Senate Dems to Obama: Um, a Little Help Here?

After a weekend of furious activity, Democratic leaders in the Senate think they are close to getting the votes they need in order to pass an "opt-out" version of the public option.

But they feel like President Obama could be doing more to help them, with one senior staffer telling TNR on Sunday that the leadership would like, but has yet to receive, a clear "signal" of support for their effort.

The White House, for its part, says President Obama supports a strong public option, as he always has--and that, as one senior administration official puts it, the president will support the Senate leadership in "whichever way" it chooses to go on this particular question.

Read those statements carefully and you'll see they don't actually contradict each other. Instead, they offer a pretty good picture of where the public option debate is at the beginning of a week that could quite possibly decide its fate.

For those just tuning in, the underlying issue here is whether to create a government-run insurance program into which people could enroll voluntarily and that might, ideally, provide more affordable coverage while providing the private insurance industry with much-needed competition. As recently as two or three weeks ago, many observers (this writer included) thought the idea was more or less dead politically.

But interest in the public option has surged, thanks in part to anger at the insurance industry and the idea's resiliency in opinion surveys. Supporters of the public plan have made headway by seizing on a proposed compromise first introduced by Delaware Senator Tom Carper--a proposal under which the federal government would create some sort of national public plan, but still allow states to opt out of it.

Key liberal proponents of the public plan, like Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, have indicated they could support an opt-out. More important, key centrist Senators have hinted some they might be amenable to such a proposal, as well. According to several Capitol Hill sources, those statements--along with private conversations between the leadership and their members--have convinced Democrat leaders it's possible to pass an opt-out. In fact, they think may be just one or two votes away from sixty, the number necessary to break a filibuster. (Not every senator who votes to break the filibuster would necessarily vote for the final plan.)

But when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid briefed the president at the White House on Wednesday, Obama responded with a series of tough questions--not rejecting the idea, but not rushing to embrace it, either. When word of that meeting leaked out, public option supporters took Obama's reaction to mean that the administration continued to prefer the "trigger" compromise, under which a failure by private insurers to deliver affordable coverage would trigger the creation of a public plan.

Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, the lone Republican working with Democrats on health care, favors a trigger. And it's no secret that the administration has worked hard to keep her on board--either because Obama wants at least one Republican vote, because he believes losing her might mean losing some moderate Democrats, or some combination thereof.

Whatever his reasons--and it's possible only Obama himself knows--his reaction prompted complaints that generated headlines in the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo, among others. The administration responded by stating, clearly, it was not trying to undercut the Senate leadership. But it still did not go out of its way to support the opt-out--something the Senate leadership noticed, according to the senior staffer.

The administration could send a signal, in some form or fashion, that they support the Democratic leadership's proposal to include this public option with a state opt-out in the bill. ... a word of support from the president, from [administration spokesman Robert] Gibbs at the podium, any number of ways ... any indication of support would be appreciated by the leadership.

This staffer added that administration officials "seem more interested in pursuing an Olympia Snowe strategy."

The administration, meanwhile, continued to say what it was saying late last week: That Obama wants the strongest possible public option that the Senate will approve--and that it stands behind Reid's effort to build that support. On Sunday, a senior administration official told TNR

We will be 100 percent behind whichever direction Reid decides to go. ... Reid hasn't asked for help. He is polling his caucus to make a decision on the opt out or the trigger. Whichever way he chooses, president Obama will help make the sale publicly and privately.

Late in the day, the White House also posted a statement to its website:

A rumor is making the rounds that the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option.  Those rumors are absolutely false.

In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition.  That continues to be the President's position. 

Senator Reid and his leadership team are now working to get the most effective bill possible approved by the Senate. President Obama completely supports their efforts and has full confidence they will succeed and continue the unprecedented progress that is being made in both the House and Senate.

Again, the statements of the senior Senate staffer and senior administration official--each one saying what several other similarly placed sources have said, on background--are not as inconsistent as they might seem at first blush.

On the contrary, it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that Obama really would prefer a strong public option--but that he, like his advisers, has serious concerns over whether such an option can pass. In other words, he wants a good public plan but he wants a bill even more--and he's not sure that the former is compatible with the latter. So he's being careful--more careful, in fact, than some of his Senate allies would like.

Updated: I fleshed out the post with some analysis, as promised in the initial posting.

 

COMMENTS (8)

10/26/2009 - 3:27am EDT |

Wall Street to Obama: Um, a little help here?

Can he come through again for the people?

A strong advocate for the "public option". Oh, sure he is. After all, has he done anything in office that might lead us to believe otherwise?

You guys still expect him to morph back into candidate Obama, don't you?

Great. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

george

10/26/2009 - 8:43am EDT |

Like many of you, I am for the public option. Like Senator Rockefeller, among others, I regard the "opt-out" proposal as an acceptable compromise. And, like most Democrats, I consider the Olympia Snowe "trigger" a bad idea that would never result in an actual public option. Nevertheless, the priorities of getting health insurance for most of the currently uninsured, getting rid of denials for prior conditions, guaranteeing portability, and some of the other agreed upon measures would, in balance, be worth doing even in the absence of a public option. So I support Obama's treading carefully here, not wanting to derail the precarious legislative process by overreaching. Staunch advocates ... view full comment

10/26/2009 - 11:27am EDT |

Yes, Jack, the best strategy in negotiation with those that really don't want to accept much of what you wish to achieve is to agree to their (Snowe, Bluedog) demands. Worked well for fearless leaders like Chamberlain who gave the world Peace in His Time. No way Obama should spend any political capital on an issue of minimum value to the future of his presidency and future Democratic majorities. The voting public will appropriately reward him and the Democrats once they learn they are immediately mandated to purchase more expensive insurance that covers less. PLEASE twist no arms in Congress-- someone might think the less of you. That approach ended in disaster for LBJ when he tried it ... view full comment

10/26/2009 - 3:50pm EDT |

The state "opt-out" idea is a very bad one. Perhaps I feel that way because I come from a very conservative red state that will go 180 degrees from anything Obama proposes just so he'll fail and because our legislators will want to make a "statement" that "we" don't support his "socialist " ideas.

The people most in need of a Public Option in my state will never get one under the opt-out plan. If this is the compromise to get the Public Option....no thanks. Health insurance reform needs to be available to all citizens in all states equally or it will not work.

10/26/2009 - 3:54pm EDT |

gdbittner - sarcasm aside, it sounds like you would prefer no bill to one that does not contain a public option. Did i get that right?

You could be right that Obama going "all in" for the public option might make the crucial difference, but unlike you, I think coming away empty-handed would be disastrous.

10/26/2009 - 5:44pm EDT |

Jack,
Not as disastrous as a bill that is a disaster. A public option is not absolutely necessary to control costs and assure (near) universality. However, do you agree all the alternative "trigger" or "co-op" plans so far put on the table are sham plans? If the Republicans were at all politically smart, they'd have a couple members vote for a "trigger" (that everyone knows will stands near-zero chance of ever getting pulled) to ensure "bipartisanship" that BO can own.

10/26/2009 - 9:09pm EDT |

gdbittner - yes, I do agree that "trigger" and "coop" plans are shams. But despite the valid concern of desertdog, I do not consider "opt-out" a sham, and according to the latest news flash, for whatever it's worth, neither does Harry Reid, who did not bite at the Snowe trigger bait.

10/27/2009 - 9:02am EDT |

Jack,
I think we're in agreement. I'd far sooner that BO risk more up front--- and then backpedal later on, if need be. I am very concerned that he constantly compromises from the get-go and all too often places bipartisanship, common ground as the highest goal or good, rather than the validity of the policy or the political gain. That only works if both sides are basically rational.

get the magazine

Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.

Get our newsletters

Get Our Feed