Share

Pelosi Unveils Historic Health Care Reform Bill, Touts Public Option

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

photo
(Photo Illustration: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted from: Obama-Biden Transition Project, AlbinoFlea / flickr)

Some progressives, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-Ohio), a proponent of a single-payer system, said the bill Pelosi made public Thursday does not go far enough and provides too many concessions to health insurance companies.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled an $894 billion health-care reform bill Thursday that includes a government-run insurance program, otherwise known as a "public option," that is stronger than the public plan unveiled earlier this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but still far short of what many progressive and liberal Democrats had expected.

Unlike the Senate bill, the legislation touted by Pelosi does not provide individual states with an "opt-out" provision. The House bill requires that Americans purchase insurance by 2013 (or pay a 2.5 percent penalty based on their annual income, subject to a "hardship exemption") and large businesses to provide employees with coverage. The bill melds three separate pieces of legislation House committees passed earlier this year.

It comes in at just under the $900 billion ceiling President Obama set and, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), enacting the legislation will result "in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

The legislation would prohibit health insurance companies from denying coverage to people who have a preexisting condition. It also calls for Medicare to negotiate drug prices with insurance companies, a provision the pharmaceutical industry spent millions of dollars lobbying against and would eliminate the federal antitrust exemption that shielded health care providers from investigations into price-fixing and other unlawful business practices.

At a rally in front of the Capitol where she discussed details of the "Affordable Health Care for America Act," Pelosi said the nearly 2,000-page bill aims to provide health benefits to 36 million uninsured Americans and will cover 96 percent of the population. It would also expand Medicare and Medicaid coverage, and offer low to moderate income Americans subsidies to purchase insurance from a government plan or private health care providers through a regulated exchange.

According to a letter to CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf sent Thursday to Rep. Charles Rangel, (D-New York), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, "certain employers could allow all of their workers to choose among the plans available in the exchanges, but those enrollees would not be eligible to receive subsidies via the exchanges.

The Budget Office estimates that about "9 million people would obtain coverage in that way in 2019, bringing the total number of people enrolled in exchange plans to about 30 million in that year. Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.

"That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees.

At Thursday's rally, Pelosi, who was flanked by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and other Democratic leaders said, "for nearly a century, it's really over a century, leaders of all political parties... have called and fought for health care and health insurance reform. Today, we are about to deliver on the promise of making affordable, quality health care available for all Americans."

Obama, who has made health care reform his top domestic priority, lauded the House bill Thursday, saying it marks "another critical milestone in our effort to reform our health care system."

"I'm also pleased that the bill includes a public option offered in an exchange," Obama said. "As I've said throughout this process, a public option that competes with private insurers is the best way to ensure choice and competition that are so badly needed in today's market. And the House bill clearly meets two of the fundamental criteria I have set out: it is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term."

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is expected to meet with Obama Thursday to urge him to be much more vocal in his support for a public option. Obama had previously stated in interviews that a public option was not necessarily a deal-breaker as long as legislation he's presented with provides Americans with affordable health care coverage.

Although the House bill includes the coveted public option, it's seriously watered down from an previous version that included the so-called "robust" public option tying reimbursement rates to Medicare, which would have saved the government billions of dollars.

Pelosi was unable to muster up the votes needed to pass that version of the bill. For one thing, moderate and centrist Democrats objected to the earlier plan saying it could put hospitals in rural areas out of business because Medicare reimbursement rates are very low and doctors would end up being underpaid. The new version of the bill proposes that the government negotiate payment rates directly with health care companies. Reid's bill also proposes negotiating reimbursement rates with health care providers. The House and Senate bills will eventually be combined into a single piece of legislation.

Woolsey, whose caucus strongly favored a "robust" plan, said Thursday she and her colleagues are reviewing the new version of the bill to determine if it's within the "Medicare-plus-five" threshold. That's a reference to the fact that an earlier version of the bill would have reimbursed doctors five percent over Medicare's rates.

Woolsey's co-chair, Rep. Raul Grijalva, (D-Arizona), said his "inclination is not to support" the bill because it no longer contained the "robust" provision. He said he would continue to argue in favor of having the government set reimbursement rates.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-Ohio), a proponent of a single-payer system which would amount to government-funded heatlh-care, said the bill provides too many concessions to the health insurance companies.

Kucinich said a single-payer amendment he sponsored that was included in a version of the health care reform bill the Education and Labor committee passed was stripped out of the version Pelosi unveiled Thursday without his knowledge. The amendment would have allowed individual states to set up a single payer system modeled after Medicare. Kucinich said he had asked Pelosi about the status of his amendment for weeks, but she did not respond to his queries.

"Today, advocates of true health care reform were disappointed to learn that the Kucinich amendment was removed from the latest version of the health care reform bill," Kucinich said. "At the end of the day, states may be given the option to opt out, but won’t be allowed to opt into a proven system that provides all of a state’s residents with better health care.

"We compromised on single payer by backing a public option, and now we are being asked to compromise the public option with negotiated rates," Kucinich said. "In conference, we will likely be asked to compromise negotiated rates with a trigger. In each and every step of the health care debate, the insurance companies have won. If they get hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxpayer subsidies, they get to raise their premiums, and increase their co pays and deductibles, while the public is forced to pay for private insurance, then the insurance companies win big.

"If this is the best we can do, then our best isn’t good enough and we have to ask some hard questions about our political system: such as Health Care or Insurance Care? Government of the people or a government of the corporations."

Despite the concessions Pelosi made to appease moderate and centrist Democrats, the Speaker still does not appear to have secured the 218 votes needed to ensure the bill passes. Moderate and centrist Democrats say the bill is too costly, would increase taxes and expands the role of government. But the 5.4 surtax to help finance a major portion of the bill, along with changes to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, would only apply to couples earning more than $1 million and individuals who earn more than $500,000. The combined savings would generate about $500 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO's analysis.

At a news conference, House Republicans Leader John Boehner called the bill a "monstrosity" and falsely claimed that it would "kill jobs with tax hikes and new mandates in it and it’s going to cut senior’s health care benefits, if all that isn’t bad enough, the mandates on states are going to bankrupt states that already have huge financial problems to deal with."

Pelosi will continue to meet with House Democrats to shore up support for the legislation. Aides said she intends to move toward a floor vote as early as next week.

  

»


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.

This is pretty good.

This is pretty good. However, who are the 4% who will not be covered? Medicare for all would cover 100%. That's what the people want.

The article mentions cuts to

The article mentions cuts to Medicare. That statement is very misleading. I am a recently retired Medical Coder and insurance biller. There are no cuts to the benefits in Medicare. The only cuts proposed are to the reimbursement rates to the MEDICARE ADVANTAGE plan. Which is NOT Medicare, but a private plan used as a supplemental to Medicare. The Medicare Advantage plan has 14% higher reimbursement rate than the regular Medicare insurers receive. This higher reimbursement rate to these private insurers is what is bleeding the Medicare program dry. These private insurers need to be paid the same rate as the other Medicare Insurers, not more.

Any public plan other than

Any public plan other than single payer is putting $500 billion a year in the pockets of insurance companies... Why do the politicos think we are so stupid that we don't understand their game plan? There will be massive outcry and disobedience to buy insurance... Go for Canadian or British or French or Japanese or even Cuban health care system. Single payer system will save everyone money except insurance CEOs and Medicare/Medicaid fraudsters.

Thanks Moongal 6. We need

Thanks Moongal 6. We need informed Truth like yours. Again it's the Insurance companies again that are making Medicare costly. I can go as far left as anyone and Kucinich by his strong views i think made Pelosi's public option greater than the previous bill. The plan is still a giveaway to insurance by requiring americans to buy without a single payer government system that would cut to bare bones costs. The Repukes (a slur and sorry to the old Republicans who did good things in this country and have a conscience) but they make and have made me want to puke since the days of Reagan. Wealthy rule. That's the change. Real democracies rose as a result of rich aristocrats which include communist societies and other dictatorships including western countries run the same way in history who disregarded the underbelly of society. Democracy must be fought for as Bush said but instead it's here at home and not by trying to turn out other countries and societies in their eyes view ...

What a horrible sell out of

What a horrible sell out of the American people. It has taken them 2000 pages to try and bury the numerous ways we are being sold out to the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. There is no health care reform in this process. People are still being stuck with lousy coverage for lousy care. I am not concerned about the people without medical insurance. I am concerned with the millions who willingly stick out their tongues for useless but dangerous poisons to be placed there. This bill needs to fail big time

What interests me is what

What interests me is what will this bill become in the Senate if it passes the House? I suspect that it will be "watered-down" even more. I also suspect that the GOP may attempt to filibuster this bill.

This isn't what the majority

This isn't what the majority want! It is a betrayal of the public trust and pandering to the health "insurance" companies. Pelosi is a republicanderthal in democrats clothing.

