FDL continues live blog of Senate Finance Committee and amendments to add a public option. Prior posts:
1. Early morning with Jon Walker
2. Late morning with Marcy
3. Early afternoon with Marcy

C-SPAN 3 is providing live coverage.

Apparent Democratic support for Public Option: (all Republicans opposed)
For Rockefeller: Rockefeller, Menendez, Stabenow, Cantwell, Wyden, Kerry, Schumer, Nelson: — support Rockefeller, (and if not, then support Schumer version)
For Schumer: All Dems above plus Bingaman and Carper, who support Schumer’s version because it doesn’t link payments to Medicare payment rates
Opposed: Conrad — opposes any PO not structured as a non-profit, co-op, and opposes any plan tied to Medicare; Baucus, likes the PO, but says his job is to get a bill, so he’ll vote against it; also, "Rome wasn’t built in a day."

Live Blog continued

3:53 — we’ll continue live blog later today, when they consider "trigger" amendments.

3:53: VOTE On Schumer Amendment for a Level-playing field Public Option
Ayes: Schumer and all other Dems, except
Noes: Baucus. Conrad, Lincoln and all Republicans

Schumer Amendment fails: 10 to 13

3:44 Schumer — closing argument. If states are doing such a good job, why are consumers complaining so much, and why are rates continuing to rise so fast. The present system is broken on the private side. Provide the PO attacks costs, and that’s the core problem.

Even average folks who have insurance now and want to keep it need the PO, because it will help hold costs down and that will benefit everyone. Medicare is going broke because of escalating costs; if we wait another 5-6 years to fix this, it will be too late. Private system costs are rising faster than Medicare, so private system will continue to raise rates, or lay off people, or stop providing health insurance at work. This isn’t about ideology; it’s about controlling costs.

3:43 Baucus repeats that he can’t vote for a PO because it can’t get 60 votes because he won’t vote for it.
3:40 Cantwell — reminds all that insurance rates have double in last decade and are projected to double again. This is about whether we give consumers a choice and not wait until it is too late. Trend is unsustainable without more competition; we’re buying into a continuation of the status quo, and we can’t sustain it.

3:38 Cornyn — asks why we shouldn’t trust the Attorney General of Texas to protect consumers from insurance predators? Kyl: of course, all of us Republican Attorney’s General love keeping insurers honest — [which is why the states that are most effective at this are New York and California -- oops those were Dems.]

3:35 Kyl: the PO will become "too big to fail," or too important to fail [that's correct] The PO will not keep private insurers honest; only competition will do that [??] and there’s no competition in so many places because the risk pool is too small. He repeats the spin that the PO will "take people from what they have" instead of explaining that if the PO is attractive, people will choose it over what they have, and he doesn’t note that the bills limit (in initial years) access to the Exchange and PO for precisely that reason.

3:32 Bunning — Schumer misunderstands us; we love Medicare, it’s a good thing and it sucks today. That’s why we oppose Medicare cuts and instead want to increase Medicare payments in his state [because we don't really care when Hatch says the unfunded liability is $32 trillion, but I'm confused, so. . . .]

3:30 Ensign worried about the slippery slope. If we create this PO, it will turn us into Europe. We’ll never eliminate the PO, as Schumer claims we would. We’ll subsidize it, let it grow, because its supporters have a different philosophy [jeez, I hope so]. But we Republicans opposed Government, [because Ron Reagan says government is the problem, and we haven't had an original thought since then.]

We don’t need government to compete against the private sector — takes a shot at GM bailout —

3:25 Grassley continues on why "level playing field" won’t work — concerned that government would be tempted to support consumers under the PO. [I would hope so] So eventually, we would gravitate towards a single payer system, which will bring down the Republic, just like all those European countries that provide universal coverage for less and providers still make money . . . oops. "This is not the change the American people are looking for."

3:20 Grassley — says he loves Medicare and will continue to propose amendments to make it better; tells Schumer he needs to recognize that we’re always trying to make Medicare better. [and this is an argument against a PO?] But Medicare hasn’t met all our assurances.

Level playing field is unattaintable [I agree, but for different reasons; it's shouldn't be the goal, because the PO has once set of incentives/goals; the private insurers have other goals/incentives, and they will follow those incentives to different ends.]

Complains that Medicare interferes with medical decisions, and doesn’t pay providers enough, leading to shortages.

3:15 Conrad — this is better, because not tied to Medicare, compared to that scary House bill which gets it right. But he still disagrees with the idea of having a PO which is run by the government. He repeats his misunderstanding of other countries Germany, France, Japan, Switzerland — as a reason why we shouldn’t have a PO that is government run. Instead, he wants a "public interest" option, that is not government run but which magically always follows the public option because he wants it to. [he's never explained how you achieve that over time, without direct government oversight by government entities/boards dedicated by statute to that public purpose. And he doesn't explain why he supports Medicare.]

3:06 Nelson — I will vote for the Schumer amendment. In Fla, 20% are uninsured, and antoehr 5% are in individual markets. These are the only people (plus small businesses) who will be eligible to go into the exchange and be able to choose the PO. So numbers likely to be affected by the PO is small, so the concern about this leading to single payer for all is not credible. Only 25% in his state will even be eligible to make the choice in an Exchange.

3:12 Bingaman — favors Schumer because it’s not tied to Medicare payment rates. Wants assurance the PO would be "non-profit" (Schumer: Yes). It doesn’t require any provider to participate [uh, how do you think the PO will get providers if the private insurers already have a majority of the providers locked up on those areas where they control most of the market? -- these people aren't thinking; they want the PO to succeed, but don't seem to understand what the PO needs to be successful.]

3:04 Schumer — we will show that a plan with a PO can get 60 votes, and that will take care of Baucus concern that he needs "to get a bill." We will keep fighting for this, and the bill on the President’s desk will include a strong public option.

2:55: Schumer — opening argument for Schumer "level playing field" version of PO, not tied to Medicare rates. Differences with Rockefeller version:

1. Must stand on its own; all payments to providers negotiated from day one.

PO will be independent, self sustaining. There will not be another infusion of public dollars; if it fails it fails [if this is true, it's a stupid idea and should be voted down -- here's why: the private insurers will evade the regulations and tend to attract low-cost patients (younger), which means higher-cost patients (older) will tend to gravitate towards the PO; they PO will become the insurer of last resort, and the government will need to meet their needs. That means their subsidies may need to be be higher. If you think of the PO as a precursor to, or an extension of, Medicare, then it's clear the govt will need to intervene to provide greater support, just as we do today for Medicare.]

2:52: Vote on Rockfeller Public Option tied to Medicare rates (first two years):
NO: Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Nelson, Carper, and all Republicans

Final: Ayes = 8
Noes = 15

2:45 Rockefeller closing argument: The public will want the public option (PO) because it makes sense to give them a choice of an entity that doesn’t need to make a profit. People are on the short end of the stick, and the insurers are making all the money. 14,000 / day lose their health insurance; thousands into bankruptcty.

He’s astounded that Republicans would be willing to hand $450 billion to private insurers without offering the public a choice. You need a consumer choice. What’s wrong with giving people a choice? And why not pattern it after a system that people like — Medicare?

This is about people. If there is anything that’s certain, Republican’s insistence on the status quo will increase support for single payer to replace the current system.