Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. Since 1964, to be exact. So he was unabashedly emotional as the Senate Finance Committee neared completion of its work on health reform. "I feel the way I feel and I am who I am," the West Virginia Democrat said at the end of a teary, post-midnight monologue about his work as a VISTA volunteer 45 years ago.
Who is he and how does he feel? The great-grandson and namesake of America's first billionaire, John D. Rockefeller IV is a 6-foot-6, 72-year-old Harvard graduate who studied Japanese in Tokyo and Chinese at Yale. He's also a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor – and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.
"I will not relent on that. That's the only way to go," Rockefeller told me in an interview. "There's got to be a safe harbor."
President Obama often says a public option is needed to drive down costs and keep insurance companies honest. To Rockefeller, it's both more basic and more vital: The federal government is the only institution people can count on in times of need. To conservatives, that same government is inefficient, intrusive and, in Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley's words, "a predator" in the market. The coming clash promises to be a defining moment, for Rockefeller, Obama and both political parties.
The Senate Finance Committee is expected to approve its bill this week, and it will not have a public option. Rockefeller's version lost 15-8, and a variation from New York Sen. Charles Schumer lost 13-10. The heated committee debate previewed what will be a similar but higher-profile debate on the floor.
Will the end result be the same? Rockefeller sees these reasons for hope:
- Four other House and Senate committees produced health bills that have a public option.
- A Finance Committee member came up to him after the public option vote, "somebody who had not necessarily voted for it," and told him to stick with it because "it could work out well in the end."
-The Senate is fluid. Tweaks may draw new support for a public option. Some people may agree to vote to shut off a filibuster, which takes 60 votes, even if they oppose a public option or a bill that includes it. "People make speeches in July or August, 'this is my line in the sand,' and then life gets to be a little bit more realistic. People can change. Pressure is brought to bear. The president enters the situation."
-"The president wants it, he told me personally. I think he will work very hard for it." When the House and Senate are ready to reconcile differences in their bills, "you may have that conference in the Cabinet Room at the White House. The White -House is going to be very, very much involved in that."
- Other alternatives are weak, and the Senate floor is a good place to expose their weaknesses.
Rockefeller is dismissive of consumer-owned co-ops, such as Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota has proposed, as an alternative to the public option. They are mostly associated with farmers and utilities and "they generally went out with World War II," Rockefeller told me. Of the few health care co-ops, the best is in Washington and yet, Rockefeller points out, both senators from that state voted for a public option. "That should tell you something," he said. (So should the Congressional Budget Office conclusion that co-ops wouldn't have much impact in most markets).
He is equally critical of proposals that would allow states to create public plans or open their state employee health systems to state residents, either immediately or if insurance companies don't meet certain standards of coverage, affordability or competition. "Triggers don't work," he said, and state options would leave uninsured people subject to the whim of a governor or the fiscal condition of a state.
Furthermore, if you bought a state policy, what if you moved? Say, from West Virginia to Oklahoma? "Who's going to regulate? Who's going to watch? I don't want it to be the folks from Oklahoma. Because I have a feeling they don't pay a lot of attention to those things," Rockefeller said. Bottom line: "There are some things that require broader authority."
In the end, Rockefeller's own line in the sand might have to change. I asked if he could ever accept any kind of trigger. "Generally you don't say never," he said.
Rockefeller's distrust of the insurance industry is profound and not surprising. I met him when he first became governor of West Virginia in 1977. His populist crusades back then included trying to buy, and then condemn, flat land owned by a big development company so flood victims could move to houses off the flood plain.
Now he says he expects insurance companies to evade whatever new rules are adopted under health reform, and some experts agree with him. Rockefeller successfully fought last week to preserve the Children's Health Insurance Program rather than move low-income children onto a new exchange, or marketplace. CHIP provides benefits tailored to children, he said; on the exchange, they'd be "at the mercy of private insurance companies."
Rockefeller also plans to push his proposal to prevent misuse of new federal subsidies meant to help low- and middle-income people buy insurance. Under his proposal, he says, insurance companies would have to use at least 85% of the subsidy money for medical care -- instead of profits, salaries, trips and "mausoleums of buildings."
In his negative view of the insurance industry, Rockefeller is well within mainstream public opinion. He's out of fashion, though, when it comes to his faith in the federal government, a faith that dates from seeing poverty up close and personal in the coal mining town of Emmons, W.Va. He arrived the same year President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty," a year before the Medicaid and Medicare programs were signed into law.
The impact of those days on Rockefeller – he became a West Virginian and a politician – was clear to members of the Finance Committee and whoever was watching its deliberations on C-SPAN Friday at 12:17 a.m. He haltingly told the story of the job interview he got for Eddie, 18, at Union Carbide in Charleston. Eddie had never been to Charleston, 45 minutes away. He had never seen a traffic light or an elevator or a Venetian blind. When the interviewer suggested that Eddie let the blinds down to keep the sun out of his eyes, the teen-ager fiddled with the ropes, became humiliated and finally "hung his full weight" from the bottom seven or eight slats. Nothing moved.
At this point, Rockefeller apologized for choking up. He said Eddie sat down and the interview proceeded – "but he couldn't give his name. He'd been stripped of all self-worth. What I'd done to him was substantially damaging to him ... He had me by his side and it didn't work. He had Medicaid by his side and it did work. So I like to keep poor people where they have health care benefits." He said he can't bring himself to look at his typewritten diary from his Emmons days, and teared up again.
You don't get crisp sound bites from Rockefeller, or the charisma of a Kennedy. He's not a fixture on Sunday talk shows and he's never run for president. In fact, in 1991, Rockefeller toyed publicly with the idea and refused for some time to rule it out. He told me back then that he didn't want to end the White House speculation because it kept people interested in what he had to say about health care.
That's hardly the problem now. "There is no air in Washington, there is no oxygen, that is not sitting on a table called health care. It's very, very intense," Rockefeller said. After the committee vote this week, there will be work to merge its bill with another Senate health bill. Then there will be the floor fight, and then the House-Senate conference committee.
"All that time I'm going to be battling to keep what we've won and get what we haven't won," Rockefeller told me. An opportunity like this comes once in a lifetime, he said, and can't be ignored.
Like a Swiss Watch, Jill Lawrence presents the views of this nations most radical leftists. Whether she is citing one of the George Soros Shadow groups, or interviewing a leading fascist liberal like Rockefeller, she clearly shows the strings to her puppet-like leftist brain.
Rockefeller is a reprehensible, duplicitous leftist who is always in the vanguard of the Progrssive left agenda for ultimate big government, i.e. the One World government.
Only an heir to $100,000,000 plus could start blubbering over that ridiculous story about a most likely fictitious person named "Eddie". Lawrence did a masterfully crappy job of writing it, not that it was worth a damn to begin with. This "Eddie" story is so pathetically written, and lacking in believability, only two leftists could be responsible this idiocy.
If Rockefeller is so choked up about Eddie, why doesn't he cough up some of his own unearned (by him) riches, instead of putting the burden on people far poorer than himself.
I will have respect for liberal Senators, worth many millions, the day I see one give all of his money to the poor, and for once put his money where his big, fat, lying mouth is. These girly men like to feign great compassion for the poor, but the charity stops at their bank account.
Rockeller is a fraud, and Lawrence is a Soros Shill, and this article is pure propaganda.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (21)
Stella
7:35AM Oct 5th 2009
Right On, Truth! I am just glad I wasn't present during this "emotional" time--I know I would have barfed. Rockefeller is just a vintage version of Hugo Chavez. Just think how much better those poor folks in West Virginia would have fared had it not been for these "I'll bring home the bacon--you just sit back and enjoy" representatives of the masses? Those folks need to be taught how to fish for themselves for once in their lives. Now Cap and Trade will ruin them--and what will Mr. Rockefeller do? RETIRE or DIE, I guess. Good luck, West Virginia--and wise up.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (14)
cjjanis
9:08AM Oct 5th 2009
Turd and Stella here need to wake up and smell the coffee. Their own party the GOP polls in favor of health care reform. The GOP even polls in favor of a public option. As if for some reason these two think high cost of health care passes over republicans. Here they are protecting a industry that has 100% increase in cost over the last 5 years and who's CEOs enjoy a 400% increase in income. These two protect folks like McGuire of United Health Care who made 1.6 billion over the last 5 years. He didn't do that by providing health care, he did that by refusing people rightful claims. Notice how they attack Rockefeller, as if that has anything to do with health care. I don't care what the man has or makes when it comes time to pay my health insurance bill. Here the dems are offering to take on a major problem that effects us all and is holding us back, and the GOP offers nothing but piss and vinegar. What dose the GOP offer for this very real problem? Blank sheets of paper, just like their budget. The GOP answer to health care is don't get sick, if you get sick, don't. if you are really sick, die quickly. So turds answer is for the rich to give up their money? Strange thats what they have been pissing about? This same turd had no problems spending trillions in Iraq? Providing health care for Iraqis on our dime, but when it comes to real Americans look out! These same two like their party leaders offer nothing but lies and smears, why didn't the GOP do something about health care when they were in office? Could it be they where paid to look the other way? Not only did they look the other way they passed laws in favor of the industry, allowing them to collude and fix prices. Something no American industry is allowed to do. The GOP only answer is tort reform? So they want to over rule the judgement of a jury of fellow Americans and set a price on a persons life. Tort reform is a gift to the insurance industry, it will set a price for your life so the insurance companies can factor in that cost as a price for doing business. Health care reform will help all. Those with insurance will see their price drop and the cost of med drop. Those without will get coverage and stop clogging up the ERs. Hospitals won't have to cut back services because they over run with non-paying patients. Business will see cost of health care coverage drop and will free up funds for other things. programs like medicare and medicaid will see cost drop and reform of these program will open up more funds for better services. Reform is needed for a true economic recovery and the only thing standing in the way is the billions being spend by the insurance industry to block it and the politicans bribed by their millions in both parties.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-9)
cjjanis
9:23AM Oct 5th 2009
A few simple things to remember about health care 1 we already pay for the un-insured with high costs and poor service because our ERs are clogged.
2 The GOP screams your taxes will go up, yet Obama promise they won't. But lets just say they do? are you willing to pay a little more in taxes and see your insurance cost drop and meds drop? Are you willing to pay a few hundred more a year to save thousands?
3 The GOP offers nothing, yet we know cost will double in 5 years if we don't do anything. Big Pharma came to the table and has offered up big cuts in cost, yet the insurance industry has choose to dump billions into fighting reform, where do you think they got that money?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-12)
michem55
11:47AM Oct 5th 2009
captprozac -- I can only hope that you are right, and that people see this man for what he is: He is just some rich elitist that doesn't want to help people with his own money, he wants someone else (the lower middle class) to bear all of the burden. That is what all these stupid democratic plans do -- they hurt the middle class by taxing them to death. I am all for helping the poor, I will donate my own money and volunteer when I don't have much to donate. But it is WRONG for all of these "do gooders" (especially the rich ones) that want to steal my money for their causes. Go out and help yourself, take your hand out of my pocket as I am already giving as much as I can, you greedy SOB.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
jodylrwebb
12:11PM Oct 5th 2009
Is it c-anas or cjjanis??. How can you defend anything that has in its ranks Rod Blagojevich , Roland Burris ,ACORN and much more. Your not real smart but just need to pay more attention would help some.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (5)
ProPalin
5:36PM Oct 5th 2009
Right! He won't relent? THen HE CAN PAY FOR IT.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Abraham Foxx
8:00PM Oct 5th 2009
cjjanus
It does no good to bandy words with "Irrelevent/Truth." He knows nothing, says nothing, tries to tell you who you are and is always 180 degrees in the wrong direction. And please don't mistake him/her/it for a Republican; or his little canary Stella. They are Wacko Far Right Extremists that go beyond the boundaries of the GOP.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (3)
Pundit
9:00PM Oct 5th 2009
Delete the unanimous; "Do Nothing obstructionists" as even Murdoch's WSJ proves, that their is little if any value in retaining the tiny "just 23% remaining" party of NO Idea fools! 10/04/09 http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Sept. 17-20, 2009. adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
1) "Do you generally approve or disapprove of the way that Republicans in Congress are handling the issue of health care reform?"
2) "Requiring that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions."
9/17-20/09 63% Must Be Included 26% Prefer It Be Included 5% Prefer It Not Be Included 4% Must Not Be Included 2% Unsure
Anyone who clings to (R)assmussen outLIERS is a Totalitarian 'Wannabe' propagandist.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Pundit
10:20PM Oct 5th 2009
9/14/09 Majority of Dr s & citizens WANT the Obama Public option choice as Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance.
That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats.
In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system.
* Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.
When the American public is polled, anywhere from;
Anyone who clings to always errant (R)assmussen outLIERS is a Totalitarian 'Wannabe' propagandist.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
R. C. Jackman
11:05PM Oct 5th 2009
Jay Rockefeller is a champion for a public (government-controlled) health plan option. But he seems very much against state control. Now Congress does have the authority to override state regulations; it could establish a public option nationally controlled. But if you allow the public option to operate across state lines, why not allow the private companies also to operate across state lines? Fair is fair, and competition is good.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (8)
R. C. Jackman
6:00AM Oct 7th 2009
Allow both public and private to operate across state lines.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
jpgoodrow
9:56PM Oct 4th 2009
Sorry he had to wait 45-years. But he can rest assured it will take much less time for his constituents to boot him and anyone else who supports this socialist agenda that drags down every American to substandard care to accommodate the few.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
bobjimflys
9:57PM Oct 4th 2009
I understand passion, I have had it for many projects. If we are to make this healthcare for all, then this must happen: IT SHALL BE MANDATORY FOR THE PRESIDENT AND ALL OF HIS FAMILY, IT SHALL BE MANDATORY FOR HIS STAFF AND ALL THEIR FAMILIES, IT SHALL ME MANDATORY FOR ALL IN THE SENATE, IT SHALL BE MANDATORY FOR ALL IN CONGRESS, IT SHALL BE MANDATORY FOR ALL JUDGES, NO EDWARD KENNEDY OPTION TO OPT OUT, THAT WILL NOT BE THERE, AND THESE PEOPLE WILL BE MANDATED TO USE THIS HEALTHCARE FOR THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL LIVES... Put this in the Bill and I will be able to support it, if not, it is not worth the paper it will be printed on... thank you
RATE THIS COMMENT: (42)
jenreg
12:36AM Oct 5th 2009
I AGREE WITH YOU...LET'S ALL GET INTO THE SAME BOAT
RATE THIS COMMENT: (27)
cjjanis
9:36AM Oct 5th 2009
Bob You have not been paying attention have you? Its called an option, meaning if you have insurance and like it, you can keep it. All those folks already have GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTH CARE! Will those without get the same plan? Nope but some thing is better then nothing! the fact of the matter is all those in the senate and congress go to Bethesda Naval Hospital when they get sick, again a GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. They don't go to their local hospital or doctors!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-10)
cjjanis
9:52AM Oct 5th 2009
Bob On second thought I agree with you! That would be universal health care, and its what we should do! There shouldn't be profit in health care at all, the concept that people should profit off the sickness of others is just wrong. What people here don't understand is in the UK France and Canada they still have health insurance companies, they just cover the high end things like boob jobs and the like.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Natalie
7:34PM Oct 5th 2009
thank you. You said it all. I only hope we do not have this horrible bill rammed down our throats.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (2)
dmcrac-dkln
10:25PM Oct 4th 2009
Congress must test their theories before imposing their programs on the voters. While Congress learns to live without money but with a load of stupid health care ideas we, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL: build a new Capitol in Lincoln, Nebraska and a new Treasury Department.; Elect a new Congress and House of Reps, relocate our new Congress to Nebraska; let WA DC feel how it feels to lose ALL YOUR FUNDS and COMMON SENSE! This is how America now has to live thanks to our "STUPIDLY" behaved Congress and President. (And we'll retain our Constitution!)