As part of an agreement hashed out at the end of the Finance Committee mark up process, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) will join forces to amend the Senate health care bill with Wyden's "Free Choice Act." If it can attract 60 votes, it would give low- and middle-class Americans with employer-provided insurance the option of purchasing subsidized insurance in the exchanges.
Sixty is a tough climb. It would have likely been impossible under the original terms of the Wyden amendment, which would have opened the exchanges up to everybody. This is a scaled down version of that, and it will be a hard amendment for Democrats to vote against.
Estimates of additional participation in the exchange--no notation of whether it would be public or private plans, which I assume means they counted both--apparently run about 1 million. Of course, that's among those who already had insurance, albeit costly or insufficient coverage.
There will be time to discuss his proposal as it comes up for a vote--but in a separate, broader piece at TPM by AP pre-gaming the initial cloture vote in the Senate tomorrow, is this nugget:
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Friday that Senate leaders will support an amendment he plans to offer to allow certain low-income people with offers of employer health coverage to shop in the purchasing exchanges instead. Wyden had not committed to voting for Saturday's procedural motion prior to securing the commitment from Reid to support his amendment. The amendment would extend health coverage to 1 million more people who would not otherwise have been able to afford the coverage offered by their employers, according to Wyden's spokeswoman. [emph mine]
It's not clear who said this--Wyden's spokesperson, who is cited in the statement immediately after that one, or the AP reporter operating on the fact that Wyden had made no public pronouncements of support for cloture. And it's not 100% obvious that he's stated his support AFTER getting his amendment a hearing, although it damn well better be a Yes, and I don't think anyone suspected otherwise. (If you know of such a statement indicating he's a definite Yes now, let me know.)
But unless the AP reporter is simply trying to make trouble, the strong implication is that prior to Reid's support for Free Choice, not even the Majority Leader had been able to fully count on Wyden's support for health care reform--and that support was in fact the predicate for Wyden's Aye on initial cloture. If that's the case, how is he any different from Ben Nelson, or--gulp--Joe Lieberman? To think that there was really some kind of chance--or even that Wyden was bluffing as such--that he would risk the entire HCR bill over his pet project, is extremely unsettling. It's been the pattern for Wyden to withhold support on larger health care reform issues until his ideas had been addressed, and this instance appears no different. As the estimate indicates, getting one million people to switch to the exchange neither saves as much money or covers as many uninsured (since Free Choice covers zero of those folks) as the larger bill...and to suggest or even allow the suggestion that Wyden's vote was in doubt based on whether his particular concerns were addressed, is the kind of political toying with people's lives that leads folks to mistrust the motives of our representation in government. Let's hope with the pacifier having been proffered, that "commitment" can be safely assured.
This is sort of a continuation of the tea-leaf reading post earlier this morning, on the several opportunities recently featuring Ron Wyden speaking out on his vision for health care reform. It must be noted that true to his staff's word this summer, they said when a bill was presented in Finance he would have plenty to offer--and he is indeed an active member of the current debate, and a respectful representative for our state. He's a gentleman, and we're glad for that.
But his discarded reticence hasn't, to my mind, brought us any closer to his actual positions and predilections when it comes down to the nitty gritty of a final bill. There's a difference between "committed to" and "open to," and Wyden's consistent use of the latter when referencing a public option leaves a big trap door open, allowing him to say later "Well, I was open to it, but never committed to having it in for passage." Contrast that with Jeff Merkley's language, or Jeff Rockefeller's language, or even Maria Cantwell's. It's pointedly weaker and softer in tone.
Kathleen Wells: I read a summary of your Plan and it's an exchange. What about the public option?
Senator Wyden: I'm open to the pubic option and I've said that to your publication and others. What's important for folks to know, and what I was struck with this summer [is]: I had town meeting across my state. I had eight town meetings across Oregon. I headed into a gym in a community and up against the wall there would be lots of folks with public option signs [stating] "Public option or bust." I'd say, "Folks, I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to hold the insurance companies accountable and trying to put the consumer in the driver's seat. Are you aware that the way these bills are written now, more than 85 percent of you would be legally prohibited from choosing a public option?" People practically fell out of the bleachers.
I happen to think that choice, whether it's private sector choice or public sector choice, is the key to competition. Competition is the key to holding the insurance companies accountable, turning the tables on the insurance lobby. It's almost as if the country has been having this debate between the ideas of private option versus public option when what we really ought to be thinking about is "no choice" option.
That's a tell, to me. Competition is what drives down costs, and for Wyden the key is not a more efficient and cheaper option from the get go, but the idea that you can choose from among options no matter who provides them. That's like being lethally injected but getting excited because the drugs come in different flavors. And you simply aren't committed to serious reform if you don't think public or private matters.
It continues to be a busy and visible time for Senator Ron Wyden, as he rides the cable and print junket for his "Free Choice" amendment to the Finance Committee inkblot. We've got two TV clips for you, a long interview that frankly makes my Spidey sense tingle in a bad way, and then a news piece from yesterday that simply makes me want to retch. So grab that sandwich and let's dig in!
We'll start with the videos. Note the way they're being presented viz Wyden's position on reform, as here at Blue Oregon but also headlining the YouTube original of the Ed clip--in short, that he's suddenly on board, talking less about plans without public options, more about plans that have them--but also, conveniently, Free Choice running alongside. And the pitch is that the news is happy--yay, he's off the fence! Is he? I'll let you watch. First is Ed Schulz, then Rachel Maddow. He says much the same in both, but Maddow asks some really piercing questions that throw him off his game at bit at the end of hers:
The rubber is beginning to really hit the road when it comes to health care in Congress; recess is over and the Baucus Caucus finally came out with a bill to mark up. It appears the rest of the Finance Committee--including our own Senator Wyden--either want to mark it with a bunch of changes (Democrats) or with a big red F (Republicans, even Olympia Snowe).
Both of our Senators have elucidated serious issues with the Finance bill, not quite as directly as Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia--who essentially declared it a dead letter and ripped the "co-op" compromise to shreds in a letter to the Gang of Six--but by attacking what the Baucus Suckus plan lacks. And for each Senator the complaint is different.
Jeff Merkley, for his part, continues to be one of the more repetitively vocal members of the chamber when it comes to support for a robust public option. His insistence has not wavered throughout a long summer of angst-ridden tea-leaf reading over whether the PO would survive the deliberative process. His refusal to sit quietly on the back bench and let the seasoned pros handle things is enormously welcome, and a big poke in the ribs to doubters (like me) who thought the key word for Merkley's first term would be "languid" rather than "loud and liberal."
Yesterday he took his advocacy to the airwaves, hitting not only The Ed Show, but also CNBC. Here's the latter clip, first:
And now, chatting with Ed Schulz:
If you like, you may consider my relegation of Senator Wyden's media efforts below the fold as some kind of "punishment" or commentary on his behavior on the health care issue. That doesn't mean it would be true (but it doesn't mean it would be false, either). What it definitely means in part, at least, is that with two vid clips, the top of the fold is already pretty big....
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
