Big gamble's slender reed

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By Donald Lambro

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's big health care gamble immediately began losing support Monday when he announced he was including a government-run insurance plan in the massive bill.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican to vote for a reform bill in the Finance Committee (that did not include a federally run plan), had already told Mr. Reid to count her out if the bill contained a public option.

That raised the likelihood of zero Republican support weakening Mr. Reid's chances of getting 60 votes to cut off a Republican filibuster.

Centrist-leaning Democrats also expressed doubts about any new medical insurance program as word leaked out last week that he was rolling the dice on a risky, tax-heavy government alternative to the private insurance industry that many in his liberal-dominated caucus demanded as the price for their support.

The New York Times reported Friday that a group of moderates, led by Ms. Snowe and Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, wanted no nationalized insurance plan in the bill.

One of the Democrats, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, told the New York Times, "I am pressing to get a government-run, taxpayer-supported public option out of the bill. I want to rely on a reformed private marketplace." Mr. Reid has the sole responsibility of melding the Senate's two main bills (from Finance and the Health, Education and Labor Committee) into one legislative vehicle. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan and President Obama supports it, though he had been waffling on it lately.

Mr. Reid met with Mr. Obama last week to tell him of his intentions, but he did not "express a preference" one way or the other.

The Nevada Democrat dodged questions from reporters Monday about whether he has the 60 votes to move the public plan to a vote. But when pressed, he said "we clearly will have the support of my caucus. I believe a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to a broken system."

In fact, he does not have 60 votes to break a filibuster. Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, for one, opposes a government plan, as do others in the Democratic caucus. At this point, Mr. Reid could fall at least half a dozen votes short of 60, and some internal counts put the number higher than that with the addition of a government plan.

The most incendiary issue in the heated health care battle right now is cost. Mr. Reid sent his public option version to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for a cost analysis, and many Democrats do not believe the bill's bulging price tag can come in under Mr. Obama's $900 billion ceiling - not even close.

Democratic leaders have been playing fast and loose with the figures, and a number of rank-and-file Democrats have signaled they are not going along with their scheme to cook the books on health care.

When Mr. Reid attempted to sweep the $247 billion "Doc Fix" under the rug last week, a dozen Democrats and Mr. Lieberman joined all 40 Republicans to kill his shadowy budget scheme.

This is money to prevent Medicare cuts for doctors that was supposed to be in the health care reform bill, but was left out to lower the bill's costs. Instead, Mr. Reid sought to pass the fix in separate legislation that would have shifted the cost to the mushrooming deficit. Its failure was a stunning signal that a surprising number of Democrats were not onboard with his attempts to hide the plan's real costs.

Senate liberals this week were peddling the insurance option as the key to bringing down health costs, but there was no evidence to back up that claim. As the public option bill is now framed, with half a trillion dollars in Medicare/Medicaid spending cuts, it will reduce payments to doctors and hospitals while driving up health care costs and lowering quality.

Veteran health care policy analyst Grace-Marie Turner boils down the House and Senate Democratic plan this way: "So let's get this straight. Congress is planning to add at least $1 trillion to federal spending, throw 13 million seniors out of their Medicare Advantage plans, impose half a trillion dollars in new taxes, require individuals and businesses to buy health insurance that is more expensive than most can afford now and tax them if they don't comply and all of this will cause health care costs to actually go up? And we still don't get to universal coverage?" But Mr. Reid's decision to plug a government-run plan into the bill has a lot more to do with pleasing his party's left and an army of liberal interest groups whose support he needs for his dim re-election prospects than crafting a bill that can clear the Senate.

"How much of this is about making liberals happy?" CNN reporter Dana Bash asked Mr. Reid as he left Monday's news conference.

Meantime, a new Rasmussen poll finds that the evolving health care bill remains unpopular with a majority of the Americans who flatly oppose it 51 percent to 45 percent. Fifty-seven percent say it will make health care more costly and 53 percent say the quality of care will decline.

Sounds like Mr. Reid has his work cut out for him.

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.