Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2009

Negotiators consider public option in Senate bill

0 comments

WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 30:  Committee Chairman...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior Senate Democrats at work with White House officials on health care legislation are strongly considering a requirement for the federal government to sell insurance in direct competition with private industry, officials said Thursday, with individual states permitted to drop out of the system.

Liberals in Congress long have viewed such an approach, called a public option, as an essential ingredient of the effort to overhaul the nation's health care system, and President Barack Obama has said frequently he favors it. But he has also made clear it is not essential to the legislation he seeks, a gesture to Democratic moderates who have opposed it.

Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said in separate interviews they had been told the plan was drawing interest in the private negotiations unfolding in an ornate room in the Capitol down the hall from the Senate chamber.

The final decision is up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who led a delegation of Democrats to the White House late in the day to discuss health care with Obama.

"I'm not part of those discussions. What I'm hearing is that this is the direction of the conversation," said Conrad, who supports an alternative approach under which nonprofit co-ops would compete with private industry.

"I keep hearing there is a lot of leaning toward some sort of national public option, unfortunately, from my standpoint," Nelson said.

The White House declined to comment.

Reid's office did likewise, and the Nevada Democrat left the White House without talking with reporters.

Several officials said no fina! l decisi ons had been made about including the so-called public option into the legislation. In the extraordinarily complicated atmosphere surrounding health care, one possibility seemed to be that the idea of a public option was being given wide circulation to see whether it could attract enough support to survive on the Senate floor.

WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 22:  Senate Finance Com...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

If not, it surely would be jettisoned beforehand, with liberals urged to accept something less or risk defeat of health care legislation. There is little margin for error among Obama's allies in the Senate as they confront nearly unanimous Republican opposition.

Democratic moderates are skeptical of allowing the government to sell insurance, concerned that it would mark an unwarranted federal intrusion into the private marketplace. And even if they agreed, it would raise questions of payment rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers.

Conrad, for example, has said repeatedly he could not accept a plan with payments tied to Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly, because rates in North Dakota are too low to give doctors an incentive to treat additional patients.

The public option issue has been one of the most vexing of the yearlong effort by Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress to remake the nation's health care system.

Legislation taking shape in the House is also expected to include a public option, although it is unlikely states will be allowed to opt out.

After months of struggle, both houses are expected to vote in the next few weeks on sweeping legislation that expands coverage to millions of people who lack it, ban industry practices such as denial of coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and slow the growth of medical care spending in general.

The House and Senate measures aim to expand coverage to about 95 percent of the population, and include federal sub! sidies t o help lower-income families afford coverage and permit small businesses to provide it for their employees.

The two bills differ at many points, although both are paid for through a combination of cuts in future Medicare spending and higher taxes - a levy on high-cost insurance policies in the case of the Senate and an income surcharge on very high income individuals and families in the House measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference she and her leadership were entering the "final stages" of assembling a health care bill to be voted on this fall. Officials have said the measure would cost $871 billion over a decade, but that total excluded a handful of items not directly related to expanded coverage that would push the total to well over $1 trillion.

Pelosi told reporters a provision eliminating the health insurance industry's exemption from federal antitrust law would be incorporated into the House measure.

Officials said a similar move was under discussion in the Senate, part of a strong response to recent industry criticism of the legislation.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to take a position on the antitrust proposal, saying it was under review.

Similarly, Christine A. Varney, the head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, testified before Congress recently that the administration "generally supports the idea of repealing antitrust exemptions. However, we take no position as to how and when Congress should address this issue."

Varney also said that repeal of current exemptions covering the industry would "allow competition to have a greater role in reforming health and medical malpractice insurance markets than would otherwise be the case."

The Senate negotiations have proceeded in unusual secrecy, attended by Reid, two Senate committee chairmen, S! en., Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and a small group of administration officials led by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Nominally, their task is to merge bills cleared earlier in the year by two Senate committees. But in fact, they have a virtual free hand to draft legislation that Reid will then usher onto the Senate floor for one of the most widely anticipated debates in recent years.

Democrats hold a 60-40 majority in the Senate, counting two independents, precisely the number needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, voted for the health care bill that cleared the Senate Finance Committee recently, giving Democrats one potential additional vote.

But she has long voiced opposition to a public option along the lines under consideration, as has Nelson, and other moderate Democrats have voiced skepticism. Without 60 votes, the legislation could stall even before debate began in earnest.

---

Associated Press writers Charles Babington, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Afghan coalition government is an option, US says

0 comments

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 07:  Senate Foreign Relat...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States would be receptive to a power-sharing arrangement between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his election challenger if they agreed to it, Obama administration officials said Wednesday.

