President Obama discouraging public opt-out option, reports say

By John Byrne
Saturday, October 24th, 2009 -- 11:37 pm

Share on Facebook

Stumble This!

presidentbarackobamainauguration2 President Obama discouraging public opt out option, reports say The wheels may be coming off the cart of the Democrats' all-in-this together strategy for overhauling healthcare.

And according to two reports, the people doing the wheel removing work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Last week, conservative Democratic senators broke the news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was considering including a provision in the Senate healthcare bill which would create a government-run healthcare option but allow states to opt out.

On Friday, Politico claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was coming up short when corralling votes for the "robust" public option she'd promised. Critics dismissed the report, but the New York Times subsequently reported that there were indications Pelosi was short of the needed votes to pass a more aggressive public plan.

And on Saturday night, just in time for the Sunday talk shows, The Huffington Post reported what numerous Democrats already feared: that President Barack Obama was privately cold to the Senate's opt-out public option, fearing that his party doesn't have the votes to pass it. Obama, the story says, favors a proposal floated by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), which would put a public option in place only if insurance companies failed to meet a certain threshold of cost control.

Story continues below...

The Huffington piece isn't the first to make the allegation -- the story first came from Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler, who is not credited.

On Friday, Beutler wrote "that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is very close to rounding up 60 members in support of a public option with an opt out clause, and are continuing to push skeptical members. But they also say that the White House is pushing back against the idea, in a bid to retain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)."

"They're skeptical of opt out and are generally deferential to the Snowe strategy that involves the trigger," a source close to negotiations between the Senate and the White House, was quoted as saying. "They're certainly not calming moderates' concerns on opt out."

Beutler noted that it placed "the White House as an opponent of all but the most watered down form of public option."

The White House denied the report.

"The report is false," Dan Pfeiffer, a White House spokesman, said. "The White House continues to work with the Senate on the merging of the two bills. We are making good progress toward enacting comprehensive health reform."

Huffington's Sam Stein and Ryan Grimm added Saturday:

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.

"Everybody knows we're close enough that these guys could be rolled. They just don't want to do it because it makes the politics harder," said a senior Democratic source, saying that Obama is worried about the political fate of Blue Dogs and conservative Senate Democrats if the bill isn't seen as bipartisan. "These last couple folks, they could get them if Obama leaned on them."

But with fundamental reform of the health care system in plain sight for the first time in half a century, the president appears to be siding with those who see the Senate and its entrenched culture as too resistant to change. Administration officials say that Obama's preference for the trigger, which is backed by Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, is founded in a fear that Reid's public option couldn't get the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. More specifically, aides fear that a handful of conservative Democrats will not support a bill unless it has at least one Republican member's support.

The piece quotes only anonymous Democratic aides, some of which are identified as aides and others as "sources."

The White House has previously denied that President Obama has indicated his support for or against any of the proposals under consideration.

Huffington's full piece, titled, "Leaderless: Senate Pushes for Public Option Without Obama's Support," can be read here; Beutler's "White House Pushing Back Against Senate Public Option" here.

Share this article:

Story comments are below...

jimbiz

I can't believe I voted for this guy!

His top priority seems to be making nice with Republicans, who, to a man, are hellbent on destroying him.

truthops2010

This bullcrap is exactly why I left the Democratic Party a few weeks ago, and registered as an independent. I'm fed up. Obama and the rest of these mealy mouthed centrist Democrats have taken us for a ride. Not one more vote for the Democratic Party from me, after having been a life long Democrat, who voted in for Carter after turning 18. Time for the Democratic Party to take a hit as all liberals and progressives either vote for Nader, or just stay home. F them.

