Ezra Klein: Conrad and Schumer Nearing an Agreement (On co-op as the public plan)

[flpoljunkie]

Conrad and Schumer Nearing an Agreement?

Sen. Chuck Schumer, whom Sen. Max Baucus asked to be the Democratic point man on the public plan, and Sen. Kent Conrad, whom Baucus charged with crafting a compromise on the public plan, seem to be coming to a pretty encouraging convergence. Huffington Post's Ryan Grim caught up with Conrad yesterday and got this rundown:

Conrad ticked off the areas of agreement that were reached Monday.

"National structure: I believe to be effective there has to a national entity with state affiliates and those affiliates have to have the ability to regionalize. I think his concern there can be addressed," said Conrad. "Second, he believes there needs to be national purchasing power. I think that's a good point that the national entity would be able to do purchasing on behalf of the state and regional affiliates and on behalf of the national entity itself."

Schumer wants $10 billion to start the plan, after which it would be self-sustaining. Conrad said the "state of negotiations" is that $3 to $4 billion would be provided.

Schumer wants the board overseeing the plan to be appointed by the president. Conrad said that according to the state of negotiations, the Health and Human Services Secretary would be charged with appointing the board.

Conrad wants the board to be temporary and eventually disappear, leaving the co-op to be run by its members. Schumer, said Conrad, still wants the board to be permanent.

If you've got all that -- and if Schumer wins on the permanent board -- then you really are in a situation where it doesn't matter if you call this a co-op or a public plan.

By Ezra Klein
June 23, 2009; 12:34 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/conrad_and_schumer_nearing_an.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. What? No replies?

Good god, I hope this is NOT the kind of plan we're heading towards!!!
:scared:

[AtomicKitten]

2. Oh hell no! A curse on Democrats resisting a genuine public option!!!

[Teaser]

3. Actually, I'd be OK with this.

Governor appointed board? National in scale? Large bargaining power?

Good enough for government work.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Color me apprehensive. n/t

[vaberella]

5. Schumer is not going to win. So far Obama seems to support the House Bill. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I have an idea... why don't they just have a public option but call it a "co-op"

Seems like a win-win situation to me.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. That seems to be what Conrad wants anyway

Smoke and mirrors is all such a plan would be- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. :puke:

[lindisfarne]

9. As soon as you give them co-op, they start chipping away at the features that make it essentially a

public option.
If you have a national organization with regional affiliated orgs, all you have to do is restrict the ability of all the regional organizations to coordinate their efforts against the big insurance companies. And then, we're back to why co-ops aren't a good idea. There's no reason to create regional organizations. It doesn't improve anything.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. I don't think you understand what I'm saying

I'm saying that we have the substance of a public option but we simply refer to it as a "co-op". It's basically the same thing as how the Republicans refer to the estate tax as the "death tax". Conrad gets to say that he got a "co-op" passed and we get a public option.

[lindisfarne]

11. I understood that. But I guarantee you, as soon as you call it co-op, they are going

to start chipping away at it. The deal won't be done once that concession is made, and there will be plenty of opportunity to weaken the "co-op" in the ways the Republicans want to weaken it.

Co-ops are actually a specific legal structure under law - if the "public option called co-op" is set up under those laws, legally, there are different issues. Maybe this isn't being considered.

But there is a reason why at least some Republicans are trying to prevent a "public option". They won't allow a "co-op in name only but really a public option in disguise".

Totally unrelated:
I'm listening to the Kerry/Graham PBS news hour interview and I am ready to puke - Graham makes my skin crawl and he's an idiot.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Hrmm well how about we just call it an "Option" instead of a "Public Option"

That way we can say the Republicans are against people having options.

[lindisfarne]

13. LOL n/t

[Mojorabbit]

15. It adds another layer of

bureaucracy.

[Oregone]

7. Bait...

and switch. Everyone goes home happy

[MiniMe]

14. A Co-op sound a lot like Kaiser

Not a fan of Kaiser here.