About | RSS

TPM LiveWire

Bill Nelson: I Prefer Trigger To Opt-Out Compromise

Ben Frumin | October 12, 2009, 3:13PM

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)

AHIP, Baucus Bill, Bill Nelson, Health care, Olympia Snowe, Opt-out, Public Option, Senate Finance Committee, Trigger

Send to a friend!

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said on MSNBC a few moments ago that he prefers a "trigger" option on health care reform -- of the sort favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) -- to the new "opt-out" compromise -- which would allow states to individually opt out of a public health insurance option -- that is gaining favor with some Democrats.

"I think it ought to be available in all markets, each of the states," Nelson said. "The idea is, let the free market competition really determine what the rates are."

Nelson said the "trigger" plan "would be more important" than the "opt-out" compromise, saying that "otherwise you could have a state (that) would say, well, the insurance companies lobbied that state and they just completely did what the insurance companies wanted and took away the public option."

Nelson also said he expects the Baucus bill to pass the Senate Finance Committee tomorrow: "All the Democrats will vote for it to get it out of the committee. And I'm very hopeful and I'm very optimistic that Olympia will as well."

Nelson also had harsh words for the health insurer trade group AHIP's audit of the Baucus bill, saying that "you have to look at who produced the report -- the insurance industry did."

Comments (13) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

Former Federal Employee

October 12, 2009 3:55 PM

I'll concede that there will be insurance company lobbying in the event of an opt-out public option. But the insurance companies won't stop spending money until they've killed the public option in whatever form, or they sense that it's established itself and further lobbying is futile. I think Nelson would rather push back the decision point until there are more Republicans in the Senate, but maybe that's just me.

My sense of it is that there are enough states - big, populous states - to give the public option the critical mass it requires to survive competition with the established insurance companies, even without the public insurer doing things like reflexive rejection of claims to stay profitable. I could be wrong, though, and I'd love to hear from TPM about how and why the opt-out is stronger than co-ops in this regard.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tanjaoui

October 13, 2009 7:28 AM in reply to Former Federal Employee

Co-ops are supposedly too small to compete with big insurers. According to some - can't think where I've read this, sorry - they've been tried and languished. As you say, a huge risk pool is one of the biggest considerations in bringing down cost (the appeal of single payer). And a national or multi-state program is going to have either (1) a lot of leverage to negotiate drug and procedure prices down, or (2) [preferably] - be tied to Medicare +5% reimbursement rates. But I'm not too deep into the wonkdom of it all, so don't quote me on this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rosebowl

October 12, 2009 3:57 PM

The problem with "triggers" is they never get triggered. A trigger option is just an easy way out for Congress to punt on making tough decisions on health care costs right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tanjaoui

October 13, 2009 7:29 AM in reply to rosebowl

Right. And who gets to decide whether they've been triggered. It's just a pfaff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fnord12

October 12, 2009 4:08 PM

If i understood it correctly, Snowe's trigger was at the state level. Individual states get triggered in, and their public plan is only state-wide. So if my understanding was correct, Nelson's making no sense at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

October 12, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to fnord12

did nelson ever say he supported snowe's triggers??

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tosh

October 12, 2009 4:48 PM

The Trigger *is* stronger.

Nelson just isn't clear in what it's stronger in doing:

Protecting Big Health's Interests.

John

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tanjaoui

October 13, 2009 7:32 AM in reply to tosh

That's what I've heard too. Better a bird in the hand than two in the bush.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Fuddnik

October 12, 2009 4:56 PM

Nelson just wants to kill the public option. The trigger is the easiest way to do it.

I head he got a good jeering over the week-end at the Florida Democratic Conference. Every time he tried to speak, the place erupted in chants of "Public Option, Public Option".

I sent him a nice letter, that should be on his desk tomorrow, along with a stack of my unpaid medical bills. I said, "here, you pay them. My insurance company that you're trying so hard to protect won't, and I can't".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

pol

October 12, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Fuddnik

I sent him a nice letter, that should be on his desk tomorrow, along with a stack of my unpaid medical bills.

I hope you sent them to his local office. His mail in DC gets screened for anthrax, and letters come to him about 6 weeks late, compressed with many others into a 12" cube. I saw the "mail" delivered once while visiting offices of Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?