October 16, 2009 11:24 AM

Public Option Gains Momentum

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Health Care
The House of Representatives may unveil a unified health care bill as early as next week, and new cost estimates give moderates in the House a stronger argument for the type of government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," that they favor.

Democrats in the House are considering a number of different ways to fashion a public option for their health care bill. Last week they submitted a few ideas to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to find out how much they would cost.

The CBO is reporting that the public option favored by moderates would cost less than the option favored by liberals, the Washington Post reports.

The liberal public plan would give doctors and medical providers the same payment rates they receive from Medicare, plus an additional five percent; this plan had initially been expected to be the most cost-effective, since Medicare rates are cheaper than the rates private insurers pay. But it didn't turn out that way: A health care bill with this plan would reportedly cost $905 billion, according to the CBO.

Moderates prefer a government-run plan to negotiate payment rates directly with medical providers, so the government would be on a "level playing field" with the private industry. This structure, they argued, would make sure doctors are not short-changed.

It was expected that this plan would cost the government more, however, so the House submitted this proposal along with a plan to expand Medicaid eligibility to 150 percent of the poverty line, a strategy believed to be cheaper than giving more low-income people tax credits to buy their own insurance. The strategy worked: the CBO came back with a price tag of $859 billion for the bill with the moderate public option and expanded Medicaid.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care
Do Dems Still Need 60 Senate Votes for Health Care?

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once again emphatically stressed the need for a public option, Politico reports, saying, "If you are going to mandate that people must buy insurance, why would you throw them into the lion's den of the insurance industry without some leverage with a public option?"

Pelosi reportedly said she wants to unveil the finished House health care bill as early as next week.

Even one of the most high-profile Democratic opponents to the public option in the House was reportedly suggesting new public option plans this week.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) suggested to colleagues the idea of opening up Medicare to those under 65 who are uninsured, according to the Hill newspaper.

Opening up Medicare -- a government plan people are familiar with and like -- could be simpler than starting a new public plan. However, that idea has already been largely written off as too liberal since it is perceived as a precursor to a single-payer health care system.

Ross reportedly said he merely suggested the idea, though he does not endorse it. Ross voted in favor of a public option compromise in a House committee, but he later came out in opposition to it.

Public option supporters are also speaking up in the Senate, according to reports.

"At a luncheon behind closed doors, Democrats said, liberals made impassioned pleas for a new government insurance plan, and they challenged the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, to defend his bill, which has no such public option," the New York Times reported. "Among the outspoken champions of the public plan were Senators Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio; Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa; and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats."

Meanwhile, the liberal reform group Health Care for America Now launches a new television ad today, shown above, that argues a public option is necessary because of the current lack of competition in the health insurance market.

Add a Comment See all 120 Comments
by Justathought52 October 19, 2009 11:00 AM EDT
Of course a narrow minded one thought individual such as yourself would hone in on one element of the piece just like the good little taper recorders you all are for Cluster Fox news and the Lumphead. You do realize ALL those items for PUBLIC BENeFIT are paid for by tax payer money! So if the gov provides a service and benefit for its people that is paid for by the peoples money (taxes) then that is EXACTLY what you and your other idiot brainwahsed friends are using to cry socialism! And by the way less than genious, of course wealth disrbutiion is just fine with your greedy selfish misguiuded ilk as long as it spreads from the bottom up! Like has happened with your right wing nut case idieology for the last 12 years! And you wonder why the economy collpsed? get a clue, you cannot take the wealth of a nation "shove it up" into just few hands without major economic catastrohpy. Nuf said!
Reply to this comment
by cmcapcathletic October 17, 2009 1:38 PM EDT
I am poor. I do not have health care for myself or my two minor children. I am unemployed and have just finished my AAB. I am trying to start my own business, while looking for full time work and home schooling those two minor children. I have used both public and private health insurance plans and I am here to say that it was a relief to get off of the public dole for both food and health insurance. Public health should be for emergency situations only or when no family member can care for the individual (which would be an emergency) if the nation wants to continue to insure the aging population -fine. But this public health plan is nothing more than a complete intrusion into our God-given freedoms and nothing less than legislational theft. Remember,at one time it was legal to strip blacks and women of their property and God-given rights. That didn't make it right-or sustainable. This is a menace to our nation and an attempt to pickpocket the American people through coercive means. Knock it off Congress and the Executive Branch.
Reply to this comment
by lovenpeace1 October 16, 2009 6:21 PM EDT
by velma179 October 16, 2009 6:06 PM EDT
"...I do work and I do pay taxes -- mine are about to go up... no, not because of health care reform, because the Bush tax cuts will expire...."

