Dean: If I Were A Senator I'd Vote For Opt-Out Public Option

One of the most respected progressive voices on health care reform said on Thursday that he could live with and even support a compromise to the public plan that would grant states the right to reject the option entirely.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean told the Huffington Post that the "opt-out" compromise that is being discussed by Senate Democrats was not his ideal conception of what a health care overhaul should be. But he granted that the proposal would produce "real reform" and said that, if there were no other vehicle for getting a bill through the Senate, he would support it.

"If I were a member of the U.S Senate I wouldn't vote for the [Senate Finance Committee] bill but I would vote for this," Dean said, "not because it is necessarily the right thing to do but because it gets us to a better conversation about what we need to do."

In a brief telephone interview, Dean stressed repeatedly that his preference remained, far and away, a national public option that was available to anyone -- regardless of state -- from the day of its conception. But in a wholly political context, he acknowledged, adding the opt-out option to the bill might be the best and only way to get something through the Senate.

"I would like to see that come out of the Senate because it is a real public plan," he said of the opt-out compromise. "Then they can negotiate it [with the House] in conference committee... And if this passes I won't say it is not reform because it is reform."

"If this is what it takes to get 60 votes I say go for it," said Dean

One of the loudest proponents of a national public option, Dean's support for an opt-out provision -- however qualified -- is sure to have ripple effects on Capitol Hill. Currently a group of Democratic senators, led by Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), are discussing the opt-out as a means of bridging the divide between progressive members of the caucus (who demand a public plan in the final product) and conservatives in the party (who are worried about the effect a government-run insurance provider would have on private markets). Dean's remarks on the compromise provision could help Schumer and company help bridge that divide, though the former Vermont governor himself predicted that conservative members would still fight it.

"Expect a rigorous fight in the [Democratic] caucus," he said.

A former governor, Dean said that he was fine with the idea of giving state legislatures the power to determine whether their states could be exempt from offering a public plan in their insurance polls. But he worried about the possibility that local governments would actually exercise that right and end up denying the uninsured access to affordable coverage. Health care, he stressed, needed to be thought of as an absolute right for people and not merely a privilege determined by the whims of local legislatures.

"What bothers me is the morality of it," he said. "Because it is a little like civil rights. If the states are making the case that you don't have to do things that are common decency... there are a lot of people who will end up suffering unfairly."

Comments

[rabrophy]

10:57 AM on 10/14/2009

A Republican filibuster would be great for progressives. Broadcast it live and have Millionaire Republicans arguing against health care for working people.

[Emmy2]

04:40 AM on 10/12/2009

It's easy for Dean to support no reform for a lot of us. He and his family are secure. They do not have to worry about affordable health care.

[mfelder]

08:50 PM on 10/11/2009

This can work if the decision is put in the hand of the people. By allowing the people to decide in each state through a referendum or electorial ballot, we can take the decision out of the hand of the Lobbyist and the Politicians.

[MeinNH]

02:40 PM on 10/09/2009

Single payer + vision, dental and alternative care. And those who want to opt out can pay through the nose and get nothing in return. That there is even an argument of this makes me sick.

[ncmom54]

11:29 PM on 10/09/2009

Yeah!

[texfly]

02:20 PM on 10/09/2009

What really frosts my butt in this whole healthcare debate, is that Senators, Governors, and Cogressman from states who get more from the Federal gov't than they put in

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.htm

are the most outspoken against a Single-Payer or a Public Option. Dare I believe, that these public servants are trying to tell us: " Hey America, you give us so much of a handout already. Please, don't give us healthcare too.." No, I suspect that, like the insurance companies, they see their gravy train coming to an end.

[ncmom54]

01:13 PM on 10/09/2009

Medicare for All
let INDIVIDUALS who are anti-socialist conservatives or the well-insured privileged OPT-OUT.

[powerlift2201]

11:44 AM on 10/09/2009

I think the opt-out option is actually a pretty good idea both politically and for reform.

Giving states the option to opt-out of the public option should satisfy the GOP's (false) ideal of less federal government intrusion and actual federal government help.

The opt-out option also sets the stage for state by state political shifts. If a Republican Governor declines the public option for their state and the people really want - or more to the point, need - the public option then that Governor will find that they are in the hot seat come next elections. This could very well force a paradigm shift of either politicians actually listening to the actual people they represent or getting voted out of office.

[losangelian1]

11:22 AM on 10/09/2009

I think, if a compromise has to be made, this may be the best one.

