Comments (305)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Nice report, but it's misleading to say "liberals" want it. I've seen support for the public option as high as 60% in many polls. Clearly that's not just liberals.
Let's face it, for many of the Dems in Congress, it's not a calculation of liberal vs. conservative. Many of them, and in particular Baucus, have taken millions from the health care industry, which wants a mandate, but not a public option.
Posted by: Andrew | Oct 22, 2009 3:54:05 PM
So Baucus went,
apoplectic?"
He went to, "DEFCON 1?"
See what $3 million in donations from the insurance industry will buy you?
A U.S. Senator more concerned with corporate lobbyists than with his constituents' interests, desires, health, and lives.
Posted by: Jacksonian | Oct 22, 2009 4:00:20 PM
"2) Under Reid’s plan, the new government insurance program would have to negotiate payment rates with health care providers."
This would put the public plan on dead-even footing with the current health insurance giants. It will drive up the CBO cost analysis, but it does eliminate any honest complaints of the public plan competing on an uneven playing field.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 22, 2009 4:00:54 PM
You are exactly right Andrew. And what the heck was Mary Landrieu talking about? The CBO just released a report saying that a public option would come under budget and reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. Her state, Louisiana as some of the WORST health care in the nation. She has NO IDEA what she is talking about.
Posted by: The Dude of Life | Oct 22, 2009 4:04:24 PM
Actually Andrew, most polls show the support at well below 50% - and less than the number of respondants who do support it. Any poll with a number over 50% usually turns out to be heavily weighted with liberal respondants. Conservatives and independants - far and away DON'T support a public option.
Posted by: arkievet | Oct 22, 2009 4:06:01 PM
This is the best version of the public option. (national plan, negotiated rates, opt-out allowed)
It will allow the public option to demonstrate its effects compared to states without it.
If you have a wavering Senator in your state, I think you should contact them to support this version.
Posted by: Hal Horvath | Oct 22, 2009 4:08:12 PM
Public option or no public option, Obama's and the Democrat's health care plan is wrong for America. The Democrat's are not trying to reform health care but rather they want to destroy it. As citizens it never enter's our mind that the Democrat's would do such a thing, but it is happening right before our eye's.
Posted by: John Demeter | Oct 22, 2009 4:10:21 PM
Why is Reid insisting that Some states get a larger percent to fund medicaid than others? He wants Neveda,Flordia and New York to get more in Medicaid payments and the other states not. Why would we want to fund his re-election for poop like that?
Posted by: marion | Oct 22, 2009 4:10:33 PM
Being more specific, many Americans want to wait to see the details of the public option before being for or against.
But...the public option most likely now is one that would allow states to opt-out.
Guess what that would do for support for the Public Option. Yes, raise it.
Posted by: Hal Horvath | Oct 22, 2009 4:14:23 PM
Excellent -- FREE health care!
Posted by: JacquesAzz | Oct 22, 2009 4:16:53 PM
Isn't it time for Baucus to be removed, how can a hick from Montana decide whats best for me a small business owner in venice, ca....i mean really???!?!
Sen Boxer, Sen Feinstein, would you please stand up for us!!
Posted by: casey | Oct 22, 2009 4:18:16 PM
Marion -
You're talking about Medicaid. The House version of the public option would be tired to Medicare rates, which is funded directly by the Federal Goverment and is not distributed to the States.
Federal support to the states for Medicaid is a separate issue from the public option and how it sets its rates of reimbursement.
Posted by: Brian | Oct 22, 2009 4:18:43 PM
JacquesAzz, that's kinda like free wars, right?
Posted by: Hal Horvath | Oct 22, 2009 4:18:53 PM
yay, public option...take that granny..now we both have medicare
Posted by: kevin | Oct 22, 2009 4:20:17 PM
... just like Seniors
Posted by: Dee | Oct 22, 2009 4:20:20 PM
Opt out? Kinda like the states who wanted to opt out of the stimulus? How many states opted out of that again? It reminds me of that giant check Gov. Jindal showed off only weeks after he threatened to opt out of the stimulus. Go ahead Sen. Landrieu opt out of public option. Well see.
Posted by: JR | Oct 22, 2009 4:22:24 PM
Let's see.... 60 Democrats, 40 Republicans.... Ms. Snowe, might I suggest a few things you could go and do with yourself?
Posted by: Nosybear | Oct 22, 2009 4:23:18 PM
But...the public option most likely now is one that would allow states to opt-out.
Hal Horvath | Oct 22, 2009 4:14:23 PM
I like this idea a great deal. It capitalizes on the powerful concept of states being incubators for innovation. It is also a move by the Feds that actually INCREASES states rights for once. It's really tough to see a legitimate argument against it.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 22, 2009 4:23:57 PM
How laughable is Senator Mary Landrieu's NPR comment "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no."? How many other imaginary poll questions would get a "no" answer? Death Panels, anyone?
Posted by: Ron | Oct 22, 2009 4:24:13 PM
No matter what the Dems say or pass for health care..it is all Unconstitutional; they can not mandate a requirement on the American people to pay a part of their salary (their property) to buy something offered "only" by thte government. This actually falls under the "Anti-Slavery Laws"; the government can not direct a citizen to use their own property to buy something soley owned by the government. It is all Unconstitutional. Media and Journalists..do your work and ask this question to the Dems and see what they say, then investigate it yourself.
Posted by: Peter King | Oct 22, 2009 4:24:45 PM
Post a comment
POLITICAL VIDEOS
THE NOTE BLOG ROLL
- ABC News -- George Stephanopoulos
- ABC News -- Jake Tapper
- ABC News Politics
- ABC News -- The Numbers
- ABC News -- The Blotter
- The American Prospect -- TAPPED
- The Atlantic -- Politics Channel
- The Boston Globe -- Political Intelligence
- Center for American Progress -- Think Progress
- Center for Responsive Politics
- The Chicago Sun-Times -- Lynn Sweet
- The Chicago Tribune -- The Swamp
- Drudge Report
- FactCheck.org
- FiveThirtyEight
- Heritage Foundation -- The Foundry
- The Hill -- Briefing Room
- The Hotline
- The Huffington Post
- The Los Angeles Times -- Top of the Ticket
- NPR -- Political Junkie
- National Review -- The Corner
- The New Republic -- The Plank
- The New York Times -- The Caucus
- Newsweek -- The Gaggle
- Political Wire -- Taegan Goddard
- Politico -- Ben Smith
- Politico -- Mike Allen’s Playbook
- PolitiFact
- Real Clear Politics
- Talking Points Memo
- Time -- The Page
- USA Today -- On Politics
- Variety -- Wilshire & Washington
- The Wall Street Journal -- Capital Journal
- The Washington Post -- The Fix
- The Washington Post -- 44
