THE HILL
 

Reid endorses healthcare co-ops as Speaker Pelosi signals flexibility

By Alexander Bolton, Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young - 09/11/09 05:25 AM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorsed the concept of health insurance cooperatives Thursday, siding with centrists in the House and Senate who want healthcare reform but oppose a public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also hinted she could accept that approach a day after President Barack Obama delivered an address to a joint session of Congress that offered encouraging words for both centrists and liberal Democrats who have demanded a public insurance option

Reid told reporters that healthcare cooperatives could be as effective as a government insurance plan in fostering competition and reining in costs.

“The purpose of a public option is to create competition, which is so important, and to create quality healthcare,” Reid said at a press conference. “If we can come up with a concept of a cooperative that does just that — that is, it makes more competition and makes insurance companies honest — yes, I think that would fit the bill.”

Like Obama and Pelosi, Reid has said that he personally favors setting up a government insurance program.

Obama, who met with Reid and Pelosi on Thursday, had struck a similar chord in his address, calling the public option “a means to that end” and adding, “we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.”

This prompted Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to say Thursday that Obama’s speech could help him win bipartisan support for the legislation he’s toiled on for months.

“The president’s speech kind of breathed new life into what we’re doing,” Baucus said. “It’s basically our plan.”

Baucus noted that the policies Obama outlined closely match the proposal Baucus presented to his bipartisan group last weekend, which will be the basis of a bill he will introduce next week and mark up in the committee the following week.

In his speech, Obama adopted the $900 billion price tag of Baucus’s proposal rather than the $1 trillion-plus cost estimated for other healthcare bills pending in the House and Senate. Obama also reiterated his support for the creation of an independent panel to set Medicare payment policy, which Baucus has included in his proposal.

Centrist Democrats in the House saw much of the same.

“It was mostly in tune with the Senate Finance Committee,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a veteran Blue Dog Democrat. “The public option was very circumscribed.”

Many centrist Democrats have long believed that regional co-ops were the more preferable “other idea” — a stance that has infuriated liberals.

Though Baucus’s bill will not include a public option, many Democrats believe Obama left them enough of an opening to advance two specific compromises concocted by senators negotiating with Baucus — Sen. Kent Conrad’s (D-N.D.) proposal creating federally chartered, not-for-profit, member-owned healthcare cooperatives that would compete with traditional insurers, and Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-Maine) public option “trigger” that would only be pulled if private insurers fail to enroll enough people under reform.

And in a scenario that was difficult to imagine a month ago, House leaders, including Pelosi, reacted to the new momentum behind co-ops and the Baucus bill not with further disdain, but with open arms.

“From what we’ve heard of it, there are many good things that are consistent with what we have in our bills and some things where there are areas of disagreement … I don’t want to say disagreements, they’re just different proposals, and we’ll see how we resolve the different pieces of legislation,”

Pelosi told reporters Thursday at her weekly press conference.

Pelosi reiterated her preference for a public option, but indicated a new willingness to follow another direction.

“This is about a goal. It’s not about provisions,” she said. “As long as our goal of affordability and accessibility and quality, meeting the four — which you don’t want me to repeat again — goals that we have in the legislation, then we will go forward with that bill.”

But Reid’s definitive support of co-ops as a way to achieve the president’s dual goals of increased competition and lower costs paves the way for a bill containing such a proposal to shape the debate going forward.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said that even though the process of merging three House bills together into one package could be completed before the Senate Finance Committee starts marking up its bill Sept. 21, there was a growing sense that the Senate will end up influencing how the House proceeds.

Asked if the House would wait for the Senate to produce a bill before voting, Rangel said, “I think that would make a hell of a lot of sense.”

House liberals, though, remain something of a wildcard.

They walked away from Obama’s speech believing that the president had stood in defense of the public option by stating that it was his preferred choice as well.

Immediately after Obama’s speech and throughout most of the day on Thursday, liberals largely praised Obama’s reaffirmed commitment to a public option and joined him and many of their leaders in getting beyond what the various provisions are called and moving toward accepting any formula that met Obama’s “means to an end” criterion.

“I’m not going to quibble over what something is called,” Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), one of the leaders of the Progressive Caucus, told The Hill on Wednesday night. “I’m going to quibble over whether or not something leads to quality, affordable coverage for every American.”

But by Thursday night, that openness seemed to be morphing back into the same concern liberals had after their leaders cut a late-July deal with conservative Blue Dog Democrats to advance a healthcare bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which watered down the public option too much for their taste.

After holding a public option “special hour” on the House floor on Thursday, the Progressive Caucus requested a meeting with Obama to further clarify his position on the public option.

“We look forward to meeting with you regarding your support for defining the public option in any final healthcare reform bill and request that the meeting take place as soon as possible,” said the letter sent by Woolsey and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the co-chairmen of the Progressive Caucus.
 
Jeffrey Young contributed to this article.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58275-sen-reid-endorses-co-ops

Comments (13)

Sen. Reid is not the brightest star in the heavens. God knows he should not be leading the senate!BY elaine on 09/11/2009 at 08:59
reid we don't believe you. You lied on the Rusty Humprheries Show and you reid can not be trusted with our grand childrens future.Go back to Seachlight Reid.BY jake2 on 09/11/2009 at 10:00
Ok…it really does not matter if my Senator accepts co-ops.The truth does matter however. There are 1,300 insurance companies in the US. Only 5-6 major choices per state.Please explain why the Government putting their fingers in the pie vs. just allowing inter-state competition better?Hmmm…6-7 insurance companies vs. 1,300. How STUPID does Senator Reid think Nevadans are?BY Bindy on 09/11/2009 at 10:37
Regional co-ops cannot compete with national insurance companies and would be a waste of money. A national co-op could work.A national exchange, established immediately, would save Americans a tremendous amount on money that could be spent on other things to benefit the economy. As an example, my rate under the federal employees benefit exchange would be $800. per month less than I'm paying now. An exchange shouldn't cost the government much of anything.BY andreams on 09/11/2009 at 11:02
Regional co-ops cannot compete with national insurance companies and would be a waste of money. A national co-op could work.A national exchange, established immediately, would save Americans a tremendous amount on money that could be spent on other things to benefit the economy. As an example, my rate under the federal employees benefit exchange would be $800. per month less than I'm paying now. An exchange shouldn't cost the government much of anything.BY andreams on 09/11/2009 at 11:02
Liberals, independents and conservatives beware. The Nightmare That Is The Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Proposal.If you want government backed insurance cartels, then this is the bill for you. If not, then fight this bill. This compromise is bad for the country and a sell-out.BY GJMerits on 09/11/2009 at 12:48
Just called Reid's office, which said this article is incorrect, that he said a co-op has to meet the standards of the public option - if it does, he will support it; if it doesn't, he will not support it. I'm tired of being jerked around by the media, just as much as I'm tired of being jerked around by politicians. You got your "hit" on this website w/this headline, now I'm disgusted and won't come back to it for a long, long time - if ever. Hard to decide who's the bigger prostitute, "reporters" or politicians. We can't rely on either anymore.BY Virginia on 09/11/2009 at 17:22
Why are the Democrats so intent on undermining and ultimately destroying Medicare, Social Security and Private Health Care Insurance that millions of people like and are so dependent on?The Democrats' Trillion dollar Health Care Reform Plan will raise an already unsustainable deficit even higher. To say otherwise is not being honest. Higher deficits will further undermine Medicare and Social Security making their coming bankruptcy even more imminent. Once the baby boomers turn 65 there will be a 30% increase in Medicare enrollment. Thus, a 500 billion dollar cut to the Medicare budget will drive another stake into Medicare's heart. Moreover, according to the Democrats, due to all the fraud and waste in Medicare, 500 billion can be cut from Medicare without any cuts to services. Which makes a sane person ask why the government has neglected for so many years to rid the system of all this waste and fraud? Answer, because the reality is the inevitable outcome of a 500 billion dollar cut to Medicare are severe cuts to services for Seniors, with little if any abatement to waste and fraud and the Seniors know it. Ditto for the similar government run public option which will be subject to similar drastic cuts at the whim of the President and Congress. So now that the Democrats have succeeded in gutting the heart out of Medicare and Social Security their knife now goes to the private insurance companies. Never mind 80% of he people are very happy with their private insurance plans. So in order to sell their plan of a government take over of health care to the people, politicians must lie by telling the people they can keep their private insurance if they like them. The truth is, private insurance cannot compete with a government run tax paid for public option that can regulate private insurance out of business and under cut their prices. As a result, Companies will drop millions of people off of their private insurance plans and force their employees on the public option and the politicians know it. The regrettable truth is government has proven time and time again that they are an incompetent manager of the peoples money and never keep any of their promises. Despite these facts, the greed for more power and more and more of the peoples money persists and grows like a cancer in their pursuit of a government take over of health care.In conclusion, the representatives that vote for the Democrats' Health Care Reform Bill will be voted out of office. This is a given as more and more people see the truth and realize that the ultimate outcome of Health Care Reform will be, higher deficits, higher taxes and fees and the ultimate destruction of Medicare, Social Security and Private Insurance which the majority of people like and are dependent on.BY james on 09/11/2009 at 17:47
The opposition to Health Care Reform has nothing to do with "selfishness" The reason for so much opposition to government run health care reform is that it is sad but true that government has a long track record of waste and fraud in most all of their government run programs. Even President Obama thinks there is so much waste and fraud in Medicare that 500 billion can be cut from it without any cuts to services. Of course, no one believes this and the Dems know there will be severe cuts to services to Seniors as a result of these enormous cuts to the Medicare budget. The regrettable truth is government has proven time and time again that they are an incompetent manager of the peoples money and never keep any of their promises. Think about it, by racking up record breaking deficits, the Dems are undermining the very existence of Social Security and Medicare which government promised they would keep afloat at all costs. Despite these facts, the greed for more power and more and more of the peoples money persists and grows like a cancer in their pursuit of a government take over of health care. If government is so cavalier about making enormous cuts to Medicare which will result in severe cuts to services for Seniors, think what will happen to a Single Payer government run system when the money runs out. Bureaucrats, union workers and corporate special interest groups will be first in line to get what money is left over the rest of us will be pounding sand waiting for that heart surgery we need to save our lives. No wonder there is so much talk about "death panels."BY Mary on 09/11/2009 at 18:43
let's see…12 points behind in the polls and all of a sudden he is a "centrist"! Conclusion…another 12 points would make him a co-host of Limbaugh's. I am sending money to Tarkanian's campaign.BY TomC12 on 09/12/2009 at 08:03

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.