Community | December 08, 2009 | 34 comments

Senate Democrats reach tentative deal on public option

source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30371.html

Image
current89
Senate Democrats reached a tentative deal on the public option Tuesday night. In exchange for dropping the contentious provision, medicare will be expanded for those of age 55+ (may start in 2011), a national insurance plan would be administered by the same federal agency that oversees the respected Federal Employees Health Benefits Program(the insurance options within that plan would be offered by private, nonprofit entities) and finally, a national public option would kick in if insurance companies did not meet certain coverage standards (aka a trigger).

In addition, there was movement towards placing tighter regulations on the insurance industry. A proposal from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) would require insurers to spend at least 90 percent of premium money on medical care, rather than on administrative costs or profits. Lastly, the agreement also includes a proposal from Rockefeller to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was set to expire in Oct. 1, 2013.

The plan has been sent to the all mighty, non-partisan, Congressional Budget Office which crunches #s and predicts a legislation's effect.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30371.html
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Healthcare,   US Congress Watch,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Health Care Reform,  US Senate,  Public Option,  Compromise,  1 more
  3.     
    |

34 comments // Senate Democrats reach tentative deal on public option

  • ochreRobot
    • 0
      ochreRobot  

    • First I have to say that I am with telcod on this.

      @ fun_size "Does anyone actually read the article anymore?" hmm. yeah.. Lets just assume that the bill is going to be merged with the house bill. Oh, wait the senate might bypass the conference process, you might know this as the "ping-ponging" of the bill. That will be awesome.. right? I mean we have to have reform before the New Year, even if it sucks.

      Here is a link for you.. It goes to an article.. And yeah I read it.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/health-care-reform-could_n_383027.html

      @UrbanGypsy Health care reform would be awesome. But that is not where we are headed. The House bill with its watered down public option is pretty crappy and the Senate bill is looking like a hand out to big insurance companies. Check it out.

      1.) An individual mandate. That means that people that feel they are healthy enough to not need health insurance because it is a rip off will have to buy it. That is a huge low risk pool that is going to be handed to insurance companies. That is like free money for them.
      2.) The price controls in the bill suck. The insurace companies are going to charge what they want.
      3.) Trigger? Yeah that is going to help just as much as it has in other bills.

      Do you know what will happen if this healthcare reform fails? It will set back the cause and erase and progress that has been made. It is exactly what the GOP and neo-cons want. They are sitting back and taking a break while a handful of “Democrats” do the work for them.

      “If you really believed that, then the only thing you have to do to see who fooled you is to take yourself and stand in front of the mirror.”

      And lets talk about looking in the mirror. If you want to see someone who accepts what ever their party hands them even if it is a useless bill that is called reform then you can stand in front of all the people that voted for Bush in 2004 because that is your mirror. Just because they cannot do what needs to be done to ensure proper and reliable reform does not mean that is acceptable. Just because the Democrats are better than the GOP does not mean I will carry water for them or blindly vote for them. I will glady vote my conscience even if it means you think I am wasting my vote.

      War=Peace
      Handouts to companies=Reform
      Welcome to the New Left.

    • 2 years ago
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  

    • To the UrbanGypsy. I didn't vote for Obama or the other slag head candidate either. Thinking we would all still be talking with a British accent if we followed your advise. As I said before, the fix is in. No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig (USA), she ain't gonna dance for you. That ain't pessimism, that's reality. Resistance, sedition, then the revolution, or we just give it up. A friend of mine said, "Don't worry about the election, they probably won't bother to have another one."

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • Commenting here on Current has devolved into bitching about everything. Articles on politics are filled with discontent from both sides...

      Nothing the government does is enough for people here. Rabid impatience and impossible expectations blur the vision of many people here. In most of these people's world there is no need for things such as compromise or debate or finding common ground. Passing the public option is not something that is easy to do. Finishing the war in Afghanistan is not as easy as just pulling out. The economy has no magic solution.

      Expecting a complete overhaul of the government, Dalai Lama pacifism, and all the other things that progressives deluded themselves would come true when Obama was elected is just that: a delusion. Obama ran on change, but he is not a messiah, he is a politician. He can work for change, and he indeed is working for change but it doesn't come easily.

      Republicans are right for the most part when they mock progressives with their view of Obama as the "messiah"... I voted for Obama, but I never thought or expected him to be a messiah as some here thought he would be.

      Obama never said it would be easy... yet some of you think the change he promised would come all in one big Kumbaya moment of change. If you really believed that, then the only thing you have to do to see who fooled you is to take yourself and stand in front of the mirror.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • Does anyone actually read the article anymore? The phrase "public option" has been removed from the Senate version true. However it really is of no consequence since they are essentially making a public option anyway and just not calling it that so as to hopefully win over some moderate dems and independents. Not to mention the fact that this bill will be joined with the House version to create a single bill that will have either the public option or the "new option" so either way we win.

    • 2 years ago
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  

    • The negative comments are unbelievable. I am disappointed in my fellow progressives. You are getting hung up on a word and losing sight of the goal.

      Medicare is a huge, single-payer program. It automatically covers everyone over 65 and never competes directly with the private market. This will give people 55-65 the option to buy into it early. That means, for the first time, single-payer Medicare will be competing with the private market for those people. It doesn't set up any new government programs which was the major hang-up for conservatives. But it offers something much better. It offers, for the first time, a very simple and clear path to single payer healthcare. If it is successful, we can simply lower the age to 50, then 40, then everyone. THIS is progressivism. Not radical change, but steady progress down a path toward a clear goal.

      We'll still have to wait for the full picture, but this is the best plan I've heard so far.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • DougChristian:

      Doug,

      I've noticed recently that progressives seem to bitch about everything. They see compromise as "selling out" to special interests. Its funny but in a way the conservatives were right in their mockery of progressives who saw Obama as the "messiah"...

      Anyone who actually thought that Obama would represent a sweeping total and revolutionary 360 change of direction akin to an ephiphany deluded themselves. Obama always said change would be hard. Obama is indeed working for change but people here are too impatient and obsessed with results to see it...

      I voted for Obama and I always knew that he would work for change, but I also knew that it wouldn't be easy. That is where many people here fooled themselves.. they thought change would come in a day.

      Like the old saying goes: "Rome wasn't built in a day"...

      Nope, and neither is the New America we are trying to build together.

    • 2 years ago
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  

    • Hey "ibrake4rappers13." Liked your trash on the democrats. Unfortunately, you only got of one round off. Catch you breath, reload and go after our Red, White and F*** You Blue brothers and sisters in the republican parties. Rat on, brother.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • JonRaymond
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • Image

    • Before left-wing activist Bob Creamer escorted his wife, Illinois Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky to the Obama state dinner, before he penned his blue print for the socialist agenda from his federal prison cell, before he committed felony bank fraud and was indicted on 34 counts involving misuse of $2.4 million, this Saul Alinsky disciple reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars from a campaign finance scam that illegally funneled money from deep-pocket Democrat donors and labor unions to targeted congressional campaign

      Creamer left his position as head of the ACORN-affiliated Citizen Action/Illinois in 1997 after financial irregularities at the activist organization garnered the attention of federal investigators. Despite the ongoing federal investigation, Creamer turned to political consulting, bringing his bare-knuckle ACORN tactics to bear on behalf of numerous Democratic candidates like indicted former Governor Rod Blagojevich. In the 2002 election cycle, Creamer’s Strategic Consulting Group was paid over half a million dollars by the Blagojevich campaign. Strategic Consulting also did campaign work for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and others, all while the feds pursued their criminal investigation.

      During the period when Creamer was running Strategic Consulting Group the firm served as the primary vendor for several identically-structured campaign committees formed for the express purpose of supporting Democrat candidacies in circumvention of federal campaign laws.

      In 2005, the Federal Election Commission found that the 17th District Victory Fund, established in Illinois’ seventeenth Congressional district had broken the law when it paid $225,000 in “consulting” fees to Creamer. Instead of providing the consulting services claimed on federal disclosures, Creamer set up a separate political operation that promoted re-election of Democratic Congressman Lane Evans who was a regular target for defeat by the GOP. (For copies of the original FEC complaint, finding of fact and consent judgment, see here, here, and here.

      The Victory Fund was able to collect huge amounts of money from individuals and special interests who were either prohibited from donating to Evans’ campaign or had already given the maximum allowed. They then spent that money on what were claimed to be “party building activities,” such as get-out-the-vote drives, but what was, in reality illegally coordinated campaigning directly for Evans.

      Because the 17th District Victory Fund was essentially a coordinated adjunct of the Evans campaign, donors were able to circumvent laws that limited campaign donations. In particular, labor unions were able to give maximum donations to the Evans campaign directly and then re-ante to the Victory Fund. The FEC noted that the “17th District Victory Fund…violated 2 U.S.C. § 441a(f) by accepting excessive contributions, in particular from the Laborers Political League, AFL-CIO, Carpenters’ Union and UFCW.

      In addition to the laundry list of other labor organizations that funded this corrupt enterprise, the Victory Fund was also the beneficiary of donations from Democratic Congressmen Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel, as well as convicted Illinois political manipulator Stuart Levine whose corrupt activities helped bring down Blagojevich.

      But the major source of funding for the 17th District Victory Fund was the 17th District “Non-Federal” Victory Fund, a state political organization that was able to collect limitless donations from rich individuals and then funnel the money to the “federal” victory fund, ostensibly for the aforementioned “party building” activities. These “non-federal” dollars were then entirely transferred into the “federal” victory fund, thus laundering further illegal donations to the 17thDistrict Victory Fund to fund unlawful political activity. Among these donors was reclusive multi-millionaire Fred Eychaner who has given tens of millions to Democrats in recent years. In 2000, Eychaner had made the maximum donation of $4,000 to Lane Evans (primary and general elections) and then coughed up another $60,000 to the 17th District Non-Federal Victory Fund. These dollars then were transferred into the federal fund that paid Creamer to illegally coordinate campaign activities wit the Evans campaign.

      As a result of this illegal activity, the FEC leveled over $200,000 in fines on the 17th District Victory Fund and Congressman Evans’ campaign, but not before Creamer had been paid his fees to run the illegal political operation in the 1998, 2000 and 2002 election cycles.

      During the same election cycles, identical “Victory Fund” operations were set up in Illinois’ ninth (Congresswoman Schakowsky’s own district), tenth and fifteenth Congressional districts with almost identical reports and consistent overlap of donors and vendors. They followed the same pattern of establishing both a “federal” and “non-federal” committee with the unlimited “non-federal” dollars being dumped into the “federal” account that would then pay for political activities, particularly to Creamer’s consulting businesses.

      In Schakowsky’s Ninth District, in 2002 the victory fund received $125,000 from Rod Blagojevich’s gubernatorial campaign with over $75,000 going to one of Creamer’s firms, Mobilize, Inc.

      In the three cycles, the “Victory Funds” paid Creamer-controlled companies, Strategic Consulting and Mobilize, Inc. over $400,000 in consulting fees—the same pattern specifically cited as illegal activity by the FEC in the 17th Congressional District. While Creamer was not a specific target of the FEC complaint and was not fined by the Commission, his activities were extensively cited by the FEC as an example of illegally coordinated campaign activities that led directly to the Commission’s judgment against the campaign committees.

      During the time that federal investigators were compiling the evidence of financial crimes that would send Creamer to prison, he was involved in other illegal activities that violated campaign finance laws as determined by the Federal Election Commission. These activities included avoiding limits on donations by individuals and unions and creating a funding mechanism that used smoke and mirrors to avoid detection.

      http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/09/bob-creamer-architect-of-obamacare-and-his-p...

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  

    • Unacceptable. We need to scrap the entire thing.

      maybe we can start over with a new plan, a plan that wasnt inspired by a convicted felon.

      Robert Creamer. (who was also at the white house dinner)

    • 2 years ago
  • Josh_Gross
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • This is what happens when you have a big tent like the Democrats do right now. You have to deal with the members of your party that more conservative. Are the democrats the party of change right now? I still think so...

      Just because a few blue dog dems are hard to win over doesn't mean the party is against change. Shit, we wouldn't even be having this debate if the Republicans were still in power. The problem with many progressives is that they have mixed impossible expectations with rabid impatience to give themselves a ticket to the land of non-stop bitching...

      The fact that I'm hearing people talking about 3rd prty candidates is funny. Vote for those third party candidates, waste your vote, and maybe, just maybe you will take enough votes from the Democratic party to get the good Ole' GOP back in office. You think you have it bad now? I LOL...

    • 2 years ago
  • thestick
    • 0
      thestick  

    • this argument is moot because ALL insurance companies should be public, non-profit agencies. Otherwise they are just over-paid middle men and that is what no one is mentioning. Insurance has become another branch of bank governing because when money is made to be a central point, what you're really talking about are banks regulating everything - because where does money come from?????? BANKS wtf

    • 2 years ago
  • reallybigname
  • thewarnerla
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  

    • Finding some agreement with ochreRobot. But I always saw the democrats true color, yellow, except when it comes to jumping on the war bandwagon. As for the republicans. always consistent colors of red, white and F*** You blue. Third party is a must or we all vote republican and jump on the End of Days bandwagon........ or we start over again from scratch. This so called democracy (talk about misnomers) would all be a lot easier with lobbying reform. Just tar and feather these domestic terrorists publicly.

    • 2 years ago
  • ochreRobot
    • 0
      ochreRobot  

    • Unacceptable, at least in its current state. It seems ridiculous that the Democrats are the ones that are holding up progress on this. I guess some of them are showing their true colors and it is becoming increasing sad. The Democrats are not the party of change or progress; just the party that is smarter about hiding their ties and allegiances to pharma, big biz, and their appetite for money and power.

      If they mess up this health care legislation I will be spending my time helping 3rd party candidates during the 2010 and 2012 elections.

      Also, while I am at it, F*** the Afghanistan war and those that promote it as a solution to the problems we have with terrorism.

    • 2 years ago
  • FlexSF
  • Tyr
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  

    • A few things I'd like to point out

      1. This is not the final bill, the senate bill must be combined with the House bill.

      2. Expanding medicare to those age 55 and older may seem stupid, but in the end, as Bernie Sanders said "it's a single payer system."

      3, Obama never pledged to get a public option through Congress. He pledged to create an insurance exchange, place stricter regulations on insurance companies, expand coverage and lower costs (both bills will do so).

      4. The trigger could be a good mechanism, but it has to have teeth and a strict set of standards that must be met.

      5. The Senate public option was, quite frankly, too watered down to make a difference.

      All of that said I am highly disappointed in the lack of a public option (in the Senate bill), but I'll wait to see what the CBO says before make a broad statement about it.

    • 2 years ago
  • HowdyDo
    • 0
      HowdyDo  

    • WE lost - we all lose if there is no public option - we are forced to purchase insurance and nonprofits are suppose to keep insurance rates in check, but the public option would have been better - nonprofits are as vulnerable to corruption as nonprofits, but then so is the government...if we're not getting robbed by one greedy group of people, then there are ten others waiting in the wings, it seems

    • 2 years ago
  • CalPal
  • CarolynGillis
  • jon_foshee
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • timetide
  • versasrev
    • 0
      versasrev  

    • this has been like watching a 4 month long football game. Everything was exciting at first, but now it's really just depressing.

    • 2 years ago
  • MizPiz
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  

    • In theory, this plan could cover more people than the public option that was in the Senate bill. However, I'd like to see what the CBO has to say on the matter.

    • 2 years ago
  • LowShred
  • neocongo
  • DougChristian
    • 0
      DougChristian  
    • neocongo:

      Why? I usually appreciate your comments, but can you really say that you know what you're talking about here? Why is a new, but weak "public option" good, but an option to get into a strong public program not?

      There's a good chance this will actually cover more people than the public options that were being discussed. We'll have to wait for details to know.

      But here's another way to look at it: Medicare is a huge, single-payer program. It automatically covers everyone over 65 and never competes directly with the private market. This will give people 55-65 the option to buy into it early. That means, for the first time, single-payer Medicare will be competing with the private market for those people. It doesn't set up any new government programs which was the major hang-up for conservatives. But it offers something much better. It offers, for the first time in my opinion, a very simple and clear path to single payer healthcare. If it is successful, we can simply lower the age to 50, then 40, then everyone. THIS is progressivism. Not radical change, but steady progress down a path toward a clear goal. I didn't see the path with a public option. I can see the path here.

      Plus there is still the pre-existing conditions ban, lifetime caps ban, subsidies, mandates, the Exchange, lowering waste in Medicare, expanding Medicaid, scientific advisory boards, mandatory coverage for preventative medicine, a possible backup triggered public option, and a bunch of other little things.

      This has REAL potential. I'm optimistic about this for the first time all year. At least hear it out.

    • 2 years ago
  • JonRaymond
more from Community:
from the community

top videos