Report: Senate Finance Committee To Include Co-Ops, No Employer Mandate
A quick update on this post. More details have emerged from the Associated Press bringing a bit of clarity to the question of what's going on in the Senate Finance Committee.
AP is now reporting-- that the Senate Finance Committee will likely call for the creation of a system of non-profit co-operatives in lieu of a public option--something which has been in the works for weeks--but will not require employers to provide insurance for their workers.
[O]fficials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations.They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a non-profit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace. The White House and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs.
Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. These businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.
That won't create nearly as much of a splash as we would have seen if, after months of wrangling, the committee had just punted on the public option question. But reformers are still averse to the co-op model, and, given the nature of the reform proposals, regard the employer mandate as a crucial element--one which could still be imported from other legislation. We shall see.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
No surprise here. This is what has been coming for weeks. What I read here is the Wyden plan. The good part, individual choice not employer choice (unlike the House plan). The bad part, co-ops, not full public option.
July 27, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our elected officials have made it clear they are not working for the people. They are cowards. This country is an absolute joke.
July 27, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know I'm a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, I've backed him since the day he announced he would run for President; but I sure am getting sick and tired of him BACKING DOWN to those that are fighting his agenda, that includes Democrats as well as Republicans.
He and the Democrat's have done nothing but CAVE into these people hoping to gain a few votes and what do they get for it? Half ass bills.
So now we're not even going to require that businesses offer coverage of health care? And we're not going to have a public option to keep private companies honest?
Exactly what WILL this this bill do BESIDES give insurance companies MORE business and give the medical profession less to do by requiring more from the patient instead.
I'm beginning to think I had false HOPE for this President and the Democratic Party.
Just as the Patient's Bill of Rights bill ended up hurting patients, this Health Care Reform Bill....is sounding more and more like a Patient's Reform Bill.
The famous Prescription Drug Bill given by President Bush and the Republican Party was suppose to be a benefit for the patients/seniors, instead, as each year goes by, premiums go up and up. All it ended up doing is temporarily giving seniors a break and permanently giving pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies a windfall.
President Barack Obama, if you plan on keeping your position and keeping the Democrats in power, you'd best be standing up and DEMANDING something for the PATIENTS instead of taking care of the insurance and medical professionals -- and SOON.
July 27, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was unaware that President Obama was actually a member of the Senate Finance Committee and thus to be held accountable for what bill that committee turns out. Here I thought he was in charge of a whole separate branch of Government. Who knew?
July 27, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I suspect coonsey may be full of shit.
July 28, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it gets out of committee like this, it may be a blessing. The business groups likely won't blitz the world with ads damning reform.
I'd like to think that after recess, a real bill can be written.
If not, we are screwed!
July 27, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. So the bill comes out of the finance committee with no public option but coops instead. Is that the only bill that the Senate gets to vote on? No amendments during discussion on the floor?
Then assuming something passes both houses, I think that Pelosi and Reid choose who sits on the reconciliation committee. Exclude all Blue Dogs? The bill from the House can be adopted at that time or at least the public option of the bill, and the reconciled bill goes back to both the house and the Senate for an up or down vote. And if it goes through as a budget resolution, there is no filibuster. 51 votes in the Senate passes it, and the Veep votes in ties.
Do we have 50 votes and Biden in the Senate plus a majority in the House?
What am I missing and what have I got wrong? Because that looks pretty good to me.
July 27, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's better than that. The Finance committee isn't the only Sen. committee with a version of this bill. Sen. Kennedy's Health, Ed, Labor, & Pensions committee already reported out a version with the public option. The two versions have to be reconciled before the Senate votes. Then the Senate bill has to be reconciled with the House bill, which will also have a public option.
Plenty of opportunities for us to win in that process.
July 27, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The part that may be worse than you're describing is that the budget reconciliation process is tricky; things you pass using that technique have to be rated deficit-neutral over a 5-yr span.
July 27, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not what I worked for. This is not what I donated to. This is a sell-out, and Max Baucus is for me, a symbol of what is wrong here.
