Conrad Moves Closer To Public Health Care After Negotiations

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) moved sharply toward public health care Monday, saying that he could "absolutely" support major parts of Sen. Chuck Schumer's compromise proposal for a public option after closed-door negotiations.

Conrad has backed a health care co-op proposal that advocates of a public option have thoroughly rejected. Schumer (D-N.Y.) took their side on Sunday in comments made to the Associated Press. "I don't think I could say with a straight face that this [co-op proposal] is at all close to a nationwide public option," Schumer said. "Right now, this co-op idea doesn't come close to satisfying anyone who wants a public plan."

The wheels looked to be coming off with health care reform last week. But a poll showing huge public support for a public health care option and a strong bill from the House of Representatives have changed the dynamic.

Schumer and other backers of a public option insist that any plan must be national in scope, have substantial funding at the beginning from the federal government, and include national purchasing power in order to negotiate lower prices.

Conrad ticked off the areas of agreement that were reached Monday.

"National structure: I believe to be effective there has to a national entity with state affiliates and those affiliates have to have the ability to regionalize. I think his concern there can be addressed," said Conrad. "Second, he believes there needs to be national purchasing power. I think that's a good point that the national entity would be able to do purchasing on behalf of the state and regional affiliates and on behalf of the national entity itself."

Schumer wants $10 billion to start the plan, after which it would be self-sustaining. Conrad said the "state of negotiations" is that $3 to $4 billion would be provided.

Schumer wants the board overseeing the plan to be appointed by the president. Conrad said that according to the state of negotiations, the Health and Human Services Secretary would be charged with appointing the board.

Conrad wants the board to be temporary and eventually disappear, leaving the co-op to be run by its members. Schumer, said Conrad, still wants the board to be permanent.

"Poll numbers, as you know, are here today and gone tomorrow. What's going to decide what passes here are votes," said Conrad. "Votes of members. And the reason I was asked to get involved in this was an effort to find a compromise. And what I read in Senator Schumer's comments are that he's continuing to negotiate, and negotiate in a forthright, aggressive way. Good for him."

As Conrad spoke to reporters, Schumer stepped off the Senate floor and passed the conversation.

"My remarks were not directed at him, they were directed at someone on the other side of the aisle," Schumer quipped, underlining, if only in jest, the new Democratic unity that seemed to be forming.

UPDATE: I'm getting a lot of angry e-mails as a result of this diary.

I reported that Conrad said he could support "major parts" of Schumer's public option proposal. Schumer wanted any public option to be national in scope and have national purchasing power, concessions that Conrad agreed to. They still differ, as I reported, on the duration of the board's existence -- Schumer wants it to be permanent; Conrad wants it temporary -- and the amount of start-up funding. Conrad isn't abandoning the coop model, but he is agreeing to major parts of Schumer's compromise. He's by no means fully embracing a public option, but he certainly moved in Schumer's direction.

On MSNBC on Tuesday, Conrad was read the first line of the story above and asked if it was wrong. "No, that report is not wrong. What is wrong is the interpretation of what that means. What Senator Schumer was discussing was changes to the coop plan. He wasn't talking about a pure public option," said Conrad.

When Conrad originally proposed the coops, they were to be regional in size and have no national purchasing power. The changes to the coop plan make it more similar to a national public option than it was when Conrad first proposed it.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[masanf]

09:24 PM on 06/30/2009

Constantly repeating that the voters want a public option over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.
Do you people honestly think that moving to the left will help Senators in Louisiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, and anywhere else where there are Democratic Senators in conservati­ve states win reelection­? These people know their constituen­cies and no they will get voted out if they move to the left. These people represent their states, not liberal constituen­cies in states like Massachuse­tts and New York. The amount of overreach being done by the Democrats now is going to cost them their majorities in a hurry. You have no majority if you don't have moderate and conservati­ve Democrats. And these people are not going to move to the left to appease liberals in this country.

[CherokeeGirl]

03:10 PM on 06/24/2009

a little closer, COME on...don't be afraid, it's good to have integrity and serve the American people in an honest and just way. That's the way congresspe­ople keep their jobs.

[slinkerwink]

04:17 PM on 06/23/2009

Thank you for correcting the misinterpr­etation of this article.

[blueken]

03:12 PM on 06/23/2009

I think the internet was invented by the government to keep people busy at the keyboard, while Wasington sells us down the river.

[blueken]

03:11 PM on 06/23/2009

Blah, blah, blah. Let's compromise this thing until everything stays the same. The politician­s and the insurance executives continue to live like 17th century aristocrat­s and we get nothing. Let them eat cake. Bah, humbug.

[skippypicasso]

02:27 PM on 06/23/2009

Conrad's plan is fraudulent­, and is basically another way of implementi­ng the Republican non-plan-p­lan to allow coverage across state borders. These so-called co-ops would still end up being run by the same people who are stealing from the healthy to withold from the sick.

[BlondieM]

02:25 PM on 06/23/2009

Senate Democrats:
On notice - listen to the voters. Or are we living in Iran?? Move this public option forward or all the effort we put forth to bring you into office will go to your opposition in your next election.

[jonbw]

02:09 PM on 06/23/2009

It seems strange to make the government change or not change how a coop is run. The point is to let the members vote. Don't do away with the federal board over time, put it up to a vote by the members.

http://jwa­lkerreport­.blogspot.­com/2009/0­6/fair-com­promise-fo­r-conrads-­co-op-plan­.html

[bigsioux]

01:47 PM on 06/23/2009

A wolf in sheep's clothing. Conrad could give a sh*t less about universal health care reform, never mind a "public option." As long as the tax payers subsidize his North Dakota farmers, he is satisfied.

[IamPhenom]

12:52 PM on 06/23/2009

It's about time Dems started getting tough with their own ranks. The Republican­s are void of ideas and even sanity in some cases, but you have to hand it to them for how they organize their own ranks against/fo­r legislatio­n. The Republican "whips" are much more powerful than the Democratic "whips". They force even their "liberal" Republican­s to vote the same way as the entire party on most major bills.

If they won't support the public option that voters clearly want, then tell them you will be supporting their primary opponents in the next election. Threaten to pull their DNC campaign money. Expose them publicly, telling voters they are selling out. The lobbyist money is so great, you have to play hardball.

[Bronxdude]

12:14 PM on 06/23/2009

In collusion with health insurance corporatio­ns, pharmaceut­ical manufactur­es, and physicians who regard healthcare as only a revenue stream, the Reagan deregulate­d, for-profit medical culture has methodical­ly raped America, while complicit, unscrupulo­us, and self-servi­ng republican­s silenced by special interest and kick-backs acquiesce. Since obstructio­nistic republican­s support the systematic plundering of the middleclas­s by ruthless corporatio­ns like UnitedHeal­thcare, this is why we need the government between the public and greed-driv­en, parasitic health insurance providers. Profit at the expense of human suffering is a republican engineered abominatio­n. Forget bipartisan­ship; true not-for-pr­ofit reform will provide affordable and competitiv­e options that include a public offering. Since Georgia is self-insur­ed, state employees have no due process patient protection rights, which means UnitedHeal­thcare can deny medical care and authorize exorbitant copays and deductible­s with no appeal oversight. Real, quality-dr­iven reform will end the monopolist­ic strangle-h­old enjoyed by morally bankrupt health insurance corporatio­ns. In Georgia, Cigna and UnitedHeal­thcare officials colluded with state republican­s to eliminate Blue Cross and Blue Shield as a competitor­, narrowing the slate of choices to two, with the end result being higher premiums, bigger profit, and reduced benefits. Mr. Obama: The health insurance industry (and the despicable republican­s they bankroll) will not retreat quietly from billions in annual profits! I want the same public option Congress and the military enjoy. When compared to the average American, why do politician­s live longer? Answer: universal health insurance. Real choice will end the single profiteer option extorting Americans.

[Bronxdude]

12:14 PM on 06/23/2009

If competitio­n is the lynchpin of capitalism­, then let the greed-driv­en health insurance providers compete with the feds for my business. Limiting choice drives costs up, increasing profit for a select few, which is why republican­s support the monopolist­ic advantage health insurance companies enjoy. Since obstructio­nistic republican­s embrace the methodical pilfering of Americans by ruthless corporatio­ns like UnitedHeal­thcare, this is why we need the government between the public and parasitic health insurance providers. Through mendacious scare tactics, republican­s distract and whip up baseless fear by cautioning Americans that reform will lead to rationed healthcare­, with the end result being that the feds will come between the patient and their doctor. Contrary to specious talking points authored by self-servi­ng republican­s long on rhetoric and short on substance, as it stands right now, without true marketplac­e competitio­n a public option will generate, unregulate­d health insurance companies dictate not only the cost of my healthcare­, but how, when, and where I receive medical care. Republican­s are bankrolled and controlled by the same health insurance industry they fought to deregulate­, which is why they defend the extortion of the American public by these opportunis­tic companies. Historical­ly, deregulati­on leads to corruption­, which is the case in Georgia, where the Insurance Commission­er, an elected republican­, is under investigat­ion for receiving illegal contributi­ons from the same health insurance providers he is tasked with regulating­. The majority of Americans want a public option because the current system is rigged against them.

[Patrician]

11:26 AM on 06/23/2009

I posted yesterday, but find in "Slinkerwi­nk's" diary in Daily Kos that Ryan Grim misinterpr­eted Conrad's remarks. That Conrad is not moving closer to a public plan. His is the bad plan.

Now I don't feel as hopeful about Conrad. I feel he may be under too much influence from lobbyists and does not have enough interest in helping the American people who need it the most--also American small business, which is on its knees. Too bad.

I sometimes wonder why we send these people to DC?

[fireW]

10:52 AM on 06/23/2009

I wonder if he's bothered to listen to his constituen­ts, who overwhelmi­ngly want a program that actually provides something of value for their money. Congress certainly believes in the taxpayer-f­unded single payer health care system for themselves­.

[Gatorray11]

11:18 AM on 06/23/2009

Right on! This is a point I have repeatedly made and we need to make it to Republican­s and so called Blue Dog Democrats. What we need to ask these conservati­ves why they want to deny the American people this "choice" they preserve for themselves­? Republican­s are very good in playing these language games. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

And if you really want to drive them nuts and expose how phony they are, ask a very simple question> How much did it cost to keep Tricky Dickey II, AKA Richard Bruce Cheney, alive during the last eight years?

[Notawingnut]

01:43 PM on 06/23/2009

Everybody needs to keep in mind that party purity is a republican concept and that republican­s are the bad guys here. While I don't agree with conservati­ve democrats on many issues, they have valuable input in all negotiatio­ns. They bridge the divide between liberal democrats and conservati­ve republican­s. I'd rather have a conservade­m over a rethuglica­n any day.

[AnnfromCA]

10:18 AM on 06/23/2009

Trying to devise a system which really doesn't change anything is plain suicide for Congress. That will be the next huge public disappoint­ment if they attempt to sell that boondoggle to the public.

Public option plan MUST be part of this.

[jmpurser]

02:54 PM on 06/23/2009

The "public option" is the plan they devised to make it look like change without really changing anything.

Single Payer is real change.