30 Senators Sign Letter Supporting Public Option

October 8, 2009 12:21 p.m.
EDITORS' NOTE: TPM is making our COVID-19 coverage free to all readers during this national health crisis. If you’d like to support TPM's reporters, editors and staff, the best way to do so is to become a member.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and 29 of his colleagues have sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supporting a public option.

“Support for the public option runs deep in the Senate,” Brown said. “Health insurance reform is all about lowering costs, improving care, and increasing choice for consumers. In too many parts of the country, one or two insurance companies control the majority of the market. This isn’t good for consumers, businesses, or taxpayers. As we finalize health reform legislation, we shouldn’t forget that a majority of Americans, doctors, and Members of Congress support a public option.”

You can read the letter below the fold. In it, Brown notes that one of the major differences between a public option and a private co-op proposal is that a public option would be “available continuously in all parts of the country.” That’s by way of contrast to a new proposal, gaining traction right now, to let individual states opt out of any national public option.

Tonight, I’m told, Brown and several of his colleagues will present it on the floor and push the line that the public option has significant support in the Senate.

October 8, 2009

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader

United States Senate

The Capitol, S-221

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that – absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.

As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.

We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform – the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee – have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats – every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.

The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.

Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance – rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee’s approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.

Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.


Sherrod Brown (D-OH) John D. Rockefeller (D-WV)

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) Tom Udall (D-NM)

Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY) Roland W. Burris (D-IL)

Ron Wyden (D-OR) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Michael F. Bennet (D-CO) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Jack Reed (D-RI) Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Al Franken (D-MN) Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA)

Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)

Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE) Arlen Specter (D-PA)

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Bernard Sanders (I-VT) John F. Kerry (D-MA)

Herb Kohl (D-WI) Paul Kirk (D-MA)

Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Senior Editor:
Special Projects Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Publishing Associate:
Front-End Developer:
Senior Designer: