Reid: Senate Bill to Include Public Option
Reid says states will have the prerogative of opting out of the program if they choose.
Reid noted that polls show widespread public support for giving the government a role in the overhauled health care system envisioned by President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress.
Meantime, the head of the AFL-CIO said Monday he's willing to consider a tax on high-end health insurance plans to help pay for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, as long as middle-class workers aren't hurt.
The comments by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka indicated new flexibility on the issue from a powerful Democratic constituency as House and Senate leaders scramble to finalize sweeping health care legislation. Trumka last month dismissed the proposed insurance plan tax as "outrageous."
The tax is the Senate's preferred method to pay for covering the uninsured, but labor leaders have worried their workers would be affected even though lawmakers were aiming the proposed tax at insurance plans offering the richest benefits - what Obama has called "Cadillac" plans.
"If you show me a definition of a Cadillac plan that hits the Cadillac plans and not the middle class, then we'd take a look at that, of course," Trumka told reporters on a conference call. "If you wanted to tax the Goldman Sachs plans, I think that's fine," he said.
Trumka declined to say at what level he could support the tax.
As approved by the Senate Finance Committee, the tax to be levied on insurance companies would be equal to 40 percent of total premiums paid on insurance plans costing more than $8,000 annually for individuals and $21,000 for families. Retirees over age 55 and people in high-risk professions would be allowed to have somewhat more valuable plans before they're taxed.
The Finance version already reflected compromises in response to labor's concerns, and senators have said the values of plans to be taxed will be even higher in the final bill the Senate will debate.
Trumka emphasized he continued to view the insurance tax plan as bad policy, saying that labor's preferred approach to pay for the $900 billion, 10-year legislation is the one taken by the House, which would raise income taxes on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.
Christina Romer, the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, gave the proposal for a tax on expensive health care plans a strong endorsement Monday, citing it as one of the "key innovations" that would likely stem the expanding cost of health care.
"A policy along these lines, designed carefully, would encourage both employers and employees to be more watchful health care consumers," Romer said in a speech at the Center for American Progress. "It will discourage insurance companies from offering higher-priced plans that would otherwise eat up larger and larger shares of workers' wages."
Trumka declined to support a version of that plan currently contemplated by Reid, which would establish a so-called "public option" insurance plan nationally but allow states to opt out.
"We support a robust public option. We think that's a step in the right direction but ... it's not there yet," Trumka said.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told reporters Monday while traveling with Obama on Air Force One to Florida that he thinks it will be hard for Reid to muster 60 votes for a public option plan in which states can opt out. He said at least four key senators seem opposed.
If an opt-out plan can pass, he said, he hopes states would not be able to exercise the opt-out for at least two years. Otherwise, Nelson said, the powerful insurance lobby "will convince state legislatures to opt out at the very beginning," before a public option plan has had a chance to prove its worth.
Nelson was Florida's elected insurance commissioner from 1994 to 2000.
Trumka also said that the federation supports requiring employers to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty. Instead of imposing such a requirement Reid is looking at charging large companies significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own.
In general, the bills taking shape in both houses are intended to expand coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denial of coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and slow the growth in medical spending nationally.
They would create a new federally regulated marketplace, termed an exchange, where individuals and families could purchase insurance sold by private industry. Federal subsidies would be available to help those at lower incomes afford the cost.
Subsidies would also be available to smaller businesses as an incentive for them to provide insurance.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
24 Comments so far
Show AllSingle payer or single term.
Public option is not an option.
Kudos to Harry Reid, the only guy on Capitol Hill with some common sence....THANK GOD.
Medicare for Everyone? I sure hope so!
Otherwise it's going to be:
"take two aspirins and sacrifice a politician to the gods of health."
Harry Reid is just playing the public and throwing money at the insurance corporations.
Dump Harry, dump for profit insurance companies.
I'm really afraid to see these jackasses idea of 'public option.'
"Obama has set a $900-billion, 10-year price tag for the legislation, and the program would be funded through cuts in future payments to Medicare providers..."
What is that, a death panel??
Yet another massive handout for the insurance companies... This is worse that the current situation, if that is even possible.
From the article: "Moderate Democrats have tended to shy away from the so-called public option, fearing criticism that they were supporting a government takeover of the nation's health care system."
Moderate has become the media's new code word for stupid, right wing sellouts... part of their insidious misinformation strategy.
Anybody who thinks a DEM senator will listen then contact them asap. We need Medicare Part E for everybody. For Minnesota we need to hear from Amy and Al loud and clear where they stand.
Montana take care of that goof ball and North Dakota take your goofy Konrad to task. Any other DEM who turns their back on President Obama will be taken to task also. We will vote them out of office.
The "now you see it, now you don't" public option bandied about by our Elected Misrepresentatives is a placebo.
I've frequently referred to a memorable appearance by Russ Feingold on "Democracy Now" in May of this year, in which Amy Goodman asked Feingold why Congress refused to even consider "single payer".
The normally crisp and articulate Feingold was reduced to practically hanging his head as he mumbled over and over that it just isn't possible. He dutifully, if desperately, tacked on a tattered strip of window dressing and suggested that SOME accommodation might be made as a "step" to single payer in the unforseeable future.
And the "half-full" self-styled "pragmatists" and "realists" only need to hear "Give 'em Hype" Harry Reid announce that a Public Option poke is on the table to declare victory. Never mind what the pig inside looks like-- although even as a city boy I'm pretty sure that pigs don't have spiky fur, whiskers, and a long straight tail!
If by chance Obama gets his "win" in the form a of No Insurer Left Behind requiring onerous mandatory participation and a placebo "public option", at least if Feingold returns to "Democracy Now" he'll be back on sound footing-- like a proud new daddy showing off pictures of baby's first step.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I want to comment about lowering health care costs by ending this CRAZY and unjustifiable 30% C/Section rate that this country has now. It was 5% in 1970 and our outcomes are NOT any better now. They are indeed WORSE!! Women, educate yourselves and guys do the same! The doctors aren't going to change anything unless pushed....oh, BTW, read the book PUSHED by Jennifer Block (2007) to find out how we got to this point.
It's extremely well cited using studies published in medical journals. And of course, single payer health care is the only way to go and I think in 25 years we'll be there...
Way to go Harry! Make sure nothing passes. Help get rid of your own nauseaous bill!!
This is just a crumb for the peons anyway. It is a distraction from Single-payer and that only. "Obamacare" is bogus and won't really remedy anything. More proof that "We the People" are again muted.
Notice how almost all progressive sites have slowed the appeal and news on single-payer and now a "ROBUST" public auction is now the focal point? Right there is a major step back.
If you find yourself--in the back of your mind--thinking, "Hmmmm. They are starting to 'get it' about a public option", then their strategy has worked on YOU!
If Dennis K. says this is a step forward, will you change your name?
Nope. Maybe this will be a step forward but it ain't the best option. I don't know what you're driving at but were you an Obama voter?
Well now you are saying "Maybe this will be a step forward", which if you had said that before I would not have asked about your name at all.
And yes, Kucinich and I both voted for Obama.
Who did you vote for?
If it has a trigger option, it will be worse than useless.
A trigger will only shoot blanks.
"Moderate Democrats have tended to shy away from the so-called public option, fearing criticism that they were supporting a government takeover of the nation's health care system."
What a loaded sentence! "moderate dems", "shy away", "so-called public option", "fearing criticism", "government takeover"...
i ask you, what is wrong with a "government takeover of the nation's health care system"? that is just what the doctor ordered...
Be prepared for intense opposition and fear mongering from the Repugs and Max Baucuses of Congress.
Yes, although in 2012 we, the people, have a chance to throw all these rascals out. Trouble is that "we the people" failed to do that in 2008 and are bound to repeat in 2012.
If 'we' throw these rascals out, who would 'we' elect in, the Repugs again? The choices do seem kinda limited and whether you go right or left, it doesn't make an iota of a difference.
It doesn't make an iota of difference because the choice between Democrats and Republicans is in most cases between different strains of right-wing.
Democrat and Republican Primaries are the ONLY important elections in America.
If you don't kick them out with a highly motivated group of people who want to purge the establishment Dems/Reps in the primaries... then you have no chance to kick them out in the General Election, because that's when all the idiots who just follow sound-bites on TV actually vote. Those idiots vote party-lines no matter what. That's why third parties never make sense - these General Election party-line voting idiots ruin any chance of a third party...
Basically, you can never let it get that far. If party-fanatics decide primaries then the choice will be between two corporate choices, handed down by the DNC / RNC. I don't see why progressives/libertarians don't focus 100% of their energy on primaries to stop even the option of a corporate/establishment choice.
Right now we have a bunch of progressives who because of the label "Democrat" or "Republican" don't vote in the primaries, because they don't want to be associated with "those people." Why can't Ralph Nader run as a Democrat? Because of a f---ing label.
Progressives need to get over themselves and make a strategy to win, not lose because they can't be "labeled" with those other corrupt politicians. Either vote in the primaries to change the establishment, or don't bother voting. Only in primaries can we make a difference.
Voting is a blunt instrument, in that it only takes place every 2, 4, or 6 years, depending on the office. And as we all know, our electoral system is highly rigged to favor those with lots of money. To have any chance to fix things, we need to constantly pressure our lawmakers--the ones we have. We also must strongly and publicly vocalize our wishes.