It's ABSURD that we jump for

It's ABSURD that we jump for joy at the thought that unknown numbers of our taxpayer dollars have brought us to a point of "affordable healthcare for the middle class"...since when did health become a commodity?!?!?!?!!! I am offended that either side of the debate exploits a human right for a "win or lose" against a broken system that scrambles to rescue Wallsteet (in a number of days, with BILLIONS of OUR taxpayer dollars!!!) while we, as a nation, beg and plead and rejoice for reform to a system that brought us to where we are at it the first place! I'd rather make nice with my neighbor than trust a system that has SCREWED us time and time again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not judgin', I'm just sayin'....

This is NOT what we want,

This is NOT what we want, nor what we need! The whole argument is rather simple. Just give us single payer. I don't know what's worse - this farce of a bill or the fact that so many of its positive provisions will take so long to happen I love the line on the Olbermann show: "Why does this take so long to do when we put a man on the moon in 8 years? - Because Aetna doesn't own the moon." So what are we supposed to say to the millions who will die unnecessarily in the meantime because they couldn't wait for the bill to kick in, or because the bill sold them out? And how far can we get with the new slogan: "Put our Weiner in the White House?"

This bill is nuts - what

This bill is nuts - what else would you expect from mentally unstable Pelosi. She is only interested in control. This woman has no business being in Congress. She refuses to listen to the voters. She continues to spin the same old crap thinking that we are all stupid enough to believe her lies.

It seems Pelosi is doing it

It seems Pelosi is doing it AGAIN, claiming victory for Americans on a bill that hands over the store to big business! Outrageous spin. Word to Nancy Pelosi: passing ANY old bill is not the same as passing a bill that helps Americans, and saying so doesn't make it true. The analysis so far paints the House bill as weak and deferring to health insurance corporations: mandating individual insurance to be purchased by the uninsured, negotiated rates which will not lower the cost of the "public" option, which itself seems to be limited access, and a new level of bureaucracy which will no doubt raise premiums for those who already have insurance. WE DON"T NEED HEALTH INSURANCE, we need affordable, quality healthcare! Single-payer universal coverage is still the only viable solution presented so far. This bill should be killed before it does any more damage to the already broken system we have. Will someone please remove the cancerous infection currently occupying our government? UGH!

... one more thing on this

... one more thing on this one ... If what i heard today that this bill will cause to increase plan policies which would be the 180 degree opposite of reform which i can hardly imagine that Pelosi et al could be so misinformed ... but if this is possibly correct ..... then Obama best pack up his 'Party Bags' as the Democratic Party will be done with this sort of folly ... And we as independant progressive .. and like myself left leaning libertarians ...... who believe in only essential but minimum military industrial complex ... and the government meant to serve people and intervene when necessary services to people as would healthcare fall under ..... then we will have to go back to the drawing board and only the rise of a new wing to break off of what is now the Democratic Party .... and form a third party ...... some form of revolution is not far off if the Dems dont' follow their history ... so this may be the apex of such a time in american history ..... i would think ........ See ya American Politics ........ as ta la vista ........

Too bad politicians just

Too bad politicians just can't seem to understand what the majority of people want for health care reform. They keep giving us health insurance reform. I tried calling my rep. and his line was busy. I tried faxing him and the line was busy. I'm not sure emails get any attention. Very frustrating. I'd like to see a national referendum on health care reform so Washington DC can see exactly what Americans want. That should shut republicanderthals up and open the eyes of Democrats.

Are you kidding with this

Are you kidding with this bloated monstrosity of a bill that no one can understand. All it is , is an excuse for the govt. to control one sixth of the economy, last nites election was just a little example of the anger and displeasure with the far left spending maniacs in Wash. DC, 85% of the American people have ins. and are happy with it. What we need is tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines. Govt. is not capable of running anything, exception the military.Watch the democrats slowly back away from Prince Harry and Queen Pelosi, already he said "maybe after New Years"for the "Health Care Bill" Govt. is never the answer folks, Esp. The govt. currently in power, but not for long

Last nites election is just

Last nites election is just the beginning of a Conservative revolution, Our far left spending maniac leaders in DC better take notice, all their worthless jobs are on the line next year. Obama himself your messiah is the best motivation for the conservative counter strike. Watch the dems step back and handle this monstrosity of a bill like its a hot potato, already Prince Harry said "well maybe after New Years" It will fail like everything they have touched.