The Speakers Lobby
  • Senate Mods Warm to Public Option Compromise

     

    As we've reported, a compromise is emerging in the Senate on a public option that give states the opportunity to either opt out of or opt in.  Democratic sources say the former, rather than the later, is preferred by Majority Leader Harry Reid, but some concerns still exists for moderate Dems, like Sens. Ben Nelson, D-NE, and Blanche Lincoln, D-AR, among others.

     

    Regardless, the very idea of creating some sort of government-created insurance plan, that seemed a distant possibility in the Senate until this week, is now gaining steam.

     

    One moderate Democrat, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, just met privately with Reid and emerged to say, "It really is a possibility," adding, "There is a way to complete this, I believe."

     

    Landrieu has been inside meetings with her fellow moderates for months, bipartisan meetings that have ranged in size from about 5 or 6 to 15 members. "It's everyone from Ben Nelson to Mark Udall," Landrieu said, referring to the Democratic senator from Colorado.

     

    Landrieu described a plan that would be modeled on the health plan for federal government employees, called Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), that could be started with federal "seed money" and run not by the government, but by a private, independent board (though it is not clear yet who would appoint the board).  The program would be funded by an earnings pool created from premiums.

     

    "It's a private insurance model," Landrieu said, insisting that it neither be government-run, government-backed, nor government paid-for."

     

    Landrieu has some criticism for the more liberal members of her caucus, saying that "this may not meet their requirements" for a "single payer, government-run, government-subsidized" insurance plan, but Landrieu said her group would not accept anything like that, something supporters call a "robust public option."

     

    The senator said her group was trying to combine a proposal that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee, authored by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND, that would create a system of nonprofit cooperatives, and merge it with a states-based approach to a national plan authored by Sen. Tom Carper, D-DE.

     

    "It's evolving. At this point...some solid compromise is possible," Landrieu said.

     

    Pointing to about 5 or 6 Senate Republicans that she thought might be gettable, including both Maine moderates - Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, as well as, George Voinovich of Ohio and Bob Corker of Tennessee.

     

    These are definitely just guesses from Landrieu, it seems, in talking to these senators.  All of them have varying levels of concern about this and many other components of the bills passed by the Senate and now the subject of merger negotiations between Reid and Administration officials.

     

    The issue of whether not states will have to opt in or can choose to opt out of a government-created insurance plan is not something Landrieu wanted to discuss, and this could certainly derail this compromise.  Sens. Nelson and Evan Bayh, D-IN, both former governors, along with Lincoln, have expressed a great deal of concern for the "opt out" option, the one favored by Reid and many other Democrats.  Nelson wants to know, for instance, how difficult it would be for states to opt out, fearing that those who want a more robust public option would virtually lock states into plans from which they could not opt out.

     

    And there is certainly a long way to go before Senate Democrats can get a bill passed.  Leadership aides have told Fox that a bill will likely not be sent to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for a final analysis and determination of price tag until Monday or Tuesday of next week.

     

    Moderates want to see more choices and greater affordability for all Americans in the bill that Reid is creating, a sentiment often expressed by more liberal members, as well.  Landrieu, alone, pointed to the variety of choices federal employees have, noting that in New York there are 34 insurance options, alone.

     

    "We are not carrying water for the insurance companies," Landrieu said of herself and her moderate colleagues, but "We want to see more choice and more affordability not just for those who don't have insurance, but for those who can't afford what they have." 

     

    Landrieu said that she and some of her fellow centrists want to see people come off of cash-strapped Medicaid programs and out of insurance plans they cannot afford to buy into a system like the one described, but she said that would not be part of current efforts to find a public option compromise.

     

    "We're not trying to be Republicans...but we do believe in the free market," Landrieu said.

sirfishslayer

The article says: "It's a private insurance model," Landrieu said, insisting that it neither be government-run, government-backed, nor government paid-for." I thought that the "private insurance model" was such an evil thing? They make "obscene profits" as Nasty Pelosi says. Maybe they want to make the profits themselves....maybe they will put themselves (their cronies) as leaders of the Non-Government insurance company and reap the profits, which will be substantially...

October 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Charles C

I am so sick & tired of people asking the govt to do this for them and do that for this group, where have personal responsibility and self-worth gone!!!!! This is the land of opportunity, if you don't want to take advantage of the opportunities, work hard, and make your own life, don't take it away from me because I did. I, and the majority of people in this country are fed up with over 40% of OUR hard earned money being "spread around" to those who feel as though they are entitled to my...

October 26, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Edwin abendroth

I believe this is afoot in the door approach. Later will come the full public option when states discover they cannot afford to refuse the gov't. option. Whatever happened to the tort reform we were promised?

October 26, 2009 at 9:51 am

Melissa

You got to check out www.dearpolitician.org, thank you, thank you, thank you! I never would have thought someone would have ever thought to create such a site. I must admit, I was skeptical at first, but you’re right, I sent a letter to the President, Vice President, my Senators, my Congressman, and I also selected a Senate Committee and a Congressional Committee for a total of 56 politicians. I opt for the free fax service to all their offices. WOW! I just sent one letter to 56 politicians...

October 25, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Dorothy D.

The PUBLIC OPTION is a must. Please vote for a public option in the bill. Do not let states opt out. The PUBLIC OPTION needs to be for everyone, otherwise there is no health care reform.

October 25, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Dorothy

Please, please, please construct a bill that includes a public option for ALL. Do not let the states decide. In that case all republican states would opt out of the public option and many uninsured and underinsured would get no benefit from the Health Care Reform Bill.

October 25, 2009 at 5:41 pm

relmasian

The main argument against any public option in health care is that if the government is involved it will drive out all private options because of its effectively unlimited resources and ability to change the rules. The main argument against the current system is that this country easily tops the rest of the world in spending per person on health care but gets much less than average results when compared to other industrial countries with public systems. Proponents of both sides claim that the...

October 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm

Edwin nemoto

The senators who are so called "moderates" are moderately for the American people and moderately for the health insurance companies and may even have the health insurance companies in their back pockets, i.e. wallets. They are willing to push for the health insurance companies "moderately" so they can keep the money they get from them while thumbing their nose at the welfare of the American people. Who are they representing anyway, the Insurance companies or the American people?

October 25, 2009 at 11:25 am

rad21

If the insurance companies were smart they would have come out with their own proposal to meet the stipulations laid down by the President. 1. Open enrollment. 2. Community ratings. 3. Reducing healthcare costs. 4. Redcuing overhead costs of insurance companies and providers of healthcare. 5. Implementation of Best Practice Patterns

October 25, 2009 at 9:55 am

Jay

OK so states can opt-out. So the red states opt-out and the blue states opt-in. Costs are overrun, taxpayers still have to eat the costs, we've already done that once this year. The stimulus had a lot of money for keeping state budgets afloat, including states like California that are running themselves into the ground. God help us if this gets passed.

October 24, 2009 at 9:36 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