Daschle Admits -- Then Denies -- That White House Agreed With Industry To Scrap Public Option

[defendandprotect]

Daschle Admits -- Then Denies -- That White House Agreed With Industry To Scrap Public Option

Brian Beutler | October 5, 2010, 5:07PM

In a candid interview with the Center for American Progress this afternoon, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle acknowledged that the public option didn't survive the health care debate because of a "understanding" that the White House reached with health care industry stakeholders -- particularly with hospital and insurance company trade associations. But the White House has long denied this suggestion -- which was, until now, based mostly on speculation -- and within hours of the report's initial publication, Daschle, a close White House ally, retracted his statement entirely.

"I don't think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others," Daschle told Wonk Room's Igor Volsky. "I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it's almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and was the price some thought they had to pay."

That rendering flies in the face of the White House's narrative, so TPM emailed Daschle to ask whether his statement reflected first-hand knowledge of the stakeholder negotiations, or was a conclusion he'd drawn independently. In response, he walked back the entire claim.


"In describing some of the challenges to passage of the public option in the health reform bill, I did not mean to suggest in any way that the President was not committed to it," Daschle emails. "The President fought for the public option just as he did for affordable health care for all Americans. The public option was dropped only when it was no longer viable in Congress, not as a result of any deal cut by the White House. While I was disappointed that the public option was not included in the final legislation, the Affordable Care Act remains a tremendous achievement for the President and the nation."


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/daschle-admits----then-denies----that-white-house-agreed-with-industry-to-scrap-public-option.php?ref=fpb

[quinnox]

1. A late night phone call came in

Daschle was chewed out for spilling the beans by an administration official, and then had to 'correct' his accident. Speculation but I wouldn't bet against it.

[joeybee12]

2. I LOVE the term "walking back" the claim...ie., he lied...n/t

[myrna minx]

3. K&R Sooo he accidentally told us the truth? Oops. n/t

[zipplewrath]

4. This will be posted multiple times

It's one of those that relies as much upon the characterization of a handshake agreement in the White House, that had to ultimately be implimented by congress. But I think what Daschel is indicating is pretty obvious. That by July, the White House was focused on passing a bill, and that the primary goal was to allow them to modify medicare and medicaid, and save the federal government money. To do so they had to put "shiney objects" in for everyone to argue about. So they pushed in as many as they thought they could get passed. Dumping the public option didn't interfer with that goal, and really made it a tad easier to show cost savings to the feds. They didn't dump the mandate because it was part of the handshake, and they just made the fine small enough not to actually force anyone to buy insurance.

[defendandprotect]

7. Single payer would save us money ... and provide 2.3 million jobs ....

[zipplewrath]

10. And provide universal health care

In a budgetary sense, the public option always "scored" as an increased cost to the feds. The CBO would never recognize the potential growth and control over the market place that the PO could achieve.

[defendandprotect]

13. YES! And, Americans are 'dying' for MEDICARE FOR ALL . . .

Not familiar with the budget info you're point to -- I'm sure you're correct.

But I've also seen info which suggests we'd come out ahead immediately --

and later, after everyone got well again and into a preventive situation, we'd

be SAVING!!

Trust we'd even be reversing the growth of this industry which is spread all

over the place everywhere I go -- and suggests to me that the more "health care

industry" we have in America the sicker Americans get!!

We need more doctors with their minds on patients and their problems and less with

their minds on their $$$$$$$$$$$$$!!

:evilgrin:

[Poboy]

5. I guess this OP will be labeled as 'unproductive' and be CENSORED like the other...

Censored topic at link-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9264768#9265884

---


I guess we can't have open discussion about this. Its much better to deny it and hide it.

They fucking sold us out.

[AuntPatsy]

8. I see no censoring of this topic?

[dionysus]

9. WAH!! ZOMG!!!

:rofl:

[zipplewrath]

11. Actually that one was presented differently

You can present this subject, but it has to be presented as a commentary, not an attack.

[Nite Owl]

6. So...

"They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and was the price some thought they had to pay."

And we the people weren't part of the stakeholders thing it seems. What we wanted, what we needed to keep our costs down wasn't part of their consideration.

[Supersedeas]

12. the price of getting the stakeholders to the table for discussion was an automatic concession?

[defendandprotect]

14. Evidently, our government is too small and too poor to actually TELL corporations what

to do any longer ... !!!