SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Senate Dems Ditch the Public Option
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.