iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Specter, Key "Centrist" Dems Open To Public Health Care Plan

First Posted: 06/11/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:20 PM ET

Schumer

Progressive health care reform advocates got a major boost in their efforts to secure a public plan for insurance coverage when newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter said he would be open to such a proposal in a legislative compromise.

In a letter to the group Health Care for America Now, the Pennsylvania Democrat backed away from his position weeks ago opposing the plan. Now, under increasing pressure from progressive groups, Specter says he looks forward to "discussing and considering" the issue.

Separately, centrist Democratic senators told the Huffington Post they are keeping the door open to a public health care option after a compromise proposal from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) last week. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) publicly announced his opposition to a public option the week before, spurring worry among advocates that more defections could be on the way.

Schumer's compromise emphasizes that the public health care plan must finance itself through premiums and must follow the same laws private insurers follow. He argues that it will be a better plan because it won't need to focus on advertising or generating short-term profits for Wall Street.

Even Nelson said he's listening. "I know he's making a strong effort here to find something that would work and I've talked to him about it and we're going to continue to talk," Nelson said.

So you're open to it?

"I'm open to listening to him explain to me how this would work and certainly congratulate him for coming forward with something. It's better than just saying no."

Specter, in his letter, said Schumer's proposal could serve as a useful "starting point" for discussions about a public health plan.

"With respect to the clause in the third bullet - 'to join a public health insurance plan' - I look forward to discussing and considering the issue. A starting point could be the proposal made by Senator Schumer earlier this week which seeks to maintain a level playing field between the private sector and any public plan. There may well be other proposals on this issue which should be considered in drafting legislation and debating the bill on the Senate floor."


"The other issue which I think requires extensive debate and analysis is the clause in the eighth bullet - 'using the public's purchasing power to lower drug and other prices.'.... In order to maintain a level playing field between the private sector and any public plan, consideration would have to be given to the implications of the Government's purchasing power in buying prescription drugs which could provide an unfair competitive advantage. There may be other proposals on this issue which should be considered in drafting legislation and debating the issue on the Senate floor."

The Associated Press first reported Specter's openness to a public plan. The Huffington Post obtained his letter to HCAN.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) says that she's still weighing the public option. "I am actually not sure," she told the Huffington Post. "I don't think I am [for it], but I told the folks that are promoting it that I would talk with them, but I am an original cosponsor of the Wyden-Bennett bipartisan proposal -- the only bipartisan proposal that I know of. And so I'm going to stay focused on that as a core, but I'm not going to shut the door on anything right now."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) is not pushing his proposal aggressively; the biggest fight in the Senate is whether to include a public option. Wyden supports a public option himself, but didn't include it in order to garner Republican cosponsors.

But not all Senate Republicans are entirely closed off to a public plan.

"I am looking at all the alternatives at this point," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) of the public option. "I have a lot of concerns about the impact of a public plan. The Lewin Group has estimated that it could cause 119 million people to be transferred from private plans to public plans, which would mean the collapse of the private insurance system which I don't think would serve our country well."

Asked specifically about Schumer's compromise, she said she had yet to review it. Public plan advocates dispute the Lewin Group findings and insist a public plan can work in conjunction with private insurers.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) sounded disinclined to support a public option, but he hasn't shut the door yet. "I don't have a closed mind on it, but I want to hear folks out through advocates and we'll decide," he said.

Sen. Jim Webb is one centrist Democrat who has come out in favor of a public plan. His Virginia colleague, Democrat Mark Warner, hasn't gone that far yet. But he's open.

"I haven't weighed in on that yet," Warner said.

The White House announced a commitment Sunday night to partner with the insurance industry to cut health care costs by $2 trillion, a collaboration that Paul Krugman declared "some of the best policy news I've heard in a long time."


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Progressive health care reform advocates got a major boost in their efforts to secure a public plan for insurance coverage when newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter said he would be open to such a prop...
Progressive health care reform advocates got a major boost in their efforts to secure a public plan for insurance coverage when newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter said he would be open to such a prop...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 119
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:21 PM on 05/12/2009
A dual system that offered free, government, owned and operated, VA style civilian National Health Care System, funded by a national sales tax, no insurance, no co pays, and free period.

Or the alternate choice would be for individuals or businesses to choose private systems for care.

Costs of health care paid for by government programs, (Medicare-Medicaid etc.) could be reduced, to a fraction of their current expenditures, with better outcomes, if the services for these programs were delivered from a utilitarian VA style National Health Care System.

Businesses choosing national health care would free themselves from all financial burdens or any involvement in any way for the health services their employees receive.

This article, (The Best Care Anywhere by Phillip Longman)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

documents how the VA was transformed by Dr. Kizer, into a system that is producing the highest quality health care in the country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheThinkerCometh
11:10 PM on 05/11/2009
This health plan may not be perfect one, but I think it's a good stepping stone on the way to non-profit healthcare. I think that the best approach is an incremental one because the nay-sayers hate swift change.
10:45 PM on 05/11/2009
Ah the famous USA MSM "journalism".

Specter says he looks forward to "discussing and considering" the issue.

I don't read this as support.

Separately, centrist Democratic senators told the Huffington Post they are keeping the door open to a public health care option.

Doesn't mean they will walk through the door.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
towny
10:02 PM on 05/11/2009
The drug companies & INS companies need to be brought down a peg. Health care is not a luxury! To hear these politicians talk about the collapse of INS Companies & the fairness to drug complains makes me sick. People are dying and we are talking profits? Disgusting!
09:00 PM on 05/11/2009
I DARE, I DARE, I DARE, any of these people to vote against a public option I DARE THEM. Any Dem who doesn't support should be primaried PERIOD.
marinade
Not if a pipeline will break, but when.
12:17 AM on 05/12/2009
That's a good acid test.
08:06 PM on 05/11/2009
these blue dogs are delusional. worried that drug companies won't be able to make as much of a profit when gov actually starts to offer people an alternative to their abusive price gouging?? Give me a break!!
07:53 PM on 05/11/2009
If you want a public plan you need to call your rep daily demanding one.

Callforhealthcare.com
07:10 PM on 05/11/2009
Chuck Schumer = the most corrupt member of Congress (yes, worse than Pelosi, Frank, Dodd and Obama).

I would not believe Schumer if he told me the sun will rise tomorrow.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
karela
06:44 PM on 05/11/2009
Our lawmakers passed a law that forbade the government from bargaining for better prescription drug prices based on quantity buying-----because it was good for drug companies. Some of our lawmakers seem to want Americans to pay more for medical coverage-----because it would be good for private insurance companies. I would really like our lawmakers to spend more time thinking about what would be best for the Americans who are sick and need the medicine and medical care. Why is it that the people who are supposed to protect us, put such weighted emphasis on protecting the corporations that do things that result in ten times as many Americans dying every year from lack of medical care as died in the World Trade Tower. In the eight years since 9/11 a quarter of a million Americans have died because they couldn't afford health care. We have no idea how many have died because they couldn't afford their medicine. What the h*ll?
08:08 PM on 05/11/2009
agreed. these Congresspeople serve the drug companies and their profits; not we the people. call yours everyday and remind him or her who she or he really works for.
10:47 PM on 05/11/2009
McKinsey (hardly a far leftist bunch) did a study which asserts that the USA pays much more for health care than other nations and actually gets less bang for the buck than these foreign countries.

Thank God for our brave Congressmen and Senators who keep the dangers of socialism from our great nation.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WorkingClass
06:18 PM on 05/11/2009
Me against a million billion dollar corporation. Thats what they call a level playing field.
marinade
Not if a pipeline will break, but when.
06:17 PM on 05/11/2009
We don't need Congress to be "open" to a public option. We need them to fight for it.

Unless there is a competitive, viable public choice, there is no health care reform.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rangergirl
Needs of many outweigh needs of few or one
06:14 PM on 05/11/2009
We need National health care for all Americans....Why are they so against Single payer when Congress, Senators, Millitary and Medicare are all in that vein?
07:39 PM on 05/11/2009
Great Britain, Canada, France, Belgium..............
05:49 PM on 05/11/2009
Mary Landrieu say's it all "119 million would opt for the public plan". I'm not a rocket scientist but even I can figure out which is more affordable. Seems like an awful lot of people who supposedly don't want a "socialist" system would jump at the chance. The politicians know which plan is better they're just waiting to see if there is a groundswell of support for the public option. If there is that's what they'll vote for. Afterall one must get reelected.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
karela
06:46 PM on 05/11/2009
Excellent point. Mary Landrieu should have 119 million reasons to vote for a public health care plan. If her numbers should prove to be right, she's voting against 119 million Americans and their basic needs to support life. Who the h*ck is she working for?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
foreffectivegovernment
Neither big nor limited, effective.
05:44 PM on 05/11/2009
Who can we trust? No body!

Richard Nixon's explanation of HMOs. "… the less care they give them, the more money they make."
Transcript of taped conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) that led to the HMO act of 1973:
Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can - the reason he can do it - I had Edgar Kaiser come in - talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because -"
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: " the less care they give them, the more money they make."
President Nixon: "Fine." [Unclear.]

This is how it was foisted on the American people.
In the Senate, (Ted) Kennedy, author of the HMO Act, also encouraged its passage: ``I have strongly advocated passage of legislation to assist the development of health maintenance organizations as a viable and competitive alternative to fee-for-service practice. This bill represents the first initiative by the Federal Government which attempts to come to grips directly with the problems of fragmentation and disorganization in the health care industry. I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services.''
05:33 PM on 05/11/2009
I don't understand why free marketers have such a problem with a government plan. If they believe that in the free market competetion creates better products, then this would be a good thing for private insurers, since they will all benefit from increased competetion. And if they believe government can't do anything better than the private sector, then they face no competetion from a government plan and can rest easy. Seems to me if they object to this, they aren't living their philosophy, just spouting it.
06:15 PM on 05/11/2009
Nicely put.
08:11 PM on 05/11/2009
you just nailed the point that they don't believe in competition or free markets at all it is just a veneer--in the past they have promoted monopolies or promoted deregulation; depending only on one factor: profit.