Watered-down 'public plan' emerges in Senate
Photo 
Georgeanne Koehler from Pennsylvania, holds a photo of her brother during a health care news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday.
WASHINGTON — They may still call it a "public plan," but private insurers — not the government — would offer coverage under a compromise Democrats are considering to win Senate passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The latest idea bears little resemblance to the original vision outlined by liberals, and embraced by Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign. That called for the government to sell insurance to workers and their families in competition with industry giants like UnitedHealthcare.
But instead of Medicare-for-the-masses, it would be Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser Permanente, albeit with a government seal of approval from the department that handles the health plan for federal employees, including members of Congress. The Office of Personnel Management — OPM — would become an instantly recognizable federal acronym, like FDA and CDC.
"I think it's the right way to go because it's simple and the public can grasp it," Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, said Monday, reflecting a general hope that a deal is close.
Lawmakers will be able to tell their constituents "you're going to get exactly what we have, and that every federal employee has, you can buy into it," Begich added.
Five moderates and five liberals tapped by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., planned to work on the compromise Tuesday as the Senate debated the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion bill. A vote on an amendment to tightly restrict abortion coverage by health plans receiving federal subsidies could also happen Tuesday.
Reid imposed a Tuesday deadline to complete negotiations on the government-run option, according to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a participant in the talks.
"It's one of those kind of things in the middle that doesn't make everybody very happy but that's our compromise," Harkin said. "It's something I'm going to probably have to live with."
Said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.: "It's probably the closest proposal thus far that could get the support of 60 senators. It's got legs."
Word of a possible compromise on the public plan drew a wary reaction from liberals, who support a Medicare-like approach.
"We need a public option that is a government entity, or established by government," said Richard Kirsch of Health Care for America Now.
Insurance industry groups had little to say publicly, but privately some officials said the shift away from a government-run plan sounds promising. There was plenty of skepticism.
"This is a long, long way from the original public plan that was going to require providers to accept Medicare reimbursement at 20 percent less than the commercial market," said Robert Laszewski, a health care industry consultant. "What the heck the advantage is, I don't see."
Liberals are trying to extract a price for any compromise. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has proposed allowing people 55 and over to buy into Medicare. Others would further expand the Medicaid health program for low-income people. Finally, if private insurers don't step up to submit bids to OPM, some liberals want to authorize the federal agency itself to set up a plan.
The Senate bill now calls for a government-run plan, with states allowed to opt out. The House bill includes a government plan available in all states. Ongoing talks among Senate Democrats are nowhere near a conclusion; nonetheless, senators and aides outlined a framework that could lead to compromise.
The idea is for the government to lend its seal of approval to private plans that would be offered across the nation. The plans would be available through new state insurance markets, called exchanges. New markets would create big purchasing pools for those who now have trouble finding and keeping affordable coverage — people buying their own insurance and small businesses. Most of the 30 million consumers in the exchanges would have government subsidies to help pay premiums.
Under the compromise, any insurer could approach the federal personnel office to offer a plan in the exchanges, but the plan itself would have to be nonprofit. Most Blue Cross plans are still nonprofit, as is Kaiser, the giant health maintenance organization.
Offered alongside other private insurance in the exchanges, the OPM-approved plans would carry a special designation certifying that they meet standards comparable to those in the federal employee plan.
Supporters of the idea say it would promote competition by creating new national plans that could immediately go into states in which one or two big insurers now control the market.
Skeptics say the OPM-approved plans would be pretty much the same as other private plans offered in the new markets. They run the risk of attracting sicker patients who might think the government's seal means less chance of insurance hassles. That would mean higher premiums for those who sign up.
Solving the impasse over a government plan would move Reid closer to the 60-vote majority he needs to push a final bill through the Senate. On Monday, one moderate whose vote Reid would like to have expressed satisfaction.
"I think the discussions are going in the right direction ... away from a government-run plan," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Dec 9, 2009 at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
The job security of bureaucrats goes hand in hand with decreased concern for the public.
Dec 9, 2009 at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
The debate is lost over reduced cost of insurance, when run by a system that is continually beyond their own expectations of costs.
By not requiring posted fees at medical offices and requiring insurance purchased only from the state you live in it kills competition...the very thing they claim to want to offer, but only by using a program run by them to do it....what a sham and a shame.
Dec 9, 2009 at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Should the government cover breast and/or penile implants? Or should they make them illegal? I fail to grasp your logic justaskme
Dec 9, 2009 at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ok. Fair enough. But why should I be responsible for getting taxed to subsidize these costs? And, please don't tell me that there will be be no new taxes and that Obama will be weeding out wastes in Medicare and other programs to pay for this. That's a joke.
Dec 9, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
A publc option would help lower the cost for the millions who are able to pay for insurance, but currently can't afford the high cost, and don't receive benefits from their employers.
This debate has been going on for months, and you still don't understand the main problems with our health care system. It's COST. The rate of increase in cost is unsustainable.
Dec 9, 2009 at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
You are the one continually spreading the myth of FREE health insurance. Millions of people without insurance can afford to pay something, but they can't because the current COST is too high. You are out of touch with the real world.
Dec 9, 2009 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom-why should these folks get a free ride when they have the money to purchase insurance?
Dec 9, 2009 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Purchase their own health insurance? That's funny. Do you even know how much private insurance costs? Of course not. If your employer doesn't pay 80% of the cost, the vast majority of people can't afford to buy insurance on their own. That's not really a "choice".
Dec 9, 2009 at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Question:
When I watch a lot of these hardcore liberal Dems on CSpan talking they always seem to claim that there are 47-50 million Americans without health insurance. Is not this a distortion of numbers?
10 million are illegal aliens
17 million live in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year who could purchase their own health insurance.
18 million are between the ages of 18-34 in good health and who CHOOSE not to have health insurance.
Dec 9, 2009 at 1:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Plain and simple logic. Just ask me.
Dec 9, 2009 at 1:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
The new federal health insurance should cover knee surgery IF KNEE SURGERY IS LEGAL. Likewise, the new federal plan should cover abortions IF ABORTIONS ARE LEGAL.
Dec 9, 2009 at 1:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Of course, I'm in the 55 and older group that would benefit from this - and, frankly, I don't care about anyone else.
Dec 9, 2009 at 1:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Finally a plan that will work. I had my doubts that the broken U.S. Congressional System would come up with a GREAT answer to healthcare reform - I was wrong.
Dec 8, 2009 at 11:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
That is so true, primer. People who sell insurance are the lowest form of life. There's a special place in hell for them and real estate agents.
Dec 8, 2009 at 10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
The insurance companies are the ugly step-sisters of the health care industry.
Dec 8, 2009 at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Funny how the e-mail I got today from our President complaining of partisan allies and their relentless attacks differ so much from his own words in the e-mail on "we must not back down" and "we will not turn back" while he asks for more contributions for the fight. So asking for money to fight what he wants is ok, but those pesky partisan allies are the problem...
Dec 8, 2009 at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
+1 Zoom......although the "screwing" would be MUCH less at the hands of the insurance companies than it would be at the hands of our Federal government.......Giving our govt access to reshape 1/6 of our economy, under the pretense that they are going to partially finance it by magically recapturing billions of dollars in fraud and waste.......As if Obama could wave his magic wand, and "poof" all the wrongs were the existing system now righted and we've got a big pile of money to play with. I still seriously can't believe that people were clueless enough to buy into that......
Dec 8, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Back in the summer the GOP was apparently concerned that health care reform was going to be too complicated.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/07/...
.
So which is it, DiGriz? Too simple is bad, or too complicated is bad? Or maybe it's all about keeping people confused. No, the Republicans would never stoop to that. What was I thinking?
Dec 8, 2009 at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes 916WI, the insurance companies are very efficient...at screwing their customers.
Dec 8, 2009 at 3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Di,
Perhaps he has a point. Perhaps this plan will be short enough and simple enough that the average person can understand it enough that Beck, Rush, Hannity and Fox can't confuse and scare them into believing this plan will mean the end of the world as we know it.
.
Republicans focused on the language and length so much that perhaps this was a shot at them...not the American people.
.
OR perhaps the guy is an arrogant arse.
.
Either way, the plan sounds like a decent compromise.
Dec 8, 2009 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Panama....What are their margins?....Around 3%? I absolutely think that the companies that specialize in running an insurance business could do it more efficiently that the Federal government. One would have to be completely clueless to think otherwise. These companies are held accountable for the decisions they make. If they don't get the job done, they're done. The Federal government lost over $500 BILLION on Medicare waste and fraud....has anyone lost their job because of it? There is NO WAY that that that level incompetence and irresponsibility would have been accepted in the private sector the way it is tolerated in these government run "companies".....
Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
And a law written by insurance CEO's will benefit consumers how?
Dec 8, 2009 at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
How could any self-respecting Republican not vote for a program that is designed to go bankrupt seven years after benefits kick in? They are all racists and bigots!
Dec 8, 2009 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
916WI...Surely you don't believe that an insurance company could operate the "public option" more efficiently? Their existing drive for profits far outweigh any chance Americans will see cost savings. Any savings realized by the insurance companies due to the requirement that all Americans have health insurance will go directly into the pockets of their CEO's. Once again "conservatives" put the screws to everyday Americans in favor of mega corporations!
Dec 8, 2009 at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Victory gins" all arround.
Lets add OPM to all the other great institutions that the Feds have done so well.
US Post office
Fannie May
Freddy Mack
AMTRACK
Medicare
Social Security
Dec 8, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Janesvillean......Surely you don't believe that the federal government could operate the "public option" more efficiently? Their existing "public option"(Medicare) is drowning in over $500 billion in waste and fraud despite being subsidized by these "foxes" that you refer to......
Dec 8, 2009 at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Watered down" is an understatement.
Dec 8, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sure, why not hand the henhouse over to the fox? Who knows better than the fox how to get value out of the hens?
Dec 8, 2009 at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
According to this article there is still inherent barriers for markets within state boundaries.
Dec 8, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
How will Fox, Rush, Hannity, etc... spin this as socialist, communist or anti-american?
.
They will all be screaming Obama this and Obama that...criticizing the dems. even though this compromise should be more appealing to the conservatives/republicans those representing those groups on TV and Radio will attempt to criticize the dems for doing it.
.
That is why it is more benefical to be a partisan hack than work for what is best.
Dec 8, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
This sounds like a real good move. With the government option (which I have NO problem with) out of the picture perhaps we will see if the Republicans really want reform or not.
.
The Dems. are willing to compromise...are the Reps. willing to do anything?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.