MSNBC "The Ed Show" - Transcript
Interview
MSNBC "The Ed Show" - Transcript
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Now, for more on all of this, let's go to Congressman Jerry Nadler. Jerry Nadler, if we can have-is also a member of the Progressive Caucus, and he joins us tonight. Let's go to him if we can wake up a little bit.
All right.
Congressman Nadler, great to have you with us on the program tonight, if we can get a few things straightened out here. There we go.
Good to have you on.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Good to be here.
SCHULTZ: OK.
You've called this compromise unacceptable. Why? Why is it unacceptable?
NADLER: Well, it basically it does a couple things. It severely limits the usefulness of the public option. It says we still have a public option, but it says that we cannot base the rates, the reimburse rates of doctors and hospitals, on Medicare rates. Instead, the secretary has to negotiate them, which means the rates will be much higher than they should be and that they could be if we let them be based on Medicare rates, which in turn means the cost to the people who subscribe to the public option will be much higher, and it will have much less effect on, as the president puts it, keeping the private insurance companies honest.
One of the major points of the public option is by being there, putting downward pressure on insurance company rates, and insofar as the rates are higher here because we cannot use Medicare-based rates, there'll be less pressure to keep the rates down not only in the public option, but in the private sector.
SCHULTZ: But now it's the liberal wing in the House that is going to be slowing things down. Or is that a wrong assessment on this?
NADLER: Well, I don't know if it's a question of slowing things down. We are very upset with the version of the bill that's now under discussion in the Commerce Committee, in addition to which-in addition to what I said a moment ago, by not saving as much money on the-by not permitting the public option to save as much money, it's going to cost-the bill is going to cost a lot more. And the Blue Dogs, in order to offset those extra costs, are saying, OK, we'll do two things.
Number one, we'll reduce the subsidies and therefore increase the premiums that moderate and middle income people pay for their insurance in the public and private sectors. And secondly, we will impose an unfunded mandate of some of the costs the federal government would have borne on the state governments. I think those are not great ideas.
SCHULTZ: All right. What about Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff? When he was in the Congress, and during this run-up to this election, you know, he went out and recruited all these conservative Democrats to run because he wanted the majority. Now he's saying, well, you can go ahead and vote however you want on this thing.
Isn't this shortchanging liberals that worked really hard for President Obama? I mean, why is it that it seems that the Democrats just aren't willing to put it to the floorboard to go after what they want when they've got such a sizeable majority in the House?
NADLER: Well, first of all, because, look, a couple of things there. First of all, I think it's not clear what the administration is doing yet, or, for that matter, what our leadership is doing yet.
There are three bills. One came out of Ways and Means, quite a good bill. One came out of Energy and Labor, quite a good bill. And one may come out Energy and Commerce that leaves something to be desired.
Those three bills are going to have to be put together. And a good test of the leadership in the House and of the administration will be, what does the final bill that we bring to the floor of the House look like? Does it look more like the robust public options in the Ways and Means and Education and Labor bills, or does it look like the weak public option that I think is going to come out-that I fear is going to come out of the Commerce Committee?
SCHULTZ: Congressman Nadler, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much.
NADLER: You're quite welcome.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source