THE HILL
 

Harkin: Health bill will have public option

By Jeffrey Young - 10/08/09 03:34 PM ET

The healthcare reform bill that hits the Senate floor will include a government-run public option insurance program, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) insisted Thursday.

Though the toughest decisions about combining the HELP Committee’s bill with a measure from the Finance Committee that lacks a public option lay in front of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Harkin made clear that public option supporters have earned the right to insist their views prevail.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) won a huge boost to his centrist approach to healthcare reform Wednesday when the Congressional Budget Office announced that his bill would actually reduce the budget deficit while extending coverage to 29 million people – and without a public option.

But Harkin showed that does not indicate he and his committee are willing to accept a diminished role in shaping the legislation that the Senate will consider later this month.

Noting that three House committees have also approved bills including a public option, Harkin maintained that supporters of the proposal should hold sway.

“Look, five committees have reported a bill out on healthcare. Four of them have a public option. One doesn’t. So you would think the weight would be on the side of having a public option in the bill – and that’s where it is,” Harkin said during an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, which is scheduled to air Sunday.

In the Senate alone, Harkin said the public option has at least 52 solid backers. “So why would we then sort of contemplate not having a public option? I think the burden is on those who are opposed to a public option to say why they should [not] have it when the majority of people and the majority of Democrats are in favor of that,” he said.

Even if Senate Democrats who support the public option are unable to secure commitments from fellow Democrats to back the proposal itself, Harkin predicted Democrats would unite when the moment of truth arrives to vote on passing the overall bill. “I mean, there’s a lot of things that Democrats really support in this bill,” he said.

Reid has just begun the process of hashing out how to reconcile the differences between the HELP Committee’s bill and the legislation on which the Finance Committee will vote next Tuesday. Reid supports the public option and has often predicted the Senate will pass a bill that includes the program.

Harkin also said this question would be settled very soon and that the White House would side with public option supporters. “I think in the next few days you’ll see that happen,” he said.

But the question of whether the bill that hits the Senate floor already includes the public option or whether supporters would have to add it through an amendment is critical, especially since Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) strenuously maintains that the public option cannot get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.

Thirty senators signed a letter Thursday, circulated by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. 

The senators’ letter expresses concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment.”

But centrist Democratic skepticism has been overplayed, Harkin suggested, and a bill with a public option could win the support of all 58 Democrats and both independents in the Senate. He acknowledged, however, that the public option in the HELP Committee bill would have to be modified.

“I believe there are 60 votes. I mean, you don’t know until you vote, do you? I mean, there is a lot of people who are sort of on the edge on this. It kind of depends on how it’s shaped and formed,” Harkin said.

“I’ve spoken with all of them about this and what I’ve detected is that there’s no real, hard line in the sand,” said Harkin, who would not name any of the Democrats he has lobbied but he described as “interesting” Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (Maine) proposal to establish as “trigger” that would activate the public option in states where insurers fail to meet coverage and affordability benchmarks.

And if the misgivings of centrist Democrats – such as Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) -- are not satisfied during the floor debate, Harkin said, they will face a choice between voting for legislation that includes a public option or killing the whole bill.

“It’s one thing to vote on a bill specifically dealing with something and then another thing to vote on a comprehensive bill that might include it,” Harkin said. “The bill should go forward and then when we get on the floor and there are amendments offered to change the public option or to modify it or to do away with it, well then they’re going to have to vote as they see fit.”

Watch streaming video of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on C-SPAN here.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/62311-harkin-senate-health-bill-will-have-public-option

Comments (29)

Senator Harkin, thank you for your continued battle to look out for the average American..the ones who've worked, who've paid taxes, and who are now getting fleeced by their insurance companies, year after year.The health insurance reform must contain a public option to force the health insurance companies to, in effect, "bargain" for people's premiums. There's never been a public option..and we've paid dearly for that. I have Farm Bureau Blue Cross and Blue Shield, one with low premiums..and even that's atrocious. Insurance companies need competition the same way that all other business (and yes, they are not non-profit..they're out for the last buck) compete. Now, there's no incentive to do anything other than continually raise rates and cut coverage. I pay about $518 monthly for BCBS—-and next year when I turn 60 it goes up by $100. That is an obscene amount to pay, especially when they hit Medicare with up-front costs, announce that "subrogation means they (BCBS) have met their share", usually $0, and then hit me up for my 20% copay.It's a really scary situation—I can't afford to be without health insurance (several autoimmune disorders, numerous illnesses, and high prescription costs). I'm scared to go on Medicare supplement because everything seems to be in flux right now…so I grit my teeth and decide what costs get cut so I can pay the insurance and other musts.Thanks for your hard work and dedication to this, and many other issues.Sincerely, Linda ThompsonBY Linda Thompson on 10/08/2009 at 17:56
I am so glad they aren't giving up on the public option. We have a small business in Florida and health insurance is really hurting us. We pay 50% of the employee only portion of the basic plan, and with 5 employees that comes to over $2,000 a month… the employees have to pay the rest which is about $4,000. The employees complain about their costs, but we just can't afford to pay any more than we already are. Our business has suffered quite a bit with the economy the way it is, and we have lost employees to larger companies in the past… it's hard to find and keep good employees, and health insurance is a benefit which many large companies can afford to provide, and we little guys just can't.BY Mary Roberts on 10/08/2009 at 18:50
With all due respect, Ms. Thompson - the cost you pay for private insurance is already significantly higher due to cost shifting by Medicare and Medicaid (which, by the way, is also running out of funds at a rapid rate). Why in the world would we want the Federal Government in control of MORE of the healthcare market than it already is? Most companies are self-insured, so the insurance companies are not at risk for this business. Companies are always looking for the best bargain for the premium dollar (at least, one would think that they are). Federal and state governments have regulated things to a point where there is not true competition across state lines for health insurance premiums, as they are for other types of insurance such as automobile insurance. Open up private competition by relaxing regulations - we don't need another large federal bureaucracy which will just cost us more money in the short run and the long run.BY Bob Reeves on 10/08/2009 at 19:01
Hey Linda - Don't take this wrong as I agree we need health care reform, but you say that you pay Blue Cross $518.00 per month and that is an obscene amount. Do they pay out more than $7,000.00 per year to your providers for your care? If so, then I would say that you are getting a bargain. If not, then I would say your premiums are probably high — for you.. That is the problem with insurance and determining eligibility. I am healthy and pay a lot more in premiums than my BCBS pays out for me, but my neighbor is not so healthy. He pays the same premium as I but they pay out a lot more for him. They actually lose money on him but make it up on me and those like me. I guess it is the concept of insurance you don't like. Since my BCBS is a non-profit (like many of them I understand) I can't compain about their "excessive" profits or salaries. Since Medicare pays out, on average, $26,000.00 per year per recipient (2006 CBO) I would have to say that the only way to fix the problem will be to ration care and — don't be fooled — that is exactly how the plan will be "revenue" positive in 10 years.BY Tom on 10/08/2009 at 19:12
I double dog dare the Democrats to pass the Public option against the will of their constituents who spoke plainly and loudly in August and said WE DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT TO HAVE ANY MORE INVOLVEMENT WITH OUR HEALTH CARE. The Dems will face an irate mob who will crawl over broken glass and go around (and through) ACORN and SEIU thugs to vote these losers OUT in 2010 and 2012. Bring it on DEMS, we WANT to chuck you OUT!!!BY danceswithtrees on 10/08/2009 at 19:56
It isn't the government's responsibility or job to provide healthcare for Americans. It wasn't really their job to provide Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Now we are looking at the bankruptcy and failure of all three of these programs within the next ten years. The government needs to stay out of our lives! They definitely need to provoke reform by utilizing tort reform and allowing "interstate commerce" as directed by the U.S. Constitution.BY Johnny on 10/08/2009 at 22:03
"I double dog dare the Democrats to pass the Public option against the will of their constituents " How in the world can you say this in light of poll after poll that shows that the majority of americans support the public option? See here:http://thefactofmyigno rance.com/politics/new-polls-on-the-public-option/For a few of them.BY Ryan on 10/09/2009 at 04:27
Public option means covering illegal immigrants! Judge Napolitano has stated this would come to pass based on the Constitution. I bet Obama knows this!http://www.stealthfusion.com/forum/white-house/4689-judge-napolitano-public-option-must-cover-illegals.html How much more money would that require to pay for it?BY Susan on 10/09/2009 at 08:52
Ms. Thompson I agree that Healthcare costs in the US need to be tackled. However, I really disagree that a public plan is the only way to do this. I have two children, the first was born in the UK, the second here in the US. In both cases we had insurance (supplemental to national coverage in the UK). While the doctors and nurses where fantastic, skilled professionals in both countries, the reality of government funded healthcare would be a huge shock to people here in the US. A public plan would not be more efficient. Private plans profits equate to just 4% of total US healthcare spend, or just 6 months of healthcare inflation. Removing these profits would not solve any problems, the Government can't afford it so the result would be less resources all round, under funded hospitals. Grim UK style healthcare. Have you ever examined what sort of care you would receive in the UK, for you autoimmune disorders?BY Larry on 10/09/2009 at 10:05
come on Harkin! if these obamacare bills were any good you would try them out first for two years on all government employees and union members! but no, you are trying to jam them down the throats of the hard working Americans! you are willing to steal $500 BILLION from seniors just to get what you want!Seniors can hardly wait for 2010 and 2012! anyone who thinks we aren't aware of what you are trying to do to us has another thing coming!come on…get a backbone and put these reforms on government and union workers! that's right!!!!!! i can't stand to watch you people in dc! remember the 9 12 march on dc! be ready for more!BY mindy on 10/09/2009 at 11:32

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.