THE HILL
 

Leading Blue Dog suggests opening Medicare to uninsured

By Mike Soraghan - 10/15/09 01:08 PM ET

First he was for it. Then he was against it. Now Rep. Mike Ross is back on board with a government-run healthcare plan. Sort of.

Ross (D-Ark.), who had emerged as a leader among centrist Blue Dog Democrats opposing the public health insurance option, has suggested something his colleagues consider even more drastic – opening Medicare to those under 65 without insurance.

He made the suggestion in meetings with House Democratic leaders and brought the idea to the closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting Thursday.

"I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice," Ross said in a statement to The Hill.

Medicare would then compete with private insurers across the age spectrum. It would be open to those who don't have insurance through their employers, the same people who would be covered by the public option already under discussion.

But Ross said he would want reimbursement for providers to be at a "much greater rate" than it is now. Medicare reimbursement rates have been a sore point for rural lawmakers who feel that Medicare shortchanges their hospitals.

His statement went on to say that he does "not support a government-run public option" and he does "not endorse this idea" of opening up Medicare. He said he is looking for solutions in the healthcare debate.

The hostility directed at Medicare by rural, centrist, Blue Dog lawmakers is what makes Ross's Medicare suggestion so surprising. He is all three – a rural, centrist Blue Dog. Indeed he is a former co-chairman of the coalition, and is the leader of the Blue Dogs' Health Care Task Force.

Ross's fellow Blue Dogs distanced themselves from the Medicare idea, but handled the question gingerly.

"There has never been a discussion about that among the Blue Dogs," said Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), the Blue Dogs' new co-chairman for communications.

And a leading liberal in the healthcare debate suggested the idea might be too liberal for most Democratic lawmakers, because it sounds like a "single-payer" concept, which Democratic leaders have rejected.

"The idea of a public option was to provide competition, but opening up Medicare would be the precursor to single-payer," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). "This may be an issue of semantics, but it would be very difficult to implement."

But Waxman and others said the idea arose from many voters being spooked that a public option would be a "government takeover." Medicare, however, is a popular program that people know and like.

"Why have this huge, divisive fight trying to pass a public option when you could pretty much do the same thing if you just added Medicare to the list of options in the exchange?" said a Democratic aide. "And the fight would be way less controversial."

Still, Ross has been seen as a skeptic or opponent of the public option since he led a group of seven centrist Blue Dogs who blocked consideration of the health bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, in part because of their dislike of a public option.

Talks with Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) produced the "negotiated rates" compromise. Ross signed on with three other Blue Dogs, and the committee voted on the bill in late July.

But Ross returned from the stormy August recess and reversed his position, saying he could not support any kind of public option.

Since then, Ross has taken heat from liberals who believe he's selling out to the healthcare industry, and conservatives who say he caved in to Waxman and Pelosi.

His prominence also brought scrutiny to his 2007 sale of his family pharmacy. And the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has requested a Justice Department investigation into the sale after news reports indicated that a large healthcare company may have paid him more than it is worth.

Some colleagues suggested that the political heat may have pushed Ross to change position. But Ross said he hasn't changed his position, he is just proposing alternatives to keep the process moving.

"Let me be clear," Ross said in his statement, "I do not endorse this idea, as it was just one of many ideas we, as legislators, have brought up and discussed in the numerous, ongoing negotiations and discussions we have had on healthcare reform over the past several months."

This story was updated at 5:40 p.m.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63281-leading-blue-dog-suggests-opening-medicare-to-all

Comments (231)

finally a plan that makes senses without creating another bureaucracyBY ted409 on 10/15/2009 at 14:49
No Blue Dog except a Pelosi lap dog would make stupid, idiotic suggestions like that…vote them ALL out of office - save this nation in 2010.BY Momof4 on 10/15/2009 at 14:50
Medicare is bankrupt, like most all government programs. I wonder what he proposed to solve that problem?BY Rick on 10/15/2009 at 14:50
How does this make any sense at all. Doctors and hospitals are shying away from Medicare/Medicaid patients as it is because it takes so long to get paid and they get paid less than regular insurance. So it's already a freaking loser.And if anyone is in their 20s, 30s, and think they will ever see Social Security, Medicaid… HAHA Don't know about you but I'd much rather have the hundred thousand dollars or more the Government has already stolen from my over my lifetime. Taxes are pathetic, can't wait til these geniuses try and "fix" healthcare. Talk about epic fail.BY SubjectoftheUSSA on 10/15/2009 at 14:55
Makes sense. It's already established - can cover everyone and save cost. Cut out the middle man! There you have it.BY Jedi Rock on 10/15/2009 at 14:55
If everyone had Medicare, how would those not now covered pay for their share? Surely they couldn't just get it without paying for it. It wouldn't be fair for other taxpayers to foot the bill. I need to be enlightened about this idea.BY Kathryn Scharf on 10/15/2009 at 14:56
As someone who worked for the same company for 11 years and got laid off because the company couldn't afford the healthcare costs in california so they laid off all California employees the govt needs to have some sorta public option. Cobra isn't forever…BY DO something on 10/15/2009 at 14:56
How does this make sense? I and my employer already pay a few thousand per year in Medicare taxes. How much more will working people and employers have to pay to open up Medicare to tens of millions of other people? How much more will it cost before working people figure out that they will be paying less money (initially, since no one has of yet said how much Medicare taxes will go up) by dropping their private plans since they will be paying double? And what about non—payroll tax paying illegal immigrants (something which has yet to be sufficiently addressed)? There is little rational about the whole healthcare issue. A friend and I just went to Victoria, BC for a few days. Other than observing an ambulance strike by paramedics, we didn't experience their system. Yet my friend got back and was talking to someone and said, "we were just in Canada, and I think a single payer system might make sense for us." Excuse me? Based upon what observations??BY Victor on 10/15/2009 at 14:56
It doesnt make sense, because medicare is going broke. The only reason Private insurers are not going broke is because as health care needs increase they raise thier premiums. What people dont get is healthcare is not free or cheap. The more healthcare you need the more expensive it is. The only way to control health care costs is to reduce payouts which mean doctors will make less (not a good option considering you want the best and brightest to become doctors) or to ration care.BY David Adler on 10/15/2009 at 14:57
Medicare is already costing more than is taken in and will be broke in a few years…why not add everybody. I guess someone will do what needs to be done when it finally goes broke.They need to raise the retirement age enough to reduce people that get Medicare so it will be solvent again but apparently nobody up there is smart enough to think about a solvent program.BY Mike on 10/15/2009 at 14:57

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.