iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

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

Miles Mogulescu

Posted: March 12, 2010 04:55 PM

Obama, Durbin and Pelosi All Point Fingers at Someone Else for Killing Public Option

What's Your Reaction:

Barack Obama says he supports a public option but claims there aren't 51 votes in the Senate to pass it in reconciliation. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says he would aggressively whip the 51 votes for the public option if Nancy Pelosi would send him a House reconciliation bill that includes a public option. Nancy Pelosi says she won't include a public option in House reconciliation bill because there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass it. It's looking more and more like a game of 3-Card Monty.

Meanwhile, over 40 Democratic Senators have signed a letter or otherwise indicated that they would vote for a public option if given the opportunity and it is almost certain to garner at least 51 votes if it actually came to the Senate floor. But every leading Democrat is doing everything possible to avoid an up or down vote on the public option and pointing the finger at someone else for killing it.

It's all Kabuki theater to cover up the truth that President Obama made a backroom deal with the for-profit hospital industry that the final health care bill would not include a national public option.

Despite the popularity of the public option among voters, no one in the Democratic leadership is willing to allow an up or down vote on the public option that might force Obama to go back on this deal and sign a bill which includes a public option.

Obama's deal to kill the public option--made with the Federation of American Hospitals, the lobbying group for America's for-profit investor-owned hospitals--was documented in an August 13 article in The New York Times:

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

Obama's deal with big Pharma that Medicare would not be allowed to negotiate lower drug prices and that Americans would not be allowed to buy cheaper drugs from Canada and other advanced countries has been widely covered. But except for the Times, the media has failed to cover Obama's deal with the for-profit hospitals to block a public option.

Yet protecting this deal is the only rational explanation for the torturous efforts by the Democratic leadership to prevent a final up or down vote on the public option at all costs.

If the Democrats are intent on passing a flawed and largely unpopular health care bill through reconciliation, then including a public option should be a "no brainer." Polls show that the public option is supported by approximately 60% of voters while the overall bill is only supported by about 1/3 of voters, so including a public option could significantly increase public support for Democratic health care reform. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a public option would save between $25 billion and $110 billion over 10 years, depending on how robust it is in tying reimbursement rates to Medicare. Given the failure of the Democratic health care bill to place any limits on how much private insurers can charge consumers for health care policies they are mandated by the government to buy, a public option is about the only proposal still on the table that might make it more difficult for insurance companies to continue raising premiums by 10%, 20%, 30% or more per year, while voters blame Democrats for their increased premiums despite the passage of healthcare "reform".

The only reason the Democratic leadership is doing everything it can to avoid an up or down vote on the public option is that it would force Congressional Democrats to choose between the interests of the voters and the interests of the special interest funders whom Obama made a deal with.

It's time to expose this deal more widely and embarrass Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders into doing the right thing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: On Friday afternoon Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee appeared on The Ed Show and named 51 Senators who are on record supporting a public option if it comes up for a vote. In addition to the 41 who have signed a letter saying they would do so, he named Kay Hagan, Claire McCaskill, Tom Harkin, Jay Rockefeller, Herb Kohl, Mark Begich, Max Baucus, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, and Robert Byrd. (There's also VP Joe Biden to break a tie in the unlikely event there were only 50 votes). Link to it here

So Nancy Pelosi no longer has the excuse that she won't include a public option in the House reconciliation bill because there aren't 51 votes in the House. Nevertheless, as Ed Shultz responded, it may not happen "if a deal was cut long ago that everyone said we'll talk about the public option but it isn't going to happen".

Given the 51 vote whip count for the public option, the only rational explanation left for excluding it from the House reonciliation bill to be sent to the Senate is to protect House and Senate members from having to vote for, and President Obama having to sign, a final bill that includes the public option in violation of Obama's backroom deal with the for-profit hospitals that there would be no national public option.

A number of Democratic House and Senate members who say they support the public option may be being disingenous--They want to reassure their base which supports a public option, but they don't wan't to actually be forced to back it up with a final vote which would offend special interest campaign contributors.

If House and Senate Democrats, in collaboration with President Obama, choose the interests of special interest campaign contributors over the interests of the voters--and the desires of their base whom they need to actively campaign for Democrats, donate money, and vote in large numbers--then the Fall, 2010 election results could be really bloody for Democrats.

The story of this White Houser backroom deal to block a public option needs to be diseminated as widely as possible as quickly as possible, before Pelosi locks the final House bill in stone without a public option. It's the only chance to embarrass the White House and Democratic Congressional leaders to choose the voters over the special interest funders.

I encourage programs like The Ed Show, Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show to prominently cover this story right away, and not be concerned, if they are, about damaging their relationships and access with and to the White House by exposing this backroom deal.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 209
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheIndependenceParty
Cranky yankee and a rehabilitated ex-Republican
09:54 AM on 03/15/2010
It's going to be a long week for those who are betraying both the interests and opinions of the American People, and will not support a public option and bring it to a vote. But it will be an even longer election year! I will only vote for those who committed public to bring a public option to a vote in the Congress, ... and it appears that Pelosi does not make the cut!
11:46 PM on 03/14/2010
Please disregard my former post on this subject. This is the correct one.

