All Blog Posts from Political Hotsheet

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is insisting he will keep up his opposition to adding a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," to health care reform, refusing to even accept a compromise proposed by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Lieberman has said he will join a Republican filibuster of any health care bill that includes a public option. He is one of a handful of senators who Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will have to placate in order to get all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to support his health care overhaul.

Given that Lieberman and a few other Democrats are wary of the public option plan Reid included in his bill, it is possible the Senate could try to replace the provision with a type of "compromise," such as the so-called "trigger" plan put forward by Snowe. Under that plan, a public option would only be enacted after certain number of years if the private industry failed to meet certain goals.

Lieberman told the Wall Street Journal, however, that he would not support a trigger plan, or any other "compromise" version of the public option.

"I'm going to be stubborn on this," he said.

Read full post…

Americans would strongly prefer a health care bill that includes a public option to a bill without it, a new CBS News poll shows, and only one in four say their preference is no health care legislation at all.

However, most Americans remain doubtful that the proposals currently before Congress would help them personally, according to the poll, conducted Nov. 13 -16. And amid a debate over restricting abortion coverage in the health care bill, more than half say federal subsidies for health care plans should not be allowed to pay for abortions.


The Public Option

When asked what kind of health care bill Congress should pass, 51 percent of Americans said a bill that contains a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option." Sixteen percent said a bill without a public option, while only 26 percent said they want no bill at all. Seven percent did not know or had no answer.

Democrats (by 72 percent to 13 percent) and independents (by 47 percent to 15 percent) prefer a bill with a public option over a bill without one. Among Republicans, just 23 percent want a public option, 20 percent want a bill without it, and 51 percent want no health care reform bill at all.

Read full post…

As Democrats in the Senate struggle to unify their caucus to advance health care reform legislation, moderates are reviving an idea to scrap a government-run health insurance plan in favor of a plan to "trigger" a government health care plan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is including in his health care bill a government-run health insurance pan, or "public option," from which states can opt out. But the legislation is not expected to pass without the support of moderates in the Democratic caucus, like Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who remain opposed to a public option.

To get past that divide, those moderates are reportedly scheming to build support for a proposal to "trigger" a public option in the event that the private insurance market has not met certain goals for reform after a number of years. The "trigger" idea, first put forward by moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), is adamantly opposed by liberals who argue the trigger would never be pulled.

"There's a possibility that [triggers could make a comeback]," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) reportedly said. "Right now, we don't know what the actual version of the plan is, because it hasn't come back from CBO...so I think when we get that back, we'll take a look and see what the scoring is, and maybe figure out what chance that plan has to get enough votes. My expectation is that it probably doesn't have enough to get 60 votes to get off the floor if it gets on the floor."

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is working with Snowe to revive the trigger idea, the Washington Post reports.

Read full post…

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prepares to bring a health care bill before the full Senate, Democrats' efforts to reform health care could seemingly implode over the so-called "public option," the proposal that has drummed up the most controversy over the course of the debate.

At least one member of the Democratic caucus -- Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- has threatened to bring the bill down over the plan to create a government-run insurance plan, or "public option." Liberals, meanwhile, say it is an essential part of the legislation that is needed to give private insurers real marketplace competition.

The facts needed to keep the debate in perspective are easily forgotten. Here are a few points to keep in mind about the public option:

• Very few Americans would sign up for the public option. In the Democrats' legislation, the public option would only be available to consumers who are eligible to shop in the "health insurance exchange" they would create. The exchange would only be open to people who buy individual health insurance plans or to people who work for small companies. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that only about 30 million people would join the exchange; of those 30 million, only about 6 million would choose to enroll in the public option.

Read full post…

The government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," crafted by House Democrats would typically have higher premiums than comparable private insurance plans, according to a new budget estimate. Yet even though the public plan is weaker than liberals initially hoped -- thereby making it more expensive -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with Politico Thursday that she does not want liberals to attempt to make it more "robust."

The analysis (PDF) submitted yesterday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bucks the liberal argument that a public plan would be cheaper for consumers than private insurance. While its administrative costs would be lower, the CBO reported, other factors would offset that.

A significant factor for the higher premiums would be the fact that House Democrats included in the legislation unveiled Thursday a public option that would negotiate its payment rates with medical providers. Liberals like Pelosi were inclined to include a public option that tied its payment rates to Medicare -- this would have made it cheaper, but moderate Democrats from rural areas complained that doctors and medical providers in their regions would not be paid enough.

If the government were to set up a national health insurance exchange -- or "marketplace" of insurance plans for small businesses and individuals -- about 30 million Americans would enroll in plans through it, the CBO estimates. Of those, about 6 million would choose to enroll in the public option.

"That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO's assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges," the CBO wrote in its analysis. "The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that 'adverse selection' on the public plan's premiums would be only partially offset by the 'risk adjustment' procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)."

Read full post…

Sen. Evan Bayh, a moderate Democrat from Indiana, said Wednesday that he may not be able to support a motion to proceed with the health care debate on the Senate floor, depending on what is included in the bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brings forward.

Bayh told CBS News' Bob Schieffer on Washington Unplugged that he would not vote to proceed with the debate "if there are things in the bill I think are just beyond the pale."

"Some people argue that we should vote to go forward on a bill even if we don't like it," he said. "As we get further along in this, I view procedure and substance as being largely one and the same. I'd like to move forward, but some of that's going to depend on is it fiscally responsible."

Bayh said he didn't "think that's even worth starting a discussion on" provisions "that would explode the deficit... or would dramatically increase the premiums that ordinary families are paying."

When a bill is introduced on the Senate floor, any member may object to the "motion to proceed" with debate. In that case, it takes 60 votes of approval to proceed with the debate and consider amendments to the bill.

If there are provisions in the bill that are unacceptable, "I think your maximum leverage for getting them corrected is now," Bayh said. "It really is one of these things where I've just to look and see what's in there."

Read full post…

Everyone thought the public option was off life support when Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced yesterday that a government-run health insurance plan would be in the Senate bill.

The proposal is certainly gaining momentum in Congress, but the word "public" could be in trouble. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to change the terminology today when she emerged from a Democratic caucus meeting on health care.

"It's not really a public option, it's a consumer option," Pelosi said. "As we're mandating that people buy insurance we are saying to them, you have leverage, you have another choice. This is your consumer option." To back up her point, Pelosi said that the program would be self-sustaining and benefits would be paid for by premiums, not taxpayers.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was quick to endorse Pelosi's new lingo. "She's absolutely right, a consumer option," Hoyer said.

Changing the language of a heated debate is nothing new in Congress. Last year, when the economy was in freefall and Congress had to step in with $700 billion dollars to keep big banks from collapsing, lawmakers changed the toxic term "bailout" to the more innocuous "Troubled Asset Relief Program," or TARP. If members say it enough, it can eventually make it into media reports and then into everyday American terminology.

Read full post…

Updated at 5:45 p.m. ET with more information.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today he is including in the Senate's health care bill a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," from which states could opt out.

"I think it's the fairest way to go," Reid said in a press conference. "A public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system."

Reid is submitting to the Congressional Budget Office a number of different variations on health care legislation that bring together different elements of the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's bill. Whichever version is chosen, however, will have the public option, Reid said.

As to whether a bill with a public option could win the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster, Reid said that as soon as the CBO provides a cost estimate, "we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move this bill and start legislating."

"I feel good about the consensus that was reached within our caucus and with the White House," Reid said. "And we're all optimistic about reform because of the unprecedented momentum that now exists."

Read full post…

The Senate could unveil its health care bill this week, and reports indicate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is seriously considering including in the bill a government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," after facing pressure from liberal activists and legislators on the issue. In an attempt to find a compromise on the controversial proposal, the senator may allow states to opt out of the program.

Yet as Reid has stepped up his support for the public option, some liberals fear President Obama is faltering in his commitment to the plan, which he has said repeatedly he supports.

"President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform," the Huffington Post reported. "In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan 'triggered' into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks."

Other news outlets also reported the president expressed support for a "trigger" plan when he met with Reid and other Senate leaders on Thursday. The White House told CBSNews.com, however, that Mr. Obama did not give any preferences. White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on Sunday wrote a White House blog post to try to lay the issue to rest.

"A rumor is making the rounds that the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option," Pfeiffer wrote. "Those rumors are absolutely false. In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition. That continues to be the President's position."

Read full post…

Members of the insurance industry may as well have been walking into a lion's den when they converged in Washington this week for their annual State Issues conference.

Unlike previous years, this year's convention happened to fall smack dab in the center of a hotly contentious debate over whether the government should offer a health insurance plan to people as an alternative to private plans. Lest anyone at the conference forgot about the controversy, hundreds of protesters were there to remind them -- some did it in song.

Insurance industry pollster Bill McInturff was giving a speech Friday when he was interrupted at first with cheers of praise from people who seemingly belonged at the conference, given their business attire. The cheers turned into a song about the "public option," or government-run health insurance, performed to the tune of "Tomorrow" from the musical Annie.

The singers, who were eventually escorted out of the conference, belonged to a group that calls itself Billionaires for Wealthcare

"Health care reform is on life-support and we’re here to pull the plug," the group writes on its Web site. "Thanks to our loyal foot-soldiers Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, we’ve raised the level of discourse to a cacophonous din."

The groups Health Care for America Now and MoveOn.org also bombarded the health insurance conference, hosted by America's Health Insurance Plans, with hundreds of protesters and families with stories of being denied care by the insurance companies.

AHIP did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the incident, but according to the Huffington Post, McInturff commented, "If you are going to have protesters at least you can hire people who sing."

Read full post…