by Peter Landers at Washington Wire
A lot of the talk in the health-care debate is about the “public option” or “public plan.” For most of the year, we’ve interpreted those terms as referring to a Medicare-style health-insurance plan run by the federal government. Liberals say it’s a good way to ensure broad access to affordable care, while conservatives call it a step toward a government takeover of health care.
The public option by that definition took a big blow last week when the Senate Finance Committee voted it down. But the public option could yet survive, and not just because it remains a part of other legislation in Congress. Here are some ways the words “public option” could be redefined so liberal Democrats can claim partial victory.
–Under the “trigger” idea (a favorite of Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe), the government-run plan takes effect only if private insurers fail to expand coverage and bring down costs. It’s more like an “option for a public option.” But if Democrats want to edit that down to “public option,” they’re free to do so.
–Nonprofit health cooperatives are part of the Senate Finance bill. These are supposed to be privately run, but under the legislation they receive money from the federal government to get started. It’s sort of public, definitely an option. Although it might be farfetched, why not call it a “public option”?
–Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.) has suggested that states could be allowed to experiment with their own government-run plans. These would be part of the new health-insurance exchanges envisioned in the Senate Finance bill. The state-run plans wouldn’t be federal, but they would be public.
Get ready for plenty of option plays in Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment