Pelosi To Dems: Time To Take A Stand On Public Option

Nancy Pelosi is ready to rumble. The House Speaker told her Democratic caucus Tuesday night that she plans to bring a health care reform bill with a robust public option to the House floor for a vote, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells HuffPost. But first she needs to know that the party is with her.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been tallying support for a public insurance option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates over the last several weeks. According to people in the room Tuesday night, Pelosi told her members that the caucus is close to the 218 votes needed to pass the bill. She went on to say that the few remaining undecideds - or undeclareds - needed to let Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) know by Wednesday where they stand.

The caucus will meet again Wednesday evening to retake the Democratic temperature. If the 218 votes are there, the party will plow forward and go to conference committee negotiations with a strong hand.

The challenge from Pelosi to her caucus puts the onus on her to find the votes. "Do I think it will get to 218? I have such confidence in our speaker Nancy Pelosi, that when she is determined, as a strong woman - I can't guarantee everything - but I do believe she's determined to go into the conference with the Senate with a strong public option," Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday.

"As with so many other issues, the American public is way ahead of even those of us in Congress," said Rep. Donna Edwards, a progressive Democrat from Maryland. "It's good fortune and a lot of hard work on the part of the Speaker and the Democratic caucus for us to finally come where the American people are."

A progressive public option also puts pressure on Senate negotiators hammering out the final health care bill in the upper chamber. A robust public option on the House side could give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) the political wiggle room to include a more conservative public option in his package. It would then come down to a duel between the chambers.

Pelosi was "upbeat" as she delivered her news and made the call to the caucus, said one person in the room. A Washington Post-ABC poll released Tuesday showed support for the public option climbing nationally.

The robust public option's ability to save money bodes well for its future. Pelosi shared the outlines of a preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of the House bill, telling the caucus it came in at well under $900 billion over ten years.

President Obama has demanded that the package come in at under $900 billion. "Without the public option, which has been scored as a big cost saver, it will be hard for us to meet the $900 billion mark and provide the affordability to Americans that is absolutely essential," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).

Comments

[Denalidog]

12:10 PM on 10/22/2009

The "Public Option" is all about requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance, which the federal government cannot do, any more than it can require all of us to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. That power is reserved to the states. So the federal government will have to resort to the same tactic they use to get us to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets: states that don't enact legislatio­n requiring everybody to purchase health insurance will be denied federal funds. This will result in intrastate conflict between those that want the money and those that value personal freedom.

could get nasty.

[LCLA]

10:46 PM on 10/22/2009

Public option is NOT about requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance. There are other parts of healthcare reform which may have that goal. Universal coverage is a worthwhile goal, and we have many paths which can lead to that destinatio­n.

Public option is to provide an alternativ­e to the inefficien­t, bureaucrac­y laden hoax that current health insurance tends to be for too many of us.

[craigkay]

01:31 AM on 10/22/2009

This is just outrageous­. It was the conservati­ve Democrats that were the stumbling block all along, and she did nothing; where has she been the last six months? She really really flubbed this one and I am afraid it is not the last.

[Eris23Skidoo]

01:49 PM on 10/22/2009

She was twisting arms out of the view of cameras. Just because she isn't in your living room informing you of all the results she's producing does not mean she is ineffectiv­e.

[FooFighter007]

09:46 PM on 10/21/2009

Thanks for taking a stand when the dispicable others don't (Obama and Reid).

[armadillious2002]

09:37 PM on 10/21/2009

Give em' Hell Nancy. Like they said in WWII - Praise God and pass the ammunition­.

[p359352]

01:07 PM on 10/22/2009

What would Nancy know about ammunition - she never voted anytime to fund our troops - to help them while they fight 1000's of miles from home in a unsecure terrorist land - but the taxpayers pay for her security even when shopping -
she wants her and her family to be safe at whatever cost of the taxpayer - but fund out troops -
not on her agenda....­...

[Eris23Skidoo]

01:50 PM on 10/22/2009

Keep dreaming.

[LCLA]

10:51 PM on 10/22/2009

You are confused or lying. That was Bush and his Republican dominated Congress who was shorting our soldiers and veterans. It was Bush and his Republican dominated Congress who sent them to war poorly equiped without armored vehicles and kevlar. It was Bush and his Republican dominated Congress who stripped the VA hospitals budget and neglected the care of the soldiers they sent into harm's way.
Pelosi has been there for the veterans.

[YcCoSQ]

09:32 PM on 10/21/2009

Yes we all hope the Democrats can pass a Democrat bill so they can water down their Democrat bill in a Democrat committee.

[Billl]

09:31 PM on 10/21/2009

We must have lower cost alternativ­es to insurance funding and lower cost alternativ­es to current hospitals and health care delivery systems or meaningful reform will not be possible.

If the President and legislator­s would allow a CBO study compairing a dual public/pri­vate system to any other health reform, that study will scream for us to start over.

Providing health care efficientl­y saves lives and saves money.

Nobody can collect the money to pay for health care as cheaply as the government can through a national sales tax, and nobody can deliver high quality care and medication­s as cost effectivel­y as the VA.

Two choices should be offered to everyone to use either; free public health care, sales tax funded, from a new system of government owned and operated hospitals, using the VA format, that would deliver all government funded care, or alternativ­ely to use privately purchased private care.

Everyone choosing public care could have it no restrictio­ns, no insurance, no co pays, free period.

Employers who select federal public care for their employees would not be required to pay for or have any further involvemen­t with health care.

Let’s compare this common sense dual system that would allow unlimited choices while saving taxpayers hundreds of billions annually, and always free public care would be available, to the reforms being proposed by Mr. Baucus’s legislatio­n, or anything else being proposed by anyone from the President down.

[RTIII]

11:17 PM on 10/21/2009

Sales taxes are VERY regressive­. ...Unless you apply a sales tax to "financial instrument­s" - like stocks - it will take an inordinate­ly larger burden from those least able to pay it.

Instead, it should be paid from from the general fund - and new taxes should be raised to essentiall­y replace the money presently going from employers and employees as premiums. This way, the complexity already inherent in existing tax code can distribute the burden fairly - or, at least, more fairly.
.

[Skaperen]

09:15 PM on 10/21/2009

Without a public option, it isn't reform. It will just be a windfall for those who are the biggest cause of the whole problem in the first place. The bills debated to this point will actually make things worse in many ways without the public option. At least with a public option, it would at least break even, and possibly even improve things.

The ultimate fix is single payer. Look at the results in Norway and Sweden ... much lower cost per GDP and yet top healthy nations.

[desktop]

10:10 PM on 10/21/2009

Single payer would be great, but we can't get it now. We might get public option, although I will be surprised if we get a complete public option for all. The reality is that there is truth in what the health care profiteer insurance companies and republican lackeys say about a public option. Once it gets going they will be the driver of prices for health care. If the private insurers don't keep prices competitiv­e, everyone that can, will switch to public option. My hope is public option drives them out of business. Then you have single payer. In the interim, republican­s and their corporate masters are going to do everything possible to make us continue and be financiall­y destroyed by the health care profiteer insurance companies, for years to come.

[Discipulus04]

08:49 PM on 10/21/2009

thank God for Nancy Pelosi

[napasonoma]

08:48 PM on 10/21/2009

Stop wearing golf balls around your neck, maybe then I will be able to hear you instead of see you.

[SassySafrine]

09:12 PM on 10/21/2009

Stop looking at her neck.

[Cryptic Quill]

08:07 PM on 10/21/2009

I just don’t understand the resistance to healthcare reform by the GOP and I encourage Speaker Pelosi to continue her efforts in demanding a strong public option. And this coming from a fiscal conservati­ve. (I may be to the right at times but I also vote Democrat depending on the issues so I suppose that makes me bi-tr0llar­.) While I am concerned over the cost of the reform, it is nothing compared to what the cost of healthcare will become in the upcoming years and we have already waited too long. Those we elect to office are supposed to be stewards of our rights and echo our voices in the halls of government­. Well we’re screaming, please hear us and know that people are hurting. They’re forced to choose between food on the table and medicine for their children. The choices you make now mean the difference between living a life and being a memory.

[jeff90125]

09:00 PM on 10/21/2009

I am very much in favor of healthcare reform. However, it needs to be done in a COnsitutio­nal way and in a way that will solve the problem, not create more problems. I also do not wish to lose the quality of coverage we are getting now.

The problem that I see is that insurance premiums are way too high. That is the ONLY problem that I see. Back in 1987 when I first started paying my own health insurance, I was paying $78/month. I had everything covered and the only out of pocket expense I had was $2/doc visits and $2/prescri­ptions.

We need to find out how to reduce the premiums to those levels (adjusted for inflation) once again. What happened in that time and how can we put it back.

Any of these healthcare bills currently under considerat­ion will only make things worse in some fashion (increase costs, reduce coverage, create more bureacracy etc) and /or be unconstitu­tional.

Don't worry about being unconstitu­tional, every president in recent history till now treats it like a roll of Charmin.

[JamesinDentonTX]

09:51 PM on 10/21/2009

If the only problem you see is that premiums are too high, then you need to get up to speed. Denied claims, denied coverage, lack of competitio­n, - People are already being told by insurance companies to seek out state plans as soon as they get older or sick. There is no merit to your argument that health care reform is unconstitu­tional.

[RTIII]

11:34 PM on 10/21/2009

"The problem that I see is that insurance premiums are way too high. That is the ONLY problem that I see."

Well, apparently you don't use your insurance enough to get caught into the other big problems, like denied coverage for things that are _clearly_ to be included, or denial of the ability to even get coverage due to "pre-exist­ing conditions­", or even their old standby, not paying what they already authorized­, etc.

You also forget that you're 22 years older than you were in '87 and your premiums would be a bit more because of age.

...There are a lot of other problems than just premiums. Frankly, if health insurance was managed as well as car insurance, I don't think we'd be having too much of a problem, but it isn't - not that automobile insurance is all that perfect. As it is, the insurance companies have become readily identifiab­le vultures, unwilling to compromise­, adjust or otherwise "be human." In contrast, I have a relatively easy time working with an adjuster over what's up with my car and its needed repairs following a collision. I have been through just about every type of claim situation and never are they outright unreasonab­le. I wish that were so with my health insurance - that I no longer have because I can't afford it. However, very recently they (Blue Cross) tried to stiff me and my Dr over a $200 bill that they had approved before the fact...
.

[JackieRSM]

09:31 PM on 10/21/2009

You don't understand the GOP resistance to healthcare­?? Do what I did and when you talk about a moment of clarity it will come when you Google their campaign take from the HC industry. Its crystal clear, including the dirty Blue Dogs!! Cryptic Quill I agree with the rest of what you say, but we are dealing with corruptnes­s to the highest magnitude. It's all about $$, not we the people! The loudest and biggest mouths in Congress against it are in fact the biggest takers. Go look! I saw Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu from LA on MSNBC. She said that Americans are for the public option because they think it's free!!! I was absolutely red with fury when I heard that. I went to my computer and sent her a blasting email, something we all should do. How dare she say we want something for nothing!! She simply doesn't get it, while she sits there with the best government run health care for herself! And guess what, she is a freshman senator, and has received $1.6 million from HC industry. Bingo! When I saw that I just sat back and said, now why does that not surprise me! We are NOT up against policies, philosophi­es, government take over or socilaism, we are up against money and paid off politicans­. It is that simple! Remember we have the one thing they need though, our vote! They pay attention to the letters they receive so keep them going!

[goodog]

07:34 PM on 10/21/2009

A Washington Post-ABC poll released Tuesday showed support for the public option climbing nationally­"

"If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstan­ces, even a majority of Republican­s, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation­."

http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­wp-dyn/con­tent/artic­le/2009/10­/19/AR2009­101902451.­html

But let's keep in mind that only 20% are willing to out themselves as Republican­...

http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­wp-srv/pol­itics/poll­s/postpoll­_101909.ht­ml?sid=ST2­0091019025­02

...so we're taking about a pretty small group of people here.

[RefreshingTaste]

10:05 PM on 10/21/2009

There are lies, damn lies, then there are health care polls!

[desktop]

07:33 PM on 10/21/2009

I hope she gets it passed, but the senate is going to crap all over her bill. Perhaps we can get some aspect of public option, but the health care profiteer bribers are busy handing out cash to three or four deciding senators. Piece of crap senator Joe Lieberman was on the floor wailing against public option today. The way he was deriding public option, I have no doubt he will join the republican­s to filibuster against any bill with it. My bet is weak kneed senator Harry Reid is not going to allow strong public option to come to a vote.

[NORBIT]

07:15 PM on 10/21/2009

Mass. has had the Public Option since '02!

The program is already BANKRUPT! - They are raising taxes and non-partic­ipation fines, and cutting services!


Sounds like a great plan! - WHY DON'T WE EXPAND IT NATIONWIDE­? (NOT!!)

[D-V-H]

07:46 PM on 10/21/2009

That would be the plan put in place by Mitt Romney. It doesn't have a public alternativ­e to keep costs down.
******
The state's plan flunks on all counts.

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare­, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry..­.........

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individual­s, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs......­....

Third, the program is not affordable for many individual­s and families. For middle-inc­ome people not qualifying for state-subs­idized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-poc­ket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordab­le copayments for office visits and medication­s.........­.....
http://www­.boston.co­m/bostongl­obe/editor­ial_opinio­n/oped/art­icles/2009­/03/02/mas­s_healthca­re_reform_­is_failing­_us/

[jeff90125]

09:02 PM on 10/21/2009

It sucks here in Massachuse­tts. We have health insurance mandates. Since when does the government have the right to tell you that you have to buy something? That's just wrong.

And Romney brags about it.

[max hp]

07:56 PM on 10/21/2009

And the Insurance plan just kill people off to remain profitable­!

Is that your solution?

Does NOT sound like a great plan - 47000 deaths EVERY YEAR one 9// a month.

[Eris23Skidoo]

02:08 PM on 10/22/2009

That actually IS the GOP plan.

[mrh3]

07:09 PM on 10/21/2009

Just get it done. No excuses. No tricks. Close only counts in horse shoes.

[toggan]

07:24 PM on 10/21/2009

Close also counts in obtaining 8 more votes. Where there's unity, there is strength.

[kasinca]

06:50 PM on 10/21/2009

I am shocked when reading the posts on this and other boards where it seems we have citizens who do not understand how the government process works. There are 435 congressme­n in the house. The rethugs are the only party that votes in party unison no matter what their constituen­ts want. The democrats have never and will never vote in unison. Nancy Pelosi is hearding cats. Not all of the representa­tives pay attention to the facts that we have and they must be brought up to date. Some have to be hit between the eyes with a wet sack of reality that if they do not cooperate, they will face a primary or they will not receive dollars from the party. It is a process of getting the votes.

[Eris23Skidoo]

02:10 PM on 10/22/2009

"wet sack of reality"

I like that. I want my own.