Dec 09, 2009
When President Obama spoke to members of Congress the other day about
the need to enact health-care reform he conveniently forgot to mention
the public option.
Senate Democrats got the message.
Their negotiators struck a tentative agreement
Tuesday night to eliminate the "public option" -- the controversial but
necessary plan to set up government-run insurance program to provide
competition (and an incentive to hold down costs) for private insurers.
The negotiators tried to ease the blow to the hopes of progressive
reformers by agreeing to an initiative that would create a number of
national insurance policies that would be developed by the federal
Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for
federal workers, but administered by private firms.
If the private firms fail to do an adequate job, the Senate bill calls for establishment of a genuine public option.
More significantly, the Senate bill proposes to drop the Medicare
eligibility rate to 55, a move that would permit millions of Americans
to buy into the immensely popular federal program for retirees.
These are not inconsequential steps. Nor are the new regulations of
insurance companies that are contained in the Senate bill, which
Democrats leaders now believe they have a genuine chance of passing --
perhaps even gaining a Republican vote, that of Maine's Olympia Snowe.
(But both Snowe are Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman have
expressed reservations about dropping the Medicare eligibility age.)
But the loss of the public option remains a bitter pill -- especially for progressives who want to expand access to health care and hold down the costs that are run up by insurance company profiteering.
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold lodged the most serious objection,
saying he would not "support proposals that would replace the public
option in the bill with a purely private approach."
"We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep
rates down and save taxpayer dollars," said Feingold. "I will base my
vote on the bill on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I
think the bill is good for Wisconsin."
Feingold is not alone in his concerns although, as usual, he is the
more willing than most senators to stand on his own against the
leadership.
Where does this leave us?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's still got some serious cajoling to do if he plans to pass a bill before the Holiday break.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
When President Obama spoke to members of Congress the other day about
the need to enact health-care reform he conveniently forgot to mention
the public option.
Senate Democrats got the message.
Their negotiators struck a tentative agreement
Tuesday night to eliminate the "public option" -- the controversial but
necessary plan to set up government-run insurance program to provide
competition (and an incentive to hold down costs) for private insurers.
The negotiators tried to ease the blow to the hopes of progressive
reformers by agreeing to an initiative that would create a number of
national insurance policies that would be developed by the federal
Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for
federal workers, but administered by private firms.
If the private firms fail to do an adequate job, the Senate bill calls for establishment of a genuine public option.
More significantly, the Senate bill proposes to drop the Medicare
eligibility rate to 55, a move that would permit millions of Americans
to buy into the immensely popular federal program for retirees.
These are not inconsequential steps. Nor are the new regulations of
insurance companies that are contained in the Senate bill, which
Democrats leaders now believe they have a genuine chance of passing --
perhaps even gaining a Republican vote, that of Maine's Olympia Snowe.
(But both Snowe are Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman have
expressed reservations about dropping the Medicare eligibility age.)
But the loss of the public option remains a bitter pill -- especially for progressives who want to expand access to health care and hold down the costs that are run up by insurance company profiteering.
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold lodged the most serious objection,
saying he would not "support proposals that would replace the public
option in the bill with a purely private approach."
"We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep
rates down and save taxpayer dollars," said Feingold. "I will base my
vote on the bill on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I
think the bill is good for Wisconsin."
Feingold is not alone in his concerns although, as usual, he is the
more willing than most senators to stand on his own against the
leadership.
Where does this leave us?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's still got some serious cajoling to do if he plans to pass a bill before the Holiday break.
John Nichols
John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. His books co-authored with Robert W. McChesney are: "Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America" (2014), "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again" (2011), and "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy" (2006). Nichols' other books include: "The "S" Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism" (2015), "Dick: The Man Who is President (2004) and "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" (2006).
When President Obama spoke to members of Congress the other day about
the need to enact health-care reform he conveniently forgot to mention
the public option.
Senate Democrats got the message.
Their negotiators struck a tentative agreement
Tuesday night to eliminate the "public option" -- the controversial but
necessary plan to set up government-run insurance program to provide
competition (and an incentive to hold down costs) for private insurers.
The negotiators tried to ease the blow to the hopes of progressive
reformers by agreeing to an initiative that would create a number of
national insurance policies that would be developed by the federal
Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for
federal workers, but administered by private firms.
If the private firms fail to do an adequate job, the Senate bill calls for establishment of a genuine public option.
More significantly, the Senate bill proposes to drop the Medicare
eligibility rate to 55, a move that would permit millions of Americans
to buy into the immensely popular federal program for retirees.
These are not inconsequential steps. Nor are the new regulations of
insurance companies that are contained in the Senate bill, which
Democrats leaders now believe they have a genuine chance of passing --
perhaps even gaining a Republican vote, that of Maine's Olympia Snowe.
(But both Snowe are Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman have
expressed reservations about dropping the Medicare eligibility age.)
But the loss of the public option remains a bitter pill -- especially for progressives who want to expand access to health care and hold down the costs that are run up by insurance company profiteering.
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold lodged the most serious objection,
saying he would not "support proposals that would replace the public
option in the bill with a purely private approach."
"We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep
rates down and save taxpayer dollars," said Feingold. "I will base my
vote on the bill on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I
think the bill is good for Wisconsin."
Feingold is not alone in his concerns although, as usual, he is the
more willing than most senators to stand on his own against the
leadership.
Where does this leave us?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's still got some serious cajoling to do if he plans to pass a bill before the Holiday break.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.