Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senators Reach Tentative Public Option Deal--Withhold Details As They Await CBO Score
WASHINGTON - Ten Democratic Senators emerged tonight from a long series of meetings having reached a tentative agreement on a public option compromise. None would comment on the actual provisions in the deal, saying they first want to hear back from the Congressional Budget Office, which will begin scoring the new package tomorrow.
"We've made a lot of progress," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE). Now, he says, Democrats will "take the next step and ask the CBO to score what we've been discussing...we don't expect them to respond to us within 24 hours. Apparently it will take a couple days."
Within the past week, the 10 liberal and conservative Democrats hashing out a compromise have discussed a number of potential alternatives to the opt-out public option in the current bill, including tighter insurance reforms, an extension of the competitive market that insures Federal employees, and, most notably, a measure that would allow certain people between the ages of 55 and 64 to pay into Medicare.
However, none of the senators speaking to reporters tonight would confirm which, if any, of these items would be part of the package going to CBO.
Lawmakers have suggested in recent days that the compromises under discussion were meant to replace the national public option that's currently in the bill. The Associated Press as the New York Times are even reporting that the public option is gone. Tonight, though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested that might not be the case. "All the things you've read in the newspapers...'the public option is gone,'--it's not true," Reid said at an impromptu press conference after tonight's meeting broke.
Reid wouldn't elaborate further--and it's worth noting that in recent days, aides and members have tried to characterize some of the ideas on the table as a form of "public option" when in fact none of them are. But it looks like we'll know definitively by the end of the week--and maybe sooner.
"I already know that all 60 senators in my caucus don't agree on every piece of the merger," Reid said. "I know that what we've sent over there to CBO--will send to them tomorrow--not everyone's going to agree on every piece that we've sent over there, but that doesn't mean that we disagree on what we've sent to them."
Emerging from the meeting, public option stalwart Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told reporters, "You're going to find nobody who's happy with everything."
12 Comments so far
Show AllThis crapola doesn't deserve comment.
SSDD.
Ugh. This doesn't sound good at all. I read on Reuters that the public option is going to be replaced with "a non-profit plan operated by private insurers but administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises health coverage for federal workers".
Here's the link: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B807720091209
I mean, can you say fox guarding hen house? Why should "private insurers" be allowed to operate a "non profit" plan? What the hell does that mean? I laughed when I read that quote. That's like saying Gitmo is going to open a spa within their facility where prisoners can go to relax and work out the kinks after a long day's beating.
This smells like BS.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NOW!
But the private plan will have a US Government Seal of Approval. Nice Democrat gimmick!
The saddest and most aggravating thing about it is that when this Danse Macabre of Seven Thousand Veils finally grinds to a halt, and the grotesque abomination of No Insurer Left Behind legislation is brought out to the balcony and presented to We the Slaves assembled in the courtyard, there will be cheering and applause.
There will be earnest and enthusiastic bubbling over the Emperor's New Health Care Reform. Even CD will bloom with a thousand exhortations that NOW the battle is just BEGINNING!
Wilted and brittle pragmatism will spring up anew, and carping nay-sayers will be casually dismissed out of hand with knowing observations, e.g. health care reform is really a second-term thing anyway.
Get it over with, already.
· Yr Obd't Servant
As if the public option had a chance anyway. These people are not legislators. They are a fucking joke!
Nothing good can come from Washington corruption.
Anticipating where this is headed, I'd like to recommend an old southern remedy:
Beaudreaux's Butt Paste http://www.buttpaste.com/BLButtPaste.php
Relief for the red heinie y'all gonna git 'cause a' the health insurance y'all ain't gonna git.
The so-called "public option" which was going to be neither public nor much of an option has been dropped by the Senate for a "health market" plus expansion of Medicare to "buy in" beginning at 55 years.
On the whole this is a small step forward. The dropping of a castrated "public option" is a plus and its apparent replacement by the modest but helpful expansion of Medicare is a plus too. I have always considered the construct of a new Federal program, in this case "Public Option" the summit of idiocy when there is already a working Federal program available, in this case Medicare.
"Health Market" in my view is a big negative. I would not want my health to be governed by a "market" given the undeniable fact that "markets" have the nasty habit of collapsing every once in a while. The other big negative of the bill is the "trigger" of starting a castrated "public option" if the market does not work which it assuredly will not. It absolutely beats me why so-called "progressives" and "liberals" have become so wildly enamored with the flawed concept of "Public Option" instead of expansion of Medicare. We will never know what might have happened if "Medicare for All" would have been supported by "progressives and liberals" and the White House at the start of this whole messy political process. If a health bill is eventually passed it will not be a plus for President Obama in my view.
Of course I favore the availability of Medicare for everyone and a major flaw of the Senate bill is that it does not cover the age group 0 to 21. Nevertheless, the door for "Medicare for All" has been opened a tiny crack. Once the current system is on the brink of collapse which will happen according to most "experts" it might have a chance of being adopted and passed in Congress.
The health debate, I think, would have been very different had the main theme been expansion of Medicare. People understand that program. Plus, you wouldn't have had the seniors out there screaming keep your guv'ment paws off my Medicare, not to mention they might have added to their education -- yes, seniors, Medicare is a single-payer government-administered health insurance program. The Repubs would have had a more difficult time attacking expanded Medicare, as is demonstrated by their recent tactics of "saving Medicare."
The acceptance of Medicare was evidenced in the polls. When the words single-payer or public option were introduced into questions on polls the results were not as positive. Substitute Medicare as the "public option" and that's where you get your 60-to-70% favorable numbers.
The most useless player in this health care debate has been Obama. I don't know what he said to the Senate when he visited this past Sunday, but I'm sure it was along the lines of just get the bill done and I'll sign it. So, yes, we should ditch everything and pass Medicare for All, because that would really push Obama against the wall. He would never be able to explain to the people why he vetoed a Medicare for All bill. Even the Obama wingnuts would turn against him.
One of the best questions I read yesterday was: Why is Medicare fine for people 65 and over, but 0 to 64 it's considered guv'ment run health care and it's a bad thing?
If Obama had launched a plan that was harder for the Republicans to attack, Medicare for all might have passed and Obama would have lost a lot of K street money. Even if Medicare for all didn't pass, it would have been more difficult for Obama to blame the Republicans for his corporate welfare program disguised as health care reform.
Medicare was designed to a great extent by the health insurance industry,
the goal being to get rid of the oldest customers.
Lowering Medicare age to 55, again a big increase in profit for health insurers.
Now 18% of workers employed in a medical industry that consumes 18% of our GDP.
Without a robust Public Option in 15 years 36% of workers would be employed
in such a medical disaster and to compete in the global economy our wages
would need to be cut in half.
Did the TARP or the wars get CBO scores? Just asking.
Joe