Health Care: No Mo' Public Option? UPDATED with Reid's Promise That "Public Option Is Still in Bill"

UPDATE (10:40 PM): We finally have a clearer statement from Harry Reid...

In his comments to reporters, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option," the Medicare expansion or a fallback in case private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan envisioned to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management. One possibility was for the agency to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.

Under the tentative agreement, liberals lost their bid to expand Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, elderly and disabled. But they prevailed on the Medicare expansion, and the negotiators appeared ready to maintain a separate health care program for children until 2013, two years longer than the bill currently calls for, according to officials familiar with the details.

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

Except that we still don't know for sure what this "public option" is. The Medicare buy-in ONLY available to those aged 55-64? Or the still for-profit plans to be overseen by the federal government a la the federal employee plans? Or the "Olympia Snowe Trigger" that's designed never to actually trigger a public option? Or something resembling a real Medicare-like plan open to more people? Maybe all of the above?

Stay tuned here at Nevada Progressive for more updates on this late breaking news of the Senate health care bill. I'm still trying to figure out what all of this means. And once we find the truth of the matter here, we'll let you know... And explain why we're either relieved or furious.

.......

OK, I don't know what the f*ck to think now.

Is Open Left right?

Now, it looks like a deal has been struck in the Senate to replace the opt-out public option for a weak Medicare buy-in. There were reason [sic] to be interested in the Medicare buy-in, but the current deal will only be open to Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 who are uninsured.

Or NYT?

But Democratic aides said that the group had tentatively agreed on a proposal that would replace a government-run health care plan with a menu of new national, privately-run insurance plans modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers more than eight million federal workers, including members of Congress, and their dependents.

A government-run plan would be retained as a fall-back option, the aides said, and would be triggered only if the new proposal failed to meet targets for providing affordable insurance coverage to a specified number of people.

The agreement would also allow Americans between age 55 and 64 to buy coverage through Medicare, beginning in 2011.

Or is TPM right?

Lawmakers have suggested in recent days that the compromises under discussion were meant to replace the national public option that's currently in the bill. The Associated Press as the New York Times are even reporting that the public option is gone. Tonight, though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested that might not be the case. "All the things you've read in the newspapers...'the public option is gone,'--it's not true," Reid said at an impromptu press conference after tonight's meeting broke.

Reid wouldn't elaborate further--and it's worth noting that in recent days, aides and members have tried to characterize some of the ideas on the table as a form of "public option" when in fact none of them are. But it looks like we'll know definitively by the end of the week--and maybe sooner.

"I already know that all 60 senators in my caucus don't agree on every piece of the merger," Reid said. "I know that what we've sent over there to CBO--will send to them tomorrow--not everyone's going to agree on every piece that we've sent over there, but that doesn't mean that we disagree on what we've sent to them."

Honestly, I'm just as confused as you are right now. Who are we to believe? Is the public option in or out of the Senate bill? Is there a trigger or not? What the hell just happened??!!

I want answers. We should demand answers. Hopefully tomorrow, we'll get more details. It just seems like there was a brief glimpse of hope for a decent bill, and now it may all be gone.

Oh please, I do not want to think of what will happen if Reid abandons all principles for more ConservaDem crap.

Health Care: Whither the HMO Bailout?

So the big news today is that the HMOs are backing out of the deal they supposedly made with President Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D?-Insurance Industry). So why am I not crying over it? Let me explain.

First, they were never really planning to support any version of health care reform. Rather, the HMOs only wanted to ensure that whatever legislation is passed is so weakened that it will never really hurt them.

Oh, and they really wanted a bailout in the form of subsidies and individual mandates to force people to buy HMO plans without facing any competition from a public health insurance option or any real regulations to curb such despicable practices as fabricating "pre-existing conditions" to deny people care or artificially hold up premiums. Apparently, Chuck Schumer's plan really scared them.

Sen. Chuck Schumer has been working to actively cripple or destroy the individual mandate. An amendment offered in the Senate Finance Committee by Schumer and Snowe reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance, and slowly phased in the penalty over several years. It also reduced the threshold at which a person could apply for a hardship waiver to avoid paying the penalty for not having insurance.

That was only step one in Schumer’s attempt to water down the individual mandate. Last Thursday, Schumer made a barely covered announcement that he would seek to further weaken the individual mandate. The penalty collected from people for not having insurance would be placed in a trust fund instead of going directly to the government. Individuals would have up to three years to use the full penalty collected from them to buy insurance.

This three-year trust fund is just asking to be “abused.” It would create a strong incentive for younger people to wait until they got sick to buy health insurance. They could skip having insurance for up to three years without “losing” any money due to the individual mandate penalty. This is exactly the scenario that AHIP is desperate to avoid. If there is to be any Republican support for health care reform, and with progressives threatening to go to war if there is an individual mandate without a public option, it is very likely we’ll see the individual mandate continue to be weakened as the bill moves forward.

Heh. It's about damn time that Democrats wisen up! Again, the HMOs are NOT interested in "reform". All they care about are their profits, so why did The White House let Baucus take the lead in doing everything possible to appease them only for them to still say that Baucus' insurance industry bailout plan isn't enough? Why shouldn't Obama just realize that these same companies that deem infants "obese" to deny them coverage aren't acting in the public's interest?

So maybe instead of doing everything possible to win over the giant corporate interests that will never back real reform, perhaps The White House needs to focus more on mending fences with the progressive grassroots/netroots that helped elect Obama President and who will be key in building support for health care. Last I checked, the "left of the left" fringe seems to be advocating for what the strong majority of Americans want to see out of health care reform.

Yes, this is why I'm not crying over the apparent death of "Baucus Care". It was a flawed plan to start with, and the HMOs would never really carry water for it despite their original assurances to him and Obama. It's time for Democrats to remember whose side they're supposed to be on, who's really on their side, and what they're supposed to be fighting for.