Clyburn: Public Option Not Needed for Vote

(CBS)  Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, the House Majority Whip, is a strong supporter of the public option in the health care bill that passed the House in November. But on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, he said he could also support a final bill that is more similar to the one that passed the Senate without the public option.

"I believe that both the House and Senate bills make tremendous contributions toward bending the cost curve," the congressman from South Carolina said. "I think they do a great deal to bring more people into the system. I think though that the House bringing the 36 million additional people, the Senate bringing 31 million additional people, I think that the more the merrier in this instance. So I do believe that the Senate has done a very good bill. But I think that the House has done a very good bill as well."

Watch the Interview Here
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Host John Dickerson asked Clyburn point blank whether he could vote for a final health care bill that does not include the public option.

"Yes, sir, I can," Clyburn said. "Because why do we want a public option? We want a public option to do basically three things: create more choice for insurers; create more competition for insurance companies; and to contain costs. So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I'm all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence. What we want to do is get good, effective results from whatever we put in place."

Many public option supporters have said that President Obama had let them down by showing support for the Senate bill which did not include it. But Clyburn said he didn't feel that way when Dickerson asked.

"If you may recall, I said way back before we went out on our August break that we ought to take a hard look at this so-called robust public option that a lot of people had bought into. I never quite bought into that. I was one of those people saying, we ought to come up with a hybrid. Part of which was to bring more people into Medicaid. And that's what we did on the House side. We did a blended plan. We didn't do what you might call a robust public option plan on the House side," he said.

[abbe91]

The big thing nobody talks about is the end of the anti-trust law exemption foreseen in the house version but not the senate one.

[reveal4]

There is still some wiggle room in this legislation. The House will do whatever revisions it can get passed through the Senate. Joe Lieberman may be more approachable now that his favorability numbers are tanking after his stand against the public option and Medicare expansion. The main Senate opposition now is Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He too,is licking his wounds after learning his special Medicaid funding grant to Nebraska may be unconstitutional. Look, the fringe is going to lie, deceive and delude, it is their intrinsic nature. Reform will help average Americans and Democrats will not give up this victory to please the village idiots on the right. That's right, village idiots, a quote from Frank Schaeffer....village idiots.

[Mortar-29]

The fringe is running Congress and the White House. Who do you think Obama, Reid and Pelosi are? Middle of the road? Lol!!

[ffoulkes-2009]

The fringe in the form of reveal4 IS lying, deceiving and deluding. Keep it up extreme left fringer. Your time is up in 2010 and 2012.

[starving1968-1]

by luadda22 December 27, 2009 3:53 PM EST
I doubt that allowing people that can't get insurance any other place (due to preexisting conditions or income) would actually help Medicare. Their treatment costs would be higher than average and their payments would have to be subsidized. That said, why do all the liberals try to blame everyone else? Obama does it, Nancy and Harry do it and all the liberal posters and commentators do it. Don't you realize that you do not need ONE Republican to pass this monstrosity? Get your own house in order before you come over a criticize mine.






When are YOU going to realize that this isn't republicans versus democrats?

This is corporate GREED versus America's citizenry, and the republicans have chosen sides, and are waging a war AGAINST the citizenry with the insurance industry.

Last I checked, the politicians were elected to represent "we the people", not "they" the multi-billion dollar industries.

[Mortar-29]

Talk to the Dems about that.

[luadda22]

Greed, Greed, Greed. That's all we hear from the left, "greed and wealth envy". Look at the profit margins of some industries. Brewers 25.9%, Application Software 22.7%, Cell Phones 11.1%. Compare that to Accident & Health Insurance 3.8%, Hospitals 3.6%, Health Care Plans 3.3%. Why don't we hear you complain about greedy Budweiser, or greedy X Box game developers, or greedy cell phone companies? Health insurers directly employ almost 470,000 people at an average salary of $61,409. Without profits these people will be without jobs. Is that what you want? Try operating a business and not make a profit. You may consider health care a "right" but it's not free. Somebody has to pay for it. If it costs $1 trillion a year for health care, then charge every man, woman and child in the US $280 a month for health care, that would be "fair" as you liberals like to say. But no, remember it's easier to be compassionate with other peoples money.

[ctb4679]

Clyburn is doing an Obama here: Clyburn is appeasing and giving in instead of standing his ground and fighting for a good health care bill and real change. There are two turkeys involved here: (1) Obama and (2) the lousy Senate health care bill with no public option and NOTHING for Americans until 2013! Clyburn is trying to protect Obama but it's too late, Obama is an empty suit who phones in his presidency and Democrats and America are better off without him. Hillary 2012.

[nearl451]

Frankly, I don't see how Hillary's approach would have resulted differently. In fact, if I criticize Obama, it is that his efforts have been so consessionary as to be Clintonian....and not just in Healthcare...more hawkish that campaigned in foreign policy, more supportive of Wall Street in finance, more secretive, etc.

There is no evidence that Clinton would have exacted anything more liberal from this Congress.

[sjc_1]

A Public Option that allows people 55-64 years of age to buy into Medicare by paying premiums would actually HELP Medicare. But when it comes to protecting corporate profits the Republicans will be there calling it freedom and protecting you from big government. Propaganda is convincing you something bad for you is good for you and vice versa. The GOP are masters at that.

[luadda22]

I doubt that allowing people that can't get insurance any other place (due to preexisting conditions or income) would actually help Medicare. Their treatment costs would be higher than average and their payments would have to be subsidized. That said, why do all the liberals try to blame everyone else? Obama does it, Nancy and Harry do it and all the liberal posters and commentators do it. Don't you realize that you do not need ONE Republican to pass this monstrosity? Get your own house in order before you come over a criticize mine.

[sjc_1]

After 100 years of the GOP blocking and fronting for huge corporations, it is a wonderful day that the people and country won one for a change.

[starving1968-1]

Mitch McConnell was on ABC's This Week, and he said that he supported the "Medicare Prescription Entitlement Program", even though it added HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to the federal deficit, because it was unfunded. He then touted how the cost of prescription drugs went down by approximately 30%, because of the program.

But he opposes the "public option", even though it WOULD BE FUNDED, because it would unfairly cause the government to compete against the insurance companies. (In other words, he's afraid that their profits would massively go down.)

[nearl451]

Well, Mitch is rather a Clown. Paint his face white, put a red nose on him, give him size 24 shoesand put him in the circus. His one line: "NOOOOOOOOO".