The Wall Street Journal reports that Senator Reid has allegedly decided to go with the opt-out proposal. The White House didn't think that Senator Reid would have the votes for the opt-out proposal and expressed a preference for the trigger to get the votes needed for cloture, but it seems that Senator Reid may have been able to find the votes he needed for cloture, if true. Regardless of the WH's lack of trust in Senator Reid---Senator Reid is doing the right thing by putting in a trigger-free public option in the merged bill, and he should be commended for that in having listened to us in the grassroots base if he does that.
The bill to be brought to the Senate floor would create a new public health-insurance plan, but would give states the choice of opting out of participating in it, a proposal that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada backed last week.
There's more below from the Wall Street Journalarticle:
Details of the legislation could change, but its broad outlines are becoming clear. Employers with more than 50 workers wouldn't be required to provide health insurance, but they would face fines of up to $750 per employee if even part of their work force received a government subsidy to buy health insurance, this person said. A bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee had a lower fine of up to $400 per employee.
...
Mr. Reid spent the weekend shoring up support for the bill from Democrats in the chamber. But some key moderate Democrats signaled Sunday that they remain uneasy about main planks of the legislation. "I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out," Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Do I think it's good news? I think it's great news that there isn't a triggered public option in the Senate merged bills because that gives us a stronger hand going into the conference process. I know there are those such as BooMan who explained why a triggered public option would be an easlier legislative strategy for the conference process, and other posters who have made the same argument as well. I disagreed with them because I don't think a triggered public option is going to be easy to remove because that would require jettisoning Senator Snowe's vote for the merged bill and for the conference bill.
However, with Reid possibly moving towards a public option with an opt-out today, it means that Senator Snowe may not be onboard, which is good news for us. However, the dropping of the employer mandate from the merged Senate bills may have been a part of the deal-making process for the opt-out proposal. Here's why the dropping of the employer mandate is bad news as stated from the viewpoint of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities of the initial Senate Finance bill version that would fine employers $400:
The free-rider employer provision as stated in the WSJ:
Employers with more than 50 workers wouldn't be required to provide health insurance, but they would face fines of up to $750 per employee if even part of their work force received a government subsidy to buy health insurance, this person said. A bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee had a lower fine of up to $400 per employee.
“The provision would make it more expensive for some employers to hire workers from low- and moderate-income families than to hire workers from higher-income backgrounds to do the same job,” the Center’s Robert Greenstein and Judith Solomon write in a briefing paper [in response to the Senate Finance Committee bill]. “As a result, employers would have incentives to try to tilt hiring toward people who would be unlikely to receive subsidies and away from people who would need subsidies.”
And because someone with a family is more likely to need a subsidy than one without, and because family coverage is much more expensive than individual coverage, the mandate could especially “make it more difficult for low-income parents with children to be hired.”
The opt-out proposal isn't what I support, as I've explained in one of my prior diaries on this subject. However, it would be easier to remove because it wouldn't have Senator Snowe's vote as a requirement for bipartisan passage, and it means that our progressives in the House would have a stronger hand in standing against the opt-out proposal as well as it'd unfairly impact their constituents, and it isn't something that a Representative like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would support, as shown in her interview with Cenk Uygur:
CENK UYGUR: The opt out idea is pretty simple. You get the public option by the federal government, but different states can opt out of it, but they have to actively, proactively opt out of it, either through their state legislator, or maybe even a referendum, or act of the governor, or combination thereof. And then that gives red state senators, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans….
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Then we’re not providing the necessary competition and choice for Americans in those states.
CENK UYGUR: That’s definitely a downside of it. The upside of it is it takes away all excuses. If you say, “Hey listen, I’m not comfortable with the public option.” Great then your state doesn’t have to have it.
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, but we have mixed delegations Cenk, where we have Republicans… I don’t know… I have to spend some more time hearing about that. In my state we’ve got 10 Democrats and 15 Republicans and a split on our Senators. I wouldn’t want to be duking it out with the rest of my delegation on who wins, on whether or not we do or don’t participate in the public option. And I certainly wouldn’t want Charlie Christ to be able to make the decision. And he is our governor.
And it's a part of the reason why I'm against the opt-out proposal. And we'll be working to remove the opt-out from the conference bill by continuing to support our progressives in the House by pushing for the strongest public option possible.
There are also further news from the Senate as well, such as Democratic Senators pushing for the benefits in the bill to kick in sooner since the regulations themselves will not start until 2013. A recent poll study published by Kaiser Family Foundation showed that a majority of voters think that the regulations will start immediately, along with the public option. They'll be upset when they find out that the regulations likely won't start until 2013, which is why the Senate Democrats are pushing for an earlier implementation of other benefits by 2010 since they're aware about the effect of two election cycles without the experience of health care reform:
Under the Democratic wish-list, senior citizens would receive discounts on brand-name drugs next year. Small businesses that provide insurance would see tax credits. And a $5 billion high-risk pool would cover people with preexisting conditions.
Democratic strategists expect the 2010 election to present a stark contrast between the parties, particularly if the health care bill receives minimal Republicans support. The front-load strategy could help blunt GOP attacks on the bill as a toxic mix of higher taxes, rising premiums and cuts to Medicare.
Here's what the poll by Kaiser Family Foundation said:
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released last week showed Democrats risk disappointing voters with the delayed timetable, which lawmakers view as necessary given the complexity of implementing the reforms.
The survey found voters are unaware that the major components -- $450 billion in subsidies to purchase coverage and a menu of insurance market reforms -- wouldn't kick in for four years. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they expected people to begin receiving financial assistance to buy coverage this year or next. Fifty-one percent said they expected insurers to begin accepting customers regardless of preexisting conditions this year or next.
And here's the Senate Finance Committee's list for what voters can expect immediately in the results of health insurance reform from their committee. Do I think voters would be satisfied with these results out of health insurance reform when the regulations such as the ban on pre-existing conditions, no annual or lifetime caps on insurance, and others wouldn't start until 2013, and for other insurance markets until 2017? I'm not sure if they'd be satisfied with that.
People should have every right to have these regulations kick in sooner, and to actually participate in the insurance exchange and public option on a national scale rather than in its limited form. The reason why these regulations, including the exchange and public option, are delayed until 2013 is because of the CBO score. By delaying the actual reforms, it helps lower the overall cost of the bill.
Is it the right thing to do in this case? No, and it may very well have a detrimental effect on the Democratic Party when it comes to the next two election cycles for having delayed these essential regulations, and limiting the insurance exchange, and the public option.
In case the Wall Street Journal may not turn out to be true, PLEASE KEEP up the phone calls into Nevada today to ask Senator Reid to support a trigger-free public option!
Click here to start calling Nevada voters - just create an account and you'll get a voter to call. Thank you so much for helping us make these phone calls today!
We'll keep on fighting for what is right, and please help support our work (since we do literally work for you guys) by donating to our fund at Firedoglake! Your donations go to our living stipends, expenses, and travel costs, including awesome tools like these. You also can follow me on Twitter @slinkerwink.
EDIT: wonkroom on Twitter seems to confirm that the merged Senate bills will have the free-rider provision and the opt-out as well.
wonkroom Reid could submit merged health bill 2 CBO today, and make the legislation public as soon as Tuesday. Early details: free rider & opt out
UPDATE: MSNBC.com seems to be reporting that the public option will have an opt-out.