Healthcare insurance industry and hospitals are among the lowest in making profits.

Please review the information below.

Hospitals (profit margin – 3.6% and ranked # 77)

Healthcare Plan ( profit margin – 3.3% and ranked 86)

This is taken from Professor Mark J. Perry table with the link blew.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html

Note: Prof. Perry extracted this information from Yahoo! Finance. Below is the link.
Yahoo! Finance
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
01:04 AM on 03/15/2010
So, the insurance industry needs a bailout? A new subsidy?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheIndependenceParty
Cranky yankee and a rehabilitated ex-Republican
09:52 AM on 03/15/2010
"Profits" can be low, and it only impacts shareholders. Administrative costs in excess of 30% and multi-million dollar salaries for execs tell the real story. The industry is a gravy train for execs and administrators, ... oh, and lobbyists!

No pity party here for the "for profits" among hospitals. For their not for profit competitors, the margins are even smaller, generally under 2 %. That makes 3.6 % look like a windfall!
11:23 PM on 03/14/2010
Healthcare insurance industry and hospitals are among the lowest in profit margin.
Please review the information below.

INDUSTRY PROFIT RANK #
NAME MARGIN (%)

Hospitals 3.6% 77

Healthcare Plan 3.3% 86


This is taken from Professor Mark J. Perry table with the link blew.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html

Note: Prof. Perry extracted this information from Yahoo! Finance. Below is the link.
Yahoo! Finance
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
06:18 PM on 03/14/2010
Holy puqueing sh.i.t! that's exactly what happened. What a scandal!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
station agent
03:27 PM on 03/14/2010
Thanx Miles for telling it like it is...glad to see that some journalists have the courage to give the full story on why the Public Option can't get a vote and how the Democratic Party is failing Main Street...

Keep up the good work...hope that you will be recognized for your brave reportage...
02:42 PM on 03/14/2010
Also it's time you all started paying attention to what the Senate, WH and House are talking about when they say the Senate bill will "cut costs."

They're not referring to what citizens who will have to pay will pay. They will pay more, thus cutting the costs for the government.

Got all those occupations to support - y'know. And the Pentagon is promised overall increased percentages to their budget each year
02:31 PM on 03/14/2010
I've suspected as much since last year and have said so on these pages.

However, I don't know if some comments to the same effect ever made it past "pending".
01:47 PM on 03/14/2010
I think the author of this post is being a bit intellectually dishonest ( as unfortunately many people are on both sides of this debate ). If you read the story carefully.....
http://libn.com/blog/2009/07/08/white-house-hospitals-reach-deal-on-health-care/
........you will see that the so called deal was not only transparent but involved an agreement that a public option, if it were to be had, would simply not pay at medicare reimbursement rates. There was no agreement ( as this author implies ) that there should be no P.O. at all. Senator Kent Conrad ( who is one of those conservadems attacked in the past by the left on this issue ) has for a long time said that he would be ok in supporting a public option as long as it didn't reimburse at these rates because it would ultimately bankrupt the hospitals in his state who were already complaining about it.
That being said personally I'm not too crazy about many of these "deals" that the W.H. has had with Big Pharma , Hospitals etc. but I can understand strategically why they were done. Besides already having the GOP and Big Insurance attacking you every day it is smarter if you have two less opponents to deal with in the fight, as opposed to the Clintons who had all of them to deal with and ultimately failed.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Miles Mogulescu
02:33 PM on 03/14/2010
Intellectual dishonesty is a strong charge, particularly when based on nothing but an article in that major media outlet, The Long Island Business News. If you read the NY Times article quoted above, it says there are 2 parts to the deal with the for-profit hospital lobby: (a) No Medicare rates, and (b) Not run by the secretary of health and human services. Part (b) means that a national public option was taken off the table in the deal-- coops or state based plans would have been acceptable, but these would too weak to be effective in in competing with insurance giants like Wellpoint and United Health. Not allowing Medicare rates to be used as a benchmark for setting rates for the public option--even with a margin over Medicare--would make it impossible for any public option to compete with private insurance, which is why the CBO says that a public option not tied to Medicare rates plus a margin would end up being more expensive than private insurance and would end up covering few people.'
In any case, the White House should be forced to disclose exactly what deal they made with the for profit-hospital lobby, rather than leave this in the shadows of a backroom deal.
Given that there are 51 Senators who would vote for a public option and it's widely popular, there is no rational explanations for Democrats blocking a vote on a public option except for the existance of this deal.
03:06 PM on 03/14/2010
I agree with you up to a point ( there should be more disclosure, explanations and transparency ) but to simply conclude that they deliberately wanted to kill it from the beginning is also a strong charge which I don't think the article really proves. From the beginnig Obama promised that he would bring everyone to the table ( as he did in his first summit last year ) and that we would all have to have "skin" in the game. If in talking to the hospital industry ( which whether we like it or not is part of our HC system ) they expressed to him ( as they did to Senator Conrad ) that a larger ( with the P.O. ) government HC insurance system tied to Medicare rates ( which I think are somehwere around 80 % or less, I could be wrong ) would put alot of them out of of business you can bet your bottom dollar that they would be fighting tooth and nail against the whole thing right now. To try and find a middle road or a compromise with them is simply smart tactically. We all know Obama is not an ideologue and I think he is convinced that the new tight regulations and the HC exchange itself would achieve the same result and get him more votes amongst the bluedogs. If it doesn't we can always revisit it and strenghthen it in the future like SS and Medicare.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Miles Mogulescu
06:09 PM on 03/14/2010
Pokey 11, you keep mistating things in order to defend the administration. My article never said that the White House "wanted to kill it [the public option] from the beginning". It said that the White House made a backroom deal this summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that there would be no public option that would be national in scope (or tied to Medicare rates.) That explains the 3-card monty game going on between Obama, Durbin and Pelosi to prevent an up or down vote on the public option, despite there being at least 51 Senate votes to pass it, if were included in reconciliation.
You're intitled to your opinion that dealing away the public option in exchange for support and campaign contributions from the for-profit hospital industry is "smart tactically". My opinion is that siding with the special interests against the voters is political suicide for Democrats and that when insurance rates continue to skyrocket by 20%-40% a year because the legislation has no controls over private insurance rates and no competition, and when citizens are forced to buy crappy private insurance or pay a fine, they will punish Democrats at the polls.
(By the way, even from the beginning, Obama never lifted a finger for the public option and as early as last January Rahm Emanuel was calling for triggers and saying it didn't matter what was in health care reform as long as the administration got a "win".
01:46 PM on 03/14/2010
Teddy Roosevelt made multiple promises to Corporate backers to get into office as Governor of NY. Then he broke them all.
So they made him VP to get him out of the way, and you know the rest.

FDR promised his business backers he'd do only the bare minimum necessary to prevent a Socialist Takeover. Of course....I guess one could argue that was all he did....

Any President will have to pick between breaking promises to the Money Power, or breaking promises to The People.

Both Roosevelts made the right choice.

Obama has only a few more days to decide whether he's with them or with Clinton and Bush.
01:27 PM on 03/14/2010
So Bush, and the Republicans were able to sell "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the Iraq War, and yet Obama and the Dems can't sell a Public Option?
02:38 PM on 03/14/2010
Yep, I'd like to add the repubs had the help selling all that with the help of the MSM which repubs then turn around and say has a "liberal bias."
12:26 PM on 03/14/2010
If this passes without a public option, Democrats will have made the worst political blunder in modern history.

I could never support a man to run this country who is so naive as to not understand the realities of the things he signs into law, or so disingenuous as to pretend to fight for something he is actively fighting against.
01:21 PM on 03/14/2010
The worst political blunder in history?

I seem to remember something about "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
08:32 PM on 03/14/2010
A political blunder! Meaning Obama is a one term POTUS! Regardless of all the many lies, Bush served two terms because Americans can be easily manipulated to hate an enemy... specially one that's different from us!
11:36 AM on 03/14/2010
"It's time to expose this deal more widely and embarrass Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders into doing the right thing."

I agree. And thank you for writing this. It should be on the front page in big letters,.

It is hard to believe that the Dems and President Obama are working so hard to make sure the people DON"T get a Public Option that increase competition and lower prices for struggling families and all Americans.

How insulting this game of PRETEND the dems play is for anybody who believed they really meant what they said about wanting to get a Public Option in the bill, and transparency, etc.

So much for Americans having a seat at their OWN negotiation table on this one. President Obama gave away the store to hospital interests before the debate ever got started (and now Congress is about to give the Health Care industry a huge, permanent handout on the backs of average Americans).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:24 AM on 03/14/2010
Possible primary in the making?
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/308
12:25 PM on 03/14/2010
It sounds promising on the surface, but his quick action of staying the course with Obama and the senate bill puts a damper on his image as a revolutionary figure.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73485--howard-dean-cites-gop-opposition-as-reason-to-pass-senate-bill
06:06 AM on 03/14/2010
yeah this might be one of those mounting signs that the country needs a separate progressive party to at the very least run in congressional elections. If nothing else it might shift the national dialogue back to a reasonably centrist postition versus the far right one that conservatives have carefully engineered for the last 30 years. Oh yeah and it would create a caucus of legislatures with some determination to stand by their stated principles...
12:26 AM on 03/14/2010
Killing the public option was the "plan" from the beginning I suspect. Unfortunately, when you consider the final product, just about everything else was killed along the way as well. What we have in the end is Health Care Reform DOA. They will pass their failures into law and pretend they did us a favor. The Republicans will call it socialism and win the midterms. The insurance companies will be more powerful than ever. All things considered, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and saved failure for being defeated once and for all by an almost guaranteed success. That's some leadership!
01:39 PM on 03/14/2010
you put it all in a nutshell..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
station agent
03:45 PM on 03/14/2010
Yeah, great post...