Ben Nelson: Obama, Reid Leaning Towards Federalist Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 11:30:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Politico:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House are leaning towards including a national public option -- with a provision for states to opt out of it -- in the Senate health care bill, Sen. Ben. Nelson (D-Neb.) said Thursday.

That seems to be the political sweetspot in the Senate. Listen to Nelson:

Nelson said he prefers allowing states to decide individually whether to create a public option or some other sort of competitor to private insurance. "A state public option I can support," said Nelson, although he added that he hasn't made any threats to oppose the bill based on the public option.

Nelson gets to vote for cloture and against the bill and still say he protected Nebraska from "government run health care," because Nebraska can opt out. The fight seems to be moving in this direction. The key now will be to make sure the Federalist Public Option is MedicarePlus (Medicare +5 rates).

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Is President Snowe Threatening To Veto The Public Option? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Ben Nelson: Obama, Reid Leaning Towards Federalist Public Option | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If this happens (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by eric on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 11:45:34 AM EST

and it is sounding more and more possible, it will truly delineate between two Americas. The red/blue election map applied directly to people's health.

I think it will be hard to find states (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 11:58:00 AM EST

that will actually turn free money down. And if they turn it down today, they'll take it tomorrow.

If opt out passes the Senate, it will be an absolutely huge accomplishment IMO.


I am confused regarding your comment (none / 0) (#5)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:01:59 PM EST

In what way will a state lose money if they chose an exchange without a public option? It is my understanding that the subsidies go with the exchange and are not restricted to use of the public option.


: I expect jobs (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:09:44 PM EST

: Well, for one thing (none / 0) (#19)
by eric on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:06:31 PM EST

many of these states are treating people for free in emergency rooms and whatever limited public health programs are provided. A public option for coverage of these people would reduce their costs and would bring in money to pay bills that otherwise wouldn't be paid.

How powerful is the AMA today? (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 11:33:07 AM EST

Guess we'll see.

Medicare +5 would have had a stronger (none / 0) (#3)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 11:55:47 AM EST

chance of passing in the Senate if Reid had not allowed himself to be punked.

On a vote of 47-53, the Senate knocked down Majority Leader Reid's motion to proceed on the so-called "Doc fix," a bill to eliminate automatic Medicare cuts for Medicare doctors and to provide funding over the next decade. Twelve Democrats -- mostly conservaDems but including Feingold, McCaskill, and Wyden -- joined Lieberman and all Republicans to defeat the motion. FDL

But this is playing out in the middle of the health care debate. And it's making the Democratic leadership look awful. Harry Reid is claiming that the AMA promised Republican votes for the fix, and he was led astray. The very notion of deals with the AMA to fatten the pockets of their Medicare doctors in exchange for health care support is unseemly. And nobody looks like they know how to count, in addition to the fact that they are relying on Republicans to be interested in governance rather than winning the day-to-day political battle. FDL

This IMO is sheer incompetency on the part of Reid.

I'm sure it's all just part of the (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Anne on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:08:42 PM EST

Democratic Head Fake Plan, and Harry's just pretending to be incompetent and ineffective and easily manipulated so that he and the rest of the leadership can swoop in at the last minute and enact truly masterful and meaningful reform.

/snark.


Cheney says Pres. Obama should (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:13:15 PM EST

"stop dithering." Of course, Cheney was talking about honoring McC's request for add. troops in Afghanistan.


I guess we've gone from (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Anne on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:21:17 PM EST

The Decider to The Ditherer...

It's enough to make one's head make regular contact with the desk.


What's the difference (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:54:43 PM EST

between dithering and waffling? Personally I prefer the food analogies, but that's just me.


I see dithering as an inability to (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Anne on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:34:01 PM EST

make any decision, and waffling as changing the decisions already made. Kerry "waffled," remember? He was for the war before he was against it.

Obama dithers; he's all about "on the one hand...but on the other hand," and he leans a lot, and he considers, and he has preferences. He supports good ideas.

But he never commits in any meaningful way. What he says makes people think he has a commitment, but we all saw how that went in the FISA renewal bill, pre-election. We misunderstood. We didn't understand. There's so much we don't know. It was...the best we could do. We would fix it later, when the Democrats are in charge.

It's pretty much a load of you-know-what; is there a food-related analogy for that? :-)


: Um (none / 0) (#34)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 07:00:15 PM EST

It's pretty much a load of you-know-what; is there a food-related analogy for that? :-)
Um, yes. But it's only enjoyable if you're a dog....

: Yeah (none / 0) (#36)
by Spamlet on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 09:39:56 PM EST

It's pretty much a load of you-know-what; is there a food-related analogy for that?
A sh!t sandwich, with waffles instead of bread.

I agree on the food analogies (none / 0) (#33)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 05:00:42 PM EST

Waffling is particularly appropriate for this POTUS.


Making a sensible decision on Afghanistan (none / 0) (#28)
by lilybart on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 02:07:44 PM EST

takes time. It is not dithereing.

The next decision really has to be the endgame and so, can't be rushed.

Are there still people here at talkLEFT that support Cheney's views?


Yeah, some of us even side with the (none / 0) (#30)
by jes on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 02:51:33 PM EST

Taliban and think Obama should not have won the NPP. Sheesh.


PUMA lives. nt (none / 0) (#37)
by lilybart on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:01:36 PM EST

: ad hominem (none / 0) (#38)
by jes on Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 12:47:56 PM EST

is your entire arsenal.

Ditherer Or Decider? (none / 0) (#35)
by norris morris on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 07:30:01 PM EST

Obama is now officially The Ditherer.

It's an abomination that Obama's met sub rosa with Drug and Insurance cartel, and has decided to dither than decide on a public option

His passivity in not informing or fighting for a Public Option offers insight into Obama's real
stratey: Political cover.

Actually it's unforgivable that our most informed and articulate leader has decided not to clearly outline and amply specificy what kind of a plan
he wants passed. Informing and educating the public is key in simplifing and clarifying
the messy confused comedy we've been observing in the congress.

Watching Baucus maintain the pretense that
Olympia Snowe is important regarding healthcare
is cringe making. The obstructionist Blue Dogs are being protected among Dems for "party unity?
We all know Baucus and Dogs are fully paid for by Insurance biggies.

No leadership or clarity from Obama on this as his speeches are loaded with contradictions and middling maybe's.

We are being gulled into thinking a badly compromized bill "will be better than nothing".

A bill that does not clearly delineate a public option is worse than no bill at all. A bill that doesn't allow the consumer to shop for first class care that includes a real public option is worse than where we're at now.

We are at the mercy of the healthcare cartels who continue to raise rates and offer less, and will continue to be unless a really strong bill is passed that includes competitive options.

A half assed bill would simply deliver more victims to the Insurance/Drug cartel and offer
no substantive beneft to millions of Americans.

A bad bill is nothing and should not pass. Obama has not been a leader on this and his private dealings with the Healthcare biggies isn't reassuring.

Baucus and the other B


Must disagree. AMA seemed to be (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:06:23 PM EST

on board earlier, but when talk started of Medicare + 5, they, of course, got more vocal and visible. If physicians would be stuck with inadequate reimbursement not only re Medicare patients, but an even larger patient load, now is the time to make noise.


: Evidently I'm dense this morning (none / 0) (#13)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:03 PM EST

as I do not understand your comment. The "Doc fix" was, as I understand it, to eliminate automatic Medicare cuts for Medicare doctors and to provide funding over the next decade.

HCB (none / 0) (#9)
by Illiope on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:11:13 PM EST

healthcare balkanization

imo, political cover is no excuse for discriminatory legislation.

not really discriminatory (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by CST on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:31:56 PM EST

since it's "opt out" not "opt in"

If you choose not to have a service, that's not the same as someone telling you you can't have it.


opt-opus (none / 0) (#24)
by Illiope on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:40:36 PM EST

buuut... who makes that choice?

if i, say, live in texas, and i am desperate for a public option, and the state pols decide that texas is going to opt-out of the PO, is that the same thing as an individual making the same decision?

i say it is not.

that would be exactly the same as someone telling me i "can't have it"


: Well, that's a political failure (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:41:57 PM EST

In particular, it demonstrates how stupid federalism is.

I get that state legislatures and (none / 0) (#26)
by Anne on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:51:23 PM EST

voters make choices all the time that affect the residents of their state; we make choices via referendum, we don't always win, and we have to live with the consequences regardless.

On health care, I can't help but think that states choosing to opt-out of the federal public option will relegate many to the not-so-tender mercies of private insurance companies; it may guaranteee a financial reward to legislators via industry contributions, but what will it do for the people who will be negatively affected by the opt-out?

Not much, I'm thinking.


Well, I guess (none / 0) (#20)
by eric on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:08:20 PM EST

we could shell Fort Sumter and force them to take it, but I say just leave them alone.


: "them" (none / 0) (#21)
by Illiope on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 01:19:20 PM EST

you mean the politicians that decide*, or the people that might really need and want a PO?
(* knowing full well that the vast majority of politicians are not the ones that decide their own votes)

President Snowe says she'd like filibuster opt-out (none / 0) (#12)
by magster on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26:02 PM EST

per TPM.

For once (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:29:40 PM EST

I beat you to it.


: Barely :) (none / 0) (#16)
by oldpro on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:39:33 PM EST

Well that should take it off the table (none / 0) (#15)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:30:15 PM EST

Can't see Obama abandoning his "minority rule" position after all this time. :-)


And no opt out prior to 2013 (none / 0) (#17)
by BobTinKY on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:42:42 PM EST

let's not make it easy for red state pols.

From what I read Nelson is in favor (none / 0) (#27)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 02:06:21 PM EST

of allowing individual states to set up a public option and not a national public option that states can opt out.

"I keep hearing there is a lot of leaning toward some sort of national public option, unfortunately, from my standpoint," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a key swing vote on health reform. "I still believe a state-based approach is the way in which to go. So I'm not being shy about making that point.
...
As for Nelson, he said he prefers allowing states to decide individually whether to create a public option or some other sort of competitor to private insurance.
"A state public option I can support," said Nelson, although he added that he hasn't made any threats to oppose the bill based on the public option. link

As we all know (none / 0) (#29)
by andgarden on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 02:43:23 PM EST

there's a difference between what he might "prefer" and what he's willing to vote for. Especially on procedural motions.


: I think the fact (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by CST on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 03:08:25 PM EST

that he explicitly stated he has made no "threats" about the public option indicates that he would vote for cloture at the very least.

: Don't disagree (none / 0) (#32)
by MO Blue on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 03:20:07 PM EST

I just think it is important to state his position accurately.
Heck, as CST pointed out, he has never said he wouldn't vote for cloture on any health insurance plan.