Healthcare Open Thread

The Hill—Obama meets Dems without addressing divisive issues; negotiations continue: "President Barack Obama gave Senate Democrats a 'pep talk' on healthcare Sunday, telling them they stood to make history if they passed a bill expanding healthcare coverage to millions of Americans. ... Obama didn't take questions from the senators or mention the two issues now dividing Senate Democrats and preventing passage of the bill: a government-run insurance plan and restrictions on federal funds for abortion."

Steve: "When the president emphasizes the 'sweep of history,' he's not focusing any attention on the granular details. That means, Obama spoke to the larger significance of the effort, and still wants lawmakers to resolve specific disputes—abortion, public option, immigration, cost controls, mandates, Medicare commission, etc.—on their own."

Echidne: "Here's what I just read: '...Thorny unresolved issues include the proposal for a government-run insurance plan; insurance coverage for abortion; cost-control measures, including the powers of an independent commission to rein in Medicare spending; and requirements for employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty.' That last sentence has so much material in it that it would take ten books to spell it all out, by the way. But nobody tries to spell any of it out. In particular, nobody spells out what happens if those 'thorns' are pruned out."

Raw Story—Public option likely to be removed from healthcare overhaul: "Chances that a so-called 'public option'—under which the government would set up competitors to private health insurers—appear to be dimming. ... Under the Democrats' new plan, the government would create a national health insurance plan similar to those offered federal employees. ... A Democratic aide quoted by Politico suggested that the new proposal could be used to sway progressives, who might be 'tricked' into believing that a government plan run by private companies was a public option."

Meanwhile...Stupak is accusing pro-choicers of deliberately misconstruing his amendment. As opposed to, y'know, what we've actually been doing, which is quite reasonably discussing its potential precedent-setting scope (e.g. not allowing women to use their own money to buy plans that cover abortion, when that plan is government-subsidized), instead of pretending, as he is, that it's merely "maintaining current law."