Wall St Journal reports that Sens Reid and Schumer open to co-opts

[TayTay]

to fulfill the function of the public option in the new health care bill.

UPDATE: Senate Dems Suggest Progress Made On Health-Care Bill
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090709-716694.html">Filed July 9th, 2009 pm

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Senate Democratic leaders Thursday claimed progress in talks on forming a public competitor to private health insurers, though senators appeared to make little headway on finding a way to pay for health-care legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said they're amenable to making a non-government health cooperative part of health-care legislation, perhaps in lieu of a controversial proposal to form a government-run health insurance plan.

Schumer, who has led efforts to find a middle ground between opponents and supporters of a public plan, said it is most important for the public competitor "to keep the companies honest, to be available right at the beginning to everybody, and have the strength to borrow."

"If it can do those things in a co-op form, I think we're open to it," he said.

Reid told reporters that "we're going to have some type of public option - you can call it cooperative or whatever you want."

[Occam Bandage]

1. God, Reid blows. nt

[RandomThoughts]

2. an article on Co-ops

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/06/12/a-co-op-for-the-public-option-lets-talk-principles/

As envisioned, the co-op proposal would create a bunch of member operated plans around the country, none of which would have the clout to compete with private insurance or really lower prices with providers and drug companies.

Also, another note of caution: A co-op is a legal structure. In a co-op, members of the co-op are legally liable for the co-op. That means that if a co-op was, say, sued for doing something wrong, its members might be liable for the legal bills and damages.

If Senator Conrad or anyone else in Congress can come up with a proposal that meets the above principles, we'd be happy to support it, whatever it's called. As the proposal stands now, Conrad's co-ops will not bring costs down, save our economy, or allow us to choose a viable public option if we don't want to be at the mercy of private insurance. These co-ops will not solve the health care crisis, and so we oppose them.

[flpoljunkie]

4. If Reid understands this, then he's being disingenuous on co-ops vs. public option.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Reid: "We're going to have some type of public option-you can call it cooperative or whatever."

If it's a co-op that works like Medicare--and ready on 'day one'--that's more than acceptable.

[blm]

13. Fat chance. The corporatists involved are there to backpedal away from any strong public option.

Schumer and Reid have been all over the place on this, and, imo, deliberately so as to not be blamed when the compromise tilts TOO far in favor of the insurance industry.

[flpoljunkie]

35. I share your concerns, blm.

[depakid]

5. "wall street Journal reports...."

:boring:

[uponit7771]

7. +1

[blm]

6. SCHUMER LED EFFORTS TO FIND A MIDDLE GROUND. While he claimed to be fighting FOR public option and

his staff were planting stories in blogosphere trying to pin his actions for compromise on Kerry who was actually fighting FOR Kennedy's vision of healthcare reform that included a STRONG public option.


Schumer was given the lead on this in Finance because he would CERTAINLY compromise towards the right - he always does. And his thugs are practiced at misleading left bloggers on Schumer's actual role in the capitulation. All you have to do is read ANY report from Ryan Grim at HuffPost.

[karynnj]

8. It is also true that if between the supporters and opponents,

he is NOT leading the fight for either side. It is impossible to have both roles.

Now look at the list of others on that committee who support a public option - Rockefeller, Menendez, Stabanow, Bingaman and Kerry. Who is the one on that list most capable of harnessing the energy of the left in support of Public Option? Schumer likely does not want that. If it was Schumer's people behind the attack, it may be that Schumer wants to broker a compromise and doesn't really care what it is. He then can claim credit for the resultant bill - that will be an improvement over the current law.

[blm]

10. The way I see it, Schumer is doubletalking to make certain Kennedy's vision of healthcare doesn't

happen. Kerry was representing Kennedy's vision in those meetings and soon after the stories against him popped up from anonymous sources.

Schumer wants ALL credit for the good and he wants his compromises blamed on other senators. As IF we don't know his MO by now.

[masuki bance]

9. Where does his reporting show Schumer is planting stories?

Link please.

[blm]

11. Where did Ryan Grim get the lie that Kerry pushed for trigger at the same time Snowe said she

was working with Schumer on trigger?

Did you ever post a SOURCED LINK to that charge or did you take Grim's word for it because you WANTED it to be Kerry and not Schumer as Snowe stated?

Some of us KNOW Ryan Grim is tight with Schumer's office, and also know that doesn't mean anything to you.

Now - where is your request for a SOURCED LINK from Ryan Grim or from FOXblog?

Where is your concern ON THIS THREAD about Schumer's role in compromising the hell out of public option?

You are SO transparent.

[masuki bance]

12. So, you are accusing Schumer of lying about Kerry, planting

stories in the press about him that will damage him significantly politically, based on your so-called knowledge that Ryan is "tight" with Schumers "office"?


eta- That's it? That's what you're basing your charges on?


The story you are referring to, Kerry's office released a statement, Ryan included it. It did not contradict the story. If Kerry or his office wanted to, or still wants to correct it further, the evidence is there that he ill correct the story. Obviously, Kerry has not denied the substance.

[blm]

14. His office - yes. They did it before during Alito filibuster, questioning Kerry's motives

for filibuster. Always 'anonymous Dem senate staffers' who just happened to get traced eventually when they pulled their heyjohn stunt in 2006. Schumer's lucky Kerry is more of a statesmen than he'll ever hope to be.....he knows what Schumer's office did and he had every right to punch his lights out.

Knowing Schumer's slimy character the fish rots from the head.

[masuki bance]

15. Something happen in 2006, that you haven't provide links

for. And based on that you are affirmively yelling that this story is false and that Schumer is behind it? Kerry had a chance to deny it, right? He chose not to, right? Do you think maybe Schumer made him withold the denial?

[blm]

18. You already played out that game. You LOST.

and if you never heard of Schumer's stance AGAINST Alito filibuster or about the heyjohn website used to attack Kerry, then you can't possibly have a clue to the dynamics involved.

Why are YOU concerned about Schumer here at a message board, but not concerned about a media outlet using UNNAMED source to DISTORT Kerry's role?

Where is Schumer's denial that his office is planting misleading info about Kerry to bloggers like Ryan Grim?

Or do you have DIFFERENT rules for message forum users?

[karynnj]

20. To all open minded people, Kerry's spokesperson DID deny it

Try googling "Hey John" on this site. By the end it was pretty clear where it came from - and it was a complete lie. Quick summary, in 2005 and 2006, Kerry raised more money to help more Democratic candidates than any other legislator - something even Rahm Emmanel praised him for. He was also working as hard as he could to help others. He had given millions of dollars to the combination of DNC, DCCC and DSCC in late 2004 to help them out of debt. In addition, he used his email and his appearances to solicit volunteers for other candidates. "Hey John" was a beltway web site that within days of it being created was covered by Politico and other MSM sources. What it was was a letter calling Kerry out for doing little to help other candidates - siting the small amount he gave the DSCC in this cycle, which they defined as 2005 and 2006. They then praised Hillary Clinton for giving the DSCC $2M. (Kerry raised $14M in 2006 alone)

Weeks before that MSNBC in looking towards 2008, had put as one plus for JK that he had done so much for so many candidates and had led the fight for an exit plan. A negative for front runner Clinton was aggravation that in 2006, she raised nationwide over $40 for her Senate campaign with an extremely lame opponent.

This effort was designed to get more money for Schumer's DSCC and to hurt Kerry, while helping Clinton.

[blm]

23. Something tells me this poster is likely familiar with distortions told about Kerry and why

and stands with Schumer and his ilk.


Fumnny, how these antiKerry posters have no interest in demanding sourced links from more mainstream newsblogs, but come here and demands links about internal party dynamics.

[masuki bance]

32. The statement says what he is for, but it does not deny the reporting

that he floated a trigger option. How is that hard to understand? Ex.- I can be "for" vanilla ice cream, but will accept that I have to finish my dinner first if that's the only way I can get my ice cream. See? I can be "for" vanilla ice cream, but still accept it w/ conditions, there is not a contradiction.


There is no reason to have a statement explaining what he is for, you can be for a public option, and also willing to accept a trigger to get it. Both things at the same time, get it?


I will leave the easily spun on there own to figure out why the statement was worded the way it was.

"...and obviously if it's the only way to get universal health coverage then people will consider a trigger that ultimately guarantees a strong public option." -Kerry's spokesperson

[karynnj]

33. So, you think it easier to believe

that Senator John Kerry floated a 10 year trigger - which is completely different than the position his office says he has and different from what the BG said - and NO ONE on the committee thought it worth talking about. Have you watched ANY congressional hearings. If something is proposed (or "floated"), it is discussed - even if just to reject it.

I'm sorry that Kerry's office did not answer the question the way you would like, but it was pretty clear to all but you and one other person and they used the word "NOW", which means "no trigger".

As to your line in bold, notice it is conditional. What would you prefer they do if they can't get a public option?

Nothing?

A plan with no mention of a public option?

or would you work for the best trigger conditions and the shortest length of time?

[blm]

26. Found a link for you about 2006....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2894657&mesg_id=2894657

There was an ongoing conflict between Kerry and Schumer re campaign contributions for 2006 candidates - Schumer's answer was to put up a website attacking Kerry.

The site also praised Hillary who actually had done far less than Kerry - it was meant to DISTORT the contributions of both Dems ahead of the 2008 PRIMARY race. Kerry had been getting great press specifically for his efforts helping Dem candidates in 2006. Schumer has long been 100% LOYAL to Clinton. To think this all coincidence and not about 2008 primary, one would have to be incredibly naive about internal jockeying for position in the party.

But...I'm beginning to think you are already aware of these matters and are sympathetic to Schumer's deceitful actions against Kerry.

[karynnj]

27. Nice job finding that link

Incidentally, there was a replay in 2008 attacking other Senators for not contributing .... again mysteriously ignoring Schumer. In fact, on one site where that was posted, when someone questioned Schumer's paltry contributions - the response was that he was leading the fund raising so it didn't matter.

[blm]

29. And we're supposed to believe that all of this is mere coincidence...yet again.

Schumer really thinks his thugs have the blogosphere wired and completely duped.

[karynnj]

30. Here, we only have circumstantial evidence - but it is strong

We know it has to be a Democratic Senator on the Finance committee. We can rule out anyone not publicly for a public option, unless someone can see a way it benefits them. That leaves Rockefeller, Menendez, Stabanow, and Bingaman and Schumer. We know that Grim gets quotes all the time from Schumer. None of the others have ever been accused of these type of sharp elbows.

Not to mention, Schumer has supported several positions on this issue.

[blm]

31. and WHO has pulled this type of crap before re Alito filibuster and 2006 campaign donations?

Schumer.

[karynnj]

16. It did contradict the story - in fact, it totally denied it

The substance was that Kerry floated a proposal - he didn't. What don't you get? There was no real proposal for a 10 year trigger. Kerry's office said WHAT HIS POSITION IS, not all the things it isn't.

It is utterly amazing that you parse every word of a clear straightforward statement by Kerry's spokesman - but question nothing from an anonymous source - even when as written it makes little sense. If it were a proposal, wouldn't it get at least the discussion that Snowe's did? If for no real other than Kerry's very real ties to Kennedy and Obama.

"Although your mind's opaque, try thinking more if just for your own sake"
George Harrison.

[ProSense]

17. Schumer's judgment is easy to question

BREAKING: Schumer and Feinstein Will Vote For Mukasey

"Who is the bigger fool, Judge Mukasey...or Senator Schumer...?"

Kerry to oppose Mukasey nomination

Schumer regrets not leading an Alito filibuster

Very easy.

I wouldn't put it past him to be pushing co-opts.

[blm]

19. It DID contradict the SUBSTANCE OF THE STORY and the HEADLINE. Apologist for Grim, eh?

Why are YOU so invested in pretending Grim's story was accurate?

Why aren't you concerned that Schumer was nailed by SNOWE as being the one talking trigger with her? Is Snowe's statement equal to an unnamed source?

[blm]

21. Where is GRIM'S sourced link, mb? Kerry's office denied Grim's version blaming trigger on Kerry.

You don't mind standing with GRIM'S UNNAMED SOURCE do you?

[AngryAmish]

22. co-opts? I'm sure.

[GarbagemanLB]

24. It's pretty simple: no public option, no vote in 2010 or 2012. Guess I'll have to start looking at

3rd parties in case the Democratic wimps fail to do what 70+% of the public wants, which is a public option.

[karynnj]

28. I hope you at least look at Dean's site to see if your representative

or Senators backed a public option. They are not the ones responsible if we don't get it. Oh, and if one of these three people is against it, lobby them.

[Myrina]

25. Ohmigodz, hippie communist cooperatives!? Here comes the socialism!!

I sense heads exploding in FR land ... :wow:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. What a surprise! Please read this - DKos - coops are trojan horses for private insurance.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/10/751973/-Non-profit-health-cooperatives-are-trojan-horses-for-private-insurers

"A non-profit public co-op instead of a government run public option is not the solution. It leaves for-profit insurers a legislative means for tearing them down. It is their Trojan Horse. It is their means for eventually tearing down the co-ops or buying them outright and stripping away any pretense of public benefit. As the history of Blue Cross Blue Shield conversions shows, it is literally a license to steal."
*************************************************************************************************************************************

I am against anything BUT a strong public option, publicly funded and opened to any and all regardless of employment status.

Schumer has been trying since day one in the finance Committee to derail a public option. The public option he put forth was a public option in name only. He talks constantly about "level playing fields" and the like. He is a tool for the health insurance industry. I am at the point that if Schumer favors it, it must be bad.

[blm]

36. EXACTLY what I've been saying - His DOUBLETALK has been designed to DECEIVE the left bloggers

and his staff have been in full deception mode to carry this deception out for as long as they can.

[karynnj]

37. Unless, of course, something good is sure to pass - then he is out in front

taking credit. So, sometimes he is for good things.

[Vinca]

38. Apparently it will be up to us to morph whatever they deign to give us into single payer.