• Home
  • Blogs
  • Political Hotsheet
Political Hotsheet
October 26, 2009 2:38 PM

Reid to Include Public Option in Senate Health Care Bill

Posted by Stephanie Condon
(AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon will announce his decision to include a government-run health care plan, or "public option," in the health care bill he brings to the floor, CBS News has learned.

Reid is scheduled to discuss his plans for the bill at a 3:15 p.m. ET press conference on Capitol Hill. He is expected to say he will go forward with a public option that will allow states to opt out of the program. However, he is also expected to say it is unclear whether or not he has 60 votes to move forward with the plan.

The bill will be sent to the Congressional Budget Office later today to get a cost estimate for it.

Reid has been under considerable pressure from liberal activists and legislators to include a public option in the bill.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told reporters Monday that he thinks it will be hard for Reid to get 60 votes for a public option plan in which states can opt out, the Associated Press reports. At least four key senators seem opposed, Nelson said while traveling with President Obama on Air Force One to Florida.

If an opt-out plan passes, he reportedly said, he hopes states would not be able to exercise the opt-out for at least two years. Otherwise, Nelson said, the powerful insurance lobby "will convince state legislatures to opt out at the very beginning," before a public option plan has had a chance to prove its worth.

CBS News Capitol Hill Producer John Nolen contributed to this report.
Tags:
health care ,
Harry Reid
Topics:
Health Care
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More from Political Hotsheet and Politics on CBSNews.com

Add a Comment See all 60 Comments
by FreeIgnorance October 26, 2009 11:15 PM EDT
health care reform? is it really better?? http://www.typobounty.com/Funny/Health_Care_Reform.htm
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 26, 2009 6:13 PM EDT
by vinnyb5 October 26, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
Yes and all those other countries are looking to privatize somehow. Their governments are going BROKE trying to pay for their healthcare systems, even with the MASSIVE taxes they already have.

If you want cost do go down allow insurance companies to compete in all 50 states. I bet most of the people on this board don't even know that each state just has a handful of incurance companies allowed to provide insurance.







More lies. Please prove your claim that governments are going broke, because of the cost of health care, on their universal system(s).

And allowing states to compete across state lines, is only going to create 2 or 3 massive insurance companies that will be "too big to fail". Haven't you learned ANYTHING from history?!?!
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 26, 2009 6:10 PM EDT
by Constitionalist October 26, 2009 3:59 PM EDT
How much is wasted on lawyers? The liberal tort reform plan: Government takes control of healthcare: government cannot be sued: thus no more need for malpractice insurance: thus no more bleeding money to lawyers: thus no incentive for physicians to be skilled at what they do (think DMV).






The government isn't taking over health care, dummy.

If your doctor makes a mistake, he can be sued for malpractice.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 26, 2009 6:07 PM EDT
by Marc_1986 October 26, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
@troutfishyman

Keep in mind here, the Public Option won't even go into effect until 2013 I believe? So sure the cost is being spread out over 10 years, but you'll have about 4 years of debt bring put 'on the books' with no benefit initially.

The chickenfeed argument is valid, but a bad way to justify things. Waste is waste. Debt is debt, no matter what the quantity is.







Why are you calling it waste? You don't think our health care system needs a desperate overhaul?
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 26, 2009 6:03 PM EDT
by jimmyc1955 October 26, 2009 3:23 PM EDT
Dude - Do you really believe that your tax bill won't double to pay for the "single payer" system? Do you realize that the base income tax in Canada is 50% and worse in the UK? Do you realize that the UK's national health can't afford to build new hospitals and hasn't built a new facility in over 40 years???






I guess you've now resigned yourself to lying, in an effort to give yourself some credibility. How sad for you. These wildly absurd claims of yours, are VERY EASILY fact checked and debunked:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada#Personal_federal_marginal_tax_rates


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_England
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 26, 2009 5:57 PM EDT
by jimmyc1955 October 26, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
Can anybody actually explain what the "public option" is? Do you realize the new bill taxes things like pace makers, walkers, prosthetic limbs? Do you realize that the averagle American will likely loose their private insurance as companies quickly realize it is cheaper to pay the fine and push every employee over to the federal "public option"?







