enlarge

Even as Republicans gear up for a vote to repeal health care reform, one progressive House member is making a renewed push for the public option.

On Wednesday, the first day of the 112th Congress, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced a measure to establish a robust public health insurance option as a supplement to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The California congresswoman argued that the plan, which pays physicians 5 percent more than Medicare rates, would lower insurance costs and address deficit concerns, pointing to a Congressional Budget Office report saying it would cut the deficit by $68 billion.

"This is the perfect moment for the public option," Woolsey said. "It builds on the health care reform legislation by lowering costs and it provides a great way to bring down the deficit."

She added: "If Republicans really care about the deficit, they should sign on to this bill rather than try to dismantle the health care reform law, which would add billions to the budget deficit."

It won't happen anytime soon, but Rep. Lynn Woolsey wants to bring it up in the next session of Congress. Obviously, I'd like to see it happen; I really, really want to watch as Republican and Blue Dogs explain why they oppose something that cuts $68 billion from the federal budget deficit, and tell us it makes much more sense to cut Social Security!

As both political parties worry about the growing federal deficit, an unlikely proposal is returning from last year's divisive healthcare debate: the "public option."

Creating a major government health insurance program was roundly rejected last year, but 128 House Democrats are pushing to reconsider the idea, contending that it would hold down federal spending.

Their bill, which faces long odds, would allow Americans who do not get insurance at work to choose a government health plan starting in 2014.

"There is all this concern about the deficit," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leading champion of the proposal. "Well, guess what: This would reduce the deficit because it saves so much money."

Woolsey and her allies, including Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), are armed with a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Democrats say the CBO projects that the public option could save the government $68 billion between 2014 and 2020.

The government's administrative costs would be lower than private insurers', proponents say, and it could pay hospitals and doctors less. That would mean lower premiums — and lower government subsidies for policyholders who need them.

Insurance companies, hospitals and other businesses say a public option would undermine employer-provided insurance and set the stage for a so-called single-payer system, in which the government would be the only insurer.

Nate Silver picks up an interesting point: Much of the opposition to healthcare reform comes from the left - about 25%. We need to keep pushing on the final bill, because if there's one thing politicians understand and fear, it's bad poll numbers:

Ipsos/McClatchy put out a health care poll two weeks ago. The topline results were nothing special: 34 percent favored "the health care reform proposals presently being discussed", versus 46 percent opposed, and 20 percent undecided. The negative-12 net score is roughly in line with the average of other polls, although the Ipsos poll shows a higher number of undecideds than most others.

Ipsos, however, did something that no other pollster has done. They asked the people who opposed the bill why they opposed it: because they are opposed to health care reform and thought the bill went too far? Or because they support health care reform but thought the bill didn't go far enough?

It turns out that a significant minority of about 25 percent of the people who opposed the plan -- or about 12 of the overall sample -- did so from the left; they thought the plan didn't go far enough.

DOWNLOADS: (3130)

PLAYS: (4502)

Embed

WASHINGTON — Under immense pressure from the liberal wing of his caucus, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has told colleagues that he may include a government-run health insurance plan in a health care bill he will soon take to the Senate floor, Democratic senators said Thursday.

Mr. Reid’s latest thinking seemed to reflect a calculated gamble that the 60 members of his caucus could be persuaded to vote for the public plan, if it included some mechanism for states to opt out.

His decision was shaped, in part, by opinion polls showing public support for a government insurance plan, which would compete with private insurers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said again Thursday that the House would definitely include a public option in its version of the legislation.

At a meeting at the White House on Thursday, Mr. Reid informed President Obama of his inclination to add the public option to the bill, but did not specifically ask the president to endorse that approach, a Democratic aide said. Mr. Obama asked questions, but did not express a preference at the meeting, which was called on short notice by the White House.

Just six weeks ago the public option appeared to be dying, under fierce attack by the insurance industry. A clear majority of Democratic senators favor a government-run plan. But public statements by other senators indicate that the proposal does not have the 60 votes ordinarily needed to secure Senate approval for hotly contested legislation.

Democratic champions of the public plan, like Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, have urged Mr. Reid to take an aggressive posture, by putting the public plan in the bill and forcing opponents to try to strip it out.

“There is a growing sense that we need to lead on this issue and not wait for it to be offered on the Senate floor,” a senior Democratic aide said. “The idea is that it’s better to show some fight.”

Chris Bowers says the undecideds in the House need to hear from us ASAP:

I am receiving new information tonight that the House DOES NOT have 218 "solid' yes votes for health care reform with a Medicare +5% public option. Representative John Larson's claim earlier today that the House had the votes appear to have included at least 12, and as many as 15, Representatives who are "lean yes" votes.

Further, I am told that if the leadership does not confirm 218 "solid" yes votes by the end of the 9:30 a.m. Democratic caucus meeting tomorrow morning, they will probably include the negotiated rate public option in the bill that is sent to the floor, not the Medicare +5% public option. At the very latest, we have until 2 p.m. to get the votes.

We need another 12-15 solid votes. Based on information combined from multiple sources, here is the best chart I could put together on short notice:

Medicare +5% Target Chart

It is sorted into "lean yes," "undecided" and "lean no." I have also included the leadership.

If your member of Congress is on the list, call and leave a message tonight. We have to get through before 9:30 a.m., if possible.

If your member of Congress is not on the list, but you are represented by a Democrat, call your member of Congress and urge them to support the Medicare +5% option at the caucus meeting tomorrow morning.

If you are represented by a Republican, call either a member of the Democratic leadership or a Representative on the list who is from your state.

Call and leave a message. The campaign could really go either way depending on what happens in the next 14-18 hours.

With Democrats like these...:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) took quite the political heckling in Nebraska the past few weeks. Both he and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) have come under fire for their on-again-off-again opposition to a public health care option as part of the overhaul now in Congress.

Nelson has said he won't filibuster a bill with a public option in it, so his foes have moved on.

Now Landrieu will be getting the Nelson treatment. Change Congress, the group that sniped at Nelson the last few weeks, is now setting its (web) sites on her. She'll be on the receiving end of $10,000 worth of online ads targeting her for taking $1.6 million from big health care and insurance interests.

The ads link to a petition calling on Landrieu to back a public option and break with big insurance companies.

The Howard Dean funded group Democracy for America will also go after Landrieu, sending e-mails to its 20,000 Louisiana members asking them to call her office and press her to back a public option.

If Landrieu doesn't move back in support of a public option, said Adam Green of Change Congress, direct mail will be sent to Louisiana donors calling on them to withhold campaign funds -- call it fund-suppressing. DFA, meanwhile, is working on a TV ad set to attack Landrieu for her opposition to a public plan.

Before opposing the public option, Landrieu signed a letter declaring, in specific terms, her support for it.

It's literally unbelievable to me that when you have polling that shows that the public supports a public option for health care by enormous margins (83-14%) and yet we have Democrats dithering over it. The Change Congress ad hits home to Louisianans pretty effectively:

Continue reading »