Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Health Care in the Senate: An Interview with Chuck Schumer.
Senator Chuck Schumer is the third-ranked Democrat in the Senate, one of the most prominent advocates for a public plan, and among the earliest Democrats to recognize that the ongoing negotiations with Senate Republicans had become a waste of time. I talked to him last night about the politics of health-care reform; an edited transcript follows. Earlier today, I spoke with Rep. Tom Perriello about some of the same issues.
What do you think the president needs to do tomorrow during the health-care speech to get things rolling again?
Well, I think he’s got to lay out a fairly specific plan. One of the weaknesses we’ve had is that we don’t have a specific plan. I don’t think he needs details as to the exact number of this or level of that, but really what he’s envisioning to be health care in some degree of detail. That’s what’s needed most. Without the detail they make up these lies about the plan, you know, they just make things up and scare people. And without the plan, it's also very hard to say here’s how its going to benefit you.
In the month or so ahead, what does the White House need to do?
I think they’ve got to be much more involved, and much more focused on what they actually want, as opposed to saying, 'let Congress do it and we’ll fix it in conference.' That never really happens. When House and Senate pass bills … you’re not going to end up with something totally different in the conference.
I think a lot of people are expecting conference to fix that. I mean, does the White House -
No, you know, you can change things but its not going to deviate that far from either bill. You have a really poor bill in the Senate and a really poor bill in the House, the odds of getting a very good bill out of conference are too small to risk.
I’m curious, the leadership was trying to use reconciliation as way to force Republicans to the bargaining table. Do you think that failed and do you think reconciliation is still part of the plan?
I think we still have to look seriously at reconciliation because even with 60 Democrats, you know, if we’re able to get somebody here from Massachusetts, it’s not easy to do.
Are you planning on having an interim appointment from Massachusetts?
No, I don’t know. That would be up to the Massachusetts state legislature but I know they’re considering it. Ah, so, so the bottom line is that even with 60 or even if Olympia Snowe comes to some kind of agreement, it’s going to be hard, and I’ve always favored using reconciliation for good parts of the bill. I think that will get you the best bill, the strongest bill and the bill that will have the greatest positive effect on the American people. Ultimately, we’ll be judged not by whether we pass the bill, but ultimately we’ll be judged by weather it works. Leaving the bill as something that doesn’t work, even if we pass it, leads to hurting both the country and the party.
-- Tim Fernholz
Is it possible that using reconciliation will produce an ineffective bill, because of procedural problems like the Byrd rule?
We’ve looked at it and you can’t use reconciliation for everything, [but] you can use it for a good number of things. There’s nothing wrong with using it for the places where you can use it and then trying to get the 60 votes on the places where when you can't. You'd be surprised -- the number of places where you can use it is larger than we first thought.
Any specific examples?
No, I’d rather not give examples.
One of the problems was that Republicans weren’t negotiating in good faith -
I think the vast majority of Republicans think they can’t agree on anything among themselves, or [agree on anything] that the public would actually like, [and] have just decided their best strategy is to say 'no' and stop any accomplishment. It’s certainly has had a negative effect on the president’s numbers and Democrats’ numbers, but it’s made [Republican] numbers go down. You know, for all the [talk] in the media, it made Independents think less well of Republicans.
In terms of Olympia Snowe, does she have a veto, at this point, over what’s in the bill? She’s the only Republican left.
Well, Olympia, Olympia, has a track record, a history of negotiating in good faith with Democrats. And so I think she’s looked on differently, a little bit, than [Chuck] Grassley or [Mike] Enzi. Because there was skepticism, many of us had skepticism about their real good faith. Well I shouldn’t say good faith, but their ability to come to an agreement much earlier. With Olympia, I don’t think she’d have a veto power. But all things being equal, it’s a lot better to have her with us than not with us, particularly if you can’t fill that Massachusetts senate seat. Even if you can.
Do you see a trigger option for a public plan as something to bridge the gap between the Senate and the House, where Democrats seem intent on putting a public option in the bill?
No, I personally don’t particularly like the trigger, particularly if its three years or four years down the road. It depends on how you set up the trigger, but [if] your measure is concentration in the insurance industry and the lack of competition as a result of that concentration -- we're there already.
I lay out three criteria for a public option: to be available to all, i.e. national, to be available on day one, and to have the strength to go up against the insurance companies and the suppliers. And I stick with those three criteria. And it's hard to see how a trigger that takes effect three years from now would meet those three.
Politically, though, there are centrist Democrats in the senate who are not for that. Do you see them voting for cloture in a potential filibuster situation?
That’s something that we go for.
Conventional wisdom is that Democrats will pass a health care bill this fall. Think that’s true?
It’ll be harder than people think but I think we will get it done, yes.
You said earlier that it has to be a bill that actually does work. Is there concern that a bill might be compromised to the point that it may not work?
Well, I’d say it may not be something that works, that actually makes people’s health care better. That’s one of the reasons I worry about … eliminating the public option. Because it’s the best way to keep the insurance companies honest.
'The president needs to provide leadership' -- is this the lesson of this August?
No, there are a lot of lessons of this August, but I’m not going get into the mistakes other than we should have been much better and much quicker, to weed out all the falsities that came out instead of just shrugging your shoulders and saying, 'Oh, these are ridiculous.'
In terms of the senate leadership, you and your colleagues, what do you need to be doing to make sure that the bill that passes is one that works?
Harry Reid, to his credit, is very mindful of the diversity of our caucus. But I think, you know, Democrats, whether they be liberal, moderate, or even conservative, realize that we gotta to pull together and pass a bill. And for each of us, [failure] is worse than not getting anything real done.
And you think the moderate and conservative democrats understand this collective action problem?
I think they have some certain issues particularly on the tax side, ah, that I think we have to have some sympathy for. But, yes, I do.
COMMENTS (3)
Ideas that should be welcomed by the President. The White House should negotiate with the Insurance companies. Insure all, no denial of coverage and permit portability. Immediate 30% reduction in premiums and another 20% reduction over next two years. Half the savings to come from Insurance and the other half from the delivery of care. This will reduce healthcare cost from 17% GDP to 11%; making American business competitive in the world. With such a deal, all sides should be on board to sign off on a bill. If the insurance companies do not deliver, the Public Option will deliver by 2012.
For insurance companies, the immediate reduction in premiums will be offset by the new 47 million getting insured with govt / taxpayer help. The reduction in premium costs will help American business and reduce govt subsidies to those who need help. The immediate benefit to working Americans will be a bird-in-hand, if the insurance companies renege on bringing down healthcare costs.
The 47 million presently uninsured are already covered by those with insurance who pay an effective 17% surcharge on their insurance. The important issue to be alert is that the insurance companies with the blessing (payback) from politicians do not keep the 17% surcharge for "uncompensated care" while we, the tax payers AGAIN pays to subsidize the new beneficiaries.
Posted by: rad2114 | September 9, 2009 10:20 PM
I agree that you shouldn't weaken the bill just to be "bipartisan" if you can pass it with a bare majority. Years from now it won't matter what the vote count was.
Posted by: philsh | September 10, 2009 5:02 AM
Mandating that everyone gets health insurance seems to me to violate the principles if not the letter of the bill of rights under the U. S. Constitution, especially when the insurance industry [like all the U. S. economy] is highly concentrated under a few companies [who have let people die to keep profits high.]
It's not the same as mandatory car insurance because you can live without a car, but you can't live without your health.
Posted by: philsh | September 10, 2009 5:13 AM