December 9, 2009 in Nation/World

Deal would remove public-option plan

Shailagh Murray And Lori Montgomery Washington Post

WASHINGTON – Democratic Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to drop the controversial government-run insurance plan from their overhaul of the health care system, hoping to remove a last major roadblock preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber.

Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created.

In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.

The announcement came after six days of negotiations among 10 Democrats – five liberals and five moderates – appointed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to work out differences between the two camps on the public option and other pressing issues. Appearing in the Capitol with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the leader of the liberal faction, and Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., representing moderates, Reid hailed the deal as a broad agreement that has the potential to “overcome a real problem that we had” and push the measure to final Senate vote before Christmas.

“Not everyone is going to agree with every piece,” Reid said. But when asked whether the deal means the end is in sight after nearly a year of work on President Obama’s most important domestic initiative, he smiled. “The answer’s yes,” he said.

According to a Democrat briefed on the talks, the deal represents only an agreement among the 10 negotiators to send the new package to congressional budget analysts, not an agreement to support its elements. One of the negotiators, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., quickly issued a statement criticizing the deal.

“While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach,” he said. He added, however, that he will base his vote “on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I think the bill is good for Wisconsin.”

Democrats must also win the approval of several key lawmakers who have not been involved in the talks.

But if the deal holds, it will represent a major breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues of the health care debate, settling a dispute between moderates wary of excessive government intrusion into the private sector and liberals determined to create a strong competitor able to curb the most egregious abuses in the private insurance industry.

“It may be different from what was previously included in the bill,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, “but it accomplishes the same goals as a so-called public option.”

Earlier in the day, the Senate turned back an amendment that would have barred millions of Americans from purchasing subsidized insurance policies that cover abortion, as Democratic leaders struggled to maintain a delicate party coalition. The amendment was rejected 54 to 45. Although the outcome of the vote was not a surprise, the defeat could cost Reid the support of Sen. Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, a conservative Democrat who has threatened to join a GOP filibuster of the bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Nelson is one of five moderates in the Democratic caucus demanding changes to the legislation, forcing Reid to balance their concerns with those of liberals as he seeks to maintain the 60 votes needed to push a bill across the finish line.

Key liberals said they were prepared to abandon a government-run insurance program if it would move the chamber closer to a final deal, provided it was replaced with other coverage options and tighter restrictions on insurance companies. “I don’t think we’re going to get that right now,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said of the public option. “So we’re going for as strong a regulation guidance as we possibly can.”

Story
Comments 06

Six comments on this story so far. Add yours!

Pat OLeary on December 09 at 6:45 a.m.
I don't know why we elected Democrats if they are going to vote just like Republicans. Gutless bastards forget who elected them.

Flag as inappropriate
spokanada on December 09 at 8:53 a.m.
Pat did you vote for them?

Flag as inappropriate
Ninch on December 09 at 8:56 a.m.
Letting 55-64 year olds buy into Medicare… a program that has such low reimbursement rates in Eastern Washington that many doctors have decided not to accept new Medicare patients! And Medicare Part B is on track to becoming insolvent in 2017. So how is this new scheme/scam supposed to work? Everyone will have insurance with much paid of it paid by federal subsidies, but there will be greatly reduced access… aka nowhere to use insurance? The insurance companies get guaranteed customers ala the Obama deal, but medical professionals get the shaft if forced to take on Medicare patients. And where is the money going to come from to rescue Medicare in 2017… from the major Medicare cuts that are to be used to fund ObamaCare? Another issue is that ObamaCare cuts funds by 10% for Medicare home visits, a program that reduces hospital care and costs significantly. Add the fact that 15 million Baby Boomers are entering Medicare at age 65 when ObamaCare takes effect.

What kind of math are Obama and Congressional Democrats using… the math of “hope?” Where's the common sense and pragmatism? Or do Obama and his Dems hate the elderly that much? And are they so stupid as to not realize that seniors are the most educated and reliant of voters? If ObamaCare passes then the GOP need only to run in 2010 on dumping it and getting real health care reform.

Bottom line: As many have already argued, mandating everyone to buy health care insurance will not solve the REAL problem of lack of access to health care services (i.e. need for authentic health care reform), and in fact may very well make it worse, including further escalating costs.

Flag as inappropriate
Diana on December 09 at 10:20 a.m.
Why do you call it Obamacare? President Obama doesn't make the law, Congress does.

What do you think will happen if we do nothing? The for-profit system we have now is being crushed under it's own weight. My premiums went up nearly 50% in the last year. I can't consider any job change because I have family members with pre-existing conditions. My parents went bankrupt and lost everything because of my dad's illness. Do insurance company CEO's really need to make $20 million a year? And what of the people who don't have coverage and become seriously ill? Just…suffer and die? The fact is that we're paying for it all now, but in a not very smart way.

Flag as inappropriate
ChefGus on December 09 at 11:35 a.m.
So we are going to “give” all of the high cost patients ( those of us over 55) to the Medicare type coverage and let the insurance companies continue to pour the gravy into their potato pile and enjoy the profits without the risk?

It IS congress, not Obama that is driving this… my only last hope/prayer is that our President will Veto.. yest Veto any health care program from congress that does not have a public option as competition from the pirates that are running the insurance companies and denying care to many.

I know many many people, my Partner mary included that are not able to retire/or change jobs for fear of losing their health care coverage…..

I am becoming dissatisfied with the seeming lack of Chutzpah from our President… with a landslide victory… and a senate majority… not much “progressive” is going on…. bah humbug.. john

Flag as inappropriate
Lewis on December 09 at 10:34 p.m.
My basic health premium doubled in one month, I don't know what I can live without? Heat, food, water, insurance i never use.? Hell of a choice.

I have never even used it, I only have it in case I have to go to the hospital for something. Oh well I have lived years with no insurance guess it is time to ride that train again.

Flag as inappropriate