large pupil paxil antidepressants go ks2 proofreading exercises el cialis afecta la fertilidad source quality custom writing source url best rhetorical analysis essay editing services for school order valtrex online no prescription do my religious studies cover letter here go to link walgreens viagra rat http://kanack.org/statement/racism-good-essay/26/ binding dissertations oxford hoe lang viagra exemplary essay defined follow link al capone progressive era essay hypothesis marketing https://iat.iupui.edu/advisor/moodle-assignments/43/ free english essays on current topics essay on first amendment https://drtracygapin.com/erections/acheter-viagra-france-ligne/25/ https://campingunlimited.org/dissertation/alfred-coppard-tribute-essay/26/ college essay conclusion follow link ap intermediate 2nd year model papers writing a literature essay female takes viagra nor acetildenafil europe and its others essays on interperception and identity Nothing lasts forever … not even health care reform compromises. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to come out with its analysis of the latest proposal – replacing a the creation of a new government-run health plan (the controversial “public option”) with a program in which Americans 55-64 could buy Medicare coverage. However, it’s looking like even if the CBO determines the idea makes financial sense, the votes to go forward with the proposal there doesn’t seem to be enough votes around for it to move forward. Which means the public option remains the big make-or-break element of health care reform in the Senate.
Only a few days ago, along with the idea of empowering the Office of Personnel Management to organize a coverage program, the Medicare buy-in compromise seemed to be the solution to breaking the public option impasse. Now the idea seems to be losing steam.
First, doctors and hospital groups came out in opposition to the Medicare buy-in compromise, with the Washington Post reporting them as claiming the approach “would be financially untenable and would jeopardize access to health-care services for millions of Americans.” The medical and hospital groups are concerned, according to the Washington Post, “because the program pays providers at much lower rates than private insurers, and because older Americans are the greatest consumers of health-care services.”
And then two conservative members of the Democratic caucus indicated their disapproval of the Medicare buy-in. According to the Associated Press, Senator Joe Lieberman, who had originally sounded open to the idea, now considers it “a bad deal for taxpayers and the deficit.” And the AP quotes Senator Ben Nelson as saying “I’m concerned that it’s the forerunner of single-payer, maybe even more directly than the public option.”
So while, as the Washington Post and others are reporting, the President Barack Obama and many Democrats are praising the compromise, the fact is, the Democrat’s need 100 percent buy-in by their caucus to pass any bill. (Yes, it’s possible Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins might cross party lines and vote for a bill, but it’s hard to see how these Republican Senators could support any legislation conservative Democrats like Senators Lieberman and Nelson could not).
Democrats are trying to dodge a nasty choice: dropping the public option from health care reform. Liberals have made inclusion of a public option their litmus test for meaningful reform. As the liberal blog Daily Kos put it this past summer, the public option is the compromise progressives are willing to make between a single payer system and the status quo.
In the end, however, liberals will need to decide whether the absence of a public option is enough to get them to walk away from reform. Because there does not seem to be any way they will obtain 60 votes in the Senate for a bill that includes a new government-run health plan. My guess? Liberals will complain bitterly, but ultimately vote for a bill without a public option. Health care reform has been on their agenda for decades and they have moved the issue further through Congress than ever before. To abandon it now would set back health care reform for at least a decade if not longer. Failure would hand Republicans a huge stick to use against them in the 2010 elections.
Passing reform, even reform liberals perceive as too weak, provides a foundation for future efforts. This might seem like a hollow victory for many progressives, but it would be a victory for them nonetheless. And I just don’t see them trading even a hollow victory for a hard defeat.