Public Option Gains Momentum

Health Care Medicaid The House of Representatives may unveil a unified health care bill as early as next week and new cost estimates give moderates in the House a stronger argument for the type of government-run health insurance plan.

by CBS

Published: Fri, October 16, 2009 - 1:16 pm CST Last Updated: Fri, October 16, 2009 - 1:20 pm CST

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House of Representatives may unveil a unified health care bill as early as next week, and new cost estimates give moderates in the House a stronger argument for the type of government-run health insurance plan, or "public option," that they favor.

Democrats in the House are considering a number of different ways to fashion a public option for their health care bill. Last week they submitted a few ideas to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to find out how much they would cost.

The CBO is reporting that the public option favored by moderates would cost less than the option favored by liberals, the Washington Post reports.

The liberal public plan would give doctors and medical providers the same payment rates they receive from Medicare, plus an additional five percent; this plan had initially been expected to be the most cost-effective, since Medicare rates are cheaper than the rates private insurers pay. But it didn’t turn out that way: A health care bill with this plan would reportedly cost $905 billion, according to the CBO.

Moderates prefer a government-run plan to negotiate payment rates directly with medical providers, so the government would be on a "level playing field" with the private industry. This structure, they argued, would make sure doctors are not short-changed.

It was expected that this plan would cost the government more, however, so the House submitted this proposal along with a plan to expand Medicaid eligibility to 150 percent of the poverty line, a strategy believed to be cheaper than giving more low-income people tax credits to buy their own insurance. The strategy worked: the CBO came back with a price tag of $859 billion for the bill with the moderate public option and expanded Medicaid.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once again emphatically stressed the need for a public option, Politico reports, saying, "If you are going to mandate that people must buy insurance, why would you throw them into the lion’s den of the insurance industry without some leverage with a public option?"

Pelosi reportedly said she wants to unveil the finished House health care bill as early as next week.

Even one of the most high-profile Democratic opponents to the public option in the House was reportedly suggesting new public option plans this week.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) suggested to colleagues the idea of opening up Medicare to those under 65 who are uninsured, according to the Hill newspaper.

Opening up Medicare -- a government plan people are familiar with and like -- could be simpler than starting a new public plan. However, that idea has already been largely written off as too liberal since it is perceived as a precursor to a single-payer health care system.

Ross reportedly said he merely suggested the idea, though he does not endorse it. Ross voted in favor of a public option compromise in a House committee, but he later came out in opposition to it.

Public option supporters are also speaking up in the Senate, according to reports.

"At a luncheon behind closed doors, Democrats said, liberals made impassioned pleas for a new government insurance plan, and they challenged the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, to defend his bill, which has no such public option," the New York Times reported. "Among the outspoken champions of the public plan were Senators Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio; Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa; and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats."

Meanwhile, the liberal reform group Health Care for America Now launches a new television ad today, shown above, that argues a public option is necessary because of the current lack of competition in the health insurance market.

WKRG.com » News Stream » Medical

Video
Photo

Embed:

WKRG.com Related

Discuss this in the forum

Email to a Friend

Printer Friendly

rmseek1234 Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:08 pm

I agree. Which is why we should have never thrown out all the money to the car dealerships,the banks,etc….It would have corrected. We may have had some pains along the way-but NOTHING like we are about too,or what our kids and grandchildren will have. But it’s just money,right? (sarcasm) Guess I need to teach them Chinese,or Arabic…

BamaBob Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Free market economics is self-correcting and leads toward innovation. Government run programs stagnate, bloat and consume the rest of the economy.

We are headed in the WRONG direction my friends. Spend a little time reading your history books please, because soon our country will sigh as it gives up a death rattle and slowly disappears.

rmseek1234 Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Man…miracles-we are agreeing and being nice.lol (Enjoy it while it lasts)lol

No one I have talked to-doctors,other nurses,even my dentist-is happy about these plans. Not even people who I KNOW voted for this administration. There are already some things happening in the health care system,that is concerning to me…things I thought I would NEVER see. For one-there is a hiring freeze on RN’s. New grads cannot find a job. Until recently, most hospitals offered tremendous sign on bonuses and “perks” to new grads, and new grads generally had a guaranteed job before graduation. That’s just one thing. But what it tells me is this-the hospitals are scared,the doctors are scared-and they are gearing up for their profits to nose-dive. And yes, I think doctors and hospitals should make a profit. Unless they are doing charity work.It is a business.

BamaBob Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:34 pm

You have hit the nail on the head!

Fix the existing problems and then look at expanding coverage. Not a single soul can really tell you what the health care reform objective is now. It started out as a way to save the economy. The CBO said, no, it will actually increase the deficit. So, it turned into this “Insurance Companies are Evil” stuff. Not sure what the latest battle cry is, but it sure doesn’t have anything to do with the majority of Americans.

This garbage about doctors embracing this plan is pure, unadulterated “expletive” and these changes are going to bite. Doctors already limit the number of Medicare patients they see. Some have quit seeing any, because of the red tape and lack of financial incentive. Does anyone really think doctors are suddenly going to be happy about any of this? Yeah, right….

rmseek1234 Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Yes, I do see the problem with that. That is why I do not think we should have a public option. Fix what is broken. BUT, I would rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded,and properly managed, than for the government to throw out a whole NEW government plan, when they can’t manage what they already have. BUT, if they do what they want to anyway (who’s going to stop them?) then I would rather it be where the doctors,hospitals,etc aren’t getting the short stick in all this. We will start LOSING doctors if they start cutting pay,then you can have all the government run health care you want-but there will be no one to provide it.

BamaBob Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:51 pm

They say there is 500 BILLION dollars of waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid. And, they will clean that problem up as soon as we give them the rest of the health care industry. Anyone else see a problem with that scenario?

FIX that problem first and then get back to us on the rest of this BS!!!!!!!!

rmseek1234 Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:45 pm

I think if they are going to ram this down our throats-it should be on a level playing field with private insurance. I do not think doctors should be short changed at all, and should receive the same reimbursement they get from their private insurers. Why do you think so many docs DO NOT take government run benefits now? Reimbursement for one. I still don’t see a need to open up a third government run option-expand Medicaid and Medicare, manage those effectively,and all will be well.jmo

BamaBob Says:

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:31 pm

The devils in the details.

The reason they can show a lower cost is because they shift the responsibility to the states with unfunded mandates. States are already struggling and this deal will probably break a few backs.