Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry on health care: Obama's approach prevents repeat of '93 - '94, co-ops don't work

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 09:32 AM
Original message
Kerry on health care: Obama's approach prevents repeat of '93 - '94, co-ops don't work
MS. ROMANO: Okay. Health care reform. You also sit on the Senate Finance Committee, which is marking up the bill right now. Democrats lost two votes on public option yesterday. Is it dead?

SENATOR KERRY: No, not yet. I think you have to let this fight take place on the floor of the Senate and see where the larger votes of the Senate may be, and even then, depending on what the Senate does, you still have the House where you have four committees that have embraced a public option, and you have the White House that supports something. We're not exactly clear.

MS. ROMANO: Senator Baucus said he doesn't see any way to get 60 votes on public option.

SENATOR KERRY: And I think it's very tough. Given the votes we had on the Democratic side yesterday, I think it's going to be very tough to get the votes on the floor.

MS. ROMANO: Are there alternatives to keeping the market competitive without public option?

SENATOR KERRY: There are, and we're going to look at a few of those. One of them is this discussion about the cooperative, but I'm not convinced that that will, in fact, work, Lois.

I think that, you know, maybe Senator Snowe and I have talked together about the possibility if we can't get public option on the floor, of a trigger that might put it in place down the road if, in fact, the private sector doesn't deliver what they say they're going to deliver. So you kind of have this incentive that pushes people increasingly towards reform.

MS. ROMANO: There have been a lot of criticism of the President, a lot of pundits saying that he has not been specific enough about what he wants in the legislation.

SENATOR KERRY: I think the President was unbelievably specific when he spoke to the Congress asking for a special session to speak on health care, and he said what he wants in the bill.

I've been through this before. I did this in '93, '94, and I saw what happens when the White House sends you a prepackaged product and says this is the deal and you don't get Congressmen and Senators to invest and get the people who have worked on this for a lifetime on their committees to invest.

I personally believe that the way the President has approached this, by allowing the committees to work through, will in the end produce a product, and the Congress is now invested in that product, and I think the President has weighed in appropriately. Maybe he let a month go by that he might have you know, you can argue about that one, and he could have jumped in conceivably a little earlier, and so you can argue about it, but I don't think it's an argument worth having.

link


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Makes sense to me. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. Oh Senator....Quit Waffling
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 10:10 AM by Armstead
A strong public option should not be negotiable.

Please Senator Kerry (my Senator) don't do another Iraq War style waffle on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. There is nothing waffling about saying co-ops don't work. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. **crickets** n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. He isn't waffling about what he wants - he supports a strong public option.
That was in answer to a question of what could be done if the public option can't. That is a possible contingency and it would be cowardly not to address whether anything is possible. Here, he did not sound very optimistic that the alternatives would control costs, which is the goal of the public option.

To me, the people who refuse to answer what they would do if the public option can't be passed are just avoiding the hard questions. Those saying they would vote against a final bill without a public option without qualifying it on what else is in the bill are likely not being totally intellectually honest. Faced with a bill that has new subsidies, eliminates discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and which lets small businesses and individuals to join pools and get rates like larger companies, but no public option it would be very difficult to vote against it. Considering that a main reason is to control costs, I would assume that, even by next year, there would be financial reasons to have legislation to ADD a public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I disagree totally. One of the reasons this bill did not pass in Finances
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 01:34 PM by Mass
(even the weak Schumer bill) is because too many people were ready to concede defeat because the battle was lost and to consider alternatives rather than fighting for it to happen.

Yes, may be at the end, they will vote for a bill without a public option if it comes to that, but the topic should be the opposite: will Landrieu, Licoln, Conrad, ... block a real reform because the final bill includes a timid public option. There is no reason WE have to be the one accepting the premise that the media presents.

I heard Kerry say great things the day the public option was presented (including asking what the GOP was afraid of: that it may work). Unfortunately, he has been far from being the vocal advocate that this cause needed, and, among the supporters of the public option in the Finance Committee, he is by far the most well-known aside Schumer. I have seen people complaining that Schumer was seen as a hero, but the truth is that, while I have doubt about his motives, he is clearly and loudly supporting the issue, as did Harkin, and Cantwell a few days ago in WA, while Kerry continues a middle of the way talk (not questioning where he is at, just how readily he is ready to accept the premise of a paper who has clearly stated they were AGAINST a public option).

The question is: Will Landrieu and co voted to block a bill that could pass with 50 votes in order for it not reach the floor. It is the only question that we should be asking while we are still fighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Disagree. Kerry has made his position on a public option clear and known.
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 01:39 PM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I said I knew his position, but he is accepting the premise that the PO was lost or
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 01:50 PM by Mass
at least too difficult to achieve. This is not a position that will help us, on the contrary.

Now, if in a few months debate, you can only quote an interview after Kennedy's death where he talks about compromise, and a couple of survey by left-wing bloggers, it is not fighting.

I have never doubted that he would vote YES to any public option offered. That is not the question. He has, however, never shown a STRONG support for it, co-sponsoring any amendment, calling for people to support it... From the first day, he had more or less accepted it would not pass.

We already shooted ourself in the foot by not putting single payer on the table, which would have shown public option as the compromise it is. Now we are discussing what to do as the public option will not pass rather than reminding those who are reluctant to vote for it that at least, they can avoid blocking it on the Senate floor. It would have been nice to see him refuse the premise. That is all I say. The point is that they do not need 60 votes, they need 60 people to bring the bill to the floor!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. No he isn't accepting that premise. He specifically said:
SENATOR KERRY: No, not yet. I think you have to let this fight take place on the floor of the Senate and see where the larger votes of the Senate may be, and even then, depending on what the Senate does, you still have the House where you have four committees that have embraced a public option, and you have the White House that supports something. We're not exactly clear.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I agree that Schumer and Rockefeller have publicly spoken out more
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 02:00 PM by karynnj
than Kerry. I would put this down to Kerry speaking out more on climate change, Afghanistan and Iran - which the others have said very little on - other than Rockefeller being against the climate change bill. In the last month, Kerry seemed to be everywhere speaking on everything - including helping MA find "justification" for allowing Patrick to appoint a senator and briefly being the only Senator. (I'm not from MA, so I have no idea if his testimony or phone calls were needed to get that through your very Democratic legislature.) Add to this that he had surgery, he has not been sitting idle.

Kerry is by far the best known, but Schumer is clearly taking this issue (maybe out of conscience as well) because the public option is VERY popular in NY and he is up for election. I have not heard him asked the type of hypothetical question that Kerry was asked here and elsewhere. It may be the difference is that Kerry is willing to have an intellectual discussion that looks at contingencies - and Schumer rebuffs those efforts. It may come down to personalities - where Kerry has always seemed ready to discuss whatever anyone asked him.

My only point was that his position has never changed and he spoke very strongly at the MA town hall meeting (http://www.jkmediasource.org/ - under full length video), on Daily Kos, and in the Senate. There has been no waffling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Actually, Schumer was asked. and answer the bill would pass.
(Sure, his language is murky Schumer's style, but at least, he refuses the premises).

I agree that Kerry is a pragmatic, but, at this stage of the fight, it is hurtful, not helpful, not to fight false premises.

Once again, we do not need 60 votes for the public option, we need 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor with a public option. If after that, Nelson or Landrieu want to vote against improving healthcare because it has a public option, let them.

I disagree deeply with Rockefeller on climate change, but, at least, he is doing that in agreement with his constituents. Let be clear, the public option is VERY popular in MA. We do not need that Senator Kerry starts thinking about what to do if it does not pass. We need for him to fight against the idea it will not pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Kerry started by explaining ways it could be passed
It is not clear what fighting means here. The fact of the matter is that NEITHER Schumer's answers or Kerry's answers to the media have much (if any affect on the results of the votes).

How is say - Lincoln - affected by Schumer saying - point blank -that the bill will pass. She is privy to as much information on how her peers will vote as he is. Kerry listing the alternatives and questioning their effectiveness is actually more likely to open conversations. The only things I can think of that will change a vote are:

1) If they see that their constituents are more in favor of it than against it. (This is the case in AK and I would hope that people in her state are sending her that information.

2) Solid reasons why the public option will actually do what proponents say - as it doesn't exist, there is no easy way to do this. On the Finance committee Schumer, Rockefeller and Kerry have all argued this will happen. There is likely more that could be done here.

3) The Kennedy "personal" side stuff.

I would think the effort to get the "nos" to agree to vote for cloture might be better done quietly behind the scenes - maybe by Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Just some guesses, not sarcastic ones
Edited on Thu Oct-01-09 06:46 PM by politicasista
but the word "fighting" here may mean:

Stating where you stand on an issue (i.e. health care) and be clear and consistent.

Finding a microphone wherever you can (not bum rushing in a rude way) or a TV pundit show (not to say that posting on Kos or any political blog is not a good idea. :)), but the first may reach more people who don't depend on news blogs. But, that would depend on the host. (Unfortunately, some may not think doing things behind the scenes works, but if it does, more power to them!)

Putting out videos on the official website that lets the uninformed (or misinformed) know where you stand on that issue, (and like No. 1, clear and consistent). (I have heard that some senators have done this).

Just telling it like it is. Speak your mind.

Standing up, and keep standing up and fighting. Not backing down, caving in, even when things look grim. Fighting doesn't mean name calling or anything. (Of course, some may think fighting means yelling, shouting the F-bomb, colorful languages, and other things :)).


