HuffPo: Jeff Merkley a "a key player" on opt-out negotiations

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

The Huffington Post has the backstory on how the opt-out became the "silver bullet" that saved the public option, despite being pitched to Senator Harry Reid just three weeks ago:

Around the time that the Senate Finance Committee was slated to vote on (and ultimately reject) two variations of a national public option, two of its members -- Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) -- began informal talks about how to bridge the divide within the caucus.

Carper went first. The Delaware Democrat proposed a variation of Daschle's state-run entity -- in which states would instead be able to opt in to a national public plan.

"It caught on," said one Democratic Senate aide who was privy to the early conversations. "[Carper] started talking about it with other moderates. It seemed inoffensive. [Schumer] recognized it had potential with the moderates and tried to meet them halfway in terms of the having a state option."

Days after the first discussions took place, Schumer brought back a counteroffer. Instead of having states opt in to the system, invert it: allow them to opt out. "If you are at the point of supporting an opt in then it is not much of a stretch to support an opt out," the aide said. "But on a practical level it makes a worlds worth of difference. It removes the barrier of creating a public option and makes the barrier getting out of one."

Significant hurdles remained. At the most basic level, there was nothing on paper to distribute to colleagues. Schumer and Carper began recruiting members behind closed doors and over the phone. Much of the attention was spent on the party's conservatives. But there was also a recognition that if they went too far, progressives would be offended. Sen. Jeff Merkley, a freshmen Democrat from Oregon, became a voice of support and a key player in the negotiations.

"We started talking about the idea of using the federal approach, about using a bridge to get our caucus together. Every single more moderate Democrat felt there was something promising in that approach, that it might be a bridge they could live in," Merkley told the Huffington Post. "It was a federalist approach. States become a laboratory. Some will chose one direction. Others another. This will allow members to go home and say 'no one, no state has have to be part of this if they don't want to.'"

... "I think there has been a big change in momentum since the late summer and a growing belief in the caucus that this is a reasonable compromise," said Merkley. "We think it is going to sell itself."

  • (Show?)

    Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website. I speak only for myself.

  • Mill BcDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, Healthcare reform is at a crucial stage. This sort of opportunity doesn't come along very often in American History. Can we set aside your weird leg-humping of Jeff Merkley for a few minutes, please? I'm begging you.

    It's as if - when the sun comes up in the morning - your first thought is how will it affect Jeff Merkley's image? Enough, for God's sake.

    Let's focus on the public option for everyone, just as you-know-who mentions in the video but let's not turn this into points in a PR contest. This is way too important for that.

    Would it help if we all chanted, "Jeff Merkley is all-knowing and all-wise. He is the light, the savior, and the lord. Jeff Merkley is the beginning, the middle, and the living end. When he first spoke the skies were dark but he said the words, 'I Am the Public Option and It Is Good.' and the skies were full of light. Flowers bloomed, birds sang, and on the 7th day, Kari built Jeff's website."

    If we all chanted that 50 times for you, would that satiate your needs and quench your thirst for the nectar that is Jeff? Then, could we move past this phase and start thinking big picture here?

    We should be organizing a major progressive push right now. You know, like the one that got what's-his-name to clue in about the public option back in the summer. Only bigger. Because this is important.

  • Jason (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While my assumptions could be wrong, I believe the opt-out plan is more of a political maneuver than anything else. Here's why:

    1. I'm NOT convinced that any state government would opt-out. Why would they? (Except maybe the most conservative of states.)
    2. Despite a Democratic majority, the left still needs a small contingency of support from the right. This might be the carrot that works for more moderate Republicans.
    3. With the pressure Obama is getting about the public option, this proposal puts the White House in a more robust position to argue for an overhaul pkg.

    I think Democrats were smart to include the opt-out, but we'll have to wait and see if it works.

  • Charlie Burr (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is a big deal, and for folks who've worked long and hard for a public option, a significant win. Mill, I don't disagree with you that the public option should be opened up to everyone -- that's important to be sure -- but can't we get beyond every conversation here devolving into the shocking, shocking revelation that Kari likes his clients? Merkley deserves props for what he's doing, and that has nothing to do with his campaign Web site.

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jason,

    A few states will opt out...mostly Southern or Midwestern States. I'd be suprised if my birthstate, Oklahoma, doesn't opt out. Okies don't like government mandates (especially those from the feds) and they do not trust the Obama administration. While there are pockets of sanity and even a few scattered progressive thinkers, the majority of Okies are conservative, religious, paternalistic and don't want anything to do with "ObamaCare". Believe me, some states will opt out...at least until they see how it works in their neighboring states.

  • Admiral Naismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Seems to me, it is much, much better to have a strong public option that Republicans at the state level can kill their political careers trying to opt out of, than to have weak mush (triggers, co-ops, most of the other suggested compromises) available to anybody. Seems to me, a state like Idaho or Texas might attempt to opt out, and find itself with the most resurgent and competitive Democratic party in decades.