*******************

Hey velma179,

Bush's Massive Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 were only for the Rich. Are you saying you are Rich? Did you ever read why the Republican Congress made the Tax Cuts TEMPorary? They wanted to limit the damage to our Revenues.

In the Stimulus bill that President Obama signed back in Feb 2009, there was about $345 Billions in Tax Cuts for the middle-class.

Amazing how nobody gives Obama credits for that.
Reply to this comment
by velma179 October 16, 2009 6:54 PM EDT
lovegetpeace..

Rich? Well, that's a relative term. My income changes year to year, but it remains "very comfortable". This was a pretty good year, next year looks like it could be better...

As for the Bush tax cuts expiring. You may have a point about the Republican Congress, though I have never heard it said that way... very possible indeed.

BUT -- the real reason they are expiring is the legislation was passed under "budget reconciliation". Yep, the thing you keep hearing about being a possible path to pass health reform... and what I hope doesn't end up being the only way to do it.

Why?

Because bills passed under budget reconciliation AUTOMATICALLY expire after five years.

I really don't want to have to keep "going to the mattresses" for health reform because the legislation has a built in expiration and would have to be rewritten or reauthorized as a matter of course.


Yep, I know about the cuts Obama gave to millions of Americans and I applaud him for that. Frankly, I give him credit for a lot more than I'd take issue with him about. I don't agree with everything he's done, but I am confident the direction we're going is FORWARD.
by lovenpeace1 October 16, 2009 6:17 PM EDT
by velma179 October 16, 2009 6:06 PM EDT
"...I do work and I do pay taxes -- mine are about to go up... no, not because of health care reform, because the Bush tax cuts will expire...."

*******************

Hey velma179,

In the stimulus bill that President Obama signed back in Feb 2009, there was about $345 Billions in Tax Cuts for the middle-class.

Amazing how nobody gives him credit for that.
Reply to this comment
by smoknmirrors October 16, 2009 5:21 PM EDT
Ross reportedly said he merely suggested the idea, though he does not endorse it. Ross voted in favor of a public option compromise in a House committee, but he later came out in opposition to it.

Does this mean he was for it before he was against it before he suggested it before he didn't endorse it? Or did he vote for before speaking against before suggesting consideration before not endorsing? This is one confused flip-flopper begging to be medicated. Fortunately, he has a taxpayer funded health insurance plan that will cover it.
Reply to this comment
by clowry1611 October 16, 2009 4:44 PM EDT
i just wish they would finally ram this junk thru so we could move onto some other topics to argue about, lol
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 16, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
"I am all for small government - but this is a consumer protection, and we're getting robbed at gunpoint using our health as the bargaining chip. The insurance industry has proven it will not regulate itself, and people are dying - that's exactly when the FDA or any other regulatory agency would step in as well"

Well, if we use consumer protection as the benchmark, then we give the government the right to regulate everything. So, it then gets to tell me what and how much I eat (because if I eat the wrong foods or too much, I will become a health burden according to them). It will tell me I will have to exercise or be fined, because without exercise, I will become a liability on society.

You see where it all leads?

Instead, why not just let individuals take care of individuals?? Why not, if you dont carry insurance, then you get stuck with the bill (or denied care!!)?? Why not let state governments deal with the small minority that cannot get insurance? Why not, if you act like an idiot and jump out of a plane and break your back...then your insurance company can charge you more for being an idiot? Or, the insurance company can reward people who live healthier lifestyles with smaller payments??
Reply to this comment
by jxknowles October 16, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
by Mortarman29

It's convoluted logic like yours that created the mess in the first place. First there is a 'large' minority of people who cannot get access to or cannot afford health care.

Emergency rooms have to treat people, by law, because many times the identity or 'insurance status' of the individual is not known. If you were out jogging and got hit by a car, should you be denied life-saving surgery because the insurance card and ID were bounced from your pocket? Obviously not.

The plans put forth by Congress tackle a tough situation and raise issues, but doing nothing would be unforgiveable.
by Mortarman29 October 16, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
First, there isnt a "large minority". There is around 12 million Americans that cant get coverage or are having difficulty getting coverage. 12 million out of 300 million is a small minority.


And I dont say "do nothing." But what I say first is, do it legally (which means the Federal government get out of all of it, execpt where it deals with interstate commerce). Second, I say open up competition, which will bring down prices and increase quality. Third, I say the states should take care of their citizens that cannot cover themselves. Let them, either thru public offerings in the state or thru private initiatives regulated by the state, come up with programs that will take care of these folks.

Yousee, I am not anti-reform. But I am pro-Constitution...and pro-liberty. And the proposals in Washington these days are anti-Constitution and anti-liberty.

And I cannot support anything that does that!
by Justathought52 October 16, 2009 4:27 PM EDT
This morning I was awakened by my alarm clock powered by socialist electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the socialist clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the socialist radio to one of the FCC regulated channels to hear what the socialist National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using socialist satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of socialist US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the socialist drugs which have been determined to be safe by the Food and Drug Administration.



At the appropriate time, as kept accurate by the socialist National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I got into my socialist National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the socialist roads build by the socialist local, state, and federal departments of transportation, potentially stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the socialist Environmental Protection Agency, using socialist legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way I deposited mail to be sent out via the socialist US Postal Service and dropped the kids off at the socialist public school.



If I get lost, I can use my socialist GPS navigation technology developed by the United States Department of Defense and made available to the public in 1996 by President Bill Clinton who issued a policy directive declaring socialist GPS to be a dual-use military/civilian system to be managed as a national socialist asset.



After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the socialist workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the socialist USDA, I drove my socialist NHTSA car back home, on the socialist DOT roads, to my house which did not burn down in my absence because of the socialist state and local building codes and socialist fire marshal's inspection, and which had not been plundered of it's valuables thanks to the socialist local police department.



I then got on my computer and used the socialist internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and browse the socialist World Wide Web using my graphical web browser, both made possible by Al Gore's socialist High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. I then post on freerepublic.com and Fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Reply to this comment
by velma179 October 16, 2009 4:41 PM EDT
by Justathought52 October 16, 2009 4:27 PM EDT

Wonderful post!

I think my next project will be titled "A Day Without Government" -- it'll be a horror flick, for sure!
by mj121121 October 16, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
And you didn't even mention libraries! Thanks for making this point again ... it seems it can't be repeated enough because not everyone gets it yet.
by R_C_Jackman October 16, 2009 4:13 PM EDT
Interstate Option, yes. Public Option, no.
Reply to this comment
by Justathought52 October 19, 2009 11:10 AM EDT
Aren't you the same wing nuts crying about "States Rights" not too long ago? Now, but just for this issue apparently, you want to take away the states right to regulate and control health insurance companies in their own states? What? Ohhhhh as long as its the way you want it to be and nobody else then that's ok. Sure it is..Right.....
by mary-miami October 16, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
The only people who don't want free healthcare for all Americans, are the people who already have healthcare. They don't have to worry about what to do if they or their loved ones get sick. All other civilized, industrialized countries provide free healthcare to their citizens...Europe, Canada, Scandinavian countries...and they are free nations as well. People who have no way of seeing a doctor, would be very happy to have an appointment in a month, if need be. It's better than never getting medical attention.

www.marymiami.wordpress.com
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 16, 2009 4:09 PM EDT
There is no such thing as free healthcare. Someone ALWAYS pays. What yo uare talking about is people taking money out of their neighbor's pocket to pay for their healthcare. That is called theft!
See all 120 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook