Thread: Senate Dems: Deal near to drop public option

Senate Dems: Deal near to drop public option

Lawmakers defeat measure to restrict federal funds for abortion coverage

NBC News and news services
updated 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation.

No further details were immediately available.

But liberals and moderates have been discussing an alternative, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage.

Additionally, talks centered on opening up Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa told reporters he didn't like the agreement but would support it to the hilt in an attempt to pass health care legislation.

Abortion-linked limits fail
Earlier, the Senate rejected an effort by abortion opponents to tighten restrictions in the health care overhaul bill on taxpayer dollars for the procedure, but it was unlikely to be the last word on the divisive issue.

By a vote of 54-45, the Senate sidetracked an amendment by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah that would ban any insurance plan getting taxpayer dollars from offering abortion coverage. The restrictions mirrored provisions in the House-passed health care bill.

Nelson said after the vote that the failure of the measure "makes it harder to be supportive" of the pending version of the health insurance reform legislation. He has previously vowed to block final passage of the health overhaul bill if the anti-abortion language was not included.

He said that he will not draft a compromise version revising the amendment that he sponsored. "I had no Plan B and I'm not looking for a Plan B. Others may be," he said, adding that he will "always listen" to Majority Leader Harry Reid's suggestions for a workable solution.

The Senate bill currently allows insurance plans to cover abortions, but requires that they can only be paid for with private money. The legislation calls for insurance plans that would receive federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace to strictly separate public funds from private dollars that would be used to pay for abortion.

"As our bill currently reads, no insurance plan in the new marketplace, whether private or public, would be allowed to use public funds for abortion," said Reid.

The Senate vote — hailed as a victory by abortion rights supporters — could complicate prospects for President Barack Obama's health overhaul.

Still counting votes
It's unclear whether Reid can pass his bill without the votes of Democratic abortion opponents. Seven Democrats supported the stiffer restrictions, while two Republicans — Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe — voted with the Democrats. In the House, anti-abortion Democrats have threatened to vote against any final bill that dilutes the restrictions already approved in their bill.

Abortion opponents say the restrictions simply extend current federal laws that prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. But abortion rights supporters said the restrictions would have the effect of denying women coverage for a legal medical procedure already covered by many insurance plans, even if they use their own money.

"This amendment would place an unprecedented restriction on a woman's right to use her own money to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

INTERACTIVE

Timeline: Political strife over abortion
From Roe v. Wade to Robert Bork and Barack Obama — a look at the political history of abortion.


But Nelson called the separation of funds in the bill an accounting gimmick. "The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion," he said.

The vote came as Senate Democrats remained at odds on the issue of creating a new government insurance plan — with time running out to pass Obama's health care remake by Christmas.

Moderates cheered a move away from the so-called public option and liberals demanded an expansion of the federal Medicare program in exchange. The public plan is now in the bill, but supporters acknowledged Tuesday that it may not have the votes to pass.

"My worry is the public option is disappearing, or it gets very much weakened," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va, representing liberals in the negotiations.


Click for related content
Reid taps 'Group of 10' for public option fix
Lieberman appears open to health bill compromise
Newsweek: Why the Senate abortion debate doesn't matter

In exchange for giving up on a new government plan, liberals are demanding a major expansion of Medicare and additional aid for low-income uninsured. Medicare would be opened up — at least for a few years — to uninsured people age 55 to 64. A bid to expand the Medicaid program for low-income people failed to win support.

"That's an example of not getting what you want," Rockefeller said. Other alternatives to help low-income Americans are still on the table.

Democratic negotiators — five liberals and five moderates — are under pressure to reach at least a tentative deal by Tuesday. The bill now includes a government-run plan that states can opt out of, unacceptable to moderates whose votes Reid needs to overcome Republican delaying tactics and move the bill to final passage.


Confused about the health care debate?
Check out our glossary of terms to help you understand what the policymakers are saying.

Moderates welcome the idea of replacing a new government plan with private insurance offered under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal employee health benefits system, but questioned expanding Medicare, and they flat-out objected to broadening Medicaid.

Snowe — one Republican who may vote for the Democrats' bill — also raised a warning flag. "I'm not sure ultimately what is the purpose" in expanding Medicare coverage, she said. The American Hospital Association, which supports the broad goals of the legislation, sent an alert to its members urging them to contact lawmakers in opposition to the Medicare expansion. Medicare pays hospitals less than it costs them to provide service, the group said.

The latest public plan idea bears little resemblance to the original proposed by liberals, and embraced by Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign. That called for the government to sell insurance to workers and their families in competition with industry giants like UnitedHealthcare.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns ... itol_hill/

But liberals and moderates have been discussing an alternative, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. /

WHAT??? That made my head spin, what are they talking about?

Originally Posted by Bowman

But liberals and moderates have been discussing an alternative, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. /

WHAT??? That made my head spin, what are they talking about?

I think it means that anyone will be able to get the exact same coverage that congress gets.