I agree with coonsey -- the republicans will only sign onto a bill that is terrible, and most likely they will not sign ANY bill. So, wise up, and support a bill that supports the millions of people who voted for you; who had hope, for the first time in a generation that change was possible.
If you betray us by cow-towing to the blue-dogs and the republicans, neither of which have the good of our country in their hearts, you will lose everything that you stood up for and promised us on the night we all got drunk over the joy of your election.
You (and our country) owe republicans NOTHING! They have done their best to ruin our country. Atianna Huffington said it best: in negotiations there are 4 levels that you go through; the LAST of which is reconciliation. The problem is that Obama wants to go straight to reconciliation ( that is why he gave away Single-Payer before negotiations even started). He better learn some negotiating skills or we will be worse off than ever, and it will be his fault for squandering his overwhelming popular desire for health care (NOT health INSURANCE) for ALL!
July 27, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I wasn't infatuated with Howard Dean in 2004 but I'm growing to love him now! He says if these concessions are made it will not be healthcare reform it will be INSURANCE REFORM. He's going to host Countdown Tues and Wed.
July 27, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chicken Littles -- calm the heck down please. This is GOOD news. If a bipartisan supported bill passes guaranteeing that all Americans will be covered, even if it involves a "non-profit cooperative [established] to sell insurance in competition with private industry" rather than a government-provided option, it will be a huge win for President Obama. If it does happen, I guarantee he'll take it all the way to the bank of a second term where he can continue to pursue other progressive shifts.
July 27, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A co-op would require the creation of an entire additional bureaucracy.
It will most likely be more expensive than a public option which will, in turn, create less competition among private insurers.
So it neither reduces much cost nor does it create much competition.
I wouldn't consider that a win. It is kicking the can down the road.
July 27, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the non-profit co-op were going to be more expensive than a government-run option according to CBO calculations, I doubt it would be on the bipartisan table right now as cost is the main issue in contention.
I can tell you what Obama is thinking (wisely more pragmatic as he is compared to the leftie ideologues) -- a bill that ensures the coverage of all is a bill that ensures the coverage of all.
July 27, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't guarantee the coverage of all. It orders people to buy insurance which may or may not cover their needs and which they may or may not be able to afford. Regardless of what it promises, it's bound to be underfunded so watch the subsidies shrink to nothing.
July 27, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
sky is falling
July 27, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right.
And the GOP won't vote for a coop anyway. This is all bullshit. The GOP doesn't want ANY health care bill. So making these kind of concessions is futile.
July 27, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good news for OBAMA? What about Americans? As Obama said during his last press conference, "This isn't about ME (Obama)!"
Whose BANK will that be that he takes it too?
Insurance and Medical profession - that's who's.
July 27, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't make perfect the enemy of the good. You're lucky to have someone in the White House smart enough to navigate something through at all, and accomplish what Democrats have failed to do for the past 60 years! -- pass a bill that ensures coverage for everyone. Jesus. Even if this is accomplished by means of a non-profit co-op option it will be a tremendous accomplishment.
July 27, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
An individual mandate to buy a product from a for-profit company.
In order to avoid socialism, we're embracing fascism. Unreal.
July 27, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, you sound like the tea-baggers! We'll be hearing the birthing line soon. Histrionics abound here.
July 27, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're okay with the government requiring people to transfer part of their paychecks to the shareholders of insurance companies?
July 27, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like the "fascism" of car insurance?
July 27, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
First they came for the sedans, and I didn't speak up -- because I wasn't a sedan ...
July 27, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
Is this why Volkswagen is so popular these days?
The tyranny of fake flower pots....
July 28, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee. I wish Obama was more ideologically rigid than pragmatic so he could f*** this up and pass no bill at all like Hillary in 93. Darn you Obama!
July 27, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comebacks to all these idiotic posts.
July 28, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
HuffPo mentioned this in passing:
"The effort received a boost during the day from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally a close ally of Republicans. In a letter to committee leaders, the business group called for the panel to "act promptly, preferably before" the Senate's scheduled vacation at the end of next week. In doing so, the business organization dealt a blow to the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other GOP lawmakers who have called repeatedly for Democrats to slow down."
