Senate Democrats to Drop Public Plan

[Thrill]

(Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats tentatively agreed to abandon plans to set up a full government-run insurance program in a bid to remove one of the biggest obstacles to health legislation, a person familiar with negotiations said.

The lawmakers instead backed a proposal to establish a program modeled on the U.S. government employee-insurance system that would have private companies provide coverage under federal oversight to millions of uninsured Americans, the person said. They also want to expand eligibility for the federal Medicare program for the elderly.

The deal was negotiated by 10 Senate Democrats seeking an alternative to the government-run program. While most Democrats support the so-called public option, the idea has drawn fire from party members in the Senate and all Republicans. It needs backing by 60 senators to get into the final bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats reached "a broad agreement" on the issue, yet offered no details.

"We have confronted many hurdles, and tonight I believe we have overcome yet another one," Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said in a statement last night.

Reid is pushing the Senate to pass health-care legislation before the end of the month, paving the way for a House-Senate compromise early next year. The 10-year, $848 billion Senate bill, designed to cover 31 million uninsured Americans and curb medical expenses, would make the biggest changes to the nation's health-care system in four decades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20091211/bs_bw/dec2009db2009129860074


Wow just wow. Why should Liberals be energized for mid terms?

[dmallind]

1. Well let's say you ask them

Do you think it's a good thing to cover 31 million uninsured Americans, expand Medicare, and limit the worst excesses of the health insurance industry as it relates to pre-existing conditions, overhead rates, and so on, or a bad thing?

Assuming you think it's a good thing, work to keep this government and majority in power so we can carry on doing good things.

Nothing there claims this is the ideal, or even the best that could have been achieved with better political tactics. It also doesn't claim that this is the final step, or the reflection of Obama's personal desire.

All we need to ask ourselves is: Is this better than before?

[sui generis]

2. wrong. We need to ask if this is the best we can do.

We need to have higher standards than merely "is this better than before".

[dmallind]

3. I both agree and disagree.

I agree rhat in establishing policy and in negotiating we should seek out the best possible option. I also agree that this healthcare reform fell short on both counts. We did not try to get the best option (which is hardly a mystery since almost all other developed countries have it), and did not even negotiate as well as we could for what was attempted. So far so bad.

However when we are evaluating performance and progress - in other words deciding whether to continue with current government or change it - the question should be "have they improved things?". It's worth following up with "Could they have improved them more?" but of course then the question becomes "would a change of government do any better?". There is a reason pollsters always ask qabout whther the country is going in the right direction rather than whether the country is in an ideal state. Progress tends to be, and should be, rewarded.

[sui generis]

6. okay I can get behind that

mostly. But for the amount of effort, thought and exploration that went into this particular initiative, what stands out for me is that there was lobby at work, there was a discounting of the outcome, mischaracterization of expense, poor planning, and even fear of economic impact merely from the process of supporting a public option, much less any reality associated with a real public option.

I'm cynical that our electorate came down pretty firmly on the side of an enormous "give-away" to the insurance industry, so that in the end we've strengthened an industry whose primary objective is to profit by insuring non-risk. Non of the "smart" language we needed to see is in these drafts, and the caveats are that we're still not regulating how insurance industries decide to collude on premiums, their "right" to profit and whether or not they'll cover anything other than primary healthcare.

In that way, somebody who pays cash for primary healthcare only is far worse off by paying premiums based on their age or potential risk-tier. The four year delay in waiving pre-existing conditions is essentially a form of coverage exclusion and there really isn't a solid economic reason to have that delay other than it's yet another "gimme".

I think "incrementally" better than before is almost not worth it if this is the result.

[earthside]

4. Call your Senators.

And ask them to vote 'no' on this sell-out to the mega-corporate insurance companies.

Just watch: drug importation will be defeated, the insurance companies will keep their non-competition status, and the Medicare buy-in will be so restrictive that it is meaningless.

When premiums are jacked-up next year to all time highs, if this version becomes law, the Democrats will be blamed for the increase and suffer even bigger loses than if they let this so-called health care reform die.

It looks like now this whole effort was doomed from the beginning when the Senate Democrats didn't have the guts and/or fortitude to change the filibuster rule ... it really all comes down to that.

[Teaser]

5. sounds good to me

.

[Clio the Leo]

7. Ask me 10 months from now....

.... if Americans 55 and older, regardless of pre-existing conditions are able to buy into Medicare why liberals should be energized.

Rocky, Weiner and Dean are pretty pleased. I'm not sure I can question their judgement on either what's best for health care OR for winning elections.

[backscatter712]

8. Considering that the public option was invented as a substitute for expanding Medicare...

because it was thought that a Medicare expansion like what we're talking about could never make it through Congress, if now the talk is "Gee, I guess that instead of a public option, we're gonna have to settle for a Medicare expansion," I'd say we're getting somewhere.

[Clio the Leo]

9. lol yes, we're getting more cynical. NT

[jberryhill]

10. What About Controls On Revenue/Expense Ratio?

Dean had mentioned something the other day about requiring 90% of revenue to pay claims.

If that could be seriously done and enforced, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I doubt it could be done.