Message To Leadership: Rockefeller Re-States His Opposition To Triggers

One of the Senate's foremost champions of the public insurance option re-asserted on Friday his opposition to a compromise approach that would establish a government-run insurance plan only if certain market conditions aren't met.

In a statement issued apparently in response to news that the White House is leaning towards the so-called "trigger" approach, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) said the following.

"Historically, 'trigger' mechanisms have not been successful, and they are not a substitute for a strong public health insurance option, A 'trigger' simply delays price competition, which in turn will delay affordability for consumers and moves us farther away from the goals of health care reform. Already, we are seeing insurance companies threatening to game the system, by raising their prices in advance of reform. The only way to curb price-gouging by health insurance companies is with real competition on day one--that is the public option."

An aide to the senator said Rockefeller was merely registering his philosophical opposition to the compromise approach and not, necessarily, committing himself to voting against (or filibustering) the trigger-option if it came to a vote.

"He does not say either of those things," the aide says. "He is explaining why they aren't good. He opposes the creation of a trigger."

The aide also said that Rockefeller was still "looking into" the other potential compromise approach: creating a public option that states could opt-out of.

But the desire by the senator's office to re-state its opposition on a day when the Senate is conducting no official business says something about the current state of the health care debate. Right now, there are a slew of conflicting reports about what public option package has the blessing of leadership in both chambers of Congress as well as the president. Well-connected sources insist that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is pushing to get the vote for health care bill with an opt-out version of the public plan. But the confusion is obviously widespread enough to persuade one of body's foremost public option supporters to lay down a marker about where he stands on triggers.

Comments

[blueken]

10:38 AM on 10/26/2009

Ok conservatives, who defend the right to choose. What's wrong with a state by state opt out of the public option? Combine that with the individual choice to opt out, and it sounds like real democracy, doesnt' it? You can fight the public option at the state level. If the states that opt in do better with health care than the states that opt out, the public will vote state reps out of office. Real democracy. Real choice. Are conservatives afraid of real democracy? Are they afraid to let the American people choose?

[Anna McCall-Tanzola]

03:59 PM on 10/26/2009

The HealthCare Public Option should be controlled by the Federal Government and it should be included in any HealthCare Reform Bill signed by the President. You must be kidding if you think states such as Texas would support a public option. What is the Insurance Industry afraid of if a Federal Public Option is offered? Well, of course, it's the millions they make off people each and every year. WAKE UP, EVERYONE!

[One more Thing]

11:56 PM on 10/25/2009

I'm in a nursing home and worried about this trigger. When will they pull the trigger on me??

[ifitwereme]

07:25 PM on 10/25/2009

I'm just glad they fixed the headline, was worried about the horse.

[filo]

08:25 PM on 10/25/2009

Neigh ! lol

[moongal6]

06:50 PM on 10/25/2009

There is actually a trigger built in to Medicare D. It does not work, it is almost always corrupt. The R's passed the Medicare Reform Act of 2003 in the middle of the night in late Nov. the true cost was withheld until after W signed it into law.
The trigger in Medicare D has yet to kick in, even though seniors hit their Medicare D cap by June, then they pay FULL PRICE for their needed medication for the rest of the year.
Please read this brief link about triggers;

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/25/gvsa0825.htm

[MakeAWish]

04:11 PM on 10/25/2009

Senator Rockefeller, is a better leader than Obama when it comes to true health care reform. Obama, seems to be in bed with the insurance companies on this one.

[Tom Payned]

02:30 AM on 10/26/2009

Between the insurance companies & the drug companies, it's hard to say who he sold out to the most.

I guess it doesn't matter if, as Sam Stein is reporting today, Obama is not pushing for the public option but for the Snowe Job trigger.

There are some advantages to coming from wealthy families, like the Rockefellers & Kennedys, they aren't as easily bought.

And to think, Teddy "passed the torch" to this public health care sell out.

Teddy must be rolling over in his grave.

[janeycat]

04:28 AM on 10/26/2009

Its to bad that Rockefeller does not have Backus job.....we would be in better shape with the reform bill ...Bauckus is a insurance goofer.....

[jukesgrrl]

03:55 PM on 10/25/2009

Thank you, Senator Rockefeller.

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

02:36 PM on 10/25/2009

I suspect the NRA favors a trigger.

[justme1990]

03:02 PM on 10/25/2009

LOL.. That's funny.

[rad21]

02:01 PM on 10/25/2009

How does a "robust public option" reduce healthcare cost from 17% of GDP to 11%; to match that of our competitive countries? PO can reduce the over-head cost of insurance by eliminating the fat salaries of top management; jobs of most actuaries who sole purpose is to risk assess individuals; and lawyers who deny the coverage when needed.

Will PO reduce / eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse of providers (hospitals and doctors) and consumers? Who has a greater clout to do this - the private sector or the govt.? That is the 64-dollar question.

[bthechangeyouseek]

06:52 PM on 10/25/2009

The PO was never touted to eliminate fraud or abuse by providers. It's a competitive option to ensure insurance carriers do not increase rates. Increased rates can be counted on, if the insurance companies cannot walk away from risky members.

The only way to be competitive is to drop all this nonsense, expand the medicare structure to include everyone on a basic health care plan. Insurance companies should offer supplemental coverages for procedures not covered.

[annieooo]

01:52 PM on 10/25/2009

Petition
To: Gov. Tim Kaine, Chair, Democratic National Committee (DNC)
Sen. Bob Menendez, Chair, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC)
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Chair, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)

I write to inform you that I am joining the Democratic Donor Strike against the DNC, DSCC and DCCC, which will last until the Democratic Congress passes - and President Obama signs - healthcare reform with a robust public option:

based on Medicare rates, not negotiated rates
nation-wide, with no state opt-outs
administered by Medicare, not a for-profit insurance company
available immediately

Until then, I will only support individual Democrats who support single-payer Medicare for All (the 88 sponsors of HR 676), or (at a minimum) pledge to vote against a bill without a strong public option. I will also support challengers who support Healthcare Not Warfare.

http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-for-public-option?cid={cid_enc

[annieooo]

01:48 PM on 10/25/2009

http://www.democrats.com/donor-strike-for-public-option?cid={cid_enc

After months of debate, an overwhelming majority of Americans support a "robust public option" similar to Medicare.

And thanks to the heroic efforts of progressive activists, we have almost enough votes in the Senate and House to pass it.

The Democratic majorities in the Senate (60/40) and the House (258/177) are large enough to pass a "public option" even with no Republican support. But a handful of conservative "Democrats" are blocking the will of the Democratic majority.

These conservative "Democrats" refuse to listen to the Democratic voters who elected them. That means it's up to our Democratic leaders - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama - to persuade them.

We will not accept a weak public option or worse, a "trigger." We want a robust public option (based on Medicare rates, not negotiated rates) that is nation-wide (with no state opt-outs), administered by Medicare (not a for-profit insurance company) and available immediately.

That is why we are joining together in a Democratic donor strike against the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC until the Democratic Congress passes - and President Obama signs - healthcare reform with a robust public option. Until then, we will only donate to individual Democrats who will truly fight for us.

[Catita]

01:41 PM on 10/25/2009

AGREED 200% WITH ROCKEFELLER.

Public Option with a trigger = NO REFORM. Again think about the so called Credit Card reform which as passed but again with a trigger because it will be implemented next year. What did the credit industry do....use this time to hike up the rates. What do you think the insurance companies will no.....raise the rates and screw the American people......

[lungfish]

01:32 PM on 10/25/2009

I agree with the Senator, we need a strong public option.

We also need to strip insurance companies of their anti-trust exemption.

Hold the line....

[CherokeeGirl]

01:26 PM on 10/25/2009

Thank you, Senator Rockefeller! You are on the right side of history! Be strong! Protect the bill.

[GalapagosTortoise]

01:21 PM on 10/25/2009

I am not voting for Obama again if a robust public option doesn't go through.

I am not voting in the next election this November either to send a message to my representatives loud and clear at the polls. I will be turning in a blank ballot (Voting White As They Say In France Where They Have Successfully Obtained What Is Now The Number One Healthcare System Internationally) -- with the words "HEALTHCARE FOR ALL" written across the face of the ballot.

All of this negotiation is garbage. The Democrats have the clout they need to push a robust public option through but they don't employ it. Because they are financed by the health insurance industry just like the Republicans and Washington D.C. is overrun with lobbyists.

Our representatives need a taste of the people's power at the polls. They have had plenty of letters, phone calls and emails about health care over the years.

Give them a taste -- this month in November -- of exactly what we can do in the next major election.

Remind them who is buttering their bread at the polls.

[CherokeeGirl]

01:27 PM on 10/25/2009

our emotions are being manipulated by hidden corporate masters and Rahm Emanuel.

[Teas]

07:27 PM on 10/25/2009

I'm not contributing money of any kind until we have a robust option. No "trigger's", no "opt out." Medicare for all or something close to it.

[quoveritas]

01:09 PM on 10/25/2009

If you are mailing a package across country and you have a choice between the USPostal service - who charges you a flat rate or it's commercial competitors: i.e. FedEx and UPS - who charge by destination. Who would you choose?

[CherokeeGirl]

01:27 PM on 10/25/2009

Postal service, the rates are better....oh! I see where you are going with this.

PUBLIC OPTION, NO TRIGGER TRICKS! :)

[S E Martin]

02:26 PM on 10/25/2009

I guess it depends on how far away I was sending it? But I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I've shipped with everyone, and, bluntly, the U.S. Post office is clearly the best in service and in rates. I'm really impressed with the USPS.

And, postage has increased much slower than inflation. (Which is why buying the "forever stamps" is not actually a good investment.)

[moongal6]

06:54 PM on 10/25/2009

Fed Ex and UPS actually use the USPS for their deliveries in the more rural areas, I guess that about says it all in regards to who (Post office) is the better carrier.
Eh?