prev
next
Political Hotsheet 
Getting to the crux of the nation's current health care debate – whether there should be more government involvement in health care -- Senators in a key committee on Tuesday kicked off a marathon debate over a plan to establish a government-run health insurance plan.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) is proposing to add a government-sponsored plan, or "public option," to the health care bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) in the Senate Finance Committee.
Rockefeller said a public option would protect consumers from profit-hungry insurance companies and save the government $50 billion over 10 years. Republicans, on the other hand, said it would lead America on a path to a single-payer health care system -- one in which the government would be solely responsible for health care costs.
Moderate Democrats in the committee are likely to join Republicans in blocking the amendment. If they do, Rockefeller said, "What we're saying is, 'Go ahead health insurance companies, and make more profits.'"
"And we're saying people and their problems... that they somehow don't count as much," he added. "People come second, and profits come first if we're against this, in my judgment."
Baucus' health care bill, crafted to gain as much bipartisan support as possible, does not include a public option because of opposition to the plan from Republicans and some moderate Democrats.
The Senate Finance Committee is considering two amendments to add a public option, but Rockefeller's is considered more liberal because it would align medical provider payments with Medicare payment rates for two years -- essentially securing lower payment rates than the private industry pays.
Fact Check: Obama's Health Care Anecdotes
When Medicare is the Piggy Bank
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
More than half of the cost of Baucus' bill -- nearly half a trillion dollars -- Rockefeller pointed out, would go toward providing subsidies for consumers to buy private insurance. The bill asks little in return from insurers for that money, he said. Insurance companies will continue to raise premiums without a public option to keep them in check, he said.
"The people I represent need this because they're helpless in front of the insurance companies," he said. Insurance companies, he said, are "getting away with banditry, and they revel in it."
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the leading Republican in the committee, said a public option would be "a slow walk toward government-controlled single payer health care." Other Republicans voiced the same concern.
To highlight the flaws of government-administered health insurance, Republicans also criticized Medicare -- straying from their recent praise for the government program that insures senior citizens.
Medicare is "on a path to a fiscal meltdown" and underpays doctors and health care providers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. It is "forcing increasing numbers of providers to simply stop seeing our nation's seniors," he said, and shifts costs to taxpayers.
Grassley called Medicare "part of the social fabric of America," but both he and Hatch said its integral part of American culture prove how hard it would be to reverse any cultivation of a new government plan.
Some moderate Democrats said they were not in favor of Rockefeller's amendment since it would tie payment rates to Medicare for two years.
"With Sen. Rockefeller's amendment, the devil is in the details," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). North Dakota has the second-lowest level of Medicare reimbursement in the country, he said, meaning that "every major hospital in my state goes broke" if public option payment rates are tied to Medicare.
More committee members will comment on the amendment this afternoon before the committee votes on it.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Health Care: Boiling Down to Private vs. Public
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) is proposing to add a government-sponsored plan, or "public option," to the health care bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) in the Senate Finance Committee.
Rockefeller said a public option would protect consumers from profit-hungry insurance companies and save the government $50 billion over 10 years. Republicans, on the other hand, said it would lead America on a path to a single-payer health care system -- one in which the government would be solely responsible for health care costs.
Moderate Democrats in the committee are likely to join Republicans in blocking the amendment. If they do, Rockefeller said, "What we're saying is, 'Go ahead health insurance companies, and make more profits.'"
"And we're saying people and their problems... that they somehow don't count as much," he added. "People come second, and profits come first if we're against this, in my judgment."
Baucus' health care bill, crafted to gain as much bipartisan support as possible, does not include a public option because of opposition to the plan from Republicans and some moderate Democrats.
The Senate Finance Committee is considering two amendments to add a public option, but Rockefeller's is considered more liberal because it would align medical provider payments with Medicare payment rates for two years -- essentially securing lower payment rates than the private industry pays.
Fact Check: Obama's Health Care Anecdotes
When Medicare is the Piggy Bank
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
More than half of the cost of Baucus' bill -- nearly half a trillion dollars -- Rockefeller pointed out, would go toward providing subsidies for consumers to buy private insurance. The bill asks little in return from insurers for that money, he said. Insurance companies will continue to raise premiums without a public option to keep them in check, he said.
"The people I represent need this because they're helpless in front of the insurance companies," he said. Insurance companies, he said, are "getting away with banditry, and they revel in it."
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the leading Republican in the committee, said a public option would be "a slow walk toward government-controlled single payer health care." Other Republicans voiced the same concern.
To highlight the flaws of government-administered health insurance, Republicans also criticized Medicare -- straying from their recent praise for the government program that insures senior citizens.
Medicare is "on a path to a fiscal meltdown" and underpays doctors and health care providers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. It is "forcing increasing numbers of providers to simply stop seeing our nation's seniors," he said, and shifts costs to taxpayers.
Grassley called Medicare "part of the social fabric of America," but both he and Hatch said its integral part of American culture prove how hard it would be to reverse any cultivation of a new government plan.
Some moderate Democrats said they were not in favor of Rockefeller's amendment since it would tie payment rates to Medicare for two years.
"With Sen. Rockefeller's amendment, the devil is in the details," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). North Dakota has the second-lowest level of Medicare reimbursement in the country, he said, meaning that "every major hospital in my state goes broke" if public option payment rates are tied to Medicare.
More committee members will comment on the amendment this afternoon before the committee votes on it.
Popular in Politics
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 238 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 307 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 383 Comments
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 259 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 226 Comments
- FBI seeks anonymous source behind Menendez allegations
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
But the republican extremists liars will NOT win the battle!!
We WILL have healthcare reform with the public option when all is ssaid and done. Watch!
I believe that the best strategy for the Democrats (which I think James Carville supports) would be to 'let the Republicans filibuster it to death'. This process will allow all of the truths and fallacies to be fully vetted and separated out before the upcoming elections. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will have been forced to show their hands, who they are, and what they stand for. The people will then vote accordingly in November and on. How it will go who knows anymore? It really depends on the pain threshold of the various voting public.
If Congress goes Republican, then the poor, disadvantaged, and middle class will have to endure many more years of declining or loss of health care until a larger portion of the country is frustrated and angry before it is finally passed.
With this strategy, however, the Democrats (at least the liberal ones) cannot be accused of not fighting as hard as they can for the poor, disadvantaged, and middle class.
With Republicans, it boils down to 'money' and the continuance of 'unregulated capitalism'.
With Democrats, it boils down to 'moral duty' and the implementation of 'regulated capitalism'.
Even though my wife and I are in the top 5% (household income wise in the US - which I was just now astonished to find out!), I cannot side with the Republicans based upon: 1) the 'Teachings of Jesus Christ' (the 'Spoken Words of Christ'), and 2) what 'Wall Street' and 'Unregulated Capitalism' of the past 20 years has taught me about the corrupting influence and damage caused by the unregulated 'Profit Motive'.