Senators Reach Tentative Public Option Deal--Withhold Details As They Await CBO Score

So is it a "public option compromise", or is it a compromise where the public option is removed?

At this point their "compromise" amendment will need 60 votes to pass, right?

Wasn't this a tentative agreement to drop the public option in favor of extending medicare to those 55-64, or an "opt-in" medicare provision for those between 55-64?

And does this mean that private insurance companies get to drop their most expensive customers (55-64) and replace them with a mandate of all younger, inexpensive customers?

Shorter Reid: "There was never going to be any public option, and I'm gonna soft-pedal it so you STFU."

Will the amendment to change the public option require sixty votes like every other amendment, or will Reid use the rules so that only a majority is needed?

Hahahahaha! One can always count on Senate Dems to cheer one up.

Compromise (def): "Settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions"

So, please enlighten me, what "concessions" have been obtained from conservative senator Dems, in return for dumping the public option?

Marking this day on my calendar.

This absolutely stinks like a trigger!
And of course, the parameters will be such that the trigger will never be pulled.

Meaning that my guess is EVERYBODY is right:

There IS a public option, with a look-only-don't touch trigger.

I say, "No Option? Then NO Mandate!"

Here's what the Time's says:

Instead of a public plan, the Democrats’s team of 10 propose creating a new menu of national, private insurance plans modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million federal workers, including members of Congress, and their dependents.

The plans would be overseen by a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management, which would negotiate rates and coverage terms.

In addition, the Democrats are discussing a proposal that would allow Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 to purchase coverage under Medicare, which now covers Americans age 65 and over. The deal might also include a two-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was reauthorized earlier this year, and is set to expire in 2013.

If that's the deal, it's a big win for two reasons:

First, expanding Medicare eligibility would have been the right thing to do from the beginning and we can always chip away at the cut-off age (possibly even in reconciliation).

Second, the system that's already in place for federal government employees is pretty darn good--it's a very tightly regulated private solution.

What I'd like to see is language in the bill that makes the same requirements placed on policies offered to federal employees also be placed on policies offered in the exchange.

Scrap the whole thing...the whole bunch of them have been bought off...if the Public Option isn't fully grown its half baked little bastard just causes more problems...there are no true solutions in any of this, everything is just being compromised by our elected simpletons.
What a bunch of crap.

if all of america in the shrinking gap between medicare and medicaid has access to the same thing that i get as a federal employee (FEHB), it's big. i get blue cross blue shield "basic" plan, which all my doctors are part of, for my family (me, wife, child) for around $45 every two weeks, give or take a few bucks. yes, my agency subsidizes my premiums, but i would think that most employers will continue to subsidize a part of their employees' premiums, just to stay competitive for employees. and if OMB is negotiating with an even bigger pool than it is now iwth just federal employees, premiums would be even lower, i would think.

pair that with restrictions on rescission and denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and this could be decent.

i guess we wait and see.