Karzai and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah have settled on a Nov. 7 runoff following weeks of acrimony over Afghanistan's fraud-ridden national election. But both sides also are considering a coalition government that could either replace the runoff or follow it.

A State Department official said the U.S. would not be opposed to a power-sharing deal, depending on its legitimacy and how it was implemented. And President Barack Obama appeared to allude to the still-fluid discussions Wednesday.

"I think we're still in - finding out how this whole process in Afghanistan is going to unfold," Obama said in an interview on MSNBC.

One senior defense official said that a power-sharing deal at this point had equal odds of coming together or falling apart.

The administration is stressing that any such agreement is up to the Afghan government and the U.S. is not involved in any effort to forge or encourage it.

The U.S. wants a government that is legitimate in the eyes of Afghans and the international community, officials say, and at present that legitimacy appears clearest through the Afghan Constitution's requirement for a run-off vote.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential discussions between the two governments.

"We don't have any view really on a power-sharing arrangement," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters on Wednesday. "! It would depend on the manner in which it was presented and carried out."

Officials also said Wednesday that Obama's pending decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan figured in the U.S. discussions with Karzai about how to resolve the political impasse.

Several officials stressed that the looming troop plan decision was not used overtly to force Karzai to concede on the election's contested first round, but one highly placed U.S. official in Afghanistan said the United States used Obama's deliberation over troop numbers as leverage.

That official spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama has not announced whether he will agree to a U.S. military request for thousands of additional forces.

Karzai and Abdullah have largely dismissed the idea of sharing power, but there have been reports of private horsetrading discussions before and since Tuesday's announcement that the country would hold a runoff election on Nov. 7.

The most important near-term goal for the U.S. was Karzai's acceptance of election commission results and his recognition that the impasse must be resolved, the defense official said.

The outcome has been in doubt since an August election badly marred by fraud. The United Nations says much of the vote-rigging and phantom balloting was done on Karzai's behalf.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., met repeatedly with Karzai leading up to Tuesday's announcement that a runoff would be held. Kerry gave Obama his accounting at the White House on Wednesday, and afterward told reporters that in Afghanistan he "did not discuss nor did I even attempt to put on the table the concept of a coalition."

It would be inappropriate to raise that possibility and would make it seem to Afghans that the United States was calling the shots, Kerry said. "We want to avoid that, always."

However, h! e acknow ledged the issue was being discussed in Kabul, and said there may have been talks between the Karzai and Abdullah camps on it "even today."

Obama is mulling how to shift strategy in the 8-year-old Afghanistan war, and the election mess in Afghanistan has played a big role in his intensive, weeks-long discussions with his war council.

"What we've said is that it is important to make sure that we understand the landscape and the partner that we're going to be dealing with," Obama told MSNBC. "Because our strategy in Afghanistan is not just dependent on military - forces. It's also dependent on how well we're doing with our civilian development efforts, how well we're doing in stemming corruption. So, this is part of a comprehensive strategy, it always has been. And our basic attitude is that we are going to take the time to get this right."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the decision about troops could come before the Nov. 7 runoff date.

"I don't know when the decision is going to be, so it's certainly possible," Gibbs said.

In his own interview, Obama added that even if the new strategy is formulated before the runoff "we may not announce it."

The White House has been saying that Obama's decision on troops is still weeks away. Obama leaves Nov. 11 for a long trip to Asia, and it has been expected he would make a decision before then.

A State Department official said Abdullah's camp had expressed some interest in a coalition or power-sharing deal, and that some Karzai aides, concerned about the results of a runoff, are willing to consider the idea despite the president's public repudiation of the idea.

That official said the U.S. would support any course that leads to the formation of a credible government in the eyes of the Afghan people.

That could include a c! oalition or other power-sharing arrangement that is either formed to eliminate the need for a second round or one that is created using the results of the runoff.

But there are no provisions for a coalition in the Afghan Constitution, and it is not clear how such a deal would work or remain enforceable.

Abdullah was not enthusiastic in public comments Wednesday in Kabul about a possible power-sharing arrangement, although as the second-place finisher in August he probably has the most to gain from such a deal.

"I think a coalition government is not a solution for Afghanistan's problems," Abdullah said, speaking in Dari. "The solution is to bring peace and good governance."

---

Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven, Ron Fournier and Julie Pace in Washington and Robert H. Reid in Kabul contributed to this report.


Top News

 
Floyd and Bennett - Pinky and The Brain creditosbtemplates creditos Templates by lecca 2008 .....Top