Is Barack Obama truly gaga over Olympia Snowe? Washington -- and the rest of the nation -- might find out this week.
The latest shift in the ever-changing debate on health care reform is nudging the president into a position where he might have to choose between Snowe, his favorite Republican senator, and his own party.
Snowe appears to be the only GOPer in the entire Senate who may give Obama what he desires: bipartisan cover for health care reform. She was the sole Republican on the Senate finance committee to vote for the legislation. But her price for many Democrats is high: no public option. She has repeatedly said she cannot support a measure that would set up a government plan to compete with insurance companies (in order to keep the price of health insurance down). Snowe has proposed a trigger that would supposedly establish some sort of public option if insurance companies don't change their oligopolistic ways. But the key policy wonks who cheer a public option say Snow's trigger is connected to a gun that would shoot duds--if it's ever fired.
To keep Snowe happy, the White House--which technically supports the public option--is not pushing it. In fact, one Beltway advocate for the public option tells me that White House aides are lobbying Senate majority leader Harry Reid to keep the public option out of the version of the bill he hopes to finish crafting this week. The trouble is, most Democrats really want it in. And the momentum behind the public option--which draws majority support in recent polls--has been growing on Capitol Hill.
What a plot twist. This past summer, when all those Tea Party folks were screaming about "death panels" and a government takeover of the health care system (much of which is already run by the government; see Medicare), it did look as if the public option--and perhaps the entire bill--was about to flat-line. But now the prospects for both are a lot healthier. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she is close to assembling a majority in the House for a reform bill that includes a strong public option. In the Senate, Democrats Chuck Schumer and Jay Rockefeller--a scrappy New Yorker and a far-from-charismatic wealthy scion, truly an odd couple--have been gaining ground, as they've pressed for a public option. In recent days, a few moderate Dems who once scoffed at a government insurance plan have signaled that they might accept something resembling a public option. To appease them, Reid is weighing a public option that states could opt out of. (Snowe says she doesn't support such a plan.)
Reid doesn't need all of the 60 senators who caucus with the Democrats to embrace the public option. He only needs all of them to vote against the inevitable GOP-led filibuster. Afterward, those few Democrats skeptical of the public option would be free to vote against the actual legislation. But at that point, a health care bill with a government plan would likely pass with a simple 50-plus majority. (There's still the outside possibility that Reid will deploy a rarely-used procedural short-cut known as "reconciliation," which allows certain legislation to bypass filibusters.)
The question for Reid and the White House is, how important is Snowe? They could come up with different answers. If Reid can indeed keep his 60 votes together on a procedural vote (blocking the filibuster), he can tell Snowe to take a hike. But Obama may still want her Republican cred attached to the final bill. That would place him and Reid dramatically at odds. Complicating matters is Reid's political trouble back home in Nevada, where he is up for reelection next year. He may need the president's help there. So he might not want to tick off the White House. Then again, one local poll indicated that independent and Democratic Nevadans--whose votes he will need -- believe Reid is not sufficiently progressive. That means he may be in more peril if he abandons the public option.
Meanwhile, progressive policy advocates in Washington are becoming increasingly frustrated with the White House's fixation on Snowe. They see Reid moving closer to a bill with a public option--and the White House caring more about expropriating Snowe's brand than producing good policy.
Will Obama have to decide between a bill that gets one Senate Republican vote and a bill that includes the public option? This could be the week he confronts that tough call. To make it easy for themselves, Obama and his aides might even be rooting for Reid to fall short of a filibuster-busting majority. After all, if they are yearning for legislation that they can hail as bipartisan--even if it's as barely bipartisan as possible -- failure (Reid's, that is) may be their best option.
UPDATE: On Monday afternoon, Reid announced that his bill will include a public option with an opt-out for states.
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.
David Corn is the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine. Prior to that he was the Washington editor of The Nation magazine for twenty years... more
We've been hearing about all of those profits the health insurers are racking up. It appears that the attacks on this horrible profiteering are like everything else Obama has come out with regarding health care. It appears to be untrue. What a shock.
The entire Democrat leadership has been spreading lies about the excessive profits of the health insurance industry. Here are some facts:
FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat
By CALVIN WOODWARD WASHINGTON (AP) - Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up." Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones. Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans. Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama. The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance. They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet. But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers: THE CLAIMS _"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits." _"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership. _"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad. THE NUMBERS: Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10. The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent. HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers. The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin. UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue. Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase. But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers? Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent. The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent. --- Associated Press writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (22)
Alan
1:56PM Oct 26th 2009
You're so gullible. Those figures are AFTER they've paid astronomical salaries and advertising and over a million dollars a day for lobbyists. Without those, their profits would be more and they could LOWER premiums. A public option wouldn't have to advertise OR pay executives outrageously OR lobby Congress, and so would be offering a more affordable choice for Americans.
Gullible would be if I fell for any of your sophmoric leftist drivel. Only a fool of immense proportions can goose step happily along to the Orwellian anthem of Obama and the Marxists who surround him, as they promote a "solution" that has NEVER worked anywhere it has been tried.
I am not supporting lobbying as it is currently practised, but that doesn't mean that your idiotic STATIST solution is better. It isn't.
Maybe you have your eye on some high post in the Politburo, where you can bask in your political eliteness, but for those of us who are too sane too indulge in pathetic Marxist bureaucratic fantasies, we don't want any more power concentrated in the executive branch, or any other branch of the federal government.
We also aren't interested in devolving into a mindless pair of lips, sucking at the government tit, like those of you who aspire to social parasitism.
History is replete with the total failure of Marxism, in all of it's mutations. Big government always collapses under it's own bloated weight, crushing those it enslaves. It fosters corruption, destroys incentive, squanders resources, and destroys personal freedom. It leads to all power being concentrated in the hands of a few, and as we all know, and have witnessed throughout history: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We don't want Communism, or to be led by the mentally ill people who are inexorably drawn to the moral vacuum and lies of Marxism.
The left is vociferous in their denial of death panels, yet are nervously quiet when the truth about comparative effectiveness policy is in the spotlight. This is where rationing of health care WILL happen, and rationing WILL lead to people dying, just like it has in every other country on earth that has socialized medicine.
Obama, and the Democratic leadership is under the control of the far left Progressives. They want control of every aspect of the economy, including health care. They want a Global government, with the ultimate goal of reducing the world's population through passive euthanasia, aka denied health care, eugenics via abortion, and whatever other means they deem necessary.
It looks like the Progressives want to establish a One World Mortacracy. A world wide culture of death, and it's all for the environment, don't you know. Controlling the health care system is essential to reducing the population. Keeping people alive too long is not good from their perspective. In fact, any kind of success, whether it's living long, or being prosperous really irritates the Progressive left.
The worst incidents of democide, or murder of the citizenry by the government, has happened in Marxist/Communist countries. Hitler and the nazis are a distant third place after Mao and Stalin. Then we have Pol Pot, Lenin, and an entire parade of Leftist Progressives who have ruled Marxist Mortacracies throughout the 20th Century. Have we not learned our lesson, little Alan?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (14)
Alan
10:28PM Oct 26th 2009
LOL You ranted on and on about totally bullshyt that has nothing to do with reality. I'll just say it again, but I'm typing slow so you might could understand it this time... without having to pay huge executive salaries, and without having to advertise, and without having to pay $1.4-million a day for lobbyists, the public option will save Americans money and insurance companies will have to compete. Your communist and marxist delusions are just that... figments of your imagination. Tell me, being so scared all the time, do you still wet the bed? hahaha
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-10)
Tammy
2:14AM Oct 27th 2009
Truth, you have such a way of bringing reality back after consuming one of these liberal journalism mushrooms.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
Truth
2:30AM Oct 27th 2009
Alan,
You don't know anything about the health insurance industry, or insurance of any kind. You don't know how businesses create wealth, or how the government affects commerce with it's constant interference. All you know is leftist dogma, and like your comrades, how to lie your ass off.
The reason you type slow is because you are slow. Only a complete idiot would criticize a business for advertising. You are such an idiot. In a free market economy, that's what businesses do to compete, MORON.
You have the classic Marxist chip on your shoulder about what somebody else earns. What business is that of yours? Some fool who blathers on a blog with no knowledge of business, or much of anything else, thinks he should decide who should make what? One thing leftists all share: the need to tell everyone else what to do, despite never having become productive and successful themselves.
You are pissed off, and jealous that McDonalds won't pay you more than minimum wage. Get some useful education and compete in the free market, or shut your pie hole.
Your comment on insurance companies competing shows precisely why you can't compete. You are intellectually restricted. The government is the one that has placed restrictions on health insurance being sold across state lines, numb nuts. The ideology you embrace is restricting your brain. Give yourself some more points in the idiot column.
Obama is against removing those restrictions, which experts agree would lower costs, and give people more choices.
Obama is also against tort reform, which has conclusively proven to lower costs and improve the economy in Mississippi, previously the most litigous state in the country.
Obama won't support tort reform or removing restrictions on selling across state lines because it would reduce health care costs so much, there would be no need for a government takeover.
Labor unions lobby. Are you against that too? If you want to reform lobbying laws, why are you babbling idiotically about health care reform? I have one theory: you're a typical leftist lemming who can't think for himself, and follows the leftist talking points like all of the other goose stepping fools on the left.
Whether you are smart enough to understand it, or not, the Public Option is all about the government controlling health care and using that control to drive insurance companies out of business, not save money. Marxists hate capitalism, and insurance companies are high on the list of those they want to destroy. I guess you know that, don't you Little Al?
You are the typical babbling leftist parasite who has no experience running a business, and has no real knowledge of anything but your leftist dogma. You hang out on this blog, a leftist lapdog with a crush on David Corn. Maybe you learn should do something besides trying to bite ankles on his blog.
If you have some factual evidence that my comments on the dismal history of Marxism are wrong, put them up. Your puny attempt at dismissing my comments by sneering were impotent, at best. Your Alinsky is weak. You really need practice.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (10)
Alan
12:09AM Oct 28th 2009
LMAO More ranting that has not a thing to do with reality. Truthiness, you're a real trip. Just because you've learned big words like "marxist" doesn't mean a thing. Name me one thing Marxist that our President has done. You pukes talk in big general swaths that don't say a fkn thing. As for tort reform, you're full of it on that too. We've done that in Texas. Guess what truthiness, our premiums kept going up just like everybody else's. The only difference is... when a doctor or hospital harms a patient, they get off alot lighter in paying damages. Punitive damgages are capped at a rate so low there's no incentive for the defendants to change their procedures or practices. What the hell, they only harmed one of the little people, right? Ok IDIOT, I'll tell you one more time. The public option WILL NOT HAVE TO ADVERTISE... the insurance companies can advertise all they want, but there will be LESS OVERHEAD with the public option and that means lower premiums for us Americans. Your dumbass is wholly behind a middleman. The insurance companies take their 30% off the top and PRODUCE NOTHING. They don't treat patients, they don't make you feel better, they just take your money. The fkn MAFIA don't even get 30%. The rest of your ranting bullshyt is actually entertaining. *shout out to Flan* 'governement takeover of the healthcare industry'... hahaha You're a fkn dittohead. You are programmed to repeat the lies of fat boy and crybaby-ass beck. Lemme give you a good tip. If you want anyone here to take your rants seriously, then LINK US TO THE SOURCE. Give us something concrete that says something at least similiar to the CRAP you type... and NOT a newsmax or drudge piece of shyt. Give us a real journalist's article that looks up facts, and reports the truth. You won't, because you CAN'T.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-4)
Truth
3:10AM Oct 28th 2009
Alan,
Keep posting. Every time you do, you prove my point(s). LOL!
The less you are capable of a cogent argument against the TRUTH, the more you swear, insult, and have an infantile temper tantrum.
I'll try to explain this to you again. The public option has to be paid for by people paying taxes, MORON! The government will make people pay exhorbitant taxes to support losers like yourself, who don't make enough to pay any taxes. Obama wants to tax peoples health insurance. He plans to tax the SICK! The cost of Obama's Commie Care will be greater than what we currently pay. Are you really that stupid that you think the health care will be free? It still has to be paid for, dullard.
Government is FAR more inefficient than private enterprise, and even someone as stupid as yourself should know that.
It's not my fault you didn't get a good education, or didn't take advantage of what you did get, or, most likely, were just too stupid to get anything out of it. Too bad, comrade. I guess I can see why your goals are centered exclusively on sucking the tit of a nanny state. What else are you capable of doing? Smoking pot in your mom's basement and playing video games?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Alan
2:34PM Oct 28th 2009
"I'll try to explain this to you again. The public option has to be paid for by people paying taxes, MORON!" ------------------- See how ignorant you are. C'mon igno, give me something to work with here. The public option will be paid for by the people's premiums that are BUYING that insurance. If you'd get the simple facts correct, you MIGHT be able to understand how you're getting screwed and like a good little robot, are asking for more. I asked for ONE EXAMPLE of something the President had done that is Marxist (or communist, or fascist, or socialist for that matter) and you COULDN'T deliver. I rest my case igno.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
gvpal52
5:56AM Oct 26th 2009
Who gives a sht David?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-7)
garry402
7:54AM Oct 26th 2009
Jimmy crack Corn and I don't care.
Why do they crack Corn anyway? To make it more digestable.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
alleigh8
8:20AM Oct 26th 2009
Snowe, get out of the mosh pit! The democrats are trying to bribe you to get what they want! Get out before they drag you in.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (11)
dfalso
9:02AM Oct 26th 2009
Obama would call "one" republican vote BIPARTISAN SUPPORT? C'mon, don't you think that's a stretch. And what a let down for his real supporters on the left. He's going to be a big disappointment to everyone from the far left to the right.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (15)
rricha2027
9:31AM Oct 26th 2009
THE PEOPLE OF MAINE WILL VOTE HER OUT OF OFFICE IS THEY FEEL SHE HAS BETRAYED THEM AND IS DOING THE PRESIDENT BUSINESS
www.zazzle.com/rmgsar
RATE THIS COMMENT: (10)
DAD THE GREAT ON
9:36AM Oct 26th 2009
IS IT TRUE OLYMOIA SNOW IS NANCY PALOSI'S MOTHER?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
eric
9:50AM Oct 26th 2009
The question should be----does Snowe like Obama too much. At least Specter had guts enough to admit that he was and was probably always a jackass willing to do whatever was necessary to stay in office. That is what Snowe has always been about---me, me, me--F' the rest.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (8)
gatso27
10:46AM Oct 26th 2009
I feel sorry for Ms. snowe. She has no idea that she is being used and when they are finished with her they will stop kissing her ass and stop making her feel that she is all that important. I wonder how the people in the state of Maine feel about her now.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (11)
rthompson1329
11:16AM Oct 26th 2009
These bozo are no where near closing a health care deal as the liberal media will have us believe. They will be bickering back and forth on this till thanksgiving !
RATE THIS COMMENT: (8)
haveletgothecoat
11:26AM Oct 26th 2009
He SHOULD love Olympia Snowe - as much as true Republicans should despise her. She's been a RINO for years, and I'm amazed Maine's Republican Party continues to allow her to engage in such outright duplicity. She should be expelled from the Party.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (11)
Pundit
11:02AM Oct 27th 2009
Sen. Snowe's joining repub colleagues 58% of the time is proven via her voting record and she has a 70% Maine popularity, illustrates why she & Sen. Collins are the last two (r) North East Senators.