Senate Panel Rejects Public Option

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Health Care

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Updated at 4:05 p.m. ET with vote on Schumer amendment.

A key Senate panel shot down two amendments on Tuesday afternoon to add a government-run health insurance plan to its health care bill.

Getting to the crux of the nation's current health care debate – whether there should be more government involvement in health care -- the Senate Finance Committee spent hours debating the merits of a government plan, or "public option," before voting down two separate proposals.

First, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) proposed an amendment to add a public option to the health care bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) in the committee. The committee rejected the amendment by a vote of 15 to eight.

Five Democrats -- Senators Kent Conrad (N.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Tom Carper (Del.) and Committee Chair Max Baucus (Mont.) -- joined Republicans in voting against it.

Directly following that vote, the committee voted on a second, weaker public option amendment from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The committee rejected that amendment by a vote of 13 to 10, with three Democrats voting against it -- Conrad, Lincoln and Baucus.

Baucus said he voted against the amendments because he does not believe a health care bill with a public option could get the 60 votes necessary to pass in the full Senate.

"I see a lot to like in a public option," he said, "but my first job is to get this bill across the finish line."

He added, "It's also important to remind ourselves Rome wasn't built in a day."

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.

By voting down the amendment, 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.

Fact Check: Obama's Health Care Anecdotes
When Medicare is the Piggy Bank
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Rockefeller's amendment was considered the more liberal of the two public option amendments because it would have aligned medical provider payments with Medicare payment rates for two years -- essentially securing lower payment rates than the private industry pays. Some moderate Democrats said that worried them.

"With Sen. Rockefeller's amendment, the devil is in the details," Conrad said. 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.

Schumer's amendment would not have tied payment rates to Medicare, nor would it have required medical providers to participate in the new plan.

"Frankly, I might prefer Sen. Rockefeller's [amendment], but like Sen. Baucus, I too am a realist," Schumer said.

The senator said weaker public option can win 60 votes in the Senate. He added, however, that "This is far more than a symbol. This is not an ideological fight. It is vital to make this bill, which is a good bill, a better bill."

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 Grassley said its integral part of American culture prove how hard it would be to reverse any cultivation of a new government plan.

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

251 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 251 Comments


by dragon8me September 30, 2009 9:15 AM EDT: Theres going to be a lot of new senators next year. The Democrats who voted against a public option are history.; Reply to this comment


by Mortarman29 September 30, 2009 9:11 AM EDT: Common Dems...get this thing passed. What is your problem???; Reply to this comment


by hungry1968-16 September 30, 2009 9:01 AM EDT: by brian1920 September 30, 2009 7:16 AM EDT
The Democrats on the panel defeated the Socialized medicine proposal. They know that re-election is not possible if they supported it.

BS.

They were bought by the insurance companies to oppose health care reform.

65% of the country wants the public option. Voting against it, is NOT voting for what the people want.; Reply to this comment


by irreverent1-2009 September 30, 2009 8:46 AM EDT: Rome may not have built in a day but there are 5 Democrats that should be shown the door in the next election.; Reply to this comment


by afmcalax September 30, 2009 8:23 AM EDT: Well the insurance companies won. Health care reform is effectively dead. I would just let it die and wait another 10 years when 90 percent of all Americans will not have health care and we can blame the Party of NO and the spineless morons of the Democratic Party, who once again are afraid to actually stand for something.; Reply to this comment


by dante805 September 30, 2009 7:39 AM EDT: Finally some sanity. Schumer is a snake. A liberal one at that. Moderates should run from any amendment he proposes. The Dems are at a cross roads now, they can vote to go down the Reid Pelosi Moore road and doom the party in 2010 election or take the moderate Bacuus path adn win over independents and stay in power. Congress hasnt seen any march on Washington yet, just try to pass govt option and amnesty and cap and trade tis year.; Reply to this comment


by R_C_Jackman September 30, 2009 5:49 AM EDT: The U.S. Congress has the authority to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines [Ref. Wikipedia, "McCarran-Ferguson Act"]. Competition is good. Indeed, prior to 1945, the South-Eastern Underwriters Association was taken to court because its rates were too low. It is government interference which shelters our current insurance companies and which allows higher-than-what-could-be rates. Congress should allow the insurance companies to compete across state lines. The competition would be fierce. We don't need a government-controlled option.; Reply to this comment


by tiredofthebs September 30, 2009 2:00 AM EDT: by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01 September 30, 2009 1:06 AM EDT
Here, here!!! Let's do something civil for once and promulgate sterilization and eugenics.

(What rights you talkin' 'bout, Willis?)

And people wonder how I can see sick/hungry children and NOT CARE. This is why ...... Right to Life, I get it. Someone has to pay for that right. If it's not my child, It shouldn't be me.; Reply to this comment


by searingtruth September 30, 2009 1:59 AM EDT: Fellow citizens,

Corporations are not here to be nice, or compassionate, or to do the "right" thing.

They are here to make a profit.

And that is their just and rightful place.

Which is why we should never allow them to participate in our police, fire, health care, or military institutions.

Because these are institutions that ensure our basic human infrastructure, supporting our basic human needs and rights, and should not be reliant upon profitability.

And in fact our police and fire departments, and military, are run quite well by the government, it is only our health care that is killing us.

But unfortunately the peoples welfare is something the Republicans never embraced, and the Democrats abandoned without notice sometime within the last three decades.

Which is why after 25 years I recently re-registered from a non-partisan voter to a full fledged contributing member of The Green Party of The United States.

If we want to see change it is now clear that we must alter our two party system, establishing new parties that once again defend and uphold the rights and liberty of the American people.
ST

"My dead child was profit."
SearingTuth

A Future of the Brave; Reply to this comment


by tiredofthebs September 30, 2009 1:57 AM EDT: by charlie6701 September 30, 2009 12:42 AM EDT
Let me ********** tell ya somfin.. The only people who know what they're talk'n about.. about anything! Are the people who have kids.. In fact, they should be the only ones who got something to say about healthcare.

And there in lays the problem. Who cares what they think?! The question is what can they AFFORD?; Reply to this comment