THE HILL
 

Pelosi backs away from deal with Blue Dogs

By Mike Soraghan - 09/22/09 04:03 PM ET

Speaker Pelosi is backing away from a deal she cut with centrists to advance health reform, said a source familiar with talks.

Pelosi’s decision to move away from the agreement that was made with a group of Blue Dogs to get the bill out of committee would steer the healthcare legislation back to the left as she prepares for a floor vote.

Pelosi is planning to include a government-run public option in the House version of the healthcare bill. She wants to model it on Medicare, with providers getting reimbursed on a scale pegged to Medicare rates.

"The speaker is full-steam-ahead," said a senior Democratic aide.

But a Pelosi aide said nothing is final, and the proposal to revert to the more left-leaning version of the language would be vetted before the entire Democratic Caucus.

Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom represent rural districts where Medicare reimbursement rates are low, vehemently oppose tying the public option to Medicare.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and a group of fellow Blue Dogs had negotiated a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in July that would remove the link to Medicare. Under that plan, officials with the government-run plan would negotiate individually with providers.

That move, which drew howls of protest from liberal members, prevented the bill from getting stuck in committee. But Ross returned from the August break saying he couldn't support a public option under any circumstances, essentially withdrawing his support for the deal.

Pelosi is now effectively withdrawing her support. In leadership meetings last week, she said the public option in the House bill should be linked to Medicare.

Other Blue Dogs involved in the deal have said they realized the public option they negotiated was likely to change before it went to the floor.

Pelosi has also told her fellow leaders she still wants an income surtax on the wealthy, rather than a tax on "Cadillac" health plans, as a means to help pay the $1 trillion cost of the bill. The rest is to be made up with savings in Medicare by eliminating wasteful spending.

That will worry many members who led the charge against the surtax when it was rolled out.

Pelosi wants decisions on the public option and tax this week. She wants to produce a bill that will be a starting point for negotiations among the disparate and, at times, warring factions of the Democratic Caucus.

"The Speaker is committed to having a strong public option in the House bill because it is the best way to promote competition, control cost and keep the insurance companies honest," said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami. "The caucus continues to meet to discuss the legislation and its provisions."

Democrats are to discuss the public option at a caucus meeting Thursday. That discussion will include replacing the public option with nonprofit "cooperatives" that would compete with private insurers but would not be run by the government. A Senate Finance Committee bill has a similar provision.

The Blue Dogs chose the member who will present the co-op proposal.

Both the public option and cooperatives are intended to compete with private insurers in an attempt to drive down costs. Blue Dogs have also supported making the government-run plan a fallback option if other reforms in the bill don't lower healthcare costs.




Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/59839-pelosi-nixes-deal-with-blue-dogs-on-healthcare

Comments (108)

Well, Nancy, this will be the death knell for the Dems. Hope you enjoy that gavel for the next year, because if you push this through, it is going to be out of your hands next year - that is, if you have a job even. There have to be some other more moderal Dems in your district who could boot you out.BY BD on 09/22/2009 at 18:42
Ha! That's a good one. If a public option passes Congress, you can forget Republican rule for the next decade. Why do you think the GOP is blocking it at all costs? They know a win for Obama and the Democratic leadership is a big loss for them, so their goal is obstruction, period.BY torridjoe on 09/22/2009 at 19:18
Go Nancy! If you push this through, you will earn the undying gratitude of many progressives and bring many more to the fold. Then the marginalization of the GOP will be complete … mwahahahahaha!! !BY CD on 09/22/2009 at 19:23
Did she send them a stern letter?I liked the idea of removing the mortgage interest tax deduction to pay for it, and I further propose a tax on all the non-food stuffs that we Americans eat that sets up the degenerative diseases that make up 80% of the costs of treatments, like diabetes, heart disease, cancer,etc) Mind you the health care system is not health care it is disease management so the treatment usually does little to cure the disease, and much more to profit the insurance companies. The degenerative diseases are primarily caused by lifestyle choices, such as lack of exercise and ppoor food choices.BY stymie on 09/22/2009 at 19:23
Go Nancy!BY CB on 09/22/2009 at 19:24
BD — …except that health care reform is incredibly popular. Oh, and that Pelosi's district is in San Francisco, where a recent mayor's race was between a liberal democrat and a Green party canditate… and the Green candidate almost won. If Pelosi became more moderate, she'd be much more likely to lose her seat.BY JC on 09/22/2009 at 19:25
Our country has a lot of issues but the inability to read and interpret a simple paragraph is one of the most frightening. Can anyone explain to me why the nation's HMOs earned $6.7 billion in the first nine months of 2003, a 52 percent increase over the $4.4 billion reported in 2002 (according to Weiss Ratings, Inc)? HMO profits in California rose 46 percent in 2008, with nonprofit Blue Shield leading the pack, almost doubling its profit margin from the prior year (how does a nonprofit end up with major profits?). Let's examine the compensation of the CEO, COO, President and other Officers of these Health Insurers. Then you'll know why that "special procedure" you need cost too much but the Health Insurance Industry and the Republican party can pay for the disruptions at these so-called "Town Hall" meetings. America get a clue and quit being buffoons ( you're not even 'human' anymore you're just' consumers' and that's all you're good for … consuming and making more consumers, no abortions, it's bad for the economy ) You will die because you can't afford "Health Care" while the rest of the "Free World" and that dinky little country called Cuba, gets their health care without someone making a massive "profit" from their illness. It is a well known and established fact that the American population, on-average, taken as a whole, Reads, Writes, and Comprehends at an 8th Grade Level! Europe and Asia understand that fact as do our politicians and advertisers. The U.S., mentally, consist of a bunch of 14 year olds, how else do you explain the disconnect between the ECONOMY vis-a-vis 2000 and 2008, or the price of GAS vis-a-vis 2000 and 2008, or the EMPLOYMENT FIGURES vis-a-vis 2000 and 2008 or the U.S. DEBT vis-a-vis 2000 and 2008. Only adolescents are allowed to act this irresponsible and only adults can clean this mess up. But don't kid yourselves, it's going to take hard work and sacrafices by everyone. Those that have the most will have to sacrafice the most, otherwise we can call it a day and turn everything over to the Chinese. It's their turn anyway!BY Marcus on 09/22/2009 at 19:25
The Dems who got these concessions now say they won't vote for it anyway. Good for Pelosi. They broke their word, and they lost their concessions. The same should happen to the concessions Baucus made in the Senate to a bunch of Republicans who have made it clear they won't vote for anything, no matter what. You no play-a the the game, you no make-a the rules.BY ducdebrabant on 09/22/2009 at 19:26
"…an income surtax on the on the wealthy, rather than a tax on "Cadillac" health plans, as a means to help pay the $1 trillion cost of the bill…" So this is not a 'TAX' by BO's definintion and we will still be paying for someone else's healthcare… makes sense to me. Whatever, Nancy.BY MC on 09/22/2009 at 19:31
It's a common poker failure. You have bunch of chips in the pot, you know you are going to lose, but you throw everything in some sort of psychotic hope that it will lessen the loss of what you put in already.Thus it is with the democrats. They are facing epic obliteration at the polls in 2010, their strategists know it, yet they are determined to throw even more political capital into. They will end up betting and losing everything on this.BY anon on 09/22/2009 at 19:42

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.