White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

[Kona_Silat]

White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run health insurance as part of his ambitious health care proposal.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives. Such a concession is likely to enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess.

Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but Republicans remain steadfast in arguing against it.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory on the showdown.

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."

Obama's top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate's budget committee, pushed the co-op model as an alternative.

"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."

As proposed by Conrad, the co-ops would receive federal startup money, but then would operate independently of the government. They would have to maintain the same financial reserves that private companies are required to keep to handle unexpectedly high claims.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.

Republicans say a public option would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan.

"We'll have the same number of people uninsured," she said. "If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured."

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said the Democrats' option would force individuals from their private plans to a government-run plan, a claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office supports.

"There is a way to get folks insured without having the government option," he said.

Obama, writing an opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.

"In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing."

Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.

"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said.

Sebelius said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill.

"We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table," she said.

Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Johnson and Price spoke with "State of the Union." Hatch was interviewed on "This Week."

[Jaysh]

That is disastrous, and shows that Obama is not about change at all, but same old, same old. I guess this is good news for physicians though, since it means the boat won't be shook too much.

Fi Aman Allah

[sumi]

this blows. stupid.

[Kona_Silat]

[Jaysh]

Please explain how dropping the public option equals socialism?

[Kona_Silat]

Jaysh said

Please explain how dropping the public option equals socialism?

great job on wordsmithing!

nationalized heath care is socialistic.

[Jaysh]

Kona_Silat said

great job on wordsmithing!

nationalized heath care is socialistic.

First of all, you posted that he dropped the public option. Do you even know what the public option is!? If you did, you wouldn't call dropping it to be socialism.

Secondly, the public option is NOT socialism anyways. It is not about nationalizing health care. I know that you've become a moronic Republican who can't understand simple things, but try here. The public option does NOT equal socialized medicine, nor is it a single payer system.

Thirdly, do you think that the military has socialized medicine? If so, shouldn't you and your Republican friends have voted for the proposal voting to get rid of that? Just try to take away the VA system from the soldiers, and see how that goes.

Fourth, you are an idiot.

[ChotooMotoo]

Jaysh said

Thirdly, do you think that the military has socialized medicine? If so, shouldn't you and your Republican friends have voted for the proposal voting to get rid of that? Just try to take away the VA system from the soldiers, and see how that goes.

The whole military base system which segregates military families, provides them with separate housing, school, doctors, stores etc. from the rest of the civilian population is absolutely socialism. People who've lived on military bases will tell you with great pride how wonderful it was living on a military base and how you never had to leave it. Anything you needed, you could get on base. Even if you had, say, a very complicated pregnancy and needed specialized care there are military hospitals with highly trained specialists to care for you. People who cry "oh, the government can't handle anything" should look at the military system. Clearly it's handled VERY well, despite being a completely government run organization.

Then they get discharged from the military and suddenly have to deal with real life, jobs with crappy health insurance, deductibles, co-pays, denials of service for no reason, fighting with insurance companies to pay for what they SAY they will pay for... but they wait to pay for it so long that the doctors office sends the bill to collection and you end up paying it out of pocket and the insurance company won't re-imburse you. Insurance companies which dictate which doctor you can see, which specialist you can see, which city you can be seen in. You can see a neurologist for your epilepsy, sure, bute the only one WE cover is in a town 100 miles away. The only hospital we will pay for you to visit is 50 miles away. Insurance companies sending you forms every few months that you have to complete or they won't pay for you, even though you pay them thousands in premiums + deductible which makes your out of pocket expense $3,000 a year even if you only visit a doctor once for a physical exam, which physical exam they won't pay for anyway.

I'm only talking about medical care, vision and dental coverage is even worse. Get an eye infection and visit an ophthalmologist and your medical insurance will fight you about that too, because somehow your eyes aren't a part of your body covered by medical insurance even though your problem is clearly not an annual eye exam. Get shot in the head and need emergency medicine, an ambulance, physical therapy, forget about it. You'll have to sell your house and declare bankruptcy to pay for the bills because your medical insurance, which you pay through the nose for, isn't going to help you.

The private insurance business is a joke that is crippling American industry, and the American people one case of swine flu at a time.

Fourth, you are an idiot.

[Anderson]

Thanks God for the NHS.....Alhamdulillah.

[Kona_Silat]

I have to admit that ChootMootoo or whatever her(his) name is actually made a reasonable statement.

[sumi]

Kona_Silat said

I have to admit that ChootMootoo or whatever her(his) name is actually made a reasonable statement.

hate to break it to you but its the same thing we've all been saying all along.

[Kona_Silat]

sumiyia said

hate to break it to you but its the same thing we've all been saying all along.

well she did a better job of explaining it without pledging allegiance to a certain party.

[sumi]

Kona_Silat said

well she did a better job of explaining it without pledging allegiance to a certain party.

you mean the way you do? yea, i saw your 'republicans FTW' post before it was deleted.

[MossadConspiracy]

just like its in the interest of insurance companies to deny claims to cut costs, wouldnt it also be in the interest of a govt provider to deny claims in order to cut costs? This is especially true since the public option/non-profit corp/single payer would be insuring all the people who are considered "un-insurable" but do not qualify for medicaid. even a generously subsidized agency would not have unlimited funds. In addition, what is to stop all the employers in the country from dumping their patients onto the public option agency, the way wal-mart does with medicaid. The answer is obviously a hefty tax penalty for doing that, but at some point rising healthcare costs will outweigh this tax (if we're not at this point already).

[Revert]

Kona_Silat said

well she did a better job of explaining it without pledging allegiance to a certain party.

hahah what about your blatant pro republican posts? Or your deleted post?


Also the US will never change and if it keeps this up it will drive itself into a hole.

We need a TRUE reformer not one who pays lip service to reform.