Dodd Unveils Public Option, Says It Lowers Price Tag
by Christine Stuart | July 2, 2009 2:35 PM
Posted to Congress
| Health Care
When two key Democrats first released the 615-page US Senate bill to reform health care in this country they failed to describe what they meant by a ‘public option.’ The incomplete proposal carried a roughly $1 trillion price tag.
But U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd said Thursday in a conference call with reporters that the new language creates a “strong” public option that will cost about $611.4 billion over 10 years—not the roughly $1 trillion originally estimated.
In this letter to members of the Congressional Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Dodd and US Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts detail the government-run public option and the fees it would charge employers who do not provide coverage for their employees.
“We are on the cusp or brink of doing something here that is absolutely critical,” Dodd said Thursday. “The present situation is unsustainable. The status quo is unacceptable. The American public believes a public option is in their best interest and we intend to give them that public option.”
The revised and far less costly health care plan would be a national plan administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will negotiate rates and premiums. And Dodd was quick to point out that participation in the public government-run option would be voluntary.
Also any business with more than 25 employees would be subject to a fee of $750 per full-time employee and $375 per part-time employee, if it failed to offer health insurance to its employees.
“The completed bill virtually eliminates the dropping of currently covered employees from employer-sponsored health plans,” Dodd and Kennedy wrote in their letter. “In addition, our bill, combined with the work being done by our colleagues in the Finance Committee, will dramatically reduce the number of uninsured - fully 97 percent of Americans will have coverage, a major achievement.”
The public option has been endorsed by all 13 Democrats on the HELP Committee, which is one of the two committees working on the bill. The HELP Committee will have to combine its legislation with legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. Dodd said he hopes to have that work completed by the end of July, so a vote can be taken in the fall
Earlier this week U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman said he considers a government-run public option a stumbling block to passing a reform package to cover millions of uninsured Americans and lower health care costs — something he said he’s working hard to do along with a coalition of Republican and centrist Democratic senators.
“If we create a public option, the public is going to end up paying for it,” Lieberman said Tuesday. “That’s a cost we can’t take on.”
The government-run public option debate will need to be worked out over the coming weeks, but Dodd said Thursday that there’s still room for bipartisan agreement.
“I know the public option is a controversial item,” Dodd said. “But it’s very American to have options.”
Dodd and Lieberman will just have to agree to disagree at the moment.
Dodd said the public option, will be just one of the many options available to consumers in the health insurance market.
It will not be a subsidized plan, Dodd said. It may need some public money at the beginning, but over time it will be able to sustain itself on the premiums it collects.
Without a public option “you’re going to see health care costs, rise, and rise,” Dodd said.
While aiming for a bipartisan agreement, Dodd didn’t rule out using a Senate rule, which would allow the Democrats to push through a bill without the support of Republicans.
The budget reconciliation vote, which the Senate is allowed to use once, means a bill only has to pass with 51 votes, instead of the 60-vote supermajority normally required to avoid a filibuster.
“That would make this far more difficult to pass because instead of being a 10 year bill it would be a five-year bill,” Dodd said. “Saving costs in five years would be almost impossible. So I prefer we didn’t go the reconciliation route, but we could upon analysis to get a bill done.”
Comments (9)
Posted by: John | July 2, 2009 2:00 PM
At least we have one senator who serious about reforming this health insurance mess.
Posted by: Martha H. | July 2, 2009 2:28 PM
Senator Dodd,
For a "strong" public option to be "strong," "public," and a "plan," it must be:
1) Open to everyone, always (regardless of pre-existing conditions, age, or anything else)
2) It must be affordable for all; and
3) Coverage must be compressive and care must be high quality
I don't see any of these issues addressed (beyond rhetoric) in your letter.
Are the details elsewhere??
Thanks.
Posted by: jacksmith | July 2, 2009 8:03 PM
AMERICA'S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It's official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don't even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He's doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith - WORKING CLASS
Posted by: Jennifer Just | July 3, 2009 9:55 AM
The bill can be read online here:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=7093926
Posted by: Martha H. | July 3, 2009 8:39 PM
Jennifer Just,
Thanks -
It's over 600 pages long (and is still described as "incomplete").
Can you direct us to a summary of the bill's key features?
Thanks!
Posted by: Jim | July 5, 2009 8:42 PM
Jacksmith,
Well said and perfectly correct.
It seems poll numbers back up the progressive dems claim to have a mandate for a public option.
It isn't single payer but will finally be a HUGE step to take the insurance companies fingers off our throats.
Posted by: cba | July 7, 2009 1:15 PM
More pork from King Bacon
Posted by: duesa | July 21, 2009 8:08 PM
Holy cow. Spam comment 31 almost sounds halfway logical until you read the parts where it says, "Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans,"
and, "If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He's doing a brilliant job."
Don't give up your guns, and do not vote for a government-run = government-OWNED healthcare program. Socialism is one step closer to communism, and the "common good" is a big, fuggin lie.
Posted by: salte | July 21, 2009 10:57 PM
I don't get the hostility toward the public option.
You're buying insurance, you just get a choice of who to buy it from, the g'ment or a private company, or even both, like medicare supplements.
It's like sending a package- you can mail it from the u.s. post office, or you can choose UPS or fedex.
No one is telling you or your doctor what to do, the g'ment doesn't manage care, it just offers health insurance.