| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Senate may drop public option |
| 2009-12-10 |
| Democratic Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to drop the controversial government-run insurance plan from their overhaul of the health-care system, hoping to remove a last major roadblock preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber. Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created. In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers. The announcement came after six days of negotiations among 10 Democrats -- five liberals and five moderates -- appointed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to work out differences between the two camps on the public option and other pressing issues. Appearing in the Capitol with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the liberal faction, and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), representing moderates, Reid hailed the deal as a broad agreement that has the potential to "overcome a real problem that we had" and push the measure to final Senate vote before Christmas. "Not everyone is going to agree with every piece," Reid said. But when asked whether the deal means the end is in sight after nearly a year of work on President Obama's most important domestic initiative, he smiled. "The answer's yes," he said. According to a Democrat briefed on the talks, the deal represents only an agreement among the 10 negotiators to send the new package to congressional budget analysts, not an agreement to support its elements. One of the negotiators, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), quickly issued a statement criticizing the deal. "While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach," he said. He added, however, that he will base his vote "on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I think the bill is good for Wisconsin." Democrats must also win the approval of several key lawmakers who have not been involved in the talks, including Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), the only Republican who has voted in favor of the Democratic health initiative. If the Senate approves the agreement, it will face a huge obstacle in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has fought hard to preserve a public plan in the face of opposition from House moderates. If the deal holds, it will represent a major breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues of the health-care debate, settling a dispute between moderates wary of excessive government intrusion into the private sector and liberals determined to create a strong competitor able to curb the most egregious abuses in the private insurance industry. "It may be different from what was previously included in the bill," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, "but it accomplishes the same goals as a so-called public option." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 AzCat has it spot on. Lowering eligability to age 55 is the new, backdoor scheme. Medicare reductions on the older, retired folks, open door for those still young enough to work and earn but won't. Any investors out there heard when the Scooter Store might go public? The SCOOTER Store sells freedom -- or at least a motorized scooter or wheelchair -- to senior citizens and other persons with physical limitations. The company sells power chairs and outdoor scooters, including products made by Pride Mobility and other third parties, through a network of retail and distribution facilities across the continental US and Puerto Rico. It also sells other durable medical equipment, such as wheelchair lifts and home ramps. Owners Doug Harrison (CEO) and his wife, Susanna, started The SCOOTER Store in 1991 in response to an increasing elderly population and a fragmented scooter and wheelchair industry. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-10 10:12 |
| #3 I don't buy that headline for a second. The Dems are pushing this by hook or crook. Already done: If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created. In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. Pushing Medicare eligibility down to 55, even if it's a buy-in rather than straight entitlement program, will vastly expand the legions of Medicare users since Medicare will be able to offer far superior rates to private sector plans via its ability to legally mandate that health care providers accept below market (and often below cost) rates for services provided. No private sector plan will be able to compete with that and the explosion of persons "choosing" Medicare will "prove" the "desire" on the part of the American People for government-run health care. Meanwhile a smaller private sector market will be left to pick up the tab for all of these new Medicare users via the massively increased costs health care providers will be forced to pass along to the legal victims in this game (private insurance companies & their customers) who will be forced to subsidize an even-greater number of Medicare users than they do now. The resultant explosion in private sector costs (see e.g., the same issue as it unfolded over the past couple of decades) will "prove" the "superiority" and "cost benefit" of government run care. And of course since that mechanism won't work fast enough for the lefties the regulatory state will step in with policies similar to those found in the most leftist states right now: mandates for coverage of massively expensive treatments necessitated largely by poor lifestyle choices (e.g., AIDS treatment, treatments for drug abuse & alcoholism, etc.) and treatments of increasingly questionable utility for problems formerly not defined as such (see e.g., the constant redefinition of previously normal behaviors as abnormal by the APA and their ile and the mandates that insurance providers pay for treatment of same in some states). Layer these new mandates on layers of added overhead for serving the new bureaucracy and the unavoidable price spike necessitated by a massive increase in Medicare users who must be subsidized and this concept will not only guarantee the death of private health care in the US, it will hasten the same by years if not decades. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-12-10 09:59 |
| #2 “And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.” So how did our fine representatives come up with the figure of 90 cents of every dollar? Why not 92, 52 or 86 cents? Answer: because they don’t know and they really don’t care. This is another arbitrary mandate imposed on private business by people that have never “ran” anything other then a political campaign. Some might say this is simply another sweetener to get the liberals on board. Others may suggest it’s further proof of the Trojan horse that will drive Private Insurance Companies out of business. Either way, if this regulation is adopted the result will be an immediate reduction in the Health Insurance labor force. In other words, real people will be sacrificed for mythical benefits. Oh well, rumor has it that the Federal government soon will be looking to hire people with an experience in Health insurance. And if that doesn’t work out maybe a career change is in order. Hopefully they’ve heard about all those high paying green jobs? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-12-10 09:34 |
| #1 I don't buy that headline for a second. The Dems are pushing this by hook or crook. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2009-12-10 08:31 |