The Speakers Lobby
  • Reid Says Co-ops Might Be Public Option

    Per Turner/Senate ---

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NY, told reporters Thursday that a system of nonprofit cooperatives could pass as a "public option," or government-run health care, depending on how they are set up.

    "We're going to have some type of public option, call it 'co-op', call it what you want," Reid said, adding that Democrats are working on "some verison of a co-op that may satisfy everyone."

    This is not likely to please the legions of liberal Democrats clamoring for a plan fully-setup and managed by the federal government.

    Reid has said something fairly similar to this before, but this comes one day after he met at the White House with Vice President Joe Biden, top health care advisor Nancy-Ann DeParle, and Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina

    The co-op plan, authored by Sen Kent Conrad, D-ND, is still being tinkered with, but, working with Sen Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and other Democrats, some changes have been agreed to -- like a major infusion of federal dollars at the beginning and an initial governing board set up by the feds with federal involvement. One point of contention, however, has been how long government officials remain on the board. Conrad has contended that the board should eventually be run solely by participants. Schumer and others have sought a continued government presence, trying to create a quasi-public option.

    "We don't care what it's called. We need something that's going to keep the insurance companies honest," Schumer said, adding that any co-op plan must also "be available right at the beginning, have competition...and have the strength to bargain." Schumer said the negotiations "are going pretty well."

    Sen Orrin Hatch, R-UT, who has been at the center of bipartisan negotiations, told reporters that he thinks perhaps the goal of universal health care should be scaled back "to cover the 13 to 16 million people in this country who are uninsured." Hatch said Congress "should get away from spending a trillion dollars" and focus on those who truly need help. That said, Hatch said he will continue to try to find common ground on a larger overhaul.

    Some Republicans and a handful of Democrats have indicated that more time is needed to craft legislation, particularly the somewhat daunting task of merging a bipartisan Finance Committee product with a more partisan Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill.

    But Reid showed no signs of budging. "We are keeping our time line," Reid said, referring to having a bill done before the August recess, noting that there have been some setbacks, particularly the sudden death of the sister of Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT, acting chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Cmte. "We will have our work cut out for us," Reid added.

    The Finance Committee is close to finishing its bill, but one major sticking point remains: how to find $320 billion in revenue to offset spending.

    Many Democrats oppose taxing employer-provided health benefits. They fear that any such tax would break a major campaign promise not to tax the middle class.

    While Conrad said the Finance Committee is considering raising the value of benefits to $25,000, after which a tax would be imposed, a move that brings in about $90 billion in revenue, Schumer said he and many Democrats still fear this would hit middle class Americans. "There are a good number of people, union members and non-union members who say, 'I'll only take a salary of 50 or 60 thousand dollars...but I want a really good health care plan. And in some states, particularly police and fire, but not just police and fire, you may get up to that level. So that's the question we're researching," Schumer said, no doubt fearing constituents in his own state.

    Numerous aides to Finance Committee members have said the tax will eventually be removed from the bill, but members have had trouble coming up with alternative means of raising the cash, something that always causes angst among members. Reid, illustrating that point, said, "Just because we're talking about raising revenue, does not mean that the health care bill is going to cost the American people more money. The reason we're doing this is to save money," Reid said.

     

Robert Shumake

Just wanted to say that I read your blog quite frequently and I'm always amazed at some of the stuff people post here. But keep up the good work, it's always interesting. See ya,

January 18, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Jim

What we seem to get is the old "bait and switch" routine that has become the comsumate political model from the Liberals. We don't need the Liberal model of change/reform. If this is so good for us, why is it so hard to sell???? Lets see the Politicians all sign on and take it for their families. Their elitist, arrogance is going to be changed at the next election. Come on people, get your heads out of the sand!!

September 17, 2009 at 10:22 am

Bill Bartmann

Excellent site, keep up the good work

September 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm

speakeasy

Maybe they should take a look at how well the Free Federal American Indian Health Service is run. We spend $3.6 billion dollars on 2 million American Indians and they still have rubbish health service. How much will the government make us pay for over 300 million people and will we get the same care as they receive?

July 17, 2009 at 6:14 pm

Gymrat

Pay no attention to this lame duck. His days in "public service" are nearly over!

July 14, 2009 at 11:07 am

Stuart Taub

This bums rush can only lead to no good....Haven't we learned from our recent errors.

July 13, 2009 at 4:42 pm

terri erickson

I think you have a typo, Reid is from Nv. not NY.

July 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm

kevin

We don't need "health care reform", we certainly don't need any government based health care in view of their "success" with Medicaid, what we do need is a fair way to curb the dizzying rise in health care costs so that more people can afford it. Perhaps the medical industry, which everyone depends on, should be regulated as utilities for the common good, they certainly haven't demonstrated fiscal restraint of their own accord. The legal profession should also be scrutinized for regulation as they're one of the principle engines of cost increase rates.

July 12, 2009 at 2:23 pm

DeMario

Can we get a bill to keep the governmaent honest? Should,the government get paid when they screw up?

July 11, 2009 at 11:28 pm

Ron Dolan

The Washington crowd knows they had better get all of their socialistic programs in place quickly, before the 2010 elections. I'm sure they are all pretty well financially set for the rest of their lives in retirement, at our expense, as no one seems to know where the simulus money is going .......... audit the bank accounts of our elected officials.

July 10, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Start a new Discussion

Name
* required

Email
* required
* not displayed

Comment

Characters used : 0/500
Notify me of follow-up comments via email Start Discussion