The Washington Monthly

October 22, 2009

IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.... The principal negotiators merging the competing Senate health care bills -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the Senate HELP Committee's Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), and a small team of White House officials -- are being pretty tight lipped about their discussions.

But what everyone else is saying sounds pretty good this afternoon.

As we talked about earlier, Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) believe the bill that will go to the floor will have a public option. Sen. Tom Carper (D) of Delaware, who's played an active role in exploring compromise alternatives, is hearing the same thing.

After a meeting with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) discussed the status of the public plan in the Senate health care bill with reporters. Here's what he said:
"I think at the end of the day there will be a national plan probably put together not by the federal government but by a non-profit board with some seed money from the federal government that states would initially participate in because of lack of affordability. The question is should there be an opportunity for states to opt out later on and if so, within a year, within two years, within three years?"

Again, this is both important and encouraging. If the bill heads to the floor with a public option, it'll take 60 votes to get it out before there's a final vote. We now have three relevant senators, who've been briefed on the discussions, publicly acknowledging that this now seems likely.

As for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who opposes the public option for bizarre reasons, and doesn't seem to understand precisely what the public option even is, she told NPR this afternoon that the polls showing strong national support for the idea don't matter, because Americans are wrong.

"I think if you asked, 'Do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt,' people would say 'No,'" Landrieu said.

Now, I'll gladly concede that popularity does not always denote merit. In other words, sometimes polls will show public attitudes pointing in one direction, but that doesn't make the direction necessarily correct.

But Landrieu's arguments are getting increasingly incoherent. Yes, if you asked people if they want the government to go bankrupt, chances are pretty good the poll results would be one-sided. But why on earth does Landrieu think a public option would bankrupt the government? Does she realize that the public option is a way to save money?

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Comments

otoh, spending 650 billion a year on "defense" spending is a very good thing & nobody should ever question that.

Posted by: zhakz on October 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

I really think her financial activity should be monitored. She sounds like she's on the take.

Posted by: SaintZak on October 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, Zhakz, you know that we NEED to spend as much as the next eleven or so nations on defense. How else will Xe and company afford their lavish parties?

Posted by: Mitch on October 22, 2009 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Could one of her fellow senators please explain this bill to Senator Landrieu so she doesn't make a fool of herself every time she talks about it in public? We're trying to restrict that activity to Republicans.

I'd go with Senator Franken, he's smarter than most of them and can draw maps free-hand.

Posted by: Midland on October 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Will somebody please primary her. The only reason she is able to tack to the right is because nobody is challenging her from the left.

Posted by: mfw13 on October 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

There could be a huge upside to a public insurance option with a state-by-state opt-out provision. Republicans who hate the public option (because their insurance company buddies don't like it) would have to introduce and vote for legislation to take away what will probably become very popular among voters.

Wouldn't that be fun to watch?

Posted by: Okie on October 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

"...a national plan probably put together not by the federal government but by a non-profit board with some seed money from the federal government that states would initially participate in because of lack of affordability. The question is should there be an opportunity for states to opt out later on and if so, within a year, within two years, within three years?"

And who sits on this non-profit board? Who are they accountable to?

I'm sorry Steve, but such talk is not encouraging. At first glance, it sounds like total crap to me.

Let's hope that Pelosi can do her magic in the House and then again in Conference, because when it comes to affordable health care, it's sounding more and more to me like the Senate is going to leave us hanging.

Posted by: Chris on October 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

When you have a Senator quoting Joe Lieberman, that Senator is pretty far gone.

Any Democratic Senator who writes for the WSJ editorial page probably should be removed from the party.

Posted by: bob h on October 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

The senate's idea of a "public option" seems to be "what is least devastating to private ins so they will still fund our campaigns come election time".

"States may opt out?" means governors will opt out without regard for the people. Texas, which has the most un and under insured in the nation will be first to opt out.

The house, which is more representative of the people, has the right idea on a public option. But the senate is mostly bought and paid for and those receiving the largest donations from private ins are making HC decisions.

The only good that will come out of this is that at least a public option will make it to the senate floor without being filibustered and there it can be fixed for the good of the people and not the largest donors to campaigns.

Landrieu's ill informed opinion is a bold statement that she's not afraid to look ridiculous for a good donation. "Bankrupt the country??"...how stupid.

Posted by: bjobotts on October 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

You know, the ways of DC are a true mystery to the rest of us. All the chest thumping, all the yelling, all the protests of the republicans. So, when I go to the Thomas website, and look at the status of all the APPROPRIATIONS bills in the Senate Appr. committee, ALL of the votes are 30-0 or 29-1. Isn't that as bipartisan as you can get? Many bills are through the senate, and several on the President's desk. Umm - couldn't we get a few more D's to crow about this? Where is the R indignation?

Posted by: bigwisc on October 22, 2009 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

- "I really think her financial activity should be monitored. She sounds like she's on the take." - financial activity? More likely her drug consumption. She sounds like she's stoned. Or maybe she thinks the rest of us are.

Posted by: TarzanNeedsHealthCare on October 22, 2009 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

"I think if you asked, 'Do you want a needless war in Iraq that would force the government to go bankrupt,' people would say 'No,'", too.

How about a levee that would protect New Orleans, but would force the government to bankrupt?

How about leaving people without health care, forcing them to go bankrupt?

Posted by: qwerty on October 22, 2009 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK