A New Alternative to the Public Option Emerges

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Health Care

(AP)

The Senate could be on the verge of abandoning the "public option," as originally envisioned, but are senators any closer to a compromise?

As reported in CBSNews.com's Health Care Progress Report this morning, a group of liberal and moderate senators discussed over the weekend a new plan that could potentially replace Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's proposal to establish a government-run health insurance option for a limited number of people.

This group of 10 Democrats is considering a plan to establish national health insurance options, which would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) but operated by private, nonprofit insurers. In essence, this plan would expand the options now given to federal employees to the rest of the country, since the OPM already runs the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP).

The new proposal is billed as a "public option" compromise, but it would, in fact, take the "public" out of the public option. That could appeal to the most conservative Democrats, like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

"Seems to me it would be in lieu of the public option," Nelson said of the plan, according to Politico. He reportedly said Majority Leader Harry Reid's version of the public option, which would allow states to opt out of the national, government plan, "is no longer being talked about."

Nelson reportedly took part in the weekend discussions about the new plan, along with moderate Democrats Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Tom Carper (Del.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). The liberal senators in attendance were Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and John Rockefeller (W.V.).

The Democrats' entire health care overhaul could be put in peril if the Senate bill is not altered to the liking of moderate holdouts like Nelson. Progressives are hardly ready to give up the fight, however, for the public option, which they call essential for providing marketplace competition and driving down insurance costs.

"We have compromised four times on the public option," said Brown, according to the New York Times. He explained how liberals went from supporting "single payer" health care -- or "Medicare for all" -- to finally agreeing to a public option that negotiates its own payment rates and allows states to opt out.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

"We have moved three or four or five times on this and those days are over," Brown reportedly said. "Why should four people decide that they don't like the public option the way it is, when 50 plus of us like the public option the way it is?"

For Democratic leaders who cannot afford to let the health care overhaul fail, the new alternative could prove to be tempting because it could even possibly win over one or two Republicans. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) called the new idea "a very novel and innovative idea," according to the Washington Post.

At least two senators, however -- Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Roland Burris (D-Ill.) -- have said they will only vote for a bill that includes a truly "public" option. Meanwhile, the experts behind the original public option idea are vehemently opposed to the new compromise.

The 'middle-ground' ideas that are currently flying around aren't in the middle at all," Yale political science professor Jacob Hacker wrote Sunday in the New Republic. "They represent abandonment of the public plan idea altogether."

And while the new plan was proposed as a way to smooth over one of the most contentious reform issues among senators (it is not so contentious among the general public, where the public option sees strong support), it could possibly complicate things more, health policy consultant Linda Bergthold writes at Huffington Post.

"It would be difficult to include abortion coverage [in the new insurance options], because the current FEHBP plans offer very limited abortion coverage to federal employees," Bergthold writes. "This could truly complicate the debate by conflating the two most contentious issues -- abortion and public option -- into one big mess of a concept."

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

61 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 61 Comments


by Cattzen December 18, 2009 10:29 AM EST: Eventually, if we?re lucky, all Americans will have the opportunity of Medicare (Socialized Medical Care). Republicans and Democrats alike have taken advantage of the Government Medical Coverage. The Republicans in Congress have stood fast against any expansion of Medicare and/or a Public Option and are in favor of the over priced and under service rendered Private Medical Insurance that has, and will continue to burden Working Americans and their Employers.; Reply to this comment


by ladd09 December 8, 2009 11:42 AM EST: Askagain, Here is one more very imprtant link for your consideration;
http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-and-the-current-financial-and-mortgage-crisis-part-two-of-an-indepth-investigative-report.html; Reply to this comment


by sudmuf December 8, 2009 6:50 AM EST: We don't want this crap.; Reply to this comment


by skeezix06 December 8, 2009 3:50 AM EST: It is now time to kill the bill. We're getting nothing for our money and it does absolutely nothing positive.; Reply to this comment


by edgy44 December 8, 2009 3:15 AM EST: Print more money. 12 Trillion is a small debt, we can double that easily. Include all illegal aliens.; Reply to this comment


by askagain December 8, 2009 2:22 AM EST: hungry1968-17, Where do you expect the money to come from for health care reform? Reform is not about lowering your premiums. It is about spreading scarce resources to cover still more people. The fact is the costs will be paid by premium payers, young people forced to buy insurance, taxpayers, and those on Medicare. The so called Medicare waste has been around for many years. No administration or government agency has succeeded in putting an end to the waste in the past. Every effort to date has failed. Furthermore, many people are likely to be unhappy with the reforms. If you have to have a single payer and you don't get it, you will be disappointed. If you have to have a public option and you don't get it, you will be disappointed. If you have to have universal coverage and you don't get it, you will be disappointed. Reform can be extreme, moderate, or incremental. Tweaking the system by making premiums cheaper, eliminating preexisting conditions, and opening competition between insurance companies would be a good start. Where I live, the only choice for cable television is Comcast. No other cable company is allowed to compete with Comcast. Yet, I don't hear many people complaining about our county government keeping other cable companies from coming in and competing for our dollars. The sad thing is many people willingly pay as much as $180 per month for TV entertainment but resent having to pay for their health insurance.; Reply to this comment

by sjc_1 December 8, 2009 12:43 AM EST

I favor allowing people 55-65 to buy into Medicare by paying premiums, that might even stabilize the program as the boomers fall into that category. Having non profit cooperatives for every one else that needs insurance, but can not find and affordable policy might work. I just want an option other than the greedy private for profit insurance companies and I think the majority of people do too. If you are going to have a mandate that everyone get insurance, you better provide them with some GOOD options, not just the same old greedy rip off con job.

Reply to this comment


by askagain December 8, 2009 1:29 AM EST: Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a non-profit most insurance companies compete with. Blue Cross is every bit as expensive as the for profit insurance companies. Non-Profits aren't the answer. If a non-profit like Blue Cross isn't cheaper than the for profit companies, how would making all insurance companies non-profit help? The problems are much deeper than that. Medicare is not free. Those who enroll must pay premiums and what premiums don't cover comes from the taxpayers. We pay for it one way or another.


by hungry1968-17 December 7, 2009 11:01 PM EST: by askagain December 7, 2009 10:39 PM EST
babooph You may not like Medicare so much after funding is taken away from it to help pay for health care reform. You might not like it so much when the government starts rationing medical procedures. Every action has a reaction. You can not take away from Medicare and not see a negative impact.

Translation: "I can't debate the issue on the facts alone, so I'll lie and fear monger in an effort to give myself credibility."

Hint: It isn't working.; Reply to this comment

by babooph December 7, 2009 10:24 PM EST

A nation of suckers-no public option for all the losers-glad I am on medicare....

Reply to this comment


by askagain December 7, 2009 10:39 PM EST: babooph You may not like Medicare so much after funding is taken away from it to help pay for health care reform. You might not like it so much when the government starts rationing medical procedures. Every action has a reaction. You can not take away from Medicare and not see a negative impact.

by rightbehind December 7, 2009 8:48 PM EST

If it does not include a strong public option available to all that want it this bill should be tanked! Strip all the money out of it and write a new bill to start looking for medical fraud. I'm tired of my tax dollars being looted by the health care industry at 75 thousand for some prosthetic limbs and 10 thousand a day for ICUs. Let not forget about the health care insurance companies that eat up 1 of every 3 dollars spent on health care and provide no service to the patient at all. Tell the republicrats to start looking for a new party. I don't want my donations wasted on them. Let them take their chances with republicans.

Reply to this comment


by askagain December 7, 2009 9:34 PM EST: rightbehind - I guess my post will cancel your post. Unlike you, my family is very pleased with the current health care system. We are well covered and our insurer has been more than fair for many years. In other words, we do not experience hassles when we need health care. Why would a satisfied person want to turn the system upside down. Contrary to what you may believe, there are millions of families in America who are very satisfied with the health care system and their health insurance. Again, why would we support something that may ruin or destroy a system we like?


by rightbehind December 7, 2009 10:25 PM EST: Again, why would we support something that may ruin or destroy a system we like?
by askagain

I've personally seen the waste and greed in our medical system. Doctors don't practice medicine they practice billing. You are in a small minority. The medical system is a joke. The Europeans are leaving us in the dust in regards to medical technology. They have socialised medicine. The sick don't have to worry about lining the pockets of stockholders. 3 out of 5 bankruptcies in this country are due to the health care system. We pay more for health care in this country than any other nation on the planet and it's rated 37Th. Pathetic!