Skip to main content

View Diary: Don't Celebrate the Snowe Vote (370 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem though is weakening the bill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to please the likes of Snowe, Conrad, Lincoln etc rather than put the pressure on the few conservadems that are blocking real reform.

    That's why Obama needed to demand a strong Public Option from the get go... and why the final bill probably won't have a Robust Public Option.

    The bill that just passed the committee has Conrad's stupid co-ops... that's what they'll call a public option now.

    •  Check this out: Bayh and Ben Nelson endorse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the Federalist Public Option:

      Coops are going to get the heave-ho.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:35:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're not supporting the federal public (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, Jyrinx, jethrock

        option, only state public options. Carper doesn't even want his opt-in proposal to extend to a national one, but stay within state "public options."

        I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

        by slinkerwink on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:40:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Their stance is moving in the right direction. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That's a good thing.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:43:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  from what I have read, it appears that the (0+ / 0-)

          articles or the quotes that we are referring to are from different times. Otherwise, it is difficult to reconcile them.

          While the post story was written today, the quote is not conclusive for me. And if interpreted in the way you suggest, it appears that it would contradict other recent writing on the opt out.

          •  Ezra wrote his piece Oct 13. This supports (0+ / 0-)

            what I wrote before. The other piece which is being interpreted by Slinkerwink to contradict it was also written on Oct 13.

            It is just as possible that the quotes from the article Slinkerwink interprets in her way are from earlier than the quotes Ezra is referring to. Although that story came out last week (from Huff Post) apparently.

            And chronologically this interpretation has something to support it as well -

            opt in came before opt out. And according to Huff Post, Carper was more or less promoting this opt out with Schumer.  

            And I believe that I remember that quote from before as referring to opt in and before the opt out was discussed (or discussed widely).

            •  More recent quotes have shown that Carper (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              isn't promoting the opt-in to a national level.

              One proposal attracting considerable attention originated with Sen. Thomas R. Carper (Del.) and would allow states to decide whether to create their own insurance plans or join forces to provide coverage in collaboration with neighboring states. Other Democrats want to take the state-based approach a step further, creating a national public plan that states could join. Carper, a moderate Democrat, said he is not sure he is prepared to go that far. "I'm just chewing on that one," he said.

              And he never supported the opt-out plan, or thought of it originally. We don't know who originally thought of it, but check out these grafs below:

              In conversations with the Huffington Post, sources have said that while the opt-out approach to the public plan is in its nascent stages it has been discussed with leadership in the Senate. It was pulled out of an alternative idea, put forth by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and, prior to him, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to give states the power to determine whether they want to implement a public insurance option.

              But instead of starting with no national public option and giving state governments the right to develop their own, the newest compromise approaches the issue from the opposite direction: beginning with a national public option and giving state governments the right not to have one.

              "It is being discussed," said one progressive strategist who has been working on reform with both the White House and Congress. "In the end obviously, the goal and near-term exercise is to get to the bargaining table and get to the conference committee between the Senate and House with the strongest position [on the public plan] possible."

              How such a system would work is still being debated, according to those with knowledge of the proposal. But theoretically, the "opt-out" approach would start with everyone having access to a public plan. What kind of public plan isn't yet clear. States would then have the right to vote -- either by referendum, legislature, or simply a gubernatorial decree -- to make the option unavailable in their health care exchanges.


              I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

              by slinkerwink on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 01:57:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That's Bill Nelson... Not Ben. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Bill Nelson doesn't know what he is for... Even Shaepard Smith on Fox News just tore him a new one for passing a crap bill without a public option out of his committee.

        Ben Nelson is opposed to any Public Option or regulations that take the insurance industry to task. Don't be fooled.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site