Name

I will follow you into the nether realm of eternal political marginalization. Together we shall do battle with the Tea Baggers, Ron Paulers and Alan Keyes. I know it won't benefit the GOP in 2010 or 2012, and if it does, it will be like McCarthyism meets the Great Depression and I'll write a book about it. The Wrath of Sour Grapes. Hey, if you decide to join a Monastery, can I have your car?

truthops2010

The act of voting for those who marginalize their constituents, is an act
toward one's own marginalization, no? Just because I'm raging against the
Centrist Democrats doesn't make me a Tea Bagger, a Ron Pauler, or an Alan
Keyes following freak. As per the GOP's prospects in 2010, and 2012, how is
that on my shoulders? I'm just one voter living in a Monestery, and you're
driving my car, if I might borrow the theme from your pathetic thinly veiled
ad hominem bullshit. Be happy, that you're happy with a President who has
maintained virtually every legal position through his own DOJ, that the Bush
DOJ asserted, relative to States Secrets, plenary Executive powers, covering
up criminal activity such as torture, blocking whistleblower lawsuits
relative to the Telco's, etc, etc. Be Happy, that you're happy with the
Centrist Hell Democrats like Harry Reid, Bill Nelson, Steny Hoyer, Diane
Feinstein, and on and on and on, who effectively extend the power of
Republicans, not in 2010 and 2012, but in 2009......like right now. Be
happy, with the Democratic Party, who are going to reward the Health Care
Industrial Complex with a personal mandate, and a "public option" with a
trigger, and opt out, or some other cryptic nonsense to distract you from
HR3200, or HR676.

If you don't think you're being screwed fine, or if you know you're being
screwed, but have decided that it is the best screw you can get, then spread
your legs wide and have at it. But from now on, leave me out of the
projections of your own psycho drama.

Name

Through the pooled fundraising systems of both parties, and in most recent history the DLC, the entire legislative body has been corrupted. If Obama represented a serious threat to the status quo he would never have been nominated for president. Global interests own the media and own our representatives, for the most part. Even the internet is so full of disinfo and obfuscation, you have to be Sherlock frigging Holmes to find out the truth. If he were Mother Theresa and Mahatma Ghandi, Obama would still be presiding over the most corrupt body in world history. This has been the way since the last peace candidate that had a hope of winning, Robert Kennedy. Focusing solely on Obama and laying every fucked up thing at his feet... expressing outrage in the most artful of ways... judas goats parachuted into the ranks like stealth cointelpro-ers with non-stop activity. It's always the same. It's so fucking old I'm appalled it still works, but it does. I will not be held accountable for anyone's lack of humor, subtlety, or ability to catch their own act. There are Berts and Ernies on this street. Most people are a combination of them both. Some are ALL, Bert. Give me a serious person that knows how to clown, as opposed to a motherfuckin clown that takes themself too seriously. If you act like a jilted, freshman Sorority Sister, overdosing on estrogen, people are going to notice. If you can't take the heat, don't draw the focus.

truthops2010

You know, I was nodding my head in agreement, up until about the entrance of
judas's goats.....and then woa buddy, there you go freaking out again,
so.....

"If you act like a jilted, freshman Sorority Sister, overdosing on estrogen,
people are going to notice."

I have to hand it to you. It takes a real clown, or as you are calling
yourself – a freshman Sorority Sister – for such introspection, "not merely
a motherfuckin' clown that takes themself too seriously". Rock on
brother/sister! You are close to solving your psychological problems, with
your obvious enthusiastic dedication to redirect your projected criticisms
of others, back to yourself, where they belong, of course. But I suggest,
that on your journey to become a slightly sane individual, please don't be
so darn hard on yourself, okay lil buddy? Isn't it rich, isn't it queer,
losing your timing so late in your career, send in the clowns, don't bother,
you're here. Now go away you fucking freak.

John Q Public

Just remember one thing: IF this is true, at the bottom line Democrats would be forcing people to buy insurance from the private health insurance industry without offer us the choice of a non-industry publicly-owned plan. There is a name for that: Fascism.

GeeWhizBang

While I don't like the health care bill without the public option, it is hardly Fascist. It simply isn't good policy,

Insurance reform without a widely available public option is not insurance reform, it is just another sellout to the insurance lobby.

dan

So who authored individual "mandates" without a non-profit option for anyone that wants it?

The industry that has the most to gain did.

If the corporations write legislation or dictate government policy, that is fascism, by definition.

GeeWhizBang

There are quite a few more bad things involved in Fascism other than this.

Throwing this label around doesn't help the debate one bit. You may not like the policy, but it ain't Fascist.

Name

I concur that the term is unnecessarily hyperbolic in this discussion.

But as a point of fact, it is fascism. sorry.

