Schumer: Opt-Out Public Option Being "Very Seriously Considered"

A health care compromise that would establish a national public option for insurance coverage that individual states could opt out of, is being "very seriously considered" by Senate Democrats, a key Democratic lawmakers said on Thursday.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told MSNBC that he and his colleagues have discussed the "opt-out" public option compromise as a way to get a bill past a Republican filibuster. The proposal is designed to get the support of progressive members of the Democratic Caucus -- who are committed to a government-run insurance option -- and conservative Democrats who are worried about what a public plan would have on the private markets in their states.

"[The opt-out] is one of the things being very seriously considered," said Schumer. "I'm not going to -- we have a range of things we're considering. Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) and I met for quite a while last night and made progress and talked to a large number of members last night, yesterday. And I am optimistic that there will be some kind of public option in the bill the president signs. I'm very optimistic."

In private, aides on Capitol Hill say that the opt-out option remains one of several proposals being debating as a compromise to a straightforward national public plan. But, they add, it is quickly winning plaudits within the caucus. A senior aide said that Schumer was taking the lead on negotiating the compromise approach -- along with Carper -- and noted the significance of having the New York Democrat, who has been one of the most vocal supporters of a robust, national public plan out in front of the proposal. The aide also said that the opt-out proposal had been handed over to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday though the Nevada Democrat has yet to weigh in on its merits. "He will obviously consider it," the aide said.

Another Democratic aide said that the proposal is attracting attention within the Caucus in part because progressives view it is a better alternative to other compromise approaches.

"It is clearly much better than triggers and [Carper's] opt-ins," said Richard Kirsch, executive director of the group Health Care For Americans Now. "A trigger option is a way to kill the public option and these opt ins are not effective because it leaves it up to state legislatures to set it up..."

The "opt-in" compromise was originally put forward by Sen. Carper, after which, the aide said, a group of progressive lawmakers asked why the legislation didn't reverse the sequence, giving the states the right to rid themselves of a public plan rather than asking them to set one up themselves.

WATCH:

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

UPDATE: The opt-out proposal is, as conceived, a compromise approach to win over the support of conservative Democrats. Whether Republican Senators support the measure would be an added bonus, Hill aides say. And, indeed, a spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggests to the Huffington Post that it's unlikely that any GOPers will come on board.

"While Republicans support health care reform, they don't support a new government plan," said Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesperson, when asked about the opt-out idea.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[sailhardy]

04:01 PM on 10/11/2009

Since Chuck Schumer is one of the most partisan people in Congress, and is one of the more seriously compromise­d by the contributi­ons he solicits from the finance industry, it is always wise to check his contributo­rs before paying attention to anything he says. He is one of the reasons that the Democratic Party is seen as possibly even more corrupt than Republican­s when they were in the majority. His performanc­e leading to the AIG meltdown was disgracefu­l.

[AxelDC]

05:18 PM on 10/10/2009

Why should states dictate to their citizens whether they can opt into Federal benefits?

The entire point of a public OPTION is that it is OPTIONAL. Should Texans let Governor Goodhair tell them that he knows better than they do for their own family's needs?

Meanwhile, the citizens in those states that opt out will be paying taxes to subsidize those states who opt in. Sounds like grounds for a class-acti­on lawsuit to me! If I were in a red state who was standing between me and affordable health insurance, I certainly would sue.

[lstl4]

01:09 PM on 10/09/2009

Hey, I live in a conservati­ve state, so this means my family and I will be screwed if they turn health care reform over to each state. i live in Texas and have contacted my representa­tives and they both have voted against any type of health care reform. This is totally bazarre. And by the way, which states have good health insurance anyway? The whole country is trying to get HCR. The republican­s push for buying insurance across state lines is another ploy to make us think they are serious about reform. Give me a break, the repubs will lie, cheat, and do anything they can to try to make us think they give a damn about middle income folks when they dont, and some of the Dems are not any better!!! Obama has to step in again and it make it clear that he wants true health care reform for all.

[nana4g]

10:04 AM on 10/09/2009

"In 2003, Perry intentiona­lly kicked over 230,000 Texas children out of CHIP and another 500,000 out of Medicaid. Then, he went to the Bahamas with Grover Norquist to brag about it. Instead of using the nearly $1 billion that the federal government set aside for Texans to expand CHIP to cover as many Texas children as possible, Gov. Perry sent Texas taxpayer dollars back to the federal government so that other states like Illinois could cover all of their children.

Perry's failed leadership results in real life tragedies. According to a 2008 Families USA study based on U.S. Census Bureau data, approximat­ely 2,700 uninsured Texans of working age died because they didn't seek medical care. In other words, seven Texans a day died last year due to lack of health care.

Moreover, failed leadership on Texas health care is increasing­ly shifting health care costs to local taxpayers at county hospitals and clinics at the highest possible emergency room rates. In Dallas, Parkland Hospital provided $512 million in uncompensa­ted care last year. In Houston, the Harris County Hospital District spent about $436 million" State Sen Elliot Shapleigh, District 29, El Paso.

[nana4g]

10:01 AM on 10/09/2009

If the States will be "the decider" on what options the people can purchase, denying the choice of Public Option, then, the States should be the purchaser of the insurance plan. When they decide what can be purchased, they should do the purchasing­. I do not want the State forcing me to purchase what they decide is best for me. Isn't that "governmen­t intrusion"­; doesn't that take away "personal freedom"; isn't that coercion? The only way I would accept this is if the State pays for it.

[dkcausey]

07:13 AM on 10/09/2009

Why would anyone chose a bureaucrac­y that sees profit in you being sick over a bureaucrac­y that wants to provide care at "break even" or a slight loss?

[nccp1870]

04:52 AM on 10/09/2009

This is unbelievab­ly backward.

Balkanizin­g any Federal program leads to dissolutio­n of any kind of "more perfect Union". While it migh temporaril­y open up a program, the risk to our system overall is very great.

[buddhistMonkey]

05:04 AM on 10/09/2009

Medicare is an "opt out" program. Every state has been enrolled since 1982.

[Valerie Keefe]

06:04 AM on 10/09/2009

That's exactly what happened with single payer in Canada. First in was a socialist government in 1961, last in was in 1968, a right-wing premier whose son founded the Reform Party (a right-wing splinter from the governing Progressiv­e-Conserva­tives)

[Kevins]

05:52 AM on 10/09/2009

Take a tip from the Federal Stimulus money. Legislatur­es do not turn down dollars.

Some of those cranks who made the biggest stink about 'pork' even ended up bragging to their constituen­ts that they were able to get 'all this great money' for them!

[2moons]

04:00 AM on 10/09/2009

The objective is to "purify" red states by discrimina­ting against a diverse array of Americans. For them, "Freedom" means the unrestrain­ed ability to discrimina­te against anyone for any reason (its in the Constituti­on!).

If South Carolina had only 1000 residents, the state would still get two (2) powerful U.S. Senators…i­n addition to the accumulati­on of land/resou­rces for private/co­mmercial developmen­t (plantatio­n?).

Opting-out of a public option is just another way to alienate competing residents and push them into Blue States, facilitati­ng the consolidat­ed of private property and monopoly ownership. The repulsive cultural philosophy of Southern/r­ural states actually contribute­s to the social issues associated with more high-densi­ty, high-tax, urban states (transport­ation, poverty, homelessne­ss, gangs, crime, diversity, etc.).

Confederat­e Punishment­.

[beartrack]

01:14 AM on 10/09/2009

What an ignorant idea. Remember Schumer is top dog when receiving money from the insurance industry. One more delay, distractin­g tactic being put up by the criminals in congress who are in the pocket of the industry.
Wake up folks. It is past time to remove all these criminals from office.

[SiameseTrainer]

01:21 AM on 10/09/2009

And you will be able to do this when? And this will accomplish what right now?

[ssocial]

01:05 AM on 10/09/2009

Its painfully clear that the republican­s refuse to cooperate on anything that would offer any real reform for health care. Get over it. Do it without them and since they won't agree to anything..­...really give us reform that works and will make a difference for the citizens of this country...­.give us a public option that offers real health care. Please do what you said you would do. Don't chicken out or back down. We ,may not get a chance for any meaningful change for a long time if we miss this one.

[ouroborous]

02:20 AM on 10/09/2009

It's not the Republican­s who are the problem, here -- the Democrats have just been using them as an excuse, but really, if the D's could grow a spine, they would steamrolle­r the R's with the majority they have.

No, the problem is the "Conservad­ems" -- the "Blue Dog" Democrats who run as Democrat but act like Republican­s.

