A GOP Senator Looking to Meet Halfway

Washington Post: Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker Believes There is Still Room for Compromise on Health Care

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Shailagh Murray.

---

Republican Sen. Bob Corker stood before a packed high school auditorium this week for his 24th and final town hall meeting of the summer, sketching out his vision for the bipartisan health-care plan he says he is convinced Congress can pass.

A contentious August recess dramatically reshaped the debate, and lawmakers will return to work next week facing a landscape that even a conservative first-term senator in the minority party such as Corker has the opportunity to influence.

After Democratic proposals endured weeks of battering in public forums, President Obama will attempt to restore momentum to the reform process he initiated, beginning with an address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. And while the administration was reluctant to make major concessions on the shape of health legislation before lawmakers left town, Obama aides are making it clear that they are ready to listen to any ideas that could help make significant change a reality.

Although heated rhetoric over a potential government takeover of health care has been a staple of the hundreds of town meetings lawmakers held this summer, many Republicans say they heard a second message back home: No matter how flawed the plans being pushed by Democrats, the status quo is not a popular alternative.

Some GOP lawmakers, including Corker (Tenn.), say they think bipartisan agreement may become more attainable if those demonstrations lead Democrats to scale back their reform ambitions, particularly when it comes to creating a new government-run insurance program, or "public option."

"There is a common ground," Corker said Wednesday in an interview before his final town hall meeting. "It's half a loaf, possibly, from the administration's viewpoint. But what it does is take us way down the field."

For two months, the bipartisan efforts to compromise on health care were limited to the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six." That group will reconvene Friday by conference call and is tasked with producing a bill by Sept. 15. But there are glimmers that support for a less ambitious bill may be expanding and could include some unlikely participants.

Many of the proposals Corker mentioned to his constituents are ideas that Democrats also support and have included in their own reform plans. As he sees it, insurers would no longer be allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, Corker told the crowd, and would offer an array of plans via a new insurance exchange, unrestricted by the current boundaries of state insurance laws. To help the uninsured gain coverage, the government would provide vouchers or tax credits, and would tax the most generous employer-offered plans to pay the cost.

But a public insurance option is a non-starter, Corker warned, and unless Obama pushes the idea off the table next week, meaningful GOP support will not materialize. A serious and gradual bid to control costs and expand coverage, however, could prove difficult for certain Republicans to resist, he said.

Even some liberal Democrats are beginning to concede that the terms of the debate need to shift to get 60 Senators, a filibuster-proof majority, to support a measure.

"Getting people to understand that costs are out of control, and the system can't continue with costs going up as rapidly as they are, and we need real cost-cutting as the centerpiece of a bill -- that's what you need in terms of being bipartisan," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

Any discussions about potential bipartisan agreement must be measured against harsher political realities. Republicans are not eager to hand a landmark victory to a president who has quickly seen his fortunes take a turn for the worse, particularly on an issue that helped them derail President Bill Clinton's health-care agenda in the early 1990s. And GOP strategists say the events of the past month have increased doubts about the Democratic reform effort, and said GOP lawmakers would continue to attack any provisions that would expand the government's role in health care, increase the federal deficit or threaten Medicare.

Given the acid tone of the health-care debate, many Democrats scoff at the idea that Republicans will bargain in good faith. At the moment, the list of Republican senators likely to side with Obama consists of only Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a moderate who has expressed willingness to support a public insurance plan as a fallback option, if private insurers do not offer affordable coverage.

Snowe and White House officials are deep in discussions, and her spokeswoman, Julia Wanzco, said that the senator remains "committed to finding a bipartisan solution" but added that her "foremost goal" remains reaching a deal with her finance panel colleagues.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the senior Republican in the Finance Committee talks, said he has not given up on finding consensus, although White House officials doubt his commitment, after the senator assailed Democratic priorities such as the public option at his own town hall meetings. Grassley also sent out a fundraising letter last month pledging to defeat "Obama-care."

"I'm still going to be at the table as long as I can be, for a bipartisan bill," Grassley said in an interview. "I think we can still do something this year. It's probably something that would reflect the tone that is out there in the town meetings -- that people want things done, but want them done maybe a little smaller."

Republicans are waiting for cues from the president, Grassley added. "If the White House wants a bipartisan plan, there can be a bipartisan plan," he said.

The lack of Republican cooperation has been a serious obstacle in the Senate, and Democratic leaders continue to explore moving a bill through the chamber under a special budget rule known as reconciliation. But some Democrats are reluctant to force action along party lines on an issue that evokes such emotion. "People will be more comfortable with a bipartisan solution," said Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a conservative Democrat. "You're going to have some among the Republican ranks who will be complaining about it, but if you've got a fairly sizable number coming over . . . then you have credibility."