Do you realize that people are losing their private insurance everyday because it's so expensive, and have NOTHING to fall back on?
Reply to this comment
by jwesel1 October 26, 2009 9:24 PM EDT
by jimmyc1955 October 26, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
Can anybody actually explain what the "public option" is? Do you realize the new bill taxes things like pace makers, walkers, prosthetic limbs?
========================================================================
Don't believe everything you read on Sarah Palin's facebook page.
by hungry1968-16 October 26, 2009 5:56 PM EDT
by jimmyc1955 October 26, 2009 3:11 PM EDT
There is no "reform" in this bill - and the public option isn't an option. this is a massive tax hike for everybody - with no cost controls, not incentive on anybodys part to control costs and a clear path to a singly payer government system just like Canada and the UK where health care is rationed. (I call 15 week to 100 week waits for MRIs and Cat Scans rationing.)






What do you call "denied health care after paying premiums for decades"?

Is that rationing on the part of the insurance companies, or fraud?
Reply to this comment
by lovenpeace1 October 26, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
Folks,

This is what American's get for $3.6 Trillions a year from our current Private Health Care system:

America ranks #42 worst in Infant Mortality Rate in the modern world:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

America ranks #47 in Life Expectancy Rate in the modern world:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

America got the #1 Highest Healthcare Cost (over twice (2X) 2nd place Sweden) in the modern world:
http://dll.umaine.ed/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

When you are ill or injured and especially in an emergency, nobody shops around for the clinic or hospital with the best value care. Hence, there cannot be Competition in Health Care.

62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. every day are due to medical cost issues.

All Foreign Capitalists (companies) have a Huge Competition Advantage against all American's Capitalists because they never pay Private Health Insurance for their employees.

All Seniors are very happy with their Socialized HealthCare (Medicare). Sooner or later you will be a Senior. All low-income Children are happy with their Socialized HealthCare (CHIP). All Military Veterans are very happy with their Socialized Health Care. All Federal workers are very happy with their Socialized Health Care. All congressmen and congresswomen are very happy with their Socialized Health Care. Republicans say they want the same deal that our congressmen/women have!

Americans are paying $6,000.00 more per year (2x) per person with worst ranking results than the next most costly nation Sweden. Sweden is a very Socialistic nation.

What good is it to have the most Advanced/High-Tech Innovated Health Care in the world if nobody can afford and access it?
Reply to this comment
by reveal4 October 26, 2009 4:14 PM EDT
Only in America can a person go to a health insurance company and be denied care because they need medical care. The insurance companies don't insure sick people or those who need medical care. They say.."You have a pre existing condition and need medical care...therefore we can't grant you access to medical care. You're sick and need medical care, therefore we deny medical care to you..That's the way we do business. We don't insure sick people. What were you thinking? This is America, we don't sell health insurance to sick folks or people who need medical care. Be on your way now, have a nice day...Next...
Reply to this comment
by jwesel1 October 26, 2009 9:02 PM EDT
Insurance companies are like banks "To get a loan you need to prove that you don't need one".
by vinnyb5 October 26, 2009 4:08 PM EDT
Don't you see the trick here. Don't let states opt-out until people have ALREADY been on the government program. They know full well that it will be practically impossible to opt-out once the free handouts begin.

They also fail to mention that state legislatures will be required to pass a law to opt-out (just like the stimulus). Thas is another hurdle making it practically impossible. Democrat Governors or legislatures will never opt-out. They love passing out free government programs, feeling it keeps them in power.

