Daschle Folds on Federal Public Health Care Plan
ABC News' Elizabeth Gorman reports:
In an attempt at bipartisanship, three former majority leaders of the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole, offered their solution today to the biggest obstacle to achieving health care reform — a public option.
"While I feel very strongly that consumers should have the choice of a national, Medicare-like plan, my colleagues do not. . . But we were concerned that the ongoing health reform debate is beginning to show signs of fracture on the public plan issue, so in order to advance the process of developing bipartisan legislation and to move it forward, it's time to find consensus here," Daschle said.
"We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreements on one single issue," he said.
In a blow to President Obama and many of his Democratic allies in the health care fight, the plan recommends that there be no federal public option, but rather state or regional public-sponsored networks that would compete with private health plans, according to the summary released today by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
"If you want to stop this thing dead in its tracks, or dead on arrival, in my view you put the public plan in it," Dole said when asked whether there were any non-negotiables to deal with when drafting the bipartisan recommendations.
"I had a lot of trouble with [individual] mandates just as Tom had trouble with the public plan. … But if we can't compromise, how do we expect anyone else, how are we going to get a bill passed," Dole said. "We weren't going let two or three issues derail our total effort."
The White House praised the Bipartisan Policy Center’s approach in a statement that continues to touch on only the broadest of goals.
"This group of extraordinarily experienced legislators agree with the President that health reform must be enacted this year because the status quo — skyrocketing health care costs, rising premiums, swelling deficits – is unsustainable," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
"With this report, they have demonstrated what can be achieved with bipartisan effort. The Bipartisan Policy Center has produced a significant report, and the White House applauds their efforts," added Gibbs.
Both Dole and Daschle agreed that for health care reform to truly be considered bipartisan there would be at least 20 Republican votes needed.
"My colleagues and I believe this modest compromise could bring about a bridge that any riffs in the debate might otherwise generate," Daschle said. "I believe there will be a compromise on the public plan option in the very near future – if not our approach, then it will be one of the other proposals already being considerd as they circulate."
The bipartisan plan, which Dole said is totally cost neutral, taxes medical benefits of premiums exceeding $15,000 annually. As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama opposed any such taxing of health care benefits.
"Someone has to give; better everyone puts in the pot," he said.
Last Monday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Sen. Kennedy's health care proposal at $1.3 trillion over ten years.
UPDATE: After much attention was paid to Sen. Daschle's comments, the former majority leader spoke with the Washington Post's Ezra Klein about his personal continued commitment to a public option and his willingness to compromise to get health care reform across the finish line.
Email
White House Blinks Amid Catholic Church Anger?
Navy SEAL Commander Advised: Get the Hell Out of the Media
BS. I want a public option! Republicans and bought dems know it won’t destroy the private industry, they’re just scared that their cronies there won’t make as much and so won’t have as much money to fill their campaign coffers.
Posted by: shame | June 17, 2009, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm
Why am I not surprised? Because, unfortunately, I’ve been waiting for the democrats to back down and settle for almost nothing. I wonder if they realize that they’re reinforcing the GOP image of them as wishy-washy do nothings for a lot of people?
Posted by: jan | June 17, 2009, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
daschle has seen the light.not your typical handout seeker.
Posted by: catman | June 17, 2009, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
Let’s get past the deception by the democrats, that it’s possible to add 47 million people to health insurance with an MAJOR increase in total health costs. Do the math. The question that needs to be addresses is simple, is the primary goal to insure the 47 million or is it to decrease the cost of healthcare? It’s one or the other…
Posted by: DoctorBID | June 17, 2009, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Another loss for barry :))
public option was a disaster anyway!!
Posted by: Duh | June 17, 2009, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm
I don’t get it. How is a state or regionally covered public plan different than the Big Government public plan, except that the states and regions don’t have the Big Printing Press to outlast the private plans. Nevertheless, a cheap government plan (whether it’s federal or local) will drive out of business a more expensive private plan (with all its options), when enough human resource departments see that the govt.one is cheaper for them. Except, that when the government is involved, it is not really a free market in the end.
Posted by: djtx | June 18, 2009, 1:20 am 1:20 am
DoctorBID: Is not about either. This is about making health care more affordable for many people. The 47 million uninsured are just some of the casualties of a bad system.
It wouldn’t be about insuring 47 million people anyway. Probably 30 million could pay their way if the government got the insurers to do away with medical underwriting for illness, etc. Most of the uninsured have been forced out of the insurance market.
As far as lowering costs, its probably impossible overall. Unless you want to stop medical progress and freeze it at 2009, newer more expensive things will come their way. Until we develop as a species into a far more morally acceptable group, we are not going to be pulling the plug on each other because of costs.
A public option would never have made it anyway. It would have cost too much at a time when we can afford nothing. There is always room for adding it later, if and when we can afford it. I don’t like the idea of taking money from the already crappy Medicare and Medicaid, but it seems that Obama will do anything to win votes – and he considers the elderly and poor apparently dispensable.
Posted by: Jon F | June 18, 2009, 4:10 am 4:10 am
Well Mr & Mrs America, what do you expect from lobbist? That’s what Mr. Daschle has been over these last years, I am sure the health industry has paid him thousands. No worry, the Democratic Congress is still in control, and people like Bernie Sanders won’t be bought! Healthcare, and profit, cannot co-exist! CEO’s making millions, Doctors having to settle for whatever, while private insurance raise the Doctors and Drug Companies expectations, because they can charge your for it will soon come to the end. If the healthcare industry would have made changes earlier, to their cherry picking, and the Drug Companies to their charging Americans for their losses elsewhere, the change that is sure to come, would not have been necessary. But then, GREED would not be part of the picture.
Posted by: D B Workman Sr | June 18, 2009, 4:32 am 4:32 am
Typical Washington politics. The dems will take credit for passing a healthcare bill, while the GOP will make sure it’s so watered down it’s virtually worthless. Everybody wins except the American people who either have no health care or are struggling to pay for ever more expensive private policies that cover less and less every year.
Posted by: Patrick | June 18, 2009, 5:09 am 5:09 am
I really don’t understand why people are calling this a total loss. While some people may have wanted a “public option”, this doesn’t mean that there will be no reform.
I have one of the expensive private policies that cost me about 50% of my income after taxes. That’s just for the insurance. Its crappy and I pay lots out of pocket as well. But I am now hopeful that the government will now regulate these insurers and prevent the practice of discrimination by medical underwriting. This is why many of our policies cost so much.
The public option was scrapped because no one could find a way to pay for it. Since America is more than broke, I am not surprised. I don’t think that many of us would like the enormous price tag on increased taxes, etc – that would have been inevitable. Any other method of raising revenue would surely have put us into a deeper recessionary spiral.
This does not mean, however, that significant regulation of these people can’t be achieved. There are also extensive provisions for generous government subsidies for those who cannot still afford a policy.
If you want to blame someone, blame President Obama for committing all our financial resources and then some before this issue was discussed in Congress. We have been given this option because we have been deemed to be less important the alternative fuels and pollution control. If less money had gone there, we would have had more for health care.
Posted by: Jon F | June 18, 2009, 6:27 am 6:27 am
Folks this is just a recommendation by three former politicians who have always been in the pockets of the corporations. A majority of Americans support a public option and most Dems in the House and Senate have pledged to not support reform without a public option.
Posted by: Mark from atlanta | June 18, 2009, 8:22 am 8:22 am
Government must stay out of health care.
Another Iran do what we tell you we know what’s best. You are a Radical if you think for yourself. We want no opposition do you here. We will not tell your story if you oppose our plan.
Sounds like Iran, supprised the internet is not down yet.
Posted by: Mario | June 18, 2009, 8:53 am 8:53 am
Let’s see……repubs supported spending millions on the Iraq war without question, but they won’t support healthcare reform that will help millions in their own country unless it’s watered down and not intended to help anybody? Typical.
Posted by: js45601 | June 18, 2009, 9:52 am 9:52 am
Wait – what’s this going to do to ABC’s prime time hour of adoration? Guess this may free up some time to talk about Bo, what the prez had for breakfast and maybe we’ll even get to watch all the journalists bow to Obama (or will Diane curtsy?) I bet NBC is pea-green with envy right now. ABC – you go girl!
Posted by: Nel | June 18, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
What a freakin puppet. Bloated money grubbing private interest groups win again….. When will they ever learn.
Posted by: KMG | June 18, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
As a former South Dakotan I am very disappointed in Mr. Daschle. At least the Democrats are finally coming out of the woodwork. I always thought you obtained insurance to “insure” that when you needed to use it, the funds would be there. ” Insurance should not be tied to jobs, all pre-existing illnesses should be done away with (everyone has some type of pre-existing illness, or will), all insurance forms standardized and, if we keep private insurance, it should be regulated in some way. I believe a plan like Medicare for all would work. I have been on Medicare and a supplement for 3 years and have been totally happy. If everyone was paying into one plan this could work. Most people pay into health insurance for years but only start having health issues in their later years, so after everyone paying in all those younger years the funds would be available when needed. I can’t believe all you democrats are “giving in” to the lobbyists, insurance companies and the giant drug companies with markups on prescriptions that are unbelievable! Exactly how is your “government health insurance plan” working for you? And you get to keep it after your retirement. We would like to have that same type of coverage. We should be able to keep our insurance forever and stay with our existing doctors for a much better continuity of care.
I am also on Social Security and that has “run like a clock” for me. Please, please handle this in a humane way for all the uninsured (we are already carrying that cost), and for all of us Americans. I know you can do it, if you want to. Please don’t let President Obama and all the citizens of our country down this time.
Posted by: lc | June 18, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
Daschle, Baker, and Dole are not interested in health care reform. I wonder why?
Posted by: Maddogg | June 18, 2009, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
No public option=no reform. A robust medicare-like public option was already a compromise. The majority of americans want single payer and over 75% want a public option.
What do we get? Backstabbed. Again.
Posted by: PS | June 18, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
I am SO glad Daschle couldn’t be bothered to file his taxes properly, because he’s obviously not the guy we need leading the health care fight.
Posted by: iLLogicaL | June 18, 2009, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
Without a Strong Public Option (not a “co-op” and no 7-year trigger!) Any so-called “Health Care Reform” bill will simply “rearrange the deckchairs” on our current “Titanic” healthcare problems.
I am calling my Representatives EVERY DAY on this, and I hope you are too.
Posted by: Scott Wa | June 18, 2009, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
Economics 101: There is no free sandwitch. No policy will save us money. We will either hurt innovation in healthcare or increase taxes to pay for it.
And it’s a proven fact that government is not as efficient as the private sector.
Keep government small and let the private sector give us our services.
Posted by: Seth Hahn | June 18, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
I am sorely disappointed in Tom Daschle for this. I was nervous when he was almost appointed to the post after I heard about his connections in the health insurance industry. Now I feel relieved that he didn’t secure the nomination.
We need a public option. We need it to give us *true* choice, and to be able to keep the health insurance industry honest.
The industry’s priority is to maximize profits, not provide the best care at an affordable price. An opportunity to choose a government plan is our best bet now. It will *increase competition*.
Let’s not blow it!
(Shame on you, Tom Daschle!)
Posted by: Jo bert | June 18, 2009, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm
1. We pay for those 47 million already, everytime they go to an emergency room, and at rates far higher than the most expensive private plan. So, if you love spending more for homeless and uninsured people’s health care out of your insurance money than you do for your own care, please oppose the public option. Think about it.
2. As another posted, no Public option = no reform. People complain about government healthcare, but both the Federal system and medicare are much more efficient than the current private system. More per dollar goes to care by far.
3. Changing to a public option later, or not at all in future, is far more expensive for the nation. It’s like badly cutting yer finger. Do you take care of it now with a visit to the doc, or do you wait til you have gangrene and go into surgery?
Posted by: Thucydides Jr. | June 18, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
I hosted one of Tom Daschle’s health care discussion groups, in my home, back in December. Our group decided that we wanted an end to the health insurance industry’s influence over health care, and the start of single payer coverage in the United States. I compared results with a lot of different groups, who all said the same thing, that we wanted true universal coverage instead of the status quo.
That’s probably the real reason Tom Daschle quit, the inability to deal with “we, the people.”
Posted by: Linda | June 18, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
Not just “health care insurance companies”…involved in raping the people (with the blessing of those in Congress who have single-payer, courtesy of “the people” !)..there are hundreds of “hidden” health care insurance companies… if we had a real National Health Care..there would be no need and (no extra profits for insurance compaines) with policies like small business Workman’s Comp,(L%I in some states) or “extra medical/ hospital insurance coverage” stuck into all your vehicle insurances, home owners insurances..etc….all that little “extra protection” stuck into every “personal responsibility, owner liability” insurance policy a person is forced to carry …
Posted by: chabuka | June 18, 2009, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
Thank goodness Daschele is speaking up–this disaster of Obama’s shows that he knows nothing about health care. As a senior, I do not want him telling me I can’t get health care because I am old. His base is mostly young people who could care less about anyone but themselves. What will they do when all of us “working fools” die off ? where will their money come from then for their “higher education? Wake UP. If Americans think they can get good health care for cheap–where do you think you will get doctors and nurses? No person wants to go through 20 years of school only to find that he is stripped of a good income.People MUST wake up to reality–there are no free rides.
Posted by: sifto77 | June 18, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
It is time to take a lesson from the Iranians…..we need to demonstrate in the streets to let all those politicians who are being paid off by the Insurance Industry that we must have a single payer/Medicare for all system and nothing else will satisfy the majority of citizens
Posted by: JR | June 18, 2009, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
Stupidity continues to reign in America. The CBO tells you that we can’t afford to pay for public health care. You look around the world and see the blight that is socialized medicine. You realize that socialism goes against our very core beliefs as Americans. You understand that the only reason health care has gotten more and more costly has been because of government meddling (forcing health coverage for those who can’t pay, forcing people to provide health insurance, allowing frivolous lawsuits, and on and on).
You know all that and you keep screaming about how the government needs to become MORE involved.
It’s just like the mortgage crisis – created by the government, but you socialists blame the private sector so you can cripple us even more effectively.
Stupidity reigns, embodied by a vain and incompetent president.
Posted by: StupidityReigns | June 18, 2009, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
Don’t have health care from your employer??? Here’s an idea…GO BUY SOME…. I’m a 45 year old male and I can get a plan with $20 co pays for visits and $20 for Meds….$1,000.00 deductible….. Just because you tend bar and don’t pay ANY taxes on your wages…doesn’t mean I should have to wait 6 months for an MRI.
Posted by: Mike | June 18, 2009, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
Listen to open-minded-liberals whine at the thought of compromise. How does increasing coverage by itself not result in rationing. It’s impossible.
Posted by: bad carlos | June 18, 2009, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
js45601: Millions of Americans, Dem and Repub alike, supported removing Saddam from power (which had been a US foreign policy position since Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 with bipartisan support). National defense is one of the few enumerated powers of the federal government in our Constitution. National health insurance cannot be found anywhere, unless you expand the “general welfare” clause beyond what any clear thinking person would read it as.
No health insurance does not equal no health care.
Posted by: DocForesight | June 18, 2009, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
How can you bring up Daschle with out bringing up his connection to lobbying for the health care industry? This is everything wrong with news these days. Too lazy to put facts and context into reports like this. Of course Daschle does not want universal health care — it would cut into his lobbying profits. Come on ABC News — do your job!
Posted by: Chicago Todd | June 18, 2009, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
NO PUBLIC OPTION! The government screws up everything it touches and it costs billions more than it should!! Keep your incompetent mitts OFF our health care. Try Tort Reform instead. That will cut BILLIONS per year off health care. It won’t be too good for Ambulance Chasing, Smarmy Trial Lawyers, though. Some of them even run for President after they have made 50 million or so suing good doctors with junk lawsuits!
Posted by: Sunnyr | June 19, 2009, 3:00 am 3:00 am
They’ll do anything to increase the U.S. Federal debt (especially War, Health Care, and Infrastructure). A big problem is that credit can grow on a whim now that it is no longer backed by anything (since 1971, see Gold Standard on Wikipedia). Even worse, the Federal Reserve has the fortune of creating as much money as it wants out of thin air, which is also the international reserve currency. And even worse, the Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, creates money at ZERO cost to itself (i.e. they just go a computer and enter a dollar amount to create in its bank account), then LENDS the money to the U.S. Government AT INTEREST. The Government (i.e. the American people) has to give real money to this private cartel of banks for their “service” of creating money out of thin air. The Government (i.e. the American people) is truly the loser in this system. Andrew Jackson (who was almost assassinated) eliminated the private central bank in 1833, but it just popped back up under the Aldrich-Vreeland Act and the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, immediately after Woodrow Wilson was elected. Wilson’s political opponent had also promised to sign the same Act, which was under a different name, if he were to get elected. The international bankers gave themselves once again control over the American monetary system without paying a penny. JFK started Silver-backed currency, then got assassinated a couple of months later. The Federal Reserve has never been audited, and Goldman Sachs, the leader of the banking cartel, truly rules the world… for now. Pelosi, Obama, Bush, Cheney, and most others in DC (except Ron Paul) are just spokespeople for the Federal Reserve.
Posted by: andyupnorth | June 19, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
I want single payer. Failing that, I’ll take a public option. I would much rather pay more in taxes for guaranteed health care than pay the exorbitant amounts I’m paying now to a private insurer for health care that’s worse than what they have in Cuba. I have Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they’re no less bureaucratic than the government. (My doctor can’t even tell me how much procedures will cost and whether they’ll be covered, and neither can anyone on his staff or anyone on the phone at the insurance company until I’ve already had the procedure, which is criminal.) The only difference is the government won’t have bureaucrats hired specifically to figure out how badly they can screw me over before I can sue them.
Posted by: Outraged | June 30, 2009, 12:30 am 12:30 am
New saying: “Those who have nothing to give government will get nothing from government.”
Let us get together and prove to the big money lap dogs that we can vote them out of office faster than big money can starve them out for not voting for big money. The French are not afraid of their government; why should we in the US be afraid of ours?
Posted by: Paul Edwards | August 2, 2009, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
While many reforms to our healthcare system are needed, a public health plan and a government subsidy for low income individuals and families are two components that are absolutely necessary to ensure affordable coverage is available to all.
I’m very disappointed to see that a public option is likely to go by the wayside. Despite what the naysayers think, a public health plan is one of the best ways to ensure anybody can get affordable coverage because it acts as a market based competition to private insurers. Polls have shown that 75-80% of Americans support a public plan. Both Democrat and Republican lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring public sentiment. It is understandable that there are reasonable concerns about a public plan, but what is there to oppose if a public plan has the following feature:
-It is truly OPTIONAL, i.e. nobody will be compelled to buy into the paln if they don’t want to and can switch to a private plan if that works better for them.
-It offers compensation rates to doctors and hospitals that are competitive with what private insurance offers.
-It pays for itself with no direct government subsidies. Any subsidy given to help a low income individual or family afford insurance must be given to the person directly and must be allowed to be used towards any plan of their choosing.
If those basic safeguards are in place, the only people who stand to lose from a public plan are those involved in the current status quo of the healthcare industry and everybody who benefits from them, including politicians from both sides. People who will gain from a public plan will be anybody with limited financial resoruces, particularly low income individuals and families, self-employed and small business owners. Anybody who is somewhat knowledgeable with economies of scale knows that small businesses are vital to the economic health of American. One of the biggest challenges small businesses face is the cost of health care. Large healthcare costs inhibit small businesses because many owners can’t provide coverage for themselves or their employees. This means they lose a competitive edge in attracting talented employees.
Posted by: JRP | August 2, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm