Dems Near Plan to Pass Health Care Bill

The White House and congressional leaders are preparing a detailed health care proposal designed to win passage without Republican support if GOP lawmakers fail to embrace bipartisan compromises at President Barack Obama's summit next week.

A senior White House official said Thursday that Democratic negotiators are resolving final differences in House and Senate health bills that passed last year with virtually no Republican help. The White House plans to post the proposals online by Monday morning, three days ahead of the Feb. 25 summit, which GOP leaders are approaching warily.

GOP Sees Opportunity in Health Summit
Dems Skeptical About Health Care Summit
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

The comments signal that Obama and Congress' Democratic leaders still plan to use assertive and sometimes controversial parliamentary powers to enact a far-reaching health care bill if no GOP lawmakers get on board. Republicans and conservative activists have denounced such a strategy, and it's unclear whether enough House and Senate Democrats would back it. Both parties have used the strategy, known as reconciliation, in the past.

Obama says he is open to Republican ideas for changing the health care legislation. But many Democrats seriously doubt GOP leaders will support compromises that could draw enough lawmakers from both parties to create a bipartisan majority.

The negotiations, led by Democratic leaders with White House input, are meant to determine what changes must be made to the Senate-passed bill for House Democrats to accept it, the administration official said. The goal is to craft a reconciled measure that Senate Democrats can pass, under rules barring GOP filibusters, unless Republicans offer acceptable changes at next week's summit.

Democrats lost their ability to block filibusters when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won a Senate seat last month.

The White House official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday that Obama plans to have a health care proposal that "will take some of the best ideas and put them into a framework" ahead of the Feb. 25 summit.

House Democrats insist on several changes to the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. They include reducing or eliminating a proposed tax on generous employer-provider health plans, and eliminating a Medicaid subsidy aimed only at Nebraska.

Overall, the Democratic plans would provide health insurance to more than 30 million people now uninsured and end the industry practice of denying coverage to those with medical problems. Most Americans would be required to carry health coverage, with new government subsidies available to reduce the cost for many.

The main beneficiaries would be small businesses and people who now buy their own insurance. They now have few choices, and premium prices can spike unpredictably from year to year.

Under the Democrats' legislation, they would be able to pick a plan in a new insurance marketplace offering a range of choices similar to those available to federal employees.

The cost of the legislation - about $1 trillion over 10 years - would be paid for through Medicare cuts and a series of tax increases. In the short run, the nation would spend more on health care under the Democratic plans, since newly covered people would be able to get care they had previously put off. Over time, however, the rate of increase in medical costs would begin to slow.

[noloyalisti]

It's time we got rid of the sharks (the insurance corporations) who put profit first. They have almost destroyed the economy of the United States and people are dying every day from their death panels.

Health care for people, not for profits.

[noloyalisti]

It's funny watching the health care "debate" and realizing all the people in that room have socialist health care. And get mail from the socialist post office, drove to work on the socialist roads and are protected by socialist police and security guards. And support socialism for the rich corporations.

[noloyalisti]

RobAla, the government run Medicare system has an admin cost of 1%, the private system 30%. And they don't even provide health care. It should be these companies that change to compete with the government exchange. Health care is a basic human right, not something you have to earn.

Yes, the entire system is rotten. You have in fact made the case for universal single payer.

[noloyalisti]

Over 3,000 people a month die in the United States due to lack of access to the overpriced and inefficient "health" care system. This is downright barbaric and the only solution is a good public option. Eventually we should take ALL profit out of the system.

[noloyalisti]

They better pass a health reform bill with a good public option. Our private system is in a death spiral. People losing coverage and the rest of the covered folks having theri premiums go through the roof.

[alanrobisch]

I certainly hope this isn't true. I had had hoped they had put a stake in it but if they do using the reconciliation method I can almost guarantee the takeover of congress and the senate by the republicans and a good chance that president Obama will be a one term president. 2/3's of Americans object to this bill yet they are still trying to get it passed this is truly amazing

[californiadreaming]

I don't like the way insurance companies rip us off one bit. But if the Democrats try to use reconciliation, and they fail - you can kiss their majority goodbye. If they try and succeed, then the bill better not run over budget, or you can kiss their majority goodbye.

You can't play political games with big ticket legislation and expect that there won't be consequences. Obama should know better than that.

[tmittelstaed]

Folks, the public option is dead, here. It wasn't included in the Senate bill and it won't be added in to the reconciliation bills since it isn't financial and cannot pass via that method. So, please shut the f u e k up about a public option.

For the last year the RepubliCONs have been claiming that they wanted to discuss the specifics of the health care bill but that Obama wasn't posting anything publically. Well, now he is - but all the RepubliCONs now want to do is to talk about a bunch of straw men that aren't in the bill.

[RobAla]

A public option would result in unfair competition, resulting in the private insurance companies to be driving out of business.
Consider:
1) The government does not have to make a profit, and it has unlimited supply of funding - it can just increase taxes.
2) the government could write rules which would cause legal disadvantages for private providers
3) We would no longer have choices - we would be left to the mercy of the federal government.

This is a serious question for those advocating a public option:
1) Have you ever had to deal with a federal agency?

If so, you must know the non-responsive bureaucratic nightmare you must face. The second question is this.
2) What makes you think government run health care would be any different?

I'm serious, and I am interested in your answer.

[rgkcpa]

1. There is no reason to protect private insurers. They add no value to healthcare. They just take 20-30% off the top and argue with the doctors and patients about the remaining charges. I have dealt with the insurance companies the last few years over some serious medical procedures and it has been a nightmare. They lose records over and over and over. They underpay. They are rude. They lie. My wife has been reduced to tears many times. 2. I deal with the government a lot in my job. Sometimes I get a bad representative. But the government is bound by statute and that is what they go by. If you stick to the statutes and procedures it may take a little time but it works out. 3. The choices I want are not who insures me but who my doctor is and what care we decide upon together. I can't do that with private insurers.

[RobAla]

rgkcpa: You didn't answer the questions I asked.
Regarding what you stated, I do want to be able to choose between providers. I didn't like what my private insurance provider was doing last year, so I changed to a different one this year. With the single payer government option, if you didn't like the coverage or the service you would have no recourse. You would be at the mercy of a non-responsive entity, with no other real option. I really want none of that. Thanks.

[msvotr]

A question for the opponents of this:

I am a diagnosed sufferer of Multiple-Sclerosis and cannot buy insurance at any price. I have always played by the rules and had been continuously covered by comprehensive health insurance for over 25 years, during which time I was rarely ill. Now that I need care, it is not available to me. I work, am self-employed, and pay taxes, but am only able to so because of ongoing treatment....treatment I cannot afford on my on. Without it I cannot function effectively. My disease is not caused by lifestyle or any choice I have made, and is not even genetic.

What are people me like to do?

Hey, Moral Republican Christians, is this your vision of America? As soon as you are not able to pull the sled with the other dogs, you are just taken aside and shot? No, I'm sorry, that's not your vision, your vision would have me live homeless as a burden to society, untreated for my illness.

All I want is to continue to work, continue to pay taxes, continue to be a contributor to this nation. And to do THAT I need to be able to buy group health insurance.

This bill needs to pass because IT IS JUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO. And, as the Bible will tell you, the RIGHT thing is hardly ever the EASY thing.....that's actually the point!

[rracterry]

Your example is one that I argue all the time, you pay private health insurance your whole life and then when you need it, it's not there. I know a lot of people that would love to work but they have been forced into Social Security disability to get health care. Now they are not paying taxes getting SS check and being cared for by Medicare. Which only compounds the problems of Medicare which is already unsustainable.

[RobAla]

First: I am sorry to hear of your condition, as you will increasingly find life more and more difficult. I wish the best for you.
Secondly: I hope there are agencies which can offer some help to you. However, nowhere in the US Constitution is health care stated as a right. This nation is in a very difficult position financially, and we are at the point of possibly going bankrupt. The nation does not have the financial capability to provide everyone free health care. Besides, nothing is free - things always cost someone. This has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity, but it has everything to do with practical finance, and with legal rights. The money isn't there.

I do wish you well. I hope you find some help from an agency or charity.