THE HILL
 

Durbin, Feinstein rally for public option

By J. Taylor Rushing - 11/22/09 01:08 PM ET

Centrist Democrats acted appropriately in supporting a healthcare reform bill with a public option, senior Democrats Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," vowing a vigorous fight until the end of the coming debate.

On the heels of the Senate's 60-39 vote on Saturday night for the Democratic-written healthcare bill, Feinstein immediately adressed the concern among centrist Democrats that the bill's cost is too high.

"You have the vote, and I think the vote will decide," Feinstein said, referring to the nature of Saturday's procedural vote, which is far from a final vote. "To not to vote, to not to consider this question... America's in serious problems with respect to healthcare. Virtually every other developed country has a better system than we do. Ours is costly, in places it's ineffective, it's deeply troubled, and the time has come to really see that people who have no insurance can really get insurance."

Feinstein touted the phased-in nature of the bill, noting its small-business tax credits start immediately while more controversial aspects such as the public option component come online in 2014.

"The bill, in a sense, is incremental," she said. "We can watch it. We can change it. The important thing is, we debate it... We're at the beginning of what is a great national debate."

Saturday's procedural vote was only a beginning step in a weeks-long process towards final congressional passage, with ultimate approval unlikely until January. But Republicans have been on the attack, starting with the Democratic caucus's own members — namely Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who conferences with Democrats and who has been skeptical about a public-option component to the law.

Lieberman told NBC's "Meet The Press" host David Gregory that he voted Saturday to continue scrutiny, but that "I don't think anybody thinks this bill will pass as written."

Pressed on his filibuster threat against the bill, Lieberman said the only Senate opponents to a public-option component are empowered early in the process.

""If the public option is still in there, the only option we have is to reporting the bill off the floor, but let me explain... We've got to make choices. We've got a healthcare system that has real troubles. But we have an economic system that is in real crisis. And I don't want to fix the problems in our healthcare system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis."

Senate Majority Leader Durbin, on the same program, said he believed Lieberman would follow the same Democratic line, noting that insurance companies currently operate outside federal antitrust exemption laws

"We need competition. We need choices. We have to put some honesty back into the insurance market," Durbin said. "I hope we can move to a point where we satisfy Joe Lieberman's concerns that this does not end up being a government debt, but ends up being a government solution."

Pressed on the possibilities that Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) may support a bill that includes a public-trigger, or some sort of watered-down, government-run option, Durbin was succinct.

"There are many variations on the theme," Durbin said. "I'm committed to a public option. We've put together a good bill. We are open, because we want to pass this bill. At the end of the day, we want insurance to be more affordable, we want to stop the insurance industry abuses, we want to give the American people a choice in this decision."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said she would vote for a bill that authorized federal control of government insurance rates, but only tied to inflation, not to government-tied inflation rates.

"Every hospital that treats patients will be cut in this bill. Every hospital that treats patents who don't pay will be cut," Hutchison said, referring to Medicare payments proposed by some Democrats under the bill. "So what are they going to gain? We don't have to tear down our entire whole system and the choices that we have and the quality healthcare that we have in order to give more affordable healthcare."

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69039-durbin-feinstein-go-to-bat-for-public-option

Comments (23)

Dianne Feinstein is so wealthy that no matter what form of Govt-run healthcare she imposes on us, she will still get the best private health care her multi-millions can buy. She is a fraud.BY Central Valley guy on 11/22/2009 at 12:42
Let's be clear: by voting for this radical legislation last night, Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln have proven once again that they are NOT "moderate" or "centrist" as the media continually repeats. These four senators support govt-run healthcare, support rationing, and support the $500 billion assault on our senior citizens. Shame on them!BY not centrist on 11/22/2009 at 12:48
"NOT CENTRIST", I remind you that this vote was not for the bill as written, but for the legislation to be brough up for debate and amendments. This includes the Stupak-Pitts amendment barring public funds from covering abortions, and some serious taming of the public option and thousands of mandates.BY Kevin Crouch on 11/22/2009 at 14:22
KBH told the panel that she should be fired if Tim Geithner should be fired. I agree. Get rid of her. KBH's 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout vote was inexcusable. Put in a new Senator who is actually articulate and would actually show up to work for more than media opportunities.BY Wewillrockyou on 11/22/2009 at 14:31
To decrease costs, we would have to truly reevaluate the way Americans perceive medical care. “Thoroughness” would need to have a new meaning, one that does not include utilizing every available technology, but only those technologies whose costs are justified by the expected clinical benefit. A cultural revolution, which is undoubtedly much more difficult to achieve than one purely economic, would need to come about before America truly accepted any changes in health care. Do we as Americans have the will and clarity to do what is morally right?BY Davy Crockett on 11/22/2009 at 16:07
As a Canadian, I find the American fear of socialized health care difficult to understand. Under the Canadian system, my daughter's life was saved when, as a baby, she was highly jaundiced and needed a complete blood exchange. When I was forty-nine, I required major surgery, and again our socialized health care system came to my aid. My sister also needed major surgery, and received prompt and thorough treatment. When my mother died, she was able to do so without pain and in dignity, with complete support from the medical system. The only financial cost to me and my family takes the form of a regular and very modest monthly tax. As a taxpayer, I willingly and gladly support my fellow Canadians who require medical assistance, in gratefulness to all those citizens and health-care professionals who helped me and my family in our moments of medical crisis. Every family has these crises, and some need more help than others. In Canada, every citizen contributes to socialized health care and every citizen benefits.BY Ristudi on 11/22/2009 at 17:21
This bill is only written to please future election fund contributors.period, Read the bill and CBO report anf GAO report on fraud and mismanagement.IGNORE opinions as they are paid for.The ACTUAL bill and reports have the FACTS. These pages will tell you who the legislation protects profitwise and those protected WILL bundle funds for reElection!!BY GRO on 11/22/2009 at 17:27
Wake up Ohio. We need to vote Sherrod Brown out.BY Wonderboy on 11/22/2009 at 18:30
While I have strong disagreements with some of these so called centarists — especially Joe Lieberman — their vote was simply for the Senate to consider this bill. You Republicans — when George II was at the White House — used to lecture us about the right of a President to have an up-or-down vote. Here we have an issue that has been around for about 100 years — universal healthcare was first proposed by Republican Teddy Roosevelt about a century ago. You guys had no problem shoving $1.3 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans on a reconcilliation vote — a procedure requiring 51 votes. If Lieberman and the Blue Dog Democrats try to kill this bill on a procedural vote by fiibustering, I think Harry Reid should go with this procedure. And Lieberman, who campaigned not only for John McCain, but for other Republicans last year — should be stripped of his seniority and committee chairmanship.BY Ray Cohn on 11/22/2009 at 19:52
I do not know how these dirty polititians sleep at night.They draw their support for this takeover, from poor,desperate people who so much want to believe.They have covinced their proponents that the minute this becomes law ,those without health care will have it. They claim the poor will be subsidized,with out giving any figures.Knowing that to the unfortunate this means free.What if subsidized means these people will be required to make substantial contributions?Do any of these people understand that we will reestablish a debtors prison?Do they not see that most of the cost will be transfered right back to the states after a few years,but the revenue will continue to go to the feds.If we had honest polititians or an educated electorate this slimey stuff could not happen.BY Sheri on 11/22/2009 at 20:00

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

bloglogo

More Briefing Room »

More Congress Blog »

More Pundits Blog »

More Twitter Room »

More Hillicon Valley »

More E2-Wire »

More Ballot Box »

More On The Money »
You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.