Share

Senate Bill to Include Public Option "Opt-Out" Plan

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
(Photo Illustration: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted from: Kevin Burkett / flickr)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday that a health care bill to be introduced on the Senate floor in the next few weeks will include a government-run insurance plan, otherwise known as a public option.

Reid, who is up for reelection next year, said this key element of the bill would include an "opt-out" provision, meaning individual states could decline to participate. States would have a year after the 2013 phase-in of the government's new health insurance plan to decide whether to opt out of the public option.

Reid's version of the bill calls on the government to negotiate rates with health care companies, whereas payments in the House version of the bill supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be tied to Medicare rates.

The bill came together following a series of meetings between Reid and other key Democratic senators and White House officials who worked to combine two health care bills that the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee had passed in recent weeks.

The latter panel passed a bill with a public option provision intact. But Baucus said the measure did not have enough votes to pass the senate floor and it was replaced in his committee with a plan to create nonprofit cooperatives to compete with the private sector.

Reid said the plan to create co-ops was included in the wide range of proposals he sent Monday to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan agency that will conduct a cost analysis of the proposal.

"The last two weeks have been a great opportunity to work with the White House, [Democratic] Senators [Christopher] Dodd and [Max] Baucus, on this critical issue of reforming our health insurance system," Reid said at a news conference Monday. "We've had productive, meaningful discussions about how to craft the strongest bill ... coming from a meld of the two [senate committee health] bills. I feel good about the consensus that was reached within our caucus and with the White House, and we're all optimistic about reform because of the momentum that now exists."

If the Senate and House pass a bill that includes a public option and President Obama signs it into law, it will represent the most historic piece of legislation to come out of Congress in a generation and the closest the US has ever come to reforming the health care industry.

Health care reform is one of the cornerstones of Obama's domestic agenda. The question of whether the government should compete with private insurers has been one of the most hotly contested issues of the president's short tenure and was the subject of intense debate last summer at town hall meetings across the country, where Republicans and their constituents sought to cast Obama as a socialist.

The furor forced some Democrats and the White House to rethink whether a government-run insurance program of any kind was the way to go. Obama signaled during numerous interviews that the public option was not necessarily a deal-breaker, and said his main concern was being presented with a bill that would provide Americans with affordable health care.

But intense lobbying in recent weeks from liberal Democrats and progressive organizations, as well as recent polls that showed a majority of Americans supporting a government-run insurance program may have helped put the public option back into play.

In a statement, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama is "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out."

"As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition," Gibbs added.

At a news conference Monday, Reid said the public option opt-out plan is "the fairest way to go."

"A public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system," Reid said. "While the public option is not a silver bullet, I believe it's an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients with the insurance industry."

However, moderate Democrats, whose votes would be crucial, said they are not inclined to support a bill with that includes a public option.

"I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), a moderate Democrat, said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Reid said he believes the bill will have the "the support of [his] caucus." He added that he has the backing of the White House and Baucus, (D-Montana), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. Baucus' committee passed a health care bill a couple of weeks ago that did not include any of the real reforms progressive Democrats had been lobbying for.

That bill, however, did have the support of a single Republican, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Snowe is a proponent of the "trigger" option, a plan that would phase in a public option if private insurance companies did not meet certain goals to bring down costs.

Reid acknowledged that a plan to include an opt-out provision means Democrats would lose Snowe's support, but Reid said he hopes that Snowe eventually "sees the wisdom of supporting a health care bill after having the opportunity ... to offer amendments."

In a statement, Snowe said she was "deeply disappointed with the majority leader's decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation."

"I still believe that a fallback safety net plan, to be triggered and available immediately in states where insurance companies fail to offer plans that meet the standards of affordability, could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate," Snowe added.

Speaking about the lack of support from Republicans in general, Reid said, in his opinion, GOP lawmakers do not "represent the thought process of Republicans throughout the country, [and] haven't been willing to help us on anything."

"We looked for Republicans on this," Reid said. "It's just a little hard to find them, and we've had to do a lot of this on our own.... We invite Republicans to come and try to improve this legislation.

"You know, one of the things that's been so astounding to me is, when I came here to the Senate, we had a lot of moderate Republicans who worked with us on everything, and we worked with them. But, of course, now, the moderates are extremely limited. I could count them on two fingers. And as a result of that, it makes it ... really hard to get help from them. I think they're making a big mistake, not helping some things ... like unemployment extension, FAA extension, highway extensions, all these things that are some important to the American people, and of course, health care, which Republicans in years past have worked on health care."

Reid said he is confident he could muster up the 60 votes needed to head off a Republican filibuster.

"I believe that we will be - as soon as we get the bill back from CBO and people have a chance to look at it, which we'll have ample time to do that, I believe we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move this bill and start legislating," Reid said.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and one of 28 senators who introduced a resolution in May calling for a public option, said the inclusion of a government-run health insurance program is "an important victory for taxpayers, middle class families and American businesses."

"A public option will inject much-needed competition into the insurance industry, keep HMOs honest, and ensure that families across the country have a choice between affordable, quality health plans," Brown said. "While the bill would allow a state to opt out of offering the public option to its residents, I am confident that the states will choose to put middle-class families ahead of the insurance industry."

Progressive groups who lobbied hard over the summer for a public option, something they see as the closest thing to universal health care, lauded Reid's reversal on the issue.

"Over the last several weeks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was forced to choose between the urgent need that everyday Americans have competitive choices when they buy health insurance or the insurance industry pressure to maintain its stranglehold on our health care," said Tom McMahon, acting executive director of Americans United for Change. Reid's announcement "shows that he has refused to buckle in the face of withering pressure from the big insurance companies and sided instead with everyday health care consumers."

Alan Charney, program director for USAction, an organization part of Health Care for America Now, the nation's largest health care reform campaign, said Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi "and many of their colleagues in the House and Senate leadership have brought us within reach.

  

»


Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Opt-out of the public option

Opt-out of the public option is good, so long as residents of an opting-out state can also opt out of paying for it. Otherwise it's worse than useless.

Heaven help the state

Heaven help the state politician who pushes to "opt-out". Just like Red State Governors who threatened to reject stimulus monies found themselves in trouble with their constituents who needed help not politics.

One would think that

One would think that Congressional backers of reform would have the points raised here in mind when considering 'opt-out' scenarios. Someone on the NYTimes healthcare forum also pointed out the prospect of people from opt-out states migrating in mass to the likes of CA and NY (likely not to opt-out) when getting sick.

Mr. Reid, are you

Mr. Reid, are you comprimising with the health of the nation. What a sad state of affairs when you can't simply pass the legislation that the voter wants without cowtowing to the selfish right. My God what a group of pitiful spineless worms.

How can we trust them with

How can we trust them with health care when we see what happened with the swine flu vaccines? Read this link: http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/10/swine-flu-what-to-do/

Perhaps there is a (G)od!

Perhaps there is a (G)od!

What the hell is the

What the hell is the point!?!?!? The majority of people in the country WANT A PUBLIC OPTION! I think ER summed it up correctly: "pitiful spineless worms" and that's perhaps a bit too polite. Absolutely ridiculous.

The so-called "moderates"

The so-called "moderates" oppose a public option, even with an opt-out, but they support the mandate. What is "moderate" about the government requiring all residents to purchase something from a private, for profit industry that sets its own prices? Never in American history has the government been used as "enforcer" for private business. The health insurance mandate is not "moderate" it is RADICAL!

The opt out amendment should

The opt out amendment should be removed for the obvious reason that it's not fair. Health reform with its public option should be federally mandated. Individuals can opt out, but not States. Once again, Obama and the democrats bend over backwards to do the bidding of the corporate bullies primarily from the Christian bully south.

Placebo: a usually

Placebo: a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on the disorder. (Merriam-Webster) The national health care debate has gone on way to long. We are sick of it. Our illness has become chronic and seemingly without cure. Those whose value to society leaves them without health insurance will continue to suffer. Even those with health insurance have no hope, since the health insurance industry deems our health care fatigue syndrome “pre-existing” and rejects all claims. Our oxymoronic political leaders are no help. They suffer from a degenerative spinal condition caused by an incurable addiction to corporate money that leaves them without a backbone. President Obama offers only placebos (Latin, I shall please), and has spent nearly all his effort on bringing us together into the warm glow of cooperation and hope, of which we now have neither. We need help. We are sick and tired—sick of our health care system and tired of endlessly talking about it. Perhaps we should all move to one of those advanced countries, like France, let them find us a cure, and then come back home.

Who will be the last person

Who will be the last person to die before we get singlepayer - Medicare for all?, to paraphrase the former Vietnam vet peace activist, now a US Senator and former candidate for President.

I've heard that when

I've heard that when Eisenhower was trying to push through the national highway system bill, he had a lot of opposition from the right-wing of his party. They had many of the same arguments in the area of the cost and the budget. To get them on board an opt out clause was included. Any state could refuse to take Federal highway funds and the highways that went with them. The bill was passed. No state opted out...to this day. It is likely, as some have stated, that no state will opt out once the law is passed. And for those of you who want to opt out...keep your private insurance. Duh!

A warning to all who think

A warning to all who think the 'opt-out' proviso is innocuous. Who think that 'red-state officials' will find themselves turned by their constituents the way they were with the stimulus funds. Alas, the big difference is: public option health care is going to be with us for a long time. This means that guys like Texas Gov. Rick ('Good-hair') Perry will do all in their power to lead their states to opt out of a health care plan that competes seriously with private insurance. Perry knows that removing his state from the plan would effectively cripple the legislation and lead to its ultimate failure. For pity's sake, oppose this insidious proposed compromise, or prepare to see the Rump-Ugly-Can ideologues sabotage national health care.

To have the health care

To have the health care system congress has would be just fine with me, including the part where you have excellent doctors nearby available anytime and with no insurance questions or bills to pay. Why not give those who elect these people and pay their salaries have the same program? But if we aren't ready for that level of fairness, single payer would be fine with me. If there is not enough public support for this level of well-being and decency in our country yet, surely it is clear that the voters want their representation to create a public option program for them...we would SO like to slightly approach the care enjoyed by the rest of the developed world we like to count ourselves a part of. But lastly, if they can't do this, an option for states to opt-out is not the worst thing in the world-- surely not as bad as no public option in this country at all. People will die in opt-out states with no insurance, but less than now and less than if there is no public option, and far less than if we never get on the path of improving public healthcare. And we will have gotten on an upward path. And THEN when people begin to say "I want what they have over there" about the public option in opt-in states, it will move progress along faster than when said by those of us now pining for the systems found in France, Sweden, Norway, England, Canada, etc. I want single-parer, but the state by state opt out is not yet one of the things I most dread. Provence by provence is how Canada got it's system. HEY, WHAT IF WE COULD GET THE PUBLIC OPTION OPT-OUT PROVISION PAIRED UP WITH THE AMENDMENT ALLOWING STATES TO SET UP THEIR OWN SINGLE PAYER PROGRAMS? That might move things along nicely!

The health-care opt-out

The health-care opt-out option is unacceptable because it presents myriad unnecessary (and undiscussed) problems that other options, such as single payer, won’t encounter, including ethical, financial, and political. If one explores how the individual states administer education and prison systems and provide for their mentally ill citizens (a high percentage of which are, ironically, in the prison system), it’s abundantly clear that states can’t be trusted to make the best decisions for their citizens. Exchanges have been suggested in connection with the opt-out provision. Obviously, a group of states will have less bargaining power to negotiate fees and prices than the country as a whole. Furthermore, exchanges would necessitate the establishing of oversight bureaucracies, which will further decrease the potential savings of health care reform. According to the latest information I have, one in seven American families moves in any given year. With the opt-out provision, it is highly probable that families will move in and out of states that do and don’t have automatic care. Such moving will create nightmares of expensive data tracking and continuing care for citizens with chronic illness. How will the states decide whether or not to opt-out? The only purely democratic way of deciding would be by state-wide balloting, yet another unnecessary expenditure even further decreasing the savings. To have Govenors or legislatures choose would raise the enormous problem of having states go back and forth, according to whatever party is in power, from opting out and opting in. A further and timely consideration concerns the status of those states that are currently under severe financial stress and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. How will they, the states, be able to deliberate and act on healthcare reform legislation?