Democrats reach 'broad agreement' on health reform

[TheProfessor]

Curious what people think of this development.


Reid: Dems reach 'broad agreement'

Senate Democrats have reached a "broad agreement" on a health reform bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday night — a plan that negotiators have said would create a new national health-care plan with private insurers, and a chance for older Americans to “buy in” to Medicare.

Democrats on Tuesday night took a major step forward on a plan by agreeing to ask congressional scorekeepers to give them cost estimates on a possible compromise that would break the impasse on the public option in the Senate bill.

The broad outlines of the deal had been discussed for days, but Democrats emerged from a closed-door session about 8 p.m. with news of the breakthrough. Some were reluctant to call it a deal until hearing back from the Congressional Budget Office about how much the proposed new provisions would cost.

“This is a consensus that will help insure that the American people win in a couple different ways. One, insurance companies will certainly have more compe ion. And two, the American people will certainly have more choices," Reid told reporters in the Capitol, but refused to divulge details of the agreement.

“Not everyone will agree to every piece we sent over there,” Reid said. “But believe me that we've got something that's good...it moves this bill way down the road."

Reid also said the public health insurance option wouldn’t be completely eliminating under the proposed agreement but did not elaborate.

The Senate breakthrough came as the clock was already winding down on Reid’s hopes of getting a bill done by Christmas. He had told negotiators – five liberal and five moderates – that he needed a deal by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.

“We've agreed to go take the next step. The next step is really the most important," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five moderate senators who joined five liberals in trying to craft a compromise. “We'll see what CBO has to score and what to say, and we'll take it up and see what we can afford."

Said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who supports the need for a public option: “Do I like it? No, but I'm going to support to the hilt.”

With a deadline imminent, Democratic senators had scrambled Tuesday to break a months-long impasse over the public option, but stubborn political obstacles emerged as details of the possible compromise took shape.

As quickly as the outline of an agreement seemed to emerge Monday, parts of it had fallen away by Tuesday afternoon — the casualty of opposition raised by moderates. At the same time, progressive senators, including Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), were still resisting pressure to give up entirely on the public option, according to an official briefed on the meetings.

By Tuesday evening, the group was no longer considering opening Medicaid to people with incomes 150 percent above the poverty line. It faded as a realistic option amid concerns among moderates and many governors that it would put too much of a burden on state governments, which pick up a portion of the coverage costs.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who is still being wooed by Democrats, expressed strong skepticism toward another key element, the expansion of Medicare to people between 55 and 64. She said she was concerned the bill would rely too much on government to fill gaps in insurance coverage that the private sector should handle.

An added difficulty was the Senate’s rejection Tuesday of an amendment by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to strengthen restrictions on federal funding for abortion coverage. He has said he would filibuster the bill if it didn’t provide adequaterestrictions but Tuesday would only say that the defeat of his amendment “makes it harder to be supportive.”

“I had no Plan B, and I’m not looking for a Plan B,” Nelson said.

Nelson said he would look at any compromises on the abortion language that were presented to him but does not plan to work on one himself. Nelson continued to participate Tuesday night in the public option talks.

Senators were haggling Tuesday evening over details, according to the official briefed on the meeting. The moderates were resisting a proposal to include a public option trigger in the federally administered national health insurance program. There was also pressure not to expand a proposal from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that would allow states to negotiate with private industry to provide group coverage for low-income people. The bill limits states to negotiating for people who earn up to twice the federal poverty line.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the talks were progressing. But if the talks do result in a deal, the framework would very likely break the stalemate over the public option.

“If the 10 people in the room come to an agreement, it doesn’t guarantee everybody, but it’s a pretty broad reach in the caucus,” Schumer said.

Snowe was highly skeptical of a proposal to expand Medicare and Medicaid — signaling Tuesday that her support for an emerging public option compromise will be difficult to secure.

Democrats have been hopeful they could attract Snowe’s vote for a final health reform deal and gain a little breathing room in trying to reach 60 votes. But Snowe said the latest proposals on the table would take the legislation in the wrong direction, adding more government involvement at a time when voters want less.

“My deep concern is about the breadth and scale of this legislation, taking it in a more expansionistic approach for government’s role rather than the reverse,” Snowe told reporters. “You can design incentives in this legislation to maximize the power of the marketplace in making sure the industry performs.”

West Virginia Sen. John Rockefeller, one of the leading Democrats calling for a public option, said there is “not a lot” of discussion anymore on expanding Medicaid to people at 150 percent of the poverty level, instead of the 133 percent of poverty level included in the Senate bill.

He said liberals are looking for other concessions, including tightening insurance regulations and keeping the State Children’s Health Insurance Program in place until the major reforms go into effect in 2014.

The Medicaid expansion was viewed as a trade-off for liberals who were disappointed that the public option was falling out of the bill. An expansion of Medicare is still under serious consideration because it’s easier to manage the costs by controlling who can “buy in” to the program.

Snowe spoke with reporters after she left a private meeting with Reid, steps away from the room where the 10 Democratic senators were locked in negotiations. The group met continuously Tuesday in hopes of reaching an agreement by the end of the day. Reid needs to send the bill to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate within the next day or so if he hopes to keep the bill on track for passage by Christmas.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said the group is still committed to reaching an agreement.

“We do have a framework, a general framework that we’re working on in terms of how something might be structured, but certainly we understand that time is of the essence,” Pryor said. “We want to get it done right, but we also understand that we’re under some time constraints.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), another undecided moderate who opposes any version of the public plan, hasn’t been participating in the meetings. But his staff is present, and he speaks with Schumer every day, Lieberman told reporters Tuesday.

He said he is encouraged by a proposal to remove the public option and replace it with a national nonprofit insurance program administered by a federal agency. Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, Lieberman said he needed to examine the additional costs.

Both the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals sent alerts to its members Tuesday urging them to call senators in opposition to the proposals.

“Remember that we worked hard to successfully and significantly change the House bill so its public option was not entirely based on Medicare rates, but largely negotiated rates, and in the Senate we worked to ensure that the Finance Committee bill has a nonprofit, nongovernmental public option based on negotiated rates and not tied to Medicare or Medicaid,” read the alert from the American Hospital Association.

“Adding millions of people to these programs at a time when they already severely underfund hospitals is unwise and should be opposed.”

[SouthernFried]

Democrats reach agreement on no public option?

You gotta be kidding me.

This whole bill is 2000 pages of govt controls and takeovers. The "public option" is just a semantic herring for those who are susceptible to such...it's all going to be publicly controlled and ran...no option.

That's what the 2000 pages are for and detail...what the govt is going to take over and control.

"We're not going to offer a public option...we're just going to control and/or takeover everything associated with health care."

Yeah, big concession there.

[boutons_deux]

SF, still feigning to be "scared", still scaring.

The public option has been killed and gutted. The for-profit health insurers and BigPharma are blood spattered.

The corps got what they have and will never relinquish: the cartel power to suck $1000+/month off the top of every salary for a family of four, while increasing co-pays and deductible, for ever.

Protected BigPharma's racket continues, charging Americans 3x+ more than non-Americans for the same drugs.

And all the while, you right-winger er corporate shills keep maintaining the smoke-screen and distraction about "govt take over" of health care. Ain't happening, ain't ever gonna happen. The immovable corps are running the show.

[SouthernFried]

Congress writes 2000 pages detailing how it is going to control, regulate, and takeover the health care industry...

...and you STILL get dumb s like bouton trying to sell the "it's really all about the evil corporations" bs.

"yeah...yeah...but, those corporations are buying those congressman to write 2000 pages of controls, regulations, and takeovers, that will put the evil corporations in charge so they can make a lot of money so they can give the congresspersons more money to keep the corporations in charge."

Dumb leftists...

If the "evil" Corporations were in charge, I'd worry much less about healthcare than having the idiots in DC being in charge.

[EmptyMan]

SF, still feigning to be "scared", still scaring.

The public option has been killed and gutted. The for-profit health insurers and BigPharma are blood spattered.

The corps got what they have and will never relinquish: the cartel power to suck $1000+/month off the top of every salary for a family of four, while increasing co-pays and deductible, for ever.

Protected BigPharma's racket continues, charging Americans 3x+ more than non-Americans for the same drugs.

And all the while, you right-winger er corporate shills keep maintaining the smoke-screen and distraction about "govt take over" of health care. Ain't happening, ain't ever gonna happen. The immovable corps are running the show.

lol, I don't want to pay into social security but I am forced to.



We're talking about Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. People have good reason not to trust these politicians. If moderate dems were running this show from the top and didn't try to dump their agenda load on this bill from day 1, America could have really benefited.

[Supergirl]

seems like a reasonable compromise. woo hoo!!!

[Supergirl]

of course, as the article goes on to say, now the real fun begins - reconciling the Senate and House plans.

But I have the growing sense that it's really going to happen. I think we are far enough along that senators and reps are feeling the pressure to not be "the ones" who denied their cons uents health care after so much work has been put into this. As well they should.

[Supergirl]

of course, as the article goes on to say, now the real fun begins - reconciling the Senate and House plans.

But I have the growing sense that it's really going to happen. I think we are far enough along that senators and reps are feeling the pressure to not be "the ones" who denied their cons uents health care after so much work has been put into this. As well they should.

[MannyIsGod]

seems like a reasonable compromise. woo hoo!!!

I think so as well. I think that the buy in for people 55 and older is a great piece of the plan.

My question is, if a buy in is good enough for them, why not for the rest of us?.

[ElNono]

Democrats reach agreement on no public option?

You gotta be kidding me.

This

[Crookshanks]

Supergirl and Manny - two very gullible fools. You really think there's not going to be a public option? All they did was change the name - this is still the biggest load of crap to be shoved down our throats. Support for this crap is shrinking every day, but still the idiots on Capitol Hill persist because, after all, THEY know what's best for their dumb little cons uents.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Supergirl and Manny - two very gullible fools. You really think there's not going to be a public option? All they did was change the name - this is still the biggest load of crap to be shoved down our throats. Support for this crap is shrinking every day, but still the idiots on Capitol Hill persist because, after all, THEY know what's best for their dumb little cons uents.

What other name are they using now? Us gullible folks want to know.

[DarrinS]

Free Viagra and elective abortions!


Woo hooo!

[DarrinS]

[jack sommerset]

wow

[George Gervin's Afro]

Free Viagra and elective abortions!


Woo hooo!

aren't all abortions elective?

[Crookshanks]

aren't all abortions elective?

The operative word is "free". Libs think taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions.

What other name are they using now? Us gullible folks want to know.

Officials said it included nonprofit national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which runs the popular federal employees' health plan, as well as opening Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, effective in 2011.

Greater government involvement would potentially kick in if private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan, although details weren't available. One possibility was for the personnel office to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.
===================

Hmmm - this sounds a lot like the government is still going to be involved in a big way.

[DarrinS]

aren't all abortions elective?

no

[ElNono]

Hmmm - this sounds a lot like the government is still going to be involved in a big way.

Government is already involved in a big way... Current public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending. Thus the reason of wanting to reduce cost considerably.

[Yonivore]

Democrats reach agreement on no public option?

You gotta be kidding me.

They are...don't buy it.

[Crookshanks]

There's no way they're going to give up the public option because this bill isn't about healthcare reform - it's about control; and the libs want to control our lives as much as possible.

All they're doing now is trying to find a way to make this pile of crap more palatable to the moderates like Lieberman, Snowe and Nelson.

[panic giraffe]

SF, still feigning to be "scared", still scaring.

The public option has been killed and gutted. The for-profit health insurers and BigPharma are blood spattered.

The corps got what they have and will never relinquish: the cartel power to suck $1000+/month off the top of every salary for a family of four, while increasing co-pays and deductible, for ever.

Protected BigPharma's racket continues, charging Americans 3x+ more than non-Americans for the same drugs.

And all the while, you right-winger er corporate shills keep maintaining the smoke-screen and distraction about "govt take over" of health care. Ain't happening, ain't ever gonna happen. The immovable corps are running the show.

you're right on this one. it makes me ing sick. can't we just start over on this bill?

[coyotes_geek]

you're right on this one. it makes me ing sick. can't we just start over on this bill?

Why should anyone believe that a congressional "do-over" would result in something better? It's still the same collection of self serving buffoons incapable of producing anything other than a multi-trillion dollar, pork filled clusterfruck destined to be nothing more a costly failure.

[panic giraffe]

Why should anyone believe that a congressional "do-over" would result in something better? It's still the same collection of self serving buffoons incapable of producing anything other than a multi-trillion dollar, pork filled clusterfruck destined to be nothing more a costly failure.

just start the debate at where they should have started it and not at the compromise(sp?). reid should have said, ok pelosi dropped the ball on this one, single-payer/medicare for all, and then had it dumbed down to a public option. now as i understand it, it's just bending over and taking it from the insurance industry. some senators/congresspeople have it so ing backwards in their head. why can't at least a few just have the balls to say "ok, i may be in for only one term, but at least i was on the right side of history, and if this works, i'll get re-elected" and just gamble on it. instead they want to let everyone have their way and still like them so no one won. its sad.

i mean i disagree with almost everything the republican's do, but at least they are more ballsy in their methods. look at how any republican senator/congressperson votes and its always the same, " you, you voted me in, i'll do what i feel is right and live with it", maher had it right, why can't the dems just for once get it together.

and you're right, it probably wouldn't have made a difference when it comes to the medical cartel lobby, and their influence on washington.

[mogrovejo]

My question is, if a buy in is good enough for them, why not for the rest of us?.

That's an excellent question indeed.