Senate Democrats unveil bill with Public Option

[pennsy]

WASHINGTON - Senate majority leader Harry Reid unveiled his long-awaited version of a sweeping health care bill last night, setting the stage for a tense Senate showdown pitting Republicans against a fragile and fractured Democratic majority.

Discuss
COMMENTS (109)
The proposal would expand coverage to most Americans and is predicted to cut the deficit by $127 billion over 10 years, a benefit Senate leaders hoped would help it attract fiscally conservative moderates who will decide the bill’s fate. It also includes a so-called public option, a government-backed insurance plan in states that want one, a concession to liberals.

With President Obama calling for a bill to be sent to his desk by the end of the year, Reid is hoping to bring the historic health care package up for a test vote on Saturday.

Aides to Reid said he hoped to have the 60 votes required to begin the unpredictable floor debate, which could last weeks. The handful of moderate senators who will decide the question seemed likely to support opening the debate.

But, in a testament to the tremendous political difficulty ahead for the president’s top domestic policy initiative, Reid spent more than an hour yesterday giving three moderate Democrat fence-sitters a special closed-door briefing on the bill, and administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, met separately with senators to sell it.

When he presented the bill to reporters with great fanfare last night, Reid would not comment on the moderate members’ reaction to the proposal, saying, “You’ll have to ask them.’’

Even after a second briefing last night, Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, one of the three senators Reid met with yesterday, told reporters he wanted to look at the details more closely before he decided whether he could commit to opening debate.

“I’m not trying to cajole myself into it or out of it,’’ said Nelson, who is considered one of three pivotal votes. “I have not made up my mind right now.’’

But Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, sounded encouraged yesterday, and she told reporters she would decide by today whether she would support opening debate.

“At least we’re getting bills that are less than $1 trillion, that are paid for, that are lowering the cost to the taxpayer and to businesses, so we’re moving in the right direction,’’ she said. “But there’s still some improvements that could be made, and I’m hoping to see to that on the floor.’’

The proposal is similar in many ways to the bill the House passed earlier this month, and to the law that Massachusetts enacted in 2006. It would require almost everyone to have insurance, penalize employers who failed to provide affordable coverage to their employees, and prohibit insurers from discriminating against people because of preexisting medical conditions. On the issue of abortion coverage, the Senate bill is less restrictive than the House version.

The Senate bill would dramatically expand Medicaid for the poor. Low- and middle-income people who lack insurance would receive federal subsidies they could use to buy coverage from either a private insurance company or the new government plan. Both would be available through an insurance marketplace, or exchange, offering one-stop shopping, much as the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector does.

Under Senate rules, Reid will need to round up 60 votes twice: once at the outset of the debate, allowing formal discussion to begin, and again at the end, closing the debate and allowing a final vote.

There are 58 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them on procedural motions. The initial vote will probably be easier for Reid to get than the final one.

The most difficult question for the Senate in the weeks to come will be how to resolve the dilemma over the public option for insurance coverage. Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who typically votes with Democrats, has said he would not support a public option, and several other moderates have expressed strong reservations about doing so as well. A contingent of liberals have insisted they would not support a bill without one.

But Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said he would be surprised if there were not movement on that question, noting: “People are always dug in until they’re not dug in.’’

Only two Republicans - the senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - are considered possible recruits in favor of the bill. Other Republicans reacted strongly against the proposal last night. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell warned that “this will not be a short debate.’’

Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, has already threatened to have the entire bill read aloud on the floor, a delaying tactic that Democrats said yesterday would take about 48 hours.

Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, said the bill would increase the size of government and raise taxes. Gregg also said it would not produce savings as advertised because Congress would not be willing to follow through on such things as reductions to the growth of Medicare payments to providers.

“Consequently, the Senate Democratic Leadership’s proposal commits today’s taxpayers, as well as future generations, to financing trillions of dollars of additional debt to pay for another out-of-control government entitlement program,’’ Gregg said in a statement.

