The current discussions in the Senate over how to come to a compromise on the public option (which by the way takes a new shape about every two hours; with ideas bouncing from an “opt-in” option, to an “opt-out” option, to a “trigger” option, to a “reverse-trigger” option, to a “hammer” option, maybe next will be a “chisel” option?) may have finally reached a resting place. But the new “public option” compromise will not even include all of the public.

The newest compromise idea is to replace the public option all together and expand Medicare.  Sounds great at first, after all Medicare is the government-run, public plan that the idea of a new public option available to all Americans was based on in the first place. So the media and progressives, like Howard Dean, are getting pretty revved up about this idea to simply expand the already existing public plan because it brings us full circle in the public option debate.

But I ask a simple question: Am I missing something?! Because this “expansion” of Medicare will only be for those Americans ages 55 -64.  So the rest of us –including young adults who are the largest group of uninsured–  will be left out of this new “public” option replacement. I will note, though, that discussions also involve the expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults that make up to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level — this is an increase from what is currently in the Senate bill and will benefit many low-income Americans.

What about the rest of us? We will be given yet another compromise: non-profit insurance plans offered in the exchange, that will supposedly be similar to the plans currently offered to federal employees. But they might not be that similar to what is offered to federal employees, and may not necessarily reduce cost or create competition as a government run plan would have.

So either I am missing something, or Congress is missing the point –and leaving out young adults–once again. The saga contines.

The push for health care reform is moving, so I thought it’d be helpful to have semi-daily “Health on the Hill” updates that should help you keep track of the reform debate and get to the meat of the issue. Enjoy!

Today’s Updates – 12/7/09:

This post was written in part by Amy Minor, CP Intern

The Senate began debate on their health reform legislation last week, holding the first votes on amendments toward the end of the week. One good amendment by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), which will guarantee women age 40 and older receive mammograms with no out-of-pocket costs, passed 61 – 39.  Another amendment by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), which  would eliminate the $500 billion cuts to Medicare spending, and if approved, would have stripped out money needed to pay for expanding coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, thankfully failed 58 – 42.

Although the Senate was able to vote on the first amendments of the health care bill, they worked long hours over the weekend struggling to reach agreements on key issues. One of these issues continues to be abortion. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said that he will withdraw his vote for the health care bill,  if it does not contain an abortion amendment similar to the Stupak amendment, which was passed in the House version of the health care bill last month. He is expected to present his amendment this afternoon. (Make sure you contact your Senator and urge them to vote NO on this amendment to avoid restricting women’s rights to abortion!)

If  Nelson decides to vote against the bill, this puts Majority Leader Reid in a difficult position because he cannot lose a single vote from his Democratic caucus and still pass the bill overall without picking up Republican support.  Reid will not gain Republican support for reform unless he further waters down the public option – a key issue for a handful of Democratic Senators and the key to whether or not one Republican – Olympia Snowe of Maine – will vote for health care reform.

Senator Reid and about 10 other senators spent Sunday afternoon discussing yet another compromise on the public option. This time reducing the idea down to a pathetic excuse for a solution. The new compromise centers around replacing the public option with a new health insurance exchange similar to the one offered to federal employees, with insurance plans run by non-profits –who already dominate the market and do not reduce the cost of insurance. In an effort to get 60 votes to pass health care reform, this is where we find ourselves: picking apart a provision that could have provided incredible insurance access and affordability to millions of Americans, but will now likely be an already existing, ineffective solution that gets signed into law only to avoid the scary words “government run”.

News Links:

Chances shrink for pure public option

Senate Democrats in search of a health reform compromise Sunday zeroed in on a new alternative to a government-run insurance plan — signaling that the chances a final bill will include a pure public option are diminishing.

You Call This a Compromise?

The goal of the current effort is simple: to get sixty votes to overcome a filibuster and pass a bill. Four of the sixty Senators who caucus with the Democrats have expressed, with varying degrees of certainty and specificity, that they don’t like the public option in the current bill. So the search is on for a compromise, any compromise..

Nelson: I’ll Filibuster Without Stupak-Like Amendment

“Now I don’t know that it’s going to come down to that, because I don’t know that Stupak’s not going to pass, number one,” he said. “Number two I don’t know what kind of alternative legislation may be offered as an alternative bill..”

Senate Backs Preventive Health Care for Women

The 61-to-39 vote on health benefits for women would, in effect, override new recommendations from a federal advisory panel that said routine mammograms should begin at age 50, rather than 40.