Just a hunch.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. I'm as concerned about Nelson, who gave Bush his tax cuts, making noises abut needing more than 60,
etc. Is he mad about Move-On, going with GOP for when they make a coneback, looking for a deal, but he's another I don't trust, even if public option shown a cost savings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. What's this 60 vote shit? I thought you only needed 51. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. That's Baucus' claim. There are two scenarios where 51 votes will do
There are at least 52 votes for a public option.

They can pass a public option via reconciliation or the alternative being overlooked, passing it with 51 votes after uniting against a filibuster.

If the Senate's complicit/timid members settle on a bill that doesn't include a public option, then they should revise down the cap to $8,000 (Snowe has it at a ridiculous $13,000) and include a one-year trigger for Medicare for all. That's the only incentive and time frame that makes sense.

Still, unless certain Democrats sabotage the HELP and House bills, a public option should be in the bill coming out of conference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. ProSense, you know everything, so maybe you
have an answer to this. No time (nor the patience, to be honest) to look for it. There is some association between October 15th (VERY fast approaching) and reconciliation. Do you know what it is? It is 100% sure that a final bill will not be ready to be voted on by the whole Senate by 10/15 (love you, Max!), does this imply that reconciliation is out? Or is it enough if they the bill is BROUGHT to the floor by the 15th?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I wish I knew everything. (LOL!) I've seen that mentioned elsewhere.
RECONCILIATION GETS A DEADLINE....

It's been in the works for a while and now, according to senior Capitol Hill staffers, it's a done deal: The final budget resolution will include a "reconciliation instruction" for health care. That means the Democrats can pass health care reform with just fifty votes, instead of the sixty it takes to break a filibuster.

The deal was hatched late afternoon and last night, in a five-hour negotiating session at the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A trio of White House officials were there: Rahm Emanuel, Peter Orszag, and Phil Schiliro. Also present, along with Reid, were House Budget Chairman John Spratt and Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad.

The reconciliation instruction specifies a date. That date, according to one congressional staffer, is October 15.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. So, if I read this correct;ly
as long as the reconciliation instruction is included in the budget resolution by the deadline, it does not really matter when the actual health care bill is finalized. In other words, the 10/15 dealdine is not that important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. If 52 votes are real, then the public option can be added from the Senate floor to the bill.
We'll know soon enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. If Obama cared or even knew what he was doing
he would have started with single payer or Medicare for all. Then all the "liberal" reps could have jumped on the band wagon, as well as all the active dems. Then we could have "settled" for a public option, and no one would have "lost face". The conservative dems could have said they fought, as well as the repubs could say they fought. As it is now, we, the public will be the losers.

So, it DOES matter who is in the White House. He is supposed to be a LEADER. As of now, Obama isn't much of one, or at least not for our side.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. That's total BS.
Single payer and medicare for all are non-starters. You don't even have a discussion if that's what you're starting with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-01-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I agree -
The idea that you end up at the mathematical middle of the two starting points is simply not true. Had Obama started with single payer, very quickly you would have substantially more than 50 Senators on the record against it. That would have been defined as a defeat. It would have wasted substantial time.

Then they would have started with the public option against an energized Republican opposition that had just won a victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. You start with the bully pulpit and get
the American people on your side calling their reps. The people are ready for Medicare for all, but the weak dems can't see it because of all the money coming from the insurance companies. Obama took a hands off approach from the beginning, which means that the American people didn't know what the hell was going on, and what the President "wanted". How can you support someone who doesn't tell you what he's supporting?

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. I disagree. You start to bargain with the most you want to acheive
you don't start the discussion with the least you are willing to accept because you will end up with less than even that.If we had started with single payer, or medicare for all, we could have "settled" for the public option.And as for the "disussion", who are we discussing this with? The GOP? They were NEVER going to support anything anyway and this is the first time in years that we haven't needed them.We should have taken advantage of that fact.If we are talking Blue Dogs and Senators in the health industry's pocket, a strong administration can take measures to "persuade" them and those measures don't have to be "nice". Obama is a Chicago pol and so is Emmanuel. Emmanuel of all people knows how to twist arms and how to ''negotiate'' and it is clear he isn't doing it.The question is why? And it isn't about votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. If you are a President that was voted in on the ticket
for CHANGE, you don't start at a non-change position. You can defend him all you want, but he has been a crappy leader. He's worst than Carter was, for getting anything done. He goes around and makes speeches that no one really understands, so they have to wait until some one translates it. The problem is that the translations are not the same, because Obama never seems to state anything unequivocally. No wonder health reform is such a cluster fuck.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Utter nonsense. Democrats have five bills, four with a public option. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-02-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. A public option is a non-change position?
Since when?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC