Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Harry Reid Announces Senate Health Bill With Public Option

Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet at 1:37 PM on October 26, 2009.


In a striking announcement, the Senate majority leader says he has the votes to stop a filibuster against a public option; gives up on Snowe.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Politics in your
mailbox!

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, long a target for the ire of progressives given his reluctance to express support for including a public health-insurance plan in the Senate's health-care reform bill, today surprised reporters with his announcement that the final Senate bill will contain a public option.

States will be permitted to opt out of the plan via their state's legislative process -- an escape clause, if you will, for a handful of Democratic senators who are less than keen on the notion of a public plan.

"I believe that a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system," Reid said, "will protect consumers, keep insurers honest, and ensure competition. And that's why we intend to include it in the bill will be submitted to the Senate."

Reid has been under relentless pressure from progressives to craft a bill containing a public insurance plan just as he gears up for what is expected to be a tough re-election campaign for 2010. Just last week, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee launched a television ad targeting Reid that asked, "Is Harry Reid strong enough?"

Most striking is that Reid's decision to include the public option assures the lack of a single Republican vote for health-care reform in the Senate, despite months of wrangling to get at least one -- that of Maine's Olympia Snowe.  So desirous was the president of having a bipartisan bill, the White House seemed ready to cave to Snowe's proposal for a "trigger" -- a sort of imaginary public option, one that would only go into effect after private insurers had a few years to reduce costs on their own. Had the insurers failed to meet a benchmark for cost reduction, then a public plan would be designed, built and implemented -- a scheme that critics, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., see at best as a delaying tactic.

Just hours before Reid's press conference, the White House signaled weakness on the public option in a speech by Christina Romer, chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, who expressed a personal belief in the public option as a means of cost containment, but used qualified language to say so.

In her prepared remarks to journalists and policymakers at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., Romer cited a public option as a "potentially important source of cost containment." Romer was more definite about the benefits of two other measures for holding down costs: Medicare cost reform, and an excise tax, such as that proposed by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on high-cost private plans -- a concept opposed by the AFL-CIO.

Asked by AlterNet why her enthusiasm for the cost-savings offered by a public option was limited to a maybe, Romer replied, "I was certainly planning to present all three of these [proposals] as important." But the broader agreement among economists, she said, was for "something like the Kerry proposal."

Up until today, the White House had signaled a willingness to accept Snowe's trigger plan. But when Sam Stein of The Huffington Post asked about any potential cost containment offered by a trigger plan, Romer said she had no evidence of such -- a harbinger, perhaps, of the announcement later in the day that the Democrats would move forward without the Maine Republican.

After days of meetings, Reid explained, he and the two senators who produced the legislation from their respective committees -- Chris Dodd, D-Conn., of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee -- met with White House staff to hammer out a final proposal that Reid described as a "melding" of the two committees' bills. Though tight-lipped about the result, Reid did let on that the final bill would retain the provision for a health-care co-op system contained in the Finance Committee bill.

Next up, the "melded" bill will go to the Congressional Budget Office for cost analysis of its various provisions.  Any final tweaks will come after the CBO has scored the proposed legislation. The bill will then enter the legislative process, at which point Republicans will likely try to launch a filibuster stop the bill from coming to the Senate floor for a vote.

Reid expressed confidence that he had the 60 votes he would need to stop a promised GOP filibuster of the bill -- a legislative maneuver that, if successful, would keep health-care reform legislation for moving to the Senate floor for a vote by the full body. That likely means that Reid has exacted promises out of conservative Democrats who oppose the public option, such as Mary Landrieu, La.; Blanche Lincoln, Ark.; Ben Nelson, Neb., and the independent Joe Lieberman, Conn., that although they're unlikely to vote for the final bill because of Reid's opt-out plan, they won't side with Republicans in preventing the bill from coming to the floor.

One reporter asked if the Senate Majority Leader had asked the White House to call any of the senators in question. "I haven't asked them to make any calls," Reid said. "It hasn't been necessary at this point."

Looks like we just may get health-care reform, after all.

Digg!

Tagged as: health care, harry reid, christina romer, olympia snowe, public option, healthcare reform

Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington bureau chief.


What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Palin's associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theory
Post by Bruce Wilson. November 21, 2009.
Tea-Parties so Diverse, They Had to Use the Same Black Guy in 5 Different Scenes of Tea-Bagger Movie
Really, you know a black tea-bagger named Nate?
Post by Oliver Willis. November 20, 2009.
Utah Lawmaker: I Don't Mind "the Gays," but "I Don’t Want ‘Em Stuffing it Down My Throat all the Time"
"Certainly not in my kid's face."
Post by Zaid Jilani. November 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Might as well admit it - Rationing
Posted by: McGovern72! on Oct 26, 2009 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every hardcore advocate of the government "public option" is really thirsting for rationing - by government 'droids. While we may have forms of what you could call rationing by doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, getting as far away as the gov't is from the patient is asking for a disaster. All the hospitals aren't as callous as Michelle Obama's employer in Chicgo, and the health insurors are running about a 2% profit margin - worse even than Tupperware.

But if we lower health care to what unemployed postal workers and TSA goofs will be doing over the phone line, we will never be happy - none of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Might as well admit it - Rationing Posted by: DynamicDriveler
» Silly, silly you Posted by: themotie
» Rationing Posted by: SilverBeex
» RE: 2% Profit Margin Posted by: armorypk
Truly a Momentous Development ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 26, 2009 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep the pressure up call and email now ...

Your Congressmen by Zip and the White House

Especially The White House ... what Obama is doing is unconscionable ...

Don't forget to thank those that supported the Robust Public Option ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you live in AK or LA
Posted by: hedgewytch on Oct 26, 2009 4:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and a public option opt-out clause is passed, then those residents of those states have yet ANOTHER considerable battle to wage to get our Representatives to represent the people. That's why I don't support an opt-out clause.

I support the immediate expansion of Medicaide/Medicare to all and restore to those programs all that the Republicans cut and de-regulated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This means NOTHING
Posted by: newsound on Oct 26, 2009 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's not a government single-payer system, then you've got NOTHING.
This is a bunch of smoke & mirrors to keep the big $$$ corporations happy who have paid legislators to keep the status quo. If Americans think that there is going to be any reform, they are stupid and deserve what they get . . . medical welfare for the poor, put fully on the shoulders of the individual states.
Yeah . . . some reform. How much more watered-down can this get?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» single payer destinations Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: single payer destinations Posted by: newsound
The more important questions are:
Posted by: austex_chris on Oct 26, 2009 6:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Will anyone and everyone be allowed to buy into the public option?

2. Will the Public Option be national or will it be broken down into smaller pools, either by state or region?

3. Will insurance companies be given a way to reject people with pre-existing conditions so that the public option ends up being the default option for all those people who are not profitable to the insurance companies?

A goo public option needs to be

A) Available to anyone, rich or poor, young or old. This makes it more financially viable for young people like myself (32) to buy into it who will make it more profitable.

B) Be nationwide, so that the pool is the largest. The insurance companies don't compete with each other on a national level, that is why they have an anti-trust exemption. If the public option is national in nature, then the insurance companies will have a serious competitor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Stimulus Health Insurance Public Option
Posted by: Concernaboutnow on Oct 27, 2009 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like the stimulus package that was sent to the states, the Republic legislatures in red states will accept the public option because they know it will be an inexpensive way for many of their constituents to get health care. They took the stimulus money and claimed it as their own. They secretly realize that health insurance companies have been sticking it to the American people for years. By the way, the only thing that heath insurances do for health care is let people die who cannot afford their premiums. Another thing that they do is increase premiums and deductions so they can reap more profits.
After the death of millions of their constituents, those with and without health insurance, why should our elected representatives even care if health insurance companies become extinct because they really serve no clear purpose other than to be stewards of our money and sometimes pay for services we receive from health care providers. This should not be left in the hands of uncaring Blue Cross Blue Shields, Atnea, or United Healthcare but those who pledge to protect the health and welfare of the American people, our government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Request for basic info about the "option"
Posted by: kip sullivan on Oct 27, 2009 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could someone at AlterNet describe the Democrats' "option" -- the one AlterNet claims will "keep the insurance companies honest" and save money? Let's just start with the most basic questions:

* How many regional or state-level "option" programs do you expect will be set up?

* The Democrats' legislation requires the federal government to contract with private-sector corporations to set these "options" up. Will these corporations be insurance companies? What role will these insurance companies play after they've set the "option" plans up? Will they continue to run the "option" plans?

* Will the enrollments of these "option" plans be large enough to permit them to survive in competition with the insurance industry?

I posed similar questions to the Congressional Budget Office in an open letter to the CBO posted on October 2 and mailed return-receipt-requested on October 3 linked text. I have received no answer, nor a shred of feedback from "option" proponents.

What provoked my letter to the CBO was a series of letters to members of Congress from the CBO in which the CBO offered estimates of how many people would enroll in the co-ops proposed by the Senate Finance committee, the "option" proposed by the Senate health committee, and the "option" proposed by the House legislation (HR 3200). CBO reported that the "option" programs will enroll somewhere between zero (the Senate bill) and 10 million Americans (HR 3200). But the CBO didn't offer any explanation about the assumptions they made to arrive at these estimates, including assumptions it must have made about who will set the "option" plans up and whether any of them will grow large enough to survive competition with the 800-pound gorrilas that dominate insurance markets through the US today.

I would appreciate it if AlterNet would help its readers answer basic questions about what the "option" is -- including how it will be established -- before rather than after the Democrats pass their insurance indusry bailout. We don't need to hear one more claim from AlterNet, Howard Dean, Sen. Schumer, or Health Care for America Now that the "option" will "be like Medicare," "will hold the insurance companies accountable," and "will save money." Americans need some basic information about the "option" so we can evaluate these claims for ourselves.

Kip Sullivan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where's the non-mandatory plan?
Posted by: lclark on Oct 27, 2009 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where the option to pay for national healthcare out of the tax revenue, rather than require me to purchase it from what I have left over after the various federal, state, sales, property, and hidden taxes I already pat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still more gimmicks
Posted by: reelectnoone on Oct 27, 2009 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am happy to see a public option...however, I hate to see any gimmicks that may have the effect of making reform a never-ending fight, taken to the states one by one if they choose to opt out.

This is yet another version of "Pass the Buck".

What if my state opts out...do I get the individual right to opt myself back in or will millions in my state still remain without health care? Is that reform or reform for a few?

Does not sound like equal protection under the law to me. Sounds like selling out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll believe it when I see it
Posted by: willymack on Oct 27, 2009 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When real health care isn't just another scam.
When we finally join the rest of the civilized world with a non-profit universal health care plan of our own, worthy of the admiration of the rest of the world.
When all other health care plans can be scrapped or retired because coverage is truly universal and EVERYONE is covered ALWAYS, with no exceptions.
This is the logical and HUMANE thing to do, but logical and humane is not what we're about, at least not yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thier under pressure!
Posted by: lclark on Oct 27, 2009 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We always get screwed. They say bills are changed under intense pressure from lobbyists. What could that mean, really?

They can't hold a gun to thier heads. They only have actually a handfull of votes among the whole gang of lobbyists and the interests they represent.

It can only mean they either have someone blackmailed or they withhold money from the representative.

So when they say they are under pressure by powerful lobbyists is basicly admits that they can only run for office if they are agreeable to their interests and not what is in the interests of citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]