If contentious provisions such as the public option and end-of-life counseling are sidelined, and a smaller, less costly and less controversial plan emerges, the legislation could eventually resemble GOP health-care proposals that aim to contain costs and expand coverage, although mainly through the private sector.

"You can get where we need to go, which is give adequate insurance to people who aren't insured, while controlling out-year costs, without a massive rewrite of the whole exercise," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

But Congress is stuck in a partisan stalemate, Gregg noted, and only Obama can pry it loose. "The White House has to first incentivize, or at least give its imprimatur of authority, to a bipartisan negotiating group," he said, adding: "I do think the opportunity is sitting there -- and has been literally in the Senate for six months."

White House officials also took note when Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) signaled late last month that Republicans could be responsive to a direct appeal from Obama to participate in crafting a bill.

"All of us agree that health-care costs are out of control and we have to bring them under control," McCain told ABC News. "So maybe it would be a good idea for us to sit down, and after consultation and agreement, the president could say, "Here's the health-care plan that I want passed through the Congress. At least we ought to try it."

Although Corker drew the same kind of raucous crowds that have turned out across the country, he used his opening statement to point out areas of common ground and breezed past flash points such as the public option.

"I actually want to see us solve this problem, and I start out every meeting saying that, which is a little disarming to some people who might think I would just be bashing," Corker said.

One proposal that appears to be gaining traction among some Democrats and Republicans, including Corker, would limit the insurance people are required to buy to only a catastrophic coverage plan. Another idea, proposed by McCain on the 2008 campaign trail and now getting a second look from certain Democrats, would create special risk pools for people with serious illnesses. Some individuals familiar with health-care negotiations said that if Obama chooses to take a staggered approach, gradually expanding coverage over time, either of these ideas could prove promising starting points.

Corker said both parties have "clumsily handled" the debate, and conceded, "I do think Republicans have wanted to halt what's happened. But I don't think it's to halt it to end it. I think it's to halt it to get to a point where we can sit down and do something that's pragmatic. For what it's worth, I think we might end up with a policy that will stand the test of time and really help create opportunities for access to millions of Americans."

[pjk12354]

This is a rarety.........a Republican who is more interested in doing what is right for the country and is willing to compromise for the good of the American people instead of the party's special interests...........He will probably be thrown out of the Republicon party..........

[stn_sage]

pjk12354: What this man says publically, and what he says privately---but more importantly---what he does, IS most probably, going to be, as different as night is from day! Don't you believe it, friend!

[lilsmom-2009]

Mr. Corker is a liar. He is doing this to stall.

[sleepyric]

Screw the GOP! Jam a bill down their throats til they gag on it. They lost - get it?,,,You lost! They will NEVER work with this president on anything.

[lilsmom-2009]

one word for you, buddy................NO

[payasyougo]

"Getting people to understand that costs are out of control, and the system can't continue with costs going up as rapidly as they are, and we need real cost-cutting as the centerpiece of a bill -- that's what you need in terms of being bipartisan," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), a member of the Senate Democratic leadership."
----
He is talking about the cost of government as a whole, right?

[babooph]

All congressmen have no worries,the lobbyists have gotten a sweet deal for the insurance companies NO MATTER WHAT!

[drgregoryg]

Open Message to Senator Corker and Other Unprincipled Pragmatists

As Congress ?waters down? health care reform to find bipartisan support, remember this:

WATER + POISON = POISONOUS WATER

A sufficient reason to vote against PelosiObamaReidCare (PORC) is the poisonous fact that it would violate the unalienable rights of patients, doctors, and business owners by 1) forcing people to buy health insurance; 2) forcing employers to provide health insurance for employees; 3) forcing groups (wealthy, business owners, etc.) to pay for the health insurance of other groups; 4) forcing future generations to pay for the health care of previous generations; 5) forcing insurance companies to sell, and employers and patients to buy, policies that cover specific conditions; 6) forcing healthier/younger adults to pay higher premium rates to subsidize premiums for less healthy/older adults; and 7) setting up a bureaucracy to control the private health care choices made by patients and doctors.

PORC is flatulent fascism.

The "pull the trigger" version of PORC puts lipstick on a fascist pig.

Congressional supporters for ?PORC, The Fascist Pig? will be given pink slips!

Dr. Garamoni
Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine
http://www.doctorsonstrike.com

[velma179]

What the majority of Americans can agree on is that our current health care system (in insurance/finance and actual cost/procedures) is not sustainable.

To say the majority do not want ANY kind of government run health care is wrong. May I remind you that Medicare IS administered by the government.

A small, but VERY LOUD minority is attempting to derail real reform under the guise of "socialism is coming". This tactic has been used for years and years -- it was used in 1961 with ads where the [then] movie actor Ronald Reagan told Americans horror stories of doctors being forced from here to there and how the "socialist program -- MEDICARE" would take our freedoms as Americans and dash them on the rocks of history.
That DID NOT happen.

And may I remind you that this same former movie actor became president some 20 years later --- and did NOTHING to dismantle what he had once advertised would ruin America.

Now, as you read in the article above -- Republicans and Democrats can and DO agree that Medicare has to be preserved and fully funded for our future.

**********

Is the Public Option a government take over of health care insurance?

No.

First use your language skills, please --- "Option" and "Choice" are synonyms (they mean the same thing).

What Mr. Obama and the Dems have thus far offered is a Health Insurance Exchange (exactly the same as Congress/Fed employees have now) where Private Insurers offer their plans along with a plan that would be administered by the government (just like Medicare, but no age requirement). This Public Option has never been tied to taxpayer funding -- it will be funded just as Private Insurance is... with Premiums and Co-pays. You will have the same choices for doctors/hospitals etc. as you have with the private companies. The BIG difference is that with government administration, the Public (as in we-the-people) Option will have within it strong defensive parameters keeping coverage open to everyone, even those who are actually sick!

And, it will not be set up to make a profit, just as a service.
This will cause a greater competition among ALL the plans offered in the Health Exchange and ultimately lower costs for everyone, regardless of what CHOICE they make for their own individual/family health coverage.

************

I have stated facts. Whatever else you have heard is not true.

We are no more heading into "socialism" than we were in 1961. That old scary, lie really needs to be put to rest. America is WAY too strong and free to take that kind of radical turn in the short time period of four to eight years.... It has not yet -- and it will not.

Period.


******

My hope is that we can remember what America is based on... is it not called "The UNITED States of America"? This divisive campaign to pit us against each other because of political motivations is sickening.

I have nothing but disdain for those among you who treat the truth so cavalierly in your goal to only... negate our fundamental right and responsibility to ELECT those who best represent us to government.

[stn_sage]

Great! They decided to let it go through after all! So, now you have two versions to reflect upon, but please do, reflect upon them!

And, it is a Friday, and I sincerely wish you a good weekend!

[stn_sage]

speakinup23:

Well, I attempted to answer your post, but evidently the current active censor is a fellow right-winger of yours', and they didn't like my response. So, I'll shorten my statement.

I was referring to the debate between politicians on the effect of Social Security NOT---as you suggest, the general public!

Most people---I believe understood that!

Finally, I find both your facts, but mostly your interpretation of them, to be suspect! Good day, friend!

[sanity4u]

REPUBLICANS--- Bent on the destruction of America.

[stn_sage]

When Social Security was first debated, fear-mongers prophecized that it would result in 'utter ruination' of the economy! Well, it NEVER happened!

The fact is: our health care system is wasteful and inefficient and insurance companies are both over-charging the public and doctors and act as defacto doctors by authorizing or not prescribed treatments!

Additionally: politicians are failing to act in good faith to the public because they are trying to protect and maintain the flow of campaign contributions from various corporate industries---medical equipment, pharmaceutical, insurance, etcetera.

But, candidate Obama promised the public a government supported insurance plan (a.k.a.; public option)! And the Democrat party has had a legacy of leading and enacting NEEDED AND REVOLUTIONARY legislation that otherwise would have never occurred!

It is time that Congressional Democrats remember that! It is also true, that once a promise is made, that IT SHOULD BE KEPT!

Any bill MINUS a public option, IS NO REAL HEALTH CARE BILL at all!
And, any member who votes FOR it, ought to be ashamed!
And, ought to be voted out-of-office the next time he or she runs!

[stn_sage]

speakinup23:

You are simply amazing! My first statement, "When Social Security was first debated, fear-mongers prophecized that it would result in 'utter ruination' of the economy! Well, it NEVER happened!" was alluding to the DEBATE that took place between members of Congress, NOT as you have attributed it to the public!

Pardon me, I think the vast majority of the people in the center and on the left realized that---but, I forgot that the far right-wing guys wouldn't! Now, you know what most people understood the first time!

Also, your use of FACTS is over-kill! And, I wouldn't believe them until I double-checked them, anyway! And, then---then,it is most likely that you've taken the information out-of-context!

So, until you learn how to present and defend a plausible argument, you're NOT going to be very convincing to anyone other than the 'choir'!
That means---your fellow right-wingers!