Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009 | 8:25 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a full-blown government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage, with the possibility of greater government involvement if needed to ensure consumers of sufficient choices in coverage.
Additionally, the emerging agreement calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population.
At a hastily called evening news conference in the Capitol, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined to provide details of what he described as a "broad agreement" between liberals and moderates on an issue that has plagued Democrats' efforts to pass health care legislation from the outset.
With it, he added with a smile, the end is in sight for passage of the legislation that Congress has labored over for months.
The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly. Several officials stressed that so far, Democrats had technically agreed only on submitting proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for their impact on the bill's cost and other analysis.
At its core, the legislation would expand health care to millions who lack it, ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and rein in the rise of health care spending nationally.
The developments followed a vote on the Senate floor earlier in the day in which abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping health care bill, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the issue didn't hamper the drive to enact legislation. The vote was 54-45.
Taken together, the day's developments underscored the complexity that confronts the administration and Reid as they seek the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican opposition and pass a bill by Christmas. Despite their reluctance, some senators had talked openly and in detail earlier in the day about the progress of the negotiations.
The provision in the legislation to be dropped under the emerging agreement provides for a government-run insurance option to be available to consumers, with individual states permitted to drop out. Liberals have long sought such as arrangement, as a means of forcing competition on insurance companies.
One participant in the talks, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, referring to a deal among the negotiators, told reporters he didn't like it, but added, "I'm going to support it to the hilt" in hopes of securing passage of the health care bill.
Another senator involved, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., issued a statement saying, "I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach. We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars." But he did not rule out voting for the measure.
The White House quickly applauded the developments. "Senators are making great progress and we're pleased that they're working together to find common ground toward options that increase choice and competition," said a spokesman, Reid Cherlin.
In his comments to reporters, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."
It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option," the Medicare expansion or a fallback in case private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan envisioned to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management. One possibility was for the agency to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.
Under the tentative agreement, liberals lost their bid to expand Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, elderly and disabled. But they prevailed on the Medicare expansion, and the negotiators appeared ready to maintain a separate health care program for children until 2013, two years longer than the bill currently calls for, according to officials familiar with the details.
Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
Reid - the chief architect of the health care bill as well as an abortion opponent - played a prominent role in the debate over attempts by conservatives to toughen restrictions in the Senate measure. "No one should use the health care bill to expand or restrict abortion," he said, arguing that abortion foes were attempting to do just that. "And no one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care."
The current legislation would ban the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services under insurance plans expected to be offered in a new health care system, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Individuals who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance under the plans would be permitted to use personal funds to pay for abortion services - the point on which the two sides in the dispute part company.
"Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., the chief Democratic supporter of tightened restrictions. "The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion."
Abortion rights supporters, Senate Democratic women most prominently, countered heatedly.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said abortion opponents were driven by ideology, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., called the proposed changes "a very far-reaching intrusion into the lives of women."
The amendment that Nelson, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and numerous Republicans proposed would also have barred insurance plans from covering abortions except in the three categories if any of their policyholders received federal subsidies. It also would have required insurance companies that offer no-abortion plans to make available a policy that offers such services.
In all, 50 Democrats, two Republicans and two independents voted to kill the abortion proposal. Thirty-eight Republicans and seven Democrats favored it.






"Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits."
The Rockefeller consensus is a huge step forward for the American people.
And calling the public option dead, even at this point, is premature... the Senate legislation will be reconciled with the legislation from the House, which was passed with a public option.
It will be interesting to see the CBO scores from the compromise.
The party of "no!" just can't catch a break.
We need medicare for all. We need a single payer healthcare system because peoples healthcare should NOT be some sort of profitable venture for a select few wealthy CEO's. America's healthcare system is both wasteful of human life and taxpayer dollars.
The same idiots screaming "socialism!" said the same thing about the public school system, national parks and medicare.
No, everything MUST turn a profit, The U.S. Constitution demands it, if it doesn't then it might be socialism or possibly something UN- American. If you are sick, injured or bleeding to death just price shop until you find a cheap doctor who will treat you and that will force the market to lower it's prices. Trust the loving embrace of the 'invisible hand' to take care of you when you are sick.
If you are poor, old, young or unemployed just pull your self up by the bootstraps, show some personal responsibility, cash in some stocks or bonds and purchase some insurance.
the insurance companies won...
the percent of gdp spent on health care will rise...
health insurance will continue to be a drag on the economy...
and...
the saddest part of all...
we will have to revisit this issue again...
soon...
sad...
truly sad...
Single payer was never going to work. Please stop being so short sighted. This is not a victory yet, the people pushing legislation want to get anything passed because they know they can add to it later. In addition, we need to ask questions. Why are the dems pushing to raise the debt ceiling? How does raising the debt ceiling affect the country? Why does it cost $1trillion to insure 14million people (this number has been estimated to be much, much lower)? When do the new taxes start and when do the benefits go into effect?
None of it makes sense. For the comment that said, "The same idiots screaming "socialism!" said the same thing about the public school system, national parks and medicare.", the public schools consistently perform worse than charter schools, national parks are nice but lose money (when the country could use some), medicare is going bankrupt very quickly (failed system that has only added to the cost of healthcare).
The bill should be scrapped and what needs to happen is the following.... tort reform and an increase competition.
How long will the country be able to to run in the super red. The Bush admin was pretty careless but now we have the Bush spending is on steroids under this new administration and what does this country have to show for it. NOTHING!!! Only rising unemployment, more government programs (that do not generate revenue), and a rock star president that is on TV all the time. I wouldn't mind my TV programs getting interrupted if he would answer questions instead of saying the same things he says eveytime. "I uuuuhhh didn't create this mess (but you campaigned that you were the only one that could fix it), uhhhh, the previous administration spent too much uhhhhh (But you quadrupled the deficit), the steps my administration has made is fixing the problem (you passed an $800billion bill and promise that if it passed, unemployment would not pass 8%, that did not happen), I have saved or created 3million jobs (you can't prove it!!!, people are still losing jobs)."
There are many more examples but what makes someone think that government can run a health care for all Americans when nothing has worked the way they promised.
"Government is not is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master"
-George Washington-