The bill, the product of a merger of two committee bills, would cost $849 billion over the next decade, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. A combination of tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and health system reforms would more than offset that amount, ultimately driving the deficit down by $127 billion over the first 10 years and by $650 billion over the next 10 years. It would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by about 31 million, or about 5 million fewer than the bill the House passed would.

It would be financed partly by reductions in the growth of Medicare spending and by a bevy of new taxes, including an increase in Medicare taxes for couples earning over $250,000 and a 40 percent tax on the most expensive insurance plans.

Out of concern for unions, whose members have often sacrificed wages for good benefits, Reid raised the tax thresholds, so they apply only to plans that cost more than $23,000 a year for families or $8,500 a year for individuals. For people who live in high-cost states, or who work dangerous jobs, the threshold would be an extra $3,000 higher -- or as much as $29,000 for the family of an ironworker in a high-cost state like Massachusetts. It also includes a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, called Reid’s proposal a “superb effort’’ and said that while there were tweaks he would like to make - for example, getting additional Medicaid money to states like Massachusetts that have the most generous Medicaid programs - he was pleased.

“We are going to pass this legislation,’’ he said.

Another point of debate is how to treat abortion, an issue that became a central point of conflict in the House, which passed strong restrictions on abortion coverage in its bill. In a statement last night, Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, the lead sponsor of the House antiabortion amendment, said he hoped the Senate bill would be changed on the floor.

It also includes a so-called public option

[velkly]

Don't fret, you will only have to PAY for it. You won't be forced into USING it (until THEY decide otherwise or your STATE decides you need it!)

[NikeBauer21]

So if this is truly in the best interest of the people, and it is the greatest thing ever, that means that all of congress will enroll as well, right?

No???

Didn't think so.

Harry, take it to church, put it in the collection plate... nobody wants it here you prick.

[ChamberedRound]

Guys, now might be the time to start contacting US Senators. If the Republicans hold the line and can get Lieberman to join them (which he has said he might do), then they can filibuster this bill into history.

[ByAnyMeans]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

Guys, now might be the time to start contacting US Senators. If the Republicans hold the line and can get Lieberman to join them (which he has said he might do), then they can filibuster this bill into history.

Absolutely, now is the time to hold the line. In order to do this the senators need to know that their is still very strong opposition to this bill and the crafty accounting that it includes.

[PocketProtector]

The only reason this bill even exists is for the Public Option. That's one of the Libtard Holy Grails.
Without it they would be working on Gun Control or amnesty or Gorebasm bills instead.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by PocketProtector

The only reason this bill even exists is for the Public Option. That's one of the Libtard Holy Grails.
Without it they would be working on Gun Control or amnesty or Gorebasm bills instead.

Oh believe me, if we manage to smack down this health bill, they will try to go for gun control. That's EXACTLY what they did in the Clinton years. Couldn't get socialized medicine passed, so they said "to hell" with the voters and enacted the AWB, for which they paid dearly. This fight is far from over.

[General Geoff]

Looks like they're gonna try to force the bill to be read verbatim, up to three times, in open session. The 2000+ page bill will take over 34 hours to read ONCE. Senate rules dictate that upon demand, a bill must be repeated up to three times, on three separate days.

[velkly]

Originally Posted by General Geoff

Looks like they're gonna try to force the bill to be read verbatim, up to three times, in open session. The 2000+ page bill will take over 34 hours to read ONCE. Senate rules dictate that upon demand, a bill must be repeated up to three times, on three separate days.

I could see CSPAN ratings get a bump from all the gawkers wanting to see this happen!

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by General Geoff

Looks like they're gonna try to force the bill to be read verbatim, up to three times, in open session. The 2000+ page bill will take over 34 hours to read ONCE. Senate rules dictate that upon demand, a bill must be repeated up to three times, on three separate days.

Good, that should take much longer than the time left in this legislative session.