House Leaders Compromise on Healthcare Public Option: Withdraw plan for robust public option

[Better Believe It]

House Leaders Compromise on Public Option
By MARTIN VAUGHAN
October 28, 2009

WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders are likely to include a compromise version of a public insurance option with rates negotiated with health-care providers, in sweeping health-care-overhaul legislation that could be unveiled as early as Thursday.

House leaders are embracing the compromise version after falling well short of enough votes in the House to pass the more robust public option favored by liberal Democrats. The debate over what form the public option should take has been the most controversial and emotional issue as House leaders finalize a landmark proposal to overhaul the U.S. health system.

While some key details of the long-awaited House bill are starting to come into focus, House aides cautioned that final decisions haven't been made. Some of those decisions might be made at a House leadership meeting slated for Thursday afternoon.

The rejection of the "robust" public option, which would have reimbursed doctors and hospitals based on Medicare rates instead of negotiated rates, is something of a victory for moderate Democrats and the health-insurance industry, which worries that it won't be able to compete with a strong government-backed insurance program.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D., Calif.), who chairs a group of House progressive Democrats, said she is reserving judgment until she sees the bill language. "We'll be insisting on it being as strong as it possibly can. If it isn't, we won't be supporting it," she said.

Please read the complete article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125676119579814007.html

--------------------------------------------

Democrats ready with tempered public option, aides say
From Deirdre Walsh
CNN Congressional Producer
October 28, 2009

Washington (CNN) -- House Democratic leaders are preparing to unveil as soon as Thursday a health care bill that includes a more moderate version of the public option, several Democratic leadership aides say.

This version would allow doctors to negotiate reimbursement rates with the federal government, the aides said Wednesday.

The proposal would be a blow to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has argued for a more "robust" public option, one that ties reimbursement rates for providers and hospitals to Medicare rates plus a 5 percent increase.

But Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, after a week of canvassing rank and file Democrats, appear to be bowing to the reality that her preferred approach does not have enough votes. Instead, the more moderate version, favored by rural and moderate members, appears to have the most support among House Democrats.

"The votes aren't there for robust public option, so that means we're looking at the other form of the public option," a Democratic aide said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/health.care/

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. How do you negotiate rates for a PO with nobody in it?

[Better Believe It]

2. Let's see the entire bill. They won't release it until next week.

Looks like they might still be working on language.

And members of Congress will have 72 hours to read it. I hope it's posted on the internet for everyone to read at that time.

[Better Believe It]

10. According to the CBO around 9 or 10 million will have public insurance .... in a decade!

[Better Believe It]

3. So the antonym for a robust public option would be a feeble, delicate and weak public option.

That's the ticket!

:>(

[ej510]

4. yep this is what i posted a few hourse ago.

[Thrill]

5. Looks like the Blue Dogs won. Unreal. Democrats are the problem

not the Republicans

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. These articles are from the Wall Street Journal and CNN

This could just be some more propaganda being dished out to the rubes.

[Better Believe It]

8. Right. We shouldn't believe anything we see on TV or read in newspapers.

Wait for notarized statements with thumb prints and eyeball scans from Pelosi, Reid and President Obama. That's all we can believe.

The idea that these numerous reports are just lying capitalistic propaganda is at best foolish.

[vaberella]

18. Ugh, it's not about believing what we read.

It's about taking things we read with a grain of salt until it's damn well confirmed. And there's currently nothing to confirm the statements posed in the articles. Until the bill comes out, you got no clue what's going on. Seriously, considering several different drafts have been sent out to CBO reporting. What's foolish is to go blindly with this stuff when these secret santas and anon sources have lied before...more so just in the last few day against this bill.

[Better Believe It]

45. Looks like you were wrong again with your political spin, but nice try!

The sources were right and you were wrong.

Nothin new!

[joeycola]

32. add the nytimes....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/health/policy/29health.html?_r=1&hp

[Better Believe It]

44. And confirmed by Congresswomen Pelosi today. So what's your point again?

[geek tragedy]

9. If the Blue Dogs had their way, there'd be no PO at all. nt

[vaberella]

16. Ain't that the truth. They're as bad as Dems. And this is if I'm to believe this post. n/t

[vaberella]

14. Thrill what's up with your posts lately. Nothing's been confirmed and we're reading more rumors.

All there are, if they aren't comiing from the mouth of Reid, the President, possibly Pelosi and most definitely the bills are rumors until we see the bill.

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. You need to remove the second period from that statement, and add some quotation marks

So it reads Unreal "Democrats" are the problem

Fucking worthless DINOs :grr:

[IndianaGreen]

7. Don't vote for any of those 'moderate' Democrats, who are nothing but corporate whores

If they don't stand with the people on the issues, the people should not reward them with their votes.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Can they fuck this thing through the eyesockets sideways any more?

At some point even the people who watch snuff films and trainwrecks will have to look away.

[Better Believe It]

12. Congressional Progressive Caucus leader says: "I am not rolling over" on a strong public option

Pelosi accepts defeat on robust public option
Rick Ungar
The Policy Page
October 28, 2009

In what had already been shaping up as a bad week for the public insurance option, things just got decidedly worse.

The Hill is reporting that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will announce tomorrow that she does not have the votes to pass a health care bill with a robust public option and will go with the version proposed by the Congressional Blue Dog conservatives.

The public option proposed by House conservative Democrats – and agreed to in the compromise bill presented by the Energy & Commerce Committee – requires the administrators of a government health insurer to negotiate rates individually with hospitals and doctors rather than presetting payments at Medicare rates (the ‘robust’ option) or Medicare rates plus 5%.

While many Congressional progressives, who had previously threatened to vote against any bill that did not include the public option based on Medicare rates, were staying silent, the co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), commented -

"I am not rolling over. I will insist on a Medicare-plus-5 amendment on the floor so that the full caucus can vote on it. We are hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow this amendment, which has tremendous public support, to be voted on for the record."

http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/10/28/pelosi-accepts-defeat-on-robust-public-option/


--------------------------------

Negotiated public insurance rates to cost 85 billion more than Medicare rates.
Guess who will pay for that? It won't be the insurance industry!

--------------------------------

Liberals favor tying reimbursement rates to Medicare because it would keep costs down and would help get the public option up and running. Yale Professor Jacob Hacker, the intellectual father of the public option, insists that the public plan would have a very hard time succeeding if it was required to negotiate rates with providers.

The public option tied to Medicare rates saves $110 billion over ten years. Requiring it to negotiate rates only saves $25 billion.

If leadership goes with the negotiated-rate plan, that $85 billion difference will have to come from somewhere to meet President Obama's ten-year, $900 billion price ceiling. The fattest target is the subsidies to help people afford insurance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/cbo-analysis-both-house-p_n_336191.html

[BklnDem75]

13. Another crap article by a Murdoch rag

With aides and sources all over the place. Yum! What a crap sandwich!

[vaberella]

15. I know. It's the ultimate rumor monger piece that's being pimped as factual.

I'm seriously thinking more and more the OP has a concentrated effort to maligne anything the President does and will use shit articles to reference. These same news agencies were pimping lies about the White House excluding FN which was found to be false. It was pimping news the PO was dead, which was false. It was pimping news that WH wanted trigger, which was found to be false. Ugh.

[BklnDem75]

19. Not surprised at all.

Especially with the hate brigade in tow, brimming with 'OUTRAGE!!!'

[Better Believe It]

22. "pimped" by every news source in the entire nation and progressive/liberal Congressional leaders!

It's all a big rotten capitalist lie. Can you find a credible source to back up your claim that the House public option fees will be based on Medicare rates and that the news reports questioning this are nothing but a pack a lies? Bet you can't! :)

I think you need to leave fantasyland and join the rest of us in the real world.

I really hope you're just pretending to be that naive.

[vaberella]

23. Why should I, when you couldn't find one... ^_^

A Op-Ed piece with so many unnamed sources at this point is not credible in the wide scheme of things because there are people who are looking to take down this legislation by having people turn against each other. Pelosi has clearly stated she has the 218 needed to pass on a strong robust public option...and we have yet to see any articles except yours stating otherwise...without them seeing the bill from what I can tell. We have Reid stating he has a good number of people who are looking towards a good public option and even some of the crazy conservadems like Landrieu have backed down from their earlier rejection...she's been quoted on DU. Search engines are an amazing thing.

[Better Believe It]

26. You're simply uninformed on this subject which explains why you make silly claims.

Just check any news articles out of Washington regarding the latest House public option proposal.

If you keep insisting that Pelosi hasn't abandoned a robust public option you will continue to discredit yourself and look more foolish.

[joeycola]

33. Read this nytimes bit and weep....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/health/policy/29health.html?_r=1&hp

[Better Believe It]

17. Are you rolling over and ready to surrender to the right-wingers given the slightest excuse?

[BklnDem75]

21. You mean like last month?

Or the month before that? How do you sleep knowing we're about to be betrayed at every turn?

[Better Believe It]

24. I'm not betraying progressives. So your point just isn't making any sense to me.

I feel betrayed by some self-proclaimed "liberals" in Congress who seem almost eager to surrender to the right-wing and so-called conservatives given the slightest excuse.

So clarify what you are trying to say.

Thanks.

[BklnDem75]

27. Simple

For months you've been claiming how we're being betrayed regardless of the issue at the time. You post everything from crap blogs to Murdoch propaganda that fits into your failed arguments. You keep insisting how everyone's rolling over for the RW, but the truth is you're doing their job when you post misinformation that does nothing but turn us against each other.

Is that clear enough?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JeffR]

29. Well summarized.

That's some superb and accurate portraiture.

[Better Believe It]

40. What misinformation? There you go again with your unending personal attacks and trash talk

If you can't engage in civil discussion and would rather engage in constant trash talk and personal attacks against progressives and liberals you disagree with on DU I suggest you find another discussion board.

The fact is the robust public option proposal has been withdrawn. Do you have any credible sources to back up your wild assertion that the robust public option proposal basing fees on Medicare rates hasn't been taken out of the House bill? Anything at all?

And do you really think that's a giant leap forward?

Well, your other outrageous charge that I and other progressives are doing the work of right-wingers are earned you a spot on my ignore list.

Bye, bye!

[BklnDem75]

42. You're doing the RW's work...

and I'm at the wrong discussion board? My sources say you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You see, my sources has as much credibility as the crap articles you keep posting numerous times a day. You link an article to a Murdoch owned rag and eat it up because you want it to be true.

I'm ignored? You're my first... I'm... I'm kinda honored! :blush:

[dionysus]

41. nicely stated

[uponit7771]

46. exactly

[slipslidingaway]

25. The “chicken and egg” problem: Can the “public option” succeed where Prudential failed?

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/09/05/the-chicken-and-egg-problem-can-the-public-option-succeed-where-prudential-failed/

By Kip Sullivan, JD

"In a previous paper I described the transformation of the “public option” from an enormous program that would insure 130 million people to a tiny program in the Democrats’ health “reform” legislation that will insure somewhere between zero and 10 million people. I predicted that the “options” in the Democrats’ bills would be unable to succeed in all or most markets in the country. I characterized the main barrier facing the Democrats’ shrunken “options” as a “chicken and egg” problem: A person or group trying to create a new insurance company can’t tell prospective customers what the premium will be until they have determined how much they will pay providers; but the person or group can’t know how much it will pay providers until it knows how many people it will insure.

In this comment I elaborate on this chicken-egg barrier by presenting an illustration of the barrier at work – the departure of the Prudential Insurance Company from the Minnesota managed care health insurance market in 1994. Although Prudential was (and still is) a huge Fortune 500 company, it was unable to survive Minnesota’s highly concentrated group health insurance market and was forced to withdraw. If a company as large and as experienced as Prudential could not crack the Minnesota market, why should we hold out any hope for the little “options” proposed by the Democrats? ..."

[PBS Poll-435]

30. I have wondered for quite a while if you were a purist or just a disruptor

I think this OP clarifies everything.

[joeycola]

31. Ah-a name caller to shut down discussion!!

[JeffR]

34. I'd await your learned analysis of how that response "shuts down discussion"

"!!"

but since it doesn't and you're making yourself look foolish, I'm gonna shut down the computer now.

[joeycola]

35. There is little discussion of the substance of the OP -just name callling

and shooting the messenger. I do not see that discussion nor your mocking of my post.

[JeffR]

36. "Shooting the messenger!" "Name calling!" "Mocking!"

Goodness gracious. Are you a drama major or do you just play one on the intertubez?

I wasn't "mocking" your post at all. I was simply pointing to your self-evidently ludicrous contention that the post you originally responded to was somehow "shutting down discussion." It wasn't, it didn't and you're wrong. Admit it. You'll feel better.

[joeycola]

37. You have proven my point. Your posts continue to devalue any

discussion of the substance of the OP. Good night.

[JTFrog]

39. What comes after <0?

Just curious?

:shrug:

[joeycola]

38. Perhaps if the Obama stepped up, he can save the day....(robust PO)

But I am not holding my breath as he has indeed been offered little in support of a strong PO..........


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare29-2009oct29,0,7602363.story

.............Pelosi and other liberal lawmakers worked for weeks to rally support for the so-called robust public option, which would pay providers 5% more than Medicare, the federal insurance program for the elderly.

Such a plan promised to save the government tens of billions of dollars over the next decade, in part because Medicare typically pays providers less than commercial insurers do. But that stoked intense opposition from hospitals, which are important employers in many rural areas of the country represented by conservative Democrats.

Even in defeat, several leading liberal lawmakers noted Wednesday how much the prospects for a public option had improved since the summer, when many political analysts left it for dead.

And Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leader of the influential Congressional Progressive Caucus, refused to throw in the towel.

"It's not even the fourth quarter," she said. "We will be insisting on it being as strong as it possibly can be."

Woolsey and other liberal congressional leaders are to meet with President Obama today.

"He needs to hear from us that he needs to support the public option," she said. "He's not saying it loud enough. We want to make sure he lets the Senate know he wants a public option in the bill."

[freddie mertz]

43. Of course, this turned out to be TRUE today.

Deniers may try (once again) to blame the messenger, but the "compromise" is the final bill, and it sucks to high heaven.