I think the real compromise is a "opt-in" provision. Make people go "on the record" to spend taxpayer money.
Reply to this comment
by reveal4 October 26, 2009 4:22 PM EDT
Free handouts...this is what the Medicare senior club says...while they receive an average 270% return on their Medicare investment. The average taxpayer will see a reduction in health and medical costs if reform passes. The 5% of Americans who own 95% of the total wealth of America may lose some of their Bush tax cut. The CBO said the Baucus bill is paid for, and reduces the federal deficit by 81 billion dollars in the first ten years, and reduces the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second ten years. The addition of the public health insurance option will further reduce costs, by up to 100 billion dollars. Those who talk about a free lunch, and oppose medical care for poorer, uninsured, and small businesses also oppose cost reductions for average Americans. And about those poorer and uninsured folks and the folks who for profit insurance companies will not cover...they are dying, one every 12 minutes, in America. Most people do care about these folks. Compassion and empathy is held for these poorer dying Americans by the majority of the American public.
by jwesel1 October 26, 2009 9:03 PM EDT
Either give free handouts to people like the governments or to the lobbyists like the Insurance companies do.
by reveal4 October 26, 2009 4:08 PM EDT
Reform means the very best treatment methods, gleaned from the best medical institutions in the country, will be applied for the benefit of Medicare seniors. Reform means seniors will receive the best, proven, methods of care. These best treatment methods result in better care, quicker recovery times, and decreased costs for seniors and the American taxpayer, who pays about 50% of all medicare costs for seniors.
Reply to this comment
by vinnyb5 October 26, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
Yes and all those other countries are looking to privatize somehow. Their governments are going BROKE trying to pay for their healthcare systems, even with the MASSIVE taxes they already have.

If you want cost do go down allow insurance companies to compete in all 50 states. I bet most of the people on this board don't even know that each state just has a handful of incurance companies allowed to provide insurance.

Did you know notice how the cost of lasik has gone down over the years (and thats not even covered by insurance). Its because doctors COMPETE for business and customers actually shop for cheaper prices.
by reveal4 October 26, 2009 4:31 PM EDT
Socialised countries pay about half the costs for medical care as compared to the US. At any rate, we are not talking about socialised medicine. Socialised medicine, single payer, is not, has not and will not be any part of reform. Canada, England, France, etc. don't have anything to do with healthcare reform efforts in the US. These countries are not a model for reform. There is absolutely no interest in America for socialised medicine to take over the private market. Even with the public option...95 to 97% of working Americans will be covered by private, for profit, healtyh insurance. So what does socialised medicine have to do with reform...nothing, absolutely nothing....except for 3% to 5% of Americans who will be included in the public option and will be partially or fully subsidized.
by lovenpeace1 October 26, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
Folks,

I wish to give my sincere gratitude to the Bush/Cheney Administration for making it possible to scare WE THE PEOPLE from the Republicans camp in 2006. Without the great poor performances of these 2 World Infamous leaders, the Health Care Reform bill, if not with the Public Option, would have never been possible.

I do not care if they pass a Health Care Reform without the Public Option. To me there is no problem if they Do Not Pass a Health Care Reform at all. Why?

As long as the Costs of Private Health Care Insurance increases at the Average 11% of the last 35 years, a Universal Health Care system will eventually pass to firmly control the costs.

Its a matter of Survival as a Nation. According to all Liberal and Conservative experts, Health Care spending consumes 17% of our GDP today. It is expected to jump to 33% of GDP by 2022. Anything over 31% will suffocate the U.S. Economy. In other words, the 4th Great Depression.

In summary, if we wish to survive as an Empire, we must control the cost of Health Care somehow sooner or later. The Public Option is the best guarantee of that firm control.

So, to my Conservative Amigos, shall we have a strong Rebust Public Option now or a Universal Single Payer system later? :-)
Reply to this comment
by pickaguitar1 October 26, 2009 4:01 PM EDT
YES WE CAN!
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman October 26, 2009 3:57 PM EDT
by Constitionalist October 26, 2009 3:53 PM EDT
"If an opt-out plan passes, he reportedly said, he hopes states would not be able to exercise the opt-out for at least two years. Otherwise, Nelson said, the powerful insurance lobby "will convince state legislatures to opt out at the very beginning," before a public option plan has had a chance to prove its worth."

Do we not already have enough examples of how well the public option works, I mean fails? Two years is plenty of time to run private insurance firms out of business, leaving no "option" but the public one. After two years a vote to opt out of the public option is a vote to opt out of healthcare entirely. Who is going to make that vote?




Well, the claim is always that govt is inefficient and wasteful. At least that is the GOP claim. So private insurance companies could easily compete and prosper. Right?
Reply to this comment
by jwesel1 October 26, 2009 9:06 PM EDT
Who needs to have private health insurance anyway, unless you work for one.
by Constitionalist October 26, 2009 3:53 PM EDT
"If an opt-out plan passes, he reportedly said, he hopes states would not be able to exercise the opt-out for at least two years. Otherwise, Nelson said, the powerful insurance lobby "will convince state legislatures to opt out at the very beginning," before a public option plan has had a chance to prove its worth."

Do we not already have enough examples of how well the public option works, I mean fails? Two years is plenty of time to run private insurance firms out of business, leaving no "option" but the public one. After two years a vote to opt out of the public option is a vote to opt out of healthcare entirely. Who is going to make that vote?
Reply to this comment
by sassafrass019 October 26, 2009 4:16 PM EDT
Which problem do you have with the public option that it will be so efficient it runs are the private companies out of business by spending more of the health care dollars on patient care instead of overhead (sounds like a good thing to me)? Or will it be so inefficient that it would not offer competition to the current health care providers.

HINT -- If it's the first as you indicate you are condoning inefficient private industry providers and a total abandonment of true capitalist principles (that if you can do it better than the other guy you deserve to win in the marketplace). If it is the second how can you explain your own belief that the private companies will be unable to compete with a government entity that MUST BREAK EVEN?
by wcb2009 October 26, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
Funny listening to all the over bloated republican money bags warn about taxes... You all sound like Mr Crabs. "Oh no, where's all me money goin!"

Might I remind you that even if it happens, a % tax increases is not that big of a deal when you dont make squat to begin with. It's not surprising that the most vocal complainers are the filthy rich who have systematically failed to "trickle" the wealth down to the rest of us. And now they can't stand the thought of not being sickeningly rich. It's about time someone did something about the inequity in wealth across this country. And Yeah... Most of you don't deserve the fat salries you think you are entitled to. Call me a commie or call me a straight shooter. Either way it would do the fat elephants some good to trim down the fat a bit.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman October 26, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
by Biggest_Rick October 26, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
Furthermore, health insurance companies operate on about a 5 to 6% profit margin which is much lower than that of most other businesses. Only those looking for a free handout at the expense of others seek a "public option".





Think how much money us citizens would save if there was 0% profit margin.
Reply to this comment
by Biggest_Rick October 26, 2009 3:47 PM EDT
So you believe you deserve a free lunch at the expense of others? How sad! Tell me do you work for free? I would guess not.
by sassafrass019 October 26, 2009 3:49 PM EDT
by Biggest_Rick October 26, 2009 3:47 PM EDT

What do you have against real competition dictating the providing of coverage at reasonable rates?
by lovenpeace1 October 26, 2009 3:56 PM EDT
Hey troutfishyman,

Please do not share the following secrets about our Private health Insurance industry........

In 2008, the cost of our Private Health Care Insurance increased by 7%.

In 2008, the Out-Of-Pocket Deductible of our Private Health Care Insurance doubled.

In 2008, the Benefits of our Private Health Care Insurance decreased by 11%.

In the last 3 years, Private Insurance Companies have refused 12 million procedures suggested by doctors. Please do not call this rationing or death panel.

In the last 3 years, Private Insurance Companies have dropped 921,300 policies right when the customer got sick. Please do not call this rationing or death panel.

In 2008, the Health Care Insurance Industry made a little over $13,000,000,000.00 in Profit.
by us_1776 October 26, 2009 4:04 PM EDT
Nonsense. That's AFTER they've paid out MASSIVE salaries and bonuses.

The only hope of keeping the criminal private healthcare insurance companies honest is with the PUBLIC OPTION.

Every other western democracy has some form of public healthcare available to their citizens. Either a public option or complete universal public healthcare. Plus they cover all their citizens. Plus they spend far far less than we spend in the US for healthcare AND they manage to cover all their citizens.

It's time for America to pass MEANINGFUL healthcare reform that will bring down healthcare costs. And the only "hammer" that stands any chance of keeping the private healthcare insurance companies honest is the PUBLIC OPTION.
by Biggest_Rick October 26, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
I am simply amazed by the number of people who are so economically ignorant as to believe a "public option" is a good idea. First it does not add competition because it does not need to make ANY profit, in fact it can LOSE money and this is still alright. It will help balloon deficits and will probably cost many times what the CBO predicts. Keep in mind the costs of medicare were grossly understated at the time. Furthermore, health insurance companies operate on about a 5 to 6% profit margin which is much lower than that of most other businesses. Only those looking for a free handout at the expense of others seek a "public option".
Reply to this comment
by sassafrass019 October 26, 2009 3:47 PM EDT
When it comes to lack of validity this post should win awards

- First it does not add competition because it does not need to make ANY profit, (competition is between providers -- in locales with only one provider - sometimes an entire state - there are clear competition implications)
- in fact it can LOSE money and this is still alright. (not according to the provisions stated as applicable just more fabrications and scare tactics)

- Furthermore, health insurance companies operate on about a 5 to 6% profit margin (was the profit margin calculated before or after removal of the BLOATED MANAGEMENT SALARIES and commissions from the current system -- it is not just PROFIT that is the issue but the OVERHEAD of providing the coverage -- just more half-truths mixed with fabrications from the detractors)
by jwesel1 October 26, 2009 3:48 PM EDT
Only those looking for a free handout at the expense of others seek a "public option".
======================================================================
You had no problem of republican looking to fight their crusades at the expense of American taxpayers, but have problems when healthcare is provided.
by lovenpeace1 October 26, 2009 3:59 PM EDT
Hey Biggest_Rick,

When I get sick (cannot move) and especially in an Emergency, please take me Immediately to the nearest Hospital, Clinic and Doctor. Do not study on the internet which Hospital, Clinic and Doctor would be best for my medical situation.

Spending some time to study where to take me, in the name of Competition, will kill me.
by thincaboutit October 26, 2009 3:33 PM EDT
Healthcare reform needs a ?Parody Option.? Check out ?Healthcare Fighting (Kung Fu Mix)? at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nc1VwJOb9Y
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman October 26, 2009 3:28 PM EDT
by jimmyc1955 October 26, 2009 3:23 PM EDT

Do you know the CBO has said the senate bill will increase debt by $1 TRILLION dollars??? And that costs controls are mandates on citizens to pay for things they can't use???



Ummm, I believe the cost is $1 TRILLION over 10 years. That is $100 billion per year. Chickenfeed by govt standards....
Reply to this comment
by Marc_1986 October 26, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
@troutfishyman

Keep in mind here, the Public Option won't even go into effect until 2013 I believe? So sure the cost is being spread out over 10 years, but you'll have about 4 years of debt bring put 'on the books' with no benefit initially.

The chickenfeed argument is valid, but a bad way to justify things. Waste is waste. Debt is debt, no matter what the quantity is.
by sassafrass019 October 26, 2009 4:22 PM EDT
by Marc_1986 October 26, 2009 4:10 PM EDT

It MAY not come into effect until 2013 -- if a version of the Medicare "Part E" idea becomes the public option it could be up and running faster given that expanding and modifying and existing organization is faster than creating a new one. By the way 55 Republican Congress persons that are blocking the public option for others have chosen MEDICARE (a public option) as their health insurance provider even though their salaries are higher than many of the working persons in this country required to purchase their own insurance.
See all 60 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER