Press Release

30 Senators Sign Letter Urging Inclusion Of Public Option In Final Health Reform Legislation

Oct 9, 2009

Washington, DC – Thirty U.S. Senators signed a letter today urging the
inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be
considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 Senators at least have
expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by
voting for a strong public option during committee markups.

Senator Gillibrand was joined on the
letter by Senators 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); 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); and
Paul Kirk (D-MA).

“Ensuring that every American has
access to quality, affordable health care is a national priority,” Senator
Gillibrand said. “I continue to support a robust public option that can compete
with private health insurance and drive down health care costs for
everyone. With more than 47 million uninsured Americans and millions of
families and businesses struggling with rising health care costs, the time to
act is now. We cannot have a system in which the only choice is private plans.
Everyone should have the option of buying into a not-for profit public plan at
a rate that they can afford. I am proud to join with my colleagues to fight for
the inclusion of a public plan option in health care reform.”

The Senators’ letter expresses
concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option –
health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost
containment.”

It continues on to state that “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.”

A full copy of the letter can be
found below.

Senator Gillibrand is an outspoken
advocate of the public option. In April, Senator Gillibrand joined a letter
with 21 Senate colleagues calling for a strong public health insurance option
to be included in health reform efforts. In May, she joined a resolution
sponsored by 28 senators calling for a public option.

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.