By Gorman Gorman

Sep 29, 2009 8:15am

The Note: Public Option Backers Prepare for Setbacks

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: All President Obama has is a few international audiences and incidents to handle — between Tehran and Copenhagen, Baghdad and Kabul. (And soon a certain resident of Wasilla re-joins the fray, too.)

But the showdowns most likely to define his presidency this week will come in committee hearing rooms on Capitol Hill.

There’s no more putting off or pretending to ignore the major areas of disagreement in health care reform proposals. Movement for movement’s sake no longer gets anyone very far.

Senate Finance Committee deliberations have mirrored the broader debate over health care in at least one critical aspect: The tough choices have been saved for later.

Later starts now. Tuesday brings votes on the public option — the outcome of which won’t change the final legislation (the Republicans plus the centrists almost certainly have enough votes on the committee to keep a robust public plan out).

Yet these fights will escalate the political battles that will surround the final push — and even narrow defeats could help progressives in their final push, once everyone’s on record.
 
Over in the House, a delayed timeline for a final bill comes down to the pay-fors — again, not determinative, but critical in defining the chances of success.

(And in Copenhagen, where the International Olympic Committee awaits its first presentation from a US president, and the first lady flying over Tuesday night, we’re about to see what that celebrity thing is all about…)

On health care: “This week’s intensive effort will provide the starkest display yet of the political fault lines the party faces as lawmakers search for a path to agreement. And it could help define what any compromise would look like,” Janet Hook reports in the Los Angeles Times.

“In the Senate, members of the finance committee will for the first time formally debate the public plan, which would compete with private insurers to help ensure affordable coverage for all. In the House, Democratic leaders are aiming to forge a consensus within their party over how to pay for the massive initiative — by taxing the wealthy, taxing insurance companies that offer high-end plans, or both.”

“Tuesday’s debate is expected to pit Democratic liberals against moderates,” the AP’s Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar reports. “Although the public plan isn’t expected to get a majority of the panel, supporters say at least they’ll know where everybody stands.”

“The prospects for passage [in the Finance Committee] appear dim, but supporters hope they can build momentum by debating the issue now and holding a roll-call vote of committee members under the gaze of Democratic constituencies like labor unions, which strongly support the public option,” The New York Times’ Katharine Q. Seelye writes.

How will the public-option crowd respond to a legislative setback in the Finance Committee? (And you thought the ad wars were overwhelming before?)

Roll Call’s Emily Pierce: “Some Senators say they can’t vote for any bill without it. Just as many say they can’t vote for anything with it. And somewhere in between, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are trying to figure out a plan to have it both ways.”

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., among a small handful of moderates in the spotlight: “Some Democrats are hoping to add a government-sponsored ‘public’ health insurance option into the bill and looking to Mrs. Lincoln for support. Republicans hope she can be a swing vote against it,” Jennifer Haberkorn and Stephen Dinan report in the Washington Times.

Playing for final outcomes: “The bill that is signed into law by the President will be a good, strong, robust public option,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who — along with Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. — is offering amendments to include a public option, per the New York Daily News’ Michael McAuliff and Ken Bazinet.

Closing a chapter? “Do Republicans matter as Congress digs more deeply into the details of writing health care legislation? Probably not,” McClatchy’s David Lightman reports. “The chances are good that the committee will approve key provisions with few, if any, Republican votes.”

Consequences of missed deadlines? “Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran,” Richard Cohen writes in his Washington Post column.

One of the complications that just hasn’t gone away: “As if it were not complicated enough, the debate over health care in Congress is becoming a battlefield in the fight over abortion,” David D. Kirkpatrick writes in The New York Times. “Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call. . . . Mr. Obama has promised for months that the health care overhaul would not provide federal money to pay for elective abortions, but White House officials have declined to spell out what he means.”

Another GOP argument gets its airing: RNC Chairman Michael Steele will hold a press conference call Tuesday at 11 a.m. ET to “discuss the president’s proposed health care taxes.”

And another one in the making: “The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has secured a special deal protecting his state against the costs of expanding Medicaid under one of the major health care bills moving through Congress,” Robert Pear reports in The New York Times. “Mr. Baucus has modified the bill to spare Nevada and three other states, and Mr. Reid, who faces a potentially difficult race for re-election next year, is taking credit for getting a ‘major increase’ in federal money for his state.”

Michael Moore’s new film makes its DC debut Tuesday night, and first, at 11 am ET, he shoots for some headlines: Moore speaks at a news conference “to challenge President Barack Obama and Democratic members of Congress to get tough — really tough — on health care reform,” Politico’s Martin Kady II reports.

Americans United for Change tosses another volley in the Humana debate, with a rally at the company’s Florida office, a press conference, and a new TV ad. “This year Halloween comes early for health insurance giant Humana,” says the new ad. “Humana is sending letters to its senior citizen policy holders intended to frighten them into opposing health insurance reform. The letters say health insurance reform threatens their Medicare benefits. AARP says: that’s just not true. But we shouldn’t be surprised. Whether it’s the insurance companies or their Republican allies, the case against health insurance reform always gets down to one word: Boo!”

Afghanistan is back in the news: President Obama meets with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in the Oval Office at 11:30 am ET.

Rasmussen, in a speech Monday: “NATO will stay for as long as it takes to succeed,” he said, per Bloomberg’s Viola Gienger. “But that cannot mean forever.”

It’s class photo day at the Supreme Court, with pictures of the newly constituted court taken at 9 am ET.

Feeling confident (about one venture or the other)? Remember when President Obama said this, two weeks ago: “I would make the case in Copenhagen personally if I weren’t so firmly committed to making real the promise of quality, affordable health care for every American.”

Well… “Evidently, his commitment to health care is no longer quite so time consuming,” Peter Baker writes in The New York Times. “Mr. Obama risks looking parochial at a time of enormous challenges and, perhaps even worse, risks a major international embarrassment if the committee rebuffs him and rejects Chicago in favor of Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo or Madrid.”

“Think of it as another Olympic event,” ABC’s Diane Sawyer said on “Good Morning America” Tuesday.

ABC’s Yunji de Nies talked to Michelle Obama, who leave s for Copenhagen Tuesday night: “She told me that the gloves are off,” de Nies said on “GMA.” “Mrs. Obama said her presentation will be very personal — and that just might work.”

“I think Chicago will pull this off,” USA Today columnist Christine Brennan said on “GMA.”

“The trip is a political gamble for the president, who is taking time from pushing his health-care overhaul, grappling with revelations about the Iranian nuclear program and refining strategy for the war in Afghanistan,” The Wall Street Journal’s Elizabeth Williamson reports.

The AP’s Julie Pace: “If the U.S. loses, he still might get points for trying. But he would be visibly tied to a failed effort — and to the spending of political capital on an endeavor many Americans might consider unworthy of so much of a president’s time and energy. This is something Obama can ill afford when the public already shows signs of fatigue with his major efforts on so many fronts at once, many so far unfulfilled.”

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.: “It’s baffling that the president has made time to pitch the Olympics in Copenhagen, appear on Letterman and every other station except the Food Network and Fox, but not to talk to our top commander on the ground” in Afghanistan.

On the other hand: “I think his presence makes the likelihood of a Chicago win very good indeed. Had he not gone, we almost certainly would have lost,” said former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., who ran the Salt Lake games in 2002, per the Chicago Tribune’s Philip Hersh and Katherine Skiba.

Valerie Jarrett tells ABC News’ Sunlen Miller, Ann Compton, and Yunji de Nies: “We worked very closely with Chicago 2016 and we have developed a strategy for how to get us to the number of votes we need to win.”

Pressure on First Lady Michelle Obama: “For the first time in a long time, Mrs. Obama has taken on an assignment where she is under pressure to deliver,” Lynn Sweet reports for Politics Daily. “Her speech, I am told, will draw on her life growing up on the South Side of Chicago, near where many of the Olympic venues are planned. What I don’t know is if Mrs. Obama will be wearing the Chicago team uniform. Chicago’s very own Hart Schaffner Marx is stitching suits for the men in the U.S. Olympic delegation, while Maria Pinto, the Chicago designer whose clothes Mrs. Obama wears, is outfitting the women.”

She finished her homework early: “Sarah Palin has finished her memoir just four months after the book deal was announced. Her publisher says the release date has been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17,” the AP’s Hillel Italie reports. “The 400-page book is the first for Palin, who has been an object of fascination since Republican Sen. John McCain chose her as his running mate during his 2008 presidential bid. The book will be called ‘Going Rogue: An American Life.’ ”

“Copy-editing and fact-checking are now underway in a race to meet the crash publishing schedule, which has been accelerated four or five months because of the huge anticipated demand,” Politico’s Mike Allen reports.

Story you’ll read again (and again) by the end of 2010: “House Democrats see the midterm elections as a referendum on President Barack Obama and will insist that he become heavily involved in their efforts to retain a congressional majority,” The Hill’s Reid Wilson reports. “Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) told The Hill that Democrats will be in a ‘much better position’ if the administration helps defend the party’s record and that voters have to hear that defense ‘directly from the president.’ ”

On the Senate side: “This White House has been taking steps to buy what amounts to political insurance, working first to get to 60 Democratic senators, then trying to keep that number and now working to expand it,” Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports.

In Massachusetts — a Kennedy cousin weighs in: “Stephen E. Smith, nephew of the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, is backing U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) in the heated U.S. Senate race — calling Capuano the best candidate while raising concerns about Attorney General Martha Coakley’s early scramble for the seat,” per the Boston Herald’s Hillary Chabot.

Tracking T-Paw: “Despite his rising national profile, [Gov. Tim] Pawlenty’s job approval rating among Minnesotans stands at 49 percent, similar to his rating in April. Last September Pawlenty’s approval rating was 54 percent, while two years ago at this time it was 59 percent,” per the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Rachel E. Stassen-Berger and Pat Doyle.

Bad taste: “The Secret Service is investigating the origins of a poll that appeared on Facebook that asked whether President Obama should be killed,” ABC’s Pierre Thomas reports. “Posted over the weekend, the poll was removed by Facebook after the Secret Service received a tip and contacted the company, which was not aware of the survey, sources tell ABC News.”

New charge: Liz Sidoti has been named AP’s national political writer. From Ron Fournier’s e-mail: “Enter Liz. She will cover politics from the ground up as well as the top down, writing not just about our readers and viewers but for them — holding candidates and elected officials accountable. She will help the Washington bureau work with reporters and editors across the company to produce the richest, deepest political coverage around.”

A personal note: This is my first day back at work with Jack Herman Klein, born Sept. 23, 2009, in my life. Thanks to my friends, colleagues, and readers for their love, support, and understanding during this special time. (And for the record, I am waking up earlier than him — at least for now.)

For a first glimpse of Baby Jack, from ABCNews.com’s “Top Line,” click HERE.

The Kicker:

“We’ll — you can call Tommy on Saturday.” — White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, on what happens if President Obama’s trip to the Netherlands doesn’t win Chicago the 2016 Olympics.

“Twenty-four members of congress sent me emails; they all think I’m crazy.” — Tom DeLay, after his second appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.” (He tied with Kathy Ireland for the lowest score – 6-6-6 — of the night.)

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The No te’s blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

User Comments

The end result probably won’t be as dramatic or as cataclysmic for the Dems as the media is hoping for.
Snowe is pushing a “trigger” public option, liberals have deemed that an acceptable alternative. End of story.

Posted by: matt | September 29, 2009, 8:21 am 8:21 am

I can’t help but think back when Clinton failed with this in 1993 and in 1994 the democrats lost the majority in the house with the ‘contract with America’.

Posted by: LongT | September 29, 2009, 8:32 am 8:32 am

Are the Dems still trying for the public option??? How silly.

Posted by: sammy | September 29, 2009, 8:54 am 8:54 am

Without a public option there will be no public support. with no strict regulations on insurance and financial corporations, there will be much less support. It’s a package deal Obama has to provide. The government is charged with protecting it’s owners (citizens) from domestic enemies of the people.

Posted by: KsDevil | September 29, 2009, 8:56 am 8:56 am

Strong Public Option = Freedom of not having to line a hmo ceo pocket.

Posted by: rightbehind | September 29, 2009, 8:59 am 8:59 am

On this and on cap and trade the members of congress had better know, their jobs are on the line. The silent majority is no longer silent so tread carefully senators and representatives. We the people are watching these issues very close.

Posted by: hkdakota | September 29, 2009, 9:02 am 9:02 am

Our President, Barack Obama, the Commander in Chief has had plenty time to push his stupid Obamacare Plan, to go to the UN and make an ass of himself, together with Chavez, Qadaffi and Ahmedinajad while insulting Israel, …. and now he is going to Europe to push for Chicago to be home to the Olympics in 2016.
However, Barack Obama, our Commander in chief has only spoken with General McChrystal, the man he picked to lead our soldiers in Afghanistan, only once this year. The General has requested 40,000 troops since August 30th this year and Obama has been sitting on it instead of making a decision, his cronies claim he is trying to come up with a strategy.
Are you for real, Barack Obama? Is this the leadership we should expect from our President? I believe his priorities are really an insult to our military! ….. What a disgrace to our country.

Posted by: Mario Lorie | September 29, 2009, 9:07 am 9:07 am

We can’t even get Medicade and Medicare right and paid for. Why are we going forward on another massive spending package? Social Security is going bankrupt and is now putting out more money then taking in. But we are going to spend Trillions more on this health care package. It won’t be charged to you in health care, but will be in taxes. I assure you. Where else is it going to come from. All for 15 million that need insurance. Not 45. That is SO inflated according to experts. Lets do something for the 15 million in baby steps. Do one thing and see if it works, and then try another. Health Insurance is estimated to be going up to cost the insured by about 9% this coming year. Again, lets try to end this in baby steps. Lets cap malpractice claims against doctors and that will be a good start. Then try something else. When I see the President and Congress on the same insurance plan as I have then I will know it is good. Not till then!

Posted by: Patriot | September 29, 2009, 9:10 am 9:10 am

How do you pay for the Public Option? That is the question that pits democrats against democrats. It is no different than if you or I need to make a decision about buying any major purchase like a car, home or what everever, how will I pay for it.
We cannot throw the entire budget out the window for ONE program. We need to keep our eyes on SS funding or we will end up with health care, while not having Social Security.
There is only so much tax revenue and it’s time everyone understood that.

Posted by: indymind | September 29, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am

this whole debate would have been over by now and millions could have been covered if they would have kept it simple and worked on coverage for the small percentage of americans who arent covered. there is too much for the president to work on than to spend his career trying to convert this country to socialism.

Posted by: jimmee | September 29, 2009, 9:22 am 9:22 am

How do you pay for the Public Option?
**************************************
It is no different from paying for Private plan. Public does not mean free. Subscribers must purchase. Even with the private plans the Government will subsidies those who can not afford it. The bet is that with a PO the cost will be lower to the me, you and government then without it.

Posted by: Thinking | September 29, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am

The democrats are tone deaf. What do
they not understand?? Employers who
especially now going thru the financial
turmoil they are, who would not throw
out their health insurance and tell the
employees to join the public option???
Thus, if I want to keep my plan I can?
I don’t think so and quit telling me
I can.

Posted by: WIS134 | September 29, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am

I don’t want to be represented by government”representatives” who are more important than myself. If congress is going to inflict this program on Americans, they should consider themselves Americans and take the same program. As it is, they are in such a hurry to pass this, while they have the votes, but aren’t willing to implement it until immediately following the next presidential election. So much for “representation” huh? No member of congress or government is willing to stand behind the programs they are designing for us!

Posted by: gerri | September 29, 2009, 9:30 am 9:30 am

Baby Jack is adorable.

Posted by: Conserva Tiff | September 29, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am

Baby pictures, yay!
He’s a big, healthy boy, congratulations to you and your wife.

Posted by: Amy in Maine | September 29, 2009, 10:18 am 10:18 am

Just think about it- Isurance companies and their CEOs are immoral money grabbing pigs. The will deny you coverage if you get really sick. You can’t buy an insurance even if you are willing to pay because you have a pre-existnig condition like high Cholestrol, high blood repessure AND SO FORTH. It appears as if they pretend to konw when you will die so that they deny you coverage, but the truth is that the 7 Billion people in the world today would die wthin the next 100- years only but a handful will remain. Dying is a sure thing for everyone so why discriminate on the basis of chance of death. People do not delibrately choose to be unhealthy- only in a few cases. Why should insurance companies make the call as to how one will be treated instead of your Doctor? That is what they do today. Anybody who has been to the Hospital for a serious illness knows that you have to obtain permission from the insurance rogues before the Doctor treats you. They keep the fat profit for the CEO, who makes well over $24 million a year. That’s what the Republicans and the insurance companies are fighting to keep. America-open your eyes. I have just been laid off, lost my coverage and COBRA is super expensive that I can’t pay for it. Why can’t I shop for a public option where the premium would be comparable to the employer provided coverage that I had at work ?. Private Universities in the US compete along side State Universities, and they are both doing fine. Insurance companies will finally have competition. GO OBAMA WAY.

Posted by: JOACHAM | September 29, 2009, 10:29 am 10:29 am

MEMO TO SENATE DEMOCRATS
No Public option= NO REELECTION YOU WILL BE FIRED!
And as for the Blue dogs stop acting like Republicans you call yourselves Democrats then be one or you will find yourselves packing as well!

Posted by: Angie in PA | September 29, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am

Dear Leader Chairman Maobama previously said that the members of Congress have good healthcare and we should all have the same healthcare. Is this possible?
Contrary to what many believe Congressmen do not have FREE health insurance. Their employer is the federal government and like many employers, it provides him with an insurance plan from a private insurance company (AETNA, Blue Cross, Health Net, Kaiser, etc). Congressmen have been required to get their health insurance in this manner since passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1983. In this case the federal government utilizes the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plan to provide a choice of different private insurance plans to choose from, the federal government as the employer (like many private employers) pays a portion (approximately 66%) of the monthly premium and the Congressman as the employee pays the remainder. The Congressman is responsible for any co-pays or deductable payments when service is provided by a healthcare provider. The Congressman is also susceptible to the limits within the plan he chooses, none of the plans cover 100% of the costs the insured eventually reaches a point where he has to dig into his own pockets. The governments only other involvement with the FEHB is to negotiate rates and benefits for each plan once a year. If you want to view the plans and their limits, deductibles, and co-pays just Google “FEHB” and go to the site and see what the different plans are.
The FEHB health plans are either nationwide (plan available anywhere within the country) or regional (plan available only in one state or a portion of a state) FEHB allows the Congressman to change between plans once a year during what is referred to as an open season and he can switch with no lapse in coverage due to pre-existing conditions and if he changes jobs within the Federal Government he can take his current plan with him if the plan is available (he moved from one region to another) at his new position, if not he can switch with no problems. If the government were to open these plans to the public the monthly premiums for a family plan would roughly be between $425.00 and $1300.00, for an individual the monthly premium would roughly be between $177.00 and $550.00 and then everyone could have the same health care as our Congressmen. The premium cost could be lowered for the public if the insured persons employer were to pay a portion of the premium as a benefit of their job. One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays (co-pays or deductable) when receiving healthcare.
Are you willing to pay to have the same coverage as the members of Congress as the government would not subsidize your premium as you are not a government employee and would thus have to pay the entire premium yourself. Although the members of Congress have good health insurance available to them it is not free and it does not pay 100% of all costs incurred during an illness. It is simply private insurance which is able to be offered to them due to the size of the employee pool (all federal employees with the exception of the military) to be covered.
When it comes to retirement the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (P.L. 98-21) required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required ALL Members of Congress (no matter when they were first elected) and all federal government employees hired after 1984 to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. These same people also participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) which is where they receive their retirement benefits when they retire. The employee has the Social Security (and Medicare) withheld from his check just like you do every pay period. Additionally they have an additional sum withheld which goes into the FERS retirement fund and if he chooses he can have an additional sum withheld and placed in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), The TSP operates similar to a 401k and has several funds which the employee can choose to have his money held in (many federal employees lost money when the economy collapsed as the TSP is mainly in stocks). The actual retirement for a Congressman is determined by a formula which looks at his salary for the highest three year period prior to retirement and then uses a formula which uses his age at retirement and number of years served. The initial retirement to a Congressman can be no greater than 80% of his final salary. Due to Cost of Living increases over the years and if the retired Congressman lives long enough it is possible that he will eventually reach a point where his retirement pays more than when he was in office, but this is the rare case not the normal case. To achieve retirement the employee/Congressman must have a minimum number of years (just like the rest of the world) and have a minimum number of years served (just like the rest of the world).
Bottom line is that the members of Congress DO NOT have Cadillac health care plans, they are similar to what most of us who work for large employers have available to us. Their retirement is based on age, years worked, and salary just like most of us who work for large employers; those Congressmen under the FERS program even get a portion of their retirement income from Social Security just like most American citizens and have a TSP account which is the same as we have with our 401k. So why are they so distant to the rest of the world? Its rather simple who in their right mind would spend millions of dollars to get elected to a job which pays less than $200,000.00 per year? They must be getting rich from someplace else, it’s time to throw them all out and institute term limits so that those who are supposed to be looking out for us don’t have the time to line their pockets with special interest money while letting our interests get lost in the shuffle.

Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | September 29, 2009, 11:05 am 11:05 am

The majority want a public option, so the congresscritters better be listening.

Posted by: Joseph | September 29, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am

It is totally irresponsible to pass a bill that will bankrupt the nation.

Posted by: Jeff | September 29, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am

If you are too lazy to work than of course you want a public option. If you have pre existing conditions than that can be delt with without a public option. if you cannot afford healthcare and work than that can be delt with and provide you insurance at a reduced amount. There are a lot of ways to skinn this cat without making govt. bigger.

Posted by: sammy | September 29, 2009, 11:33 am 11:33 am

what majority wants this? rassmussen says 58% dont want it. if 70% said they did as some dems claim this would have been done along time ago.but lets rush off to copeenhagen to get the olympics for the murder capital of he u.s. where are our priorities?

Posted by: catman | September 29, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am

I’m a registered Democrat and an Obama suppporter, but I don’t understand for the life of me why some of the electorate are so hard-core about a public option. The healthcare industry cannot be reformed in one piece of legislation. It’s simply too big and too complex to solve in one fell swoop. You have to pass insurance reform measures first and provide access and some cost containment which essentially this bill is and nothing more really), then solve the uninsured issue, then solve the healthcare delivery issue (which does passively change due to changes in the market forces). Obama has 4 years to set up the exchange and fine-tune. In that time, the market forces will determine what will the ultimate effect of how the employer-based coverage responds to insurance reform. I have cancer, so the most important thing to me at this point is the fact that insurance companies will be violating federal law if they deny based on pre-existing conditions. It’s also important to remember that they will not be able to put lifetime limits on coverage and there will be a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. Politically, it will be much, much easier to pass some sort of public option, public option trigger, or non-profit cooperative once we see how the insurance companies act. If they don’t get their act together, I’m guessing there will be an incredible push for either a state-based and/or federal mandate for optional coverage outside the commercial insurance industry. But, you cannot get from here to there, unless you first pass a bill. Democrats have to prove to me that they are capable of governing. My own party has never impressed me on this front. They are undisciplined, lack cohesion, and lack party message discipline as well. Unless they can prove they can govern and deliver healthcare insurance reform, they’re going to be toast come the mid-terms. It’s that simple.

Posted by: Laura Brown | September 29, 2009, 11:41 am 11:41 am

The public option is essential. Without it, what is done will be little more than Medicare D, which put billions in the pockets of drug and insurance companies.
Finally, for there to be effective reform, we must hold down skyrocketing costs and limit the massive abuses caused by things such as rescission, pre-existing illness exclusions, high deductibles and low caps on coverage for high premium insurance.
I’d say to this Senate committee: Pass the public option.

Posted by: JAB | September 29, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am

The public option will cost less and provide more than most of the private plans because the pay of the CEO will be limited to the pay of a Federal employee. As for whether or not your employer drops the current plan in favor of the public plan, that’s up for negotiations with your contract.

Posted by: 46Hugh | September 29, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am

Anyone who believes the “public option” will remain an “option”, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you!!! — OF COURSE the “public option” is only a PRETEXT for single-payer, government controlled healthcare for ALL!!!!!

Posted by: MidwestCommonSense | September 29, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm

I am going to tell you that health care the way it is today WILL bankrupt this nation and will do so soon. 1/3 of all Houstonians don’t have healthcare. 1/3 of the 4th largest city in the United States whos unemployment is still only about 8 %. These are working people. You are the government your vote hires and fires you have a say. Big business you have got NADDA.Big business is big brother. Big insurance companies big business. They already have dealth panels its called claim denied.

Posted by: Macrose | September 29, 2009, 12:13 pm 12:13 pm

First congress will pass an extremely watered down healthcare reform bill and everyone from both extrremes will be upset but the middle will be accepting. Then over time the more controversial fine points will be enacted as we sleep. By nibbling away at the structure the existing structure slowly collapses. It’s the way Washington works. Question is do we really want to see our healthcare system collapse over an attempt to benefit 1/2 of 1% of the population? They’ve already taken over our once world class educational system and made it inferior to the leading nations.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | September 29, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm

They word insurance remains in the formula. If more people are covered by insurance of any sort the overall cost will go up. The additional expense will come directly out of the disposable income part of our paychecks no matter what method of insurance coverage ends up being enacted and no matter what smokescreen is thrown up as payment method. We’re scrod.

Posted by: mmonroeliveson | September 29, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm

mmonroeliveson is 100%. Washington, who is largely bought and paid for, will pass a bill probably right down the middle which will be criticized both sides of the aisle. Then in the 4-year interim before the exchange is set up, the more contentious parts of the bill will be implemented in incremental fashion. This is the ONLY way true reform can pass. An either/or preposition is utterly destructive and lacks maturity. The key component is the ability of Democrats to GOVERN and get things done. All the policy prescriptions in the world mean nothing and all the ideological posturing and purity and ridigity mean nothing if you cannot get legislation passed. Even Ted Kennedy realized that his ideology alone didn’t pass muster. He had to compromise. Fight the battles you can win and live to fight another day. This was something that Bush never understood, and in the end, he even alienated his own party. Do we really want an ideological purist or do we ant a pragmatist? Again, I have incurable cancer. I want insurance reform passed, and I want it now. Then you start work on the exchange and pass an alternative to commercial insurance. Trust me, once insurance prices creep up 5% to 9% each year before the exchange gets set up, there will be more than enough momentum to set up an alternative.

Posted by: Laura Brown | September 29, 2009, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm

Truth be told until we make it a felony for big business to contribute or wine and dine our law makers, nothing is going to work.

Posted by: Macrose | September 29, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm

The majority does not want a public option. Even though the left may want that to be the case, polls show that is not true.
There are so many quicker, cheaper, and easier ways to fix the health care problem, but that is not what this admin is looking to do. They want to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America, starting with health care. Obama’s words not mine.
Hopefully the citizens of this country are smarter than that.

Posted by: granny | September 29, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm

Nowhere in the Constitution is the fedeeral government given the power to provide insurance for the citizens of this country. Article 1 list the powers given to Congress and providing insurance, taking over finicial institutions, or car companies are not listed. The tenth amendment specificly states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is pretty clear the federal government has no Constitutional right to be involved in providing health care to the citizens.

Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | September 29, 2009, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm

The health care reformists refuse to admit that 500,000 jobs would be lost if the socialize health care. In my business, medical sales, we have already lost over 20,000 jobs in medical sales as companies prepare for the new environment after reform.

Posted by: steve dill | September 29, 2009, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm

The majority of liberal democrats want a public option. More people want reform but not necessarily a public option. Are people really listening to what the dems are proposing? It bothers me that the government is proposing a public option in which the government would be in competition with private industry with this public option. Doesn’t this bother anybody besides me? The whole thing feels slimmy. I have to agree with Jeff’s comment that the government is being irresponsible and that there is the potential to bankrupt the country because of we, as a nation have misplaced our priorities because a few people feel that people can function without the government tell them how to. I have dealt with Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance and I can tell you that the rules for private insurance are far less stupid and difficult than they are with Medicaid and Medicare. The government has proved, repeatedly, that it can’t handle managing healthcare. I just can’t believe that people think that government run healthcare would be easier, especially those that have dealt with Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Posted by: john | September 29, 2009, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm

Reallllllllly!

Posted by: bb | September 29, 2009, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm

yes on the, insuirance, for all we all, fight

Posted by: richard jyles | September 29, 2009, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.