Does this mean that the kill-the-bill glee from last week (as much in the press as in the GOP) has waned?
Anyway, Baucus' pile of shit will need to be reconciled with the other bills floating around.
July 27, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only good coming out of this is it hangs a bell around the necks of those we need to oust next election cycle.
And the voice of moderation here is simply poisonous to any real reform.
Here's what I'm begining to see. F&%K the "public option" Let's go for universal, single payer healthcare in America.
On getting heathcare reform I'm sad to say Ronny Raygun was right, "Government IS the problem".
Our government is run by, and for corporations. And so is the 4th estate. How can you get the truth about healthcare from NBC when they are owned by GE? And the same is true about the wars.
Time for another public option: Public Campaign Finance. Time to take back what is ours.
July 27, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This really brings into focus the Obama agenda. We have left ourselves into two camps. Those who have been burnt before by politicians and those who still have hope. In the end, the risk is that hope's light has dimmed and the need for a new political alignment is becoming a reality. If we have no universal coverage and no public option in the end, then I feel 70-80% of people in this country need to change our system and form new political parties with new rules. Fuck the system!
July 28, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just think it needs we need to be more persistent.
Even if we get a public option, we should continue to push for universal and single payer.
This is a fight for the long haul.
The side that nevershuts up decade after decade WILL ultimately win.
No quitting allowed.
July 28, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I refuse to react to every committee decision. The fact that this is finally moving out of the Senate finance committee is a good thing because it takes the control away from Baucus. There are progressives who say they will not support a bill without a public option. We just have to hope they hold their ground and are able to get enough votes on the floor. We need 51 votes in the Senate, and we are going to need at least a couple of Republicans probably to get there. So the appearance of bipartisanship may be necessary to get their votes, and probably even Libermann's.
July 28, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly the leadership of the Democratic party should know for this Democratic voter, not having a public option is non-negotiable. If after all this a public option is not part of healthcare reform, I'll never vote for a Democrat again.
July 28, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is reimbursing the government different from a penalty? I am glad though, that they found a way to describe it that sounds like it might get some GOP votes - that will help the Blue Dog Dems.
July 28, 2009 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do support a public option.
Though I'm okay with the lack of employer mandate. I work for a *very* small company--5 employees, no insurance (I have it through my spouse). I guarantee that if my employer were forced to provide us all with insurance, my salary would be reduced accordingly. Someone might even be laid off. If we have a good, strong public option, I'm not sure there is a need for an employer mandate, IMO. Or make it apply to only companies of a certain size (like FMLA).
Not sure how I feel about this co-op thing. I'm withholding judgment until there are more details available.
July 28, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, since you are covered by your wife's policy, under a mandate your employer would be ok. The mandate does not say that employers must force everyone to take their insurance, only that they must give all f/t employees the option.
Second, though it's structured differently in the different bills, the employer mandate generally has an exception for small businesses (=fewer that 25 employees).
July 28, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, "spouse," not "wife".
July 28, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, okay. Thanks for the information.
July 28, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but isn't one of the main features of cost containment achieved by taking the profit motive out of the healthcare equation? It seems that, at the very least -- and you know we're forced to take this in baby steps, this reform idea -- by eliminating the incentive for insurance companies et al. to profit, it thereby brings it closer to a government-run program.
However, one has to wonder what promises were made to the insurance companies to induce them to participate. Just what would be in it for them? (And that's not a rhetorical question as I honestly don't know the answer.)
July 28, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is in it for the insurance companies is a requirement that every person has to buy health insurance, and the only providers of that insurance will be those insurance companies. A guaranteed market! Icing on the cake is that they will pick up a huge number of young people who now have no insurance, but also have no health problems, so their premiums will be nearly 100% profit. If this resulted in the cost of insurance dropping for everyone, it isn't so bad, but it won't, because it doesn't require that.
Health care reform = reduce the profits in health care. It takes lots of what the Senators don't have to be willing to go that route.
July 28, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US needs a single payer system
what it looks like we are getting
is a mandate that everyone must purchase insurance.
The insurance lobby must be thrilled.
July 28, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink