Senate Dems Seek Viable Public Option

(CBS/AP)  The Senate has long been seen as opposed to the federal government selling health insurance in competition with private industry, but now senior Senate Democrats and White House officials are strongly considering including such a measure in health care overhaul legislation, officials say.

The provision would permit individual states to drop out of the system, a design that could make it more palatable to moderates who have opposed the "public option."

Track the Progress of Health Care Reform
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

The government provides health care to the elderly and indigent, but the rest of Americans must rely on private insurance, and most receive coverage through their employers. Nearly 50 million don't have any insurance at all.

Liberals in Congress view a public option as an essential ingredient to overhaul the U.S. health care system, and President Obama has said frequently he favors it. But he has also made clear it is not essential to the legislation he seeks, a gesture to Democratic moderates who have opposed it.

Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad said in separate interviews they had been told the plan was drawing interest in private negotiations led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also a Democrat, who is merging health bills passed by two separate committees into a final package to bring to the floor.

"What I'm hearing is that this is the direction of the conversation," said Conrad, who supports an alternative approach under which non-profit co-ops would compete with private industry.

Nelson said he'd also heard the plan was drawing favor, adding he thought that was unfortunate.

The White House declined to comment. Reid's office did likewise, and he left a meeting at the White House with other Democrats late Thursday without talking to reporters.

Reid is under intense pressure - not just from moderate Democrats weary of a public option, but also from an array of decidedly liberal groups which, CBSNews.com political reporter Stephanie Condon reports, could have significant influence on his chances at reelection in 2010.

Several officials said no final decisions had been made, with one possibility that the idea was being circulated to see whether it could attract enough support to survive on the Senate floor.

If not, it surely would be jettisoned beforehand, with liberals urged to accept something less or risk defeat of health care legislation. There is little margin for error among Mr. Obama's allies in the Senate as they confront nearly unanimous Republican opposition.

Democrats hold a 60-40 majority in the Senate, counting two independents, precisely the number needed to overcome threatened Republican delaying tactics.

Democratic moderates are skeptical of allowing the government to sell insurance, concerned that it would mark an unwarranted federal intrusion into the private marketplace and potentially jeopardize payment rates to doctors, hospitals and other providers.

Mr. Obama's health care reform ambitions also face potential challenges from several pivotal Senate Democrats who are more concerned about their next election or feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.

Legislation taking shape in the House of Representatives is also expected to include a public option, although it is unlikely states would be allowed to opt out.

After months of struggle, both chambers of Congress are expected to vote in the next few weeks on sweeping legislation that expands coverage to millions of Americans who lack it and bans industry practices such as denial of coverage for pre-existing medical conditions.

The House and Senate measures aim to expand coverage to about 95 per cent of the population, and include federal subsidies to help lower-income families afford coverage and permit small businesses to provide it for their employees.

The two bills differ at many points, although both are paid for through a combination of cuts in future Medicare spending and higher taxes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference she and her leadership were entering the "final stages" of assembling a health care bill to be voted on this fall. Officials have said the measure would cost $871 billion over a decade, but that total excluded a handful of items not directly related to expanded coverage that would push the total to well over $1 trillion.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are at an impasse over whether their proposal would effectively allow federal funding of abortion.

At least two dozen anti-abortion Democrats believe it would, and while their opposition is unlikely to stall the legislation in the end, they are at odds with Democratic leaders just weeks ahead of anticipated floor action on the bill.

Abortion has been legal in the country since a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but it remains a politically sensitive issue in the country.

[mjlewis6]

Republicans in the Senate and the House want the Democrats to take this issue and make it law...Their only token resistance is to make a good show. That way they have credibility to those industries to keep sending campaign funds their way....and can blame Democrats for any foulups.

Besides, if Healthcare Reform should work....there is the benefit of having this issue out from in front of them so they can work behind the scenes to protect other facets of their corporate's interests.

Hey, you don't see them screaming 'Stay the Course' for Bush's failed policies on Rebuilding New Orleans....attracting allies in the war on Terror with renditions and torture....billions to Pakistan for the corrupt regime to fight for its own survivial....and WMD's....to say nothing of the Social Security Intitiative to divert the fund into Wall Street ventures....HAHAHAHAHAHA

[stuart-johns2]

Now see, this is how a political party is supposed to act. Because the dems are an "inclusive" party, they have varied profiles and yet they all come together and work out their differences. What a refreshing and beneficial way of governing.

Now in contrast, the republican extremist party is ridgid and hence they are in the pits they are in. They have tremendous infighting among their ranks and refuse to compromise on anything. Why do you think some have walked out on that pathetic party and converted to either the democratic party or are now independents?

The republicans are getting a teachable moment here. But they won't take advantage of it. They are stupidly stubborn and just negative.

[actornaught]

by BeckieBest October 23, 2009 11:06 AM EDT

Even after a Public Option is put into place, health costs will go up, just less so. But then the foxrush Yappers will be trained to bark about any increase being the fault of the PO.

And a means test for it is so lame, it will doom the fake-PO to under-funded failure.

Any 'pub input should be viewed as sabotage.

So with that, we should just forge ahead with a full Single Payer system.

Not gonna hold my breath....

[BeckieBest]

Health care prices have doubled in the last 10 years.

They will double again in the next 7 without serious reform and a public OPTION.

No insurance company ever brought a country quality, affordable health care.

The government has always had to step in and offer a public OPTION.

[RNurse6]

As a Registered Nurse working with Children with Cancer and also for Santa Clara County at the Children's Shelter Clinic, I am very concerned with the direction of Health Care in this country. Big Insurance and Big Pharmaceutical Companies are running the show. Even if you have coverage, the insurance companies make it almost impossible to get paid. When people are sick with Cancer and other health problems, it is the worse time to try and get money back from the insurance companies. They seem to know this and throw every road block in the way to keep from paying their share. Please let there be an OPTION to have public health insurance. People are not getting good health care in the United States. We can do better than this. Don't let a few talking heads confuse the issue, only Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies have something to lose if we have public option. There are so many people who need insurance coverage that is fair and works.

[aheadace]

Republicans are the problem with this country

[sjc_1]

I don't see the wrong wing supporting insurance companies so much as supporting "free enterprise" and rejecting "big government". If Medicare Plus type program can be designed for people under 65 that do not now have insurance, then it might be acceptable. The "slippery slope" to single payer is an objection, so the law should be written to address that issue as well.

[BeckieBest]

44,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance.

Nearly 1 million Americans go bankrupt every year under because of skyrocketing health care costs.

No other nation in the industrialized world allows this to happen to it's citizens.

[BeckieBest]

Americans pay twice what any other country for health care and yet we have fallen below Costa Rica in quality of care.

Republicans and there Big Insurance Company masters are fighting for your right to pay more and get less.

It's time for a public OPTION!

[BeckieBest]

No corporation has ever brough quality affordable health care to any nation on the planet.

It's always taken a government to do that.

If we don't have a public option, prices will continue to skyrocket leaving millions more without affordable coverage.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has a public option.

It's time we did too.

[melchg07]

Want to save money?

Increase your deductibles and co-pays. When I looked at the price difference...unless I had to pay up to the deductible amount every two years, it pays for itself and then some.

IE: I raised my deductible to $1000 and save $500 per year on premiums. I may get hit hard when I get sick, but will be more than able to make that money up.

Truth is that most americans are using health insurance in a way we shouldn't.

Insurance is supposed to be for something CATESTROPHIC.....ie: something you couldn't save up and pay out of pocket for.

Now we have people using it to buy things like Viagra........this type of practice is the MAIN force in the high healthcare costs. People aren't forced to think about the choices they are making. They simply think "my insurance will take care of it"......when you have an entire nation doing that.....it drives up costs because people aren't looking for the best deals and aren't asking themselves "do I really need this".....

If we treated auto insurance this way it would be like having us use auto insurance for repairs.....everyone wouldn't hesitate to get repairs where-ever, no matter the price since "my insurance will get it", thus prices would shoot up...along with your auto insurance premiums.

[helloall34]

You couldn't be more wrong! It is much, much more cost effective to use preventative care then to wait for a catastrophe and it also makes a much better quality of life. No one should have to think about if they can afford to go to the doctor because they don't have the $20 deductible or worse, because the there is $500 left on the deductible. Health care is a basic human need that should be met by any civilized community. There can really be no argument about this. We will always complain about the cost, but the price will be paid one way or another. To put it in your terms, if I don't perform maintenance on my airplane there is going to be a costly accident.