Schumer: Public Option Near Votes Needed To Pass

WASHINGTON — A key Democratic senator says he believes Democrats are close to the 60 votes they need to advance a health care bill that includes a new program for government-backed health insurance.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York says he thinks a public option plan will be in the Senate bill.

Schumer says he thinks it will be a middle-ground proposal that allows states to opt out of participation. The opt-out proposal, according to Schumer, draws support from many liberal and moderate senators and less opposition from others.

Schumer says that a government-backed insurance plan would remain only an option for consumers looking for alternatives to private insurance.

Schumer spoke Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Comments

[BarryS]

let Idaho, and N Dak opt out. who cares. Let Texas opt out of everything. They can secede for all I care. Just reroute Interstate 40. And, let the rest of us get health care.

[dhinds]

An adequate Health Care Bill should support:

Research regarding the environmental, dietary causes of disease;

The Identification of Urban (man-made) and Rural (Agricultural and Natural) Biologically based Life Support Systems that maintain a State of Environmental and Physiological Health and Prevent Disease;

The Development of Alternative Treatment Regimes;

The creation of a publicly accessible Data Base recording the results of all currently authorized and experimental treatment regimes (patient outcome data).

The Right to Organize and Associate with others for not-for-profit Health Care purposes, to strengthen the position of Health Care Consumers when Bargaining Collectively with Health Care Materials and and Service Providers. Likewise, Organizations providing Non-Profit Health Care Services could Associate with Consumers using forms of organization beneficial to all parties.

Creating the office of an Ombudsman that provides legal support for the victims of the Health Care Industry's errors and abuses.

Create a single Institute or Agency coordinating the activities mentioned above. Governmental participation is required in order to maintain the data base and coordinate the efforts of governmental and university research labs with public, private and non-profit health care related services. The NIH would be one logical place where this could begin.

United we stand, divided they run roughshod right over us. Under the present system, they're big and we're little. Call it whatever you want, but civilized health care solutions require a significant degree of societal collaboration and only a publicly funded, publicly accountable organization can provide the coordination this requires.

[dhinds]

More than creating a governmentally owned health insurance company, changing the funding priorities and coordinating the efforts of existing entities would accomplish a large part of what's needed.

The source of the problem is at present, public policy and GOVERNMENTS are controlled by corporate interests bent on maintaining the now obviously unsustainable (read sick) status quo. Therefore, Reforming the USA's Political System may be required. Who's interests do many or most elected officials actually represent as things stand?

Those that fund their campaigns.

[woozler]

If this goes down and it is because of lact of active involvement by Obama ....

1) I worry that Obama, while really truly charming and erudite lacks heart ... he seems unable to make and deliver on declarative sentances - everything is hedged and "worked out" under the umbrella of consensus.

2) I mean we have a consensus with Wall Street and consensus with the Pharmacutical Companies,
and with the Tarp recipients. and we are working for more consensus - what we should do in our hopeless and costly middle east sink hole. We even have (and will fight to maintain) a consensus with Sen Snow (lucky us.

3) And I am very much not alone in my concerns re Prince Charming. If this goes down or goes through w/o a public option (absent his elegance) - leaving Reid and Pilosi (who knew) hanging - his elegance is TOAST

4) Shhh (don't tell my wife ). If I had a second chance I shoulda voted for Hillary

[Factonfact]

I'm sure we all are peplexed by President Obama's reluctance to have a robust public option in a health care reform measure. Since the President has yet to explain himself, I suppose we'll remain puzzled and there will be the usual speculation.

It does seem, though, that a public option as an alternative to private insurance and with an opt out provision is pretty much decided in the Senate. With or without the President's support.

Good for them.

Again, as I've said before, the devil is in the details and we'll have to wait and see.

I do hope that a reform measure that includes a public option with an opt out provision would first require that the public option be in place in a state for awhile before the state could opt out. And I truly hope that voters in the state are the ones who make the decision at an election -- and that a state legislature or governor would NOT be the one to take a state out.

Again, we'll have to wait and see. But I do hope that President Obama will stop shilly-shallying on the matter of a robust public option and instead would express his strong support -- for a robust public option, of course. Nothing watered down; same as Medicare if not better; no triggers, etc.

[huffyISaHottie]

is it me? or is opt- out an opportunity for republican states to..well..opt -out...who makes the decision to opt out and based on what criteria?...am i missing something here?

[MIKEinNYC]

America absolutely needs a public option. No public option is a deal-breaker.

What are they going to do, require everyone to have insurance, not have an affordable public option and allow the private insurance companies to reap a competition-free windfall?

We need something like the assigned risk auto insurance pool so that [eople who are not so insurable, for reasons having to do with economics or pre-existing conditions, have someplace to go for coverage.

And I don't care if the government loses money on this. This is something that I, as a taxpayer, would not mind paying for. The Post office loses gobs of money. We send tons of foreign aid abroad. The government wastes copious sums of money on nonsense.

Amongst other things, we pay taxes to to subsidize necessary services. Health insurance coverage is one of those necessary services.

Here we are in America in the 21st century. You mean to tell me we cannot do this? How mean spirited can you be?

And you know what,,,,,,,,,, I'd cover immigrants too. They mow our lawns, wait our tables, slaughter our meat, pick our produce and clean our homes. They are human beings who get sick and injured just like Americans do. When they are here they need to be taken care of when it becomes necessary. We are not going to let the sick and injured die in the streets. They are our guests. We treat guests with decency.

[FirstForty]

If since Opt Out becoming a fashionable phrase, lets Opt Out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And Opt Out of a several overkill weapons systems. Wow.....then there would be plenty of money to support health care and rebuilding America.

[berensma]

It is such a weird and scary day when we are counting on Chuck Schumer to deliver us the good news.

[biosolution]

10-25-09 Open letter to David Axelrod at whitehouse. gov: I read this article on Huffington Post..."Leaderless, Senate Pushes for a Public Option Without Obama's Support"; and, I'm disappointed and angry. Article's 1st Paragraph: “President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.” I voted for President Obama because I believed as millions did, he would deliver universal health care. Whether he and/or his advisors know it, universal health care will be his legacy. The idea of 1 republican vote (Olympia Snow) will make the bill bi-partisan is absurd, and the media will have a field day with this preposterous mind set. The result of a watered down bill will be another Washington clusterf@#k, that progressives, the opposition, and the media will deride as ineffective, expensive, and not even be close to universal health care. Universal health care is a matter of national security. 29 industrialized countries have universal health care, but we don’t. The World Health Organization ranks the US as 38th in health care. This is an outrageous condition for a country that prides itself on being a leader.

[mrtinnc]

Sadly gang. super majority doesn't equal super consensus. I too have been dismayed by all the political arguing, speculation and hand wringing, with what I consider a basic human, American right- health care. However, this is a political process that is both complicated and difficult. Remember, this historic bill has to pass both houses of congress before it gets to President Obama's desk.

I understand the impatience, because we are closer than we have ever been to health care reform but the energy is starting to be misdirected. We the people need to stand up in force and DEMAND that our elected legislators include a robust public option as they PASS health care reform.

Guys, the public option is not the totality of the health reform we need, it is an important part of it. Let's not reduce this important issue down to just an "option" fight.

[jimbobuddy]

Without a strong P Option, the industry will have no motive for cutting their costs, ie: CEO of United Health makes $100,000 per hour!!
If the antitrust exemption is removed, and/or the 'Health' insurance industry is broken up ,a la AT&T, then perhaps the pub option would be moot. Given the uncertainty however, we cant afford the risk of the industry gaming the new system to our detriment.
Ram it thru! Screw the GOP. Screw so-called bipartisanship - Sen Snow; what a joke.

[berensma]

I can't agree with you. An opt-in is acceptable because it would at least give state leadership a run for their money if the people really wanted access. But a trigger is just a smokescreen. Further, the bill(s) are loaded with huge flaws that have not even begun to be addressed.

It is not good enough to just pass *something,* calling itself reform, when that could make our burden heavier, or build a whole new bubble for the insurance industry.

[lazercat2008]

I really don't like the idea of one party or the other having a super majority.

[AlteSoldier]

I think the Opt out is also a cop out. But I do not think it is a big worry. Pass the Public option with an Opt out if the state wants to. But more importantly make sure the Public Option is robust and functions correctly i.e. run by the government and is there for all to use. I am almost sure once the voters see the cost savings a truly robust Public Option will produce no state will risk opting out for long. Just like medicare has an opt out but no state uses it for fear of the voters revenge.

[fairness4all]

...............................................The OPT-OUT is a COP-OUT!.................................................

Pass a bill with a ROBUST public option for all FIFTY states in the UNITED States of America!

[ECBA88]

Medicare was originally an opt-in, and we all have it now. People will end up wanting a public option, so I'm not too worried about an opt-out as long as it's strong enough to still work.

[lainey]

President Obama knows what is going on. People have not yet learned his MO? We will get health insurance reform.

[IssuesInFocus]

I happen to agree. He's playing his cards according to a strategy already laid out. Can we recall where we were in August? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQCSrg9-QmE

[socialtalker]

the green party has a single braincell, they would start making a move right now. get right in the prez face and threathened to run people in key democratic seats.

i am actually deeply ashamed of the president right now.

[rad21]

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; and the jobs of most actuaries who sole purpose is to risk asses and deny coverage to individuals.

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

[fairness4all]

The government has the greater clout. The private sector lacks the will. But why? Being greedy and without ethics is not necessary to turn a profit. Are there no health insurance CEOs with a conscience?