House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public option isn't quite what President Obama originally stumped for, but he congratulated the Speaker on including one in the House health care package she unveiled today at the Capitol--and on keeping the bill deficit neutral as she did it.
From his statement on the bill, released this morning by the White House:
The House legislation includes critical reforms to the insurance industry, so that Americans will no longer have to worry that they will be denied coverage, or that their coverage will be dropped or watered down when they need it most. I'm also pleased that the bill includes a public option offered in an exchange. As I've said throughout this process, a public option that competes with private insurers is the best way to ensure choice and competition that are so badly needed in today's market. And the House bill clearly meets two of the fundamental criteria I have set out: it is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term.Obama has long pushed for a so-called "robust" public option, and Speaker Pelosi's public option isn't one. Her bill includes a compromise version that, instead of using Medicare reimbursement rates, lets doctors and hospitals negotiate the rates they'll receive from the government-run insurance plan.
While we know there will may more steps and much spirited debate before a bill reaches my desk, I congratulate the House on their work so far, and I'm confident that members will continue to work together to deliver meaningful reform for America's families and businesses.
But Pelosi's inclusion of a compromise public option is a step toward eventually passing one, in some form or another. And, more importantly, it's deficit-neutral: that label gave the Senate Finance Committee's bill a big boost among moderates, and by creating a public option that can carry the deficit-neutral tag, Pelosi has advanced the public-option cause, even if her version isn't as strong as liberals wanted it to be.
(Obama, it should be noted, has long held his own preferences to be flexible, not imposing a robust public option on Congress but instead emphasizing the ends--expanding coverage and reducing costs--over the means.)
Now, with Pelosi's public option and with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan to let states opt out of a government-run insurance plan, compromise proposals now exist that place the public option within the zones of fiscal and political acceptability--and that's something Obama can be happy about.
And it's something that we should be scared about. What happens after the tenth year? You know, that year that the 6 years of expenses catch up to the 10 years of taxes. In year 11 anyone and everyone needs to be aware that it's time to pay the piper in no uncertain terms. Taxes will increase by 40% or more to cover the jump in costs over the income received to date.
And what's to say that Congress, the money grubbing folks they seem to always be, can keep their paws off the revenues from the additional taxes till the expenses come due.
Let's just pray that someone with a brain bothers to read the nearly 2000 pages of the bill.
Well, it can't be any worse than my 10th year of the current system--after buying into a "free market" program set up on a GOP administration, my self-employed health insurance now costs $7,600 a year for the privilege of having a $2,700 deductible & severely limits coverage & doctor choice & last week I got the letter the HMO will cancel the coverage in April, unless I submit to an exam for pre-existing conditions, where I can buy a new policy costing over $8,300 with less coverage and $3,000+ deductible.
(& several of my self-employed friends have received similar letters...)
I could do the GOP thing & seek a competing insurer but thanks to the 10th amendment & the need to have 50 state insurance commissioners (& DC) only two other companies over any kind of coverage for me & they have roughly the same costs & crappy coverage.
The public option ain't perfect & will cause other problems but it is the only option out there that will provide some competition across state lines & force insurers to do something about their high-priced, no service policies, so bring it on
Agreed, seems to me that we’ve done this dance before – ten years of new taxes, fines and fees to finance six or seven years of new spending so that the creators of a new program can pretend that it’s deficit neutral/reduces the deficit.
Thanks but more likely than not, I’ll still be paying taxes long after Obama has left office and this latest fiscal time bomb explodes, so I’m going to ask to pass on this one.
I do not think Obama "has long pushed for a public option". The only thing he mentioned during the campaign was healthcare with a "public plan with an insurance exchange like Congress has." Then in the spring, he started stumping for health care and he went to a public option w/exchange. He may have said it to progressives alone. There are so many types of public option I have heard about in the past few months. He should have stuck with "public plan." I think most people would like an exchange like that. There are 10 insurance companies and most have a standard plan, high option plan, medicare supplemental plans, and a high deductible plan. So it would basically be 30-40 choices of different prices and companies. I don't know why just an exchange would not be enough.
When has Obama EVER "pushed for a 'so-called' robust public option"?
He hasn't. He has advocated a public option generically, but has not defined the details of how it should work.
To Paul in Athens: The CBO says the bill continues to reduce the deficit after the ten-year window. So your concerns are unfounded.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf
If Obama supports this monstrosity, he's not the person I thought he was.