    Also Seems to me, the chances of Oregon even attempting to opt out of a national health insurance option are about as meaningful as the chances of Allen Ally becoming Oregon's next Governor.

    @Mill: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? This is a progressive Oregon site, and we're kinda proud of our new Senator who seems to be taking so many leading roles for someone in his first year in Federal office. I don't think anyone around here is calling him or any other politician Godlike (consider how much grief our other admired Senator got when he seemed to be undecided for a while), but we do like to praise our own when they do something praiseworthy, your appeal to ridicule notwithstanding.

  • (Show?)

    Medicare has an opt-out provision, fyi. Not a single state has opted out (although I think there's one county in Texas that has).

  • (Show?)

    Let the insurgent-riddled states opt out. The ensuing Congressional election battles will then have a perfect fulcrum for ousting the insurgent pols.

    However, there are many things wrong with the Senate Finance Committee's bill, including the financing mechanisms and the delayed implementation. If these things aren't fixed all of it will be up for debate in the 2010 election. The House bill financing is a lot more straight forward. Obama's idea of delayed implementation -- four years -- is too long and puts the whole issue up for election fraud/debate.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Can we set aside your weird leg-humping of Jeff Merkley for a few minutes, please? I'm begging you."<?I>

    That's one of the funniest screeds I've ever read on BO! Thanks for the morning laugh!

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Joe Lieberman now says he will filibuster with the Republicans. Looks like Reconciliation here we come. Up the ante now. Kick Lieberman off the chairmanship and out of the caucus, and make the PO stronger and add Wyden's choice amendment.

  • Merkley supporter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Merkley proved in ten years in the Oregon legislature, as the minority leader, and as the Speaker of the House, that he understood how to build consensus and get things done. That's why his colleagues -- the entire caucus of 30 other Democrats in the House -- endorsed him for U.S. Senate, even though they knew by running for the U.S. Senate that Merkley would not be back in the House and would have no power over committee assignments and the like.

    It's no surprise to see him building a consensus in the U.S. Senate for health care reform. That's why so many of us worked our asses off for him. His values are right, he works harder than anyone, and he has the strategic smarts to get things done. Does anyone anywhere miss Gordon Smith...?

    The opt out plan has potential. Just as having a government sponsored public option available will create competition for private insurers and benefit ordinary working citizens, so will the opt out plan create a contrast and some competition....i.e. for example, if Oregon opts in, and a neighboring state opts out, like Washington, then folks just across the river would watch as Oregonians all get health care more affordably and wonder what's wrong with their state leadership.

    Gotta agree with the Admiral above -- Republicans at the state level who try to kill it will endanger their careers, and state Democrats will rise to the fight. If the national leadership of the Republican party figures this out, they'll either kill the opt out entirely, or just agree to a public option for all.

    Let's just pray there's 60 votes for the opt out and get it done, regardless of what the Republicans do.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Let's just pray there's 60 votes for the opt out and get it done, regardless of what the Republicans do."

    No. Do not pray. Make it happen ourselves.

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The problem with being a "key player" is that you are responsible for the success or failure of the venture. If the national public option becomes law, Jeff should receive appropriate kudos. If it does NOT become law, Jeff should take his share of the blame.

    You can't have one without the other.

  • Joanne Daschel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can someone please answer this question that I put to Schrader after his telephone "town hall" last night (didn't get in the queue early enough):

    If a state can opt-out, and the insurance companies are allowed to sell across state lines, what's to stop the insurance companies from moving to opt-out states and selling to the rest of us, to avoid the competition of the public option in those states that have "opted in."

    What I have read about the "selling across state lines" idea suggests that it will lead to increased competition ONLY for those who are healthy, young-- basically the companies would cherry-pick insureds and the rest of the people would get insanely high premiums. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are no limits on premiums set by the government in any of the proposed bills, only a mandate that we the people must buy a policy from one of these companies-- "legalized extortion" as my dad used to say.

  • (Show?)

    If the terms of the opt out are as I understand them--only after the first year of implementation, only by 2/3 vote of the state Leg, and vetoable by the Goobernor--not a single state will opt out. Merkley FTW!

  • (Show?)

    Joanne Daschel: Can someone please answer this question that I put to Schrader after his telephone "town hall" last night

    If a state can opt-out, and the insurance companies are allowed to sell across state lines, what's to stop the insurance companies from moving to opt-out states and selling to the rest of us, to avoid the competition of the public option in those states that have "opted in."

    Absolutely nothing would prevent an insurance company from doing that. But how are they going to harm a state that has not opted out? With a robust public option in place, they can't compete effectively by using all the current tricks: cherry picking, lying about coverage, etc, etc.

    In fact, the pressure would go in the opposite direction. Private plans that figure out ways to effectively compete in states with robust public options will naturally be more competitive in states without them. So the bad actors will naturally lose market share over time.

  • (Show?)

    I think Maurer's got it right.

    <h2>If your insurance comes from Health Inc., and they move to Oklahoma, that doesn't mean you can't choose the public option right here in Oregon.</h2>

connect with blueoregon