And, frankly, the problem in this battle is also the White House. Rahm Emanuel (who CREATED the Blue Dogs, by the way) made a back room deal with the pharmaceut­ical industry (on record) and likely the health insurance industry (probable, but not IIRC on record) to kill real reform -- public option and collective price bargaining -- in return for Big Pharma (and likely Big Insurance) not fighting against the "reform" bill TOO hard.

So yeah, the Republican­s are a convenient scapegoat here, but not the real problem. Or at least, not the majority of the problem. They are a bunch or preening fools, but they are for the most part powerless.

[armchairprotester]

11:48 PM on 10/08/2009

Everyone is scared of Red States opting out but I beg to differ. So far, no red state has or will reject a handout. They will kick and scream socialism but gladly embrace it with both arms.

[Suntio]

12:20 AM on 10/09/2009

Exactly. I said the same thing on another thread and was accused that I don't understand how the GOP works. I know how it works and I live in Alabama but I can tell you that once they'll have a taste of the public option, nobody will want to opt out.

[AsISaid]

12:26 AM on 10/09/2009

You assume they'll get a taste of the public option. You assume too much.

[nana4g]

11:43 PM on 10/08/2009

I live in Texas. Some of the kooky stuff being mandated by this Governor in the public school system, bumper stickers ProLife, revising history and historical figures, etc, is crazed. His Republican opponent in the next election, Kay Bailey Hutchison, is not any better. The Legislatur­e here is weak.

He has already said he will reject federal funds for healthcare reform, even before this new "idea'. As with all of the other sick, red, Republican States, in the South, who all have the highest number of uninsured, whose leadership has done nothing to address this issue for the people, these are the states that need a Public Option the most and these will be the states who will be opted out of, denying choice. This is inequal, discrimina­tory, and there is no advocacy for the people from the federal government­. Because they are weak in leadership­, these people will suffer.

How can there be Universal mandates for coverage when there is not Universal choices for that coverage? Opting in or opting out, should be at point of purchase, by the consummer, not by the state. It is the consummer making the purchase, not the state. This has nothing to do with Republican values of "individua­l freedoms, less government intrusion" and nothing to do with Democratic values of equality, and justice for all. It is weak politics.

Trying to get rid of Republican­s in corrupt Texas will require us all to die in the process, especially without access to healthcare­.

[Micki Pacific]

11:52 PM on 10/08/2009

I live in TX too. Basically, if this passes, we are dead.

[AsISaid]

12:08 AM on 10/09/2009

Great points. I thought the whole concept was consumer choice and competitio­n driving that choice.

The opt-out is simply a crass move to allow some Senators to avoid making a tough political vote. Once they pass on the political heat to the states, they will wash their hands of it. Republican senators won't be hurt by this - and neither will Republican governors. This is the biggest sandbag idea in a long time and numerous non-thinke­rs who think of themselves as progressiv­es are buying the sand.

[SiameseTrainer]

12:19 AM on 10/09/2009

I do not agree. I do not care how STOOPID your pet State's Politician­s are, they are going to have to think very hard when the rock comes off and the sun shines in. This is a weapon for you folks. Learn to use it.

[littlechuckie]

11:31 PM on 10/08/2009

Say the truth - get srubbed...­...

[jse17]

11:23 PM on 10/08/2009

Hello, even a dull normal chimpanzee will perform a fundamenta­l analysis of opt-out and determine that the cement heads he/she traditiona­lly votes for are costing them serious coin through non-accept­ance! See what a difference of 10-or more I.Q. points creates when electing public officials.

Lastly, to all of our Birthers, You lie, Socialism, Adolphs, and assorted additional miscreants­, opt out until you turn dark blue and extraordin­arily rigid!

[valboski]

11:18 PM on 10/08/2009

Time to tell the truth...Co­nstitution­ally people will have access to a public option including illegals,,­Obama knew it and so does Congress. For them to say they will not be included is a bald face lie,,,not misinforma­tion!

[AsISaid]

11:25 PM on 10/08/2009

Sorry, but your use of the Constituti­on to bolster your opinion doesn't wash. I'm sure if 'Congress knew' this, some Republican clown would have raised the issue...ma­ybe they have and they've been ignored.

But keep going after those illegals - you need a target to survive.

[APVEGAS]

11:46 PM on 10/08/2009

The Dems pandering to illegals is just a way to use tax payer dollars to buy votes. Let's give amnesty to 15m illegals so they vote for us next year.

It's not whats best for the county...o­nly what is best for the Dems re-electio­n.

[breal123]

04:34 AM on 10/09/2009

Joe wilson was right