:--))

that's my "I am rubber and you are glue" attack.

jimco

Dan is correct , when the government is in bed with corporate interests that is fascism . There seems to be much resistance to accept that Obama and his right wing administration are looking more and more like corporate toadies . It is hard to admit that you've been had , but with this administration it appears to be the case . One only needs to look at the article on Raw today claiming the Huffington post is right wing to see that . The Huffington post does call Obama out on occasion which he and the corporate flunkies he's put in charge desperately need to be .If you start to walk lock step and ignore the misdeeds of what is supposed to be your side you're whats called a republican or a conservative , that's not the liberal way and besides , it's dangerous .

GeeWhizBang

There were commentators in progressive magazines that warned about Obama being too corporatist. They were right. It was pretty obvious Obama was a sellout as soon as he appointed the odious Rahm Emanuel.

We have already seen the results of his leadership in the Climate Change bill which was slightly better than nothing, but pandered to established corporate interests to such a degree that its CO2 targets are a very small fraction of what we need to be doing. This is not quite the change we voted for.

We now have a health care bill that has received only tepid assistance throughout the process from Obama. He has belatedly given speeches from time to time, but he appears to be more worried about offending insurance companies than actually reforming the system in a way that will solve the problem.

Instead, we need to make it VERY clear to Obama that any bill that doesn't have a strong, public option will be taken as a major capitulation to the insurance / medical lobby, and there will be a strong backlash from voters forced to buy worthless "affordable" high-deductable insurance from the same companies that are currently ripping us off.

It is hard to believe this is the same person who so ably campaigned for President. There is a huge groundswell of anger over the corporate sellout of the American way of life, and it is coalescing around the public option for the Health Care bill.

We really should have a strong Medicare Part E for everybody and I mean everybody, with provisions that allow workers opt out of their own company plans to use the Medicare Part E plan if it gives them better benefits.

jimco

You're right GWB , but it's not like we had another choice . I like I'm sure many others crossed my fingers and voted . You are also correct , Rahm Emanuel was the dead canary in the coal mine .

trevinla

but - he is much further left, and much less corporatist than Hillary Clinton so still the lesser of 2 evils

GeeWhizBang

He isn't any futher left than Hillary, unfortunately.

I voted for him because I thought he was more competent, which he has largely demonstrated. However, I am very disappointed with the pandering to the Republicans, and with the lack of leadership on the climate bill and now this.

Obama is smart enough to know WHAT the public really wants, but he also doesn't want to piss off major campaign donors.

basher72

Which basically makes him a typical politician - unforatunately.

overdoneputaforkinit

The so-called trigger option leaves insurance companies in control

Either insurance companies will control costs by restricting health care to protect their enormous profits. America will end up with the lowest standard of care medical in the industrialized world.

Or if insurance companies don't control costs they'll tell Congress, "Give us a more time, a few more years" (so the next president will kill medical insurance reform)

The trigger option is absolutely "kicking the can down the road," what Obama said he wouldn't do.

GeeWhizBang

Exactly. The trigger is kept in a locked box and never pulled. It allows the Senate to pass a bill that has a public option, but in name only.

We need to make it very clear that this is a sellout. I'd expect the more liberal members of the House of Representative won't vote for it at all.

The votes are there in the Senate if Obama would push in the right direction. He does have the bully pulpit and he is afraid to use it. We all know he can give a good speech.

But most of the evidence indicates that the Administration wants the weakest possible bill to pass.

I don't understand why he is so fearful of doing the right thing. We need to make it clear from our side that there is an angry electorate that will not continue to support him if he continues to pander to corporate interests and to the Republicans.

vwcat12

I love all these annoymous statements that are contradicting each other. Everyday it is a new rumor of Obama doing something to health care or not doing something.
Frankly, I believe Obama will do whatever to get it passed in both houses and then meld the bills together.
I also think the media is playing progressives with these ongoing rumors to entertain themselves with the over reaction. Progressives need to stop falling for these rumors and gossip and just wait and see what develops over the next few days and not let things control you.
As a progressive myself, I have learned to not react to rumors floating during a time when something is going on.



Get Raw Story updates! Email:

President Obama discouraging public opt-out option, reports say

Follow us!