A week before the Baucus bill amendment deadline, Snowe had already given up on it

[ProSense]

September 13:

SCHIEFFER: You first broached this idea of the so-called trigger option, and that is setting a deadline for these private insurance companies to come up with plans that would cover everyone who needed health care, and then if they didn't get that, then consider some sort of a public option. Do you still feel that way?

SNOWE: Yes, I do. I think it is a possibility. You know, bridging the gap at some point in this process as we move forward. And, in fact, I recommended it to the president months ago, even before health care was at the forefront in Congress, because that started (ph) as a way of assuring coverage, not instituting a public option, but making sure that people have access to choices of affordable coverage if the health insurance industry doesn't perform under a newly restructured market, similar to what we did in the prescription drug benefit, which actually -- it worked. There were so many choices, we never triggered the fallback, in fact.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you are a part of the Senate Finance Committee and part of the group that's trying to put together some sort of a bipartisan group. Will that be in the plan that the Finance Committee puts forward?

SNOWE: It's not on the table. And it won't be. We'll be using the co-op as an option at this point, as the means for injecting competition in the process.

link

White House Denies Pushing Trigger Option, Dem Groups Concur

They're dead, co-ops and the trigger are dead.

[stray cat]

1. Co-ops definitely stunk

[grantcart]

2. I have a theory that the Republicans want the bill to pass - with the public option

1) If it fails then they have to defend themselves and polls show that the public thinks they are to blame.

2) The plan will have problems and they will lay all of the problems with the Dems

3) Even if it works perfectly it will spread some pain around (to healthy people who are not in the system) and significantly reduce the pain for people with pre existing conditions that need treatment. They will be able to concentrate on those middle class families that are mandated to join the system

4) A lot of the changes that will reduce costs will not happen for some time in the future. They will be able to run on 2010 exaggerating the costs.

5) Their most successful tact for 2010 is not to offer an alternative view but simply say "elect us to slow the Democrats down before they take everything over". Passing HC actually strengthens their argument that the Democrats have too much power. If the Dems are unable to pass legislation they won't be able to make this claim.

Some evidence of this is that Pharma, AMA and others are actually running pretty favorable ads and even HC industry ads are for the bill but simply against the public option.

[ProSense]

3. I have a slightly different take.

Republicans are actually in no position to stop it from passing. So they are trying to do everything they can to stain the record so that when it's enacted they can say I told you so. Pretty much the same strategy as all the public option detractors.

People are not going to fall for it, especially not those who will go from unisured to having coverage. Also, there are tens of millions more who lose their coverage at some point during any year who will notice a difference.

[grantcart]

4. The could actually be trying a lot harder than they are.

There fighting seems to be pretty pro forma and uninspired, and all of the talking points are aimed at the next election.

Actually if they wanted to they could probably get one D Senator to cross. All they would have to do is to make one of the weak links believe that they would not challenge them in the next election, and show substantial fund raising come their way. I don't think that they are even trying.

[Old Codger]

6. I bet

The rethugs will attempt some sort of poison pill amendment

[MarjorieG]

5. That's why the Medicare to 55, strong option more open enrollment, and benefits earlier.

Heard say that long rollout had to do with money; can we argue better for earlier start?

[grantcart]

7. I think that the main problem is money

and the committment to be deficitn neutral.

Once established in the budget there will be pressure to reduce other areas, like the military and increase the subsidy for health.