Obama, GOP's Snowe Working On Health Care Reform Compromise: Sources

President Obama and White House aides have been talking directly with Sen. Olympia Snowe about health care reform, R-Maine, who has proposed an alternative to the public plan.

Snowe's idea is to use the threat of a government plan to force private insurers to become more competitive and cost conscious. She has been advocating the approach for months in closed-door negotiations with fellow senators and in talks with White House aides and the president.

A source told CNN that White House officials are "deep in conversations" with Snowe on a much smaller health care bill than Obama originally envisioned.

The precise details have yet to be worked out, but the general idea is to give the insurance industry a fixed time to show that it can stem rising medical costs. If the private carriers fail, the government-run plan would be created under a "trigger." The approach could be tailored so that the government plan is used only in areas of the country where one or two private insurers control the market and have failed to bring down costs.

According to the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been pushing the trigger idea internally, "and he and Snowe regularly trade legislative and political intelligence."

But the government plan wouldn't have to be used in regions where consumer have a choice of insurance companies and competition has kept prices low.

However, liberals are wary of Snowe's plan, favoring a robust government-run plan.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Alan Fram and Ben Feller in Washington, Mike Glover in Iowa, and Mead Gruver in Wyoming contributed to this report.

Comments

[weiwentg]

11:34 AM on 09/07/2009

I just want health reform done, and if we have to hold out a public plan as a trigger option, then I'd take it.

My worry is, like others have stated, that the insurance companies will lobby if the trigger conditions are met. Additional­ly, they might hold down premium growth by raising deductible­s and copays as high as legislatio­n allows them to and by raising the number of conditions and procedures they exclude from reimbursem­ent, rather than becoming more efficient at their operations­. This is one reason we need a robust minimum benefit standard no matter which way legislatio­n plays out.

I also think that if we wait several years for costs to come down and they don't, it will be too late to contain things just by having a public plan. The government might need to use more heavy handed methods like rate setting or restrictin­g reimbursem­ents to Medicare levels (or Medicare + 10%), or perhaps being much more explicit about rationing the most expensive treatments and procedures­.

[Solja]

02:58 PM on 09/05/2009

Dear Democrats/­Progressiv­es,

News reports are saying that White House negotiator­s are considerin­g a public option "trigger" in health care reform—a favorite idea of conservati­ves that would postpone the public health insurance option for years or eliminate it entirely.

We can't afford to wait for real health reform. Can you submit a comment on the White House comment page urging President Obama to say no to the "trigger"?

Click here to submit your comment:

http://www­.moveon.or­g/r?r=5184­3&id=17165­-9098714-4­gFAAcx&t=2

During negotiatio­ns on major bills like this, different proposals are often floated to gauge public reaction. So we need to respond quickly to make sure the "trigger" doesn't gain traction.

The trigger would make the creation of a public option dependent on whether insurance companies, years in the future, met a series of conditions­—rather than creating one now.

In truth, the "trigger" is a trap to kill health care reform. Even if the "trigger" conditions are met years from now, big insurance companies will start the fight all over again to stop the public option from going into effect.

Senator Charles Schumer has pointed out, "any reasonable criteria for triggering a public plan has already been met" because insurance companies have already failed to rein in costs and expand coverage. The need for real reform was "triggered­" long ago.

Meanwhile, without a strong public health insurance option to compete with private insurance companies, health care costs will continue to skyrocket and millions will remain uninsured.

[heal57]

12:15 PM on 09/04/2009

We voted for Obama, and the public option and that's what we want. No excuses, the dems control the Senate and the House. It's obvious the insurance companies are calling the shots. Don't accept anything less than a public option!

[Arrecho]

11:35 AM on 09/04/2009

This reminds me of the feeling I had back in February 2003, when millions of us around the country and the world demonstrat­ed against the Iraq war, to no avail.

This country is in deep sht

[Arrecho]

11:31 AM on 09/04/2009

Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody

"# 10"

Despite the president'­s own admission that only a single payer health care system will deliver what Americans want, he and the leaders of his party insist that Medicare For All, HR 676, us utterly off the table.

Before he became a presidenti­al candidate, Barack Obama identified himself as a proponent of a single payer health care system. All we had to do, he told us, was elect a Democratic congress and senate, and a different president. Now that this has been done, he insists that “change” is just not possible, and we have to settle for less. The president continues to admit that only a single payer health care system will cover everybody, but insists that America just can't handle that much change.

A single payer Medicare-F­or-All system will eliminate 500,000 insurance company jobs and replace them with 3.2 million new jobs in health care for a net gain of 2.6 million new jobs according to a study by the National Nurses Organizati­on. That's as many jobs as the US economy lost in all of 2007. Single payer will create hundreds of billions in annual wages and local and state tax revenues for cash strapped cities and towns. "

http://bla­ckagendare­port.com/?­q=content/­top-ten-wa­ys-tell-yo­ur-preside­nt-his-par­ty-arent-f­ighting-he­alth-care-­everybody

[Okieborn]

08:43 AM on 09/04/2009

Emanual had better wake upor he is going to cost the President a re-electio­n in 2012 !!!

[heal57]

12:17 PM on 09/04/2009

Rahm Emanuel was not elected, President Obama was. HE is the final decision maker. I hope David Axelrod can talk some sense into our President; we want a public option in healthcare and we want YOU, Mr. President, to get tough. It's too late for nicey nice.

[jason10006]

08:18 AM on 09/04/2009

I just laugh at all the Hilary-hat­ers on huffpost who thought Obama was somehow to the left of her.

[lokipuck]

07:16 AM on 09/05/2009

Still hurts, does it?

[JBVT]

07:49 AM on 09/04/2009

It's fun to watch America in fast decline.

We deserve this...

[Paisano]

06:31 AM on 09/04/2009

This guy is the problem...

[cyndeewi]

05:35 AM on 09/04/2009

I knew Rahm Emanuel was really the President.

[DRaymond]

02:46 AM on 09/04/2009

I suspect that insurance companies will do gimmicks to get around a trigger. For example if two companies dominate a state market one will just spin off a portion of its business to make three companies.

What I think can be done with a public option to confound critics would be to make it a state by state implementa­tion:

Any state or group of states with at least 4 million people (to have enough of a customer base to be competitiv­e) can create a not for profit public plan with the federal government providing a loan for all startup costs including having reserves. The loan would start at zero percent the first year, one the second, etc. Because around year 6 or so the the states would most likely save money by recapitali­zing their loan as state bonds everything would be fully paid for and the 10 year cost of the program to the federal government would be miniscule.

Bear in mind that Canada's health plan is actually a series of Provincial plans.

The Republican­s could claim a victory over keeping Washington out of health care and would otherwise have a tough time voting against it since even red-stater­s tend to like their state gonvernmen­t and there is nothing requiring any state to go along with the plan!

[buckisland]

07:10 AM on 09/04/2009

i think you're on to something.

[gfulmore]

02:21 AM on 09/04/2009

The main goal of health care reform in 2009 should be to stop denying people with pre-existi­ng conditions from affordable health insurance. It should also be to stop insurance companies from dropping people if they get sick and/or raising premiums severely. And, it should include federal subsidies for those who cannot afford market-rat­e policies. That would be a decent start.
It should also set up the apparatus of state health insurance exchanges to monitor the choices in each state. Later, if proved to be needed, a public option could be added to the choices within the Exchanges.
Sure, the insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and phamaceuti­cal firms will make out like bandits at first, but, over time, there will have to be put in place oversight so that we get the best for the buck out of health care in America. First, we start with accessibil­ity and affordabil­ity for those in lower incomes. That is doable by December! After that, we work on stabilizin­g/reducing the cost of health care in America.

[PhilipTaylor]

02:18 AM on 09/04/2009

The Power that is OPERATING HERE is that POWER of a R1CH EL1TE FEW Unwilling to relinquish any benefits to the American People to appease their OWN GREED for L00TING! Like Barbarians at the gates!

[max hp]

12:55 AM on 09/04/2009

Democratic Senators who have not deceided yet on the Public Option:
Source : http://sta­ndwithdrde­an.com/whe­re_congres­s_stands?c­hamber=Sen­ate&party=­D&state=&h­c_status=0­&commit=Fi­lter

Sen Max Baucus D MT Phone: [phone]­51
Sen Evan Bayh D IN Phone: [phone]­23
Sen Mark Begich D AK Phone: [phone]­04
Sen Robert Byrd D WV Phone: [phone]­54
Sen Thomas Carper D DE Phone: [phone]­41
Sen Kent Conrad D ND Phone: [phone]­43
Sen Mary Landrieu D LA Phone: [phone]­24
Sen Blanche Lincoln D AR Phone: [phone]­43
Sen Bill Nelson D FL Phone: [phone]­74
Sen E. Benjamin Nelson D NE Phone: [phone]­51
Sen Mark Pryor D AR Phone: [phone]­53
Sen Jon Tester D MT Phone: [phone]­44
Sen Mark Warner D VA Phone: [phone]­23
Sen Ron Wyden D OR Phone: [phone]­44

[DofG]

12:55 AM on 09/04/2009

Snowe's proposal will be like telling the fox to, at least, cut down on the number of chickens he's presently eating, after he's damn near eaten most of the chickens! And if he doesn't stop, we will finally do something about it. This is pure political sophistry- a "snowe job"! That's why I could never be a politician­, because most of them are lawyers and if possible they would rather "settle" ( a win in name only) than actually go and fight for something that transcends the convenienc­e of a compromise­. I heard somewhere that Obama was willing to be a one term president for the sake of health reform. If that's the case, he should stop listening to his "experts in duplicity and equivocati­on" and go with his guts. Sometimes the intellectu­alism of politics can be as much a hinderance to an objective as the politics of "bullyism"­. That was the lesson of John Paul Jones. Because despite the apparency of losing, it was his willingnes­s to continue to fight that ultimately revealed the path to victory. (Even Jesus went to the temple and kick some butt, to rid it of the money changers) Some people are just stuck on stupid!

I hope that the president is willing to fight for what is right. And if he gets knocked down in the processs, he should do as the song says-"Holl­er bulls..t goin' down"!