If certain states have the public option, and it keeps costs down, how will other states be able to deny their people? It will force people to become more engaged and fight for their rights, instead of rolling over to the Republican corporatists. This could have a lot of political implications... it's interesting.

[KataVideo]

11:12 AM on 10/09/2009

I don't like this opt-out business.
First, the "Public Option" gives PEOPLE the right to opt out.. not politicians. "Opt out" does what the reugnicants accuse, it puts gov't in between people and health care.
Second, we shouldn't abandon the Democrats trapped in red states. Who's going to stand for those Democrats in Alabama and Mississippi if we don't?

[ncmom54]

12:32 PM on 10/09/2009

thank you!

[elo828]

10:45 AM on 10/09/2009

Personally, as someone who lives in a state that would likely opt-out, I think this plan stinks. I want a public option for everyone, not just the more progressive states. I live in Wyoming. Why should I be penalized because my state and federal legislators are Republican?

[majorsja]

10:55 AM on 10/09/2009

The idea is that you would vote those people out locally and vote reps adn senators that campaign for the public option.

Whereas now, you don't have a say and your vote is a far strech from you current representatives. This plan brings the fight to your state and out of Washington D. C.

It's brilliant.

[jsarets]

11:11 AM on 10/09/2009

Why should your state have the same number of votes in the Senate as California?

Maybe if the small states didn't have a ridiculous amount of power in the Senate, a national public option would be a more achievable political objective.

[bebecca]

10:09 AM on 10/09/2009

How likely is it that states will opt out? Don't they have to provide their own alternative health care plan? Maybe I'm naive but most (all?) states are struggling economically and it seems that this would be something they wouldn't want to take on, on their own. I'm really just trying to see this clearly, correct me if I'm wrong.

[majorsja]

10:45 AM on 10/09/2009

Most republican states would certainly opt out, leaving the health reform benefits to those states that want them. What will happen is that people will begin moving to states that have the public option when they have big medical issues. In turn, this would cause a mass exdous from Southern states and would benefit the democrat party tremendously. Good plan. I must say that even businesses that cannot afford healthcare for their workers, would probably relocate as well.

[powerlift2201]

11:59 AM on 10/09/2009

This would be the Federal government public option - think Medicare for all. States would not have to put up their own money. More people would probably find jobs in those states because companies would be able to drop their expensive employer based insurance programs, which would mean more people would be working and paying taxes, which would mean that the states would make more money in tax revenue. Plus each state that opts in would save money because more people would be working ( and not worrying about finding a job with medical benefits) so there would be less money going out in entittlement spending.

It's the multiplier effect.

[SizeMatters]

10:03 AM on 10/09/2009

Has anyone else notice that Dean plays the "If I were a..." game a lot?

[powerlift2201]

12:00 PM on 10/09/2009

I wouldn't mind seeing him as a Senator.

[raye1]

10:02 AM on 10/09/2009

Interesting points made by Dean. I guess I will be searching the web to get some more info.

[Pablo175]

09:57 AM on 10/09/2009

Thank goodness he is not a Senator.

[majorsja]

10:58 AM on 10/09/2009

Catch the wisdom in this. Who will live in a state that opts out if they are unemployed and battling cancer. No one will. They will demand the same rights to the public option as other states and will get it or else move which will affect the electoral vote.

It's brilliant.

[powerlift2201]

11:56 AM on 10/09/2009

So you are hoping for a bill that gives hundreds of billions of dollars to health insurance companies with no means to control or compete with their premiums? You are supportive of a bill that fines families $1,500 if they don't purchase health insurance? You are a proponent of people dying every day - 122 - and every year - 45,000 - because their coverage has been rescinded?

How do propose people constitutionally mandated care in this country? Isn't it our obligation, our duty to help others?

I for one would sleep much better at night if I knew my tax dollars went to giving equalmedical care to a homeless, poor, middle class and rich person instead of paying for illegal wars, the DEA and so on.

[jws2346]

09:50 AM on 10/09/2009

Thank you Mr Dean. I think it's very unfortunate and unfair to the people that are a resident in the States that decide to opt out . I know from experience it can be very costly and inconvenient to move and, for some people, it's a financial impossibility (children attending new schools, Realtor fees, mail changing, telephone switching, expense of the moving company, etc) Moving to a State that has the public option is unsettling for most and can be very expensive. Doing it the opt out way may be the only way to get a bill on the Presidents desk (at the moment we need a Health care reform bill badly). Maybe after the "people in power" see how a strong a public option can be effective by lowering premiums they may decide to vote for opting in?