House Backers of Public Option May Yield

(CBS/ AP)  Two House Democrats who favor a government insurance plan, a central element of health care legislation passed in their chamber, acknowledged Sunday it might have to be sacrificed as negotiators work out a final agreement with the Senate.

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and one who had appealed to President Barack Obama not to yield on the public plan, set out conditions for yielding himself.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday whether he could vote for a final bill that does not embrace a public plan, Clyburn said: "Yes, sir, I can."

Watch the Interview Here
Clyburn: Public Option Not Needed for Vote
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Clyburn added: "We want a public option to do basically three things: Create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies, and to contain costs. So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I'm all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence."

While insisting "it's not dead," Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said he recognizes realities in the Senate, where Democrats had to scrape up every vote from their side even to pass a bill without a government plan to compete with the private insurance companies.

"Before the House was to give up the public option, we would want to be persuaded that there are other mechanisms in whatever bill comes out that will keep down premiums," said Van Hollen, appearing to sketch out a bottom line without a government plan necessarily included. "We've got to make sure that the final product is affordable."

New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez underscored the divisions Democrats will need to bridge when negotiators from the House and Senate meet next month to reconcile the two bills. It took weeks to round up the 60 votes from the entire Democratic caucus needed to overcome Republican efforts to block passage.

"If we are going to have a final law, it will look a lot more like the Senate version than the House version," Menendez asserted.

The Senate's Christmas Eve achievement brought the U.S. closer than it's been for generations to a new order in health insurance, one that would eventually require nearly all Americans to get coverage, help many pay for it and restrict onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing sickness.

But nothing will change for anyone until the House and Senate can settle on common legislation, pass it and send it to Obama to sign.

The high stakes have both parties hoping they can find a few converts from the other side. Nearly every Republican in Congress has opposed the measures.

"If some of the Republicans would come forward with suggestions

offer a vote or two, or three or four — to take away the need to have every last one of the 60 Democrats, you'd have a much better bill in accordance with the tradition of the Congress, especially the Senate, on bipartisanship," said Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, himself a party switcher.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina voiced similar hope, to opposite ends — "a few Democrats to stand up in the House that maybe didn't before and help us stop this thing."

DeMint, Van Hollen, Menendez and Specter spoke on "Fox News Sunday." Clyburn was on CBS' "Face the Nation" and CNN's "State of the Union."

[gboyd41]

I would suggest a visit to the Wall Street Journal-Opinion Journal dated Dec 23, 2009. "What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare".

[jwesel1]

WSJ is owned by Fox/Murdoch, nuff said.

[endurorob_5]

starving1968-1 December 28, 2009 1:16 PM EST
Is that how you feel about the police, military, and fire departments?

Aren't they "entitlement programs"?

You believe that if someone that's unemployed calls 9-1-1 because their house is on fire, the fire dept should tell them, "Forget it freeloader!!"



No those are not entitlement programs. Theya re public service progrmas that are necessary for a society to function. And no, cheap/free medical care is not necessary for society to function. Those that are willing to make an effort and contribute will find a way to obtain medical care. Keep making your twisted analogies. It only shows your inability to logically defend your socialist views.

[endurorob_5]

starving1968-1 December 28, 2009 1:08 PM EST
What's wrong with "single payer"?

Fox News told you it's bad, so you oppose it?

Do you also oppose the "single payer" Medicare and VA health care systems? Most of the vets and elderly LOVE their "single payer" systems - why don't you?



Whats wrong with single payer and the dems attempts at health care reform is that they are just more entitlement programs where those that are willing to work for what they have end up paying for those who are not willing to work to have the same thing. Entitlement programs in this country only encourage laziness and, yes, the feeling of entitlement.

[bc-1948]

You obviously don't have a clue. I am 62 years old - own my own business - provide health insurance for my employees - and I'll bet I work more hours per week than you do... But, I am very much in favor of this entitlement - even if it means higher taxes for me. Why, because if you had a brain and could do a 10 year projection in health care premium rates - based on the last 10 years - you would realize that our current system is unstainable. Health care costs are out of control - and it isn't because of "tort" reform. If that was the case, California would have the lowest insurance rates in the nation because they have had a cap on non-economic recoveries for 10 years - $250,000.

Everyone hates lawyers - until something happens to them or one of their family. Then, it suddenly becomes their right to recover. And, if a medical procedure results in permanent disability or death because of malpractice, there should be some way to provide for that person's care for the rest of their life.

Of course, if we had universal health coverage, there wouldn't need to be a malpractice suit - because that person would already be assured of coverage for life.

NO, I am not a lawyer, I am a CPA - but I object to your use of the term "not willing to work" - unless you are a small business or providing (paying for your own insurance) you don't have a clue what the rest of us face. And, if you work for a large company, get ready, because you will likely lose that coverage in the next 10 years unless there is health care reform.

[endurorob_5]

starving1968-1 December 28, 2009 11:30 AM EST
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/18/nelson-cites-real-progress-health-care-talks/


"The revised bill would put new limits on insurance company profits. The measure would require insurers in the individual market to spend 80 percent of premiums on medical care. The requirement for group policies would be 85 percent."



Always glad to provide a free education to the uneducated.



Not seeing anywhere in the bill where this is mentioned.

[endurorob_5]

starving1968-1 December 28, 2009 10:32 AM EST
You should try reading and understanding the law. They are only allowed to use 15% of the premiums for overhead, administration, MASSIVE CEO SALARIES, etc, etc, where it used to be as high as 50% for some companies.



By the way there is nothing in the current senate bill that mentions the restrictions you describe.

[sean56v]

This medical welfare bill is designed to make unscrupulous doctors rich with the federal tax dollar. It will not provide more service to the destitute. In fact, many crooked physicians may reduce their care. The Democratic Congress misspends funds to the detriment of the public.

[endurorob_5]

starving1968-1 December 28, 2009 10:32 AM EST
You should try reading and understanding the law. They are only allowed to use 15% of the premiums for overhead, administration, MASSIVE CEO SALARIES, etc, etc, where it used to be as high as 50% for some companies.



So is that why there stock is doing so well, because their profits will decline?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/seeing-public-subsidy-not_n_399733.html

[ajvw]

huffington post...now there's a reliable source...lol

[endurorob_5]

Hey Hungry,

How is this for reform for you.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/seeing-public-subsidy-not_n_399733.html

[Brokennews]

So, at the end of the day, as an average American with an average income, will my annual health care & health insurance costs will be going up or down??

[endurorob_5]

Depends. If you are in your twenties or early thirties your premium costs will go up because insureres will compensate for caps put on premiums for the elderly and sickly. If you are a tax payer your taxes will eventually go up because there will be increases in Medicaid and for those inelidgable for Medicaid but of lower income tax dollars will be needed to subvsidized their premiums.

[bc-1948]

Don't know what you mean by average. What is your income? What is your age? Do you pay for your own insurance? If you get your insurance through your employer, you will likely not see any change - as long as the insurance the company has meets mininum standards for coverage - Otherwise, if you have "average income" and buy your own insurance, you will likely see premiums go up, but will be eligible for tax credits that will actually result in your net cost going down.

[endurorob_5]

starving1968-1 December 28, 2009 9:18 AM EST
It's better than what the republicans were offering us: unlimited power to the insurance companies, to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted to.



And now with the mandated coverage insurance companies will be eve more profitable thatn before.