More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Sirota

David Sirota

Posted: March 19, 2010 09:32 PM

Will Romanoff's Move Put the Public Option Back On the Table?

What's Your Reaction:

The big news this afternoon was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) abandoning his previous promise to offer an amendment to the Senate health care bill adding a public option into the bill. This amendment would need only 51 votes, as the public option reduces the deficit (by a lot) and therefore is in order for reconciliation. Sanders announcement that he is backing down to the Senate Democratic leadership and White House aides who cut a deal with hospital/drug lobbyists to kill the public option seemed to suggest the public option is dead. That is, until Colorado Senate Democratic candidate Andrew Romanoff tonight just issued a statement that will put significant pressure on his primary opponent, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), to offer the amendment instead:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Romanoff: Where's the 'Public Option' Champion?

After learning today that no member of the United States Senate would stand up for a "public option" in health care reform, U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff issued the following statement:

"As Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, I led the fight against insurance companies that unreasonably delay or deny their customers' valid claims. I know first-hand the lengths that industry will go to resist reform.

"I am deeply disappointed to learn that no member of the U.S. Senate is willing to offer an amendment to restore the public option to the health care bill.

"Millions of Americans cannot afford to keep up with the soaring costs of health insurance. That is why a majority of the American people support a public option. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that a public option will reduce the deficit.

"I call on the leadership of the U.S. Senate to allow an up-or-down vote on the public option. We should not allow the insurance industry to kill the competition the American public wants."

Bennet has spent the last month and a half touting his letter demanding a public option -- and getting a lot of press for that move (deservedly so, IMHO). But now, thanks to Romanoff's demand, he will have to put up or shut up. If he refuses to offer the amendment, he shows his past efforts to be kabuki theater -- grandstanding for attention while refusing to actually take the steps necessary to do what he publicly claims he wants to do.

Bennet, as this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show proves, has shown a willingness to respond to primary pressure on the public option - and he may be even more willing to respond to that pressure considering he just lost the Colorado Democratic caucuses this week.

Oh, and how many other Senate Democratic primary challengers across the country are going to start issuing similar statements against Senate Democratic incumbents?

Stay tuned - this is going to get interesting. Romanoff will be on my AM760 radio show to discuss this on Monday. Tune in here from 7-10am every weekday.

 
 
 

Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota

 
 
  • Comments
  • 43
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joekel
02:21 PM on 03/22/2010
Considering that Romanoff stated that he would have voted against the current heath care bill, if he had been Senator because it was to flawed. Now he talks about the public option, when he also stated he would only support single payer. Guess he says what he feels is popular at the time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
conductrix
01:19 PM on 03/23/2010
As Romanoff's supporter, I would have wanted him to vote against the current bill, too. He also has said from THE BEGINNING that he supported universal healthcare/single payer and would have never started the negotiations at the 50 yard line, with the public option. But we have what we have. He is right to insist upon the public option as a way to retrofit what we have, and Mr. Conservadem-in-sheep's-clothing-Bennet needs to put up or shut up, just as Sirota has said. Sen. Bennet is a notorious union buster and teacher pension raider with no intention of doing what the people want. In fact, his votes on cramdown and on denying a $250 COLA increase on social security benefits shows that he could care less about the least of us really need.

He said he would lose his job over health care. So, get on it!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Weirdwriter
02:33 PM on 03/23/2010
It's easy to make claims here, but if you wish to be taken seriously put up some concrete evidence.

The current health care bill is a galaxy away from the status quo, and -- like Social Security and Medicare -- can be improved once passed.

If Mr. Romanoff cannot see that, then he would not be the effective senator I can support. I want pragmatic success, not idealistic loss.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bgorden
didn't cause the economic crisis
09:16 PM on 03/21/2010
I think it is clear that the public option just will not die, despite the pressure from the health insurance industry and the White House. I am disappointed in Senator Sanders bowing to White House pressure. This is where being an Independent and a Socialist could have really made a difference.

A public health care plan is popular and will provide real deficit reduction. What reason is there to oppose it?
03:51 PM on 03/22/2010
The reason is our President must honor his deal with the lobbyists.

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7923
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Weirdwriter
02:36 PM on 03/23/2010
Nonsense. President Obama has consistently support a public option OR, as he has said, something that would achieve the same result.

Citing a single web site that states a contrary opinion is not the same as real evidence.

The public option still lurks in the wings, BTW. It is not dead.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
station agent
10:01 PM on 03/20/2010
This is a wonderful development...looking forward to more of a push on the Public Option...sooner or later...we'll actually find a Democrat who stands up for Main Street!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
FREEDOM BELL
08:48 PM on 03/20/2010
Take profit out of health care!
06:22 PM on 03/20/2010
Hello my name is Samad Kachal and I just logged in to tell you that I am against the public option.

I like the health care bill because it makes everyone buy health insurance. This is the very same platform that Obama campaigned on in 2008. If people didn't want to have to buy health insurance, they wouldn't have voted for the president.

Health insurance has been around for more than a hundred years. Health insurance takes care of you and me. The people that own and are executives of health insurance companies are like you and me. And they are men and women of great integrity.

If they increased rates, it's only because the economy is bad and people stopped paying for health insurance and they needed the president to step up and live up to his campaign promise to mandate everybody to purchase private health insurance. Whatever the private health insurance companies are doing, it's to protect you and me.

The president, the health care bill, and the private health insurance companies of America are going to protect you and me.

Until next time, everybody!
10:09 PM on 03/20/2010
With the public option, first campaigning for and then campaigning against it Obama opened the Pandora box and disturbed the wasps nest. If he thinks that it will go away he is wrong. I bet that in 2012 he will have a challenger on the premises of Public Option .
12:12 AM on 03/21/2010
Which insurance company do you work for??
03:01 PM on 03/20/2010
The Only Practical Reform Solution Must Add a Public Option to Eliminate Insurance to Save Lives and a $1Trillion Annually

Only a Free Public Option, run by the government, which eliminates insurance companies, and uses sales taxes to pay for care, which would then be delivered free from government hospitals, can produce the cost savings needed for reform.

Public Option users would never have to pay another insurance premium; medical service co pay fee, prescription cost, dental, eye care, long term care or any other healthcare costs, all care they received from government hospitals, clinics and pharmacies would be free period.

Public Option care would deliver all government funded care; Medicare, Medicaid everything, replace all state and local systems, all employers could turn employee care over to the Public Option and eliminate all their costs and involvements, and sales taxes would provide the low cost funding source to eliminate insurance from within the Public Option.

The second half of a dual system would be private only; consumers would pay to receive private care, which would be delivered in private hospitals, no public funding would be paid to private insurers or providers.

Fees paid for private insurance and care would be tax deductible to purchasers and plans and benefits received for healthcare would be tax free to recipients.

The President, Democrats, Republicans and the healthcare industry have blocked this solution from the debate but this is the only practical reform to save lives and money.
02:31 PM on 03/20/2010
Good for Romanoff. I'm on the fence about Bennet. He often says the right things, but actions speak louder than words.

I also like Romanoffs' stand on corporate payoffs (campaign financing). If Bennet does the right thing then there is hope for true health care reform...if he doesn't then I'll know who to vote for in the primary.
photo
Rmtns
Republican't is what it is
05:38 PM on 03/20/2010
Have you not been paying attention? Bennet has been a tool of the corporatist right wing of the Democratic party, in fact, I'm not so sure that he won't pull a Nighthorse Campbell and bercome a Republican after the election.
He has opposed unions, fought any form of progressive reform until he was seriously challenged by Romanoff, and been a total cipher since his appointment by Ritter, the lamest of lame duck governors.
Had not Ritter appointed him to the Senate, He would have never been in a public, elected office, not even dogcatcher..
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Weirdwriter
02:41 PM on 03/23/2010
It's easy to post claims here, but if you wish to be taken seriously you should also post concrete evidence for same.

I'm not impressed by Romanoff's stand on PAC financing. So long as the Republicans reap in far more money than Democrats, there will always be a shortfall of financial support for Democratic candidates.

And you can call Gov. Ritter a lane duck, but, please, state what he could have done with the Republicans in Colorado's congress and the current economic situation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guitarsandmore
devoted father, community activist, musician, reti
01:35 PM on 03/20/2010
Health care is the doctors, the nurses, the staff, the alternative medicine, the nutrition and exercise education.

Insurance companies are the parasites, the middle man, the mafia; they have nothing to do with health or care. They have no product and provide no service. They stand in the way of you and your doctor.

Insurance companies are the enemy of good health.

The function of collecting revenue into a pool and distributing it when and where it is necessary could be done by an arm of the Federal government quite easily.
photo
Rmtns
Republican't is what it is
05:41 PM on 03/20/2010
This is true, all you have to look at is the largest buildings in any city, built with profits from insurance, not that profit is a dirty word, just that it adds to the cost of health care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Kalember
progressive teacher backpacker bicyclist
12:11 PM on 03/20/2010
The "cost" of healthcare is an illusion. The contention that most people are concerned about the "cost" of healthcare reform is ridiculous--they have been conditioned to be concerned by the political sirens right and left. At the start of WW2, the entire US did not have nearly enough money for the stuff we needed for the war, BUT WE HAD THE RESOURCES. The debate about cost is an illusion. In 1941 we needed thousand of airplanes, at a "cost" beyond imagining at the time. All we had to do was allocate resources and we had the planes (and all the other stuff). Money, and our obsession with "debt" and "cost" get in the way of what people need because they are artificial constructs. If you're on a desert island with a pile of gold and no food, of what value is the gold? The resources are the real value items. When will people wake up to the reality that there is no real cost for healthy people, only real and good "human profit"?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ClareP
11:54 AM on 03/20/2010
I really want the up or down vote on the public option-- but there has to be a lot more to the story. Sanders is a man on integrity, and he wouldn't back down without very good reason. I'd like to know what that is.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:57 PM on 03/20/2010
Uh, it may be that he is not a man of integrity.
04:58 AM on 03/21/2010
Yes, he is. I wish there were more like him and Dennis Kucinich. I'm hoping that there will be a separate vote on the public option or a medicare buy-in after this bill passes, and they know about it and that's why they are going along now.
07:09 PM on 03/20/2010
In the interest of transparency, I'd like to know what the Obama admin and Dem leadership in Congress has said behind the scenes to people liek Sanders everytime the Public Option comes back up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
station agent
10:04 PM on 03/20/2010
Me too!!
11:45 AM on 03/20/2010
I like Romanoff and wish him well but if this public option thing is more than just a token sop to the liberal base it will never overcome the corporate money that has and will buy enough corrupt democrats off to insure its defeat.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Icantbelieveher
What you do for the least of my brethren, you do f
11:40 AM on 03/20/2010
I love Romanoff! He'll be getting my vote in the primary -- and he won't even have to lift a finger. He's popular here in Colorado because he has a reputation of working on behalf of the people! Bennet only started his "progressive agenda" after he got primaried! He began his senate by joining the conservadems and voting against cramdown in favor of the banks! He only turned when Romanoff announced his candidacy!
11:26 AM on 03/20/2010
Sounds like we got a principled progressive ready to fight and take advantage of the enormous populist anger, frustration..........what a novel idea.

Romanoff: Your not just representing Colorado, your representing progressives across the nation.
02:37 PM on 03/20/2010
I like your comment (despite the grammar problems). Why not apply that to a national progressive party? We can run in districts like Denver (I lived there for 11 years) and Boulder, not to mention the Bay Area, Vermont, Chicago, St. Paul etc, but not in places where Blue Dogs currently inhabit (i.e. Orlando where I live now) the party could represent all of us, ad could have a significant influence in a manner similar to the NDP in Canada, which is centered on the progressive (plains) provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It was the NDP, the third largest in Canada, from whence came Tommy Douglas, founder of Canada's single payer system. If we had a party in the house with around 80 reps., and didn't run a presidential candidate (so as to avoid the Nader affect) a true progressive party could truly move us forward. And we wouldn't be in the situation we are now, choosing between the evil of two lessers.
04:13 PM on 03/20/2010
That's exactly what I have been saying for years.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joekel
04:48 PM on 03/22/2010
Romanoff is not progressive nor principled.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leo Fairbanks
Awesome
08:18 AM on 03/20/2010
Hey Bennett, Watch my video, I made it for someone in your position to see. I'm a Colorado Democratic Voter who voted for Obama and wants the Public Option. Keep Your Promise!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOL-ak__tpk
03:50 AM on 03/20/2010
As a CO voter, I like what I see from this Romanoff.