Durbin: The Public Option Is Not Dead

Is the public option dead in the U.S. Senate? Not according to Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, who denied moderator David Gregory's assertion on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday that votes in the upper chamber aren't there to pass a bill that includes a government-run health insurance plan. Watch it:

At the beginning of the clip, Durbin also says that he "can't presume any Republican senators at this point" will support the reform bills working through the Senate. Even though Democratic senators went well out of their way to include the GOP in their negotiations, it's become painfully obvious that the minority has no real interest in compromise. Even the two most open-minded Republican lawmakers, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, are backing away from the table. Over the weekend, both expressed reservations about a public option trigger, which was Snowe's idea in the first place.  "There's nothing wrong with moving toward a compromise," blogs Ezra Klein today. "The problem comes when the compromise starts moving, too."

Medicaid Expansion And State Budgets

The other big news in the Senate is that Sen. Max Baucus' Finance Committee's will release its long-anticipated reform bill Tuesday. The Hill reports that there are still a few bugs to be ironed out, including a key issue we've written about before: Medicaid expansion. One of the Democrats' primary mechanisms for expanding coverage is raising the threshold on Medicaid eligibility to include anyone earning 133 percent of the federal poverty level or less. In Illinois, that provision would provide insurance to an estimated 500,000 additional adults. The only problem is payment. Because state governments finance up to 43 percent of Medicaid and can't deficit spend, requiring them to add more people to the public rolls could put too much stress on their already beleagured budgets.

After compromising with the fiscally-conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who wanted states to carry a heavier burden so the price tag of their bill could be lowered, House leaders agreed to shoulder the additional cost in the short-term as long as states would agree to foot 7 percent of the bill in future years. But Baucus originally had a different plan in mind, agreeing to pay for the total expansion for five years and then revert to the common 57/43 percent funding formula. After the (justifiable) protestations of governors nationwide, Baucus now seems to be hedging. Igor Volsky explains at the Wonk Room:

Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) hinted that he has worked out a deal in which “the Medicaid costs with expansion are not going to cost states nearly as much as was originally feared.” The Committee is hoping to expand the program to all Americans below 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and cover approximately 1/3 of the uninsured.

We'll find out more specifics tomorrow. But this is an encouraging development.

GOP Reps In DuPage

At a health care rally in DuPage County's Villa Park this weekend, Republican congressmen made a point of bashing the president's push for reform. Press reports indicate that Reps. Judy Biggert, Mark Kirk, and Peter Roskam all hit on their usual talking points: Roskam warned that the public option represents a" big-government attempt to control our lives"; Kirk pushed malpractice reform and interstate health insurance pools; and Biggert blamed the president for failing to reach across the aisle. But the language Biggert used was particularly inflammatory and misleading. From the Daily Herald:

"The president had an opportunity to start anew, but he didn't," said Biggert, a Hinsdale Republican. "Instead, he delivered an eloquent speech full of myths."

Biggert said that contrary to what Obama said, the reform plan would add more than $200 billion to the national deficit, endanger citizens' freedom to choose their own doctors and make it easy for illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

It's just demonstrably false that the undocumented will receive "taxpayer-subsidized" insurance under the current bills, even if it is good policy to provide it. And coming from Biggert, who intentionally distributed literature to constituents that contained massive distortions about "end-of-life euthanasia," it's tough to take.