THE HILL
 

Pelosi chooses healthcare bill with public option favored by centrists

By Jared Allen and Mike Soraghan - 10/28/09 06:36 PM ET

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to unveil a health overhaul bill Thursday that includes the public health insurance option favored by her party's centrists.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) will introduce a plan similar to what a group of Blue Dog Democrats negotiated in July to get a healthcare bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The proposal calls for the officials who run the public plan to negotiate rates individually with physicians and hospitals.

“It looks like that’s what it will be,” Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) said Wednesday night after leaving a meeting where leaders laid out the bill to those Democrats in their second term in Congress. Pelosi calls them the “majority makers” because their election gave Democrats control of the House.

Pelosi has made it clear she personally supports the so-called “robust” public option that is tied to Medicare-based payment rates, as does a solid majority of the 256 House Democrats. But it has become apparent in recent days that such an option doesn’t have the 218 votes she needs to pass it with no Republican support.

Liberals have noted that while it’s clear their version doesn't have the votes, there hasn’t been a full vote count on the centrist compromise. Winning with negotiated rates assumes that House liberals wouldn't dare block President Barack Obama's signature health initiative.

But on Wednesday, as defeat became apparent, liberals did not reiterate threats to defeat the bill if it included the negotiated rates in conference.

“I am not rolling over,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“I will insist on a Medicare-plus-5 [percent] amendment on the floor so that the full caucus can vote on it. We are hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow this amendment, which has tremendous public support, to be voted on for the record.”

They will also get a chance Thursday to press their case for a public option in the final bill to Obama in a White House meeting. Many liberals have been irritated by Obama's wavering on the necessity of a public option.

Asked if her caucus would be prepared to balk at supporting a public option with negotiated rates — a threat they made in writing at the beginning of July — Grijalva’s fellow co-chairwoman, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), said: “When we see what the bill says, we’ll decide if we can support it.”

Woolsey added that while Progressives don’t intend to sign off on just anything that’s handed to them, “this isn’t walk-away time."

The negotiated rates plan is estimated to cost about $85 billion more than the Medicare-based reimbursements. To cut the number of uninsured without surpassing the $900 billion limit set by Obama, the bill will expand eligibility for the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor. The bill will also include an income surtax on the wealthy to pay much of the cost of the plan.

Other issues, most notably a stalemate between abortion-rights supporters and opponents, remain to be resolved before a vote planned for next week, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker.

The public option has caused a bitter split between the party's liberal wing and its centrists. Pelosi has been caught in the middle, favoring a public option but not wanting to risk losing the healthcare overhaul with a risky vote.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus vehemently pushed the Medicare-based public option, saying it was the best and cheapest way to expand coverage and lower costs. Most of its members support a full single-payer plan, and felt they’d compromised enough with the “robust” option.

Many centrist and rural Democrats say hospitals and physicians in their districts are already underpaid by Medicare. Other centrist Democrats, along with Republicans, oppose the public option entirely, contending that it would put private insurers out of business.

There are 47 Democrats who oppose the “robust” public option, according to a whip survey that leaked Tuesday from a meeting between liberals and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

The survey also indicates that 20 members are “leaning yes,” 12 are “undecided” and eight are “leaning no.” That leaves 168 members, a clear majority of House Democrats, as yes votes.

Liberals have contended that Clyburn and other leaders gave in too easily. And the names on the list do raise questions. For example, Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) is listed as a no. But Altmire says he’s told leadership he's fine with a Medicare-based public option. He opposes the bill as it stands because of cost and because it includes an income surtax.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) is listed as “leaning no,” even though she and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) co-authored an op-ed earlier this month supporting the “robust” option. It was titled, “Why We're Breaking With the Blue Dogs on the Public Option.”

In July, 60 liberal lawmakers threatened to vote against the bill if it included the “negotiated rates” language, though some signers indicated privately that they wouldn't really vote to block the bill.

It wouldn’t take all 60 to defeat the bill. One whip count has shown that 23 mostly centrist Democrats intend to vote against the bill regardless, according to a lawmaker involved in the counting. That means that another 13 hard-line liberals voting against the bill could defeat it.


This story was posted at 3:08 p.m. and updated at 7:35 p.m.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65231-negotiated-rate-healthcare-bill-to-be-presented-to-house-dems-thursday

Comments (41)

Give it up.This is a train wreck.BY Doobs on 10/28/2009 at 15:37
How corrupt can the Democraps be?BY SPQR_US on 10/28/2009 at 15:44
Anyone who votes for the house version of the bill, should be made to take the very health care they would FORCE on US for Theirselves! That's precisely WHY the house republicans tried to pass HR 615 (which forces (should a public option pass) the government from the president on down to be on the same OPTION)). Of course that bill had NO democrat sponsors!BY debrarae on 10/28/2009 at 15:48
What a freaking LOAD !!! This is going to go waaay over budget…end up killing private insurance and be the nail in the coffin for our economy.They'll lie until the end..not allow a version for the public to read..having learning from last time what happens when they do.This will be the whateverthe$%@ bill they want to put through.The shame of it is that there are just a few groups of people..people who have 1-3 minimum wage jobs or have lost insurance through divorce who could be covered with a much smaller price tag.Also we would not be footing the bill for yet more illigal alien health care.Poor people and poor black people specifically,ne ed to understand that this bill is not for them..the benefit goes for the illegal alien and leaves them standing in a long line.Why can't we just adress the actual citizen groups at risk,offering "catastrophic" back up insurance to those who don't wish to purchase the usual and avoid the socialized medicine trap.BY sydney on 10/28/2009 at 15:54
Nancy!!! That necklace needs to go, plz..BY jewelrycritic on 10/28/2009 at 16:02
If you have to try so hard to get something done against public opinion, doesn't it stand to reason that you are fighting a very unpopular cause? Why fight We the People so ardently all the time?BY doreme on 10/28/2009 at 16:09
This bill will now feature a useless Public Option that will enroll NO customers, due to the implicit higher premiums it must charge. But it will cost taxpayers many billions of dollars a year to maintain, just like all big government programs. It should be jettisoned from the Bill all-together at this point.BY NoMoreTaxes on 10/28/2009 at 16:27
Well, I was just notified that my health insurance company is opting out of individule and small group healthcare plans. Way to go you idiot dem's.BY PL on 10/28/2009 at 16:36
What an affront to our intelligence; Red, White and Blue should not be allowed to be a part of her fashion statements. A tad on the hypocritical side.BY jadedfellow on 10/28/2009 at 16:42
As a dual citizen and one that has experienced so-called "socialized medicine" in the UK I can assure you worry warts that there is nothing to be afraid of, particularly as the version likely to emerge will be pretty weak.I can also assure you that private insurance is alive and well in the UK, even after 62 years of the National Health System. When that was brought in in 1947, the usual suspects (doctors, insurance companies etc.) fought it, but now, if any political party threatened to get rid of it they wouldn't have a chance at being elected.BY Jeremy on 10/28/2009 at 16:47

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.