Senate tentatively agrees to remove public option Wrote:Senate may drop public option
PRIVATE-SECTOR ALTERNATIVE Reid says he is optimistic about bill after deal

By Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 9, 2009


Democratic Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to drop the controversial government-run insurance plan from their overhaul of the health-care system, hoping to remove a last major roadblock preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber.

Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created.

In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.

The announcement came after six days of negotiations among 10 Democrats -- five liberals and five moderates -- appointed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to work out differences between the two camps on the public option and other pressing issues. Appearing in the Capitol with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the liberal faction, and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), representing moderates, Reid hailed the deal as a broad agreement that has the potential to "overcome a real problem that we had" and push the measure to final Senate vote before Christmas.

"Not everyone is going to agree with every piece," Reid said. But when asked whether the deal means the end is in sight after nearly a year of work on President Obama's most important domestic initiative, he smiled. "The answer's yes," he said.



According to a Democrat briefed on the talks, the deal represents only an agreement among the 10 negotiators to send the new package to congressional budget analysts, not an agreement to support its elements. One of the negotiators, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), quickly issued a statement criticizing the deal.

"While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach," he said. He added, however, that he will base his vote "on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I think the bill is good for Wisconsin."

Democrats must also win the approval of several key lawmakers who have not been involved in the talks, including Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), the only Republican who has voted in favor of the Democratic health initiative. If the Senate approves the agreement, it will face a huge obstacle in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has fought hard to preserve a public plan in the face of opposition from House moderates.

If the deal holds, it will represent a major breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues of the health-care debate, settling a dispute between moderates wary of excessive government intrusion into the private sector and liberals determined to create a strong competitor able to curb the most egregious abuses in the private insurance industry.

"It may be different from what was previously included in the bill," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, "but it accomplishes the same goals as a so-called public option."

Quote:And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.

Weltall Wrote:This is actually not a bad idea.

There's no talk about how to control the base costs, though, and that's really the fundamental problem. The reason the industry is so precarious, and the reason why some people won't be covered, is because the cost of doing business is greatly inflated.

I'd actually almost support a public option if I had any confidence that it would break the hegemony instead of supplanting it.

Quote:Not that it's below the government to screw the people over, but I would actually confide in the government sooner than I would an insurance company just because the insurance company has more to gain by screwing its clients over.